What You Say Matters!

It's often said of people who've worked in advertising for long enough that after a while you tend to believe your own advertising. As my favourite littigator often tells me,"What is it about you PR people, don't you do anything real?"

I can sympathise with these sentiments. I've spent the better part of my life in the marketing communications industry - 8-years of work experience, many years of family members in the industry and now, to make matters worse, I've started something with a girl in the ad sales business. All I can say is that it's hard to know what's grounded in the business because you're constantly dealing with trying to invenet new realities for other people and if you do enough of something it becomes real to you. In a way, the industry is about inventing value for yourself. You know a lawyers value because you really need him or her in court. You know an accountants value because the books need to be done. But how do you know that you know the value of the marketing communications professional? We as an industry are good for the image but how do you know we're enhancing your image (by the end of month report we write you.)

One of the ways in which we invent value for ourselves, is by telling you that, it's not about what you say but how you say it. We can say it right for you and that can make things go so much more smoothly for you. Which to a certain extent is true. I like to think of a Mad Magazine sketch, where daughter comes home and says, "I'm pregnant." Everyone screams. However in the next scene she says, "You guys will be the envy of your friends - everyone will say you're SO YOUNG to be grandparents." Everyone smiles.

All this is true when things are going well. Nobody likes bad news and the last thing the product development people who have spent the last year or so in R&D want to hear is they're product sucks. We, the marketing communications people have developed a somewhat dangerous understanding with the clients that we can somehow, through some magic find a way to make your product or service shine and sales soar.

It's taken a military man, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mike Mullen to cut through the myth when he criticised a comunique on the "war on terror." The Good Admiral pointed out that, "Too much energy is spent on communicating our actions and not enough on considering what our actions communicate." The admiral is right. Communications is a powerful tool and communicating correctly makes allot of difference to getting things done. However, you cannot communicate lousy things into good things.

Let's apply Admiral Mullen's logic to the Middle East conflicts. The politcians of the Obama administration want to "communicate better" with the Muslim world after so many years of "miscommunication" by the Bush Administration. On paper this is fine rethoric and a welcome change. In reality this is pointless. You cannot communicate a bombing that killed a few civilians into a happy event. You have to look at the bombing itself and act from there.

Likewise with marketing communications. Advertising as both David Ogilvy and Bill Burnbach pointed out, "Cannot invenet a prodcut advantage." In fact advertising can ruin a bad product faster because more people will know about it.

So, what do we, as industry professionals need to do? I think GE's former CEO, Jack Welsh said it best - discover "Candour" when we deal with our clients. We should fight to be part of the product development process rather than just communicators of the prodcut itself.

What you say does matter! You cannot create product advantages that don't exist through communications. Marketing communications professsionals will never know the client's business as well as the client and one cannot expect an outsider to know the brand as well as the brand owner.

However, one needs to be able to look at clients and tell them honestly that they're approach or their product will have problems in the market. Clients don't pay for fancy drawings and ideas. They pay solutions to problems and if one finds that there is a problem in product or service, one should not be afraid to say so. A client that cannot accept this, is not a client worth handling.

Glory: Glory: A Few Less Ayrabs, Spicks and All That for the Bush Administration

Am currently in the slow but steady process of recovering from spraining my back. The pain has been excrutiating and it limits my mobility. Although I only had to walk with the help of a cane for a single day, I'm not as sprightly as I should be.

However, life is such that there are things to write about and thanks to two more Americans in Asia, I have another topic - Obama versus Bush. As with all things political, opinions on the subject can be very devisive and the journalistic/legal ideal always says that one should be "Objective," and able to separate the personalities from the jobs. Lawyers for example often defend people they personally find repulsive because they are bound by a higher ideal namely the idea that even the most repulsive criminal needs a voice in court. Journalist are bound by ethical considerations to hear ALL sides of the story.

I am not a journalist or a lawyer, though I deal both groups on a frequent basis and while I admire the ability to remain "Objective" in situations that require you to get emotionally involved, I'm thankfull that I don't have to be objective in allot of what I do. Opinions may be like arseholes (everyone has one) and like arseholes, you can tell allot about a persons level of education by their opions, especially in the area of politics.

This is especially clear when you deal with people who think that "Obama is MUCH WORSE than Bush II." Let's be clear, this is an opion and people are entitled to hold their opions but when such a statement is made, we have to wonder what forms the basis of this opinion.

For the record, I think President Obama has dissapointed. Part of it had to be expected, the expectations people had of him on inaugural day were unrealistic and bound to happen. However, the President has to be responsible for the dissapointment he's caused. He acted fast to order the closing of Guantanamo Bay for example, but ordering it and seeing that it gets done are two different things. Somehow, actually removing this insult to America seems less interesting than telling people you want it done.

Then there's the Middle East. He gave a fabulous speech explaining America's position to the Muslim World. There were plenty of quotes from the Koran, which touched his Arab host. He even made some right sounding noises about making peace between Israel and Palestine. However, rethoric is meaningless if not turned into reality.

Since that wonderful speech in Cairo, Israel's Ethically-Challenged Prime Minister, Binyamin Nethanyahu has ordered even more constrution of settlements in the West Bank - a direct violation of every peace treaty signed (The 2001 Sharm Al-Shiek Report headed by Former Senator Mitchel found that there was a direct link between suicide bombings and the construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip). The World's "MOST POWERFUL" Man has merely been "concerned." By contrast, Egypt has lost the opportunity to lead UNESCO because some of it's diplomats made "Anti-Israeli" remarks. Is anyone surprised that the Muslim world is saying "F* O" to American rethoric on the subject of making peace in the Middle East - It's merely worrying that Israel is actively provoking confrontation but something is actually done if the Muslim and Arab world say that Israel is less than perfect.

President Obama will have plenty more opportunities to screw-up. The American government is already in gigantic deficits trying to support wars and stimulate its capital starved economy. The President is also opening a can of worms with healthcare (though he is right to try to do something about a system that's clearly failing most Americans), that traditionally screws up American politicians.

So, yes, Obama has dissapointed and has plenty of opportunity to really fuck up the nation and the rest of the world. But not exactly sure how anyone can even suggest that the "House Nigger" in the White House is doing a worse job than the "Fag" before him.

Seriously, what did the Bush II Administration do for America and Americans. We got a few trade deals signed, I suppose and few African nations got to play host to the Cheerleader. I suppose you could say that you got more "safety" from terrorism because America invaded and occupied a country based on lies and deception.

Does anyone really care about American troops? I can't see how a sane person can say that their former Commander-in-Chief, George W did. I don't call fabricating evidence to send young men to die caring for them. How can you call sending troops into a possible life-endangering situation with inadequate support, care for your troops? I guess Donald Rusfeld and Dick Chenney thought it was acceptable but then again, I don't them or their loved ones near the front line.

How much did the Iraq War, the key legacy of the second Bush Administration cost America. Let's see - 4,000 troops and many more crippled and scared for life, and a couple trillion dollars of American Tax Payer's money - not that the American tax payer gets a bonus if the war turns into an economic success.

But then again, who really gives a shit about the American tax payer? According to George Bush II, the only ones that mattered were nice honest guys like Ken Lay of Enron, which is why they got tax cuts and breaks. Really, who gives a shit about a couple of Niggers in the slums or Spiks crossing the Rio Grande?

I mean, we could all see the real value of American tax payers to the Bush II Administration when Hurrican Katrina hit. A few wops, niggas and hicks drowned and "Brownie was doing Heck of a Job."

Or should we talk about the Patriot Act, which allows the government to spy on citizens and arrest people at randome for "Un-American" remarks. Why is it that when the Thai's have Le Majeste Laws to prevent criticism of King Bhuminphol (Who actually cares about his people), we call it a violation of freedom of speech but when the Patriot Act prevents criticism of the way the "war on terror" is fought, we call it safety.

Forgive me for being ignorant but I'm not sure how fucking up American people by sending their sons to a war with no justification worse than trying to reform healthcare? Yes, Obama is spending lots of money but it's aimed at trying to keep Americans in jobs, which is a darn sight different from spending it on a war with no direct benefit to the people who voted for you?

Then again, I suppose the crowd that think "Obama is MUCH WORSE THAN BUSH II," don't mind the loss of human life and the violation of their precious civil liberties if it means the world will have a few less Ayrabs, Spiks and what nots.

Could I have been harsh?

The subject of my recent blog entry told me that he had checked out this blog and found it to be cool and suggested that we might have lunch. Therefore, I've had to ask myself if I was harsh and perhaps unfair on him in my last blog entry. Being a failure of a human being, I'm not yet inclined to be maganamous and conceed that I might have been wrong about him, only time will tell.

However, I have to make it clear to readers of this blog that I am not against America and Americans or any Caucasians per se. My life was blessed by the presence of an American who was an Asia - my stepfather, Lee, who played a vital role in my formative years. Thanks to him, I managed to see Europe and many parts of the States. I've grown-up as one of the few of my generation of Singaporeans who appreciates the fact that places like America and even Briton are not one country but many with, each with their own unique culture and heritage.

Leaving aside the travel, I bless Lee for showing me that fatherhood was not just a biological process. I grew up with basking in his fatherly love, which is something that I've come to realise, particularly in my dealings with the former PGFNB is a precious commodity. My natural father wasn't a regular presence in my life during my formative years but thanks to Lee, I never felt the poorer for it.

Another American that I have to thank for making my life better is the late Granny Joan, mother of my former stepmother, Nora. Unfortunately, Joan had to die young (in her early 70s) but for the brief moments she was a part of my life, she blessed it with her tremendous capacity to love. Joan even extended her "Grandmotherhood" to my friend Joe when he was a student in Indiana. I think having a place in Chicago that would welcome him, made life in Indiana so much better for Joe.

Americans for the most part are wonderful and kind hearted people. Their innocent belief that the rest of the world wants to be like them is born out of a desire to share something, which for the most part is good.

The same can be said of the Brits or at least the Brits of the older generation, the generation that won a world war that they were not expected to win. I'm with Lee Kuan Yew when he describes the British of the 1940s as one of the most civilised people on earth. Unfortunately, that generation is dying out and what you get are holigans, though I must give my British friends credit for making me see the demise of this decency has yet to die off completly. My Indian readers should note that the average Brit has decency - it was the average Briton who protested against the reality TV show "Big Brother" when they saw the late Jade Goody engaging in "Racist Bullying" against Shilppa Shetty.

I also salute the British Military. Modern Britain functions primarily on forign labour - so much so that one of the worst insults has to be, "You Work Like an Englishman." While that may be true of the rest of the country, it is definately not true of the British Military. You have Generals like Richard Danton who speak up against their political masters in favour of their men and you have formations like the SAS and SBS that win military conflicts by winning over the local people. The Malayan Campaign is classic example. SAS troopers won over the local population and stopped the communist from taking over through a "hearts and minds" campaign. They brought medicines to remote communities and helped the local people discover a better life. The locals in turn helped them route out the communist.

Hearts and Minds was not an overnight success but it proved to be more cost efficient and placed the Brits in a better position to negotiate the peace. Compare that with American military campaigns - you get lots of fire power thrown at the most remote of areas in the hope that the other side gets the idea that it's just easier to lie down and die. Iraq is a good example - they steamrollered Sadamm's army thinking they'd be welcomed with open arms. The locals cheered them for getting rid of Saddam and then proceeded to pick of GI's one at a time and the most awkward times.

Today, I have no desire to go back to either the USA or UK or to visit Australia. I cringe whenever someone suggest going to London for a holiday. I've had enough of shoddy but very expensive infrastructure. I mean, I used to live in swanky Soho, which stank of piss - not something you'd find in Geylang. I also shudder when any of the three groups suggest business meetings or offer jobs - it's usually a session for mental masturbation and for you to do the work (including the thinking) and they take the money.

As such, my entries give the impression that I am dead set against Caucasians, particularly the Americans, Brits and Australians. This is not true, I am aware of the innate decency of Americans, Brits and Ausies - I merely don't show my appreciation to the good guys as often as I vent against the crap that ends up in the rest of the world.

Dieu Dieu Dieu and it's Whatch Fuckin Doing Motha Fucka

Had quite an interesting evening, where I think I actually got to let my baser instincts shine through. No I didn't get laid, in fact the lady who was my host felt quite hurt by the reactions towards two of her friends who were "Citizens of Caucasia." I remember correctly, one of them was from Boston and the other was not quite from a hick town but somewhere which escapes me.

Actually I was OK with the two guys until the lady host decided that we should all go to a Karaoke lounge that she had a free gift to. Suddenly you got to see the true colours of the two gentlemen, who were supposedly educated but decided to act like spoilt teens waiting to get laid from a five and dime hooker. I'm actually OK with that type of behavoiur if it comes from the navy boys. These guys do put their lives on the line everytime some faggot in the White House decides to look for his testicles in the Middle East. If they want to get laid, I'm all for them having their fun.

What I can't stand are young executives who think they're there to actually improve the lives of the Yellow and Brown People. OK, if you want to pick up a few Sarong Party Girls, that's your busieness, someone has to take care of the slums but for God's sake, please don't even pretend you've got anything to offer me.

I should even be fair to one of the boys. He actually found the balls (a rare commodity in an American Expat) to sing in Mandarin and he actually read a few Chinese words, which is a bit more than what I can do when it comes to what should be my mother tounge (My folks speak to me in English and my Dad's mother tounge is actually Cantonese)

But then after a while, he got irritating and so I proceeded to treat him like....well shit. He'd try and say something to me in Mandarin to impress the ladies and so I just insulted him in Cantonese to which my host "felt hurt," and decided that I had hurt in my hurt.

That may be the case but I was proved right. The Gentleman in question decided to leave quietly and stick the ladies with his tab. Well done....another sign of how Asia has a habit of importing bad rubbish from the West.

Was I boorish? Perhaps I was but if you asked me to do it again, I would, only this time, I would do it in English so the bugger would understand every word of what I was saying.

I don't know but I think it's reaching a silly state of affairs when Singapore Chinese girls are taken back when I tell them I have allot of Muslim and Indian friends. The lady who felt hurt by what I said of her White American friend was shocked by the fact that I told her I have Muslim friends, whom I make it a point of following their fasting rituals when I'm in their presence (I don't fast during Ramadan but if I'm with any of my Muslim friends I won't eat or drink unless they do).

My Muslim friends are for the most part fun to be around and reasonably educated. Most importantly collecting payment from Muslim clients has never been an issue. I'll always remember being told of former Saudi Ambassador to Singapore, Dr Amin Kurdi - "If Kurdi SAYS you will be paid, then you have nothing to worry about. " That took place three-years ago but I remember that. I mean I think it speaks volumes about a man when those smaller than him revere his words. Say what you like of Saudi Arabia and the Arab and Islamic world but working with Dr Kurdi showed me a world that believes in the concept of honour.

Likewise, the same has been true of my Malay and Pakistani friends. Sure, they don't have the pockets of the Saudi government but even then, I am properly taken care of when I deal with them. Again, this gives me a powerful impression of what it's like to deal with the Muslim world. One Irishman who had lived in the Middle East remarked, "The Koran is a guide to morality and honour."

So I am taken back when modern, educated Singaporeans look at me with shock that I would have Muslim friends. I seriously wonder if the lady who was hurt by my remarks about her Caucasian friend would have felt the same way if I had spoken about a Malay or an Indian.

Yet the same people who are surprised that I have Muslim and Indian friends get hurt or suspect I'm wierd when I don't give Caucasians (particularly Americans and Brits) any respect. Why should it be so? Are these people beyond the rules of normal behaviour? I think not. The American fellow didn't even have the decency to say goodbye to the group that treated with more than his fair share of respect. He may not have liked me personally but the very least he could have made an effort to say good bye to the ladies who had treated nay even revered him. But then again, what do you expect from the nation that voted for Bush and Chenney not once but TWICE.

But then again, I'm wrong to say that because the Americans I know are not like that. I remember being lost in San Francisco and people were rushing out of their homes to help me. So, it's not correct to say that I don't like Americans. I can't help but be touched by Americans when I think of the people who opened their doors to me.

So it's probably something about Caucasians who come to Asia and the developing world that turns them into grade A shit? I'm wondering what it is because the Americans are I know are not like what you see here - lots of hot air but money (or balls to back up their actions)

Quick Ends

It's been two days since I came back from the land of smiles and I'm currently sitting in the bedroom being highly unproductive. I'm typing this post and listening to cheesy pop songs on Youtube. For a man who has sunk the better part of his meger savings into high-end sound equipment, I get my musical fixes off Youtube. Fun to listen to all the tracks that you want to, good for helping the brain rot.

It's not been a bad 48-hours. Managed to get Richard Sng, Singapore's Sun Tan entrepreneur interviewed in the Straits Times Money section. Yes, Singapore has several solariums and Richard has actually expanded across the causeway. You have to hand it to the guy. I remember thinking that the idea of a sun tan studio in Singapore was nuts. Used to write press materials thinking...."Jee,,,,this is nuts." But hey, the guy has proven his sceptics wrong and found a niche market in this part of the world.

I am also enjoying being sacked by the former PGFNB. I remember the world was laughing at the Malaysians a few years back when they implemented "SMS Divorce," (All you need to do is to SMS your wife 'Talak, Talak,Talak' - which is Sharia compliaent.) but I agree with it. I mean, having been through one divorce, I think it's a good idea to have sms divorce.

Seriously, when things are over, you should allow for a quick and easy end and let people move on. All Gina and I did to get married was to book a date on a website, show up at a place and say a few soppy words to each other. This cost us some S$200, including the price of a ring. With this we were legally bound to each other - call it a lifelong contract. However, when it was clear to the world that we were not meant to be, we had to look for a lawyer, show up in court and this cost us a grand total of $3,000 plus - the process took over a year, which means we both a had a year less of not being allowed to see other people.

It's quiet wierd in the world of corporations too. If you want to set up a business in Singapore it's easy. Just drop by the Acounting and Regulatory Authority (ACRA), fil out a form and pay a fee (not more than $350). By contrast, if you want to disolve a company, you need to do things like call in the service of a liquidator and a lawyer and professional fees can run into the thousands. Once again, this could take forever.

So, I'm often wondering why let people rush into marriage but make it so difficult to get out of. Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong comittment and making it easy makes it cheap. In the crudest terms, I got married because I was getting a regular lay and so when she put the conditions in front of me (I abort, you sign ROM doccuments), my brain was in between my legs and so I said yes and stuck to it. Neither of us had time to work through the initial hormonal surcharge of new relations. My mother always puts it simply - "There's more to a relationship than fucking and when the desire for constant fucking ends, there's got to be something to keep you together."

Much as I hate to admit it, Mother did know best on this occasion. Gina and I had great bonks for the first year. For men we love getting laid regularly. For women, love and lust become confused. If the bonking was going to be a constant, we might have lasted longer but beyond the bonks we actually had shockingly little in comon. As my favourite rogue says,"She had fireplace writen all over her place and you want to get out and do things."

Will both of us make the same mistake? I can't speak for her but I know I could. Zen always reminds me that my best fortune in the past few months was the fact that the former PGF was not offering sex. She's right.

If the former PGFNB had been offering me mind-blowing sex on a regular enough basis, I would have convinced myself that there was something real and before you know it I would have signed away my life. Men are particularly vulnerable when it comes to a regular source of sex and I would have convinced myself that her self-description as a vulnerable person putting on a tough exterior was the right one and then walked into Registry of Marriages to tie myself to a self-aborbed, lazy nut case with a violent temper and no sense of morals.

If that had happened, I'd be swimming in shit. It would take several years to extracate myself and unlike the ending with Gina, there would be children involved - in short I would be guilty of hurting Marcus and Nicollette.

OK, I got lucky this time but who's I won't lose myself if I get picked up by another nut job. Who's to say that I'm the only person who has a shit track record when it comes to crazy women. In Singapore, you don't need to have a trouser snake bigger than your brain to get married. Allot of people get married because they want to move out of parental home. Housing laws are such that affordable housing is easily available to married couple. Singapore men don't say, "let's get married," they say, "Let's get a flat together."

This is wrong. You should make marriage a little bit more challenging. If it's more challenging, people will treasure it more. Under Singapore divorce law, you need to be married for three-years before you get a divorce. Why? Who are you protecting? Trying to keep people together when they've decided that they no longer want to be together only leads to keeping them miserable.

But imagine if you ensure that entry point to marriage is more stringent. Instead of saying, you have to be married for three-years before you get divorced, why not say, you should date for three-years before you get married. This will allow couples to really get to know each other.

My favourite littigator told me that fakes are usually the ones who want to rush things through. Genuine cases will wait for you to do your due dilligence. If what he says of business is true, surely it should be even more true of personal affairs like marriage. I chose to ignore the fact that Gina was pushing to get married fast but imagine if I had to wait for three years before taking the plunge into marriage.

For a lifelong comittment, marriage is surprisingly easy to enter into. OK, you can't equate it with business thanks to the heavy emotional baggage involved but surely some common sense laws should apply. I mean if people married each other for more than a flat or more than a regular supply of sex, you'd find that less people would want to get divorced.

We live in a topsy-turvey world where it becomes easy to say "I do" but surprisingly difficult to deal with the consquences. Surely making a lifelong comittment should be something that people value or are made to value. Surely when people find they've made a mistake, they should be allowed to end things quickly.

It's the End of the World as We Know It and Yipppyyyyy

Just Come back from a family vacation in Bangkok, an industry function and now I can't sleep. So, I guess this means that those of you who enjoy rantings of the depraved will get another treat -another one of my early morning insomniac blahs.

I always enjoy visiting other Southeast Asian countries, its always refreshing to be in a real country as a opposed to a city-state on steroids. According to the world of the Singapore media when it comes to reporting events in the region, you'd get the impression that you're living in Heaven in Hell or if you prefer a more accurate Biblical analogy - Paradise dropped in the Middle of Armageddon.

Statistically speaking, there's some truth to this. I can't keep pointing out that you get most of the basics in Singapore - it's clean, green and safe. Our GDP per capita is on par with the industrial nations of Europe and we "kick ass" when you talk about things like government efficiency and transparency (which means don't try and bribe customes). Our Ministers are highly paid but hey, they're only earning "peanuts" when compared some of Wall Streets heroes and doing a better job and spending other people's money.

What do statistics actually mean? For me, I make the odd trip across the Causeway just to find out what it means from time-to-time. I've been shaken down for a bribe once in the last 3-years that I've been visiting the other side. OK, this is a little new to me, such things don't happen on this side of the Causeway.

I also don't drink tap water in Malaysia and in the last three days of staying in Bangkok, I stuck to drinking tea and wine. So far, so good - Singapore still kicks ass. Max did remind me that Thailand had a recent scandal where tourist would be offered free-gifts, then stopped by the police for stealing - the gift giver and the cops would then split the bribe......This sort of thing will NEVER happen in Singapore.

Having said all of that, I don't see much of a desire for Thai's, Indonesians, Malaysians etc to become Singaporean. I mean they don't mind coming to Singapore to earn Singapore dollars - which puts them in the same catagory as Americans, Austrlians, Brits and other desireables. A good deal of the less educated ones don't mind a passport but even then, they don't seem to want to "Beome" Singaporean in the truest sense of the word - which puts them on par with Americans, Australians and Brits (who presume they're educated?)

Surely, you'd imagine that the Thai's, Malaysians etc would be rushing to become us when we have all the things that they don't have. We clearly have better infrastructure as well as a cleaner and safer environment - so why the hell don't they want to become us?

It could be something to do with our personality and our values. For example, you get the likes of the former PGFNB (I got sacked as her PBFNC while on holiday ;) who is not officially a prostitute (goes to Church) but has a shap eye for other people's credit card, car and condo and can't stop talking about the barrow boys who want to poke them. I suppose this type of behaviour is charming if you're a barrow boy living of someone elses money.

By contrast you have the girls in the massage parlours who have the decency not to look through the contents of your wallet after you've paid for one round and don't jabber on about how talented they are.

Thanks to the former PGFNB, I understand why the third world does not always want to ape paradise. What our neighbours have are basically problems that can be solved with money. By contrast, Singaporeans seem to have psychological issues - it could be the inbreeding but more likely it's the way we live our lives. We're a curious lot. The chosen elite a protected from real life as long as they can string a sentence together. When you don't get the thrill and hunger - you get bored and that's a form of stress. The rest of the mice are kept on a treadmill and pushed to get bigger and better things that they can't really afford but need otherwise they're sex organs shrink (though occasionally you get the odd balls who twig that the size of their sex organs are not connected to owning things - but these are highly discouraged)

Being supposedly supperior makes us forget that we're not the centre of the earth. I love the creature comforts of being in Singapore but from time-to-time, a trip across the Causeway helps bring one back down to reality. Sure, it's not as swanky as what we have but somehow people get by and are quite happy. It's especially noticeable when you see the chicks cross over. Suddenly they look prettier - they smile - you'd be surprised how much a smile can do for a woman.

What Makes a Dad?

I've never fathered a child before and so I suppose this is a rather strange posting for me. My only biological experiment with fatherhood ended up in the dustbins of Thompson Medical Centre and the result of that was a three-year legal bind with Gina. I've dabbled in the topic a little. Thui was the first but thanks to Han Li's relationship with immigration that ended within a few short months. Now, it's PGF's kid's - Nicolette and Marcus who give me the odd glimpse into the joys of fathterhood - as things would have it, the only enjoyable times with the PGF are when the kids are around. But I can't call myself a Dad (though Thui has aknowledged me as Papa on a few odd moments) because I've taken on the job full time.

However, I can comment on being on the recieving end of what fatherhood should be about. My mother was married to three fairly decent men who provided me with a fairly set notion of what a father should be. Both Lee and Thomas (Mum's second and third husbands) helped me to understand that being a Dad is not necessarily a biological process. Lee in particular deserves credit for showing me that a man can love a child that's not necessarily his biological one. I've been lousy in the pay-back department in as much as I can't do for him what he did for me - ie take care of the old boy. But I do what I can to offer my heart to the children of the various ladies who have entered my life.

I'm an unusual freak in the sense that not only was I blessed with two (not just one) spectacular stepfather, but I had a pretty darn good natural father, who when I think about it, doesn't always recieve the credit he deserves. My father is a wonderful mix of East meets West. His casual in a very Western way. He's not into ceremony or the "I'm your father so..." type of thing that most Chinese father's are supposed to be into. Yet, he's Chinese enough (Cantonese remains his first language) - my Dad is not a cuddley type of Dad. I guess because of that, I don't open up to him the way I usually open up to my mum or dare I say to my stepfathers.

Like all things in recent months, it takes my PGFNB to make me understand how lucky I've been in the parent department. Today I had the misfortune of following PGFNB and following her into Family Court for one of her battles with the Ex. After months of hearing so much about him, I finally put a face to the name.

True enough, he's utter gutter scum and the fact that PGF could be married to him for 10-years means she's not much better - but then to be fair, a notch above shit, is still a notch above. Perhaps looks are decieving but he looks melevolent. - Sue for me for slander if you will but I'll say this in court about him.

OK, let's give credit where credit is due - I wouldn't want to be married to the PGFNB too. His new wife is younger and probably hell of allot nicer to live with. I can even give him credit for being genuinely in-love with the new wife. PGFNB is not a person who invites you to fall in love with her...it's quite the opposite.

I'll concede to the point where her financial demands might be excessive. She's currently demanding $1,600 a month - which is the equivalent of a salary for a company recetionist.

Where I have bad vibes about the guy is the fact that he has no interest in his kids. Both Nicolette and Marcus have somehow developed into wonderful people despite their parents. I think it's privillege for anyone to be their parent. Both a funny, intelligent and loving despite their parents who are spiteful.

This man is particularly vile. He's never sent a single birthday card nor has he made an effort to ask how they're getting on. His only association with his children is when he's telling the courts that they don't need him. To me, that show's a lack of human decency. Like I said, PGFNG is not much fun to handle but in my mind, there are certain responsabilities that go with the job of being a Dad.

OK, my Mum let's lose from time-to-time that it wasn't always fun collecting child support from the old man and my Dad wasn't much good with the birthday cards. But after meeting PGF's ex-husband, I realise more deeply that my Dad what a Dad should do - he provided the financial means to ensure that I would have the basic tools in life. If anything, the Old Man provided for me a little too well - I was one of the few students who didn't need to look for a part-time job - Daddy's gold card solved allot of issues.

My father has had his business ups and downs. When he was doing well, he spreed the money widely. When he was not, he still ensured that school fees were paid. I am sitting here in Singapore as a Public School educated, university graduate because my father ensured that I had the means to be.

Then there was medical health care. When I developed a lymphoma in my left thigh, I had to come back to Singapore to get it removed. My doctor was Dr Susan Lim, one of Singapore's leading surgeons and the bill was over $2,000 for a day surgery. Was reluctant to do it because he had just flown me home, got me a job at one of the hardest banks in the world to enter and then there was this.----He told me to do the surgery. Yes, he could afford it but he could also have dennied that it was too expensive. To him, it was something that needed to be done and do he got me to do it.

He's also done the same for Max. Both of us have been well taken care of by the old man and although he's lousy at expressing certain things, he does like to feel involved in our lives, though he'd loath to admit it.

So thanks to my Dad, I believe that a father is obliged to take care of certain basic things for a child. When it comes to your financial status, you can suffer but somehow you have to find a way to make sure that your kids don't worry about the basics. I'm against giving kids a free ride. I had too much pocket money and a credit card - the result was I didn't need to discover the school of hard knocks until I started trying to earn a living. But basics need to be taken care of. A father has to see his kids have food and education.

Sure, you cannot be unrealistic in what you ask a man to provide. PGF's ex is legally a bankrupt (though a very talented one - he has savings). It's pointless to ask him to house his previous family in the Istana. But he must provide his kids with the basics. If he thinks the maintainance is too high, he can make alternative arangements to ensure that education and health care are provided for. He doesn't do it.

A friends have suggested that he's only acting naturally ie - PGF only wants matainance money for her lifestyle and not the kids and so, he's decided why bother? To my mind that logic does not work. If you have kids, you jolly well make sure they're taken care of. If you think the ex is going to blow it all, find an alternative to make sure the money goes to where it's needed.

I remember another friend telling me that most men don't bother fighting for custody. To an extent there's some sense there. Mother's are usually better able to nurture children and so courts usually give custody to mum's with visitation rights to Dads. But there are cases where Mum's are unsuited to take custody and a responsible father should recognise this. I put it this way, if Gina and I had kids, I would have fought for custody in a divorce hearing. PGF's ex filled for divorce based on her "Bad Temper" (which she has), claming she was violent and yet, he made no move to obtain sole custody.

I don't know how Nicolette and Marcus cope with this. How they ended up OK is beyond me. They're father is gutter trash and their mother ain't great either.

I've told PGF that after seeing her ex, she's not allowed to be attracted to me for whatever reason. I fear there's something about her that might turn me into this gutter trash that she married. Miserable failure of a father, a miserable failure of a human being.

The Meaning of Patriotism

National Day just ended about an hour ago and the news about how great and wonderful we are continues to play. In case you missed it, the parade will be broadcast again - sometime next week. For me, I was at the PGFNB's trying to deknot her back with my knuckles and Marcus was probably the most excited person in the room when it came to saying the pledge - which was, for once set a peculiar time and the local media took delight in reporting on how people stopped their daily activities to say the pledge.

Do I sound bitchy here? Perhaps I do. I mean this with no disrespect to the guys who participated in the parade, I know the personal effort that was invested in making sure that this was a good show. The parade has also become an institution that the nation looks forward to. As such, despite the dollars spent on the parade, I don't hold anything against the parade.

What I do question is the annual chest thumping. Yes, Singapore has achieved allot and I can say that Singapore is a pretty darn good place to live in, even when compared to many cities in the developed world. I'm always reminded of a US Navy boy telling me, "If you think Geylang is your worst area, you haven't seen an American city." Being known as a "boring" place is better than being known as a place where people get stabbed every three seconds or a place where people can spend years in school and emerge not knowing how to read or write.

I lived in the "Wonderful" West for my formative years and I came home to Singapore quite happily. After nine years of living here, I have no overwhelming desire to go back to live in the West. Other than visiting a few friends and relatives, there's no reason for me to look West. Let's face it, life in Singapore is exceedingly comfortable. There's allot to say for streets that don't stink of piss and having to look a whingy but able bodied guy asking you for spare change at every corner on the streets of your somewhat exclusive neighbourhood (In my case it was in London's Soho.)

Yes, Singapore has achieved allot in 44-years, which on the scale of things is not allot. We have allot to be proud of and let's give credit where credit is due, the PAP governments that have run the place have delivered the goodies. Say what you like about the PAP's constant electoral success, but it's a political party that has delivered consistently.

Having said all of that, I have ask myself if all of this chest thumping is actually patriotism or real love for the country. Chat to enough people and you'll find that Singapore is heaven on earth if you talk to a foreigner. The Straits Times even went as far as having a Canadian tell us to be greatful for Singapore. Talk to a native born Singaporean and what you'll here are grumbles. Life is Singapore is comfortable but its expensive and getting more so. Talk to enough native born Singaporeans and you'll find complaints about how this is a country that no longer cares about its people.

Is this true? Well, to an extent I would disagree. Yes, the government is very money minded but because it is money minded it has accumilitated enough money to benefit the people.

However, what I do disagree with is the idea that the future is only capable of being decided by a select few. Without fail, National Day turns out to be an occasion for the powers that be to remind the Plebs who's boss. One year it was Ministers deciding that it was better for the Nation to increase their high salaries than to assist the least able. In the last two-years we've seen worse examples of this - namely the escape of Mas Selamat and the Minister in question's lack of remorse for the lapses in competence by his ministry and the continued presence of the Prime Minister's wife as CEO of the company set up to invest the money of the people after her company has invested incompetently.

In both instances, the public is only told that "shit happens," and the only people who defend these actions are usually the people who are only good for pissing on - ie people who talk about values but when it comes to sacrificing their time for the nation, they run away.

People who ask valid questions are quickly discouraged and discredited. I'm told by a senior editor that this is not true about the Singapore establishment and quite often it's the people trying to get close to the establishment that choak the efforts to create a discussion. You become lablled unpatriotic.

That's not patriotism, that's parotism - and the two are distinctly different. The Parot waves his flag on national day and may be attends a few grassroots sessions to tell the poor to stop being poor and contribute to the nation by giving more money to the rich, but when it comes to doing anything real for the people or for the country, they quickly run away. In National Service, you'll find that they usually end up working in Manpower base as clerks.

A patriot is something differnet. He recognises the good and the bad of his country but makes a choice to be in his or her country. He or she is open to dicussion when it comes to talking about flaws. Usually, you find patriots serving National Service in a combat unit, in a combat role.

It's fun to have a public holiday but I think we need to look beyond the hype of what exactly National Day is and ask our selves if the love we feel for the country is based on something more than the Ministry of Community Development's advertising campaign.

Different Strokes for Different Folks

Temasek Holdings, one of Singapore's Soverign Wealth Funds has been a major feature in the news during the past two weeks. First, it's CEO-designate, Mr Charles "Chip" Goodyear decided not to take up his post due to "strategic" differences between himself and the board. Then news leaked out that Temasek had lost a staggering amount of money and finally, Ms Ho Ching, the current CEO (and wife of the Prime Minister) decided to announce that Temasek would invite the public to invest alongside it.

Even the most devoted columnist could claim that this has been a good month for Temasek. The internet chat rooms and forums were abuzz with scathing remarks about Temasek and it's major shareholder - the Ministry of Finance. Just as Temasek tried to put a spin onto things, the usual detractions about the "lack of transparency" were being thrown all about cyberspace.

Both sides may have a point but I believe that they miss the "bigger" picture. At the heart of all of this is the question of whether politicians necessarily make good business people and visa-versa. This question becomes especially prominent in the Singapore context in as much as our top politicians and civil servants usually become heads of the large local corporations that dominate the local economy.

There is a certain logic to this. The Singapore government invest heavily in developing people. The schoolars selected by the government do end up in the world's best educational institutions. Look at any major change of command parade in the military and you'll find that both incoming and outgoing generals got into Cambridge and graduated with a first and then proceeded to do their MBA in places like Harvard Business School or Cornell. Top civil servants and politicians have glowing academic credentials and one would imagine that such people would have no problem switching between government and business.

To some extent it's worked. I happily use government subsidised health care. I dreaded the idea of being in an NHS hospital in the UK. For British Airways, profitability only came with Thatcherism and being sliced out of State Hands and placed into the care of the business people. By contrast, SIA has been profitable from day one - even with a high level of government ownership and several former Chief of Air Force on the board of directors.

So, it's not necessarily true that State ownership is bad for busienss. The Singapore government is exceedingly business minded. In international survey after international survey, Singapore is ranked as one of THE best places in the world to do business. In the past year, I've dealt with the Economic Development Board for the opening of a plant for both 3M and Alcon. As one representative from an Indian Multi-national says, "If you think your EDB is awful - try dealing with the Indian version."

A good businessman can be a good civil servant and that applies in other parts of the world too. Saudi Arabia's SAGIA (Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority) is a prime example. Mr Amr Al-Dabbagh, SAGIA's Chairman and Governor was a former businessman before he took over the investment authority and that's not all. SAGIA recruits from people with business experience. Meshari Al-Khaled, SAGIA's Country-Director in the ASEAN region is a former ABN Amro banker. Thanks to the international and commercial experiences of its key people, SAGIA is regarded as highly efficient and effective in what it does.

However, the very concept that a good civil servant or politician automatically making a good business person is flawed. Generally speaking, these three groups are good when they stick to being what they are and not when they cross into different turfs. In the Singapore context, this is somewhat of heresy but if one has spent a day or two in the real world, one will realise the fallacy of civil servants and politicians making good business people - even in an economic crisis where the business community has run to the government for help.

It's so simple - government and business are two different games and the people who are good at the respective games have different skill sets meant to deal with their respective games. Perhaps sports offers the best analogy. How many world class soccer players do you know who managed to become world class rugby players. Michael Jordan is one of the greatest basketball players in history but he tried to play baseball - he didn't get very far. Ivan Lendel was one of the great tennis players in his time. He tried to take up golf as an alternative career - it didn't work out.

In business, the focus is on profits and business organisations are geared towards that. Everything that a business man does goes towards trying to make a profit. A businessman will hire and fire according to the needs of the business. Fancy degrees will only get you so far, if you don't deliver. A head of a mid-sized accounting firm put it best, "I simply ask, am I making money from you?" Business by its very nature is not meant to be charitable, even if good social affects come out of it - things like jobs for people, better technologies for society are the by product of a good business.

How do business people stay focused? The answer is simple - competition. As long as a businessman has to face competition, he'll be forced to think of ways to hire more effectivly and come up with better products and services for the customers. Once competition is eliminated, the business person has no incentive to give you "good-stuff" if he can make the same amount of money giving you "crap."

Business and markets are good at creating jobs and wealth but if in checked problems start. One of the usual problems comes when businesses become too cozy with each other. Look at the current financial crisis. Business people were cozy with banks, which didn't always lend with the strictest financial criteria in mind. Wise governments recognise this and generally let businesses run themselves and only step in when it looks like a dominant business is about to eliminate all competition.

Government is a different ball game. A politician needs to consider many factors in decision he makes. To a businessman, firing people makes sense becomes it's less headcount and therefore wages to pay. To a politician, firing people is very difficult because these people either become dissillusioned enough to vote against you or worse - start a revolution. For the civil servant, life is about ensuring that the political mashine runs. Business heros are people like Jack Welsh who value candour and make swift (and sometimes harsh) decisions. Politics by contrast is a game of compromise.

It's clear that the skill sets are different and assuming and putting people who are good at one game to play another usually end up in dissapointment. Yes, many of the Temasek Linked companies are cash rich and many have established overseas branches. With the exception of SIA, this usually has nothing to do with common business skills let alone managerial talent and everything to do with near monopoly powers in the domestic market.

One ingenious way of promoting a general's skills in business is to talk about how he ran Chartered Industries or Singapore Technologies Pte Ltd. Yes, tecnically the organisation in question is a private company but you can hardly call it a real business when the only business the company has is to sell products to one customer - the Singapore government. Shifting army generals into Chartered Industries is not sharing talent to increase value to society - it's simply moving someone from one branch of the government to another.

How many people on Temasek or GIC's board of directors faced "competition" and the idea that they could go "bankrupt" if they screwed up. Mr Goodyear comes to mind and by now, we should all know what happened to him. I just hope for his sake that his parachute was made of solid gold and he's now making Crosus blush

Personally, I think the best thing to do is to float Temasek on the stock exchange. Everyone will win. The public will feel a sense of ownership as shareholders. The government will no longer have to spend time writing letters to the foreign media explaining that the CEO's position has nothing to do with her position as the Prime Minister's wife - something which not even Singaporeans believe. Most importantly, Temasek will honestly be able to say that it makes decisions purely on commercial grounds.

One example where this has worked is in Israel. Given that Singapore borrows allot of its ideas from Israel (SAF was created by instructors from the IDF), let's borrow another good idea - make the State holding company a commercial venture. Israel Corp is run by business people rather than former civil servants. It is listed on the Tel Aviv exchange and most importantly, its been highly profitable. When Israel Corp claims it's made money, nobody tries to hide in a corner and mumble - it's financial claims are open to public scrutiny.

Israel's culture is notoriously secrative and yet it allows it's national holding company to be run by business people. The results are there for all to see.

Yes, the Singapore government has been good to business but it's been good to business as a government. As government's go, Singapore is exceedingly lucky to the have the government that it has.

But being good at being a government does not mean that the government is good at running businesses. The results of the government in business are mediocre at best. Just look at Temasek. Surely, we should heed the words of our transport minister, Mr Raymond Lim who says,"We should not be in business found in the Yellow Pages."

Issues - The Ones that Turn us on

My favourite litigator and I ended up in a discussion that I believe most professionals end having with the general public. He was dissapointed that the local media had not given more in depth coverage to a trial he was involved in. As far as a the local media was concerned, the trial was dry and boring and the moment they knew they a politician who was mentioned in the opening statement would not be taking the stand, most of the media lost interest in the case.

While client satisfaction on the legal efforts and media relations was achieved, my friend had brought up a very important point - namely the fact that the public is easily distracted and the things that professionals see and consider important are quite often the things that the public find dry and boring.

Look at trial that got us onto this conversation. In legal circles, this was the equivalent of watching a Mohamed Ali:Joe Frazier bout. You had one of the world's largest shipping companies taking one of the most respected men in the shipping world to court. The Shipping industry press understood the significance of what was going on. Despite not providing a large contingent, they gave fairly extensive coverage to the more significant elements. By contrast, the local press remained fairly oblivious to the case - nobody died, nobody had sex and more importantly, a local politician who was named in the opening statement was not going to be a part of the case. As far as the local media were concerned, there was nothing in it for the readers and therefore nothing in it for them.

In a way, this was a blessing. In terms of theater, the figures in the opposition provided better actors. The public likes a good act and by that, so does the media. Thankfully, the one reporter who hung around managed to dig for a deeper story and look beyond the rethoric. This is unfortunately not the case, which in a way is a blessing to Press relations people in parts of the world where public opinion has a strong sway in how politics and even justice is formed.

I'd love to say that the lack of interest in anything deeper is a uniquely Singaporean trait. It's not. The public is swayed by issues that sometimes baffle the professionals and the best thing that professionals can do is to accept that the public is interested in different issues and exploit the fact.

Take the Lewinsky affair - or should I say the "Blowjob that nearly brought down the Presidency." Til today, the Lewinisky affair is known as being all about the "blowjob." Because everyone was so obsessed with the blowjob the President was getting under the table - the American public said...."So What," and subsequently made sure that the good Senators would aquit they're favourite rascal.

Now, take a look at the fine print. Nobody would ever have realised that their knowledge of the now infamous blowjob only took place because the President had "misled" a court while he was under oath - which is ....illegal and the President happens to the be nation's Chief law enforcement officer. Just think about what all this implies about the rule of law in the country.

But hey, a blowjob is simply more interesting than lying under oath in a court of law. Nobody gave two hoots about the fact that he had lied under oath, thus placing his ethnical ability to run the nation into question - they were too busy thinking about the blowjob. The President's PR team should have been enriched beyond their wildest dreams by the simple framing of this debate.

The public is shallow and the best one can do is to feed that shallowness, particularly when one's head is on the line.

A Few Cultural Observations

It's been a fairly interesting week for the nation. First we had the news that Mr Charles "Chip" Goodyear would not be taking over the reigns of the National Holding Company-Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd, as was previously planned. Instead of starting a new era under the former CEO of BHP Billaton, Temasek's investments will remain under the watchful eye of it's current CEO, Madam Ho Ching, wife of our Prime Minister.

A few days later, we had the news that Professor Thio Li-Ann would not be taking up a position at New York University's (NYU) law department to lecture on human rights in Asia. Professor Thio is a former Nominated Member of Parliament and like her mother (Professor Thio Su-Mien) is one of Singapore's leading advocates against allowing homosexuals more rights. News of professor Thio's appointment was greeted with howls of protest from the gay and lesbian community at Temasek.

While the news of Mr Goodyear's non-appointment at Temasek and Professor Thio's non-appointment at NYU may have nothing in common, I believe that both events do underline something very fundimental - namely the fact that Singapore's culture is such that we've become a wee bit too insular for our own good. Culture is often looked on as an airy fairy word with not much use in the corporate context, particularly when you consider nice solid things like number. But as Jack Welsh, former CEO of GE noted - Most mergers and aquisitions fail even though the numbers make sense because nobody looks at the culture of the two companies.

In Mr Goodyear's case, he had "Differences in Strategic Vision" with the board at Temasek. The local media delightfuly reported that the foreign media reported that Mr Goodyear did things like fine people for being late and did not allow fiddling with the Blackberry in meetings. More importantly, Mr Goodyear had ideas about changing senior management. In short, Mr Goodyear, a man with a reputation of delivering business results wanted to run Temasek like a normal corporation. He failed to take into account that Temasek is not a normal corporation and the culture of a results driven coporation does not easily translate into the culture of an investment club of a select group.

On paper Mr Goodyear was not only the first foreigner to head an SWF but he would have been the most qualified, if one were to judge by his record at places like BHP Billaton. It's good business sense to instil certain disciplines. It's good to have the most qualified people to do the job. More importantly, when you run a listed company you are legally obliged to expose your financial results on a quarterly basis. Shareholders are more often than not demanding and if they have to sustain losses, they have a way of calling for blood of the person in charge. A CEO of a listed company is not only a business manager but a manager of expectations.

The qualities that make a good CEO in a listed company don't necessarily translate well into running what is essentially a government department, however much the Singapore government would claim otherwise. You can't just sack senior management for non-performance without other considerations. You protect certain people and in turn you are protected from the masses.

Nobody should doubt Professor Thio's qualifications. Profesor Thio has recieved law degrees from the most prestigious universities in the English-speaking world. However, Professor Thio has one vulnerability - her views on homosexuals. While Professor Thio is untitiled to speak her views and should be entitled to express her views, the good professor has never had to face angry protestors, from people like students.

At best, Professor Thio claims to have faced "Death-Threats" from millitant homosexuals who are against her views. She also has argued against debaters like Siew Kum Hong. Yet despite all of this, Professor Thio has remained relatively protected by her title of Professor and in Asian or at least Singapore culture, people like professors remain insulated from intellectual challenges.

Professor Thio has never had to face intellectual challenges to her arguments in Singapore or at least people who would have tried to. Common sense will tell you that her speeches on the repeling of 377A contained not a single logical train of thought. She argued on the emotional and carried the day. How did she do that? This is Singapore and I believe that allot of people are willing to allow a learned professor to use whatever argument she choses without placing her under scrutiny.

It's a shame that Professor Thio didn't take up her appointment at NYU. Dealing with protestors would have earned her respect even from people who are opposed to her views. She may even have found a legal basis and a logical argument for a views, thus justifying her reputation as a brilliant legal mind. Instead she ran away.

I'm actually proud of being Singaporean. I have served national service in a combat unit. However, it dissapoints me when a culture of protecting an elite few is stronger than the desire to do great things. Mr Goodyear's appointment could have placed Temasek in a very unique position - that of a SWF that believes in delivering value so much that it looks to real talent no matter it's nationality. It sounded good on paper but when the bugger wanted to shake things up he was frustrated. Likewise with Professor Thio - a supposedly intelligent but contraversial woman teaching at a world-class institution, could have made a mark for Singapore but instead, she couldn't take public opposition.

A week ago, I remember Kamal Nath, India's transport minister cracking jokes about our electoral system. He pointed to an unamed Singapore counterpart who only campaigned at night and his campaigning involved going up and down a lift. By comparison, the Indian state that Mr Nath represent has a consituency of 1,800,000 people (nearly half of the total population of Singapore)

So there it is. Its good that people do good things for Singapore but let's put things into context. Running a small red dot where you are sheltered is not the same as doing things on the global scale. You need competition to know you are really good. People who have every resource at their disposal and no competition cannot claim to be great at anything.

Beggars United Pte Ltd

Was out for an early evening stroll with PGFNB when I ran into an old Malay lady sitting forlornly in the corner of the MRT. I went to her and gave her the remaing coins in my pocket. I figured that the lady was old, frail and unable to work. Yes, I'm broke and won't another penny until my cheque clears tomorrow, but she needed it more than I did.

PGFNB saw things a little differently. Her only remark was, "Haven't You Heard of The Beggars Syndicate?" Yes, there we have it, the lady who needs to appeal to the State for legal aid, won't give to the "Beggar's Syndicate," out of fear that her pennies would either enrichen some old lady who should be doing a job or some gangsters who were preying on poor people like her. 

OK, let's get it clear, this is not a session to bash poor old PGFNB who has had to endure my terms of affection - within the past 48-hours, I've called her a virus and suggested that she's toxic in the sex department - nay, I didn't suggest, I told her. PGFNB is merely exhibiting the high moral fibre of your average Singaporean brought up in a middle class background. I've had some good friends spend minuites in an MRT checking if old men could walk properly before deciding if they should give away their pennies. 

Let's also clarrify things. I am aware that begging in many cities is something of an industry. Beggars can only beg in certain streets and kids are maimed by parents to make sure they're ability to beg remains at full blast. I don't doubt that begging, like other activities on the streets, is overseen by less savoury forces. There is a dilema at play. If you give, are you feeding a nasty system and disincentivising people from getting a job? 

Perhaps I'm naive but I like to think that when it comes to street beggars, it easier to make a personal decision about whether to give than it is with organisations. When I lived in London, I tried to avoid giving my pennies to many of the homeless. Most were for the better part - young, able bodied and white (no racial discrimination). Many had drug problems and I don't see why I had to support people who could easily find simple work. The main exception to this was "Dave" a local tramp who slept in Dean Street - both Tara and I liked him - unlike the more belligerant ones, he was actually polite and never asked - so it made it easier for us to give the pennies we didn't have. 

When I discuss the issue of the guys on the streets with friends, I like to bring up the fact that we're screwed up in as much as my friends, family and I find it easier to donate spare change to the guys doing nothing than it was to buy copies of "The Big Issue," -which for non-Brits was magazine designed to get the homeless into some sort of employment. 

An old man I once knew described begging about being "All About MONEY." To an extent he's right and where possible, it's best not to encourage it. I'm all for options of teaching people to fish (feed them for life) than just giving them money. 

But let's make something clear, begging is a shit awful option for most sane thinking people. If begging was a wonderful lucrative career option, I have ask why we don't have more people in the industry. Can you imagine if some clever clot in the Sinapore Government figured that this could be the next export industry? You'd have schoolarships awarded and our best and brightest would be sent overseas to beg and remit the spare change into the national economy.

Well, it's not happening and there's a darn good reason for it. Although I've been blessed with the fact that I've never had to beg on the streets, I believe I've seen my fair share of beggars to realise that begging for a living is a shit awful experience not to be wished upon anyone. 

While Singapore's streets are mercifully free of beggars when compared to places like London, the number of beggars are growing and in the land of "Asian Values," a good chunk of these beggars that you see are the elderly - also known as the people who built Singapore's prosperity. I think something's wrong here, particularly when you think that this is a country that trumpet's things like Asian Values, respect for the elderly and efficient government with a wonderful grassroots mechanism. 

I remember my grandmother telling me that it was good to go through my poor struggles when I was young. Being poor and young has a romantic ring to it, being old and poor on the other hand is shit and if you look at the streets at certain hours of the street you'll see a growing number of people in this situation. 

When I see an old person begging on the streets, I realise that this person could be me. It's by God's Grace that I was born into a family that can provide me with all sorts of support systems but that's only God's Grace. It can be removed from me anyday and so, I think, if that were me, would I be greatful to anyone to pass me a few pennies. So, that's just me, if I see the elderly having to beg, I try and give - it's just a few pennies but I still pass them on to people who need them more than me. Yes, perhaps the elderly are being used as part of a syndicate, but then again, are we, as individuals and society offering them something better? Furthermore, if some old person is faking a leg injury to a few pennies, then so be it - if they have to go through great lengths to fake things for a few pennies, they must really need it. 

But that's not really my beef with those who seem so terrified of passing on their pennies to the elderly. I find that most of the people who talk about not contributing to the beggars syndicate are usually contributing to something more repulsive. In the case of PGFNB, she's contributing to the New Creation Church, run by one Pastor Prince. The young pastor has recently made the papers for having a S$500,000 salary and he deserves it too. If you believe in the concept of paying for talent and giving people rewards if they bring in vast sums - Pastor Prince is comming very cheap - his S$500,000 salary is "peanuts," when you consider the fact that he raised S$90 million from his followers in A DAY. In case you were wondering if this was going to help get the beggers and hookers off the street, you'd be sorely mistaken - God, it seems is more interested in osentatious buildings than he is in the poor, though, I must have been out of the theology market for a while because I can't remember where it says it in the Bible.

Something is wrong here. How is it that the people who talk about God and morals are so afraid of doing what is clearly God's work. A good Catholic I know, argues that the likes of Pastor Prince (And let's not Forget Fred in Elim Church) are selling "McGod," or the rosy picture of a religion without understanding the spirit of the religion. Christianity, if you actually read the Bible is actually a brutal religion - followers of Christ go through lots of suffering to prove their faith but it's their faith that becomes strengthened during the bouts of suffering. I'm not starting as a the Pope's appologist but if you look through the Churches in Singapore, its the traditional "Sit Down and Pray" ones that do "God's Work," namely help the poor. The "Sexy, Hip" ones are more interested in selling records of the pastor's wife's records. McGod is an obvious franchise in our modern age.

What puzzles me is the fact that the people who buy into "McGod," are always people who come from well-to-do backgrounds. They are more often  than not graduates and working professionals. Surely, these people should be the last people to see that God does not need an MLM salesteam to get you into heaven. 

What is wrong with the prgramming of my PGFNB and people like her? They claim they're suffering and that life has dealt them a bad hand. They then buy into the McGod franchise and work very hard to donate their time and money to something that anyone with a brain will realise is an utter scam. They claim to love God and appreciate the morals that he's giving. Yet, the moment they have a chance to do God's work, they recoil and worry that they're contributing to the unknown faces of Beggars United Pte Ltd. - I think my friend Ravi got it right when he said, "Every Minister of Education we've had should be SHOT."  

HBT - High Bloody Time

Just read on Bloomberg that the finacial markets are having a bit of trouble, which is not unusual in this economic climate but non the less the reason for today's troubles were interesting. The bond holders (debt owners) of General Motors are worried that President Obama will let the company go bankrupt. 

General Motors or GM has been for many decades one of the largest companies in the world and the idea of its bankruptcy is scary for anyone who is in charge of running any of the areas where GM has a presence. GM is a large employer, particularly of those in the "lower-income' range. Car making is probably the original "Hard" industry, with the men on the assemblyline doing "Manly" jobs. Unlike the service industries, manufacturing has a certain image to it - you can see the "tech" in it. 

I'm not the elected representative of the men who are about to be thrown out of work. I don't want the responsability and I think the idea of hard working men on the shop floor losing the only means they've known to make a living being flung out of work because of the incompetence of their management is wrong, especially when the financiers on Wall Street who's greed caused the current mess continue to get their bonus's - and get defended in the media for it (They had contracts, we need their talent etc). So, we come up with the idea that GM and other companies of its size are TOO BIG to fail.  

From a social perspective, I can see the practicality of helping out some companies. Nobody wants a mass of enemployed people on their hands straight away. Then again, I'm of the mind that letting GM go under is -'high bloody time.' In some parts of the world, particularly in Asia, there is a social stigma to being bankrupt, but bankruptcy is the kinder version of what nature ordained. Buddhist philosophy says that life and death exist together and it's true. In nature, the sick and the weak become food. It may dissapoint some people to realise that lions do eat cute little antalopes, but this is what lions are meant to do. You cannot tell the lion it's wrong to eat the antalope, for the lion not to do so, would be a certain death. So lions need to eat the antalope. A healthy antalope is able to run away and not get eaten but an unhealthy one gets eaten. In nature, the idea that one species has the given right to rule forever does not exist. Animals that don't face competition become extinct when their natural habitat changes. 

 

So why then do human beings get this idea that certain people do not need competition and are "Too Big to Fail," or that their markets are "Too Small for Competition." General Motors is facing bankruptcy for a very simple reason - it was incompetently run, making cars that nobody wanted to buy. So, the obvious has happened, the company is unable to sustain itself and as sad as it is that thousands will lose their jobs, that is the natural result of incompetence. I think my mother's old neighbour got it right - "It is sad that so many people will lose their jobs, but they have to find something else to do." 

Humans are adaptable and placing them in a situation where they have no need to adapt is an abomination of nature. I often refer to my former father-in-law who ran an egg distribution business but also got himself a taxi driver license and fork lift driver's license. Why? Because he knew that he may have needed to adapt to his situation and understood that it had to prepare for that reality. So, this gets me thinking, if Yong Koon, the uneducated egg seller understands that, why can't the highly educated politicians and executives get that. 

In Singapore, we have played this natural law in an interesting place. On one hand, the government rightly encourages people to upgrade and cross train. If people have more skills, they can adapt to the changing economy. If you can't work in a manufacturing plant but can work as a foot reflexologist, you have a job. Perhaps working in a foot reflexology shop may not have the cache of being in manufacturing, it's still a job and means of living. 

Unforutnately, the government is not using the same policy towards the better educated. We retain the "Iron Rice Bowl," in the civil service and it becomes more true as you go up the food chain. Certain companies get themselves placed in a situation where the government believes the line, "The Market is TOO SMALL" for competition. For some reason the eco-system in Singapore's political and business landscape is trying to be immune to nature. 

Let's see if we can apply this arguement to reality. Imagine if someone decided to keep the brontasorus alive because it was "Too Big to Fail." Can you imagine the largest creature of the Jurasic era surviving without the need to evolve? Then imagine what would happen to it in the 21st century. It would be slaughtered by everything else that was better adapted to the environment. 

Companies like General Motors do not deserve to be preserved no matter how much we sympathise with the workers. The same is true for banks like Lehman Brothers and those who bought their products. You cannot keep businesses alive for the sake of it when they have clearly lived their use-by date. Yes, sometimes you have to manage the process, but artificial preservation and preservatives are ultimately bad for the system

The American economy has dominated the global economy for the last two-hundred years for the simple reason that American businesses were allowed to follow the rules of nature. Businesses that were badly run or no longer relevant ceased to exist. Businesses that were relevant to every age thrived and so did the well run ones. With the exception of GE, the original members of the Dow Jones Industrial index have changed as some companies went down and others rose to replace them at the top of the pecking order. What a shame that the American government has been rather oblivious to this fact.