Victory in Court, Our Court

It's now official, the Wall Street Journal is now one of the best financial newspapers, particularly in the Asia-Pacific Region. The journal, which has traditionally been regarded by people in business as one of the best newspapers on the subject has now been lablled a "Repeat Offender" in efforts to malign the "integrity" of the Singapore judiciary. The case against the journal was lead by no less a distinguished person than the Attorney-General, Mr Walter Woon. In the end, the Singaporean government emerged triuphant in its own courts against a dastardly Western medium that had waged a "30-Year Campaign" against the Singapore government. The Journal was finned some S$25,000. 

Personally, I think S$25,000 is a relatively good price to pay, especially when you know the end result is a vindication of your credibility. The Journal had the audacity to do something irresponsible - it printed out a criticism of the Singapore judiciary by the International Bar Association (IBA), and then it printed out the rebutal from the Government. If I'm not wrong, the Journal also had the audacity to print a letter by Ball-in-Chief, Chee Soon Juan and the rebutal by the Singapore government. This was, I suppose iresponsible Western journalism at its worst.

In Singapore, we don't go for this type of journalism. It's simply a waste of time to print or broadcast anything that may have two sides to it and so, we concentrate on something else - making money and boy have our local papers been good at it. As newspapers around the world fade into irrelevance thanks to drying advertising revenue, Singapore's newspapers, lead by the National Paper, the Straits Times, have been booming. Singapore Press Holdings, protected by its duopoly in the print medium, controls some 40 percent of all money spent on advertising space in the land. 

How has the newspaper business thrived in Singapore? It has done so by a very clever two prongged strategy. Both Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and MediaCorp have defended their duopoly of the Singapore media scene with great vigour - constantly siting that they're profits are high, unlike the days when there was competition (never mind the fact that the consumers had a choice - they're only ordinary Singaporeans.)

The other strategy was summed up by a senior journalist that I often see in one of my favourite pubs. When I asked him how life was in Special Projects, he replied, "Great, we're making all the money - NEWS is nothing." When I tried to say something about NEWS being less impostant than advertising in a NEWSpaper, he replied,"Of course." (He was quite indignant that I was suggesting otherwise.)  

So there you have it. Singapore has a model of journalism that is responsible (as opposed to Western Media.) NEWS in a NEWSpaper is not a priority at all - no wonder why I read the wire services everyday. 

Ties-Ties-Ties and what they mean.

Advertising in some form or other has been part of the family ever since I could remember. My immediate family has been involved in the business at some stage or another. Lee, my mother's second husband was once the leading creative director in Lintas (now called Lowe in most parts of the world), and my father was the premium advertising film director in South East Asia for many years. Not to be outdone, my mother worked as copywriter at Batey Ads for a while, and her sister's huband was considered one of the most talented copy writers in town. In the tradition of how everyone in the same industry ends up related to each other, I have the distinction of calling some of the most prominent names in the South East Asian Advertising Scene "Uncle" or "Aunty."

So what can you do if you're family is this embeded in the industry? At one stage, I thought I'd avoid it. But then, I realised there were things about the industry that I liked and so tried to join it. I didn't make it, so I just skirt around it. I was admitedly a lousy accounts servicing person and never developed a "respectable book" to make it as a copywriter. I have, however, writen enough respectable commentaries for the trade press and been interviewed to call myself intelligent enough to talk about the topic of advertising. So, where does this trumpet blowing leave me. I get to talk about an family friend, my Dad's pal and my mum's childhood friend - Mr Tham Khai Meng, currently Ogilvy & Mather's regional creative director (Asia-Pacific) and Co-Chairman of Ogilvy in Asia-Pacific. 

Mr Tham, is undoubtedly a success as far as Singapore's advertising industry is concerned. Advertising, particularly in Asia, is considered, for the most part to be a "White Man's" game. This has been particularly true when it comes to the creative department - one only has to think of the Ba Kua tycoon in Jack Neo's movie,"I not Stupid," telling his employee's, "Ang Moh's idea is always special, I will always pay more for it." Perhaps there was something in our local education system that desparaged "artisitic" subjects in favour of more "serious" topics - but for the most part, this was true. 

One can accuse Western multinationals of being intrinsically biased against the "Asian" idea. There have been certain examples of failed White Men landing jobs in local agencies at creative directors because, well it looked good to have a white man in the creative department. However, there was a darn good reason for this. In the multinationals, only the white men had the vision for global brands. I take, Lee, my stepfather as the prime example of this. The man could make a dull product like a detergent interesting to housewives in Hamburg (Germany), New York (USA) and Karachi (Pakistan). My early childhood years were spent in various countries because his job required him to travel every two years, to make sure that the creative departments at Lintas did what they were supposed to do. 

I think, for the most part, Western culture proved to be able to dominate the industry because, it allowed for a certain flexability in thinking that is so necessary in being good at advertising. The Americans and Brits in particular have dominated the industry because they've valued "life's experiences" rather than just academic records or technical expertise, the tangibles that Asian's are most comfortable with. Lee did goto art school, but had a wide variation of experiences like selling vegitables, digging ditches and working as a janitor before that. Neil French, perhaps one of the most famous creative directors of his generation, was a bull fighter and a pornographer. It sounds undisciplined or unpolished to the Asian mind. But as Frank Young, Managing Director (a creative guy) of Crush Singapore said, "That's what makes them so good." Both my stepfather and Mr French had lived life and they could apply what they had known into something useful - selling of basic products to people accross culture. 

Asians have caught up in terms of their artistic creativity. Today, in Singapore's market, there are several prominent Asian Creative Directors. My ex-boss, Lim Sau Hong, the CEO and Executive Creative Director of 10AM Communications comes to mind. Her understanding of the Chinese language and Chinese culture allowed her to develop a Singapore based agency that made an impact on the China market. 

There are others. David Tang is a Singaporean who has become CEO of DDB in Singapore. Then there is Pillany Pillay and Kelvin Periera who built made Crush Advertising and the TNBT Group into a regional presence. 

However, Singaporeans and Asians in advertising have generally stayed within the Asia-Pacific Region. Why is that so? Perhaps it's cultural. I hear of many Singaporeans who turn down promotions in multinationals because it means "travelling to an extent you don't know when you'll come home." The only time Singapore became known as a centre for global advertising was when Neil French, former WPP Creative Head (Previously Ogilvy Global Creative Head), planted his feet in Singapore. 

But now, this has changed. Mr Tham Khai Meng has assumed the appointment as Ogilvy's Global Creative Head and Chairman of it's Global Creative Council. How significant is Mr Tham's role?  Managing Directors run the business in advertising agencies. However, businesses need a product to sell, and in the case of the advertising agency, this is the creative work, created by the creative department, run by a creative director. So there you have it, we now have a Singaporean in ultimate charge of the creative work produced by the world's third largest advertising agency. It's quite an achievement when you think that Mr Tham comes from a country that is allergic to anything out of the ordinary.  

Allot of Mr Tham's success will depend on the people that he hires. Most of his personal creativity will be devoted to hiring the right people and making sure they perform. Mr Tham's work in the Asia-Pacific has proven that he's such a man. 

But what does Mr Tham's appointment mean beyond the fact that it is possible for Asians and Singaporeans in particular to develop the qualities of running a global creative department in a global ad agency? 

I think what's significant is that Mr Tham's appointment to the global creative position at Ogilvy co-incides with his Asia-Pacific Co-Chairman, Miles Young's appointment to be the CEO of Ogilvy's Global Opperation. 

This is significant because its a statement of where the agency believes most of the world's economic focus will be in. Traditionally, New York and London were always the main headquarters for advertising agencies. Most agency-client relationships are forged at the global level, with the regions and country's executing policies. The focus of advertising has always been where the consumers are - which has for the most part been in the West. 

Politically speaking, the appointment of Messers Young and Tham doesn't change a thing. Mr Tham will relocate to New York to take up his appointment. But the focus of the global advertising industry is shifting and the appointment of Messers Young and Tham shows it. 

Back in the old days, the consumers were in the West. So, it was only logical for people who developed careers in the West to run the global agencies. This is changing and most of it is due to the rise of China and the rest of Asia. Why else would one of the world's largest advertising agencies as well as one of the most visionary make two of its most significant appointees from the Asia-Pacific region. 

As the economic crisis in the West bites, one may find more "protectionist" calls from the public against competition. This is something to expected. However, rational heads should prevail and Messers Young and Tham have a tremendous opportunity to persuade the West that Asia's rise is something that will benefit them and that they should - rejoice!  

Snooty Indians and Rough Chinese

Anyone who has followed the media in the last decade will know that the biggest story in the last decade has been the spectacular econmic rise of China and then India. The two Asian Giants contain two fiths of the human race and even at current levels form a formidable economic block. China has been taking over much of the world's manufacturing and this Summer, a proud, resurgent China hosted one of the most spectacular Olympic Games in living memory and as an Asian, it was exhilerating to see China top the gold medal table. The question is no longer whether China becomes the world's biggest economy but when. Despite protest by unfortunate Tibetans, 2008 has been pretty much China's year and as America and Europe fall deeper into the economic doldrums, the world is looking nervously to China as a new engine. 

India has also been interesting. While China has become the world's factory, India with it's vast, educated and English speaking population is becoming the back office of the world. Call centres, the job of last resort for those in the developed world is a serious career option for bright, MBA's in India. Then there's software. Western multinationls these days cannot afford to get along without Indian software programmers, doing not just work the multinationls disdain, but also creating programms that run entire opperations. First it was giant companies like Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Infosys, Satyam and Wipro that hit the world. But now you also have a wave of smaller, niche market players like Polaris, 3i-infotech and i-cell (part of Oracle) Software creating highly specialised systems for particular industries. These small companies are highly cash rich and although they don't make the headlines that they're larger cousins do, the software they produce helps to run many of the basic functions we take for granted.

Perhaps it's because I've moved back to Asia for the last 8-years but I think the rise of the Asian giants is probably the most hopeful thing in human history. As much as Westerners may bitch about outsourcing stealing jobs and Singaporeans may complain about snooty Indian nationals and rough China hookers, there is no reason why two fiths of humanity should be mired in poverty. Furthermore, the growth of prosperity in the world's two largest population centres benefits the West and it's allies. Poor and unstable countries do not make good allies, but strong and confident ones do. Look at the way the Indian Navy has taken a lead in dealing with piracy in the Gulf of Aden, a role you once only expected of the Western Powers.  

How has this happened? I remember a talk I attened by the Secratery General of the Commonwealth, HE Mr Kamalesh Sharma. He mentioned that it was found that the only thing countries that developed quickly, such as the Asian Tigers, had in common was heavy investment in education and healthcare. He noted that, "All policy is ultimately social policy." I write from Singapore, a country that has benefited from heavy investment in education and whose government understands that the nation's future is in how it adjusts its education. 

This point on education was brought home to me by Mr Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, Provost and Vice President Academic Affairs at Singapore's Management University (SMU). Mr Srivastava, who was chairman of a pannel discussion at the Indian Institute of Technology's (IIT) Alumni Association meeting (one I had the honour of attending), compared the situation in Indian States that had invested in education and those that did not - Kerela is highly litterate and although not rich, life is good for its residents. Bihar by contrast has a low rate of litteracy and a high rate of poverty and corruption. 

What was even more interesting about his comments and comparisons was the fact that he brought a direct comparison between India and China. It's an enlightening comparison. You can understand why the Asian giants have taken the development path they've taken if you understand the different approaches to education.

India has excelled in high-end services like software development, pharmaceuticals and movies. In Singapore, we've seen a concerted government effort to woo the growing class of professional Indian workers. Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sport, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan told the gathering of IITians, "You are welcome and You ARE NEEDED." The Indian Nationals that I've had the honour of working with in Singapore are amongst the most educated and well brought up people I've encountered, though there are admitedly grumblings from Singapore's Indians that the Indian Nationals are snooty and snub them. The Indian Nationals argue that it's not about looking down on people - they merely point to the fact that Singaporean Indians do not have India as a refference point - it seems to me that the Indian Nationals are educated to a level where they no longer use race as a reference point in the same way our Singaporean Indians do. 

How has this come about? The answer is simple, India has focused on higher education for its elite. The result is world class university campus's. Both the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and the Institute of Management (IIM) compete with the likes of MIT and Harvard Business School in international surveys. The guest at the IIT gathering read like a who's who. You had prominent speakers like Mr Jeet Binda, President of Global Manufacturing at Chevron and Mr Rajat Nag, Managing Director-General of the Asian Development Bank amongst others. Obviously the organisation has done something right to produce people who climb to such positions. 

Of course, India has had the advantage of a sizeable educated class. The 300 odd million Indians who make up the Middle Class can read and write in English - they can work in the international market. However, if you upgrade their education at the university education, you can upgrade the type of work they do in the international market. 

Another sign of India's success in this area can be seen in Forbes's list of billionaires. Asia's richest people are no longer in Japan, they're in India. Until recent deterioration in the economy, four of the top ten richest men in the world, were Indian.

But the down side of India's emphasis on university education has been its failure to lift the masses out of poverty. India does badly in litteracy rates against China and while there may be more Indian billionaires than Chinese ones (The fact that there are billionaires in a Communist country is an achievement), China's GDP per capita is higher than India's. 

China, by contrast has placed emphasis on primary and secondary education and it excells in manufacturing. You don't need people to work in the international market for manufacturing, you just need to provide labour at a competative rate. As a result, the Chinese education system has produced skilled workers for manufacturing jobs. Other nations that try to compete with China simply can't because the Chinese engineers and technicians who are often as good as those in more developed places and cheaper and harder working or more suited to rough but skilled work.

I look at who from China comes to Singapore. It's quite often construction workers who are willing to do the jobs Singaporean Chinese disdain and yes, many of the girls that do make it here work as hookers. But all of them share one common trait - hunger and supperior street smarts that local Singaporeans lack. If local Indians complain about snooty Indian nationals, Singaporean Chinese complain about the coarse loud voices of China workers and China girls who sell themselves to the highest bidder. What the locals don't see is their determination to succeed - the workers are working in a way we won't and the girls make it a point to ensure our local men are enchanted by their presenation. 

Where China's system fails is in the fact that it does not encourage innovation. China's growth is based on its ability to make things cheaper than other people but as the experiences of Southeast Asia has shown, this edge wears out. Vietnam for example, is capable of giving China a run for its money and Indonesia and the Phillipines could too if they stabilised their political systems. 

The respective strengths and weaknesses of the Chinese and Indian systems complement each other. Both aknowledge their weaknesses and are looking to solve them. One of the deans of the IIT's admited that they need a stronger support system lower down the education system. China is sending students to develop their minds in the best universities in the West. Furthermore trade links between the two nations are growing and instead of seeing China as purely being about manufacturing and India as about services, there is a growing cross pollination of strengths. China is gaining in the software and services business. India has some competative manufactures - look at Birla motors as an example.  

So, where does that leave us in the rest of the world and in tinny Singapore. I'm with the government when it says we need to be open. Educated Indians with money to spend like spending it in Singapore. Nearly all the Indian Nationals I know have taken up permenant residency in Singapore and letting them trickle down their good fortune benefits Singapore.

But I also think the Chinese labourers need to be welcomed. Although less educated than the Indians, the Chinese have shown themselves to be hungry. Look at all the $20 dollar buffets spreeding around to cater to China nationals. These small businesses cater benefit the economy. So as well as letting the wealthy Indian's trickle their wealth down to us, we should also allow the Chinese to build it from the ground up. 

This will undoubtedly cause some social tensions but since when was integrating people ever easy. I'm of the belief that we should welcome people as citizens provided they're willing to pay the price of citizenship - which in the case of men is national service. You simply cannot expect Singaporean citizens to take up arms to defend Indians and Chinese for the sake of it. However, if a Singaporean serves next to a China or India National, chances of successful integration are higher. 

People are the best asset a nation can have. As a small nation, Singapore cannot afford to indulge in isolationst policies. A constant flow of people means a constant flow of money, ideas and opportunities. Yes, sometimes you also get the crooks in, but creating and increasing the flow people does not mean we need to sacrifice law and order. Keeping out people would be a mistake - educated Indians and rough Chinamen could well be anchors for our future. 

Midnight Blah

Well, it's officially past the witching hour and instead of doing what most sensible people would do (goto bed), I've taken to bashing out blog entries, emails and other silly things at this hour. I have, as they say, discovered a peculiar sort of heaven on earth - I've downloaded Google's webbrowser "Chrome," which is highly quick and I've discovered YouTube. So, for the last few nights, I've been getting my fix of music from music videos off the net - the usual rock bands, classical orchestras added to the odd opening tracks of Star Treck serieses. Yes, I admit it, I love the series, particular the DS9 one - I think it had something to do with the fact that the leader of the Federation outpost is a single father. Needless to say my fantasies of being a single father in the military died out with my lack of military achievement during National service and of course marriage - where I managed to get a special deal - 12 for the price of one (Gina being wife, kids, dogs and rats in one). 

Economic recession is slowly but surely making its way to this part of the world. Anyone who thinks the economy is doing fine and dandy is probably a liquidator, lawyer, government minister or on pot. Zen, my usual basket case tells me that PSA has been cutting back on her hours because less big vessels are coming in. It's also visible in the airport where you notice a smaller number of big jumbo jets. 

Then, of course there is the proverbial view of the economy in the red light district. You get girls at the high end of the business telling you that the "White Man" no longer seems willing to pay - one Thai girl outside Orchard Towers (Four Floors of Whores) says, "I think it must be because of the economy." And true enough, if you take a trip down to Geylang Lorong 6, the hang out for old ladies from Batam and office peons, you'll find that it's filled with Caucasians. If ever there was a sign of the times. 

I, in the mean time continue to struggle to find a living. Grand new projects are coming to a standstill but then again, I suppose this calls for one to discover a bit of creativity in how one creates income. This has, for example, been a year when I've discovered barter trade. I'm surprised that I've not resorted to this earlier - cash is a very scarce commodity in Singapore's "One Cheque" economy (there is actually no money in Singapore - everyone awaits the government to write out a cheque for some project or other) and so there have to be other ways of getting by. 

Will be heading off to Hamburg for Christmas. Going on the 18th of December and won't be back til the 9th of January 09. It's always nice to pay Europe a visit and spend time with the family. This trip will be particularly important because Lee, my first step-father, will be in Germany too. It's been 10-years since I last saw him and I'm looking forward to spending time with him. It's because of him that I learnt that the qualifications of fatherhood are not necessarily biological. I won't go as far as a business partner of mine who calls his dog his child, I think it's Lee's example in my life that makes me try to give love and affection to the little fart in Vietnam . Yes, this trip to see a man who has made so much difference to my life is a long time over due and I look forward to it.  

Crevaet Emperator and Emperator's Creveat and I'm not sure why I like to Blab so I'll just do it to P You Off

It's easy to hit out at big organisations like multinational corporations and governments. Organisations like these tend to be bureauractic, inhuman, dehumanising and seem to serve the sole purpose of hurting the individual and the small businesses. Governments seem to enjoy nothing better than creating means of taxing hard working citizens and multinationals like the tobacoo and alcohol companies actually make a profit by selling you things that kill you. In Singapore it's especially easy to vent your frustrations at such organisations because the system seems especially prone to supporting "Big" government and business against everyone else.

While there's allot of be said about the evils of big government and big business, I do think that this image can go a little too far. The "Little" guy, as Saddam Hussein often showed in his struggles against the USA can be pretty brutal too. OK, perhaps it's a stretch to call the guys protesting at Hong Lim Park, Saddam, but I think we've now reached a stage where government has become so much a part of our lives that we've lost the ability to take personal responsability for our own actions.

It's sad to see and read about old ladies who have lost their life savings when they've invested in financial products and it is certainly a clever PR move by the financial institutions to offer to refund "Vulnerable" investors who lost their shirts on certain financial products. No bank chief wants to be summoned by the financial regulators who got screwed because the politicians realised that stories of little old ladies being screwed of their life savings can cost them votes. Pay off the vulnerable and you appease allot of angry people. Then you can carry on as before.

However, is this good for the actual economy, the financial system and even the nation at large. I believe that clever crisis management on the part of the financial insitutions here has cost the nation dear and if we carry on like this, we're not going to learn anything. Sure, learning is going to be painful but then again, don't the best of life's lesson's involve a little bit of loss and sacrifice?

What allot of peolpe forget is there is a clear definition between a creditor and an investor. A creditor provides money with the expectation of getting back that money regardless of the situation of the company. An investor on the other hand expects a share of returns but also assumes a share of the risk. Creditors can only expect their principle (what they loaned out) with perhaps a bit of interest in return. An investor can expect to reap rewards of an investment but if that investment goes sour, then he or she has to expect a loss.

If you look at things in this light, you'll understand why creditors get paid off first during a bankruptcy and investors (shareholders) are usually the last to get their money back. However, a creditor does not expect to get rich while an investor does.

Banks and financial institutions are obliged to provide a leagl warning that investments can go down as well as up. True, this warning is usually in print so fine that you can go blind reading it, but surely common sense should prevail here and one should know that when buying into a financial product, one should be prepared to lose as well as gain.

So, when you look at it this way, what are the protestors talking about when they ask for a "refund" on their investments losing money? Did the bank promise them that they were 'guarenteed' to make money for an indefinate period? If this is what the bank promissed, the banks should be shot for lying and decieving their clients. But doesn't the client also have a responsability to ensure that he or she knows what he or she is getting into? If a client claims that everything was left to the bank, the client deserves to lose money.

But what if the client is a little old lady who does not know left from right? Well, it is sad when old ladies get burnt and I have to aknowledge that not every old lady was like my late grandmother who was exceedingly sharp when it came to counting her pennies. My grandmother was incidentally very sharp with money because she had next to no inheritance from my grandfather and her kids and grandkids didn't rush to keep her in style. But even then, do simple old ladies rush out to buy 'advanced' financial products on their own? Perhaps there are, but common sense tells me that many of these 'vulnerable' investors had relatives who helped pushed them into it. It's the relatives and friends who should be compensating the old ladies not the financial institutions.

Of course, the financial institutions and the government are not blameless either. The Financial Institutions thrive on sending out "high-pressure" sales people to "push-products." Sales people are paid on comission so it's in their interest to push the products which pay the best commision, regardless of whether the product is best for the customers needs. The financial regulator should be sued for allowing the financial institutions to name their sales peolpe as "Advisors" or "Planners." In true Singapore style, the government merely insisted that those selling financial products take exams but then left the financial institutions for allowing their 'advisors' and 'planners' to push products.

You might call this a matter of semantics. You could say it's just a name, so what? Well, there's allot of significance in a name. An 'advisor' provides you with 'advice' while a 'planner' actually get's involved with 'planning.' By these definitions the value comes from 'advice,' and in the 'planning,' and not in the product sale. However, most financial institutions bundle the planning and advice into the product sale. The "Financial Advisor" or the "Planner" gets rewarded only when you guy the product. I can't think of another industry that allows this to happen. Do you get "Auto-Advisors" working for Honda to advise you on which car to buy? I believe Honda is very clear that its staff are there to "Sell" you a car.

I'm sorry people have lost their life savings. I'm thankful that I've never had enough money to tempt me into playing with some of the financial world's more risky investments. But a situation where you have investors behaving like gamblers and being compensated when things go sour when they lose is unsustainable. And a system that only places a value on product sales rather than on knowledge is equally unsustainable.

Yes, it's nice to compensate the old lady who lost her savings but is it the right thing to do. I think in this case, we've only helped perpetuate the unsustainable and if the government and leaders of the financial system had a real intention of doing right, they'd look into how to fix the real issues rather than buying off a few angry voices.

Last Post to the First Amongst Us

It's been a rather hectic 72 hours, where I should probably be dropping like a fly, half drunk on cheap brandy. Had to facilitate a client interview on Tuesday before rushing up to KL for an event at Vinod's. Was a good adventure to ride up to KL and discover a bit of Malaysia. Thanks to Vinod, I actually got spend a bit more time in KL than planned, but ended up rushing down to facilitate another interview with Bloomberg at quite an early hour. Everything went well, but I've decided, for some strange reason to stay up.

It's a fairly significant three days. On Tuesday, the 11th of November, it was Armristice Day, the day that officially ended World War One, which is in many ways one of the worst wars in history but one that tends to get burried by World War Two. I've become less observant of this day since I moved back. I think it has something to do with the fact that in this part of the world, we weren't really touched by it - a case of this being an affair of our colonial masters in Europe. World War Two is a little different - Singapore became a Japanese colony and I think that brought the reality of the wars back home to us in the colonies.

But I think, having once served in uniform, even if it was for an army that will thankfully never see combat, and having attened the funerals of two colleagues while in uniform, I believe its worth the effort to remember the soldiers who end up getting killed in wars. Soliders often get a bad rep in the halls of universities and in movies. That's a shame and its a demonstration of the shit that fills the minds of our young in places where they're supposed to learn. If you look at countries with armies that actually fight wars, you'll find that it's those who have been in the military that are the least blood thirsty. Look at the Bush Administration - an Administration that claims to have fought wars to make people safe. The only decent person who understood that war was not a game was Colin Powel, former Secratery of State and a full general. He alone saw combat and did not support the war in Iraq (though he did try to sell it to the UN) and as a result was removed from an adminstration filled with callous cowards.

War, as the good war poets have often reminded us, is a game played with the lives of young men by old men. Contrary to what film producers may light to tell you, war is for the most part a brutal experience that brings out the worst in humanity. Look at Africa, a continent that continues to see most of the world's wars and other nasties like poverty, disease and malnutrition. What's noticeable is that Africa is also the continent with most of the world's precious resources like diamonds, forrest, gold, oil and so on. The men ontop simply cannot resist the lure of trying to grab hold of the goodies and they're not terribly bothered by who they screw up in the process.

Let's face it, lives get lost during any armed conflict and those that live usually end up getting scared by the experience. As such, it beats me why anyone with intellegence and up bringing can support armed conflict when there are other alternatives to resolve disputes. Look at World War One, millions died in what was essentially a family squable between the Royal Families of Europe. What did the men who sacrificed their lives in places like the Somme get - a world order that would lead to another war that killed even more people

So, let's give the Europeans some credit. The experience of World War Two so shocked them that they created the EU, a super national institution that has become a by word for peace and prosperity. OK, the EU is not perfect - there are genuine cases of corruption amongst the Eurotocracy and there are riddiculous bureacratic rules that get imposed on ordinary people with no purpose. The EU also looks powerless and irrelevant when you think of its lack of military muscle against the USA. However, when you think of the original aims of the EU, namely to eliminate the possibility of war on the continent, it's succeed brilliantly. Within 50-years, we can now speak of a Franco-German alliance as a force of good rather than a worry of conflict (European history is a long story of Franco-German conflict). States that once suffered under the terror of Communism can now find a source of security and prosperity under the EU. It's something worth thinking about.

But it's taken a million lives, lives that never got a chance to live their full potential to get the developed world to a stage where the young have a luxury of worrying about the latest handphone trends instead of getting blown to bits in a family squable before their 25th birthday.

Sure, there are times when it is necessary to fight. If the nation state is invaded, it is only natural for the citizens to take up arms. But there is utterly no excuse for wars of agression or wars that are fought incompetently. A President or Prime Minister who sends the troops in without a clear objective or objectives based on greed is sacrificing human life for the sake of it and does not deserve office - although it's not often wise to advocate military coups, I think the miltary is entitled to remove a head of state or government if that head of state or government sends the military into a situation with no clear objectives. I'm with General Danton, the British Army's Chief of Staff when he says that soldiers who are willing to take the Queen's shilling should be ready to go where Her Majesty sends them.

However, I believe that leadership cannot expect loyalty without being loyal in return. A leader cannot expect people to sacrifice their lives for him or her if he or she is unable to show they care for the lives of their troops and will ask the troops to make that sacrifice unless necessary. A leader who sends the troops into combat for the fun of it is traitor and just as we expect the harshest of penalties when the troops break that trust, we should apply the same to the top when they betray that trust - Bush and the neoCONS come to mind! Seriously, the President of the USA has to defend the nation against "Enemies both forign and domestic," not "Be the enemy." - If you do not call sending young men and women to die in a war based on lies and deception as treason, what else can you call it?

For the most part, we live a good life, but that's only because the people before us have fought for it. It's a fact worth remembering and worth paying tribute to. Call me wierd but one of the things that pisses me off about Young Brits is how they've become obsessed "Cool Britania" and have no time for a moment of silence on Armristice Day. It's like the Australian Song "And the Band Played Waltzin Matilda" (not to be confused with Waltzin Matila) - the old troopers are dying off and the young ask what they're marching for. Between a politician who plans and a soldier who gives his life, I salute the soldier and despise the politician. Colin Powel tells a story of how one of his commanding generals made all the officers about face and salute their soldiers.

And so, there you have it. All that is good in our lives today came as a result of someone's sacrifice. I'm all for moving on and living life but its always important to remember that people have given their lives for us. At the very least - be greatful that it was not you who died.

For me, I was privilleged this week to speak to Thui. It was her birthday today (13 November). She was having a party with her friends and took the time out to tell me that she was fine and she misses me. It felt good to speak to her on her birthday and I'm greatful to Han Li for allowing me the small mercy of being able to speak to the little girl.

I have to accept that it's not my destiny to play a more significant role in her life. All I can be is thankful for the small moments when she's able to touch my rather dreary existence. Funny how a little child holds so much power in her to remind me that its actually a joy to have something more in life than yourself.

Best and Worst 08

The USA has had a historic election. After 200-years the country that has done more than any other in history to preach the idea of "Opportunity for All," finally elected a man who was not a White Anglo Saxon and had a name that rhymed a bit too closely with two men they had gone to war with.

Allot is being said about President-Elect Obama and his victory. The usual questions of who will he pick for this and that post and what will his policy on this and that be like, are being asked. Everyone is talking about his fabulous victory speech and the many other great speeches he made.

These are important discussion points and there is no doubt that President-Elect Obama deserves his victory. Let's leave aside the reasons of why he should have won anyway, namely the incompetence of the current Bush Administration. The President-Elect ran a strategically brilliant campaign. His team mastered the art of keeping the money flowing, which meant he could promote his message more agressively. His message was focused. He kept his cool even when his opponents seemed to have ammunition to be used against him. His two challengers, Hillary Clinton and John McCain started out with better brand names and a wealth of contacts and dare I say it, experience. However, once the campaigning began, President-Elect Obama somehow managed to make his older and more experienced opponents look like 60-year olds trying to relive their sophmore years.

So, despite the obvious economic gloom and the military situation in the Middle East, the election of President-Elect Obama has created a seed of a sense of optimism. This is vastly important because if the world's biggest power has confidence in its leadership, it gives the rest of us hope.

For me, I am pleasently surprised that the American public has done what I never expected it to do - vote someone a darker shade of pink into power. However, I think something has to be said about the losing candidate, John McCain. The 2008 Presidential Campaign was as much about the lneptitude of John McCain's Campaign as much as it was about the brilliance of the Obama Campaign.

It was actually quite sad. I remember liking John McCain in the 2000 election. The man was refreshingly principled in that election. He took responsability for the failure of his first marriage and after Clinton's lack of a military record and Bush's avoidance of one, McCain's mere presence in Vietnam made him such a credible candidate. My respect for John McCain increased when, in the Senate, he took on causes that he believed in, despite his party. The McCain-Feingold (Sponsored with Democrat Senator Russ Feingold) act on campaign finance is one such act that showed his ability to cross party lines. My respect for him increased even more when he took a principled stance against torture, even when his President and party were advocating it.

But something happened within the 8-years of the Bush Administration. The Pincipled Maverick of 2000 became an inept self-opportunistic old fart. Allot will be made of the way Senator McCain chose the even more inexperienced (Than then Senator Obama) Sarah Palin as his running mate. However, for me, the saddest thing about Senator McCain's campaign was the way in which he reversed his stance on torture. The "War Veteran" who had been "Tortured" and knew that torture is ineffective, suddenly decided that torture was OK, provided it was applied to Arabs....oopps, I mean terrorists. This transformation was pathetic. Instead of sounding like a leader of high-principles, Senator McCain sounded like what his opponent described him as - George W Bush Mark 2. Thanks to his about-face, all the then Senator Obama had to do was to point out the obvious - vote for McCain and you'd get more years of the same (faggoty mismanagement of the military and economy). Once this happened, it all went wrong for the McCain campaign. When he talked about his military heroism in Vietnam, people saw a sad old man who's only achievement was to marry his money - not exactly the type of man you want telling you to buckle your economic belt while you're keeping the recievers at bay.

So thank goodness for his concession speech. Suddenly we had a glimpse of the 2000 McCain. While his supporters booed Obama's victory, Senator McCain took one hundred percent responsability for the failure of the campaign. He made a call for unity to match Mr Obama's victory speech and stopped his attacks against the man who had just become his President. It was a magnificent speech and credit must go to a fantastic speech writer but let's give Mr McCain his due - he delivered it in a way that probably only he could have done.

To the rest of us, the US Presidential system might seem to be expensive and bitchy. It's chaotic and throughout the campaign, you often see the worst in political leaders. However, once it was all over, you could actually see the best in leaders. It's worth having a system that puts strain on people - the heat of competition is good for everyone. It's something the rest of the world can learn from. No system is perfect and the American system has more faults than one could care to name - but listening to Messers Obama and McCain, I get the feeling that this is as close as humanity will get to testing leaders properly before they are given the levers of power.

The Problem with Knowledge

Allot of people have asked me why I bother entertaining a certain young grassroots leader from Pasir Ris GRC. At the age of 18, this young man has mastered the art of incoherence. When confronted by a clear and reasonable argument, the young man retreats into a rant on the most indefensible cases. While most young men his age become idealistic to do good, he strives to climb the most slippery pole of the political achievement. So, why do I bother sitting down to listen to his incoherant rants? A part of it is ego. He provides me with an audience and his comments add spice to my postings. But I think the most important part of my dialogues with him, is that he's had an inevitable talent of drawing out the issues that I've commented on

Singaporeans are on the whole like most people. There are good ones, bad ones, pretty ones and ugly ones. Perhaps its just me, but I've started to notice a trend of incoherance and gobbldygook speakers becoming more prominent in public life. Two examples that have come to mind are Nominated Member of Parliament, Professor Thio Li-Ann and Young PAP member, Nicholas Lazarus. Both Professor Thio and Mr Lazarus have mastered the art of disguising ignorance as public morality. As I've said in previous writings, they have their right to their personal views, but it becomes a different matter when they make their views public from the positions they hold.

I've demonstrated Mr Lazarus's lack of analytical ability and after a glance at one of Professor Thio's key speeches, I could blow away her points with a ten minuite search on the Internet. Call me an alarmist but I think it's very worrying that a public, political figure and a representative of the ruling party don't see anything wrong with passing of ignorance as defending public virtue.

What's more disturbing is when you get young, impressionable people like my young politician believing that the arguments that Professor Thio and Mr Lazarus present are credible defenses of 'conservative values.' It just took a bit of common sense to see that neither Professor Thio nor Mr Lazarus presented credible or conservative arguments during the 377A debate. So, why do people like my young politician find them convincing. We're not talking about major government shakers here, so I can assume that this has nothing to do with an effort to carry favour.

I suspect, this is a mindset that has been cultivated within Singaporeans during the past 40-years. One Indian businessmen described Singapore as being a nation of 50 Ministers (Shepherds), 500 civil servants (sheepdogs) and 4,499,450 sheep. This system has worked wonders for Singapore. We are a small nation and as long as our shepherds know what they're doing, its very easy to follow. While state control and central planning have failed miserably in other countries, its worked brilliantly in Singapore - just look at the way the URA has made 4,500,000 people fit on an island 640 square KM, with plenty of parkland to spare.

This is a fine and dandy situation when the shepherds are in control and obviously know what they're doing. It works when the shepherds and sheepdogs are genuinely interested in protecting their flock. Look at Singapore's cabinate in the early days. Men like Goh Keng Swee were genuinely driven by the need to make something for the people they were looking after.

But what happens when the shepherds and sheepdogs don't have the ability to guide their flock and more importantly have no genuine interest in the welfare of their flock. Do the sheep have the ability to recognise and do something about an incompetent or worse - rogue sheherd?

Well, I hope my young politician's attitudes are not a reflection on the rest of the sheep. He's now taken to calling me a 'Gay Right's Western Liberal' because I've proven Mr Lazarus's arguments to be of poor quality. Try and point out the obvious to him and he'll acuse you of undermining Asian Values (the brand espoused in Singapore was incidentally taken from an English Bording school). Poor old God (I mean the Hebrew Yahweh or Muslim Allah, not Lee Kuan Yew), gets dragged in there to enforce the point that "Liberals Know NUTS." (Not that he knows the difference between a liberal conservative).

What was most interesting was when he chose to defend the Bush Administration's indefensible policies - ie it was necessary because Saddam had WMD (5-years still not found), links with Osama (Pentagon admited to be not true) and so on. He proudly told me that the Modern State of Israel was "Liberated for the Jews," (He's Muslim) and the land belonged to God (I assume Yahweh/Allah)

I told him that Sykes-Picot (British and French Foreign Secrateries who carved up the Ottoman Empire after WW1) were not God. When I asked if he knew who Mr Sykes and Mr Picot were, he proudly told me - "Dun Know, dun care to know." He calls it, "Not ignorance, but prejudice against liberals who are trying to do us in."

I can only wonder if he's an odd cookie or if he's representative of the generation below me. Have we reached such a state where the sheep are so comfortable being sheep that they would rather be swindled by a rogue shepherd than to try and live a good life for themselves.

Perhaps I cannot be hard on the "Dun know, dun care to know," mindset of being a sheep. As anyone who has been a unit man during national service can tell you - it's fun because you have no responsability. You just do what the Officer Commanding, Platoon Commander and Section Commanders tell you to do. If anything goes wrong, it is someone elses fault. The bottom will pass the blame up the chain of command, while the top will pass it back down. In the end, passing the buck becomes more important than solving the issue at hand. Just revisit the escape of Mas Selamat - the man remains at large but the sheep, shepherds and sheepdog are still passing the buck.

But the modern economy does not function like that. It is increasingly important to know things and more importantly, one has to care to know things. Singapore's sheepherds remain, thankfully comitted to the welfare of the sheep. But in today's world, its necessary for the sheep to go beyond places where there may be no sheepherd. The sheep will get information and advise in their new pastures. It's common sense to point out that the system in new pastures are not always like at home. How do you know what you've just been told will fill your tummy with fresh grass or turn you into lamb chops for the wolves? So, you have to care to know.

Knowledge, is of course problematic. It means, you have to take responsability, which means you may have to suffer consequences. However, this is how lambs develop into rams. You take responsability and you take ownership. As such, you grow and develop and become stronger.

Yes, my young politician has a point when he tells me that in the Singapore system, we don't have to worry about Temasek Holding's S$18 billion profits, which they derived from S$17 billion worth of asset sales. After all there is the sheepherd to take care of these things.

But we are increasingly moving into a world where relying on the sheepherd is no longer good enough for basic survival. It's no longer to have the Singapore Syndrome of "Not Me" when things happen. One has to care to know things rather than to sit there and accept what any idiot with title offers as good stuff. The sheep who insist on the 'dun known, dun care to know,' mode and blissfully munch on any old crud without taking 10 minuites to analyse things are the ones who end up as someone elses lunch.

The One Thing We Do Right

I can't sleep so I think I'm going to add another rant at an hour when I should be doing the decent thing and trying to get some sleep. I think, it must be a case of events and perhaps a pretentious desire to sound intellectual that is keeping me in this state of happy insomnia. But since I'm awake, I think I'm going to try and bash out another blog entry in the hope of being able to leave something for posterity.

Perhaps I'm destined to be a cynic but I've never seen married life with kids as an achievement. I've seen the way my Dad had to plow money into my education and I think...for what? I've seen my mother plow her time into her children and I've not seen her get anything out of it. I think pretty much the same thing for my stepfathers. Why do they bother? Kids, contrary to what many people think are an ungrateful bunch. You spend your life devoted to them and in the end, they leave you to rot in a hovel. Of course, in Singapore, it's a little different - they spew allot of crap about Asian values and how much they respect you and then they leave you to rot in a hovel.

For the life of me, I can't see why my friends have been so keen to get hitched and burdened themselves with kids. Every time one of my friends tells me they're better halves are pregnant, my only thought is ...... "Another one bites the dust."

I won't say I became a changed man overnight but I think my attitude to the parenting business is becoming softer and I have a midget Vietnamese girl to thank for it. For those of you who have followed my blog, you will know, Thui as Han Li's daughter. I had the privilege of meeting Thui in 2006, the year that I had a career high of working for the Saudi Embassy, helping them when Crown Prince Sultan visited Singapore. The work was exhillerating but if I have to remember the year 2006 for anything, I will remember it as the year I learnt the value of living beyond myself.

To put it crudely, Han Li, Thui's mum is a hard nut, a tough cookie who, to put it politely would probably break a few arms to get what she wants. I'm told its a typical Vietnamese trait - the men sleep, while the women work like mashines. If racial/cultural stereotypes are anything to go by, Han Li fits into that one. So, I guess when she declared me "Boyfriend" in 2006, who the hell was I to argue. The lady is on a long stay in Vietnam as I type these words. I suspect Singapore Immigration found her a little bit too hard for their liking. As such, boyfriendome is wearing down a bit and I'm slowly but surely reverting to the type that needs constant distraction.

Having said what I've just did about Han Li, there was one thing good about my relationship with her and that's Thui, her 7-year old (She's 9 this year). For two months of my life, I got to take care of a little girl who made me understand the meaning of what it was like to live for something beyond yourself. It's thanks to Thui that I think I understand that although most of us end up screwing up our lives, we have a chance to do something correct, and that usually takes the form of the kids that touch our lives.

As you can tell, I managed to speak to Thui on Sunday. Felt really good to speak to her. She's becoming more articulate in English, which is probably a good sign, especially when you consider the fact that she moved back to Vietnam two years ago. It's a tough line to follow. I got to play by certain rules...namely I must remember that she's not my daughter. As much as it disturbs me, I have to accept that she's Han Li's kid and she has every right to set the tone of how Thui develops. It's not like there's custody to fight over....I'm not providing financial support for the kid. I even remember my mother telling me that I was doing things the screwed up way, falling for the kid instead of the mother.

But what can I say, this is the little girl that made two months of an otherwise dull and jittery existence, joyful and eventful. I don't know what it is about having a midget touch your life but Thui obviously knew how to make mine joyful. What little contact I have with her, is precious and while I can't predict how my relationship with her mother will turn out, I know that I have to make at least a single trip to Vietnam, just to see her.

Human's are funny creatures. We have a talent for screwing up and making our screw ups compound. However, we have a wonderful capacity of getting at least something right and that's usually in the form of caring for a small kid. Perhaps I have two wonderful stepfathers to thank, but I've been very fortunate to appreciate that sparks in your life don't have to be your own flesh and blood.

I look at my friend Bijay, the Nepaleese Naan maker. The guy has a talent for screwing up. We're talking about a guy who enters the USA illegally, strolls out like he's in a park and then tries to get back in through the official channel. The man had a wife who cared for him financially, and yet he left her for a cow of a character who's main function is to whine and bleed him dry. Sometimes you want to slap him. But when all that is said and done, Bijay fathered Puja, who is the most amazingly beautiful child and when you look pictures of the child, you think, thank God, the guy existed to this one good deed.

Perhaps I'm naturally cynical about life but at least I got that bit of time with Thui, just to live a few moments outside the cynical shell. I look at Bijay, and all his idiocyncracies are forgotten when I consider the fact that he had a role in bringing Puja into the world. It's a cynical and cruel world out there and it has the ability to warp us as we get older. But I think, I understand it a little better, now. May be my folks were not that silly after all. May be touching the life of a child and letting the life of a small child touch you is perhaps the one and only chance most of us have of doing something right, something to make our screw ups seems irrelevant.

Return to Logic

I owe Singaporeans an apology. In my last two postings, I made it a point to demean the non-existent analytical skills of a member of a member of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), called Mr Nicholas Lazarus. In my previous postings, I made it a point to destroy Mr Lazarus's case which he presented on why Singapore's government should keep consensual homosexual sex illegal.

I believe an apology for several reasons, of which I will start with the easiest. Mr Lazarus was speaking in a personal capacity and his presentation of his case was amateurish at best. Destroying his case in my private blog was similar to stating the obvious - making statements like fish swim.

More importantly, I think I owe my fellow Singaporeans an apology. In my boredom to rip Mr Lazarus's case to where it belonged, I alluded to the fact that Mr Lazarus was expressing views that the public might hold. I seemed to be under the impression that Mr Lazarus's position in the ruling party was something to worry about. I am clearly wrong.

Mr Lazarus's posting was rightly slammed for its lack of intellectual argument and most of the people who set Mr Lazarus in his place were Singaporeans. Say what you like, not all Singaporeans are sheep. In cyberspace, you will find people who can express themselves and are willing to expose the unintelligent when the unintelligent make themselves known.

More importantly, this morning's Today Newspaper carried a piece by Mr Ho Kwon Ping, Chairman of MediaCorp, Singapore Management University and Banyan Tree Holdings. Mr Ho, called the current legislation on homosexual sex (377A) a "Mockery of the Rule of Law." Mr Ho desereves credit for pointing out the obvious. In a society, dominated by the principle of "Don't rock the boat," Mr Ho has shown the courage to point out a piece of leglislation or more importantly, the official attitude to a piece of leglislation was running contrary to something that has made Singapore a good society to live in.

So, thank you Mr Ho and my fellow Singaporeans for giving me back my faith in the nation. Just when I was about to despair at the lack of intellectual power of our young elite, Singaporeans from all walks of life have shown me that there is yet some hope.

My Avnery Strikes Again

Only in Israel can a man take on the State with such truthfulness

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=113829&d=4&m=9&y=2008

Georgia: Hottentot morality Uri Avnery I avnery@actcom.co.il

IF he steals my cow, that is bad. If I steal his cow, that is good” — this moral rule was attributed by European racists to the Hottentots, an ancient tribe in southern Africa. It’s hard not to be reminded of this when the United States and the European countries cry out against Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two provinces which seceded from the Republic of Sakartvelo, known in the West as Georgia. Not so long ago, the Western countries recognized the Republic of Kosovo, which seceded from Serbia. The West argued that the population of Kosovo is not Serbian, its culture and language is not Serbian, and that therefore it has a right to independence from Serbia. Especially after Serbia had conducted a grievous campaign of oppression against them. I supported this view with all my heart. Unlike many of my friends, I even supported the military operation that helped the Kosovars to free themselves. But what’s true for Kosovo is no less true for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The population in these provinces is not Georgian, they have their own languages and ancient civilizations. They were annexed to Georgia almost by whim, and they have no desire to be part of it. SO what is the difference between the two cases? A huge one, indeed: The independence of Kosovo is supported by the Americans and opposed by the Russians. Therefore it’s good. The independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is supported by the Russians and opposed by the Americans. Therefore it’s bad. As the Romans said, what’s allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to an ox. I do not accept this moral code. I support the independence of all these regions. In my view, there is one simple principle, and it applies to everybody: Every province that wants to secede from any country has a right to do so. In this respect there is, for me, no difference between Kosovars, Abkhazians, Basques, Scots and Palestinians. One rule for all. There was a time when this principle could not be implemented. That was the era of the “nation state”, when a strong people imposed itself, its culture and its language, on weaker peoples, in order to create a state big enough to safeguard security, order and a proper standard of living. France imposed itself on Bretons and Corsicans, Spain on Catalans and Basques, England on Welsh, Scots and Irish, and so forth. That reality has been superseded. Most of the functions of the “nation state” have moved to supernational structures: Large federations like the USA, large partnerships like the EU. In those there is room for small countries like Luxemburg beside larger ones like Germany. If Belgium falls apart and a Flemish state comes into being beside a Walloon state, both will be received into the EU, and nobody will be hurt. Yugoslavia has disintegrated, and each of its parts will eventually belong to the European Union. That has happened to the former Soviet Union, too. Georgia freed itself from Russia. By the same right and the same logic, Abkhazia can free itself from Georgia. But then, how can a country avoid disintegration? Very simple: It must convince the smaller peoples which live under its wings that it is worthwhile for them to remain there. It is rather funny to hear Vladimir Putin, whose hands are dripping with the blood of Chechen freedom fighters, extolling the right of South Ossetia to secession. It’s no less funny to hear Micheil Saakashvili likening the freedom fight of the two separatist regions to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Nobody can know what was passing through the mind of Saakashvili. He is an inexperienced person, educated in the United States, a politician who came to power on the strength of his promise to bring the separatist regions back to the homeland. The world is full of such demagogues, who build a career on hatred, supernationalism and racism. But even a demagogue does not have to be an idiot. Did he believe that President George W. Bush, who is bankrupt in all fields, would rush to his aid? The elite units of the Georgian Army have been trained by Israeli officers, including the one who was blamed for losing Lebanon War II. If the Israeli officers infected their Georgian colleagues with their own arrogance, convincing them that they could beat the mighty Russian Army, they committed a grievous sin against them. When Henry Kissinger was still a wise historian, before he became a foolish statesman, he expounded an important principle: In order to maintain stability in the world, a system has to be formed that includes all the parties. If one party is left outside, stability is in danger. The present American policy, with its attempt to push Russia out, is a danger to the whole world. (And I have not even mentioned the rising power of China.) A small country which gets involved in the struggle between the big bullies risks being squashed. That has happened in the past to Poland, and it seems that it has not learned from that experience. One should advise Georgia, and also the Ukraine, not to emulate the Poles but rather the Finns, who since world War II have pursued a wise policy: They guard their independence but endeavor to take the interest of their mighty neighbor into account. We Israelis can, perhaps, also learn something from all of this: That it is not safe to be a vassal of one great empire and provoke the rival empire. Russia is returning to our region, and every move we make to further American expansion will surely be countered by a Russian move in favor of Syria and Iran. So let’s not adopt the “Hottentot morality”. It is not wise, and certainly not moral.

Being a Total Arse - Thank Goodness I Don't Know my Place in Society

I must admit that I am a total arse of a character. I am poor, fat and balding. I refuse to work in the civil service, even though it would enhance my career prospects and I have decided I will avoid the model of Singapore womanhood - namely young, Chinese graduates. I drink too much, exercise too little and smoke whenever it suits me. And yet, instead of accepting my place as a worm, I've decided to spice up my life by poking fun of those who are rich, successful and obidient.

So, since this is my blog, I think I'm going to continue my previous topic of making fun of Mr Nicholas Lazarus, whom, for those of you, who read the last entry is a highly successful lawyer, trying to show off his powers of analysis on the Young PAP blog. Mr Lazarus, as on record, made his views on homosexuality well known.

While I fully support his right to have his views, as well as sharing a dislike for a good many homosexuals, I find his ability to argue his case in a logical manner, free of personal prejudice to be rather ammusing. The fact that Mr Lazarus has made his way into a senior position in a party that has dominated Singapore for so long, makes him a depressing symbol of my generation's ability to apply common sense in daily life. We have, I fear, become a generation so able to absorb what we read, that we have become incapable of think for ourselves.

On July 28, 2007, Mr Lazarus informed cyberspace that he felt that any moves to abolish a law that served no purpose would create social tension within Singapore. He painted a picture of how abolising the law against a private act between consenting adults would lead to...horror or horror's - people holding hands on the MRT. I won't repeat myself, but do take a look at his comments in the previous posting and try to work out the logic in his statements.

When the rest of cyberspace pointed out that he was speaking rubbish, Mr Lazarus proceeded to post the following reply on July 29, 2007:

Leaving aside my religious views on this matter, I am against any change of law/policy on homosexuals because:

1. They threaten the social fabric of the nation. Their ways represent an alternative for which we should not accept as being mainstream.

2. They cannot procreate and thus cannot produce offspring for our nation.

3. They cannot serve as soldiers because instead of serving alongside our men in green, they are more keen to sodomise them.

I do not accept the notion that homosexuals are "creative" and thus we need homosexuals to make our nation more "creative". There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are any more or less creative than heterosexuals.

If an analysis is done, they seem to bring more problems than benefits.

This is the analysis on a trained lawyer. My Young Politician from Pasir Ris GRC was most offended by my decision to riddicule Mr Lazarus's efforts to protect the 'moral' fiber of the majority. But since Mr Lazarus has decided to post his views in cyberspace, he's made his views, public property. More importantly, because Mr Lazarus has made his membership of the rulling party public, the public has every right to scrutinise his postings and assess what it says about his thought process and what he's likely to do if he gets political power.

Let's take a look at this lawyerly analysis:

Point 1 - They threaten the social fabric of the nation. Their ways represent an alternative for which we should not accept as being mainstream.

a - How do they threaten the social fabric of the nation? Does homosexuality cause a rise in HIV? Not if you believe the Ministry of Health's statistics, which show that HIV/AIDS is a predominantly a hetrosexual disease. Does homosexuality cause an increase in violent crime? - thus far there are no global statistics to suggest that it does. - What evidence has this lawyer shown that "They" threaten our social fabric?

b - Their ways represent an alternative for which we should not accept as being mainstream. - What is it about 'their' ways that their ways that the rest of us don't accept? Is it because men hold hands? Well, obviously Mr Lazarus remains removed from Little India, where hetrosexual construction workers from ASIA hold hands as part of their culture. There are plenty of Asian men who like Fat girls - this is unacceptable to many people, but is it criminal?

I'm not sure what the argument is over here? Is he suggesting that if the government were to decriminalise a private act between consenting adults, the population would turn homosexual?

Point 2 - They cannot procreate and thus cannot produce offspring for our nation. -

a - Obviously he never studied biology? A homosexual male is able to produce the same sperm with the same capability of impregnating a woman. Homosexual's do not reproduce because their sperm ends up in places where there is no human egg.

b - Which is exactly the same for hetrosexual couples that chose not to allow the male semen and female eggs to meet. If one follows Mr Lazarus's logic, homosexuals should not be allowed to have sex because it does not lead to procreation - which is the same logic for having birthcontrol.

c - Would it be illegal for a homosexual man to donate his sperm to a single woman? WIth IVF, homosexuals can easily reproduce.

Point 3 - They cannot serve as soldiers because instead of serving alongside our men in green, they are more keen to sodomise them.

a - Where is the evidence that homosexuals are keen to sodomise everyone?

b - In the 1990s, the US Army allowed homosexuals to serve on a "Don't Ask, don't tell," basis. Thus far, there have been no major reports citing vast ammounts of sodomy taking place within the US military.

c - More importantly, any of the decline in morale in the US military since then seems to come from combat fatiqgue in Iraq than from fear of being sodomised by homosexuals on their own side.

Finally, Mr Lazarus, along with the 'moral' crowd missed the point that 377A was about criminalising a particular sexual act rather than homosexuality itself.

I'm no lawyer, it was pretty darn easy to destroy Mr Lazarus's case. If this fat, balding, unemployed drunk who prefers the company of Geylang's residents to the Tai Tai's group can demolish Mr Lazarus's analysis of a situation, what can his clients expect when they go to court and face opposing counsel?

I hope I'm wrong about Mr Lazarus. Perhaps, like Mr Neil French, former WPP Gloabl Creative Head, Mr Lazarus is a genious for self-publicity - the 70 plus responses he got have given him good positions on Google. But I wonder. Is showing off your inability to analyse and getting caught trying to fool the world into thinking you can analyse what you want to be known for, especially if you have political aspirations?

A Lack of Logic

My sleep patterns are as usual, quite screwed up and hear I am on a Sunday morning, bashing out a blog entry after reading a other people's blog entries. One of the more interesting blogs in cyberspace is the Young PAP Blog (http://youngpapblog.blogspot.com), a forum where two up and coming members of society have decided to express their views. As well as being members of "good" society (Namely professional people), they're also members of the ruling People's Action Party or PAP. The voices in these blogs, if you believe conventional wisdom, are supposed to represent the future.

To be be fair to Mr Nicholas Lazarus and Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, they have taken on a task which is not exactly enviable. When you post things on cyberspace, you leave yourself open to attack from all sorts of people. For some reason, the internet inspires more than its fair share of wack jobs, who think that hiding behind a pseudonym gives them the right to be rude. To be fair to Mr Lazarus and Ms Chong, they also do take a position or two that is different from the official one - namely they prove the point that this is the Young PAP blog rather than the Young Government Blog.

However, if you read through their posting, you'll notice a rather worrying trend - namely the inability of educated, professional people to think through the issues that affect the rest of us in an informed and educated manner. This is rather worrying because these guys are supposed to be members of the elite. Both Mr Lazarus and Ms Chong are educted professional people and you'd expect them to be able to convince you of the most interesting positions in the most convincing of ways. Singapore has thus far succeeded because its elite have managed to produce thinkers like Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Unfortunately, neither Mr Lazarus nor Ms Chong are demonstrating against the ability to think and if they are represenative of a generation of Singaporeans who benefited from the hard work of previous generations - I can only shudder. The only saving grace is their inability to think may produce a generation that is able to think.

Mr Lazarus has made his name through his views on the issue of repeling 377A, that is the code that criminalises consensual sex amongst adult men. Mr Lazarus, a practicing lawyer applies his analytical skills thus:

"With all this talk about legalizing homosexual acts, I was just pondering what would happen if such acts were indeed legalized.

Imagine men walking hand in hand with other men down Orchard Road, kissing, fondling and making out.

For that matter, imagine all that taking place on the MRT.

Instead of teachers dealing with boy-girl relationships, teachers would have to deal with boy-boy relationships.

Then, you might have the homosexuals all over Asia descending upon Singapore to flaunt what they cannot in their own countries"

Sure, this is a personal opinion and Mr Lazarus has every right to his views. But surely, one should expect a bit analysis and logic from a man that was educated and stands tall as an elite member of a society that prides itself in being rational, practical and logical? I mean, if this arguement was offered by your hawker stall auntie, I could understand. I would even applaud her for being on the net.

But Mr Lazarus is not your uneducated hawker stall opperator. He's a lawyer, an educated person. The fact that he's blogging on the Young PAP Blog rather than a private blog indicates he's trying to show his capacity for future political leadership. You would think that Mr Lazarus would be quick to want to show of his ability for critical analysis, after all the party that he claims to represent has always taken pride in selecting people with the courage to think through issues in a cool and well thought-out fashion no matter what the emotional pressures. But there you have it. I can only hope for Mr Lazarus's clients that he does not apply the same ability to think when he handles the cases they present him. Or perhaps this is why he's entered politics.

Ms Chong, who I think is in PR, does not do her status as an educated professional much more credit, either. She actually makes a comparision between the repel of 377A to buying MP3 players. Or perhaps I am just being sour because she's more successful than I am. Instead of being bitchy about the woman, I should applaud her for coming up with the ability to make the link between an MP3 and a piece of leglislation.

She does spend a good deal of time whinging about the media. Not the wisest move to make for someone in PR. Yes, I do have my issues with the media too but I work with it and when it covers what I consider to be "crap" I don't consume it. For Ms Chong, she lectures the media for covering a topic that had a national bearing:

"The consequence of this hullabaloo has not only been divisive, it has actually succeeded in creating more public empathy via a proxy of perceived marginalization - individuals with alternative lifestyle preferences. All this baloney in parliament has done no more good than brightened the lumens on a minority faction hoping to advance their attention-seeking agenda. And all the frenzied spin by media has done nothing but more harm."

Once again, I can only hope that Ms Chong's understanding of the role of the media in society does not affect the work that she does for them.

Perhaps I'm just a complacent drunk with a fat tummy, balding head and not much money, but I think its quite scary when professional people of my generation demonstrate such powers of analytical thought. I mean, its been drilled into all of us that Singapore has no resources other than her people. We've read so much about how we made the leap from third world into first within a generation because of our commitment to developing people. But if the likes of Mr Lazarus and Ms Chong are anything to go by, I would be inclined to support a friend of mine who thinks that every minister of education we've had should be shot.

Relative Welative

It's been a relatively successful day. Started off with a very successful interview for GE Commercial Finance South East Asia. Interview was on alternative financing for SMEs and it felt good to do my part to let the small business people know that there are other ways to getting cash - that most valued of commodities - other than waiting for government grants or conventional loans. If there's anything I've learnt in the last few years of running my own show, cash is a very precious commodity and its always important to find ways of getting hold of it. Big organisations have a terrible habit of needing to delay payments or have ultra long credit terms, but you still need to live.

Anyway, its been an interesting week. Lunch with Balji and the guys at Ammado went well. They seemed quite happy to tell him about what Ammado does and he offered to link them up with Lucas Chow, the CEO of the MediaCorp Group. It seems that Lucas is quite big into the philanthropy scene and I think there are many ways in which Ammado can help make philanthropy a very interesting value proposition to industries - though I think its going to take sometime to get the philanthropic habit working in Asia, especially in Singapore, where, thanks to our culture, we tend to be a bit more selfish.

I'm not sure what it is but I think we live in a culture which is a "Me First" culture. You could blame it on the fact that we are secular state - unlike Catholic Philippines, which means the population has a tradition of 'tithing' or Muslim Malaysia or Indonesia, where Islam has instilled the values of Zakat, another form of tithing.

But then again, you can't blame secularlism for everything. The US of A, is founded on the principle of being a secular state, that keeps Church and State separate. But the USA is the home base of the people turning philanthropy into an industry. You have some of the richest men in history like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros making it a point to give in a way that is effective.

For some reason, Singapore is rather lacking in the 'giving' department. I don't what it is. I suspect a culture of over dependence on the government is to blame. Life is such that the only way to get ahead is to work for the state and to climb the bureaucrates ladder - It's a Confucian Wet Dream - but I think when you get a society where the only way to get ahead is in the civil service - you cut people off from the idea that they are actually dependent on the widder community to stay alive and thus the need to contribute. Instead, you get a population that thinks - "Screw you, I'm not going to endanger my job." Nobody sees opportunity in solving problems and so, we ignore it until it's way too late.

Hong Kong, on the other hand has proven to be much better in developing the 'giving' mentality. I think this has something to do with the fact that the city is owned by business tycoons rather than bureaucrates. Sure, tycoons like Li Ka Shing have an exceedingly powerful grip on certain industries - but business people like Mr Li don't get cut off from reality. Why? That's because they realise that their survival depends on their customers. As such, you realise that you need to give back to the widder community to keep going. If you bleed your customers too much, they will go out of business. If you help them grow, they can spend more on you. If you're a bureaucrate, you don't actually need to care what goes on in the real world. If you need money, you can always get your political masters, the politicians to raise taxes and throw them into your pet projects.

Interestingly enough, Li Ka Shing is leading the drive for Asian tycoons to go into charity work. In Singapore, the charities are doing quite nicely thanks to the likes of the Shaw and Lee Foundation (established by China born tycoons), and we have the community chest, which is funded by.........?

Of course, the Singapore government is working desparately hard to make Singapore into a 'Philanthropy' Hub, amongst the other things we're a hub off (Oi, Hub Off). I'm sure, it will use the usual tools of schoolarships and incentives....something which they're even trying to do to get people to have more babies.

Not sure if this will actually work. Sure, people might go on a spending spree (which yields sales tax) if you give them $100 but I don't think people are just going to go out of the way to take on a lifelong commitment for a few thousand....

Just Before Lunch

Am currently trying to kill off a few moments before a lunch appointment with Balji, Mark and Peter and Joeri from Ammado.com. In a way life has become fairly relaxed after three weeks of intensive fun of working on two of my own accounts and more importantly getting paid by two of my bigger accounts too. In this quiet moment, I'm relaxing, but getting a tad bored with life.....need to drum up some more of my bigger clients into paying mode and I've pumped a bit more money into the hi-fi business - returns have thus far been good and I hope this does become a "gold slave" that will get things on the go.

In the mean time, life continues at a rainy pace. I don't recall having this much rain before. Perhaps I'm starting to show signs of giong senile, but it's been raining tigers and wolves (if the English have cats and dogs, we in the tropics have to have something a wee bit bigger.) The nice thing about all of this is, the weather is darn good for sleeping. Somehow, when you are on the 22nd floor, the combination of a simple electric fan, the rain and sea breeze make sleeping very condusive - good for sweet dreams.

Got and accepted a friend request from a girl called Cassandra today. Pleasent surprise, I remember her as being by far and away the most attractive girl when I was still at school - I think it had something to do with the fact tha she had ultra long legs and a very pretty face. I think she must have been the cause of the school insisting that skirt lengths went only up to the knee.

Well, she's no longer the sexy vixin that I remember, she's a married mother of a cute and very adoreable baby. But she's still exceedingly attractive. Allot of it, I think has to do with getting lucky with the genetic lottery. But allot of it, I think has to do with being happy in life. She looks happy and so she looks good.

I, on the other hand, have become something of a balding, fat womanising drunk. Which is not bad when you think about it. Nobody comments on my good looks, unless they have a particular fettish for me being what I am, but I'm allowed to be exceedingly cynical in life. There are joys in being a bitter and twisted cynic, you know. I get to see the dark side in everything that humanity produces and I get to have a good laugh.

OK, I'm hungry, so allow me to contribute to an early grave, care of a heart attack and several rounds of blubber.

Protest

After ranting on about how the world did not get irony, I was proven wrong by the Singapore government. Although the insitution has never been known for it's sense of anything outside moral fortitutde, the morning's turn of events proved me delightfully wrong. Just when you expect peolpe to be depressing, they surprise you.

Yes, I am reffering to the "Easing" of the ban on outdoor protest, which was screaming as the front page lead. Oh my, now we have a situation where, guess what, you can have a gathering of more than four people without having to apply for a police permit. So, it looks like we may have a reached a stage of political maturity, where the government has decided it's ok to give us an extended curfew.

It's going to be interesting to see how the drama plays out. A part of me shudders at the thought of giving Singaporeans a bit more freedome at times. In my short little life, I've noticed that 'freedome' tends to be expressed in the most ugly of ways - look at the liter that Singaporeans leave in Johor. Then again, look at what happened when they first let go of the laws on censoring movies - people went crazy. Are we now going to get a bunch of crazies hogging the headlines now that they can protest - you'd be surprised by the things people protest over.

Then there is the government. How serious is the government about allowing protest? This is, after all a government steeped in a culture of hanging onto control. Furthermore, this is a government lead by a Prime Minister, who has, in his DNA, instincts to get as much power as he can. So, when you consider all these things, letting go, is a revolutionary step by this government. It's like ...suddenly, they've gone against everything they've ever believed in. One should not be to surprised if they find a reason to clamp down again in the near future but for now, I think the government deserves kudoes for taking such a move that runs contrary to what it's always done.

Having said all of that, I don't think much will change. There's remarkably little that one needs to protest about in Singapore. City runs like clockwork, for the most part and it's got a pleasent living environment. So, although it's now legal for me to gather a group of people and get them to march in the streets - why should I? Of course, you may find some smart arse in one of the government departments thinking that the city is a little dull without outdoor protestors and in true Singaporean tradition, you may find that the government will see the need to teach people how to protest against the government.

No, I'm not being silly here, this is well within the range of the government-people dialogue in Singapore. I mean, can you think of another society in the world where you actually need the government to teach a horny young man and horny young woman what to do when they're in the same room? So, I guess the next thing we should look out for is government organised classes on how to be rebellious against the government.

Irony and Sarcasm

The Beijing Olympics have closed and as an ethnic Chinese, I'm glad to see China coming top of the gold medal tally. For the first time since the 1936 Berlin games, has a country other than the USA and USSR headed the list. What's even more satisfying is the fact that the Chinese came ahead by quite a decent margin - 51 to 36, of the USA.

In true sportsman like fashion, the American media decided to pay as little attention to the games as they could and more importantly, the US of A has been pointing out that it won more medals overall - 110 to 100. Funny, nobody seemed to notice the total medals won when the USA was on top of the gold medal table.

Americans, as was often said at school, have no ability to get irony or sarcasm. At the same time as the Olympics were taking place, America was leading the Western World in condemning the Russians for bullying Georgia. According to President Bush and his Gang of neoCONS, it is BAD to invade other countries. Nobody seemed to get the irony of the situation as they all made bold pronouncements about how bad the Russians were for invading an enclave that had Russian citizens being badly treated by the Georgian government. Those with the most to say didn't seem to think there was anything wrong when they were the ones fabricating evidence to invade another country.

Let's face it, the recent Olympic Games and the demonstration of irony over Georgia should be a sign to Asians, Arabs and Africans that not all things Caucasian are better. I'm not anti-Caucasian per se. There are things that Caucasians actually are better at than the rest of us. Take getting off a subway for example. Caucasians understand the value of letting people off before they hop onto the subway. This shows common sense - something which does not require a government schoolarship but makes life so much easier. After 8-years back home, I remain unused to the fact that even in one of the most evolved cities in Asia, we've yet to learn the basic art of getting of a train.

Where I object to Caucasians is the assumption that most Asians, Arabs and Africans have that they're automatically supperior. Singapore is an example of how the love affair with White Skin has made a mockery out of recent developments in Asia, Arabia and even Africa. I know a Malay girl, who proudly tells me that, "White Men, they're SO MUCH better." Unless you're working in Geylang or Orchard Towers, where the girls charge double the rates for locals, I can't see how anyone who is educated can consider most of the Caucasians living in Singapore as better - most of them haven't even been to school.

But there you have it. You have to give credit, where credit is due. You can't fault the Caucasian for being who he or she is, as long as the Asian, Arab or African continues to bow and scrape before him or her. Perhaps I'm being cynical here but I've noticed that there's a growing trend for Caucasian entrepreneurs to come knocking on doors for money. As someone who has been perpetually broke, I'm totally sympathetic.....that is, until I realise these buggers are getting away with selling fantasies. Non of these guys has shown the ability to produce figures based on anything more than their belief of where the industry would be heading. One of them even used the phrase, "I'm not in trouble....I just have cash flow issues."

Still, despite such obvious warning signs, Asians with money cannot resist throwing cash at these guys fast enough. I guess, there's nothing quite as satisfying as telling the world you've backed a Caucasian entrepreneur. Let's see, should my next venture be..."Adopt a Caucasian," and my slogan will be - "Feed him twice a day and he'll piss over you."

Hey, I'm not being sarcastic here. It's happening on the national stage, where Soverign Wealth Funds like GIC and Temasek are stumbling over each other to piss their stakeholders money into Merril, UBS and Citigroup. What do they get in return? They get capped over and they can't stop getting enough of the stuff. When Merril's shares went down from $48 to $24 a share, the local press couldn't stop singing, "We're so clever, we've got the White Man to shit on us even more."

There are of course, clever Asians, or at least Asians who understand that their success is due to their own ingenuity and hard work and not handed down by letting the White Man shit on them. Li Ka Shing didn't buy into any of the banks swimming in sub-prime woes. Instead he sold Hutchison Essar to Vodaphone of the UK for some US$11 billion about a year or so ago. Incidentally, Vodaphone had already made him some US$15 billion in the late 1990s, when he sold Orange (UK network) to Mannesman, which was subsequently aquired by Vodaphone.

There remains allot that Asia can learn from the West. America in particular has produced and continues to produce some of the most brilliant minds. In business, the USA has shown us the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the late Sam Walton and Jack Welsh. Across the Atlantic, you can look to the likes of JK Rawling. Look to the men who founded and created the EU, a superstate of peaceful, prosperous nations. This is sheer genious at work here and Asians, Arabs and Africans need to look at why the West succeeds and continues to do so in so many ways.

Yes, America did win more medals than China and three out of the top five medal winners are Western societies. Likewise in the world today - the West remains better maintaining prosperity and spreading it around its citizens. This is something that we need how to learn to do.

The killer instinct, the hunger to succeed is probably greatest in Asia, particularly in places like China. The Chinese, as one Indian businessman notes, realised that it was most important to go for gold medals rather than overall medals and devoted their energies there. How did the Chinese get successful in sport - they invested in developing their vast talent pool, even learning from the West. How will China rise? It will do so by learning from the West and other societies. Everyone I know who has been to China marvels at their hunger to learn.

But let's look for the right teachers. Instead, we in Asia, Arabia and Africa seemed obsessed with learning from the dregs of Western society. Look into any book shop in Singapore and you'll find books by and about Donald Trump, Richard Branson and Robert Kiyosaki out numbering Jack Welsh and even Warren Buffet. You'll have people paying the likes of Roger Hamilton and the XL Group thousands of dollars (Allot of them claimed they were impressed with the promise to give 10 percent to charity - namely - the society of prevention of cruelty to impotent slime,) when Mr Hamilton is basically offering what you can get from Facebook for free.

I suspect allot of it has to do with an infactuation with glamour and a disdain for reality. Jack Welsh, Warren Buffet et al became rich by adding value to real businesses. Messers Trump, Branson and Hamilton made it by clever salesmanship. But lets look at it this way. Mr Buffet lives in a simple house in Omaha, Nebraska while Mr Trump has a choice of mansions in a choice of glamorous cities, but who has more money and who has never had to bounce back...?