And the Fight Goes On......

The recent Indian Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional the Indian equivalent legislation of our s377A has ignited a robust debate in Singapore. The line-up of eminent persons and institutions lined up on both sides of the debate has been delightfully described in an article in this blogsite: TANG LI (13September 2018). Professor Tommy Koh's article (25 September 2018) in NUS Tembusu College Website alluded to the scientific evdience that homosexuality was "a normal and natural variation in human sexuality" as well as the world wide rolling back of laws such as our s377A. Our ex-Attorney General VK Rajah's article in the Sunday Times (30 September 2018) sketched the legal arguments to show that s377A was unconstitutional.

The other side of the debate was presented eloquently based of the legitimate functions of laws further buttressed by the slippery slope argument in SMU ProfessorTan Seow Hon's article in the Straits Times (27 September 2018). In particular, the slippery slope argument posed the question : if s377A were to be repealed, would it lead to repeal of other moral laws, mandatory change in school curriculum, and same-sex marriages?

Yet the most insightful article on this subject was Rei Kurochi's "How should society deal with divisive laws?" in The Straits Times (27 September 2018). She relied on the 2007 debate over the repeal of a law allowing marital rape to conclude that "We cannot determine minority rights by popularity contest", and "Maintaining the status quo while protecting the interests of one group over another is not compromise; it is entrenchment".

While the arguments on both sides of the debate are formidable, I will argue that the most important insight is the parallel between the past century's struggle for women's rights and the present quest to repeal s377A.

Professor Tommy Koh pointed out that the Muslim world are amongst the diminishing number of countries where consenting homosexual relations are still illegal. By coincidence, the Muslim world is also the place where women are still relegated to a subordinate role in society.

A century ago, women had no right to vote. And this was so even in the West where democratic ideals first emerged. Many of the world's great religions exalted the role of men and suppressed women's aspirations for equality. Then, women were thought to be less than equal in intellect, moral turpitude, and courage. In my own lifetime, I remember my mother recounting that her father (ie. my maternal grandfather) did not allow her to go to school on the ground that it would be a waste of time and money since women's role was to marry and have children. Eventually, inspired not by Western feminism but by China's efforts to educate its vast population (including women) on the ideals of communism, she managed to gain support from her mother (ie. my maternal grandmother) to allow her to attend school.

Even today in parts of the Muslim world, a conservative may adopt the slippery slope argument to protest that allowing women to go to school to gain an education may lead to women pressing for the right to drive, or to lead in prayers, or to refuse sex with her husband in future. And lest we are amused at the hand wringing protests of some conservatives in the Muslim world today, we should remind ourselves that the slippery slope argument was also arrayed against women activists in the past. It is now resurrected again in the arguments against repeal of s377A. Similarly, the religious or moral legitimacy of the law was used against women's rights in the past, and is now resurrected against the repeal of s377A.

When democracy first blossomed in the Western world, men was given the right to vote. But not women. Women had no right to vote. It was thought that women was not knowledgeable enough about the world outside their homes to warrant a right to vote. Both Western and Eastern culture and religion believed that women's role was to marry and to bear children. Women were taught that their role was to "submit to their husbands" or to "serve their husbands". Apart from a social structure that acknowledged the husband as the head of the household, these words "submit" and "serve" were also thought to be an euphemism for the view that husbands had the right to demand sex with and from their wives. Hence the law that hubands could not be convicted of marital rape against their wives. In Singapore, that law held sway for over a century and was revised only in 2007!

Women had made great strides in their fight for equality, from the right to education, to the right to vote, to the right to legal recourse for marital rape. It might be thought that women who had struggled against such discrimination for over a century, should be more sympathetic to the LGBT's call to repeal s377A. But strangely enough (apart from the religious authorities who are mostly men), the ones who are more vocal in the general community opposing any repeal of s377A are women.

So far, missing from the debate, is how a repeal of s377A may affect our population growth (or decline). And here again, I see a parallel between the fight for women's rights and the repeal of s377A.

Women's rights was won and enshrined in our Womens Charter since the 1960's. After many decades of women's advances in Singapore, our late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was famously said to have regretted it because it resulted in a reduction in Singapore's birth rate. As women advanced economically, they no longer needed a husband to support them. Some chose not to marry. For some, their aspirations and criteria for a husband-material priced them out of the marriage market. For others, the demands of education and career delayed their search for husbands until too late. Finally, it was thought that men shied away from the educated, more demanding women and preferred more submissive wives. The result was that marriage rates dropped and birth rates suffered. Nevertheless, there was no turning back the clock. No one thought that we should "bring back the Talebans" in our society. To suppress women for the sake of population growth (or to arrest population decline) was and is unthinkable. Society must find other ways to incentivise marriage and making of babies.

The parallel with s377A is the fear that its repeal would open the floodgates to more people joining the LGBT community and less babies.

First, the floodgates issue. Professor Tommy Koh's article suggested that homosexuality was an innate quality. If so, regardless of their laws and culture, societies cannot create or change this innate quality nor open floodgates to generate more of it. However, that innate quality speaks only of the internal desires and orientation of the person. It does not point to the external expression of such desires or orientation. Laws and culture may suppress the external expression of this innate or internal quality albeit at the cost of much personal frustrations and suffering. If the law and culture were removed, if the suppression was removed, the innate internal quality would be free to express itself. This is the "floodgate fear". The fear is that if s377A were to be repealed, more outwardly heterosexual people would cross over to the LGBT community to express their true, innate quality that was previously suppressed. But this type of "floodgate fear" is a fallacy. It is merely the reverse side of the coin. 

Removing the suppression  will obviously free the suppressed from their personal frustrations and suffering. This type of "floodgate fear" is an indictment of the suppression.

If one goes further, one can argue that since homosexuals do not procreate, this "floodgate fear" would translate into fear of population decline. But as shown above, if it is unthinkable now to suppress women for the sake of arresting population decline, it should be equally so for the idea of suppressing the LGBT community to arrest population decline.

Secondly, the "floodgate fear" also relates to the young and how they are educated. Again, if Professor Tommy Koh was right, regardless of how our law and culature influence the young, our influence cannot create more or less innate or internal qualtity in our young. But, instinctively, we fear or recognise that our young are succeptible to influences that may affect their sexuality. In other words, we do not wholly believe in the theory of innate quality. Does this also mean that we do not believe in the "science" behind it?

I think the reality is somewhere in between. For eg. we know that some people are genetically programmed to be taller and others to be shorter. That genetic trait cannot be altered by our laws or culture. But the expression of those genes can be modified a little by nutrition and perhaps by exercise and sports. So I am taller than my father, and my son is taller than me. Generally, my generation is taller than my father's generation, and my son's generation is taller than mine. Did our genes evolved across 3 generations towards taller genes? That is not possible. Instead, it is the nutrition (and perhaps physical exercise and sports education) that resulted in this slight inter-generation difference. Human sexuality may be viewed in the same way. The innate quality or genetic disposition cannot be changed by laws or culture. But exposure to different types of sexuality  may modify the expression of those genes slightly. Some even suggests that exposure to some chemical pollutants in our living environment may also affect our sexuality. But that is another debate 

altogether.

 The point made here is that the expression of human sexuality, though innate, may change slightly. We fear that when exposed to LGBT lifestyles, our children may be more open to experiment with such lifestyle and shift their attitudes ever so slightly. It may be too far fetched to think that laws and culture can change a young boy from one end of the spectrum (eg. the outwardly masculine) to the other end of the spectrum (eg. the outwardly effeminate). But law, culture and exposure may change a young person near to the borderline to cross that line. For young people near the borderline, a slight shift in attitude may be all that divides one from the other. This type of "floodgates fear" is a more formidable argument.

Nevertheless, this fear is not unique to the debate on s337A. It applies to sexual grooming of young girls. We have laws against sexual grooming.  If we rely on such laws to protect our daughters, equally we should rely on such laws to protect our sons. If need be, such laws can be strengthened. Such fears do not justify suppressing the LGBT community. Suppressing the whole LGBT community is similar to punishing the whole LGBT community for the fault of a few wayward members thereof.

This parallel between women's rights and repeal of s377A, protection of daugthers and sons may give us a better perspective in the ongoing debate on s377A.

This parallel may also be helpful to the LGBT community.

For eg. the "population -fear". The point made above is that "population-fear" should not be a reason to suppress the LGBT community. But this begs the question  -- is it true that the LGBT community cannot pro-create? Singapore has a declining birth rate. This decline is detrimental to our future economy and politics. If the LGBT community can form stable family units and pro-create, it will go a long way towards establishing their legitimacy. For eg. can two LGBT men marry two LGBT women and have four children to form a family unit? Whether the children are conceived naturally or by assisted reproduction is a personal choice.

In heterosexual marriages, the State has an interest to create a stable system for procreation and the nurture and protection of children from the marriage. For this purpose, the State created laws relating to marriage, property rights, probate and intestacy.

If the LGBT community does not pro-create, one wonders why the State should intervene in their lives to create marriage laws for them? But if the LGBT community were to form stable family units and pro-creates, there is an interest for the State to create laws to regulate and nurture those families and their children. And whether we should call such family units a "marriage" or a "civil union" may be the subject for future debate. These are thoughts for the future. These ideas do not impinge on the s377A debate.

Nevertheless, the question whether the LGBT community can pro-create raises some interesting questions. For eg. if LGBT communities do not pro-create, how did their genes pass down the generations? If their genes are passed down despite limitations in their pro-creation, what was the advantage of those genes? For the atheists, the question is this -- how did natural selection favour such genes? For the religious, one may pose the question the other way  -- why did God make genes for the LGBT community? Either way, the answer may affect how we view s377A. But this is a question for another article.

By Eric Ng Yuen
Partner at Malkin & Maxwell LLP

What Happens if your kid tells you that he or she is Gay?

One of my best friends and I were discussing the topic of homosexuality. His point was that we’re still Asians at heart and while some might find homosexuality normal, he did not. To make his point, he asked me what I would do if my 18-year old told me one fine day that she was a lesbian. I laughed and my reply was “What would you expect me to do?” The point being, if my little girl told me that her sexual preference was for another woman, she’d still be my little girl. When my teenager, who is in some cases legally an adult decides on something for herself in her personal life, the issue of what I feel and like has no relevance.

I bring up this topic because the infamous topic of Section 377A, or the section of the Penal Code that outlaws “unnatural” sex between men is back in the news, thanks to a ruling in the Indian High Court on the 6^th of September 2018 that repealed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, legalizing homosexual sex.

The news of the Indian ruling inspired Professor Tommy Koh, one of our most respected diplomats (and a former neighbor of Dad’s) calling the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay and Transsexual) to challenge the existence of 377A in Singapore’s Penal Code. The story of Professor Koh’s challenge can be found at:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/diplomat-tommy-koh-calls-for-gay-community-ban-377a-10693594

Then, a challenge to 377A has been filed in the courts by a disc jockey (“DJ”) called Johnson Ong. The story of Mr. Ong’s challenge can be found at:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/377a-gay-sex-law-dj-files-court-challenge-singapore-10708288

This challenge comes a few days after the online media reported that petition calling for the repeal of the act garnered some 30,000 signatures in a day and the Minister of Law, Mr. K Shanmugam came out to say that the decision to repeal the act. The report can be found at:

https://mothership.sg/2018/09/shanmugam-parliament-377a-lgbt/

Just as those who want to repeal Section 377A have been galavnised into action, the supporters to this section have also been galvinised into action, even if they have been relatively quiet, perhaps buoyed by the a recent survey that stated that the majority of Singaporeans were in favour of keeping 377A on the books and the government, unwilling to take on any pressure group is sticking to its ground of keeping the legal fudge of “we’ll keep the law but won’t enforce it.” The story of can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/55-per-cent-of-singapore-residents-support-section-377a-ipsos-survey

My ex-girlfriend, went as far as to send me a WhatsApp message with a “good speech” from Mr. Christopher De Souza, one of our esteemed Members of Parliament, passionately begging parliament to keep the section of the law. The “Pro-377A” camp has clearly decided to sit back and let the “logic” of their case do the talking. By sending me this “good speech,” I was reminded of why she’s my ex.

I find the intensity of the emotions in this battle to be baffling. Singapore takes such pride in being a wonderfully reasonable place, where decisions are made based on facts rather than on blind prejudices. For example, we keep the “dubious” business of prostitution legal because it’s better than driving it underground by keeping it illegal. We allowed the construction of casinos because the economic benefits outweighed the potential social costs. There are plenty of examples of how our government and society has gone ahead and done something, despite “disapproval” of a “moral majority.” We’re often reminded that this commitment to making policy based on fact is the very reason why the foreign investors come around to keep things ticking.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the debate on 377A, Singapore’s claim to be a “rational intelligent” place that has rule of law based on facts, gets washed down the toilet. You have exceedingly clever people like Professor Thio Li-Ann (Oxford Graduate in Law) and Mr. De Souza (Partner at Lee & Lee, one of our most prominent law firms) beating around the bush and embarrassing the legal profession with their arguments and yet, most frighteningly convincing people that they actually made sense. I once picked apart Professor Thio’s 2007 speech in parliament – something which my uneducated brain found very easy to do, which lead to the further conclusion that there was something wrong with our very educated Members of Parliament if they failed to see the obvious flaws in her argument:

http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2011/10/fallen-man-and-morally-upright-and-very.html

It’s ridiculously easy to pick off their arguments and I often wonder how this lot managed to get the jobs that they got in the legal business. It’s perhaps a rather damning inditement of our current system that people who fail to make intelligent arguments get hailed as “moral guardians” and highly educated professionals.

My thoughts on the subject of 377A can be found in a piece I wrote around the time of the debate.

http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2007/10/queer-sense.html

My thoughts and feelings on the subject remain the same and I go back to the question of “What would you do if your kid told you he or she was gay?” I think of what would happen if  the son of my ex-girlfriend (she who sent me the ‘good speech,’), who was for the better part of a year my son too, told me he was gay. My answer would be:

1. Silence as I digest the news;
2. A little disappointment – I was kind of expecting to have someone who could be a “mini-me” on the topic of girls;
3. Love and acceptance – Ultimately, what would I want – only for him to grow up and grow old with a partner of his choosing (regardless of gender), which means a partner that he’ll be able to have a healthy sexual relationship with.

When you look at things like this, you’ll understand that as a parent, there is nothing else higher than wanting your kids to have a normal healthy relationship with the person who makes them happiest. How could any parent want their kids to be “criminal?”

When we look at the issue of 377A, I say, let us look at the issue from our most personal of points – our kids. For me, a law that criminalises the ability of my kids to have a normal and healthy sexual relationship with a partner of their choice is in fact that most unnatural thing possible

SSD –Call a Spade a Spade

In Singapore, property prices shot up so fast over the last one year that the Government was alarmed. Home owners look with envy at those who reaped enhanced rewards from a collective sale of their development. This refers to a special law which allows a special majority of owners in a development to sell ALL the strata unit in the development, notwithstanding that there is a small minority who do not wished to sell. 

However, in the last half a year, many owners in collective sale development are crying murder! This arose because the Government implemented a tax called Seller’s Stamp Duty (or “SSD”). Owners who sell their property within four years have to pay SSD. For the lucky (or some say unlucky) owners, this can amount to fifty thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The most unhappy are the owners (the “Unhappy Owner”) who moved into their dream home only to find that within two or three months, a collective sale committee (the “CSC”) is formed, and the Unhappy Owner’s dream home may be sold without their consent. The Unhappy Owner may protest. He may apply to Court to block the sale. But if the CSC has observed all the requirements required by the law, the sale will proceed. And when the Unhappy Owner refuses to sign the Transfer of his dream home, the CSC can apply to Court for the Registrar to sign the Transfer. Then as if to add insult to injury, the CSC may pay SSD on the Unhappy Owner’s strata unit and deduct the SSD from sale proceeds due to the Unhappy Owner.

To be fair, this is not a criticism of the collective sale procedure. Singapore is a democracy that believes in the rule of the majority. Hence, even in a strata development, a small minority may have to give way to a special majority. There are in place sufficient safeguards to ensure that the small minority, such as our Unhappy Owner, will not suffer a financial loss from the collective sale. But such assurances are insufficient balm to soothe the said injury (or lighten the said insult).

This begs the question. Does the law really require minority owners to pay SSD?

The Government implemented SSD ostensibly to curb property speculation (“SSD Purpose”). This purpose is achieved when home owners faced with the prospect of paying SSD, decides to postpone the sale of their home. In the case of our Unhappy Owner, he has acted in line with the SSD Purpose by protesting against the collective sale. Thereafter if despite his protests, a special majority proceeds to sell his dream home, there is nothing that this Unhappy Owner can do to prevent the sale. How will it serve the SSD Purpose to impose SSD on this Unhappy Owner? It smacks of double jeopardy first, for the law to empower a CSC to sell the Unhappy Owner’s dream home, and secondly to impose SSD liability on the Unhappy Owner. Imposing SSD liability on this Unhappy Owner appears to extend the law beyond its original SSD Purpose. 

The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“IRAS”) website contains a guide that says that collective sale owners have to pay SSD – even minority owners such as our Unhappy Owner. If the original SSD Purpose does not cover our Unhappy Owner, is he an unintended victim of an ambiguous law?

This brings us back to the law. The Devil is in the details.

The Stamp Duty Act says that sellers who sell their property within four years of its purchase have to pay SSD. And this is our Eureka! moment.

Therein lies the answer that our Unhappy Owner is looking for. He is not a seller and he did not sell his dream home. It is the majority owners who sold his dream home despite his protests. The collective sale agreement says that the majority owners are selling ALL the strata units in the development. It does not say that the minority owners are sellers. Even the Order of Court does not say that the minority owners are sellers. There is no reason for anyone to treat our Unhappy Owner as a seller and to impose SSD liability on him. This is so especially when the original SSD Purpose of the law does not extend to our Unhappy Owner.

Finally, it is trite law that stamp duty is imposed on instruments, rather than on transactions. In the case of our Unhappy Owner, if he has not signed any Sale Agreement or Transfer Instrument, there is no document signed by him to attract SSD liability. Hence, it is ultra vires for IRAS to collect SSD from our Unhappy Owner. And if SSD has been paid, our Unhappy Owner is entitled to its refund from IRAS.

So, the moral of the story is this. Call a spade a spade. Call a seller a seller. Just don’t call our Unhappy Owner a seller and don’t collect SSD from him.

By Mr. Eric Ng Yuen
Partner at Malkin & Maxwell LLP

"The Big Brand Illusion"

Amidst the excitement of being chosen by a Big Company as a partner - SME Business Owners must remember that Big Companies look out for their themselves first. A Business Person should always have the courage and wisdom to use the law to ensure that their interest are taken care of 

I read the story of Google-backed Chinese tech startup Mobvoi’s travails with Chinese
smartphone giant Xiaomi. The crux is how the nascent startup was so excited to partner
with Xiaomi that they did not bother securing a proper, written contract before starting the
project.

After three months of work, which involved “combined PR” and the integration of Mobvoi’s
speech recognition technology into Xiaomi’s smart TV, Xiaomi finally sent a formal agreement,
one that essentially forces the startup to lose all rights and provide free service for three years.

As a lawyer who has worked with many young startups, this story is strangely familiar.

The big brand illusion

With the growth potential that big brands could offer, monetary- and public image-wise, small
businesses rush to work with them and tend to overlook very basic legal procedures designed
to safeguard their interests. They often assume that these organizations are trustworthy. I call
this phenomenon the Big Brand Illusion, and it can turn out poorly for small players.

In most cases, they are so hungry for the work that they ignore or sign blindly on the terms given
to them by the big brand. They often harbor the mentality that they do not have the power to
negotiate terms, so why bother to review the contracts written by the big brands? They dare not
and will not express their own terms for fear of losing the deal.

What is not known is that laws are always enacted to protect the small guys, but big companies
stick terms in their contracts which state that the small company have “agreed” to waive their
protection.

I have a few case studies to share that should illustrate the importance of agreements.

Case A: Breach of patents

My client was a design firm that was hired to design fully reclining first-class seats for Airline A.
This was in a time where a competing airline, Airline B, was also rushing to be the first in line
to put out these sort of brand-new seats in the market.

Now Airline A required my client to sign several service agreements before proceeding with
 the deal. One clause in the agreement stood out to me—it required my client to indemnify
the airline as to the originality of their designs and that their designs were not in breach of
any other persons’ intellectual property rights (IPR).

I told my client that this clause had two important parts. The first was around the originality of
design and the second one was the indemnity of IPR. While my client could guarantee and
represent that the design was indeed “original,” they would not be able to guarantee that the
“original” design would not be in breach of any IPRs. It should be the airline, with their vast legal
resources, to do the due diligence and check whether the design would be in breach of other
people’s IPR.

My client heeded my advice despite the airline’s lawyer insisting that no other service provider
had ever had an issue with their service agreements before and were prepared to forgo the deal
even if the airline did not change the clause. In the end, the airline relented. The clause was
changed and my client proceeded with the work.

After the seats were launched, news broke that Airline A was sued by Airline B for “breach of
patents.” My client called to thank me for my advice, which essentially saved them from being
 caught in between the two airlines.

Case B: Long hours and endless quotas

I was representing a small local waste paper collection company that had grown very big and a
semi-government organization wanted to acquire them.

In the course of review, I cautioned the client about a clause in the sale agreement that required
them to guarantee a certain collection quantity to supply the larger organization’s production
needs each year. The effect of this guarantee would have meant that my client and their staff
would have to stay on and continue working despite selling out their company.

In a peculiar turn of events, the semi-government organization invited my client to go for an
all-expense-paid holiday and bonding trip to Australia, which they accepted despite my objections.
Upon their return, I was told that they would discharge as their lawyer and conclude the deal
with the government organization.

A few years later, I met the wife of this client and I casually asked how was their retirement and
what new projects they were doing. I was not surprised when she told me that they were still
working for that same semi-government organization. As predicted, they were working long hours
to make the collection targets each year.

Case C: Unfair clause

In this last case study, my client was a general contractor who frequently secured contracts from
semi-government agencies to secure electrical fitting and plumbing in government-owned buildings.

When they win a tender, they sign standard contracts issued by these agencies. There was a
renewal clause which stated that at the end of the term of the contract and before the new term,
my client was supposed to replace all the light bulbs in the building, regardless of whether they
need replacing or not. This was probably a preventive measure.

It turned out that the client signed blindly and was not even aware of this clause until the time of
renewal. The semi- government agency called on the clause and they realized that the cost of
changing every bulb in the buildings would come up to US$1 million.

I was engaged to litigate and I intended to use the Unfair Contracts Terms Act to say that the
clause was unreasonable on account of two things: (1) the client was not made aware of the
size of this liability versus the contract sum, and (2) the clause was unclear as to whether the
intent of changing the bulbs was preventive or not.

When this line of argument was made known to the government agency, the matter ended up
being settled privately at the Singapore Mediation Center, and the client averted the costly
liability and even the costlier trial by paying a considerably lower settlement fee instead.

Last words for startups

The above case studies all show that small businesses should remember to use the law of the
land and get proper contracts drawn up, with acceptable terms and conditions for all parties
involved. They should also carefully read any legal agreement and seek clarity or counsel if
anything is amiss or unclear before signing on the dotted line. Negligence when it comes to these
 actions puts both the business and the people in the business at risk.

Remember, the devil is always in the details.

This article was first published on TechInAsia on 10 May 2017. 
Click here to see the original article.

By Mark Goh Aik Leng  Managing Director of  VanillaLaw LLC 

CULTURAL APPROPRIATION OR APPRECIATION?

Coming up to the launch of our summer collection, I AM DURGA --- inspired by a Hindi Warrior Goddess, a storm of outrage was blowing in from the West over an American girl wearing a qipao to her high school prom.

On one hand, a Chinese American guy commented that she was appropriating his culture, and that she should not have worn this classic Chinese dress simply because she found it beautiful.
On the other side, commentators questioned whether this Chinese American boy only dressed in traditional Chinese clothing himself. It was assumed that he generally wore T-shirts, jeans, and other normal American dress; which begged the question of whether he was similarly committing what he deemed to be "cultural appropriation."

When this debate is applied to such a multi-cultural nation such as Singapore, the results are quite different. As the country has been built on appreciating and welcoming other cultures, particularly Chinese, Indian and Malay - there is much cultural fusion at the heart of the culture here.

We were kindly asked by The Straits Times, to comment on this issue, as our upcoming collection was on the brink of being unveiled. Our opinion was that cultural appreciation, which includes wearing and exploring fashion that is not of your own culture, is a beautiful and positive thing for all parties involved.
To read the article by The Straits Times on Singapore's view of cultural appropriation, please click here.

For myself, being ethnically half Chinese and German, yet born in Canada, and having spent my adult life in Singapore -- cultural mixing, and racial mixing is actually at the core of who I am. I don't believe that just because my DNA says one thing, that I have to force myself to dress according to that however. I also note that often the people who complain about cultural appropriation, are not following their own strict rules on how people should be dressing, or what they are allowed to be inspired by.
So, in my view - go enjoy Korean BBQ which is run by Chinese in America! Or get the whole family a set of Mickey Mouse outfits for your inaugural trip to Hong Kong's Disney Land! If its done with appreciation, its a cultural compliment!

Article first published on 21 July 2018 by the Lisa Von Tang at https://lisavontang.com/blogs/on-life/cultural-appropriation-or-appreciationhttps://lisavontang.com/blogs/on-life/cultural-appropriation-or-appreciation

Goodbye to the Warrior for Peace

As the Muslim Festival of Eid Al Adha or Hari Raya Haji approaches, I thought it would be time to pay tribute to a non-Muslim who dedicated his life to making peace between the Jewish and Islamic World’s. Mr. Uri Avnery, the veteran Israeli peace activist who died on 20 August 2018.

I never met Mr. Avnery, but writing for Arab News back in the early 2000s. We shared the same editor, Khaleed Al Maeena and I remember Mr. Almaeena was particularly proud that he had “Four Israeli’s” on his team.

Between Khaled Almaeena’s pride in having Israeli’s writing for him and Mr. Avnery’s writings, I learnt that contrary to popular myth, Jews and Muslims are not inclined to hate each other and the long almost unsolvable conflict in the Middle East was more about bad politics, supported by people in power who benefited from the conflict rather than any predisposed hatred that two peoples might have for each other. If there were two groups of people who were more alike in terms of custom, it would the world’s Jews and Muslims, who worshipped the same God (Yahweh and Allah being the same name but spoken in different languages), greeted the same way (Salaam Alaiku, Alaikum being the Arabic version of Shalom Aleichiem and Aleichiem Shalom), get their blokes circumcised and have the same dietary requirements (Kosher or Halal – or as a Muslim friend of mine once said, “You know when a Jew offers you food – it’s clean.”). Furthermore, the Jews of the “Holy Land” (as opposed to the European Migrants) and the Arabs are ethnically indistinguishable (the Semites). 

What made Mr. Avnery so compelling in his criticisms of Israeli policies was the fact that he wasn’t some granola munching college kid safely tucked away in the American Mid-West. His life story was as Israeli as it gets – he was a family that fled Nazi Germany and found refuge in the Jewish homeland. He joined Irgun, the Zionist paramilitary organization (Call it a Zionist version of the IRA) and he fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War as a squad commander in the Givati Brigade and later in the Samson’s Foxes Commando Unit – this wasn’t some privileged kid whose father bought him out of his obligations during a state of war (we’re not talking about George Bush II who was safely tucked away in the “Air” National Guard or Donald Trump who mysteriously discovered bone spurs when he was supposed to fulfil draft obligations).

Mr. Avnery’s took risk by becoming a peace activist. When he famously crossed the line to meet Yasser Arafat in 1982, he was closely followed by Israeli intelligence, who were hopping to assassinate Mr. Arafat and risking Mr. Avnery in the process. He was also stabbed sometime in 1975, shortly after founding the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. Yet, despite these incidents, Mr. Avnery persisted to call for peace between Israel, the Palestinians and the wider Arab and Muslim World.

It’s such a shame that Mr. Avnery had to die in the era of Nethanyahu and Trump. If you look at things like the continued building of settlements and American inability to stop them or if you look at how the Gulf Arab states are looking like they may enlist Israel as a silent ally in their rivalry with Iran, it would seem that Mr. Avnery was on the wrong side of history.

However, Mr. Avnery would probably disagree and argue that now was the most important time to fight for peace. If you look at what Mr. Avnery was trying to achieve, you can only argue that he was fighting for the right thing.

Israel is a miraculous country. It has thrived and created marvelous innovations with next to no resources in a part of the world best known for autocratic stagnation. Yet, despite all of this, Israel has a black spot on its record – namely the active denial of humanity for the Palestinians it has displaced. This situation has benefited “nice” characters like the weapons manufacturers in Israel and the West, the Western Media, which needs a good story to bash the Muslim world (Plucky Israel against its Evil Arab Neighbours), Intelligence Agencies that need something to do, terrorist organizations claiming to fight for Palestinian Liberation and Arab Autocrats who need a Bogeyman.

Mr. Avnery was not just trying to give Israel long lasting peace with her Arab Neighbours. He was trying to ensure that powerful interest that had profited from suffering would lose their grip and for the betterment of mankind. It would be a shame if people stopped fighting for the very things that Mr. Avnery was trying to achieve.   

Thank Goodness for Noisy Irritants

I was at a function in the residence of the British High Commissioner when I ran into an old friend. As with every meeting with an old friend, we ended chatting about “old times,” and for us, old times meant working on one of Singapore’s most prominent socio-political events, namely the 2009 AWARE Saga, which was one of Singapore’s watershed moments for activist and for many, particularly from the LGBT (Lesbians, Gay, Bi and Transsexual) Community, a personal political awakening. He was one of the activist on the ground and I was the PR consultant to the lawyer who was one of the key strategists for the so called “AWARE OLD GUARD.” An outline of the AWARE Saga can be found at:

http://sporelgbtpedia.shoutwiki.com/wiki/AWARE_saga

While both of us enjoyed reliving the pride of taking part in bringing down a group of very nasty people, he made the point that sometimes it’s necessary for nasty people to make their presence felt because they disrupt things.

He gave the example of Donald Trump, whom most sensible people agree is a nasty character. The Donald ran a campaign by appealing to the worst in people by being their worst made live. (He became a proud racist bully). Furthermore, the Donald has proceeded to govern as he campaigned breaking every record for incompetent governance available. However, as my friend pointed out, he’s been a force of disruption. I’ve argued that Donald Trump and the new era of American incompetence may actually be good in my posting

http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2017/01/american-incompetence-may-be-good-for.html

Disruptors, which includes the nasty ones like Donald Trump or the AWARE NEW GUARD function like a powerful dose of chemotherapy. They manage to cure whatever they touch from a dangerous ailment that arises from an overdose of peace and tranquility – apathy. While both of us supported the AWARE OLD GUARD, we had to admit that the entire saga started because the people who ran AWARE got caught napping. They took their positions for granted until they were turfed out and in a manner which they would never have happened had they paid attention to the ground.

The Economist once ran an article on obesity. The article made the point that obesity only became a problem in the modern era when food became easily available (you just buy it as opposed to having to hunt or even grow it), because the human body is designed to deal with times of famine rather than feast (hence it takes 3-hours of tennis to burn off a can of coke).

Likewise, the human mind is condition to deal with challenges and when the human brain has no obvious problems to solve, it seeks them. As one Indian venture capitalist said, “Problems to do not arise from an abundance of failure but from success.”  As an ethnic Chinese, I look at Chinese history and see a great empire that had an abundance of wealth and success that got lazy and conquered by barbarians who were hardy people live rough and tumble lives. The Chinese only ever got rid of their barbarian overlords when the barbarians discovered the good life of the Chinese Imperial Court and became soft and flabby.

Let’s go back to the analogy of the Trump Presidency. I will be the first to admit that I believe the Donald is an incompetent twit and whatever prosperity America is enjoying is as a result of actions taken during the Obama Administration. However, I do believe that there are positives that are coming out of the Trump Presidency in the shape of the awakening of the civic consciousness in America and for the rest of the world the need to learn to live without American military and economic protection.

Perhaps the best example can be seen in Saudi Arabia, which is perhaps one of the most conservative societies around. Saudi Arabia was, until recently run by the sons of the first King. Prior to 2015, the world looked at Saudi Arabia as a very large gas station with medieval laws. Women were famously not allowed to drive in the 20^th century and were required to be fully covered.

The late King Abdullah tried to reform the system, but he did it very slowly. The King, as I described him, was a cautious captain ( http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-cautious-captain-who-got-ship.html) who tinkered with the system in the same way that Deng Xiao Peng did in China. This was the king who appointed the first ever woman to a cabinet minister’s position (Norah Al Faiz) and who built a university where the sexes could mingle. Yet modern, professionally educated women couldn’t get behind the steering wheel and had to seek permission of a “Guardian” to travel. As King, Abdullah did try and create greater employment for Saudi’s ever-growing youth population by encouraging entrepreneurship but Saudi Arabia remained an oil economy.

Things are different now. While the country is nominally run by the 80-year old King Salman, everyone looks to the Crown Prince, the 30 something year old Mohammad Bin Salman or MBS. As Crown Prince, MBS has shaken up the Saudi Establishment in ways that nobody thought possible. The powers of the religious police have been curtailed, women are now allowed to drive and “fun” has been legalized with the opening of cinema’s and concerts.

Some of the things he’s done can be described as the actions of a hot head and have the potential to blow in a nasty – the War in Yemen comes to mind. However, in many ways, the Crown Prince behaving like the chemotherapy that Saudi Society needs. I remember telling former Saudi Ambassador to Singapore, Dr. Amin Kurdi that the potential hot point for Saudi Society was managing his youth, when he asked me about what I thought of Saudi Arabia.

Well, I guess Saudi Arabia has gotten its answer – the man in charge is close in age to most of the population and while he’s hardly a democratic reformer in the sense of the word, he is doing things that the youth want. As stated earlier, he’s made some mistakes but the point remains, he’s pushing through necessary changes that couldn’t be done before.

Being Crown Prince helps but there is a case to be made that the pace of change that Saudi Arabia’s conservative society is going through has helped by the collapse of the oil prices. Under King Abdullah, oil reached record high prices and Saudi Arabia ran budget surpluses. The Saudi’s knew they had to change and become less dependent of hydrocarbons but as long as the price of oil remained sky high and the money followed, change was something you thought about and nudged along when you felt like it. Suddenly, when the price of oil collapsed and the money stopped flowing, the choice was to put change in action or die.

A similar story can be found further East in India. Back in 1991, India remained a closed and very protected economy (You could call it a Trumpian Fantasy). Suddenly, India found itself with a balance of payment crisis and the Prime Minister of the day, Narasimha Rao and his Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh had to do something radical.  

Disruption is necessary for the human condition. While the “disruptors” may be unpleasant or downright dangerous and incompetent, the key is to accept that they have a role to play in the scheme of things. Not everything they do is good – much of it may in fact be bad and require years of undoing. However, it you learn to adapt and use disruption to drive you into action, you are likely to end up blessing the fact that you were forced to change and act when you did.

When the Letters of the Law Defeat the Spirit of the Law

Once again National Service has become on the hot topics of discussion. Thankfully, nobody had to die to make national service a hot talking point. Ironically, in light of the recent World Cup, the other key driver in making this a hot topic is football, or as the Americans and Australians would prefer – soccer.

The story outline is simple. Ben Davis, a young Singaporean who had been playing for Fulham Under 18s, part of the English Premier league club Fulham, was given a contract to play for Fulham. Unfortunately for Mr. Davis, the Ministry of Defense (MINDEF) refused to grant him a deferment from National Service. Much has been said about the whole saga, so I don’t think I can say more than what has already been said. However, I do argue that the problem here is a question of loving the words of the law too much.

What do I mean by that? The underlying position for the Ministry is that National Service should be for everybody, regardless of how rich, powerful or famous they are. I remember my Dad insisting that I would do my national service to the best of my abilities. My father had placed a bond of $75,000, which would have been forfeit had I not returned to Singapore. To many of my peers in National Service, this was something crazy because as far as the world was concerned, I came from a family with money. Nobody in my family considered my skipping national service as being acceptable. National Service, however unpleasant, was something that I had to do.

Having been through National Service, I believe in the value of the institution. This is the one institution in Singapore that has the ability to bring everyone onto a level playing field, which when you consider the fact that Singapore is one of the most unequal societies on the planet, is a very good thing. If people want to enjoy the privileges of citizenship, I think they should also be willing to pay the price for those privileges.

To be fair to the Ministry, they also have pointed out that they have schemes to accommodate young players so that they can nurture their talents and there is a precedent in the shape of the last Singaporean who had some sort of sporting talent that was recognized on the international stage – Fandhi Ahmad. Mr. Ahmad, who is currently head coach of the Young Lions, was a Singapore superstar who earned a two-years contract playing for the Dutch Club, FC Groningen. You could say that if Mr. Ahmad could serve National Service and go onto play for an international club, why can’t Mr. Davis?

Having said all of that, the Ministry’s argument has a major flaw namely the fact that it does give people deferments to pursue their dreams. This is especially true if you get a government scholarship to study at some university outside of Singapore. The most prominent example is Dr. Patrick Tan, son of the former President, Dr. Tony Tan, who managed to get 12-year deferment to study soil. Nobody questioned why he got this deferment. Nobody asked how this would benefit the nation.

I suppose the Ministry would argue that government scholars pay back the privilege of getting deferments by contributing their brains through their work for the government. The Ministry has even gone on the attack by stating that Mr. Davis has no intention of fulfilling his National Service obligations and is only interested in his career. The full story can be found at: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ben-davis-has-no-intention-to-fulfil-ns-duties-mindef-10541112

However, there are two key arguments here. Firstly, how does one measure patriotism? Is there any concrete evidence to show that Mr. Davis is any less patriotic or pro-Singaporean than your average Singaporean?

Then, who is to say that Mr. Davis and Singapore’s interest are not inline. How many Singaporeans are good enough to play for a club in the English Premier League? The benefits of having a Singaporean get into the English Premier League are boundless, particularly in soccer obsessed Singapore. It’s easier to list the benefits of having a Singaporean play for the premier league are perhaps easier to list than having Dr. Patrick Tan study soil. Getting into the Premier League as many have observed is no mean feat - https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sport/the-start-of-hard-work-to-come-what-signing-a-professional-10544746

So, here’s what we need to look at. How do we redefine the concept of “service?” Surely it has to be a way where Ben Davis gets to pursue his dreams of sporting glory and to fulfil his national service obligations. Why, for example does the term “service” have to be all about the military variety? There are, as the Europeans found out, ways of getting people to “give back” to society.

Why can we not explore ways of making Mr. Davis use his genius for football, a much-loved game in Singapore to “give back.” Yes, National Service should be universal but should it be a means of crippling people with a certain “genius” from following and developing their genius? I think of Melvin Tan, who is an internationally recognized concert pianist who had to leave Singapore to develop his talents for the rest of the world. We lost an “internationally” recognized concert pianist – do we need to lose a potential soccer star because of the rules.

The system has helped produced good workers but have we produced anyone brilliant enough to be recognized by the rest of the world? Surely, its time to understand that once in a while, you need cut the talents a bit of slack and know when to be flexible. I’m not saying that laws have to be broken but surely, you have to find a way to let people with the potential to be brilliant a bit of wiggle room.

Bosses Wife Syndrome

When Relatives Get in the Way

I had an exceedingly awkward conversation with a business owner last night. I had to tell him that his employees were grouping themselves into factions and the chief cause of this was simple. His wife, who has the work ethic of a sloth, had appointed herself the boss and decided that she was qualified to actually take operational control of one of the most crucial areas of his operation. Her efforts involved plenty of staring, plenty of chatter and plenty of posing and very little work. In short, the woman displayed every symptom of “bosses wife” syndrome and it was clearly not good for morale. The businessman said that he was aware of his wife’s shortcomings as a worker but did try to defend her staying that she was trying her best to help him out.

I think of this incident because it highlights one of the great dilemmas that small businesses face – the question of reliable labour. Business as they say, is about organizing relationships into something profitable and the best businessmen usually know that they can’t do everything themselves and so they end up hiring people who are better than they are to take care of aspects of the business, so that they can focus on what they’re good at. Unfortunately, this requires money and most people would rather work for an actual salary rather than a promise of a piece of business that may never take off. Small businesses struggle to recruit because they don’t have the resources of compete for talent with the bigger fish.

So, what do you do if you’re a small business? The successful ones are usually the ones that sell a “dream” of building something spectacular. This is especially true for the technology companies, where employees are motivated by the promise of building the future. One thinks of the numerous stories about how Steve Jobs was a jerk of the highest order but still managed to keep employees who were all driven by the prospect of creating future-making products.

The other solution is to get your relatives to help out. When my Dad started making it big, he coopted his fourth, fifth and sixth brothers to work for him. My fifth uncle left his employment but my fourth and sixth uncle’s cut their teeth working for him.

One of the things about relatives is that they are often willing to help in the name of wanting a relative succeed. If the relative is a shareholder in the business, the incentive to do well becomes even stronger. When well-managed, family relationships can be an asset. You can’t argue that the Walton’s who run WalMart, the biggest retailer in the world have screwed up.

Unfortunately, not every relative performs and history is filled with examples of relatives who screwed up the show because they forgot that doing well at a particular job requires something more than who you are related to. One only has to look at the history of monarchies to see how mediocre and incompetent kings screwed up and lost the kingdom – hence the former King of Bhutan’s insistence on imposing democracy on his population.

The problem with family businesses lies in the fact that the business is usually only as strong as the family that runs it. In Singapore, we had the perfect example of our first Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, who ran a tight ship of a government and ensured that his family behaved – as one reservist colonel said, “Both Lee brothers went through OCS and nobody gave them questionable deferments.” Unfortunately, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had one problem – he was human and like all good human’s he got old and died and when the glue of the family went, ugly insinuations started flying around and the image of the Lee in power took a serious hit when his siblings started saying things the opposition didn’t dare to say.

What can family businesses do? Perhaps the most obvious point is that they need to recognize that work and family relationships need to be kept separate. One needs to realise that families are essentially human and eventually, human frailties will creep in.

I go back to Bhutan’s King-Father, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who gave up absolute power and imposed democracy on his population. His argument was simple – he knew he was a competent king, he could do something to ensure his son and successor was somewhat competent but he couldn’t ensure that the generations after that would be able to do a decent job and so he moved his people onto a system of government that would not be dependent on the head of his family to do a decent job.

In a strange way, the King-Father’s move to give up absolute power enhanced the monarchy. Likewise, a family business can depend on relatives to start with, especially when lines of authority are clear within the family. However, smart families will realise that there comes a time when the business needs to be about more than a single family.

Why startups need lawyers, not legal templates

By Mark Goh Aik Leng, Founder and Managing Director of VanillaLaw LLC

Article first published by Tech In Asia

Ask any entrepreneur who is in the early stages of funding their business about their priorities. There’s no doubt that funding, growth, and product development will be among them (plus caffeine, of course!). Somewhere at the bottom of their priority list will be all their legal matters. This is understandable for growth-orientated startups.

Additionally, some entrepreneurs think that lawyers are prohibitively expensive and that legal templates can be downloaded from the internet. This is common—but wrong. Such a mindset can lead many successful startups to wind up their business or something worse.

This fellow could save 

There are over 2,000 startups in Singapore and the city-state has been justifiably named as one of the top 10 startup ecosystems in the world, with 220 funding deals made in 2015. It is evident that Singapore has become quite the wellspring for entrepreneurs and startups, and while this is great for our economy, it does bring with it its own brand of problems and challenges.

These fellows from grief as they grow their business

Many first-time entrepreneurs are sometimes so overwhelmed by the bustling activities and the ins and outs of running a new business that they tend to overlook legal fundamentals which ensure protection if things go wrong.

Unfortunately, the cost of legal services is often daunting for startups that may have limited funds. This makes sense, with the market rate for a website’s terms of service (prepared by a lawyer) at approximately US$2,100. Bills could add up if you include additional vital documentation such as employment contracts and partnership contracts.

The surprising reality

One in 10 startups fail due to legal reasons, many of which could have been avoided if basic legal matters were taken care of properly. This happens because these business owners either tried to use a contract template off the internet or never sought legal counsel from a lawyer.

It is understandable if they were concerned about legal fees. But dealing with issues with legal documents and having to appear in court to settle disputes will cost them so much more. This is a classic case of being penny wise but pound foolish.

A client’s case from before comes to mind here:

There were two young Singaporean entrepreneurs (Company A) who discovered a way to make special industrial ovens that were fundamental in baking microchips. They were based in the US and went to Taiwan to find an industrial oven manufacturer (Company B).

By this time, Company A had secured millions of dollars in the form of pre-orders. They knew they had to produce the ovens fast, but they also knew the importance of legal protection. So, they downloaded a legal agreement document template off the internet and made modifications without consulting a lawyer. Through this, they secured their position as the sole distributor of the ovens in the US—or so they thought.

Everything was well until 5 years after the initial launch. Company B found a loophole in the agreement signed by both companies and used that to terminate the agreement and sue Company A for damages. This apparently came off the back of late payments and other breaches in the original agreement committed by Company A.

Company A, embroiled in lawsuits, eventually had to wind up. Meanwhile, Company B repositioned themselves as both the manufacturer and the distributor of the specialized ovens in the US, essentially taking over the entire market.

The changing reality of the law

In the past few years, we observed that there has been a rise of companies that make use of technology to create legal documents for multiple types of situations. This is an improvement from using templates without the counsel of a licensed lawyer. Innovative individuals have made this their core business, leveraging on the savings their clients could enjoy with their service/product. For businesses with limited budgets, like startups, such a service is an ideal way to make sure they have some form of legal protection for their business.

The legal landscape is set to change and face-to-face consultations—the traditional way lawyers conduct their business and one of the main reasons why legal services are expensive—may soon fall out of favor.

A balanced approach

Looking at the legal challenges startups face and the changes that are already shaking up the legal communities in Southeast Asia, there is an aspect of this entire issue that can sometimes be forgotten—considering the mindsets of startup owners and their legal needs. Legal protection is important for businesses, but it is not always as simple as using a program that generates a draft of a legal document and hoping or assuming that it is the right type of document for your business.

It might be more accurate to say that currently we are in a middle ground, where technology helps to alleviate some of the basic and labor-intensive ground work done by lawyers (which is normally charged directly to the client). But we will still need to see qualified lawyers giving legal advice to make the content of legal documents more suitable for their clients.

A cost-efficient, technology-oriented service coupled with face-to-face consultations with lawyers might be the best way to give business owners true peace of mind.

Yellow Fever

On 12 June 2018, Singapore hosted a historic summit between Donald Trump, the American President and Kim Jung Un, North Korea’s leader. This was the first time ever that the President of the United States of America, who is often called “Leader of the Free World,” stat down and talked to the leader of the world’s only communist dynasty.

Whatever one might feel about Donald Trump, the world can only hope that his gamble pays off and the North Koreans decide to make peace and get rid of their nuclear weapons. The world can only hope that the younger Kim will become an enlightened leader who leads North Korea into peaceful prosperity.

While we may wish for good things to come, the odds are they won’t. The Kim Family, which has run North Korea since it was founded in 1948 have proved to be very good at holding onto power despite one brutal war and virtual isolation from the rest of the world. The Kim family are very aware of the fact that nobody invades countries that actually have the bomb and have shown a willingness to use it. The Americans were happy to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq because they suspected he had the bomb but when it comes to North Korea, which has the bomb – everybody sits down to talk. Every North Korean watcher has said that the Kims know that their survival depends on having nukes and even dares to dream of the Kim dynasty surrendering their nukes.

If you look at the document that was signed, the young Mr. Kim only said he would “work towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” He avoided committing to a time frame or letting international observers enter the country.  In addition to that, the American President who had been insulting towards him a few months ago (“Little Rocket Man,”) transformed into the cuddly father-figure that the North Korean never had. The Trump who is old enough to be Mr. Kim’s father could not stop gushing about Mr. Kim. He called him “talented,” and said that he “trusted” him and most importantly talked about the “special bond” that was forged. One the main press briefings where Mr. Trump waxed lyrical about his new favourite son can be found at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00G-mUn12os

In fairness to Donald Trump, he seems to have caught a disease that many Caucasians get when they enter Asia – Yellow Fever or the disease that robs otherwise sane and capable people of their sanity and reduces them to blabbering idiots. I remember being in court during the Ku De Ta trademark dispute. This monumentally successful night club in Bali was built by a visionary Australian called Arthur Chandros, who had brought in a few of his fellow Australians and Brits into the venture and somehow, when the relationship collapsed, everybody was left arguing over nothing. The reason was simple – no proper agreements were drawn up. When put on the stand, everybody just said, “He’s my mate – we trusted him,” and “that’s how it works out here.” I remember one the men who had testify was a very successful pub owner in England. In the words of PN Balji, the founding editor of the Today Newspaper (and the main contractor on the job), “This man is a big timer – would he do this in England?” The answer was obviously no – he wouldn’t have reached his status in England had he behaved the way he behaved in  Bali.

The most common cases of Yellow Fever occur in older White Men, whenever they get a much younger Asian girlfriend. The ingredients of the relationship are usually obvious – he rediscovers his youth and the joys of being loved by a young sweet thing. She finds the meal ticket for herself and her family. 

I shouldn’t be critical of this phenomenon in as much as it has alleviated many people from poverty. If a man can bring up not just the girl but her mother, father, brothers and sisters, he’s managed to alleviate at least four people from the reality of abject poverty (which remains the case in rural Asia.)

So, on one level you could say that this is a fair exchange. Guy gets youth and girl gets to be a faithful daughter by bringing up her family in life.

However, the question remains – does every party in this type of relationship understand the exchange. The Asian continent is filled with Western men who were in senior corporate positions giving away money to their “girlfriends,” and then discovering new depths of disappointment when the girlfriend does not live up expectations.

In many cases, you’re looking at the guy and find yourself screaming, “Dude – you’re an executive corporate vice president (usually of a world respected company).” Somehow, the brains and guts that got the guy to this top job paying barely legal amounts of money desert him when it comes to a bit of yellow or brown pussy.

Perhaps it’s a culture thing. While love does happen between social classes in Asian societies, Asian, particularly the Chinese are better at compartmentalizing things. I think of the novel “Nobel House” by James Clavell where there a brothel owner explains to her girls, “If the customer is Chinese – no need to pretend to like but if he’s Gwei Lo, you must pretend to like it.”

In a way, sex is pretty much like life. It’s more fun when the other party has fun too. To put it bluntly, most men would kill themselves if their partners didn’t pretend to orgasm. However, when it comes to the “paid” variety, many Asian men understand there’s an exchange involved and she’ll do enough to make you feel happy but that’s about it. Asia’s brothels are filled with Western men who forget that there is a correlation between the intensity of the female orgasm and the amount paid.

The Asian continent is filled with many great opportunities for things like business and love. For Western men, the allure of Asia is particularly strong, especially when it comes to women who may seem prettier and demurer than what they have at home. It’s especially tempting when women throw themselves at you merely for being who you are.

Yet, the rules of the game of life remain. While Asia may have things that appear different, Asian people are not less different in what they want from anyone else and I’d ask many White men – “would you behave that way at home?”

So, while the President might think that he’s found his new favourite son, let’s not forget that the Kim Dynasty of North Korea hasn’t changed – they’re still a bunch of power hungry murders who have lied and cheated the rest of the world when it has suited their needs.