Too Much of a Good Thing

If you want to know about the direction of the world economy, you could do no worse than to look at a story in Reuters and the Hindustan Times, of a Swedish Table Tennis Coach who refused to work for the Indian Table Tennis Federation because they were going to pay him in US Dollars rather than Indian Rupees. He argued quite reasonably that he had bills to pay in Swedish Krona and the US Dollar had only been declining by 25 percent every year against the Krona. By contrast, the Rupee was holding steady – and so he was much better off being paid in Rupees.

How times change? There was a time when the US Dollar was unofficial currency of the Third-World. If you worked in places like Indonesia, Brazil and dare I say India, you made sure that your bill was in US Dollars because if you billed in local currency, you might have the rude shock of finding that the value of what you billed had become worthless by the time you finished your job.

Well, this isn’t the case now. American tourist are finding the world increasingly expensive as the once almighty Greenback takes a tumble against currencies both major (Euro, Yen) and minor (Rupee, Real etc). For the rest of us, the US is starting to look like a cheap holiday destination. For Americans the only comfort must come from the fact that they have their British cousins in the same boat. How my father must cursing me for not going to school in the UK now, instead of when I did – which was ten years ago. Back then, the pound changed hands for three Singapore dollars for every pound. Today, it trades at about one point nine eight Singapore Dollars to the pound. If I was now at school, the Old Man would be saving about some seven thousand Singapore dollars a year just on the exchange rate.

So what’s happening? Over a decade ago, it was the USA and the UK which were booming. Asia was coming out of a financial crisis in 1997 and we relied very much on Western markets to survive. Today things are a bit different. It is Westerners who come over to Asia to look for jobs and not all of them are in high powered positions. Hong Kong had a host of British visitors called F.I.L.T.H (Failed in London Try Hong Kong) doing menial jobs that the locals wouldn’t do. Singapore, being further away from an increasingly assertive China, is a bit less harsh to Westerners. We still love them but there is a decreasing amount of expatriate packages. It’s not an uncommon sight to see Caucasians taking the bus or hanging around HDB estates these days.

A part of it is probably natural. Asia is home to three fifths of humanity and sooner or later, you have to expect the many Asians on the planet to go for some of life’s nicer things. In a way much of this was started by Japan. Back in the 1800s they saw the rise of the West and went out of their way to emulate the technology and the systems that made the West grow. When they were defeated in World War II, they had the good fortune to do so at the time when America was desperate for prosperous anti-Communist bastions. Money was pumped into Japan and the Japanese were prevented from having a military. Japan prospered and when things started getting expensive in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore become the next in-line to plug into and benefit from the global capitalist system. Hong Kong and Taiwan then became engines for China and Singapore became an engine for places like Malaysia and Indonesia (We have been much slower in trying to develop our neighbours than Hong Kong and Taiwan).

A generation of Asians have studied in the West. We feel at home in English and dealing with concepts like the “Rule of Law” are things that our growing generation expects. Contrary to what some of the regions autocrats might believe, we want things like laws, accountability and fairness, not because they are Western but because they are the things that make society prosperous. In most of Asia, this is the growing generation and the momentum for improved governance and prosperity can only grow.

Then let’s take into account the fact that Asia is playing catch up. For most of us, we are at an earlier stage of development than much of the West. As such, there is simply more room to grow. China and India have made headlines with their growth figures. However, the class that has benefited from growth in the Asian Giants are only a minority. Rural China and India remain poor – so much so that entrepreneurs like Polaris’s Arun Jain, who made a fortune in IT doing work for Western multinationals are trying to find ways to apply their knowledge to lift their poor country brethren out of poverty. If you think both these Asian Giants have achieved anything – wait till the vast majority start climbing out of the poverty trap.

Much has been made of the great rise of Asia. What is less looked at is the decline of the West, particularly the USA. Once again, we shouldn’t get too carried away writing off America. American multinationals continue to dominate the world and American universities continue to produce the best scientist, artist etc. However, this is becoming less so and the average American is feeling less secure than he or she did a generation ago.

The key reason for this is simple – bad money management. America remains the world’s largest debtor nation. With the exception of the eight-years under Bill Clinton, every American Administration has run a budget deficit. What is true of the American government is also true of the average American household. Your average American household has something like five-credit cards per working adult and all of them are maxed out to the tune of something like US $20,000. A baby born in America today inherits a debt of a hundred or two thousand.

Such figures are staggering and hard to imagine? How did it happen? Americans were not always like this. My late step-grandmother, Joan was a depression baby – she was conservative with money and avoided extravagances. When she died, her estate was large enough to put my younger brother Max through college with plenty of spare change. For Joan and her generation, money was scarce and therefore something which had to be conserved and treasured. Thanks to such attitudes, the USA had money to underwrite World War II and to provide Marshal Aid to Europe in the aftermath of the War (So much so that when George Marshal went to Westminster Abby, ALL the crowned heads of Europe stood up).

What happened since then? How did America go from a creditor nation to being a debtor nation within a generation? Part of the answer is circumstances. During the Cold War, America the Super Power in the West and it had a need to spend heavily on things like defence and propping up allies in various parts of the world. Militaries are expensive and the Americans spent heavily to keep their military machine going. Today, one of the biggest expenditures in the American budget is for the military. The US spends more on defence than the European Union and China combined. You might argue that part of this was necessary. There was the “Cold War,” and most recently there’s the “War on Terrorism.” However, even then there are ways of saving money when you fight wars. George Bush I did it best.

He waited for Saddam to invade Kuwait. Built up an alliance of Arab Nations and limited the military adventure to getting Iraq out of Kuwait. At the end of the day, Old Man Bush could send the bill to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who were more than happy to pay for a good portion of it.

By contrast Bush II decided to invade Iraq despite the objections of the rest of the world (You are with us or against us) and not finishing a job in Afghanistan (His Dad finished Noriega in Panama before looking elsewhere). As such the Americans have continued to foot the bill for two wars. The only way that America pacified Iraq has been to bribe various fractions who are likely to kill each other and Americans when American money runs out.

Stupid military expenditure is only part of the reason. The key component in America’s lack of financial discipline is cultural – which is ironically one of America’s greatest strengths. We, the rest of the world, love America because it remains one of the most optimistic and therefore innovative societies. Think of most of the great inventions of the day like the Internet – these are all American inventions.

Not only has America been at the forefront of scientific invention – it has also been at the forefront of financial innovation. In a way this has been a blessing. Entrepreneurs in the USA have easier access to credit than in most places. Bankruptcy laws are relatively lenient. As such, it is easier for an aspiring entrepreneur to get things going – fail and start again until he gets it right in the USA than any other part of the world. Americans have a high tolerance for failure provided the failure gets up and tries again.

If companies cannot get bank loans, there’s a market to raise funds. For big companies there are the financial markets. Now, small individuals can go onto the internet and get loans or loan money to people at an agreed interest rate. When I worked for GE Commercial Finance (South East Office which has since been sold to Standard Chartered Bank), I found a myriad of ways to raise funds – ie equipment leasing, factoring and so on.

This is good in as much as anyone with a dream has an option of raising money to make that dream come true.

There is however, a downside – namely when the lines between tolerating mistakes and condoning bad behaviour blurs. It’s one thing to help a guy who had a run of bad luck. It’s another, when you bail out obvious criminal activity – just think of Enron when you had a huge multinational, which was obviously cooking the books and everyone turned a blind eye to it until there was no more money to keep the show going.

Yes, in business, credit is important. There will be times when you need to pay bills and you have yet to be paid. You cannot tell your suppliers that they have to wait till you get paid simply because they deal with you not your clients.

However, easy credit can be very addictive. Why bother watching the pennies when the bank is more than happy to provide you with a never ending credit line? In business debts can be a good thing if you do things like buy assets or invest in something or other. On a personal level this is not bad too – most of us have a mortgage to buy a house, which becomes our biggest asset once we pay off the bank.

Debt becomes dangerous when it goes into things like buying the stuff that you don’t need. It’s one thing to take a loan to buy a house or put your kid to school. It’s quite another when you use it to live in a spa or buy fast cars. Things like this go down in value and when they do, they are worth less than the loan you took out to buy them. Unfortunately the easy credit which made it easy for businesses to start up mostly went into buying things that have no real value.

Furthermore, the finance industry got extra creative. Creativity in itself is an asset. However, when carried to far this can be dangerous. For example, a mortgage is good loan for both sides in the sense that the borrower is using debt to gain an asset while the creditor knows that if there is a default, he gets something in return – an asset. It’s a totally different story when you make a loan that isn’t backed up by anything other than high interest rates. Fine while the guy raising junk bonds can pay the interest and principle. It’s a different story when things go belly up.

In short, the finance people found so many clever ways of raising money; they didn’t even understand what they were doing. A lot was said about the “new” finance models which reduced risk and maximised returns. It reached a stage when the wisest investor of all time, Warren Buffet declared that these new products were “Weapons of Financial Mass Destruction.”

Mr Buffet has been proved right. The entire American nation forgot about risk as well as returns. Nobody thought it was worth teaching the young that money was something to be conserved. The idea of getting ready for a rainy day never crossed anyone’s mind – then it stormed.

American policy makers are now very upset with China for having the audacity to save. Apparently this is bad for the world because it leads to an economic imbalance. However, you can’t blame the Chinese for wanting to preserve themselves and take care for the days which may not be so rosy.

Isn’t it time for a culture change?

The Great Transport Debate to Nowhere

There’s something interesting happening in the state of Singapore. Two months after the General Election and a month before an expected Presidential Election, Singapore is having something called a “Debate.” The public transport companies have made the announcement that they’re planning to up their prices and the newly emboldened Worker’s Party, which has become Singapore’s main opposition party is crying foul. The Workers Party then went onto suggest that the problem with Singapore’s transport system is that it is run by two listed companies that are driven by the “profit” motive raI’her than the desire to serve the public. The Workers Party then proposed “Nationalising” the system - placing it under a “non-profit” organisation that would have the interest of the public at heart.

The government then had a field day by pointing out that “Nationalised” utilities had failed everywhere else and stopped short of accusing the Workers Party of being a group of dreamy socialist.

It’s good to see a debate. It was even better to see the Straits Times, long lampooned for being a government mouth piece, publishing a piece by Mr Gerald Giam, a prominent member of the opposition. This is something that has not been done in the living memory of the senior journalist that I know.

While I welcome the debate on public transport, I think both sides have missed some of the most crucial points. The noise of political rhetoric has drowned out some common sense.

Let’s start with the Worker’s Party. They are right to scream foul at the proposed increase in public transport. While public transport in Singapore is generally good, especially when compared to elsewhere – service standards haven’t exactly been improving and we, the lay people are feeling the pinch. A decade ago when I first moved back to Singapore, a $10 top-up could last me a week. These days, I use that within 24-hours. I also find that bus waiting times have become ridiculous – I’ve been expected to wait 48 minutes for a bus while seeing several buses of the same number arrive at the same time. I don’t call this good service and reading about another price increase doesn’t exactly make me happy. All credit to the Worker’s Party for doing what an opposition should do – question and cry foul whenever it thinks the government is overriding its authority. .

However, I believe the proposed solution has a major flaw. It works on the assumption that “non-profit” means altruistic and it relies on the idea that government is a solution. “Nationalising” has become a dirty word around the world for a good reason. While Singapore can boast of some pretty efficient state-run institutions, the general trend shows that once private sector dynamism is injected – things get a lot better.

Placing the system under government control will require lots of money. Both transport companies are listed and taking them off the market will require the buying out of shareholders. Then you need to put in a layer of bureaucratic administration to run the system. If you talk about building the administration of the existing companies, you’d be living in a fantasy world. You can expect the existing staffs that were hired under private sector conditions to insist on being hired under civil service conditions. This can only make the cost go up. In an age of global dynamism and movement, the last thing Singapore needs is more civil servants.

Which leads to the next point – when have civil servants been known for being sensitive to the needs of the consumer? While politicians may have to face the voters every five years – civil servants do not.

Furthermore, the term “non-profit” is something of a misnomer. We assume that “non-profit” organisations are altruistic because they don’t distribute profits to shareholders. However, that does not mean they don’t make money. As the NKF incident in 2005 showed – non-profit organisations merely distribute the money differently – it comes out in the shape of salaries, benefits and other goodies. Richard Branson tried to do this when Britain started a “National Lottery.” Mr Branson made a huge song and dance about how he wasn’t going to make any money from running the lottery – it would all be for charity. Thankfully British regulators were on this occasion smart enough to notice that Mr Branson was charging vastly higher administration fees that the next “profit-driven” bid. Let’s get it straight – “non-profit” does not mean altruistic and “profit” does not mean evil.

Then let’s face the fact that state-run transport systems work best in the nations of Northern Europe where people are taxed highly and the people understand that they’re paying for the system – they’re doing through their taxes rather than directly through the organisation. Singaporeans don’t have that mentality yet. Our mentality when it comes to state subsidies lies closer with our former colonial masters who see government gifts as being “free.”

If the Worker’s Party is guilty of being naïve and using faulty assumptions – the government is guilty of something that could be worse – humbug. Thanks to the use of the word “Nationalising” the government is positioning itself as a champion of the free market enterprise that supposedly made Singapore what it is today. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let’s look at the word “nationalising.” To use this word is to imply that you are brining something under government control. The term does not apply to Singapore. Let’s face it; both the SMRT and Comfort Delgro are only private companies on the surface.

Yes, both have listings on the stock market and are governed by stock exchange rules. However, let’s look who the majority shareholder of these companies is? Yes, Temasek Holdings, a private sector company that is merely owned by the Ministry of Finance, even if they officially two different entities. You cannot make the government own and control what already owns and controls.

The government has long maintained that it leaves the private sector alone. Unlike governments elsewhere, our government is supposed to the business people get on with it. Many foreigners who have set up shop in Singapore might be inclined to agree. I remember an Indian national telling me, “If you don’t think much of your EDB (Economic Development Board) – wait till you meet their Indian counterparts.”
This may be true on the surface. However, the business people in Singapore, particularly those running big organisations that run a section of the economy like transport - are more often than not the same people who run the government. Just look at how many former military chiefs have been on the board and management comities of both SMRT and Comfort Delgro. I remember SMRT having one Admiral and one General as CEO. Even Singapore International Airlines (SIA) the darling of Singapore industry is filling up its management comity with former Air Force Chiefs.

SIA gets away with it because protection by the Singapore Government is useless to its core business – which is international travel. Things are different for SMRT and ComfortDelgro. They have a monopoly on their business and you cannot call their business model free-enterprise filled with competition. As Mr Giam rightly pointed out, we the consumers don’t exactly have a choice

You can, if you dig deep enough into our transport system companies find all the arguments that the government is making against the Worker’s Party’s plans to “Nationalise” the system. Land transport is not run by private sector companies but profit making departments of the government.

What can be done be done about this? Well, let’s start with the realisation that governments are good at doing certain things and businesses are good others. These two don’t exactly compliment each other and the skill sets required to be good at the government things are not the same skills that are needed to be good at the business things.

Then let’s look into the fact that the private sector usually trumps the government sector in certain things because the private sector has this thing
called “Competition.” Governments throughout the world have found that competition is the best way of getting things like innovation and productivity doing up. Let’s look at the UK, which was the first country in Western Europe to privatise state utilities. Electricity, gas, water, Telco’s and the airline became dramatically better after privatisation. The failure was British rail. Why did everything else succeed under privatisation but fail when it came to transport. The answer was simple – everything else saw competition enter the market. In the case of privatising British Rail, the government merely broke up a nation wide monopoly and created millions of small local monopolies which had bugger all interest in improving life for the consumer.

Singapore is unique in many ways and can’t copy the British example wholesale. However, where the comparison between Britain and Singapore is similar is in transport. Instead of having many regional monopolies, we have two – which is about right considering we are many times smaller than the UK. Furthermore both companies have even more extensive monopolies than the ones in the UK. As well as owning the subway system, both companies own the bus and taxi service.

As with the UK, the key lies in creating real competition in the transport sector and separating the government and the business. Governments need to understand that their key role is to see that the infrastructure both physical and legal is workable. Governments also have to enforce the rules. As such, the less contact governments have the business people, the more likely they are to be able to provide fair enforcements. The business people need to focus on providing a service to their consumers while finding a way to turn a profit and keep the wheels of commerce going.
What can be done?

Well, let’s start with understanding that the basic infrastructure should belong to the government. Roads and rail tracks will owned by the government which will then lease them out to the providers who will be responsible for the upkeep.

Then we should take a leaf from the aviation industry. Property such as interchanges and rail stations should be privatised. Let’s property developers find ways to creating transport hubs into thriving commercial districts.

Then the city should be divided into routes the same way the global aviation industry is divided up. Routes should be then auctioned off to the highest bidder who will then be able to provide a bus or train service for a limited number of years. Certain routes will be more popular than others which means that those holding them will want to ensure that the service remains decent enough for them to keep their routes. Less profitable routes can be hived off to smaller providers in the same way that budget airlines have been taking and making a profit out of the routes that traditional airlines have found unprofitable. This would create entrepreneurship in the transport sector.

Then there’s an issue of taxis. A few days ago, Conrad Raj, one of the main old timers in the media industry proposed letting cab drivers own their own cabs. This is a brilliant idea. This will create greater incentives for taxi drivers to work harder and to look after their cabs. Why shouldn’t a taxi driver be an entrepreneur? The government could make good money from creating more competition between incentivised entrepreneurs.

Competition has been proven to be a good thing and the last thing we need in Singapore is more government. Let’s work towards separating government and business and create a better Singapore.

You Know something is Overrated when…..

I used to have a dream that I would one day be able to place the letters MBA behind my name. The idea was sweet. I would get my first degree in the UK, work for a huge multinational for about three-years and then head towards Kellogg School of Management in Northwestern University to do my MBA. In short, I thought it would have been cool to be part of the great corporate network.

Well, things didn’t work out that way. I never got into a “big” corporation – I think the closest I’ve been to a multinational was two weeks at Rapp Collins. Didn’t have the credentials and earning enough for my next meal became a bigger priority to getting my MBA. However, as I continued to pound the streets looking for work, I still harboured the dream of calling myself “Tang Li, MBA”

That was until I meet “Chutiya Bhai.” My dreams of ever becoming an MBA went to the shit. Thanks to Chutiya Bhai, I realised that having an MBA was not everything it was cracked up to be – I lie – I realised that having an MBA might become detrimental to my state of mind. It was like fantasising over a hot chick for ten-years and then one day, you go on a date with her and you realise that she’s so rotten on the inside that shooting yourself before the date is over looks like a viable option.

Chutiya Bhai has an MBA amongst a host of other qualifications. He’s a very clever person. However, he is also unpleasant. Give him two minutes of your time and he’ll take two days telling you how rich and successful he is and how he managed to get to that stage by jacking over his professional colleagues. The man’s idea of saving money is to avoid paying his local coffee shop for food he’s eaten.

He did admit to me that he had a few personal issues to resolve with his family. However, you would imagine that someone with an MBA would have the education and
character to rise above it and succeed brilliantly. He didn’t – his only friends were the Old Rogue and myself – that was of course until Joyce decided she would rather be with me than with him (despite the fact that he makes loads more money than I do). If Chutiya Bhai was not bugging the Old Rogue about his issues in the office, he would bug me. We were meant to solve the world’s issues for him. Much as I did spend a lot of time in his company – I felt that, “If this is what an MBA does to you – thanks but no thanks.”

Ever since I’ve lost the ambition to get an MBA, I’ve been able to see things more clearly. I realise that MBAs do not make the best business people. Two of the best people I know are a Vietnamese girl and a Chinese egg seller. Both have debateable qualifications. Yet both have risen up from nowhere by having the right people-smarts. Both have helped bring prosperity to others and so have been rewarded in turn.

To be fair to Chutiya Bhai, he’s not the only person to shatter my dreams. One of the most prominent people to shatter my dreams was Professor Thio Lee-Ann, a former Nominated Member of Parliament and a Professor of Law.

Like the MBA, I had a dream of going to Oxford. Unfortunately, I was coming out of a bad love relationship and a drunken spree during my A-level year and so I didn’t get the grades required for Oxbridge. However, that didn’t stop me from admiring Oxbridge and holding up the place as an ideal of what a university should be. I suspect I didn’t make much of a student career at the University of London because I felt like a poor relation to the Oxbridge Universities.

The Professor Thio Lee-Ann came along and shattered my dreams about Oxbridge. I read her arguments during the debate on the repeal of 377A (the section in the Singapore Penal Code that criminalises anal sex between men) and was stunned.

This supposedly clever woman who had a professorship in law proceeded to produce pages and pages of drivel about how letting two consenting adults have sex in the privacy of their own bedroom would be bad for society. Her argument went along the lines of – if you let consenting gay adults have sex in the privacy of the bedroom, you will ruin society because everyone might turn gay. The clincher of her argument was – Anal Sex is like sticking a straw up your nose.

Not sure how she worked that one out? Throughout her ranting, she failed to provide a single, logical and legally sound argument as to why a private act between two consenting adults should be a criminal act. Her arguments were befitting a trash collector than a professor of law.

What was most shocking to me was finding out that the good professor had been to Oxford. I mean, I guess you could say that our local varsities have a way of passing certain people, but one would surely expect better from Oxford! How the hell did a woman with such an inability to think rationally and critically graduate from a University that is renowned for producing some of the greatest minds of our time.

Furthermore, my respect for the Oxbridge institutions were shattered when our Prime Minister, a Cambridge Graduate, and his cabinet (filled with Oxbridge graduates with MBAs) refused to recognise the drivel that Professor Thio was sprouting for what it is and proceeded to agree with her – they decided to keep 377a in the penal code but promised not to enforce it – which is a beautiful contradiction in terms.

I suppose I should be grateful to the likes of Professor Thio and Chutiya Bhai. These are people who help you to realise that sometimes the lost dreams that you had were lost for a reason. When you meet them, you suddenly become grateful for the things that you did not get and you bless your fortune for giving you the things that you had. When it comes to institutions, I think it’s always best to meet the products as well as reading the brochures.

What’s next for George?

I am really happy that Singapore’s much liked former foreign minister; George Yeo will not be running for the Presidency. Mr Yeo, who was regarded as one of the more ‘liberal’ members of the ruling elite would have had an awful time as President.

He would have been caught between his former cabinet colleagues who would expect him to be on their side and the public who would have expected him to be an independent minded President. Mr Yeo has wisely decided that it is better not to be caught between a rock and a hard place.

So what’s next for Mr Yeo? If you look at his credentials and his number of years of service to the nation, Mr Yeo should have plenty of options. He could, for example, take on the role as an advisor to a number of statuary boards and government linked corporations. He could easily take up a role as a lecturer, talking about Singapore’s place in the world. Not only would Singapore’s universities hire him, he could also lecture in universities around the region.

Personally, I think Mr Yeo should be bold and look for opportunities beyond Singapore and the Southeast Asian region. He should look towards getting a senior management role in a big multinational – which if you consider GIC and Temasek Holding’s investment in some of the world’s largest corporations, should not be too difficult.

To put it simply, Mr Yeo’s presence at a multinational corporation like General Electric (GE) or 3M or JP Morgan would help his former cabinet colleagues seal the argument about the need to pay themselves high salaries.

The argument for paying ministers high salaries has always bordered on the need to counter corruption (well paid people have less temptation to look for bribes) and to attract talent. On the corruption front, this argument has worked relatively well. Singapore has been a steady number four on the list of the least corrupt governments in the world (though the more cynical do argue that Singapore should be number one).

On the argument of attracting talent, this argument is less effective. The initial argument for paying Ministers high salaries was that it was necessary to bring bright minds into politics, which might otherwise have gone into the private sector.
As far as politics is concerned, it is OK for big countries like the USA to accept that you can pretend to be a President for US$20 million in a movie instead of being the President for US$400,000 a year, but it is not possible for small countries like Singapore. We need the best political talent we can get and we need to pay high salaries to stop them from running to places like JP Morgan and GE.

However, there’s one small problem. If you look at the pre-ministerial careers of most of our cabinet ministers, you’ll find that more often than not they’re careers have always been in Singapore and in the public sector. We have plenty of former military people and other civil service types and even the rare few who have spent their careers in the private sector have spent it in Singapore – Tony Tan, former Deputy Prime Minister for example, was the CEO of OCBC and our former Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong was once at Neptune Orient Line (Temasek Holdings is a primary share holder).

This in itself has not been a bad thing. As governments go, the Singapore government has been acknowledged as a fairly good one. Our public sector is filled with bright people who do quite a good job in running the show.

However, having good people does not mean we’ve been getting the best. The point about paying high salaries has been that we need to attract people who might otherwise have gone to JP Morgan into politics. However, not one of our cabinet members has come from international organisations. The majority have in fact been bread at home and on government scholarship – ie they’ve been bonded to the government before they could even decide if they wanted to go for jobs at places like JP Morgan.

Not only have our top people started in the government, they’ve stayed within the protection of the Singapore government after they’ve retired from active cabinet duty. Think of the most high profile retirees, Senior Minister Goh and Minister Mentor Lee, who became advisors to the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Government Investment Corporation respectively.

So, how good are our top people? They’re good by Singapore standards but where does that leave them on the international stage?

Well, Mr Yeo should look at answering that question and discover what he can do on the international stage. Getting a job at a top level corporation would be a good place to start.

Alternatively, Mr Yeo might decide that he wants to do something entrepreneurial or perhaps philanthropic. Mr Yeo has made plenty of money from his career as a minister and built up a contact base of movers and shakers. All he needs is a little bit of imagination and he could start something that could make an impact on the world. Look at what former US Presidents do. Bill Clinton’s foundation is devoted to fighting AIDS while Jimmy Carter travels round the world trying to make peace.

Losing an election could be the start of something great for Mr Yeo if he puts his mind to it. Chris Patten lost an election and became a much respected Governor of Hong Kong as well as European Commissioner. Mr Patten travels the world writing books and giving seminars. He’s Chancellor of Oxford University. In short, we think of Mr Patten’s success and the failure of a lost election has become a distant memory. This should encourage Mr Yeo in his post-political career.

Nobody Notices when you are Bald – Everyone Notices when you Comb Over

One of the earliest bits of advice when I started losing my hair in my late teens came from my Dad. He said, “Whatever you do, NEVER comb over and NEVER get a hair transplant. Somehow nobody notices when you are bald but everyone notices you when you comb over or have a hair transplant.”

My Dad was right. As I got older, I realised that nobody really gave two hoots about bald men. If anything, being bald can be a fashion statement. Just look at Andre Agassi who was a teenage sex symbol known for his long bushy mane (apparently it was a wig). Later on he shaved bald and his status as a sex symbol strengthened. On the other hand, everyone notices the guys who comb over. The most prominent comb over was Dr Cheong Choon Kong, former CEO of SIA and currently the Chairman of Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation. Dr Cheong’s comb over was so prominent that it provided a little but of comic relief during the tragedy of SQ Flight 006, which crashed in Taiwan.

Like it or not, baldness is not an uncommon trait for men. As such, we, the folliclely challenged, either learn to live with it or we try to hide it. Despite the fact that hiding it usually draws more attention to it, there are men who persist in doing things like combing over the growing bald spot with the few strands of hair that they have.

I have recently discovered another version of the comb over. This new breed does not have to worry about follicles on the head. Instead, this new breed deals with things like money or the lack of it. Let’s call this breed the story teller.

Being broke is a little like being bald – more of us are broke than we care to admit to. Like being bald, many of us feel that being broke is a little embarrassing and so, the temptation to hide being broke is quite strong. It’s generally easier to hide being broke than it is to hide being bald. However, the efforts to hide being broke sometimes reach proportions that can be compared to the valiant effort to hide a growing bald spot.

One of the silliest examples of an effort to hide being broke is “Oooppss, I forgot my wallet at home.” This is apparently a very handy excuse when you happen to be meeting people for the very first time and don’t have the finances to cover a round of drinks. Unfortunately, this is also the type of story that reveals that you’re not being entirely honest – who in this day and age forgets their wallet when they go out for drinks?

The efforts to cover up the fact that you are broke can be quite amusing. However, there comes a point when telling stories can reveal plenty about your character or rather lack of it. Story tellers like comb overs have an insecure streak that borders on dishonesty. Like the comb over, the sad thing about the story teller is usually most dishonest with him or herself.

Young Muslim Politicians serving National Service from the comfort of the bed room (Thumbi Pundeks) are especially prone to telling stories to cover up for their inadequacies.

This young PAP cadre who is currently living off his father and the tax payer believes that he is an important person and he’s very rich. Somehow, somewhere in his gene pool and education, he’s been told that he’s entitled to spend other people’s money on ipads and expensive prostitutes. Thanks to his father and the Singapore tax payer, the Young PAP cadre believes that anyone who cannot spend money such items is only one level above shit.

However, this façade that he’s valiantly trying to pursue has its limits. Money, like other resources has a way of running out and when you don’t have money, it’s rather hard to pretend that you have pots of the stuff.

The Young Pariah has discovered a way of dealing with it. It’s called – talking shit. He’ll announce to you that he’s dying to “treat you.” Then you go out with him, he’ll order food without looking at the price tag. Just before the bill comes, he’ll then ask if it’s OK if you put it on your credit card and he’ll draw cash from you later on. One would suggest to anyone agreeing to such a deal that you march him to the ATM immediately after you have finished – because his understanding of later can be rather elastic. Of course, you’ll have to deal with him trying to bargain with you and when you point out to him that he was supposed to treat you – he’ll look indignant and tell you, “But I just spent $400 on an new cover for my phone, you don’t expect me to have money do you?”

Another variation of the scam that this Young PAP Cadre from Pasir Ris GRC will try pull is this – “I’ll treat you, let’s go somewhere classy.” He’ll then tell you that he only has $30 on him once you’ve sat down for a meal. He’ll gladly except it if you pass him an extra $10 to cover the unmentioned cost like GST and service charge. Suddenly, when the bill comes, you’ll find that he gets change of over $15. You check the bill and find that you’ve ordered less than $30 bucks worth and he’s paid $50 of cash, excluding your $10. When you ask him about it, he returns $10. I suppose you could say he has a point – he said he’d treat you but he didn’t say he’d pay GST or service charge.

Young Pariah’s are a bit like bald men trying to cover up their bald spots. However, unlike the bald men trying to cover up the bald spot with their remaining three strands of hair, the Young Pariah has been allowed to enter politics and is sometimes portrayed as a person that the Deputy Prime Minister might want to associate himself with.

If you were to believe that the ruling party tolerates characters with such a high sense of self-esteem and integrity, you might be wanting to ask yourself if the ruling party is trying to hide something too?

An Extension of an Old Age Pension….

The Singaporean Presidential Election is looking set to get interesting. A day after the former head of the insurance arm of the National Trade Union Congress (yes, we have a union – it sells products to the workers) decided to enter the fray, the incumbent decided to drop a few hints about his wanting to stay on.

President SR Nathan, who has been President for the last 12-years, was in Mauritius when he dropped his hint. He mentioned that he has worked quietly despite what his critics had said and he mentioned that he was aware of his constitutional limits. So what exactly is going on here?

The last time Mr Nathan faced an election, he made some noises about how he was getting on and wanted to rest. Then he said that we had to “Ask God,” if he should run and then he ran and won an uncontested election.

So, has Mr Nathan decided that he likes being in the Istana after all? Well, in a way you can’t blame him. Mr Nathan receives some S$4 million a year in salary and since he spends time on State business, a good portion of that money has been his to keep.

We also have to except the possibility that Mr Nathan has done a fairly good job and the prospect of his Presidency being extended is unlikely to cause harm to Singapore. Unlike the other recently retired Octogenarian, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Nathan is not in the position to influence executive decisions and he’s been good at the ceremonial aspects of the job. He has shown genuine warmth for the people. He’s looked dignified when he’s supposed to and he says, he knows the limits of the job.

So, what’s the big deal about Mr Nathan running for a third term, especially if he’s been good at his job? One might argue that Mr Nathan who is turning 87 is getting on a bit and the prospects that he might die in office is very real. However, given that we have an aging population that feels left out by a society obsessed with youth, having a man who works till he dies is not a bad thing.

Let’s face it, we should not stop Mr Nathan from running again and we should be open to the possibility that he might actually be what we need – a dignified symbol of continuity in times of rapid change.

However, it would be a shame if Mr Nathan left things at that. He has an opportunity to provide moral leadership on one of the most pressing issues in society today – the question of the aged. Singapore as we have been constantly reminded is an aging society.

Despite our professed love of Asian Values – we have a shockingly horrible disregard for the elderly in our society. This “Asian” society of ours is the only place where young and educated people will pretend to fall asleep in their seats on the bus or subway rather than to give up their seats for old. That is unfortunately only a visible sign of how the old are regarded in Singapore. Age discrimination is rife in employment and social services. Grandparents have to work at McDonald’s counters because they don’t have enough money to survive.

While nobody expects Mr Nathan to create executive policies on the topic, Mr Nathan should spend his time leading a move to change our social perceptions of the old. Mr Nathan in his position of President is the ideal person to do this. As President he shows that Old People can still work without interfering with the day-to-day running of the lives of the young.

What are the things that Mr Nathan could do? For a start, he should throw the weight and prestige of the Presidency behind institutions that cater to the old. When an old folk’s home opens, he should rush to visit. When a corporation comes up with an aged empowerment program he should rush to give the CEO a plaque.

Then he needs to get creative in the way that Prince Charles has got creative championing his causes. In the UK, we have the Princes Trust, which has helped troubled teens down the productive path of entrepreneurship. Can’t we have something similar in Singapore?

Can you imagine if you had an organisation that helped “pensioners” fend for themselves? As the government has pointed out, many old people do want to work – if not for the money, and then it’s for the feeling of remaining useful. My late grandmother used to complain on a daily basis that one of the worst things about growing old was the feeling of being useless.

Mr Nathan would be an ideal champion of an organisation that helped old people to help themselves. He has the financial resources to start funding things on a personal basis. His time in the Presidency (assuming he does not run again) has provided him with a circle of influential people who could ensure the better ideas that such an organisation would provide can become real.

Now that Mr Lee has “retired,” we need another symbol for active aging and Mr Nathan is the ideal position to take over. Is there a better way for Mr Nathan to secure his legacy as a much loved President than to become the champion of the aged? He’s been given a generous pension – he has the chance to extend his pension – why shouldn’t he spend his remaining days by helping others keep their pensions?

The Expensive Key to Nowhere in Particular

Something unusual is happening in the state of Singapore. This year, this little island that took pride in being predictably boring has suddenly found a new lease of life. Kamal Nath, India’s eloquent transport minister once said of Singapore’s elections, “If you didn’t read the newspapers, you wouldn’t think there was an election. Besides, you already know the result before its taken place.”

Mr Nath was right. A good portion of us lived in uncontested wards. I was one of them. Nobody in their right mind would stand against a senior member of the government and election time for those of us in uncontested wards was simply a matter of collecting a government hand-out. The most exciting thing for us was seeing how generous the government would be.

Well, Mr Nath is no longer right. On May 7, 2011, Singapore went to the polls and proceeded to shock not only the PAP government by taking a Group Representative Constituency (GRC) and kicking out our affable foreign minister – we shocked ourselves by sheer passion an interest in politics. Internet chat rooms were buzzing. The politically apathetic became politically alive. Simply put – from the prospect of never voting, we were given a chance to vote.

The best part about the new found awareness is the fact that not only did we the people get to vote for our government, we are expected to vote for our President in an election that should take place by the end of August of 2011.

The Presidential Election is slightly different from the General One. To be President of Singapore, you must forgo ties to any political party and resign from whatever job you had. The Presidential Election is contest of individuals rather than parties. On paper, the President is the only person to be elected by every individual voter.

Singapore’s Presidency is an interesting one. Prior to 1993, the post was an appointed one. Parliament appointed the President who was primarily a ceremonial figure. Like the British Monarch he (all of our Presidents have been men) opened parliament by reading a speech prepared by the government, inspected the troops on National Day and visit foreign countries as well as receive dignitaries. The best thing that could have been said about the office was the fact that it made ethnic minorities feel a bit more cuddly. The underlying precedent was that since the government would be run by a Chinese (the majority of the population), the President would be from an ethnic minority. Lee Kuan Yew states very clearly that it was essential to have Yousof Ishak, a Malay to be Head of State, as it would signal to the Malaysians (Old Mr Lee had dreams of being part of Malaysia) that a Malay could achieve high office.

However, the reality was best summed up by Devan Nair, our third President. He would refer to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister as “boss” when they were in private.

Then some bright spark decided that it was necessary to have a President who could do something and so the constitution was amended and in 1993, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, a former Deputy Prime Minister became our first Elected President. As the President, Mr Ong had the constitutional duty to safeguard the reserves in addition to being a ceremonial figurehead. Real power remained with the government but the President was a little more than just a tea spoon. He became a little more like the British House of Lords rather than the Monarch. In the Singapore System, the President is part of the legislature rather than the executive.

Anyway, as we get closer to the Presidential Election, it might be worth asking ourselves if having an Elected President has been worth the effort. The President is after all an important part of the system and let’s not forget that the post cost money, an essential topic in money obsessed Singapore. Like the British Monarch, the President receives a “Civil List” to pay for staff and state expenses as well as a generous salary. At the last count, the President was drawing a salary of a mere S$4,000,000 a year, making the highest paid public official in the land that already has the world’s highest paid politicians.

Well, the answer has to be – NO. The main purpose of giving the President power over the reserves was so that the reserves would be safeguarded from a spendthrift government. If the President couldn’t check anything, at least he or she could delay Singapore being spent into the US National Debt. While this idea has been nice in theory – there have been two key problems.

The first key problem was highlighted by our first Elected President, Ong Teng Cheong. At the end of his term in office, the late President called a press conference where he described how he had problems asking for an audit of the reserves. As he rightly pointed out, he, the President was tasked to safeguard the reserves so he needed to know exactly how much was in the reserves.

He pointed out that civil servants had been evasive and he was told that it would take 56 man-years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of immovable assets. President Ong then consulted the Attorney-General who conceded that the government only had to produce a list of properties it owned. An incomplete list was given to him several months later and it took three-years to give him the information he requested.
So what exactly are “The Reserves?” Apparently the Singapore government has lots of spare cash which is stashed away somewhere for a rainy day. The topic of “The Reserves” is always spoken in reverent terms but nobody knows exactly what or how much is in the reserves. There is supposed to be something called the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC) an SWF that manages the reserves – but once again nobody actually knows how much GIC manages or mismanages. If the man who is supposed to safeguard the reserves doesn’t know exactly what he’s supposed to safeguard, how can anyone expect him to do a good job of it.

The second point is that the man who is supposed to safeguard the reserves is supposed to have a democratic mandate from the people to do so and unfortunately, the current President has been denied such a mandate.

To be fair, this isn’t entirely his fault. To eligibility criteria is such that very few people qualify to run for President. You need to be either a former Minister or a CEO of a company turning over not less than S$100million a year. The guys in these jobs are not about to give them up to be a silver tea spoon. Nobody actually wanted to run against President Ong – they had to find someone to run against him and that someone campaigned on the premise that Mr Ong was far more qualified than he was (and he still got 670,358 votes out of a total of 1,756,517 votes cast)

President SR Nathan, has been pretty good at the ceremonial parts of the job. He’s read the speeches he’s been told to read. He waves at the crowd on National Day and everyone who has met him says he exudes warmth. In short, it is impossible to dislike the man.

However, we shouldn’t mince words here. He was to all intents and purposes appointed to the job and knows he has no mandate to fight against a government that has one. So when the government asked if they could dip into the reserves back into 2009 – he said yes. Mr Nathan has made pots of money by doing as he was told. As one Indian friend says, “He is the COMPLIANT Ke Ling” (Which is a derogatory term for Indians of Tamil decent who were originally brought to Singapore as prisoners – hence their chains went ke-ling, ke-ling.)

What can be done to solve this problem? Well, a good start seems to be having an actual contest. It’s nice to see people who meet the criteria throw their hats into the ring. At the time of writing, we have a former Member of Parliament (Tan Chin Bock) and the former CEO if NTUC Income (Tan Kin Lian). The former Foreign Minister, George Yeo is praying for wisdom (read consulting with his former colleagues) on whether he should throw his hat into the ring.

A contest of sorts will restore some legitimacy to the office. A president who is genuinely elected can do what he was supposed to do – be at least a little bit independent of the government.

However, something more important needs to be done. There needs to be a public audit of the reserves. Much has been made about how we cannot talk about the reserves because of National Security. However, let’s ask ourselves, how exactly does having a proper audit of what we actually own harm our security?

If anything, a public audit will create a situation where there will be greater transparency of the management of the reserves. The President, or the second key, will know exactly what he or she is safeguarding. We, the public will know what is happening to our money and if the government is open with us about how they’re managing our money, we’re likely to trust and communicate with them more.

Think of it this way, we trust the bank because we get a statement about how much we have with them. Imagine the next time you asked the bank how much you have in your bank account and they told you they couldn’t tell you for your own good. Now, would be inclined to keep your money with such a bank?

Bless the Fools

In a day and age where everyone wants to be known as exceedingly intelligent, it’s hard to appreciate fools. Everyone is trying so hard to be clever that even those who are not, are forced to be or at least appear to be so. One of the ladies in my life said it best – “I don’t mind you being poor but I expect you to be clever.”

With so much pressure to be clever, we are left underestimating the value of fools.
Being “Foolish” is considered a mortal sin that is as bad as say, picking your nose in public. This is a pity because being a fool or being silly is actually a valuable skill.

Let’s start with the obvious; being really stupid actually requires some sort of intelligence. Some of the world’s greatest clowns happened to be highly qualified. Look at Sacha Baron Cohen who brought us Bruno, Borat and Ali G or the Monty Python team who composed a range of movies and songs, which one can only describe as being totally silly. These men who made their name and living by silly, all came from that bastion of silliness’ – Cambridge University. The illustrious rival for silliness, “Oxford University,” (I don’t mean Oxford Brooks), gave us Rowan Atkinson, the man who gave us Mr Bean.

People who are brilliantly stupid can do wonders. Simpletons can be the most effective communicators who reduce things to their most basic. They can be understood in a way that clever and eloquent people cannot be.

Take one of the most interesting US Administrations in recent years – The Regan Administration. Ronald Regan was not known for intellect. The joke in Hollywood was that Bonzo the Chimp was much smarter than he was. Yet, despite all of that, the Regan Administration brought the Cold War to an end without firing a shot. The economy buzzed. How did this “idiot” do it? Well, he framed two key ideas simply – he called the Soviet Union “The Evil Empire” and he told stories about the “evil welfare queen who drove a Cadillac.” These two messages allowed the administration to slash spending on welfare and lower taxes while rising spending on defence to levels that the USSR could not match.

When Mr Regan got into trouble during the Iran-Contra Scandal in 1986, the clever people in the administration proceeded to take the blame for him. As one British commentator at the time pointed out, “His behaviour was beyond normal satire.” Despite the obvious corruption in the incident, the American people forgave Regan in ways that they did not forgive the cleverer Mr Nixon and to a lesser degree the very clever Mr Clinton.

Fools are not only effective communicators. They can produce gems of wisdom. I refer to the movie “Bean.” Mr Bean is sent to American by the National Portrait Gallery in Britain. His American host thinks Bean is a high powered art historian. He’s asked, “What have you written?” Bean replies, “I look at the pictures.” The host is impressed – “Wow, that’s profound; I wish other academics would just look at the pictures.”

This scene is a laugh in that Mr Bean really looks at the pictures –he’s a security guard and yet the Americans are setting up as something deep and profound. We laugh at Americans for their child like innocence. However, the fool has a point…I remember James Curan one of my lecturers at Goldsmith’s telling us the secret to sure first – answer the question. Most of us clever people think of exams are an opportunity to show off how clever we are. As such, we end up missing the question and we write a lot but never answer the question and so we don’t get the marks for it. The fool might actually answer the question and get the points.

Fools are also the only people who can tell the powers that be the truth. Medieval Europe survived as long as it did because of fools. The fool could satirize the kings mistakes without getting his head lopped off. It’s such a pity nobody has been able to check with Kings of that age on how many bad decisions they’ve reversed thanks to their fools.

Literature is also full of examples of how fools were used to get points across. The most famous example is in Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. The best critic of inheritance laws (which were blatantly in favour of men) was Mrs Bennet, Matriarch of the Bennet clan and the silliest character in the novel. Thanks to Mrs Bennet, Ms Austen could take a swipe at the law without being labelled a dangerous reactionary.

Fools have succeeded where cleverer men have failed in as much as they’ve never taken themselves so seriously that they lose touch with reality. For all her faults, Margaret Thatcher had enough of a sense of humour to appear on “Yes Prime Minister,” one of the best loved political satires of all times. I suspect that sense of humour allowed Mrs Thatcher to stay close enough to the ground to get her policies through. The end result, Mrs Thatcher was actually beneficial to Britain.

If you ask me, Western society gets by because politicians expect to have the piss taken out of them. I think of Spitting Image puppets and how they’ve succeeded in ensuring that the public will never treat a politician or celebrity so seriously that the said politician or celebrity develops a God complex.

I look closer to home. Up North, in Malaysia, politicians are constantly lampooned by cartoonist like Lat. Here in Singapore, you simply do not make fun of politicians. On a shallow level you might be able to understand that. My Malaysian friends will point out that Malaysia in many ways lags behind Singapore. It’s mired in corruption while Singapore is squeaky clean and hyper efficient.

However, let’s take things into perspective. Singapore is small red dot mainly populated by Chinese migrants who will happily let you rule with an iron fist as long as you ensure that they can do business and get rich. The place is small enough for you to quickly snuff out decent and yes, Singapore’s politicians do deserve a pat on the back for a job well done.

Malaysia by contrast is a huge place with a diverse population. The majority belong to a culture that does not chase the material. Getting Malaysia to move one step is more challenging than getting Singapore to leap.
So, when you look at things this way, the Malaysian politicians like Mahathir have actually done a pretty good job. Things could be better, especially when you compare it to Singapore but then again, when you take the challenges that Malaysia faces, you have to take your hat off to the Malaysian system for getting things done despite everything.

Malaysians laugh at their politicians and rightly so. For all that the Malaysians complain about how awful their politicians are, the ability to laugh at them has helped both sides. The politicians know that they’re not God. The people also realise that they got to depend on themselves rather than on super competent Gods in the civil service to get things done. As a result, Malaysians can travel and succeed outside Malaysia without the aid of the government.

Singaporeans by contrast do not make fun of their politicians. In fact they are expected to worship them, even when the politicians goof. Look at what happened during Mas Selamat’s escape. Limping terrorist walks out of a secure facility and the government rushed to defend the virtue and competence of the Minister, so much so that during the recently concluded election they got a shock when people used the issue to hit them.

Perhaps it’s time for Singapore’s politicians to take a leaf from their counterparts over the Causeway and learn to laugh at themselves a little. It would definitely help us connect better.

The Smack on the Head

There's nothing like a nasty head smacking to get your brain ticking. I guess when you realise that you may be lacking in brain cells, the decision to make the most of what little you have becomes an easy one to make.

For some reason I decided that I needed to jump on a bus into Johor rather urgently and so, instead of walking around the barriers, I thought I'd jump them. Unfortuntely, I had a little bit too much to drink before hand and I forgot I am now an overweight blob of 102 kg on the wrong side of 30 instead of a fit, trim 20 something. Didn't clear the low railings, ended slipping backwards and the 102 kg frame ended up bringing down a head straight onto a metal railing and then a stone floor. Ended up biting my own tongue in the process and the blood sort gave me the look of being on the wrong end of a 1960s Kung Fu movie. Sent a few shudders down the travel companion and so to ease his worries and my pain - we ended up having a few more beers on the Malaysian end of the Causeway - this was...purely medicinal ....alcohol in the beer is supposed to heal cuts in the mouth.

Anyway, I'm up and alive. Didn't develop a serious internal injury and won't be obliging the ex-wife by dropping dead anytime soon. Am, however, nursing the ache at the back of the neck but I guess that's OK, since I actually like the burning sensation that medicated oils provide.

So, in light of being smacked on the head, what is there to think about? This being Singapore, I thought I'd give a few of my brain cells to a certain young politician - Ms Tin Pei Ling, MP for Marine Parade GRC and the youngest MP in the history of our young nation.

Ms Tin, has been a walking Public Relations disaster. Everything she does ends up on the nasty side of cyberspace. She tried to be fillial and described how she regreted not brining her folks to Universal Studios and she was panned for being out of touch. She tried to be hip by using Kate Spade handbags and she was panned for being a silly elietist. She tried to be friendly and cool by stomping her foot and the video of her ended up all over the net, leaving us to wonder is she was really 27 and not 7.

It didn't help that Ms Tin's rival was younger but far more mature, Nicole Seah. If Pei-Pei could do no right, Nicole demonstrated that she could do no wrong. The comparison was so unflattering that Ms Tin has officially being dubbed Singapore's Sarah Palin - John McCain's running mate who's idea of foreign policy was to look at the Russian border from the her bedroom window.

Is this a fair comparison, I wonder? Well, I guess you could say Pei Lin and Palin rhyme and both ladies have demonstrated a remarkable lack of awarness about the world as it is. However, that's about where the similarities end.

Mrs Palin, unlike Ms Tin has one crucial ingredient - she appeals to someone. Say what you like about Mrs Pailin's knowledge of geography beyond her small town but she is exceedingly popular amongst a certain target voters. While the more educated may bemoan her lack of basic knowledge of geography and science, she's managed to sell these qualities in her as being "simple, honest -Small Town America." Like it or not, this insires a certin group of people to vote for Mrs Palin. Think of the cries of "Drill, Baby, Drill," when she made her stance clear on drilling for oil in Alaska. While you might shudder at Mrs Palin's lack of foresight, she actually stands for something and people can identify with that. She looks good and she's fiesty. Like it or not, any Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election will treat her seriously.

The same cannot be said for Ms Tin, who's faults lie not much in her taste in handbags but in the fact that she doesn't exactly stand for anything. Much was made of the fact that she couldn't think of a PAP policy which she seriously disagreed with. More should have been made of the fact that there wasn't a policy which she believed in. I mean you don't have to agree with everything but you as a politician should believe in something. In short, we, the Singapore voters had to ask ourselves - "What exactly does Ms Tin believe in?" Look at Ms Tin and you'll see a sweet, demure little girl (when she's posing on instruction) who doesn't stand for much. Yes, some old folks might want her as their daughter in law - my mother for one might prefer her to what I've been bringing home. However, does she inspire anyone?

Ms Palin was hoisted onto John McCain and for a while his campaign actually recieved a boost from her presence. Ms Palin stood for something and attracted a certain group of people to her. Agree with her or not, Ms Palin actually stands for something.

By contrast, Pei Pei is a sad and lonely little girl with no personality to speak of what so ever. Even her major running mate, former Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong had to admit that the dislike on the ground for her pulled his share of the votes down. Ms Tin is a "good" girl who party elders can count on to do as she is told but she's so "good" that she's actually bland to the point of being ineffectual. How can anyone take her sersiously?

Perhaps there's a lesson in there for our young - they should learn to stand for something instead of trying to be paper cut out dolls. For all her faults, Mrs Palin does have a following that finds her electable. Ms Tin, for all her apparent virtues is unworthy of anyone's after thoughts.

You’re not even a Nigger – You’re Lower than That – You’re an African!

The TV has decided to play “Hotel Rwanda” as its late night/ early morning show. The movie tells the story of Paul Rusesabagina, the Rwandan hotelier who managed to hide 1,268 Tutsi and moderate Hutus during the 1994 genocide.

I remember the genocide. I saw it on TV. It happened at the same time as the Bosnian War and while Europe and the USA made lots of noise about placing an arms embargo on the Milosevic regime in Serbia, the Rwandans decided to do things the old-fashioned way – they butchered each other with machetes and the world watched as it happened.
To put it in its crudest terms, Bosnia was an unequal war while Rwanda was a “Snuff Movie-Made Real.” Everyday you would turn on the TV and you’d get to graphic images of people who had been hacked to death. One day, one group of people decided that they would take a sharp chopper to their neighbours and that was that.

The Western Powers lead by the USA, who had so efficiently kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait two-years earlier, sat by and watched. Saddam had to be kicked out of Kuwait because he was a murderous thug was an amateur compared to the chaps in Rwanda. What went wrong?

Well, the simple answer is this – Kuwait was and is a reliable oil supplier for the West while there is utterly no strategic interest in Rwanda. The contrasting attitudes were best summed up by one of the most poetic lines in the movie – “You’re not even in a Nigger – You’re Lower than That – You’re an African.” It is important to save Kuwait from a murderous thug called Saddam because Kuwait has oil – nobody scores points for saving African lives.

I never appreciated it at the time but the difference in the way the world reacted towards Rwanda and Kuwait were lessons that history had already demonstrated. Great powers inevitably act towards the world – they inevitably act in their self-interest. This was true of the British in the 19th century and it is the same of the Americans in the current one. China has shown that if it grows into the next power, it will do the same.

Both the British in the 19th century and the Chinese in the next century have been clear on how they’d run things. The Americans are a different case. They’ve worked on the policy of “Doing Good.” Whenever they’ve invaded a country in the last century, they’ve always done it on the official premise they were “liberators.” To be fair, both Saddam in Iraq and Noriega in Panama were dictators. However, if you look at the way they’ve tried to manage Iraq, you have to question their real motives.
Which leads to the point on what can the rest of the world do? Well, for the most part, it is best to work with the superpower in terms of trade. Chances are the superpower is a superpower for a reason. In the 19th century it was the British and today it is the Americans who have the skills and the technology that the rest of us simply don’t have. As such, it’s always a good idea to send your best and brightest to learn from the superpower. This is a good exchange. For the British, educated natives helped to run the colonies. The Americans use them to help run multinationals.

Superpowers, especially America can be benevolent. Americans forces have helped keep the peace in various parts of the world. Both PAX BRITANICA and PAX AMERICANA have kept the world from exploding into a larger conflict.
However, smaller nations and people from smaller nations have to remember that superpowers don’t act out of the love of their smaller brethren but out of their own strategic interest.

Simply put, anyone who believes that the super power will rush to their defence out of the goodness of their heart will be in for a massive disappointment. So what can smaller countries stuffed with black, brown and yellow people do.

Well, the answer is to learn to be independent and self-reliant. One should learn the skills of the superpower and what makes the system tick but not be dependent on the superpower for ones security and prosperity. While I don’t always agree with the official stance of the Singapore government, I do give credence to the idea of National Service – simply put, - it is good to have someone defend you but also important to doubly ensure that you know how to defend yourself.

It’s good to have alternatives. As long as you remember that as far as the superpower is concerned, you are “Lower than a nigger,” you’ll always have the instincts to look out for yourself and not rely on the superpower to do it for you.

The People That You Mentor?

In a move that surprised everyone, Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew decided that he would retire for the cabinet. Mr Lee has been positioned as modern Singapore’s “Founding Father,” and even Mr Lee’s harshest critics have found it hard to think of Singapore without Mr Lee’s presence in the cabinet.

As well as being Singapore’s “Founding Father,” Mr Lee has also been something of a “Rock Star.” He is the one political leader that Singapore has produced that seems to be recognised by everyone else. Both West and East laud him for taking the sleepy crime-infested tropical swamp and turning it into a modern metropolis within a generation. Let’s face it, Singapore is a young nation that actually compares quite well with many developed countries in terms of its physical and dare I say, legal infrastructure.

So, Mr Lee is rightfully lauded for his achievements. If you look at his record, he’s proven right on more than one occasion and on more than one issue. You could say that he’s the right person to have as a mentor.

This was the argument that Singapore’s Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, had used when he retained his father in the cabinet some seven years ago. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was given the title of “Minister Mentor,” and as the title implied, he was supposed to “Mentor” the cabinet with his years of experience as a leader and international statesman.

However, how much of a “Mentor” was Mr Lee? Well, in the end, it turned out that Mr Lee wasn’t much of a mentor but a senile uncle who left the Ministers he was supposed to mentor, scrambling to cover for him. It started with his comments about Muslims needing to “integrate” better by being less serious about their religion. This was compounded by his prediction that the Group Representation Constituency the PAP was about to lose would have five years to “Repent,” for voting in the opposition. His comments left the Prime Minister in the unique position of having to call a press conference to distance himself from his father.

So how did this wise man that did so much to make the PAP and Singapore, end up looking like a fool of the highest order?

I think part of the problem lay in the fact that Mr Lee forgot that his title was to “Mentor,” rather than to take charge. As mentor, ones role is to provide advice but to accept that ultimately the responsibility for any action lies with the person who receives your advice. At best, mentors work in different organisations and their advice comes from a private capacity. This was never the case with Mr Lee. Apart from announcement that he was “No longer in charge,” Mr Lee took a very active role in running things. When he felt Members of Parliament needed a dressing down, he would do it personally. When foreign dignitaries wanted to visit someone, he would make sure he was an important port of call. Mr Lee travelled extensively, brining Ministers on his trips so that he could “open” up markets. Mr Lee even went as far as to make his importance visible on a symbolic level. At the last National Day, Mr Lee got himself driven into the arena, a privilege previously held by the Head of Government and Head of State.

Then there’s the question of experience. What exactly are the experiences that Mr Lee brings to the cabinet? Well, I suppose it’s always good to have someone else to give you “experience” or the “benefit of their wisdom.” Both experience and wisdom usually come with age – a case of learning through hard knocks, which comes with time. In this aspect, Mr Lee was a font of wisdom for those who consulted him.

However, most mentors are known for certain strengths and most of us have forgotten where Mr Lee’s strengths lay. Generations of Singaporeans have grown up believing Mr Lee’s strengths lay in governance. In fairness to this assumption, Mr Lee led a team of brilliant ministers. Mr Lee had the foresight and security of character to allow the likes to Dr Goh Keng Swee and S.Rajartnam to do certain jobs. Once they convinced him of a certain course of action, he supported them all the way and ensured that they had what they needed to get the job done.

However, Mr Lee, himself was not an administrator himself. His real strengths lay in political street fights. He was the campaign orator, the man who knew how to mobilise union leaders and he knew when to lock them up. He was the one who shrewdly read political sentiments in the UK and Malaysia and how to use them to the advantage of Singapore. Mr Lee has always been a pragmatist who knew how to sell ideals to idealist. He was the English Educated lawyer who learnt Mandarin and Hokkien in the span of six-months so that he could make the masses move.

If you read his biography, his genius was not in being an all wise and all knowing statesman, even though he’s been known as one. His real genius came when he was the underdog – the leader of the minority English educated taking over a party dominated by Chinese educated populist, the leader of an untried and untested party against colonial administration and so on.

Ironically, the person who seems to have best understood this aspect of Mr Lee appears to be Mr Low Thia Khiang, Secretary-General of the opposition Worker’s Party. Like Mr Lee in his younger days, Mr Low is fully aware that he’s fighting against massive odds and he relishes it.

Mr Low, like Mr Lee understands the value of getting the people’s support. While the ruling has often chided Mr Low for not doing much in proposing alternative policy, Mr Low has realised that his success lies in ensuring his constituents are looked after. Like Mr Lee in his younger days, Mr Low works hard to ensure that the people remember him – he attends every birth, wake and funeral in his constituency. The PAP has spent 19-years trying to unseat him and each time they’ve tried, he’s been returned to office with a stronger majority.

Like Mr Lee, Mr Low is not afraid of having highly intelligent people by his side. In his early days, Mr Lee had the likes of Goh Keng Swee and Rajaratnam. Today, Mr Low has Sylvia Lim (Polytechnic Lecturer), Chen Mao Mao (Lawyer with international regard) and Pritam Singh (Academic). Mr Low may not speak the Queen’s English but he’s smart enough to surround himself with the people who can work it.

So, the irony of Mr Lee’s spell as a “Minister MENTOR,” is that he actually may have mentored someone, even if it was the last person he would have wanted to tell the world he had mentored.

Bring Back Common Sense!

There is an old adage that runs along the lines of “Sex Sells.” This has proved to be exceedingly accurate during the past week when the topic of budget hotels and prostitution was a hot topic in the media. Mention sex or any topic related to sex and you are bound to get an animated discussion.

While topics around sex are very interesting, one topic seems to have escaped the media spotlight and there have been no discussions on the topic for the last three years. This is a pity because attitudes towards the laws on sex provide us with an insight into our society.

Our social and legal views on prostitution are interesting. It is legally acceptable for a woman to work as a prostitute and for a man to visit one. It is illegal to be a pimp and for prostitutes to solicit customers. Social attitudes are also similar. Few if any will openly defend prostitution and most if not all are horrified at the idea of prostitution in their neighbourhoods. However, there is a mild social tolerance for prostitution, best summed up by the phrase, “wink-wink-nudge-nudge, boys will be boys.”

Unfortunately, this attitude live-and-let-live doesn’t carry into other areas of sexual behaviour. Take the issue of homosexual acts. In Singapore it is illegal for two consenting adult men to engage in a private act in the privacy of their own bedroom and when the government tried to review this in 2007, there was a huge outcry from a large enough segment of the population for the government to continue outlawing a private act between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, though the government promised not to enforce the law.

By contrast, there has been a deafening silence on the issue of marital rape. There has been little if any media attention to the issue and the religious groups that were so adamant about the moral corruption of legalising a private act amongst consenting adults are noticeably silent when it comes to an act of coercion. Just as it is illegal for two consenting homosexual adults to engage in a private act, it is legal for a man to force his wife into having sex, regardless of whether she gives her consent.

So, when is rape, something which most understand to be an act of violence against women, not rape? As far as places like Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Singapore are concerned; the answer is when the attacker is the woman’s husband. This is convenient for those compiling rape statistics. Statistics have shown that rape is usually done by someone close to the victim like a family member or a friend. So, given that most perpetrators are likely to be known to the victim, granting immunity from marital rape makes sense – it reduces rape statistics because a certain portion of rapes are technically not rape. Once again, the “conservative” lobby that fought so hard to keep a private act between consenting adult illegal don’t seem to have a problem with rape, provided a man does it to his lawfully wedded wife. The government that has done so much to enhance the standing of women with the “Women’s Charter,” doesn’t seem terribly bothered that marriage grants men the right to rape them.

Isn’t it time we look at our laws and attitudes towards sex and start to apply the common sense that we are claim to have in abundance. Let’s have laws that actually protect people instead of providing cheap demagogues with a platform.

Get Them Working For Us

A friend of mine who has lived in Singapore for the last two decades has just left a posting on his Facebook wall expressing his frustration with the sudden burst in hostility towards foreigners in Singapore. This friend of mine is British. He has lived in Singapore for the past two decades and runs a niche PR practice that produces a decent amount revenue for the government.

It's always interesting to see how different people feel about different topics. In the last few months leading up to the General Election, the key buzz topic in cyberspace has been about how foreigners are overrunning Singapore and stealing jobs and sexual partners and driving up the prices of property.

As a local Singaporean who has lived overseas for quite a few years, I sometimes appear to get involved in "foreigner" bashing. I get frustrated living in a society where I am expected to comply with certain social norms and being Yellow Skinned in Singapore means you're supposed to accept "Pink Blotchy Faces" as the superior guide from elsewhere. I don't see why I should. At the end of the day, the Pink Blotchy Faces are as human as the rest of us. When I lived in the UK, I had to accept that being a minority in someone elses country meant following certain rules. Now that I'm back in Singapore, I have to be an obliging and indulgent host to people who were at best indifferent.

Having said what I've just said, I have friends who are Caucasian and as a friend of mine pointed out, you can't blame the White expatriates who come to Asia. Let's put it crudely, would you rather be in a place where you're an average Joe or would you be in a place where people worship the ground you walk on? As one Liverpudlian said,"I don't have a lot going for me, so if my pink blotchy face works in my favour, why shouldn't I use it." He's right!

My issue with race in Singapore is with the way Singaporeans, particularly Middle Class Graduate Chinese behave towards race. One of worst traits I've seen within this group is the automatic tendency to treat people of darker complexion on a level closer to dirt. I get agitated listening to the way Singaporeans talk about their maids and the way they complain about people from India, China, Vietnam and so on. These people will happily kick their maid in public and the moment a Pink Blotchy Face arrives on the scene, they're all smiles and sweetness.

This attitude is part of official policy. I actually met a White South African who was working a dental technician, who had his work permit turned down. When he showed up at immigration and they saw he was White - he was granted the permit instantly. Let's face it, being dark in Singapore is tough. Although official policy says it isn't - the people who make official policy function do have issues with dark skinned people and the way policy is carried out is quite different from the way it is thought out.

However, as my friend's Facebook posting has shown, it's not easy to be White, either. Despite living here for twenty-years, once in a while he gets told to "piss off back to...." This is not fair to a man who has stayed and contributed as an entrepreneur rather than as a digit in a multinational. So, I have to ask myself, what is it about foreigners of all colours that gets us "The Locals" so worked up.

On the most basic level, anyone who isn't born and bred here is competition for jobs, houses and general living space. Singapore's infrastructure was built to accommodate so many people and having so many more people puts a strain on things. As someone pointed out to me,"Your not buying a house so you don't feel the strain of competition." If you look at things from one perspective - that's true. Foreigners with cash drive property prices up. These days its not just expatriates from the West that we have to contend with but also from places like India.

The foreigners do have an advantage when it comes to jobs. At the lower end of the market, they're usually cheaper and willing to work longer hours. At the higher end of the market.....they actually have a skill or two that we the locals do not have. Furthermore, unlike the local men, they don't come with things like "reservist" liability. It's no surprise which group the employers go for. It's also no surprise that the locals get rather cheesed off - "Damn It, why do I have to serve the military to protect the foreigners right to take the job meant for me" is the basic feeling.

As much I can sympathise, I don't think the solution is to "kick out" or "limit" foreigners. Like it or not, it is a fact that Singapore has a limited supply of talent. Like it or not, we are in many ways constantly short of cash. The foreigners do provide the necessary short fall for both these items.

We have to accept that Singapore does not have the resources to tell the world to get stuffed. We are a trading port and we prospered by being open to the world. If Singapore adopts isolationist policies, the rest of the world can do the same to us and it is a challenge we simply cannot win.

I do agree that citizenship should have some perks but these perks should be like what goes on elsewhere - that is in the area of certain government subsidies. You can't expect the Singaporean tax payer to subsidise every old and sick person who comes to our shores. You cannot expect the Singaporean tax payer to provide free education to the rest of world. We don't get it when we study elsewhere (As much as my father might have wanted it) and we shouldn't expect it either.

However, let's not begrudge the foreigners who come here and work. They pay taxes (GST is also paid by maids and construction workers) and they don't use public funds. The people at both ends of the market do in someway or another end up contributing to the economic well being of the nation.

So, the answer here is not to kick out or place quotas on foreigners. The actual answer lies in making sure that Singaporeans are able to compete with the foreigners in a fair competition.

Let's start with the obvious place - skills. It has long been argued that we need "foreign talent" to make up for the lack of skills in the market. While I can see the validity of this argument, I have to ask myself why Singaporeans entering the job market don't have the skills that are needed to keep the economy ticking. Something has to be done with the education system to ensure that the local graduates in todays economy have the necessary skills to get involved in its basic functioning. This takes time to do and while you can use foreigners with the right talents, the long term sustainability of any economy is to make sure that your locals have what it takes.

Secondly, we need to examine our attitude towards competition. Yes, competition does make life harder but it also makes life better. Nobody can disagree that having Filipinos manning the call centres ensures that we get better service.

Which leads to the point of perspective. Are foreigners are threat or are they an opportunity? Generally speaking, Singaporeans are trained to be employees for big multinational firms. We're still stuck in the mindset that the economy only ticks when you have big factories employing people in the thousands. Jobs are considered a com oddity - there are x number of factories and each factory has y number of jobs. When you think like this, every extra person is a threat to you - they are competition for scarce jobs.

However, if you shift your mindset and look at a healthy economy as being a collection of small enterprises consisting of one or two people trying to sell this and that - things become rather different. When you "own the job" you tend to look at every person as a customer rather than as a competitor.

The bars at Clerk Quay have done well out of the high end of the market. However, small businesses have also done well out of the lower end of the market. I think of people who rent rooms to foreign students. I think of the companies that make phone cards to provide foreign workers with cheap phone calls back home. Look at the market in second hand phones and accessories that has popped up in places like Geylang and Serangoon. These enterprises may not grab headlines but they keep people busy and provide them with a living.

The government should look at things like lifting restrictions of sub-letting of flats and encourage people to get involved in home based businesses. The influx of foreigners means that there is market of sorts for people with certain needs that need to be filled.

Seriously, protectionist policies have been proven to be a miserable failure. Let's not go down that road and focus on how we can create opportunities for ourselves out of the foreigners who come into the country. Rather than complain they are exploiting us - find a way to get them to work for us.

Who Would You Pick?

Now that the elections are over, it is going to be interesting to see if the newly elected Singapore government pretends to listen to the public and does something about "foreigners." We, the great Singapore public have spent the better part of the year complaining that foreigners (particularly "other" Asians) have coming over to steal our jobs, school places, husbands, wives and so on. For Singaporean Chinese and Indians in particular, it is perfectly acceptable to be robbed blind by Caucasians from Australia, the USA and Europe but totally unacceptable for other Asians to do the same.

This has been particularly true for the Chinese community in Singapore. For years we were told that we needed to remember to "Speak Mandarin" to take advantages of the opening China market and more importantly to remember we are Asian rather than pseudo-Westerners. We were told that China and being Chinese was great! Suddenly, the flood gates of migration opened and before long we had a load of people who spoke a different type of Mandarin from the one we spoke and they spoke it loudly. The men were rough and willing to do what men should do - work hard - much harder than what we could do under instruction from the government.

The women have been even more upsetting for the Singaporean Chinese woman. Not only do the girl from China have the capacity for hard work, they were also quick to realise that there was fortune to be made from dressing nicely, showing a bit of tit and smiling sweetly and before you knew it, Singaporean Chinese men were killing themselves to take the China girls to bed - even if it would only be for twenty minutes or so. To add insult to injury, the Caucasian men whom the Singaporean Chinese women found so willing to listen to their "educated opinions" (unlike the "spoilt Singapore Chinese men) were also rushing to learn Mandarin to get to know the China dolls better. Simply put - to the Westerner - a real Oriental for 20 minutes a pop was much better than an Oriental looking Westerner for a lifetime.

To sum it up - the China girl developed a reputation for being a "Whore," and the newspapers have been filled with horror stories of old men blowing their pensions on China girls. Hence, as the election got closer you found the boys at ICA looking more closely at social visit passes from girls from China, Vietnam, Thailand and so on and so on.

As one Singaporean Chinese girl who apparently is well connected to other stylish Singaporean women said, "That's because they go round 'whoring' themselves." When I heard that, I wanted to laugh.

The reason for this was simple. The lady in question has been in an sms negotiation with someone who wants to pay here a mere S$6,000 for a night of mad and passionate love making. When she first told me about this, the offer was a mere S$1,500 and her only remark was "Money not enough - leh"

So, like all good "Non-Prostitute" Singapore Chinese girls - she's asked for more and the guy in question has made good on the offer. As of writing, the negotiations are taking place between a banker with the obvious good taste of a Chelsea fan and a 44-year with pretensions of being a teenager.

This "young" lady in question has spent the better part of two-years claiming to be celibate. She has already confessed that she really likes me - her exact words over a cheap meal that only set me back a S$140 without alcohol were,"I really like you, you make me happy and I treasure your company - but you have NO MONEY." Hence despite all the good things I did for, I wasn't getting it. The only people who have gotten it from her in the last two years have been a short, fat and bald man who bought her bags and shoes costing over S$1,000 and a fat and pockmarked fellow who bought her a ticket to Shanghai and gave her $600 in cash over the course of three days.

The lady in question is not a prostitute, unlike those awful girls from China and Vietnam. Simply put, she does not sleep with anyone in particular, she only does it with people who offer her generous gifts. As she said to me in a moment of anguish - "The problem with you is that you don't want to use money to get girls to bed - you try and use charm" (My ex-wife would beg to differ on my charms).

I would like to say that this lady is an exception to the rule of decent Singapore Chinese girls with good values (unlike the girls from China and Vietnam). Just go to any party in Singapore and you'll find that the lady in question is only unusual in that she voices her opinions. The island is filled with young ladies who make it a point to go ONLY for Caucasian men ..... because they're willing to pick up the tab (Caucasian men as a rule don't negotiate price - who cares as long as you're on company expense). There is of course the ex-girl friend of mine who went insane when I weaned her picking up the tab for a drunken Caucasian Frat Boys. The media and promotions industry is particularly rife with intelligent Asian women who get most offended by the term Sarong Party Girl because it apparently demeans intelligent women who understand the value of an expense account or an expat package.

In the words of the average Singapore Chinese girl - Singaporean men go for China girls because "We can't live up to their standards." Which leads me to ask - What are the standards that Singapore Chinese women have? I guess its not about money. I mean you can't go round offering Singapore Graduate Chinese girls who think they can speak a $100 for a quick one?

However, if you ply her with drinks bought on an expense account, then outline your career moves and then tell her about your exotic travels to Europe (West of the Danube) and then promise to take her there and then drive her in your company car - she's yours and before you know it, your alarm clock will be replaced with wedding bells. That's not called paying for it - its just that she becomes a little less keen to be with you when you insist on moving back to wherever you came from and tell her that the company is no longer footing the bill and she has to do ....shock:shock - housework.

So, on one hand you have a girl who looks stunning and tells you clearly that she'll be yours for enough time to get your rocks off in return for a bit of money and on the other hand you have a well made up doll with questionable genetics who wants you to foot the bill as you listen to her yabber on about how well brought up she is and then expects you to make her yours for as long as you are on expense account. The question is - who would you pick?

Nothing Changed - Everything Changed.

The General Election is over. The votes have been cast and counted and after the final round of political rallies, Singaporeans have found themselves getting on with life. This election was in just about every way like every other election before it - the ruling party was returned to government with an overwhelming majority of seats - the number being more akin to the score in a rugby match between one of the Southern Hemisphere Giants (Australia, South Africa and New Zealand) and their Pacific Island neighbours (Tonga, Samoa) - 81 - 6. Despite all the chatter about how this was the most seats ever won by the opposition - the fact remains that the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) will continue to have the ability to ram just about anything it wants to down parliament's throat - regardless of what the newly elected members of the opposition think...Let's also not forget that although the PAP did see its share of popular votes drop to 60 plus percent - that's still more than what ruling parties in other parts of the world dream of getting - NOTHING CHANGED.

However, there is also the optimistic point that EVERYTHING CHANGED. For once in most people's living memory, every ward bar one (co-incidentally that of the Minister Mentor and Founding Prime Minister) was contested. This was by Singapore standards - highly unusual. It was as if the suddenly the opposition parties found the desire to put up a fight in every constituency.

Then there was the role of the online media. I had the Young Pariah from Pasir Ris GRC phoning me on a regular basis hopping to get my feedback on how the PAP could counter people slamming them without fear in cyberspace. Suddenly, people were letting out their wildest thoughts on whatever topics suited them without fear...........For a party used to getting its way with the media - this was something of a change - it was downright frightening. For the PAP it must have been like being the hot chick who one day wakes up one day to find herself in the body of the fat cow everyone laughs at.

More importantly the opposition actually had people worth listening to. There were actually people you could trust to run the government. They would say something without calling the foreign press and without trying to provoke the rest of us into worshiping their egos. There was no call for a hunger strike or for a mass protest march (illegal). They merely raised all the questions that the rest of us were waiting to ask and somehow, when we did the ruling party proceeded with its usual form of intimidation tactics - which rightfully backfired.

In the end, the electorate decided that it was time to give birth to a new party - the Workers Party. They were the only opposition party to win seats. They retained their seat in Hougang with a new candidate and an increased margin. They then took the psychological step of claiming a Group Representation Constituency (GRC - a case of vote one MP and get 3). The members of this party are for a good part professional, working people who are educated. More importantly, they had a track record of having run something reasonably successfully. The PAP stressed its track record of why it should continue as the party of government. Its now talking about how the Workers Party will fuck up Aljunied and the voters will regret and repent - well, they might want to consider the Workers Party's track record in Hougang... and start treating the voters a bit more seriously.

Salaries - I'm Simply Not Making Enough!

Salaries have managed to sneak their way back on the political agenda again. The rising star of the opposition - Dr Vincent Wijeysingha decided to make a public proclamation that Ministers salaries should be pegged to that of ordinary workers rather than to the super scale earners. Dr Wijeysingha who works for an NGO has hit on a sore spot for many people - namely the fact that we the tax payers seem to have stagnant wages that fall behind inflation while the powers that be seem to have awarded themselves mega huge salaries that seem to get larger as the days go by. The justification of this system is this - when you need ten cents a year more, it's called stroking inflation but when the other chap needs a million an hour more, it's called talent retention. Somehow you never win and its frustrating the system seems to say that you have to accept that its your lot in life to slog to feed the other bugger.

While I do applaud Dr Wijeysingha for bringing the issue of Ministerial salaries out into the area of debate, I feel that the man is a little misguided in his solutions.

Let's start with the obvious - the issue that most of us have with Ministerial salaries is not so much the amount earned but the work done in return for that very high salary. Most of us accept that well paid government servants are better than badly paid ones who have the power to shake you down whenever they feel like it. We can also accept that government is like any other business - if you can accept your banker being well paid - why can't your President or Prime Minister be well paid. It's acceptable that certain professions pay more than others.

The real issue about Ministerial salaries is more complex but you can sum it up as this - Ministers get business like pay without business like risk - in other words - its unfair.

Let's start with the first problem - the issue of pay and competence. It's often argued that you need to pay high salaries to get the best people into profession. Politics is like any other job - bright people should have comparable financial incentives to careers like banking, law or industry.

However, we have to ask ourselves if Singapore has really got itself the best and brightest despite paying top-dollar. Unfortunately, the answer seems to be no. We got ourselves Mr Wong Kan Seng - a Home Affairs Minister who allowed a limping man to waltz out of a secure facility, then spent an entire year telling the world that our intelligence had it that the said limping man was in the country - only to have it announced a few days later that he had been caught elsewhere. A year later, we got ourselves Dr Yacob Ibrahim, the Minister in charge of water resources who allowed a plugged drain to provide us with floods that one usually finds in places like Bangladesh.

You could say that this wouldn't be so bad if the ministers showed a little bit of contrition. People can accept that Ministers like other people do make mistakes. However, instead of being contrite - we got arrogance. When the limping man walked out of a highly secure facility - the Minister in charge was "sorry that THIS HAPPENED" and the entire cabinet decided to talk about "Our track record" and then we had a Minister Mentor started lambasting us for being complacent because we expected the government to do its job. The Prime Minister went missing for the better part of the incident and only appeared to defend the Minister who screwed up.

What other job in the world allows you to stay in a job when you perform blatantly incompetently and more importantly you get the chance to scold the people who pay you for doing a job?

It is the accountability that we don't like. If you are good at the job, nobody will make your salary an issue. If you foul up, make a come back and rectify your mistake and somehow people will forgive you and be happy to let you have your salary. However, our Ministers only discover their humility during election time and seem to think that their salaries are theirs by divine right.

It's the assumption of entitlement and lack of accountability rather than the actual salary that people have an issue with. The public has to face competition from foreigners. Like it or not, this is the age of globalisation and competition for a few thousand dollars a month comes from people willing to work of hundreds of dollars.

While this is a fact of life, its hard to accept the message from someone who's basic salary a month is more than what you make in a year and more importantly, has somehow protected himself from things like foreign competition. It becomes even harder to accept when that person is praised and protected at your expense for displaying a level of incompetence that you'd be not only fired for but sued into bankruptcy.

Then, I can't help being cynical. Dr Wijeysingha is in opposition. Attacking Ministerial salaries is good for the political fight. However, we have to ask ourselves if Dr Wijeysingha and other members of the opposition would be so opposed to high ministerial salaries if they were on the receiving end. Let's look at South Africa as an example. The ANC was a socialist party to begin with. It looked at nationalising the mines. However, once it entered office, it proceeded to raise official salaries. FW De Klerk made more as Deputy President to Mandela than he made as State President. Who is to say that the same thing can't happen in Singapore? Will the opposition reject receiving the the salaries that today's Ministers earn if they were ever to get into power?

Dr Wijeysingha would be better off focusing on increasing accountability. Since the Singapore tax payer is paying "top-dollar," who can he or she ensure that the money is being used to get the best available talent? This should be the focus of the debate rather than the actual salary itself.