What Happens if your kid tells you that he or she is Gay?

One of my best friends and I were discussing the topic of homosexuality. His point was that we’re still Asians at heart and while some might find homosexuality normal, he did not. To make his point, he asked me what I would do if my 18-year old told me one fine day that she was a lesbian. I laughed and my reply was “What would you expect me to do?” The point being, if my little girl told me that her sexual preference was for another woman, she’d still be my little girl. When my teenager, who is in some cases legally an adult decides on something for herself in her personal life, the issue of what I feel and like has no relevance.

I bring up this topic because the infamous topic of Section 377A, or the section of the Penal Code that outlaws “unnatural” sex between men is back in the news, thanks to a ruling in the Indian High Court on the 6^th of September 2018 that repealed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, legalizing homosexual sex.

The news of the Indian ruling inspired Professor Tommy Koh, one of our most respected diplomats (and a former neighbor of Dad’s) calling the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay and Transsexual) to challenge the existence of 377A in Singapore’s Penal Code. The story of Professor Koh’s challenge can be found at:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/diplomat-tommy-koh-calls-for-gay-community-ban-377a-10693594

Then, a challenge to 377A has been filed in the courts by a disc jockey (“DJ”) called Johnson Ong. The story of Mr. Ong’s challenge can be found at:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/377a-gay-sex-law-dj-files-court-challenge-singapore-10708288

This challenge comes a few days after the online media reported that petition calling for the repeal of the act garnered some 30,000 signatures in a day and the Minister of Law, Mr. K Shanmugam came out to say that the decision to repeal the act. The report can be found at:

https://mothership.sg/2018/09/shanmugam-parliament-377a-lgbt/

Just as those who want to repeal Section 377A have been galavnised into action, the supporters to this section have also been galvinised into action, even if they have been relatively quiet, perhaps buoyed by the a recent survey that stated that the majority of Singaporeans were in favour of keeping 377A on the books and the government, unwilling to take on any pressure group is sticking to its ground of keeping the legal fudge of “we’ll keep the law but won’t enforce it.” The story of can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/55-per-cent-of-singapore-residents-support-section-377a-ipsos-survey

My ex-girlfriend, went as far as to send me a WhatsApp message with a “good speech” from Mr. Christopher De Souza, one of our esteemed Members of Parliament, passionately begging parliament to keep the section of the law. The “Pro-377A” camp has clearly decided to sit back and let the “logic” of their case do the talking. By sending me this “good speech,” I was reminded of why she’s my ex.

I find the intensity of the emotions in this battle to be baffling. Singapore takes such pride in being a wonderfully reasonable place, where decisions are made based on facts rather than on blind prejudices. For example, we keep the “dubious” business of prostitution legal because it’s better than driving it underground by keeping it illegal. We allowed the construction of casinos because the economic benefits outweighed the potential social costs. There are plenty of examples of how our government and society has gone ahead and done something, despite “disapproval” of a “moral majority.” We’re often reminded that this commitment to making policy based on fact is the very reason why the foreign investors come around to keep things ticking.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the debate on 377A, Singapore’s claim to be a “rational intelligent” place that has rule of law based on facts, gets washed down the toilet. You have exceedingly clever people like Professor Thio Li-Ann (Oxford Graduate in Law) and Mr. De Souza (Partner at Lee & Lee, one of our most prominent law firms) beating around the bush and embarrassing the legal profession with their arguments and yet, most frighteningly convincing people that they actually made sense. I once picked apart Professor Thio’s 2007 speech in parliament – something which my uneducated brain found very easy to do, which lead to the further conclusion that there was something wrong with our very educated Members of Parliament if they failed to see the obvious flaws in her argument:

http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2011/10/fallen-man-and-morally-upright-and-very.html

It’s ridiculously easy to pick off their arguments and I often wonder how this lot managed to get the jobs that they got in the legal business. It’s perhaps a rather damning inditement of our current system that people who fail to make intelligent arguments get hailed as “moral guardians” and highly educated professionals.

My thoughts on the subject of 377A can be found in a piece I wrote around the time of the debate.

http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2007/10/queer-sense.html

My thoughts and feelings on the subject remain the same and I go back to the question of “What would you do if your kid told you he or she was gay?” I think of what would happen if  the son of my ex-girlfriend (she who sent me the ‘good speech,’), who was for the better part of a year my son too, told me he was gay. My answer would be:

1. Silence as I digest the news;
2. A little disappointment – I was kind of expecting to have someone who could be a “mini-me” on the topic of girls;
3. Love and acceptance – Ultimately, what would I want – only for him to grow up and grow old with a partner of his choosing (regardless of gender), which means a partner that he’ll be able to have a healthy sexual relationship with.

When you look at things like this, you’ll understand that as a parent, there is nothing else higher than wanting your kids to have a normal healthy relationship with the person who makes them happiest. How could any parent want their kids to be “criminal?”

When we look at the issue of 377A, I say, let us look at the issue from our most personal of points – our kids. For me, a law that criminalises the ability of my kids to have a normal and healthy sexual relationship with a partner of their choice is in fact that most unnatural thing possible

SSD –Call a Spade a Spade

In Singapore, property prices shot up so fast over the last one year that the Government was alarmed. Home owners look with envy at those who reaped enhanced rewards from a collective sale of their development. This refers to a special law which allows a special majority of owners in a development to sell ALL the strata unit in the development, notwithstanding that there is a small minority who do not wished to sell. 

However, in the last half a year, many owners in collective sale development are crying murder! This arose because the Government implemented a tax called Seller’s Stamp Duty (or “SSD”). Owners who sell their property within four years have to pay SSD. For the lucky (or some say unlucky) owners, this can amount to fifty thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The most unhappy are the owners (the “Unhappy Owner”) who moved into their dream home only to find that within two or three months, a collective sale committee (the “CSC”) is formed, and the Unhappy Owner’s dream home may be sold without their consent. The Unhappy Owner may protest. He may apply to Court to block the sale. But if the CSC has observed all the requirements required by the law, the sale will proceed. And when the Unhappy Owner refuses to sign the Transfer of his dream home, the CSC can apply to Court for the Registrar to sign the Transfer. Then as if to add insult to injury, the CSC may pay SSD on the Unhappy Owner’s strata unit and deduct the SSD from sale proceeds due to the Unhappy Owner.

To be fair, this is not a criticism of the collective sale procedure. Singapore is a democracy that believes in the rule of the majority. Hence, even in a strata development, a small minority may have to give way to a special majority. There are in place sufficient safeguards to ensure that the small minority, such as our Unhappy Owner, will not suffer a financial loss from the collective sale. But such assurances are insufficient balm to soothe the said injury (or lighten the said insult).

This begs the question. Does the law really require minority owners to pay SSD?

The Government implemented SSD ostensibly to curb property speculation (“SSD Purpose”). This purpose is achieved when home owners faced with the prospect of paying SSD, decides to postpone the sale of their home. In the case of our Unhappy Owner, he has acted in line with the SSD Purpose by protesting against the collective sale. Thereafter if despite his protests, a special majority proceeds to sell his dream home, there is nothing that this Unhappy Owner can do to prevent the sale. How will it serve the SSD Purpose to impose SSD on this Unhappy Owner? It smacks of double jeopardy first, for the law to empower a CSC to sell the Unhappy Owner’s dream home, and secondly to impose SSD liability on the Unhappy Owner. Imposing SSD liability on this Unhappy Owner appears to extend the law beyond its original SSD Purpose. 

The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“IRAS”) website contains a guide that says that collective sale owners have to pay SSD – even minority owners such as our Unhappy Owner. If the original SSD Purpose does not cover our Unhappy Owner, is he an unintended victim of an ambiguous law?

This brings us back to the law. The Devil is in the details.

The Stamp Duty Act says that sellers who sell their property within four years of its purchase have to pay SSD. And this is our Eureka! moment.

Therein lies the answer that our Unhappy Owner is looking for. He is not a seller and he did not sell his dream home. It is the majority owners who sold his dream home despite his protests. The collective sale agreement says that the majority owners are selling ALL the strata units in the development. It does not say that the minority owners are sellers. Even the Order of Court does not say that the minority owners are sellers. There is no reason for anyone to treat our Unhappy Owner as a seller and to impose SSD liability on him. This is so especially when the original SSD Purpose of the law does not extend to our Unhappy Owner.

Finally, it is trite law that stamp duty is imposed on instruments, rather than on transactions. In the case of our Unhappy Owner, if he has not signed any Sale Agreement or Transfer Instrument, there is no document signed by him to attract SSD liability. Hence, it is ultra vires for IRAS to collect SSD from our Unhappy Owner. And if SSD has been paid, our Unhappy Owner is entitled to its refund from IRAS.

So, the moral of the story is this. Call a spade a spade. Call a seller a seller. Just don’t call our Unhappy Owner a seller and don’t collect SSD from him.

By Mr. Eric Ng Yuen
Partner at Malkin & Maxwell LLP

"The Big Brand Illusion"

Amidst the excitement of being chosen by a Big Company as a partner - SME Business Owners must remember that Big Companies look out for their themselves first. A Business Person should always have the courage and wisdom to use the law to ensure that their interest are taken care of 

I read the story of Google-backed Chinese tech startup Mobvoi’s travails with Chinese
smartphone giant Xiaomi. The crux is how the nascent startup was so excited to partner
with Xiaomi that they did not bother securing a proper, written contract before starting the
project.

After three months of work, which involved “combined PR” and the integration of Mobvoi’s
speech recognition technology into Xiaomi’s smart TV, Xiaomi finally sent a formal agreement,
one that essentially forces the startup to lose all rights and provide free service for three years.

As a lawyer who has worked with many young startups, this story is strangely familiar.

The big brand illusion

With the growth potential that big brands could offer, monetary- and public image-wise, small
businesses rush to work with them and tend to overlook very basic legal procedures designed
to safeguard their interests. They often assume that these organizations are trustworthy. I call
this phenomenon the Big Brand Illusion, and it can turn out poorly for small players.

In most cases, they are so hungry for the work that they ignore or sign blindly on the terms given
to them by the big brand. They often harbor the mentality that they do not have the power to
negotiate terms, so why bother to review the contracts written by the big brands? They dare not
and will not express their own terms for fear of losing the deal.

What is not known is that laws are always enacted to protect the small guys, but big companies
stick terms in their contracts which state that the small company have “agreed” to waive their
protection.

I have a few case studies to share that should illustrate the importance of agreements.

Case A: Breach of patents

My client was a design firm that was hired to design fully reclining first-class seats for Airline A.
This was in a time where a competing airline, Airline B, was also rushing to be the first in line
to put out these sort of brand-new seats in the market.

Now Airline A required my client to sign several service agreements before proceeding with
 the deal. One clause in the agreement stood out to me—it required my client to indemnify
the airline as to the originality of their designs and that their designs were not in breach of
any other persons’ intellectual property rights (IPR).

I told my client that this clause had two important parts. The first was around the originality of
design and the second one was the indemnity of IPR. While my client could guarantee and
represent that the design was indeed “original,” they would not be able to guarantee that the
“original” design would not be in breach of any IPRs. It should be the airline, with their vast legal
resources, to do the due diligence and check whether the design would be in breach of other
people’s IPR.

My client heeded my advice despite the airline’s lawyer insisting that no other service provider
had ever had an issue with their service agreements before and were prepared to forgo the deal
even if the airline did not change the clause. In the end, the airline relented. The clause was
changed and my client proceeded with the work.

After the seats were launched, news broke that Airline A was sued by Airline B for “breach of
patents.” My client called to thank me for my advice, which essentially saved them from being
 caught in between the two airlines.

Case B: Long hours and endless quotas

I was representing a small local waste paper collection company that had grown very big and a
semi-government organization wanted to acquire them.

In the course of review, I cautioned the client about a clause in the sale agreement that required
them to guarantee a certain collection quantity to supply the larger organization’s production
needs each year. The effect of this guarantee would have meant that my client and their staff
would have to stay on and continue working despite selling out their company.

In a peculiar turn of events, the semi-government organization invited my client to go for an
all-expense-paid holiday and bonding trip to Australia, which they accepted despite my objections.
Upon their return, I was told that they would discharge as their lawyer and conclude the deal
with the government organization.

A few years later, I met the wife of this client and I casually asked how was their retirement and
what new projects they were doing. I was not surprised when she told me that they were still
working for that same semi-government organization. As predicted, they were working long hours
to make the collection targets each year.

Case C: Unfair clause

In this last case study, my client was a general contractor who frequently secured contracts from
semi-government agencies to secure electrical fitting and plumbing in government-owned buildings.

When they win a tender, they sign standard contracts issued by these agencies. There was a
renewal clause which stated that at the end of the term of the contract and before the new term,
my client was supposed to replace all the light bulbs in the building, regardless of whether they
need replacing or not. This was probably a preventive measure.

It turned out that the client signed blindly and was not even aware of this clause until the time of
renewal. The semi- government agency called on the clause and they realized that the cost of
changing every bulb in the buildings would come up to US$1 million.

I was engaged to litigate and I intended to use the Unfair Contracts Terms Act to say that the
clause was unreasonable on account of two things: (1) the client was not made aware of the
size of this liability versus the contract sum, and (2) the clause was unclear as to whether the
intent of changing the bulbs was preventive or not.

When this line of argument was made known to the government agency, the matter ended up
being settled privately at the Singapore Mediation Center, and the client averted the costly
liability and even the costlier trial by paying a considerably lower settlement fee instead.

Last words for startups

The above case studies all show that small businesses should remember to use the law of the
land and get proper contracts drawn up, with acceptable terms and conditions for all parties
involved. They should also carefully read any legal agreement and seek clarity or counsel if
anything is amiss or unclear before signing on the dotted line. Negligence when it comes to these
 actions puts both the business and the people in the business at risk.

Remember, the devil is always in the details.

This article was first published on TechInAsia on 10 May 2017. 
Click here to see the original article.

By Mark Goh Aik Leng  Managing Director of  VanillaLaw LLC 

CULTURAL APPROPRIATION OR APPRECIATION?

Coming up to the launch of our summer collection, I AM DURGA --- inspired by a Hindi Warrior Goddess, a storm of outrage was blowing in from the West over an American girl wearing a qipao to her high school prom.

On one hand, a Chinese American guy commented that she was appropriating his culture, and that she should not have worn this classic Chinese dress simply because she found it beautiful.
On the other side, commentators questioned whether this Chinese American boy only dressed in traditional Chinese clothing himself. It was assumed that he generally wore T-shirts, jeans, and other normal American dress; which begged the question of whether he was similarly committing what he deemed to be "cultural appropriation."

When this debate is applied to such a multi-cultural nation such as Singapore, the results are quite different. As the country has been built on appreciating and welcoming other cultures, particularly Chinese, Indian and Malay - there is much cultural fusion at the heart of the culture here.

We were kindly asked by The Straits Times, to comment on this issue, as our upcoming collection was on the brink of being unveiled. Our opinion was that cultural appreciation, which includes wearing and exploring fashion that is not of your own culture, is a beautiful and positive thing for all parties involved.
To read the article by The Straits Times on Singapore's view of cultural appropriation, please click here.

For myself, being ethnically half Chinese and German, yet born in Canada, and having spent my adult life in Singapore -- cultural mixing, and racial mixing is actually at the core of who I am. I don't believe that just because my DNA says one thing, that I have to force myself to dress according to that however. I also note that often the people who complain about cultural appropriation, are not following their own strict rules on how people should be dressing, or what they are allowed to be inspired by.
So, in my view - go enjoy Korean BBQ which is run by Chinese in America! Or get the whole family a set of Mickey Mouse outfits for your inaugural trip to Hong Kong's Disney Land! If its done with appreciation, its a cultural compliment!

Article first published on 21 July 2018 by the Lisa Von Tang at https://lisavontang.com/blogs/on-life/cultural-appropriation-or-appreciationhttps://lisavontang.com/blogs/on-life/cultural-appropriation-or-appreciation

Goodbye to the Warrior for Peace

As the Muslim Festival of Eid Al Adha or Hari Raya Haji approaches, I thought it would be time to pay tribute to a non-Muslim who dedicated his life to making peace between the Jewish and Islamic World’s. Mr. Uri Avnery, the veteran Israeli peace activist who died on 20 August 2018.

I never met Mr. Avnery, but writing for Arab News back in the early 2000s. We shared the same editor, Khaleed Al Maeena and I remember Mr. Almaeena was particularly proud that he had “Four Israeli’s” on his team.

Between Khaled Almaeena’s pride in having Israeli’s writing for him and Mr. Avnery’s writings, I learnt that contrary to popular myth, Jews and Muslims are not inclined to hate each other and the long almost unsolvable conflict in the Middle East was more about bad politics, supported by people in power who benefited from the conflict rather than any predisposed hatred that two peoples might have for each other. If there were two groups of people who were more alike in terms of custom, it would the world’s Jews and Muslims, who worshipped the same God (Yahweh and Allah being the same name but spoken in different languages), greeted the same way (Salaam Alaiku, Alaikum being the Arabic version of Shalom Aleichiem and Aleichiem Shalom), get their blokes circumcised and have the same dietary requirements (Kosher or Halal – or as a Muslim friend of mine once said, “You know when a Jew offers you food – it’s clean.”). Furthermore, the Jews of the “Holy Land” (as opposed to the European Migrants) and the Arabs are ethnically indistinguishable (the Semites). 

What made Mr. Avnery so compelling in his criticisms of Israeli policies was the fact that he wasn’t some granola munching college kid safely tucked away in the American Mid-West. His life story was as Israeli as it gets – he was a family that fled Nazi Germany and found refuge in the Jewish homeland. He joined Irgun, the Zionist paramilitary organization (Call it a Zionist version of the IRA) and he fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War as a squad commander in the Givati Brigade and later in the Samson’s Foxes Commando Unit – this wasn’t some privileged kid whose father bought him out of his obligations during a state of war (we’re not talking about George Bush II who was safely tucked away in the “Air” National Guard or Donald Trump who mysteriously discovered bone spurs when he was supposed to fulfil draft obligations).

Mr. Avnery’s took risk by becoming a peace activist. When he famously crossed the line to meet Yasser Arafat in 1982, he was closely followed by Israeli intelligence, who were hopping to assassinate Mr. Arafat and risking Mr. Avnery in the process. He was also stabbed sometime in 1975, shortly after founding the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. Yet, despite these incidents, Mr. Avnery persisted to call for peace between Israel, the Palestinians and the wider Arab and Muslim World.

It’s such a shame that Mr. Avnery had to die in the era of Nethanyahu and Trump. If you look at things like the continued building of settlements and American inability to stop them or if you look at how the Gulf Arab states are looking like they may enlist Israel as a silent ally in their rivalry with Iran, it would seem that Mr. Avnery was on the wrong side of history.

However, Mr. Avnery would probably disagree and argue that now was the most important time to fight for peace. If you look at what Mr. Avnery was trying to achieve, you can only argue that he was fighting for the right thing.

Israel is a miraculous country. It has thrived and created marvelous innovations with next to no resources in a part of the world best known for autocratic stagnation. Yet, despite all of this, Israel has a black spot on its record – namely the active denial of humanity for the Palestinians it has displaced. This situation has benefited “nice” characters like the weapons manufacturers in Israel and the West, the Western Media, which needs a good story to bash the Muslim world (Plucky Israel against its Evil Arab Neighbours), Intelligence Agencies that need something to do, terrorist organizations claiming to fight for Palestinian Liberation and Arab Autocrats who need a Bogeyman.

Mr. Avnery was not just trying to give Israel long lasting peace with her Arab Neighbours. He was trying to ensure that powerful interest that had profited from suffering would lose their grip and for the betterment of mankind. It would be a shame if people stopped fighting for the very things that Mr. Avnery was trying to achieve.   

Thank Goodness for Noisy Irritants

I was at a function in the residence of the British High Commissioner when I ran into an old friend. As with every meeting with an old friend, we ended chatting about “old times,” and for us, old times meant working on one of Singapore’s most prominent socio-political events, namely the 2009 AWARE Saga, which was one of Singapore’s watershed moments for activist and for many, particularly from the LGBT (Lesbians, Gay, Bi and Transsexual) Community, a personal political awakening. He was one of the activist on the ground and I was the PR consultant to the lawyer who was one of the key strategists for the so called “AWARE OLD GUARD.” An outline of the AWARE Saga can be found at:

http://sporelgbtpedia.shoutwiki.com/wiki/AWARE_saga

While both of us enjoyed reliving the pride of taking part in bringing down a group of very nasty people, he made the point that sometimes it’s necessary for nasty people to make their presence felt because they disrupt things.

He gave the example of Donald Trump, whom most sensible people agree is a nasty character. The Donald ran a campaign by appealing to the worst in people by being their worst made live. (He became a proud racist bully). Furthermore, the Donald has proceeded to govern as he campaigned breaking every record for incompetent governance available. However, as my friend pointed out, he’s been a force of disruption. I’ve argued that Donald Trump and the new era of American incompetence may actually be good in my posting

http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2017/01/american-incompetence-may-be-good-for.html

Disruptors, which includes the nasty ones like Donald Trump or the AWARE NEW GUARD function like a powerful dose of chemotherapy. They manage to cure whatever they touch from a dangerous ailment that arises from an overdose of peace and tranquility – apathy. While both of us supported the AWARE OLD GUARD, we had to admit that the entire saga started because the people who ran AWARE got caught napping. They took their positions for granted until they were turfed out and in a manner which they would never have happened had they paid attention to the ground.

The Economist once ran an article on obesity. The article made the point that obesity only became a problem in the modern era when food became easily available (you just buy it as opposed to having to hunt or even grow it), because the human body is designed to deal with times of famine rather than feast (hence it takes 3-hours of tennis to burn off a can of coke).

Likewise, the human mind is condition to deal with challenges and when the human brain has no obvious problems to solve, it seeks them. As one Indian venture capitalist said, “Problems to do not arise from an abundance of failure but from success.”  As an ethnic Chinese, I look at Chinese history and see a great empire that had an abundance of wealth and success that got lazy and conquered by barbarians who were hardy people live rough and tumble lives. The Chinese only ever got rid of their barbarian overlords when the barbarians discovered the good life of the Chinese Imperial Court and became soft and flabby.

Let’s go back to the analogy of the Trump Presidency. I will be the first to admit that I believe the Donald is an incompetent twit and whatever prosperity America is enjoying is as a result of actions taken during the Obama Administration. However, I do believe that there are positives that are coming out of the Trump Presidency in the shape of the awakening of the civic consciousness in America and for the rest of the world the need to learn to live without American military and economic protection.

Perhaps the best example can be seen in Saudi Arabia, which is perhaps one of the most conservative societies around. Saudi Arabia was, until recently run by the sons of the first King. Prior to 2015, the world looked at Saudi Arabia as a very large gas station with medieval laws. Women were famously not allowed to drive in the 20^th century and were required to be fully covered.

The late King Abdullah tried to reform the system, but he did it very slowly. The King, as I described him, was a cautious captain ( http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-cautious-captain-who-got-ship.html) who tinkered with the system in the same way that Deng Xiao Peng did in China. This was the king who appointed the first ever woman to a cabinet minister’s position (Norah Al Faiz) and who built a university where the sexes could mingle. Yet modern, professionally educated women couldn’t get behind the steering wheel and had to seek permission of a “Guardian” to travel. As King, Abdullah did try and create greater employment for Saudi’s ever-growing youth population by encouraging entrepreneurship but Saudi Arabia remained an oil economy.

Things are different now. While the country is nominally run by the 80-year old King Salman, everyone looks to the Crown Prince, the 30 something year old Mohammad Bin Salman or MBS. As Crown Prince, MBS has shaken up the Saudi Establishment in ways that nobody thought possible. The powers of the religious police have been curtailed, women are now allowed to drive and “fun” has been legalized with the opening of cinema’s and concerts.

Some of the things he’s done can be described as the actions of a hot head and have the potential to blow in a nasty – the War in Yemen comes to mind. However, in many ways, the Crown Prince behaving like the chemotherapy that Saudi Society needs. I remember telling former Saudi Ambassador to Singapore, Dr. Amin Kurdi that the potential hot point for Saudi Society was managing his youth, when he asked me about what I thought of Saudi Arabia.

Well, I guess Saudi Arabia has gotten its answer – the man in charge is close in age to most of the population and while he’s hardly a democratic reformer in the sense of the word, he is doing things that the youth want. As stated earlier, he’s made some mistakes but the point remains, he’s pushing through necessary changes that couldn’t be done before.

Being Crown Prince helps but there is a case to be made that the pace of change that Saudi Arabia’s conservative society is going through has helped by the collapse of the oil prices. Under King Abdullah, oil reached record high prices and Saudi Arabia ran budget surpluses. The Saudi’s knew they had to change and become less dependent of hydrocarbons but as long as the price of oil remained sky high and the money followed, change was something you thought about and nudged along when you felt like it. Suddenly, when the price of oil collapsed and the money stopped flowing, the choice was to put change in action or die.

A similar story can be found further East in India. Back in 1991, India remained a closed and very protected economy (You could call it a Trumpian Fantasy). Suddenly, India found itself with a balance of payment crisis and the Prime Minister of the day, Narasimha Rao and his Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh had to do something radical.  

Disruption is necessary for the human condition. While the “disruptors” may be unpleasant or downright dangerous and incompetent, the key is to accept that they have a role to play in the scheme of things. Not everything they do is good – much of it may in fact be bad and require years of undoing. However, it you learn to adapt and use disruption to drive you into action, you are likely to end up blessing the fact that you were forced to change and act when you did.

When the Letters of the Law Defeat the Spirit of the Law

Once again National Service has become on the hot topics of discussion. Thankfully, nobody had to die to make national service a hot talking point. Ironically, in light of the recent World Cup, the other key driver in making this a hot topic is football, or as the Americans and Australians would prefer – soccer.

The story outline is simple. Ben Davis, a young Singaporean who had been playing for Fulham Under 18s, part of the English Premier league club Fulham, was given a contract to play for Fulham. Unfortunately for Mr. Davis, the Ministry of Defense (MINDEF) refused to grant him a deferment from National Service. Much has been said about the whole saga, so I don’t think I can say more than what has already been said. However, I do argue that the problem here is a question of loving the words of the law too much.

What do I mean by that? The underlying position for the Ministry is that National Service should be for everybody, regardless of how rich, powerful or famous they are. I remember my Dad insisting that I would do my national service to the best of my abilities. My father had placed a bond of $75,000, which would have been forfeit had I not returned to Singapore. To many of my peers in National Service, this was something crazy because as far as the world was concerned, I came from a family with money. Nobody in my family considered my skipping national service as being acceptable. National Service, however unpleasant, was something that I had to do.

Having been through National Service, I believe in the value of the institution. This is the one institution in Singapore that has the ability to bring everyone onto a level playing field, which when you consider the fact that Singapore is one of the most unequal societies on the planet, is a very good thing. If people want to enjoy the privileges of citizenship, I think they should also be willing to pay the price for those privileges.

To be fair to the Ministry, they also have pointed out that they have schemes to accommodate young players so that they can nurture their talents and there is a precedent in the shape of the last Singaporean who had some sort of sporting talent that was recognized on the international stage – Fandhi Ahmad. Mr. Ahmad, who is currently head coach of the Young Lions, was a Singapore superstar who earned a two-years contract playing for the Dutch Club, FC Groningen. You could say that if Mr. Ahmad could serve National Service and go onto play for an international club, why can’t Mr. Davis?

Having said all of that, the Ministry’s argument has a major flaw namely the fact that it does give people deferments to pursue their dreams. This is especially true if you get a government scholarship to study at some university outside of Singapore. The most prominent example is Dr. Patrick Tan, son of the former President, Dr. Tony Tan, who managed to get 12-year deferment to study soil. Nobody questioned why he got this deferment. Nobody asked how this would benefit the nation.

I suppose the Ministry would argue that government scholars pay back the privilege of getting deferments by contributing their brains through their work for the government. The Ministry has even gone on the attack by stating that Mr. Davis has no intention of fulfilling his National Service obligations and is only interested in his career. The full story can be found at: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ben-davis-has-no-intention-to-fulfil-ns-duties-mindef-10541112

However, there are two key arguments here. Firstly, how does one measure patriotism? Is there any concrete evidence to show that Mr. Davis is any less patriotic or pro-Singaporean than your average Singaporean?

Then, who is to say that Mr. Davis and Singapore’s interest are not inline. How many Singaporeans are good enough to play for a club in the English Premier League? The benefits of having a Singaporean get into the English Premier League are boundless, particularly in soccer obsessed Singapore. It’s easier to list the benefits of having a Singaporean play for the premier league are perhaps easier to list than having Dr. Patrick Tan study soil. Getting into the Premier League as many have observed is no mean feat - https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sport/the-start-of-hard-work-to-come-what-signing-a-professional-10544746

So, here’s what we need to look at. How do we redefine the concept of “service?” Surely it has to be a way where Ben Davis gets to pursue his dreams of sporting glory and to fulfil his national service obligations. Why, for example does the term “service” have to be all about the military variety? There are, as the Europeans found out, ways of getting people to “give back” to society.

Why can we not explore ways of making Mr. Davis use his genius for football, a much-loved game in Singapore to “give back.” Yes, National Service should be universal but should it be a means of crippling people with a certain “genius” from following and developing their genius? I think of Melvin Tan, who is an internationally recognized concert pianist who had to leave Singapore to develop his talents for the rest of the world. We lost an “internationally” recognized concert pianist – do we need to lose a potential soccer star because of the rules.

The system has helped produced good workers but have we produced anyone brilliant enough to be recognized by the rest of the world? Surely, its time to understand that once in a while, you need cut the talents a bit of slack and know when to be flexible. I’m not saying that laws have to be broken but surely, you have to find a way to let people with the potential to be brilliant a bit of wiggle room.

Bosses Wife Syndrome

When Relatives Get in the Way

I had an exceedingly awkward conversation with a business owner last night. I had to tell him that his employees were grouping themselves into factions and the chief cause of this was simple. His wife, who has the work ethic of a sloth, had appointed herself the boss and decided that she was qualified to actually take operational control of one of the most crucial areas of his operation. Her efforts involved plenty of staring, plenty of chatter and plenty of posing and very little work. In short, the woman displayed every symptom of “bosses wife” syndrome and it was clearly not good for morale. The businessman said that he was aware of his wife’s shortcomings as a worker but did try to defend her staying that she was trying her best to help him out.

I think of this incident because it highlights one of the great dilemmas that small businesses face – the question of reliable labour. Business as they say, is about organizing relationships into something profitable and the best businessmen usually know that they can’t do everything themselves and so they end up hiring people who are better than they are to take care of aspects of the business, so that they can focus on what they’re good at. Unfortunately, this requires money and most people would rather work for an actual salary rather than a promise of a piece of business that may never take off. Small businesses struggle to recruit because they don’t have the resources of compete for talent with the bigger fish.

So, what do you do if you’re a small business? The successful ones are usually the ones that sell a “dream” of building something spectacular. This is especially true for the technology companies, where employees are motivated by the promise of building the future. One thinks of the numerous stories about how Steve Jobs was a jerk of the highest order but still managed to keep employees who were all driven by the prospect of creating future-making products.

The other solution is to get your relatives to help out. When my Dad started making it big, he coopted his fourth, fifth and sixth brothers to work for him. My fifth uncle left his employment but my fourth and sixth uncle’s cut their teeth working for him.

One of the things about relatives is that they are often willing to help in the name of wanting a relative succeed. If the relative is a shareholder in the business, the incentive to do well becomes even stronger. When well-managed, family relationships can be an asset. You can’t argue that the Walton’s who run WalMart, the biggest retailer in the world have screwed up.

Unfortunately, not every relative performs and history is filled with examples of relatives who screwed up the show because they forgot that doing well at a particular job requires something more than who you are related to. One only has to look at the history of monarchies to see how mediocre and incompetent kings screwed up and lost the kingdom – hence the former King of Bhutan’s insistence on imposing democracy on his population.

The problem with family businesses lies in the fact that the business is usually only as strong as the family that runs it. In Singapore, we had the perfect example of our first Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, who ran a tight ship of a government and ensured that his family behaved – as one reservist colonel said, “Both Lee brothers went through OCS and nobody gave them questionable deferments.” Unfortunately, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had one problem – he was human and like all good human’s he got old and died and when the glue of the family went, ugly insinuations started flying around and the image of the Lee in power took a serious hit when his siblings started saying things the opposition didn’t dare to say.

What can family businesses do? Perhaps the most obvious point is that they need to recognize that work and family relationships need to be kept separate. One needs to realise that families are essentially human and eventually, human frailties will creep in.

I go back to Bhutan’s King-Father, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who gave up absolute power and imposed democracy on his population. His argument was simple – he knew he was a competent king, he could do something to ensure his son and successor was somewhat competent but he couldn’t ensure that the generations after that would be able to do a decent job and so he moved his people onto a system of government that would not be dependent on the head of his family to do a decent job.

In a strange way, the King-Father’s move to give up absolute power enhanced the monarchy. Likewise, a family business can depend on relatives to start with, especially when lines of authority are clear within the family. However, smart families will realise that there comes a time when the business needs to be about more than a single family.

Why startups need lawyers, not legal templates

By Mark Goh Aik Leng, Founder and Managing Director of VanillaLaw LLC

Article first published by Tech In Asia

Ask any entrepreneur who is in the early stages of funding their business about their priorities. There’s no doubt that funding, growth, and product development will be among them (plus caffeine, of course!). Somewhere at the bottom of their priority list will be all their legal matters. This is understandable for growth-orientated startups.

Additionally, some entrepreneurs think that lawyers are prohibitively expensive and that legal templates can be downloaded from the internet. This is common—but wrong. Such a mindset can lead many successful startups to wind up their business or something worse.

This fellow could save 

There are over 2,000 startups in Singapore and the city-state has been justifiably named as one of the top 10 startup ecosystems in the world, with 220 funding deals made in 2015. It is evident that Singapore has become quite the wellspring for entrepreneurs and startups, and while this is great for our economy, it does bring with it its own brand of problems and challenges.

These fellows from grief as they grow their business

Many first-time entrepreneurs are sometimes so overwhelmed by the bustling activities and the ins and outs of running a new business that they tend to overlook legal fundamentals which ensure protection if things go wrong.

Unfortunately, the cost of legal services is often daunting for startups that may have limited funds. This makes sense, with the market rate for a website’s terms of service (prepared by a lawyer) at approximately US$2,100. Bills could add up if you include additional vital documentation such as employment contracts and partnership contracts.

The surprising reality

One in 10 startups fail due to legal reasons, many of which could have been avoided if basic legal matters were taken care of properly. This happens because these business owners either tried to use a contract template off the internet or never sought legal counsel from a lawyer.

It is understandable if they were concerned about legal fees. But dealing with issues with legal documents and having to appear in court to settle disputes will cost them so much more. This is a classic case of being penny wise but pound foolish.

A client’s case from before comes to mind here:

There were two young Singaporean entrepreneurs (Company A) who discovered a way to make special industrial ovens that were fundamental in baking microchips. They were based in the US and went to Taiwan to find an industrial oven manufacturer (Company B).

By this time, Company A had secured millions of dollars in the form of pre-orders. They knew they had to produce the ovens fast, but they also knew the importance of legal protection. So, they downloaded a legal agreement document template off the internet and made modifications without consulting a lawyer. Through this, they secured their position as the sole distributor of the ovens in the US—or so they thought.

Everything was well until 5 years after the initial launch. Company B found a loophole in the agreement signed by both companies and used that to terminate the agreement and sue Company A for damages. This apparently came off the back of late payments and other breaches in the original agreement committed by Company A.

Company A, embroiled in lawsuits, eventually had to wind up. Meanwhile, Company B repositioned themselves as both the manufacturer and the distributor of the specialized ovens in the US, essentially taking over the entire market.

The changing reality of the law

In the past few years, we observed that there has been a rise of companies that make use of technology to create legal documents for multiple types of situations. This is an improvement from using templates without the counsel of a licensed lawyer. Innovative individuals have made this their core business, leveraging on the savings their clients could enjoy with their service/product. For businesses with limited budgets, like startups, such a service is an ideal way to make sure they have some form of legal protection for their business.

The legal landscape is set to change and face-to-face consultations—the traditional way lawyers conduct their business and one of the main reasons why legal services are expensive—may soon fall out of favor.

A balanced approach

Looking at the legal challenges startups face and the changes that are already shaking up the legal communities in Southeast Asia, there is an aspect of this entire issue that can sometimes be forgotten—considering the mindsets of startup owners and their legal needs. Legal protection is important for businesses, but it is not always as simple as using a program that generates a draft of a legal document and hoping or assuming that it is the right type of document for your business.

It might be more accurate to say that currently we are in a middle ground, where technology helps to alleviate some of the basic and labor-intensive ground work done by lawyers (which is normally charged directly to the client). But we will still need to see qualified lawyers giving legal advice to make the content of legal documents more suitable for their clients.

A cost-efficient, technology-oriented service coupled with face-to-face consultations with lawyers might be the best way to give business owners true peace of mind.

Yellow Fever

On 12 June 2018, Singapore hosted a historic summit between Donald Trump, the American President and Kim Jung Un, North Korea’s leader. This was the first time ever that the President of the United States of America, who is often called “Leader of the Free World,” stat down and talked to the leader of the world’s only communist dynasty.

Whatever one might feel about Donald Trump, the world can only hope that his gamble pays off and the North Koreans decide to make peace and get rid of their nuclear weapons. The world can only hope that the younger Kim will become an enlightened leader who leads North Korea into peaceful prosperity.

While we may wish for good things to come, the odds are they won’t. The Kim Family, which has run North Korea since it was founded in 1948 have proved to be very good at holding onto power despite one brutal war and virtual isolation from the rest of the world. The Kim family are very aware of the fact that nobody invades countries that actually have the bomb and have shown a willingness to use it. The Americans were happy to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq because they suspected he had the bomb but when it comes to North Korea, which has the bomb – everybody sits down to talk. Every North Korean watcher has said that the Kims know that their survival depends on having nukes and even dares to dream of the Kim dynasty surrendering their nukes.

If you look at the document that was signed, the young Mr. Kim only said he would “work towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” He avoided committing to a time frame or letting international observers enter the country.  In addition to that, the American President who had been insulting towards him a few months ago (“Little Rocket Man,”) transformed into the cuddly father-figure that the North Korean never had. The Trump who is old enough to be Mr. Kim’s father could not stop gushing about Mr. Kim. He called him “talented,” and said that he “trusted” him and most importantly talked about the “special bond” that was forged. One the main press briefings where Mr. Trump waxed lyrical about his new favourite son can be found at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00G-mUn12os

In fairness to Donald Trump, he seems to have caught a disease that many Caucasians get when they enter Asia – Yellow Fever or the disease that robs otherwise sane and capable people of their sanity and reduces them to blabbering idiots. I remember being in court during the Ku De Ta trademark dispute. This monumentally successful night club in Bali was built by a visionary Australian called Arthur Chandros, who had brought in a few of his fellow Australians and Brits into the venture and somehow, when the relationship collapsed, everybody was left arguing over nothing. The reason was simple – no proper agreements were drawn up. When put on the stand, everybody just said, “He’s my mate – we trusted him,” and “that’s how it works out here.” I remember one the men who had testify was a very successful pub owner in England. In the words of PN Balji, the founding editor of the Today Newspaper (and the main contractor on the job), “This man is a big timer – would he do this in England?” The answer was obviously no – he wouldn’t have reached his status in England had he behaved the way he behaved in  Bali.

The most common cases of Yellow Fever occur in older White Men, whenever they get a much younger Asian girlfriend. The ingredients of the relationship are usually obvious – he rediscovers his youth and the joys of being loved by a young sweet thing. She finds the meal ticket for herself and her family. 

I shouldn’t be critical of this phenomenon in as much as it has alleviated many people from poverty. If a man can bring up not just the girl but her mother, father, brothers and sisters, he’s managed to alleviate at least four people from the reality of abject poverty (which remains the case in rural Asia.)

So, on one level you could say that this is a fair exchange. Guy gets youth and girl gets to be a faithful daughter by bringing up her family in life.

However, the question remains – does every party in this type of relationship understand the exchange. The Asian continent is filled with Western men who were in senior corporate positions giving away money to their “girlfriends,” and then discovering new depths of disappointment when the girlfriend does not live up expectations.

In many cases, you’re looking at the guy and find yourself screaming, “Dude – you’re an executive corporate vice president (usually of a world respected company).” Somehow, the brains and guts that got the guy to this top job paying barely legal amounts of money desert him when it comes to a bit of yellow or brown pussy.

Perhaps it’s a culture thing. While love does happen between social classes in Asian societies, Asian, particularly the Chinese are better at compartmentalizing things. I think of the novel “Nobel House” by James Clavell where there a brothel owner explains to her girls, “If the customer is Chinese – no need to pretend to like but if he’s Gwei Lo, you must pretend to like it.”

In a way, sex is pretty much like life. It’s more fun when the other party has fun too. To put it bluntly, most men would kill themselves if their partners didn’t pretend to orgasm. However, when it comes to the “paid” variety, many Asian men understand there’s an exchange involved and she’ll do enough to make you feel happy but that’s about it. Asia’s brothels are filled with Western men who forget that there is a correlation between the intensity of the female orgasm and the amount paid.

The Asian continent is filled with many great opportunities for things like business and love. For Western men, the allure of Asia is particularly strong, especially when it comes to women who may seem prettier and demurer than what they have at home. It’s especially tempting when women throw themselves at you merely for being who you are.

Yet, the rules of the game of life remain. While Asia may have things that appear different, Asian people are not less different in what they want from anyone else and I’d ask many White men – “would you behave that way at home?”

So, while the President might think that he’s found his new favourite son, let’s not forget that the Kim Dynasty of North Korea hasn’t changed – they’re still a bunch of power hungry murders who have lied and cheated the rest of the world when it has suited their needs.    

Healthy Endings

I recently had an article of mine published in the Straits Times, Singapore’s national (only) newspaper. I decided to catch onto the fact that there were several letters in the forum talking about how marriage was the bedrock of stability and society and anything that made ending it easier was bad for society and so on and so on. I decided to argue that the problem wasn’t so much the ease of divorce but the ease of marriage that was the cause of societies problems. My letter can be found at https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/ease-of-getting-married-may-be-the-problem.

[The premise of my letter is that instead of making divorce more difficult, one should make marriage more difficult. As thing stand, it’s ridiculously easy to get married. One merely needs to be over 21 and able to find witnesses. Everything else is a formality and I stick by the argument that nobody really values things that come easily.

My letter got a few likes, including likes from two lawyers and my favourite Pudding decided that my letter was a total waste of a good read because my premise was faulty and I should realise that society does respect marriage hence it makes it easy to get married and very difficult to get divorced (I’m on my second marriage and she’s in her second relationship).

The next day, the press decided to run another article from someone who appears tragically young, who decided to start quoting from a political lobbying group called the Institute for American Values, which argued that unhappily divorced adults were not happier unhappily married adults and that children of unhappily married adults were not better off than divorced parents. That letter can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/hold-on-to-time-tested-values-amid-rapid-changes?&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=addtoany

Such articles have the benefit of making me so happy that I come from a patchwork family and have been continuing the task of adding more patchworks. I think too many people miss the point of marriage or get stuck in a some ideal of what it should be.

I’m either the best person or the worst person to talk about this but I believe that marriage is about partnership. It’s about two people who can’t live without each other despite known all the awful things about the other. A married couple should have shared ideals and goals thus having something to keep the individuals together despite the differences that individuals bring to the table and yes, physically attraction should also be part of the game.

My marriage to Gina failed from day one because we didn’t have shared goals. There was nothing in the union to bring and keep us together. OK, that’s not quite true – the sex was fantastic and part of the reason why I allowed her to blackmail me into signing the paper was the fact that I didn’t want to lose a regular sex partner. She on the other hand wanted me to buy a flat quickly and to “settle down.” She was so happy when I got a job in the civil service (teacher), which I couldn’t run from fast enough. The idea of “this is the rest of your life,” sent shudders down my spine. In the words of the late Old Rogue, “She had fire-place written all over her.” I think she got violent when it was clear that I didn’t share her goals.

My marriage to Huong is working out better. Despite our many differences, there are things that keep us together. She’s someone who is more than a quick shag in the bush and hence we struggle to build a home and family and find unity in the struggle of building that.

Marriage is a partnership which should ideally bring out the best in both parties. One always thinks of the saying, “Behind every good man is a woman,” and my mother actually says that her marriage to my Dad made her a more confident person.

I don’t dispute the fact that a stable marriage is the best breeding ground for socially well-adjusted people. The African-American Community in the USA has provided us with plenty of statistics linking criminal behavior to dysfunctional families.

What I do dispute is the notion that a happy, well adjusted family means the biological parents remain together and I disagree with the notion that children become worse off when their parents separate. My sister once said that she felt offended when the discussion came to difficult people being the way they were because they had parents who separated – we weren’t arseholes and our parents had separated (many times as a matter of fact.)

I look my situation and I believe that while a part me wishes my parents marriage worked out, I don’t believe I’m any worse off because it didn’t work out. If anything, I got lucky in that respect and it’s probably in later life, when I got married and divorced for me to appreciate them. My parent’s marriage failed but they didn’t fail me (even if they might disagree whenever I fuck up).

Why do I say that? I believe that my parents had the chance to do what they did for me because when their marriage reached the stage where it was clear they couldn’t live together, they had a chance for clean break. The marriage ended and both of them could move on.

To my mother’s credit, she only brought decent men into our lives. Both stepdads, Lee and Thomas loved Tara and I like their own. The patchwork family, particularly with the American family, somehow gelled. I think I’m the only person in my social group who gets invited to an ex-step-nephew’s wedding. Biology was never an issue with my stepdads, who took their role of being instant dad’s quite seriously.

My mother also worked hard to ensure that I kept my relationship with my father healthy. I’ll never tire of mentioning the fact that she would push me to write letters (pre-internet) to my Dad. I’d protest but she’d push on and guess what, I have a somewhat normal relationship with my father.

I also credit my Dad for ensuring that the financial support would always be there for both me and Max, despite whatever differences he had with his ex-wives. Both of Max and I have never really starved and both of us are educated men because my dad ensured that the funds were there. My final year of university coincided with one of his darkest points financially and he told me, “You will finish university even if I have to beg, borrow or steal the money.”

With my family background, I cannot argue that biology is essential in making the family unit work and it’s quite clear that I am a beneficiary of someone who benefited from a situation that most people would call disastrous. I can appreciate that I’m lucky in the sense that I had the right elements – namely the adult figures in my life at the time happened to be decent enough people who found a way of working things out for my benefit. Not everybody gets that lucky in the genetic lottery the way I do.

Decent people who make bad situations work are hard to find and I guess you can that the statistics hold – children of divorce parents get fucked up.

So, what about the guys who stay together for the kids or worse – to preserve their legacy. I think of a friend of mine who is a naturalized citizen who built up a successful business. This chap married a woman who extracted a heavy price from him – her family have moved into his flat, she’s slowly but surely taken over operational control of the business and her friends are forced upon him. The man is so happy with his family life that he’s out drinking every night and he spends his waking hours plotting how to avoid going home. The kid is left to the grandmother’s (a heavy gambler) care because both parents are officially “too busy” for him. The kid is growing up materially well off but I’m not sure how fun it is growing up in a household where dad does everything possible to avoid mum and gang.

I don’t think it’s respecting marriage to keep unhappy people together. Yes, nobody goes into marriage hopping it would end but we have to accept that people do fall out of love and letting people have a clean break is actually good for everyone. I think decent people who become anything but decent when they are around their significant others because that significant other is a source of pure misery.

You don’t respect an institution or protect minors by forcing miserable people to stay in a situation that is increasing their misery. You help them find a clean break that works out in everyone’s interest.

The People You Snub.

One of the biggest fights that Gina and I had in our turbulent marriage was the fact that she always felt that my parents and the people around me snubbed her. It didn’t help that at the time, I was living with my father who lived in a swish condominium opposite the Shangri-La Valley Wing (a place often inhabited by VIPS like former Chinese President Zhang Xi Min) and she lived with her family in a Housing Development Board Flat in the North of Singapore. I remember going out with her on an occasion and not wanting to follow her home and she lashed out at me, yelling, “Is it because I live in an HDB flat.” Another of her out burst was against my family’s group of friends, who consisted mainly of prominent members of the advertising community – she felt they were weird and at one stage stressed that her father’s business associates were just as rich as the well to do executives my father knew.

In fairness to my ex-wife, my friends and family really did think I was married to trailer park trash. In fairness to my family and friends, they disliked her for reasons other than the ones she felt. My Dad said, “It’s not about snobbery – her father could probably drown me in his cash,” and in fairness to my Dad he is actually quite comfortable with Huong aka the Ruthless Half, who has a better claim to come from the gutter than Gina ever did i.e. Vietnamese village girl who barely speaks English, as opposed to Gina who did go to a recognized university of sorts.

While my ex-wife and family didn’t get each other right, I bring up the topic of how she perceived by family because it highlights one of the major issues of our time – namely the cultural and communication gaps between people. We often assume that culture gaps are about things like race and religion. The talking heads of the West often enjoy talking about how you’ll get a clash of “civilizations” or about the “North-South” divide and the struggle between light and dark-skinned people. While these are valid discussion points, I believe the biggest cultural misunderstandings and conflicts happen between “social” classes in the same place. Trump was elected by White Skinned people from rural Pennsylvania who lost touch with white skinned people in Manhattan and Beverly Hills. I live in Singapore am living on the bridge of being in the world of corporate restructuring and waiting tables.

I’m something of an oddity in both worlds and I guess that gives me an insight into both. The funny thing is both worlds are very similar. People in both want the same thing – namely to earn enough money to build a decent enough life for themselves. Yet, they’re incredibly unable to understand the struggles of the other. While collar people for example, cannot understand why I would ever want to work a blue-collar job and the well-meaning ones often feel they have an obligation to rescue me from the dregs of being a blue-collar worker. 

I can appreciate my well-wishers. Blue-collar work is financially unrewarding for the hours that you have to work. In my blue-collar existence, I earn the princely sum of $10 an hour and I’ve worked there for six-years. My co-workers are barely paid S$2,000 a month and they easily work eight hours a day and six days a week, including public holidays (which is actually the busiest time to be in a restaurant). The mathematics aren’t exactly in favour of the worker.

Having said that, I don’t understand why people feel that I need to be “rescued” from my blue-collar existence. Just because the financial rewards are lesser, it doesn’t mean that the existence is without benefits. One of the benefits of being in a blue-collar existence, for example, is that you have tend to have peace of mind. When the restaurant shuts, I’m not obliged to think about the place until the next time I enter the place. By contrast, in my existence in corporate restructuring, there’s always the nagging feeling that I have to jump at a moment notice because of this or that.

White-collar people also have a tendency to forget that life exists beyond their own and the worst part is that they forget that life is often fluid and the way of the white-collar worker isn’t the only way. Which brings me back to the point that Gina once made – her father’s friends, aka the small time Chinese businessmen were as wealthy as the high flying multinational executives that my parents knew. She’s right.

The executive class often overlooks the fact that knowledge isn’t always from books and more importantly, the key to success boils down to guts. My former father-in-law sold eggs for a living and somehow managed to put two kids through to university in a country that doesn’t subsidize much. Think about it – the old man had to sell a commodity where the margins are calculated in cents and its easy to get undercut by the big boys and somehow, he managed to put his kids through to school. I stress this point because how many of us can gather this type of money by doing that?

People from the rougher side of life have knack of looking at things that matter. I give the example of Zen, my favourite flesh ball from the rough streets of Geylang (Singapore’s red-light district). Somehow, flesh ball has a way of measuring people up pretty accurately. How does she get this ability? She’s probably been screwed more than enough times than most to have learnt the hard way. I take the example of Huong, who looked at a girl I had brought to a function – she said, “That girl only wants money from you.” She could pick this up from one glance. Interestingly the young lady in question said the same thing on my other half but qualified it as, “I’ve done my research and it’s proven that Vietnamese girls only want you for money.”

They also network much better and as my father said to Huong on his first meeting – “You are from a third world country where people still help each other. “I look at the communities formed by the foreigners from the poorer parts of Asia and I notice that people help each other and that’s how they manage to thrive.

Somehow, my white-collar friends can never understand how people without a degree can obtain money. It’s such a pity that they have this blind spot because if they were only able to look at the things that matter, they’d find a way of prospering for themselves too.

I remember going to see the fancy high-priced lawyers we were working on in a case. The client was an old Chinese businessman who could not speak English and who operated out of a hole in one of the streets that needed to be cleaned up. The client threw cheques at the lawyers. It occurred to me that it wasn’t the guys in the suites throwing the money……………..I believe this is something many young professionals need to understand about the way the world works.