The Sad Decline of a Pioneering People

You have to hand it to the Anglo-Saxons, namely the British and later on the Americans, for shaping much of the modern world. While the British were not the first colonizing power, they were perhaps the smartest. While the Spanish looted the places they went to, the British created a system of never-ending trade relationships with their colonies, which produced better returns than the instant looting of the Spanish. To their credit, the British did leave behind a physical and legal infrastructure in the places where they colonized (though let’s be clear, the intent was not to benefit the natives but to ensure the colonies would be properly administered from London).

When the centre of power moved across the Atlantic, the name of the game changed. While the Americans have been involved in countless wars, their dominance of the world has primarily been through their multinational corporations and universities.

In all fairness to the Anglo-American geo-politics, we live in “rules-based” system built by Britain and America. Even as China and India become the world’s largest economies, they’re doing so in a “rules-based” order built by first the British and then the Americans.

One of the reasons that the world gives Britain and America a certain amount of reverence was because these were the nations that pioneered things like individual liberty, freedom of speech and expression and the ability of an individual to prosper regardless of his or her social status. The US Constitution, which is the world’s oldest, is considered a “masterpiece” in political science. While the American founding fathers were by no means saints (some owned slaves and women were noticeably absent in their calculations), they set about creating a nation that broke with the ancient ways of thinking and made the right of an individual to pursue happiness.

America has been lucky. A fresh stream of immigrants has always given its culture a certain sense of dynamism and as Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first Prime Minister once alluded to, America has had the luxury of using the brains from the rest of the world. The Old Rogue used to make the point that Silicon Valley would not exist without Taiwanese and Indian migrants. Openness was also good for Britain. When the African states decided to “Africanize” their economies, in the 1970s and kicked out the Indians (Specifically the Guajarati’s), Britain welcomed them and in return they gave British economy a jolt of energy.

The openness of the Anglo-American world made them great and this was underpinned by news people who were allowed to take on the establishment. Yes, there are “sleazy” hacks working for sleazy publications aimed at the lowest common denominator (think News of the World, the Sun, the National Enquirer) but at the same time, there are also serious journalist working for serious publications (think Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times, Guardian and Telegraph). Leaders from the West were kept in check by a press willing to take them to task.

Unfortunately, the nations that pioneered things like individual liberty and rewarding people for excellence have decided to pioneer the reverse. The nations that lead the world in opening up trade and innovation are now pioneering the opposite. We only think of “Make America Great Again,” and “Brexit.” Part of this pioneering effort backwards has been to wage a war against people who might be a little critical.

Let’s just remember that the term “Fake News” only appeared in the 2016 Presidential Campaign. Previously there was news and there was libel, which was used to protect people from being slandered by the press. Suddenly, when the Donald, who is famous for his rather lose relationship with facts, was being challenged by the media on his outlandish claims, we suddenly heard the terms “Fake News,” and “Alternative Facts,” being used.

The Tough Guy (only Americans thought so) who could insult others but couldn’t take a hit (who else will do something and warn the other side not to retaliate) started to do things like “dis-invite” members of the press into the White House Briefing (only friendly media and in fairness, Fox News called him out on this) and he actually entertained ways in which he could legally try to investigate media as the report below shows:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/trump-wants-to-censor-the-press/542142/ 

Things are not better across the Atlantic. While Mr. Boris Johnson cultivates an image of being a “loveable buffoon” as opposed to Mr. Trump’s, “Everyday Sleaze,” Mr. Johnson has shown himself to be no less willing to take on the institutions that have protected the very things that have made Britain a decent enough society. Just as the Trump wanted to ban unfriendly reporters from the White House, Mr. Johnson decided to do something similar in the Downing Street briefings:

https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-banning-journalists-downing-street-press-briefing-latest-worrying-move-boris-johnsons-new

Seriously, the UK is supposed to be a bastion of freedom of the press. If Reporters Without Borders reported on a place like Russia or China or dare, I say Singapore, I could expect it – but the UK, really?

I don’t know why Americans, especially under Trump get so worked up about China becoming the world’s biggest economy. China has more people and logic has it that as China prospers, her GDP figures will increase. The average American and European will still have a better lifestyle than the average Chinese and Indian regardless of GDP.

So, the question is why is America, under Trump, with Britain following suite, trying its best to make itself more like China. China sends students to America to learn from America. These students are part of a demographic that will help China become more like America and while things may be messy, will eventually propel China into greatness. So, what is America under Trump and Britain under Johnson so afraid off? Why is America trying to be the worst of China? The nations that gave us FDR and Churchill have now given us Trump and Johnson, who are leading once great nations into a proverbial cesspit.  

In Praise of a Jewish Elf

The Democratic Party is currently trying to choose the candidate that they hope will be able to remove the Occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue this November. While Bernie Sanders, America’s favourite “socialist” has had a narrow victory in the New Hampshire primaries, the field looks pretty confused and inconclusive. While Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren may be popular on college campuses, its easy for the Republicans to portray them as “crazy socialist” (socialist being a dirty word in American politics). The former Vice-President Joe Bidden is an uninspiring candidate and a cloud of suspicion on his basic integrity lingers from the Occupant’s impeachment hearing (there are enough Trump supporters who argue that their hero was victimized because he was trying to dig up dirt on Joe Bidden). While Pete Buttigieg may have many of the “right credentials,” (religious combat veteran) and comes across well on TV, he’s had problems attracting people of colour and the question remains – is America, the land that has yet to elect a woman, ready for a homosexual?

There is, however, one candidate that may have a chance of upsetting the Occupant. That candidate is Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York and founder of the Wire Service that bares his name (in the interest of disclosure, I’ve been fairly successful at getting people interviewed by Bloomberg when my main source of income was PR work).

Mr. Bloomberg is in many ways not the ideal candidate. After three years of a “billionaire” in the White House, having another billionaire as president may seems like a recipe for disaster. Mr. Bloomberg has vowed to fund his campaign out of his pocket and this has made him vulnerable to attacks. Both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have pointed out that Mr. Bloomberg’s vast fortune in politics is precisely the problem of politics being dominated by “Big Donors.” Mr. Sander’s attack on Mr. Bloomberg’s wealth can be seen at:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/10/bernie_sanders_bloomberg_is_part_of_the_problem_and_trying_to_buy_the_presidency.html

Mr. Bloomberg has not been flawless in his campaign and has made mistakes. His “stop, question and frisk policies,” while Mayor of New York, which happened to target brown and black men have come to haunt him. Mr. Bloomberg’s flaws as a campaigner can be found at:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/479485-six-campaign-mistakes-that-doom-michael-bloomberg

Having said all of that, there are reasons to pay attention to a Bloomberg candidacy and to even want that candidacy to succeed. In many ways, Mr. Bloomberg is the “real” version of why people voted for the Occupant.

One of the reasons why people voted for Trump in 2016 was his often-publicized wealth. Not only did people site his wealth as plus, they also said that as a successful businessman who would run the country like his successful businesses.

I’ve heard someone argue that Donald Trump’s wealth made it impossible for him to be bought and he was not beholden to big monied interest. The voting public have also argued that if they went with Trump his experience in getting rich would help them get rich too. Think of it, Donald Trump started a show called the “Apprentice” which was all about people killing themselves for the opportunity to work for Donald Trump and find a path to riches.

If you can apply that argument to voting for Donald Trump, you have to apply that very same argument to Michael Bloomberg, whose wealth is many times what Donald Trumps’ is (Forbes estimates Donald Trump’s net worth at around three to four billion. By contrast, Mr. Bloomberg’s wealth is estimated as 40 to sixty billion).

Using the wealth factor to compare the two men is important in as much as Mr. Trump makes it central to who he is (we are talking about someone who sued Forbes for underestimating his wealth). What’s particularly important here is not so much the net worth but how they made their money.

Let’s start with Mr. Trump, since he talks the most about his billions. Mr. Trump made it in real estate, an old-fashioned industry. Mr. Trump consistently brags about how he has the best buildings in the best city in the world, which is an indication of his superior intelligence and by extension his right to run the country.

However, there are several problems here. Firstly, a good portion of his wealth is inherited. In fairness, he’s built on what he’s inherited. However, his skill was not business management or creating something new. In his journey to more wealth, Mr. Trump needed to be bailed out from bankruptcy by his father on more than one occasion. As he’s argued that John McCain shouldn’t be a war hero because he was captured by the enemy, we should ask if he’s really a businessman as he’s needed to be bailed out on several occasions. Let’s not forget that Mr. Trump is associated with business that are considered easy to make money in, namely real estate (buy land, they’re not making more of it) and casinos (the house always wins). Mr. Trump’s genius is not management but producing hype. His real asset is his brand, where people pay to put the Trump name on their buildings. While a good brand is an asset (I’m part of the brand building business), there’s a problem in that brands can be damaged easily – think of Trump University.

Mr. Bloomberg has built a different type of business and while he was not born into poverty, Mr. Bloomberg did not inherit the wealth that Mr. Trump did. The original capital came from his stint at Salomon Brothers (It takes skills to build capital over a period of years in the investment business) and the genesis of what we call Bloomberg LP came from his insight that large finance houses would pay for top quality information delivered as quickly as possible. Mr. Bloomberg understood that this could be done through the development of the right technology. What we call Bloomberg LP a precursor to today’s tech unicorns. The testament to Mr. Bloomberg’s competence as manager and business builder can be seen from the growth of Bloomberg LP from nothing much to a multibillion company employing 20,000 plus people in 167 countries.

The left wing has mistakenly used Mr. Trump’s famous managerial incompetence to discredit the notion that CEO’s can become successful Presidents. In Mr. Trump, America did not get a businessman or managerial genius – they got a bullshit artist who got promoted beyond his level of competence. By contrast, Mr. Bloomberg is a real businessman who has built something. Mr. Bloomberg had an idea and executed it. A person who can come up with fresh ideas and execute them is the very type of person the world needs at its helm.

That’s not all that favours Mr. Bloomberg. He was a competent Mayor of New York, which is a complex global city. While Mr. Bloomberg is by no means a saint (there are reports that Bloomberg was a bit of a fraternity and there have been law suites leveled at Bloomberg LP for sexual harassment), Mr. Bloomberg has kept his private life just that – private.

Mr. Bloomberg has at the very least pretended to respect the rules, something which Mr. Trump seems to ignore. Mr. Bloomberg left the company he founded to become Mayor of New York and there is no indication that there was any peep of Bloomberg LP benefiting from Mr. Bloomberg’s position as Mayor.

The area in which Mr. Bloomberg should be applauded for is keeping his family out of his business and his political offices. Mr. Bloomberg’s second daughter, Georgina, who is an established equestrian in her own right (she overcame a spinal disorder) and is reported to have said that “Having the last name Bloomberg sucks.”) Mr. Bloomberg’s kids have not used their name as an asset to be milked for its worth.

Perhaps the best thing about Mr. Bloomberg is that he knows how to hurt Mr. Trump’s ego. When Mr. Trump tried to mock him for his short stature, Mr. Bloomberg hit back, talking about the Occupant’s fake tan and fake hair – the message could not be clearer – Mr. Bloomberg may be a short man but his achievements are gigantic – Mr. Trump by contrast is a weak and insecure man using political office to hide his obvious flaws.

America, which became the world’s greatest power in history on the premise that an individual could succeed on his or her own talents regardless of birth, stature or religion, should be lead by a man who built great things through his talent rather than continue to stick with a man so weak that he can’t take on anyone stronger than a 16-year-old with Asperger. 

It's a Rather Good Virus

I’m currently living in a region under siege. Ever since the 2019 Coronavirus, which started in the Chinese city of Wuhan, broke onto the world stage, nations around the world have been gearing up for a global pandemic. When I landed in Hanoi on the 23rd of January 2020, the Vietnamese (who have a history of hosting large numbers of Chinese travelers) had already placed thermo-cameras and ordered all immigration officers were ordered to order mask. By the time I returned to Singapore a week later, Singapore had also put up cameras.

Right thinking people are scared of this virus. Unlike HIV, which has clear forms of transmissions, all of which require intimate contact (sex, intravenous drug use and mother to child transfusion) nobody is quite sure how this virus is spread. It seems to be airborne, and so mask is one possible safeguard. However, nobody is really sure.  At the time of writing, the office buildings around my office are all conducting screenings at the point of entry and in some offices, there are additional screenings and declarations.

While this virus is “scary” from a healthcare point of view, it’s been something of gift to certain authoritarian leaders. While the administration of Xi Jinping has been criticized for not releasing information earlier and attempting to cover up and fudge statistics on the virus, the virus has helped keep the Hong Kong protestors at home, thus reducing a tough foreign policy-public relations problem.

Mr. Xi has also had the chance to brandish how quickly China gets things done – he’s managed to lock down a city of 11 million and a hospital to contain patients of the virus was built in a matter of days (the comparison with India becomes more glaring. As many Indian pundits would point out – China can do these things because its not a democracy – the Indians however, do retort that a good portion of their population are vegetarian – so despite India’s inferior infrastructure, India has yet to export a pandemic). President Xi has also brandished his “nationalist” credentials by lashing out at countries that have barred Chinese visitors.

Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, has also managed to enjoy the virus. Despite some criticism from the online media over the issuance of mask, the government has not wasted no opportunity in using the crisis to call for unity of the population and when there was a bout of panic buying of essential goods like the toilet paper, the government wasted no time in coming out to sound like the voice of reason.

More importantly the government has won praise on the global stage for its handling of the crisis. Professor David Heymann of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has declared that Singapore is doing the right things – taking the necessary precautions without overdoing it. Professor Heymann’s comments can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/coronavirus-singapore-doing-it-right-with-measures-says-expert-who-led-whos-fight

This is music to the Singapore government’s ears. What more could it want to show the population that the “international” community recognizes its competence.

The virus is scary. Every day, the ruthless half is reminding me to look after myself. Precautions should be taken. Nobody knows when the crisis will die down. However, one thing can be certain – the government will milk the crisis for what it’s worth.

Keep Church and State Separate But Keep the Church in the Statesman.

I’ve usually taken the position that Church and State shouldbe kept separate. In an age where societies are becoming more multicultural and more multiethnic, church and state should be kept separate. When you mix religion and politics, the combination is usually pretty ungodly. I look back to the constant arguments on the repeal of 377A (the act which prohibits “unnatural” sex between two men) in Singapore and the repeated position of rational people, which is – there is a difference between what we do not approve off and what should be criminal.

However, I believe that Church and State should be kept separate, I wonder if there is a case for “church being inside statesmen?” I remember His Holiness the Dalai Lama telling ap politician that it was more important for a politician to have morality than a monk. His argument was simple – a monk’s decisions affected only himself, whereas the politician’s affected many people.

Generally speaking, the concept of being a “good man” in politics tends to be a fluid. However, good people can and so exist in what is essentially a dirty and ugly game. How does one define good? I suppose it’s what my mother would call “having the heart in the right place.” We’re talking about politicians who somehow do things that they believe to be right rather than what benefits them.

The examples of this, funnily enough, come from the USA. The late Senator John McCain, for example, showed himself to be a decent man, even when it wasn’t beneficial for him. One of the most prominent examples was in 2008 when he defended his opponent as “A decent man, who I happen to disagree with.” A clip of that video can be seen at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk

You could argue that John McCain wasn’t playing to win and should have mobilized millions of voters based on a “conspiracy” theory that his opponent was a closet Muslim terrorist. However, while his act of decency may have prevented him from winning (there is also no proof that he would have won had he played the “crazies”), it ensured that the system didn’t get infected by doubts and it enabled to the country to be somewhat united with the result.

McCain was also most famous for thumbs down in the Trump Administration’s attempts to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, or “Obamacare.” The act put him in the crosshairs of the Occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but it also showed him that he was an independent mind who put what he believed was in the interest of his country over the interest of his party and president.

The more John McCain annoyed the President, the more it became clear to normal people (and I use this word sparingly when it comes to Americans of the White Variety), that the Arizona Senator was everything that the Occupant was not – namely courageous and principled.

With the demise of the late Senator McCain, the Republican Party has been saved by another Senator. The Senator in question is Mitt Romeny, the Senator from the State of Utah, who was also the losing Presidential Candidate in 2012. Mr. Romney made history when he became the first senator from any party to break party lines and vote against a president from his own party in an impeachment trial (of which this was only the third one ever). Mr. Romney is by no means the picture perfect “Never Trumper.” His voting record in the Senate would suggests that he does agree with Donald Trump on the majority of issues.

However, in the case of the Impeachment Trial, Mr. Romeny made the point that he felt that the evidence against the Occupant was so overwhelming that he could not in good conscience or be true to himself and his God to vote for anything other than a conviction.

As predicted, the Occupant and its supporters were having none of it and have started painting Mr. Romney as an “agent of the far left,” and a “sore loser” who was jealous of the Occupant for having gotten the job that he had failed to get. The descriptions on the predictable attacks can be found at:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/06/trump-mitt-romney-revenge-list-111789

The attacks against Mr. Romney are to be expected. In his speech outlining the reasons for his vote, Mr. Romney states that he was expecting the reprisals. Yet, despite this, he still felt that it was “wrong” to vote for anything other than a conviction because it would be against his conscience.

While the verdict of the Occupant’s impeachment trial was never in doubt, Mr. Romney may have succeeded in doing something very important -reminding people that higher ideals exists. The impeachment trial made no pretense of being a trial with the Republican majority refusing to call witnesses, particularly when there was a credible witness. As Mr. Romney argued the evidence against the Occupant was there and yet, it was ignored. A transcript of Mr. Romeny’s speech can be found at:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/us/politics/mitt-romney-impeachment-speech-transcript.html

Mr. Romney declared himself to be a religious man who owed an allegiance to the Almighty. Thankfully Mr. Romney showed what it meant to believe in God and voted according to his conscience rather than for his convenience.  

When you look at Mr. Romeny’s actions, it becomes clear that while Church and State should be separate as institutions, its OK when men who are guided by the principles of the Church serve the State.  

I’m Sorry but You’re the Wrong Colour (Unless You Give Us A lot of Money)

One of my latest culinary discoveries is a small stall in Maxwell Food Centre, that sells Shwarma’s or Middle Eastern sandwiches. The man who runs this stall is an Iraqi who has settled here and started a family with a Singaporean

Our friendship recently added a “social media” element, when we linked on Facebook through a mutual friend. One day, I noticed that he posted something that was despondent. His post read as follows:

“Do not leave your country even your country is shit, do not leave it for any reason !!no body going to respect you when you leave your country”

The source of his unhappiness was his treatment by the authorities when he tried to renew his residency permit. Apparently, they had grilled him on his opinions on the 2003 American Invasion of Iraq. Somehow, in between having the audacity to set up a small business and helping Singapore’s food distribution industry, the powers that be felt that this man was a terrorist threat to Singapore because he wasn’t grateful that his country was invaded by a foreign power. I spoke to my friend about this and he kept saying, “I can see the hatred in their eyes. “

I bring this story because there seems to be a trend of going backwards in the so called “Civilized World.” Countries that talked about “diversity,” and “inclusiveness” or “regardless of race, language or religion,” have now started to make “discriminating” part of official policy. The most famous example if the Occupant of 1600 Avenue’s famous “Muslim Ban,” which conveniently left out the countries that actually produced people who attached the USA (September 11 2001) but had Muslims with lots of money to spend on overpriced real estate. The Donald is, unfortunately the most vocal of a group of world leaders with a talent for bringing out the worst in people.

In an ideal world, we should have a situation where borders don’t matter and we should have a situation where people choose the countries, they want to be part of. However, I’m also old enough to realise that this isn’t an easy process and there are times where higher ideals need to be set aside. There may, unfortunately be a case for excluding people from certain parts of the world based on national security issues. However, if that really was the case, one would have to communicate it with the population at large in a clear and somewhat honest way.

I take the example of restricting Singapore’s Malay population from the upper echelons of the armed forces as well as from certain parts of the armed forces. While I don’t agree with this policy (come on, you don’t let Malays into an artillery unit but you’d let some Pom in?), the rationale was communicated fairly clearly. Lee Kuan Yew states in his book that our most likely opponents in an armed conflict would have been Malay majority nations and it would not be fair to put our Malay population into having a case of “Dual Loyalties.” The Malay population has accepted this to a certain degree.

What I do not agree with are policies designed to stir up people’s prejudices for the sake of it. Trump’s infamous Muslim ban comes to mind. As stated, if this was really about National Security, it would have been focused on the nations that had a proven record of sending people with a stated desire to do damage to America.

As vile as Trump is, I do give him credit for being openly vile. What I take issues with in Singapore is the fact that we sell ourselves as being “Regardless of race, language or religion,” but incidents like what happened to my friend take place and people shrug and think it’s perfectly acceptable.

I’ve mentioned this to government officials, where I’ve noticed that the places where people from the proverbial “shithole” countries are in shitty parts of town and in shitty facilities. By comparison, the places where people from nice countries are likely to be are inevitably well spruced up.

Human history has shown that places benefit when there’s a development of human capital. The usual success of a nation depends on its ability to make its citizens productive. Singapore, for example takes great pride in the amount of money we invest in our education to make our people productive.

Then there’s the other side of the coin – if you don’t have the brains, get the brains and energy from elsewhere. America is a great example of that. America excels in so many fields because it allows the brains from elsewhere to function to their full potential. I won’t stop repeating it but the parts of America that produce the things the world can’t get enough of (namely the East and West Coast) are the parts that are open to other people’s brains. China is actually similar. The parts of “future” superpower are inevitably on the Eastern Seaboard and the parts open to the world.

While America and China may have “insular” parts that don’t produce much, Singapore cannot afford insularity. Being a spec on the global scale means we need to be open. If we don’t have the drive and the brains, we should get it from elsewhere.

My friend is the prime example of what we need. He has qualifications in Bagdad but he’s willing to come to Singapore to create something for himself and his family. He’s not “taken” jobs from anyone. His small business buys from suppliers (local businesses) and rent (local institutions) and if luck, it may grow and employ, dare I say, Singaporeans.

Yet, the authorities that he has dealt with, think that its better to question him for not being a key supporter of a policy that ruined his original life. Why is that so? How does making life miserable for a productive member of society benefit Singapore? I’d love to know that answer.

God’s Will When God Leaves the Real Estate Business

Back in 2006 I wrote an article for Arab News entitled “Criticism of Israeli Foreign Policy does not equate to Anti-Semitism.” I had taken issue with the fact that the Kadima Government in Israel had decided that it was appropriate to, in the words of the former Chief of Staff of the IDF to “Bomb Lebanon back to the Stone Age.” My TV screen was filled with images of daily artillery and aerial bombardment of Southern Lebanon and the Israelis and the USA were hailing this as “birth pangs of a New Middle East.” The Israeli justification for this slaughter was simple – Hezbollah, the Shiite Militia that dominates much Lebanese politics, had the audacity to dig into Israel and kidnap three members of the IDF. While nobody was justifying Hezbollah’s actions, no right-thinking person thought that Israel’s response was proportional to what they had lost. The sane part of the world argued that the only winners of that conflict were – Hezbollah.

My issue in this article was not so much with the Israeli’s but with the Americans who had chosen to applaud Israel for its clearly disproportionate response. I remember writing that “The nation that saved us from the Master Race has allowed God’s Chosen to commit an atrocity.” My reward for this line was to receive a deluge of emails – some calling me an “anti-Semite” spreading lies about the Israeli state to those encouraging me to carry on. The most interesting responses were from the USA. There were those who sent me literature on prophecies relating to the land and there were those who spoke in fear of a “domineering cabal.”

I’m brining up this topic again because the Donald and Bibi, also known as the President being Impeached and the Prime Minister being indicted in a corruption trial, managed to pull off the “Deal of the Century” between themselves to declare the Israeli settlements in the West Bank to the magically legal (which not even the Israeli Supreme Court accepts). As expected, the Palestinians rejected the deal as did the 22-members of the Arab League. Peace will definitely not be achieved and if anything, the “Deal of the Century” will only intensify the conflict. So, what do we need to do?

I’m old enough to remember a time when there were politicians who were willing to state the obvious – both sides need to be led through their anxieties. In the 2001 in the Sharm El Sheikh Fact Finding Committee chaired by Senator George Mitchel (the man who brought the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland together), it was found that there was a direct correlation between “terrorist activity” and settlement building. There was an obvious vicious cycle. The more the Israelis built settlements in the occupied West Bank, the more the Palestinians resorted to “terrorist tactics,” to try to claim back their land, which in turn lead the Israeli military to crack down harder. It was clear to anyone who had more than a brain cell that the problem was obvious. The settlements had to be removed, which in turn would reduce the desire of the Palestinians to hit back, which would in turn negate the need for Israeli crackdown.  

The most interesting part to this whole situation was the fact that the Israelis and Palestinians were trying this out. In 1994, the Israeli Prime Minister of the day, Yitzhak Rabin took the bold step of swopping land in return for peace. Rabin, a general who had dedicated his life fighting for the State of Israel, understood that there would only be real peace if land was swopped or as the Old Rogue used to say – returned. The move was something that everybody could agree with.

Unfortunately, Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish Settler and he was succeeded by a populist called Bibi Nethanyahu, who made very clear that he was against everything Rabin wanted. His view of things was simple – land for peace was OK as long as the Palestinians understood they were supposed to sit in the shit.

How did so much great hope die with one man? The answer is very simple – there is an idea floating around that says “God” (Yahweh to the Jews and Allah to the Muslims) is a real estate broker who has given that slice of the desert to one group of people. While this might sound simplistic in the modern age, it has been proven to be an idea that is as powerful as is toxic. This idea has enabled extremist to flourish and international laws be damned.

I think of the time Ariel Sharon fell into a coma. In his vegetative state, the man who made his name butchering Arabs (read brown people), was condemned not for his butchery but for his one vaguely decent act, which was to get the IDF to remove settlements from Gaza (needless to say, he still ensured the IDF controlled all the vital areas for survival (airspace etc). He was condemned for …. wait for it…. giving away God’s land by Pat Robertson, a televangelist who also doubles up as a media mogul.

The solution is simple. God needs to announce that he is handing over real estate brokerage in the desert to humanity so that humanity can do something Godly for a change. Christ was very clear that he did not approve of starving anyone nor was he a proponent of “apartheid.”

I’m not saying that the Palestinians have been saintly but they are clearly the weaker party and they have been on the wrong end of a very powerful military force that’s backed up by the world’s most powerful military force. Every time the more powerful party does something to them, the world falls into the trap of the likes of Mr. Robertson, and everyone scolds the Palestinians for not accepting their fate – they are scolded for having the audacity to fight back. It’s a case of the world tells them to stop using the gun and negotiate with the tongue, while the other side continues to build settlements on Palestinian land.

Once God informs the world that he is not interested in being a real estate broker, it then becomes easier for people to do the Gods work by living in peace. With God in the business, you’ll have people of European decent claiming that it’s a violation of God’s will if any of that land is given to people of Semitic decent and doing everything in their power to help other people of European decent to keep the land away from people of Semitic decent.

Once we allow God to exit the real estate business, we can encourage cooler heads on both sides to come to the negotiating table. You had people like the late Saudi King Abdullah, who was willing to push the Arab league into recognizing Israel in return for withdrawal to its 1967 borders. You had people like Yitzak Rabin, who could shake hands with old enemies like Yasser Arafat and the late King Hussein of Jordan.   

We’ve had great men like these who were willing to do God’s work by going against what they were conditioned to believe. Once God explains that he, unlike the Trump is not in the real estate business, will we then achieve a Godly peace.

The Emperor is Stark Raving Nude

I’ve just come back from a Chinese New Year holiday in Vietnam and I’ve gone back to an old hobby – watching Youtube Videos. My two favourite topics on Youtube are the Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump and the announcement of the “Deal of the Century” between the Israeli’s and the Palestinians. These two topics bring me back to the story of the “Emperors New Cloths,” where everyone is so caught up in the appearance of trying to appear clever that they miss the obvious point – the emperor has been conned into buying nothing at all.

OK, as per all articles where I’m about to express my opinion, I will disclose that I loath Donald Trump. The man is weakling who only knows how to take on the vulnerable and the only way he knows how to get and stay in power is by finding a scapegoat. I am also going to declare that I have a soft spot for the Palestinians and its not because some of my best friends happen to be Muslim. While the Palestinians have not been blessed with the most benevolent leadership, they’ve been perpetually screwed by the powers that be – namely the Western world, whether it be Great Britain or the USA.

Let’s start with the Impeachment Trial. The facts of the case are clear, and much has been reported about the trial, so I’m not going to go into detail as the public facts are well known. It’s also clear that the process of impeachment has been far more partisan than anything else in history (including the Clinton Impeachment in 1998). As of writing, every republican senator has announced that they have no intention of voting to remove the Trump from office

To an extent, that was always expected. Impeachment is as much as a political process as it is a legal one. The key to “removal” is the 100 Senators, who are acting as jury in the trial. The Republicans have the majority and one can expect the party line to hold.

Where the Senate Trial falls is the fact that the Republicans have voted to have “no witnesses” in a trial. Thus far they’ve only had a Q&A sessions for the senators to pass up their questions to be read by the Chief Justice. Yet, the Republican party has refused to allow any witnesses to be called. The timing could not be more relevant in as much one of the key people who witnessed the events, namely the former National Security Advisor, John Bolton has written a book where he has said that he was present when the President said he wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine in return for dishing up dirt on a political rival and Mr. Bolton is not the only person with a story to tell.

Even without legal training, it seems rather suspicious that you’d want to have a trial without any witnesses, particularly when you have the power to get people to testify under oath and there are “real witnesses.” The verdict it seems, is a foregone conclusion and the side with the most votes is going to base its entire argument on – “We can do what the heck we want – so screw you.” The most obvious point came from former Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowtiz, who argued the as long as the President could do whatever he wanted as long as he believed it was a in the public interest. More on Professor Dershowtiz’s legal brilliance that the less educated might find hard to understand can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaCQv6Q8C7w

Another example of the Emperor being stark raving nude was the “Deal of the Century” where you had an example of the US and Israel slapping themselves on the back after agreeing to allow the Palestinians to have a few slivers of land in return for a few bucks. The deal was apparently written by the Donald’s son-in-law, Jarred Kushner. After the Trump and Bibi called a press conference to slap themselves on the back for solving a complicated issue.

There was a minor problem with this. The Palestinians were not part of the deal. Neither the Palestinian Authority or Hamas were asked to sit down to chat about anything at all. The Israeli government would get to keep its illegal settlements and young Mr. Kushner went onto TV to tell the Palestinians that they should be bloody well grateful for the shit lot that they were being handed.

You can view details of the Israeli government’s points on how it intends to occupy “All” the land at:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Png17wB_omA

I remember former Saudi Ambassador, Dr. Amin Kurdi saying, “We gave the Israelis an answer to their security [this was after the late King Abdullah had proposed Israel return to their 1967 borders in return for diplomatic recognition from the Arab League] and they threw it in our faces.”

The Ambassador is right. The Israelis have shown that they have no interest in not expanding their land. It’s only a deal of the Century when they got to negotiate without the other party.

What’s more worrying is that we have a US President who has decided that America’s role as honest broker is no longer something to be treasured. Here is a leader who has shown himself to be corrupt and having no respect for the rule of law. As bad as it is to have him running his own country, its worse when he gangs up with another dubious world leader against a smaller group.

So, what do we do with naked Emperors who expect us to acknowledge they are well dressed? The answer is to find more little boys like journalist like Medhi Hassan, who challenges known pundits on a regular basis. You can see a sample of his work at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocVFTq6RW38

It’s time to encourage curious little boys in our journalistic community.

Grandpa’s Revenge

Opposition Politics in Singapore is a thankless task. Generally speaking, the role of the opposition in Singapore has been to serve as a punching bag for the government party. The government, which controls some 79 seats out of a total of 84 in a unicameral parliament, has a habit of using every trick in the book to make life miserable for anyone who even considers running for a seat under the banner of anyone except the ruling party.

Singaporeans have developed a rather strange attitude to the opposition. The opposition MPs were people you clapped for (“Dude – You’ve got guts”) but you’d never actually vote for them. For many years, we kept Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang in Potong Pasir and Hougang simply because their presence was enough to irritate the powers that be.

Then in 2011, we decided that the powers that be needed more than an irritant and so, we handed the Group Representation Council (“GRC or in electoral math – 4 seats”) to Mr. Low’s Workers Party. This was officially the worst showing in the ruling party’s history and things were made even worse when Dr. Tony Tan, the ruling party’s preferred candidate scrapped through the presidency by less than a whisker against Dr. Tan Cheng Bok, a former member of the ruling party.

The ruling party seemed to have gotten lucky in 2015 when it called for an election not too long after our founding father Mr. Lee Kuan Yew died and then, it changed the rules to make the Presidency a preserve the Malay Minority, which the rest of us seemed to think was a ploy to keep Dr. Tan Cheng Bok out of the any organ of state.

Well, things have gotten interesting since 2015. The biggest start to this was when Dr. Tan Cheng Bok found a “Venture Capitalist for Dissidents,” namely Mr. Lee Hsien Yang, the Prime Minister’s younger brother. Dr. Tan has founded the Progress Singapore Party or PSP. The PSP has become something of a hot stock in the field of Singapore’s politics and I had the good fortune of being invited to their Chinese New Year dinner on Friday 17 January 2020.

What a party it was? The food was amazingly good (as Chinese New Year food usually is), there was a rock band called “Evolution” (Dr. Tan has said no to revolution because it involves bloodshed – so he’s proposing evolution) and they were very good. They launched their party song and a mascot. Dr. Tan also introduced new members to his leadership team, all of whom were credible candidates (one of them was a former Air Force Colonel.)

However, what was most telling was the fact that the under 35s were in a significant minority in the room. Dr. Tan is 79 and while admittedly sprightly, he’s definitely an old man. There was a token young girl somewhere but by and large this was a party for the New Old.

When I think of this fact, I’m reminded of a speech that Mr. Leslie Fong, former Vice-President of Marketing at Singapore Press Holdings gave at Ad Asia in 2005. Mr. Fong was speaking at a forum at a time when respected papers around the world were going “tabloid.” Mr. Fong described the whole exercise as “A futile effort to dumb down for younger eye balls at the expense of more valuable older ones.”

I think of that moment and the PSP dinner because it looks like the PAP has forgotten “more valuable older ones.” The people at the PSP had all benefited from the system created by the PAP government. This wasn’t a gathering of louts or the systems losers. The man who was appointed to be Dr. Tan’s number two is a former hedge fund manager. You’d imagine that this lot would be cheering the ruling party on for giving them so much.

Yet, they weren’t cheering on the ruling party and there has to be a reason for this. My Mum would argue that this is because while people may benefit from something, they’ll turn on it if it hurts their kids. One only has to think of cases of battered wives who happily put up with a battering and then, when the abusive spouse turns on the kids, she does what she should have done ages ago. What does it say about the state of things when a loyal member of the ruling party becomes a member of the opposition?

Likewise, with the “Baby Boomers,” also known as those heading into their 70s. They have benefited from the system but have their children? I’m brought back to the days before I was trying to get my passport renewed to go back to school in England (a process that the government enjoys complicating to ensure kids come back for National Service). My Dad had just lost a contract to shoot an ad for the Air Force to an Australian who had a Hong Kong Crew (My Dad’s crew being Malay but Singapore Born). It was at this point where he said, “I’ll vote for the other guy, even if he’s an idiot. Why is my son doing National Service but they’re giving benefits to the guys whose kids don’t serve?”

I think of these moments because the powers that be need to studying the ground. Its moments like what my parents went through that make people change their minds so to speak. The PAP Government has on the whole done a good job for Singapore but it needs to look beyond and build for future generations rather than for a single one. They’ve done well but to remain in power they need to make people feel they’ll continue doing well.

The Real Jobs Issue

There was a recent spat in parliament between Chan Chun Sing, our Minister for Trade and Industry and Pritam Singh, the leader of the Workers’ Party, our main opposition party. Much has been said about the debate, so I won’t go into details but essentially, Mr. Singh asked Mr. Chan what was the percentage of Singaporeans versus foreigners in certain jobs. Mr. Chan refused to answer directly and accused Mr. Singh of stirring up certain divisions. Mr. Chan also argued that it was necessary to have foreigners in high paying positions because they had the qualifications for the jobs, which the locals did not and the locals would eventually catch up.

I’ve always believed that this is an issue has become a convenient sticking point for all involved and everybody misses the point. While I don’t disagree with the fact that we should have tighter checks on things like fake qualifications (Look if a guy got into the job on a “fake” qualification but managed to last beyond six-months in places like JP Morgan, he’s got to be doing something right), I don’t think that jobs should go to anyone based on nationality and residential status.

I also look at the fact that we’ve never had an issue against “foreigners” holding good jobs until people from other parts of Asia started getting “the jobs.” We were quite comfortable and even grateful to people from the West coming here to do the “plush jobs,” and getting the salaries that those jobs came with. It has become so that its understood that people from the West would earn more than the Asians. I remember one of my previous chefs asking me why I refused to take a full-time position at the Bistrot, since most of the customers assumed, I owned the Bistrot. My answer was simple, what was on offer was significantly less than what my Belgium predecessor was getting. The reply was, “You can’t compare, he’s an Ang Moh. (Hokkien term for Caucasian – used mainly in Malaysia and Singapore).”

Things have become different now that the jobs are going to the proverbial darkies from other parts of Asia. Suddenly, Singaporeans are feeling displaced and they can’t understand why people from the places they deemed “backwards,” are now sitting jobs they assumed were the natural birthright of the people from developed nations and lording it over the locals, who are apparently better educated and more in tune with international business.

Unfortunately, the real jobs issue here is that our people are for the most part not qualified for the top jobs nor are they willing to work at the bottom of the ladder. Unfortunately, the people who get qualified from “Shithole” countries are. Even if you discount the fact that a good number of them may have “Fake” qualifications and some may have used their “connections,” the people from the proverbial “Shithole” countries have proven that they can compete on the world stage.

I remember Thambi Pundek asking me what was so special about the Indian Institutes of Management (IIM) and what did the IIM’s do that the National University of Singapore (NUS) could not do. My reply was to ask how many people did NUS produce who ran a big global corporation that was not dependent on the Singapore government.

Neither he or I could name a single one. By constrast, IIM (Specifically IIM Ahmedabad and Calcutta) produced Ajay Banga, the current CEO of Master Card and Indra Noyi, the former CEO of Pepsico. A comparison in alumni can be found at the following links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIM_Ahmedabad_alumni 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_University_of_Singapore_people

Admittedly the IIM’s do have an advantage that many educational institutions do not have – they have a vast pool of people to draw from. The population of the “hyper-successful” in India is probably larger than the population of most countries.

Having said that, it still does not detract from the key issue in as much as, our institutions are not training people for the global market. 

In fairness to our institutions, they do a fabulous job in training technical people for most industries. However, their record on training people to run a global business that requires cross-cultural intelligence and independent thinking is lacking. Our technical people are also good with the tools of today but haven’t done much to create the tools of tomorrow.

This was brought home to me by a German businessman, who deals with high end technology. He said, “There is NO high-end technology in Singapore.” By contrast, this German businessman was full of praise for China’s tech-scene. He told me, “They’re getting things done – they’ll do the same thing in a dirty little room than needs to be done in a clean lab in Germany – but they’re getting it done.”

Our minds appear stuck in the past along with our policies. I remember Lee Kuan Yew telling people that Singapore simply didn’t have the size to produce world class companies. Our policy of being a centre for multinationals has been successful. 

However, the global economic scene has changed. Things are not as safe as they used to be and the ability to see things differently has become an essential survival skill. One has to be able to think beyond geographical boundaries. I go back to the profile of the Western Expat. Sometimes they’re derided as people who “couldn’t make it” in their own countries – but hey, they had the guts to take on assignments outside of their comfort zone – this group may not have been making it in their homelands but they’re making it even if its elsewhere. The Indian Expats are only doing what they’re Western Counterparts have done for years – moving to places where they could do the things, they couldn’t do at home to get the life they wanted. 

Our top people also don’t venture beyond the familiar. I remember a top banker telling me he could climb higher at Citi but didn’t want to take promotions because – “you never know when you’ll come home.” 

Our institutions need to instill a sense of “adventurism” and “opportunism.” In the old days, one could avoid taking the risk of the unknown if you had comfort at home. However, it’s now such that the basic jobs in the modern economy need you to have a sense of adventurism and opportunism.

The Lucky General

When asked about the qualities that he looked for in a general, Napoleon once said that he chose generals who were “lucky.” I’ve always thought of this quote whenever it comes to discussing the topic of success. Talk to enough people who have “made it” and they’ll tell you about their brains, hard work and sheer determination. They will never admit to having “luck.”

However, if you analyse the careers of the well to do, you’ll realise that somewhere along the line they had a lucky moment and they went for it with everything they had. Back when I had just left university, I was told by Hans Hofer, the founder of Appa Guides that the key thing that successful people understood was “chance.” A few years back, I blogged about it at:

https://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-thing-that-every-business-school.html

I think of this blog post on luck because we recently lost our second Chief of Defense Force, Lieutenant-General, Ng Jui Ping. If you look at General Ng’s life story, you’ll understand that he was that most unique creatures – a person who knew how to be lucky and had a knack for being in the right place at the right time.

Before I continue, I have to disclose that I am from the same formation as General Ng (Artillery). While I never met the man in person (he stepped down from being Chief of Defense Force, while I was still in basic military training), most of my senior instructors had worked with the man (In particular I reminded of Senior Warrant Officer Lim Seng Wah, who was his Battery Sergeant Major in the 20^th Battalion Singapore Artillery). In later life, I would befriend a lawyer who served him from the shadows (an advisor he consulted even though he had engaged other lawyers). So, what I know of the General is only what I’ve read in the official press and from what people have told me about him.

My second qualification is that when I talk about General Ng’s “Luck,” I’m not referring to the number of battles he won. Singapore’s armed forces have never been tested in an actual war (though in fairness, our boys have been commended on peace keeping missions and Singaporean officers do make it to the top of their class in places like West Point and Sandhurst). When I talk about General Ng’s luck, I am referring to his personal career.

How was General Lucky? I guess the most obvious place to start was the fact that he was born and entered the civil service at a time when they were a little obsessed by paper qualifications from the Oxbridge Universities. After General Ng left the helm of the Singapore Armed Forces, all his successors were inevitably the same – super scale scholars with beautiful Oxbridge Degrees.

His luck extended beyond the timing of his birth and in his long career, he had the good fortune of being in situations where his skills could shine. These few lucky moments helped catapult him to stratospheric levels.

The first piece of good luck was the fact that he ended up becoming the mentor to a certain Officer Cadet (“OCT”) Lee. He was a good mentor and at his funeral, the OCT that he mentored told the world, ““I will remember him most from my own time in the army, when he was first my Commanding Officer, and later when I worked beside him – I learnt much from him as a leader and a colleague.”

The second piece of good fortune for General Ng came in 1991 when a Singapore Airline was hijacked on Singapore soil. While General Ng was already Chief of Defense Force (a level too high for people to expect him to be on the front line), he had the privilege of overseeing an actual mission (the type where people can die), that proved to be exceedingly successful. To date, the SQ 117 Hijack rescue mission is the one incident in the SAF where the troops showed they could perform in a “real” situation. This very incident allowed General Ng to claim something as close as Singapore’s Generals don’t get to claim – “real life command.”

When he retired from the SAF, General NG did what no other top civil servant had done before him – he became an entrepreneur. Ironically, his long career in the army had actually prepared him for life beyond wearing the green uniform. His gratuity gave him the start-up capital and he had a strong relationship with the right people to get things going. While General Ng did serve a stint on the boards of some government organisations noteably the Central Provident Fund (“CPF” Board – our main pension fund) and Chartered Industries (Singapore’s version of the Military Industrial Complex), his main post army career was as an entrepreneur. General Ng was the co-founder of Pacific Andes Resources Limited.

The one area where he did not have luck in was his personal health. In 2019 he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, which ended his life this year. Interestingly enough, General Ng’s death showed us how lucky he was. He dared to be different from the crowd. His predecessor retired into a cushy diplomat’s job. His successors have all gone onto work in cushy civil service jobs or in the government-controlled version of the private sector. Being different earned him a warm tribute from Singapore’s normally strongly “anti-anybody from the government” online media as the following report from the Onlinecitizen shows:

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/01/14/late-lg-ng-rejected-pm-lees-offer-to-live-off-govt-unlike-lgs-desmond-kuek-and-ng-yat-chung/?fbclid=IwAR1O6qWOfD8I6RkV6-tQOewonGfhL06Y_Yqz1kjNORC0NvNjNmlbIA31y7w

Knowing how to be lucky in life made him lucky in death too.  

When You Say It

We’ve often been told that many communication failures come from “how” things are said rather than “what” things are said. There is another aspect of communications that is often neglected and that is the “when” of saying something. Timing, as they say, is often everything.

Leadership or the appearance of leadership is about understanding the what, how and when of basic communication. Nobody expects the leader of a large organization, let alone a country to singlehandedly be able to do everything but we do expect them to “be there” whenever we need them to be there. In many ways, the people, are like teenagers and their parents. We don’t want political leaders to tell us how to live our lives but when the shit hits the fan, we expect them to be around. Hence, if you look at the political leaders in the mature democracies in the last decade or so, you’ll notice that their key moments tend to be during disasters.

Take the current situation with the Australian bush fires, which have devastated much of the country. One of the things being burnt in the fires is the reputation of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who refused to commit extra funding towards fighting the disaster and proceeded to go on holiday. Mr. Morrison who is only just admitting to have handled things better, has not been able to get things right as he has appeared both incompetent and uncaring (the traits most of us don’t want in leaders).

To make matters worse, Mr. Morrison had actually taken a swipe at Gretta Thuburg, the 16-year old Swedish climate change activist for being “alarmist,” over climate change. Now, Mr. Morrison finds himself in a position of having to do something advocated by a 16-year-old girl he once dismissed as being an “alarmist.” The full report can be read below:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/scott-morrison-signals-climate-shift-deeper-cuts/news-story/64cbbeed635faac64ae1d32d8f00f085

Another example of a “leader” who didn’t get the what, how and why of basic communications, is the former Prime Minister, Ms. Theresa May. While one may sympathise with her inability to get Brexit though an uncooperative parliament, one cannot sympathise with her inability to visit those who had suffered from the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017. What was particularly noticeable was that while the Prime Minister (who is paid to do things) was noticeably absent, the Queen (who is paid to be a decoration) was quick to get down to the site of the disaster and offered comfort to the people.

By contrast, the one leader who managed to get things right is to be found across the Tasman Sea. New Zealand’s Jacinda Arden’s response to the Christchurch mosque shooting was a masterclass in crisis management. She was quick to react, offered a practical solution (banning of assault riffles), showed the right balance between compassion for the victims and toughness on the criminal. Ms. Arden also did not go down the path of taking cheap, populist measures.

Disasters can make or break a politician. Bill Clinton gained popularity because he knew how to show sympathy to those who had suffered from the Oklahoma Bombing. By contrast Bush II was spectacularly tone-deaf during Hurricane Katrina – think of his “Brownie, you’re doing hell of a job.” This was a classic case of saying the wrong thing in the wrong way at the wrong time. Translation, he only cared about his buddies rather than the victims.

I remember my Dad telling me – “everyone is your best friend when you’re buying.” The same is true about leadership. Anyone can lead when the times are good. However, its different story when things go wrong and a leader who knows how to utilize a good crisis is one that we, the ordinary saps, tend to remember fondly.

The Naan Maker and Matcha Pundek

A few days ago, I was browsing through the profile of someone who had sent me a friend request on Facebook when I stumbled upon this message:

The World 🗺 needs to be Vigilent against South Asians namelyIndians 🇮🇳, Pakistani 🇵🇰, Bangladeshi 🇧🇩 & Nepali 🇳🇵 .

I copied this message onto my Facebook Wall and stated that I found this message to be offensive and I stated my reasons why. Interestingly enough the person who posted this message reshared this message and complained that I must have been a “South Asian” migrant and he was going to be protect his nation from the “terrorist PAP” government that allowed South Asians into Asia.

I shall leave the rebuttal to that for another day and instead, focus on two chaps I know. Call them Bijay and Mike or the Naan Maker and Matcha Pundek (Tamil for brother-in-law cunt – a word that Tamil friend of mine said, “In India, we don’t use that word – it’s SO CRASS.”) Bijay had the misfortune of being married to Mike’s older sister, who used to be a senior civil servant and since remarried and moved to Belfast.

I got to know the Naan Maker nearly 15-years ago when a mutual friend invited me have Naan at a place along the junction of Serangoon and Deskar Road. Bijay was the man who made the dishes at this little restaurant and he adopted me as his younger brother. He once explained to my ex-wife that he felt very comfortable when I called him “Bhai Sahib.”

Bijay’s story is what you’d call the dream of every migrant. He met his first wife when she was on holiday in Nepal, where he was born. Somewhere along the line, they got married and he moved to Singapore with her. He went through national service and got his citizenship. He then set up his own shop selling Naan and the range of North Indian foods. Then he met two Pakistani chaps, who got him to work for them and he spent the next few years working in the morning’s and having a chilled life in Little India. His relatives who were in the Gurkha camp on Mount Vernon were happy for him.

Somewhere along the line, his marriage broke down. He left the family home where he had lived for over a decade and found himself doing odd jobs. His girlfriend who has now become his wife, moved to Singapore and somehow, they managed to live on his income. Then, the man struck gold when he moved from being a chef in a five-star hotel. He bought his own property and managed to support a family on his single income.

I always think of Bijay as Forest Gump. He’s not the best educated of my friends nor is he the most ambitious. However, he works hard and does right by family and friends.  

Mike, or Matcha Pundek, his former brother-in-law, also works very hard. He works hard at being too good for any available job. One of Matcha’s proudest moments in his career was working as a taxi driver. He proudly tells people that a “North Indian,” (In Singapore speak, those snooty fuckers from darkie land who don't understand that well paying jobs are only for  White People) once asked him to drive somewhere in his taxi and he didn’t like that guy who he kicked the guy out and never worked as a taxi driver ever since (Singaporean born people get very upset that people from “Shithole” countries might actually be qualified to work in jobs specially reserved for white people). Matcha was also very proud of the fact that he walked out of an exploitative job directing traffic near a school (had to wake up at 6 in the morning but you only work about 2 hours a day).

Mike is a stand up and generous guy. He’s exceedingly generous if you’re paying. Matcha is exceedingly generous if the paymaster is his former brother-in-law is paying. The first time I met Matcha, it was with Bijay. We were sitting down for our weekly $20 wine session and Matcha felt that it was beneath him and insisted that his former brother-in-law, who has the audacity to work for a living, move up to the Harry’s Bar. The ever loving Matcha, proceeded to hit-up his former brother-in-law (migrants are always stealing, so we’re told) for a loan of S$2,000.

The second time I met Mike, the ever loving Matcha invited Bijay and I out for a lad’s day out. The ever loving Matcha asked us to meet his gang of overweight louts, who proceeded to drink and drink and drink. When the tab came, he happily handed the bill to his former brother-in-law. We then proceeded to go somewhere else. After a few minutes, I dragged the ever loveable Bijay away from this wonderful gang. As we were walking away, the ever loving Matcha called his former brother-in-law to pick up the tab. Thankfully, I was there to cut the crap.

So, here we have it, a nice story of a migrant brother-in-law who has the audacity to work but according to some people, he’s a threat to Singapore society. Somehow, his presence is something the world has to be afraid of. By contrast we need to protect the native-born population like the ever loving Matcha, who is a mover and shaker at your expense. Somehow, Matcha is the “exploited” one by all these horrible foreigners from South Asia.

Maybe I’m just slow but I don’t get that logic.  

The Obvious Answer to Cheaper Hawker Food

I’ve just seen an article in the Today Newspaper entitled “Keep hawker food affordable.” The article is essentially a complaint about how basic hawker food has shot up in price and as with most Singaporean letters to the press, the implicit message that the government should do something about it – which in this case was a call for the National Environment Agency (NEA) to regulate the price of hawker food. The article can be found at:

https://www.todayonline.com/voices/keep-hawker-food-affordable

I agree that hawker food should be kept affordable. Speaking as someone who has spent seven-years of his life in a Western Restaurant, I can easily say that hawker food is one of the best things about living in this part of the world. If you go to the right stall, you can get an exceedingly tasty meal for a few bucks.

For me, the hawker symbolizes what Singapore should be – a small time businessman delivering a magical product out of nothing (a former guardian of mine once said he was not impressed with the man who could cook fillet steak, the meat is so good you got to be clever to mess it up. By comparison, the man who cook kway teow – its just a bunch of noodles, shit clams and yet taste like magic.). These are the guys who make Singapore tick.

What I disagree with is, the solution of the government telling business people what they can and cannot charge. We live in a capitalist system where setting up a business is a costly time-consuming exercise. We preach that anyone who sets up a business face to bare the very real possibility that they are doomed to fail and lose their shirts but if the business succeeds, they should reap the rewards. We recognize that people who set up businesses ad value to society by doing things like giving society a product or service and for employing people. A businessperson has to bare certain costs and how much they make above their costs (assuming they can make above costs) depends on what people are willing to pay. Getting the government to tell businesses what they can charge should be an anathema to most normal people, particularly when the said government is not about to make the costs of doing any business lesser.

Perhaps the question is not so much keeping hawker food affordable but asking us how we can make running a hawker stall more affordable. Unfortunately, the question won’t be addressed because the most obvious place to start is the rents that businesses pay. After working in liquidations for the last five-years, one tends to notice that the landlord is inevitably one of the largest and most powerful creditors. If there is a cost that will never go down, its inevitably going to be the rent.

To be fair to Singapore’s landlords, there is an obvious business case. Singapore is a tinny place with lots of people. Land is scarce and as a scarce product, its inevitably doing to be expensive. In fairness to Singapore’s government, they’ve been pretty good at allocating land for the various sectors in society. Despite being densely populated, Singapore has open parks and spaces, which the population density might not suggests. The price of land in Singapore is like pretty much elsewhere that happens to be small and dense. Hong Kong also has high rents and houses are tinny.

However, there is one issue that nobody seems to be addressing – namely the fact that the government in Singapore is the largest landlord – thus the areas used by many businesses are inevitably under the control of an organization that does not rely solely on rents from small time stall holders.

What’s more interesting is the fact that the government in its role as landlord to businesses, owns most of the land that the hawkers operate in.

If there is a solution to rising costs, it would be to hold down rents. Holding down the rents for hawker stalls would help to keep costs lower for hawkers and other small enterprises. It would help make life more affordable for businesses and the public at large. This would go further than one of payments in the budget. The simple act of not raising rents in areas controlled by the government would have great benefits for society – government would inevitably gain to as a more prosperous citizenry would have more taxes to pay to the government. The landlord with the power to do the obvious, should do it.

Keeping Church and State Separate

One of the moments of 2019 was the signing of the amendment to the Indian Citizenship Act, which provides a path to Indian Citizenship for persecuted minorities from other countries – except Muslims. The amendment has caused much India to erupt into violent protest and in the Muslim world, this act has been seen as a deliberate attack against Muslim. This was the first time in India’s history as a secular republic that an amendment to the Citizenship Act was based on religion.

One of things I noticed on social media was the fact that some posted the message “If India cannot protect Hindu’s, who can?” This message implied that as the Hindu’s were in the majority, India was by definition a Hindu nation. This was a point that India’s ruling BJP party has argued. India’s population is predominantly Hindu and so India is a Hindu Country that allows minorities to exist – just as the United Kingdom is a Christian country that allows minorities to exist (The UK has a State Church – the Church of England – India does not).

The BJP is not alone in arguing that a nation belongs to a particular group. Israel, while officially a secular state, pushes the fact that it is the homeland for the Jewish People. America, particularly under Trump, is now in the throws of claiming that it is the home of White People. So, one has to ask, can any particular group claim a country exclusively?

When it comes to ethnicity, most people would argue that the answer is a resounding no. I live in Singapore, which while officially multi-racial, is going through some angst because of a large shift in demographics from other parts of Asia, particularly China and India. Singaporeans of Chinese and Indian decent are finding common ground against their kin from China and India. While people do look at the colour of each other’s skin, other cultural factors will end up having a stronger hold on relationships. Labels of “colour” are essentially surface level difference. Apartheid South Africa was portrayed as a White-vs-Black society. In truth it was English-vs-Boers-vs-Zulus-vs-Xhosas and so on and the nation had the good fortune of having a unifying figure in the form of Nelson Mandela and while South Africa hasn’t been the success story the world hopped it would be, it’s managed to move away from state sponsored racism (even if it was a little less successful at avoiding State Capture.)

Religion, however, is a different matter. While most people can accept that God loves all of humanity, they have a little more difficulty in accepting the fact that not everybody loves God in the same way. Conflicts of religion aren’t limited to conflicts between religions but within religions. I grew up in the United Kingdom at a time when Protestants and Catholics could not live together (the Belfast version of Why did the chicken cross the road joke, being – because it was stupid.) The inability to get along isn’t limited to Christians. The Middle East is filled with conflicts between Shias and Sunnis. Whenever you listen to religious fundamentalist talk about how they have the exclusive on God (and I even know someone who thinks he’s God), you end up feeling sorry for God as all these clowns proceed to do all sorts of horrible things in his name.

Is this worth it? Well, the obvious answer is no. Countries that allow discrimination based on race or religion are usually the countries you don’t wan to spend your money in. While the “White” part of South Africa was relatively prosperous, the nation was a “pariah” state that nobody wanted anything to do with and the inefficiencies that isolation caused were visible in things like rugby were clearly visible once isolation ended.

Another example of religion claiming a land is in Israel, which has thus far claimed to be the only secular democracy in the Middle East.  However, at the same time, there is an element that wants Israel to publicly announce that it is a “Jewish” State or the “Homeland” of the world’s Jews. While the majority of people in Israel are Jewish, there are significant number of Israeli-Arabs, who happen to be Muslim. The cynics argue that Israel can be either Jewish or Democratic.

As in the case of India, the case for a “Jewish” Israel are founded on demographics and a version of history. The BJP in India have argued that the original inhabitants of India were Hindu and Islam was only brought by an invading force, therefore India is rightfully Hindu. Israel and her Zionist supporters argue that the land was promised to the Jews – therefore Israel should be Jewish.

However, there are two key issues that pertain to the state of Israel. The most problematic question comes from the fact that there are Arabs with Israeli passports. Many of them do things that one would consider an essential part of being Israeli, like serving in the IDF. Are these Arab Citizens “less Israeli” than say the Orthodox Jews who do not serve in the IDF or work in secular jobs, but happen to be Jewish? The other issue is, if Israel is a “Jewish” state above all things – what defines Jewishness. Israel does face issues between its Orthodox Community and its secular community.

I don’t believe any state should attempt to belong to any particular community, particularly in this day and age where nationality transcends ethnicity and religion. Problems always arise when one community claims dominance to the seat of power. The State should in most cases be a neutral referee of last resort in cases where communities collide. India, as an example faces unrest as the government moves from being a secular force to a “Hindu” force. Church and State should be kept separate wherever possible.

Curiosity Helped the Cat

A New Year and a New Decade has started and the most significant moment of the first working day of this new decade came from the online or in Singapore speak – the “Naughty” media, which found that Singaporeans ranked as one of the most ignorant people on the planet. The news story can be found at:

https://goodyfeed.com/sporeans-ranked-one-ignorant-people-world/?fbclid=IwAR3_IRFx2vy_77dQZKrWNXJHXnWaNzYBz4NudG8xG5clOcADuPdBAWMkEy4

The point of this whole story was the fact that it found that Singaporeans were generally ignorant about their own country. One of the examples given was the fact that the average Joe on the street did not know the difference between a Prime Minister and a President. Lee Kuan Yew as the say, was our first Prime Minister, not our first President.

While it may upset a few people, I’m inclined to agree. One of the most shocking areas that my fellow citizens lack in, is in basic geography. I’ve had Saudi’s tell me that they were asked “Which of Dubai do you come from,” (Saudi Arabia being many times bigger than Dubai) and the most infamous one was the fact that most Singaporeans think that Sikhs come from Bengal (there’s a very large distance between Bengal and Punjab). One of the more recent ones I encountered was someone who said, “Aren’t Hong Kong and Macau the same,” (No they’re not – at the very least you should know that Hong Kong was the British Colony and Macau the Portuguese one.) I’ve heard one Singaporean tell off an Indian worker for not understanding Tamil because, well all Indians Tamil (fact – the official language of India being Hindi).

What should be particularly shocking about this level of ignorance is the fact that we are an “educated” society. Singapore proudly announces to the rest of the world that we’re a “highly educated” society and when we talk about being “educated” we’re not talking about people having basic literacy as is the case in most of Asia. When Singapore talks about being “Educated” we are talking high-level, cutting edge educated. In Singapore, we’re talking about making “education” an export industry – “Singapore Math’s” – our text books are admired throughout the world. Whatever you think of our Prime Minister, he is regarded as a “mathematical prodigy” by Cambridge University. When it comes to education and getting the people educated, Singapore stands out as a shining example.

So, how is it that we’ve produced a nation of highly educated people who are highly ignorant, especially about the little things in their own backyard All the examples I’ve provided a moment ago, came from people who graduated from respectable universities and in some cases had furthered their studies with professional qualifications. I think of my ex-wife, whom my mother delightfully reminds me, couldn’t answer a single question in a game of Trivia Pursuit and she’s a graduate (University of London External Degree).

I guess you could say that the problem in our system is not that we don’t teach the technical skills in life but we fail to instill the purpose the spirit of learning. When I went to university in London, we were told that getting your PhD was all about realizing how much did NOT know and wanting to devote your life to knowing more about a particular subject. Here, for most people, it’s a case of earning bragging rights that you have this and that qualification from this or that university. Our system produces very good technical people. If you put our people in any workshop or any office, they’ll do an amazing job.

However, if you put them in a situation that requires a bit of imagination or a bit of awareness of what’s going on outside their own narrow field, they will probably fail. Like it or not, there is a reason why all of our top politicians and civil servants are….educated elsewhere.

To be fair to our people, the system is designed for them not to need to know so much about how the world beyond their little area functions. As long as you can acquire enough skills within a certain area, you can end up doing quite well. The point was brought home to me when a young trainee lawyer (Oxford graduate non the less) told a former journalist he was having lunch with, “I don’t see what is Dr. Goh’s (Goh Keng Swee, our former Deputy Prime Minister and the man who built our institutions) life story has anything to do with me.” Apparently that young lawyer is now doing very well financially.

There is, as they say, no need to be curious. I remember facilitating a lecture by a Bloomberg Columnist for a class of journalism students. The columnist made the point that all you needed to succeed as a columnist was a bit of curiosity and Google. He made the point that thanks to the internet, we have more information available at our finger tips than our ancestors had in numerous libraries and all we had to do was to find it. His only comment on his students was “Curiously uncurious.” You would expect aspiring journalist to be busybodies – well, that is unless you’re talking about Singapore.

The problem with Singapore’s system is that its been successful. The young trainee lawyer that I mentioned is now making more money than he’s ever dreamed of. The young journalists are all probably doing well too. Not giving two hoots about what happens outside your own little hole hasn’t harmed people.

However, things are changing. The days when we could be a cheap manufacturing centre for the Western world are gone. We need people who know how to operate outside their own little hole or at least are curious enough to want to try to operate outside their little caves. The consequences are being seen on the streets. The local population complains that its being displaced by people from elsewhere because the people from elsewhere have the capacity to want to know things beyond their little hovel. The future belongs to the intellectually curious and you secure it by making minds curious not by shutting them off from the outside world.