Don't Call me Boy

It wasn’t my finest moment today but I ended up storming out of the office after throwing a few kind Hokkien words at the Living Desert who had made the mistake of commenting of my cleaning the company shredder after jamming it. It didn’t help that the company Grinch, an Irishman who reads Breitbart News, decided to add in his ten cents to a machine he has utterly no connection with.

I’m not proud of being in a situation where I couldn’t think of wanting to do anything else except to do damage to someone who usually inspires feelings of puppy dog cute and to the Grinch. I just saw red and it took control to prevent myself from doing violence on the spot.

However, what I will say is that this incident evolved around the shredder – a machine that is often used by lawyers, liquidators, accountants and anyone who spends any length of time around pieces of paper regarded as “confidential,” or “classified.” The shredder in this office is often used as it is shared by at least six-people dealing with special documents. While the machine is used by six-people, only one person seems to have any knowledge of how to clear the shredder – me. While it doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to clear a shredder, it usually requires a little bit of movement beyond the office doors and its considered degrading work by people who have qualifications. So, when two people who have never even cleared the shredder decided to become experts on clearing the shredder, I snapped.

I raise this very personal incident because it touches on one of the most prominent subjects today – namely the subject of inequality. If you look at statistics relating to the subject, you will note that the world is becoming even more unequal, where the “haves” seem to be getting hold of more of the pie and share of the ever-increasing number of “have nots” seems to be growing regularly.

Singapore, the country that I’ve called home for the last two decades is a particularly good example of how the ‘haves’ have visibly increased their share of the pie and the ‘have nots’ have seen their number grow and their share of the pie shrink. Our hyper efficient government takes great pride in the fact that an increasing number of billionaires have decided that having a home in Singapore is a necessity and at the same time thinks nothing of exploiting people from less fortunate countries. When you talk about the maids being paid a “princely” salary of less than SG$500 a month, the standard reply is that, “It’s a lot of money where they came from.”

One of the most interesting things about “inequality,” is the fact that it’s not produced many revolutions. You would expect the ‘have nots’ to get angry enough to do something pretty violent and nasty in order to get a more “equitable” share of the pie. However, they generally haven’t. Why is that?

The answer, according to the former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Dr. Raghuram Rajan, is chance or rather belief in the system. Dr. Rajan argued that the poor don’t rebel if they believe that there’s a chance that they can improve their lot or if not the lot of their kids if they merely work hard and play the game well enough. 

Rebellions only happen in places where the poor see their lot as being stuck there for all eternity no matter what they do. America, despite the inequality remains fairly peaceful. Every penniless migrant to America believe that he or she can achieve the “American” Dream if he or she works hard. By contrast, the Middle East got shook up by the Arab Spring because people found it impossible to achieve anything for themselves whatever they did.

The other key factor is behavior. A few years ago, the Algerians in Paris rioted because they were tiered of being addressed as “tu,” (the informal French version of “you,” usually used by an elder when addressing a junior.) A similar point was made by “African-Americans,” in the deep South who rioted in the 1960s – they were tired of being addressed as “boy.”

I believe here lies the crux of the matter – people can accept income inequality but up to a point, they won’t accept being treated as anything less than human. The poor are not asking for a hand out nor are they asking for pity. What they are asking for is a bit of dignity and respect.

I think of the Little India Riots in 2013, when a group of Indian and Bangladeshi workers rioted and the police had to struggle to contain the violence. Much of the chatter was around how people of South Asian origins could not handle their liquor and didn’t understand our local culture of respecting law and order.

What many people forgot was the fact that an Indian worker was killed and when the police came onto the scene, they seemed more intent on protecting the bus driver who had run over the worker than in providing justice for the worker who had been killed. It was, as they say a clear-cut case of disrespecting people.

The rage of an individual is an ugly thing. The rage of a mob is worse. The best is to ensure that there is no reason for rage and in a society of ever increasing despite between the have’s and have nots is to ensure that those who “have” remember to allow the “have nots” to see a glimmer of hope and to respect menial task as a stepping stone into better things.

SMEs – the challenge of creating jobs amidst innovation

Can Singapore show the way?

By Gurdip Singh - Correspondent Press Trust India (PTI).

Published in http://www.fii-news.com/smes-challenge-creating-jobs-amidst-innovation/

Girija Pande 

Technology is fast changing manufacturing landscape for large enterprises in every country. These enterprises are consequently restructuring and often downsizing. Consequently it is essential to simplify the regulatory architecture to create meaningful jobs and innovation in the Small and Medium Enterrise (SME) sector in future.

Ancillary links to large industries with long term supply/services contract to help scale and internationalise;
Availability of trained manpower; and
Burden of regulations which cost and more importantly waste precious time.

As India progresses with growing its Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), Singapore-based industry veteran Girija Pande shares his views on recent developments in SME sector globally – especially reviewing what Singapore is doing to remake this sector for future challenges.

Pande’s thoughts are important and urgent both for Indian MSMEs/SMEs and the regulatory agencies in India. India is one of the world’s fastest growing economy with millions of MSMEs/SMEs upgrading to be Tier II or Tier III players in the global manufacturing space.

 Girija Pande, Chairman Apex Avalon Consulting Pte Ltd of Singapore and Past President of Tata Consultancy Services Asia Pacific, writes:

Quote:

I must confess I have like many others – including many governments of late – taken a strong liking to SMEs and their future.

With Digital tech revolution creating Manufacturing 4.0 with Robotics, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT) and Cloud-based technologies, it is clear that in the medium term, large industries in manufacturing or services will need to ‘reinvent’ themselves to survive.

In this decade-long restructuring, these enterprises will certainly not be able to create large scale jobs as in the past, in fact many of them will be downsizing employment.

All Governments have understood this oncoming disruption – hence the sudden priority on growing MSME/SME sector in each country.

India needs to urgently grasp this disruptive moment and focus on how to accelerate employment in the SME sector by deregulating it as fast as possible.

Globally, SME sector – which includes both services and manufacturing including startups, listed/unlisted companies and the non-profit or social sector – will be the one to create bulk of jobs in the medium term in most economies – some even in the new gig economy.

My contention is that for SMEs to continue to innovate and create meaningful jobs for the bulk of our relatively lesser skilled brethren, we need to prioritise rightsizing the current SME regulatory architecture, amongst other measures required to keep them going.

With a bit of innovation applied to a dream, this store can become

Consequently, from the point of view of employment any regulatory change which can improve their survival chances is welcome, certainly for the vast number of ‘mom and pop’ businesses.

I have observed these SMEs closely from many angles. I have created one, mentor a start up, serve on Boards of a Fintech Fund and a listed SME company. I also work with small social organisations which deliver very useful services to the community.

These have given me insights into their unique problems which were not apparent to me when I was running large global companies around Asia, the largest being Tata Consultancy across the Asia Pacific markets.

Challenges that these SMEs face can broadly be grouped under four broad areas:

Availability of risk and working capital;

Many solutions are being proposed in countries about how to tackle shortage of capital and manpower for this sector but it is the regulatory cholesterol which in my opinion presents the greatest challenges to their growth.

Singapore is similarly grappling with this challenge despite its well known efficient economy.

The Singapore SMEs are also ones which will create bulk of future jobs. Being a high cost open economy with manpower constraints, Singapore’s SME sector, unfortunately, faces greater challenges to survive in this volatile and uncertain world.

This Store 

The recently formed Enterprise Singapore (ES) defines SME companies being those with turnover under S$100 million -constituting nearly 90% of enterprises in Singapore.

Of these nearly 160,000 small/micro enterprises with turnover between S$1 million to S$10 million – constitute 80% of the total.

This could be a useful guide to define what constitutes SMEs.

These micro enterprises employ nearly half a million Singaporeans while all SMEs (with turnover under S$100 million) employ nearly 2.2 million – over 70% of the total employees in Singapore.

Most of the focus has been on provision of finance and Government agencies in Singapore have done a reasonable job with grants and tax incentives.

Many trade associations – including my own, Singapore International Chamber of Commerce – are attempting to assist SME members with links to larger Multi-National Corporations'(MNCs) working on Industry Transformation Maps (ITM) created recently to improve enterprises productivity and to assist in digitising them.

These efforts are laudable but still not sufficient till we right size the regulatory architecture impacting SMEs.

This will require a delicate balancing act by many Government departments who need to be focussed on cost/benefits of each and every regulation and look to light touch where possible. Undoing regulations to promote ease of doing business is a major thrust of the current US government as well as the Indian government.

One shining example in Singapore was the waiver of compulsory audit of annual accounts of SME’s with turnover under S$1 million announced few years ago. Similarly not levying Goods and Services Tax (GST) on such enterprises. For start ups and micro enterprises such simple regulations are a boon beyond belief.

However, there are many more in the statute book which could be modified or eliminated pragmatically. Could we for example, in some instances, move towards reporting rather than approval based regulations in some instances?

SME’s will not need to wait for approvals but work to build or grow their enterprises and report compliance when done. Time is of essence for SMEs and anything that can be done quickly and painlessly can make a difference between success or shutdown.

Do we need listed SMEs to fill up pages on sustainability as required by Singapore Exchange rather than a one pager? Many other instances abound, I am sure and we will find them as we look deeper.

Singaporean bureaucracy has a sterling reputation for innovative thinking. For example Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has taken an excellent lead to create a unique regulatory sandbox to allow startup Fintechs to innovate and prosper. This is likely to make Singapore a Fintech hub in Asia.

Is there a need to create such a regulatory sandbox for SMEs under Ministry of Trade and Industry or Enterprise Singapore, where myriads of regulations which impact them are reviewed in detail for their applicability to SME’s, some retired while others put in such a sandbox for trials.

It will certainly go down as Innovation Singapore style. It may also save many SMEs from possible extinction. Unquote.

-/fii-news.com

Sticking with Your Own Kind

I recently had an argument with someone who had the potential to offer me a job. He stated that he was willing to offer me $2,500 a month to work for him and it was more than what I was getting. I then pointed out to him that I knew how much he was paying an Italian girl who was working in the same job, which was $1,000 a month more than me and I also was fully aware of what he was paying a Belgium fellow, which was $2,000 a month more. My point to him was that I brought in far more business than the Italian or Belgium but was being offered considerably less to do the same job.

In a fit of desperation, he conceded that while I did a good job for him, the Italian girl in question had “big boobs,” which the customers liked. Still didn’t hold water because I did point out to him that my bald head and fat tummy was still bringing in more money to his pocket. I gave him a way out – mentioning that this was a discussion that we should avoid when both us had just finished one beer too many. However, it was very clear that it wasn’t fun for him to be in a situation where he’d have to tell me that I was the wrong colour.

I think of that incident because it reminded me of what a good Australian friend of mine once posted on my Facebook wall – people tend to stick with their own kind. He made the observation that his Chinese manager had a tendency to hire Chinese and the Indian had the tendency to hire Indians. He further observed that it wasn’t limited to race – he noticed that short people hired other short people and I then pointed out I am a bald man who was hired by another bald man.

All these anecdotes point to one single truth – as much as people talk about opposites attracting, we’re ultimately more comfortable with people who are like us. People who are intrinsically different from us are somehow scary and we somehow find ways to avoid people that are outside are comfort zone.

I, for one, am guilty of this. When I first meet people, the questions that I ask, are those that are designed to look for a common experience, something that says, “we’re the same.” When I meet a Singaporean man, one of my first questions is inevitably, “Which army unit did you come from?” National Service is, after all, the one shared experience that all Singaporean men have and, in my mind, the army unit sort of defines the individual’s character. I remember my day job boss hiring someone whom he was impressed with because the guy did his ACCA whilst still serving in the army. I cringed because if he had time to study, it meant he wasn’t out there with the guys in the field – this was a desk jockey (he turned out to be a nice enough kind but……….)

Being a combat troop in National Service - Not an experience I relished but one that I take pride in and having gone through

I have reference points with people from other parts of the world. I remember meeting a New Zealander who didn’t like sport and I just blanked out – Kiwi who doesn’t appreciate the All Blacks – something must be wrong there.

So, as you can see, that as much as I preach the value of diversity, I am often guilty of looking for comfort zones and staying with my own kind, whether its an “own kind,” based on race, religion, sports team etc. Let’s face it, it’s much easier to bond with someone whom you have something in common with than someone you don’t.

My father will probably shoot me for this remark, but I thank the thousands of pounds he spent on sending me to England because it taught me to appreciate rugby and cricket. Somehow, most of my patrons in latter life would be Indian Nationals and the ability to talk intelligently about cricket and Indian politics was the best way to ensure that I remained on their radar. I also ended up meeting plenty of Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans.

Chucher's College, the place that taught me to appreciate Rugby - a game that would help me bond with Kiwis. 

The ability to bond across cultures is a priceless gift and being able to find “you own people,” is inevitably a wonderful thing.

I am also grateful to Churcher's College for teaching me to appreciate cricket.

However, there is a downside to it in that you tend to get “group think.” When you throw the same people together, you’re bound to get people thinking in exactly the same way and do things exactly the same. Take the Singapore government as a wonderful example. Everybody in the Singapore government tends to have the same background – Same junior college, same military unit, same university and same post graduate school. The common trend amongst our military top brass for example is – basic degree in Cambridge and Business School in the USA.

The good part of the system is that, you get genuinely smart people running the show. Dummies may make it into Cambridge but they get weeded out quickly. The downside is that you get people from the same experience, the same background looking at things in exactly the same manner. So, while things work relatively well in Singapore, you tend to find that the same solutions that were great in the 1960s being applied to the problems in the 2010s.

In a way, diversity has to be forced into the systems. I know of a venture capital firm run by former clients of mine, where the two partners take pride in the fact that they are like “chalk and cheese.” These venture capitalists celebrate their differences because they feel that their strength lies in their differences. Their results seem to speak for themselves.

Perhaps, the answer is thus – give people reasons to come together. Give people reasons to bond and find common ground. Find a reason for giving raising up people who are different from you because in the end, diversity, however painful it is to put into practice, is good for us because it forces us to grow beyond out comfort zones.

The Insecurity of the Majority

When the Oaf in the White House got himself elected two years ago, many people said it was because he appealed to a sense of “Empowerment” to a group that is supposed to be the top of the proverbial food tree – the white man. The Donald spent an entire campaign taking cheap pot shots at the groups that do work such as Mexicans, women and the disabled and the so-called masses lapped it up. Finally, here was someone who was speaking about the suffering of the “real” people and not giving a damn about the so called “political correctness” that had caused so much suffering to the “real” people.

As awful as the Donald is, I allowed to be a form of amusement. I actually felt that somehow, we in Singapore, are little bit better. Sure, the different races take a few pot shots at each other but when push comes to shove, we are all Singaporeans. I think of the curry incident, where Singapore Chinese joined their Indian brethren, after a family of China-born migrants made complaints about the cooking of curry.

My faith in “my” people was a little shaken today when I read the comments of a post by a Singaporean of Indian decent who had a very nasty encounter with a woman who didn’t think twice about going down the racist route. The posting can be found at:  

https://www.facebook.com/hunter.helmsley.106/posts/10156591923548888

The story is disturbing in itself. At the very least, the woman in question should have been shot for being stupid. When you work in customer service, you don’t go out of your way to insult people because you never know who is going to be your next customer.

Leaving aside the nature of the post, what I found particularly disturbing, was the comments that people left behind. OK, there was some optimism in as much as the majority of comments were sympathetic to the guy who posted the post.

However, there was a small minority who didn’t get the point. One even went as far as to call the poster, “Just a driver trying to blow shit up,” and then said his experience wasn’t “racism.” Another chap described the incident as “The tone might be inappropriate, but expecting everyone to be PC in everything? Really?” – That was incidentally from someone who couldn’t understand why people with dark complexions get upset when their darkness is used against them, because white, yellow and brown people apparently don’t get upset when their whiteness, yellowness and brownness is brought up.

When I posted something about how I’d have sacked the woman in question, someone actually posted that I would never make it into management because I didn’t protect the staff from “an allegation becos of doing her duty.”

While those posting were thankfully in the minority, I find myself asking, are we, the majority (I am ethnically Chinese, which means I’m part of the majority of Singapore’s population), forgetting that just because someone is of a different ethnicity or culture, it doesn’t mean that their complaints are not valid.

I question whether the Chinese Singaporean is starting to feel the same pressures that the White American was supposed to be feeling – namely, the fact that you’re no longer the dominant species?

I do see inter-communal tensions. Since I deal mainly with Indians, I see it most in the Indian communities, where our local Singaporeans have woken up to find themselves competing with people from India who happen to be as well educated or if not more so than they are. Hence, you get the local Indians complaining about the “snooty” expat Indians with “fake” qualifications and you get the other side, which basically thinks the majority of our local Indians live in two-room HDB flats.

I also see it in the Chinese Community, where the term “Chinaman” refers to the roughest and crudest of people. Our local Chinese girls are also finding it harder to compete with better looking and more stylish women from the Mainland. I remember one of my female acquaintances verbally expressing the idea that every girl from China was an AIDS factory. I also had a girl friend from China who thought that Singaporean Chinese girls were not pretty because they came from the wrong part of China (roughly translated – We, China girls are from Beijing and Shanghai, so we are pretty – Singapore girls are from Guangzhou and Fujian – so less pretty. My Aunt’s only reply was “OH FUCK OFF.”)

However, I’ve not seen much tension between the races. While there are jokes amongst the Chinese about the Indians being “black,” but by and large, inter-racial relations in Singapore are pretty good. So, I’m kind of surprised that there are people who are expressing sentiments that can be summed up as “Ohh stop whining, you’re lucky to be in our society.”

Seriously, Singaporean Chinese are in no danger of being displaced on the top of the socio-economic food tree in Singapore. All you have to do is to look at the higher echelons of any government organization (especially the military), and you’ll realise that the Singaporean Chinese is not in any danger of being shut out of the plum jobs. Having said that, I guess you could have said the same thing about the White American man. Obama was only half a black man who ran the country through a cabinet that was predominantly of Caucasian decent and somehow, it seemed that the White man felt left out and disempowered enough to vote for Trump and his bashing of people who do work.

I’ve had Singaporean friends tell me that they can’t hack it in Singapore because its getting expensive and the foreigners are to blame. I’ve heard the same thing from Europeans and Americans. The world is becoming different and old socio-economic patterns are changing and while I believe that this is something that should be celebrated, it will leave people disenfranchised.

In places like Detroit, you had a car industry that kept working class white people in decent paying jobs. Then, the car manufacturing went to places like Japan, then China and dare I say the robots are also moving in. For the working class white man, it can be very unsettling when the thing that gave you a good living goes elsewhere.

Likewise, in Singapore, the average Singaporean had a perfect niche between East and West. As one Singaporean British Airways Steward said, “They used to hire us because we spoke English and Mandarin. Now, the PR Chinese are learning English, so the airline hires them instead.”

As painful as it is, this disruption is a good thing. It forces one to use ones’ wits and think of different ways of survival. You got to think of doing things better when you don’t have the advantage of incumbency.

I don’t see why the Singaporean Chinese needs to feel threatened in his homeland. We just need to accept that things are changing and we got to find new ways of doing things. You can’t fight it and we have to acknowledge that our friends from ethnic minorities have their special value too if we want to progress in a changing world. If you can’t recognize someone because “ALL Of YOUR ARE SO BLACK,” then you might want to consider migration – to Mars.

Let’s Go Easy on Loudmouths

I’m going to do something very unusual – I’m going to be nice about the oaf occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I’m going to be nice about him because despite the crap coming out of his mouth, the guy merely a “talker” rather than a doer. As was brilliantly said in the classic series “Yes Minister,” – “Always deal with the difficult part in the headline.” In the oaf’s case, it’s a case of say it – say it even more loudly and if necessary put on a show of actually doing something but not actually doing it or doing it in such a way that the powers around you manage to stop you.

Take everything he said about China as an example. On the campaign trail, he couldn’t stop talking about how he was going to punish China for “raping the American Economy.” Once elected, he made a few noises and raised a tariff or two but the moment President Xi Jin Ping stood in front of him, the Donald was like an obedient school boy eager to please the Principle, even going as far as to bring out his granddaughter to sing for President Xi in Mandarin. A clip of Ms. Kushner speaking Mandarin can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzM7XoVVGQc

I bring out the example of the Donald and his management style because life is filled with little Donald’s who believe that the way to be tough is to look like you’re tough. I’m not saying that these guys are duds. As is often said, they had to have done something right to get to a certain position in life. However, they are, more often than not, the type that only get so far because they can’t help themselves from living on bullshit and anyone with half a brain, a cool head and half a testicle quickly understands that this is often the easiest guy to deal with as long as you can live with the amateur theatrics.

Donald Trump is a wonderful example. In fairness, he actually had the brains to ensure he was born into a well to do family and somehow, he always made sure that Daddy was willing to bail him out whenever he got into the shit (It’s a skill – well to do Daddy’s didn’t get to where they were by being stupid and quite often they are hard on their own flesh and blood). The Donald eventually built a moderately successful business by bragging about how great he was (Seriously, who sues Forbes for ‘underestimating’ his wealth?). Somehow, some smart people bought into the hype and helped him move up without actually looking at what was behind the hype.

As much as I remain stunned that he actually got voted into the White House, I have to credit the Donald for doing something right to have tapped into something that compelled otherwise decent people to want to vote for him.

Having said everything that I’ve just said, there’s one fatal flaw to the man – there’s actually nothing beyond the hype. I think of the people who voted for him because they thought he was going to bring his business brilliance to running the country. Well, they’re partially right, he’s running the country exactly the way he ran his businesses – in a totally disorganized manner with no inclination of competence. In the year that this administration has been in power, they have only passed ONE bill despite controlling both houses of Congress and most of the governorships. He has bungled things that a mongrel could pass with flying colours (Denouncing Neo-Nazis) and his White House has lost staff faster than Usain Bolt on speed. This is the only administration that has gotten itself investigated within a year of being in office (By contrast, it took Bill Clinton 5-years for the Lewinsky scandal to come out and it was a similar time frame for Ronald Regan and the Iran-Contra Scandal).

You get away with being undisciplined in businesses because most businesses are small enough not to matter. The Trump Organisation is private organization that manages to be private enough for people to cover up the obvious holes. The White House is a different matter – your every move or your every failure is a matter of public knowledge.

The Donald, as they say, is only an example of a leader who got there by hype. As much as one should want leaders who are more deserving, these are perhaps the easiest characters to deal with. They usually have an obvious weakness – huge egos. Stroke their egos and they actually end up being quite easy to manipulate.

Once again, look at where Donald Trump has had the most success in his foreign policy. He’s managed to piss off traditional allies in the Western World who face similar public appearances that he does. Did he expect Emmanuelle Marcon to let him crush his hand for the television cameras? The French would not allow their President to be seen to be bullied by an American. Neither would the Germans allow Angela Merkel to look like Trump’s patsy. Even the British, who have traditionally toed the American line have actually cancelled a State Visit.

By contrast, Trump has done very well with the Saudi Royal Family. It should be noteworthy that his first trip overseas was to Saudi Arabia. Despite slamming President Obama for bowing to King Abdullah, the Donald actually curtsied for King Salman. A video link can be seen below:

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

It should be noted that the Saudi’s flattered the hell out of the Donald and reaped their rewards. The curtsey for King Salman was a very small price to pay for promising to buy billions of dollars-worth of American hardware. They saw it to it that Trump would be flattered at every moment he was in the Kingdom and the Donald loved every moment of it. A video of his tour to Saudi can be seen below:

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

Saudi Arabia flattered an ego in need of flattery. In return, the Saudi’s got him to curtsey before King Salman and more importantly, the Donald has come down hard on their Shia Rival across the Gulf, Iran and ignored their war in Yemen and he’s barely battered an eyelid over the blockade of Qatar. Despite coming into power on the promise to ban migration from Muslim countries, Saudi’s remain able to travel freely to the US of A.

The Chinese have also understood that flattery and appearing to kiss arse without actually coming near the proverbial behind works wonders. President Xi never seemed annoyed by the Donald’s comments on labeling China a currency manipulator. The Donald may blabber on about this and that, but the President remains calm and smiles politely:

The Chinese have made it a point of being very hospitable to the Donald. An example of the hospitality extended to the Donald can be seen at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na3lcejmqZ4

Somehow, the man who had it in for China and Chinese raping of the American Economy cannot help but gush over his Bromance with “President Xi.” Let’s put it this way, would you expect an American President to endorse the Chinese President lifting term limits and allowing himself to stay in power indefinitely?

Why have leaders from autocratic systems found it so much easier to get along and get what they want from the “Leader of the Free World,” than those from fellow democracies?

One could say that the Arabs and the Chinese have had centuries of learning the art of court intrigue, which the Europeans have not. Then again, that’s not quite true because European history is filled with double dealings – just ask any Pole about what happened when Adolf and Joseph screwed them up.

Perhaps it could be the fact that in a democracy, leaders have to appear to do what their subjects want. The British, French and Germans, expect their leaders to have some sort of public image that goes beyond money and power on the international stage. By contrast, a leader in autocracy merely needs to ensure that the subjects feel well taken care of not to rebel. Hence, King Salman and President Xi can tap into the Donald’s weak spots – namely money and power.

Which then leads to the next awful thought. Perhaps the Chinese and Saudi’s have something that makes the Donald think twice before doing anything stupid – namely the fate of the Trump Organisation. – Who is to say that King Salman didn’t politely hint to the Donald that there are Saudi Princes with money to spend on units in Trump Towers? Who is to say that President Xi didn’t suggest to the Donald that US policy might have unfortunate consequences on potential expansion plans in China. We will never know.

Loudmouths and braggarts can be exceedingly annoying. They can be painful to deal with, especially when they happen to be in positions of power over you.

However, if you understand what they want and if you have the ability to flatter on one hand, dangle a bribe on another and ensure that they understand that the hand currently stroking the testicles with tender loving care could turn into a vice like grip, then the loudmouth and braggart will find a way of giving you your long term objectives.  

Let's Get them To Work

I’m generally “pro-immigrant.” Growing up in the UK and living in Singapore for the last decade or so, I noticed that it’s usually the migrants from elsewhere doing the backbreaking work and the down and outs are usually the native born. In London’s Soho district, the tramps were inevitably young, white, native Brits. The “Pakis” were too busy running corner shops and the Nigerian black boys would hustle to get you into a mini-cab. Now, that I live in Singapore, I notice that the construction sites are inevitably staffed by Indians and Bangladeshis, restaurants by Pinoys and Indians and our streets would not be clean were it not for the “Bangla’s” picking up after us.

I have argued time and time again that were it not for migrants who are hungry and willing to do shit jobs that need to get done, many of the great cities of the world would probably collapse. I also don’t see the sense in denying the job to the guy who wants to do it because he’s “not from around here.” I also don’t see the logic in denying the guy who wants the job in name of giving the job to the guy who doesn’t want the job in the first place.

Having said that, I also believe that many societies, particularly in the developing world, need to find a way of creating opportunities for their native-born citizens and as much as we want to encourage people to succeed, we also need to take care of the “losers.” Letting people die on the street doesn’t get anyone anywhere. The social order that allows people to prosper can easily be upset if enough people feel their getting screwed by the system.

If only this chap would learn to be like

In the Western world, they have the welfare state, which works on the premise that the state provides you with a safety net in the event that things turn sour for you. The Nordic Countries are the world’s favourite example of what a good social system can do for you. Losing your job or getting sick in Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Finland isn’t the end of the world because the state will step in.

However, while the intentions behind the welfare state are noble, the system, as many Western Countries have found out, has one intrinsic flaw – the value of work vanishes. Why do you need to go to work if people are giving you money for doing nothing? The system becomes open for abuse and unfortunately the people who should be working find a way of not working. The system becomes even more ridiculous when you have situation where people from elsewhere get the “benefits” without paying into the system. The “anti-migrant” group has moved its pitch from “they take our jobs,” to “they are coming to live off our tax dollars.”

Many Asian countries balk at the thought of implementing a “welfare” system based on the Western model. Singapore, is a good example. Lee Kuan Yew, our founding Prime Minister and the last great Victorian Gentlemen this side of the Suez Cannel felt that the “welfare” system had turned the British from being the most civilized people on earth into a bunch of hooligans. His successor had to disguise the giving out of cash to the citizens by calling them shares.

While the “evils” of the welfare system are known, Asian societies are reaching the stage where some form of “welfare” system needs to be introduced. The richer Asian nations like Singapore and Japan are aging. Modern life is such that old social contracts are no longer viable (In my mother’s words “Can’t expect you to look after me when you can barely look after yourself.) What can be done? It’s a question that needs to be answered quickly as societies age.

These guys

In Singapore, the answer is called “Workfare,” where the government donated cash to low wage earners. I used to enjoy receiving “workfare” every three months. It was like a surprise package and there was the greater thrill of receiving money from the government.

The idea of workfare is right in as much as it gives one the incentive to work. As a former recipient, I can say that I was encouraged to stay in my job as a waiter because I’d get that buzz of having that “government-given” bonus. Workfare, which is assessed on a quarterly basis, meant that I could get a larger bonus from the government if I stayed in the job.

Generally speaking, I like the principle of the system. There is a possibility of abuse in the system but even then, the it is correct to pay people to work not to do nothing. Our problem in Singapore not so much people abusing the system but not wanting to abuse the system. As one of the characters said, “It’s not worth it for a few bucks.”

I have a sentimental attachment to my job as a waiter because it helped me move things along in life. While, the pay was never great, it gave me the stability of income that I needed to settle a few things.

I’m an unusual case in as much as I’ve grown attached to my blue-collar existence. To me, it was a simple case of a low income being better than no income at all.

However, there remains a portion of society that would rather not work a low paying job and live of friends and family. I think of the various characters I know who don’t have an issue being seen to be drinking all day but can’t afford to be seen in public cleaning the streets.

What do you do? Yes, I am for the principle of hiring the guy who wants the job rather than the guy who doesn’t want the job. However, can we really afford a situation where you have lots of people from elsewhere doing the jobs but a load of natives not earning a living?

I’m reminded of a report that I saw on Facebook, which reported that farmers in the US are having to leave fruit to rot ever since Donald started clamping down on migration. A friend of mine who supports the Donald made some comment about time to get people off welfare.

He has a point. We argue that migration is necessary because we need people to do the dangerous and dirty jobs that the natives won’t do. However, we have natives who are physically able to do the jobs but are unemployed and not earning a living. In the Western World, many of these collect welfare checks and lose the incentive to work. In the Asian Societies they live off family and friends until they no longer have family and friends and in which case they end up on the street. Isn’t it correct that you get the natives working so that there’s less need for migrants?

One of the areas to start is to make dirty and dangerous jobs less so. Technology is a big factor in things. At the restaurant I work at, we’ve adapted wireless payment systems, which reduces manpower costs. Instead of hiring a cashier and plonking paper chits around, we take the order on an iPad, which goes straight to the kitchen and the cashier. Instead of relying on a cashier to key in your orders, you merely print out the bill at the end of the meal.

Paying less than slave wages also helps. There is an argument made in Singapore that wages for certain jobs are too low for support a family (even if KNN and Pundeks don’t support their families). But there is a point in that, you cannot keep wages stagnant while increasing costs. Yes, I’d work a job far away from where I live if I had to but I’d also feel pretty resentful of rising transport costs when compared to my stagnant wages. So, to a certain extent, the employers need to do something to reduce costs for their employees. You could grow competitive mini-bus systems and a “night economy” if employers threw in things like transport.

I also wonder if things like a jobs program would get the down and outs to work? While “jobs programs” don’t have a great history of creating real economic value, they are better than the alternative of nothing at all and giving people money for nothing.

Surely, instead of having to rely on people from elsewhere, a nation should squeeze its productivity from its own citizens first. There are of course, barriers to this. Why, for example, should a city dweller (where a good portion of welfare recipients live) go out to work as a farm hand in the country when the investment in time and money might be a disincentive to work?

This is the point where governments need to get creative and figure out how to work with the private sector to share funds and idea on how to get people into work. Perhaps, a national job bank could be created and anyone who wants to register for social assistance, will have to register at the job bank. Businesses can then draw upon the job bank whenever they need labour, paying costs for employing the worker with the government helping subsidise things like transport to the work place and perhaps training schemes to make people employable.

Just letting people die should not be an alternative but giving people money for not working is not good either. The answer lies in making seasonal work in various labour intensive industries accessible to anyone who needs a job. My stepfather once said that if he couldn’t work as a doctor, he’d work in the harbor rather than take the dole. For me, I keep my job as a waiter because it’s a form of social security. Governments and businesses need to ensure that people will want to work and not take handouts.

As has been pointed out, people with jobs, even low paying ones, tend to have dignity, while those who don’t have jobs, tend not to have it. A dignified population is what most societies should aim for.

From Special Forces Warrior to Successful Businessman

I wanted adventure, so I joined the US Special Forces - Little Did I Know it would Train me for an Adventure in Business 

By William Nobrega

Managing Partner of DTNVenture Partners and Former Green Beret Medical Sergeant  

From the age of ten years of age I had a desire to become a ‘Green Beret’ watching the John Wayne movie of the same name over and over again. My uncle who I adored also had served as one in Vietnam being wounded on two separate occasions. So during my senior year in high School I signed up to join a Special Forces reserve unit in my home State of Ohio. At the time the only slot available was ‘Parachute Rigger’ I didn’t care I was in!

That summer I attended basic training after which I began my freshman year at Ohio University. I was scheduled to attend Airborne School over winter break and that fall I trained with a vengeance. I was also pledging Beta Theta Pi which added another element of excitement to that fall quarter. Airborne School was the adventure of a lifetime. I loved the long runs, the adrenalin and the Esprit that I was first beginning to see and understand. After graduating that winter class I headed back to school and over the course of several years I attended as many schools as I could to include Rigger, Jumpmaster, SERE and finally Special Forces Medical Sergeant 18 Delta Q course. Oddly it was Rigger school where I first had my interaction with other members of SOCOM as there were SEAL team and Force Recon members in attendance and we created a common bond.

At the time I was really checking the boxes as I had plans, post-college and in 1990 there was not much going on i.e. globally. That summer I was accepted to Graduate School in Belgium. I had just started school when I received orders that were actually faxed to me for Desert shield/Desert Storm. For me it was the adventure of a lifetime, so I boarded a train and headed for Germany and 10^th Special Forces Group. Our mission was to support the Kurds and I loved every minute of it.  The war and mission were over in six short months and to be honest I have never seen the intensity or made the sacrifices that my brothers have made.

That being said the entire experience taught some very important concepts vis-à-vis business.

• ·       Keep focused on the mission/summit, you may need to alter the route and approach but do not lose sight of the summit
• ·       The right team is critical, my biggest mistake was believing that all individuals had the drive and passion of those in Special Forces, they do not!
• ·       Failure is part of life, the question is what do we learn from failure and how quickly do we get back up
• ·       Creating a new venture is not a sprint, it is a long hard slog and anyone that tells you otherwise is full of BS
• ·       Quitting is not an option, and that there is a big difference between quitting and failing!