Beggars United Pte Ltd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HBT - High Bloody Time

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Heavy Management

Singapore's Prime Minister had a pretty busy week last week playing musical chairs. The cabinate saw a reshuffle in which the Defense Minister was promoted to Deputy Prime Minister and three up and a deputy prime minister was moved up to becoming Senior Minsiter in the Prime Minister's Office. Further to that, an additional minister was added to the Prime Minister's office (The local media had a field day making the most of the fact that is the first woman in history to make it to full minister). In addition to that, another former navy man was made the Minister in charge of - Information, Communications and the Arts. Singapore, a land of 4.6 million not only has the highest paid government ministers in the world but also the most top-heavy government. As of writing, we have 1 Prime Minsiter, 1 Minister Mentor, 2 Senior Ministers and 3 Ministers in the Prime Minister's Office - all this in addition to the Ministers who have a Ministry to run. 

One has to wonder why the Singapore government has decided to add on a few extra C-level executives when every other organisation in the world is shedding management? Is there a method in this apprent maddness? Well, you can't discount the Singapore government from making a bet that proves to be right. The very idea of an indepdepdent Singapore is thanks to a contrarian bet. Nobody said we could make it and we did (did we have a choice?) So, does the Singapore government know something that the rest of the world does not when it comes to increasing top-level management? 

This does not make economic sense. Our Ministers do not come cheap but this argument is easily countered by the fact that we need to pay top-dollar to the get the top brains. I can see how this works when we talk about the various ministers running ministries. The Singapore government is by most standards highly clean, efficient and effective in what it does and it benefits the majority of the citizens. Having said that, it does not explain why we need another three ministers to be sitting in the Prime Ministers office. One arguement is that these Ministers do run "Special Projects," such aging. Then, if that's the case, why don't we just give them a title that matches or perhaps assign the portfolio to a Minsiter in charge of a ministry. Yes, it would be hard work but anyone ambitious enough to be a minister will surely be glad for the chance to take on more responsability. 

This leads to the Minister Mentor and two Senior Ministers. What exactly are these jobs and how do they benefit the running of the government? These jobs are effectively consultant positions. The Minister Mentor as the name implies exist to "Mentor" the rest of the cabinate, while the Senior Minister as the name implies is the most "Senior" of all the Ministers. However, neither the senior or minister mentor have executive control - that remains the job of the Prime Minister. 

The theory is that senior and minister mentors provide "Guidence" and lend their "Experience" to the Prime Minsiter of the day. So far, the system has worked. Senior Minsiter Goh Chok Tong in particular has been in asset to the Prime Minister in areas like opening Saudi Arabia and running relations with the Islamic world. But what of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and why do we need Professor Jayakumar as another Senior Minister? Both men have served Singapore with distinction but are they in danger of overstaying their welcome? 

Look at Minister Mentor Lee. As far as Singapore is concerned, Lee Kuan Yew has created a miracle. The nation owes its very existence and prosperity to him. Having said of all of that, what exactly is his value to the nation by continuing to stay in the cabinate. In Singapore Mr Lee will remain exceedingly powerful and that power comes merely from being who he is. In theory, Mr Lee is hanging on in the cabinate because he's supposed to provide wisdom and experience to the rest of the Minsiters. Surely Mr Lee is capable of doing that without being in the cabinate. All he has to do is to give lectures and write books and Singapore will notice. As things stand, there's an arguement that Mr Lee's continued presence in the cabinate harms the Prime Minister - it provides the impression that the Prime Minister takes orders from him - hence Mr Lee has to tell the world that "I am NO LONGER in CHARGE." Nearly two decades in since he stepped down from the Prime Minsitership, the question remains in Singapore - can Singapore go on without Mr Lee?

Both the Prime Minsiter and Minister Mentor should take a lesson from the late Deng Xiaopeng and his relationship with former Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Mr Deng was regarded as the most powerful man in China right til the day he died. Yet, the only title he held was "President of the Bridge Club," and allowed President Jiang to run the show. So, when Mr Deng died, it was ...a non-event. China did not fall appart as many pessemist were suggesting. This is a lesson both Mr Lee's could do well to follow - The Elder will secure his legacy while the younger will be allowed to form his. In the mean time, the elder can continue to wield quite influence by his mere presence and as the younger Mr Lee's father. 

So much is said about Mr Lee and the need for him to follow the examples of other great CEOs who have gone to pasture and left their companies to carry on. So what about Professor Jeyakumar? Why do we need another senior minister, particularly one who has never been prime minsister? Could it be anything to do with the fact that the good professor comes from an ethnic minority? If it were, it would be shame. The last thing the ethnic miniroties need is another token with little real influence and little real necessity. Ethnic minorities control significant ministries - Finance, Law and the Environment and Water Resources. Do we need a senior minister to oversee these Ministers? The last time anyone checked, the respective ministers were doing quite well without anyone to look over their shoulder.  Surely Professor Jeyakumar could serve the nation more effectively (a nation he has served exceedingly well) by sharing his experiences from the sidelines? 

We live in age where we try not to create work for the sake of it. It's an inefficient thing to do and yet, it seems to me that we are creating high-level jobs for the sake of it. People like Minister Mentor Lee and Senior Minister Jayakumar can continue to add value to the nation without being in cabinate. If they don't volunteer to do it, the Prime Minister should persuade them that this is the best course of action. 

Problems for a Member of Parliament

I have to thank Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and probably Singapore's most renowned intellectual, and Zen, probably Singapore's most comical prositute for providing me into an insight into one of the most worrying aspects of Singapore's culture - namely the deep sense of entitlement that the Middle Class feels and its disregard for the poor.

Professor Mahbubani, who is a university contemporary of my mother, wrote an excellent commentary in the Straits Times (25 March, 2009) called, "If Singapore Fails." This, well argued commentary recalled the first electoral defeat that the People's Action Party (PAP) suffered in the Anson constituency in 1981. He recalls how Dr Goh Kheng Swee, one of Singapore's Founding Fathers (also described as Singapore's REAL ARCHITECT), had placed the shock defeat down to the fact that the dominant party never "envisioned the possibility of defeat." The party had taken its 100 percent mandate for granted and the people of Anson had given them a bloody nose. Ever since then, the supremely dominant PAP has been paranoid about losing seats, even if continues to hold a commanding 96 percent of available seats in Parliament. 

By simply not excepting the possibility of failure, people don't prepare themselves both in the practical and psychological sense. One of his key points was that Singaporeans have grown so used to "Good" (competant and compasionate) government that they are simply unable to see government in any other light. More importantly, this has prevented Singaporeans from developing greater "Self-Reliance." As such, Professor Mahbubani points out, the nation is woefully unprepared for the day when it will have a government that does not have solutions to every individual's problems. 

True enough, I got to witness this first hand when I accomanied Zen to see her Member of Parliament, Dr Lee Boon Yang, who is also Minister of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA). As with the Westminister system, our Minsiter are also Members of Parliament (MP) and as such they are required to serve the people who elect them on a weekly basis. 

Meet the People sessions are fun, particularly if you have issues with any government department. As efficient as the government mashinary is, it can be highly inflexible and going through it dehumanises. If you're reasonably educated and thick skinned, you can find a way of getting the officials in the system to show you a bit of humanity. Unfortunately, not everyone in Singapore is reasonably educated and able to deal with robots.  Examples include incidences where a government department refuses someone in obvious need of a food stamp because they made 10 cents more than the required amount to qualify and so on. 

Bureaucrats by nature stick to the rules and generally its a good thing. However, from time-to-time, exceptions need to be made and unless you get to someone who can make the decision, you will be frustrated. For those who can't, the "Meet the People" sessions are a way for them to get the government working for them. In Zen's case, the prison's department refused to let her see Eric because she's not a blood relative. Unfortunately, she's the only thing resembling family that he has. The Bureaucracy doesn't bend for people like Zen and Eric so she went to see Dr Lee to explain her situation and now she see's Eric on a monthly basis. 

These sessions actually give me more respect for the world's best paid Ministers. I actually see them working for the people. Allot of cases at these sessions are heart wrenching - people who have lost their jobs, livlihoods and so on.

Unfortunately, I had sit close enough to hear a reasonablly well to do couple beg to see Dr Lee. I could hear snippets of their conversation. Perhaps I'm unfair and if someone could prove me wrong, it sounded pretty much like these guys lost money buying an investment product and now they wanted their Member of Parliament to get them legal assistance in suing the buggers.

Sorry, I don't think this is what Dr Lee should be doing. Perhaps the person who sold them the financial product was a cad and the institution was shit (as most of them often are), but why the hell were they begging Dr Lee to get them legal assistance to solve a matter they had a key role in playing. 

The finance industry is a rough place and one should bless economic crisis for reminding people that Newton's law "what goes up must come down," is as applicable to finance as it is to physics. Risk, a four letter word, which is as vulgar as it gets; always tags along with profit and returns. Surely anyone with an ounce of sense understands that and if the person selling you the financial product tells you that your investment in "Guarenteed" and more worryingly, your returns. How the hell do reasonably educated people not suspect something is wrong when an investment advisor tells them that their investment in "Guarenteed," and more importantly so are their returns. Even the US government is having difficulty explaining "reassurance" to owners of its Treasury Bonds these days. 

OK, this does not excuse ciminal actions on the part of the financial salespeople and institutions. If one feels done in, it's up to one to find a lawyer willing to take the case and either take a civil or criminal action against the other party. Unfortunately, lawyers cost money. Still if you have enough money to buy any of these products in the first place, you obviously can afford a half-way decent lawyer.

Sure, there are times when the State needs to foot legal bills. There are impovrished people who need access to justice and you can't expect the lawyers to provide it for free. Legal Aid should be for things like, the police have arrested you and charged you and you need a lawyer to stick by you in court. 

Why on earth should the State provide legal assistance for civil cases involving bad business deals? One argument that my favourite Young Politician and others of his generation might put up is that the "Middle Class and Rich" pay more taxes and so are entitled to such benefits from the State. This argument is hogwash - in fact the "Uncaring Elite" need to be washed in pig shit for even entertaining the thought. 

The State exists to provide certain services and to ensure the playing field is relatively even. Things like security, sanitation and defense are the responsibility of government and so it's right for us to harp on at the government when limping criminals walk out of a detention facility. The State and government in this case have failed to provide a basic service which is their key function.

The State has a delicate balancing act. It needs to provide the talented with the chance to get ahead but it also needs to ensure the less talented don't get squished too far. So, taxes and state aid help to ensure this balance. There is something seriously wrong when the well to do decide that they're entitled to the stuff set aside for the less fortunate. 

OK, I'm not against everyone having subsidised education. If education is more avilable you get more people discovering opportunities that were previously closed to them. This is good for society. I'm also fine with subsidised health care if it keeps the general population healthy. I'm not so proud that I refuse to take things like my progress package. This is something the government choses to pay me and since they're funding this with my tax dollars, I might as well use the money they give me to fund my tax bill. 

What I find seriously wrong is when the well to do expect the state to pick up after them and I despise young toadies who get upset when you give to the poor. I remember one of the few moments I applauded Philip Yeo, Chairman of SPRING Singapore and former Chairman of A*STAR. He made some comment of saying that he favoured providing government schoolarships to people from poorer backgrounds (they're hungrier). Boy, the next day you got allot of people who were upset with him for daring to suggest that help should be for those who need it the most. 

Sure, if you're clever you should be rewarded but if all things are equal, shouldn't we help the guy who would otherwise be unable to aford the education? I remember one of my friends who was very clever at school. He never got a scholarship and the reason for that was because his father was the head of chemistry and refused to take one. His argument was simple - he taught at the school and paid in one year what the rest of us paid in a term for each of his children. He beileved that it was better to accept his blessings and let those who were less fortunate but no less able to go for the scholarships. Now, why don't we celebrate this type of thinking? 

As for today, my new gripe is when the well to do look for legal assistance from the state. Such systems are designed to ensure those who are genuinely poor don't get screwed in the legal system - which, despite all efforts, can and does happen. Don't use these things especially if your legal problems are because of your greed. 

Seriously, let's stop talking about entitlements. Let's focus on people. Why can't we celebrate those who have the ability to share? It's good for society as a whole and actually good for the economy if you look at things intelligently. Just as mankind needs to stop blamming God for its adequacies, Singaporeans should try and take charge of their own lives for a change. 

The Size of My Xx - Miniscule, you'd need a microscope to find it

Had another restless bout of insomnia and decided to check the email and low and behold what did I see but more spam telling me how my little ding dong could be increased with the help of more pills, which under normal circumstances would require a medical prescription but thanks to the generosity of the internet do not. 

Well, spam is spam and I suppose one merely needs to hit the delete button. Spam, as I've been known to remark is the most obvious form of direct market. Like the Nigerian letter scams, we're blessed with spam because it's highly lucrative. It cost nearly nothing to send out a mass mail and obviously someone does buy the products that the spammers are sending out.

The most usual form of spam is of course the "Dick Enhancer." Everyone wants to sell you a form of prick enhancement. The male ego, as they say hangs nicely between the legs and as the PGFNB reminded me today, the head between the legs is particularly powerful when it comes to making male decisions. 

She's right. I know plenty of my male friends who take pride in their trouser snake. Hang out with Bijay for ten minuites and before you know it, he will have told you that he's hung like a donkey and his ability to "PUSH and PUSH," has granted more orgasms to the female population of Amazonia than the Great Shoe Sale. 

Those in the business of making spam know this and cannot help but send out the gazillion emails that they do. My good friend is not the only man on the planet who's self-esteem is based between his legs. The Return on Investment (ROI) for direct marketing is around 2 percent and when you're sending out a gazillion emails at no cost that two percent is going to be a large and very lucrative market. A one in a million is all you need in this game - one Bijay like fellow who's girl decided that the cucumber was a better cuddle toy that evening. 

Well, here's a message to the guys sending out spam - I've decided to come out in the open and announce that I am as well hung as an ant. Yes, I am a pee wee and proud of it. I don't require pills and if I did I might be more inclined to entertain a Chinaman with a bag walking down the streets of Geylang. They're pillls, which are usually illegal (for good reasons) will probably help me to die happy.

Being as well hung as an ant has its advantages just like being a pleb. It ensures that you avoid the attention of slightly insane groopies who have developed an overnight attraction to you because they're desparate to try and get your imagined glory to rub off onto them. Women are forever curious to see how strong the head between your legs are. A good friend of mine describes how one tried to appeal for a discount by appealing to him in that department. 

Imagine this. If you are known to a be pee wee, nobody will try and appeal to your baser instincts when it comes to doing the things in life that you should do sensibly. Hence, just as I am proud to be a PLEB, I am now proudly announcing to the world that I'm a pee wee - girls, you've been warned, I make a terrible lover 

PGFNB - Pretend Girlfriend No Benefits

Men and Women are complex. Nobody can actually explain the differences between the sexs and I like one relationship expert who says, "They're called opposite sexes because they are opposite." 

But if I may pretend to be an expert on the topic, the status of relationships between the sexes can be summed up as follows:

• Married Couple
  
• Lovers
  
• Friends 
  

Married couples are precisely that. They have chosen to enter an institution, a legal contract binding them to each other. Roles and responsabilities are defined. Then there are lovers. A man and woman feel this thing called love and they get involved with each other's lives in an intense manner. The main difference between the lovers and married couple is that the lovers don't sign a binding contract. Then there are friends. Men and women happen to enjoy the happy state of friendship without sexual tensions. 

Over the years various sub-catagories have developed to the main catagories. The most prominent one is of course - "Friends with Benefits." This is a state where a man and woman who are sexually attracted to each other but have nothing in common - exist as friends but once in a while have sex. I think of Bijay and Zen (in her pre-Eric days) as a good example. They didn't actually like each other enough to be a couple but somehow when it came to touching they were very close and enjoyed it (Bijay being one of the very few people I knew who's eyes would light up at the prospect of a naked Zen). 

In recent weeks, I seem to have discovered an altogether new catagory - "Girlfriend Without Benefits" or if I wanted to be really official - "Pretend Girlfriend with no benefits." The girl in question is of course a 43-year old single mother I met recently called Agnes. Ironically the clossest person I had a similar relationship with also had a name that started with A but it's only with this lady that I'm discovering the various attributes of this altogether new catagory.

What makes her a girlfriend rather than a friend? The answer is simple and superficial. When we're out in public, we give off the signs of being a couple. We start this charade by walking showing up at public functions together and we leave together. When it comes to meal time, we dish food for each other and sometimes share the same dishes. We walk close together, we walk as if there were no one else. Once in a while I'll put my arm around her waist and she'll dutifully move closer. On the bus a hand finds a way onto a thigh or occasionally a hand brushes ever so softly against an arm. To the neutral observer, we look like a happy and contented couple. 

More disturbingly we share some superficial links. As well as being astrologically compatible (She's a fire horse and I'm a wood tiger), her history with men reads something like my history with women - we would both have been better off reading the safety manual of HMS Titanic. Her ex-husband shares the same surname as my mother and she once lived in the same block of flats that I'm in. Are these signs that we are supposed to be linked? I would like to think that they are purely coincidental - though she did make a point that she thinks she's adding value to me because everyone thinks she's my girlfriend 

However, while we do give the impression that we're a couple or at least headed for coupledome, there are utterly no benefits, at least for me that is. The lady has declared herself celebite (or at least for me) for the past year and more importantly has no money, unlike a Vietnamese lady I spent a bit of time with. Hence, there are no benefits, for me at least - she may be describing me as "PBFNC" or "Pretend Boyfriend with No Cost." This is indeed an interesting state of affairs, which cultural anthropologist in me finds deeply interesting. 

I always assumed that coupledome required a heavy bout of bonking, otherwise it was called "Mateship," a state where the girl was equivalent to one of your mates at the pub. In Singapore I have a few girls I'd describe as "good mates," including one of my favourite journalist and a former Citibank colleague. Zen is I suppose what you could call a good mate, though she's probably another catagory altogether - namely Pet Foster Sister.  

Not sure how workable this status is but I suppose the beauty of having a PGFNB is that I'm not restricted from looking for relationships with other fringe benefits 

A Dance for All

The dialect debate is getting interesting in Singapore. On one hand you have the official stance, which promotes the idea that our primary identity is that of being Singaporean Chinese and the only language that we need to speak other than English is Mandarin. The other side of the debate says that we still need to keep our dialects because they are part of our heritge. 

I tend to agree with the later. Although I am all for learning Mandarin and promoting the use of the language and it's implications in interactions with Mainland China and Taiwan, I find the idea of the State trying to impose an cultural identity on people to be highly offensive and disturbing. I don't need a legal system to tell me that I am ethnically Chinese. Despite an upbrining in the West, I cannot escape the colour of my skin. Even if I only procreate with a woman of a differnt race, the Chinese genes will take sometime to wear out within my genetic stock.  

I take pride in being ethnic Chinese and I enjoy many aspects of Chinese culture and part of that culture is accepting that it's a not a monolithic block as some would suggests but many cultures moving about in a dynamic fashion. The same can be said of any culture. I am Chinese but I am also Cantonese and part of being Cantonese is being comfortable with the dialect. Without this dialect, I would not be able to relate to people like my grandmother. Although I do speak English with my Uncles, understanding the Cantonese dialect allows me to understand them better. 

But my attachment to dialects goes even further. It allows me to relate to people I'm most naturally inclined to deal with in a better way. Learning Mandarin opens doors to the entire Chinese market but opening up a market involves more than just being able to say a few words in the "National Language," (Guo Yi as Mandarin is often known as outside Singapore). Opening a market involves building relationships at the ground level and that involves getting to know people at their cultural heart. Hence knowing local dialects in places like China help. 

Lee Kuan Yew is correct when he says profficiency in Mandarin makes China more accessible. But his comparison between being fluent in  Mandarin and being open to a billion people in China but being fluent in say Cantonese limits one to 100 million people in Guangdong and Hong Kong reflects simple minded thinking which insults the intelligence that Mr Lee is known for. His statement reflects the thinking of a Citizen of Caucasia rather than that of an intellectual (collect name cards and social network site friends to become well connected). 

It's not how many people you know, its what you do with the people you know that counts. The Cantonese are a chauvanistic lot, pretty much like the French when it comes to language and being predominantly Cantonese, Hong Kong Businesses people tend to deal with the people from Guangdong Province rather than China as a whole entity. A good deal of Hong Kong business people speak Mandarin but prefer to deal with their fellow Cantonese speakers in Guangdong. Real relationships are built between people in Hong Kong and Guangdong and you get real economic results. On the superficial level, people in Hong Kong are limited to Guangdong province rather than the rest of China. However, if you look lower, they have real relationships with people and leverage on that those to develop them further a field in the rest of China. - China, like other big nations is not one country but many. The real economic record of Hong Kong Businesses in China is darn good. 

Compare that to Singapore. Yes, the Beijing Government has  fabulous relationship with the Singapore government. The Communist love the PAP for being able to develiver economic goodies while keeping political power. If only a gazillion Singapore's could flourish accross China. However, Singaporeans are not encouraged to develop real relations with people on the ground. Just follow the government and what do we get - Shouzhou Industrial Park that beacon of Sino-Singapore joint ventures (shhhh, the Chinese own majority share after Singapore pumped in endless billions). The record of Singapore business in China is not exactly something to shout about .... the only benefit for Singaporeans is that we got Kuan Yew flying up to Bejing to "Tell the Chinese" how its done. The Chinese as always listened politely and nodded extra hard to what he said, particularly when extra cash was thrown at them. Bravo, Mr Lee for leading another commercial success for the nation - too bad you ended up throwing so many resources at it that you actually wasted our money in the effort to prove yourself right.  

The man simply cannot accept that building lasting commercial ties with countries is hard work and it involves more than just him "telling" the world what to do. The rest of the world nodds politiely - why shouldn't they - Mr Lee comes bringing cash and a philosophy that he has to throw money at things he declares just to ensure that he's right. Too bad the Singaporean tax payer is politely screwed in the process but then again, who honestly gives a shit about the average Singaporean? 

Contrary to what he may think, the ability of the nation-state to direct culture rather than to provide for its infrastructure has proved pretty grim. If there's one thing that makes government planning and directing of the economy look like a success, its when the government directs culture. 

Can one think of an example where government direction has made a significant impact on culture creation? 

On the other hand I can name a few positive examples of culture succeeding when people are simply allowed to interact. In Singapore, I think Singlish stands as a good example. 

Another great example I like the Hakka. I love watching the Hakka, a traditional Maori War dance, usually played whenever a New Zealand sports team is about to play someone. You have Caucasians mixing freely with Polynisians, each performing the Hakka with a frightening intensity - believing in what everyone believes is their heritage. Now that's what I call real integration.