Women’s Day

 Kiddo calls me up last night (20 October) asking if I knew what day it was? Her hook was simple, it was National Woman’s Day in Vietnam and she wanted Daddy to contribute to her partying. I told her that although I’m a bit of a soft touch, trying to pull another woman’s day on me was stretching it a bit too far – International Woman’s Day is March 8. Anyway, got away with not contributing to the party but Kiddo is correct. Vietnam stands out as a place that celebrates women not once but twice. There’s the International Day of Women and the National Day for Women in October – and well Vietnam should celebrate its women.

In the 13-years I was married to a Vietnamese girl, I made about five trips back to visit. I saw Hanoi (twice), Ho Chi Minh (twice) and Hai Phong (once). What becomes clear is that women are essential to economy. Walk on the streets of the three cities I’ve mentioned and you will notice that it’s the women who have turned every corner and every hole in the street into an enterprise of sorts (mainly selling food).

 

This wasn’t just my observation. A nephew by marriage at the time mentioned that the bank he worked for once hired a girl and a couple of guys. At the end of the month, they had to fire the guys and they kept the girl – she was the one who showed up consistently.

In South East Asia, Vietnam has the second highest rate of women participating in the work force, even ahead of Singapore, which is famous for its high level of female participation in the work force:

https://seasia.co/infographic/women-workforce-rates-in-southeast-asia-2023

 

 This isn’t just in the region. Vietnam’s rates of women participating in the workforce are comparable to many advanced economies, including the USA and UK.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.FE.ZS

 

 What does this all mean? Well, for a start, if you look at the data provided by the World Bank, you’ll notice that the places that complain about too many people coming in (the advanced economies of the US and Western Europe), also happen to be places with a relatively high portion of women in the workforce. By contrast, places where people are running away from (places where Donald Trump called “s***holes), tend to be places where the participation of women in the workforce is low.

Given that I could be a person of limited intelligence, I can’t tell you why the correlation between development and female participation in the workforce exists but I will point out to the James Bond movie “Die Another Day” when an Admiral tells M, played by Judy Dench “You haven’t got the balls for this” and M replies “I don’t think with them.”

This quip from a movie, is reflected in Covid statistics. If you look at the Covid statistics, you’ll find that the three countries where the most people died from Covid were at the time led by the “wannabe macho men,” namely Donald Trump of the USA, Narendra Modi of India and Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil. By contrast, places led by women did better. Germany, led by Angela Merkel at the time, had a similar number of reported cases to Brazil (both around 38,000) but significantly less deaths (183,000 vs 711,000).

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

 

 Simply put, the men at the moment of crisis led by ego and emotion. The women did not. So, I guess you could argue that having a higher level of female participation in the workforce actually takes out allot of ego and emotion in decision making.

Women, also tend to be a little more law abiding. I make this argument as someone who has crossed the Causeway on a number of occasions. Once in a while, Singaporeans get shaken down for bribes. It’s inevitably the men who shake you down – never the women.

What does this mean for Vietnam? Well, it would indicate that while Vietnam faces many challenges in the area of physical and legal infrastructure, it’s got the most basic element of development in place – namely the type of culture where most people are not afraid to go out and making a living for themselves. Then, there’s the case to be made that when women earn the money, it gets spent on things like education, which in turn uplifts family incomes and on the national level, it means the quality of future workers improves.

Vietnam is a country that has made huge progress. Vietnam only moved into its current economic development phase in 1986 and today is in the top 15 of Asia’s largest economies, making it larger than even Malaysia, which has had the advantage of a longer development period and rule under British Common Law:

https://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/vietnam-among-asias-15-largest-economies-73213.html 

A good part of this success comes from a culture that allows women to play a very active role in making things happen.

It’s Not Your Kid

 

Call it a coincidence if you will but after attending the Singapore Insolvency Conference hosted in the ParkRoyal Collection MarinaBay, an old friend of mine, whom I had once worked for, called me up to ask about liquidating a business of his.

 

 What struck me about this conversation was the fact that this friend of mine seemed relatively at ease with what he wanted to get done. If anything, talking about liquidation seemed like a relief. His once successful enterprise had been bleeding and he pumped in his own personal funds into the business to keep things afloat and he had reached the point of no return. Enough was enough.

I described this entire conversation with my friend as being “unusual” because I’ve found that in the last decade of being in the insolvency trade; I’ve found that many business owners tend to leave closing down a business to late and liquidation is forced upon them.

I’ve noticed that it’s usually the Asian business owners, specifically the Chinese ones in the old-fashioned business-like retail and construction who tend to leave it late. I guess a good part of the reason for this is cultural. For the traditional Chinese businessman, the business is inevitably more than a vehicle to make money – its part of the family legacy. Hence, liquidation is a taboo topic because you’re not talking about ending an entity but your very existence in the community. I still remember Gina’s father being upset with me for taking the PPO against her for the simple reason that the court sent someone to serve her and when he opened the door it was “people think I owe money.”

So, I get the reason why people fight tooth and nail to keep things afloat even when the signs are clearly obvious. However, the sad reality that economic waters are increasingly choppy. Despite the “rosy” image of entrepreneurship that gets sold to every young person these days, the statistics for being successful and staying successful as an entrepreneur are pretty grim. According to Clarify Capital, some 80 percent of businesses fail within 20 years:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Chances+of+succeeding+in+business

 

 This basic fact is before you take into account the current geopolitical climate where governments go out of their way to make things difficult for businesses to function, let alone make money.

Everyone loves venture capitalist. They threw glamorous parties and everyone sucks up to them in the belief that they hold the keys to a glorious future. By contrast, insolvency practitioners (IP) tend to stick to their own kind, mixing occasionally with insolvency lawyers. Let’s just look at the medical analogy of gynecologists (my stepfather being one) being more socially acceptable than morticians.

Yet beneath the glitz of new business launches, the truth is more nuanced. The rough statistic is that venture capitalist lose money in nine of ten ventures backed – it’s just that the one that succeeds does so in a manner that covers the losses of the other nine and ensures the venture capitalists success. The IPs whilst occupying a less glamorous space have a more consistent flow of work.

If you take the statistics about business failure, the one key element of a successful entrepreneur is inevitably one who can accept failure. Successful entrepreneurs view failure as part of the learning curve and will look at the IP as a source of knowledge rather than a person to be avoided. The very nature of being in the insolvency trade means one is going to see a lot of business failure and develop certain insights that most would not have. Its one of the reasons why prominent characters in our judicial system are being invited to speak at insolvency conferences:

 

 One of the key insights that the average IP should have, is that the business is not your baby. It’s merely the vehicle from which you operate. Allot of business owners get attached to the company like it’s a family member. It’s not, it’s something you use. Think of the company and the business like a car. It gets you to where you want to go.

Its this simple, when things turn south and look like they’re never going to get better, it’s best to cut one’s losses.

Firstly, there are laws against insolvent trading. In layman terms, when the hole is getting deeper – stop digging. This is something that few if any outside the insolvency business will be aware of. However, just because one isn’t aware, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Secondly, there’s the fact that I’ve often said to a few bankrupts – you still have your brains and contacts. Business failure provides one with the opportunity to understand one’s weaknesses. Hence, the adage that one not starts from nothing but from experience. Letting go of an old business gives one more time to work on starting again.

 

 

With Friends Like These; You Better Get Some Enemies

 Let’s give credit where credit is due. Donald Trump looks like he might actually have stopped the fighting in the Unholy Land. Yes, there is undoubtedly much to criticize about his peace plan but for the moment, we should just be grateful that there’s been an end of the mindless slaughter. Israel’s hostages are being released and everyone seems happy. How long this happy state of affairs last is anyone’s guess but at least we have the moments of peace that we have.

What’s become clear though is that this entire war should never have happened in the first place. The entire Israeli justification of “self-defense” was anything but to anyone with the good fortune of not being a Western politician. Yes, Hamas was horrible in executing its actions of October 7, 2023. However, an inconvenient truth came out on October 8, 2023 in the Israeli press that Hamas would never have had the capabilities to do what it did were it not for its convenient backer – Israel’s perpetual Prime Minister, Mr. Benyamin Nethanyahu:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

 

 Let’s face it, Mr. Netanyahu built his entire political brand on ensuring that there would be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians. He was an opponent of the Oslo Accords and the underlying principle of “Land for Peace.” Since, Oslo was signed with the more moderate Palestinian Authority, Mr. Netanyahu found ways to back Hamas with the sole purpose of weakening the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Netanyahu turned a blind eye to the car loads of cash being funneled to Hamas.

It's not like Hamas were very subtle about their intentions. Hamas’s charter clearly calls for the destruction of Israel, even if its more moderate members tried to reframe it as “recognizing the reality of Israel.”

So, why would a man selling himself as the only one strong enough to keep Israel safe, support a group that clearly calls for the destruction of Israel? The answer lies in an unfortunate truism that extremist need their polar opposites to survive. The opposite number justifies their existence. Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant need Hamas as much Hamas needs them. The Netanyahu-Gallant end of Israeli politics represses the Palestinian territories in the name of security whereas Hamas attacks Israel in the name of stopped repression. The cycle is inevitably endless.

It's not that nobody tried to change. Unfortunately, every leader in the region has seen what happens when you try and break the cycle. Your “own side” will end up gunning you down. Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president who signed the Camp David Accords in 1978, making the Arab world’s most populous nation the first to achieve peace with Israel was gunned down by the Muslim Brotherhood:

https://en.topwar.ru/101653-pokushenie-na-prezidenta-kak-tridcat-pyat-let-nazad-ubili-anvara-sadata.html

 

 

Then, fast forward nearly two decades to 1994. An Israeli Prime Minister, who had spent his whole life fighting for Israel’s peace reached out to his life long enemy in the PLO, Yasir Arafat and signed the Oslo Accords. Yitzhak Rabin found that swopping land brought peace and security and after he signed peace with the Palestinians, he reached out to the late King Hussain of Jordan and signed the second ever peace treaty with an Arab Nation that Israel once fought.

Rabin’s reward for giving peace and security to Israel was to be assassinated by an Israeli extremist settler, whose brother shows no remorse for his role in the murder:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9245468/Accomplice-to-killer-of-Israeli-leader-Yitzhak-Rabin-defiant-after-release-from-prison.html

 

So, the lesson is clear, change results in death – specifically your own. In a land that the Abrahamic Faiths call Holy, nobody with power worries about the afterlife and everyone focuses on the here and now. Mr. Netanyahu knows that stepping down means a corruption trial. Hamas’s leaders know that being reasonable will get them shot.

The war had two clear winners. Mr. Netanyahu wins in as much as he’s going to stay in power. Israel’s increasing international isolation is just an unfortunate price to be paid. The extremist in Hamas also wins. Now, they have plenty of recruits, angry at the nation that kept them down and blew their lives away.

Compare what happens in Gaza with what happened in Northern Ireland. There, extremists were not allowed to win. The Ulster Unionist were pushed by the British Government to sign peace agreements and America stopped allowed Sinn Fein and the IRA to get gun money. The Irish Government made it clear that it was in no rush to take over. All parties fought for compromise and today, the “troubles” are left in comedy series like “Derry Girls” as Northern Ireland looks for things like fintech investment.

A Chat to my Younger Self

 As I approach what is effectively the twilight of my working years, I find myself often reflecting on things. I ask myself if I would have done things differently. Let’s face it, I’m a far cry from where I wanted to be when I first started. I had this vision of hot shot banker (Assistant vice-president at Citibank by the time I hit thirty) living a glamorous life.

Instead, I found myself in the SME/ Micro enterprise end of the industry everyone thought I’d be a rock star in and then, I found myself working for a firm in an industry that I never imagined myself in for over a decade. Although I’ve since overcome the stigma of not working anywhere for more than a year (celebrated 11 years with my current employer this year) and I have a fancy title (Director of Business Development) I’m still not where most would have imagined me to be at.

So given that many would argue that my lack of a career is suffering from youthful mishaps, my advice to the kids should be – don’t be like me. Stick in a place long enough for people to recognize that you have a skill and build a track record. Then look at doing your own thing.

However, as a look at myself, I believe the advice that I’d give myself would be – embrace who you really are as soon as you can. I was so focused on wanting to be part of the banking-corporate crowd that I never took time to recognize that this wasn’t me. I didn’t actually like being in an office and sitting in front of a screen. I remain dreadful at administration and the nitty gritty of processes.

As such, I failed in PR agencies but somehow, when I had to work on my own, I did work that I was proud of. I was, as a Chairman of an Academic Body I once pitched to, a proud one-man show. Never worked for the big multinationals like Webber Shandwick but managed to do government-to-government work (Saudi Embassy during the visit of the late Crown Prince Sultan to Singapore), covered the entire IMF Conference in 2006 (got my byline in Arab News 16 times that month) and met some of the more brilliant minds around (Raghuram Rajan former RBI Governor comes to mind).

Sure, I struggled financially for allot of those moments and I do wish I had discovered restaurant work earlier and it would probably have made me a bit more stable. However, despite the financial uncertainty, I was actually happiest then. It’s not that moving into restructuring and insolvency was a bad thing. The job came at a time when Kiddo was coming into my life and I needed the stability. However, I should have accepted way back that I was never meant for a normal career path.

I think of this after seeing a post by Standard Chartered’ s Global CEO Bill Winters on Linkedin, where he talked about encouraging people starting out to grab the chances for riskier moves if the rewards were higher. Mr. Winters has a degree in “International Relations” and by his own admission, thought he would be a diplomat but ended up in banking instead:

https://www.sc.com/en/campaigns/now-is-your-time/

 

 I had ambitions despite being a freelancer. They were not to be anything in an official PR agency but I believed I could grow my relationship with people in the Saudi Government and media that I had worked with. I never dared go beyond sending the odd greetings and after Jamal Merdad left, my connection with the Saudi embassy faded.

I do regret allowing myself moments of complacency, where I let go of relationships after a job. When Bruno’s came into the picture, my restaurant and PR work complimented each other. Yet, I never got round to selling myself and delivering more aggressively. It was only when I moved into liquidations that I realized that I could cross the class divides and get things done.

It took a while for me to find my talents. I’ve been a disaster at monetizing them and now, as I approach the final years of my working life, I’m now at a situation where that’s become something I need to do urgently (hence, do subscribe to my Substack). My advice for anyone starting out – find out who you really are early – go and fail often until you find your talents and milk them for all their worth.

I Love W******* in a Suite

 

When I first started working as an intern back in 1999, I looked forward to office life. Going into the office felt like I had a purpose and I actually looked forward to meetings. As an intern, still learning the ways of the world, being in a meeting felt like I was important enough to be look important.

Now that I’ve been around the corporate scene for over two decades, I’ve come to realise that what I once felt about corporate was utterly correct. Things like offices and meetings are, more often than not, all about the look and feeling important. Its not that looking good and feeling good aren’t important. Now that I’m focused on fitness, I realise that when you feel and look good, you tend to perform better.

I also recognise that gatherings are important. There is a reason why “solitary” is the worst punishment in prison. So, yes things like gatherings and dare I say, meetings have their uses in the economic system that we function in.

Yet, there’s also a point where we have to ask ourselves whether allot of the meetings we attend are about social connection for the sake of looking good or are they actually necessary. I think of the phrase “mental masturbation” when it comes to allot of corporate meetings and conventions. Let’s ask ourselves why are certain things meetings and not, say, emails. More often than not, allot of gatherings are more about the show and the feelings of certain individuals in the given organisation than they are about anything that’s actually productive.

Case in point, the recent meeting between the Secretary of War and his generals, which took place on Tuesday, 30 September 2025 to every four-star officer in the US military. The very act of summoning every four-star officer and their advisors to a single location was a major talking point. Everyone was asking why was this done. What was the importance of this meeting that the officers had to drop everything?

This meeting turned out to be a session of what can only be called “mental masturbation” where the Secretary of War and the President got to ramble on about their favourite topics.

I’ll leave the deep heavy analysis of what was said to intelligent people. The point here is that we have to ask ourselves if anything was actually achieved. Could this “meeting” actually have to be a meeting at all? Neither Trump or Hegseth said anything that they hadn’t said before. The point was not so much what was said but the fact that everyone was gathered in one place to listen. The emphasis was on fact that the gathering was made rather than why.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000010430095/senior-military-officers-meeting-quantico-virginia.html

 

Much was being made of the silence in room. There was on applause and every picture of the audience that we’ve been shown, shows a group of men looking exceedingly p***** off. Even Trump couldn’t help but notice the silence and tried to get people to react:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgqJ1ChZnTI

 

 Let’s face it, how many of us like being summoned to listen to people talk about themselves? You can’t blame the generals and admirals for being silent. Would anything they said have made a difference? To make matters worse for the generals and admirals, this was a case of having to attend a lecture by two people with no subject matter expertise on the very subject you are an expert in. This being a case where you endure in silence because its your boss talking and there’s no way you can tell him that he’s an idiot.

For Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth, this was a grand moment. Two men who had never fought anything tougher than a Marshmallow had the chance to lecture a group of people who had fought a number of wars each. Given that the military is one of the more respected institutions in the USA, this was undoubtedly a great opportunity.

Once again, let’s leave the speeches aside and focus on the event. It was at its core, a meeting designed for the boss to feel good. Did costs money? Undoubtedly did. Generals and Admirals had to be flown in from various parts of the world and accommodated for at least a day. Did it do anything productive? That is highly debateable (only if you redefine the term productive). Everything that was said could have been said in a memo or an email.

Here in lies the truism of the modern work place. People are increasingly busy yet productivity remains dreadfully low. A good part of the problem comes from dealing with people in positions of power who are focused on ego rather than on actually doing anything useful.

The Only Way to Beat a Bad Idea

 

It goes without saying that the murder of the American activist, Charlie Kirk on 10 September 2025, was horrible. Mr. Kirk, who was only 31 at the time of his death (only two-years younger than my youngest brother) leaves behind a wife and two children, who will undoubtedly live with severe trauma of seeing their father shot before their very eyes.

Mr. Kirk was a polarizing figure in death as he was in life. The President of the USA ordered that all flags should fly at half-mast (an honour usually reserved for figures whose contributions to a nation are undeniable) and the political right rushed to deify him as the political left rushed to do the opposite.

Allot has bee said about Mr. Kirk and whatever I say will not make a difference. I will however, say that Mr. Kirk’s murder, was a classic case in how not to deal with bad ideas.

With all due respect to Mr. Kirk, what you’d call the rational voice of allot of the “isms” that civilized people avoid indulging in. He most famously argued that the Civil Rights movement, which gave “Africa Americans” equal rights was mistake and that the leader, Dr. Martin Luther King wasn’t the saint that everyone made him out to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGo7ogLHTTs

 

Mr. Kirk was masterful in espousing his views with an air of authority. He would travel around America’s campuses and swat away anyone who questioned him. He was a natural darling of the political right and whatever “isms” he may have displayed, always sounded almost like a stated fact.

So, it’s probably no surprise that the political right started trying to pin Mr. Kirk’s murder on the political left (even if the current suspect isn’t from the political left). Mr. Kirk is being turned into an icon of free speech who was murdered by an “illiberal-liberal” establishment that couldn’t handle the truth.

While the current suspect in custody isn’t exactly the model of a “liberal-murderer,” there were a number of commentators who mentioned that they didn’t feel sorry for Mr. Kirk based on the ideas he espoused, which was a polite way of saying he had it coming to him.

Well, while Mr. Kirk was prone to making some “interesting remarks,” his murder should lead to ask some fundamental questions about the notion of freedom of speech. If you will talk to enough people, you’ll find that people are often very “pro” freedom of speech, until someone comes up with something offensive. Then, you’ll have voices denouncing whatever they disagree with, and there will be calls to make that speech into a criminal act.

Yes, I’m not going to say that all speech is good. However, short of inciting horrible things, people should be able to say what they want, even if we disagree with it. I do believe in the concept of “I hate what you say but I will die defending your right to say it.”

We’re too often bound by the need to only be with people who agree with us. This isn’t freedom of speech. It’s freedom of being a robot. America in the era of Trump is a classic example, where people are either Red States or Blue States. In Singapore, it’s a case of “everything the government does is right” and “everything the government does is wrong.”

As someone who creates content, I will say that extremist views are fun. People are drawn to extreme positions. It gives them, dare I say, a sense of belonging. The reality is different. Outside Imperial Science (1+1 is always 2), life actually happens somewhere in between. Yes, I have been very critical of the government in Singapore but at the same time, I’m not critical for the sake of it. As a result, I’m branded as “anti-establishment” by the “government is always right crowd” and I’ve been accused of being a “b*** s***** of the ruling party by the “government is evil crowd.”

Which leads me the next point – how do you deal with “bad speech,” and “bad ideas,” two things which Mr. Kirk was filled with. The answer is inevitably by debating those ideas and showing them up for what they are; which is what happened to Mr. Kirk when he went to Cambridge to debate students who knew their stuff and not intimidated by Mr. Kirk’s moralistic debating style. Here, he found people who weren’t just not intimidated – they actually ran rings around him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3liIXGJXNs

 

The only way to beat bad ideas and bad speech is by presenting them with better ideas and better speech. I take the issue of the Nazi Holocaust denial as an example. In Germany and other parts of Europe, its actually illegal to publicly question to existence of the Holocaust. As bad as the Holocaust was, I believe that making the questioning of its existence illegal is not the way to go. At best, you make a martyr out of the holocaust denier and give credence to their views. The real way to deal with these people is to openly challenge them in a debate and present the evidence.

I think of the fact that the best commentary in America at the moment comes from comedians. The news commentators on both sides are busy preaching to the converted. The comedians are telling us things that we can relate to and getting the point across.

I think of characters like Medhi Hassan who actually go and challenge the people they disagree with and put the facts on the table:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo

 

 The record of bans and murders as a means of keeping “bad” speech ad “bad” ideas at bay is pretty grim. Challenge and debate have a much better track record.

Crooks Inc Goes Global

 

One of my first experiences in fraud came from my childhood, I think I was about eight at the time. The school expected me to read something and asked me to get my mother to sign off on it. Somehow, I didn’t and in order to prevent any chance of punishment from school, I decided to forge Mum’s signature. School didn’t catch it – Mum did and instead of giving me a hiding, she managed to drill it into my head that my childhood misdemeanor had to land me in hot soup.

Little did I know then but I’d end up working in an industry where I’d be dealing with financial hanky-panky in one form or another. In crude terms, insolvency is about sinking ships and when the ship starts to sink, the people, who often at the top of the ship start looking for ways to siphon off the goodies. I think of the first investigation I was ever asked to conduct, which involved a man who died in September and still had has salary being paid in October and November (though the cheque for November was only cashed in sometime in January of the following year.) I remember asking my boss “Can a dead person draw a salary?”

This was just a small incident into the shenanigans that people can get up to. It was small scale and since the person paying us to investigate was the aunt, the matter was settled quietly.

However, this isn’t the only instance of people trying to do something funny. Fraud, money laundering and the host financial crimes are industries unto themselves and the crooks are not as simple as the case I encountered during my first stint in the insolvency trade. Crooks as a rule of thumb, are not stupid and they’re prone to using every available technology to ensure they don’t get caught. Recreating a financial crime scene takes time and “getting back the goods” is a laborious process. Here is an example of the “Asset Recovery Frame Work” in Singapore.

 

 

One of the things that crooks are, is open minded. In a day and age where ordinary folks around the world are looking to shut the doors on globalization, the crooks are happily taking advantage of the transnational nature of money. I think of a recent seminar that I attended at Rajah & Tann, one of the largest law firms in Singapore, which conducted a seminar on the topic of asset recovery across borders in Asia. Here is the scenario that was presented:

 

 

 

It's easy to move money across borders these days. You can do it at click of a button on your banking app. If you’re not too fond of using technology, you can withdraw money in cash and then cross a border and deposit it into account in another jurisdiction. The cost of moving money is negligible and even if you did it the old-fashioned way, you’re still moving faster than the “Good Guys.”

So, what can the good guys do? The first place will be to acknowledge that the crooks are smart and the only way is to be smarter. Then, there’s the realization that financial crime is borderless. The proceeds of a crime in A will inevitably end up being disposed of in B, C and D.

Governments are working together and trying to get judgements in one place recognized in another. Think of international police organisations like “Interpol,” which works around the world.

Its also encouraging to see the private sector moving in that direction too. In Singapore, the legal market has been opened up to international firms. However, its encouraging to see that Singapore’s legal firms aren’t sitting there defending their turf but expanding into others, thus allowing lawyers from jurisdictions to pool knowledge and deal with cases that are increasingly cross border in nature. Isolationism is not a luxury the “good guys” can afford.  

“Insolvency Issues do Not Stop at National Boundaries” – Mr. Murali Pillai, Senior Minister of State for Law and Transport.

 Allot gets said about the Singapore government in the online sphere. I should know, I’ve often been critical of the way things are and like many of my fellow keyboard warriors, I’ve found it easy to blame the government.

However, there’s one area in which I’m really grateful to the Singapore government and that is the fact that our government’s have resisted populist measures and remained open world. Sure, I get where people are coming from when they complain about the “crass” behavior of Mainland Chinese and the complaints about Indian nationals stealing jobs. Yet, when you look at the bigger picture, Singapore and dare I say, Singaporeans have benefited from the fact that our society has stayed open.

If I take myself as an example, I got lucky because of that. As a freelancer with no experience in a notable agency, I managed to work on prestigious jobs thanks to Indian nationals and that’s before mentioning that I had a steady marriage with a Vietnamese girl for 13-years. Even if you don’t work for someone from elsewhere, you’ll find that most of the “high paying jobs” in Singapore are based on servicing and supporting people from elsewhere and businesses in bigger markets.

Singapore was founded on international trade. It’s the reason why we exist and should we ever adapt a “MAGA” movement or do the ASEAN equivalent of Brexit, we’d have secured our place as the swamp we once claimed to have emerged from.

I’m glad to see the government resisting isolationism in an age where its cool to be a chest thumping nationalist gorilla (which is unfair to gorillas). Not only is the government resisting going down that slippery slope but doubling down and pushing Singapore deeper into the international community.

We’re a trading nation so it’s obvious for us to continue trading. The technologies that we consider necessary are so in part because they make global knowledge available. Now, we’re going further and trying to integrate our commercial system into the global grid.

This was particularly clear through my day job. Singapore is now playing host to a flurry of legal conferences and that theme was clear in the two that I attended.

It started with the Turn Around Management Association’s(TMA) Asia Pacific conference which was held on 20 and 21 August 2025 at the Marina Bay Sands. Mr. Murali Pillai, Senior Minister of State for Law and Transport told the delegates “Insolvency matters do not stop at national boundaries.

 

 

 

One of the key moments of TMA Asia Pacific was having a panel discussion with judges from Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore discuss the key issue of how court judgments are enforced outside national boundaries.

 

Here’s the reality, the world is open. The days when businesses only focused on the West are long gone. In Singapore’s case, we can, at best, offer a fantastic place for a headquarters but the truth is, we don’t have a domestic market worth speaking of. So, the multinationals come here and set up camp because we’re safe and stable and so business in places where things are less so. Our commercial legal system is well regarded enough for people like my favourite Indian IT boys to ensure that “All deals in the APAC region are signed under Singapore law.”

Yet, what good is it when judgments in your courts cannot be enforced elsewhere? It only makes sense for countries like Singapore to work with other countries to get the judgments of Singapore courts recognized outside of Singapore. It also makes sense for markets like Indonesia and Malaysia to do the same. I think of one of my employer’s cases where he got his appointment in Singapore recognized in Australia.

 

The theme repeated at the ADVOC conference, where there was a panel discussion on getting recognition in different jurisdictions.  

Look at the places that are isolated. How many of you honestly want to live in say, Pyongyang? The unavoidable truth is that places that integrate into the rest of the world tend to be places that thrive. They’re places where you want to live.  

“You think… you’re going to live a nice life in Singapore, but what we need is someone who’s going to actually do the work.” – US Senator Tammy Duckworth

 

Around two years ago, we took an intern who I took on as my “godson.” One of the reasons for why I took him on as a “godson” was the fact that I had sympathy for him. He’s a son from a well to do family trying to prove himself on his own merits.

Whilst I remain very fond of him, there was an area that irked me – namely the fact that he was unable to perform simple office task and the complaints were ending up on my door. I tried to counsel him and then I asked him “What do you think interns do?” His reply was “Go to events and meet big shots.”

His response irked me and when I mentioned my irritation to one of my colleagues, he actually told me was wrong to get irked. His point was “interns these days have expectations.”

I was given a reminder of this event years ago when I watched snippets of the senate confirmation of the potential US Ambassador to Singapore, Dr. Ajani Sinha. The news media made mincemeat of the fact that Dr. Sinha was vastly out of his depth and didn’t know the intricacies of the job. The finale of this humiliation of Dr. Sinha came when senator Tammy Duckworth told him, “You think… you’re going to live a nice life in Singapore, but what we need is someone who’s going to actually do the work.” More on the exchange can be found at;

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrxd7d78r0o

 

 In fairness to Dr. Sinha, he’s not the only person getting ready for a high-profile job who forgot the basics – namely the fact that work has to be done.

Let’s look at the basic definition of a job. At its most basic, a job is a task or a series of task which are performed for a certain period in return for an exchange of money. This is true regardless of whether you are a ditch digger or the CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company. So, if you look at this basic definition of a job, the most basic task of the “hiring” process is to find out if you can do the work required.

Now, this is generally clear at the most basic end of the market. If you’re going to work as a ditch digger, your employer will simply want to ensure that you are a physically strong enough to dig for certain number of hours every day for say a month. The screening process becomes more complicated along with the job requirements. For example, if you need a machine operator, you need someone who can operate the machine. Then, if you need someone to lead a team of machine operators, you need to check that the said candidates are not only able to operate the machine but also lead other machine operators. I take my national service training for the artillery. First, I had to go through a “basic gunner” course. This was relatively simple, we had to learn how to operate a 155 Gun Howitzer. Then, we had to go through “specialist” course, which involved not just learning how the Gun Howitzer worked but how it operated on the larger scale of things.

Whilst that’s relatively simple on a basic level because you’re essentially trying to fill a cog in a machine. It becomes a bit more complicated when you’re hiring for the top positions. The complication comes down to this – the higher up you go, you’ll tend to find that only one skill is required – leadership.

However, the problem with “leadership” is that it’s a very subjective term. What defines a “competent” leader can mean many things depending on who’s asking. In the military it usually means someone who can plan military campaigns. In a
“non-profit” it could mean the person who raises and in a commercial enterprise it usually means bringing in the most profit and raising share prices in the name of shareholder value.

Then, there’s the fact that leadership, unlike most jobs where you’re required to do one or two task, leadership inevitably means overseeing many people doing many tasks. Hence, the old army joke about why the person at the top is called a “general.” The answer being because he (they usually are) has wide general knowledge about many things but they’re not experts on any particular subject matter.

Thanks to this complexity, leadership is often very well rewarded. This includes things like houses, cars, high salaries and in corporate America – stock options. In the private sector this usually comes in the shape of a lot of money and in the public sector, this usually comes with a lot of perks.

The rewards that leaders receive are inevitably very attractive. I think of the usual topic of “minister’s salaries” in Singapore, where the average minister gets paid around $100,000 a month. Who wouldn’t be attracted to this type of salary? Or let’s look at the compensation of many American CEOs, which consist of “stock options” which can be the region of millions a year. The argument made is that you need to “attract” talent.

There is, however, one slight problem. When rewards become so attractive, they become a separate focus. In some ways, the rewards become focus and the job becomes an inconvenience – a point raised about Singapore Armed Forces Scholars in the book “Defending the Lion City,” which argued that there was a danger of the SAF’s scholars passing time in the military on way to very lucrative civilian careers rather than treating the work of being in the military as the main focus.

While it’s understandable why people would be attracted to task with great rewards, the rewards come with a price – namely the job and doing the work. Too many of us forget that work needs to be done and it needs to be done at a certain standard. Unfortunately, this is an area where board rooms and HR departments struggle with. How do you ensure that the person’s main focus is on the work?

One of the most obvious answers is to make payment commensurate with competence. However, there’s a problem. How do you demonstrate and measure competence. As often said, the reality is that the job doesn’t go to the best person but the person who sell his or herself best.

The challenge for HR professionals is inevitably how does one reward those who genuinely does the work rather than the people who only expect a cushy life from the job.  

 

 

“We Have Standards in the West” – Charlie Kirk

 

If you wanted an area to kick the Singapore government, it would be its common refrain of “The Public is not ready for a Non-Chinese Prime Minister,” during every election. The point is simple. Successive Singapore governments have made the point that Singapore is a “meritocracy.” Our national pledge talks about “regardless of race, language or religion.” We’ve been the proud poster boy of “multiracialism” and “multiculturalism.” Yet, whenever the topic of leadership succession comes about, the same government which talks about “multiracialism” and “meritocracy” will tell you that Singapore is simply not ready for a “non-Chinese” (the majority community) to take charge of things.

One only needs to look at the previous change of power. The star was the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam. He remains a great policy wonk with a precious commodity – international recognition (Mr. Tharman used to serve with the IMF). He’s also got a good common touch that resonates with the ground. Yet, despite what everyone said, Mr. Tharman ruled himself out of the succession race and got himself kicked upstairs to the presidency (In theory the one all of us need to call Sir – but in reality, does what a nice silver tea spoon does.) Instead, the job went to Mr. Lawrence Wong, whom while competent enough in his own right, remains many years Mr. Tharman’s junior in the political sphere (probably the only first time in history where the President was the Prime Minister’s senior in their previous career.)

So, when you look at the claim made by the government that the public is “not ready” for a “non-Chinese” Prime Minister, it does seem to make the government’s claims of Singapore being a “non-racial” “meritocracy” ring a little hollow.

However, does the government have a point when it makes this rather obvious claim on the limits of “diversity.” Given obsession of “looking for best practices around the world,” you could argue that the government has seen something that the rest of us don’t. In this case, it’s the fact that the record of someone not fitting into the mainstream coming into power has been a little sad.

One might argue that this isn’t totally accurate. America elected its “Black” president in Barak Obama and the UK had its first “Asian” Prime Minister in the shape of Rishi Sunak. However, I’ve argued that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Sunak are the exception that proves the rule. Whilst both men have a different complexion from the majority in the countries they led, they are from “elite” backgrounds (Mr. Obama is from Harvard Law School, Mr. Sunak went to Winchester and Oxford) and thus “acceptable.” Then, you have to add in the fact that Mr. Sunak was never elected to the job and whilst Mr. Obama did win two elections, he was replaced by Mr. Donald Trump who basically won on being everything Mr. Obama is not.

Here's the nasty truth – being different scares the living crap out of the majority. People are easily scared and when they’re scared, they find comfort in believing all sorts of silly things that may be said about you.

Prime example – the recent elevation of Mr. Zohran Mamdani to be the candidate of the Democratic Party for Mayor of New York City. Let’s make the point that he’s only become a “candidate” of a political party and not the holder of a political office.

Yet, despite this, Mr. Mamdani has become an instant target of “hatred” from the Republican party and incidentally, his own “Democratic” party. He has been accused on being an “antisemitic” enemy of the state of Israel and the common refrain is that if elected, Mr. Mamdani will enact Sharia law in New York city:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X6jQJmsDCU

 

 

There is no evidence to suggests that Mr. Mamdani has said he would implement Sharia law and the main charges against him for being “antisemitic” come from the fact that he’s mentioned that he would arrest Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu,” should he step foot in New York City, which would be in accordance with International Law (Mr. Netanyahu has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for War Crimes) and interestingly enough, from stating that he would stay in New York city instead of running off to Israel if elected mayor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnlQW8Rh80A

 

 

There is no evidence to suggests that Mr. Mamdani is going to implement anything terribly radical in the area of social demography if elected as Mayor. Yet, and yet, there’s a rush to paint Mr. Mamdani as Osama bin Ladin’s successor for the mere fact of being who is (South Asian Immigrant Muslim):

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

 

 

It’s not that Mr. Mamdani is a saint. There are things that potential opponents can attack him for. One of the most obvious areas is in policy details. How, for example, exactly does he plan to pay for what he’s promising. These would be more “solid” ways of attacking him than say making him the cultural enemy of the main stream.

Then, there’s the point that when you focus on attacking him personally, you miss addressing the point as to why he’s “winning.”

Ironically, Mr. Mamdani’s strategy has been to take a leaf from Mr. Trump – focus on key issues affecting people and harping on them. Mr. Trump talked about the price of eggs. Mr. Mamdani is talking about rents in New York.

Again, look at his answer about “foreign trips.” His point is straight – he’s running for “Mayor of New York” and not “secretary of state.” His job is to look after “New York,” and he’ll stay next to the people who voted for him rather than travel to the Middle East. Watch his answers in public forums and he’s very focused on his message.

Mr. Mamdani has scared both sides of the political isle. Yet, he’s understood that there is a segment of the electorate that believes the entire establishment is no longer interested in real issues and he’s tapped into that. Whilst he may not be perfect, he’s shown that whilst many people may not be comfortable with someone who doesn’t look, eat or pray like them, they’re willing to overcome such differences if that person is willing to listen to their needs.