When the Problem isn't the Unelected but the Elected.....

For those who know me, this might come as something of an unusual piece to bash together. Everyone who knows me well enough often complains that I have a peculiar aversion to authority and established norms. You could say that my natural inclinations are towards street fighters and other hot heads. I went to school in England and instead of becoming an Anglophile, I became more enamored of the Yellow and Brown people who got rid their native lands of colonial rule. Although a good portion of the good things I enjoy are as a result of being born into Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore, the South East Asian I admire most was never Mr. Lee; it was Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam. Mr. Lee was merely a British colonial administrator of a different colour. By contrast, Mr. Ho was something I could look up to – he overthrew the established orders on the battlefield. He was the little Asian man in black pajamas who drove out the French colonial order and ensured that both the USA and PRC got a bloody nose for trying to invade Vietnam.

So, for someone who has a natural tendency towards figures who smash up establish orders, it may come as something as shock that I’ve always been sympathetic to monarchies and monarchs. While every logical cell in the brain tells me that the monarchy is something of an outdated concept of governance, there’s also something very compelling about it. Let’s put it this way, a “King” sounds more impressive than a “President.” I don’t think I’m the only individual to be fascinated by “Kings” and “Monarchy.” Just listen to the way Americans, the people who came into being by getting rid of a “Royal Family,” speak of how families like the “Kennedy’s” are their version of the “Royal Family.”

Generally speaking, nobody in the Western world would probably go back to the concept of “Absolute Monarchy.” The system of “democracy” has proven to be a decent enough system of allowing talented people to rise to the top and more importantly, it has provided the only effective system of removing incompetent government in a bloodless manner (losing an election is more peaceful than say a coup).

Having said all that, there’s something to be said for the unelected silver tea spoons that countries call monarchies. I look at the British monarchy as an example. You could say that the monarchy gives the people a sense of stability that the elected politicians fail to deliver.

You look at people like Prince Charles and you end up having more admiration for them than many of the politicians that get voted in. Prince Charles may have terrible taste in women (the man who threw out a beautiful blonde for an old hag,) but he’s also stood for principles that the people so admire. I take his refusal to attend State Dinners of visiting Chinese dignitaries and deploring them as “dreadful wax works” at the moment when every British politician is “kissing arse” in Beijing. He’s Princes Trust has put an untold number of homeless people to work and you got to give it to him for handing over a portion of his income to the treasury when he didn’t have to.

Prince Charles or at least the reports I read of him, is a man of principle. My mother thinks he’s the best reason to restore the absolute monarchy – her argument is that whoever is in power is going to screw it up anyway, so you might as well go for the guy whose heart is in the right place.

Here in Southeast Asia, the monarchs have actually been essential in protecting the people from their elected representatives.

The most prominent example is that of Thailand’s King Bhumibol. Under the Thai constitution, the King has no formal powers. Yet, the King has behaved in a way that has given him tremendous moral power (OK, Thailand has strict Les Majeste laws that make criticism of the King a crime and nobody doubts that there’s been a good amount of media/ image manipulation but by and large nobody doubts that the people’s love for the king is genuine.)

I think of 1992 when the then military government decided to gun down protestors in public view. It was the King who stepped in and saw to it that democracy was restored.

I also think of the way in which the King berated Thailand’s judges for allowing Thai Rak Thai to run in a snap election in 2006 where it was the only party running (the others boycotted it thinking it was a Thakshin trick). His exact words were, “How can there be an election with ONLY ONE party – that IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.” Ironically, the unelected monarch’s views would be spoken a few months before Singapore’s elected politicians proceeded to explain how their version of democracy with only one party running was special and uniquely Asian.

Further South, in Malaysia, the institution of the monarchy has achieved a similar feet with the spat between Johor’s Crown Prince Tunku Ismail questioned the Prime Minister for not showing up at event that questioned a corruption scandal. When a Minister berated the Crown Prince for meddling in politics, the Prince replied that the Minister was a Minister and NOT GOD and should remember that he was there to serve the people – this has drawn the masses to the palace shouting “Dauluat Tuanku.”(I think the closest translation is “Long Live the King.”)

This is not to say that Southeast Asia’s royals are saints. The Malaysian Royals used to be known for abusing their status of being above the law. Something which was eventually removed. Just as Thailand’s king is revered, the Crown Prince is known as something of a crook.

However, as far as a good number in Southeast Asia are concerned, the problem in Southeast Asia is not so much unelected Royals but politicians that nobody can get rid of.

So here lies an interesting question? Why is it that various royals have found themselves being thrust in the role of guardians of democracy? 

I like to think that elite (What is a Royal except the pinnacle of elite) upbringing does involve instilling a sense that privilege involves care for the less fortunate rather than being something that one is entitled to. I think of my own upbringing in a minor Public School in the UK. We were told that we were privileged to attend the school that we went to and we had to work to justify the said privilege. As another person who had been to a similar school to mine said, “The Public School system trains you to get along with people of all backgrounds.”

One of Asia’s most ancient text is the Ramayana. The young Rama who is groomed to be a king is told that, “A King is greater than a normal man – therefore his responsibilities are greater.” The Ramayana latter tells of how Rama has to send his much loved wife Siti away because he overhears one of his citizens complaining that the king is effectively living with an adulteress.

This is of course an ideal. History has shown that Kingship has produced a series of horrible leaders who have screwed up the nations they were meant to lead for their personal gain. The Romans had to get rid of their kings because they guys were a useless bunch who thought it was quite acceptable to plunder the city they were supposed to rule.

So, ironically, the removal of political power from monarchs might actually have been good for them. Once they were without power, the Royals had to find a reason to exist. The ones who were thrust into the lime light had to find something to do and new purpose. If money is no object, what better way can one create a purpose for oneself than to “care for the people.”

By contrast, the elected politicians succumbed to the same problem that monarchs used to have – entitlement to wealth and power. In Malaysia, the ruling party has remained in the same hands for over fifty years. While Singapore’s government has a better track record of governance, there are people in Singapore who would argue that our politicians something forget that their jobs are not an entitlement.

Let’s look at India as another example. India had Maharajah’s who had untold wealth and power. When they stripped of their wealth and power, they had to reinvent themselves. Many became businessmen renting out palaces and a few of them actually did good things. The new “Royals” became people like the “Gandhi-Nehru” dynasty, which an Indian friend of mine described as the biggest curse to India.

Or let’s go further north to the Himalayas. In Bhutan, it was an absolute monarch who brought in democracy and rule by the people to guarantee their wellbeing. The Dalai Lama, by tradition and belief did the same for the Tibetan people in exile. Contrast that to Nepal’s royals who thought they could seize absolute power, screwed up the people and were abolished accordingly. Incidentally, Nepal’s politicians haven’t done much better.

While one may not always appreciate monarchies for what they do, its perhaps time for us to acknowledge that they can be institutions for good.  Unchecked power in perpetuity for any particular group has never been known to be healthy. This has been true of whether its Royals or politicians. While one has to applaud the way in which the reinvented Royal Families have stood for the people against the tyranny of entitled politicians, it would nice if Asia as continent could find ways of strengthening institutions and establishing better rules of law that go beyond particular individuals.  

Fighting is OK provided the other guy doesn’t hit back

Personally I don’t like Amos Yee, the 16-year old who posted a Youtube rant cursing the late Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and the even later Jesus Christ. The kid has a smug look on his face and when he opens his mouth there’s the temptation to shut it with your fist. I’m going to exercise my right to be a prick but I’ll say – he’s got a face that’s looking for a good beating.

Unlike my fellow bloggers, I don’t want to turn him into some sort of martyr for free speech. I’d rather turn my attentions to people who are well….more sympathetic.

Unfortunately, the government has decided that Singapore needs a new martyr and so, in the wake of ensuring young Amos gets jail time for his online rants, they decided to slap another teenager who did something far worse with 10-days in detention.

Daryl Lim decided that he was bored and it would be laugh to try and beat up a couple of foreign workers. One fine day, young Mr. Lim and his mates decided to beat the crap out of a 48-year old Chinese National and then do a runner.

For beating the shit out of someone, young Daryl was sentenced to 10 days in detention and despite being involved in four incidents between September and October 2014, the judge decided that reformative training wasn’t necessary and somehow his probation officer decided the risk of him reoffending was rather low.

So here you have it – jail time for a kid who behaved stupidly online and as slap on the wrist for a young hooligan. What’s going on here?

Well, let’s start with the obvious. Although most sensible people would say that Amos’s actions were the lesser of two evils, he made the mistake of offending the powerful. Both Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and Jesus may have gone to their graves (Christians would argue that Jesus has gone further – he’s ascended to heaven and Mr. Lee did say he’ll raise again if he thinks Singapore is screwing up)  both have power beyond the grave. If you insult Jesus, you could be striking up communal tensions. If you insult the late Mr. Lee you risk endangering Singapore’s social fabric. Hence, although young Amos kept his comments to cyberspace, he was deemed the greater threat.

Young Daryl by contrast realized that nobody really gives a shit if you beat the crap out of foreign workers. A few members of the Ka-ni-na and Pundek families might actually cheer you on from the sidelines for teaching those PRC’s and Kelings a thing or two about taking jobs from Singaporeans and daring to think they’re entitled to ride on the MRT alongside the respective Pundek’s and Ka-ni-na’s (Pundeks an d Ka-Ni-Na’s forget that unlike the foreign workers they don’t actually do work hence they’re in no danger of having their jobs stolen – that is if you consider drinking all day a job - oh wait, the workers buy their own beer)

So when you look at things this way, are we surprised that Amos got the book thrown at him and Daryl got a slap on the wrist?  

I’m no lawyer but I think something is very wrong with this outlook on life. We’re supposed to be better than this and I’m offended that Daryl thinks he and I are both Singaporeans.

We’re a nation that supposedly prides itself on equality before the law. We’re supposed to be the society that rewards people for working hard and for having fire in your belly. We beat our chest about how we’re the small nation that defied the odds and earned the respect of the world. We talk about how much we punch above our weight.

Yet, when these glaring comparisons happen, I got to ask myself, are we really the nation that claims to be what it is? I’m rather inclined to think that we’re a nation that only knows how to fight against people who can’t fight back. 

The Prince

Singapore’s Founding Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew was laid to rest on Sunday, 29 March 2015. The ceremony marked the end of an incredible week for Singapore. Nobody, including the government lead by the late Mr. Lee’s son expected the sudden outpouring of grief from the public. The government, which had a worldwide reputation for efficiency, found itself challenged managing the logistics of dealing with the crowds of people who gave up their working day to pay respects to the man.

Suddenly, everybody remembered the great things that Mr. Lee had done. He had, as many people said, brought us up from the swamp of third world poverty to a thriving metropolis. There were of course, one or two voices that talked about his darker side; the people he locked up without trial or had been sued into bankruptcy but other than the odd voices, Singaporeans were content to deify Mr. Lee.

When I read through the online comments from friends, the news reports and clips of his old rallies, I’m inclined to ask myself, who was the real Mr. Lee. Was he the saint who devoted his life to the betterment of the people, or was he a power hungry maniac who kept the people under his thumb? I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.

Let’s start with the obvious – Mr. Lee was a natural politician who recognized power and relished it. For the man, power was not about enriching himself or his family – it was there to be used by him to the fullest extent. Mr. Lee had a genius for moving the masses, either through himself or his deputies and he had an equal if not greater genius for playing the great powers. At times, it seemed that he understood the ground in big Western democracies better than the leaders of the said democracies. Mr. Lee could afford to have an American teenager canned for vandalism despite protest from the US President – the reason was simple, Mr. Lee ensured that the average citizen in the USA agreed with him. Likewise, the same was true when an Australian citizen was hanged for drug trafficking despite protest from the Australian government.

While Mr. Lee claimed that his favourite sage was Confucius, the truth was that he was, by his own admission, a student of Niccolo Machiavelli, who argued that it was better for a leader to be feared than loved. You could say that Mr. Lee was the “Prince” that Machiavelli wrote about (The comparison is apt, Singapore is by geographical size is similar to the Italian City States in Machiavelli’s day.) The “Good Life” that Singaporeans enjoy comes from the fact that Mr. Lee understood power.

The fact that Mr. Lee loved power is obvious. His early political career was spent maneuvering between Communist (mainly from Singapore’s majority Chinese population) and ultra-nationalist in Malaysia. The Colonial power of the region, the British had no interest and money to maintain the protection he needed and the new power, the USA had other priorities. Mr. Lee had to find a way of taking on and winning against ruthless opponents who had more resources.

However, when he had defeated his early enemies, it seemed that he missed the “fight to the death” challenges of his early career. Opposition politicians were ruthlessly crushed for the mere crime of being politicians who disagreed with him. Nobody ever thought that JB Jeyeratnam was a threat in the same way that the Communist were but Mr. Lee made it a point to use every trick in the book and the vastly increased resources of the state to ensure that Mr. Jeyeratnam would die a poor and broken old man.

Mr. Lee justified his ruthlessness in the name of National Security. It was better to crush Marxist and Islamist than to risk the nation being destroyed and dragged into conflicts. However, one has to ask if it was really necessary to hound even old allies like Devan Nair for the crime of having a disagreement?

Mr. Lee’s love for power and political fights and maneuvering was however, matched by wisdom and the understanding that it was better to have people working with you rather than against you. Being ruthless was necessary to get power and to maintain it. However, Mr. Lee understood that being ruthless was only one aspect of power.

For one, he understood that he needed the people on his side. He had the strength of character to allow competent deputies like Goh Keng Swee and S. Rajaratnam to do the work unhindered by political considerations and money worries. They worried about implementing ground policies and he worried about the politics. It was a combination that worked.

It worked for the simple reason, the lives of the people improved and the majority of his government’s policies proved to be correct. Singapore’s GDP per capita figures have become a religious mantra for the government and Singapore’s prosperity is not just in its statistics. Singapore remains a beacon of what a country should be to many in the region.

Mr. Lee’s success for Singapore turned out to be a model for the rest of the world. In the end, he was not only mourned in Singapore but in India and New Zealand, which both flew their flags at half mast.

In the end, Mr. Lee was a force of good for Singapore. He was by no means a Saint and you could say he did a few things that you could call diabolical. But in the end, Singaporeans have benefited from his leadership and for that we should be thankful. 

Harry’s Unexpected Lessons.

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore first Prime Minister died peacefully in the early hours of the 23^rd of March 2015. The tributes have been coming in and Singapore’s cyberspace has been ablaze with comments about Mr. Lee’s leadership and how he brought Singapore from third world to first.

Now that Mr. Lee has gone, it seems like a good time to ask ourselves what were the things that made Mr. Lee the leader that he was. Many have talked about his brilliance and his passion for Singapore. There are comments about how he led us into independence and how we thrived despite all the odds against a small nation surviving. There are of course certain less charitable comments that pointed out to Mr. Lee’s ruthlessness and the way he obliterated people into bankruptcy and ruin. There were also comments about how he claimed the credit for work that was done by others, namely his deputy Goh Keng Swee.

There’s a certain amount of truth in all these comments and I believe that this enough reason to see how all his qualities made him the success that he was. Here are some of the key factors that I believe made him what he was:

Change the Dream!

Much is said about how Mr. Lee Kuan Yew led us to independence. However, the truth is rather different. Mr. Lee in his biography, “From Third World to First” states very clearly that independence was something that was “Thrust upon Singapore.” He even went as far as to describe the idea of an independent Singapore as a “ridiculous notion.”

The idea for Mr. Lee was simple, Singapore would be a thriving part of Malaysia. He saw Singapore as a city that would be the dynamo in a thriving country called Malaysia, filled with natural resources and space. You could say that Mr. Lee’s vision would be something like Dubai, a prosperous and thriving metropolis within the larger entity of the UAE.

However, this wasn’t to be. The Federal Powers in KL thought that Mr. Lee was too much of a trouble maker and kicked Singapore out of the Federation. Suddenly, Singapore was thrust out on its own and Mr. Lee and his team had to find a way of surviving. – The rest as they say is history.

Adapt yourself to the Market

It makes me laugh when Singaporeans make it a point not to speak Mandarin as a way of distinguishing themselves from PRC Chinese. Competence in English has served Singapore well but to ignore the world’s largest market in the world seems rather ridiculous.

Lee Kuan Yew didn’t believe in cutting of his nose to spite his face. If anything, .Mr. Lee proved to be exceedingly adaptable to market conditions, especially when you look at the way he returned back from England and found that his “own kind,” the English educated didn’t start revolutions or get involved in political activity, particularly against the colonial power that they had grown to identify with.

Mr. Lee had never spoken a word of Mandarin or any Chinese dialect prior to his return from studies in the UK. To him, it he wanted to speak “English like an Englishman.” Like the Peranakan (Straits Chinese), Mr. Lee’s language was English and Malay. To the Peranakan’s, the Chinese dialects and Mandarin were languages of the street not of the elite and therefore not something that was learnt.

However, Mr. Lee understood that if he wanted to get into power, he would have to reach the man in the street. To this end, Mr. Lee made it a point to teach himself Mandarin and Hokkien (Dialect of Fujian province, the province when most ethnic Singaporean Chinese come from) in the space of a few months. Not only did he learn to speak both languages, he found the ability to move crowds in languages that were not his own.

Mr. Lee knew what he wanted and he was willing to go beyond his comfort zone. He understood that the Chinese educated and Chinese speaking masses were the key to getting into power and so he did what he needed to do to reach them.

Give Brilliant People a Free Reign.

Much is now being said of how the real architect behind Singapore’s success was Dr. Goh Keng Swee. To an extent it was. Dr. Goh was the man who built up institutions like the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) and the Economic Development Board (EDB).

While there is no doubt that Dr. Goh did the work, we have to remember that government isn’t always about achieving the best outcomes but about achieving them despite the opposition to them. 

When business people talk about results they usually mean who makes the most money. When politicians talk about results, they usually talk about compromise.

In the case of Singapore, Dr. Goh managed to do what he did without compromising his plans. The reason for this was simple – he didn’t have to fight political battles. His boss did it for him.

Mr. Lee had the strength of character to surround himself with highly brilliant people. He had, by own admission, huge rows with his cabinet colleagues and somehow, when they could convince them of what they proposed, he would back them to the hilt. The Lee-Goh team was good for Singapore because their strengths complimented each other. Mr. Lee left the policy details to Dr. Goh, but Dr. Goh needed Mr. Lee to keep the politics of his back.

It did help that his cabinet colleagues knew who was boss. Dr. Goh was a powerful deputy Prime Minister because he didn’t have ambitions for his boss’s job. Mr. Lee didn’t have to look over his back for a deputy with eye on his job.

Having a good team is not enough. You have to be able to utilize their talents and in this respect, Mr. Lee was brilliant. He was willing to invite ideas from experts like Dr. Albert Winsemius and to let competent deputies like Dr. Goh to run with things. Mr. Lee’s genius was in utilizing other people’s brilliance for his own end.

Stabilise the Home.

One of the most overlooked aspects of Mr. Lee was the fact that he stabilized his home. Mr. Lee did his job free of worry about what was going on in his home.

Mrs. Lee, who was Mr. Lee’s intellectual equal and some say his superior, kept a low profile. He was always the star of the show. She ensured that the children were well brought up and domestic issues would never disturb the man from his job.

The Lee family has remained low profile despite the power awarded to them. Unlike the Suharto’s of Indonesia, the family never allowed itself to be associated with the less pleasant things of the power they’ve enjoyed.

Lee Kuan Yew died a respected part of the country he created. When you think of how his contemporaries like Marcos (exile) and Suharto (house arrest) died, that is an achievement. May Mr. Lee rest in peace.   

Life after Harry

The Chinese Year of the Goat is starting on a rather auspicious note for Singapore. The Goat Year, which is supposed to be a fairly gentle year, started out with the news that Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew had been taken to hospital and is now on “life support.” While we should wish Mr. Lee a recovery, we are witnessing an end of an era. Mr. Lee has been visibly frail since the death of his wife in 2010 and at the age of 91, he’s lived beyond the two score and ten recommended by the Bible. His passing should be something that we expect.

While Mr. Lee has remained out of the public eye since he resigned from the Cabinet after the 2011 Election, he’s been the driving force of modern Singapore. I remember a prominent journalist describing as the “Era of Lee Kuan Yew,” and he went on stress that this was despite the fact that, “Lee Hsien Loong [Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s son] is now the Prime Minister and Goh Chok Tong was the Prime Minister for 14-years.”

Mr. Lee was our first Prime Minister. He and his initial governments played a role in creating the policies and institutions that have made Singapore what it is. Mr. Lee was a great visionary. He insisted on things like integrity in the public service and promotion by merit.

Not only was Mr. Lee a visionary, but he also had the rare gift of being a visionary with a pragmatic streak. He had the good sense to surround himself with competent deputies like Goh Keng Swee and Rajaratnam. Mr Lee fought the political battles and allowed his deputies (especially Dr. Goh) to get on with the work.

The results of his vision and pragmatism are visible. Singapore is now a thriving, prosperous, green and safe metropolis. Despite its limited geography, Singapore is held up as a model of what a city should be. The emerging Asian giants, China and India have sent government officials to Singapore to study how Mr. Lee did. India’s recently elected Prime Minister, Narendra Modhi is a fan of Mr. Lee.

While Mr. Lee did some nasty things like ruin his political opponents (there are political prisoners who have been incarcerated longer than either Nelson Mandela or Ang Sung Su Kyi), he has been on the whole a good force for Singapore. Let’s face it, Singapore measures up pretty well in just about everything and these days that comparison is not with third world backwaters like Angola but with the developed nations of the West like the USA and members of the European Union.

So, why aren’t Singaporeans, especially the younger generation showing much emotion over the possible demise of the man who was probably the root cause of the good life that they enjoy.

My personal feeling is that Mr. Lee forgot one of the most important lessons of business – never fall in love with your own business. The man who made “succession planning” and obsession couldn’t help but to create consultancy positions in the cabinet of his successors. He was Mr. Goh Chok Tong’s “Senior Minister,” and then, when his own son took over, he became the “Minister Mentor,” or the man they still needed around to “mentor” the people he chose to run the country.

While nobody can doubt Mr. Lee’s wisdom and the fact that he’s been right about so many of the crucial issues, there comes a point when one forgets that times change and the methods that worked yesterday may not work today. You could say that Mr. Lee was the father of the nation and he was the father that forgot that the children had grown up.

One of the most common failings was to stick onto the myth that he and his party created – they were the party that brought the nation from swamp to thriving metropolis in a generation.

While the PAP and Mr. Lee deserve credit for bringing Singapore up in the world, the message had become lost on a generation that never lived through things like the Japanese Occupation or the riots of the 60s. There’s no point telling a retrenched manager with a mortgage and family to feed that he has it easy when compared to the generation that survived the Japanese occupation. What he wants is to find a way of making a living so he can feed the family.

There were also times when the obsession with the past record was more than just out of touch – it was self-serving. One of the worst moments came when Mr. Lee proceeded to sold Singaporeans for being complacent about national security when there were calls for the Minister in charge of national security to resign after that Minister allowed a terrorist to waltz out of a secured facility. Mr. Lee was known for being ruthless with his own ministers in extracting the highest standards and competence and integrity. Suddenly he was proudly defending the incompetence of his son’s ministers. To a generation of Singaporeans who had grown up thinking of Mr. Lee as a great man who did things for the nation, this was a rude shock. Had he grown to love his power more than his people?

As a young Singaporean, I find Mr. Lee’s demise sad but hopeful. The man had faults and his frailties. These weaknesses have damaged certain aspects of Singapore. However, when you compare him to his contemporaries in Southeast Asia, he did place some safeguards against himself. Singapore’s elections are really run in a “free and fair manner” (the ballot is secret, even if the ruling party may like you to think otherwise.) Mr. Lee did step aside in 1991, unlike Suharto who had to be pushed and confined to house arrest or Marcos who had to flee the nation.

 If one looks at Mr. Lee’s family, you have to hand it to him for ensuring they stayed in line and played by the rules. Our current Prime Minister was required to take the same exams that everyone else took. As a reservist colonel pointed out, “Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Hsien Yang went to OCS (Officer Cadet School) and trained – they did not get 12-year deferments of National Service and then got posted to study soil.” The Elder Mr. Lee has kept certain things in line, which many of his contemporaries did not – one only has to go back to how the Suharto family seemed to own as well as run Indonesia.

You could say Mr. Lee’s problem was to set high standards for public officials and the angst that many Singaporeans feel towards the once almighty government is the fact that they feel its moved away from the standards that Mr. Lee set.

It would take courage to admit this but should any government recognize and act of these mistakes, they would have secured Mr. Lee’s decent legacy for the betterment of Singapore.

When You Invade Us it’s a Crime. When We Invade You – It’s called Liberation.

I’m not American but I have family from the States, so you could say that I have something of a special relationship with America. American and Americans have been a “blessing” to my personal life. By some twist of fate, my mother remarried, Lee, my first stepfather and that provided me with the experience of growing up in the West. My Dad remarried Nora and that gave me a special relationship with Chicago. As I’ve grown older, I’ve found myself getting closer to my American siblings Tara (Mum’s daughter with Lee) and Max (Dad’s son with Nora). My American families (yes, I can claim more than one) rock!

Without descending into mindless patriotism for my American family and friends, I do believe America deserves the title of “Greatest Nation” in history. The USA is the only nation that I can think of that was founded on the right of the individual to pursue happiness – it even says so in the Constitution. That little idea spread around the world and has helped unleash more prosperity and scientific innovation that has raised the human standard of living beyond anything before it. American power is not just about corporations or the military but also in its universities, which are centres of excellence. While America may have an inequality issue, it remains the one place that rewards excellence and so continues to rule.

While I have fond feelings for America and Americans in general, I’ve noticed that a worrying trend of late. American politicians and corporate types seem to be developing a rather entitled world view. One only has to think of the way in which American bankers (encouraged by the American media) were happy to lecture South East Asia about the need to let bad banks go bankrupt back in the Asian financial crisis of 1997. A decade later, what were the Americans doing but bailing out banks that had criminally taken money from hard working Americans and lending it to their cronies who then proceeded to invest the proceeds in bonuses for – themselves.

I don’t dispute that it was important to let Asia’s bad banks go under. Many had made bad investment decisions, often shoveling money to the dubious scams of the well connected. Life is that simple, when you do something wrong, you face the music and that was the case for many of the businesses in the region.

But why didn’t the same medicine apply to America? Well, there was this phrase called “Too Big to Fail.” Translation – there would be too many finance types looking for jobs and that would be somehow bad for the world?

I guess there’s some justification to protecting the greed and stupidity of an elite few in the same way that American politicians justify invading other people. Think of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, which was sold as “Liberation” of Iraq. Yes, they got rid of Saddam but the Iraqi’s didn’t quite see it that way and started shooting back at American troops. Net result – ISIS.

By some strange logic, the American politicians who invaded Iraq to “Liberate” (we’re doing you a favour by bombing you) were quick to denounce the evils of Vladimir Putin who managed to annex the Crimea (majority population ethnic Russian) without firing a shot. Not sure how that worked but apparently Putin is wrong for doing what America did….

In the latest round of American corporate humbug, you have the American airlines – specifically Delta, United, Continental and American Airlines whining about how Emirates, the plucky little airline from Dubai is stealing customers through unfair government subsidies.

Thankfully, the Chairman of Emirates, HRH Sheikh Ahmed Bin Saeed Al Maktoum, has a simple message for his detractors – “offer the best to passengers and people will fly with you.”

Emirates is an affordable airline. I prefer to fly Emirates when I go back to Europe. Service is good and the planes are well kept. By contrast, Delta, United, Continental and American Airlines offer miserable service. Is anyone surprised that they’re losing customers to Emirates?

America, as I’ve said on so many times is great and as a nation it’s been a force of good. However, American corporate honchos and politicians need to understand that there are no entitlements in the real world. Asians, Africans and Europeans have a religious duty to ensure that Americans (particularly the White variety) don’t get their way automatically. It’s the only way you make the world a better place. 

The Cautious Captain Who Got the Ship Between the Rock and Hard Place

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud died last Friday (23 January 2015) of old age. The desert monarch had ruled the desert kingdom for a better of a decade and had found himself playing a very unique role in what is one of the most turbulent regions of the world. World leaders like US President Barak Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel paid tribute to him as leader with vision, courage of conviction and a reformer who supported women’s rights. At the other end of the spectrum human rights groups lambasted the man for keeping women’s rights down and there were those who called him an “A Zionist Agent who kept his fellow Muslims poor.” (Didn’t help that one of the tributes came from Israel’s president).

The demise of King Abdullah comes at an “interesting” time for Saudi Arabia. At the time of writing, the price of oil has dropped tremendously and after years of budgetary surplus, the Kingdom now faces a few years of deficit. The world media has made much of the fact that the Kingdome faces the fanatics of ISIS on its northern border with Iraq and a resurgent Al Qaeda in the southern border with Yemen. Youth employment remains stubbornly high. King Abdullah’s legacy will perhaps be judged by the way Saudi Arabia deals with these issues.

I personally hope that Saudi Arabia makes it through and that the new King Salman finds the wisdom and ability to do what needs to be done. For all that it said of Saudi Arabia, it remains the country that gave me my proudest moment as a PR professional when I assisted Dr. Amin Kurdi, the former Saudi Ambassador to Singapore in the smooth running of the visit of the late Prince Sultan to Singapore in 2006.

I remember that job as being one of the most of the most challenging for the very fact that I stood in between a host of conflicting interest. There was a cultural clash between the Saudi and Singapore side. Add to that, there were a host of other conflicts that needed to be managed. The two ministries I had to deal with on the Singapore side had a private turf war. On the Saudi side, you had something similar. The 40 odd journalist who had come along the ride didn’t exactly enjoy the presence of the chaps from the Ministry of Information (“Ministry of Misinformation” – as one of the more prominent Saudi editors called them). Yet, somehow, I managed to get things done and at the end of the day, when I spoke to the words “Insha Allah – we will meet again,” to the departing Saudi Party, I meant it.

You could say that what I faced on that job was merely a microcosm of Saudi society at large. For the most part, Saudi society is conservative and traditional. However, the majority of young people are young. The royal family draws legitimacy from its alliance with the Wahabi Sect, one of the strictest versions of Sunni Islam (the Saudi King’s most important title is “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosque”) and yet, the same royal family understands not only the need to be part of the modern world but enjoys aspects of the modern world. You are talking about a society where women are required to dress from head to toe in black robes to “reduce the lust of men” but at the same time, Saudi women are one of the biggest buyers of lacy underwear.

It takes skill to manage a society with that many contradictions and while Abdullah may not have lived up to the billing he initially received in the Western Media (“reformer”), the man did get things done without disrupting the system.

I guess you could say Abdullah ranks somewhere between Gorbachev and Deng Xiao Peng. I’m old enough to have lived through the Gorbachev era when we hailed him as the reforming visionary who would end the Cold War. The man suddenly opened up the once closed Soviet System and we hailed him as a great hero, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

However, events proved otherwise. Mr. Gorbachev underestimated a genie that had been bottled up for long. Political openness unleased pent up emotions that Mr. Gorbachev didn’t know how to handle.

By contrast, Mr. Deng knew how to tinker with the system. First a zone here and zone there was given a bit of freedom and slowly but surely parts of China prospered. While China remains a Communist Dictatorship, it’s a very prosperous one. What freedoms that people have come from the fact that the masses have tasted the good life and won’t allow the turning of the clock back to the old days of Maoist absolutes and the Cultural Revolution.

King Abdullah, may well be a milder version of Mr. Deng. Like Mr. Deng, King Abdullah has maneuvered a minefield of special interest.  Like Mr. Deng, the King has shown his ability to be ruthless. Who can forget that it was the “Great Reformer” in Mr. Deng who authorized the killing of Tiananmen Square in 1989? It’s the “reformer” Saudi King Abdullah who sent troops into neighbouring Bahrain to crush an uprising and sent money to back rebel forces against Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad, many of the groups of which formed part of the notorious Islamic State.

However, like Mr. Deng, King Abdullah did take risk that have touched parts of Saudi society. I remember filming women in Al-Faisaliyah Mall in Riyadh in 2006. The assigned tour guide commented on how much things had changed under Abdullah – young Saudi’s worked at Starbucks like coffee joints and women were fairly happy to be filmed.

Doesn’t sound like much to anyone outside Saudi Arabia but if you look at my guide’s comments, the Abdullah reforms had brought about some release for the people. There was some form of progress.

On the economic front, King Abdullah should also be given credit for recognizing that the Saudi economy needs to run on something other than oil. While the economy remains heavily dependent on oil, the Saudi’s have started to court foreign investment in the ‘non-oil’ sector via it’s agency “TheSaudi Arabian General Investment Authority’ or SAGIA, which is staffed by young, bright and Western Educated people like its Asia Pacific Director General, Meshari Al Khaled.

Furthermore, King Abdullah’s reforms have to be seen in the context of his contemporaries. While the Saudi System may not be perfect, many of the comparisons in the region aren’t much better – one only has to think of IS. Saudi Arabia may not be a bastion of women’s rights but Saudi women do go to school. Doesn't happen in the IS run parts of Syria and Iraq.  

Perhaps the most significant initiative that King Abdullah came up with was his 2002 and 2007 plan for peace in the Middle East. The offer was simple – Israel would withdraw to its legally recognized borders of 1967 in return for diplomatic recognition from all 22 members of the Arab league. This was an “Arab” idea made public. The man called for the US or Europeans to support him. Unfortunately, he was effectively screwed by his American ally who proceeded to encourage Israel not to even consider this. I will always remember Dr. Amin Kurdi’s reaction when he was asked by Clement Mesenas who interviewed him for the Today Newspaper what the Arabs felt about Israel’s need for security. He said, “We gave them a way out of their security problem and they rejected it.”

History has a way of judging rulers. Abdullah promised reform but many of his reforms were only delivered at a glacial pace. It should be no surprise that the youth are impatient for change and the more conservative fractions of Saudi Society have not forgiven him for the mild reforms of appointing a woman as deputy minister of education. Some Western papers have called him a “failed reformer.”

I believe that you need to look at the man in the context of his society and what he faced. The fact that he managed to get the few things he got done without a major revolution that is common elsewhere around him should speak volumes of his skills as a leader. Let’s pray that the King Salman, his successor finds the same skill to bring the Kingdom into the new world in the same manner that his predecessor started to do. 

The Man Who Gave Made the Law Just.

Singapore lost one of its most prominent criminal lawyers on 7 January 2015. Mr. Subhas Anandan, Senior Partner of RHTLaw Taylor Wessing died of heart failure at the age of 67. In more than three decades, “Subhas” as he was known, defended some of Singapore’s most notorious criminals like Antony Ler, the man who paid teenagers to kill his wife and Took Leng How, a retarded man who was accused of killing the China-born toddler Hwang Na back in 2004. Subhas was known as a man who would happily defend some of the “worst” criminals free of charge (back when it wasn’t common practice for lawyers to do pro-bono work).

The tributes are pouring in and one of the most common points about the man was that he was someone who stood up for people. The act of taking on scum bags and defending them in a court of law was a reminder that justice is only done when even the scum bags have the chance to present a case in court and they get convicted on evidence rather than political convenience or popular opinion.

All these things about Subhas are true. However, to me, Subhas was more than just an advocate for scum bags. He was an important figure in my childhood, who would remain in the shadows of the life is lived like some mysterious guardian spirit.

Subhas was my mother’s university mate and they remained good friends for over four decades. Her friendship was such that when I first moved back to Singapore for National Service, her first words to be were, “If you’re in any trouble – give Uncle Subhas a call – he’ll defend you. He won’t do it for the money – he’ll do it because you’re my son.”

Well, thankfully, I never had to call on “Uncle Subhas” to get me out of a sticky situation. The closest I ever got was needing legal advice when I was planning to get out of a very troubled marriage to Gina. Uncle Subhas wasn’t a divorce lawyer but he got me over an hour with two of his colleagues from Harry Elias Partnership free of charge (An hour with a junior associate with a big law firm is usually enough to bankrupt most people). That very crucial meeting set me on the path of getting out of a relationship that would have been disastrous.

Many years later, I’d run into Uncle Subhas at MediaCorp studio. He was the legal advisor on a show that was talking about domestic violence, while I was one of the interview subjects. Half way through, he actually said,”A man who hits a woman is a coward.”

This was him at his vintage best. While Uncle Subhas was a great lawyer, he was also a man of the people and he stuck to his principles, even when it was worse for him (he served a prison term). The law for him was about seeing that some form of justice was done and yet at the end of the day he never became blinded by his beliefs. I guess you could say that he was an idealist and a realist at the same time.

With the exception of a few encounters of the street, I never saw Uncle Subhas again. Mum would take pains to visit him and his family whenever she was in town but somehow, I never visited. As such, I can’t claim to really to have known the man in his final years.

However, he was an important character in my life. He was Mum’s divorce lawyer, even though he didn’t really believe in divorce. Yet, the way my parent’s ended their marriage was perhaps a blessing for me in that they did it with minimal harm to me and I think he had an influence in that respect.

I also think of the role he played in mine. I think the two instances I’ve had with him, was his way of showing me that there is a right way of doing things. By some fluke, Gina and I ended it legally and cleanly and I think he had a role to play in that.

I can’t say I’ll mourn him the way my Mum will. However, I can say that I’ll miss him. Although, I never really saw much of him other than what I got to see on TV or through reading his book or hearing my Mum talk about him, he was a presence that made a difference to me.

I wish I had made a more prominent effort to keep in touch when I first moved back to Singapore. The little I got of him, helped me at crucial junctures in my life. I wish I had the chance to know him better. He was the man who believed in justice in the law. His life touched so many and it was my privilege that my Mum insisted I call “Uncle.”

You May Not Like the Presence of Darkies from Other Parts of Asia ...But .....

The New Year is barely five-days-old and Singapore’s patch of cyberspace is once again ablaze with self-righteous indignation.

Apparently, a Filipino radiographer at Tan Tock Seng Hospital “tweeted” something unfortunate about how the Filipino’s were taking jobs away from Singaporeans and were going to take away our promised land from the wimps that we are.

Singapore’s so called guardians of national pride are up in arms. The general refrain is that “how dare this Pinoy whom we gave his cushy job to insult us – fuck off back to Pinoy land if you don’t respect us.” The usual complaints about how the Filipino’s and other dark skinned Asians don’t know how lucky we Singaporeans are has allowed them to come in and work at wages that they could only dream off.

The comments that were made, were indeed rude. They were insulting to Singaporeans and let’s face it, no host likes being insulted.

Having said that, they were stupid remarks and should probably be left there. You could say the guy is an arsehole and leave it at that.

What we should not do is to try and get ourselves worked up over the presence of the Filipino community in Singapore, which is the community responsible for helping us enjoy the cushy things that we do. Whatever one may think of the Singapore government, one has to admit that our physical infrastructure is pretty darn good – it’s actually comparable to anything you get in the developed nations of Western Europe or the USA. What we should remember is that someone has to maintain it and keep things going and that task falls heavily on the Filipino Community.

I’ve worked in a restaurant for the past two years. The restaurant business is great place to see how things function in Singapore. We, as a well to do nation enjoy the fine things in life. Singapore’s national pastime as they say is having a good meal. As we become more affluent, we start to appreciate finer dining establishments, serving things like good steak and a nice bottle of wine. If I take a look at who the big spenders at the restaurant are, I’d say that there is an increasing number of local Singaporeans. Yes, the Expats spend more on average but local Singaporeans can no longer be counted as bread and butter customers.

Unfortunately, you need people to keep things moving. The restaurant business is a people business and despite the technological advances we’ve made, you still need people to serve you, cook the food and wash the plates. This is a business that is notorious for long hours and low pay (As stated a few times before, I’ve made more from writing a single press release than I have in a month of working in the restaurant).

Herein lies the rub – there’s work to be done but it is physically demanding and the pay is nothing to shout about. You live with the fact that your busiest hours are everyone else’s rest periods. This combination makes the job terribly unappealing to Singaporeans with more than two brain cells.

So, who steps in to do the work? In the case of Singapore’s restaurants it’s usually the Filipinos. The community has become essential to the backbone of Singapore’s food and beverage industry. Go into any dinning establishment and chances are you will be severed by a Filipino.

What you won’t see is the fact that the Filipino chap will often be the most overworked and underpaid person in the establishment. If you think of small establishments, you’ll find that the Filipino is often the chap who has worked in both the kitchen and the service line. As well as working as the waiter and kitchen helper, he will also have to double up as electrician, plumber and general repair man. This is the chap who works 12 hours a day, six days a week and does so without much complaint.

By contrast, you have the Singaporeans who won’t take on fifty percent of the jobs that are available. I’m not talking about people with pots of money who shun these jobs. The people who shun the jobs on offer, are the very people who could do with the money. In Singapore’s rather strange definition of “pride,” these are the people who are too proud to be seen to scrub dishes in the kitchen but are proud enough to ask you to top up their bus cards and buy them a few beers.

The most common excuse that these chaps give for not wanting to do jobs that are done by the Pinoys and other Asians is the fact that they can’t afford to work them. Wages are too low for them and apparently you can’t support a family on the wages that are on offer. However, the guys who make these statements are the guys who haven’t supported their families in years and somehow they’ve got the idea that no pay is better than low pay

.

That’s at the most extreme. If you get Singaporeans entering the industry, you’ll find that they’re the least inclined to work properly. I think of my Christmas in 2014. I wasn’t scheduled to work the lunch shift. However, I got a call begging me to come down to help out. The reason was simple, the Italian and Pinoy that I work with were overwhelmed with customers. Their assistant was Jie-Jie-Ka-Ni-Na (Hokkien for Older Sister Motherfucker). Jie-Jie’s idea of help was sit by the cash register and avoid trying to push buttons in the cash register. After two attempts at pushing buttons, the young lady in question was about to go into cardiac arrest from overwork. My presence in the restaurant helped boost morale or rather it was the fact that I showed up, carried three dishes and reminded Jie-Jie-Ka-Ni-Na that there is no such job title as “Bosses Wife.”

Sad to say, what I’ve seen doesn’t stay in the restaurant business. It applies to many crucial industries. Take nursing as an example. Everyone wants to be a hot shot doctor. Nobody wants to be a nurse and so, where do we get the nurses from? We got to get them from elsewhere.

Like it or not, we’re an island filled with “Proud” people who won’t lower themselves to do “menial” work, no matter how bad their personal situation. As such, the reality is that we do need to get people from elsewhere to do basic jobs.

You might not like the presence of Pinoy’s, Bangla’s, PRC Chinese at al in Singapore but unless you’re willing to do the jobs, they’re here to stay. 

A Steady Ride

It’s been something of an interesting year. On the global scale the year was marked by disasters in the aviation industry. Malaysian Airlines lost not one but two flights in the space of a few months. As the year comes to an end, it was the turn of Malaysia’s star airline from the private sector to suffer a crash.

In terms of the global economy, we saw a comeback of the world’s largest economy, the USA. On a more positive note, the Obama Administration did something unusually courageous; it talked to Cuba and finally took positive steps to end a 50-year old embargo that had only served to keep the wet dreams of the Miami Cuban Diaspora happy. Hopefully this tropical island will boom in the way that it deserves to.

There were no big family events this year. My cousin Lucas got married to Cheryl, his long term girlfriend. She is a delightful addition to the family and we all look forward to the day when they start a family. Mum, Auntie Frieda and Uncle Adrian made an appearance.

For me, the Family Court decided to be kind and granted the adoption order to allow me to adopt Thuy, my favourite evil teen. She has since changed her name to Jennifer Tang and we are currently trying to get her settled on a long term basis in school. She’s settling into school slowly. Not sure if it’s a good thing but she’s got an aptitude for visual arts, rather like my sister who is born twenty years and one day before her.

The career front was ordinary. Unlike the preceding years there was not grand project with either the IIT or IIM Alumni, though I admittedly continue to be friends with members of both associations. I still keep in touch with Supriyo Sircar, of Polaris who continues to encourage me to write. I also remain on good terms with Suresh Shankar of Crayon Data and V. Harihairan of Third Wave Power.

The most prominent PR work was for Girija Pande, the current Chairman of Apex-Avalon and former Chairman of Tata Consultancy in Asia Pacific. I guess I had a stroke of luck, the Chinese President (China’s strongest leader in a generation), decided to visit India, which had elected Narendra Modi with one of the largest majorities ever enjoyed by an Indian Prime Minister. Suddenly everyone wanted to talk to a man who knew Sino-Indian Business Relations like the back of his hand and I had that person.

I remain at Bruno’s Bistrot. Have become part of the furniture and the owner and I have become after work buddies of sorts. I bring in the revenue and he allows me to snack and buys after work beer.

I’ve also become closer to my neighbours like Eintein David the bar manager of the Japanese restaurant next door and one of the nicest additions to life is the friendship of the Deveraux Family.

This year’s big change comes from an unusual source and my hero for the year was the most unexpected. I met Farooq Mann over three years ago. Not sure what happened between us but he decided not to speak to me for three years and then out of the blue he decided to return to my life.

And return he did. He’s brought me into the world of liquidations and insolvency work. I deal with an area of business that I never dealt with before and I’m grateful to him for helping me discover a new side of business.

Steady employment from two jobs hasn’t made me rich. I am ending the year without cash but I’ve built up my CPF reserves more quickly that I have been for a while. I’m not out of loser ville yet but I’m walking away from it. I’ve nearly doubled the account within the space of a year.

Not sure what happens in 2015. While I haven’t ended this year in the position I would have lived to end it in, I think the foundations for something better appear to have been laid. I look forward to the challenges of 2015.

The God of Revolutions.

I’ve decided that it’s time I need a bit of intellectual stimulation and so I returned to my academic roots and decided to pick up a copy of Zealot, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. The book is written by Reza Azlan, scholar of religious studies and professor of creative writing at University of California, Riverside.

The promotion of book was a master piece in public relations. Professor Aslan got himself interviewed on Fox News and ended up making Lauren Green, his interviewer look like an ignorant child. Ms. Green played into Professor Aslan’s hands by constantly harping on why a Muslim would write about the life and times of the Founder of Christianity. The more she harped on about the fact he was a Muslim, the more he talked about his academic credentials. The result was an instant success for the good professor and the book became an instant best seller. The interview can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt1cOnNrY5s&spfreload=10.

I’ve enjoyed reading the book. It’s brought back memories of what I used to do at A-Level and was expected to do at university. He’s delved into things like “Source Q” and talked about the link between the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Mathew and Luke). At times, the book does sound simplistic in that its premise is started as the one and only. However, on the whole, the book lays out a thought provoking idea. 

The professor’s argument is simple – when we look at the life and times of Jesus or at least the Jesus of history (the man who lived) in the context of his times. When you look at him in the context of his time rather as a spokesman of a “religious” message, the picture of who Jesus was becomes rather interesting. The professor argues that Jesus was not the “pacifist” who came to unite the world in a peaceful, loving embrace. He was, if you look at him in the context of his time, a radical and revolutionary who hopped to overthrow the established order of the day.

Jesus, as Professor Aslan notes, lived in a time of great social inequality. Jesus was a rough and barely literate peasant who lived in a society where people like him existed to serve the powers that be – which in this case was the Jewish Priesthood and the Roman Empire, which supported them. There was, in his day, extreme poverty for the masses and the “chosen” few lived a life of luxury at the expense of the masses.

When you look at Jesus in this context, everything Jesus said was a dangerous and political message to the established order of the day. Professor Aslan argues that Christian messages like “the meek shall inherit the earth,” were powerful political messages to those who held power – it was a warning that God would make the poor and weak into the strong and blessed, whereas those in power (the strong and rich) were about to get their comeuppance by God. If you were to bring this argument into the modern context, Jesus was a revolutionary figure akin to the great Communist leaders like Mao or Lenin.

When you look at this argument, you got to start thinking – would Jesus, the revolutionary described by Reza Aslan, exist in the modern world.

I think of the little City State where I’ve lived for the past decade – Singapore. This little city state has become a beacon of modern success. We are consistently nominated as the best place on the planet to do business. Everyone who moves to Singapore praises the country as the ideal place to make vast amounts of money.

While that’s true, I can’t help but notice that our society is developing many of the things that Professor Aslan described in Jesus’s day. We are, for a start, becoming an exceedingly unequal society. If one looks at the Gini co-efficient, it leads to the view that wealth in Singapore is concentrated in very few hands. We have the world’s highest paid ministers and we are increasingly becoming the preferred home for the world’s billionaires. However, if one walks the streets of Singapore, one cannot escape the fact that there are people who are sleeping on the streets and people who barely have enough to eat.

In Jesus’s day, the centre of life revolved around a rather opulent temple, which was run by a select and wealthy group of priest. Back then, there was only one religion. In Singapore we have a growing number of opulent religious buildings. Ironically, many of them are run by churches, headed by charismatic leaders who claim to have a special relationship with God.

Religion is business. Interestingly enough, this was also the case when Jesus walked the earth. 

Professor Aslan points out that it wasn’t uncommon for people to make a career as exorcist, healers and men of God. He argues that what made Jesus different from the rest was the fact that he provided services (healing etc) free of charge. Interestingly enough, if one looks at the way “religious enterprises” work, you’ll find that they charge for certain services – one only has to look at the fund raising powers of the likes of the New Creation Church (S$21 million in 24 hours).

Our modern society is seeing the conditions that existed in Jesus’s day. So, the question is, would Jesus gain the traction that he did, had he been around today?

I worry that the answer, especially in Asian societies is no. Somehow, the concept of gathering as much for yourself as possible has become psychologically ingrained in us as being part of “success through merit.”

Furthermore, if one looks at Singapore as an example, the powers that be have given the general population such a stake in society that few would entertain the idea of overthrowing the established order.

Ironically, the churches like New Creation and City Harvest thrive on this. Jesus’s message has been repackaged as a means to find salvation in the current social order rather than a means of bringing about a new social order. I remember the Pretend Girlfriend with No Benefits bringing me to one of New Creation’s sermons. The Pastor spent a good amount of time talking about how prayer would lead to prosperity rather than a redistribution of it.

To be fair, to the Churches, Eastern Religions can’t escape the idea of prayer for prosperity. Huong, my better half, tells me in moments of affection that she’ll pray for my business prosperity.

Religion and God have become part of the established order and people who preach a message otherwise, are cast out as dangerous radicals. I worry that if Jesus were to step into a society like Singapore’s, he’d be arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for being a dangerous radical. If anything, we’d crucify him before he got the chance to give the Sermon on the Mount.

I’m older now and I guess I’m less inclined to think that the only purpose of the established order is to be fought. However, I worry that we are becoming increasingly focused on preserving the status quo and our role in it that we have lost focus on the fact that God might have wanted us to disrupt it and make it better for us. 

Where does Good Customer Service End and Where Does Abuse Begin?

The restaurant owner and I had drinks with one of our higher spending customers. The young lady in question happens to a member of a family that owns a small shipyard and the young lady in question and has the ability to spend a good amount in the restaurant. Unfortunately, while she’s been blessed with financial resources, she’s been blessed with a rather low emotional quotient (a quality not uncommon in well to do Singapore Chinese girls).

After she left, I mention to the restaurant owner that the young lady has a habit of treating our chef like her personal valet (her idea of being nice is to invite him out to her table for a glass of wine. Then, in front of him, she will proceed to pour out every half-drunk glass into a single glass and offer it to him). The restaurant owner just shrugged, said he knew but it made her happy and she spends money and brings her friends who spend money at the restaurant. His sound bite was simple – “it’s business.”

That got me thinking about one of the biggest challenges that business, particularly those in the service industry face – when does customer service end and where does abuse begin.

The restaurant owner has a point. Business depends on paying customers and life is such that very often, the key differentiator is service – or should I say the ability to make the customer happy. Products have become such that they’re virtually indistinguishable and so the business has to find another reason to get the customer to spend money.

Let’s look at the restaurant. In Asia, the key ingredient to success is good food. One of the signs a good hawker meal is on how rude the said hawker is to his or her customers – it’s a sign that the guys food is so good that there will be a million customers outside his stall waiting to eat what he makes. Things are, however, different at the higher end of the market (a place where Bruno’s is). Your food has to be good but you need something else too (At that level – every restaurant cooks good food). The distinguishing factor is usually in the service and building up the relationship between customer and the establishment.

So, in our case, it makes good business sense for us to allow the young lady direct access to the chef. It makes sense for the chef to provide her with special off beat items that are not on the menu. She, as the customer is willing to pay and who are we to reject her money.

However, there is a point where this “special” relationship between the customer and the establishment goes beyond the requirements of good customer service and becomes abuse. In the case of the restaurant, the point is quite clear – the chef is clearly being abused when the customer believes he should come out of the kitchen whenever she summons him so that he has the privilege of drinking the dregs left behind by her dinner companions.

While this is an extreme example (as most of them in Singapore’s restaurant industry are), it is not the only one. I think of my days back in the agency business when it was common for the client to call you just as you when you were about to knock of work – and it was always because the client had a hair-brained idea that he or she thought was necessary to execute at the last minute.  

Service providers work on the principle that success is whatever makes the client happy without getting ourselves into legal entanglements. Hence, in every agency, the key operating procedure is to get “client approval.” Every action you perform as a member of a service provider has to be blessed by the client. Law firms are particularly good at showing the world that everything they do is blessed by the client –“Instructed.” As far as lawyers are concerned, they are merely acting under “instructions” from the one paying them.

The word “instruct” has helped the legal profession find that balance between demonstrating their competence with the client’s blessings. Other professional service providers are less good at this. Advertising and PR professionals (particularly the independent ones) are one of the worst at balancing the need to keep the client happy and demonstrating their expertise. I’ve been in too many situations where we, as the service provider have been so keen to make the client happy, we’re practically taking dictation from them.

The problem here is that when things go wrong, the client will blame – you. Yes, the client signed off on everything but at the end of the day he or she will turn around and say, “You never advised me.” This will inevitably be followed up by the phrase, “You’re the expert – not me.” It doesn’t help that the client may have an entire department of “experts” telling them what to do too. In such cases, it’s clear that the in house experts have got you, the external expert hired because – well, you’re there to take the blame.

What does one do? I remember telling someone that at the end of the day, you got to respect the client’s decision because it’s their money and their business that your business services. However, you need to place on record that you “advised” them. You as the service provider are there to ensure that they follow advice and get it half way right.

I’ve tried to take this mindset from PR into the restaurant business. Too often waiters see themselves as here messengers between the customer and the kitchen. The easy part of the job is that it doesn’t require any brains. The difficult part of doing this is that people tend to shoot the messenger first whenever things go wrong.

So, I make it a point to try and “advise” customers as what they should try. I do qualify that I am not a wine sommelier and I do make it a point to stress that what I recommend is based on what “I like.” However, I still give an opinion and if one were to judge by the results – that approach seems to work. I’ve managed to become the most successful sales person.

I want people to respect my professional opinion and I have to ensure that I have professional knowledge. In the case of the PR work, I write for the press so that I know what the press will buy. In the restaurant work, I eat at the restaurant so that I know what’s good. Somehow, I get it right for the customer more often than not.

The other flip side to getting people to respect you is having the ability to say “no.” Saying “no” can upset the proverbial paymaster, but sooner or later, people find a way of respecting your opinions. My chef, makes it a point of not serving dishes if he knows the ingredients are fresh. As long as people see you are trying to look out for them.

I think of PN Balji who used to tell me, “We are NOT prostitutes.” A prostitute has do whatever the client wants. All prostitutes will tell you that you are the world’s best lover because this is what you want to hear. How many of us will provide a prostitute with repeat business if she tells you you’re hung like an ant?

That’s prostitution and the business of prostitution. Other professions depend on the “respect” that people give it. Respect, is often in doing the right thing or at least not doing everything .....  

The Delight in Unreachable Pennies

Singapore’s main pension system, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) has been going through a bit of bashing recently. The finance industry has been capitalizing on the fact that CPF savings are insufficient for people to actually retire on and the newly found group of activist have had a field day accusing the government of misusing the “people’s money.”

Some of the bashing is deserved. The biggest source of frustration lies in the simple fact that CPF money is the money of the individual. Unlike “Social Security” in the USA, where the funding comes from the current generation of workers, CPF functions pretty much like a giant savings account. The individual stashes away 20 percent of his or her gross wages, while the employer matches another 13 to 16 percent. The funds pile up on a monthly basis and every year there is an interest payment of two to four percent (compared to commercial banks paying 0.025 percent on a fixed deposit). In theory one is not allowed to touch these funds until one reaches 65. The main exceptions to this rule are when one wants to buy a house (hence Singapore’s high percentage of home ownership) and when one needs emergency medical treatment.

However, this simple scenario has been tweaked so much that things are no longer simple. The retirement age has been raised from 55 to 62 and now to 65. With increasing life expectancy, there’s no reason to imagine that the age may be raised yet again. This is on top of the limitations on the things that one is supposed to be able to use the money for. The biggest example is the case of medical care. My dad found out the hard way. When he needed to go for a hernia operation last year, he found that he could only use S$5,000 of his MediSave (the portion of the CPF system devoted for medical needs) to pay for an S$30,000 operation. As such, having it done in Thailand proved to be a more economical option.

The reason for everyone’s frustration is obvious. This has become a game where the goal post have shifted constantly. Imagine working hard for 40-years, expecting to get your savings at the end, only to find that you can’t.

Having said all of this, there is another side of the story – namely life without CPF savings, which was pretty much my position until 2012, when I took the job in the restaurant. I escaped self-employed contributions to my MediSave account and cruised below the radar of the Central Provident Fund Board.

I call what I did youthful arrogance. I thought I could plunge straight away into doing my own thing. I left my first job with a local printer/designer because I thought the Old Rogue was offering me a chance to build up his magazine. There was no steady CPF but it looked more fun and so, much to the annoyance of my father, I jumped ship. I did get a small salary and I did earn a bit of commission. Then in my second job, they decided to cut the CPF portion to save the company money. I went along with it because it felt like what a good employee should do and I had the boss telling me, “Ehh – better for you – you get more money.”

What I didn’t learn until much later on in life was that its virtually impossible to save money unless you have cash flow and that life’s unexpected expenses have a way of popping up and thumping you on the head on a rather frequent basis. It didn’t help that I had a few hanger on’s who seemed more content to add to my bills rather than my wallet. So, whatever little savings I had, found a way of drying up pretty quickly.

With the exception of the stint with Asher Communications and BANG PR, I actually made through life without a CPF contribution. I had retainers from Alcon and Mark Goh & Co and a few pennies in savings thanks to the Indian IT industry.

However, the retainer clients did not continue and the projects dried up. I also didn’t realize that the poor are sometimes the way they are because they deserve it. Thought God might actually benefit me if I put an unemployed friend of mine to work trading hi-fi (he’s a hi-fi enthusiast) equipment. My savings went into buying hi-fi equipment, which never got sold but buying him decent meals didn’t exactly stop.

So, at the end of 2010, I was stuck with no income, no savings including the ever elusive CPF. In short, I looked like I’d end up old and broke.

I am not going to say that I won’t die old and broke but I’ve reduced those chances. Ah Huong tells me that marrying her was the best decision I made. I leave time to be the judge of that but I will credit her with doing things like finding odd jobs for me whenever I’ve been down. There’s also plenty to be said about having a somewhat emotionally stable partner in life. I had a more intense relationship with Joyce, but I ended up being less productive.

Downgrading on the social scale to work as a regular waiter proved to be a good decision. The income was low and remains low, especially for the hours I work. However, I had an income to pay my daily expenses. What money I made from projects like SIPF and IIMPact 2013, went into the cash savings that are now locked away with RHB across the Causeway in a fixed deposit. Passive income from that is not great but there’s enough to buy myself a cup of tea.

The part of having a regular job so to speak is the fact that I got CPF contributions. The contributions were small but grew bigger as I worked longer hours in the restaurant. 

Since IIMPact 2013, I’ve not had a big project. However, I’m now working two jobs. By day, I work in liquidations and I continue at the restaurant. Both jobs pay me CPF and while I’ve not saved cash in the conventional sense of the word, I’ve managed to grow my CPF.

In my last CPF statement, I’ve managed to double the total amount in my CPF in the last 15 months. The job in liquidations has helped with larger and more regular contributions.

This is money I can’t touch. So I can’t say that my lifestyle has improved dramatically. However, there’s a hope of sorts.  I can entertain the idea of buying a house from the government. CPF savings are partially paid by someone else and they are steady enough to keep the banks happy. I can even afford to get sick, though I wouldn’t rush out to expose myself to every germ known to man.

CPF is not a perfect system and I don’t think it has been managed as well as it should be. However, I think of my Dad who, upon hearing I left a CPF job said, “You’re not going to make any money without CPF.” It’s my personal shame that I took so long to understand that he was right.