Grandpa’s Revenge

Opposition Politics in Singapore is a thankless task. Generally speaking, the role of the opposition in Singapore has been to serve as a punching bag for the government party. The government, which controls some 79 seats out of a total of 84 in a unicameral parliament, has a habit of using every trick in the book to make life miserable for anyone who even considers running for a seat under the banner of anyone except the ruling party.

Singaporeans have developed a rather strange attitude to the opposition. The opposition MPs were people you clapped for (“Dude – You’ve got guts”) but you’d never actually vote for them. For many years, we kept Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang in Potong Pasir and Hougang simply because their presence was enough to irritate the powers that be.

Then in 2011, we decided that the powers that be needed more than an irritant and so, we handed the Group Representation Council (“GRC or in electoral math – 4 seats”) to Mr. Low’s Workers Party. This was officially the worst showing in the ruling party’s history and things were made even worse when Dr. Tony Tan, the ruling party’s preferred candidate scrapped through the presidency by less than a whisker against Dr. Tan Cheng Bok, a former member of the ruling party.

The ruling party seemed to have gotten lucky in 2015 when it called for an election not too long after our founding father Mr. Lee Kuan Yew died and then, it changed the rules to make the Presidency a preserve the Malay Minority, which the rest of us seemed to think was a ploy to keep Dr. Tan Cheng Bok out of the any organ of state.

Well, things have gotten interesting since 2015. The biggest start to this was when Dr. Tan Cheng Bok found a “Venture Capitalist for Dissidents,” namely Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, the Prime Minister’s younger brother. Dr. Tan has founded the Progress Singapore Party or PSP. The PSP has become something of a hot stock in the field of Singapore’s politics and I had the good fortune of being invited to their Chinese New Year dinner on Friday 17 January 2020.

What a party it was? The food was amazingly good (as Chinese New Year food usually is), there was a rock band called “Evolution” (Dr. Tan has said no to revolution because it involves bloodshed – so he’s proposing evolution) and they were very good. They launched their party song and a mascot. Dr. Tan also introduced new members to his leadership team, all of whom were credible candidates (one of them was a former Air Force Colonel.)

However, what was most telling was the fact that the under 35s were in a significant minority in the room. Dr. Tan is 79 and while admittedly sprightly, he’s definitely an old man. There was a token young girl somewhere but by and large this was a party for the New Old.

When I think of this fact, I’m reminded of a speech that Mr. Leslie Fong, former Vice-President of Marketing at Singapore Press Holdings gave at Ad Asia in 2005. Mr. Fong was speaking at a forum at a time when respected papers around the world were going “tabloid.” Mr. Fong described the whole exercise as “A futile effort to dumb down for younger eye balls at the expense of more valuable older ones.”

I think of that moment and the PSP dinner because it looks like the PAP has forgotten “more valuable older ones.” The people at the PSP had all benefited from the system created by the PAP government. This wasn’t a gathering of louts or the systems losers. The man who was appointed to be Dr. Tan’s number two is a former hedge fund manager. You’d imagine that this lot would be cheering the ruling party on for giving them so much.

Yet, they weren’t cheering on the ruling party and there has to be a reason for this. My Mum would argue that this is because while people may benefit from something, they’ll turn on it if it hurts their kids. One only has to think of cases of battered wives who happily put up with a battering and then, when the abusive spouse turns on the kids, she does what she should have done ages ago. What does it say about the state of things when a loyal member of the ruling party becomes a member of the opposition?

Likewise, with the “Baby Boomers,” also known as those heading into their 70s. They have benefited from the system but have their children? I’m brought back to the days before I was trying to get my passport renewed to go back to school in England (a process that the government enjoys complicating to ensure kids come back for National Service). My Dad had just lost a contract to shoot an ad for the Air Force to an Australian who had a Hong Kong Crew (My Dad’s crew being Malay but Singapore Born). It was at this point where he said, “I’ll vote for the other guy, even if he’s an idiot. Why is my son doing National Service but they’re giving benefits to the guys whose kids don’t serve?”

I think of these moments because the powers that be need to studying the ground. Its moments like what my parents went through that make people change their minds so to speak. The PAP Government has on the whole done a good job for Singapore but it needs to look beyond and build for future generations rather than for a single one. They’ve done well but to remain in power they need to make people feel they’ll continue doing well.

The Real Jobs Issue

There was a recent spat in parliament between Chan Chun Sing, our Minister for Trade and Industry and Pritam Singh, the leader of the Workers’ Party, our main opposition party. Much has been said about the debate, so I won’t go into details but essentially, Mr. Singh asked Mr. Chan what was the percentage of Singaporeans versus foreigners in certain jobs. Mr. Chan refused to answer directly and accused Mr. Singh of stirring up certain divisions. Mr. Chan also argued that it was necessary to have foreigners in high paying positions because they had the qualifications for the jobs, which the locals did not and the locals would eventually catch up.

I’ve always believed that this is an issue has become a convenient sticking point for all involved and everybody misses the point. While I don’t disagree with the fact that we should have tighter checks on things like fake qualifications (Look if a guy got into the job on a “fake” qualification but managed to last beyond six-months in places like JP Morgan, he’s got to be doing something right), I don’t think that jobs should go to anyone based on nationality and residential status.

I also look at the fact that we’ve never had an issue against “foreigners” holding good jobs until people from other parts of Asia started getting “the jobs.” We were quite comfortable and even grateful to people from the West coming here to do the “plush jobs,” and getting the salaries that those jobs came with. It has become so that its understood that people from the West would earn more than the Asians. I remember one of my previous chefs asking me why I refused to take a full-time position at the Bistrot, since most of the customers assumed, I owned the Bistrot. My answer was simple, what was on offer was significantly less than what my Belgium predecessor was getting. The reply was, “You can’t compare, he’s an Ang Moh. (Hokkien term for Caucasian – used mainly in Malaysia and Singapore).”

Things have become different now that the jobs are going to the proverbial darkies from other parts of Asia. Suddenly, Singaporeans are feeling displaced and they can’t understand why people from the places they deemed “backwards,” are now sitting jobs they assumed were the natural birthright of the people from developed nations and lording it over the locals, who are apparently better educated and more in tune with international business.

Unfortunately, the real jobs issue here is that our people are for the most part not qualified for the top jobs nor are they willing to work at the bottom of the ladder. Unfortunately, the people who get qualified from “Shithole” countries are. Even if you discount the fact that a good number of them may have “Fake” qualifications and some may have used their “connections,” the people from the proverbial “Shithole” countries have proven that they can compete on the world stage.

I remember Thambi Pundek asking me what was so special about the Indian Institutes of Management (IIM) and what did the IIM’s do that the National University of Singapore (NUS) could not do. My reply was to ask how many people did NUS produce who ran a big global corporation that was not dependent on the Singapore government.

Neither he or I could name a single one. By constrast, IIM (Specifically IIM Ahmedabad and Calcutta) produced Ajay Banga, the current CEO of Master Card and Indra Noyi, the former CEO of Pepsico. A comparison in alumni can be found at the following links:

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

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

Admittedly the IIM’s do have an advantage that many educational institutions do not have – they have a vast pool of people to draw from. The population of the “hyper-successful” in India is probably larger than the population of most countries.

Having said that, it still does not detract from the key issue in as much as, our institutions are not training people for the global market. 

In fairness to our institutions, they do a fabulous job in training technical people for most industries. However, their record on training people to run a global business that requires cross-cultural intelligence and independent thinking is lacking. Our technical people are also good with the tools of today but haven’t done much to create the tools of tomorrow.

This was brought home to me by a German businessman, who deals with high end technology. He said, “There is NO high-end technology in Singapore.” By contrast, this German businessman was full of praise for China’s tech-scene. He told me, “They’re getting things done – they’ll do the same thing in a dirty little room than needs to be done in a clean lab in Germany – but they’re getting it done.”

Our minds appear stuck in the past along with our policies. I remember Lee Kuan Yew telling people that Singapore simply didn’t have the size to produce world class companies. Our policy of being a centre for multinationals has been successful. 

However, the global economic scene has changed. Things are not as safe as they used to be and the ability to see things differently has become an essential survival skill. One has to be able to think beyond geographical boundaries. I go back to the profile of the Western Expat. Sometimes they’re derided as people who “couldn’t make it” in their own countries – but hey, they had the guts to take on assignments outside of their comfort zone – this group may not have been making it in their homelands but they’re making it even if its elsewhere. The Indian Expats are only doing what they’re Western Counterparts have done for years – moving to places where they could do the things, they couldn’t do at home to get the life they wanted. 

Our top people also don’t venture beyond the familiar. I remember a top banker telling me he could climb higher at Citi but didn’t want to take promotions because – “you never know when you’ll come home.” 

Our institutions need to instill a sense of “adventurism” and “opportunism.” In the old days, one could avoid taking the risk of the unknown if you had comfort at home. However, it’s now such that the basic jobs in the modern economy need you to have a sense of adventurism and opportunism.

The Lucky General

When asked about the qualities that he looked for in a general, Napoleon once said that he chose generals who were “lucky.” I’ve always thought of this quote whenever it comes to discussing the topic of success. Talk to enough people who have “made it” and they’ll tell you about their brains, hard work and sheer determination. They will never admit to having “luck.”

However, if you analyse the careers of the well to do, you’ll realise that somewhere along the line they had a lucky moment and they went for it with everything they had. Back when I had just left university, I was told by Hans Hofer, the founder of Appa Guides that the key thing that successful people understood was “chance.” A few years back, I blogged about it at:

https://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-thing-that-every-business-school.html

I think of this blog post on luck because we recently lost our second Chief of Defense Force, Lieutenant-General, Ng Jui Ping. If you look at General Ng’s life story, you’ll understand that he was that most unique creatures – a person who knew how to be lucky and had a knack for being in the right place at the right time.

Before I continue, I have to disclose that I am from the same formation as General Ng (Artillery). While I never met the man in person (he stepped down from being Chief of Defense Force, while I was still in basic military training), most of my senior instructors had worked with the man (In particular I reminded of Senior Warrant Officer Lim Seng Wah, who was his Battery Sergeant Major in the 20^th Battalion Singapore Artillery). In later life, I would befriend a lawyer who served him from the shadows (an advisor he consulted even though he had engaged other lawyers). So, what I know of the General is only what I’ve read in the official press and from what people have told me about him.

My second qualification is that when I talk about General Ng’s “Luck,” I’m not referring to the number of battles he won. Singapore’s armed forces have never been tested in an actual war (though in fairness, our boys have been commended on peace keeping missions and Singaporean officers do make it to the top of their class in places like West Point and Sandhurst). When I talk about General Ng’s luck, I am referring to his personal career.

How was General Lucky? I guess the most obvious place to start was the fact that he was born and entered the civil service at a time when they were a little obsessed by paper qualifications from the Oxbridge Universities. After General Ng left the helm of the Singapore Armed Forces, all his successors were inevitably the same – super scale scholars with beautiful Oxbridge Degrees.

His luck extended beyond the timing of his birth and in his long career, he had the good fortune of being in situations where his skills could shine. These few lucky moments helped catapult him to stratospheric levels.

The first piece of good luck was the fact that he ended up becoming the mentor to a certain Officer Cadet (“OCT”) Lee. He was a good mentor and at his funeral, the OCT that he mentored told the world, ““I will remember him most from my own time in the army, when he was first my Commanding Officer, and later when I worked beside him – I learnt much from him as a leader and a colleague.”

The second piece of good fortune for General Ng came in 1991 when a Singapore Airline was hijacked on Singapore soil. While General Ng was already Chief of Defense Force (a level too high for people to expect him to be on the front line), he had the privilege of overseeing an actual mission (the type where people can die), that proved to be exceedingly successful. To date, the SQ 117 Hijack rescue mission is the one incident in the SAF where the troops showed they could perform in a “real” situation. This very incident allowed General Ng to claim something as close as Singapore’s Generals don’t get to claim – “real life command.”

When he retired from the SAF, General NG did what no other top civil servant had done before him – he became an entrepreneur. Ironically, his long career in the army had actually prepared him for life beyond wearing the green uniform. His gratuity gave him the start-up capital and he had a strong relationship with the right people to get things going. While General Ng did serve a stint on the boards of some government organisations noteably the Central Provident Fund (“CPF” Board – our main pension fund) and Chartered Industries (Singapore’s version of the Military Industrial Complex), his main post army career was as an entrepreneur. General Ng was the co-founder of Pacific Andes Resources Limited.

The one area where he did not have luck in was his personal health. In 2019 he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, which ended his life this year. Interestingly enough, General Ng’s death showed us how lucky he was. He dared to be different from the crowd. His predecessor retired into a cushy diplomat’s job. His successors have all gone onto work in cushy civil service jobs or in the government-controlled version of the private sector. Being different earned him a warm tribute from Singapore’s normally strongly “anti-anybody from the government” online media as the following report from the Onlinecitizen shows:

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/01/14/late-lg-ng-rejected-pm-lees-offer-to-live-off-govt-unlike-lgs-desmond-kuek-and-ng-yat-chung/?fbclid=IwAR1O6qWOfD8I6RkV6-tQOewonGfhL06Y_Yqz1kjNORC0NvNjNmlbIA31y7w

Knowing how to be lucky in life made him lucky in death too.  

When You Say It

We’ve often been told that many communication failures come from “how” things are said rather than “what” things are said. There is another aspect of communications that is often neglected and that is the “when” of saying something. Timing, as they say, is often everything.

Leadership or the appearance of leadership is about understanding the what, how and when of basic communication. Nobody expects the leader of a large organization, let alone a country to singlehandedly be able to do everything but we do expect them to “be there” whenever we need them to be there. In many ways, the people, are like teenagers and their parents. We don’t want political leaders to tell us how to live our lives but when the shit hits the fan, we expect them to be around. Hence, if you look at the political leaders in the mature democracies in the last decade or so, you’ll notice that their key moments tend to be during disasters.

Take the current situation with the Australian bush fires, which have devastated much of the country. One of the things being burnt in the fires is the reputation of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who refused to commit extra funding towards fighting the disaster and proceeded to go on holiday. Mr. Morrison who is only just admitting to have handled things better, has not been able to get things right as he has appeared both incompetent and uncaring (the traits most of us don’t want in leaders).

To make matters worse, Mr. Morrison had actually taken a swipe at Gretta Thuburg, the 16-year old Swedish climate change activist for being “alarmist,” over climate change. Now, Mr. Morrison finds himself in a position of having to do something advocated by a 16-year-old girl he once dismissed as being an “alarmist.” The full report can be read below:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/scott-morrison-signals-climate-shift-deeper-cuts/news-story/64cbbeed635faac64ae1d32d8f00f085

Another example of a “leader” who didn’t get the what, how and why of basic communications, is the former Prime Minister, Ms. Theresa May. While one may sympathise with her inability to get Brexit though an uncooperative parliament, one cannot sympathise with her inability to visit those who had suffered from the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017. What was particularly noticeable was that while the Prime Minister (who is paid to do things) was noticeably absent, the Queen (who is paid to be a decoration) was quick to get down to the site of the disaster and offered comfort to the people.

By contrast, the one leader who managed to get things right is to be found across the Tasman Sea. New Zealand’s Jacinda Arden’s response to the Christchurch mosque shooting was a masterclass in crisis management. She was quick to react, offered a practical solution (banning of assault riffles), showed the right balance between compassion for the victims and toughness on the criminal. Ms. Arden also did not go down the path of taking cheap, populist measures.

Disasters can make or break a politician. Bill Clinton gained popularity because he knew how to show sympathy to those who had suffered from the Oklahoma Bombing. By contrast Bush II was spectacularly tone-deaf during Hurricane Katrina – think of his “Brownie, you’re doing hell of a job.” This was a classic case of saying the wrong thing in the wrong way at the wrong time. Translation, he only cared about his buddies rather than the victims.

I remember my Dad telling me – “everyone is your best friend when you’re buying.” The same is true about leadership. Anyone can lead when the times are good. However, its different story when things go wrong and a leader who knows how to utilize a good crisis is one that we, the ordinary saps, tend to remember fondly.

The Naan Maker and Matcha Pundek

A few days ago, I was browsing through the profile of someone who had sent me a friend request on Facebook when I stumbled upon this message:

The World 🗺 needs to be Vigilent against South Asians namelyIndians 🇮🇳, Pakistani 🇵🇰, Bangladeshi 🇧🇩 & Nepali 🇳🇵 .

I copied this message onto my Facebook Wall and stated that I found this message to be offensive and I stated my reasons why. Interestingly enough the person who posted this message reshared this message and complained that I must have been a “South Asian” migrant and he was going to be protect his nation from the “terrorist PAP” government that allowed South Asians into Asia.

I shall leave the rebuttal to that for another day and instead, focus on two chaps I know. Call them Bijay and Mike or the Naan Maker and Matcha Pundek (Tamil for brother-in-law cunt – a word that Tamil friend of mine said, “In India, we don’t use that word – it’s SO CRASS.”) Bijay had the misfortune of being married to Mike’s older sister, who used to be a senior civil servant and since remarried and moved to Belfast.

I got to know the Naan Maker nearly 15-years ago when a mutual friend invited me have Naan at a place along the junction of Serangoon and Deskar Road. Bijay was the man who made the dishes at this little restaurant and he adopted me as his younger brother. He once explained to my ex-wife that he felt very comfortable when I called him “Bhai Sahib.”

Bijay’s story is what you’d call the dream of every migrant. He met his first wife when she was on holiday in Nepal, where he was born. Somewhere along the line, they got married and he moved to Singapore with her. He went through national service and got his citizenship. He then set up his own shop selling Naan and the range of North Indian foods. Then he met two Pakistani chaps, who got him to work for them and he spent the next few years working in the morning’s and having a chilled life in Little India. His relatives who were in the Gurkha camp on Mount Vernon were happy for him.

Somewhere along the line, his marriage broke down. He left the family home where he had lived for over a decade and found himself doing odd jobs. His girlfriend who has now become his wife, moved to Singapore and somehow, they managed to live on his income. Then, the man struck gold when he moved from being a chef in a five-star hotel. He bought his own property and managed to support a family on his single income.

I always think of Bijay as Forest Gump. He’s not the best educated of my friends nor is he the most ambitious. However, he works hard and does right by family and friends.  

Mike, or Matcha Pundek, his former brother-in-law, also works very hard. He works hard at being too good for any available job. One of Matcha’s proudest moments in his career was working as a taxi driver. He proudly tells people that a “North Indian,” (In Singapore speak, those snooty fuckers from darkie land who don't understand that well paying jobs are only for  White People) once asked him to drive somewhere in his taxi and he didn’t like that guy who he kicked the guy out and never worked as a taxi driver ever since (Singaporean born people get very upset that people from “Shithole” countries might actually be qualified to work in jobs specially reserved for white people). Matcha was also very proud of the fact that he walked out of an exploitative job directing traffic near a school (had to wake up at 6 in the morning but you only work about 2 hours a day).

Mike is a stand up and generous guy. He’s exceedingly generous if you’re paying. Matcha is exceedingly generous if the paymaster is his former brother-in-law is paying. The first time I met Matcha, it was with Bijay. We were sitting down for our weekly $20 wine session and Matcha felt that it was beneath him and insisted that his former brother-in-law, who has the audacity to work for a living, move up to the Harry’s Bar. The ever loving Matcha, proceeded to hit-up his former brother-in-law (migrants are always stealing, so we’re told) for a loan of S$2,000.

The second time I met Mike, the ever loving Matcha invited Bijay and I out for a lad’s day out. The ever loving Matcha asked us to meet his gang of overweight louts, who proceeded to drink and drink and drink. When the tab came, he happily handed the bill to his former brother-in-law. We then proceeded to go somewhere else. After a few minutes, I dragged the ever loveable Bijay away from this wonderful gang. As we were walking away, the ever loving Matcha called his former brother-in-law to pick up the tab. Thankfully, I was there to cut the crap.

So, here we have it, a nice story of a migrant brother-in-law who has the audacity to work but according to some people, he’s a threat to Singapore society. Somehow, his presence is something the world has to be afraid of. By contrast we need to protect the native-born population like the ever loving Matcha, who is a mover and shaker at your expense. Somehow, Matcha is the “exploited” one by all these horrible foreigners from South Asia.

Maybe I’m just slow but I don’t get that logic.  

The Obvious Answer to Cheaper Hawker Food

I’ve just seen an article in the Today Newspaper entitled “Keep hawker food affordable.” The article is essentially a complaint about how basic hawker food has shot up in price and as with most Singaporean letters to the press, the implicit message that the government should do something about it – which in this case was a call for the National Environment Agency (NEA) to regulate the price of hawker food. The article can be found at:

https://www.todayonline.com/voices/keep-hawker-food-affordable

I agree that hawker food should be kept affordable. Speaking as someone who has spent seven-years of his life in a Western Restaurant, I can easily say that hawker food is one of the best things about living in this part of the world. If you go to the right stall, you can get an exceedingly tasty meal for a few bucks.

For me, the hawker symbolizes what Singapore should be – a small time businessman delivering a magical product out of nothing (a former guardian of mine once said he was not impressed with the man who could cook fillet steak, the meat is so good you got to be clever to mess it up. By comparison, the man who cook kway teow – its just a bunch of noodles, shit clams and yet taste like magic.). These are the guys who make Singapore tick.

What I disagree with is, the solution of the government telling business people what they can and cannot charge. We live in a capitalist system where setting up a business is a costly time-consuming exercise. We preach that anyone who sets up a business face to bare the very real possibility that they are doomed to fail and lose their shirts but if the business succeeds, they should reap the rewards. We recognize that people who set up businesses ad value to society by doing things like giving society a product or service and for employing people. A businessperson has to bare certain costs and how much they make above their costs (assuming they can make above costs) depends on what people are willing to pay. Getting the government to tell businesses what they can charge should be an anathema to most normal people, particularly when the said government is not about to make the costs of doing any business lesser.

Perhaps the question is not so much keeping hawker food affordable but asking us how we can make running a hawker stall more affordable. Unfortunately, the question won’t be addressed because the most obvious place to start is the rents that businesses pay. After working in liquidations for the last five-years, one tends to notice that the landlord is inevitably one of the largest and most powerful creditors. If there is a cost that will never go down, its inevitably going to be the rent.

To be fair to Singapore’s landlords, there is an obvious business case. Singapore is a tinny place with lots of people. Land is scarce and as a scarce product, its inevitably doing to be expensive. In fairness to Singapore’s government, they’ve been pretty good at allocating land for the various sectors in society. Despite being densely populated, Singapore has open parks and spaces, which the population density might not suggests. The price of land in Singapore is like pretty much elsewhere that happens to be small and dense. Hong Kong also has high rents and houses are tinny.

However, there is one issue that nobody seems to be addressing – namely the fact that the government in Singapore is the largest landlord – thus the areas used by many businesses are inevitably under the control of an organization that does not rely solely on rents from small time stall holders.

What’s more interesting is the fact that the government in its role as landlord to businesses, owns most of the land that the hawkers operate in.

If there is a solution to rising costs, it would be to hold down rents. Holding down the rents for hawker stalls would help to keep costs lower for hawkers and other small enterprises. It would help make life more affordable for businesses and the public at large. This would go further than one of payments in the budget. The simple act of not raising rents in areas controlled by the government would have great benefits for society – government would inevitably gain to as a more prosperous citizenry would have more taxes to pay to the government. The landlord with the power to do the obvious, should do it.

Keeping Church and State Separate

One of the moments of 2019 was the signing of the amendment to the Indian Citizenship Act, which provides a path to Indian Citizenship for persecuted minorities from other countries – except Muslims. The amendment has caused much India to erupt into violent protest and in the Muslim world, this act has been seen as a deliberate attack against Muslim. This was the first time in India’s history as a secular republic that an amendment to the Citizenship Act was based on religion.

One of things I noticed on social media was the fact that some posted the message “If India cannot protect Hindu’s, who can?” This message implied that as the Hindu’s were in the majority, India was by definition a Hindu nation. This was a point that India’s ruling BJP party has argued. India’s population is predominantly Hindu and so India is a Hindu Country that allows minorities to exist – just as the United Kingdom is a Christian country that allows minorities to exist (The UK has a State Church – the Church of England – India does not).

The BJP is not alone in arguing that a nation belongs to a particular group. Israel, while officially a secular state, pushes the fact that it is the homeland for the Jewish People. America, particularly under Trump, is now in the throws of claiming that it is the home of White People. So, one has to ask, can any particular group claim a country exclusively?

When it comes to ethnicity, most people would argue that the answer is a resounding no. I live in Singapore, which while officially multi-racial, is going through some angst because of a large shift in demographics from other parts of Asia, particularly China and India. Singaporeans of Chinese and Indian decent are finding common ground against their kin from China and India. While people do look at the colour of each other’s skin, other cultural factors will end up having a stronger hold on relationships. Labels of “colour” are essentially surface level difference. Apartheid South Africa was portrayed as a White-vs-Black society. In truth it was English-vs-Boers-vs-Zulus-vs-Xhosas and so on and the nation had the good fortune of having a unifying figure in the form of Nelson Mandela and while South Africa hasn’t been the success story the world hopped it would be, it’s managed to move away from state sponsored racism (even if it was a little less successful at avoiding State Capture.)

Religion, however, is a different matter. While most people can accept that God loves all of humanity, they have a little more difficulty in accepting the fact that not everybody loves God in the same way. Conflicts of religion aren’t limited to conflicts between religions but within religions. I grew up in the United Kingdom at a time when Protestants and Catholics could not live together (the Belfast version of Why did the chicken cross the road joke, being – because it was stupid.) The inability to get along isn’t limited to Christians. The Middle East is filled with conflicts between Shias and Sunnis. Whenever you listen to religious fundamentalist talk about how they have the exclusive on God (and I even know someone who thinks he’s God), you end up feeling sorry for God as all these clowns proceed to do all sorts of horrible things in his name.

Is this worth it? Well, the obvious answer is no. Countries that allow discrimination based on race or religion are usually the countries you don’t wan to spend your money in. While the “White” part of South Africa was relatively prosperous, the nation was a “pariah” state that nobody wanted anything to do with and the inefficiencies that isolation caused were visible in things like rugby were clearly visible once isolation ended.

Another example of religion claiming a land is in Israel, which has thus far claimed to be the only secular democracy in the Middle East.  However, at the same time, there is an element that wants Israel to publicly announce that it is a “Jewish” State or the “Homeland” of the world’s Jews. While the majority of people in Israel are Jewish, there are significant number of Israeli-Arabs, who happen to be Muslim. The cynics argue that Israel can be either Jewish or Democratic.

As in the case of India, the case for a “Jewish” Israel are founded on demographics and a version of history. The BJP in India have argued that the original inhabitants of India were Hindu and Islam was only brought by an invading force, therefore India is rightfully Hindu. Israel and her Zionist supporters argue that the land was promised to the Jews – therefore Israel should be Jewish.

However, there are two key issues that pertain to the state of Israel. The most problematic question comes from the fact that there are Arabs with Israeli passports. Many of them do things that one would consider an essential part of being Israeli, like serving in the IDF. Are these Arab Citizens “less Israeli” than say the Orthodox Jews who do not serve in the IDF or work in secular jobs, but happen to be Jewish? The other issue is, if Israel is a “Jewish” state above all things – what defines Jewishness. Israel does face issues between its Orthodox Community and its secular community.

I don’t believe any state should attempt to belong to any particular community, particularly in this day and age where nationality transcends ethnicity and religion. Problems always arise when one community claims dominance to the seat of power. The State should in most cases be a neutral referee of last resort in cases where communities collide. India, as an example faces unrest as the government moves from being a secular force to a “Hindu” force. Church and State should be kept separate wherever possible.

Curiosity Helped the Cat

A New Year and a New Decade has started and the most significant moment of the first working day of this new decade came from the online or in Singapore speak – the “Naughty” media, which found that Singaporeans ranked as one of the most ignorant people on the planet. The news story can be found at:

https://goodyfeed.com/sporeans-ranked-one-ignorant-people-world/?fbclid=IwAR3_IRFx2vy_77dQZKrWNXJHXnWaNzYBz4NudG8xG5clOcADuPdBAWMkEy4

The point of this whole story was the fact that it found that Singaporeans were generally ignorant about their own country. One of the examples given was the fact that the average Joe on the street did not know the difference between a Prime Minister and a President. Lee Kuan Yew as the say, was our first Prime Minister, not our first President.

While it may upset a few people, I’m inclined to agree. One of the most shocking areas that my fellow citizens lack in, is in basic geography. I’ve had Saudi’s tell me that they were asked “Which of Dubai do you come from,” (Saudi Arabia being many times bigger than Dubai) and the most infamous one was the fact that most Singaporeans think that Sikhs come from Bengal (there’s a very large distance between Bengal and Punjab). One of the more recent ones I encountered was someone who said, “Aren’t Hong Kong and Macau the same,” (No they’re not – at the very least you should know that Hong Kong was the British Colony and Macau the Portuguese one.) I’ve heard one Singaporean tell off an Indian worker for not understanding Tamil because, well all Indians Tamil (fact – the official language of India being Hindi).

What should be particularly shocking about this level of ignorance is the fact that we are an “educated” society. Singapore proudly announces to the rest of the world that we’re a “highly educated” society and when we talk about being “educated” we’re not talking about people having basic literacy as is the case in most of Asia. When Singapore talks about being “Educated” we are talking high-level, cutting edge educated. In Singapore, we’re talking about making “education” an export industry – “Singapore Math’s” – our text books are admired throughout the world. Whatever you think of our Prime Minister, he is regarded as a “mathematical prodigy” by Cambridge University. When it comes to education and getting the people educated, Singapore stands out as a shining example.

So, how is it that we’ve produced a nation of highly educated people who are highly ignorant, especially about the little things in their own backyard All the examples I’ve provided a moment ago, came from people who graduated from respectable universities and in some cases had furthered their studies with professional qualifications. I think of my ex-wife, whom my mother delightfully reminds me, couldn’t answer a single question in a game of Trivia Pursuit and she’s a graduate (University of London External Degree).

I guess you could say that the problem in our system is not that we don’t teach the technical skills in life but we fail to instill the purpose the spirit of learning. When I went to university in London, we were told that getting your PhD was all about realizing how much did NOT know and wanting to devote your life to knowing more about a particular subject. Here, for most people, it’s a case of earning bragging rights that you have this and that qualification from this or that university. Our system produces very good technical people. If you put our people in any workshop or any office, they’ll do an amazing job.

However, if you put them in a situation that requires a bit of imagination or a bit of awareness of what’s going on outside their own narrow field, they will probably fail. Like it or not, there is a reason why all of our top politicians and civil servants are….educated elsewhere.

To be fair to our people, the system is designed for them not to need to know so much about how the world beyond their little area functions. As long as you can acquire enough skills within a certain area, you can end up doing quite well. The point was brought home to me when a young trainee lawyer (Oxford graduate non the less) told a former journalist he was having lunch with, “I don’t see what is Dr. Goh’s (Goh Keng Swee, our former Deputy Prime Minister and the man who built our institutions) life story has anything to do with me.” Apparently that young lawyer is now doing very well financially.

There is, as they say, no need to be curious. I remember facilitating a lecture by a Bloomberg Columnist for a class of journalism students. The columnist made the point that all you needed to succeed as a columnist was a bit of curiosity and Google. He made the point that thanks to the internet, we have more information available at our finger tips than our ancestors had in numerous libraries and all we had to do was to find it. His only comment on his students was “Curiously uncurious.” You would expect aspiring journalist to be busybodies – well, that is unless you’re talking about Singapore.

The problem with Singapore’s system is that its been successful. The young trainee lawyer that I mentioned is now making more money than he’s ever dreamed of. The young journalists are all probably doing well too. Not giving two hoots about what happens outside your own little hole hasn’t harmed people.

However, things are changing. The days when we could be a cheap manufacturing centre for the Western world are gone. We need people who know how to operate outside their own little hole or at least are curious enough to want to try to operate outside their little caves. The consequences are being seen on the streets. The local population complains that its being displaced by people from elsewhere because the people from elsewhere have the capacity to want to know things beyond their little hovel. The future belongs to the intellectually curious and you secure it by making minds curious not by shutting them off from the outside world.  

It’s the End of Many Things

It’s the last day of the year and of the decade. Just before the clock strikes mid-night, many us will try to take stock, review the decade and ponder the possibilities for the next decade. I’m no different and this process becomes a bit more intense for me as at the age of 45, I’m at sort of cross roads of not being young and sprightly but not old enough to collect a pension.

I guess you could say that this was an interesting decade. I enjoyed two of my working life’s highlights with the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and Management (IIM) events in 2012 and 2013 respectively and then I moved into a regular job in the Insolvency Business where I ended up becoming a man holding down two jobs after spending a decade not being employable.

It was also a special decade in that I adopted a small girl. Thuy, or Jenny first came into my life when she was seven and returned when she was 13. While she didn’t cover herself in academic glory, it’s been my privilege to watch her grow into a very focused young lady. She’s started working with me in the Bistrot and then moved onto work at Ce La Vie in the Marina Bay Sands. My focus in life is pretty much trying to see if I can build something for her or at least to see that she can build something for herself.

This year followed on from the last when it came to travel. I went off to Bhutan with Mum and her side of the family. Bhutan is amazing – it is what you call life as it should be – peaceful and close to nature. The country got me to understand that I need to get back to a more spiritual way of life. While the country itself is amazingly beautiful, I found the philosophy of Gross National Happiness (“GNH”) to be an almost spiritual one. Bhutan has understood that development and prosperity involve more than money. Bhutan, for example, puts nature as one of the key components of happiness. I got to appreciate this when I returned to Singapore that was going through a bad dose of the haze.

The other trip was to Macau was the girl. It was first time in a long while where I was in a Cantonese speaking environment. It was also the first time in a long time that I got to eat the most amazing food – my kid who doesn’t go for hawker centre food in Singapore, gobbled up every morsel of beef brisket. Our first experiment in Daddy-Daughter travels was fun and I think it’s worth continuing.

This year was also significant in that I left the insolvency basis on a full-time mode. Although the job paid me fairly and I did get a few bonuses along the way, I realized that I had no passion for being behind a desk and losing the ability to see people beyond the letters of some legal script was not something I wanted in life.

I’m still doing things for my previous employer but working more on contract basis and while I collect less actual cash, I have more peace of mind, with more time to myself. I also got the managerial title that my CV so desperately needed.

I can speak with enough pride at my first stab of part-time employment. I recently took on my latest PR project, helping Tata Sons get publicity for the Tata Crucible, a quiz program designed to sharpen young minds. I enjoyed getting back to press work and getting to know the Tata Group – my last encounter with them being to shake hands with Mr. Russi Modi, the former Chairman of Tata Steel when I was 14.

As well as rekindling old friendships in the Expat Indian Community, I am building relationships with the Emeriti community in Singapore. I had the honor of being invited to the Embassy’s National Day function on 2 December 2019. Incidentally, this was the second National Day Function I attended – my first was the Vietnamese National Day Function on 2 September 2019. Huong, my better and ruthless half got the invite from a friend and saw to it that my family, namely my dad’s older and younger sister went along for a good selection of Vietnamese food (as an aside, the Kid cautioned me not to mention to the Emiratis that I had Vietnamese family, because Vietnam recently beat the UAE in a soccer match).

The final note for this decade is perhaps this very blog itself. I started out blogging without a plan. It was just a hobby and an act of wonton ranting. Today, I’ve managed to gain enough followers for other people to be willing to be published on it and while this is not a commercial operation, my advertising revenue is now counted in dollars rather than cents. Blogging may never feed me but at least I’ve managed to bring this blog to a better place. Of the few things I’m certain about in my next decade, it’s the hope that this blog grows into something that more of you can enjoy.

Its been a fairly stable decade for me. However, in order to fully enjoy the next forty odd years, I need to take a few leaps and do more away from my comfort zones. However, with good friends and the warmth of family, I believe that the future could be very beautiful.

What’s Wrong with Technology?

I’m not a “techy” type of guy and it took a while for me to onto certain social media sites. My 20-year old often despairs about my lack of willingness to spend time on the phone. To a certain extent, I do believe that we can get too dependent on technology and one of the highlights of this year was getting myself to a place where I literally shut down my social media contact and enjoyed peace and nature. If you think about it carefully, humanity has survived and thrived without all sorts of gadgets, so there’s no reason to assume to that certain things are essential to our daily lives.

Having said that, I find it very unusual when people take pride in not using technology when the technology clearly benefits them. This is particularly true when it comes to finding your bearings in a different place and let us not forget that I am the man who came bottom of his Company during my Section Leaders Course in basic navigation.

For someone like me, apps like Google Maps are a God-send. The app finds you and tells you where to go. Only a deaf and blind person (as far as I know, apps don’t work in braille) would not be able to find their way with the app. Yet and yet, there are people who insist on not using the available tools to get them out of their predicament.

My most recent foray overseas was to Macau with the kid. Our tour guide didn’t know where to go and insisted on asking for directions in a language that a good portion of the population chose not to speak (English). It reached a stage where I told the kid to use her GPS as her overseas roaming plan offered her cheap data options despite being overseas. Needless to say, we had to sack the tour guide.

Technology does make life easier. While I do believe that it is necessary to be able to live without it, we shouldn’t ignore it especially when it’s in the palm of our hands and enables us to cut through the chase. In a time-starved world, shouldn’t we value the things that save us time?

I once went out with someone who got lost. We were going around in circles until I turned on Google Maps and proceeded to follow instructions. Didn’t please my travel companion but we got to the intended destination.

We have the tools to make life simpler. We should use them.  

The Place Where the Crusades did Not Happen.

Earlier this month, I bashed out a piece on the “Year of Tolerance” that was being promoted by the Federal Government of the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). The piece, which can be found at http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2019/12/in-praise-of-tolerance.html, argued that the UAE, had realized that in order to prosper in the post-hydrocarbon age, it would have to be open to the world and that would require tolerance. Hence, this collection of absolute monarchies took the brave step of promoting tolerance in a region not known for tolerance and just when tolerance was going out of fashion in the Western Democracies.

There were the big showcase events to show that the UAE had gotten “tolerance.” The year started with the UAE becoming the first nation in the Arabian Gulf to host a Papal visit. The main players of the UAE political scene took their chances to ensure that they were photographed with the Pontiff.

While the high and mighty of the UAE had their photo opportunities with the Pope, the question does remain – is there more to the UAE’s promotion of tolerance beyond the photo opportunities. The UAE is located in a part of the world which is not known for tolerance. Neighboring Saudi Arabia (which is one of the UAE’s closer allies in the region) for example, only just allowed women to get behind the wheel of a car and allowing cinemas became a sign of major progress. Across the Gulf, you have Iran, the world’s most famous theocracy, where a priesthood dominates society. How different can the UAE be?  

The answer is – very much so. Dubai is famous of the emirates is famous for being very open about many things. While the other Emirates are more conservative, they are also opening up. What was most interesting for me was to click onto the website for Gulf News (Duabi’s National Daily), which had a section dedicated to the photos of Christians celebrating Christmas at Churches in Dubai and Sharjah. Dubai is known for openness – Sharjah is not. The fact that the article mentioned that there are “Christian Communities throughout the UAE,” indicates that the UAE is more open to “other” religions that their geographical location might suggests. The Christmas pictures from Gulf News can be found at:

https://gulfnews.com/photos/news/in-photos-christmas-eve-mass-in-dubai-and-sharjah-1.1577206392077?slide=1

While the systems both Saudi Arabia and Iran might suggest that Islam is somehow the antithesis to having a tolerant society, the truth is less so. Mohammed, Islam’s prophet did not see himself as being the ONLY prophet of God. In fact, Islam recognizes the prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus is regarded as one of the main prophets. Mohammed did accord Jews and Christians privileges and protections in lands that he ran.

When the Crusaders marched towards what we call the Middle East, they found that it was the Islamic world that had tolerance for others and it had innovation and economic prosperity. Its only in modern times that the roles have reversed.

Nobody doubts that there will stumbles along the way but if history is any guide, the UAE’s efforts to promote tolerance and openness are correct. Islamic Societies lead the world in modernity back in the 14^th Century when they were beacons of tolerance. It’s worth celebrating the fact that the Arab World is looking back to its history and trying to learn the right lessons and if the Arabs can look back and understand that they were most prosperous when they had tolerance, the Western Democracies would do well to understand that they prospered because they have tolerance.

Stille Nacht

Christmas has come early – especially to people with more than one brain cell and a molecule in their hearts. Donald Trump, America’s favourite news-hog became the third president in history to be impeached.

While the odds of him being removed in office are unlikely (no Republican has indicated they’ll abandon ship) and his election victory looks likely, it’s good to see America’s system of checks and balances finally doing what they’re supposed to be doing – keeping a check on each other.

I’ll never get tired of saying it but my loathing for Donald Trump has nothing to do with being left wing or right wing, nor does his personal life really trouble me (a man who is on his second marriage should not cast judgment on a man on his third). I loath the fact that Donald Trump came into power by invoking the worst in people and has governed accordingly. I grew up believing that there were limits to certain things and the Nazi’s and the Ku Klux Klan were as bad as it got. I grew up in a world where the Americans saved the world from the Nazis. So, to have an American President fail so miserably to even condemn either the Nazis or the KKK goes against everything that I was brought up to believe.

While the man has been wonderful fodder for late night comedians (if comedy was the sole criterion in judging a presidency, I’d do everything possible to see that he gets elected in perpetuity), he’s tried to run an otherwise decent superpower like a thug. If Bill Clinton could get impeached (four charges) for “misleading” people about a blow job from a young girl – surely Donald Trump should be impeached for trying to strong arm a leader of a vulnerable US ally into investigating a political rival (two charges). The fact that he’s not denied it (remember, after the Ukraine, he asked the Chinese to investigate Bidden) should make this an open and shut case to any sensible human being. After all, the US constitution is pretty clear – the President should be removed for “Treason, high crimes and Misdemeanors.” If you can argue that “Misleading” people under oath about a blow job is breaking the law but can’t see that asking a foreign power to investigate your fellow countrymen (even if you don’t particularly like them) is treason, I’d suggest that rationality has escaped you.

The sweetness of his impeachment was further strengthened by the fact that “The Christian Post,” an evangelical publication actually called for his removal from office. The evangelical community, which has been a strong supporter of Trump for his appointment of “conservative” jurist and “anti-abortion” legislation looked like it was suddenly discovering what was like to be Christian. One of the articles from the Christian Post can be seen at:

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/convict-trump-the-constitution-is-more-important-than-abortion.html

Another article from the “The Gospel Herald” can be found at:

https://www.gospelherald.com/articles/62611/20160301/the-christian-post-editorial-donald-trump-is-scam-evangelical-voters-should-back-away.htm?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlJCAxv7K5gIVmQVyCh2-zg_KEAAYASAAEgLaUfD_BwE

Reading these articles in these publications gives me hope that Christ, whom I argued was “God from the Gutter”, and stood by the poor andoppressed were finally discovering Christ and what he stood for.

Donald Trump, who is as elite as it gets and who has governed to enrichen the elite (tax cuts) and crushed the poor and downtrodden (who gives a shit about Brown kids at the border) has successfully conned the Evangelical Community (or the Evangelical Community has not actually been Christian) into believing he promotes Christian values. It was refreshing to see some Evangelicals starting to recognize that their so-called champion was as unchristian as it gets.

I have written on many occasions of the “Silent Night” incident during the First World War, when British and German soldiers stopped shooting each other across the trenches, crossed the lines and celebrated Christmas, before resuming the killing the next day.

If Christmas had the power to unite people in the most horrible of circumstances all those years ago, surely its time for us to ignore our differences and focus on our unity. Let us cast out the demagogues and at least pretend we care about goodwill to all mankind for a better world

God from the Gutter

In a few days, we will be celebrating, Christmas, the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth, who is the historic founder of Christianity. Of all the festivals in the world, Christmas has long since outgrown its religious origins and is perhaps the most universal of all festivals, celebrated throughout the world. One of my greatest Facebook postings is that of Buddhist monks wearing Santa hats in celebration of the festival.
I don’t really celebrate Christmas, unless I’m in Germany with my mother. However, that does not mean that I don’t appreciate its significance – which is the fact that we’re celebrating the birth of God from the Gutter.

Jesus was perhaps the first “God” in human history, who came from the gutter. Although we’ve attributed glory to him for the last two thousand years, his entire life story, was about suffering and misery. We are, as they say, talking about a man who was born with the animals in the stable.

Anyone who has ever read the Gospels, will see very see very clearly that Jesus stood with the poor and the downtrodden. He’s interest was never in one’s material possessions he made it clear that the only way to follow him was pick up the cross (crucifixion being an exceedingly painful way of death). Unlike Buddha, who was a prince and Mohammad who was a businessman, there is no record of Jesus enjoying any luxury nor did he engage in anything that might give him any form of profit. God, as Jesus taught us, lived in the gutter with the downtrodden.

It’s worth remembering that Jesus was God from the gutter, especially in this day and age where the poor and downtrodden have shown themselves willing to throw “political Molotov cocktails” at the system. Donald Trump, who brags about how rich he is, was brought to power by a group that felt disenfranchised and downtrodden.

The downtrodden have always been with us. In many cases, there are people amongst the poor and needy who actually deserve to be where they are. I think of my so called “poor” friends who have begged me for a few dollars to take the bus to work because they’ve spent what they had on smokes and drink. There are people who would bitch and moan about how unfair life is and get drunk over it but they are not willing to take a simply job because it’s beneath them.

Yet, having said that, Jesus did have a point. Those of us who have “made it,” were blessed in more ways that we realise. I, for example, am not rich or even well to do by any means, but I’ve been really blessed. I’ve never gone hungry or have I been truly homeless. While I’ve never had a big salary, I’ve had the good fortune of having done interesting things. I live in a place where there’s basic law and order and safety. These things may seem small but they actually make a lot of difference to one’s life and you are, as they say, lucky you were born where you were born.

These blessings had to come from somewhere and I’ve found that you get back when you look after the downtrodden. I remember giving five bucks to an old man who was hungry and helpless. Turned out, it was a very good investment. That very evening, I got a night gig and previous clients started to entertain me again. If there is a God out there, he finds a way of paying back those who show mercy and compassion to the less fortunate

Jesus was a God from the Gutter. He taught us that divine glory was often found in the worst of places. This man, who wasn’t even able to be born with humans, ended up giving glory to millions. He was right – God is with those from the Gutter.

Good friends

By Miss Vee

Everyone, the center, always has lots of relationships around. There are people, fleeting relationships, but there are also people or relationships attached to us that follow us throughout our lives. Friendship is such a relationship.

In my life, everyone has at least a few friends. Friendship does not come from one person, it is sharing, understanding, understanding about each other. A beautiful friendship must stem from sincerity, innocence, carefree and trust. These may seem simple, but they are the deciding condition to start a beautiful friendship.

People are always afraid of loneliness, always want reliable people to be able to share and talk but also have to be alert and alert to those who want to touch their emotions. Well, it's bad if a friend sees you, listens to what they have to share, and then turns your joke into a joke. Friendship cannot be maintained without being pure, purposeful, or advantageous to one another. We can't call someone friend, we have to be alert to them.

Having two different people becoming friends with each other requires a lot of understanding. Because each person will have a different personality, although there may be similarities, the difference will still be huge. Understanding each other is not easy, it takes time to cultivate, there are difficulties to challenge and mature. Need to share, sympathize and help each other between two friends to make them understand each other better.

It is peaceful to have difficulties and there is always someone willing to help or when there is a silent person to listen and listen. It's also fun having the confidence to share simple things with us. And it's warm when someone always remembers our little habits so that when we go, they will care and be reminded again. If you find such a friend, you will feel happy and contented because you will not have to worry or face loneliness or fear before a boring life.

Friendship is a sacred and noble gift that we need to cherish. It has friendship to make our lives really meaningful. friendships, a spiritual pill that helps us stay strong in life or when we are having difficulties, please respect what you have and have.

The Words We Use

PN Balji, my former boss at BANG PR and the founding editor of Singapore’s Today Newspaper, used to advise me to “look at the choice of words.” His advice was based on the simple premise that you could tell a lot about a person’s intention and mentality by the words they used in their communication. He argued that any semi-educated person with a normal vocabulary would be able to express themselves in a reasonable manner unless they chose not to.

This topic always came up when it came to dealing with a client of ours that used to be owned by a monopoly. Their quarterly media and analyst briefings were inevitably about “educating” the media and the analyst community. Balji would consistently tell us – “Educate” means “Me, teacher – you student.” My mother, would add the cynical line of “Me, right – you, wrong.

”

I have unfortunately come across more examples of the “choice of words.” Most recently, I tried and failed to explain to a colleague that the use of “Your Country,” was not the best way to talk to her junior, who happened to come from the Sub-continent. Perhaps it’s a sign that I’ve been out for the PR game for a while, but it was virtually impossible for me to get the message across that “Your Country,” was in fact offensive.

English isn’t the only language where people make unfortunate choices in the words they used. About a decade ago, the North African community in Paris blew up and rioted. When asked why, they’re reply was they were tiered of being addressed as “tu” or the informal French for you, a form which you use when addressing your junior.

The best part about observing the “choice of words,” is the fact that many people don’t realise the implications of the words they use. I remember my colleague who used the phrase “Your Country.” Her argument was simple – there is the country you are from and the country I am from. I suppose this is a reasonable argument made by someone who is from the ethnic majority.

However, it’s a different story when your part of the ethnic minority. I remember helping out an old lady when I was living in Petersfield. When she thanked me, she said, “I had lovely holidays in your country.” She meant well and I didn’t notice it but a friend of mine, who is half Nepalese said, “Gosh – that’s racist – how does she know what “Your Country is?”

I didn’t take offense. I may have lived in England for many years but I’m not an Englishman and I can accept that people assume that I am from another country. However, to my friend who is born and bread in England but looks different (he’s part Nepalese), being told about “your country” is offensive. His country is England and why should anyone else think so.

The words we use reveal a lot about us and the way we view our context. When you talk about “educating” people, you automatically assume yourself to be in the position of the teacher. When you talk about “Your Country,” you put yourself in an us versus them. One should always be mindful of the words that one chooses.

In Praise of Tolerance

About a month ago, I had the honour of meeting the ambassador to the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) at function held at a law firm. The ambassador was on a mission to “sell” the UAE as an investment destination and as part of his presentation, he reminded the audience that this is the “Year of Tolerance” for the UAE.

I highlight this because “tolerance,” particularly when it comes those who are different from us, has been going out of fashion around the world. This is particularly true in parts of the world that used to pride themselves for having an abundance of tolerance. The Americans voted for Trump, the British voted for Brexit and here in Singapore, we’ve seen a growing intolerance against people from elsewhere, specifically proverbial darky professionals from other parts of Asia.

So, in this spirit, it’s very refreshing to have a country, based in a part of the world that is not known for having tolerance to be celebrating tolerance. The “Year of Tolerance” started off in February 2019 when the UAE became the first country in the Arabian Gulf to hosts a Papal Visit. Interestingly enough, in the preceding year, the UAE celebrated the “Year of Zayed,” which was the centenary of the founding President, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan, who was known among his people as an exceedingly generous spirit.

While one might inevitably question whether the “Year of Tolerance” is anything more than a PR exercise, I find it refurnishing that a country based in a region that is not known for its tolerance, is actually going out of its way to celebrate tolerance, particularly in an era where the countries famous for tolerance are rebelling against being tolerant.

Why is the UAE going against the trend against tolerance? If you take the position that all governments act in their self-interest, you could argue that the UAE’s government has understood that its self-interest lies in being tolerant and open to the world. The key players in the UAE’s political structure, namely the Sheikh’s of Abu Dhabi and Duabi (the two key Emirates) have understood that they need to prepare their nations for the post-hydrocarbon world and the only way to do so is to be open to the world and in turn, the world will only deal with tolerant societies.

The UAE has some advantages in this respect. Within the Federal Structure of the UAE, there is Dubai, the second largest and second most prosperous of the Emirates. In a region where the economy is dominated by hydrocarbons, Dubai has prospered without much by way of hydrocarbon resources. Dubai is in trade terms “wide-open for business,” and is able to be an example of what happens when you are open to the outside world and have tolerance.

The second advantage that the UAE’s Federal Structure provides, is a certain amount of experimentation for policies and Emirati citizens have the right to live in the places that suite their nature. If you want plenty of hustle and bustle, there is Dubai. If you prefer somewhere less “brash,” there is Abu Dhabi. If you want to live in a place with mountains, there is Ras Al Khaimah. There is a variety of cultures within the borders of the UAE and people have the choice of living in a place that allows them that suites their nature.

How does this help “tolerance?” If you work on the principle that our values are personal and what we will or will not tolerate is different. If you want tolerance and you want people to have tolerance, you cannot force it upon people. You have to allow people some sort of comfort. In this respect, larger countries have a certain advantage in that they have space to accommodate different preference. People can develop at the pace that’s comfortable for them.

The UAE’s economy remains dominated by the hydrocarbon sector. However, it has also become the most successful economy in the region to diversify its economy without traumatizing its more conservative citizens. While the international media primarily focuses of Abu Dhabi and Dubai, the other Emirates have also managed to grow in this environment. In short, the rulers of the UAE have understood that tolerance is beneficial for society.

The UAE is right to celebrate tolerance and to grow it. While the UAE is by no means a perfect society, it has hit the nail on the head in its celebration of “The Year of Tolerance.” This is something that America under Trump would do well to remember. The parts of America that leads the world, namely on the West and East coast, have been able to be world leaders because they have tolerance and are open to the world.

A Singapore Terrorist or a Singapore Patriot?

One of my favourite internet friends, Mr. Gilbert Goh was called into questioning by the police recently. The reason was simple, Mr. Goh made the unfortunate mistake of allowing a “foreigner” (defined as not a citizen or permanent resident) to speak at a protest against “CECA,” a treaty which many Singaporeans feel puts them at a disadvantage when competing for jobs with professionals from India. Details of the story can be found at:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/police-gilbert-goh-ceca-rally-hong-lim-ramesh-foreigner-12161404

I first met Gilbert back in 2012 at the launch of Publichouse.sg, a website that I worked for. While we’ve not met in person since then, we’ve followed each other’s posts. What I find particularly interesting is the fact that Gilbert had a fairly high-flying career in sales and when his career took a nosedive, he then switched and started helping those who had “lost” jobs and careers.

I don’t agree with all of all of his positions. I avoid viewing foreigners as a problem or blaming “too many” foreigners as a cause of social ills. I spent the better part of my life as a “foreigner” in someone else’s land and many of the opportunities I’ve had have inevitably come from someone from somewhere else. So, I don’t support things like the “Anti-CECA” movement that Gilbert champions. 

The problem for me is not the number of Indians or other people coming here – it’s the fact that our system has not trained people to find opportunities even in the bleakest of situations.

Having said what I’ve just said, I think Gilbert Goh is a good man, who is devoting his life to making life a little bit better for the less fortunate. He doesn’t limit his activities to Singapore. The man actually travels to Syrian refugee camps and does his part to make life better for the displaced. While I talk about things through my writing, Gilbert is actually on the ground trying to make things better.

Needless to say, this annoys the powers that be. My favourite Young Pork Guzzling Muslim Politician once said, “What is he trying to prove? The government is there to take care of the people and he’s just being a nuisance.” If you want to spoil the day of anyone overtly pro-establishment in Singapore, just mention Gilbert’s name and talk about the good things that he’s doing.

Personally, I don’t understand why this man frightens the powers that be. He is essentially a “social-entrepreneur,” whom instead of creating a profitable business, he’s creating alternative venues for social help. Take his most recent cause of raising funds for students whose parents could not pay school fees and thus their kids were not issued the original copy of their exam certificates. Sure, it didn’t make the Ministry of Education look good (a case of whatever they say, they’ll look heartless) but he did help put money into the system and helped the less fortunate get to the next stage of life.

Gilbert Goh is, as they say, a good man trying his best to make the world around him a better place. Some of his tactics may not be refined but his heart is in the right place and he is trying to help make life a little miserable for the downtrodden. Rather than trying to suppress him, the powers that be might well do to find ways of working with him and people like him.

It’s Not My Fault You’re Funny

You have to hand it to Donald Trump for having the innate ability to be funny. He is without doubt the best President ever for anyone in the media, particularly those in the business of satire. Comedians have been given enough material to last a lifetime. He is like one of those magic pens that writes the script as he goes along. One event from the Trump White House produces fresh material for every comedian in America and beyond.

You have to remember; this is the man who won an election on the premise that he was going to stop the world from laughing at the USA. He told the ordinary American that he was going to ‘drain the swamp’ and that he would stop the world from trying to take advantage of America. The world that was laughing at America would stop laughing once he came to power.

The American voters loved it. Unfortunately, they forgot that there are certain things in life which should not be said out loud, unless you need to cover for something. I think of men who talk about their size as an example. Do you really need to tell anyone how well you’re built down there? Or, I think of restaurants that call themselves “delicious.” Why do you have to use such descriptions – unless ………

Somehow, the American voter in 2016 failed to understand that concept of not having to say something unless you were compensating. Here was a man who had to call himself a “stable genius” (with no record to show he was) and “very rich” (while at the same time refusing to release his tax returns). So, what made the voters think that he would stop the world laughing when he announced that he would?

Trump is funny and he doesn’t realise it, which is a shame. The most prominent instance could be found at the latest NATO Summit in the United Kingdom when a group of world leaders (The British and Canadian Prime Ministers, the French President and what appears to be the Princes Royal) were huddled in a group making fun of the Donald. The Canadian Prime Minister was particularly audible in his comments of Donald Trump holding a “40-minute” press conference. The clip can be seen at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hne29xkUPbg

As predicted, a being with the fabulous ability to come up with nicknames for other people (think of “Crooked Hillary” and “Shifty Shiff” as prominent examples) couldn’t handle it when he was on the receiving end, and fled back to Washington DC, but not before taking the time out to call Canada’s Prime Minister, “Two-Faced,:” at a press meeting.

One would expect the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, or “the most powerful man in the world,” to be above most things. It’s like this – who cares what people say about you when entire countries come knocking at your door.

Unfortunately, Americans don’t quite understand that they are the strongest nation on the planet. While other countries, particularly China, India and Russia have grown in power and stature, America remains by far and away the leading economic and military power (US military spending is greater than the next 26 nations, of which 25 are allies).

So, how did America get so blind to this and voted for a man who talks so much about projecting strength that they couldn’t see the obvious weakness in the man. When the world’s most powerful military runs out of Syria, which has people armed with pea-shooters to send their troops to the Mexican border to fight an invasion of poor and unarmed people, you know something is wrong.

America is a great nation, and in many ways, the greatest in history. It’s achieved this strength by basing its national foundation on individual liberty and happiness. America succeeds because it allows people from all over the world to come into America to succeed. A strong Germany and Japan did not subtract from America but added to it and the same will be true of a strong China and India.

It’s such a shame that America chose to be elected by a man so weak that he’s doing everything to trash the things that make America so great. This is actually quite sad but at least the comedians have helped us laugh out what should be an obvious tragedy.  

Why do we need to Protect the Powerful?

I’ve just read a letter in the Straits Times forum that argued against the concept of tagging fines against a person’s salary. The main thrust of the writer’s argument was the fact that the rule of law should be the same regardless of the offender’s social economic background.

The article can be read at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/no-double-standards-mentality-have-same-penalty-for-same-offence

While I can sympathize with the writer in as much as I do believe that the “rule of law,” should be applied no matter the offender’s background, I do find it rather perplexing that calls to ensure the “rule of law” is fairly distributed inevitably comes whenever it involves giving the well to do less or making the well to do pay more. This particular letter wasn’t the only instance of this. I remember when there was a discussion on “means testing” government benefits. There was an almighty hue and cry over how means testing was unfair to the middle class.

As far as I know, Singapore must be the only country where people are worried about how unfair life is against the well to do. In just about every other country I’ve lived in (mainly well to do European ones), the idea of social welfare or government goodies is understood to be something that the less well-off receive because they are – well, the less-well off (polite term for poor).

Perhaps its just me but I’m with Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world. Mr. Buffet observed that although he paid a greater amount in taxes than his secretary, what she paid in taxes took more out of her salary that what his taxes were out of his. Mr. Buffet went onto argue that the rich and powerful like himself were the last people who needed protection from the government. I think this is something that our well to do need to understand.

I’m not against rich people or against people getting rich. Life is intrinsically unfair and there is in many cases a good reason why some people thrive and some people remain stuck. My “rich” friends are actually pretty hard working and relatively clever with money. My “basket case” friends are the type that seem more interested in self-indulgence than in feeding themselves. They’re the type that would rather spend their last dollar on a pack of smokes than on the bus fare they need to get to the job that could finance their own smokes.

So, I’m not for governments that like talk about “soaking” the rich as if the rich were a disease. Rich people, as the British discovered in the 70s, have a way of being able to move around and when you go after the rich or the people who want to get rich, they end moving elsewhere and the value and energy they bring to the table goes with them. For all of Mrs. Thatcher’s faults, she actually rescued the UK from the failed policies of the Labour Government’s of the 70s who made it their mission to tax the rich out of existence, thus causing anyone with more than a penny or anyone who thought he or she was worth more than a penny to pack their bags and leave.

Nor am I suggesting that society make it obligatory for people to support the less well off. The doll or the concept of “free money” robs people of the will to make something of their lives. I remember mentioning that I found it difficult to “look after myself,” and I was told by one of my best friends, “Why do you need to look after yourself when there are other people dying to take care of you.” Governments exist to provide certain services and to set and enforce certain rules. They should not be about doing for people what the people should do for themselves.

Having said all of that, there are times when a society needs to redistribute the goodies to keep the system healthy. There are people who need a helping hand and leg up to get out of a hole, which may not necessarily be of their own fault. There are also times when sanctions need to be meaningful.

Shouldn’t social well fare payments go to those who really need them rather than to people who don’t need them? Prudent financial stewardship has done Singapore well and having money in the bank allows governments to help those who need help without punishing the rest of us. There is no reason why the government should end up giving money to those who are capable of earning their own crust.

Then there’s the concept of fines. We fine people in society because they have committed certain transgressions. The fine should be a means of teaching the offender not to commit the offence again.

Setting a fine at a certain level in an absolute amount affects people in different ways. Take the example of traffic offences. The objective of say fining people for not obeying traffic lights is to teach them to obey traffic lights. It may sound fair if you charge a construction worker earning the princely sum of say $1,000 a month the same $100 that you would charge a Ferrari driver (Ferrari in Singapore is about S$500,000 and that excludes the costs of maintaining the car). Yes, you’ve charged both the same amount of money but you’ve only ensured that the construction worker learns from it (10 percent of his income). The Ferrari owner won’t feel it (I remember dealing with an Indonesian Chines guy who kept going on about why he’d pay the liquidation fees of a failed venture – “Oh, its just a speeding ticket to me – a small sum that while inconvenient is something that has to be done). The purpose of the fine in this case is no longer about teaching people to make them better but to inconvenience them once in a while to extract a few dollars more.

In a strange way, you need some form of redistribution to ensure healthy competition in society. It makes common sense to ensure that in order to have equality under the rule of law, you may have to look beyond the letter and towards the spirit of the laws and apply unequal solutions to achieve equality of outcome.