Have You Dealt with Misers ...?

We all do, in our lives – we encounter misers at work, among friends, relatives, and acquaintances. It always baffles me why they behave the way they do, most times well educated, well placed, and mostly well secured, still misers. It is hard to understand their psyche and mind-set and when faced to deal with one, you find, it can be very frustrating. As it is said sometimes, knowing is redeeming, I have done some deep diving. To understand better, and perhaps help them, or at the least help our hapless selves with some insightful answers.

We don’t choose our parents, our upbringing nor our genes. !

Much of 18 and 19th century work on psychology, found miserliness running through heredity. It is not biological, but a strong parenting and upbringing style that manifests itself in generations of families. Scott Rick, a postdoctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who has done research on what makes people cheap, says that childhood plays a big role. If you have two thrifty parents, you're likely to be thrifty as well.

Well that also not also be the universal rule, where childhood isn't the only factor. George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, says people have innate tendencies. "It's almost like people are born tightwads or cheapskates,”  There is yet another reason, ie circumstances and life experiences that shaped miserliness – the great depression, the world wars, the famines et all have left their toll on human psychology and a long line of misers, who after outliving the circumstances retain much of the famine behaviours. Let look at historically famous world class misers: -

1. English politician John Elwes is thought to be the basis for that most famous miser, Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens novel Christmas Carol. The MP, born in 1714, was worth over $390,000 (approximately $28 million in today's money) but lived like a pauper. He wore threadbare, ragged clothes and went to bed when darkness fell to avoid wasting money on candles, while his home fell into ruins. He died with very few possessions but left his unspent fortune to his two sons, born out of wedlock.

1. Henrietta 'Hetty' Green, born in 1835, was the richest woman in the world in the 1800s. She died with money and assets worth over $100 million (nearly $2 billion when adjusted for inflation) but during her lifetime she refused to open her pockets to the needy, even if they were from her own family! Hetty's son broke his leg as a child but she refused to pay for any treatment and instead tried to get him into a free clinic for the poor. For these reasons, Guinness World Records claim that Hetty was the World's Greatest Miser.

The honors list of misers is indeed very long. Indeed most recently the Swiss Banks released a list of over 50000 names of holocaust period account holders who have in totality have left billions of dollars’ worth of wealth, forgotten and unclaimed by their descendants.

It is indeed sad, pathetic and remorseful to see a miser go. Live poorly to die rich!

Don’t they look and behave like us? … Behavioural anatomy of the Miser:-

Things & Feelings

We all have love for things and have sensitive feelings too. Often feelings come in conflict with things, and it depends on what you give importance too. For a miser feelings are absent, or at best secondly. The only feeling is the need process ‘things’. Things tend to give them security, they can physically touch, count, hold and feel secure. The love of sheer money – cash in bank or in hand is what counts.  

Eternal Postponement

Conservation, preservation, and postponement of consumption, of usage of things is the other dimension. Something good to eat is kept for a better day to have it, a new dress to be worn only on a distant unspecified and uncertain future date, and so on. Postponement gives a sense of security to hold and possess a thing, almost for ever. In short it leads to hoarding. Misers are the biggest hoarders in the world. They cannot discard anything for instance it can come of use in some distant uncertain date.

Money

The focus of all actions is rooted in the need for money. Having and holding on to money in cash or in bank, with a simple note of the amount provides sustenance to a miser to go on adding more, saving more, growing the abstract no as they perpetually live in the fear or joy that they are building a nest egg for an undefined, unknown dry summer in the distant future. Still watching the color of currency is most soothing :) 

Deprivation and abstinence

Somehow, misers thrive through self-imposed deprivation and abstinence. Denying themselves what they need, by such self-denial they derive some high sense of achievement, as they would avoid expending money or consumption of any kind.

Free Indulgence in free-goods

They have a penchant for anything that comes free – indulge, consume, amass just because it comes free. There is no greater joy than a free meal for a miser, no matter his social standing or wealth. Anything that comes free is extremely valuable.

For their lack of real feelings, misers can be extremely self-centred and missionary to achieve their goals, and care little for what others say. In other words they have little shame or self-esteem as they go about practicing their owed miserliness.

Grand Mix-up ! 

Misers are wired up somewhat differently. They truly believe in themselves as doing absolutely right. The difference from sensible thrift to senseless misery is blurred in their minds. Similarly, they tend to behave paradoxically - buy a car but not use it to save on parking or go on a holiday and loose the sight of time value of money, running after cheapest modes of transport or eating places. Life is full of opportunities, where a small top up or premium can give marginally higher returns, misers tend miss it and look at absolute values than relative values .

The science behind it all ….

The science defines a miser as afflicted with HD (Hoarding Disorder). Here are some researched insights on the behavioral causes of misers.

1. Some financial psychologists have identified a miserly relationship with money as being a feature of HD in some individuals. It has been suggested that money hoarders have so much anxiety about not having enough money that they may neglect the most basic self-care activities and have great difficulty enjoying the benefits of accumulating money -Journal of Financial Therapy Volume 4, Issue 2 (2013) ISSN: 1945-7774 CC

1. Forman (1987) described a financial hoarder as having a fear of losing money, distrust of others around money, and trouble enjoying money. Klontz and Britt (2012b) identified a link between money attitudes and hoarding behaviours. They found that money status scripts and money worship scripts predicted compulsive hoarding behaviours. Specifically, individuals who linked net worth to self-worth and held the belief that the key to happiness and the solution to all of their problems was to have more money were significantly more likely to engage in hoarding behaviours (Klontz & Klontz, 2009).

1. In the development of the Klontz Money Behaviour Inventory (K-MBI), Klontz and colleagues (2012) identified the following symptoms in their Compulsive Hoarding scale:

• • I have trouble throwing things away, even if they aren’t worth much.
  • My living space is cluttered with things I don’t use.
  • Throwing something away makes me feel like I am losing a part of myself.
  • I feel emotionally attached to my possessions.
  • My possessions give me a sense of safety and security.
  • I have trouble using my living space because of clutter.
  • I feel irresponsible if I get rid of an item.
  • I hide my need to hold on to items from others.

While this provides a psychological and scientific basis for miserly behaviour there is much more to it.  Such misers, are usually a part of a greater problem than sheer HD. They may be suffering from OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) or OCDP (obsessive compulsive disorder personality). While they sound very medical terms, they are simple to grasp.

Looking at the Encyclopaedia of Mental Disorders, one gets a deeper insight: - 

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) is a type of personality disorder marked by rigidity, control, perfectionism, and an over concern with work at the expense of close interpersonal relationships. Persons with this disorder often have trouble relaxing because they are preoccupied with details, rules, and productivity. They are often perceived by others as stubborn, stingy, self-righteous, and uncooperative.

Symptoms of OCPD

The symptoms of OCPD include a pervasive over concern with mental, emotional, and behavioural control of the self and others. Excessive conscientiousness means that people with this disorder are generally poor problem-solvers and have trouble making decisions; as a result, they are frequently highly inefficient. Their need for control is easily upset by schedule changes or minor unexpected events. While many people have some of the following characteristics, a person who meets the DSMIV-TR criteria for OCPD must display at least four of them:

• Preoccupation with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the point at which the major goal of the activity is lost.
• Excessive concern for perfection in small details that interferes with the completion of projects.
• Dedication to work and productivity that shuts out friendships and leisure-time activities, when the long hours of work cannot be explained by financial necessity.
• Excessive moral rigidity and inflexibility in matters of ethics and values that cannot be accounted for by the standards of the person's religion or culture.
• Hoarding things, or saving worn-out or useless objects even when they have no sentimental or likely monetary value.
• Insistence that tasks be completed according to one's personal preferences.
• Stinginess with the self and others.
• Excessive rigidity and obstinacy.

Causes

No single specific cause of OCPD has been identified. Since the early days of Freudian Psychoanalysis however, faulty parenting has been viewed as a major factor in the development of personality disorders. Current studies have tended to support the importance of early life experiences, finding that healthy emotional development largely depends on two important variables: parental warmth and appropriate responsiveness to the child's needs. When these qualities are present, the child feels secure and appropriately valued. By contrast, many people with personality disorders did not have parents who were emotionally warm toward them. Patients with OCPD often recall their parents as being emotionally withholding and either overprotective or over controlling. One researcher has noted that people with OCPD appear to have been punished by their parents for every transgression of a rule, no matter how minor, and rewarded for almost nothing. As a result, the child is unable to safely develop or express a sense of joy, spontaneity, or independent thought, and begins to develop the symptoms of OCPD as a strategy for avoiding punishment. Children with this type of upbringing are also likely to choke down the anger they feel toward their parents; they may be outwardly obedient and polite to authority figures, but at the same time treat younger children or those they regard as their inferiors harshly.

There is a marked difference between OCD and OCDP, the later which is more embedded and entrenched in the personality, more challenging in terms of therapy.  In both cases miserly behaviours are commonly found. Modern psychiatry treats both OCD ad OCPD through psychotherapy and also medications, however the real challenge is always in belling cat to the table to accept the problem and seek treatment.

Dealing with them…

To turn philosophical, ultimately the other peaceful way to deal with them is to turn to Gautama Buddha who said in his Dhammapada verse 223, which is translated as “Silence the angry man with love. Silence the ill-natured man with kindness. Silence the miser with generosity. Silence the liar with truth.”

By Mr. K V RAO

Deal with Grouchy Employees Before Deal with You.

It’s every employer dreams of having workers who are consistently happy. After all,

a happy work is a productive worker and productive workers are good for the bottom line.

However, with human nature being what it is, there may still be occasional concerns or

complaints that employees would want to share with you and the company. As the head of 

a small business, it’s your job to ensure that everyone can communicate their concerns 

in a professional and productive manner.

Remember that you’re not playing Aunt Agony to employees with grievances. In addition to 

processing the complaint, you should also be looking out for problems that might harm 

your business especially if they involve harassment, discrimination, theft and violence.

Give each complaint the proper attention while assuring the employees that they are 

being heard. Here are some of the best ways to address employee complaints and manage 

their outcomes.

1. Setting Up A Channel For Complaints

The first thing you should do is to create a formal system for employees to lodge complaints 

or bring up grievances so that the issues can be addressed. There are a variety of 

mediums available for employees to report complaints, from in-person sessions to email

 and text.

Complaint channels should never be on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. 

These public  platforms will complicate matters as it can infringe defamation laws.

To make sure your employees feel comfortable using the channel, consider factors such as 

the average age of your employees, size of your workforce, whether they are in one office 

or spread out, and which department might be mostly likely to have complaints reported on. 

You should check with your PR and legal adviser on what is the most appropriate channel.

After setting up the channel, here are some of the key things you should do to ensure that 

the employee complaints are properly addressed.

Include your policy in the Employee Handbook: Once you’ve established an official channel 

for employee complaints, it should be included in the handbooks so employees can easily 

refer to it. You can consider implementing an acknowledgment form to ensure that 

employees read the handbook. If your company does not use a handbook, the policy 

should be communicated to everyone through other platforms such as staff induction 

 programmes, company intranet, posters and employee briefings.

Assign one person or department to handle the receipt of complaints: For example, the 

Human Resources or Legal department or someone within it. Make sure the appointed 

person or department is known for their discretion and can demonstrate trust within your 

company, as employees typically and naturally expect assurance that they are submitting t

heir complaints in confidence.
 

Include one confidential way for employees to submit complaints: Understandably, 

some employees may hesitate to speak their mind, as they fear infringing laws on defamation. 

An example that may prevent this is to create a simple online form or survey that doesn’t 

require identifying information – check out free survey tools like Survey Monkey and 

Google Forms.
 

Establish a schedule to address employee complaints: In order to instil a healthy work 

environment where employees feel comfortable when raising concerns, you have to prove 

that the company has an efficient and reliable process in place. Set a time frame for when 

and how you will address complaints, communicate the plan to all employees and stick to it.

2. The First Steps Of Addressing Complaints

Once you have established the best system to receive employee complaints, you should

try to order them based on significance. Any safety concerns require immediate attention, as 

should violations of rules and policies.

Before addressing a complaint, take note of the following steps:

Acknowledge: Ensure that the employees know that their complaints have been received and 

will be addressed by the company. 

Investigate: Gather information regarding the complaint. If the employee mentions specific 

incidents or situations, inquire and obtain relevant data on them. (See point 3 for more information.)
 

Decide: After you have obtained all relevant information, it’s time to fully examine the situation 

in order to formulate and decide on a solution. You may want to discuss your idea with 

other senior employees in your company before executing the solution.
 

Act: Once you have a decision, act quickly. Employee complaints that are dragged on can 

negatively impact morale and productivity. The sooner you resolve the conflict, 

the better off your company will be.

3. Implement An Impartial Investigation

Small business owners often don’t have the luxury of hiring an outside company to investigate 

employee complaints. The next logical step would be to appoint a neutral party with the 

greatest degree of removal (no personal and as little professional connection to those 

involved as possible) from the rest of the staff – this person should preferably have a 

human resources or legal background.

Do note that if the complaint is serious, such as harassment or “creative bookkeeping”, 

you may want to hire an outside lawyer or accountant immediately to investigate the issues.

The Ministry of Manpower also suggests documenting the investigation process 

by keeping a record of findings, complaint details, details of specific harassing 

behaviour and summary of interviews with the affected parties.

4. Review & Follow Up On The Outcome

After following the above-mentioned steps, you should review the situation that initially led to

 the employee complaint after a period of time. Check in with the employee who lodged the

 complaint (if it was not confidential) to see if they are satisfied with the outcome.If there are 

more adjustments to be made, do it. Proper closure can help to prevent a similar problem

 from happening again.

By Mr. Mark Goh Aik Leng

Managing Director of VanillaLaw LLC 

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.