The Importance of Unofficial Ties

 

One of my former juniors from my last PR agency job just had unpleasant evening at a restaurant that’s owned by a friend mind. He has come out to state that not only was the food and service at a sub-par level, the manager was insensitive to feedback that he provided.

Unfortunately for him, the manager in question is the wife of the owner. Sure, he’s the customer. He had taken to social media to complain and had gained support of a prominent former journalist but at the end of the day, the manager in question is the wife of the owner and between worrying about potential loss of business which might only be reflected in the end of year accounts and an unpleasant home life, the owner would choose the later.

Let’s face it, life is about organising relationships and interestingly that is never truer than in the business world. In business, how you are known is often a crucial part in getting or not getting the job. Like or not, logic and rational thinking about dollars and cents aren’t always the key factors in the creation of a business decision. Much as my friends in finance and law may beg to disagree, brand and communications consultants are as important to the business process because intangible things like chemistry between people can make or break a deal, even if that deal makes perfect sense from the financial and legal perspective.

So, when we look at people, particularly the people who have a say in how things can turn out for us, we need to look at them in their entirety. You have to understand how a person will react in a certain situation and what are the influences on that person that will push him or her to react in a certain way. One of the biggest influencers over a person’s decision making is the spouse.

Let’s take a look at American Presidential Elections. The wife (or husband in the case of Hillary Clinton) of every candidate gives a speech at their respective party conventions. They give media appearances and everyone listens. Now, here’s the thing – the “First Lady” is not actually a government post. Americans don’t vote for the “First Lady” – they vote for a President. However, the candidate for “First Lady” is placed under the same spot light as the candidate for President because the voting public wants to know who is the person that will have probably the most direct influence on the president.

Look at the parings. Ronald Regan was from Hollywood. His first wife became a bigger star than him and left him in the dust. His second wife, however, knew how to make him shine on the global stage. Both George Bush’s had women who knew how to look pretty without taking too much of the spotlight, thus helping boost credentials as conservatives.

On the other side, there was the “first” of First Ladies with professional careers in their own right. Bill Clinton famously asserted that he and Hillary were part of a package back in 1992. Upset a few people (he’s on the ticket not her) but ended up working well. Hillary, the policy wonk who prepares for everything supported Bill who embodies charisma. Eight years later, there were the Obamas, who were two intellectuals supporting each other.

Even Donald Trump’s choice of Melania helped. A section of the voting population liked the fact that this overweight seventy plus year-old man had “delicious arm-candy” and it helped him seem a wee bit more virile.

A spouse can be an asset or a liability. In the case of the Clinton’s, they worked well because their strengths complimented each other. However, Hillary was also a liability in her ability to get healthcare passed and her fingers were quite visible in the scandals that were brought up during the Clinton Presidency. In the case of the Trumps, there were those who respected Donald for having Melania draped on his arm but there were those who felt that her choice wardrobe was an expression of his attitude towards certain groups:

 

 Copyright – New York Post – did he feel what she was wearing?

While the example of American political spouses is the most visible example of the important role a spouse (or for want of a better term – unofficial influence) on a particular prominent figure. However, this isn’t limited to America. Here in Singapore, we have the example of Madam Kwa Geok Choo, or Mrs. Lee Kuan Yew.

Unlike the American First Ladies, the late Mrs. Lee stayed away from the limelight. Unlike her daughter-in-law, the late Mrs. Lee never took on a position with the government or any company related to the government. Yet, Mr. Lee would admit in his book that he relied on her judgement when dealing with world leaders and nobody doubts that she played a very a role in shaping much of what you see in Singapore. As my favourite Flesh Ball said from her perch in Geylang “The real boss of Singapore is Mrs. Lee. Mr. Lee controls us but Mrs. Lee controls Mr. Lee.”

 

 Singapore’s Boss watched over by his boss

Many prominent people will claim that they only get influenced by official influences. However, nobody actually believes that. My mother used to be obsessed by the first wife’s inability to groom herself properly. Her argument was simple – “No point getting you to care for your image if she doesn’t care about hers.” People were inevitably going to judge me through her. Unfortunately, parents proved to be wise in this matter. My biggest triumphs in PR came when the first wife ceased to be a wife.

However, while nobody doubts that a person will have unofficial influences, its usually best that those unofficial influences remain apart from the business that a person is running. America’s first ladies are not part of the American government. The lines are clear as to who is the president. Likewise, the first Mrs. Lee never held any official post. She was a sharp lawyer and mother, whom the Prime Minister talked to about his day when he went home.

Unless lines are clearly drawn, things can get complicated when family gets involved. Family politics becomes company or worse – country politics. When you hire a relative, are you hiring them because they are your relative or because they are the right person for the job? Can you disagree with a relative? My personal experience, the relative I worked for could. He made it clear during the interview – “I am not your uncle and it is unprofessional to call me uncle.” (Something I reminded him of when he asked why I called everyone else uncle except him). My personal case is unusual.   

It gets worse when wives and mistresses get involved. Then the business is no longer a business but a power play between wife and whatever mistresses are involved.

So, when dealing with a person, always understand that they don’t make decisions in a silo. However, also be on the look and see whether there are proper lines drawn between the unofficial influences and the person or organisation that you are dealing with.

Being Snooty about Speaking Mandarin isn’t a Sign of Superiority – It’s a Sign of Stupidity.

 

Last Wednesday (4 May 2022), I went to an event that was co-organised by the Belgium-LuxemburgChamber of Commerce, the Irish Chamber of Commerce and the Finnish Business Council. This was the first cross-chamber, live event since the pandemic and given that this took place in an environment with looser Covid restrictions.

This was an event that was aimed at European technology companies to be able to network in the Asian market and since was an event organised by three European Chambers of Commerce, they saw to it that the cheese was excellent.

Being at a networking event was great fun. However, what made this event particularly interesting was the fact that the major theme of the event was sustainability. The main sponsor of the event is a hydroponic farm and the major component in the goodie-bags was salad from the hydroponic farm. The beverage sponsor (probably key to the success of such events) is a company that makes beer and fruit-flavoured water out of bread and fruit peels.

 

 Visit https://www.crust-group.com/sg to find out more.

The second observation was the fact that there was a large contingent of Mainland Chinese and the two of the companies that didn’t happen to have a Mainland Chinese representative, were in fact from the People’s Republic and listed on Chinese Exchanges (ChinaTelecom and Beyondsoft).

These two observations do provide an optimistic glimpse into the way the world is heading. The focus on sustainability and looking after the environment has become ever more important as countries around the world feel the effects of environmental degradation. Contrary to what the Tucker Carlson wing of the Republican Party may tell you, there are plenty of anecdotal examples of environmental degradation screwing up life for people.

Here, in South East Asia, or specifically Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia there’s the annual haze, which sends our lung ailments to the roof as three countries get covered in a “smog-like haze” which is the result of burning tropical forest. Despite the obvious damage to people in three countries, nothing gets done because the palm oil industry is a major economic player.

Sure, we had a two-year break from the haze thanks to Covid and now that we’re celebrating the return of “normal,” we need to remember that the haze was part of “normal.” Luckily, South East Asian governments have stopped framing ecological concern as a Western luxury (you either have a good environment or a growing economy) and to its credit, the Singapore government has pushed for the development of “Green tech” and sustainable solutions (which was one of the themes of ideasinc 2020, an annual start-up contest sponsored by NTUitive, part of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore).

So, its good to see “home-grown” companies like Crust Group and Singrass work on solutions to extend the life of food and to grow food in the most space, energy and water efficient ways.

 

To find out more go to – www.singrass.sg

The Chief Development Officer of Singrass admitted that the business is currently surviving on government money. Food grown in hydroponic farms cannot compete on price with the food we import from Malaysia, which is grown on traditional farms.

However, this is one case where it’s justified for governments to subsidise industries in as much as you are helping new technologies that will feed people without killing the environment and in turn killing people.

 

 

 Doesn’t use much space – to find out more – www.singrass.sg

The second observation on the number of Chinese people at the function was also interesting, especially when you consider how Chinese from the People’s Republic are viewed in Singapore and Hong Kong. If you talk to enough people in Singapore and Hong Kong, you’ll find that they think that they’ve got one up on the Chinese.

Let’s face it, Singapore and to a similar extent, Hong Kong, get held up as an example of everything a modern city state should be. The two Chinese majority city-states are rich trading nations that seem to get along with everyone. Unlike the larger People’s Republic, nobody thinks of them as geopolitical competition. People in Singapore and Hong Kong speak English, the international business language and everyone thinks of them as being filled with relatively classy people – or at least not “vulgar” unlike today’s modern Mainland millionaires.

Unlike the other Asian Giant, India, China has not produced CEOs of large Western multinationals. Hence, despite the progress made by the People’s Republic in the last half century, you’re bound to find a few Westerners who sniff at the economic gains that have been made as being based on cheap manufacturing, theft of intellectual property and bullying multinationals. Furthermore, China is bound to be thought of as the bogeyman that gave us Covid.

This is not to say that there isn’t any truth to these accusations. People who have rushed into China have been burnt and even China’s home-made millionaires have faced problems dealing with China’s government. We also cannot deny that China is a regional bully in the South China Sea and does awful things to minorities like Tibetans and Uighurs.

Having said that, it would be wrong to write-off China as merely a land of cheap manufacturing. Whilst China has not produced Silicon Valley CEOs in the way that India has, it has produced “Unicorns” and in the technology sphere, the Chinese are producing firms in the futuristic competitive stuff like “Artificial Intelligence.” They are aware that geopolitical issues with the USA and Australia could problematic but they’re world view is not limited to what the Anglo-sphere dictates it should be. They realise that the UK is not the sum of Europe and have been happy to work with the likes of the Belgium’s and Germans. The company that comes to mind of an example of this is MarvelTreck Limited, which is offering connectivity solutions. The team behind this are Mainland Chinese, who worked for Deutsche Telekom (One of the Co-Founders being a former CEO of DeutscheTelekom’s Asia-Pacific operation and he had studied in the University of Cologne).

One of the advantages that China brings to the table is its huge manpower resources. However, the Chinese have moved beyond utilising their vast pool of manpower to work cheaper than anyone else. China is investing in things like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and companies like the Shenzhen listed BeyondSoft is developing software to change the way we work.

Sure, much of the innovative drive will still be focused around Silicon Valley. However, we cannot ignore the stuff coming out of China. A small, vulnerable nation like Singapore cannot afford to get involved in the “with us or against us” situation when it comes to technology suppliers. We also cannot afford to fall into the trap that people coming out of developed Asia are only hired because they are cheap.

When people talked about inferior Indian labour, I’ve always made the point that I can name at least two IIM graduates who have run multinationals (Ajay Banga of MasterCard and Indra Noyi of Pepsico) while I can’t name a Singaporean who has made it of a multinational. Something is similar with China. There’s the example of MarvelTreck, which was founded as part of Deutsche Telekom by Mainland Chinese and subsequently spun off. Has there been a similar story by Singaporeans?  

As with everything, I do understand that there are plenty of rough Chinamen in Singapore. I understand why the “China Girls” have a reputation for being “Gold Digging Whores.” However, you cannot ignore hungry people and if you don’t embrace and work with the smart and dynamic ones, you risk stagnating into a Colonial Slave Fantasy, which never really existed.

If Only Politicians Could Live as Prostitutes before Assuming Office

 

Spent the public holiday watching the Bollywood movie, “Gangubai Kathiawadi,” which is based on the story of Ganga Harjeevandas Kathiawadi who ruled the Mumbai red-light district in the 1950-60s. As I watched the story of this lady unfold, it occurred to me that one of the great tragedies is the fact that we cannot make politicians spend a day of their lives living as prostitutes before they run for office.

The life of this lady, as told by the Bollywood flick was fascinating. The woman had lived an inspirational life and studying her life should be compulsory for anyone seeking public office. The woman was no saint by any means. Let’s never forget that she built a fortune on the backs of young women in the flesh trade. However, by the time of her death, she had become a “revered” figure and there are statues of her parts of Mumbai. A more detailed account of the life of Gangubai can be found at:

https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/entertainment/gangubai-kathiawadi-know-all-about-the-real-gangubai/story

 

Copyright – News Bytes

Where did this woman come from and how did she become legend? Well, she was from a good middle class family (daughter of a barrister) and she ended up being sold into a brothel by the man she loved and trusted (How many of us have been let down by the people we thought we could trust the most?). She was raped and physically abused twice by a customer (the movie was shows a fairly graphic depiction of her injuries) and let’s never forget that this happened in 1950s India (an era and a country not known for being at the forefront of women, let alone prostitute, rights).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmq7pICNQWM

 

 She had a pretty face until someone wanted to have fun with her

One of the more prominent scenes from this section of the movie comes when she’s being abused and the madam of the brothel listens and counts the money (the “customer” is paying double). The other girls yell “You’re our madam – you’re supposed to protect us not just take our money.”

What you see is a woman who has been really f*** by life (how else to you define getting f*** than by being physically abused and having everyone else think its your fault because of the job you do)? However, instead of falling into despair, she fights back. She finds out who the guy is and goes to his boss for justice and gets it. She effectively becomes the new leader of the brothel she’s in and builds empire from there.

What makes her so successful is the fact that she’s seen to fight for “her people,” which in this case are the other prostitutes. One of her first acts as the new madam of the brothel is to get the girls to distribute the money that her late predecessor has lying around. This one of the classic rules of leadership – share the rewards. People will follow you and take care of their interest as long as you are taking care of theirs. Let’s remember that prostitution is a business that exhibits the worst exploitative traits in humanity (the one getting f** is not the one making the money). Let’s remember that in India’s red-light districts, it’s still not uncommon for girls to live in literal cages, while the madams and other pimps live very well:

 

Copyright – NGO Commission on Migration

So, the fact that the woman is willing to “share” the rewards with the ones doing the work, makes her revolutionary. She’s the one that everyone wants to work for. In the movie, it’s the other girls who insist that she becomes madam because “who else understands our plight.”

Sure, the woman lived well (was driven around) but its something that the other girls don’t begrudge her because she “takes care” of them. Whilst other brothels in the Kamathipura neighbourhood of Mumbai house their girls in literal cages, she houses hers in much nicer and more civilised conditions as can be found in the following report from outlook India:

https://www.outlookindia.com/culture-society/a-prostitute-recounts-her-first-encounter-with-gangu-bai-in-kamathipura-news-185230

Throughout the movie, she states that its not just about her. It’s about the 4,000 plus girls in the neighbourhood. She does things like find a husband for the daughters of one the girls working for her so that the daughter does not have to follow in her mother’s footsteps.

The best part of the movie comes towards the end when she’s got to deal with a convent school that’s petitioning to have her brothel shut down. Her argument is that they have no right to throw her people out onto the streets and she promptly gets the children of her girls enrolled into the school. She says to the principal of the school that “even children of prostitutes” have a right to be educated and then goes onto rightly point out that a child of a prostitute can grow up to be a doctor or a lawyer, which should be something that the principle should not have a complaint about. When the school kicks the kids out after beating them on the first day of enrolment, she sees to it that the event is publicised, thus making the convent school look bad.

While her story is captured in a book that calls her a “Mafia Queen” and there the fact that her rise is helped by befriending one of the “Mafia” leaders, one can say that she’s played a role in ensuring that India’s prostitutes have significantly more rights:

https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/the-dignity-of-sex-workers/cid/1834952

 

The secret of this woman’s success is that at every turn she is seen to be “protecting people,” especially the girls in the flesh-trade. She sacrifices her personal happiness by marrying off a girl to the man she loves so that he won’t have the stigma of being married to a prostitute and his bride will have a husband instead of having to work as a prostitute.

Sure, she built an empire of “immoral” earnings but she took care of the people under her. Unlike her Madam, she actually protected her girls and saw to it that they were “taken care” of. Whilst she was no saint in the conventional sense, she was revered by the people whom she pledged to take care of.

This is something that politicians all round the world need to remember. They are not there to collect money while the people get abused. They are supposed to fight for the people to ensure that the people don’t get exploited or abused. Nobody will begrudge a politician his or her salary as long as they can see that the politician is fighting for them.

Think about it, the world would be a much better place if political office holders understood what it is like to be abused and exploited and driven by the need to ensure that the people, they rule over never experience those abuses. The brothel madam of 1950s Mumbai should be an example that politicians around the world should try to emulate.

 

If You Believe that There is Class Nobody Gives a S**About – You Must be a S***

 

The hot news yesterday was the fact that the Court granted a stay of execution for Mr. Datchinamurthy Kataiah (“Datchi”), a Malaysian Tamil who was due to be hanged today (29 April 2022). What makes this case so newsworthy is the fact that Mr. Datchi was one of 13 inmates who had taken out a suite against the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) because it was found that the Prison Service had been copying letters between the prisoners and their then lawyer and forwarding them to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) in April 2020.

The hearing against the AGC was set for 20 May 2022. However, Mr. Datchi was informed on 21 April 2022 that he was going to be hanged on 29 April 2022. Mr. Datchi was forced to go to court without legal representation to get a stay of execution and despite having no representation, he managed to get the stay. The AGC filled for an immediate appeal against setting aside this execution, which was subsequently rejected by the Court of Three Judges. The story can be found at:

https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Headlines/court-grants-stay-of-execution-for-inmate-who-has-civil-case-pending-against-a-g

 

 As with all death penalty cases, this was a highly emotive affair. On one hand you have the activist against the death penalty. On the other, you have the crowd that sees “Western Liberalism” as the cause of all ills and every death sentence passed down is a victory for “Asian Values.” As was reported by the Independent Singapore reported, attitudes based on online comments seem to have hardened in favour of the death penalty. The report can be found at:

https://theindependent.sg/netizens-sg-authorities-double-down-on-defending-nagaenthrans-execution-for-drug-convictions/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0SJq8JkOjxcuoQa0DZ9xemobBirwj4xZ2O9FcV_e5UKIq-WN6HKCxI-_0#Echobox=1651146921

I’m going to leave the legalities and moralities of the death penalty to people who are wiser and far smarter than me. What I will focus on, is something that is more troubling – namely the way in which this case has been pursued because it shows us something very fundamental about the rule of law in Singapore, which is supposed to be one of the key selling points of Singapore.

Let’s start with the facts that nobody disputes. Mr. Datchi was caught with 44.96g of heroin in April 2015. So, as per the penal code he has to be hanged. However, he has the right to go through various avenues of appeal, which are more often than not unsuccessful but because we claim to value the rule of law and we don’t want to make mistakes, we have to allow for various avenues of appeal until everything is exhausted. As this involves the court, the process can run into several years.

Just as nobody disputes that Mr. Datchi was caught with the amount of heroin that mandates the death sentence, it is clear that sometime in April 2020, Mr. Datchi and several inmates made a complaint that their correspondences with their lawyer, were being copied by the Prison Service and forwarded to the AGC. It is not in doubt that the courts have ruled that the Prison Service has no right to copy correspondences and forward them onto the AGC without the prisoner’s consent. Mr. Datchi and his group have launched a civil action against the AGC.

Its clear that there are two separate issues here. One, is Mr. Datchi’s crime of having been caught with heroin and the other is violation of the basic rights that should have been accorded to Mr. Datchi and his group. These are two separate issues that need to be resolved separately. One could say both are equally important to society – one involves the “scourge of drugs” and the other involves “violation of legal process.”

I will stress that I am not a qualified lawyer and I would be interested in what a qualified legal professional might say. However, as one of those issues involves ending Mr. Datchi’s life, it comes across as common sense that the civil action against the AGC be resolved before Mr. Datchi’s execution.

So, given that this was what would be the logical way of dealing with the two separate affairs, how was it such that Mr. Datchi was informed on 21 April 2022 that he was to be executed on 29 April 2022, when the court system knew that he was involved in a civil proceeding against the AGC on 20 May 2022. Logic has it that the civil action set for 20 May 2022 would be highly compromised if one of the key players in that action was to be removed. Why would the AGC, with all the resources of the state at its disposal need to go through all of this to hobble the civil action that is be heard on 20 May 2022?

The impression that the AGC was trying to hobble the Civil Action of 20 May 2022 was further compounded by the urgency in which an appeal against the court ordering a stay of the execution was filed.

An account of the dialogue between the AGC and the three judges is recorded on the Facebook page of Mr. Too Xing Ji, an activist who was at court on 28 October 2022:

https://www.facebook.com/too.xing.ji

 

 

 

 

I will qualify that I don’t know Mr. Too personally. I came across his post via the Facebook page of a cousin. As such, I can’t verify the accuracy of his transcription. However, I notice that some of the people who have liked his post are qualified lawyers.

What I will say from my personal reading and understanding of this transcription, it appears that the very senior lawyer from the AGC got a dressing down from the two of the three judges. One of the most damning statements came from Justice Andrew Phang states “Due process is a very strange but necessary creature.” Why would a judge need to explain the importance of due process to a senior lawyer from the AGC?

Throughout the exchange, the judges kept telling the AGC that this was not a hypothetical situation and that it was important to see through the civil action. Justice Judith Prakash states “There is no suggestion the facts are made up. The letters were disclosed when they should not have been,” and Justice Phang told the AGC “This is not a hypothetical question that we sometimes pose in law school for learning, and you would know about that, because you went to law school, and it is a good learning exercise. Here we have a real life person, and you cannot ignore that. It might be slightly different if the consequences were not so dire, but given that they are so dire, frankly I am surprised that the AG is pursuing this appeal.”

Throughout this dialogue, it is clear that the judges believe that something has not gone right between the prison service and the AGC. One of the key moments comes when Justice Phang says ,“ This is not the vanilla sort of action. It stems from our unusual observations in Gobi about breach of prison procedure. And then this action is filed. And it is unlikely it will be filed everyday. In fact, I hope this action will not be filed everyday, because they involve very serious allegations about the prison and what has been going on.”

To the common man, the Justice is saying that something, somewhere has gone wrong. Due process, which is one of the things that underwrites the “rule of law,” which in turn one of the things that underwrites Singapore Society, has been violated somewhere along the line.

Just as its clear that Mr. Datchi got caught with the heroin, it should be clear that the due process of law was violated. While it is unlikely that the civil action will have an effect on the outcome of the criminal trial, the civil trial is likely to show that the state did on act in the most above-board of ways, when it came to the judicial process.

It’s a good sign that the judges stood by the rule of law and ruled without fear or favour. In order for the rule of law to be maintained you need to have judges who are willing to rule according to facts. Judges who don’t do what is expedient for the rich and more importantly, the powerful.

However, its sad to see the AGC rushing to have a man executed, particularly when the man looks like he can embarrass the government. The AGC is effectively the government’s lawyer. It should be a body that people see as playing an active role in ensuring that the law works for people regardless of who they are. It should not, as it appears to be in this case, being seen as a body that protects the interest of powerful people at the expense of the poor and unfortunate.   

Does Killing Poor People Make Us Less Poor?

 

We’ve finally done it. On the morning of 27 April 2022, Mr. Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam, a Malaysian Tamil who was caught with drugs in his possession was hanged after a decade in death row.

Mr. Dharmalingam’s fate was never in doubt. Despite the valiant efforts of his lawyer, Mr. M. Ravi and activist like Ms. Kirstin Han, the only thing that kept Mr. Dharmalingam alive from November 2021 onwards, was Covid-19. Despite international pressure and appeals from the likes of the United Nations Human Rights Office and Sir Richard Branson, countless postings on social media, letters to everyone outside of Singapore and numerous vigils, the Singapore Government was resolute and hanged Mr. Dharmalingam.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/04/singapore-urged-halt-two-imminent-executions

 

 The government, which normally enjoys basking in the praise of the international media, has had to take a few brick-bats like the following from the South China Morning Post:

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3175603/mentally-disabled-malaysian-nagaenthran-k-dharmalingam-due-hang

 

 This is nothing new when it comes to capital cases. Singapore proudly tells the world that it has a “zero-tolerance” policy when it comes to drugs and that is a policy that has made Singapore the nice, safe, green and clean metropolis that the world looks to with envy. This argument is best encapsulated by a Malaysian businessman I know who called us “Disneyland Under Martial Law.” We all want to live in Disneyland but we accept certain unsavoury things about the place because that’s how Disneyland manages to be Disneyland.

The government has milked this image for everything that it’s worth. For example, whenever, a Westerner ends up on the wrong end of our more draconian policies, there’s always a diplomatic row. The end result is that we end up popular with large segments in the West (people saying that their respective nations need to learn from the West) and the government does look like it is standing up to the Western world.

The activist can make a lot of noise but at the end of the day, the government always points to the fact that the death-penalty has plenty of support. The undisputed fact that Mr. Dharmalingam’s IQ is 69 (Below average) didn’t matter to our government. As far as they were concerned, Mr. Dharmalingam was an evil mastermind causing the downfall of Singapore by providing people with drugs. One only has to look at the Facebook page of former Nominated Member of Parliament, Mr. Calvin Cheng’s Facebook page to get a gist of the defence of hanging Mr. Dharmalingam:

 

 

There is, however, one question that needs to be asked. Are we, as a society, so eager to “uphold” the law that we end up breaking it? Are we really combating the scourge of drugs or are we merely waging a war on poor people?

I’ve argued in my November 2021 piece “DRUG DEALING 101” that the statistics do not support the argument that hanging is a major deterrent. While the number of arrests for drug abuse remains relatively low on the global scale, the figure has remained fairly constant, which would indicate that despite the obvious risk, people are still using drugs, which means that drugs are still getting into Singapore.

Why do people still carry drugs despite the obvious penalty they face? Contrary to what Mr. Cheng suggests, the real problem is poverty rather than “morals.” It’s been argued by the likes of Mr. Cheng that while slow, Mr. Dharmalingam had the capacity to tell right from wrong, hence he deserved it for breaking the law. The question we should have asked was – was he able to choose between the lesser evil or the greater good. In this case, it was risk getting hanged for getting drugs into Singapore or having no money to help his family.

Would I do it? The answer is no. I have enough wits about me to understand that getting hanged is not worth the price. I am healthy and witty enough to get a source of income. My IQ is above 100. My circumstances are as far away from Mr. Dharmalingam’s as possible.

If one looks at who is setting on death row, you will notice that the demographics are obvious. You are looking at Malaysian Tamils, who have the highest representation in what you could call the “Ghetto Class,” or more crudely put – the class that nobody gives a s*** about.

The Powers that Be in just about every country planet have realised that if you belong to the class that nobody gives a s*** about, they can do pretty much what they want to you. That is precisely the point that Black Lives Matter protestors were trying to make in 2020. Blacks get brutalised by the police because, well, if you ask enough people in White suburbia, they pretty much deserved it. The same is true for many Malaysian Tamils.

There is the case of Mr. Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah (“Datchi”), who is set for execution tomorrow (30 April 2022). Unlike Mr. Dharmalingam, Mr. Datchi is not slow. If anything, knowing his rights is the problem as far as the state is concerned. It was found that the prison service was passing privileged correspondences between him and has lawyer to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). One doesn’t need a law degree to know that this is legally incorrect. It’s violation of privilege.

Mr. Datchi launched a legal challenge (which is within his rights) and the date for that hearing is 20 May 2022. However, his execution has been set for 29 April 2022. Nobody is disputing that Mr. Datchi was caught with the offending drugs. What is being challenged is the way in which the state has trampled on his rights. One would expect that while Mr. Datchi is probably prepared to be hanged, he’s also going to try and buy more time and if his basic rights have been violated, he should use that.

At the time of writing, the judge has granted a stay of execution until his legal challenge can be heard. However, the Attorney-General is pushing for an urgent appeal. Why is the AGC so keen to execute him? Time is on their side.

 

 Taken from M. Ravi’s Linkedin.

Have we reached a stage where we are telling ourselves that all of societies problems are due to “poor people?” There is no evidence to suggests that executing Mr. Dharmalingam and Mr. Datchi would stop the drug trade. It is apparently not important that Mr. Dharmalingam’s less than average IQ was a matter of consideration or that the AGC and Prison Service had committed a violation of Mr. Datchi’s rights. The law is in the favour of the state and the state has effectively won this fight. So, why is the state so keen to get rid of people like Mr. Dharmalingam and Mr. Datchi?

Would the state be as eager to wipe them from the face of this earth if they were from any other social class except the one, they are from? When six law students got caught cheating in the bar exam, the initial reaction from the authorities was to give them a “second chance” and their names were initially kept out of the public eye. Would the state be so keen to give “second chances” if they were from the class that nobody gives a s** about?

I’m not saying that drugs are not a problem. I am not even talking about the legalities or moralities of the death penalty. I just believe that we need to ask ourselves if we are really at war with drugs and poverty or if we’re merely at war with poor people for being poor. This is the question that needs to be asked if we are serious about dealing with the social problems we claim that we want to solve.   

Do You Really Need a Sledge Hammer to Get Your Point Across to the Fly?

 

Four days ago, a correction order was made against the Independent Singapore (as a matter of full disclosure, I have a working relationship with the Independent Singapore, which picks up my blog pieces on a monthly basis) under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) for claiming in an article that Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam may be stepping down from his ministerial positions. More on the story can be found at:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pofma-correction-direction-issued-independent-singapore-over-false-claims-shanmugam-may-be-stepping-down-1879166

As required by law, the Independent Singapore and the author, Mr. Toh Han Shih have appended a correction notice. I grew up in the media business. My dad is an advertising film director and my mum was an editor at the Straits Times. Hence, I grew up around people who worked in the media and I learned that factual accuracy was something that journalist take very seriously (this being in the 70s when our then Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew was at his most “sue-happy”).

Then, when I started working with media people, I understood that respectable news organisations always had a system to ensure that news was as accurate as possible. Writers are supposed to do their research and copy has to go through sub-editors who act as a final check on facts being published. However, mistakes do happen and when it’s brought to the attention of the news editors, a correction is printed in the next issue. I’ve seen correction notices in publications like the Economist and Financial Times.

So, if you look at the “slip-up” by the Independent Singapore, you’ll understand that what happened is part and parcel of being in the news business and if you look at the fact that the Independent Singapore does not have the same resources as say the Straits Times, its record of publishing accurate information has been pretty good.

So, the question that needs to be asked is why was it necessary to use a Pofma order to get the correction when a simple letter or phone call to the editor or publisher would have sufficed? Pofma is an act brought about to combat “fake” information from spreading and being turned into fact. Say what you like about Pofma, but it does have a purpose in the current “Covid-19” environment. It helps to stop false information or conspiracy theories (for example, scaring people from taking a vaccine that keeps you out of the ICU in the event you get infected by a highly contagious disease).

If you look at the incident with the Independent Singapore, you cannot argue that the news site was deliberately spreading false information that was against public interest. It is at worst a case of getting a simple fact wrong. They reported that the Minister said that he wanted to step down when he didn’t say that. How does one ague that this bit of inaccurate reporting is against public interest or that it maligns or defames the minister in question.

So, the question is raised – why did the government feel that it was necessary to use the heavy hand of the law when there were more efficient and cost-effective ways of getting the correction notice. The question also exposes one of the great flaws of Pofma – namely the question of who decides what constitutes an online falsehood. Did the Minister wake up one morning and decide that the Independent Singapore was publishing “Fake News” or did have several cabinets worth of documents to prove malicious intent?

Leaving the deeper legal issues aside, a glance at the simple issue of why the heavy hand of Pofma had to be used when a simple call to the editor would have done the trick, would give one the impression that something is amiss. It seems that the powers that be have gotten to used to being believed merely for being the powers that be, that they’ve lost the ability to communicate disagreement without taking the hammer of the law to it.

Sure, our ministers are highly intelligent people with great credentials. However, since none of them have never actually had to face an environment that one could describe as “hostile.” There’s never been a need to get down on the ground and to explain your policies to the people who are affected by them. Its merely enough to speak them and beat everyone who disagrees with you with a law against fake news.

When compared to their global counterparts, our policy makers have it easy. Just look at how recently re-elected French President, Emanuel Marcon went to talk to people who were openly booing him. Say what you like about the man but he was willing to enter a hostile environment to talk to people who violently disagreed with him (while Mr. Macron has a reputation for being aloof – he has gone into crowds where he’s had eggs thrown at him and he's also been slapped):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgxYDYGR-is

 

At the age of 78, an age where people are expected to be too set in their ways to discuss things, US President Joe Bidden also goes out to talk to people who oppose not just him but what he stands for. He comes to them in person to try to get his side of the story across:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPig-AllQe8

 

Sure, both Mr. Bidden and Mr. Macron have flaws but this is the most effective way of ensuring you get the right message across. Yes, I understand that laws against online falsehoods are necessary. However, the heavy hand of the law doesn’t make you more credible. If anything, it helps fuel conspiracy theories. However, having the courage to face people who are openly hostile to you and to sit down and tell your side of the story makes you credible. Sure, you may not get mass conversions to your side but you earn respect and that in turn gives what you stand for support. It’s something that our leaders need to remember.

How Sad Can You Get?

 I must admit that I am, like many heterosexuals' men highly attracted to the female body. I have been guilty of "checking out" attractive things in a too obvious way and there's nothing like a compliment from an attractive lady to boost the ego.

Men, as they say, will be men. Somehow, no matter how smart we might be, we end up doing the stupidest things just to a glimpse of certain parts of the female anatomy. We, as a group, are obsessed with the size of the wrong head. If I take myself as an example, I suspect I would have been a lot better financially if I had, at certain moments, had better control of the small head.  

My only defence in this aspect is the fact that I am in rather distinguished company. I live in Asia, which is filled with normally intelligent and highly successful men who end up getting themselves twisted in knots of a young "hot-body."

Sex, as they say, is a primal urge. Napoleon Hill went as far as to argue that a high sex drive was healthy if a man could use it to drive himself to better things. However, the key here is controlling it and many of us tend to only get control of the little head after 35. 

If I take myself as an example, I had a fantasy of wanting to be the ultimate lover (not husband or boyfriend) to every woman I encountered. However, now that I am at the wrong end of my forties, my priorities have changed. Sure, sex is important but its not the be all and end all. I understand that certain fantasies should be just that.

Let's put it this way, when you are in your twenties and aggressively courting chicks, you can be seen as virile and the chicks might appreciate your enthusiasm for the hunt. However, once you hit forty and your still slobbering over everything that walks, you became a slobbering old man and the girls are more likely than not to find you creepy.

So, with all of this in mind, what is one bound to think of the latest scandal coming out of the United Kingdom. British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson and his gang in the Tory Party have openly accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms. Angela Rayner of distracting them during Prime Minister’s Question Time by crossing and uncrossing her legs in the same way that Catherine Tramell, the sexy femme fetale, played by Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct did. More of the story can be found at:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10746873/Tories-accuse-Angela-Rayner-Basic-Instinct-ploy-crosses-uncrosses-legs-PMQs.html

 

 Ms. Rayner and most of the women I know have decried the misogyny and sexism of this entire incident. This incident can only irritate any woman with a brain and a bit of ambition.  I mean, here you have a deputy leader of the country in waiting, and all you can complain about is her physical form? Women are a presence in the modern workforce and they should be judged for their capabilities in the workplace rather than what you hope they'll be like in the bedroom.

My take is a little different. Boris Johnson and his gang are not so much sexist but showing off their incompetence. I mean, how do you square the fact that the man is at an age where he should be able to control his little head. He's reached the pinnacle of a political career. Yet, there he is complaining he's being distracted by how a woman crosses her legs or what she's wearing. Seriously, this is what you'd expect of a teenager discovering penis growth - not of the Prime Minister of a major player on the global stage.   

Sure, I don’t doubt the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has human urges. Who is to say that he doesn’t find Ms. Rayner attractive? However, the British public didn’t vote for him to express his inability to control his fantasies when he’s doing his job. They’re paying him to do a job – i.e. to do things that make life better for people.

I don’t doubt that there are women who weaponise their sex appeal. The infamous crossing legs scene in Basic Instinct is precisely about that – Ms. Tramell, ensures that the cops are too taken back by the fact that she’s obviously not wearing underwear. Her victims cannot control their little head and end up with a pick in their skull.

 

 So, tantalising – so dangerous – Pure Fantasy

However, that’s a movie and regardless of whether Ms. Rayner wears underwear and how she crosses her legs in parliament should have no bearing on Mr. Johnson’s ability to get things done. Mr. Johnson should be at the age where he should be able to control his little head and if he’s distracted by Ms. Rayner’s wardrobe from doing his job, one should question what else he’s easily distracted by?

The Sanction of Cheating in a Public Professional Exam.

 

Around four days ago, the legal fraternity in Singapore got a nasty shock when the news broke that there were six law students were caught for cheating in their bar exams. This new has been a shock for Singapore.

We are proudly “non-corrupt” (we are officially the fourth least corrupt nation on the planet – the only Asian nation in the top five, ranking with New Zealand and the Nordics) and we revel in the reputation of being the best exam takers in the world. Why would any of our kids’ “cheat” when they had everything at their disposal to ensure they passed fair and square?

This incident has put the powers that be in a peculiar position. The government, which normally has a lot to say about incidents of “cheating” has been silent and left most of the talking to the judiciary. The Attorney-General’s chamber has recommended that five of the candidates have their admission to the bar delayed whilst one of them be delayed for a year. The Law Society has said that it would object their admission. The judge at the centre of the case, Mr. Choo Han Teck has stated that “something has gone wrong,” but at the same time has kept the names of the young offenders out of the public eye so as not to “prejudice” their futures. More of the story can be found at:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/culture-cheating-judge-delays-bar-admission-6-law-graduates-caught-cheating-exams-1875451; and

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/law-society-lawsoc-trainee-lawyers-cheat-bar-exam-2635466

This incident and the way that it’s been handled does raise several questions about one of the key points about Singapore’s entire system – namely the question of integrity and rule of law.

As mentioned earlier, Singapore is famously “anti-corruption,” and in fairness, the example was set by the top. Lee Kuan Yew, our first Prime Minister, held his ministers to such a high standard of integrity that suicide was actually the better option than being exposed to a hint of scandal and in way, you could say this has been institutionalised. My former Battery Commander, once told me that when he took the post of “Chief Supply Officer” of the Army, the anti-corruption people told him that they would be keeping an eye on him because he was in a “corruption prone” office.”

Our methods of keeping people on the straight and narrow also involves carrots as well as sticks. The best example is seen by our Ministerial Salaries, which are the world’s best. Whilst everyone knows about our ministerial salaries, the salaries of officials down the food chain are not to be sniffed at too.

So, how did six young people from “good” families get involved in a “cheating” scandal particularly for a profession that places ethnical practice as one of its main requirements? How is it such that the proposed sanctions sound more like a “slap on the wrist” or a “go stand in a corner” rather than a punitive sanction?

Well, let’s start with the definition of what counts as corruption. The corruption that Singapore fights so hard against, is inevitably the money variety. Public officials for example, are paid well, so that they don’t need to shake people down for bribes. People who get government contracts are actually supposed to deliver something of a reasonable quality rather than pocket the money and leave the nation with unusable infrastructure.

Tackling money corruption has made Singapore a shinning beacon. As a prominent Emirati businesswoman once said to me – “Singapore washes the face of the Oriental.”

However, as Professor Mushtaq Khan from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS – which as a matter of full disclosure was my first-choice university) argues, there are different forms of corruption. In an interview with “Hard Copy” of Nigeria, Professor Khan points out that in some states, corruption doe not need to involve money and provided the example of how a state can take your property by merely passing laws to do so without demanding a bribe. The state has the power to make what is illegal – legal. More on Professor Khan’s interview can be seen at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H1SSyIxLLY

 

 Professor Khan also argued that the problem that many developing countries had was the fact that corruption drives tended to focus on grandstanding or the arrest of several prominent figures without addressing the rout cause of the problem – namely the fact that its not in the interest of the powerful and elite to follow the rules and that in the more advanced economies people followed the rules because it was in their interest not to.

Professor Khan, who is British-Bangladeshi, argued that in the UK for example, people followed the laws and stayed on the narrow because what they were afraid of was being shunned by their peers rather than the state. By contrast, in less developed economies, the elite used “informal” ways of enforcing contracts and nobody really told on anyone because everyone had “dirty laundry.”

In way this bar exam cheating scandal does put this under the spotlight. It’s not corruption in the sense that no money has changed hands and that the young people in question are not joining the civil service.

However, one has to ask several questions. Why, for example, did they feel that they could get away with cheating in an exam? Is there a culture of cheating in our judiciary? Then, there is the fact that whilst the Judge had stated that cheating in a professional public exam, dishonesty and lack of propriety were not the only vices on display, the sanction against the six was sought not as a punishment but as a form of reflection.

Sure, I get that we should allow young people a chance to redeem themselves. The crime in question is not like that of Brock Turner, who raped a woman in 2015 and was let off because the judge didn’t want to ruin his future. I also get the fact that the young people in question are not peddling drugs, which can be harmful to those they sell to.

However, why do we feel the need to protect them by keeping their names out of the public domain? We’ve argued that we need to hang drug couriers because regardless of the circumstances (whether they are medically slow or not) because they damage the fabric of society. We have no problem giving each drug courier a name and when activist like M. Ravi or Kristin Han try to humanise them, they get labelled as being less than patriotic or in Mr. Ravi’s case less than sane.

Well, these young people have damaged the integrity of the judiciary and for that, they need to be punished so that no one else gets the idea that they can cheat their way onto the bar. Nobody is calling for them to be jailed or hanged but at the very least, their acts need to known to the wider world. We need to create a system where people who cheat get shunned by their peers rather than waiting for the state and the judiciary to slap them on the wrist.

We need to be serious about maintaining our judicial integrity. We should understand that that the children of middle-class families, who are more often than not of lighter complexion, can do damage to the fabric of our society and we need to have the same zeal in holding them to account the same way we are so eager to hold the children of poorer people, who are more often than not from ethnicities of a dark complexion, to account for their actions.   

  

Dangerous Dogs or Stupid People?

 

This morning I got a message from a friend about the former heavyweight champion of the world, Mike Tyson. Mr. Tyson has allegedly been filmed punching another passenger on a plane. More of the story can be found at:

https://www.tmz.com/2022/04/21/mike-tyson-repeatedly-punches-man-face-plane-bloodies-passenger/

 

I grew up watching Mike Tyson in his prime. His reputation was such that the guys he fought had already lost before they entered the ring. I remember his fight against Michael Spinx, who was a restable fighter who had beaten a former heavy weight champion (Larry Holms) enroot to facing Mr. Tyson. The fear in Mr. Spinx was obvious and it only took a matter of seconds for Mr. Tyson to end his misery.

Mr. Tyson was so fearsome that he actually terrified men who were bigger and stronger. Since I was living in the UK at the time, the fight that comes to mind was the first fight against Frank Bruno. The fight turned out to be like a Singapore election. The fact that Mr. Bruno lasted five rounds was considered a victory of sorts. Mr. Bruno did get one good hit (which Mr. Tyson did admit was the hardest he had been hit) and many of my friends talked about the boxer who nearly beat Tyson. However, the result was a forgone conclusion. Mr. Bruno ended up as a bloody mess at the end of the fight:

 

 

 

Well, they ended up meeting again. Despite having spent a few years in jail, Mr. Tyson ended up doing more damage to Mr. Bruno. Whilst Mr. Bruno put up a brave fight for five rounds in the first fight, this time he could only manage three rounds and after the beating he received, he was advised by doctors that he should retire or risk going blind from too many beatings to the head.

What’s particularly interesting about this fight was the fact that Mr. Bruno was actually a bigger and physically stronger man. He had a 9 cm advantage in terms of height and he outweighed Mr. Tyson by a good 12 KG.

 

 Taken from Wikipedia

Mr. Bruno had the size advantage but Mr. Tyson had something more powerful – the psychological advantage. He terrified people he fought and he enjoyed going in for the kill, whereas Mr. Bruno did not.

To put it crudely, most us would happily meet up with Mr. Bruno for a drink and for a friendly chit-chat. His image was that of a gentle giant. In his spare time, he did pantomimes (saw him in Aladdin in the West End.) Sure, you wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of one of his punches (British TV once did a study, which stated that a punch from Frank Bruno would be like being hit by a motorbike at 30 miles an hour) but he was not the type of guy who would throw a punch at you for no reason.

Mr. Tyson by contrast was by contrast, has never been known for being gentle. He was devastating in the ring and his personal life was turbulent. Violence followed him out of the ring. One of the more famous incidents being a 1988 street brawl with Mitch Green, whom he had previously outpointed in the ring. The fight in the ring was a boxing match. The fight on the street was more “interesting.” Mr. Tyson fractured his hand in the process of rearranging Mr. Green’s face:

 

Mr. Tyson was simply someone most of us would not want to meet in broad daylight let alone in dark lane. He’s the type of guy who could turn violent over nobody quite knows what and if he can damage Mr. Bruno and Mr. Green, who are big well built hardened fighters, one can only imagine what he could do to the rest of us. The man had a reputation of being a beast rather than a normal human.

He did mellow. Mr. Tyson eventually met defeat at the hands of Buster Douglas and while he did make an interesting comeback, he was not quite so fearsome. After the “spanking” he got from Lenox Lewis, his lust for the kill in the ring started to mellow and in 2005, he retired. Mr. Tyson has reinvented himself as an actor (Hangover) and a marijuana entrepreneur. His reputation has mellowed.

However, whilst Mr. Tyson has mellowed for all, he remains who he is – which is a beast at heart. He’s no longer the all-powerful 21-year-old who became the youngest heavy weight champion in history. However, at the age of 55, he’s still physically imposing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I9Iv89xQPc

 

 I tend of people who get into alterations with Mr. Tyson like people who claim they get savaged by Pit Bulls. As much as they may be gentle, they can also snap. Still remember a report in the eighties about a pit bull savaging someone. The guy admitted that they were teasing the dog until it snapped and savaged one of them. The dog is undoubtedly dangerous in that it has a vicious side. Its bread to fight. As such, you should respect the fact that it will do as its nature. Don’t go and tease it until it snaps.

You could say the same is true for Mr. Tyson. He can be very friendly. However, when he asks you to leave him alone – leave him alone. Don’t do things like throw bottles at him and then expect him to sit there and take it:

Whilst I don’t doubt that there are dangerous dogs and animals, there are probably an equal number of stupid humans who think nothing of provoking fights without understanding that there are consequences. If a pit bull is minding its own business, leave it be – don’t provoke it. In what world do you expect people to lie there and take things whilst you goad them on? That is not the law of nature.