I just had the experience of earning the dislike of an ambassador from a major a trading nation. It happened at a lecture oragnised by the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), on the topic of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornorstone of the world's rules regarding nuclear energy. The lecture was conducted by His Excellency, Mr Oliver Caron, the French Ambassador.
The lecture itself was factual. His Excellency outlined what the treaty was about and described his views on where he thought things would be going. Then, question time came and things got interesting. Mr Ameer Jumabhoy, sicon of one of Southeast Asia's most prominent families brought up the issue of the “Elephant in the Middle East.” Mr Jumabhoy brought up the much valid but unmentioned point that while much has been made of Iran's alleged threats to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth,” and it's alleged attempt to gain nuclear weapons, nobody ever mentioned the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons and happily steals land with the blessings of the West.
His Excellency reffused to answer Mr Jumabhoy, dismissing what he said as a matter of opinion rather than a question. At that point, I phrased what Mr Jumabhoy had said into a question and then made the point that Western Powers, lead by the USA have been notoriousl quick to send troops into the Middle East against people who may have nuclear weapons but have very keen to negotiate with Asian states that openly test nukes and make it clear that they have every intention of using them. His Excellency fudged the issue and avoided getting into a long conversation with me or Mr Jumabhoy during the tea reception.
To be fair to His Excellency, addressing the issue of Israel's nuclear arsenal is tricky for Western Nations. Israel has mastered the art of controling powerful interest groups in Western Nations and in a wonderful exhibition of political judo, the Jewish Nation has turned the victimisation of the Jewish people at the hands of various European Nations through various times in history into an asset. When the European Nations started complaining about Israel's behaviour during the Second Intifada of the late 1990s, Shimon Peres, who was then foreign minister in Ariel Sharon's government, flew to Europe to remind the various European Head of Governments to remember their history against the Jewish people. The then foreign minister of a small desert nation with no resources to speak off was like a school master to a group of naughty boys towards the heads of governments of a group of the world's largest trading nations.
Like their American counterparts, European politicians criticise Israeli policies at their peril. When former Malaysia Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mohammed Mahathir made his 'infamous' remarks about Jews controling the world by proxy at the Organisation of Islamic Nations Conference (OIC), in 2003, the Europeans, lead by the US State department condemed him for being “Anti-Semetic.” Ironically, the condemnation by the West proved what many in the East suspected – the good doctor was right.
How serious is this? Well, it doesn't take a genious to realise that the Western World, which has shapped much of the rest of the world, is in a dilema. This is particularly true in an age where the Western World, lead by the USA has positioned itself as the “Guardian of Global Morality.” World Peace is basically “Pax Americana,” or peace and prosperity underwritten by America and the Western World that it leads.
Let's start with some obvious pointers. The West, especially America, has on the whole been a force of good. Even the rise of China and India has been fueled by American ideals and even in the most rapidly Anti-American parts of the Middle East, young people cannot wait to go to school in America or American institutions in the region.
Let's also aknowledge the fact that Europeans nations did commit attrocities against the Jewish people. Hitler's Germany masacred six million of them but that's not only case of Jews being abused. Russia for example has had a long history of having progroms against Jews.
The modern state of Israel is also a wonderous invention. Despite having no resources in a desert, Israel has managed to become an agricultural powerhouse and its economy built by an army of dynamic technology start-ups has given Israel a very boyant economy, despite the fact that Israel has been in a constant State of War since its inception. Small, dynamic Israel is particularly shinny when compared to the vast amount of poverty and illiteracy in its neighbours.
Having said all of that, it does not excuse actions by Israel, which are blatantly illegal and the Western World becomes complicit in Israel's crimes when it either ignores them or defends them – who can forget the image of Condoliza Rice proudly talking about “The Birth Pangs of a New Middle East,” as Israel proceeded to bomb Lebanon back to the “Stone Age,” back in 2006.
The facts of International Law are that Jewish Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal. The same is true of Israel's hold on the Golan Hights. Yet, no American or European nation has made a public criticism of continued land-grabs and building of illegal settlements. American politcians have even gone as far as condeming Israeli politicians who tried to do the right thing under International Law (Pat Robinson openly declared Ariel Sharon's coma as a punishment from God in retaliation for Sharon's removal of illegal settlements from the Gaza Strip). How does a neutral observer not come to the conclusion that the Western World endorses a violation of the same international law its trying to uphold when it kicks Sadam Hussein out of Kuwait for invading Kuwaiti soverignty but happily encourages Bibi Nethanyahu to build settlements in land that nobody recognises as Israel.
Much is made of the fact that Israel is “The ONLY democracy” in the Middle East. Yet when the Palestinians elected Hamas to their Parliament in 2006 in an election established as “fair” by international observers, the Western World lead by the USA couldn't place sanctions on the Palestinians fast enough. Funnily enough, the Western World hasn't made life for “the good” Palestinian in the shape of President Mahmoud Abas any easier either. The Palestinians who follow Hamas are branded as terrorist and placed under sanctions. The Palestinians who follow Abas are merely squeezed out of their homes as Israel continues to grab more of their land for illegal settlement building – either way the Palestinians are screwed.
As a neutral observer, it's virtually impossible not to see why the Palestinian people are frustraed and angry and very willing to take things out on the West. When they break a law its called terrorism. When the Israeli side breaks it, its called “righteous self-defence” and the West, lead by the USA endorses genocide. Khalid Almaeena, the former editor of Arab News summed it up best when he said:
“When you say Hezbollah and Hamas, you MUST say backed by Iran. When you say Israel you are not allowed to say backed by USA and UK.”
These examples are only enforced by the nuclear issue. Today, the world is making a song and dance of the Doomsday scenario of Iran ever getting hold of weapons grade plutonium. Say what you like about the regime in Tehran but it has signed up to the NPT and IAEA. Iran for all its faults has signed up to play by international rules and international rules also provide Iran with scope to do certain things. Yet, despite all of this, every Western Politician can't place sanctions on Iran quickly enough and every candidate in the upcomming American Presidential Election is declaring “ALL Options are on the table.”
By contrast Israel has not signed a single treaty – hence the Israeli's have exempted themselves from playing by International Rules. Israel's official stance is, “We neither admit nor deny.” Former US Defence Secratery Robert Gates was slapped by the media for suggesting that Israel had Nuclear Weapons. In Israel's case there is no obligation to play by the rules and the Western world is perfectly fine with that.
I can be branded as an “Anti-Semite” for pointing these facts out. Yet, how does a reaonable mind not come to the conclusion that “Western Fairness” is exceedingly selective when it comes to dealing with Israel? Its terrorism when Palestinians vote for Hamas but its democracy in action when Israel has Avigdor Liberman as a deputy Prime minsiter.
Nobody has ever said that Israel does not have the right to self-defence. However, why is it such that Israel's right to self-defence includes ownership of Weapons of Mass Destruction and theft of land that it does not own. If the West endorses theft and violations of international law in the case of Israel, how does it claim any moral right to police the world and administer International Justice.
During September 11, 2001, many Americans were shocked that someone wanted to damage them. In the American mindset, they are the good guys. Americans could not get it round their head that someone would want to hurt them. To a large extent Americans are right, they are good people. However, when you look at the crimes they've endorsed by Israel, its clear why this group of people have an issue with the USA and the Western World.
I think of President Obama's former pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright, who quoted an American Ambassador to Iraq who said that “America's Chickens had come home to roost.” The man was villified as a “nut job.” This is a pity, Rev Wright makes sense and has a good grasp of issues and if his views are adapted by American and other Western politicians, we might find that the Elephant in the Middle East gets smaller and may become more bearable for the rest of the world.
The youtube clips of Rev Wright's speeches. Tell me if you think this is a nut job or as close to a sensible Godly man as America gets?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qERRO5rXUuk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onr6RwCqqcM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt3fBvp6j_w&feature=related
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The World's Local …......
If I had to give an opinion on what I thought was one of the world's best advertising campaigns in recent years, I'd have to say it is HSBC's (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation), “The World's Local Bank.” This simple slogan not only made good advertising – but it was also a beautiful business strategy. This London based bank showed that it understood the way the world was going, namely the old fashioned human desire to deal with people like you but at the same to deal with someone who knew the world.
This HSBC campaign reminds me of one of the more commonly discussed topics of university days – namely the issue of “glocalisation.” This idea was simple – globalisation is here to stay and the world will only get smaller thanks to modern communications like the internet. However, as the world gets smaller people would get more attached to their local communities. Proponents of the “glocal” theory argue that if businesses want to thrive, they need to be both global and local.
Doing this is trickier than it sounds. HSBC succeeded in displaying this in its advertising campaign. They were so successful at it that I never realised that HSBC was a Colonial British Bank until they took over Midland Bank back in the early 1990s. As a child, my dad banked with HSBC and I always saw them as being from Hong Kong and therefore Hong Kong Chinese. Seeing a White Briton as a CEO was something of a shock to me. Unfortunately, outside HSBC I can't think of a global business that has been successful at making itself local. Why is that so?
I think the answer is pretty simple. We live in a world where “Globalisation” is the buzzword. If you're not “Global” or at least “Regional” in everything you do, you're going to be regarded as something of a “bumpkin.” If you live and opperate in a small place like Singapore, you need to have a somewhat reasonable claim to being “global” or at least “regional” in your outlook. Singapore on its own is such a small market that even the big multinationals don't treat the budgeting for the local market seriously. Luckily, Singapore is regional headquarters and regional budgets are set from Singapore – so Singapore based business do have a chance at fighting for Asia-Pacific or South Asian budgets.
Its not just businesses that are going “global.” Thanks to the 'internet' any clown can be “global.” I've bashed out this blog in Singapore over the last six years. While my audience is primarily Singaporean, I've had readers from the USA, UK, parts of Europe and even darkest Africa. I don't need to be part of a big publishing company to be read around the world.
There's no doubt that globalisation has on the whole been a good thing. I live in Asia, which is at the time of writing the ONLY part of the world with any money. The Asian growth miracle is a product of globalisation. It started with the four NICS (South Korean, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) and today its spread to the giants of China and India. The success story has been simple – we opened up ourselves to global talent, competition, expectations etc. Our companies make and service according to global rather than local standards.
India comes to mind as an example as a country that has benefited from being “global.” I remember a time when the only thing you could do with anything coming from India was to place it in New Age Shrine and chant endlessly around it. In a space of less than three decades, India is moving up the ladder and today, people take Indian companies very seriously. Everyone knows about IT and call centres. However, India is more than that. The American FDA approves an ever increasing amount of drugs based on clinical research done in India.
How is it that a large, underdeveloped nation managed to become a serious player in a number of brain industries? The answer is simple – the brain bits of India is highly open to the “global” grid while the bits of India that are continuing to fail are still stuck in “provincial” mud.
Globalisation is not just a business idea. Its helped raise the standard of life in other aspects too. The great hope in Asia is that the major Asian Giant, China, will be unable to return to the brutal days of Maoist dictatorship. While China remains a Communist Dictatorship in many ways, the Communist Party Chief's of today cannot turn the clock back – too many Chinese people have lived the way the rest of the world does and nobody envisions the people allowing those in power to turn the clock back.
While being “global” is undoubtedly a good thing, there is such a thing of being damaged by being so global that you forget the local. I think of the “dot.com” boom that went spectacularly bust in 2000. What happened?
Simple – we got so caught up in the hype of the internet and being “global” that we forgot about our “real” presence. I look at myself as an example. This blog entry will be read by people beyond Singapore. I've arranged for clients to be interviewed in foreign lands without leaving Singapore. While I can do things beyond Sinapore's shored – I have to remember that I remain physically present in Singapore and therefore my “real” existence remains within the local Singapore context.
Now, let's translate this into something larger. Marketing is filled with examples of how global brands with their power of global budgets, expertise etc etc have become unstuck when they've assumed that the locals will abandon their culture just to be “global.”
One of my favourite examples is the Ford “Nova,” which failed miserably in the Latin America market. It took some bright spark to realise that “No – Va” in Spanish is “No-Go” - not exactly the message you want to convey to car buyers - “Buy my “No Go” car!”
There are other examples. One good Asian example is Jollibee, a Fillipino fast-food joint which prevented McDonalds from conquering their local market by simply appealing to local taste.
Americans are particularly guilty of disregarding “local” sensetivities. In a way, you can't blame them for it. People around the world have an incredible “love” for things American. Perhaps you could say its thanks to Maddison Avenue but America and American cultural icons have found a way of sticking into our psyche.
However, as much as the rest of the world loves things America, we don't exactly want to lose our local culture either nor do we want Americans overwhelming us telling us how to run our lives – something which has become especially true with the recent financial crisis. I mean do you really want the people who screwed up the world by hidding and playing roulette with your money telling you about how to manage your money?
When Americanisation, which is a lot of ways the same thing as “globalisation” gets too overwhelming – the locals fight back and they can win.
This was brought home to me at a recent work-shop on Afghanistan, organised by Singapore's Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS).
One of the most interesting (I use the term politely) was a talk given by Mr Muhammad Sabir Siddiqi, Director Development and Public Awarness, Afghanistan. The poor man had the unenviable task of admitting that the current Afghan government and its international allies (USA and its NATO allies) were losing the propoganda war against the Taliban.
The question is simple – How? If there's anyone you should be able to beat in a propoganda fight – it should be the Taliban. You are talking about a group of religious thugs who spent nearly a decade setting the entire country back by several decades by banning any form of communication with the outside world as “Un-Islamic.” The Taliban are the very people who held mass executions (read stonnings) for things as simple as “witch craft” and they had a habit of beating up girls (read throwing acid) who had the audacity to go to school. This is the type of brand equity that usually gets you barred for life from people's toilet bowls.
By comparison, you have the Afghan government and its American allies who have the experience of Maddison Avenue behind them. America's brand equity is “pursuite of happiness.”
I asked Mr Siddiqi how it was possible for the brand equity of the Taliban (read – murderous thugs) was beating the Afghan government and its American patron (read – sweet hot blonde). His answer was - “The Taliban and its backers know the system in Afghanistan.”
I think the situation goes beyond communications. However, Mr Siddiqi made a very valuable point. The Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and its American backers disgregarded local sensitivities. They invested heavily in things like internet and TV campaigns in a country that had no internet. This might have worked in the US or Europe – but in Afghanistan?
By contrast, the Taliban communicated through the Mosque and the Maddrasah's. They went out to meet the people. They also learnt how to become very effective users of modern communications like the Inernet and TV.
Like it or not, the group that most sensible people would have imagined should have been flushed into the toilet bowl of history have made a “come back” and they've now set up an office in Qatar with the full blessing of the Americans.
How did this happen? Simple – the Taliban were open to using global technologies but remembered the local. Unlike the American backed Karzai government, they slowly rebuilt their base from the bottom up rather than trying to impose anything from the top-down.
I remember a local inventor telling me his frustrations in dealing with a local authority in Singapore. He describes how he provided a solution to them and they told him, “No one else in the world does it the way you do?” His reply was “nobody else has the unique needs that we do.”
Businesses and governments should be global. However, they ignore the local needs. At best this is expensive. At worst – we get a situation where the likes of the Taliban can make a “come back.”
This HSBC campaign reminds me of one of the more commonly discussed topics of university days – namely the issue of “glocalisation.” This idea was simple – globalisation is here to stay and the world will only get smaller thanks to modern communications like the internet. However, as the world gets smaller people would get more attached to their local communities. Proponents of the “glocal” theory argue that if businesses want to thrive, they need to be both global and local.
Doing this is trickier than it sounds. HSBC succeeded in displaying this in its advertising campaign. They were so successful at it that I never realised that HSBC was a Colonial British Bank until they took over Midland Bank back in the early 1990s. As a child, my dad banked with HSBC and I always saw them as being from Hong Kong and therefore Hong Kong Chinese. Seeing a White Briton as a CEO was something of a shock to me. Unfortunately, outside HSBC I can't think of a global business that has been successful at making itself local. Why is that so?
I think the answer is pretty simple. We live in a world where “Globalisation” is the buzzword. If you're not “Global” or at least “Regional” in everything you do, you're going to be regarded as something of a “bumpkin.” If you live and opperate in a small place like Singapore, you need to have a somewhat reasonable claim to being “global” or at least “regional” in your outlook. Singapore on its own is such a small market that even the big multinationals don't treat the budgeting for the local market seriously. Luckily, Singapore is regional headquarters and regional budgets are set from Singapore – so Singapore based business do have a chance at fighting for Asia-Pacific or South Asian budgets.
Its not just businesses that are going “global.” Thanks to the 'internet' any clown can be “global.” I've bashed out this blog in Singapore over the last six years. While my audience is primarily Singaporean, I've had readers from the USA, UK, parts of Europe and even darkest Africa. I don't need to be part of a big publishing company to be read around the world.
There's no doubt that globalisation has on the whole been a good thing. I live in Asia, which is at the time of writing the ONLY part of the world with any money. The Asian growth miracle is a product of globalisation. It started with the four NICS (South Korean, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) and today its spread to the giants of China and India. The success story has been simple – we opened up ourselves to global talent, competition, expectations etc. Our companies make and service according to global rather than local standards.
India comes to mind as an example as a country that has benefited from being “global.” I remember a time when the only thing you could do with anything coming from India was to place it in New Age Shrine and chant endlessly around it. In a space of less than three decades, India is moving up the ladder and today, people take Indian companies very seriously. Everyone knows about IT and call centres. However, India is more than that. The American FDA approves an ever increasing amount of drugs based on clinical research done in India.
How is it that a large, underdeveloped nation managed to become a serious player in a number of brain industries? The answer is simple – the brain bits of India is highly open to the “global” grid while the bits of India that are continuing to fail are still stuck in “provincial” mud.
Globalisation is not just a business idea. Its helped raise the standard of life in other aspects too. The great hope in Asia is that the major Asian Giant, China, will be unable to return to the brutal days of Maoist dictatorship. While China remains a Communist Dictatorship in many ways, the Communist Party Chief's of today cannot turn the clock back – too many Chinese people have lived the way the rest of the world does and nobody envisions the people allowing those in power to turn the clock back.
While being “global” is undoubtedly a good thing, there is such a thing of being damaged by being so global that you forget the local. I think of the “dot.com” boom that went spectacularly bust in 2000. What happened?
Simple – we got so caught up in the hype of the internet and being “global” that we forgot about our “real” presence. I look at myself as an example. This blog entry will be read by people beyond Singapore. I've arranged for clients to be interviewed in foreign lands without leaving Singapore. While I can do things beyond Sinapore's shored – I have to remember that I remain physically present in Singapore and therefore my “real” existence remains within the local Singapore context.
Now, let's translate this into something larger. Marketing is filled with examples of how global brands with their power of global budgets, expertise etc etc have become unstuck when they've assumed that the locals will abandon their culture just to be “global.”
One of my favourite examples is the Ford “Nova,” which failed miserably in the Latin America market. It took some bright spark to realise that “No – Va” in Spanish is “No-Go” - not exactly the message you want to convey to car buyers - “Buy my “No Go” car!”
There are other examples. One good Asian example is Jollibee, a Fillipino fast-food joint which prevented McDonalds from conquering their local market by simply appealing to local taste.
Americans are particularly guilty of disregarding “local” sensetivities. In a way, you can't blame them for it. People around the world have an incredible “love” for things American. Perhaps you could say its thanks to Maddison Avenue but America and American cultural icons have found a way of sticking into our psyche.
However, as much as the rest of the world loves things America, we don't exactly want to lose our local culture either nor do we want Americans overwhelming us telling us how to run our lives – something which has become especially true with the recent financial crisis. I mean do you really want the people who screwed up the world by hidding and playing roulette with your money telling you about how to manage your money?
When Americanisation, which is a lot of ways the same thing as “globalisation” gets too overwhelming – the locals fight back and they can win.
This was brought home to me at a recent work-shop on Afghanistan, organised by Singapore's Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS).
One of the most interesting (I use the term politely) was a talk given by Mr Muhammad Sabir Siddiqi, Director Development and Public Awarness, Afghanistan. The poor man had the unenviable task of admitting that the current Afghan government and its international allies (USA and its NATO allies) were losing the propoganda war against the Taliban.
The question is simple – How? If there's anyone you should be able to beat in a propoganda fight – it should be the Taliban. You are talking about a group of religious thugs who spent nearly a decade setting the entire country back by several decades by banning any form of communication with the outside world as “Un-Islamic.” The Taliban are the very people who held mass executions (read stonnings) for things as simple as “witch craft” and they had a habit of beating up girls (read throwing acid) who had the audacity to go to school. This is the type of brand equity that usually gets you barred for life from people's toilet bowls.
By comparison, you have the Afghan government and its American allies who have the experience of Maddison Avenue behind them. America's brand equity is “pursuite of happiness.”
I asked Mr Siddiqi how it was possible for the brand equity of the Taliban (read – murderous thugs) was beating the Afghan government and its American patron (read – sweet hot blonde). His answer was - “The Taliban and its backers know the system in Afghanistan.”
I think the situation goes beyond communications. However, Mr Siddiqi made a very valuable point. The Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and its American backers disgregarded local sensitivities. They invested heavily in things like internet and TV campaigns in a country that had no internet. This might have worked in the US or Europe – but in Afghanistan?
By contrast, the Taliban communicated through the Mosque and the Maddrasah's. They went out to meet the people. They also learnt how to become very effective users of modern communications like the Inernet and TV.
Like it or not, the group that most sensible people would have imagined should have been flushed into the toilet bowl of history have made a “come back” and they've now set up an office in Qatar with the full blessing of the Americans.
How did this happen? Simple – the Taliban were open to using global technologies but remembered the local. Unlike the American backed Karzai government, they slowly rebuilt their base from the bottom up rather than trying to impose anything from the top-down.
I remember a local inventor telling me his frustrations in dealing with a local authority in Singapore. He describes how he provided a solution to them and they told him, “No one else in the world does it the way you do?” His reply was “nobody else has the unique needs that we do.”
Businesses and governments should be global. However, they ignore the local needs. At best this is expensive. At worst – we get a situation where the likes of the Taliban can make a “come back.”
Saturday, January 07, 2012
The Distraction Over Salaries
Singapore has started out 2012 with a bit of a bang. Everyone had a major talking point this week – namely the topic of salaries or more precisely the salary of the cabinate. The Committee that had been established in the aftermath of last year’s General Election to look into the issue of Ministerial Salaries, finally revealved its findings.
In a nut shell the Committee decided that there would be an all round pay cut from the President down to the most junior cabinate minister. The President took the largest pay cut of about 51 percent while the Prime Minister and his colleagues took pay cuts ranging from 30-40 percent. Both the President and Prime Minister made the annoucements that they would accept the recamendations of the Committee.
This was good politics. The issue of Ministerial Salaries had been a hot button issue in the General Election and the Presidential Election. Taking a pay cut was a signal that the powers-that-be were going to listen. Furthermore, there’s the issue of good timming. The Finance Minister had spent the preceeding days telling us to get ready for an economic slowdown and the announcement that the Prime Minsiter was willing to take pay cut of slightly less than 40 percent was good old fashioned leadership by example. A few members of the opposition make the point that Singapore’s Ministers remain the world’s best paid (Our Prime Minister still makes four times more than the US President) but by and large we, the people were satisfied.
However, I don’t think we should get too satisfied. Taking a pay cut was the easy part. Analysing why a pay cut was necessary in the first place is another matter.
Let’s start with the basics. For many years, we the tax payer were told that we needed to pay our ministers exceedingly well because it was the only way to keep them honest and it was necessary to pay top-dollar for top talent (always a precious commodity).
It was acceptable until the government services became less than exemplary. One only has to think of the limping man waltzing out of a secured facility as an example.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the only one. In the years preceeding the General Election we got a dose of things one associates more with a third world backwater than a premium metropolis – think of floods, over-crowded buses, a lack of affordable housing and violent youth gangs. All of that is before you throw in the various losses made by our Soverign Wealth Funds, who insisted on keeping things secret thus giving the impression that they had something to hide.
In these various instances, the government spent a significant amount of time and resources justifying its handling of the situation. The case of Mas Selamat was particularly poignient. The public wanted an offer of resignation by the Minister but what we got was a scolding from our founding Prime Minister for being complacent in expecting the government to do its job.
This wasn’t exactly top-talent in action nor did the powers-that-be seem terribly honest. So, suddenly paying the expensive ministerial salaries became ….well harder to justify.
The government needs to recognises this. The Prime Minister has sold the fact that his is a “Rolls Royce” government and he has to ensure that Ministers perform like a “Rolls Royce.” Ministers who perform below par without justification should be ruthlessly dismissed.
You cannot expect a customer to pay for a “Rolls Royce” but receive a “Fiat” and be greatful for it because the neighbours in Malaysia and Indonesia only have “Proton Saga.” The customer in this case is no longer willing to be greatful that he has a car in the first place. Nor will the public accept a discounted “Rolls Royce” government performing below par. We the paying public were told that we need to pay for a “Rolls Royce” government and that’s precisely what we expect to receive.
A more important issue is the fact that Singapore has become an exceedingly unequal society. The Gini Coefficient points to the fact that two thirds of Singaporeans earn well below the national average of S$4,500 a month. The remaining third earns way over that benchmark.
This is in itself not an issue. America has exceedingly unequal yet there have been relatively few riots since the Rodney King incident in 1994. How this happened? The simple answer is that while the rich have gotten richer, so have the poor. Societies start facing social unrest when the rich get richer while the poor get poorer and even more importantly the rich are seen to get richer at the expense of the poor.
The US provides another example – “Occupy Wall Street.” This movement is driven by the fact that poor and Middle Class people are pissed off with very rich bankers getting rich by messing up their mortgages through fraudulent means.
In Singapore, we’ve been lucky to have governments that have been smart enough to move in to redistribute the pie when things look a little uneven. However, there is a sense that the government has a role in keeping the wages of the poor and now the Middle Class down. I remember someone telling me, “In Singapore, the policy is – KILL THE SME.”
The most prominent area where this can be seen is in the area of rental space. Fact remains, the government is the largest landlord in town. It has the power to raise and reduce rents for small businesses.
The government is not only the landlord of land space. It rents out taxis – which is supposed to be the job of last resort for Singaporeans. Taxi drivers rent their cars from the National Trade Union Congress (controlled by the government) and they have to pay all the expenses of running a taxi (petrol etc). In return they are theoretically allowed to make as much money as they can.
However, the government makes things harder. Renting a taxi is expensive (around $90 –a day and it has to paid daily). Certain roads on the desired routes come with a toll and you’re allowed to stop in certain places. To make matters worse, we actually had a former Minsiter of Transport who publically declared that he wanted to move local Singaporeans off cars (including taxis) and onto the public transport (buses and trains) as part of a national effort to go green. So there you have it – the taxi driver has to collect money for the same government that’s actively trying to put him out of business.
This is the most obvious example of how the government works to keep wages or the earning capacity of the citizens low. I’ve mentioned it more than once – whenever cleaning aunties earning a few hundred a month for 12-hour daily shifts want a few cents a year more, the powers that be rush out to warn the public about creating inflationary pressures (which doesn’t seem to apply when Ministers want several hundred thousand a month more).
Its one thing to earn less than your peers. I take myself as an example. I am a writer and the industry I deal with is publishing. I’m likely to make way less than my peers in investment banking, oil&gas or shipping. Those industries are more capital intensive and so the money floating around them is likely to be greater.
It’s a completely different thing when I’m earning less because the people in power take an active role in keeping my wages down. Look at the taxi drivers. Its tough enough looking for customers to pay for the daily rental. The effort of making a living becomes a joke when a government minister publically declares war on your business.
It is a nice gesture of the cabinate to take a hefty pay cut. However, whether the Prime Minister is paid $20billion or $2 does not affect me. What affects me is my ability to make a living. I can accept that I struggle for a living. However, that struggle becomes somewhat unacceptable when the powers-that-be are actively increasing my burden.
Cutting the pay of the top national leaders makes good politics but it does not make better social or economic policy. The answer for Singapore lies not so much in cutting the money for the top but in allowing the bottom two –thirds earning below the national average to rise their incomes.
The concept of a minimum wage has been rejected as a socialist tool to scare off foreign investors. I don’t think this is necessarily true. Singapore has long past the stage where it sells on being “cheaper” (Whatever you can make cheaply, China will make even cheaper and India will service cheaper).
However, this is NOT the ONLY way to raise incomes for the lower part of society. At the very least the government can lower rents during tough economic times so as to ensure small businesses like hawkers and taxi-drivers keep more of the money they make. (Interestingly enough the government won’t lose since it will probably collect more by way of tax).
The government should look at creative ways to help lower income people earn more. Subletting of flats should be encouraged as should car pooling. Employers who come up with creative ways to compensate people should be recognised.
These are just some possiblities one can think of in working towards the most pressing issue of the day – namely helping the poor get richer. We need to give the poor a sense that they can achieve if we’re move forward. This rather than getting a few well paid ministers to take a pay cut (which they’ll take for political purposes) is the most pressing issue that we need to work towards
In a nut shell the Committee decided that there would be an all round pay cut from the President down to the most junior cabinate minister. The President took the largest pay cut of about 51 percent while the Prime Minister and his colleagues took pay cuts ranging from 30-40 percent. Both the President and Prime Minister made the annoucements that they would accept the recamendations of the Committee.
This was good politics. The issue of Ministerial Salaries had been a hot button issue in the General Election and the Presidential Election. Taking a pay cut was a signal that the powers-that-be were going to listen. Furthermore, there’s the issue of good timming. The Finance Minister had spent the preceeding days telling us to get ready for an economic slowdown and the announcement that the Prime Minsiter was willing to take pay cut of slightly less than 40 percent was good old fashioned leadership by example. A few members of the opposition make the point that Singapore’s Ministers remain the world’s best paid (Our Prime Minister still makes four times more than the US President) but by and large we, the people were satisfied.
However, I don’t think we should get too satisfied. Taking a pay cut was the easy part. Analysing why a pay cut was necessary in the first place is another matter.
Let’s start with the basics. For many years, we the tax payer were told that we needed to pay our ministers exceedingly well because it was the only way to keep them honest and it was necessary to pay top-dollar for top talent (always a precious commodity).
It was acceptable until the government services became less than exemplary. One only has to think of the limping man waltzing out of a secured facility as an example.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the only one. In the years preceeding the General Election we got a dose of things one associates more with a third world backwater than a premium metropolis – think of floods, over-crowded buses, a lack of affordable housing and violent youth gangs. All of that is before you throw in the various losses made by our Soverign Wealth Funds, who insisted on keeping things secret thus giving the impression that they had something to hide.
In these various instances, the government spent a significant amount of time and resources justifying its handling of the situation. The case of Mas Selamat was particularly poignient. The public wanted an offer of resignation by the Minister but what we got was a scolding from our founding Prime Minister for being complacent in expecting the government to do its job.
This wasn’t exactly top-talent in action nor did the powers-that-be seem terribly honest. So, suddenly paying the expensive ministerial salaries became ….well harder to justify.
The government needs to recognises this. The Prime Minister has sold the fact that his is a “Rolls Royce” government and he has to ensure that Ministers perform like a “Rolls Royce.” Ministers who perform below par without justification should be ruthlessly dismissed.
You cannot expect a customer to pay for a “Rolls Royce” but receive a “Fiat” and be greatful for it because the neighbours in Malaysia and Indonesia only have “Proton Saga.” The customer in this case is no longer willing to be greatful that he has a car in the first place. Nor will the public accept a discounted “Rolls Royce” government performing below par. We the paying public were told that we need to pay for a “Rolls Royce” government and that’s precisely what we expect to receive.
A more important issue is the fact that Singapore has become an exceedingly unequal society. The Gini Coefficient points to the fact that two thirds of Singaporeans earn well below the national average of S$4,500 a month. The remaining third earns way over that benchmark.
This is in itself not an issue. America has exceedingly unequal yet there have been relatively few riots since the Rodney King incident in 1994. How this happened? The simple answer is that while the rich have gotten richer, so have the poor. Societies start facing social unrest when the rich get richer while the poor get poorer and even more importantly the rich are seen to get richer at the expense of the poor.
The US provides another example – “Occupy Wall Street.” This movement is driven by the fact that poor and Middle Class people are pissed off with very rich bankers getting rich by messing up their mortgages through fraudulent means.
In Singapore, we’ve been lucky to have governments that have been smart enough to move in to redistribute the pie when things look a little uneven. However, there is a sense that the government has a role in keeping the wages of the poor and now the Middle Class down. I remember someone telling me, “In Singapore, the policy is – KILL THE SME.”
The most prominent area where this can be seen is in the area of rental space. Fact remains, the government is the largest landlord in town. It has the power to raise and reduce rents for small businesses.
The government is not only the landlord of land space. It rents out taxis – which is supposed to be the job of last resort for Singaporeans. Taxi drivers rent their cars from the National Trade Union Congress (controlled by the government) and they have to pay all the expenses of running a taxi (petrol etc). In return they are theoretically allowed to make as much money as they can.
However, the government makes things harder. Renting a taxi is expensive (around $90 –a day and it has to paid daily). Certain roads on the desired routes come with a toll and you’re allowed to stop in certain places. To make matters worse, we actually had a former Minsiter of Transport who publically declared that he wanted to move local Singaporeans off cars (including taxis) and onto the public transport (buses and trains) as part of a national effort to go green. So there you have it – the taxi driver has to collect money for the same government that’s actively trying to put him out of business.
This is the most obvious example of how the government works to keep wages or the earning capacity of the citizens low. I’ve mentioned it more than once – whenever cleaning aunties earning a few hundred a month for 12-hour daily shifts want a few cents a year more, the powers that be rush out to warn the public about creating inflationary pressures (which doesn’t seem to apply when Ministers want several hundred thousand a month more).
Its one thing to earn less than your peers. I take myself as an example. I am a writer and the industry I deal with is publishing. I’m likely to make way less than my peers in investment banking, oil&gas or shipping. Those industries are more capital intensive and so the money floating around them is likely to be greater.
It’s a completely different thing when I’m earning less because the people in power take an active role in keeping my wages down. Look at the taxi drivers. Its tough enough looking for customers to pay for the daily rental. The effort of making a living becomes a joke when a government minister publically declares war on your business.
It is a nice gesture of the cabinate to take a hefty pay cut. However, whether the Prime Minister is paid $20billion or $2 does not affect me. What affects me is my ability to make a living. I can accept that I struggle for a living. However, that struggle becomes somewhat unacceptable when the powers-that-be are actively increasing my burden.
Cutting the pay of the top national leaders makes good politics but it does not make better social or economic policy. The answer for Singapore lies not so much in cutting the money for the top but in allowing the bottom two –thirds earning below the national average to rise their incomes.
The concept of a minimum wage has been rejected as a socialist tool to scare off foreign investors. I don’t think this is necessarily true. Singapore has long past the stage where it sells on being “cheaper” (Whatever you can make cheaply, China will make even cheaper and India will service cheaper).
However, this is NOT the ONLY way to raise incomes for the lower part of society. At the very least the government can lower rents during tough economic times so as to ensure small businesses like hawkers and taxi-drivers keep more of the money they make. (Interestingly enough the government won’t lose since it will probably collect more by way of tax).
The government should look at creative ways to help lower income people earn more. Subletting of flats should be encouraged as should car pooling. Employers who come up with creative ways to compensate people should be recognised.
These are just some possiblities one can think of in working towards the most pressing issue of the day – namely helping the poor get richer. We need to give the poor a sense that they can achieve if we’re move forward. This rather than getting a few well paid ministers to take a pay cut (which they’ll take for political purposes) is the most pressing issue that we need to work towards
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Full of Crap – But Encouraging Non the Less
This has been something of a funny little year. If I were to look back and analyse my decade in Singapore, I could say that it was largely dissapointing and filled with crap. Yet, despite of all of that, it was also a year filled with optimism and as this year comes to an end, I find myself writing my yearly summery with a sense that I might have at least one more decent year in me to do something interesting.
Much to those worry of those who love me most, I have come to except that I am meant to life in a world of uncertainty and turmoil. In a funny way, the world is moving to suite people like me. In the Middle East there was the Arab Spring, which saw huge people-power demonstrations brining down long standing autocrates like Ben-Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Qaddafi in Libya. These were men who had an 'iron-grip' on power for decades thanks through a combination of ruthlessness with domestic opponents and convincing outside powers (Westen ones) that it was in their interest to keep them in power. However, when their people.....simple ordinary people, had enough – these rullers had no choice but to flee.
In a curious way, what happened in the Middle East was a catalyst for things to happen elsewhere. In the Western world, people had enough of being screwed by powerful elites and occupied Wall Street. Even Singapore wasn't spared. We had two-elections and suddenly our normally politically apathetic public discovered our love to our country at the ballot box.
Something amazing happened on this little island that usually accepts being browbeaten as a necessary fact of life. The people forced the government to listen. The Ruling Party lost an unprecdented six-seats in the General Election and its prefered candidate barely squeaked home in the Presidential election despite every concievable advantage. The much maligned Singapore electorate showed an incredible amount of wisdom by returning a government with a good track record but at the same time giving legitimacy to the one opposition party that had the hunger and know-how to form an alternative government – the Workers Party. Opposition politics in Singapore has moved from being about disgruntled ego-maniacs to being about an intelligent alternative.
All these changes might not necessarily be better from the point of material gain. However, its a wonder from the point of view of the human spirit. For me, I discovered that my only hobby has become my only asset. This blog has doubled in size and I've had people tell me that I've managed to strike a chord with them.
I still haven't figured out how to make blogging pay and I'm not the only one. My fellow intelligent bloggers tell me that they haven't either. However, we will continue to do what we do – which is to put across different views from the mainstream and to get people thinking.
Gone are the days when Singapore could survive as a robotics factory for the Western World. We on this little island need to think and debate. We need to find our own solutions instead of relying on the government to be the almighty and all knowing guide. I do what I do in the full knowledge that I may risk offending someone but I pray that even when I offend, I am able to provoke a thought. I take the view that as a patriotic Singaporean it is my obligation to put forth my views about what it is good and what is not good about this nation from this nation.
On the professional/personal front things moved in interesting directions. For once I had to live without a monthly retainer. Having to worry about my next meal was rough....Thankfully, I have Huong back in my life and I am starting to appreciate what my Dad once said about having a woman with ambition in your life. Thanks to Huong I am now helping Vietnamese in Singapore learn English. It's not making me rich but it pays bills.
In a way, you could say that whatever “teaching” I've been doing has been starting to pay off. My first and final professional strikes of the year came courtesy of Mr Glenn Lim, Director of 20Twenty Pr. I met Glenn for a brief period in 2005 when I worked at BANG PR. He was my intern and when he returned to BANG after I left, we continued our friendship. I will not hessitate to keep stressing that he has become a far better PR consultant than me. He has proven that small one-man-agencies can win in both online and off line PR. He blessed me with work on New Zealand Natural and with the Family Business Network. I look forward to more collaborations with him.
I also need to thank Ms Kavita Balakrishnan and her brother Venkat for their friendship. I met Kavita two years ago when she worked for one of my business partners. It was she who ensured that I had the warmth of friendship on my birthday and at Christmas.
In a funny way, I also bless this year for blessing someone else. Joyce, the love of my life has just got herself a job paying a decent salary. I thank God for giving her a chance to do what she needs to do – to look after Yooga.
Life had a few promises. I was approached by a headhunter online trying to recruite me for Accenture. I also had the good fortune to work on a project with former Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Tun Mussa Hitam. Unfortunately, the relationship with Edleman Malaysia proved to be based on something other than mutual respect – a fact that I was to discover five months after the job was done.
As always, I am greatful to Mr PN Balji, former Editor-in-Chief of the Today Newspaper. It was thanks to Balji that I managed to work on one of the most interesting projects I've worked on.
However, I am more greatful for his introduction to a man who has given me hope for Singapore – Mr Philip Wong. Mr Wong has dedicated his life to inventions and at the time of writing he may have something that could change the way the human race does things.
Through my work with Mr Wong, I have had the privillege of meeting Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, the CEO of Real Kaiten. Ms Chong, a leading member of the ruling party's youth wing has has founded a company that sees opportunity in a part of the world that nobody looks at. She sees profit in making sure that people have a chance to live properly.
Much to those worry of those who love me most, I have come to except that I am meant to life in a world of uncertainty and turmoil. In a funny way, the world is moving to suite people like me. In the Middle East there was the Arab Spring, which saw huge people-power demonstrations brining down long standing autocrates like Ben-Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Qaddafi in Libya. These were men who had an 'iron-grip' on power for decades thanks through a combination of ruthlessness with domestic opponents and convincing outside powers (Westen ones) that it was in their interest to keep them in power. However, when their people.....simple ordinary people, had enough – these rullers had no choice but to flee.
In a curious way, what happened in the Middle East was a catalyst for things to happen elsewhere. In the Western world, people had enough of being screwed by powerful elites and occupied Wall Street. Even Singapore wasn't spared. We had two-elections and suddenly our normally politically apathetic public discovered our love to our country at the ballot box.
Something amazing happened on this little island that usually accepts being browbeaten as a necessary fact of life. The people forced the government to listen. The Ruling Party lost an unprecdented six-seats in the General Election and its prefered candidate barely squeaked home in the Presidential election despite every concievable advantage. The much maligned Singapore electorate showed an incredible amount of wisdom by returning a government with a good track record but at the same time giving legitimacy to the one opposition party that had the hunger and know-how to form an alternative government – the Workers Party. Opposition politics in Singapore has moved from being about disgruntled ego-maniacs to being about an intelligent alternative.
All these changes might not necessarily be better from the point of material gain. However, its a wonder from the point of view of the human spirit. For me, I discovered that my only hobby has become my only asset. This blog has doubled in size and I've had people tell me that I've managed to strike a chord with them.
I still haven't figured out how to make blogging pay and I'm not the only one. My fellow intelligent bloggers tell me that they haven't either. However, we will continue to do what we do – which is to put across different views from the mainstream and to get people thinking.
Gone are the days when Singapore could survive as a robotics factory for the Western World. We on this little island need to think and debate. We need to find our own solutions instead of relying on the government to be the almighty and all knowing guide. I do what I do in the full knowledge that I may risk offending someone but I pray that even when I offend, I am able to provoke a thought. I take the view that as a patriotic Singaporean it is my obligation to put forth my views about what it is good and what is not good about this nation from this nation.
On the professional/personal front things moved in interesting directions. For once I had to live without a monthly retainer. Having to worry about my next meal was rough....Thankfully, I have Huong back in my life and I am starting to appreciate what my Dad once said about having a woman with ambition in your life. Thanks to Huong I am now helping Vietnamese in Singapore learn English. It's not making me rich but it pays bills.
In a way, you could say that whatever “teaching” I've been doing has been starting to pay off. My first and final professional strikes of the year came courtesy of Mr Glenn Lim, Director of 20Twenty Pr. I met Glenn for a brief period in 2005 when I worked at BANG PR. He was my intern and when he returned to BANG after I left, we continued our friendship. I will not hessitate to keep stressing that he has become a far better PR consultant than me. He has proven that small one-man-agencies can win in both online and off line PR. He blessed me with work on New Zealand Natural and with the Family Business Network. I look forward to more collaborations with him.
I also need to thank Ms Kavita Balakrishnan and her brother Venkat for their friendship. I met Kavita two years ago when she worked for one of my business partners. It was she who ensured that I had the warmth of friendship on my birthday and at Christmas.
In a funny way, I also bless this year for blessing someone else. Joyce, the love of my life has just got herself a job paying a decent salary. I thank God for giving her a chance to do what she needs to do – to look after Yooga.
Life had a few promises. I was approached by a headhunter online trying to recruite me for Accenture. I also had the good fortune to work on a project with former Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Tun Mussa Hitam. Unfortunately, the relationship with Edleman Malaysia proved to be based on something other than mutual respect – a fact that I was to discover five months after the job was done.
As always, I am greatful to Mr PN Balji, former Editor-in-Chief of the Today Newspaper. It was thanks to Balji that I managed to work on one of the most interesting projects I've worked on.
However, I am more greatful for his introduction to a man who has given me hope for Singapore – Mr Philip Wong. Mr Wong has dedicated his life to inventions and at the time of writing he may have something that could change the way the human race does things.
Through my work with Mr Wong, I have had the privillege of meeting Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, the CEO of Real Kaiten. Ms Chong, a leading member of the ruling party's youth wing has has founded a company that sees opportunity in a part of the world that nobody looks at. She sees profit in making sure that people have a chance to live properly.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Bring Back the CHRIST in Christmas
Christmas has now departed into Boxing Day and so I thought I would try and write a few words about what it was like to spend Christmas in Singapore instead of heading back to Germany. Although I had a pretty good Christmas with friends and family, I find myself agreeing with Pope Benedict. It’s time to bring CHRIST back to Christmas.
Everyday of walking down Orchard Road (Singapore’s main shopping district) was a nightmare. Not only was the place crowded with shoppers, one couldn’t help but be bombarded with endless, meaningless promotions to get you to buy things that you don’t really want or need. Yes, I am well aware that Christmas is supposed to have gone beyond its Christian roots and become a “universal” festival. However, a trip down Orchard Road has confirmed my belief that we’ve merely moved away from the Gospel of Christ to the Gospel of Mindless Consumerism.
OK, let’s clarrify, I am not against business. Of all people, I should be very pro-business and I should be greatful when people like retailers do well. I am also not against gift giving or having a good meal (though I should probably have a lot less of those). What I can’t take is how all of this has over shadowed the most significant part of Christmas – Christ.
I’ve not been confirmed in Church so you can’t call me a Christian in the truest sense of the word. However, I believe in the divinity of Christ and his message. If you read the Gospels and try to understand what the man was saying, you’ll find that he was preaching a simply put powerful message. This message is revered by everyone or at it least in should be.
Let’s face it, everyone agrees that Jesus is Holy. Christians see him as “God, the Son.” The Muslims revere him as one of God’s greatest prophets (Fact – the Koran mentions Jesus more often than it mentions Mohammed and it talks about Jesus’s return to fight the Anti-Christ). There is a sect of Hinduism that recognises Jesus as a Saint and the Dalai Lama has described Jesus as a Bodhisatva. Everyone agrees the man was Holy – we merely disagree with the extent of how holy he was.
So let’s start with our common ground – Jesus was Holy and what he said and did was sacred. From here we need to look at why he was so.
I think the answer is fairly simple – he taught us that life was about something greater than ourselves. Life, if you are merely focused on “Me, Myself and I” is pretty pointless. As I get older, I also realise that when people become so focused on themselves at the cost of everything else – they also don’t get very far.
I don’t believe that Christ was advocating being a doormat for every mercenary shit on the planet. My former half’s former pastor said it best – “Meek does not mean stupid.” There are times when one has to be firm about certain things. However, I believe that Christ did teach people that it was important to be driven by something other than the need to feed yourself.
If you study the Gospel, Christ talks about the willingness to “carry ones cross” to follow him. He urges rich men to sell their posessions and distribute it to the poor so that they could become followers of his. One of his best sound bites was “Man cannot serve two masters.” You serve money or God not both.
Once again, I don’t believe he was being “anti-business.” I don’t think Christ ever argued that one cannot make a profit. What I believe he said was that ones motive had to be about more than just making money.
Business should make money. However, that money has to benefit humanity rather than encourage greed. Businesses need not necessarily be philanthropic but at the very least they should create benefits – ie they should provide people with a means of making a living as well as making life better through the products or services that they provided. Businesses that encourage greed and thrived because of it would eventually fail.
There may be a point to this argument. Look at the banking system, which moved from being about lending money to people to being about creating financial products based on some fantasy to create vast sums of money for a few people. When you are focused on lending money, you remember things like risk and return. When you are focused on creating money out of thin air, you forget basic laws of physics.
I look at the people who have topped the Forbes Rich List consistently over the last two decades. Two names stick out – Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Both are highly decent men who were driven by something more than just personal enrichment. I know the technies will hate me for saying it but Bill Gates did do something good when he made computers useable to the average person. Sure Microsoft PC is dull when compared to Apple Mac but serves a purpose and it gives people a chance to do more that what they ever dreamed of before. Bill Gates has created vast wealth for ordinary people – Seattle is filled with ordinary people who did the ordinary thing of taking a job with Microsoft for normal wages but ended up becoming millionaires through their stock options.
Warren Buffet only invest in “real” businesses (those with a genuine product or service) . He avoids things that are complicated and don’t make sense even to the chaps who created them. Buffet avoided investing in “Dot.Com” because it was too complicated and he realised the valuations were created by funny money rather than something real. What’s the result of this – Mr Buffet has created wealth for people and his AGM (Annual General Meetings) are constantly packed. Mr Buffet does not need to hide behind “National Security” and “Libel” laws to show that he’s making money.
Messers Gates and Buffet have made legendary fortunes by not being obsessed with personal enrichment. Their focus has been on doing something else and by doing their something else well, they’ve made their fortunes. Warren Buffet says it best, “I am more interested in processes than proceeds – though I’ve learnt to live with those too.”
The Gospel of Christ is in people like Gates and Buffet. The Gospel of Mindless Consumerism is in the people who gave us the Sub-Prime Crisis. Both have created wealth but only one has been sustainable.
People should give gifts at Christmas and they should spend time with friends and family. What we should not do is to see Christmas as an exercise in buying things we don’t need and stuffing ourselves into something unrecognisable.
Christ taught us to look at life as something greater than ourselves. Its tough doing it but when people find the strength to do good, they become better people. When they don’t the worst in them takes over.
In the last few years, the world has gone through something of an economic downturn. This has been brought about largely by a culture that encourages people to behave at their worst. This is the type of culture where Christmas is celebrated by excessive spending driven by the need to own more for the sake of owning. This is the state where we talkbout “Xmas” and other variations of the festival because the Christ has been forgotten.
Given the economic downturn that we’ve been living in, isn’t time we brought back the CHRIST to Christmas and worked on having a culture that encourages us to bring out the best in each other?
Everyday of walking down Orchard Road (Singapore’s main shopping district) was a nightmare. Not only was the place crowded with shoppers, one couldn’t help but be bombarded with endless, meaningless promotions to get you to buy things that you don’t really want or need. Yes, I am well aware that Christmas is supposed to have gone beyond its Christian roots and become a “universal” festival. However, a trip down Orchard Road has confirmed my belief that we’ve merely moved away from the Gospel of Christ to the Gospel of Mindless Consumerism.
OK, let’s clarrify, I am not against business. Of all people, I should be very pro-business and I should be greatful when people like retailers do well. I am also not against gift giving or having a good meal (though I should probably have a lot less of those). What I can’t take is how all of this has over shadowed the most significant part of Christmas – Christ.
I’ve not been confirmed in Church so you can’t call me a Christian in the truest sense of the word. However, I believe in the divinity of Christ and his message. If you read the Gospels and try to understand what the man was saying, you’ll find that he was preaching a simply put powerful message. This message is revered by everyone or at it least in should be.
Let’s face it, everyone agrees that Jesus is Holy. Christians see him as “God, the Son.” The Muslims revere him as one of God’s greatest prophets (Fact – the Koran mentions Jesus more often than it mentions Mohammed and it talks about Jesus’s return to fight the Anti-Christ). There is a sect of Hinduism that recognises Jesus as a Saint and the Dalai Lama has described Jesus as a Bodhisatva. Everyone agrees the man was Holy – we merely disagree with the extent of how holy he was.
So let’s start with our common ground – Jesus was Holy and what he said and did was sacred. From here we need to look at why he was so.
I think the answer is fairly simple – he taught us that life was about something greater than ourselves. Life, if you are merely focused on “Me, Myself and I” is pretty pointless. As I get older, I also realise that when people become so focused on themselves at the cost of everything else – they also don’t get very far.
I don’t believe that Christ was advocating being a doormat for every mercenary shit on the planet. My former half’s former pastor said it best – “Meek does not mean stupid.” There are times when one has to be firm about certain things. However, I believe that Christ did teach people that it was important to be driven by something other than the need to feed yourself.
If you study the Gospel, Christ talks about the willingness to “carry ones cross” to follow him. He urges rich men to sell their posessions and distribute it to the poor so that they could become followers of his. One of his best sound bites was “Man cannot serve two masters.” You serve money or God not both.
Once again, I don’t believe he was being “anti-business.” I don’t think Christ ever argued that one cannot make a profit. What I believe he said was that ones motive had to be about more than just making money.
Business should make money. However, that money has to benefit humanity rather than encourage greed. Businesses need not necessarily be philanthropic but at the very least they should create benefits – ie they should provide people with a means of making a living as well as making life better through the products or services that they provided. Businesses that encourage greed and thrived because of it would eventually fail.
There may be a point to this argument. Look at the banking system, which moved from being about lending money to people to being about creating financial products based on some fantasy to create vast sums of money for a few people. When you are focused on lending money, you remember things like risk and return. When you are focused on creating money out of thin air, you forget basic laws of physics.
I look at the people who have topped the Forbes Rich List consistently over the last two decades. Two names stick out – Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Both are highly decent men who were driven by something more than just personal enrichment. I know the technies will hate me for saying it but Bill Gates did do something good when he made computers useable to the average person. Sure Microsoft PC is dull when compared to Apple Mac but serves a purpose and it gives people a chance to do more that what they ever dreamed of before. Bill Gates has created vast wealth for ordinary people – Seattle is filled with ordinary people who did the ordinary thing of taking a job with Microsoft for normal wages but ended up becoming millionaires through their stock options.
Warren Buffet only invest in “real” businesses (those with a genuine product or service) . He avoids things that are complicated and don’t make sense even to the chaps who created them. Buffet avoided investing in “Dot.Com” because it was too complicated and he realised the valuations were created by funny money rather than something real. What’s the result of this – Mr Buffet has created wealth for people and his AGM (Annual General Meetings) are constantly packed. Mr Buffet does not need to hide behind “National Security” and “Libel” laws to show that he’s making money.
Messers Gates and Buffet have made legendary fortunes by not being obsessed with personal enrichment. Their focus has been on doing something else and by doing their something else well, they’ve made their fortunes. Warren Buffet says it best, “I am more interested in processes than proceeds – though I’ve learnt to live with those too.”
The Gospel of Christ is in people like Gates and Buffet. The Gospel of Mindless Consumerism is in the people who gave us the Sub-Prime Crisis. Both have created wealth but only one has been sustainable.
People should give gifts at Christmas and they should spend time with friends and family. What we should not do is to see Christmas as an exercise in buying things we don’t need and stuffing ourselves into something unrecognisable.
Christ taught us to look at life as something greater than ourselves. Its tough doing it but when people find the strength to do good, they become better people. When they don’t the worst in them takes over.
In the last few years, the world has gone through something of an economic downturn. This has been brought about largely by a culture that encourages people to behave at their worst. This is the type of culture where Christmas is celebrated by excessive spending driven by the need to own more for the sake of owning. This is the state where we talkbout “Xmas” and other variations of the festival because the Christ has been forgotten.
Given the economic downturn that we’ve been living in, isn’t time we brought back the CHRIST to Christmas and worked on having a culture that encourages us to bring out the best in each other?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Who Gives a Shit At Christmas about Plebs?
You have to hand it to Singapore's Mass Rapid Transport (SMRT) for their ability to demonstrate a tin-ear to the demands of the public and the worst possible time. The disruption of the North-South Line on Thursday 15 December 2011 was a slap in the face of a nation that takes so much pride in the fact that it has a “World Class” transport system. While the disruption on its own was bad, the company proceeded to make matters worse by its inept handling of the situation – the infamous “income opportunity” message it flashed to all its taxis is currently competing with Whitley Detention Centre's lack of a window grill as a symbol of incompetence.
The only saving grace of this whole afair was the fact that the Singapore Government acted like it cared. The Prime Minister cut short a holiday and called for a public enquirey while the transport minister proceeded to become very vocal. Thanks to the pressure ontop, the management of SMRT proceeded to run a series of checks on the rail system and what did we find? It turned out that there were a mere 61 faults in the rails and 13 trains were found to be deffective.
I don't think this is acceptable by anyone's standards, let alone for a nation that takes so much pride in how it has climbed to the top of the world in just about everything. It brings me to the last days of my national service, when the powers-that-be could happily tell us that five out of every hundred fuzes were deffective and they only bothered to discover this after two people died and this wasn't the fault of the all caring defense procurement companies.
Its been a decade over since the incident in New Zealand took place and although I like my contemporaries have managed to move on from the emotional trauma of the incident, I still get irked whenever I read about incidents in Singapore that were caused by disregard by upper echelons for the people below them. I don't blame my commanders for the incident. Looking back at the incident, I can accept that my bosses did the best that they could in the circumstances that we were thrown in.
What I cannot and I should not accept is the way the Committee of Inquirey found a host of safety lapses between the people who were supposed to buy the ammunition and the people who were supposed to receive it on our (The people who fire the gun) behalf and then out of the blue the story that came out of this was how they were dupped by greedy Americans who outsourced it to shoddy Chinese Manufacturing. Nobody was persecuted for what can only be described as criminal negligence. This was an eye-opener to the way the world worked – too many of the “right” people were making money from defense procurement to allow this incident to blow a hole into the system even if it cost two lives and countless of injuries. I suppose you could say my batch got lucky – Ronnie and Yin Tit paid for one faulty fuze. I hate to think what the battalion would have been like with if we got all five out a hundred faulty fuzes (We fire around 400 plus rounds per exercise – at that rates, we'd all have come home in body bags).
Nearly a decade and a half later, I'm no longer reading about fuzes for an artillery round but trains. Sure, nobody died when the train service got disrupted but whoes to say that it wouldn't happen the next time. In a way, the faults from this incidents are more unforgivable than the fault that caused the explosion in New Zealand all those years ago in the sense that these are faults that could easily have been detected.
The train system shuts down every single night by midnight and it only reopens five and a half hours later. A basic inspection of the system is supposed to detect faults like this. Sure, I can except that you can repair all the faults immediately but surely in that time, you can repair some of the more serious ones?
So one has to ask – how is it possible that we're now finding 61 faults to the rail system? More seriously – how the hell are we finding out that we have 13 defective trains running across the system. Surely one could have repaired at least one of those trains in a basic nightly inspection. Why are we running 13 defective trains on the system?
What's worse for SMRT is the fact that it has asked for and received the right to increase the rates it charges consumers. Thanks to the Young Muslim Politician who Supports the 2008 bombing of the Gaza Strip from Pasir Ris GRC aka Thambi Pundek, I knew what the transport opperators were claiming (he was trying to hawk it) - “They were not making money from providing transport at the current fares they were charging.” They were of course making enough money to pay the CEO of SMRT her S$1.6 million annual salary as well as dividends for the shareholders (largest one being Temasek Holdings).
Well, I'm not going to go into the financial statements of the transport opperators but what's clear is that the money which seemed to flow to the senior management and majority shareholders didn't flow into simple routine checks that could have saved people a lot of agravation and trauma.
I lived in London for three-years as a student. I used the tube regularly enough. The tunnel system was built in the Victorian era and in many ways, the fact that the system works is a miracle. When you compare the facilities we have to what London has, we're way ahead in terms of modernity and the latest technology.
Yet, despite this, I never heard of a massive train disruption on the tube system in the three-years I lived there nor in the subsequent years since then. By contrast, Singapore's much younger and much more modern system has produced 61 faults and 13 deffective trains within a space of two decades.
For all its faults, the London Underground understands that it needs to do basic things. The tube user is at the centre of the system. Sure, its not glitzy or comfy to travel by tube but the system doesn't get broken down by basic faults. Money is spent on doing basic things to ensure the system runs.
By contrast Singapore has a system that lavishes money on the glitz and the glam and somehow neglects basics. Swanky stations make Ministers feel good when they brag to the world about how great we are. Opperator CEOs look good when they buy swanky gadgets. Nobody except the end user suffers when basic things are not taken care of.
I couldn't except being on the receiving end of this disregard for the small man when I was in National Service. I don't see why I should stand for it now that I'm older and way past military liability. These are not things I receive as part of someone elses generosity but things I pay for as a consumer and a tax payer.
Acountability is not a wishy-washy Western liberal dream that is unsuitable for Singapore's “Asian” society. Demanding it is the most practical and patriotic obligation of every citizen.
The only saving grace of this whole afair was the fact that the Singapore Government acted like it cared. The Prime Minister cut short a holiday and called for a public enquirey while the transport minister proceeded to become very vocal. Thanks to the pressure ontop, the management of SMRT proceeded to run a series of checks on the rail system and what did we find? It turned out that there were a mere 61 faults in the rails and 13 trains were found to be deffective.
I don't think this is acceptable by anyone's standards, let alone for a nation that takes so much pride in how it has climbed to the top of the world in just about everything. It brings me to the last days of my national service, when the powers-that-be could happily tell us that five out of every hundred fuzes were deffective and they only bothered to discover this after two people died and this wasn't the fault of the all caring defense procurement companies.
Its been a decade over since the incident in New Zealand took place and although I like my contemporaries have managed to move on from the emotional trauma of the incident, I still get irked whenever I read about incidents in Singapore that were caused by disregard by upper echelons for the people below them. I don't blame my commanders for the incident. Looking back at the incident, I can accept that my bosses did the best that they could in the circumstances that we were thrown in.
What I cannot and I should not accept is the way the Committee of Inquirey found a host of safety lapses between the people who were supposed to buy the ammunition and the people who were supposed to receive it on our (The people who fire the gun) behalf and then out of the blue the story that came out of this was how they were dupped by greedy Americans who outsourced it to shoddy Chinese Manufacturing. Nobody was persecuted for what can only be described as criminal negligence. This was an eye-opener to the way the world worked – too many of the “right” people were making money from defense procurement to allow this incident to blow a hole into the system even if it cost two lives and countless of injuries. I suppose you could say my batch got lucky – Ronnie and Yin Tit paid for one faulty fuze. I hate to think what the battalion would have been like with if we got all five out a hundred faulty fuzes (We fire around 400 plus rounds per exercise – at that rates, we'd all have come home in body bags).
Nearly a decade and a half later, I'm no longer reading about fuzes for an artillery round but trains. Sure, nobody died when the train service got disrupted but whoes to say that it wouldn't happen the next time. In a way, the faults from this incidents are more unforgivable than the fault that caused the explosion in New Zealand all those years ago in the sense that these are faults that could easily have been detected.
The train system shuts down every single night by midnight and it only reopens five and a half hours later. A basic inspection of the system is supposed to detect faults like this. Sure, I can except that you can repair all the faults immediately but surely in that time, you can repair some of the more serious ones?
So one has to ask – how is it possible that we're now finding 61 faults to the rail system? More seriously – how the hell are we finding out that we have 13 defective trains running across the system. Surely one could have repaired at least one of those trains in a basic nightly inspection. Why are we running 13 defective trains on the system?
What's worse for SMRT is the fact that it has asked for and received the right to increase the rates it charges consumers. Thanks to the Young Muslim Politician who Supports the 2008 bombing of the Gaza Strip from Pasir Ris GRC aka Thambi Pundek, I knew what the transport opperators were claiming (he was trying to hawk it) - “They were not making money from providing transport at the current fares they were charging.” They were of course making enough money to pay the CEO of SMRT her S$1.6 million annual salary as well as dividends for the shareholders (largest one being Temasek Holdings).
Well, I'm not going to go into the financial statements of the transport opperators but what's clear is that the money which seemed to flow to the senior management and majority shareholders didn't flow into simple routine checks that could have saved people a lot of agravation and trauma.
I lived in London for three-years as a student. I used the tube regularly enough. The tunnel system was built in the Victorian era and in many ways, the fact that the system works is a miracle. When you compare the facilities we have to what London has, we're way ahead in terms of modernity and the latest technology.
Yet, despite this, I never heard of a massive train disruption on the tube system in the three-years I lived there nor in the subsequent years since then. By contrast, Singapore's much younger and much more modern system has produced 61 faults and 13 deffective trains within a space of two decades.
For all its faults, the London Underground understands that it needs to do basic things. The tube user is at the centre of the system. Sure, its not glitzy or comfy to travel by tube but the system doesn't get broken down by basic faults. Money is spent on doing basic things to ensure the system runs.
By contrast Singapore has a system that lavishes money on the glitz and the glam and somehow neglects basics. Swanky stations make Ministers feel good when they brag to the world about how great we are. Opperator CEOs look good when they buy swanky gadgets. Nobody except the end user suffers when basic things are not taken care of.
I couldn't except being on the receiving end of this disregard for the small man when I was in National Service. I don't see why I should stand for it now that I'm older and way past military liability. These are not things I receive as part of someone elses generosity but things I pay for as a consumer and a tax payer.
Acountability is not a wishy-washy Western liberal dream that is unsuitable for Singapore's “Asian” society. Demanding it is the most practical and patriotic obligation of every citizen.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Jobs for Sale
If you are worried about looking for a job or keeping your existing job, do not fear for there is an industry that will gladly take you up – it’s called “Jobs for Sale.” This isn’t exactly a new industry but its been gaining a bit of publicity thanks to pesky people on the Internet who don’t understand business and the importance of economic growth.
The concept behind “Jobs for Sale” is wonderfully simple. All you have to do is to find someone who wants a job and get them to pay you for giving them a job. Like many industries, “Jobs for Sale” is particularly hot in Asia. This region has lots of poor saps who are desparate for work that they’ll happily get their home villages to mortgage themselves and they’ll pay you to get a less than minimal wage in your country.
If you’re from the USA, the figure can get as high as US$10,000 per person and the price lowers if its near by. Singapore, for example isn’t a bad place to opperate your own “Jobs for Sale” business. Its smack-bang in the centre of a region filled with desparate and poor people who will some find the money to get a job into Singapore. The rates are not bad – you can make about S$6,000 per person per year. So, imagine if you could get 10 clowns into the country. You’d earn something like S$60,000 a year without having to do to much.
The downside of this business is also liveable. The key is to stay on the right side of the immigration authorities. You need to pay off a “workers levy” which will cost about S$3000 a year. The second most important thing to do is to ensure that the people you sell a job to happen to be “Darkies” from other parts of Asia or Africa. “Darkies” unlike “Pink Blotchies” do not have annoying things like embassies that complain about wishy-washy things like “Human Rights.” You should also make it a point to house the “Darkies” in a place far away from rich residents who might complain about the “smell” coming from the “Darkies.”
You don’t have to spend money on housing “darkies” either. If your cards correctly, you can actually make money – enough to pay off the money you spent in levy payments. All you need is something like $10 a day for a bed space.
The nice thing about Singapore is that the infrastructure for this business is in place. For example, if you don’t pay the “Darkies” who you employ business, you can always let refer the case to the Ministry of Manpower. The Ministry will take about two months to investigate and that should give you enough time to look for “specialist” to help you remove the pesky workers who actually have to gall to do something as UnSingaporean as expected to get paid. We have people called “Repatriation” specialist who will happily help you to help you get your problem to disappear.
Do the maths and you’ll realise that this is a growth area and it’s a good time to get onto the bandwagon. Sell enough jobs and before you know – you may even get the opportunity to claim an award for contributing so much to the nation’s economic growth.
The concept behind “Jobs for Sale” is wonderfully simple. All you have to do is to find someone who wants a job and get them to pay you for giving them a job. Like many industries, “Jobs for Sale” is particularly hot in Asia. This region has lots of poor saps who are desparate for work that they’ll happily get their home villages to mortgage themselves and they’ll pay you to get a less than minimal wage in your country.
If you’re from the USA, the figure can get as high as US$10,000 per person and the price lowers if its near by. Singapore, for example isn’t a bad place to opperate your own “Jobs for Sale” business. Its smack-bang in the centre of a region filled with desparate and poor people who will some find the money to get a job into Singapore. The rates are not bad – you can make about S$6,000 per person per year. So, imagine if you could get 10 clowns into the country. You’d earn something like S$60,000 a year without having to do to much.
The downside of this business is also liveable. The key is to stay on the right side of the immigration authorities. You need to pay off a “workers levy” which will cost about S$3000 a year. The second most important thing to do is to ensure that the people you sell a job to happen to be “Darkies” from other parts of Asia or Africa. “Darkies” unlike “Pink Blotchies” do not have annoying things like embassies that complain about wishy-washy things like “Human Rights.” You should also make it a point to house the “Darkies” in a place far away from rich residents who might complain about the “smell” coming from the “Darkies.”
You don’t have to spend money on housing “darkies” either. If your cards correctly, you can actually make money – enough to pay off the money you spent in levy payments. All you need is something like $10 a day for a bed space.
The nice thing about Singapore is that the infrastructure for this business is in place. For example, if you don’t pay the “Darkies” who you employ business, you can always let refer the case to the Ministry of Manpower. The Ministry will take about two months to investigate and that should give you enough time to look for “specialist” to help you remove the pesky workers who actually have to gall to do something as UnSingaporean as expected to get paid. We have people called “Repatriation” specialist who will happily help you to help you get your problem to disappear.
Do the maths and you’ll realise that this is a growth area and it’s a good time to get onto the bandwagon. Sell enough jobs and before you know – you may even get the opportunity to claim an award for contributing so much to the nation’s economic growth.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
The Rot and Hope
Just read a story by Alex Au who is one of Singapore's most prominent bloggers that confirms one of my biggest heart breaks – there's something rotten in the state of Singapore. The story was about a boss who brought over 600 foreign workers from Bangladesh and housed them in cage. Instead of paying them, the boss in question allowed them to rot there and as expected, one of them actually died. As a result of this, the boss was – wait till you hear this – 4 weeks in jail and served a $36,000 fine. You can get the details of the story at: http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/jail-for-bosses-who-mistreat-workers-says-judge/
I don't know what it is but I'm shocked. I shouldn't be – I've lived here for over a decade. This isn't the only time I've read about how badly people can be treated especially if they have the misfortune of being born dark skinned and from another Asian country. As far as an alarming number of Singapore's educated professionals are concerned, the proverbial “Darkies” from the rest of Asia are blessed enough to clean our shit.
What's more worrying is that there have been too many times when the system, which prides itself in being above the petty prejudices of people, sometimes accepts and supports the prejudices. In this case the system showed itself to be as rotten as the people who committed the crime. Let's look at this case. The man conned the vulnerable into the country on the promise that they would have a job. The people that he conned flocked to Singapore in the hope that they'd have the chance of supporting their families. Instead they ended up living in a cage with no job and no money. He fed them two insignificant meals. One of the men ended up getting chicken pox and died as a result.
For cheating and dare I say causing the death of one of them, he was finned $36,000 a sentenced to four weeks in jail. Now, let's compare this to what you will get if you suggest that the powers that be in this little island are less than perfectly clean or if you damage property but not human life?
Let's start with Michael Faye, the American Teenager who caused one of our bigger diplomatic rows with the USA. Mr Faye decided that it was fun to damage other people's property and for that he got a few strokes of the cane. Since the US President of the day complained, we made the mistake of reducing his strokes by two instead of increasing them (Mr Faye is a Pink Blotchy and therefore considered above human in Singapore Speak).
While I may have agreed with Mr Faye's punishment – let's compare this to what this man got. Mr Faye was a brat and showed no consideration for someone else's property. As an expat child Mr Faye was enjoying the good life in Singapore but when the time came for him to face the music for his misdeeds he ran squealing to the US Embassy claiming he was somehow special. I remain unsympathetic towards Mr Faye and I am disgusted every time the Singapore Government lightens the sentence of someone from a Blotchy Country because the Blotchy Head of Government says something. I personally feel that if Pink Blotchies can get away every time their governments squeal, we the people have an obligation to delivering the extra-sentence that our government reduced.
Having said that, let's compare Mr Faye's crimes to Mr Paul Lee's. Mr Faye was a brat but he never took a life or even caused a physical injury. Yet he will now be scared for life. Mr Lee on the other hand brought people to Singapore on false promises and housed people in conditions that caused the death of someone. If Mr Faye's damage of property is worth several of the best, surely Mr Lee's damage to human life has to be worth something similar?
Now, let's look at what you get if you suggest that the people ruling Singapore are a shade less than squeaky? Well, in November 1995, the International Herald Tribune had to pay a mere $214,285 to settle a libel case against the powers-that-be. In 2008, a blogger called Gopalan Nair was arrested for accusing a judge of being a “Prostitute,” in a libel case that involved one of the powers-that-be and sentenced to three-months in jail.
I do agree that there should be laws against slandering people. Calling people names that damage their reputations should have a price. However, did International Herald Tribune and Gopalan Nair kill people? Did they cheat anyone, especially the vulnerable? No, they didn't. In fact they took on the most powerful people in the land and rightly or wrongly they paid the price.
Let's look at the price of calling someone in power a name and the price is either a few months in jail or a hefty fine or even both. However, if you cheat a couple of hundred darkies and place them in conditions that causes the death of one of them, your financial penalty is six times less than slandering the powerful and the jail time is three times less.
I'm sorry, but isn't there something wrong here. We are supposed to be a country that prides itself in its justice system. We make it a point of telling foreign investors that they can deal with a somewhat fair legal system when they invest in Singapore. We are a country that announces to the world that we practice this thing called “Equality of all before the law.” We claim that we are “Ruled by Law.”
So since we're making all these claims, where exactly is the equality of the law here. It seems clear that there is one law for Pink Blotchies and Posh Singaporeans and another law for Darkies and poor Singaporeans. Are we ruled by law or are we ruled by the whims of the man on top?
The lesson from these cases here is that as long as you live in Singapore you better bow-down and kiss the feet of every impotent Pink Blotchy but you are perfectly entitled to kick the shit out of any Darkie. If you tell the Blotchies that you don't wish to donate your hard earned money to their scam, they are entitled to complain to their embassy and our government will rush to defend their right to rob you blind. On the other hand you are entitled to kick the shit out of Darkies – even if you end up killing one of the buggers the law will slap you on the wrist with a fine that you can always pay in installments (Mr Lee incidentally had more than enough cash to pay people off) and you may get housed in jail at the tax payers expense.
The saddest thing about this whole affair is that it could have been prevented. As Alex Au's report points to – the police were called several times and somehow they couldn't find anything wrong. They merely had a glance at the premises and saw that everything was OK.
Seriously, what's the point of having police officers if the only idea of investigation is to make a phone call or just have a quick look at things?
Just observe the way the police take an active role in questioning Darkies who happen to be sitting at the corridor minding their own business. A darkie who has the misfortune of wanting to stroll at night will undoubtedly be questioned by police.
However, if Pink Blotchies want to get drunk and display their culture by singing their folk songs (Ere' we Go, Ere' we go is a Blotchy Folk Song that's played during football matches), nobody seems inclined to say anything. When youth gangs start loitering, the police are equally blind to the problems they may cause.
Seriously, there's something so rotten in Singapore and with Singaporeans that it's gone beyond the state of funny. How can we as a society tolerate and accept this as being part of our natural landscape?
Well, there is hope. I think the first ray of hope comes from people like Alex Au who report the things that the mainstream media don't. We need more people like Alex Au and Andrew Loh the former Editor of the Online Citizen and now Public House, who are willing to look for the voices.
The internet provides people like these men to organise voices together. They help remind Singaporeans that they have an active role in creating the community that they want. My only regret is that being a good person is financially crap. Neither Alex or Andrew is racking it in from the advertisers nor do they have the privilege of having people willing to pay for the content that they provide. Both Alex and Andrew are better patriots than say – The Young Muslim Politician who Supports Israel's Blockade of Gaza from Pasir Ris GRC aka Thambi Pundek. Both have accepted that they're going to be struggling to pay bills to do what they do but yet they continue. This is genuine love for the country. So at the ground you have the Alex Au's and Andrew Loh's who will get people thinking and hopefully standing up for themselves.
There is hope from the top too. Mr Lee had the audacity to try and appeal his already light sentence and ran into Justice VK Rajah. Thank God Singapore still has judges like this man who understands what justice is. He rightfully rejected Mr Lee's appeal and proceeded to chide the lower courts for giving him such a ridiculously light sentence.
There is something rotten in the state of Singapore but there's also hope. As an ordinary citizen struggling to make a living, its tough to deal with the rot but when you know there's hope life becomes a little lighter.
Monday, November 28, 2011
The Beautiful Racist
I'm so grateful to the Prime Minister for making the point that there must be no compromise on the issue of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism. Singapore has always taken pride in the fact that it's a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. Yet, if you believe media reports, our so called tolerance for racial and cultural diversity has taken something of a knock. It seems people have been flocking to cyberspace to revel in being ugly racist and its necessary for the government to get involved in legislating away our racist tendencies.
So, here's an interesting question – exactly how racist are Singaporeans? Do we really need the government to teach us how to be nice, tolerant people? Like everything in Singapore you have to look beneath what you see to get the real answer. If you ask me, I would say that after a decade of living in Singapore, the answer is – it depends on who you are talking about. If you talk about “official” Singapore or the Singapore that the powers-that-be you would like you to see, the answer is that Singapore talks a good talk but manipulates racism to suite its political needs.
Let's look at the “official” position. As far as officialdom is concerned, Singapore is a harmonious society that has somehow managed to keep people of different races living and working together in peace and harmony. All our senior government officials make the right noises about race and religion. How can you argue against the Prime Minister when he says that we will NEVER compromise on the fact that we are a multi-racial and multi-cultural society? I personally think the Prime Minister is right when he says that we need to be open to people from all over the world. Singapore does need skilled and hungry people to keep things moving.
The powers-that-be have reacted well in managing race-relations on many of the key occasions. Our most recent example came when a member of the ruling party's youth-wing posted a rather crude but provocative poster about young Muslim Children on his Facebook account. The young man was made to resign and he issued a public apology. The government has on a few occasions clamped down on bloggers who have written disturbing things about “other” communities.
The government also uses “carrot” measures as well as “stick” ones when it comes to the management of race-relations. I remember attending a conference on crime and terrorism prevention. One of the speakers couldn't stop praising the way Singapore's government worked with the Muslim community in rooting out terrorism suspects and avoided creating the “us-versus-them” atmosphere that became common in the West after September 11, 2001.
So, on the surface of things you can't fault the Singapore government for its management of race-relations. Or has it?
If you scratch beneath the surface, things are not as rosy as they look. Let's start with the fact that there are policies that are exceedingly questionable. The most obvious example can be found in the armed forces. Everyone knows that being Malay is a handicap if you want to have a career in the military. If you are a non-Malay and you want to kill off a promising military career, all you need to do is to date a Muslim girl and habour thoughts of marrying her and converting to Islam.
Perhaps this policy had a use in the early days of independence when our most likely opponent in a military conflict were predominantly Malay-Muslim nation states. However, as we move away from the possibility that future conflicts will be against nation states but “non-state” actors, we need to ask ourselves if this policy is justified. One might even argue that open discrimination against promoting Malay-Muslim's in the uniformed services is detrimental to National Security as our security focus shifts from a potential conflict with predominantly Malay-Muslim Nation States to working with Malay-Muslim Nation states to defeat the “non-state” actors like terrorist groups.
The most ridiculous example of this open discrimination against the Malay-Muslim community can be seen whenever a production-house is selected to shoot a commercial for the armed forces. My Dad used to lose out on this business because his crew were local Malay who had served National Service. My father remains a respected director and in his day was considered the best within the region (excluding India and China). Leaving aside the fact that he was and in many ways remains pricy, you would imagine that the Singapore government would have given the job to a regionally recognized local director who hired local Singaporeans who served their National Service. Despite my father's contributions to Singapore, he and his film crew were denied entry into military facilities while foreign directors with on many occasions a lesser reputation than my father and their foreign film crews (usually Hong Kong) were given open access to military bases.
That is unfortunately not the only example of “official” racism. My favourite comparison is in the police presence in Orchard Towers (Pink Blotchies contributing to the economy by selling things to Darkies) and Geylang (Darkies sponging off the economy and Pink Blotchies by working for Pink Blotchies and buying things from them). If you look at the way the police behave in these areas, you'd get the impression that a group of darkies sitting by the roadside having a cup of tea constitute a greater threat to the peace than a group drunken Pink Blotchies. I'm not sure how they worked that one out?
Wait for the season when the government decides it needs to do something about the vice-trade. The police will round up a group of girls from a “darkie” country and deport them. The press will then announce with great fan-fare about how the government is cracking down on vice. There's only one problem – the Blotchies who are contributing the most money to the trade and therefore the reason why “Darkie” girls from other parts of Asia are the trade are left untouched by the law. As such, the vice-trade in Singapore remains a highly lucrative business.
Officialdom doesn't see anything wrong with being obviously racist. I like my White South-African friend who only got his employment-pass when he visited Immigration and showed that he was obviously a Pink Blotchy. My friend was asked “What do they call you?” The question was asked several times and he finally got what they were alluding to when the guy asked the question and pointed to his skin. You got to laugh at the situation here. My friend is from South-Africa, a country that was officially racist and proud of it. Yet when the country decided that it didn't want to be racist, everyone came out and said they saw themselves as “South African.” By contrast you have Singapore, a country that talks about “regardless of race or religion” yet sees nothing wrong in having its government officials rubbing their skin while asking, “What do they call you?”
The law as they say is colour-blind – that is if you have the misfortune of being a darkie who has a employer who decided to hire a “repatriation company” to send you back home at you expense when you get injured on the work site. Its somehow not illegal for the “repatriation company” to hold you against your will in what can only be described as a cell and then bundle you out of the country and then send you the bill.
So, let's ask ourselves, how serious is the government about multi-racialism? It might be worth asking ourselves how “un-racist” we are since we don't seem terribly disturbed by this.
I suspect that the government knows it can allow certain things to happen because the public is oblivious to certain things and lives in fear of darkies from other parts of Asia.
If you talk to the average Singaporean, you'd be shocked by some of the attitudes that they hold. My ex-wife comes to mind. This “graduate” Singapore Chinese girl couldn't bear the thought of me having Malay and Indian friends. Despite being on the generous end of a local Indian crook, she once declared, “I can't work for Indians for the rest of my life.” The woman had been to school long enough to get a degree. She had obviously worked with people from other races and yet she couldn't accept that I might friends beyond my own race. I remember she objected my interactions with a sales girl because I was “Flirting with a MALAY.”
I suspect the blame lies somewhere in the teaching of languages in Singapore. Gina's father, Yong Koon, the egg seller wasn't immune from bouts of chauvinism. However, he belonged to a generation when people of different cultures mingled together and somehow had to find a way of getting along. The end result was everyone had to pick up everyone else s languages.
Anthropology teaches that language is culture. So if you work on this idea, you'll see that when you have a situation where people pick-up each others languages they also pick up each other. While the pre-independence generation had its prejudices their unity was more natural. They worked together and understood each other because they could relate to cultures beyond their own.
Then some bright spark in the Ministry of Education decided that they would reorder people's ethnic identity. People were told – if you are Indian you learn English and Tamil, if you are Malay you learn English and Malay and if you are Chinese it's English and Mandarin. The government got especially stringent on eradicating Chinese dialects. According to Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding Prime Minister – the human brain isn't large enough to learn Chinese dialects in addition to English and Mandarin (though its OK to learn Arabic and Hindi).
The result of this policy was an end to natural integration. The only language people had in common was English, the language of to coloniser. Having English was a good move in the sense that it allowed Singapore to connect to the rest of the world. However, having English as the ONLY language people had in common reduced the things people had in common. Instead of creating a situation where everyone has a bit of everyone elses culture it was you have your own culture and an imposed culture and the only means of communication was through the imposed culture.
One only needs to go across the Causeway to Malaysia, a country that has laws that discriminates against one ethnic group in favour of another. Officially there is a preferred race. Yet race-relations in Malaysia seem to work more naturally. Malaysian politics is messy when compared to Singapore's and race does play a role in politics. Yet when you interact with Malaysians, you'll find they're race-relations work better than in Singapore.
How is this possible in a “racist” country? Answer – the minority Indians and Chinese accept that the majority Malay-Muslim population gets certain perks but by and large people are left alone. People have to mingle and pick up various languages between various communities as well as various cultures.
On paper Singapore has done a better job of managing race-relations than Malaysia. However, Singaporeans are struggling to reconcile their national and cultural identities because its been defined for them. By contrast people are comfortable with their National and Cultural identities because it's grown from the ground up. Integration is a natural process rather than an enforced process.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
The Arena
I attended a conference organised by the Institute of South Asian Studies (isas) today. The general theme of the conference was about how South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka) could better engage with South East Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Laos, Timor Leste, Myanmar, Cambodia and Brunei). Since the conference was held in Singapore, the main thrust of the conversation was about improving economic ties, particularly with India -Asia's “Other” Giant.
However, another important discussion was discussed – the issue of security. South Asia has flash points – particularly the India-Pakistan rivalry. However, there was also the issue of the growing possibility of growing competition between Asia's two giants – China and India. One of the plenniary discussion involved the issue of security in the Bay of Bengal. The discussion panel had a former Vice-Admiral from the Indian Navy and an adviser to the Chinese government discussing the security issues of their particular nations in the area.
This topic of rivalries got me thinking. Why isn't Singapore offering itself as a meeting point for rivals to thrash out issues far away from the pressures of their domestic audience. We've talked about being a “hub” for nearly everything else so why can't we be a hub for “sports diplomacy?” Singapore is what you could call an ideal arena for all the great rivals of the world to play out their rivalries on the sports field.
They sports is a substitute for war. Nations play sports against each other to release national tensions that might otherwise go towards fighting wars. Look at Europe. When the British Isles were brought together into the United Kingdom the wars the various Kingdoms had were replaced by sporting rivalries – think of the England vs Scotland football match or the England vs Wales Rugby Match. Further afield the English have stopped going to war with the Germans. During the Cold War the only real fight between the Superpowers was at the Olympics when they would duke it out to see who emerged top of the medal table.
The more nations play together the less likely they are to fight wars against each other. It's a bit hard to shoot and kill someone you're meeting on the sports field.
So, creating opportunities for people to play together is a good thing and Singapore is in the unique position to doing this. We try to be friends with nearly everyone and just about everyone likes us. We're a wonderful neutral venue.
Creating sports events will provide a boost to the economy. Sports is big business in terms of television and tourist receipts. Why else to countries try so hard to host events like World Cups and Olympic Games?
Imagine this! Singapore could host an annual football match between Israel and Palestine. Like Israel, Singapore is a small non-Muslim state surrounded by larger Muslim neighbours. We have, however, a significant Muslim population. In other words, we have something in common with both sides.
The Israelis and Palestinians like football. They're passionate about it and they should be made to play together.
We could also host an annual cricket tournament between India and Pakistan. Both nations are cricket mad and instead of living out their rivalry through nuclear bombs they should live it out to cricket. Singapore provides a wonderful neutral venue. We have a significant Hindu and Muslim community for both sides to feel at home and we have the facilities to cater to their various needs.
Let's not forget about China and Taiwan. The majority of Singaporeans are descended from Fuji an Immigrants as are the Taiwanese. Our majority Chinese population speaks Mandarin, the language of both sides.
Singapore has played a deft hand with both Chinas. We have followed the official line of recognising the People's Republic as the only China but we've also kept our relationship with the Republic of China (As Taiwan is officially known) good enough for them to allow us to use their facilities for our military exercises.
So why can't we provide the two China's with a venue to live out their rivalry. Let both them meet annually for a game of something or other.
The government had a point in bringing great sporting events like F1 and the Youth Olympics to Singapore. It should be more whole hearted in its efforts to get Singapore to be an arena for the world's sporting events. Doesn't have to be on a global scale – just large enough to get two large nations focused on Singapore. The economic benefits are there. The political and security benefits are there.
So what are we waiting for? Isn't it time the bright sparks in our various ministries start working out how we can turn Singapore into the world's greatest sporting arena?
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Strong Government or Strong Society?
Whenever one wants to compare the two emerging powers of Asia the most usual place that they start at is the difference between the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi.
The Games in Beijing was superbly organised. The Chinese government knew that world would be focused on Beijing and it wanted to put on a show. Beijing's normally toxic areas were made green, slums and the beggars were removed. Residents were given a crash course in English so that they could be more helpful to international visitors.
By contrast the games in New Delhi could only be charitably described as a mess. Corruption reached such a ridiculous level that toilet paper supplied to the organisers ended costing as much as a bar of gold. Conditions in the village where the athletes were staying looked like some Delhi's slums and instead of removing the existing slums from public eye – the slums grew worse.
Simply put – China has a government that knows what needs to be done and does it while India has a government that does everything wrong. As the head honcho of an Indian multinational in Singapore once said, “You come to India with US$10million promising to create several hundred jobs and the Indian investment authorities will snarl and ask you 'why?' So you go to China and the Chinese have a grin on their face and say 'when!?' ” When you have this comparison you cannot help but feel that China's rise to the top is inevitable while India will somehow remain swimming in the shit despite its vast source of talent.
Democracy is blamed for this disparity. The Indians will point out that China is a Communist State where the government will simply bulldoze its way to get things done. If you need roads and railway tracks built it will be done with a blink of an eye. The Indian Government by contrast has to contend with democracy and a population used to things like human rights. You cannot bulldoze people out of their homes just like that in the name of economic development. As far as many well to do Indians are concerned, India needs a government like China's to grab the nation by the scruff of its neck pull it, kicking an screaming into the prosperous age.
However, there is a counter point that both Fareed Zakharia and Guruchandran Das have pointed to. Both men have argued while China has a far stronger government than India – India has a “strong society.” While the Indian government is helplessly inefficient, India has certain infrastructure advantages that China and other authoritarian states lack. These advantages are found mainly in the “soft” skills of its people. Places with “strong government” have superb physical infrastructure. However, places that have a “strong society” have people who are creative and resilient and will succeed and create the solutions that the governments aren't able to. I think of one of the opening lines of “The White Tiger” by Aravind Adiga - “Apparently, you Chinese are ahead of us in every way except you don't have entrepreneurs.”
There is a certain truism in this. India for its lack of physical infrastructure has a system that has allowed brilliant individuals to come up and somehow create fortunes out of nothing. While India has lost the race for foreign investment to China, India has been breeding small successful enterprises that have succeeded in spite of the Indian State. The most famous example is in IT. I'll always remember Arun Jain, Polaris's CEO telling CNBC Asia in 2004 - “Indian IT has succeeded because the Indian Government has stayed out of it and as long as it leaves us alone we shall be fine.” Funnily enough IT is only one area that has thrived in spite of the Indian government. India has also produced top quality bio-tech firms and let's not forget Bollywood too. If you look at the areas where India excels, you'll find that they're in the same areas where America excels. The USA is like India – a strong society rather than a strong government.
Not only does India produce world-class firms in high end industries, India has also provided the people to run corporations from the developed world. The prime-example that comes to mind is Citigroup which is Vikram Pandit as its CEO and Deepak Sharma as Chairman of its Private Bank. Singapore's DBS bank which is consciously trying to model itself on Citibank hired Piyush Gupta another Indian National as its CEO.
Let's face it – the Indian government may have bungled organising the Commonwealth Games but India is not just providing the people to do cheap things for Western firms – it's providing the people to run those firms too. Just think about it – the FDA is approving an increasing number of drugs based on research and clinical trials done in India.
How is India, the land of dreadful infrastructure producing world-class firms in high tech industries as well as corporate CEOs while China is not?
One argument is that India's physical infrastructure and government system is SO BAD that all the Indians with brains leave. The Chinese with brains and drive are too busy milking the opportunities in China to think of leaving. If you look at Singapore as an example, you'll see that there's a certain truism to this. The Indian Nationals who come to Singapore are highly educated while the Chinese are peasants.
However, let's not ignore other factors too. English speakers has been one major language that India has. India is the second largest English speaking nation after the USA (and given the influx of Hispanic Immigration into the USA let's not rule out the possibility that India may well become the world's largest English speaking nation one day). India's advantage with the English Language is that multinationals find it easier to get the right people from India than they do from China.
There's also a case to be made for India's democracy as well its legal system. While the Indian Legal system is mired in corruption and notoriously slow it has a legal system based on the rule of law. By contrast China has a system based on the rule of personality. As bad as the practice of law may be in India, there are rules to settle commercial disputes as well as to protect intellectual rights. In China things work like clock work as long as you keep the right fractions happy. Intellectual rights don't exist in China.
It's not just “fluffy” artist who get uptight over copyright. If you were in software or anything involving scientific research, you will also need your intangibles protected if you want to commercialise things.
China is thriving on a “brawn” economy while India has a “brain” economy. While Chinese “Brawn” is ahead in the development race the argument is that India's “brain” economy will be more enduring. In a way China is lucky in that its only used a small percentage of its “brawn” and it can tap on a vast source of “brawn” in the way that the Arabian Gulf States can tap on their oil for years to come. However, cheap brawn becomes less cheap and other cheaper places rise up. Vietnam comes to mind as a place that is grabbing the “cheap labour” work from China. Brain economies by contrast can last longer and command a higher price. Getting the right idea and the right execution takes brain and you can't do it on the cheap.
Strong societies can survive with awful government. It's questionable whether weak societies with strong governments can hold if that government ever becomes weak. One only needs to look at places like the former Yugoslavia or Saddam's Iraq to see what happens when you remove the strong man.
Both Tito and Saddam held their respective nations together. They were simply more powerful than everyone else in their own countries and so everyone else was united in fear and hatred for them. Once they left the scene the various ethnic groups realised that they hated each other as much as they hated the strong man so they ended up killing each other.
India is as if not more culturally diverse than Yugoslavia or Iraq were. Yet India has held together for over 50-years. Say what you like but India could only have done this by keeping its democracy. New Delhi sets the tone for certain things like defense and foreign affairs. Outside those broad perimeters the Tamil Speakers of Tamil Nadu can live their own separate lives from the Hindi Speakers in the north. English has helped provide the necessary glue whenever the different people have needed to come together. If you look at Indian IT companies, you'll find that they're usually based in Bangalore (Southern Indians are traditionally good at numbers) but run by Hindi or Gujurati entrepreneurs (Northern India produces the business people)
Can China last without the Communist Party? As far as the Communist Party is concerned the answer would be no. However, the party has been on a desperate quest to find a reason for continued success. Since China has long ceased to be a Communist Country in all but name, they need something else to hold the nation together. The alternate answer seems to be drawn from Singapore – the ability to deliver high rates of economic growth. So far so good. However, what happens when the party can no longer deliver the growth? Tienanmen in 1989 was incidentally a time of rampant inflation. Back then the army was willing to shoot. Its questionable whether today's PLA will follow the order to shoot its own people.
In a way, that's a sign for optimism. It shows that people have become so used to certain things that it will be impossible to put a lid on certain desires. While the economic boom has yet to hit the vast majority of Chinese, the Communist Party will simply never be able to revert things to be the way they were during the days of Mao. There are far too many people in China who have tasted the “good life” and had international exposure to accept the country living under a system where all but one percent are eeking a living.
The Communist Party has the luxury of playing the growth card for a while. There's also Nationalism, though one would argue that this may eventually lost credibility as politics gives way to economics (to all intents and purposes China and Taiwan have been unified by economics).
However, the party, if it wants to maintain stability will eventually have to consider devolving power to regions in the way that reduces Beijing's role to that of New Delhi or Washington DC.
If you look at development theories, you can draw a comparison with growing up. “Strong Government” is like coming from a family that can provide you with contacts and education. It gives you a good start in life. “Strong Society” is rather like self-reliance. Ultimately you need self-reliance to endure. In an ideal world one will have both or at least you start with one that leads to another.
There is a case for optimism in both China and India. If you look at both Asian Giants, they're strengths and weaknesses mirror each other. On the economic front the popular image is that China does manufacturing while India does software. However, not only is Sino-Indian trade increasing there's been “cross-pollination.” The Indians are getting manufacturing and the Chinese do get software and services.
On the social front things have the potential to get interesting. Both nations are resurgent. For Indians who see their nation as a “great power,” it is no longer acceptable to have incompetent and blatantly corrupt government. The comparison with China is galling and Indian governments will have to contend with an insistence by the up and coming class to get its act together.
For China there is a growing realisation of how the rest of the world works. The nation has understood that isolation doesn’t work. A growing number of people have seen how the rest of the world works and will not accept anything else. This won't necessarily lead to Western style two-party democracy. There is a chance that the Chinese Communist Party will evolve into something like Japan's Liberal Democratic Party (which was as liberal and democratic as China's Communist are Communist.)
What will be interesting for China will be how returning Chinese workers will shape Chinese society. Chinese workers outside of China have found an ability to develop habits of cooperation in order to survive. I think of the way Chinese workers grouped together and sat outside Singapore's Ministry of Manpower when they got cheated. They're ability to get together and stick together was admirable – it was the stuff that builds societies. It will be a blessing if this spirit of cooperation continues.......
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Problem with Size
The Problem with Size
A significant moment passed by on Friday at 11am. There was the magic 11.11.11.11 (11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of the 11th year) and lots of people in Asia decided that it was an auspicious time to get married. The next time we're going to have a magic date will be at 12 noon on the 12th of December next year and then we'll have to wait another century the series of magic dates to go by.
I've always found the 11th of November to be significant. It was Armistice day – the day when the first World War ended. While World War II gets more press, in many ways, World War I was the more terrible conflict. The entire European continent which had given birth to the modern era had descended into a brutal war that bankrupted countries that were centres of empires. World War I ended the reigns of several monarchies and broke apart empires that had lasted centuries (Austria-Hungry and the Ottomans in Turkey were broken apart). The global centre of gravity shifted from Europe to the USA. The British Prime Minister who had administered an empire that the sun never set on became increasingly dependent on the American President for support.
Funnily enough, not very much seems to have changed in a century. Europe is once again in the proverbial shit house. America, the world's remaining super power is tottering on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to misguided military adventures. The world is now looking for an emerging super power to bail it out – this time it's China, which was derided as being the “Sick Man of Asia” a century ago.
The new emergence of China and the very visible decline of Western power is traumatic for Westerners – especially Americans. You just have to listen to the number of times senior American Administration officials complain about “Unfair” Chinese trade practices to get a sense of how traumatised the Americans are by China's rise. There is no other way to describe American complaints about Chinese buying of certain companies as - “Scared Shitless.”
While the fear of no longer being top dog may be understandable, giving into it would be a mistake. The lesson of history have shown that size is a vastly overrated experience. One only has to look at the great powers of the day to see that an obsession with size is usually the undoing of the great power.
China was by far and away the world's leading economy. The Chinese were the most innovative people around. They invented things like gun powder, paper and printing. The Chinese knew about things like decent roads and lived in cities while the Europeans were still struggling to get out of their caves. Then all of a sudden in 1500, the Chinese stopped inventing things and innovation moved to Europe. Suddenly Europe became superior to China. As an ethnic Chinese educated in the British Isles, I can safely say that the biggest shock to the Chinese psyche came during the Opium War. The Chinese had grown up thinking they were the centre of the earth. Then they got their butts kicked by this little dinky island on the North Western Corner of Europe.
The Europeans remained the world's top dogs until World War I. From 1500 until 1914, the Europeans became empire builders. The British were the most successful but they were not the only ones in the game of building empires. The French and Dutch were equally enthusiastic about acquiring colonies. When Bismark unified the German Princely States at the end of the 1800s, the Germans also entered the game. As well as being a family feud between the Royal Families of Europe, World War I was also a conflict of empires.
While America is not an “empire” in the conventional sense, it's become top-dog because its a huge place. America simply had more resources than Europe and so it could play the role of “King Maker” in Europe and later on in Asia. Today America remains the world's super power because it is the only nation that has the ability to deploy the greater number of resources to any single point on the globe.
Let's face it, being big helps. God as they say, is on the side of “Big Battalions.” In a fist fight, the advantage is always with the big guy because he can take more damage and each hit he delivers does more damage.
Size does matter. As such, big nations like China and India will have vast advantages over places like Hong Kong and Singapore. The two emerging Asian giants can deploy and develop resources in ways that smaller nations will never be able to. In Singapore we have to accept that China will always be able to make things cheaper than we can and India will always be able to do the back office stuff cheaper. They simply have more people and space.
Having said that, size is not necessarily everything and an obsession with being big can be a handicap. Why did China fall behind Europe when it had been so much more advanced for so many years?
Simply put, the Chinese got obsessed with size. China as far as the Chinese were concerned, was the centre of the earth, the largest and most advanced place on earth. China was not helped by Confucius who argued that people should place their trust in a strong central government that knew better than anyone else. The so called wise men of their day argued that China was the top dog because it was the biggest block on the street and could easily win by using size. Adventure and innovation were discouraged and then it stopped altogether.
By contrast, Europe was a collection of small states that had no choice but to innovate and focus on doing things well. The collection of states had to either cooperate or compete to survive and to grow their societies. The British ended up building the empire that they did because they had no choice but to venture abroad to grow. While adventurers and innovators in China were regarded as the shit you scrape off the bottom of the shoe, in Europe they became part of folklore – buccaneers like Sir Francis Drake and Sir Richard Grenville (My former school house was named after the man) were heroes in their day and revered long after their death for their daring to take on the conventional wisdom of the day.
These people made Europe great and then the Europeans fell into the same trap as the Chinese did. They believed they were the centre of the world and instead of working together and finding ways to expand and so on – the Europeans decided to kill each other in the competition to be the biggest guy on the block.
The Americans it seems are falling into the same trap as the Chinese and the Europeans before them. We all know that America and Americans have been focused on being bigger and better than anyone else. However, the focus in the last decade seemed to be on being bigger rather than better. Flick through magazines like Forbes and you'd find glowing references to how America had the “biggest” banks, oil companies, manufacturing plants etc. Follow the American media and you'll get the sense of trauma whenever someone has something bigger than can be found in America. Life for America and Americans was comfortable when the nearest rivals were Germany and Japan – which had economic but not military clout. Things are different now that the “rivals” are China and India, which are not only becoming wealthy but they are militarily independent of the American military umbrella.
I think the Americans should take a leaf from Europe and lose the obsession with size. Europe had lots of giant empires that thought they were the centre of the world. They became so obsessed with size that they forgot about everything else. The crowned heads that ran Europe fell out and we got World War I. The rulers of Europe didn't learn their lesson and we got World War II. It was only with the trauma of two World Wars that the Europeans decided to focus on being good and today, Europe is home of some of the best things that the world has to offer.
Look at Germany as an example. The Kaiser wanted to catch-up in the quest for Empire building and so he ran into opposition from the established Empires in Britain and France. The result was World War I. The Hitler decided that Germany needed more “Lebensraum” (living space – he needed to be bigger) and we got World War II. Then all of a sudden the Germans got partitioned into West and East. The world would not allow the Germans to be big and so they focused on being good.
Today Germany makes the best cars in the world (Mercedes, BMW, Porche, Volkswagen) and despite the high cost of doing business in Germany, the country is funnily enough the world's largest exporter (ahead of China, which is the workshop of the world). How does Germany with the highest labour cost in the world out export China with its advantages in cheap labour and land? Germany has a sector of small companies that happen to be the best in the fields they're in.
The same is true of France and Britain. London no longer controls an Empire where the sun never sets. It is however, a world city in things like finance. Like the Germans, the British and French have become less obsessed with size and more focused with being good.
The EU is admittedly in deep shit – however, let's look at the area of where Europe has fallen into the toilet bowl. The answer is simple – these were the areas where the Europeans returned to being obsessed with size. I believe that the EU is on balance a force of good. However, the Europeans became so obsessed with having the world's largest trading block they admitted countries that were simply not ready. Greece never had the fiscal discipline of its Northern European neighbours before it joined and it should be no surprise that it has become the nation that will pull the entire frame work down.
The idea behind the EU was to create the USA on Europe. In theory this is good. America has thrived for so long because it was successful at combining the advantages of being small and big at the same time. America is a big monolith in International affairs. However, most Americans are free to act as small individuals living in their small towns. In the corporate world it has been shown that the most innovative companies are usually small clusters. America is a collection of small clusters.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, American culture lost this ethos of being about small but clever groups. Suddenly, it was all about size and being big. Look at General Motors, which was for so many years the world's largest corporation. The company was all about being 'big,' that it forgot about being good. Even when its finances were being pulverized by competition from the likes of Toyota and Volkswagen, the company was obsessed with size – ie we make more cars than anyone else haha – erm what's the point in making lots of cars if nobody wants to buy them.
The reemerging China and India should draw lessons from this. China has been especially guilty of promoting state-owned giants to drive its economy and presence on the world stage. The Chinese Government seems to have forgotten that the “real” success of the Chinese economy is to be found in villages and cities. These small companies lack the resources of the state owned giants and so they have become remarkably efficient. China needs to stop focusing on “big” and look at finding ways at bringing up the guys who are “good.”
India has been blessed with rotten government and this has helped the development of its dynamic IT sector. While the IT sector has produced some giants like Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys and Wipro, the industry is in fact driven by many small dynamic companies. I think of companies like Polaris, Nucleus and MphasiS that have found a niche for themselves. These companies focus on being good rather than on being big.
Being big helps but being obsessed by size is a problem. The most successful companies and countries are usually those that find ways of being big without being obsessed by size. The best 'business model' is the 'cooperation' model rather than the “top-down monoblock.”
Look at the UK as an example. You have London, which is a collection of village. There are the Oxbridge Universities which are in reality a collection of small specilialised colleges working together. The British may not run an empire but London is a “world-capital” and the Oxbridge Universities are constantly amongst the world's best.
America endured over the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were a huge monoblock controlled by Moscow. The USA is a collection of states working for a common purpose . In the end the USA prevailed because its people and its allies believed in the system that allowed them enough room to be individuals but gave them the security that size brings.
America has prospered for so long because its been about being a good place that happens to be big rather than about being a big place. As Americans worry about being overtaken as the biggest dog on the block by China and India, they should remember that what made America was not its size but the fact that it was a good nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)