There's nothing like a nasty head smacking to get your brain ticking. I guess when you realise that you may be lacking in brain cells, the decision to make the most of what little you have becomes an easy one to make.
For some reason I decided that I needed to jump on a bus into Johor rather urgently and so, instead of walking around the barriers, I thought I'd jump them. Unfortuntely, I had a little bit too much to drink before hand and I forgot I am now an overweight blob of 102 kg on the wrong side of 30 instead of a fit, trim 20 something. Didn't clear the low railings, ended slipping backwards and the 102 kg frame ended up bringing down a head straight onto a metal railing and then a stone floor. Ended up biting my own tongue in the process and the blood sort gave me the look of being on the wrong end of a 1960s Kung Fu movie. Sent a few shudders down the travel companion and so to ease his worries and my pain - we ended up having a few more beers on the Malaysian end of the Causeway - this was...purely medicinal ....alcohol in the beer is supposed to heal cuts in the mouth.
Anyway, I'm up and alive. Didn't develop a serious internal injury and won't be obliging the ex-wife by dropping dead anytime soon. Am, however, nursing the ache at the back of the neck but I guess that's OK, since I actually like the burning sensation that medicated oils provide.
So, in light of being smacked on the head, what is there to think about? This being Singapore, I thought I'd give a few of my brain cells to a certain young politician - Ms Tin Pei Ling, MP for Marine Parade GRC and the youngest MP in the history of our young nation.
Ms Tin, has been a walking Public Relations disaster. Everything she does ends up on the nasty side of cyberspace. She tried to be fillial and described how she regreted not brining her folks to Universal Studios and she was panned for being out of touch. She tried to be hip by using Kate Spade handbags and she was panned for being a silly elietist. She tried to be friendly and cool by stomping her foot and the video of her ended up all over the net, leaving us to wonder is she was really 27 and not 7.
It didn't help that Ms Tin's rival was younger but far more mature, Nicole Seah. If Pei-Pei could do no right, Nicole demonstrated that she could do no wrong. The comparison was so unflattering that Ms Tin has officially being dubbed Singapore's Sarah Palin - John McCain's running mate who's idea of foreign policy was to look at the Russian border from the her bedroom window.
Is this a fair comparison, I wonder? Well, I guess you could say Pei Lin and Palin rhyme and both ladies have demonstrated a remarkable lack of awarness about the world as it is. However, that's about where the similarities end.
Mrs Palin, unlike Ms Tin has one crucial ingredient - she appeals to someone. Say what you like about Mrs Pailin's knowledge of geography beyond her small town but she is exceedingly popular amongst a certain target voters. While the more educated may bemoan her lack of basic knowledge of geography and science, she's managed to sell these qualities in her as being "simple, honest -Small Town America." Like it or not, this insires a certin group of people to vote for Mrs Palin. Think of the cries of "Drill, Baby, Drill," when she made her stance clear on drilling for oil in Alaska. While you might shudder at Mrs Palin's lack of foresight, she actually stands for something and people can identify with that. She looks good and she's fiesty. Like it or not, any Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election will treat her seriously.
The same cannot be said for Ms Tin, who's faults lie not much in her taste in handbags but in the fact that she doesn't exactly stand for anything. Much was made of the fact that she couldn't think of a PAP policy which she seriously disagreed with. More should have been made of the fact that there wasn't a policy which she believed in. I mean you don't have to agree with everything but you as a politician should believe in something. In short, we, the Singapore voters had to ask ourselves - "What exactly does Ms Tin believe in?" Look at Ms Tin and you'll see a sweet, demure little girl (when she's posing on instruction) who doesn't stand for much. Yes, some old folks might want her as their daughter in law - my mother for one might prefer her to what I've been bringing home. However, does she inspire anyone?
Ms Palin was hoisted onto John McCain and for a while his campaign actually recieved a boost from her presence. Ms Palin stood for something and attracted a certain group of people to her. Agree with her or not, Ms Palin actually stands for something.
By contrast, Pei Pei is a sad and lonely little girl with no personality to speak of what so ever. Even her major running mate, former Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong had to admit that the dislike on the ground for her pulled his share of the votes down. Ms Tin is a "good" girl who party elders can count on to do as she is told but she's so "good" that she's actually bland to the point of being ineffectual. How can anyone take her sersiously?
Perhaps there's a lesson in there for our young - they should learn to stand for something instead of trying to be paper cut out dolls. For all her faults, Mrs Palin does have a following that finds her electable. Ms Tin, for all her apparent virtues is unworthy of anyone's after thoughts.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
You’re not even a Nigger – You’re Lower than That – You’re an African!
The TV has decided to play “Hotel Rwanda” as its late night/ early morning show. The movie tells the story of Paul Rusesabagina, the Rwandan hotelier who managed to hide 1,268 Tutsi and moderate Hutus during the 1994 genocide.
I remember the genocide. I saw it on TV. It happened at the same time as the Bosnian War and while Europe and the USA made lots of noise about placing an arms embargo on the Milosevic regime in Serbia, the Rwandans decided to do things the old-fashioned way – they butchered each other with machetes and the world watched as it happened.
To put it in its crudest terms, Bosnia was an unequal war while Rwanda was a “Snuff Movie-Made Real.” Everyday you would turn on the TV and you’d get to graphic images of people who had been hacked to death. One day, one group of people decided that they would take a sharp chopper to their neighbours and that was that.
The Western Powers lead by the USA, who had so efficiently kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait two-years earlier, sat by and watched. Saddam had to be kicked out of Kuwait because he was a murderous thug was an amateur compared to the chaps in Rwanda. What went wrong?
Well, the simple answer is this – Kuwait was and is a reliable oil supplier for the West while there is utterly no strategic interest in Rwanda. The contrasting attitudes were best summed up by one of the most poetic lines in the movie – “You’re not even in a Nigger – You’re Lower than That – You’re an African.” It is important to save Kuwait from a murderous thug called Saddam because Kuwait has oil – nobody scores points for saving African lives.
I never appreciated it at the time but the difference in the way the world reacted towards Rwanda and Kuwait were lessons that history had already demonstrated. Great powers inevitably act towards the world – they inevitably act in their self-interest. This was true of the British in the 19th century and it is the same of the Americans in the current one. China has shown that if it grows into the next power, it will do the same.
Both the British in the 19th century and the Chinese in the next century have been clear on how they’d run things. The Americans are a different case. They’ve worked on the policy of “Doing Good.” Whenever they’ve invaded a country in the last century, they’ve always done it on the official premise they were “liberators.” To be fair, both Saddam in Iraq and Noriega in Panama were dictators. However, if you look at the way they’ve tried to manage Iraq, you have to question their real motives.
Which leads to the point on what can the rest of the world do? Well, for the most part, it is best to work with the superpower in terms of trade. Chances are the superpower is a superpower for a reason. In the 19th century it was the British and today it is the Americans who have the skills and the technology that the rest of us simply don’t have. As such, it’s always a good idea to send your best and brightest to learn from the superpower. This is a good exchange. For the British, educated natives helped to run the colonies. The Americans use them to help run multinationals.
Superpowers, especially America can be benevolent. Americans forces have helped keep the peace in various parts of the world. Both PAX BRITANICA and PAX AMERICANA have kept the world from exploding into a larger conflict.
However, smaller nations and people from smaller nations have to remember that superpowers don’t act out of the love of their smaller brethren but out of their own strategic interest.
Simply put, anyone who believes that the super power will rush to their defence out of the goodness of their heart will be in for a massive disappointment. So what can smaller countries stuffed with black, brown and yellow people do.
Well, the answer is to learn to be independent and self-reliant. One should learn the skills of the superpower and what makes the system tick but not be dependent on the superpower for ones security and prosperity. While I don’t always agree with the official stance of the Singapore government, I do give credence to the idea of National Service – simply put, - it is good to have someone defend you but also important to doubly ensure that you know how to defend yourself.
It’s good to have alternatives. As long as you remember that as far as the superpower is concerned, you are “Lower than a nigger,” you’ll always have the instincts to look out for yourself and not rely on the superpower to do it for you.
I remember the genocide. I saw it on TV. It happened at the same time as the Bosnian War and while Europe and the USA made lots of noise about placing an arms embargo on the Milosevic regime in Serbia, the Rwandans decided to do things the old-fashioned way – they butchered each other with machetes and the world watched as it happened.
To put it in its crudest terms, Bosnia was an unequal war while Rwanda was a “Snuff Movie-Made Real.” Everyday you would turn on the TV and you’d get to graphic images of people who had been hacked to death. One day, one group of people decided that they would take a sharp chopper to their neighbours and that was that.
The Western Powers lead by the USA, who had so efficiently kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait two-years earlier, sat by and watched. Saddam had to be kicked out of Kuwait because he was a murderous thug was an amateur compared to the chaps in Rwanda. What went wrong?
Well, the simple answer is this – Kuwait was and is a reliable oil supplier for the West while there is utterly no strategic interest in Rwanda. The contrasting attitudes were best summed up by one of the most poetic lines in the movie – “You’re not even in a Nigger – You’re Lower than That – You’re an African.” It is important to save Kuwait from a murderous thug called Saddam because Kuwait has oil – nobody scores points for saving African lives.
I never appreciated it at the time but the difference in the way the world reacted towards Rwanda and Kuwait were lessons that history had already demonstrated. Great powers inevitably act towards the world – they inevitably act in their self-interest. This was true of the British in the 19th century and it is the same of the Americans in the current one. China has shown that if it grows into the next power, it will do the same.
Both the British in the 19th century and the Chinese in the next century have been clear on how they’d run things. The Americans are a different case. They’ve worked on the policy of “Doing Good.” Whenever they’ve invaded a country in the last century, they’ve always done it on the official premise they were “liberators.” To be fair, both Saddam in Iraq and Noriega in Panama were dictators. However, if you look at the way they’ve tried to manage Iraq, you have to question their real motives.
Which leads to the point on what can the rest of the world do? Well, for the most part, it is best to work with the superpower in terms of trade. Chances are the superpower is a superpower for a reason. In the 19th century it was the British and today it is the Americans who have the skills and the technology that the rest of us simply don’t have. As such, it’s always a good idea to send your best and brightest to learn from the superpower. This is a good exchange. For the British, educated natives helped to run the colonies. The Americans use them to help run multinationals.
Superpowers, especially America can be benevolent. Americans forces have helped keep the peace in various parts of the world. Both PAX BRITANICA and PAX AMERICANA have kept the world from exploding into a larger conflict.
However, smaller nations and people from smaller nations have to remember that superpowers don’t act out of the love of their smaller brethren but out of their own strategic interest.
Simply put, anyone who believes that the super power will rush to their defence out of the goodness of their heart will be in for a massive disappointment. So what can smaller countries stuffed with black, brown and yellow people do.
Well, the answer is to learn to be independent and self-reliant. One should learn the skills of the superpower and what makes the system tick but not be dependent on the superpower for ones security and prosperity. While I don’t always agree with the official stance of the Singapore government, I do give credence to the idea of National Service – simply put, - it is good to have someone defend you but also important to doubly ensure that you know how to defend yourself.
It’s good to have alternatives. As long as you remember that as far as the superpower is concerned, you are “Lower than a nigger,” you’ll always have the instincts to look out for yourself and not rely on the superpower to do it for you.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The People That You Mentor?
In a move that surprised everyone, Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew decided that he would retire for the cabinet. Mr Lee has been positioned as modern Singapore’s “Founding Father,” and even Mr Lee’s harshest critics have found it hard to think of Singapore without Mr Lee’s presence in the cabinet.
As well as being Singapore’s “Founding Father,” Mr Lee has also been something of a “Rock Star.” He is the one political leader that Singapore has produced that seems to be recognised by everyone else. Both West and East laud him for taking the sleepy crime-infested tropical swamp and turning it into a modern metropolis within a generation. Let’s face it, Singapore is a young nation that actually compares quite well with many developed countries in terms of its physical and dare I say, legal infrastructure.
So, Mr Lee is rightfully lauded for his achievements. If you look at his record, he’s proven right on more than one occasion and on more than one issue. You could say that he’s the right person to have as a mentor.
This was the argument that Singapore’s Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, had used when he retained his father in the cabinet some seven years ago. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was given the title of “Minister Mentor,” and as the title implied, he was supposed to “Mentor” the cabinet with his years of experience as a leader and international statesman.
However, how much of a “Mentor” was Mr Lee? Well, in the end, it turned out that Mr Lee wasn’t much of a mentor but a senile uncle who left the Ministers he was supposed to mentor, scrambling to cover for him. It started with his comments about Muslims needing to “integrate” better by being less serious about their religion. This was compounded by his prediction that the Group Representation Constituency the PAP was about to lose would have five years to “Repent,” for voting in the opposition. His comments left the Prime Minister in the unique position of having to call a press conference to distance himself from his father.
So how did this wise man that did so much to make the PAP and Singapore, end up looking like a fool of the highest order?
I think part of the problem lay in the fact that Mr Lee forgot that his title was to “Mentor,” rather than to take charge. As mentor, ones role is to provide advice but to accept that ultimately the responsibility for any action lies with the person who receives your advice. At best, mentors work in different organisations and their advice comes from a private capacity. This was never the case with Mr Lee. Apart from announcement that he was “No longer in charge,” Mr Lee took a very active role in running things. When he felt Members of Parliament needed a dressing down, he would do it personally. When foreign dignitaries wanted to visit someone, he would make sure he was an important port of call. Mr Lee travelled extensively, brining Ministers on his trips so that he could “open” up markets. Mr Lee even went as far as to make his importance visible on a symbolic level. At the last National Day, Mr Lee got himself driven into the arena, a privilege previously held by the Head of Government and Head of State.
Then there’s the question of experience. What exactly are the experiences that Mr Lee brings to the cabinet? Well, I suppose it’s always good to have someone else to give you “experience” or the “benefit of their wisdom.” Both experience and wisdom usually come with age – a case of learning through hard knocks, which comes with time. In this aspect, Mr Lee was a font of wisdom for those who consulted him.
However, most mentors are known for certain strengths and most of us have forgotten where Mr Lee’s strengths lay. Generations of Singaporeans have grown up believing Mr Lee’s strengths lay in governance. In fairness to this assumption, Mr Lee led a team of brilliant ministers. Mr Lee had the foresight and security of character to allow the likes to Dr Goh Keng Swee and S.Rajartnam to do certain jobs. Once they convinced him of a certain course of action, he supported them all the way and ensured that they had what they needed to get the job done.
However, Mr Lee, himself was not an administrator himself. His real strengths lay in political street fights. He was the campaign orator, the man who knew how to mobilise union leaders and he knew when to lock them up. He was the one who shrewdly read political sentiments in the UK and Malaysia and how to use them to the advantage of Singapore. Mr Lee has always been a pragmatist who knew how to sell ideals to idealist. He was the English Educated lawyer who learnt Mandarin and Hokkien in the span of six-months so that he could make the masses move.
If you read his biography, his genius was not in being an all wise and all knowing statesman, even though he’s been known as one. His real genius came when he was the underdog – the leader of the minority English educated taking over a party dominated by Chinese educated populist, the leader of an untried and untested party against colonial administration and so on.
Ironically, the person who seems to have best understood this aspect of Mr Lee appears to be Mr Low Thia Khiang, Secretary-General of the opposition Worker’s Party. Like Mr Lee in his younger days, Mr Low is fully aware that he’s fighting against massive odds and he relishes it.
Mr Low, like Mr Lee understands the value of getting the people’s support. While the ruling has often chided Mr Low for not doing much in proposing alternative policy, Mr Low has realised that his success lies in ensuring his constituents are looked after. Like Mr Lee in his younger days, Mr Low works hard to ensure that the people remember him – he attends every birth, wake and funeral in his constituency. The PAP has spent 19-years trying to unseat him and each time they’ve tried, he’s been returned to office with a stronger majority.
Like Mr Lee, Mr Low is not afraid of having highly intelligent people by his side. In his early days, Mr Lee had the likes of Goh Keng Swee and Rajaratnam. Today, Mr Low has Sylvia Lim (Polytechnic Lecturer), Chen Mao Mao (Lawyer with international regard) and Pritam Singh (Academic). Mr Low may not speak the Queen’s English but he’s smart enough to surround himself with the people who can work it.
So, the irony of Mr Lee’s spell as a “Minister MENTOR,” is that he actually may have mentored someone, even if it was the last person he would have wanted to tell the world he had mentored.
As well as being Singapore’s “Founding Father,” Mr Lee has also been something of a “Rock Star.” He is the one political leader that Singapore has produced that seems to be recognised by everyone else. Both West and East laud him for taking the sleepy crime-infested tropical swamp and turning it into a modern metropolis within a generation. Let’s face it, Singapore is a young nation that actually compares quite well with many developed countries in terms of its physical and dare I say, legal infrastructure.
So, Mr Lee is rightfully lauded for his achievements. If you look at his record, he’s proven right on more than one occasion and on more than one issue. You could say that he’s the right person to have as a mentor.
This was the argument that Singapore’s Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, had used when he retained his father in the cabinet some seven years ago. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was given the title of “Minister Mentor,” and as the title implied, he was supposed to “Mentor” the cabinet with his years of experience as a leader and international statesman.
However, how much of a “Mentor” was Mr Lee? Well, in the end, it turned out that Mr Lee wasn’t much of a mentor but a senile uncle who left the Ministers he was supposed to mentor, scrambling to cover for him. It started with his comments about Muslims needing to “integrate” better by being less serious about their religion. This was compounded by his prediction that the Group Representation Constituency the PAP was about to lose would have five years to “Repent,” for voting in the opposition. His comments left the Prime Minister in the unique position of having to call a press conference to distance himself from his father.
So how did this wise man that did so much to make the PAP and Singapore, end up looking like a fool of the highest order?
I think part of the problem lay in the fact that Mr Lee forgot that his title was to “Mentor,” rather than to take charge. As mentor, ones role is to provide advice but to accept that ultimately the responsibility for any action lies with the person who receives your advice. At best, mentors work in different organisations and their advice comes from a private capacity. This was never the case with Mr Lee. Apart from announcement that he was “No longer in charge,” Mr Lee took a very active role in running things. When he felt Members of Parliament needed a dressing down, he would do it personally. When foreign dignitaries wanted to visit someone, he would make sure he was an important port of call. Mr Lee travelled extensively, brining Ministers on his trips so that he could “open” up markets. Mr Lee even went as far as to make his importance visible on a symbolic level. At the last National Day, Mr Lee got himself driven into the arena, a privilege previously held by the Head of Government and Head of State.
Then there’s the question of experience. What exactly are the experiences that Mr Lee brings to the cabinet? Well, I suppose it’s always good to have someone else to give you “experience” or the “benefit of their wisdom.” Both experience and wisdom usually come with age – a case of learning through hard knocks, which comes with time. In this aspect, Mr Lee was a font of wisdom for those who consulted him.
However, most mentors are known for certain strengths and most of us have forgotten where Mr Lee’s strengths lay. Generations of Singaporeans have grown up believing Mr Lee’s strengths lay in governance. In fairness to this assumption, Mr Lee led a team of brilliant ministers. Mr Lee had the foresight and security of character to allow the likes to Dr Goh Keng Swee and S.Rajartnam to do certain jobs. Once they convinced him of a certain course of action, he supported them all the way and ensured that they had what they needed to get the job done.
However, Mr Lee, himself was not an administrator himself. His real strengths lay in political street fights. He was the campaign orator, the man who knew how to mobilise union leaders and he knew when to lock them up. He was the one who shrewdly read political sentiments in the UK and Malaysia and how to use them to the advantage of Singapore. Mr Lee has always been a pragmatist who knew how to sell ideals to idealist. He was the English Educated lawyer who learnt Mandarin and Hokkien in the span of six-months so that he could make the masses move.
If you read his biography, his genius was not in being an all wise and all knowing statesman, even though he’s been known as one. His real genius came when he was the underdog – the leader of the minority English educated taking over a party dominated by Chinese educated populist, the leader of an untried and untested party against colonial administration and so on.
Ironically, the person who seems to have best understood this aspect of Mr Lee appears to be Mr Low Thia Khiang, Secretary-General of the opposition Worker’s Party. Like Mr Lee in his younger days, Mr Low is fully aware that he’s fighting against massive odds and he relishes it.
Mr Low, like Mr Lee understands the value of getting the people’s support. While the ruling has often chided Mr Low for not doing much in proposing alternative policy, Mr Low has realised that his success lies in ensuring his constituents are looked after. Like Mr Lee in his younger days, Mr Low works hard to ensure that the people remember him – he attends every birth, wake and funeral in his constituency. The PAP has spent 19-years trying to unseat him and each time they’ve tried, he’s been returned to office with a stronger majority.
Like Mr Lee, Mr Low is not afraid of having highly intelligent people by his side. In his early days, Mr Lee had the likes of Goh Keng Swee and Rajaratnam. Today, Mr Low has Sylvia Lim (Polytechnic Lecturer), Chen Mao Mao (Lawyer with international regard) and Pritam Singh (Academic). Mr Low may not speak the Queen’s English but he’s smart enough to surround himself with the people who can work it.
So, the irony of Mr Lee’s spell as a “Minister MENTOR,” is that he actually may have mentored someone, even if it was the last person he would have wanted to tell the world he had mentored.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Bring Back Common Sense!
There is an old adage that runs along the lines of “Sex Sells.” This has proved to be exceedingly accurate during the past week when the topic of budget hotels and prostitution was a hot topic in the media. Mention sex or any topic related to sex and you are bound to get an animated discussion.
While topics around sex are very interesting, one topic seems to have escaped the media spotlight and there have been no discussions on the topic for the last three years. This is a pity because attitudes towards the laws on sex provide us with an insight into our society.
Our social and legal views on prostitution are interesting. It is legally acceptable for a woman to work as a prostitute and for a man to visit one. It is illegal to be a pimp and for prostitutes to solicit customers. Social attitudes are also similar. Few if any will openly defend prostitution and most if not all are horrified at the idea of prostitution in their neighbourhoods. However, there is a mild social tolerance for prostitution, best summed up by the phrase, “wink-wink-nudge-nudge, boys will be boys.”
Unfortunately, this attitude live-and-let-live doesn’t carry into other areas of sexual behaviour. Take the issue of homosexual acts. In Singapore it is illegal for two consenting adult men to engage in a private act in the privacy of their own bedroom and when the government tried to review this in 2007, there was a huge outcry from a large enough segment of the population for the government to continue outlawing a private act between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, though the government promised not to enforce the law.
By contrast, there has been a deafening silence on the issue of marital rape. There has been little if any media attention to the issue and the religious groups that were so adamant about the moral corruption of legalising a private act amongst consenting adults are noticeably silent when it comes to an act of coercion. Just as it is illegal for two consenting homosexual adults to engage in a private act, it is legal for a man to force his wife into having sex, regardless of whether she gives her consent.
So, when is rape, something which most understand to be an act of violence against women, not rape? As far as places like Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Singapore are concerned; the answer is when the attacker is the woman’s husband. This is convenient for those compiling rape statistics. Statistics have shown that rape is usually done by someone close to the victim like a family member or a friend. So, given that most perpetrators are likely to be known to the victim, granting immunity from marital rape makes sense – it reduces rape statistics because a certain portion of rapes are technically not rape. Once again, the “conservative” lobby that fought so hard to keep a private act between consenting adult illegal don’t seem to have a problem with rape, provided a man does it to his lawfully wedded wife. The government that has done so much to enhance the standing of women with the “Women’s Charter,” doesn’t seem terribly bothered that marriage grants men the right to rape them.
Isn’t it time we look at our laws and attitudes towards sex and start to apply the common sense that we are claim to have in abundance. Let’s have laws that actually protect people instead of providing cheap demagogues with a platform.
While topics around sex are very interesting, one topic seems to have escaped the media spotlight and there have been no discussions on the topic for the last three years. This is a pity because attitudes towards the laws on sex provide us with an insight into our society.
Our social and legal views on prostitution are interesting. It is legally acceptable for a woman to work as a prostitute and for a man to visit one. It is illegal to be a pimp and for prostitutes to solicit customers. Social attitudes are also similar. Few if any will openly defend prostitution and most if not all are horrified at the idea of prostitution in their neighbourhoods. However, there is a mild social tolerance for prostitution, best summed up by the phrase, “wink-wink-nudge-nudge, boys will be boys.”
Unfortunately, this attitude live-and-let-live doesn’t carry into other areas of sexual behaviour. Take the issue of homosexual acts. In Singapore it is illegal for two consenting adult men to engage in a private act in the privacy of their own bedroom and when the government tried to review this in 2007, there was a huge outcry from a large enough segment of the population for the government to continue outlawing a private act between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, though the government promised not to enforce the law.
By contrast, there has been a deafening silence on the issue of marital rape. There has been little if any media attention to the issue and the religious groups that were so adamant about the moral corruption of legalising a private act amongst consenting adults are noticeably silent when it comes to an act of coercion. Just as it is illegal for two consenting homosexual adults to engage in a private act, it is legal for a man to force his wife into having sex, regardless of whether she gives her consent.
So, when is rape, something which most understand to be an act of violence against women, not rape? As far as places like Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Singapore are concerned; the answer is when the attacker is the woman’s husband. This is convenient for those compiling rape statistics. Statistics have shown that rape is usually done by someone close to the victim like a family member or a friend. So, given that most perpetrators are likely to be known to the victim, granting immunity from marital rape makes sense – it reduces rape statistics because a certain portion of rapes are technically not rape. Once again, the “conservative” lobby that fought so hard to keep a private act between consenting adult illegal don’t seem to have a problem with rape, provided a man does it to his lawfully wedded wife. The government that has done so much to enhance the standing of women with the “Women’s Charter,” doesn’t seem terribly bothered that marriage grants men the right to rape them.
Isn’t it time we look at our laws and attitudes towards sex and start to apply the common sense that we are claim to have in abundance. Let’s have laws that actually protect people instead of providing cheap demagogues with a platform.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Get Them Working For Us
A friend of mine who has lived in Singapore for the last two decades has just left a posting on his Facebook wall expressing his frustration with the sudden burst in hostility towards foreigners in Singapore. This friend of mine is British. He has lived in Singapore for the past two decades and runs a niche PR practice that produces a decent amount revenue for the government.
It's always interesting to see how different people feel about different topics. In the last few months leading up to the General Election, the key buzz topic in cyberspace has been about how foreigners are overrunning Singapore and stealing jobs and sexual partners and driving up the prices of property.
As a local Singaporean who has lived overseas for quite a few years, I sometimes appear to get involved in "foreigner" bashing. I get frustrated living in a society where I am expected to comply with certain social norms and being Yellow Skinned in Singapore means you're supposed to accept "Pink Blotchy Faces" as the superior guide from elsewhere. I don't see why I should. At the end of the day, the Pink Blotchy Faces are as human as the rest of us. When I lived in the UK, I had to accept that being a minority in someone elses country meant following certain rules. Now that I'm back in Singapore, I have to be an obliging and indulgent host to people who were at best indifferent.
Having said what I've just said, I have friends who are Caucasian and as a friend of mine pointed out, you can't blame the White expatriates who come to Asia. Let's put it crudely, would you rather be in a place where you're an average Joe or would you be in a place where people worship the ground you walk on? As one Liverpudlian said,"I don't have a lot going for me, so if my pink blotchy face works in my favour, why shouldn't I use it." He's right!
My issue with race in Singapore is with the way Singaporeans, particularly Middle Class Graduate Chinese behave towards race. One of worst traits I've seen within this group is the automatic tendency to treat people of darker complexion on a level closer to dirt. I get agitated listening to the way Singaporeans talk about their maids and the way they complain about people from India, China, Vietnam and so on. These people will happily kick their maid in public and the moment a Pink Blotchy Face arrives on the scene, they're all smiles and sweetness.
This attitude is part of official policy. I actually met a White South African who was working a dental technician, who had his work permit turned down. When he showed up at immigration and they saw he was White - he was granted the permit instantly. Let's face it, being dark in Singapore is tough. Although official policy says it isn't - the people who make official policy function do have issues with dark skinned people and the way policy is carried out is quite different from the way it is thought out.
However, as my friend's Facebook posting has shown, it's not easy to be White, either. Despite living here for twenty-years, once in a while he gets told to "piss off back to...." This is not fair to a man who has stayed and contributed as an entrepreneur rather than as a digit in a multinational. So, I have to ask myself, what is it about foreigners of all colours that gets us "The Locals" so worked up.
On the most basic level, anyone who isn't born and bred here is competition for jobs, houses and general living space. Singapore's infrastructure was built to accommodate so many people and having so many more people puts a strain on things. As someone pointed out to me,"Your not buying a house so you don't feel the strain of competition." If you look at things from one perspective - that's true. Foreigners with cash drive property prices up. These days its not just expatriates from the West that we have to contend with but also from places like India.
The foreigners do have an advantage when it comes to jobs. At the lower end of the market, they're usually cheaper and willing to work longer hours. At the higher end of the market.....they actually have a skill or two that we the locals do not have. Furthermore, unlike the local men, they don't come with things like "reservist" liability. It's no surprise which group the employers go for. It's also no surprise that the locals get rather cheesed off - "Damn It, why do I have to serve the military to protect the foreigners right to take the job meant for me" is the basic feeling.
As much I can sympathise, I don't think the solution is to "kick out" or "limit" foreigners. Like it or not, it is a fact that Singapore has a limited supply of talent. Like it or not, we are in many ways constantly short of cash. The foreigners do provide the necessary short fall for both these items.
We have to accept that Singapore does not have the resources to tell the world to get stuffed. We are a trading port and we prospered by being open to the world. If Singapore adopts isolationist policies, the rest of the world can do the same to us and it is a challenge we simply cannot win.
I do agree that citizenship should have some perks but these perks should be like what goes on elsewhere - that is in the area of certain government subsidies. You can't expect the Singaporean tax payer to subsidise every old and sick person who comes to our shores. You cannot expect the Singaporean tax payer to provide free education to the rest of world. We don't get it when we study elsewhere (As much as my father might have wanted it) and we shouldn't expect it either.
However, let's not begrudge the foreigners who come here and work. They pay taxes (GST is also paid by maids and construction workers) and they don't use public funds. The people at both ends of the market do in someway or another end up contributing to the economic well being of the nation.
So, the answer here is not to kick out or place quotas on foreigners. The actual answer lies in making sure that Singaporeans are able to compete with the foreigners in a fair competition.
Let's start with the obvious place - skills. It has long been argued that we need "foreign talent" to make up for the lack of skills in the market. While I can see the validity of this argument, I have to ask myself why Singaporeans entering the job market don't have the skills that are needed to keep the economy ticking. Something has to be done with the education system to ensure that the local graduates in todays economy have the necessary skills to get involved in its basic functioning. This takes time to do and while you can use foreigners with the right talents, the long term sustainability of any economy is to make sure that your locals have what it takes.
Secondly, we need to examine our attitude towards competition. Yes, competition does make life harder but it also makes life better. Nobody can disagree that having Filipinos manning the call centres ensures that we get better service.
Which leads to the point of perspective. Are foreigners are threat or are they an opportunity? Generally speaking, Singaporeans are trained to be employees for big multinational firms. We're still stuck in the mindset that the economy only ticks when you have big factories employing people in the thousands. Jobs are considered a com oddity - there are x number of factories and each factory has y number of jobs. When you think like this, every extra person is a threat to you - they are competition for scarce jobs.
However, if you shift your mindset and look at a healthy economy as being a collection of small enterprises consisting of one or two people trying to sell this and that - things become rather different. When you "own the job" you tend to look at every person as a customer rather than as a competitor.
The bars at Clerk Quay have done well out of the high end of the market. However, small businesses have also done well out of the lower end of the market. I think of people who rent rooms to foreign students. I think of the companies that make phone cards to provide foreign workers with cheap phone calls back home. Look at the market in second hand phones and accessories that has popped up in places like Geylang and Serangoon. These enterprises may not grab headlines but they keep people busy and provide them with a living.
The government should look at things like lifting restrictions of sub-letting of flats and encourage people to get involved in home based businesses. The influx of foreigners means that there is market of sorts for people with certain needs that need to be filled.
Seriously, protectionist policies have been proven to be a miserable failure. Let's not go down that road and focus on how we can create opportunities for ourselves out of the foreigners who come into the country. Rather than complain they are exploiting us - find a way to get them to work for us.
It's always interesting to see how different people feel about different topics. In the last few months leading up to the General Election, the key buzz topic in cyberspace has been about how foreigners are overrunning Singapore and stealing jobs and sexual partners and driving up the prices of property.
As a local Singaporean who has lived overseas for quite a few years, I sometimes appear to get involved in "foreigner" bashing. I get frustrated living in a society where I am expected to comply with certain social norms and being Yellow Skinned in Singapore means you're supposed to accept "Pink Blotchy Faces" as the superior guide from elsewhere. I don't see why I should. At the end of the day, the Pink Blotchy Faces are as human as the rest of us. When I lived in the UK, I had to accept that being a minority in someone elses country meant following certain rules. Now that I'm back in Singapore, I have to be an obliging and indulgent host to people who were at best indifferent.
Having said what I've just said, I have friends who are Caucasian and as a friend of mine pointed out, you can't blame the White expatriates who come to Asia. Let's put it crudely, would you rather be in a place where you're an average Joe or would you be in a place where people worship the ground you walk on? As one Liverpudlian said,"I don't have a lot going for me, so if my pink blotchy face works in my favour, why shouldn't I use it." He's right!
My issue with race in Singapore is with the way Singaporeans, particularly Middle Class Graduate Chinese behave towards race. One of worst traits I've seen within this group is the automatic tendency to treat people of darker complexion on a level closer to dirt. I get agitated listening to the way Singaporeans talk about their maids and the way they complain about people from India, China, Vietnam and so on. These people will happily kick their maid in public and the moment a Pink Blotchy Face arrives on the scene, they're all smiles and sweetness.
This attitude is part of official policy. I actually met a White South African who was working a dental technician, who had his work permit turned down. When he showed up at immigration and they saw he was White - he was granted the permit instantly. Let's face it, being dark in Singapore is tough. Although official policy says it isn't - the people who make official policy function do have issues with dark skinned people and the way policy is carried out is quite different from the way it is thought out.
However, as my friend's Facebook posting has shown, it's not easy to be White, either. Despite living here for twenty-years, once in a while he gets told to "piss off back to...." This is not fair to a man who has stayed and contributed as an entrepreneur rather than as a digit in a multinational. So, I have to ask myself, what is it about foreigners of all colours that gets us "The Locals" so worked up.
On the most basic level, anyone who isn't born and bred here is competition for jobs, houses and general living space. Singapore's infrastructure was built to accommodate so many people and having so many more people puts a strain on things. As someone pointed out to me,"Your not buying a house so you don't feel the strain of competition." If you look at things from one perspective - that's true. Foreigners with cash drive property prices up. These days its not just expatriates from the West that we have to contend with but also from places like India.
The foreigners do have an advantage when it comes to jobs. At the lower end of the market, they're usually cheaper and willing to work longer hours. At the higher end of the market.....they actually have a skill or two that we the locals do not have. Furthermore, unlike the local men, they don't come with things like "reservist" liability. It's no surprise which group the employers go for. It's also no surprise that the locals get rather cheesed off - "Damn It, why do I have to serve the military to protect the foreigners right to take the job meant for me" is the basic feeling.
As much I can sympathise, I don't think the solution is to "kick out" or "limit" foreigners. Like it or not, it is a fact that Singapore has a limited supply of talent. Like it or not, we are in many ways constantly short of cash. The foreigners do provide the necessary short fall for both these items.
We have to accept that Singapore does not have the resources to tell the world to get stuffed. We are a trading port and we prospered by being open to the world. If Singapore adopts isolationist policies, the rest of the world can do the same to us and it is a challenge we simply cannot win.
I do agree that citizenship should have some perks but these perks should be like what goes on elsewhere - that is in the area of certain government subsidies. You can't expect the Singaporean tax payer to subsidise every old and sick person who comes to our shores. You cannot expect the Singaporean tax payer to provide free education to the rest of world. We don't get it when we study elsewhere (As much as my father might have wanted it) and we shouldn't expect it either.
However, let's not begrudge the foreigners who come here and work. They pay taxes (GST is also paid by maids and construction workers) and they don't use public funds. The people at both ends of the market do in someway or another end up contributing to the economic well being of the nation.
So, the answer here is not to kick out or place quotas on foreigners. The actual answer lies in making sure that Singaporeans are able to compete with the foreigners in a fair competition.
Let's start with the obvious place - skills. It has long been argued that we need "foreign talent" to make up for the lack of skills in the market. While I can see the validity of this argument, I have to ask myself why Singaporeans entering the job market don't have the skills that are needed to keep the economy ticking. Something has to be done with the education system to ensure that the local graduates in todays economy have the necessary skills to get involved in its basic functioning. This takes time to do and while you can use foreigners with the right talents, the long term sustainability of any economy is to make sure that your locals have what it takes.
Secondly, we need to examine our attitude towards competition. Yes, competition does make life harder but it also makes life better. Nobody can disagree that having Filipinos manning the call centres ensures that we get better service.
Which leads to the point of perspective. Are foreigners are threat or are they an opportunity? Generally speaking, Singaporeans are trained to be employees for big multinational firms. We're still stuck in the mindset that the economy only ticks when you have big factories employing people in the thousands. Jobs are considered a com oddity - there are x number of factories and each factory has y number of jobs. When you think like this, every extra person is a threat to you - they are competition for scarce jobs.
However, if you shift your mindset and look at a healthy economy as being a collection of small enterprises consisting of one or two people trying to sell this and that - things become rather different. When you "own the job" you tend to look at every person as a customer rather than as a competitor.
The bars at Clerk Quay have done well out of the high end of the market. However, small businesses have also done well out of the lower end of the market. I think of people who rent rooms to foreign students. I think of the companies that make phone cards to provide foreign workers with cheap phone calls back home. Look at the market in second hand phones and accessories that has popped up in places like Geylang and Serangoon. These enterprises may not grab headlines but they keep people busy and provide them with a living.
The government should look at things like lifting restrictions of sub-letting of flats and encourage people to get involved in home based businesses. The influx of foreigners means that there is market of sorts for people with certain needs that need to be filled.
Seriously, protectionist policies have been proven to be a miserable failure. Let's not go down that road and focus on how we can create opportunities for ourselves out of the foreigners who come into the country. Rather than complain they are exploiting us - find a way to get them to work for us.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Who Would You Pick?
Now that the elections are over, it is going to be interesting to see if the newly elected Singapore government pretends to listen to the public and does something about "foreigners." We, the great Singapore public have spent the better part of the year complaining that foreigners (particularly "other" Asians) have coming over to steal our jobs, school places, husbands, wives and so on. For Singaporean Chinese and Indians in particular, it is perfectly acceptable to be robbed blind by Caucasians from Australia, the USA and Europe but totally unacceptable for other Asians to do the same.
This has been particularly true for the Chinese community in Singapore. For years we were told that we needed to remember to "Speak Mandarin" to take advantages of the opening China market and more importantly to remember we are Asian rather than pseudo-Westerners. We were told that China and being Chinese was great! Suddenly, the flood gates of migration opened and before long we had a load of people who spoke a different type of Mandarin from the one we spoke and they spoke it loudly. The men were rough and willing to do what men should do - work hard - much harder than what we could do under instruction from the government.
The women have been even more upsetting for the Singaporean Chinese woman. Not only do the girl from China have the capacity for hard work, they were also quick to realise that there was fortune to be made from dressing nicely, showing a bit of tit and smiling sweetly and before you knew it, Singaporean Chinese men were killing themselves to take the China girls to bed - even if it would only be for twenty minutes or so. To add insult to injury, the Caucasian men whom the Singaporean Chinese women found so willing to listen to their "educated opinions" (unlike the "spoilt Singapore Chinese men) were also rushing to learn Mandarin to get to know the China dolls better. Simply put - to the Westerner - a real Oriental for 20 minutes a pop was much better than an Oriental looking Westerner for a lifetime.
To sum it up - the China girl developed a reputation for being a "Whore," and the newspapers have been filled with horror stories of old men blowing their pensions on China girls. Hence, as the election got closer you found the boys at ICA looking more closely at social visit passes from girls from China, Vietnam, Thailand and so on and so on.
As one Singaporean Chinese girl who apparently is well connected to other stylish Singaporean women said, "That's because they go round 'whoring' themselves." When I heard that, I wanted to laugh.
The reason for this was simple. The lady in question has been in an sms negotiation with someone who wants to pay here a mere S$6,000 for a night of mad and passionate love making. When she first told me about this, the offer was a mere S$1,500 and her only remark was "Money not enough - leh"
So, like all good "Non-Prostitute" Singapore Chinese girls - she's asked for more and the guy in question has made good on the offer. As of writing, the negotiations are taking place between a banker with the obvious good taste of a Chelsea fan and a 44-year with pretensions of being a teenager.
This "young" lady in question has spent the better part of two-years claiming to be celibate. She has already confessed that she really likes me - her exact words over a cheap meal that only set me back a S$140 without alcohol were,"I really like you, you make me happy and I treasure your company - but you have NO MONEY." Hence despite all the good things I did for, I wasn't getting it. The only people who have gotten it from her in the last two years have been a short, fat and bald man who bought her bags and shoes costing over S$1,000 and a fat and pockmarked fellow who bought her a ticket to Shanghai and gave her $600 in cash over the course of three days.
The lady in question is not a prostitute, unlike those awful girls from China and Vietnam. Simply put, she does not sleep with anyone in particular, she only does it with people who offer her generous gifts. As she said to me in a moment of anguish - "The problem with you is that you don't want to use money to get girls to bed - you try and use charm" (My ex-wife would beg to differ on my charms).
I would like to say that this lady is an exception to the rule of decent Singapore Chinese girls with good values (unlike the girls from China and Vietnam). Just go to any party in Singapore and you'll find that the lady in question is only unusual in that she voices her opinions. The island is filled with young ladies who make it a point to go ONLY for Caucasian men ..... because they're willing to pick up the tab (Caucasian men as a rule don't negotiate price - who cares as long as you're on company expense). There is of course the ex-girl friend of mine who went insane when I weaned her picking up the tab for a drunken Caucasian Frat Boys. The media and promotions industry is particularly rife with intelligent Asian women who get most offended by the term Sarong Party Girl because it apparently demeans intelligent women who understand the value of an expense account or an expat package.
In the words of the average Singapore Chinese girl - Singaporean men go for China girls because "We can't live up to their standards." Which leads me to ask - What are the standards that Singapore Chinese women have? I guess its not about money. I mean you can't go round offering Singapore Graduate Chinese girls who think they can speak a $100 for a quick one?
However, if you ply her with drinks bought on an expense account, then outline your career moves and then tell her about your exotic travels to Europe (West of the Danube) and then promise to take her there and then drive her in your company car - she's yours and before you know it, your alarm clock will be replaced with wedding bells. That's not called paying for it - its just that she becomes a little less keen to be with you when you insist on moving back to wherever you came from and tell her that the company is no longer footing the bill and she has to do ....shock:shock - housework.
So, on one hand you have a girl who looks stunning and tells you clearly that she'll be yours for enough time to get your rocks off in return for a bit of money and on the other hand you have a well made up doll with questionable genetics who wants you to foot the bill as you listen to her yabber on about how well brought up she is and then expects you to make her yours for as long as you are on expense account. The question is - who would you pick?
This has been particularly true for the Chinese community in Singapore. For years we were told that we needed to remember to "Speak Mandarin" to take advantages of the opening China market and more importantly to remember we are Asian rather than pseudo-Westerners. We were told that China and being Chinese was great! Suddenly, the flood gates of migration opened and before long we had a load of people who spoke a different type of Mandarin from the one we spoke and they spoke it loudly. The men were rough and willing to do what men should do - work hard - much harder than what we could do under instruction from the government.
The women have been even more upsetting for the Singaporean Chinese woman. Not only do the girl from China have the capacity for hard work, they were also quick to realise that there was fortune to be made from dressing nicely, showing a bit of tit and smiling sweetly and before you knew it, Singaporean Chinese men were killing themselves to take the China girls to bed - even if it would only be for twenty minutes or so. To add insult to injury, the Caucasian men whom the Singaporean Chinese women found so willing to listen to their "educated opinions" (unlike the "spoilt Singapore Chinese men) were also rushing to learn Mandarin to get to know the China dolls better. Simply put - to the Westerner - a real Oriental for 20 minutes a pop was much better than an Oriental looking Westerner for a lifetime.
To sum it up - the China girl developed a reputation for being a "Whore," and the newspapers have been filled with horror stories of old men blowing their pensions on China girls. Hence, as the election got closer you found the boys at ICA looking more closely at social visit passes from girls from China, Vietnam, Thailand and so on and so on.
As one Singaporean Chinese girl who apparently is well connected to other stylish Singaporean women said, "That's because they go round 'whoring' themselves." When I heard that, I wanted to laugh.
The reason for this was simple. The lady in question has been in an sms negotiation with someone who wants to pay here a mere S$6,000 for a night of mad and passionate love making. When she first told me about this, the offer was a mere S$1,500 and her only remark was "Money not enough - leh"
So, like all good "Non-Prostitute" Singapore Chinese girls - she's asked for more and the guy in question has made good on the offer. As of writing, the negotiations are taking place between a banker with the obvious good taste of a Chelsea fan and a 44-year with pretensions of being a teenager.
This "young" lady in question has spent the better part of two-years claiming to be celibate. She has already confessed that she really likes me - her exact words over a cheap meal that only set me back a S$140 without alcohol were,"I really like you, you make me happy and I treasure your company - but you have NO MONEY." Hence despite all the good things I did for, I wasn't getting it. The only people who have gotten it from her in the last two years have been a short, fat and bald man who bought her bags and shoes costing over S$1,000 and a fat and pockmarked fellow who bought her a ticket to Shanghai and gave her $600 in cash over the course of three days.
The lady in question is not a prostitute, unlike those awful girls from China and Vietnam. Simply put, she does not sleep with anyone in particular, she only does it with people who offer her generous gifts. As she said to me in a moment of anguish - "The problem with you is that you don't want to use money to get girls to bed - you try and use charm" (My ex-wife would beg to differ on my charms).
I would like to say that this lady is an exception to the rule of decent Singapore Chinese girls with good values (unlike the girls from China and Vietnam). Just go to any party in Singapore and you'll find that the lady in question is only unusual in that she voices her opinions. The island is filled with young ladies who make it a point to go ONLY for Caucasian men ..... because they're willing to pick up the tab (Caucasian men as a rule don't negotiate price - who cares as long as you're on company expense). There is of course the ex-girl friend of mine who went insane when I weaned her picking up the tab for a drunken Caucasian Frat Boys. The media and promotions industry is particularly rife with intelligent Asian women who get most offended by the term Sarong Party Girl because it apparently demeans intelligent women who understand the value of an expense account or an expat package.
In the words of the average Singapore Chinese girl - Singaporean men go for China girls because "We can't live up to their standards." Which leads me to ask - What are the standards that Singapore Chinese women have? I guess its not about money. I mean you can't go round offering Singapore Graduate Chinese girls who think they can speak a $100 for a quick one?
However, if you ply her with drinks bought on an expense account, then outline your career moves and then tell her about your exotic travels to Europe (West of the Danube) and then promise to take her there and then drive her in your company car - she's yours and before you know it, your alarm clock will be replaced with wedding bells. That's not called paying for it - its just that she becomes a little less keen to be with you when you insist on moving back to wherever you came from and tell her that the company is no longer footing the bill and she has to do ....shock:shock - housework.
So, on one hand you have a girl who looks stunning and tells you clearly that she'll be yours for enough time to get your rocks off in return for a bit of money and on the other hand you have a well made up doll with questionable genetics who wants you to foot the bill as you listen to her yabber on about how well brought up she is and then expects you to make her yours for as long as you are on expense account. The question is - who would you pick?
Monday, May 09, 2011
Nothing Changed - Everything Changed.
The General Election is over. The votes have been cast and counted and after the final round of political rallies, Singaporeans have found themselves getting on with life. This election was in just about every way like every other election before it - the ruling party was returned to government with an overwhelming majority of seats - the number being more akin to the score in a rugby match between one of the Southern Hemisphere Giants (Australia, South Africa and New Zealand) and their Pacific Island neighbours (Tonga, Samoa) - 81 - 6. Despite all the chatter about how this was the most seats ever won by the opposition - the fact remains that the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) will continue to have the ability to ram just about anything it wants to down parliament's throat - regardless of what the newly elected members of the opposition think...Let's also not forget that although the PAP did see its share of popular votes drop to 60 plus percent - that's still more than what ruling parties in other parts of the world dream of getting - NOTHING CHANGED.
However, there is also the optimistic point that EVERYTHING CHANGED. For once in most people's living memory, every ward bar one (co-incidentally that of the Minister Mentor and Founding Prime Minister) was contested. This was by Singapore standards - highly unusual. It was as if the suddenly the opposition parties found the desire to put up a fight in every constituency.
Then there was the role of the online media. I had the Young Pariah from Pasir Ris GRC phoning me on a regular basis hopping to get my feedback on how the PAP could counter people slamming them without fear in cyberspace. Suddenly, people were letting out their wildest thoughts on whatever topics suited them without fear...........For a party used to getting its way with the media - this was something of a change - it was downright frightening. For the PAP it must have been like being the hot chick who one day wakes up one day to find herself in the body of the fat cow everyone laughs at.
More importantly the opposition actually had people worth listening to. There were actually people you could trust to run the government. They would say something without calling the foreign press and without trying to provoke the rest of us into worshiping their egos. There was no call for a hunger strike or for a mass protest march (illegal). They merely raised all the questions that the rest of us were waiting to ask and somehow, when we did the ruling party proceeded with its usual form of intimidation tactics - which rightfully backfired.
In the end, the electorate decided that it was time to give birth to a new party - the Workers Party. They were the only opposition party to win seats. They retained their seat in Hougang with a new candidate and an increased margin. They then took the psychological step of claiming a Group Representation Constituency (GRC - a case of vote one MP and get 3). The members of this party are for a good part professional, working people who are educated. More importantly, they had a track record of having run something reasonably successfully. The PAP stressed its track record of why it should continue as the party of government. Its now talking about how the Workers Party will fuck up Aljunied and the voters will regret and repent - well, they might want to consider the Workers Party's track record in Hougang... and start treating the voters a bit more seriously.
However, there is also the optimistic point that EVERYTHING CHANGED. For once in most people's living memory, every ward bar one (co-incidentally that of the Minister Mentor and Founding Prime Minister) was contested. This was by Singapore standards - highly unusual. It was as if the suddenly the opposition parties found the desire to put up a fight in every constituency.
Then there was the role of the online media. I had the Young Pariah from Pasir Ris GRC phoning me on a regular basis hopping to get my feedback on how the PAP could counter people slamming them without fear in cyberspace. Suddenly, people were letting out their wildest thoughts on whatever topics suited them without fear...........For a party used to getting its way with the media - this was something of a change - it was downright frightening. For the PAP it must have been like being the hot chick who one day wakes up one day to find herself in the body of the fat cow everyone laughs at.
More importantly the opposition actually had people worth listening to. There were actually people you could trust to run the government. They would say something without calling the foreign press and without trying to provoke the rest of us into worshiping their egos. There was no call for a hunger strike or for a mass protest march (illegal). They merely raised all the questions that the rest of us were waiting to ask and somehow, when we did the ruling party proceeded with its usual form of intimidation tactics - which rightfully backfired.
In the end, the electorate decided that it was time to give birth to a new party - the Workers Party. They were the only opposition party to win seats. They retained their seat in Hougang with a new candidate and an increased margin. They then took the psychological step of claiming a Group Representation Constituency (GRC - a case of vote one MP and get 3). The members of this party are for a good part professional, working people who are educated. More importantly, they had a track record of having run something reasonably successfully. The PAP stressed its track record of why it should continue as the party of government. Its now talking about how the Workers Party will fuck up Aljunied and the voters will regret and repent - well, they might want to consider the Workers Party's track record in Hougang... and start treating the voters a bit more seriously.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Salaries - I'm Simply Not Making Enough!
Salaries have managed to sneak their way back on the political agenda again. The rising star of the opposition - Dr Vincent Wijeysingha decided to make a public proclamation that Ministers salaries should be pegged to that of ordinary workers rather than to the super scale earners. Dr Wijeysingha who works for an NGO has hit on a sore spot for many people - namely the fact that we the tax payers seem to have stagnant wages that fall behind inflation while the powers that be seem to have awarded themselves mega huge salaries that seem to get larger as the days go by. The justification of this system is this - when you need ten cents a year more, it's called stroking inflation but when the other chap needs a million an hour more, it's called talent retention. Somehow you never win and its frustrating the system seems to say that you have to accept that its your lot in life to slog to feed the other bugger.
While I do applaud Dr Wijeysingha for bringing the issue of Ministerial salaries out into the area of debate, I feel that the man is a little misguided in his solutions.
Let's start with the obvious - the issue that most of us have with Ministerial salaries is not so much the amount earned but the work done in return for that very high salary. Most of us accept that well paid government servants are better than badly paid ones who have the power to shake you down whenever they feel like it. We can also accept that government is like any other business - if you can accept your banker being well paid - why can't your President or Prime Minister be well paid. It's acceptable that certain professions pay more than others.
The real issue about Ministerial salaries is more complex but you can sum it up as this - Ministers get business like pay without business like risk - in other words - its unfair.
Let's start with the first problem - the issue of pay and competence. It's often argued that you need to pay high salaries to get the best people into profession. Politics is like any other job - bright people should have comparable financial incentives to careers like banking, law or industry.
However, we have to ask ourselves if Singapore has really got itself the best and brightest despite paying top-dollar. Unfortunately, the answer seems to be no. We got ourselves Mr Wong Kan Seng - a Home Affairs Minister who allowed a limping man to waltz out of a secure facility, then spent an entire year telling the world that our intelligence had it that the said limping man was in the country - only to have it announced a few days later that he had been caught elsewhere. A year later, we got ourselves Dr Yacob Ibrahim, the Minister in charge of water resources who allowed a plugged drain to provide us with floods that one usually finds in places like Bangladesh.
You could say that this wouldn't be so bad if the ministers showed a little bit of contrition. People can accept that Ministers like other people do make mistakes. However, instead of being contrite - we got arrogance. When the limping man walked out of a highly secure facility - the Minister in charge was "sorry that THIS HAPPENED" and the entire cabinet decided to talk about "Our track record" and then we had a Minister Mentor started lambasting us for being complacent because we expected the government to do its job. The Prime Minister went missing for the better part of the incident and only appeared to defend the Minister who screwed up.
What other job in the world allows you to stay in a job when you perform blatantly incompetently and more importantly you get the chance to scold the people who pay you for doing a job?
It is the accountability that we don't like. If you are good at the job, nobody will make your salary an issue. If you foul up, make a come back and rectify your mistake and somehow people will forgive you and be happy to let you have your salary. However, our Ministers only discover their humility during election time and seem to think that their salaries are theirs by divine right.
It's the assumption of entitlement and lack of accountability rather than the actual salary that people have an issue with. The public has to face competition from foreigners. Like it or not, this is the age of globalisation and competition for a few thousand dollars a month comes from people willing to work of hundreds of dollars.
While this is a fact of life, its hard to accept the message from someone who's basic salary a month is more than what you make in a year and more importantly, has somehow protected himself from things like foreign competition. It becomes even harder to accept when that person is praised and protected at your expense for displaying a level of incompetence that you'd be not only fired for but sued into bankruptcy.
Then, I can't help being cynical. Dr Wijeysingha is in opposition. Attacking Ministerial salaries is good for the political fight. However, we have to ask ourselves if Dr Wijeysingha and other members of the opposition would be so opposed to high ministerial salaries if they were on the receiving end. Let's look at South Africa as an example. The ANC was a socialist party to begin with. It looked at nationalising the mines. However, once it entered office, it proceeded to raise official salaries. FW De Klerk made more as Deputy President to Mandela than he made as State President. Who is to say that the same thing can't happen in Singapore? Will the opposition reject receiving the the salaries that today's Ministers earn if they were ever to get into power?
Dr Wijeysingha would be better off focusing on increasing accountability. Since the Singapore tax payer is paying "top-dollar," who can he or she ensure that the money is being used to get the best available talent? This should be the focus of the debate rather than the actual salary itself.
While I do applaud Dr Wijeysingha for bringing the issue of Ministerial salaries out into the area of debate, I feel that the man is a little misguided in his solutions.
Let's start with the obvious - the issue that most of us have with Ministerial salaries is not so much the amount earned but the work done in return for that very high salary. Most of us accept that well paid government servants are better than badly paid ones who have the power to shake you down whenever they feel like it. We can also accept that government is like any other business - if you can accept your banker being well paid - why can't your President or Prime Minister be well paid. It's acceptable that certain professions pay more than others.
The real issue about Ministerial salaries is more complex but you can sum it up as this - Ministers get business like pay without business like risk - in other words - its unfair.
Let's start with the first problem - the issue of pay and competence. It's often argued that you need to pay high salaries to get the best people into profession. Politics is like any other job - bright people should have comparable financial incentives to careers like banking, law or industry.
However, we have to ask ourselves if Singapore has really got itself the best and brightest despite paying top-dollar. Unfortunately, the answer seems to be no. We got ourselves Mr Wong Kan Seng - a Home Affairs Minister who allowed a limping man to waltz out of a secure facility, then spent an entire year telling the world that our intelligence had it that the said limping man was in the country - only to have it announced a few days later that he had been caught elsewhere. A year later, we got ourselves Dr Yacob Ibrahim, the Minister in charge of water resources who allowed a plugged drain to provide us with floods that one usually finds in places like Bangladesh.
You could say that this wouldn't be so bad if the ministers showed a little bit of contrition. People can accept that Ministers like other people do make mistakes. However, instead of being contrite - we got arrogance. When the limping man walked out of a highly secure facility - the Minister in charge was "sorry that THIS HAPPENED" and the entire cabinet decided to talk about "Our track record" and then we had a Minister Mentor started lambasting us for being complacent because we expected the government to do its job. The Prime Minister went missing for the better part of the incident and only appeared to defend the Minister who screwed up.
What other job in the world allows you to stay in a job when you perform blatantly incompetently and more importantly you get the chance to scold the people who pay you for doing a job?
It is the accountability that we don't like. If you are good at the job, nobody will make your salary an issue. If you foul up, make a come back and rectify your mistake and somehow people will forgive you and be happy to let you have your salary. However, our Ministers only discover their humility during election time and seem to think that their salaries are theirs by divine right.
It's the assumption of entitlement and lack of accountability rather than the actual salary that people have an issue with. The public has to face competition from foreigners. Like it or not, this is the age of globalisation and competition for a few thousand dollars a month comes from people willing to work of hundreds of dollars.
While this is a fact of life, its hard to accept the message from someone who's basic salary a month is more than what you make in a year and more importantly, has somehow protected himself from things like foreign competition. It becomes even harder to accept when that person is praised and protected at your expense for displaying a level of incompetence that you'd be not only fired for but sued into bankruptcy.
Then, I can't help being cynical. Dr Wijeysingha is in opposition. Attacking Ministerial salaries is good for the political fight. However, we have to ask ourselves if Dr Wijeysingha and other members of the opposition would be so opposed to high ministerial salaries if they were on the receiving end. Let's look at South Africa as an example. The ANC was a socialist party to begin with. It looked at nationalising the mines. However, once it entered office, it proceeded to raise official salaries. FW De Klerk made more as Deputy President to Mandela than he made as State President. Who is to say that the same thing can't happen in Singapore? Will the opposition reject receiving the the salaries that today's Ministers earn if they were ever to get into power?
Dr Wijeysingha would be better off focusing on increasing accountability. Since the Singapore tax payer is paying "top-dollar," who can he or she ensure that the money is being used to get the best available talent? This should be the focus of the debate rather than the actual salary itself.
Friday, April 29, 2011
You Are What You Are
Went to an interesting press briefing conducted by an Insitution of Chartered Management Accountants today. This British based educational body is now on a mission to make accountants and other finance professionals part of the "business" process. The main theme was this - accountants are no longer the boring bean counters who tell you that you can't do this or that but partners who work with you.
In theory, this very nice. In a business, everyone should share the same objectives. When everyone from the CEO to the cleaning lady share the same objectives then everyone has a common goal to give heart and soul to. Accountants are in this respect, no different from the rest of the crowd in the same business.
There's also alot to be said for the need to make accountants and other "suite" type professionals walk around the shop floor. The problem that most of us in the "suite" world have is the fact that we are often so caught up in our status as "professionals" or "experts" that we forget how the real world functions. PR and advertising professionals are particularly guilty of this - to put it crudely, we preach advertising and PR so much that we end up losing our grip on reality.
McDonald's got it right when they made all their managers, including the very senior ones work on the shop floor. The best way to create a common culture is to start everyone on the same level and give them the same experience. I also believe that you need to serve time on the front line if you want to lead an organisation. A paper pusher can only affect change that suites the art of paper pushing.
Having said all of that, I do believe that there is a reason why certain people are in the professions that they are in the form that they are in. The inner workings of a person make them suiteable for certain professions and not for others.
My favourite littigator told me recently that he thinks I'll never sit down in an office job and "work" in the conventional sense. One of my key mentors also said the same thing - "Be an income man, you'll never be to explain your patchy work history."
Other key figures in my life, like my parents, would shoot themselves if they realised I had been given this advise. However, the littigator and mentor may have a point. When I've been within an organisation I've been incredibly dense. I move around organisational politics like a statue in a ballet - as the mentor said," I couldn't protect you anymore." However, I've worked much better outside organisations.
I am also involved in the media relations business because - well, speaking the same language as reporters comes naturally to me. I can translate reporter speak to clients.
I am not a lawyer for a good reason. I don't have the patience to deal with vast amounts of paper work. Although I've been described as having an analytical mind, I can't bear the thought of reading through tomes and tomes of paper to look for a two sentence conclusion. I also make a poor politician. I have a problem sacrificing people for my personal gain and although I've enjoyed having power - it doesn't give my self-esteeme a boost.
So, I am where I am and other people are where they are because they are made for certain things. Although self-employment has suited me, it is not for everyone. I used to dread it whenever Joyce talked about self-employment. The girl didn't have the joy to chase for business and she didn't have a feel for doing things like chasing money. Self-employment and entrepreneurship by contrast suites Han Li very well - she has a talent for turning everything into a business and woe betide anyone who thinks they can get away without paying her.
Organisations have to accept that as much as they want to gel everyone together, there are reasons why certain people are where they are and rather than trying to "meld" them into the "one unit," they should concentrate on how to utlise their talents and their idiocyncracies. Chutia Bhai, for example, is a brilliant forensic accountant. However, he's an arsehole of a person. In a way, this makes him so good at what he does - he's not going to get let wooly things like friendship and back scratching get in the way of what he does best - check other people's books. Don't let him near your clients but by all means let him do the books.
There is such a things known as distance. Sometimes professionals need a bit of distance - call it they need to be a little further from the trees to see the forest. This is especially true for accountants. There is a good reason why you don't want your bookeeper too close with the factory floor people or the CEO. Think of every big scandal that's happened this century - the accountants and auditors were a bit too close to the top management. PwC was too close to Satyam (The CEO claimed he had a $1billion in cash - he didn't and nobody checked that fact) and there was of course Authur Anderson which got too close to Enron - less said the better.
There is lots to be said about sharing vision and getting everyone to bond together. However, there is a case accepting that individuals have idiocyncracies as well as talents and you need to accept the idiocyncracies in order to get the talents to flourish.
One of the most stark comparisons can be seen in between the Royal Marine Comandos of the UK and the US Marines. The Americans believe in breaking you down and building you up in their own image. The British work around your individual talents. The US Marine Corp is a tough fighting force well suited for missions that require brute force. However, on a man-to-man basis, the Royal Marines are better and they're used for covert missions.
In theory, this very nice. In a business, everyone should share the same objectives. When everyone from the CEO to the cleaning lady share the same objectives then everyone has a common goal to give heart and soul to. Accountants are in this respect, no different from the rest of the crowd in the same business.
There's also alot to be said for the need to make accountants and other "suite" type professionals walk around the shop floor. The problem that most of us in the "suite" world have is the fact that we are often so caught up in our status as "professionals" or "experts" that we forget how the real world functions. PR and advertising professionals are particularly guilty of this - to put it crudely, we preach advertising and PR so much that we end up losing our grip on reality.
McDonald's got it right when they made all their managers, including the very senior ones work on the shop floor. The best way to create a common culture is to start everyone on the same level and give them the same experience. I also believe that you need to serve time on the front line if you want to lead an organisation. A paper pusher can only affect change that suites the art of paper pushing.
Having said all of that, I do believe that there is a reason why certain people are in the professions that they are in the form that they are in. The inner workings of a person make them suiteable for certain professions and not for others.
My favourite littigator told me recently that he thinks I'll never sit down in an office job and "work" in the conventional sense. One of my key mentors also said the same thing - "Be an income man, you'll never be to explain your patchy work history."
Other key figures in my life, like my parents, would shoot themselves if they realised I had been given this advise. However, the littigator and mentor may have a point. When I've been within an organisation I've been incredibly dense. I move around organisational politics like a statue in a ballet - as the mentor said," I couldn't protect you anymore." However, I've worked much better outside organisations.
I am also involved in the media relations business because - well, speaking the same language as reporters comes naturally to me. I can translate reporter speak to clients.
I am not a lawyer for a good reason. I don't have the patience to deal with vast amounts of paper work. Although I've been described as having an analytical mind, I can't bear the thought of reading through tomes and tomes of paper to look for a two sentence conclusion. I also make a poor politician. I have a problem sacrificing people for my personal gain and although I've enjoyed having power - it doesn't give my self-esteeme a boost.
So, I am where I am and other people are where they are because they are made for certain things. Although self-employment has suited me, it is not for everyone. I used to dread it whenever Joyce talked about self-employment. The girl didn't have the joy to chase for business and she didn't have a feel for doing things like chasing money. Self-employment and entrepreneurship by contrast suites Han Li very well - she has a talent for turning everything into a business and woe betide anyone who thinks they can get away without paying her.
Organisations have to accept that as much as they want to gel everyone together, there are reasons why certain people are where they are and rather than trying to "meld" them into the "one unit," they should concentrate on how to utlise their talents and their idiocyncracies. Chutia Bhai, for example, is a brilliant forensic accountant. However, he's an arsehole of a person. In a way, this makes him so good at what he does - he's not going to get let wooly things like friendship and back scratching get in the way of what he does best - check other people's books. Don't let him near your clients but by all means let him do the books.
There is such a things known as distance. Sometimes professionals need a bit of distance - call it they need to be a little further from the trees to see the forest. This is especially true for accountants. There is a good reason why you don't want your bookeeper too close with the factory floor people or the CEO. Think of every big scandal that's happened this century - the accountants and auditors were a bit too close to the top management. PwC was too close to Satyam (The CEO claimed he had a $1billion in cash - he didn't and nobody checked that fact) and there was of course Authur Anderson which got too close to Enron - less said the better.
There is lots to be said about sharing vision and getting everyone to bond together. However, there is a case accepting that individuals have idiocyncracies as well as talents and you need to accept the idiocyncracies in order to get the talents to flourish.
One of the most stark comparisons can be seen in between the Royal Marine Comandos of the UK and the US Marines. The Americans believe in breaking you down and building you up in their own image. The British work around your individual talents. The US Marine Corp is a tough fighting force well suited for missions that require brute force. However, on a man-to-man basis, the Royal Marines are better and they're used for covert missions.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
I am Fat and Bald - I have an Agenda - the Fat and Bald Agenda
The issue of agendas is back on the backburner again. A Minister has now accused one of the more prominent candidates from the opposition of supporting the "Gay Agenda" and the usual flurry of "He must be gay" and the Minister is a "Homophobe" postings are burning away quite furiously in the online world.
Anyway, since there is a "Gay Agenda" I better make sure that my agenda does not get overshadowed by the Nancy Boys. I declare that I am Fat and Bald and I have every intention of making sure that the Fat and Bald agenda is well publicised and given a sympathetic hearing in this agenda. While I'm at it, I am also going to promote the "Short" agenda since some of my best friends are also very short.
In short (forgive the pun) I intend to promote what you can technically call the SFB agenda. We the members of the SFB group want our rights heard and we will stand by our principles until someone in government listens to us.
If you look at things on a National Level - we, the SFB's have done far more for the Nation than say the GLBTs or the Gen Xers. Where would Singapore be without the likes of Dr Goh Keng Swee who was Short, Bald and towards the end of his life - Fat.
When you look at the contributions of the SFB community to Singapore, you have to ask yourself, why the hell aren't we doing more to protect and promote the rights of Short, Fat and Bald people? We should be handsomely rewarded!
For a start, let's abolish or at least place a limit on diet and hair restoring ads. I mean, if you want to try and be something your're not - be my guest. However, we, the SFBs get annoyed everytime we turn on the telly and we get bombarded by ads telling us that we're not going to get laid if we stop being S, F or B! Please, please don't try and tell me the sad fuck on TV who can't get a date because he's belt size is an inch above normal is how we should be. Why can't I be happy being S, F, B or combination of the rest.
Then, let's give credit to people who make it being who they are. There should be a SFB Award given to the short, fat or bald man who dates beautiful chicks and finds his own path to success. We'll be much happier for it if we became a nation of cheerful secure people instead of a nation of insecure freaks. One of the guys who should be given a massive reward is the man who broke the celibacy of the PGF - he was short, fat and bald but somehow he managed to go to places where two Sultans, three Datuks and an Edison Chen look alike could not go to. - Way to go to the SFB.
I also promose that SFB children be given a special grant in school. As long as they study hard and grow to be self-confident adults who will do their darndest to run for political office when they are much older and therefore contribute the the benefit of society instead of whinning about how awful they look - get a life!
I hope to see that the politicians will fight to promote and protect the rights of the SFB community and rest assured the fight for our rights won't end on polling day - it will continue right to the end when we're all being cuddled in the bossom of a buxome blonde.
Anyway, since there is a "Gay Agenda" I better make sure that my agenda does not get overshadowed by the Nancy Boys. I declare that I am Fat and Bald and I have every intention of making sure that the Fat and Bald agenda is well publicised and given a sympathetic hearing in this agenda. While I'm at it, I am also going to promote the "Short" agenda since some of my best friends are also very short.
In short (forgive the pun) I intend to promote what you can technically call the SFB agenda. We the members of the SFB group want our rights heard and we will stand by our principles until someone in government listens to us.
If you look at things on a National Level - we, the SFB's have done far more for the Nation than say the GLBTs or the Gen Xers. Where would Singapore be without the likes of Dr Goh Keng Swee who was Short, Bald and towards the end of his life - Fat.
When you look at the contributions of the SFB community to Singapore, you have to ask yourself, why the hell aren't we doing more to protect and promote the rights of Short, Fat and Bald people? We should be handsomely rewarded!
For a start, let's abolish or at least place a limit on diet and hair restoring ads. I mean, if you want to try and be something your're not - be my guest. However, we, the SFBs get annoyed everytime we turn on the telly and we get bombarded by ads telling us that we're not going to get laid if we stop being S, F or B! Please, please don't try and tell me the sad fuck on TV who can't get a date because he's belt size is an inch above normal is how we should be. Why can't I be happy being S, F, B or combination of the rest.
Then, let's give credit to people who make it being who they are. There should be a SFB Award given to the short, fat or bald man who dates beautiful chicks and finds his own path to success. We'll be much happier for it if we became a nation of cheerful secure people instead of a nation of insecure freaks. One of the guys who should be given a massive reward is the man who broke the celibacy of the PGF - he was short, fat and bald but somehow he managed to go to places where two Sultans, three Datuks and an Edison Chen look alike could not go to. - Way to go to the SFB.
I also promose that SFB children be given a special grant in school. As long as they study hard and grow to be self-confident adults who will do their darndest to run for political office when they are much older and therefore contribute the the benefit of society instead of whinning about how awful they look - get a life!
I hope to see that the politicians will fight to promote and protect the rights of the SFB community and rest assured the fight for our rights won't end on polling day - it will continue right to the end when we're all being cuddled in the bossom of a buxome blonde.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Hard Truth About an Election!
It's election season and it looks like I may get my first chance to vote in my own country, which also happens to be the only country in the world where I have taken a very public oath to die for. It's going to be quite an experience voting in this Red Dot. I mean, it won't be the first time I've voted. Voted three times in the UK (EU Parliament - voted Greens and referendum on a Mayor of London and for the candidate to be Mayor - Tory), so the experience of going to the polling booth is not new to me. However, the fact that I'm voting in my own country rather than in someone else's should be an experience.
However, I don't feel excited. Perhaps I've finally become a true Singaporean after a decade of living here. I've spent the best part of a decade making lots of noise about not voting in my own country as if it was a denial of something inherent to my well being. However, now that the chance may exist, I'm not excited. In fact I am down right annoyed. It may sound crazy but over the years the right to grumble about not voting has actually grown onto me and its actually more important for me to grumble about not voting than it is to actually vote.
I don't know may be, like the rest of the general public, I've developed a strange love-hate relationship with the ruling party. I hate the buggers because they seem to get everything. Yet, I can't do without them because, hey, they're just so familiar that the idea of trying something new or listening to something new seems alien. I suppose, I, like the rest of the Plebs relate to the ruling party like kids do to a parent - can't stand them but can't do without them.
It doesn't help that I live in Marine Parade, a constituency that has been exceedingly well looked after. Our HDB (Council Flat equivalent in the UK) flats look better than a host of condominiums, Our bus routes make the need to drive redundant and our facilities are superb. For me, I live on the 22nd floor and have a direct sea view that most private property owners would kill for.
I've enjoyed all of these goodies because the chief Member of Parliament in my area is the former Prime Minister and now Senior Minister, Goh Chok Tong. If you want to put it in simple terms, Mr Goh has brought home bacon, eggs and caviar and as long as he remains our MP, why the hell should any of us want to boot him out?
Yes, intellectually, I'm all for having more voices and more debate. You're only going to get that if you have a credible opposition. However, how does one keep an MP with the clout to give you the goodies but still have alternative voices?
For most of us, the answer was simple - we voted the ruling party and allowed the opposition to single member constituencies. In short, we kept PAP because they delivered the goodies but also kept two opposition members there to irritate the hell out of them.
Will this election be different? I think it will. People are a wee bit more vocal. The governing party has also displayed a certain level of arrogance - particularly over areas in which it shown itself to be less than competent - let's think of Mas Selamat and floods along Orchard Rd. This arrogance does need to be checked.
However, do I really want to get rid of my MP who has brought home the bacon for so many years? May be I can do without some of the goodies - but why should my aunt and grandma be denied?
Humm, I wonder how many voters are starting to think about their self-interest above the national interest? I'm worried that I am already one of them.
However, I don't feel excited. Perhaps I've finally become a true Singaporean after a decade of living here. I've spent the best part of a decade making lots of noise about not voting in my own country as if it was a denial of something inherent to my well being. However, now that the chance may exist, I'm not excited. In fact I am down right annoyed. It may sound crazy but over the years the right to grumble about not voting has actually grown onto me and its actually more important for me to grumble about not voting than it is to actually vote.
I don't know may be, like the rest of the general public, I've developed a strange love-hate relationship with the ruling party. I hate the buggers because they seem to get everything. Yet, I can't do without them because, hey, they're just so familiar that the idea of trying something new or listening to something new seems alien. I suppose, I, like the rest of the Plebs relate to the ruling party like kids do to a parent - can't stand them but can't do without them.
It doesn't help that I live in Marine Parade, a constituency that has been exceedingly well looked after. Our HDB (Council Flat equivalent in the UK) flats look better than a host of condominiums, Our bus routes make the need to drive redundant and our facilities are superb. For me, I live on the 22nd floor and have a direct sea view that most private property owners would kill for.
I've enjoyed all of these goodies because the chief Member of Parliament in my area is the former Prime Minister and now Senior Minister, Goh Chok Tong. If you want to put it in simple terms, Mr Goh has brought home bacon, eggs and caviar and as long as he remains our MP, why the hell should any of us want to boot him out?
Yes, intellectually, I'm all for having more voices and more debate. You're only going to get that if you have a credible opposition. However, how does one keep an MP with the clout to give you the goodies but still have alternative voices?
For most of us, the answer was simple - we voted the ruling party and allowed the opposition to single member constituencies. In short, we kept PAP because they delivered the goodies but also kept two opposition members there to irritate the hell out of them.
Will this election be different? I think it will. People are a wee bit more vocal. The governing party has also displayed a certain level of arrogance - particularly over areas in which it shown itself to be less than competent - let's think of Mas Selamat and floods along Orchard Rd. This arrogance does need to be checked.
However, do I really want to get rid of my MP who has brought home the bacon for so many years? May be I can do without some of the goodies - but why should my aunt and grandma be denied?
Humm, I wonder how many voters are starting to think about their self-interest above the national interest? I'm worried that I am already one of them.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Facts of Sport
You know that an election is imminent when the press can't talk about anything else other than the prospects of an election. Elections in Singapore are particularly interesting because....well you know the result and you get a glimpse into the way that the powers that be think.
It was particularly interesting to note that the front page lead of the Straits Times (National Newspaper) was the Prime Minister declaring,"The Two Party System Won't Work in Singapore." This actually perked my interest. Why does a Prime Minister of a supposedly democratic country feel the need to make such a statement - particularly when a "two party" system is the supposed norm for any democratic country.
I suppose you could say that the man has read the ground well enough. We, the normally placid citizens, are grumbling and wondering if there's an alternative. So, on one level you could say that this is the Prime Minister's way of saying - "Stick with what you know works." This is also what usually happens. As much as we grumble, we actually keep the PAP in power because, well on the balance of things, they've done a good job.
You also have to look at the fact that the Prime Minister has a point. The PAP has a formidable grassroots mashinary and they've held onto the levers of power for so long that it's second nature to them.
Furthermore, the only kind word one could say for the opposition is that they're in shambles. Despite the fact that they've managed to maintain two seats in our 84 seat parliament for the last two decades, the opposition is a mish-mash of egos who can't work together.
In natures eco-system, small insects always work as a hive whenever they confront bigger creatures like bears. However, in the case of our political eco-system, the ants in the opposition can't seem to get along and so guess what - the elephant called the ruling party squishes them. As long as the opposition continue to behave like ants at a "frat" party, you can expect the ruling party to continue ruling for years to come.
Like it or not - the ruling party actually deserves to win the elections and the opposition in Singapore deserves to be where it is - somewhere stuck in the sewer pipes of the toilet of a successful curry restaurant.
However, the Prime Minister has a simple flaw to his logic - namely the fact that the PAP's right to rule is an entitlement. He argues that there is simply not enough talent in Singapore to field two "A" teams and so we the electorate need to support the only team on the field - his team.
As every sports fan will tell you - this logic does not work. There is no match if you only one team on the field. Then there's the fact that if a single team with the best players in the world never actually plays any matches - it tends to lose the ability to play. Talented sports people only remain talented when they're constantly competing. Look at the late Ayrton Senna in Formula 1, who is often regarded as one of the best drivers of all time. Not only did Mr Senna win just about everything, he did so against other great drivers like Alain Prost and Nigel Mansel - and he often did it in inferior cars. Sportsmen and sports people who are isolated from competition suffer. Look at the Springbok's entering international rugby just after South Africa rejoined the global sporting community in the early 1990s - they were rusty against World Champions Australia and also teams like England and the All Blacks. However, once they got back into competing with other talented teams - they bounced back to become World Champions in 1995.
Since the Prime Minister is so fond of sporing analogies, he might do well to study sports history more carefully. Teams that "own" the league and have no competition usually rust and implode. As such, sports officials go out of their way to ensure that competition is always viable. The two examples are Europe where the Champions League was designed for the top national clubs to compete against each other since they were overly dominant in their domestic markets and then there's the NFL, which ensures that lowest ranked team of the season gets the first pick of talented players entering the market.
I think the Prime Minister should do well to look at these examples. Instead of trying to be the only team on the field - he should look at trying to be the best team on the field. Sports has proven that competition is good for everyone and makes teams better. Why do we love to watch Manchester United versus Chelsea? Well it could be because we know that these are two great and talented teams duking it out to be the best on the day. It's entertaining.By contrast, Manchester United versus Manchester Grammar School team is not a competition and so nobody bothers with it.
Yes, the PAP has a certain grip on talent in Singapore. However, what's the point of having all the talent if that talent is not tested and developed? Then there's the assumption that talent will only want to join the PAP. In business as in sport, there are people who are motivated by more than just material gain. I know of people who make the point that being top management in a small company is better than being middle management in a big company. The same can be true in politics. What happens when you get good people who say that there's no challenge being in the team that always wins and join the teams that have the shit kicked out of them all the time and try to turn things around?
So what does the Prime Minister intend to do? At the moment it looks like he's trying to pull a fast one and convince the public that a match with only one team is good for them. Can you imagine turning up to a football match and being told that having one team on the field is actually good for football and you the fan should accept that as a given fact?
What the Prime Minister should be doing is to look for ways to make sure that there's a good match and his team wins as the best team. Now, this does not mean giving the opposition a free hand to get things done. Opposition needs to find a way of fighting back and getting itself heard. If the opposition ever comes to power, it will have shown it's mettle by winning against the odds. However, if the opposition wins because the PAP gives it a set number of seats to begin with, its not called competition. Is it competition if you make every player in Manchester United tie their left leg to their hips before they play?
What he should look at is giving Singapore alternative centres of thought and to create more debate in the existing media spaces. In Malaysia there is a dominant UMNO party but UMNO has to share space for the people's hearts and minds with the force of Islam.
However, Singapore has no alternatives to the PAP. Our Think Thanks for example, don't much thinking or at least thinking that provides an alternative voice to the existing PAP thought. Are there any other alternatives? So far you have a mainstream media which is to all effects a tool of the establishment. Then you have online sites like the Online Citizen and the Temasek Review that says that everything that the government does is wrong.
Where exactly is the "intelligent" middle ground that examines the pros and cons of every decision by the establishment? The Prime Minister should actually look to develop this space and look at developing the talent. If he does this, it will be good for Singapore and not just the PAP. It will make his a true statesman in the example of Ernesto Zedillo, the Mexican President who saw that his own party, the PRI did not win the next election - which was won by the man chosen by the people - Vincente Fox of the Opposition PAN party.
It was particularly interesting to note that the front page lead of the Straits Times (National Newspaper) was the Prime Minister declaring,"The Two Party System Won't Work in Singapore." This actually perked my interest. Why does a Prime Minister of a supposedly democratic country feel the need to make such a statement - particularly when a "two party" system is the supposed norm for any democratic country.
I suppose you could say that the man has read the ground well enough. We, the normally placid citizens, are grumbling and wondering if there's an alternative. So, on one level you could say that this is the Prime Minister's way of saying - "Stick with what you know works." This is also what usually happens. As much as we grumble, we actually keep the PAP in power because, well on the balance of things, they've done a good job.
You also have to look at the fact that the Prime Minister has a point. The PAP has a formidable grassroots mashinary and they've held onto the levers of power for so long that it's second nature to them.
Furthermore, the only kind word one could say for the opposition is that they're in shambles. Despite the fact that they've managed to maintain two seats in our 84 seat parliament for the last two decades, the opposition is a mish-mash of egos who can't work together.
In natures eco-system, small insects always work as a hive whenever they confront bigger creatures like bears. However, in the case of our political eco-system, the ants in the opposition can't seem to get along and so guess what - the elephant called the ruling party squishes them. As long as the opposition continue to behave like ants at a "frat" party, you can expect the ruling party to continue ruling for years to come.
Like it or not - the ruling party actually deserves to win the elections and the opposition in Singapore deserves to be where it is - somewhere stuck in the sewer pipes of the toilet of a successful curry restaurant.
However, the Prime Minister has a simple flaw to his logic - namely the fact that the PAP's right to rule is an entitlement. He argues that there is simply not enough talent in Singapore to field two "A" teams and so we the electorate need to support the only team on the field - his team.
As every sports fan will tell you - this logic does not work. There is no match if you only one team on the field. Then there's the fact that if a single team with the best players in the world never actually plays any matches - it tends to lose the ability to play. Talented sports people only remain talented when they're constantly competing. Look at the late Ayrton Senna in Formula 1, who is often regarded as one of the best drivers of all time. Not only did Mr Senna win just about everything, he did so against other great drivers like Alain Prost and Nigel Mansel - and he often did it in inferior cars. Sportsmen and sports people who are isolated from competition suffer. Look at the Springbok's entering international rugby just after South Africa rejoined the global sporting community in the early 1990s - they were rusty against World Champions Australia and also teams like England and the All Blacks. However, once they got back into competing with other talented teams - they bounced back to become World Champions in 1995.
Since the Prime Minister is so fond of sporing analogies, he might do well to study sports history more carefully. Teams that "own" the league and have no competition usually rust and implode. As such, sports officials go out of their way to ensure that competition is always viable. The two examples are Europe where the Champions League was designed for the top national clubs to compete against each other since they were overly dominant in their domestic markets and then there's the NFL, which ensures that lowest ranked team of the season gets the first pick of talented players entering the market.
I think the Prime Minister should do well to look at these examples. Instead of trying to be the only team on the field - he should look at trying to be the best team on the field. Sports has proven that competition is good for everyone and makes teams better. Why do we love to watch Manchester United versus Chelsea? Well it could be because we know that these are two great and talented teams duking it out to be the best on the day. It's entertaining.By contrast, Manchester United versus Manchester Grammar School team is not a competition and so nobody bothers with it.
Yes, the PAP has a certain grip on talent in Singapore. However, what's the point of having all the talent if that talent is not tested and developed? Then there's the assumption that talent will only want to join the PAP. In business as in sport, there are people who are motivated by more than just material gain. I know of people who make the point that being top management in a small company is better than being middle management in a big company. The same can be true in politics. What happens when you get good people who say that there's no challenge being in the team that always wins and join the teams that have the shit kicked out of them all the time and try to turn things around?
So what does the Prime Minister intend to do? At the moment it looks like he's trying to pull a fast one and convince the public that a match with only one team is good for them. Can you imagine turning up to a football match and being told that having one team on the field is actually good for football and you the fan should accept that as a given fact?
What the Prime Minister should be doing is to look for ways to make sure that there's a good match and his team wins as the best team. Now, this does not mean giving the opposition a free hand to get things done. Opposition needs to find a way of fighting back and getting itself heard. If the opposition ever comes to power, it will have shown it's mettle by winning against the odds. However, if the opposition wins because the PAP gives it a set number of seats to begin with, its not called competition. Is it competition if you make every player in Manchester United tie their left leg to their hips before they play?
What he should look at is giving Singapore alternative centres of thought and to create more debate in the existing media spaces. In Malaysia there is a dominant UMNO party but UMNO has to share space for the people's hearts and minds with the force of Islam.
However, Singapore has no alternatives to the PAP. Our Think Thanks for example, don't much thinking or at least thinking that provides an alternative voice to the existing PAP thought. Are there any other alternatives? So far you have a mainstream media which is to all effects a tool of the establishment. Then you have online sites like the Online Citizen and the Temasek Review that says that everything that the government does is wrong.
Where exactly is the "intelligent" middle ground that examines the pros and cons of every decision by the establishment? The Prime Minister should actually look to develop this space and look at developing the talent. If he does this, it will be good for Singapore and not just the PAP. It will make his a true statesman in the example of Ernesto Zedillo, the Mexican President who saw that his own party, the PRI did not win the next election - which was won by the man chosen by the people - Vincente Fox of the Opposition PAN party.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
What Work Did You Do to Justify Your Charges?
Singaporeans have never been known for their sense of irony. While the population has never been known to appreciate irony, Singapore has more than its fair share of it. The most recent example of grand irony has been in the case of Dr Susan Lim versus the Singapore Medical Council.
It's ironic because the man who has been most vigorously attacking Dr Susan Lim for being "greedy" in the act of "overcharging" the Royal Family of Brunei for medical services performed between January and July 2007 has been non other than Mr Alvin Yeo, SC (Senior Counsel - Singapore's version of the QC), the Senior Partner at Wong Partnership, one of Singapore's largest local law firms. As well as being a very prominent lawyer with impecable credentials, Mr Yeo is also a Member of Parliament for Hong Kah GRC and Chairman of the Government Comity for Home Affairs and Law. He also serves on the board of directors for a number of public listed companies.
Mr Yeo has spent the better part of the month trying to show the world that Dr Lim is a greedy little money grabbing tart who has abused the noble profession of medicine to make money. As far as Mr Yeo has been concerned, Dr Lim has betrayed every standard of ethical propitiatory in order to chase the almighty dollar. Leaving aside the merits of Mr Yeo's case into Dr Lim - one might be tempted to ask Mr Yeo is he's guilty of the very things that he's been accusing Dr Lim of.
Let's put things in perspective. As excessive as Dr Lim's S$25million bill may sound, it was a bill that was issued by a thriving medical business and it was for work done over a period. The fact is, had that S$25 million been paid, most of the money would have gone to cover expenses that Dr Lim incurred by caring for the patient, including the building of an ICU infrastructure and transplanting it via private jet (paid by her business). Fact remains that of that S$25million, Dr Lim would probably only received S$3.5 million, which was her annual salary for running the group.
Dr Lim does run a vast and very successful operation, which was recently valued at some S$80million. While this fact may not endure her to Singaporeans who are convinced of her greed, Dr Lim has been a successful entrepreneur as much as she's been a doctor. She has placed her personal money into the operation. She has taken on personal risk in starting an enterprise and it's a rule of business that the person who takes on the risk gets the lion's share of the rewards for the success of the business (she would also take the lions share of the cost if the business fails). Dr Lim may be making a lot of money, but she is also responsible for feeding over 30 people as well as caring for her patients. In short, that hefty salary that she earns is measured by the work that she does. If she fails in her work, not only does she lose her business and work but at least 30 additional souls get thrown out of work.
Mr Yeo by contrast has it relatively easy and like Dr Lim, he's no pauper. If Dr Lim can be accused of running a "scam," Mr Yeo's "scam" makes Dr Lim's look like child play. Mr Yeo has found a way of minting money without assuming any of the risk and responsibility that Dr Lim has.
Let's start with his day job. As the Senior Partner at Wong Partnership, one can expect Mr Yeo to take home nothing less than S$50,000 a month. What exactly does he do to earn this money? Well, just as no one doubts Dr Lim's talents as a surgeon, nobody is doubting Mr Yeo's talents as a litigator. I've heard him argue. He's articulate and logical when he presents his case. He's also good at disturbing his opponents. He knows how to play up to the public gallery as much as he does the judge.
So, I guess you could say Mr Yeo deserves his money from his day job in that many of the firms clients are there because of him. However, most of the leg work is done by his juniors (approximately 300 lawyers under him and let's not forget the paralegals) and let's face it - Mr Yeo was the founder of his firm and the personal risk he faces from the success or failure of the firm are negligible, especially when compared to the risk that Dr Lim faces.
While Dr Lim's income is derived from the business she has started and runs, Mr Yeo has done something even better. He's found a host of part-time jobs the supplement the income he makes from his full time job. His part time jobs also involve very little actual work for generous pay.
Let's start with his various directorships. What exactly does a board of directors do in public company? The answer is they look after the interest of the shareholders and they keep the CEO on his toes. The board of directors does not get involved with the day-to-day management of the company and they get paid not ungenerous fees to attend the usual yearly annual general meeting. They protect the shareholders by signing off on the report presented to them by the CEO and signed off by external auditors. So, if you think about it, what Mr Yeo is doing is very clever. He attends enough board meetings to enjoy enough swanky meals. Reads through a few annual reports and gets paid a decent sum for say a days work.
His directorships are, however, nothing when compared to his main part-time job - namely that as Member of Parliament for Hong Kah GRC. What does this part-time job take from him and give to him?
The answer is simple. He is required to listen to his constituents whine for about an hour a week. Once in a while he may be required to visit a few people and may be grace a few events. His comity work will involve maybe another two hours a month.
In return for doing all of this, he receives an allowance (Note - this is an ALLOWANCE not a SALARY) of a mere S$15,000 a month (around S$1,875 per hour worked). As long he serves two terms (10-years), he's entitled to this for life. He is also entitled to a pension which around two thirds of the allowance.
What he does not receive in money, he more than makes up for in the prestige of being a Member of Parliament. Wherever he goes, people will be aware of the fact that not only does Mr Yeo argue laws, he has a role in making them.
What risk does this part time job entail? Well, in theory he has to face the voters every five-years. However, Hong Kah has been a "walk-over" constituency - so he's never had to face the buggers who pay him for visiting them. Then let's look at this way - the work that he needs to do for his weekly visits are actually performed by volunteers in the grassroots.
As an MP, Mr Yeo is running one of the most impressive enterprises in the world. Everything that you make is gross and net to you. The cost are either borne by the State or by volunteers who want nothing better than the chance to say they licked your boots.
At the very least, Mr Yeo makes S$65,000 a month. This figure may not be as impressive as the S$25million that Dr Lim is supposed to have billed. However, it's far more secure. To date, Dr Lim has yet to receive a penny for the work that she did. The cost have had to be written off. By contrast, Mr Yeo's monthly salary is guaranteed and long as he stays within the comfort of his full and part-time job.
Which leads to the question? Why does Mr Yeo need to have an MP's allowance and pension when he's making the money he's making? Then you have to look at the fact that Mr Yeo, like Dr Lim is doing "Noble" professions. Lawyers are supposed to be interested in justice rather than in money. Being a Member of Parliament is ALL ABOUT SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. The member does NOT receive a SALARY but an allowance to cover things like transport (which in Singapore is negligible).
So, why doesn't Mr Yeo public ally announce that he's going to forgo one of his incomes and continue to do two jobs. That would be called "service to the community." His income as a the Senior Partner at the Wong Partnership is more than enough to cover the expenses he runs up on state business as an MP.
Mr Yeo made this point in court - "What work did Dr Lim do that could possibly justify her charges?" I would like to ask Mr Yeo the same thing - a significant portion of his income does not come from the Sultan of Brunei - it's comes from people like you and me.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Is It The End of the World? I don't feel fine.........
There's nasty virus going around at the moment. Have spent the best part of the last two weeks with a blocked nose and have been coughing like a chain smoker with TB. Then last night I needed to pop a few penadols to get rid of a nasty ache in the head. The funny thing is, I'm not the only one who seems to afflicted by this virus. Agnes, the PGF has been ill as has my latest business partner. Bed and rest are particularly welcoming these days.
Events haven't made things any more comforting. At the time of writing, Japan, the world's third largest economy has been hit by one of the largest earth quakes in history (9 on the Richter scale), a Tsunami and every other day the place seems to be hit by a mild earthquake averaging a six on the Richter scale). Adding to that, four nuclear reactors have been damaged.
With such events happening, it's not surprising that a few people have bandied about the idea that it may be the end of the world. My favourite millionaire pastor has apparently predicted the signs of the end and is preparing his flock. If Agnes is an accurate reporter, the good Pastor has told us that Christians who are dead and buried or burnt will be given new bodies and risen up to heaven, while the living ones will be be transported up to heaven. Ironically, the Muslims have a pretty similar vision of the end of the world - Islam believes in the return of Jesus to defeat the "Anti-Christ," who would have branded the rest of us with the 666 mark.
I'm normally not one for millenarian prophecies. The end of the world has been predicted many times over and yet we're still around. However, this time things may be different and it's worth asking why.
For me, the biggest threat to the world remains human arrogance. Man for want of a better term, seems determined to get one over nature and by extent, God. For the most part this has been a good thing - it's fueled the innovations that have made the world a better place. Today, we live the lives that our ancestors could only dream about as being part of an after life. Science has reached the stage where we don't fear the nasties that killed our ancestors. A simple course of antibiotics will cure you of TB or the plague. A hundred years ago, these ailments were a death sentence.
However, humanity forgets that nature has a way of fighting back and when nature gets nasty, there's not much that the human race can do - just ask the Japanese. The Japanese are the most orderly people on earth. Japans technology and infrastructure is the envy of the world. They are particularly well prepared for earthquakes.
Yet, and yet when the earthquake struck, the destruction was immense. More importantly, the nuclear reactors didn't work they way they were supposed to and there is a very real threat of a radiation leak causing massive problems for the rest of the world. What happened?
I suspect its a case of humans forgetting that they can never really be prepared to beat nature in a one-on-one contest. Japan's nuclear stations are built for providing a civilian population with energy and not for weapons. However, nuclear power does not need to be used for weapons in order to be dangerous. Furthermore, you cannot talk about your reactors being 100 percent safe when your country lies on major earthquake fault line.
Yet, the need to produce energy for humans overcame the need to protect nature and so nature extracted its revenge. The Japanese earthquake is only a dramatic example of what happens when you mess with nature.
China, the world's second largest economy and likely to be the largest in the not too distant future is belching out smog from filthy coal fire powered stations and over here in Southeast Asia, we get our annual dose of smog in the air from burning forest. What's going on here?
In way is simple, Asia is growing and we want to be able to have the good things that the West has taken for granted. When the Western World lectures us about ecology, we usually give them the Middle finger and make the point that we need to get our economics right first.
I live in Asia and I'm pro-growth. A prosperous Asia is good for the world and simple logic will tell you that you cannot have two thirds of humanity trapped in poverty while the majority of the wealth resides with only fifth of the global population.
However, we need to ask if the planet can take it and whether the growth model is sustainable. There's no point being rich if you're sick all the time. Nature can only take so much abuse and as much as Asians need to climb out of poverty, our policy makers should not sideline environmental issues as being a "Western concoction to keep Asia down."
Human ingenuity is working on clean technologies that don't abuse nature the way old ones did. There are encouraging signs that many of the rising big Asian economies get the fact that economic growth should not be anti-ecology. It is said that China, already the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, will be the world's biggest market for clean fuel. India, which is potentially another very large polluter is working hard to harness "clean" fuel like "wind-power."
These are good things. However, one has to ask if they're happening fast enough. May be they are happening at a fast rate but the question is are they happening fast enough for the people who are affected? The answer sounds pretty depressing. As things stand, the Western industrialised world sees vast profits in shifting "smoke-stack" industries to China - the Chinese on the other hand also see vast profits in accepting the "smoke stack" stuff. On paper everyone wins....except the planet. The Western World gets cheaper stuff made in China, the Chinese make money selling to the West. Nobody thinks of making what these industries produce better.
So what do you get? You get human beings with lots of material goods produced at cheap rates. You get human beings with lots of money in their pocket. However, natural resources get used up and nobody considers how we're going to replenish those resources. As they say, God will get pretty pissed off and nature says "Enough is enough."
Mankind has been quite ingenious. I just hope that we get our act together before nature finally gets fed up.
Events haven't made things any more comforting. At the time of writing, Japan, the world's third largest economy has been hit by one of the largest earth quakes in history (9 on the Richter scale), a Tsunami and every other day the place seems to be hit by a mild earthquake averaging a six on the Richter scale). Adding to that, four nuclear reactors have been damaged.
With such events happening, it's not surprising that a few people have bandied about the idea that it may be the end of the world. My favourite millionaire pastor has apparently predicted the signs of the end and is preparing his flock. If Agnes is an accurate reporter, the good Pastor has told us that Christians who are dead and buried or burnt will be given new bodies and risen up to heaven, while the living ones will be be transported up to heaven. Ironically, the Muslims have a pretty similar vision of the end of the world - Islam believes in the return of Jesus to defeat the "Anti-Christ," who would have branded the rest of us with the 666 mark.
I'm normally not one for millenarian prophecies. The end of the world has been predicted many times over and yet we're still around. However, this time things may be different and it's worth asking why.
For me, the biggest threat to the world remains human arrogance. Man for want of a better term, seems determined to get one over nature and by extent, God. For the most part this has been a good thing - it's fueled the innovations that have made the world a better place. Today, we live the lives that our ancestors could only dream about as being part of an after life. Science has reached the stage where we don't fear the nasties that killed our ancestors. A simple course of antibiotics will cure you of TB or the plague. A hundred years ago, these ailments were a death sentence.
However, humanity forgets that nature has a way of fighting back and when nature gets nasty, there's not much that the human race can do - just ask the Japanese. The Japanese are the most orderly people on earth. Japans technology and infrastructure is the envy of the world. They are particularly well prepared for earthquakes.
Yet, and yet when the earthquake struck, the destruction was immense. More importantly, the nuclear reactors didn't work they way they were supposed to and there is a very real threat of a radiation leak causing massive problems for the rest of the world. What happened?
I suspect its a case of humans forgetting that they can never really be prepared to beat nature in a one-on-one contest. Japan's nuclear stations are built for providing a civilian population with energy and not for weapons. However, nuclear power does not need to be used for weapons in order to be dangerous. Furthermore, you cannot talk about your reactors being 100 percent safe when your country lies on major earthquake fault line.
Yet, the need to produce energy for humans overcame the need to protect nature and so nature extracted its revenge. The Japanese earthquake is only a dramatic example of what happens when you mess with nature.
China, the world's second largest economy and likely to be the largest in the not too distant future is belching out smog from filthy coal fire powered stations and over here in Southeast Asia, we get our annual dose of smog in the air from burning forest. What's going on here?
In way is simple, Asia is growing and we want to be able to have the good things that the West has taken for granted. When the Western World lectures us about ecology, we usually give them the Middle finger and make the point that we need to get our economics right first.
I live in Asia and I'm pro-growth. A prosperous Asia is good for the world and simple logic will tell you that you cannot have two thirds of humanity trapped in poverty while the majority of the wealth resides with only fifth of the global population.
However, we need to ask if the planet can take it and whether the growth model is sustainable. There's no point being rich if you're sick all the time. Nature can only take so much abuse and as much as Asians need to climb out of poverty, our policy makers should not sideline environmental issues as being a "Western concoction to keep Asia down."
Human ingenuity is working on clean technologies that don't abuse nature the way old ones did. There are encouraging signs that many of the rising big Asian economies get the fact that economic growth should not be anti-ecology. It is said that China, already the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, will be the world's biggest market for clean fuel. India, which is potentially another very large polluter is working hard to harness "clean" fuel like "wind-power."
These are good things. However, one has to ask if they're happening fast enough. May be they are happening at a fast rate but the question is are they happening fast enough for the people who are affected? The answer sounds pretty depressing. As things stand, the Western industrialised world sees vast profits in shifting "smoke-stack" industries to China - the Chinese on the other hand also see vast profits in accepting the "smoke stack" stuff. On paper everyone wins....except the planet. The Western World gets cheaper stuff made in China, the Chinese make money selling to the West. Nobody thinks of making what these industries produce better.
So what do you get? You get human beings with lots of material goods produced at cheap rates. You get human beings with lots of money in their pocket. However, natural resources get used up and nobody considers how we're going to replenish those resources. As they say, God will get pretty pissed off and nature says "Enough is enough."
Mankind has been quite ingenious. I just hope that we get our act together before nature finally gets fed up.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Is there such a thing as a Noble Profession?
Thanks to Dr Susan Lim, everyone is once again obsessed with our favourite past-time - money and talking about it. If you talk to enough people, you'll find that everybody is exceedingly upset with Susan Lim for having the audacity to make money. It has even reached the stage where Susan Lim has become a verb for "overcharging."
The fact that Dr Lim never made money off the general public is irrelevant. The fact that she's in private practice and very successful because she's very good at what she does is also irrelevant. As far as a most people in the streets of Singapore and in cyberspace are concerned, Dr Susan Lim is a symbol of a greedy healthcare system that's milking the poor.
As far as most of the chat rooms are concerned, Dr Lim is wrong because she wants to make money. Talk to enough people about the case and they'll tell you that -"If you want to make money you should be a banker not a doctor," or "Doctors are supposed to save lives not make money." One journalist even went as far as to remind me,"She has a Hippocratic Oath to save lives."
It seems that the thing that's making people very upset with Dr Lim is the fact that she runs a very successful business? Yes, like it or not, a private medical practice is a business with rents and staff who need to be paid. Yet, because private medical practices are ..."Medical" they're supposed to be about something more than just paying the bills and turning a profit.
There are, as they say, professions and professions. Some professions are about making money. Nobody seems to mind when stock brokers make money - they wouldn't be stock brokers otherwise, would they? Then there are professions that notorious for keeping people broke - writing is one of them. Then there are what you call the "Nobel" professions, which are supposed to be about the greater good of mankind rather than making money. However much these professions don't make - they carry an aura of respectability about them.
I take teaching as an example. Teaching is known for being badly paid. Yet, it is a "noble" profession and being a teacher or a school master carries a certain aura to it, which money apparently cannot buy. I remember my late step-grandma who said that she was always relieved when step-grandpa went back to school, it was time when she could hold her head up high and tell the world that she was "Mrs Hart Smith." Step-grandpa Hart worked in the days when teachers did not get paid during holidays. So, he became a salesman for World Book. He made A LOT more money a salesman than he did as a teacher. Yet, as far as the community was concerned, his respectability came from being a teacher.
In a way, doctoring is supposed to be like teaching. Like the teacher and the lawyer, the doctor is a learned man. In addition to being learned, the doctor also saves lives. I think of Dr Christopher Khng, one of my ophthalmologist who teaches and operates on eyes. He says,"When you do good operation you help one person - but when you teach ten people how to do a good operation you help ten times the people." Doctors wear white coats, the colour of purity.
I enjoyed working in the healthcare space. It helped me to understand certain medical conditions and it helped me do some good by getting people I knew to look after their eye-sight.
However, as much as doing good is exceedingly satisfying, I am left wondering if there's such a thing known as a noble profession any more?
It started out with Singapore's politicians. It's a well known fact that Singapore has the world's HIGHEST PAID POLITICIANS. American politicians make their fortune after politics. Here, the politicians have a fortune thrust upon them. Our President, who is primarily a ceremonial figure who's main function seems to be shaking hands once a year on National Day only make some S$4 million a year.
When a few of us grumbled, the politicians made the point that high salaries for PUBLIC SERVANTS was necessary because the nation needed to get bright young things in PUBLIC SERVICE and to stay there. The politicians also made the point that highly paid PUBLIC SERVANTS did not shake down the poor for bribes. Much better to keep a PUBLIC SERVANT content with his lot so that he focuses on the job on hand.
If you think about it, this is a sound argument. Yes, we expect our PUBLIC SERVANTS to be noble people who want to serve society rather than engage in the grubby world of commerce. However, we understand that they need to live and if they see the possibility of living comfortably they're less likely to steal from us. Singapore is close enough to places where being an honest person is akin to being supernatural - able to function without life's basic necessities.
So, we've already bought the idea of the necessity of PUBLIC SERVANTS in NOBLE Professions being handsomely paid.
The next step is to look at the obvious - if we can accept the argument that PUBLIC SERVANTS must be well paid - surely the same argument applies to other so called NOBEL PROFESSIONS.
Then, let's look at the facts - the "Nobel professions" have already been industrialised. Let's go back to the example of teaching. Teachers may be a "noble" lot dealing with something other than money, but education is most certainly an industry and the teachers are slowly but surely realising that what they do for a living is a skill that can be packaged and sold just like any other.
Let's look at America as an example. America has the world's BEST universities. Places like Harvard, Princeton and Yale consistently rank amongst the world's top ten. How do these universities do it? Well, it's simple - they produce the guys who will get hired and promoted to top levels of the corporate sector. This in turn makes them more attractive as places to study and people are willing to pay vast sums of money to get in. If you are brainy but broke, the university has scholarships, bursaries and other schemes to help you out - but the bottom line is - the university still gets paid for providing you with a service.
The universities with the most successful business continue to climb world rankings. Those that fail - die. Nobody denies that Harvard is expensive - nobody denies that Harvard is a WORLD CLASS institution. The rules are simple - if you don't like Harvard's fees - you don't go there.
This is as business like and mercenary as it gets. While the American University system is acknowledged as the world's best despite it's mercenary nature, the same is not true lower down the education ladder. American High Schools are funded by the tax payer and any kid can goto high school. When you think of American High Schools, you usually think of a war zone in the same way that you think of an American University as a centre of excellence.
The Europeans who once stood out as the bastion of mass education have learnt the lesson. Business methods work in the supposedly noble business of education. European universities are now charging students for the service of teaching. In the UK, the universal truth remains - the schools that are run like businesses (misleadingly known as public schools) still produce the bulk of graduates at elite levels.
Teaching may be a noble profession but education is big business whatever anyone tells you. I live in Singapore where teaching is an industry. Local publishers survive on text book publishing. Parents spend good money on old exam papers so that they're kids can pass. Not all teachers are civil servants working in schools. If you're unemployed, become a tutor - you'll always have work. If you're entrepreneurial, you should also be a tutor. Retired school teachers with a name, make a very good living either by teaching only children of the well to do or setting a mass market tuition centre.
What is true of education has been more true of health care. Health care is, like it or not an industry in its own right. The doctor may be "noble" and willing to work for free but he or she would not be able to afford to provide you with basic health care without the people who make the equipment and the medicines. Nobody is suggesting that it's wrong for GlaxoSmith Kline or Norvartis not to charge money for their research, development and production.
Say what you like about big pharmaceutical companies but they've produced life saving stuff. Think of Asprin, which seems to cure just about anything. Think of HIV medications - which remain prohibitively expensive for many but have also given many others the chance to live healthy normal lives. More will be done in the field of pharmaceutical healthcare - however, someone has to pay for this and ultimately it's the consumer.
Doctors are part of this industry whether we like it or not. The industry that produces many of the miracle drugs we now take for granted, relies on the feedback of doctors.
Much as we hark back to the ideal of a doctor being all about saving lives no matter the financial status of the life to be saved, it is just that - an ideal. Doctors need to live too and the more well looked after they are, the more they are able to focus on the business of saving lives.
This is especially true of private practice. Doctors in private practice may not like to admit it but they are running a business and you cannot expect them to work on nothing but the love of it. The doctor may want to save your life for free - but the industry that supplies him will want him to pay for the medication and the landlord of his practice will expect to be paid. The staff of the practice will also expect their salaries.
Let's face it, the doctors who make it big in private practice are good at what they do or at least they're good enough for people to open their wallets. The Susan Lim's, Julian Theng's and Ron Yeoh's of this world are darn good at what they do - hence they get people who are willing to pay them top dollar.
I've always believed that life has to be about something more than just money. However, to expect people to provide you with something for nothing is unrealistic. Money is necessary in order to get progress. You need that to fund things like research and development. The money has to come from somewhere and more often than not, it is from the consumer and tax payer.
It's also proven that systems that have an element of business to them tend to be better at providing the basic service. If I had ten high paying clients, I could focus on just ten. My concentration for every client would be better than if I had to service a hundred poor paying ones. You like at the difference between the American University System and High School system as the best comparison.
Noble professions are not immune from the basic rules of business. Education, healthcare and dare I say legal systems are becoming more industrialised and not all of this is bad.
While noble professions may be less so, that does not exclude people from being noble. My favourite litigator devotes an incredible amount of time to "bro-bono" work and he's not the only lawyer doing it. His argument is that he believes in a system and the work he devotes to cases like Zen and Eric is a way of paying providence for giving him clients like Zim.
The same is true for doctors. Susan Lim may have charged Pangiran Damit millions, but she has given free surgery before. Dr Ron Yeoh has a lucrative eye care practice in Camden Medical centre serving an elite client el, but he and his team continue to do work at the National Eye Centre (SNEC).
Doctors and lawyers do give away pro-bono work. However, they have to get the money from somewhere to keep their practices flowing.
You cannot expect people to be noble without any consideration to their ability to take care of themselves. As one taxi driver says - "You cannot expect me to treat you like you are in a restaurant but pay me a Kopi Diam rate."
The fact that Dr Lim never made money off the general public is irrelevant. The fact that she's in private practice and very successful because she's very good at what she does is also irrelevant. As far as a most people in the streets of Singapore and in cyberspace are concerned, Dr Susan Lim is a symbol of a greedy healthcare system that's milking the poor.
As far as most of the chat rooms are concerned, Dr Lim is wrong because she wants to make money. Talk to enough people about the case and they'll tell you that -"If you want to make money you should be a banker not a doctor," or "Doctors are supposed to save lives not make money." One journalist even went as far as to remind me,"She has a Hippocratic Oath to save lives."
It seems that the thing that's making people very upset with Dr Lim is the fact that she runs a very successful business? Yes, like it or not, a private medical practice is a business with rents and staff who need to be paid. Yet, because private medical practices are ..."Medical" they're supposed to be about something more than just paying the bills and turning a profit.
There are, as they say, professions and professions. Some professions are about making money. Nobody seems to mind when stock brokers make money - they wouldn't be stock brokers otherwise, would they? Then there are professions that notorious for keeping people broke - writing is one of them. Then there are what you call the "Nobel" professions, which are supposed to be about the greater good of mankind rather than making money. However much these professions don't make - they carry an aura of respectability about them.
I take teaching as an example. Teaching is known for being badly paid. Yet, it is a "noble" profession and being a teacher or a school master carries a certain aura to it, which money apparently cannot buy. I remember my late step-grandma who said that she was always relieved when step-grandpa went back to school, it was time when she could hold her head up high and tell the world that she was "Mrs Hart Smith." Step-grandpa Hart worked in the days when teachers did not get paid during holidays. So, he became a salesman for World Book. He made A LOT more money a salesman than he did as a teacher. Yet, as far as the community was concerned, his respectability came from being a teacher.
In a way, doctoring is supposed to be like teaching. Like the teacher and the lawyer, the doctor is a learned man. In addition to being learned, the doctor also saves lives. I think of Dr Christopher Khng, one of my ophthalmologist who teaches and operates on eyes. He says,"When you do good operation you help one person - but when you teach ten people how to do a good operation you help ten times the people." Doctors wear white coats, the colour of purity.
I enjoyed working in the healthcare space. It helped me to understand certain medical conditions and it helped me do some good by getting people I knew to look after their eye-sight.
However, as much as doing good is exceedingly satisfying, I am left wondering if there's such a thing known as a noble profession any more?
It started out with Singapore's politicians. It's a well known fact that Singapore has the world's HIGHEST PAID POLITICIANS. American politicians make their fortune after politics. Here, the politicians have a fortune thrust upon them. Our President, who is primarily a ceremonial figure who's main function seems to be shaking hands once a year on National Day only make some S$4 million a year.
When a few of us grumbled, the politicians made the point that high salaries for PUBLIC SERVANTS was necessary because the nation needed to get bright young things in PUBLIC SERVICE and to stay there. The politicians also made the point that highly paid PUBLIC SERVANTS did not shake down the poor for bribes. Much better to keep a PUBLIC SERVANT content with his lot so that he focuses on the job on hand.
If you think about it, this is a sound argument. Yes, we expect our PUBLIC SERVANTS to be noble people who want to serve society rather than engage in the grubby world of commerce. However, we understand that they need to live and if they see the possibility of living comfortably they're less likely to steal from us. Singapore is close enough to places where being an honest person is akin to being supernatural - able to function without life's basic necessities.
So, we've already bought the idea of the necessity of PUBLIC SERVANTS in NOBLE Professions being handsomely paid.
The next step is to look at the obvious - if we can accept the argument that PUBLIC SERVANTS must be well paid - surely the same argument applies to other so called NOBEL PROFESSIONS.
Then, let's look at the facts - the "Nobel professions" have already been industrialised. Let's go back to the example of teaching. Teachers may be a "noble" lot dealing with something other than money, but education is most certainly an industry and the teachers are slowly but surely realising that what they do for a living is a skill that can be packaged and sold just like any other.
Let's look at America as an example. America has the world's BEST universities. Places like Harvard, Princeton and Yale consistently rank amongst the world's top ten. How do these universities do it? Well, it's simple - they produce the guys who will get hired and promoted to top levels of the corporate sector. This in turn makes them more attractive as places to study and people are willing to pay vast sums of money to get in. If you are brainy but broke, the university has scholarships, bursaries and other schemes to help you out - but the bottom line is - the university still gets paid for providing you with a service.
The universities with the most successful business continue to climb world rankings. Those that fail - die. Nobody denies that Harvard is expensive - nobody denies that Harvard is a WORLD CLASS institution. The rules are simple - if you don't like Harvard's fees - you don't go there.
This is as business like and mercenary as it gets. While the American University system is acknowledged as the world's best despite it's mercenary nature, the same is not true lower down the education ladder. American High Schools are funded by the tax payer and any kid can goto high school. When you think of American High Schools, you usually think of a war zone in the same way that you think of an American University as a centre of excellence.
The Europeans who once stood out as the bastion of mass education have learnt the lesson. Business methods work in the supposedly noble business of education. European universities are now charging students for the service of teaching. In the UK, the universal truth remains - the schools that are run like businesses (misleadingly known as public schools) still produce the bulk of graduates at elite levels.
Teaching may be a noble profession but education is big business whatever anyone tells you. I live in Singapore where teaching is an industry. Local publishers survive on text book publishing. Parents spend good money on old exam papers so that they're kids can pass. Not all teachers are civil servants working in schools. If you're unemployed, become a tutor - you'll always have work. If you're entrepreneurial, you should also be a tutor. Retired school teachers with a name, make a very good living either by teaching only children of the well to do or setting a mass market tuition centre.
What is true of education has been more true of health care. Health care is, like it or not an industry in its own right. The doctor may be "noble" and willing to work for free but he or she would not be able to afford to provide you with basic health care without the people who make the equipment and the medicines. Nobody is suggesting that it's wrong for GlaxoSmith Kline or Norvartis not to charge money for their research, development and production.
Say what you like about big pharmaceutical companies but they've produced life saving stuff. Think of Asprin, which seems to cure just about anything. Think of HIV medications - which remain prohibitively expensive for many but have also given many others the chance to live healthy normal lives. More will be done in the field of pharmaceutical healthcare - however, someone has to pay for this and ultimately it's the consumer.
Doctors are part of this industry whether we like it or not. The industry that produces many of the miracle drugs we now take for granted, relies on the feedback of doctors.
Much as we hark back to the ideal of a doctor being all about saving lives no matter the financial status of the life to be saved, it is just that - an ideal. Doctors need to live too and the more well looked after they are, the more they are able to focus on the business of saving lives.
This is especially true of private practice. Doctors in private practice may not like to admit it but they are running a business and you cannot expect them to work on nothing but the love of it. The doctor may want to save your life for free - but the industry that supplies him will want him to pay for the medication and the landlord of his practice will expect to be paid. The staff of the practice will also expect their salaries.
Let's face it, the doctors who make it big in private practice are good at what they do or at least they're good enough for people to open their wallets. The Susan Lim's, Julian Theng's and Ron Yeoh's of this world are darn good at what they do - hence they get people who are willing to pay them top dollar.
I've always believed that life has to be about something more than just money. However, to expect people to provide you with something for nothing is unrealistic. Money is necessary in order to get progress. You need that to fund things like research and development. The money has to come from somewhere and more often than not, it is from the consumer and tax payer.
It's also proven that systems that have an element of business to them tend to be better at providing the basic service. If I had ten high paying clients, I could focus on just ten. My concentration for every client would be better than if I had to service a hundred poor paying ones. You like at the difference between the American University System and High School system as the best comparison.
Noble professions are not immune from the basic rules of business. Education, healthcare and dare I say legal systems are becoming more industrialised and not all of this is bad.
While noble professions may be less so, that does not exclude people from being noble. My favourite litigator devotes an incredible amount of time to "bro-bono" work and he's not the only lawyer doing it. His argument is that he believes in a system and the work he devotes to cases like Zen and Eric is a way of paying providence for giving him clients like Zim.
The same is true for doctors. Susan Lim may have charged Pangiran Damit millions, but she has given free surgery before. Dr Ron Yeoh has a lucrative eye care practice in Camden Medical centre serving an elite client el, but he and his team continue to do work at the National Eye Centre (SNEC).
Doctors and lawyers do give away pro-bono work. However, they have to get the money from somewhere to keep their practices flowing.
You cannot expect people to be noble without any consideration to their ability to take care of themselves. As one taxi driver says - "You cannot expect me to treat you like you are in a restaurant but pay me a Kopi Diam rate."
Monday, March 21, 2011
Meet The Pundeks .....They're a Family out of Singapooorrrrreeeeee...........
Singapore, contrary to popular opinion, is unique place. Despite what our Ministers will tell you, we have actually produced quite a few home grown institutions that cannot be found anywhere else in the world. Look at Singlish, a form of English that combined elements of Chinese and Malay - you could call it the perfect amalgamation of the West, the Orient and Islam - living in peace. Our local Indians have even produced a festival called Thaipusam, which is not found anywhere on the Indian Sub-continent.
Anyway, there's a family in Singapore. You could say, they are Singapore's answer to the "Simpsons." They are the "Pundek" Family and anything the Simpsons can do - the Pundeks can do better.
I've actually met two members of this unique clan. They are known as "Thambi (Younger Brother) Pundek" and "Macha (Brother-in-Law) Pundek. The unique thing about this family is that the family ties are actually deeper than blood. They are actually behave the same.
One of the most striking characteristics about this clan is that they have an incredible bravado. Or at least they know how to talk to the talk. If you listen to Macha, you'll be under the impression that he's a real mover and shaker - well, he certainly shakes a lot when he walks.
Macha, it seems, is the most well connected person in Singapore. If you need to know the rough element, he'll show you a picture of an even more over-sized friend of his who is apparently a "labour supplier" - you know, it takes a fat cunt with put the lazy bastard Indian construction worker (who only works 12-hours a day in the hot sun for $12 a day) in place. If you need to know a rich Chinese coffee shop owner - well, Macha seems to well connected enough. Apparently, one of these very rich people sent Macha on a trip to Bali so that Macha could meet "BIIIIIGGGGG" business people - whom he's threatening to introduce to me.
Thambi is a little bit more subtle or at least he hasn't developed the pundacity of his elders. He's joined the Young PAP and if you believe him, he's the best buddy of our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defense. At least Thambi has pictures of himself with the Minister of the Ministry he's working for plastered all over his Facebook - in case you had the audacity to test on how close he is to the said Minister.
In fairness to Thambi, he's also pretty generous is you're willing to sit down to listen to him. He'll buy you a few cups of coffee and now that's he'd old enough, he'll also be happy to have a beer with you - however, you got to do it in doors and in air conditioning since the sun will probably kill him.
Macha is even more generous - with your money. If you go out with Macha, rest assured, he'll provide you with a girl and order plenty of drinks. He may even suggest that where you're meeting is a shit-hole and invite you to somewhere more classy. He'll invite his friends and you'll spend the day and night drinking - the best part about Macha's generosity is that you won't get drunk - after the first round, you'll notice that you seem to be the only one picking up the tab as Macha gets more and more generous with everyone under the sun. Macha is firm believer in the principle of give and give and give and give.........and somewhere in there he....I mean you shall receive. One of his latest ones was to sms the Naan Maker to ask him to come back to the bar the Naan maker had just left so that he could pick up the beer that Macha and his friends had ordered.
The Pundeks also have an ability to assure you of their friendship with you and their loyalty to something other than themselves. Thambi is very sure that he LOVES the Nation and will be happy to suffer hardship, deprivation and all sorts of nice things from the comfort of his bedroom. Thambi only discovered his will to fight for the nation once the powers that be in the National Service postings department sent him off to be a clerk wearing Number Thee (office wear) in a unit that has as much chance of seeing sunlight, let alone active duty.
Macha is a little more forthcoming. When you meet with him - especially in the presence of the Nepali Naan Maker, he'll tell you that you are now "Family," hence "your problems are his and HIS PROBLEMS ARE YOUR PROBLEMS."
The Pundek's are incidentally related to another prominent family - "The Chutias. " I used to be a good friend of a chap called "Chutia Bhai," who will assure you that he hates his South-Indian cousins. According to Chutia Bhai, a relative of the Pundeks once cheated him out of a bonus. As such, Chutia Bhai is on a mission to rob anyone who resembles a Pundek. As such you just need to visit a coffee shop in Kembangan. Chutia Bhai will insist on buying you a meal. Well, he doesn't buy you a meal. He will complain about this particular member of the Pundek Family and tell you that the guy has no "Burkat" (The Islamic version of Karma). When the coffee shop chaps are not looking, Chutia Bhai will insist that you walk away without paying.
Chutia Bhai is making pots of money, but he has a mission, which is to extract his revenge on the Pundeks and so his antics continue.
The Chutia and the Pundek also have an incredible inability to see beyond White Skin. The Old Rogue used to capitalise on this. Thambi would sit at the Old Rogue's feet and allow the Old Rogue to tear him to bits for selling out his people, so to speak. Thambi Pundek would then stare at the ceiling in utter amazement and tell you - "He's a very wise man."
Chutia Bhai was even more impressed by the absent colour. He used mock an Australian chap we once knew for being a total loser. "Typical OP, no money," was his classic remark about the poor Ausie. Then one day, the Aussie showed up at a party claiming that he found an investor. Chutia Bhai was instantly depressed that the Aussie did not give him much business and so Chuta Bhai proceeded to a Pakistani restaurant to vent his steam on the poor chaps who actually had money.
Having said that, I think we need to be fair to chaps like Chutia Bhai. He's going to deliver the economies of the West from the economic crisis. You could say Chutia Bhai is like Robin Hood. He takes from one community so that he can deliver to another. He spends his time taking from the coffee shop staff in Kembangan so that he can sponsor the Irish Embassy's St Patrick's Day function in the Hyatt Hotel. You could say that there's nothing more noble than returning to Colonial Days.
The Pundeks and the Chutias are a very special family and I can assure you that one day the Chee and Bai's who run Singapore's media will create a special about them. In the mean time, I'm sure some bright spark in the Istana will give these families a special award for creating a special Singapore identity.
As one Indian expat pointed out,"They are definitely Singaporean .....and WE ARE INDIAN."
Anyway, there's a family in Singapore. You could say, they are Singapore's answer to the "Simpsons." They are the "Pundek" Family and anything the Simpsons can do - the Pundeks can do better.
I've actually met two members of this unique clan. They are known as "Thambi (Younger Brother) Pundek" and "Macha (Brother-in-Law) Pundek. The unique thing about this family is that the family ties are actually deeper than blood. They are actually behave the same.
One of the most striking characteristics about this clan is that they have an incredible bravado. Or at least they know how to talk to the talk. If you listen to Macha, you'll be under the impression that he's a real mover and shaker - well, he certainly shakes a lot when he walks.
Macha, it seems, is the most well connected person in Singapore. If you need to know the rough element, he'll show you a picture of an even more over-sized friend of his who is apparently a "labour supplier" - you know, it takes a fat cunt with put the lazy bastard Indian construction worker (who only works 12-hours a day in the hot sun for $12 a day) in place. If you need to know a rich Chinese coffee shop owner - well, Macha seems to well connected enough. Apparently, one of these very rich people sent Macha on a trip to Bali so that Macha could meet "BIIIIIGGGGG" business people - whom he's threatening to introduce to me.
Thambi is a little bit more subtle or at least he hasn't developed the pundacity of his elders. He's joined the Young PAP and if you believe him, he's the best buddy of our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defense. At least Thambi has pictures of himself with the Minister of the Ministry he's working for plastered all over his Facebook - in case you had the audacity to test on how close he is to the said Minister.
In fairness to Thambi, he's also pretty generous is you're willing to sit down to listen to him. He'll buy you a few cups of coffee and now that's he'd old enough, he'll also be happy to have a beer with you - however, you got to do it in doors and in air conditioning since the sun will probably kill him.
Macha is even more generous - with your money. If you go out with Macha, rest assured, he'll provide you with a girl and order plenty of drinks. He may even suggest that where you're meeting is a shit-hole and invite you to somewhere more classy. He'll invite his friends and you'll spend the day and night drinking - the best part about Macha's generosity is that you won't get drunk - after the first round, you'll notice that you seem to be the only one picking up the tab as Macha gets more and more generous with everyone under the sun. Macha is firm believer in the principle of give and give and give and give.........and somewhere in there he....I mean you shall receive. One of his latest ones was to sms the Naan Maker to ask him to come back to the bar the Naan maker had just left so that he could pick up the beer that Macha and his friends had ordered.
The Pundeks also have an ability to assure you of their friendship with you and their loyalty to something other than themselves. Thambi is very sure that he LOVES the Nation and will be happy to suffer hardship, deprivation and all sorts of nice things from the comfort of his bedroom. Thambi only discovered his will to fight for the nation once the powers that be in the National Service postings department sent him off to be a clerk wearing Number Thee (office wear) in a unit that has as much chance of seeing sunlight, let alone active duty.
Macha is a little more forthcoming. When you meet with him - especially in the presence of the Nepali Naan Maker, he'll tell you that you are now "Family," hence "your problems are his and HIS PROBLEMS ARE YOUR PROBLEMS."
The Pundek's are incidentally related to another prominent family - "The Chutias. " I used to be a good friend of a chap called "Chutia Bhai," who will assure you that he hates his South-Indian cousins. According to Chutia Bhai, a relative of the Pundeks once cheated him out of a bonus. As such, Chutia Bhai is on a mission to rob anyone who resembles a Pundek. As such you just need to visit a coffee shop in Kembangan. Chutia Bhai will insist on buying you a meal. Well, he doesn't buy you a meal. He will complain about this particular member of the Pundek Family and tell you that the guy has no "Burkat" (The Islamic version of Karma). When the coffee shop chaps are not looking, Chutia Bhai will insist that you walk away without paying.
Chutia Bhai is making pots of money, but he has a mission, which is to extract his revenge on the Pundeks and so his antics continue.
The Chutia and the Pundek also have an incredible inability to see beyond White Skin. The Old Rogue used to capitalise on this. Thambi would sit at the Old Rogue's feet and allow the Old Rogue to tear him to bits for selling out his people, so to speak. Thambi Pundek would then stare at the ceiling in utter amazement and tell you - "He's a very wise man."
Chutia Bhai was even more impressed by the absent colour. He used mock an Australian chap we once knew for being a total loser. "Typical OP, no money," was his classic remark about the poor Ausie. Then one day, the Aussie showed up at a party claiming that he found an investor. Chutia Bhai was instantly depressed that the Aussie did not give him much business and so Chuta Bhai proceeded to a Pakistani restaurant to vent his steam on the poor chaps who actually had money.
Having said that, I think we need to be fair to chaps like Chutia Bhai. He's going to deliver the economies of the West from the economic crisis. You could say Chutia Bhai is like Robin Hood. He takes from one community so that he can deliver to another. He spends his time taking from the coffee shop staff in Kembangan so that he can sponsor the Irish Embassy's St Patrick's Day function in the Hyatt Hotel. You could say that there's nothing more noble than returning to Colonial Days.
The Pundeks and the Chutias are a very special family and I can assure you that one day the Chee and Bai's who run Singapore's media will create a special about them. In the mean time, I'm sure some bright spark in the Istana will give these families a special award for creating a special Singapore identity.
As one Indian expat pointed out,"They are definitely Singaporean .....and WE ARE INDIAN."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)