Still the Fault of the Guards

As expected, my last posting seems to have upset quite a few people. True to form, I've now been labelled an "Irresponsible" Singaporean who expects freedom with no responsibility for my words, actions etc etc. My only reaction to these accusations is – it wasn’t me! It was Mas Selamat’s guards – bastards made me do it.

OK, let me clarify things. I think the successive PAP governments that have run Singapore have done a fabulous job. I appreciate the fact that there are clean streets, efficient services and so on. I find these things so important to my daily life that I moved back from the "Freedom" of the West to live here. Singapore, whatever one may say about it is actually a pretty decent place to live in and the government deserves credit.

However, what I do take issue with the fact that Singaporeans have become what the Minister Mentor calls, “Complacent.” The government has obviously been complacent in the handling of the Mas Selmat affair. How did Singapore’s number one terrorist walk out of a highly secure prison? If our security facility is as tight as it’s supposed to be, it will take more than a few prison guards sleeping on the job. Yet, if we are to take the Minister Mentor at his word, the majority of the blame lies here. Given that the rest of us are supposed to wait for the committee’s findings, was the Minister Mentor being responsible in making his comments to the press?

Then there is the role of Wong Kang Seng, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs. From the start, Mr Wong has demonstrated an arrogance that has been unmatched in our nation’s history. He was, “Sorry this had to happen,” rather than sorry. Although he mobilised vast resources, he’s also refused to consider various possibilities. He’s allowed his Ministry to insist Mas Selmat is still in Singapore despite the growing likelihood that the man may have escaped. More seriously, he’s insisted in having his Ministry lead the committee that is meant to investigate probably wrong doings in his Ministry. Such investigations need to be seen to be above reproach and Mr Wong’s actions have shown that this committee will not be seen in this light. By comparison, when Swift Lion took place in 1997, the Ministry of Defense ensured that the Committee of Inquiry was chaired by someone outside the Ministry (If memory serves correctly, the chair came from Ministry of the Environment.)

Having pointed out the obvious faults of the government, the Minister Mentor does have a point when he complains that the public has become complacent and over reliant on the government. He’s right. Singaporeans are so used to the government getting things right; nobody seems terribly bothered to hold the government to account when the government goofs. OK, to be fair to the public, the government is heavy handed when it deals with criticism. Singapore has a range of laws to keep people in their place and the government has not been shy in using those laws. Every respectable foreign publication has been sued at least once or twice. The local media have developed “responsible” and “respectful” journalism when it comes to political affairs – so much so that one of our major newspapers believed that it was more important to talk about an “Arrogant Roti Prata Salesman,” on the very day that every decision maker in the global economy was gathering in Singapore. Then there are usual slapping down of critics. Make a legitimate content and you become labelled a stooge of Western liberals or told that only politicians are entitled to a voice.

Having said all of this, there is no excuse for not expressing your opinions whenever you feel the government has goofed. If the media won’t take the opinions of the public, there are alternative outlets like cyberspace.

One might ask me why bother? Why make such a song and dance over, what may look like small issues in the overall picture. The answer lies in the simple fact that – we, as voters chose the government and as tax payers finance the government. As with anything that we put money into, surely it’s an act of responsibility to keep a close enough tab on people who manage your money.

For example, most of us put money into investments like Unit Trust because they allow us to leave our money in the hands of professional managers. These professionals are required to send us regular updates about the performance of the funds and if we are not happy with their performance, we take our money elsewhere. If experiences at Citibank are anything to go by, Singaporeans are very demanding when it comes to their personal funds and they’re more than willing to voice their displeasure when funds don’t perform as expected.

So, why aren’t we more vocal about the government that we finance? Thanks to the increase in GST, government finances are being moved away from direct taxes and into indirect taxes – the theory being we pay for consumption rather than production, which means more of us, are tax payers. So by that theory, shouldn’t more people be interested in the workings of the government?

Instead, the public is quite oblivious to the way money gets spent. Government budgets only excite our imagination when it involves a rebate cheque. Politics, is boring and just think of the times we’ve heard this phrase – “You can never win against them.” So there you have it, you have an institution that you spend money on, and yet you conveniently insist that there’s nothing you can do about how this institution spends your money.

OK, credit has to be given to the government for sound financial management. Budget deficits are generally the exception rather than the rule. But let’s look at some incidents:

• Mas Selamat’s Escape – Singapore’s number one terrorist walks out of a secure prison, in spite of the fact that we’ve spent a good deal of money on anti-terrorism facilities (In Budget 08, SG$102 million was allocated to anti-terrorism)
• The crushing on a navy ship near Peda Braca. The committee found the duty officer negligent and he was subsequently charged. But did anyone ask why our investment in navy radars could not detect a huge tanker coming its way.

Perhaps these may be small incidents on the scale of things. But then when you look at the loss of life and the other hidden cost – they cost the nation quite a bit. And yet, nobody seems interested in asking important questions of the government. When you think about it, the lack of criticism, both constructive and not, of the government is a sign of the public’s irresponsibility.

When in Doubt - Blame the Guards

I'm finally learning that it's utterly helpless to try and discuss one of the least pleasent quirks of our national culture - namely the taking of personal responsability. There's utterly no point in talking about the subject or even thinking you might be able to make difference, because this is Singapore, the land of accomodating practical people. So before you keep reading this entry, I must let you know that anything you may deem offensive about what I write, is not actually my fault.Perhaps I was complacent, but the real truth of the matter is, it was the fault of the guards who let Mas Selamat go. This also a two-way streak. If you reply to anything I may find offensive, I won't address the issue with you, I'll just blame the guards who let Mas Selamat go. After all, the complacent bastards should have known better.

Anyway, if you don't believe me, I would urge you to look at interview with Singapore's Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, which was published in the Straits Times. In the interview, Mr Lee made it a point to blame the escape and subsequent failure to capture Mas Selamat on - complacency. According to Mr Lee, Mas Selamat's handlers were complacent -they knew he was a slippery fish but being so complacent they let him run off. Of course, his handlers are not the only complacent buggers around - Singaporeans in general have become so complacent, that they expect the uncomplacent creators of the system to take care of their every whim and fancy. However, when asked if there were incidences of incompetence, Mr Lee, true to form, reprimanded the interviewer and declared that we can only know once the Comittee of Inquiry has completed its work sometime (being the opperative word here) in the not to distant future.

In Singapore it's something of a sacrilledge to disagree with Mr Lee. If Sir Stamford Raffles founded Singapore as a colony, Lee Kuan Yew is the man who made Singapore what it is today. You have to admire his achievements. Thanks to his passion and leadership, Singapore has become a thriving metropolis in a few short years. I like to think of Singapore as everything a city should be - clean, green, rich and safe. As I've often mentioned, Lee Kuan Yew stands out as probably the only man of his generation who rulled wisely and made the decision to step out of the hot steat at his own accord.

Lee Kuan Yew remains admired by both East and West. Mainland China, Vietnam and even India find his transformation of Singapore remarkable. These nations, though many times our size have fantasies of many Singapore's being replicated throughout their lands. His Western contemporaries like Maraget Thatcher cannot stop singing his praises. I remember, Chas Friedman, former American Ambassador to Saudi Arabia describing him as "One of the Most Brilliant Men," in the world. And I was reminded, when Chas Friedman calls someone brilliant, its because they are.

Even though his body is frail, Mr Lee is exceedingly energetic and for the most part, he's proven the case of keeping old people in the job market. Study the man's track record. Look at his arguments and you'll realise for the most part, Mr Lee has been on the right side of nearly every major issue in the world. And he's right, the Mas Selamat affair shows that Singaporeans have become an utterly complacent lot - content to tollerate incompetence from officialdome and unable to tell Mr Lee when he's speaking from cloud nine.

On the whole, I admire Lee Kuan Yew, but as time progresses, I'm worried that Singaporeans have lost the ability to see the fact that he's human and prone to making some major mistakes. As a nation, we're so in awe of him, we can't see when he's blatantly wrong. What's even worse is the fact that some of his rare but "wrong" moves are so self-serving and are in fact destroying the very things he put into our culture, the things that make Singapore's culture so materially successful.

Like him or not, Lee Kuan Yew was never one to shy away from taking personal responsability. When a policy was unpopular, he didn't delegate it to someone else - he fought for the policy in public and won - the merger with Malaysia comes to mind. This was also a leader who brought out the best in people, a man who was willing to let his colleagues argue with him on what they believed in and he had the security to let them shine. Dr Goh Keng Swee and S Rajaratnam would not have done what they did for Singapore had LKY been the control freak who needed everything done his way and to the letter.

Our "Founding" Prime Minister was also a practical man. He knew when to be harsh. You're less likely to become a vandalising Yob if you know you'll get a hidding. He also knew when to turn a blind eye to certain things - as my favourite US Navy boys point out - Geylang is miles better than many American city centres, and we're not even talking about red light districts here. Most importantly, LKY is a man of integrity. While Suharto allowed his kids to plunder the country, Mr Lee has ensured that any wealth aquired by his family is done through hard work.

But if anyone with common sense read his interview in the Straits Times on Saturday 5 March, 2008 - that leader is sitting in the back of the history books. Did he realise what he was saying?

1 - The official government line is that nobody get's blammed for Mas Selamat's escape until the Committee of Enquiry completes its work. Well, that line no longer exist. A man, who's every word is regarded as gospel truth has just put the blame of the escape on the complacency of his handlers - ie prison guards.

2 - If the prison guards were complacent, nobody has asked how a culture complacency came into being. Nobody has been encouraged to come up into the open and admit they made a mistake. We have a Minister who was "Sorry that THIS had to happen," instead of just being "Sorry." Other than that, officialdome has not been proven to be incompetent despite glaring signs that prove otherwise - just think of the mole we knew about 19-days after the escape.

3 - Instead, the blame for the culture of complacency lies with - the general public that expects the government to do everything. Mr Lee and his followers seem to be under the impression that all the public ever does is to whine, in spite of being well treated. Well, Singaporeans may whine alot and the government may be exceedingly generous in many ways. But then again, how does the wonderful government come into being? - Ooooppps, the whiney general public not only voted for the government, but it pays the government exceedingly well. I'm sorry, I do not see how Mr Lee can call it living in reality for the public to accept the necessity of high salaries for competent ministers but to accept it when Ministers make mistakes and don't account for their actions.

Let's bring it down to the most basic level. For ordinary Joes, we go to work and expect to get paid a decent wage. When we do well, we like to get a pat on the back from the boss. When we do badly, we get scolded or at worst - dismissed. However, if you follow Mr Lee's thinking - he goes to work, gets exceedingly well rewarded, comended when he does well but when he does badly - he has the privillege of scolding his boss for expecting too much from him. Singaporeans, at large, are expected to pay a high salary for competent Ministers but when the Ministers don't deliver, we have to understand that the Ministers are only human and prone to error.

The traditional answer from the powers that be, is that I'm thinking like a Westerner - a bloody minded Western Liberal who does not understand that we have our own way of doing things. I wonder if what they're saying is that only Westerners are entitled to expect competent government that they pay for?

My other favourite is - join the opposition if you feel so strongly about it. Well, let's think about this. If you follow this line of thinking - you will need to take a course in carpentry and chairmaking if you sit on an uncomfortable chair because only those with the proper qualifications know what an uncomfortable chair is.

I'm sorry Mr Lee. My name is Tang Li (S7439818i), I live in Blk 27 Marine Crescent, #22-03, Singapore 440027. I have served my National Service for Singapore and I've paid my taxes. The least I expect is a government that does the job it was paid to do and when the government fails to perform, it should take responsability. If you think you have the right to reprimand Singaporeans fo expecting anything less, you should reconsider what your doing to your legacy.

Another Look at Talent

Mas Selamat aside, one of the biggest topics in Singapore these days is the fact that our PM is on the look out for a successor. Limping dwarf's aside, leadership or the lack of it is back on the national agenda, and one of the most pressing issues about leadership is - "Succession Planning."

I'm often reminded of PN Balji's favourite theme - the idea that a good leader will leave the place he or she left stronger than when she started. I'm also reminded of a former platoon sergant who told us that, "The battery must be able to run without me." These are words that I think most of us who climb up in life tend to forget. Climbling is bloody difficult, and I guess those of us who climb up successfully depend on having strong egos. However, while a strong ego helps one survive the trials and tribulations of being on top, it is often an impediment in clouding our purpose. We get to tied up with the idea that it's all about the person - we think of "I did this, I did that and I'm so great that the rest of them will die without me," when we are in positions of leadership. As a result we end up making ourselves the centre of the world instead of concentrating one of the most basic fundimentals of leadership - making sure that our people are up to the job when we're not around.

In the Singapore we've been fairly lucky. Lee Kuan Yew, our founding Prime Minister stepped aside in 1990 while, in his words, the "mental facilities were still in order." Goh Chok Tong, his successor did something similar in 2004 and handed over to Lee Hsien Loong. Of course both Mr Lee and Mr Goh managed to retain high-level consultancy positions in the shape of being Minister Mentor and Senior Minister respectively but unlike many of their contemporaries in the region, they made it a point to step aside rather than get pushed and they've played a somewhat constructive role in contributing their experience to government rather than snipe at their successor.

However, the elder Mr Lee and Mr Goh had something that the current Mr Lee does not seem to have - an obvious team of successors. Unlike his predecessors, nobody seems to have an idea who the next Prime Minister is or even who the next group of Ministers are. The last cabinate was something of a game of musical chairs that told us utterly nothing.

So, since there is an obvious lack of political talent at home - the talk is about resorting to a traditional Singapore solution - get the talent from elsewhere. Well, actually it's an integral of being a Singaporean, especially when you think that most Singaporeans came from elsewhere once upon a time.

Leaving aside the regular grumbling, Singaporeans are quite used to working for foreigners. Just as in Lee Kuan Yew's youth, "The supperiority of the White men is acceptend" (Well if you call talentless barrow boys - talented) and these days we're even swallowing initial racial prejudices and comming to accept that the supperior men from abroad may even be Indian. Then there are the Banladeshi, Philipinos and Thais we can spit on whenever we feel that we've been spat on by the Hillbillys....ooppps, I mean talents.

But when it comes to politics, things are slightly different. The story is, we need Singaporeans to lead Singaporeans. One of the great and good mentioned that being a Minister requires passion, the type of passion that only a real Singaporean can provide.

Well, I guess they have a point there. Look to the number of barrow boys crawling round the streets these days and you'd think that we've become a third world city - London. The thought is so scary that I end cheering on the government everytime some Expat kid shits his pants when he gets canned for doing such savoury things like vandalising cars. - It's especially fun when Americans get into trouble with the law - "I'm an American dude, you can't do that....I'll call ma lawyer, write my Congressman etc etc" - Yea, right - I think. The more you say that the more inclined I am make sure you get wacked our way...infront of your congressman, lawyer etc etc. Seriously, many of the American, British and Australian expats should stick to being useful to the local economy.......getting ripped off by the imported prostitutes as well as the local bar scene.

Leaving aside my little rant, I don't think it's such a bad idea to have a non-Singaporean run for Parliament. I mean, Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Raja and the gang were not Singaporeans to begin with - they were British subjects who became Malaysians and today nobody doubts their passion to Singapore. It's even been pointed out that our much respected Health Minister, Khaw Boon Wan was actually born in Malaysia.

Singapore has a proud tradition of welcoming useful expats. I think of Hans Hofer, one of my earliest shinning lights. The man fell in love with this part of the world, built a business empire based in Singapore, cashed out and continues offer his hyperactive brain to the world. Mr Hofer is German but has come to accept Singapore and Asia as his home. Once you meet Mr Hofer, you'll ask yourself - why isn't he being invited to run a Ministry. Let's leave Defense aside, if we are so keen about having "Global Talent" I don't see a logical reason why we need a Singaporean citizen to be running any of our Ministrys.

Besides, there are government departments who don't seem too worried about wether certain positions are filled by Singaporeans or not. Philip Yeo, former Chairman of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) has even declared that he would stop giving out schoolarships to Singaporean Men (bunch of Whinney Losers) and only give them to the girls and foreigners (People who can tollerate him....oopps, I mean nice people.)

So there it is. A prominent member of the government has come out and declared that it's not always good to give things to Singaporeans. So, I wonder....If a prominent government figure can make such a statement without being made to issue a public appology...........what does it say about the government's view of Singaporean citizens?

I mean, as a Singaporean citizen, why should I care? I need to accept the need to compete with the best the world has to offer. It's good to let competition mould you. I ask myself, is it more important to have the most qualified man or woman for the job or whether you want to limit your talent pool to Singapore?

Breaking Bad News

As expected, my last blog entry has provoked the ire of my favourite young grassroots leader. He's most upset that I happened to know another grassroots leader who had a different point of view from the Mas Selamat affair. He's now determined that I tell him where my other friend came from because he's very sure that "The Grassroots NEVER called for the Minister to resign" over the Mas Selamat affair. Of course, there's only one appropriate measure to deal with adolecents who can't handle anything beyond their perceptions of the world - ignore their demands. Seriously, the young man seems to have forgotten what the grassroots movement is supposed to do - namely provide those in power with opinions from the ground.

Breaking bad news is never a pleasent experience. Unless you have a particularly sadistic streak, watching people get upset is generally not pleasent. Optimism is infectious but pessimism is lethally contageous. If getting depressed is key to your happiness - hang around the distressed.

Throughout history people have done everything in their power to avoid bad news. The Romans even went as far as executing messengers who brought bad news and those that brought good news were covered with gold. These day's we've become more civilised, we just hire PR consultants to make bad news sound good. I've been in and around PR long enough to know that PR people only find real appreciation when things turn really sour.

I must admit that I'm guilty of breaking the policy of "Honesty being the best poilcy." When a friend working in a restaurant ask me how I found the special dish, I always say I thought it was good even when I might think otherwise. If I don't like the dish....I just avoid ordering it the next time round. My friends in the restaurant business in particular are so earnest about wanting to please that I'm terrified of crushing their hopes.

I was even like this with my ex-wife. She'd ask - "Are you seeing anyone?" I'd always say no and I would go into details of how my sex life has died because she wasn't around. It was simply easier to stick to that line than deal with the crying and screaming.

But as in the example of my ex-wife, the truth is often necessary to make life liveable. Our desire to protect the feelings of others often does more harm than good. Yes, I had to put up with a crying and screaming ex-wife when I accidentally revaled that I had actually slept with someone else but since she stopped speaking to me...life has become remarkably peaceful. Both of us have gone onto better things...free from our self-destructive habits when we were together. As Simon Cowell, American Idol's nasty British judge has consistently argued, causing a bit of short term pain is sometimes kind - incidentally, much as American's may boo his sarcastic remarks, their voting paterns on the show agree with him.

There are times when there is no possible way to not break bad news. I remember Dad once got very upset with me because, well, I delayed breaking bad news to him. He was under stress, and somehow I didn't know how to tell him something that would only increase his stress. When I finally told him...he was actually more upset with me. His words were, "Did you avoid telling me because you didn't want to upset me? Well, you've actually cost me time - time I could have spent solving the problem."

And he's right. Life is full of problems and problems basically need to be solved. However, we can't do anything about the problem if we don't know the problem exist or how serious the problem actually is. But how do you break the news of a problem particularly when the boss is not in a terribly good mood. Is it worth getting a shelling in the morning?

So here lies the dilema for many people at the top. Nobody actually wants to offend them and so nobody actually tells the truth when they ask. Are you seriously going to tell the Prime Minister to his face that you think the nation is going to the dogs when he's dropped by your home and made sure your neighbours saw him akowledge you?

In Singapore, where political power is especially adictive, those in power never get the chance to see gound realities. It's easier to sweep things under the carpet when the VIP is being shown around. Once again, why risk upsetting your boss if you can avoid it. As a former teacher from a neighbourhood school, I know that there are "Problem" schools in Singapore. However, whenever someone vaguely important arrives, the "Problem" school is made-over into something quite swanky - that is until the VIP leaves. As such, our Ministers are forced to rely on statistics concocted by whatever focus group.

The media is of course a party to this situation. Editors who have been sued silly by the government over the smallest of things, have become so weary of offending people that not only do they avoid publishing criticism of government policy, they've even reached the stage of bargining good news for ads and bad news about advertisers hardly hits the news stands. Issues are ignored because...why talk about them when you risk offending someone you should not.

But this cannot be healthy for anyone. The Romans recognised that it was necessary to have a slave remind a triumphant general he was merely mortal when they had "Triumph" parades. These days those in power need to look for ways to get a glimpse from the view as it is. King Abdullah of Jordan even goes as far as walking around town in disguise so he can get a feel of what it's like on the ground.

Of course, not everyone can do what King Abdullah does. But don't worry. Blogs are there to create a debate, a questioning of society that somehow never apprears where it should.

The Incredible Shrinking Prime Ministership

Over the weekend I had a rather interesting discussion with a friend of mine who happens to be a senior member in one of the grassroots associations. During the conversation, this friend mentioned that the grassroots leaders had provided feedback to the government that there was a desire from the ground for at least an offer of resignation from the Minister of Home Affairs over the Mas Selamat case. This friend then went onto point out that, "The most noticeable things about the whole affair, is the fact that the Prime Minister is noticeably absent."

That really made me question one of the most important national issues - namely the question of leadership and what it means to be a leader. You can't escape the topic if you've served in Singapore for long enough.

Singapore has been very fortunate to experience two very distinguished leaders. Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew managed to take a small island with no hinterland by the scruff of the neck and turn it into a thriving metropolis. Singapore may be a small red dot on the global scale, but thanks to the work of Mr Lee and his team, Singapore is a blaring dot. Minister Mentor Lee as he is now known, stands out as one of the Asian leaders of his generation who has ruled wisely and most importantly managed to leave the hot seat on his own terms. The man has spent the last 20-years being a poster boy of how to retire - by keeping exceedingly active (He's an 84-year old man who checks his own emails).

Our second Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong (Incidentally, my Member of Parliament) also proved to be a leader worth swooning over. Although less eloquent and often accused of being a seat warmer, Mr Goh managed to make his mark on Singapore for the better. On the shallow front, he cut an impressive figure on the international stage, thanks to his height. Unlike most Asian leaders who often get dwarfed by their Western counterparts, Goh Chok Tong, the leader of a small red dot, looked every bit the equal (if not greater) than the leaders of the largest powers in the world

On a more serious note, the then Prime Minister managed to keep the things that his predecessor had rightfully put into place but at the same time, he managed to bring the concept of government into the modern age. It was he brought in ideas like MediSave and Edusave, policies that smacked of "Welfarism" that his predecessor despised but have shown to have benefited Singapore by making education more accessible (thus maximising the nation's 'human resources.')

As a resident in his constituency, I believe it is Goh Chok Tong who planted the idea of government as an institution that "Takes Care" of people in Singaporeans. The estate he looks after remains one of the best kept.

So, how does our current Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong measure up? Perhaps it's too premature to tell but I believe it's healthy when citizens make it a point to constantly measure the performance of their leaders. Like all human beings, PM Lee has made some important decisions that have been correct and some which have been less so.

Assessing political leadership in Singapore is tough, in as much as so many things in Singapore work so correctly that it would take a deliberately maligned leader to cock-up the situation. PM Lee has inherited a country that is doing well. The economy is growing and the people are well feed. Nobody is keen to go to war with Singapore and even in a region known for natural mishaps, Singapore somehow escapes (Not a scratch during the the 2004 Tsunami). So, amidst this background, it's hard to really assess the quality of leadership of this Prime Minister. Yes, the economy has grown and unemployment is at a historic low but ......

To be fair, the Prime Minister has made some tough decisions. Two casinos are being built, in spite of the majority being against it. The Prime Minister has also taken the unpopular decision to impose a hefty tax (a 40 per cent increase in GST), arguing quite convincingly that it was important for the government to build up reserves to make the city liveable for an increasingly elderly population.

The Prime Minister has also shown strength of character by being confident enough to delegate major task to his predecessors. He's placed handling growing relations with the Middle East with the Senior Minister (Goh Chok Tong), who is an excellent relationship builder. As such, Singapore has managed to remain a comitted ally to the USA and Israel but at the same time enjoying warm friendship with the Arab World.


To his credit, the Prime Minister also won an election by some 66 per cent of the popular votes cast. While this may be a bit of a come down from what the rulling party's history has given it to expect - this is a respectable margin of victory. What's more, the Prime Minister faced something his predecessors never faced - intelligent and hard working members of the opposition. While the opposition can hardly be construed as a "Threat" to the government, it did provide Singaporeans with something interesting - people whom voters could actually believe. The Prime Minister, as leader of his party can claim a "Mandate" from the people.

But having said all of that, how much of what our Prime Minister has done can be attributed to his leadership. The growing economy can be attributed to the electronics industry as much as it can to the Prime Minister. True leadership is always tested in times of crisis. Lee Kuan Yew survived the early turbulance of independence and military confrontation in neighbouring Indonesia. Goh Chok Tong lead us through the 1997 Asian Economic Crisis and the outbreak of SARS in 2003 into a stronger and more resillient nation. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long has thus far dissapointed in the two periods of "Roughness" that his premiership has thus experienced.

Firstly, there was the 377A debate. For those of you who forgot, this was the bill on whether annal sex between consenting male adults should have been legalised. Here was a chance for the Prime Minister, caught between two powerful interest groups, to make a stand. And in the end....he didn't. He allowed political expediency to triumph over the rule of law - declaring in parliament that for this section, "Legal Ambiguity was best." In theory, the conservatives were told that 377A would remain and the homosexuals could be satisfied that they would not be prosecucted because the government had no intention of actually enforcing the law. Nobody seemed curious enough to check-out how many of SIngapore's laws they were violating free from the knowledge that the government would not actually enforce the law. Thanks to his resolution to keep the law but not enforce it, a dangerous precident has been set.

If the Prime Minister's leadership during the 377A debate was dissapointing, his leadership or his lack of leadership during the Mas Selamat affair borders of being dangerous. At the time of writing, it's been nearly five-weeks since the man escaped and in all those weeks, the only thing the Prime Minister has told the nation was some cheesy slogan about how all communities have bonded together.

Mas Selamat has made a mockery out of the government's repuation for competence. In spite of all our investment in anti-terrorism technologies, we've been unable to catch a 47-year old with a limp. The Minister of Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kang Seng has provided circus entertainers of the world with a new recruit. Every statement from the Ministry seems to make the Minister look more incompetent each day (Think of the story of Mas Selamat's mole coming out 19-days after the fact and on the day, Mr Wong told the world that details of the investigation would not be made to the public.)

As much as I think Mr Wong should do the decent thing and resign, I also believe that Prime Minister needs to take some of the blame for the failure to catch the man. If a Prime Minister sees a Minister is making a fool of him or herself, surely the Prime Minister has an obligation to act. The Prime Minister is showing that he is unwilling or unable to deal with Mr Wong.

Leadership is more than just taking credit for the good time. It's about reassuring people during bad times. Perhaps the bunker mentality does work, but it's quite disturbing that not only has a comitted terrorist escaped but the fact that the leader of the government responsible for his capture remains noticeably absent. Mr Lee could celebrate in public when the host of the next Youth Olympics was announced and yet he's noticeably absent when Mas Selamant escaped.

Arggh

Looks like I've lost my voice today and could do with nothing better than a hot cup of lemon tea to make the vocal cords function in a more conducive manner. Unfortunately, while I may have the voice of a lung cancer patient that still insist on smoking through a tube, I don't have the luxury of not being able to speak today. Have to visit Pungol CC later this evening for an event where the Foreign Minister will be visiting.

Anyway, Q1 is comming to an end. It's been in many ways quite dissapointing as quarters go. The only main development was the establishment of the hi-fi trading business, which had thus far given me an average of 5% return a month for the last two months on my capital invested.

However, other than the birth of a new venture, it's been a fairly slow process with my bigger clients playing the wait and see game and my smaller clients keeping me busy. It's nice to have the small guys to keep me alive but I do need to be in profit and have cash in the bank and thus...the big boys need to come in.

Still, it was not too bad. Made a break through with GECF yesterday and I think a few interesting points were brought up in interviews yesterday. One point being - IT is only an enabler and the important thing being the soundness of the business model. The other main point being the importance of having cash.

As businesses go, I think most of us forget our basics and it's especially true in good times. Everyone makes money and so we don't see the failures in the system we have. When hard times come, we run towards comforting things like spending money on things like IT in the hope it will work some magic. We forget that we need to have a sound business in the first place.

As for cash......most businesses forget that cash is exceedingly important for their day-to-day opperations. We get so obsessed with how much money we make that we forget that sometimes it's a question of when you you get paid. No point having a million dollars at the end of the decade when you don't have anything in between. I've always admired the Chinese hawkers who managed to not spend their piles of cash because they realise they have to conserve cash to do basic things like pay their suppliers. And speaking as someone with not very much cash....I think of the girls on the streets of Geylang who somehow manage to get paid everynight.

Went out to Lock Stock last night. Great fun, the guys were in good form and the bar had more people than it usually has. Stayed out to 4am - now is that surprising why I can only speak through my fingers?

Take Pride in Your Blog

It's now a month since Mas Selamat aka Gold Safe broke out from prison and he's happily still at large. Netizens are continuing to crack jokes about the Ministry of Home Affair's inept handling of his escape and the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng did not dissapoint the cynics by declaring that the hunt would become more - "Targeted." While I would not want to see the Ministry stop looking for him, I think the Minister should sack his PR communications team for encouraging him to put his foot in his mouth at every available public forum. Political double-speak has finally come of age in Singapore and it has taken a short-arsed mechanic to demonstrate that little fact.

But let's leave Mas in wherever he is at the moment. Let us leave the Minister with his foot in his mouth (He has a bright future in the circus) and concentrate on something far more exciting, the fact that as part of the blogging community, we are onto something rather large. I'm currently reading a book, part of a book review I'm going, on how the Internet is set to change the face of marketing and public relations.

Personally, I've always felt that blogs could be turned into a lucrative tool. It's actually one of the reasons why I've started this blog (as well as to leave sarcastic comments on my Financial Planner's Blog). But like the rest of the marketing communications community, I remain clueless about how to make a penny out of this little blog and even in my most skint state...I'm still blogging in the hope that one day I'll crack the code.

I guess one of the reasons why blogs have failed to become the goldmine they're made out to be is the fact that nobody seems to treat blogs as a serious medium. I think most of us just see them as a tool to ramble on about our daily lives. Somehow, we don't understand the value of our ramblings and as a result we fail to convince marketeers that we are special. Anyway, Singapore remains the land where the basic print media rules OK. Journalist unlike bloggers don't ramble and so, "Credible People" read newspapers and credible marketeers put money with credible mediums.

So, there it is, you're just rambling if you right on a blog but criticising or fawning if you get published in a newspaper? The government seems to have settled into this conclusion - I vaguely remember, Minister Lee Boon Yang, Minister of Information, Communications and the Arts said something to that effect when Singapore's most comical blogger - Mr Brown was suspended from his work at Today. - Brown (who is unBrown and very Chinese) in real life should have just stuck to making comments on his very widely read blog. Of course, it's a little different when you start inciting racial hatred ........just ask the "Racist Bloggers" who got themselves sentenced to spend time with the cream of the Malay Community after they told billions in cyberspace they'd do the Malay Community what Hitler did to the Jews.

But according to this book, we're not looking at our blogs correctly. We're thinking of blogs as a poorer cousin of the mainstream press, when the blog could in fact be the wealthier, healthier cousin. Imagine if we saw blogs as sources of opinoins - each blog representing an arsehole (or several as the case may be) with a different opinion.

Now, when you look at things this way.....the blog becomes more interesting. Suddenly, you realise that the blogs are not places to get facts but to discover opinions. People suddenly become "Honest" when they think nobody is watching. You're not going to tell people exactly what you think of them when you're have a discussion in a "Public"forum like the mainstream media. This is especially true in Singapore where "Editors" are trained to practice "Responsible Journalism" - the kind that acts as a social glue and criminalises laughing at politicians, even when they're hillarious.

Ironically, the PAP understands this. One of the most critical threads on anything to the PAP can be found at the Young PAP website. Guys with names like "Matilah Singapura" (Malay pun on the Singapore Anthem - for non Singaporean readers) describe the performance of Singapore's minsiters in terms I wouldn't describe my faourite One-Legged Albanian Dwarf Whore.

So, there you have it. People don't read blogs for facts. They don't search for information. They look for opinions. They look for opinions like they're own or a reason to confirm their opinions. Word-of-Mouth opinions are formed on blogs and spread like wildfire.

I think there are things I could do with the blog. I hope the rest of you reading my ramblings will take part in events on this blog if I get round to organising them.....It may be fun.

Another Day, Another Election

Easter Sunday has come and gone and Mas Selamat remains a free man for the past 25-days. Singaporeans, are happily going about their own daily business and so as a chirppy little blogger, I'm just bashing away at the keyboard in the hope of getting something vaguely intelligent said.

Anyway, another election has just taken place. This time it happened in Taiwan, better known as the Republic of China. The results were great. Ma Yueng-Ju, the candidate from the Kuomindang Party beat his rival from the Democratic Party. The KMT, formerly one of the world's longest rulling political parties had spent the past 8-years in opposition and it has now come back as a credible democratic party.

The KMT is like a sister-party to the Communist Party on Mainland China. Although both are sworn enemies (The Communist under Mao drove the KMT under Chiang Kai Shek out of China), they were both comitted to the "One China" policy. So, after 8-years of Chen Shui Bian trying to make a "Taiwanese" identity more prominent, it looks like we'll be seeing easier relations between the People's Republic and the Republic of China. The world will carry on with the idea that there is only ONE China.

However, President-elect Ma has shown some independence of thought, which is good. He's even contemplating boycotting the Olympics if the Mainland continues to kick the crap out of Tibetan protestors.

But let's leave that aside. As an ethnic Chinese, I get very happy to see Taiwanese when they go into elections that are actually democratic. The Taiwanese have shown that having a democracy is not incompatible with "Chinese" character - so when you think that the Taiwanese are "Real" Chinese unlike the Singaporeans who are hybrid of Western and other cultures, it's perfectly plausible for Chinese to enjoy democracy and embrace political competition.

Not everything is right with the Taiwanese political system, of course. Corruption is rife and President-Elect Ma, is looking to Singapore as a role model in clean government. Taiwan is also a place where politicians don't get much respect due to their antics - a Taiwanese parliamentary session resembles something akin to a boxing match.

But having said that, the Taiwanese have learnt to succeed in spite of the government. When you look it this way, the Taiwanese are one of the world's most entreprenurial people and politics aside, they have spent the last decade powering the growth of the Mainland. Much of the tech industry in the USA is powered by Taiwanese brains.

Of course, what I remember best are the drinks mashines when I was in Taiwan during National Service. In Singapore, you get used to having a few tea drinks - namely ice-lemon, green and chrysanthamum. Somehow, in Taiwan, tea comes in at least 20 forms and each of those forms is delicious. - People who can get that creative with tea drinks must be onto something.

Bullies Rule, A OK!

It's now been 24-days since Mas Selamat escaped from prison and nearly everyone who has read my recent postings will be aware that I've been somewhat engaged in a verbal dual with a young grassroots leader from Pasir Ris GRC. The young man has now decided that he needs to enforce the fact that he's been speaking in his personal capacity. A friend of mine then pointed out that I was picking on someone smaller than myself. In short - I had become a bully. Well, perhaps I have. My only defense will be:

1 - I won't patronise him by arguing at a lower level. - As long as he's keen raise issues, I will address them.

2 - I've noticed that I've become something of a regular to Singapore culture - power corrupt

Singapore is officially one of the least corrupt countries in the world. According to Transparency International, Singapore is ranked fourth in least most corrupt country in the World - Behind the Nordic nations but ahead of the World's Hyper Power, the USA and our former Colonial Master, The UK. For what all my postings asking for the Minister of Home Affairs to resign for incompetence, Singapore's highest ranking government officials are men and women of integrity. I can confidently say that it's virtually impossible to bribe any government official here.

But there is another form of corruption in Singapore that is equally insideous and pervades our culture - Power Corruption. It's not a government thing - it's far more seroius - it's a cultural thing.

What is power corruption but a desire for power or at least proximity for it. Lee Kuan Yew, Modern Singapore's founding Prime Minister has worked tirelessly to combat it. Unlike the late President Suharto, former Prime Minister Lee has ensured that every business activity that his family is engaged in is above board and properly earned. The Lee Family, which includes the Prime Minister, Minister Mentor and Chairman of F&N, one of Singapore's most prominent companies, has earned its success the old fashioned way - through hard work and brains.

But while the Minister Mentor has strenuously kept his family unaffected by his political power, the system has somehow ignored his efforts. While bribes may not work in Singapore, being related to or coming from the same school as someone prominent certainly helps.

To be fair, "Old Boy" networks have been in existence since human kind could scribble. In the Middle Ages, there were "Guilds" of craftsmen. In the UK, Public Schools, particularly the prominent ones pride themselves in the number of Old E's C'c W's in the various companies on the FTSE 100 willing to dool out jobs to the alumni. Now that East Asia is becomming the "In" place for business, we get the Japanese Kiratsu or the Chinese Guanxi.

And there is nothing wrong with contacts. The world functions on contacts. In this day and age of multiple applicants for a single job - contacts become the trump card in the competition for a job. I remember when I was an intern at Citibank, I was told that I had nothing to be embarrased about admiting the fact that my father was a golfing buddy of the department VP - everyone, I was told, got their job through a contact. The fact of the matter is - your CV only get's a glance by the HR manager because someone told him or her to look at it. I've used contacts just to survive in the last five-years. Dad's name got me an internship in Citibank. Mum's contact got me interviewed by PN Balji of Today (thus my regular writing gigs), Dad got me the job at 10AM, keeping in touch with PN Balji got me the job at BANG and so on. Knowing the right people is part and parcel of life and I've been privelleged to meet certain people in life. I may not have a powerful organisation behind me, but being able to drop the right names does compensate from time to time.

But is there a point where guanxi or old-school-ties becomes corruption? I believe the answer lies in a subtle difference - namely the difference between doing something because you fear offending someone instead of doing something because you know the the guy has qualities and you want to give him or her a chance.

It's a subtle difference but an important one. Take the analogy of job interviews. Guanxi can get you a job because the VP of the department told HR he wants you to work for him. Corruption comes when you are chosen over more qualified candidates because the VP does not want to offend one of your friends or relatives.

One of the most prominent issues in Singapore in recent years was the "White Horse" system. This was basically a system where relatives of prominent people or "marked as the elite" were posted to privilleged positions within the army and treated allot better than the other grunts during National Service. Could you call this a form on "Power Corruption?" Well, Mr Cedric Foo, formerly the Minister of State for Ministry of Defense argued that it wasn't - he got onto National TV and admited that the Ministry did mark out those from prominent families but only did so ensure that no one gave them special treatment. - Alas poor Cedric - in the eyes of everyone who had served National Service - he became known as "Cedric Fool."

I believe the most damning thing against the White Horse System was the fact that it was....part of the system. The "REAL WHITE HORSES," namely the sons of Ministers, MP's and high ranking officers were embarrased by the difference in treatment they recieved. Really prominent people in Singapore, as elsewhere are decent people and don't need "Special" treatment to be supperior.

But then again, what Commanding Officer with an eye for his next "Crab" wants to be known as the person who "Ill treated" the son of Minister So and So? The Ministry has taken pains to rectify this but while the Ministry can issue guidelines and policies, changing the mentality of the people running the system is a different matter.

Speaking as an anthropologist, I think allot of this is due to the fact that many of our institutions are centrally controlled. In the case of the military, there is a political reason - namely that of ensuring our military people don't get the chance to think of overthrowing the system - we do live in a region where coups are quite common. However, this leads to a situation where commanders are robbed of initiative to act as professionals should. In Israel, prominent people entrust commanders to look after their children in a professional way. It's something we need to work towards.

The White Horse issue and the military are not the only instances of power corruption. It's merely one of the few issues of power corruption that is clear cut. Others are not so clear cut and hard to prove. Take the media industry where editors on occasion recieve phone calls reminding them to practice "Responsible Journalism," which included hints to go easy on criticism of the way the last Presidential Election in Singapore was run. You can argue that the editor's decision to not publish an article was not a case of "Responsible Journalism" but simple editorial judgement.

I did point out to someone from the Straits Times that I noticed that my letters whinging about how Singaporeans lacked basic manners on the public transport system were published with glee but a letter I wrote to disagree with an article writen by the Minister Mentor (it was about Middle East policy) was dismissed as being editorially unsuitable (considering I had my news points covered). I think the editor was quick to point out that they really didn't think my reply to MM Lee was newsworthy - can I prove otherwise.........it would be economically pointless.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong did point out that the news media is not just a business but a social tool. I'm still trying to figure out how social our news media has to be. For example, is it harmful or helpful if an editor publishes a story about what a politician said when the politician instructs the editor not to publish his comments? Personally, I think the politician is living in a fantasy world of delusion if he or she expects the news media not to publish things he or she actually says.

But then again we live in Singapore, the land of 7.68% economic growth, many transactions but few cheques. Things here work on repackaged Asianised Victorian Values - respect for authority without reponsability.

This is particularly fun when you probe opinions and look at editorial about two international incidents - Palestine and Tibet. When it comes to Palestine, I think one has to credit the Israeli spin mashine for enforcing the myth of vulnerability - hence most people will be quick to point out that Israel can write-off its anti-semitic murdering of Palestinians as self-defense.

Mainland China does not have the same excuse when it comes to the way it has treated Tibet. True, the Chinese have brought "development" to Tibet but at the same time, they have flooded Tibet with Han Chinese by giving them vast incentives. Tibetan's are forbiden by law to hang portraits of the Dalai Lama, in most cases forbidden to speak their own language and often have their thumbs cut off if they get too religious. Last week's violence included, Tibetans have never resorted to terrorist tactics against Mainland China in the nearly 60-years since Mao marched the Red Guard into the Potala Palace. - Why - The Dalai Lama has kept Tibetans from resorting to violence.

But somehow, when you talk to Singaporeans about these two issues - they will inevitablly side with the larger power. I've had good friends ask me:

"Why don't the Palestinians give up? Don't they realise the Israeli's are military stronger - they should look for new land in Jordan."

The Straits Times ran an editorial that said that Tibetans had to "Learn to accomodate the Chinese."

Humm, based on this train of thought, I think its time to abolish National Service. After all, why bother fighting with a bigger country and culture, when you can simply learn to be accomodating to his or her demands.

For reading spooks:

My name is Tang Li, NRIC S7439818I
Address - Blk 27 Marine Crescent, #22-03, Singapore 440027
Tel - +6590256957

Still have not been Sued

A Young "Pro-Government" supporter asked me to stop posting "Scandalous" and "Unpatriotic" post on the government's performance in the Mas Selamat Affair. The young man in question, felt that I was "Unappreciative" of Singapore and the good work that government has done. He's reminded me that the government has done a good job, delivering 7.68 percent economic growth and unemployment is at an all time low. With such a proud record in delivering the economic goodies, why was I being such a "Western - Liberal" and calling the government's performance in this instance - incompetent. How could I keep expecting the government to be "God" and why couldn't I accept that the Minister of Home Affairs is "Only Human and therefore prone to Human Error."

Well what can you do with such request? I believe that the only response to people who ask you to stop posting "Scandalous" things is to keep posting more of the same. As a Singaporean who has served his National Service, it's my obligation to question the system. I think PN Balji says it best - "The government has got 75-80 percent of things right but it's vital that private citizens harp on about the 20-25 percent that they have not got right." Thanks to Mas Selamat affair, the private citizen has something to harp about and should take every opportunity to do so until Mas Salamat kills himself with laughter.

Perhaps I'm starting to sound like a broken record here but if I don't keep repeating myself, I fear the messages I believe in will be forgotten in the "Feel Good" factors that surround us. I am not "Anti-Government" but given a choice between being "Pro-Singapore" and "Pro-Government," I chose the later. I shouldn't need to stand for election to get my feedback accross. Suggesting that I need to do so, is in itself a form of betrayal to Singapore or any other nation.

Point 1 - Mas Selamat's escape, while a blot on the Home Affair's Ministry, is but one incident in otherwise enviable track-record.

Well, true, Ministry of Home Affairs has a good record in keeping Singapore safe. Singapore is remarkably crime-free. It's the one place I can think of where young girls can happily drink themselves silly, sprawl themselves on the streets after midnight and live to tell the tale without so much a scratch.

But as the Singapore Police Force ad campaign says "Low Crime does not Mean NO CRIME." In the case of Mas Selmat, this is particularly true. This is not a low-level pick pocket taking your spare change. This man, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs is a dangerous terrorist who is dedicated to doing major damage to Singapore. As far as Mas Selamat is concerned, the more people he kills, the better - it underlines his objectives. If anyone suggests that his escape is just a "small" event, they should consider this - in 23-days of freedome, Mas Selamat has a growing chance to not only become stronger, he has a chance to actually achieve his aims. Sure, no one has died in a bomb attack todate, but the chances of that happening has increased and gets higher each day this man is running around. We arrested him under the Internal Security Act because he had the potential to do damage - do we need him to actually do the damage before we understand that his escape is No Small Matter? This is not a paper statistic on the Home Affairs Ministry's record but an actual human whom Ministry of Home Affairs said was keen to do damage to Singapore having the freedome to do it.

Of course, there is also the possibility that Mas Selamat never was the threat the Ministry claims he is. It's happened before, in the 1980's "Marxist Conspiritors" were arrested under ISA - truth was - most of them belonged to the Catholic Church that pissed off the powers that be. But then as former Austrlian Prime Minister, John Howard says, "When it comes to terrorism, don't take the risk." - So let's give Home Affairs the benefit of doubt.

Point 2 - Minister of Home Affairs, Wong Kang Seng, has done alot for Singapore and he's shown determination to capture Mas Selamat. Calling for his head to roll is political opportunism.

I don't doubt that Minister Wong has contributed many things that benefit Singaporeans. However, Minister Wong is the Man-in-Charge of Singapore's Security, and when you have a major breach of national security like this, the man-in-charge has to be responsible. Saying sorry is not sufficient.

This was not a case of the man escaping and being caught within a few days. If that where the case, we could say this was negligence on the part of the prison services or staff at Whitely detention centre. This is a case of the man running around for 23-days and counting as well appropriate measures being activated too late - just look to the fact that it took them 19-days after his detention to release information that Mas Selamat has a mole on his face. These decisions are made at the command level not on the ground - it's commanders and above who need to be responsible for the failures of the opperations.

In Singapore, the government's performance needs to come for especially close scrutiny and feedback. The reason for this is because our Ministers are paid more than anyone elses. The government told us this was necessary to prevent corruption and attract talent into public service. We accepted the government's argument that was necessary to pay public servants competative rates with the private sector, so we should demand the same results from the government that we do of the private sector - heads of leaders who blunder.

PM Lee Hsien Loong pointed out to the number of jobs paying more than the Prime Minister's in Singapore. He argued that none of these jobs were more important than the Prime Minister's. Therefore when you look at this way, the high official salaries were justifiable.

Since this argument was used, we should carry it further. A CEO who loses money for his shareholders within a quarter put's his job on line. A CEO who loses money within a year gets sacked. Nobody cares about the guys track record and all the other good things he's done. Nobody cares if this is human error. So is the government telling us that the jobs of the PM and his Ministers are less valuable than the CEO's, and therefore they should not be held to the same standards? True, Ministry of Home Affairs does not have a profit and loss statement but it deals in something far more important - national security. Are we saying that the Man in charge of this is not really as important as the CEO of a commercial organisation and should maintained in his high-paying job when national security has been compromised?

Point 3 - Laughing at the Authorities is unpatriotic and insulting to the efforts of the Home Team Uniformed Officers trying to Look for Mas Selamat

National Security is important to Singapore. It's one of the reasons why the government has allocated some S$ 100 million towards terrorism prevention facilities. I, for one, think the police force has done a good job in keeping Singapore safe and our civil defense and prison services do their job too.

And having served in a uniformed group for 2 1/2 years of my youth, I do understand that you do alot of hard work, which the public does not see. But as my National Service Battery Commander once said," All you can and should expect for doing your job is a note saying "Job Well Done." Otherwise what you do is just - what you do.

Besides, it is commical to see how one limping and undereducated, unarmed, working alone man can evade capture by thousands of security personel, backed -up by thousands more community leaders and equiped with the latest technology. Laughing at this situation beats getting upset by the clear inadequacies of the government's search for Mas Selamat.

And as I've often said - who is the big traitor to the man in the field? The public that does not applaud and riddicules the efforts or the leaders who send him into the field with inadequate leadership?

So, let's think this through. Leadership needs to take responsabilities of the failures of this incidents as well as potential success. Demanding this of leaders is not unpatriotic but the highest form of patriotism.

For the record:
My name is Tang Li. My NRIC number is S7439818I and I live in Block 27 Marine Crescent, #22-03, Singapore 440027. I can be reached at +6590256957 or li@tang-asia.com. The views expressed are my own and I welcome anyone to take discuss any issues they may find offensive.

One More and I'll Sue

How do you know when you've made in Singapore? The answer, as a friend of mine once said was when, "Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew summons you to the Istana for an major screwing session." As this friend of mine says, "It shows that you're important enough for the man himself to give you some personal attention." And there's something to that. Just as it was once said that a sign of ones creative talent was being fired by Batey Ads (when it was run by Mr Ian Batey,) a sign of editorial credibility comes from being sued by Minister Mentor Lee (Bloomberg, The Economist, The International Herald Tribune, The Far Eastern Economic Review etc).

Unfortunately, I've not reached that stage in life. The Minister Mentor, remains oblivious to my existence and the existence of the blogs that I've been writing. However, I think I must be moving up in life. My recent postings about the Mas Selamat affair have finally brought me the attention and ire of a young grassroots leader. He believed that I had "Wacked him" in my previous posting and after telling me that my views on Mas Selamat "Sucked" over sms, he sent me another sms telling me, "1 More and you'll be sued."

As expected, he's followed the party line on this affair. Turn on the critic, especially if facts are raised. Today, the Minister of Home Affairs proceeded to read out an email of someone saying he was behind the Home Affairs Ministry and then proceeded to talk about what a great jobs the Home Affairs was doing appart from this incident. Netizens who demanded accountability ooppps, his resignation were just a small minority.

Not to be outdone by our political masters, my young critic promptly posted something on his blog acusing people like me of being bribed by Chee Soon Juan, the much bankrupted punch bag of the government (I wasn't aware Dr Chee had money to give) as well as being an arm chair critic who should join politics instead of being All Talk and No Action. As usual, we are reminded that in Singapore, the citizens who are affected by the policies of the government they elect and pay for are entitled to give feedback on the government's performance only when it's feedback that's acceptable to the ears of the government.

Thanks to this, there is only one appropriate response:

My views of the Mas Selamat remains thus.

1 - Mas Selamat, an apparently dangerous terrorist according to the government has escaped from a "Secure Facility," and remains at large after 22-days of escape.

2 - The Home Affairs Ministry continues to insist that all sources of information have lead them to believe that he is:

i-Still in Singapore
ii-Working on his own.
iii-Unarmed.

3 - The Ministry insist on maintaining a high level of secrecy so as to not compromise the work of the Internal Security Department (ISD), yet wants public involvement in helping catch Mas Selamat. - The only information recieved is his hight, the fact that he walks with a limp and 19-days after his escape, we are told that he has a mole on his face.

4 - The Ministry has spent heavy amounts in anti-terrorism equipment and training. In FY08, $100 million of public funds are devoted to anti-terrorism measures. Yet, in spite of this, Mas Selamat is still at large.

So the questions remain:

1 - Why is the public only recieving information on an ad hoc basis even though the public is expected to play a major role in his capture?

2 - Why is there no evidence of what makes Mas Selamat dangerous? What are the public's alternatives if facing a terrorist?

3 - Who is in charge of this investigation?

Keeping the public in the dark, while expecting the public to be involved is a command decision. Thus far those in command positions seem oblivious for the need to manage the flow of information. Clearly the people in command are not doing the job they were paid to do and expecting the public to continue having blind trust in the government when the government has fallen short.

This government insist that it's senior managers need high salaries to compete for talent with the private sector. We have allowed for this. Now, when the government falls short, it should behave as the private sector it seeks to emulate in such a situation and expect senior decision makers take responsability with their jobs.

Pas Bolleh

Malaysia has just experienced a watershed election. The rulling party, known as the Barisan Nasionl (BN) managed to win enough seats to form a government but somehow along the way, they lost the 2/3 majority that they had held for the last fifty years. The opposition made up mainly of the Islamisist of PAS, the Chinese of the DAP and a cross cultural hodge podge lead by a former Deputy Prime Minister managed to win a record number of seats and more significantly four state governments, including Selengor, the state where the capital city, KL is located.

I'm actually delighted that Malaysia has had a watershed election. It was a sign that Malaysians have, without the "Guidence" of enlightened governement come allot further in political maturity than the rest of us in the ASEAN region, and as a Singaporean, I'm much humbled by the way our Malaysian cousins showed us how to deal with government.

I am particularly pleased with the fact that the PAS or Islamic party were returned with a larger majority in the state that the BN were desparately trying to win back. As with Singapore's election two years earlier, the federal government promissed money for development to get rid of the existing government. Instead, the electorate saw the bribe for what it was and returned the PAS with a larger majority.

PAS is a particularly interesting party. It is an Islamist party with a spritiual head, who wears robes. I think many Westerners and Western trained people get really worked up whenever they think of "Islamist" parties in Islamic countries actually win the popular vote. Somehow, Westerners (and for the sake of this entry, I include Westernised Asians) cannot get it arround their heads that there may be people who don't see Westernisation as being in tune with Modernisation.

I was particularly ammused when a young Muslim boy called me up, very upset with the fact that I had sent him an sms saying PAS BOLLEH (roughly translated as PAS ROCKS). Don't you know they're bringing in Islamic Law," he said. He pointed out to the fact that Kelantan is undeveloped under PAS rule (not that the preceeding UMNO rule did any better) and the fact that women wore headscarves. It was hillarious to see his inability to aknowledge that people could be happy without masses of development dollars, factories and sleazy night clubs at their doorsteps.

I guess you have to blame, Jenadas Devan, a Straits Times correspondent I met at my great aunt's 90th. He had come back from a visit in Kelantan and he noted that he ended up liking th e PAS people. It was so simple, he said. The guys from PAS were:

• Humble
• Honest
• Competent
• Friendly
• Interested in the community they were supposed to serve.

This stood in contrast with the guys from UMNO (United Malay National Organisation - the main party behind the BN), who were arrogant, incompetent and corrupt. A PAS man, as Mr Devan noted, would happily ride his bike to speak to people in the coffee shops, while the UMNO crowd only seemed able to meet people in swish places that they drove their swish cars too.

I think this provides an interesting insight into what human beings look for in their leadership. For the most part, we're not worried about race or religion of the people leading us provided they can look after us. To a certain extent, people will tollerate some corruption - a case of its ok if the rich get richer as long as we get richer too. However, when this is no longer the case, people expect honesty from their leaders and competence.

Let's face it, PAS, DAP and PKR did not win extra seats. The BN, particularly UMNO lost the seats because it failed to deliver. In Mahatire's day, people tollerated the corruption because the country was developing a decent rate. The current PM, Abdullah Badawi was welcomed as the man who would keep Mahatire's development but clean up the corruption. He won a mandate and when he didn't deliver.......the electorate slapped him.

Similar lessons can be drawn from the Middle East. Fatah, the so called "Moderates" of the Palestinian movement were corrupt and incomptent. Hamas, when they were in local government showed themselves to be honest and competent. Unsprurpsingly they kicked Fattah in the teeth when they faced them in an open vote.

It's a shame the Western world freaks when political parties in this part of the world put up the word Islam in their manifesto. Why judge them on their religion - judge them on their honesty and competence, the things we'd judge other political parties by.

Only in Israel can One Write So Accurately and So Passionately About the World.

Article by Uri Avery, one of the world's best writers on the Middle East. Like most of his fellow Israeli's he's able to say things the rest of us would love to say. And in the spirit of Semitic Solidarity...he get's published by Arab News .....Salaam et Shalom:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=107283&d=28&m=2&y=2008 Kosovo, Israel and Palestine Uri Avnery, uri-avnery-admin@mailman.sweethome.co.il

A Serbian is driving down the highway in the wrong direction, listening to music on the radio. Suddenly the program is interrupted by an urgent announcement: “Warning! A crazy driver on the highway is going in the wrong direction!” “Only one?” the Serb exclaims, “All of them!” “Wow!” the thought crossed my mind when a Serbian friend told me this joke, “How much they resemble us!” And indeed, much as Serbs are different from Israelis, it seems that we have a lot in common. Both peoples believe that “the whole world is against us”. Both are completely convinced that they are absolutely in the right, even when everybody else is telling them otherwise. Like the Israelis, the Serbs are also immersed in their past. For them as for us, history is more important than the present. The future is a hostage of the past. Many centuries ago, the Serbs lived in Kosovo. According to them, that patch of ground was the cradle of their nation. There, in June 1389, the defining event of their history took place: the great battle against the Ottoman Turks. The fact that the Serbs were decisively beaten does not diminish the memory. It also does not matter to them that afterward, a people of Albanian descent took root in the country. In their eyes, the people that has now been living in Kosovo for many centuries is “foreign”, the country is “the patrimony of our forefathers” and “belongs to us because our religion (the Eastern Orthodox) says so.” Doesn’t that sound at bit familiar? In World War II, the feeling of solidarity between Serbs and Jews was cemented. Our heart was, of course, with the courageous partisans. The Jews who succeeded in reaching Tito’s liberated areas were saved from the Holocaust. Serbs and Jews were murdered together in the Croatian concentration camps, which were so gruesome that even SS officers shuddered when they visited them. The death of Tito and the collapse of his regime did not put an end to the feeling of solidarity. On the contrary. Our Rightists fell in love with Slobodan Milosevic. Ariel Sharon supported him publicly. Perhaps he liked the combination of deeplyvfelt victimhood and merciless brutality. All this explains the mixed feelings many Israelis have toward the declaration of independence of Kosovo. I am afraid that in this matter, too, my views diverge from those of many other Israelis. My heart was with the masses of Albanian Kosovars who rejoiced and danced this week in the streets of Pristina. They reminded me of the masses celebrating in the streets of Tel Aviv some 60 years ago, when the UN General Assembly decide to set up a Jewish state (It also decided to set up a Palestinian-Arab state, but that has been well-nigh forgotten.) This week, people throughout the world are debating the question: Do the Kosovars have the right to a state of their own — or not? International law is being analyzed, possible precedents examined, learned arguments raised pro and contra. To me this seems irrelevant. When a population decides that it is a nation, behaves like a nation and fights like a nation — well, then it is a nation and has the right to its own nation-state. That is the only test that counts. And the Kosovars have stood this test. Therefore, there is a Kosovar nation, and it has a right to a state. Long Live the Republic of Kosova! The midwife of the independent Republic of Kosovo was the genocidal Milosevic. When he decided to carry out a murderous ethnic cleansing and to drive out millions of Kosovars from their country, he put an end to the right of Serbia to go on ruling Kosovo. It proved again how right Thomas Jefferson was when he demanded, in the American Declaration of Independence, “a decent respect for the opinion of mankind”. Milosevic, like his admirer Sharon, had only contempt for the opinion of mankind. They were both wrong. as was Stalin when he asked contemptuously: “How many divisions has the Pope?” The establishment of the Republic of Kosovo is a punishment for Milosevic, much as the establishment of Israel was a revenge on Adolf Hitler — even if it was the Palestinians who paid the price. The conscience of mankind was outraged by the monstrous expulsion, and this time it did have divisions — or at least squadrons. The US Air Force bombed Serbia and compelled Milosevic to stop the despicable operation. The Kosovars returned to their homes, and since then independence was only a matter of time. The lesson of the Kosovo chapter is simple: Since World War II, one can no longer commit genocide without the conscience of the world being aroused and action taken to stop it. Sometimes this happens late, even shockingly late, but in the end the selected victim will stand on his feet again. A more general question arises: When does a national minority have the right to secede and establish a nation-state of its own? If the Kosovars have this right, why not the Basques in Spain? The Corsicans in France? The Tibetans in China? The Tamils in Sri Lanka? The Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria? The Luo in Kenya? The Darfurians in Sudan? That is a subject best left to professors of political science. Reality has its own language. No one case is the same as another. There is no international tribunal to decide, according to established standards, who has this right — and who does not. The matter is decided in practice: when a particular population is determined to achieve independence at any cost, and when it is ready to fight and sacrifice for its independence — then they have the “right” to independence. The aspirations of a minority depend also on the attitude of the majority. A nation that is wise enough to treat its national minorities with decency and accord them real equality will succeed in keeping the state intact. Countries like Canada and Belgium understand this and endeavor to prevent the breaking up of the state. But when the dominant people mistreat the minority — as the Serbs did in Kosovo and the Russians are doing in Chechnya — they reinforce the motivation to achieve independence. * Yugoslavia has broken up, and now even Serbia has broken up. The unity of Canada and Belgium is fragile. Kenya is breaking apart between ethnic units (“tribes”). In many place around the world, minority peoples are dreaming about new nation states of their own. * Apparently, a paradox. A small state, even a medium-sized state cannot maintain real independence in a world that is inevitably moving towards globalization. States like Germany and France are compelled to transfer large chunks of their sovereign powers to regional superstates, like the European Union. The French economy and the German Army are subject to Brussels more than to Paris and Berlin. So what is the sense in creating even smaller states? The answer lies with the power of nationalism, which is not decreasing, but rather the opposite. One hundred or two hundred years ago, Corsica could not defend itself. To be secure, it had to be part of the French kingdom. The Basque homeland could not sustain an independent economy and needed to be part of a larger economic unit, like Spain. But today, when decisions are made in Brussels, why should Corsicans and Basques not have their own states and be separate members of the EU? That is a worldwide tendency. Separate nations do not unite in new states, but on the contrary, existing states break up into national components. Anyone who believes that Israelis and Palestinians will unite tomorrow in one state does not live in the real world. The slogan “two states for two peoples” is relevant today more than ever. So Israel, approaching its own 60th anniversary, should recognize the Republic of Kosovo and wish it well.

Sure Signs that You're Being Screwed

I've often compared the difference between a steady job and free-lancing to the difference of being a wife and whore. The steady employee is like a wife. He or she is married to the institution they work for. Whether you're in the public or private sector, your life evolves around the institution you are married to.

A free-lancer on the other hand is like being a whore. You have to please a variety of institutions that pay you and you have utterly no security in your source of income. Your life depends on keeping a variety of people happy.

Each has its own pluses and minuses. Wives supposedly have the security of a loving husband but are somewhat obliged by the sexual moods of their husbands. Whores have no security in life but at least they get paid before they get fucked. A wife is more likely than a whore to enjoy old age. A whore would be lucky to reach old age. But there is one area in which whores, ooopppps free-lancers have an advantage - that is they become smarter about signs of when they're getting screwed.

Here are of list of phrases that should send alam bells ringing:

I want to/I'm doing this to HELP you. - With the exception of Mother Therresa, few people are truely alturisitic and more importantly, in the business world, people approach you for commercial rather than alturistic motives. People who tell you they are dealing with you to HELP you are usually too dishonest to admit their motives and make a pathetic effort to disguise things as altruism.

Let me be FRANK/ HONEST with you - Why do people need to declare their honesty? People who are honest are just that and don't need to declare it. The appropriate response is "you mean you weren't before?"

This is for CHARITY - what charity - the Association for Diabled Charlatons? This is usually the best way to get you to work for cheap.

Here are some phrases which you should be shot if you believed them!

I'll DOUBLE YOUR MONEY - most of us are greedy shmucks and never think through the fine print. Investments take time, money and work - qualities most of us lack! We are so desparate to not expand any of these things that we become eager to believe anyone who promises to save on any of these things. Somehow due dilligence is thrown to the wind. Nobody seems to check and analyse if the guy can really save you time, money and effort. - Most investments in the financial market yield about 10% per annum. Anything that doubles your money in a day is called a gamble.

I give x,y,z of earnings to CHARITY - unless your a listed company where you have to declare these things, you don't need to declare your good needs unless you need the world to impress people with your good deeds. There's a good reason why Christ declared that the best way to give alms was SILENTLY. Besides, most people who INVEST their money don't care about who give their money to - they're interested in how much you can make them. - Although I have nothing against NON PROFIT organisations per se, people who talk about Not for Profit usually make profits that are so obsene the tax man would be living with them if they declared them. - In one of the few incidences we can credit the British Government for being ultra clever was not falling for Richard Banson's publicity stunt that he'd run the National Lottery for Charity - in actual fact, he was taking his profits out in service charges (which were higher than the guy running the lottery for profit).

It belongs to GOD/ This is GOD's WORK. - God, as Colin Powel once said (way before he joined the Bush II Administration) should be left out of public policy. Powel should also have also mentioned that GOD is not in the REAL ESTATE and MLM. OK, I have nothing against tithing per se but why do people like to think that they have an EXCLUSIVE on the Almighty. I don't know but the older I get I notice that the people who claim EXCLSIVITY over GOD don't have it - or perhaps I've been noticing that people who ask you to GIVE MONEY FOR GOD, usually do it from SWANKY BUILDINGS that any half-wit will tell cost lots of money to maintain. People who claim that "WE ARE GOD's CHOSEN," "THIS BELONGS TO GOD," "WE ARE DOING IT FOR GOD," actually have a very poor opinion of God or an over inflated opinion of themselves. REAL MESSENGERS of GOD are exceedingly humble and uninterested in the trappings of worldly posessions or status.

Trust me, I have billions - People like to be around RICH people and nothing impresses people more than the appearance of glamour. REALLY RICH people don't need to APPEAR RICH nor do they need to DECLARE they are rich. Todate, Bill Gates flys coach. Warren Buffet continues to opperate out of Omaha, away from the glitz and glam of New York or LA. Neither needs to write books about HOW they GOT RICH. By comparison you have Donald Trump who is so BUSY telling you how to get rich......nobody seems to have noticed the banks moving in on his projects.

I KNOW x,y,z - We all know the rich and powerful. As I write this, I can claim the aquaintaince of 5 kings, 4 Presidents and 3 billionaires. Technically, I wouldn't be lying. I do know George Bush - I've seen so much of him on TV and read the litterature about him - how can I NOT KNOW him. The question that the SEEMINGLY WELL CONNECTED never want to tell you is - DO THEY KNOW ME. Technically, I do know George Bush ....but does he know me?

Other Signs to beware of

WHITE PEOPLE - I have nothing against Caucasians per se. Some of my best friends and loved ones are Caucasians. However, Caucasians are human like the rest of us and just as there are clever, kind, genuine, capable, classy Caucasians - there are an equal if not greater number of STUPID, CRUEL and DOWNRIGHT DISHONEST CAUCASIANS. - It's a fact that Asians, Arabs and Africans need to remember when they deal with CAUCASIANS.

BRANDED GOODS - Brands are basically personalities and I am in the business of promoting and building brands. However, one should be suspicious of people who need to let you know they're wearing brands. Certain things in a guys wardrobe may not necessarily look right just because they're BRANDED. Li Ka Shing for one, takes pride in the fact that he wears a cheaper watch than the reporters who interview him.

A Moment of Hope

The year 2008 has not been a terribly good year for the financial markets. Nearly everyday you turn on the TV and you hear about how stock markets around the world are collapsing and economies are going down the tube.

But there was a piece of good news today in the Middle Eastern Newspapers. Palestinans who had been impressioned in the Gazza strip finally broke through the fenses and flooded into Egypt where they managed to buy supplies and got the essentials that they needed to survive.

The people of the Gazza strip made one fatal error. They actually believed that the world was seriously interested in having "Democracy," and promptly behaved as voters in other parts of the world do - they voted for a group that had a record of honest governance and got rid of a lot that had a track record of corruption and thievery. Unfortunately, the Western World didn't like the honest people because they had big hairy beards, prayed regularly and reffused to aknowledge the existence of a group of people who believed in "Civilised Torture."

And there you have it. Palestine was placed under siege because it's peolpe voted in a group of people with a record for being honest but had beards and didn't believe that the Palestinians were supposed to lie in the shit hole and allow the other people with beards to kick the crap out of them for sport.

The rest of the world actually realised there was something wrong with this. But the Americans felt that the only way to treat the beardy people the Palestians liked was to kick the shit out of the Palesinians by imposing a siege on them. As far as the Americans were concerned, the world was a nasty place that didn't understand that the beardy people with skull caps had suffered so much in their history, it was essential for them to kick the shit out of the Palestinans just for the fun of it. Even when the Saudi's thought they could get a compromise, the Americans felt they were being mean to the people with beards and skull caps and promptly made sure the Saudi efforts collapsed.

And there you have it. The Beardy people the Palestinians liked took control of the Gaza strip and the Americans were appauld. The Palestians were supposed to lie down and let the other beardy people kick the shit out of them and enjoy it - the fact that they had the gall to fight back was a sign of - well the Palestinians not knowing their place and so they had to let the other beardy people kick the crap out of them some more.

But today, for a few moments of sanity.......the people of Gaza broke free and people around them allowed them to do it. There's hope in life after all.

Transformations

Met one of my oldest friends for lunch yesterday. Karen and I have known each other for 29-years, which is pretty darn scarry because...well, its a sign that both of us are getting on in life.

Anyway, she's made a dramatic career switch. She's given up working as a lawyer and has gone into the area of early childhood development. She's working and taking a diploma part time and by the end of two-years, she will be ready to set up her own school. She admits that it was big drop in her income. As a lawyer she was earning in access of four grand a month - she know earns under a grand. However, what she's lost in income, she's gained in quality of life. She has time to spend with Tilly, her adoreable 13-year old and unlike the time when she was working in the legal sector, she has time to smile.

I'm really happy for her and I think its wonderful that she's taken the curageous step to make a career switch when she was from a fairly high paying income. I don't know.....I guess most of us get so caught up trying to make a living, we slave for the almighty dollar and in the end we neglect the things that matter to us.

For me, I do like what I'm doing. I comfort myself with the fact that the late night rush jobs I've been working on have lead to the fact that next month, assuming people pay accordingly will be very, very good - probably the best I've had without Saudi Royal visits or GE payments to keep me in the style I'm accustomed to.

But am I, and others like me, missing out on the important things in life? I mean, I've always wanted to run away to a deserted island, pick up a girl or two and write books about utterly nothing on value other than self-interest. But at the back of my mind.....I'm limited by the fact that I've got to try and make enough bucks to keep body and soul together.

Long live those with the courage to live their dreams.

Tinny Tinny Notes

It's officially the second week on the New Year and I somehow seem to have spent the better part of the week running about to a few places here and there and yet, I don't feel like I've achieved very much.

Week started with getting Dr Benjamin Mow, an oncologist from West Medical Group onto the radio to chat about cancer. Interesting to deal with another medical topic other than the eyes and the good doctor was....a good doctor. I think it was PN Balji who tought me to tell clients that they should think of three key messages and reffer all their answers to these messages. It's simple but exceedingly effective. Clients who have followed this advice have come out of interviews looking good. At the end of the day, I think people need to go into interviews and be exactly who they are and not try and become artificial personas.

Spoke with Han Li. She plans to come back to Singapore after Chinese New Year. Should be fun to have her back in town. Actually, it also gives me a bit of time to plan a trip to Vietnam. I spoke to Thui last night and as always, it was exceedingly happy moment. She's growing up fast and I promissed that I would make it a point to go up and see her in her natural environment. She actually said - "I Miss You." Mummy was in the background giving her a bit of coaching but its nice to hear the small tyke tell you that she misses you.

Anyway, I think this could be a year to get a bit of travel around the region. It's funny, I've traveled quite a bit to places around Europe and in the USA. I remember Lee taking Tara and I on a train ride accross America. I remember Mum and Thomas renting a car and driving us accross from Germany all the way to Italy. But I barely know Asia outside the Singaporean version of Asia. I've never actually been outside the British Colonial sphere on influence. Admitedly the Empire covered a quarter of the world (The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire the Brits used to boast - That's because God does not trust the Brits in the dark, retorted the colonised), and staying within the old British sphere covers pretty much most of the world. But the world extends beyond the English speaking version of it.

Thailand was interesting. Thailand is the only society in South East Asia never to colonised by the Western powers. Unlike Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, which were created by the colonials, the Thais had an existing civilisation. Unlike India's princely states, the Thais were a united nation. More importantly, unlike China, the Thai's opened up to trade with the Western world. As a result, you got a society that stayed pretty true to ancient roots and yet managed to modernise at a pace that suits their culture. Thailand has had its ups and downs. It's had corrupt politicians. Violence in the South. Thuggish military men. And yet, when you take all of that into consideration - Thai society has held together remarkably well, in large part thanks to the King, by far and away the best leader in South East Asia, if not the world.

Vietnam should be another interesting experience. In part, Han Li and Thui are the reason for going. But I think there's more than just my personal affairs to the place. The Vietnamese are people who fought some of South East Asia's most brutal wars. Sure, Communism screwed up the Vietnamese economy by quite a few decades. But these people who went through some brutal years are busy getting on with life. You read of Americans and the angst they have over the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese by contrast don't seem to be prisoners of their past. Americans like other investors are welcome to build a good future with them.