One of the latest stories going round the internet is the story on how three expatriates assualted a few Singaporeans outside Suntec City in 2011. The rub of the story is not so much the fact that three Pink Blotchies decided to behave a typical Blotchy fashion after a few too many, but the fact that the police proved to be totally incompetent. Somehow, the police decided that they couldn't be arsed to do their job and two out of the three blotchies were allowed to run home and the one who did face the music faced a grand total of three weeks in jail for causing serious bodily hurt to several people. I won't go into the details as the incident has been well doccumented by Andrew Loh, the editor of Public House in his piece - “Minister Teo should explain handling of Suntec City assault case.”
Reactions on the net have been understandably angry. The tollerance and love that Singaporeans have for Pink Blotchies has for the moment been exchanged for the resentment that many feel against forigners in general. There's also been plenty of anger at the way the Singapore Police Force has managed the case. The feeling is that the police simply couldn't be bothered and because the three blotchies came from “Blotchy Land” (New Zealand, Australia and the UK), the government allowed them to flee rather than to avoid a diplomatic row.
My personal feelings are this – the three need to face the full force of the law in Singapore. A crime was comitted here and the perpetrators need to face the music, whatever their nationality. Singapore prides itself in the rule of law and so, we actually need to show that it exist. By allowing the three clowns to flee we have shown that the message is this – there is one law for Pink Blotchies and Elite Singaporeans and another for the Poor and Darkies from elsewhere.
My stance remains this – if the police and the justice system do not do their job and enforce the laws, the people have every right to defend themselves by whatever means. We, the people have a moral obligation to dispense street justice everytime the system lightens the load off some thug who happens to be of a pale complextion. Singaporeans need to stand up for themselves in the same way that they do in other parts of Asia.
Yes,Blotchies are revered in Thailand as much as they are here and perhaps more so. However, the Pink Blotchies understand that there are certain boundaries that they don't cross. Take the example of a couple of drunken German tourist who thought it was fun to rip a Thai Bhat note right where the king's portrait was. The Thai people rightly decided to wack the living day lights out of them and beat them within an inch of their lives. The police allowed it to happen.
I also respect the Turks for not taking shit. Two yobs from Leeds decided that it was fun to use the Turkish flag as toilet paper and they proceeded to do it in public view of people in Istanbul. My gut reaction is not, “Oh, poor things, they were just silly,” it's this - “Don't tread on other people's heritage.” I remember telling an Afghani lady that the two people I respect most on this planet are Afghanis and Vietnamese – the guys who tried to invade them always walked away with a bloody nose.
Having said all of that, I also look back to the way I think the public reaction would have been if the incident took place in the UK, where I spent my formative years.
Funnily enough, I think the three yobs wold have been lynched by White Anglo-Saxons who would have ben enraged of what would have been played out as a “racist” incident. I had two personal incidents and saw one on TV, which gives me tremendous faith in the British people.
The first incident came in my first year of school when someone made a racial remark, which I took to heart. A fight took place. What's interesting about this was one of the students from the year above went to the guy and threatened to wack him if he heard of any racist behaviour towards me.
The second incident came much later in life when I had to serve on an English jury. The jury was filled with White English Working Class people. The case was that of a young Lebanese boy who had been in a scuffle with White English Policemen. Let me tell you, each and every one of my colleagues were on the side of the Lebanese boy. One of them remarked publically, “I'd let him off just for hitting a policeman.”
The third incident that comes to mind was when Shillpa Shetty was racially abused by the late Jade Goody. Channel Four studio was besieged by protest from White English people who were disgusted by the way one of their own had behaved.
I'm not saying that racism does not exist in the West. It clearly does and in horrible forms. Segragation may have been removed from the statuate books in the 60s but it exist in voluntary forms. I think of the wonderful line in “Live and Let Die,” the 1971 Bond movie, which had James Bond entering Harlem - “it's like following a cue ball.” There are some neighbourhoods where White People enter at their peril and there are some neighbourhoods where Blacks don't even think of entering no matter how much money they have.
However, from what I experienced from life in the UK and visiting Europe and the USA, is that skin colour isn't much of a factor. Things like education and social class tend to be more important factors. I take my aversion to your average English football fan. I shudder whenever I think of group of this species gathering and trying to sound intelligent. Then again, I don't think my reaction towards this group is that different from the reaction of people like my good friends Corvin and Vincent, who have been happily living in London.
Generally speaking, Westerners are accepting of foreigners provided the forigners stick to their own space and live quietly. Resentment comes mainly when you come to a country and expect to enjoy the benefits of the social system without putting back. I think I've said this more than once, my stepfather works in a hospital that caters to near Eastern migrants who's only word of German they've learnt is the place for the welfare office. Think of this from the average German's perspective - “I work hard, I pay my taxes and the lot of you come over here and live off my taxes.”
If you are, however, do work and don't try and sponge off the locals, you are left alone. The Old Rogue always tells me, “There is no prejudice against Chinese in America – they refused to take welfare and ran businesses.” Chinese and Vietnamese and South Korean communities do well because they are quiet and entrepreneurial. It takes a generation or two for the kids to look at working in a big company rather than in a laundromat or a restaurant. Yes, these communities have developed fearsome gangsters (notice that when Austrlian biker gangs get out of hand …. they avoid the Vietnamese communities – they know what's good for them), but by and large they coexist with the rest of society.
So, when you get groups of people quietly coexisting peacefully for long enough, they tend to ignore skin colour and look other factors. In such situations you look at decent and awful behaviour for what it is rather than who perpetrates it.
While the nasty racial incidents make the headlines, the West has actually done quite well by being fairly open to immigration.
Things are different in Singapore. We're told that we, the locals have to accept foreigners to drive economic growth. There are however, two classes of foreigners – namely the talents and the workers. The talents are supposed to be the people “we need” and therefore have to welcome with open arms. The workers are the people that we are supposedly doing a favour for by letting them work at starvation wages for the task we don't want to do.
I can accept that foreigners do come with necessary skills and much of the money in Singapore actually comes from elsewhere.
However, if you look at the way things have been communicated, the message is clear – there are several classes of human beings and we, the locals are not the top of the proverbial tree. Imigration policy has been translated into culture.
I look at the way the police look after Geylang. They're all over the place, either in uniform or as plane cloths officers. Geylang is filled with local Singaporeans as well as workers from India, Bangladesh and China. Hence, the assumption is there is going to be trouble at any given moment. By contrast, the police always ensure they are at the other end of the road whenever Orchard Towers gets into full flow – why? Orchard Towers is filled with Pink Blotchies who are saintly people even if they're doing exactly what the darkies in Geylang are doing. I've been with Indian workers and Fillippina girls when they've been cautioned by the police for the crime of sitting outside and having a beer while up the road you've had Pink Blotchies doing exactly the same thing.
One of the ironies of this situation is that foreign workers are amongst the most law abbiding citizens in Singapore. If you follow the statistics provided by Transient Workers Count Too (Twc2), this section of society is statistically the least likely to commit a crime. Yet the police see them as the most threatening to society.
To problem with this policy is that when put into practice, you actually create a situation of having three different laws. There's the laws for the dark people. A law for the locals and then there's a law for the sanctified blotchies. Now, how do you call it rule of law.
My mother took issue with the fact that in the previous posting I had brought up the case of Michael Faye, the American teenage vandal who had spray painted a few cars. I contend that Mr Faye was an expat brat who could take the good things Singapore has to offer but couldn't take the “other” side of Singapore and went squealing to the embassy. My Mum believes that the US government was doing what all governments should do and protecting its citizens.
One of other things that has never been brought up is the fact that Michael Faye was the last diplomatic row that we had with the USA. Suddenly, Singapore has become afriad of of getting into a row with Western countries. I have to ask myself why?
Let's face it, the Western countries are not about to pull out their military or economic presence in Singapore because we hang a few mules. So, why do we need to give people holding American or European passports special treatment in order to avoid a diplomatic row. The diplomats were not going to get expelled because we canned Mr Faye!
If you talk to enough Westerners in their own country, you'll find that they support our right to enforce our laws. During Micael Faye there were many Americans who thought America should have canning. When we hanged an Austrlian for drug trafficking, our news rooms had letters from Australia telling us that we were doing the right thing. I remember one of my English friends saying, “If you can live in Singapore and take money from Singapore, you got to be prepared to face the justice system there. If you don't like it – bugger off.”
So, why has the application of law become different when it comes to Westerners? After Michael Faye, we had a US serviceman punching a Singaporean and when the issue was brought up – the American Ambassador of the day had a field day reminding us how we should be greatful to American servicemen. By contrast, whenever US servicemen misbehaves in Japan, you get the US Ambassador grovelling infront of whatever provincial governor of whichever province where the misdeed took place.
Why can't we have an equal dialogue with the West when it comes to the enforcement of our laws? People invest in Singapore because it has laws to protect everybody rather than laws to protect people who invest differently from those who don't.
I agree with Andrew Loh, the Ministry of Home Affairs has to provide answers. How is it that we can cane, hang, castrate etc a Bangladeshi for going on strike when he hasn't been paid several months wages, yet when three Pink Blotchies beat people up, they're given their passports and allowed to run away. By contrast, when a Nepali guy breaks the nose (beyond surgery) of a Pink Blotchy who assaulted his boss – we deport the guy on the spot – no questions asked.
You can't tell me its because we need one group more than the other. You can't tell me that Western countries invest so much more than Darky Countries (Western countries being in extra need of investment themselves). You can't tell me that Pink Blotchies are harder working (just drop by my Old Neighbourhood in Soho to see Blotchy Industry at its best). You can't tell me that Blotchies are more intelligent (Afirmative Action in the US was designed to keep Asians out of universities in favour of White ones, as much as it was to get Blacks in).
So here's the question – is there a law for Pink Blotchies and a law for other people in Singapore? If there is, there's a good reason why one shouldn't invest in Singapore.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
A Question of Faith
My former theology teacher, David Pook died recently. David, who was a decade older than me, had the misfortune of getting cancer and succumbing to it. The event had a surreal feel to it. I hadn’t seen him for nearly a decade and our contact had been limited to Facebook messages. Then, one day, out of the blue he announced he was dying and three days later he was dead. His funeral by all accounts was a tribute to his dedication to the several generations of students that he taught at Churcher’s College and the King’s School Maccesfield. Over 600 people turned out to say goodbye to a man who had been both friend and mentor to so many. His Facebook page remains active as a place where people remember him.
It’s been a long time since I had contact with David and I think our relationship did take a bit of knock when I didn’t read theology at university. I’m probably not the best person to write a tribute to him, except I will say that he, in his theology lessons taught me one of the most important lessons in life - namely the nature of faith.
A-Level Christian theology is an academically demanding subject. In the course of two-years, one has to dissect the Bible and understand every intricacy of how its created. You are required to provide complex arguments over nothing more than a word of Ancient Greek or two. During the two-year period, you get the privilege of examining the very nature of Christ in the study of Christology.
One of the most interesting things about studying theology is the fact that you have to accept the possibility that everything described in the Bible is very possibly just a matter of an ancient way of explaining things. Learned men like Rudolf Bultmann argued logically and persuasively that Jesus was merely an ordinary man - his miracles were merely the way people explained things back when the knowledge of science was rather limited.
As we were doing this, I remember David telling us, “Lad’s, my purpose isn’t to weaken your faith - but to strengthen it.” I didn’t understand him then but in the two decades since I sat for theology exams, I’ve come to understand that some of the best things in life exist in a paradox. The most common paradox that most people deal with is the question of courage. It’s often pointed out that courage is not the inability to feel fear but the ability to carry on doing the necessary despite feeling fear. I’ve learnt that the same is true of faith.
Faith is not the absence of questioning but the ability to continue believing despite constant questioning. It’s the moment where heart and mind meld together and come with the answer. I think David was the example of this - he spent the better part of his life asking questions but he remained a true believer right up to the end.
This lesson about the nature of faith has been crystalised in a decade of living in Singapore. It becomes life this because this is a society where people have been brought up to believe things unquestioningly. The most extreme example of this is the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who pays for sex but condemns prostitutes as immoral aka Thambi Pundek. However, he’s merely an extreme version of a common trend - people who don’t question and except things based on faith.
People are desperate for something to believe in, whether its in a ruling party or in a religion. Pastor Joseph Prince and his McGod franchise thrive on the desperation of people to believe in something without question.
Both Gina and Joyce, the women who I had the most emotionally intense relationships with, were consistently frustrated with me because I simply could not just believe - I had to question. The Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC pays for sex but condemns prostitutes as immoral, aka Thambi Pundek, cannot get over the fact that
I refuse to accept government actions for what they are. On the human level, its important to question, especially when it comes to the topic of government. Do I think the People’s Action Party is good for Singapore? You get the likes of the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who drinks during Ramadan aka Thambi Pundek desperately labeling me a softy opposition supporter. What he and his ilk see is the fact that I have consistently been critical of government on various issues.
What they fail to see is that I am actually a supporter of the PAP. When I got the chance to vote, I did so in their favour. As a citizen, I am obliged to constantly question things - whether its about the heart of the policy or about the approach and communications method. I believe that the ruling party has done a darn good job and I believe they remain the best people to do that job. With the exception of the Workers Party, I find opposition candidates in Singapore to be a group of sad, vicious little twats. I shudder at the idea of the likes of Kenneth “Aged Toff” Jeyaratnam ever moving into the Istana. So why don’t I just shut up and accept with faith that the PAP are great? Well, I realise they need people to question them.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely and the only way to prevent that is by being prepared to question regardless of the consequences. I also realise that political decisions affect me and unless I don’t question and say something no matter how insignificant, I’m going to get trampled on. Nobody knows what you’re saying or feeling if you don’t say something. I think the same rules apply to God or at least the people who claim to represent him. I believe in the divine and I believe faith is rewarded.
However, faith tends to be mistaken as something you just accept without questioning because ...well....that’s always been the way. As such, you get the likes to Pastor Prince and Reverend Kong He milking their followers for a percentage of their salaries so that they can build bigger and better buildings to house their followers.
My theology is rusty but I don’t recall the passage where Jesus said, “Donate unto my agents so that you will have a bigger and better place to hang out on Sunday.” I do, however, recall the passage where he says, “Sell your possessions and become a follower of mine.” Gina and I used to go through this all the time. I’d constantly ask myself, “Is this God speaking or is this Pastor speaking.” Is anyone surprised that the marriage didn’t last very long?
Faith is based on free will and you can only have free will if you know about the brutal nasty things in life. Jesus was well aware that he was about to meet a nasty end, yet he had faith that the “Father” would raise him from the dead in his full divine glory. He says, “Let your will be done.” Many people forget this. Too often they talk about how they’re going to pray their way to prosperity and the path towards it will be smooth and easy. Well, if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
Those with faith have doubts. Mother Teresa, regarded as the closest thing we’ve had to a Saint in the last five decades, admitted she had doubts. Yet her faith drove her on and she continued to do what she did in the slums of Calcutta. When was the last time that Joseph Singh ooopppps, I mean Joseph Prince (I forgot he was an ordinary bloke who decided he was royalty) went to anywhere resembling Calcutta?
Seriously, I can sit in the comfort of Suntec and have plenty of faith that God has entitled me to be his agent and enjoy the fruits of 20,000 clowns. It’s a different matter to show up in a hell hole and give of yourself because you believe that God has told you to be there.
Real faith comes when you question, have doubts and yet you carry on because you believe that it is God’s will for you. It is not an entitlement you achieve for attending a rock concert on Sunday.
It’s been a long time since I had contact with David and I think our relationship did take a bit of knock when I didn’t read theology at university. I’m probably not the best person to write a tribute to him, except I will say that he, in his theology lessons taught me one of the most important lessons in life - namely the nature of faith.
A-Level Christian theology is an academically demanding subject. In the course of two-years, one has to dissect the Bible and understand every intricacy of how its created. You are required to provide complex arguments over nothing more than a word of Ancient Greek or two. During the two-year period, you get the privilege of examining the very nature of Christ in the study of Christology.
One of the most interesting things about studying theology is the fact that you have to accept the possibility that everything described in the Bible is very possibly just a matter of an ancient way of explaining things. Learned men like Rudolf Bultmann argued logically and persuasively that Jesus was merely an ordinary man - his miracles were merely the way people explained things back when the knowledge of science was rather limited.
As we were doing this, I remember David telling us, “Lad’s, my purpose isn’t to weaken your faith - but to strengthen it.” I didn’t understand him then but in the two decades since I sat for theology exams, I’ve come to understand that some of the best things in life exist in a paradox. The most common paradox that most people deal with is the question of courage. It’s often pointed out that courage is not the inability to feel fear but the ability to carry on doing the necessary despite feeling fear. I’ve learnt that the same is true of faith.
Faith is not the absence of questioning but the ability to continue believing despite constant questioning. It’s the moment where heart and mind meld together and come with the answer. I think David was the example of this - he spent the better part of his life asking questions but he remained a true believer right up to the end.
This lesson about the nature of faith has been crystalised in a decade of living in Singapore. It becomes life this because this is a society where people have been brought up to believe things unquestioningly. The most extreme example of this is the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who pays for sex but condemns prostitutes as immoral aka Thambi Pundek. However, he’s merely an extreme version of a common trend - people who don’t question and except things based on faith.
People are desperate for something to believe in, whether its in a ruling party or in a religion. Pastor Joseph Prince and his McGod franchise thrive on the desperation of people to believe in something without question.
Both Gina and Joyce, the women who I had the most emotionally intense relationships with, were consistently frustrated with me because I simply could not just believe - I had to question. The Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC pays for sex but condemns prostitutes as immoral, aka Thambi Pundek, cannot get over the fact that
I refuse to accept government actions for what they are. On the human level, its important to question, especially when it comes to the topic of government. Do I think the People’s Action Party is good for Singapore? You get the likes of the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who drinks during Ramadan aka Thambi Pundek desperately labeling me a softy opposition supporter. What he and his ilk see is the fact that I have consistently been critical of government on various issues.
What they fail to see is that I am actually a supporter of the PAP. When I got the chance to vote, I did so in their favour. As a citizen, I am obliged to constantly question things - whether its about the heart of the policy or about the approach and communications method. I believe that the ruling party has done a darn good job and I believe they remain the best people to do that job. With the exception of the Workers Party, I find opposition candidates in Singapore to be a group of sad, vicious little twats. I shudder at the idea of the likes of Kenneth “Aged Toff” Jeyaratnam ever moving into the Istana. So why don’t I just shut up and accept with faith that the PAP are great? Well, I realise they need people to question them.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely and the only way to prevent that is by being prepared to question regardless of the consequences. I also realise that political decisions affect me and unless I don’t question and say something no matter how insignificant, I’m going to get trampled on. Nobody knows what you’re saying or feeling if you don’t say something. I think the same rules apply to God or at least the people who claim to represent him. I believe in the divine and I believe faith is rewarded.
However, faith tends to be mistaken as something you just accept without questioning because ...well....that’s always been the way. As such, you get the likes to Pastor Prince and Reverend Kong He milking their followers for a percentage of their salaries so that they can build bigger and better buildings to house their followers.
My theology is rusty but I don’t recall the passage where Jesus said, “Donate unto my agents so that you will have a bigger and better place to hang out on Sunday.” I do, however, recall the passage where he says, “Sell your possessions and become a follower of mine.” Gina and I used to go through this all the time. I’d constantly ask myself, “Is this God speaking or is this Pastor speaking.” Is anyone surprised that the marriage didn’t last very long?
Faith is based on free will and you can only have free will if you know about the brutal nasty things in life. Jesus was well aware that he was about to meet a nasty end, yet he had faith that the “Father” would raise him from the dead in his full divine glory. He says, “Let your will be done.” Many people forget this. Too often they talk about how they’re going to pray their way to prosperity and the path towards it will be smooth and easy. Well, if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
Those with faith have doubts. Mother Teresa, regarded as the closest thing we’ve had to a Saint in the last five decades, admitted she had doubts. Yet her faith drove her on and she continued to do what she did in the slums of Calcutta. When was the last time that Joseph Singh ooopppps, I mean Joseph Prince (I forgot he was an ordinary bloke who decided he was royalty) went to anywhere resembling Calcutta?
Seriously, I can sit in the comfort of Suntec and have plenty of faith that God has entitled me to be his agent and enjoy the fruits of 20,000 clowns. It’s a different matter to show up in a hell hole and give of yourself because you believe that God has told you to be there.
Real faith comes when you question, have doubts and yet you carry on because you believe that it is God’s will for you. It is not an entitlement you achieve for attending a rock concert on Sunday.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Arrested but Not Really.....
You have to hand it to my former boss, Mr PN Balji for being able to stir up a few emotions and you have to hand it to the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who cheered the Israeli Bombardment of the Gaza Strip aka Thambi Pundek to rise to the bait.
Mr Balji wrote a commentary, which was posted on Yahoo (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/missing-piece-smart-government-024702253.html) which said in not so many words that the government’s handling of the communications over the sacking of two senior civil servants was badly done. This obvious point has caused something of a commotion. Singapore’s Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) has circulated the piece to all the ministries and anything that the top can do; the bottom proved that it can do slower.
Within a few days of this piece of news going out, the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who cheered the Israeli Bombardment of the Gaza strip aka Thambi Pundek started singing the praises of Mr Balji’s article and decided that he needed to meet the man rather urgently. As he said, “The article was well written but no matter which way you look at it, it was an insult to the establishment.” He went onto elaborate, “It has caused a lot of anger amongst the establishment and I need to get to the bottom of his motives.”
What’s interesting about this exchange is the fact that it is a sad reflection about the type of people who are being recruited by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). Simply put, the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who cheered the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip aka Thambi Pundek, couldn’t be bothered to read and analyse (apparently analysis is unpatriotic) what had been written.
Let’s start with his key concern – namely why Mr Balji had described the handling as “Bad PR.” He kept mentioning, “But the Minister has given a response – how can he say it’s bad PR?”
One merely needs to observe the way the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) have been trying to define the word “arrest,” it’s obvious why the delayed release of information about the two men can only be construed as bad PR management.
While the current Home Affairs Minister, Teo Chee Hean (apparently the patron of the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who cheered the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip aka Thambi Pundek) has acted more quickly than his predecessor (Wong Kan Seng), would have, each ministerial statement appears to be a reaction to something else.
Simply put, the MHA has fluffed its communications efforts by releasing information a month after the fact. The Corporate Communications Department at MHA forgot one of the most basic rules of PR – tell your story before someone else does it for you.
Let’s start with the obvious. Two of the most senior civil servants were “arrested” at the beginning of the year (one at the end of December 2011 and another at the start of January 2012). The story was first published by the Chinese daily; Lianhe Wanbao (usually considered the trashy Chinese paper) and then the government issued its statement.
It doesn’t take an idiot to see that Wanbao did what every responsible newspaper should do and it doesn’t take an idiot to see that from that moment, MHA was not in control of the story.
Whatever it said seemed like a cover up for something. The Ministry claimed that it didn’t release information earlier because “investigations were underway.” It claimed that it needed to be “fair” and to allow “due process” to go through.
However, the question remains, “Why didn’t the Ministry release information when the two men were arrested?” The argument seems to be that they were “arrested” under the “prevention of corrupt practices act” but investigations were underway.
While the Ministry might be technically right, the perception that it is creating is that it has something to hide and it is acting to protect two senior civil servants (one only ran civil defense, which is responsible for things when a crisis takes place, the other only ran the body responsible for narcotics related crime.)
As far as the public are concerned, arrested means that you have a water tight case and you are ready to prosecute. Furthermore, it’s understood by the public that nobody moves against officials of that level unless they are pretty darn sure that there’s a water tight case against them.
So, why the hell did it take such a long time to release information? People can accept that it might not be appropriate to release information during an investigation. However, most logical people cannot accept the fact that an arrest, particularly of two very senior officials would be kept from the public for over a month.
So, one has to ask why the “establishment” would be upset with Mr Balji for pointing out he obvious? Surely, most right thinking people would be upset with him if he had not pointed out the obvious.
Mr Balji wrote a commentary, which was posted on Yahoo (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/missing-piece-smart-government-024702253.html) which said in not so many words that the government’s handling of the communications over the sacking of two senior civil servants was badly done. This obvious point has caused something of a commotion. Singapore’s Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) has circulated the piece to all the ministries and anything that the top can do; the bottom proved that it can do slower.
Within a few days of this piece of news going out, the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who cheered the Israeli Bombardment of the Gaza strip aka Thambi Pundek started singing the praises of Mr Balji’s article and decided that he needed to meet the man rather urgently. As he said, “The article was well written but no matter which way you look at it, it was an insult to the establishment.” He went onto elaborate, “It has caused a lot of anger amongst the establishment and I need to get to the bottom of his motives.”
What’s interesting about this exchange is the fact that it is a sad reflection about the type of people who are being recruited by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). Simply put, the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who cheered the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip aka Thambi Pundek, couldn’t be bothered to read and analyse (apparently analysis is unpatriotic) what had been written.
Let’s start with his key concern – namely why Mr Balji had described the handling as “Bad PR.” He kept mentioning, “But the Minister has given a response – how can he say it’s bad PR?”
One merely needs to observe the way the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) have been trying to define the word “arrest,” it’s obvious why the delayed release of information about the two men can only be construed as bad PR management.
While the current Home Affairs Minister, Teo Chee Hean (apparently the patron of the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who cheered the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip aka Thambi Pundek) has acted more quickly than his predecessor (Wong Kan Seng), would have, each ministerial statement appears to be a reaction to something else.
Simply put, the MHA has fluffed its communications efforts by releasing information a month after the fact. The Corporate Communications Department at MHA forgot one of the most basic rules of PR – tell your story before someone else does it for you.
Let’s start with the obvious. Two of the most senior civil servants were “arrested” at the beginning of the year (one at the end of December 2011 and another at the start of January 2012). The story was first published by the Chinese daily; Lianhe Wanbao (usually considered the trashy Chinese paper) and then the government issued its statement.
It doesn’t take an idiot to see that Wanbao did what every responsible newspaper should do and it doesn’t take an idiot to see that from that moment, MHA was not in control of the story.
Whatever it said seemed like a cover up for something. The Ministry claimed that it didn’t release information earlier because “investigations were underway.” It claimed that it needed to be “fair” and to allow “due process” to go through.
However, the question remains, “Why didn’t the Ministry release information when the two men were arrested?” The argument seems to be that they were “arrested” under the “prevention of corrupt practices act” but investigations were underway.
While the Ministry might be technically right, the perception that it is creating is that it has something to hide and it is acting to protect two senior civil servants (one only ran civil defense, which is responsible for things when a crisis takes place, the other only ran the body responsible for narcotics related crime.)
As far as the public are concerned, arrested means that you have a water tight case and you are ready to prosecute. Furthermore, it’s understood by the public that nobody moves against officials of that level unless they are pretty darn sure that there’s a water tight case against them.
So, why the hell did it take such a long time to release information? People can accept that it might not be appropriate to release information during an investigation. However, most logical people cannot accept the fact that an arrest, particularly of two very senior officials would be kept from the public for over a month.
So, one has to ask why the “establishment” would be upset with Mr Balji for pointing out he obvious? Surely, most right thinking people would be upset with him if he had not pointed out the obvious.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The Elephant in the Middle East
I just had the experience of earning the dislike of an ambassador from a major a trading nation. It happened at a lecture oragnised by the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), on the topic of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornorstone of the world's rules regarding nuclear energy. The lecture was conducted by His Excellency, Mr Oliver Caron, the French Ambassador.
The lecture itself was factual. His Excellency outlined what the treaty was about and described his views on where he thought things would be going. Then, question time came and things got interesting. Mr Ameer Jumabhoy, sicon of one of Southeast Asia's most prominent families brought up the issue of the “Elephant in the Middle East.” Mr Jumabhoy brought up the much valid but unmentioned point that while much has been made of Iran's alleged threats to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth,” and it's alleged attempt to gain nuclear weapons, nobody ever mentioned the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons and happily steals land with the blessings of the West.
His Excellency reffused to answer Mr Jumabhoy, dismissing what he said as a matter of opinion rather than a question. At that point, I phrased what Mr Jumabhoy had said into a question and then made the point that Western Powers, lead by the USA have been notoriousl quick to send troops into the Middle East against people who may have nuclear weapons but have very keen to negotiate with Asian states that openly test nukes and make it clear that they have every intention of using them. His Excellency fudged the issue and avoided getting into a long conversation with me or Mr Jumabhoy during the tea reception.
To be fair to His Excellency, addressing the issue of Israel's nuclear arsenal is tricky for Western Nations. Israel has mastered the art of controling powerful interest groups in Western Nations and in a wonderful exhibition of political judo, the Jewish Nation has turned the victimisation of the Jewish people at the hands of various European Nations through various times in history into an asset. When the European Nations started complaining about Israel's behaviour during the Second Intifada of the late 1990s, Shimon Peres, who was then foreign minister in Ariel Sharon's government, flew to Europe to remind the various European Head of Governments to remember their history against the Jewish people. The then foreign minister of a small desert nation with no resources to speak off was like a school master to a group of naughty boys towards the heads of governments of a group of the world's largest trading nations.
Like their American counterparts, European politicians criticise Israeli policies at their peril. When former Malaysia Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mohammed Mahathir made his 'infamous' remarks about Jews controling the world by proxy at the Organisation of Islamic Nations Conference (OIC), in 2003, the Europeans, lead by the US State department condemed him for being “Anti-Semetic.” Ironically, the condemnation by the West proved what many in the East suspected – the good doctor was right.
How serious is this? Well, it doesn't take a genious to realise that the Western World, which has shapped much of the rest of the world, is in a dilema. This is particularly true in an age where the Western World, lead by the USA has positioned itself as the “Guardian of Global Morality.” World Peace is basically “Pax Americana,” or peace and prosperity underwritten by America and the Western World that it leads.
Let's start with some obvious pointers. The West, especially America, has on the whole been a force of good. Even the rise of China and India has been fueled by American ideals and even in the most rapidly Anti-American parts of the Middle East, young people cannot wait to go to school in America or American institutions in the region.
Let's also aknowledge the fact that Europeans nations did commit attrocities against the Jewish people. Hitler's Germany masacred six million of them but that's not only case of Jews being abused. Russia for example has had a long history of having progroms against Jews.
The modern state of Israel is also a wonderous invention. Despite having no resources in a desert, Israel has managed to become an agricultural powerhouse and its economy built by an army of dynamic technology start-ups has given Israel a very boyant economy, despite the fact that Israel has been in a constant State of War since its inception. Small, dynamic Israel is particularly shinny when compared to the vast amount of poverty and illiteracy in its neighbours.
Having said all of that, it does not excuse actions by Israel, which are blatantly illegal and the Western World becomes complicit in Israel's crimes when it either ignores them or defends them – who can forget the image of Condoliza Rice proudly talking about “The Birth Pangs of a New Middle East,” as Israel proceeded to bomb Lebanon back to the “Stone Age,” back in 2006.
The facts of International Law are that Jewish Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal. The same is true of Israel's hold on the Golan Hights. Yet, no American or European nation has made a public criticism of continued land-grabs and building of illegal settlements. American politcians have even gone as far as condeming Israeli politicians who tried to do the right thing under International Law (Pat Robinson openly declared Ariel Sharon's coma as a punishment from God in retaliation for Sharon's removal of illegal settlements from the Gaza Strip). How does a neutral observer not come to the conclusion that the Western World endorses a violation of the same international law its trying to uphold when it kicks Sadam Hussein out of Kuwait for invading Kuwaiti soverignty but happily encourages Bibi Nethanyahu to build settlements in land that nobody recognises as Israel.
Much is made of the fact that Israel is “The ONLY democracy” in the Middle East. Yet when the Palestinians elected Hamas to their Parliament in 2006 in an election established as “fair” by international observers, the Western World lead by the USA couldn't place sanctions on the Palestinians fast enough. Funnily enough, the Western World hasn't made life for “the good” Palestinian in the shape of President Mahmoud Abas any easier either. The Palestinians who follow Hamas are branded as terrorist and placed under sanctions. The Palestinians who follow Abas are merely squeezed out of their homes as Israel continues to grab more of their land for illegal settlement building – either way the Palestinians are screwed.
As a neutral observer, it's virtually impossible not to see why the Palestinian people are frustraed and angry and very willing to take things out on the West. When they break a law its called terrorism. When the Israeli side breaks it, its called “righteous self-defence” and the West, lead by the USA endorses genocide. Khalid Almaeena, the former editor of Arab News summed it up best when he said:
“When you say Hezbollah and Hamas, you MUST say backed by Iran. When you say Israel you are not allowed to say backed by USA and UK.”
These examples are only enforced by the nuclear issue. Today, the world is making a song and dance of the Doomsday scenario of Iran ever getting hold of weapons grade plutonium. Say what you like about the regime in Tehran but it has signed up to the NPT and IAEA. Iran for all its faults has signed up to play by international rules and international rules also provide Iran with scope to do certain things. Yet, despite all of this, every Western Politician can't place sanctions on Iran quickly enough and every candidate in the upcomming American Presidential Election is declaring “ALL Options are on the table.”
By contrast Israel has not signed a single treaty – hence the Israeli's have exempted themselves from playing by International Rules. Israel's official stance is, “We neither admit nor deny.” Former US Defence Secratery Robert Gates was slapped by the media for suggesting that Israel had Nuclear Weapons. In Israel's case there is no obligation to play by the rules and the Western world is perfectly fine with that.
I can be branded as an “Anti-Semite” for pointing these facts out. Yet, how does a reaonable mind not come to the conclusion that “Western Fairness” is exceedingly selective when it comes to dealing with Israel? Its terrorism when Palestinians vote for Hamas but its democracy in action when Israel has Avigdor Liberman as a deputy Prime minsiter.
Nobody has ever said that Israel does not have the right to self-defence. However, why is it such that Israel's right to self-defence includes ownership of Weapons of Mass Destruction and theft of land that it does not own. If the West endorses theft and violations of international law in the case of Israel, how does it claim any moral right to police the world and administer International Justice.
During September 11, 2001, many Americans were shocked that someone wanted to damage them. In the American mindset, they are the good guys. Americans could not get it round their head that someone would want to hurt them. To a large extent Americans are right, they are good people. However, when you look at the crimes they've endorsed by Israel, its clear why this group of people have an issue with the USA and the Western World.
I think of President Obama's former pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright, who quoted an American Ambassador to Iraq who said that “America's Chickens had come home to roost.” The man was villified as a “nut job.” This is a pity, Rev Wright makes sense and has a good grasp of issues and if his views are adapted by American and other Western politicians, we might find that the Elephant in the Middle East gets smaller and may become more bearable for the rest of the world.
The youtube clips of Rev Wright's speeches. Tell me if you think this is a nut job or as close to a sensible Godly man as America gets?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qERRO5rXUuk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onr6RwCqqcM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt3fBvp6j_w&feature=related
The lecture itself was factual. His Excellency outlined what the treaty was about and described his views on where he thought things would be going. Then, question time came and things got interesting. Mr Ameer Jumabhoy, sicon of one of Southeast Asia's most prominent families brought up the issue of the “Elephant in the Middle East.” Mr Jumabhoy brought up the much valid but unmentioned point that while much has been made of Iran's alleged threats to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth,” and it's alleged attempt to gain nuclear weapons, nobody ever mentioned the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons and happily steals land with the blessings of the West.
His Excellency reffused to answer Mr Jumabhoy, dismissing what he said as a matter of opinion rather than a question. At that point, I phrased what Mr Jumabhoy had said into a question and then made the point that Western Powers, lead by the USA have been notoriousl quick to send troops into the Middle East against people who may have nuclear weapons but have very keen to negotiate with Asian states that openly test nukes and make it clear that they have every intention of using them. His Excellency fudged the issue and avoided getting into a long conversation with me or Mr Jumabhoy during the tea reception.
To be fair to His Excellency, addressing the issue of Israel's nuclear arsenal is tricky for Western Nations. Israel has mastered the art of controling powerful interest groups in Western Nations and in a wonderful exhibition of political judo, the Jewish Nation has turned the victimisation of the Jewish people at the hands of various European Nations through various times in history into an asset. When the European Nations started complaining about Israel's behaviour during the Second Intifada of the late 1990s, Shimon Peres, who was then foreign minister in Ariel Sharon's government, flew to Europe to remind the various European Head of Governments to remember their history against the Jewish people. The then foreign minister of a small desert nation with no resources to speak off was like a school master to a group of naughty boys towards the heads of governments of a group of the world's largest trading nations.
Like their American counterparts, European politicians criticise Israeli policies at their peril. When former Malaysia Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mohammed Mahathir made his 'infamous' remarks about Jews controling the world by proxy at the Organisation of Islamic Nations Conference (OIC), in 2003, the Europeans, lead by the US State department condemed him for being “Anti-Semetic.” Ironically, the condemnation by the West proved what many in the East suspected – the good doctor was right.
How serious is this? Well, it doesn't take a genious to realise that the Western World, which has shapped much of the rest of the world, is in a dilema. This is particularly true in an age where the Western World, lead by the USA has positioned itself as the “Guardian of Global Morality.” World Peace is basically “Pax Americana,” or peace and prosperity underwritten by America and the Western World that it leads.
Let's start with some obvious pointers. The West, especially America, has on the whole been a force of good. Even the rise of China and India has been fueled by American ideals and even in the most rapidly Anti-American parts of the Middle East, young people cannot wait to go to school in America or American institutions in the region.
Let's also aknowledge the fact that Europeans nations did commit attrocities against the Jewish people. Hitler's Germany masacred six million of them but that's not only case of Jews being abused. Russia for example has had a long history of having progroms against Jews.
The modern state of Israel is also a wonderous invention. Despite having no resources in a desert, Israel has managed to become an agricultural powerhouse and its economy built by an army of dynamic technology start-ups has given Israel a very boyant economy, despite the fact that Israel has been in a constant State of War since its inception. Small, dynamic Israel is particularly shinny when compared to the vast amount of poverty and illiteracy in its neighbours.
Having said all of that, it does not excuse actions by Israel, which are blatantly illegal and the Western World becomes complicit in Israel's crimes when it either ignores them or defends them – who can forget the image of Condoliza Rice proudly talking about “The Birth Pangs of a New Middle East,” as Israel proceeded to bomb Lebanon back to the “Stone Age,” back in 2006.
The facts of International Law are that Jewish Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are illegal. The same is true of Israel's hold on the Golan Hights. Yet, no American or European nation has made a public criticism of continued land-grabs and building of illegal settlements. American politcians have even gone as far as condeming Israeli politicians who tried to do the right thing under International Law (Pat Robinson openly declared Ariel Sharon's coma as a punishment from God in retaliation for Sharon's removal of illegal settlements from the Gaza Strip). How does a neutral observer not come to the conclusion that the Western World endorses a violation of the same international law its trying to uphold when it kicks Sadam Hussein out of Kuwait for invading Kuwaiti soverignty but happily encourages Bibi Nethanyahu to build settlements in land that nobody recognises as Israel.
Much is made of the fact that Israel is “The ONLY democracy” in the Middle East. Yet when the Palestinians elected Hamas to their Parliament in 2006 in an election established as “fair” by international observers, the Western World lead by the USA couldn't place sanctions on the Palestinians fast enough. Funnily enough, the Western World hasn't made life for “the good” Palestinian in the shape of President Mahmoud Abas any easier either. The Palestinians who follow Hamas are branded as terrorist and placed under sanctions. The Palestinians who follow Abas are merely squeezed out of their homes as Israel continues to grab more of their land for illegal settlement building – either way the Palestinians are screwed.
As a neutral observer, it's virtually impossible not to see why the Palestinian people are frustraed and angry and very willing to take things out on the West. When they break a law its called terrorism. When the Israeli side breaks it, its called “righteous self-defence” and the West, lead by the USA endorses genocide. Khalid Almaeena, the former editor of Arab News summed it up best when he said:
“When you say Hezbollah and Hamas, you MUST say backed by Iran. When you say Israel you are not allowed to say backed by USA and UK.”
These examples are only enforced by the nuclear issue. Today, the world is making a song and dance of the Doomsday scenario of Iran ever getting hold of weapons grade plutonium. Say what you like about the regime in Tehran but it has signed up to the NPT and IAEA. Iran for all its faults has signed up to play by international rules and international rules also provide Iran with scope to do certain things. Yet, despite all of this, every Western Politician can't place sanctions on Iran quickly enough and every candidate in the upcomming American Presidential Election is declaring “ALL Options are on the table.”
By contrast Israel has not signed a single treaty – hence the Israeli's have exempted themselves from playing by International Rules. Israel's official stance is, “We neither admit nor deny.” Former US Defence Secratery Robert Gates was slapped by the media for suggesting that Israel had Nuclear Weapons. In Israel's case there is no obligation to play by the rules and the Western world is perfectly fine with that.
I can be branded as an “Anti-Semite” for pointing these facts out. Yet, how does a reaonable mind not come to the conclusion that “Western Fairness” is exceedingly selective when it comes to dealing with Israel? Its terrorism when Palestinians vote for Hamas but its democracy in action when Israel has Avigdor Liberman as a deputy Prime minsiter.
Nobody has ever said that Israel does not have the right to self-defence. However, why is it such that Israel's right to self-defence includes ownership of Weapons of Mass Destruction and theft of land that it does not own. If the West endorses theft and violations of international law in the case of Israel, how does it claim any moral right to police the world and administer International Justice.
During September 11, 2001, many Americans were shocked that someone wanted to damage them. In the American mindset, they are the good guys. Americans could not get it round their head that someone would want to hurt them. To a large extent Americans are right, they are good people. However, when you look at the crimes they've endorsed by Israel, its clear why this group of people have an issue with the USA and the Western World.
I think of President Obama's former pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright, who quoted an American Ambassador to Iraq who said that “America's Chickens had come home to roost.” The man was villified as a “nut job.” This is a pity, Rev Wright makes sense and has a good grasp of issues and if his views are adapted by American and other Western politicians, we might find that the Elephant in the Middle East gets smaller and may become more bearable for the rest of the world.
The youtube clips of Rev Wright's speeches. Tell me if you think this is a nut job or as close to a sensible Godly man as America gets?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qERRO5rXUuk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onr6RwCqqcM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt3fBvp6j_w&feature=related
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The World's Local …......
If I had to give an opinion on what I thought was one of the world's best advertising campaigns in recent years, I'd have to say it is HSBC's (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation), “The World's Local Bank.” This simple slogan not only made good advertising – but it was also a beautiful business strategy. This London based bank showed that it understood the way the world was going, namely the old fashioned human desire to deal with people like you but at the same to deal with someone who knew the world.
This HSBC campaign reminds me of one of the more commonly discussed topics of university days – namely the issue of “glocalisation.” This idea was simple – globalisation is here to stay and the world will only get smaller thanks to modern communications like the internet. However, as the world gets smaller people would get more attached to their local communities. Proponents of the “glocal” theory argue that if businesses want to thrive, they need to be both global and local.
Doing this is trickier than it sounds. HSBC succeeded in displaying this in its advertising campaign. They were so successful at it that I never realised that HSBC was a Colonial British Bank until they took over Midland Bank back in the early 1990s. As a child, my dad banked with HSBC and I always saw them as being from Hong Kong and therefore Hong Kong Chinese. Seeing a White Briton as a CEO was something of a shock to me. Unfortunately, outside HSBC I can't think of a global business that has been successful at making itself local. Why is that so?
I think the answer is pretty simple. We live in a world where “Globalisation” is the buzzword. If you're not “Global” or at least “Regional” in everything you do, you're going to be regarded as something of a “bumpkin.” If you live and opperate in a small place like Singapore, you need to have a somewhat reasonable claim to being “global” or at least “regional” in your outlook. Singapore on its own is such a small market that even the big multinationals don't treat the budgeting for the local market seriously. Luckily, Singapore is regional headquarters and regional budgets are set from Singapore – so Singapore based business do have a chance at fighting for Asia-Pacific or South Asian budgets.
Its not just businesses that are going “global.” Thanks to the 'internet' any clown can be “global.” I've bashed out this blog in Singapore over the last six years. While my audience is primarily Singaporean, I've had readers from the USA, UK, parts of Europe and even darkest Africa. I don't need to be part of a big publishing company to be read around the world.
There's no doubt that globalisation has on the whole been a good thing. I live in Asia, which is at the time of writing the ONLY part of the world with any money. The Asian growth miracle is a product of globalisation. It started with the four NICS (South Korean, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) and today its spread to the giants of China and India. The success story has been simple – we opened up ourselves to global talent, competition, expectations etc. Our companies make and service according to global rather than local standards.
India comes to mind as an example as a country that has benefited from being “global.” I remember a time when the only thing you could do with anything coming from India was to place it in New Age Shrine and chant endlessly around it. In a space of less than three decades, India is moving up the ladder and today, people take Indian companies very seriously. Everyone knows about IT and call centres. However, India is more than that. The American FDA approves an ever increasing amount of drugs based on clinical research done in India.
How is it that a large, underdeveloped nation managed to become a serious player in a number of brain industries? The answer is simple – the brain bits of India is highly open to the “global” grid while the bits of India that are continuing to fail are still stuck in “provincial” mud.
Globalisation is not just a business idea. Its helped raise the standard of life in other aspects too. The great hope in Asia is that the major Asian Giant, China, will be unable to return to the brutal days of Maoist dictatorship. While China remains a Communist Dictatorship in many ways, the Communist Party Chief's of today cannot turn the clock back – too many Chinese people have lived the way the rest of the world does and nobody envisions the people allowing those in power to turn the clock back.
While being “global” is undoubtedly a good thing, there is such a thing of being damaged by being so global that you forget the local. I think of the “dot.com” boom that went spectacularly bust in 2000. What happened?
Simple – we got so caught up in the hype of the internet and being “global” that we forgot about our “real” presence. I look at myself as an example. This blog entry will be read by people beyond Singapore. I've arranged for clients to be interviewed in foreign lands without leaving Singapore. While I can do things beyond Sinapore's shored – I have to remember that I remain physically present in Singapore and therefore my “real” existence remains within the local Singapore context.
Now, let's translate this into something larger. Marketing is filled with examples of how global brands with their power of global budgets, expertise etc etc have become unstuck when they've assumed that the locals will abandon their culture just to be “global.”
One of my favourite examples is the Ford “Nova,” which failed miserably in the Latin America market. It took some bright spark to realise that “No – Va” in Spanish is “No-Go” - not exactly the message you want to convey to car buyers - “Buy my “No Go” car!”
There are other examples. One good Asian example is Jollibee, a Fillipino fast-food joint which prevented McDonalds from conquering their local market by simply appealing to local taste.
Americans are particularly guilty of disregarding “local” sensetivities. In a way, you can't blame them for it. People around the world have an incredible “love” for things American. Perhaps you could say its thanks to Maddison Avenue but America and American cultural icons have found a way of sticking into our psyche.
However, as much as the rest of the world loves things America, we don't exactly want to lose our local culture either nor do we want Americans overwhelming us telling us how to run our lives – something which has become especially true with the recent financial crisis. I mean do you really want the people who screwed up the world by hidding and playing roulette with your money telling you about how to manage your money?
When Americanisation, which is a lot of ways the same thing as “globalisation” gets too overwhelming – the locals fight back and they can win.
This was brought home to me at a recent work-shop on Afghanistan, organised by Singapore's Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS).
One of the most interesting (I use the term politely) was a talk given by Mr Muhammad Sabir Siddiqi, Director Development and Public Awarness, Afghanistan. The poor man had the unenviable task of admitting that the current Afghan government and its international allies (USA and its NATO allies) were losing the propoganda war against the Taliban.
The question is simple – How? If there's anyone you should be able to beat in a propoganda fight – it should be the Taliban. You are talking about a group of religious thugs who spent nearly a decade setting the entire country back by several decades by banning any form of communication with the outside world as “Un-Islamic.” The Taliban are the very people who held mass executions (read stonnings) for things as simple as “witch craft” and they had a habit of beating up girls (read throwing acid) who had the audacity to go to school. This is the type of brand equity that usually gets you barred for life from people's toilet bowls.
By comparison, you have the Afghan government and its American allies who have the experience of Maddison Avenue behind them. America's brand equity is “pursuite of happiness.”
I asked Mr Siddiqi how it was possible for the brand equity of the Taliban (read – murderous thugs) was beating the Afghan government and its American patron (read – sweet hot blonde). His answer was - “The Taliban and its backers know the system in Afghanistan.”
I think the situation goes beyond communications. However, Mr Siddiqi made a very valuable point. The Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and its American backers disgregarded local sensitivities. They invested heavily in things like internet and TV campaigns in a country that had no internet. This might have worked in the US or Europe – but in Afghanistan?
By contrast, the Taliban communicated through the Mosque and the Maddrasah's. They went out to meet the people. They also learnt how to become very effective users of modern communications like the Inernet and TV.
Like it or not, the group that most sensible people would have imagined should have been flushed into the toilet bowl of history have made a “come back” and they've now set up an office in Qatar with the full blessing of the Americans.
How did this happen? Simple – the Taliban were open to using global technologies but remembered the local. Unlike the American backed Karzai government, they slowly rebuilt their base from the bottom up rather than trying to impose anything from the top-down.
I remember a local inventor telling me his frustrations in dealing with a local authority in Singapore. He describes how he provided a solution to them and they told him, “No one else in the world does it the way you do?” His reply was “nobody else has the unique needs that we do.”
Businesses and governments should be global. However, they ignore the local needs. At best this is expensive. At worst – we get a situation where the likes of the Taliban can make a “come back.”
This HSBC campaign reminds me of one of the more commonly discussed topics of university days – namely the issue of “glocalisation.” This idea was simple – globalisation is here to stay and the world will only get smaller thanks to modern communications like the internet. However, as the world gets smaller people would get more attached to their local communities. Proponents of the “glocal” theory argue that if businesses want to thrive, they need to be both global and local.
Doing this is trickier than it sounds. HSBC succeeded in displaying this in its advertising campaign. They were so successful at it that I never realised that HSBC was a Colonial British Bank until they took over Midland Bank back in the early 1990s. As a child, my dad banked with HSBC and I always saw them as being from Hong Kong and therefore Hong Kong Chinese. Seeing a White Briton as a CEO was something of a shock to me. Unfortunately, outside HSBC I can't think of a global business that has been successful at making itself local. Why is that so?
I think the answer is pretty simple. We live in a world where “Globalisation” is the buzzword. If you're not “Global” or at least “Regional” in everything you do, you're going to be regarded as something of a “bumpkin.” If you live and opperate in a small place like Singapore, you need to have a somewhat reasonable claim to being “global” or at least “regional” in your outlook. Singapore on its own is such a small market that even the big multinationals don't treat the budgeting for the local market seriously. Luckily, Singapore is regional headquarters and regional budgets are set from Singapore – so Singapore based business do have a chance at fighting for Asia-Pacific or South Asian budgets.
Its not just businesses that are going “global.” Thanks to the 'internet' any clown can be “global.” I've bashed out this blog in Singapore over the last six years. While my audience is primarily Singaporean, I've had readers from the USA, UK, parts of Europe and even darkest Africa. I don't need to be part of a big publishing company to be read around the world.
There's no doubt that globalisation has on the whole been a good thing. I live in Asia, which is at the time of writing the ONLY part of the world with any money. The Asian growth miracle is a product of globalisation. It started with the four NICS (South Korean, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) and today its spread to the giants of China and India. The success story has been simple – we opened up ourselves to global talent, competition, expectations etc. Our companies make and service according to global rather than local standards.
India comes to mind as an example as a country that has benefited from being “global.” I remember a time when the only thing you could do with anything coming from India was to place it in New Age Shrine and chant endlessly around it. In a space of less than three decades, India is moving up the ladder and today, people take Indian companies very seriously. Everyone knows about IT and call centres. However, India is more than that. The American FDA approves an ever increasing amount of drugs based on clinical research done in India.
How is it that a large, underdeveloped nation managed to become a serious player in a number of brain industries? The answer is simple – the brain bits of India is highly open to the “global” grid while the bits of India that are continuing to fail are still stuck in “provincial” mud.
Globalisation is not just a business idea. Its helped raise the standard of life in other aspects too. The great hope in Asia is that the major Asian Giant, China, will be unable to return to the brutal days of Maoist dictatorship. While China remains a Communist Dictatorship in many ways, the Communist Party Chief's of today cannot turn the clock back – too many Chinese people have lived the way the rest of the world does and nobody envisions the people allowing those in power to turn the clock back.
While being “global” is undoubtedly a good thing, there is such a thing of being damaged by being so global that you forget the local. I think of the “dot.com” boom that went spectacularly bust in 2000. What happened?
Simple – we got so caught up in the hype of the internet and being “global” that we forgot about our “real” presence. I look at myself as an example. This blog entry will be read by people beyond Singapore. I've arranged for clients to be interviewed in foreign lands without leaving Singapore. While I can do things beyond Sinapore's shored – I have to remember that I remain physically present in Singapore and therefore my “real” existence remains within the local Singapore context.
Now, let's translate this into something larger. Marketing is filled with examples of how global brands with their power of global budgets, expertise etc etc have become unstuck when they've assumed that the locals will abandon their culture just to be “global.”
One of my favourite examples is the Ford “Nova,” which failed miserably in the Latin America market. It took some bright spark to realise that “No – Va” in Spanish is “No-Go” - not exactly the message you want to convey to car buyers - “Buy my “No Go” car!”
There are other examples. One good Asian example is Jollibee, a Fillipino fast-food joint which prevented McDonalds from conquering their local market by simply appealing to local taste.
Americans are particularly guilty of disregarding “local” sensetivities. In a way, you can't blame them for it. People around the world have an incredible “love” for things American. Perhaps you could say its thanks to Maddison Avenue but America and American cultural icons have found a way of sticking into our psyche.
However, as much as the rest of the world loves things America, we don't exactly want to lose our local culture either nor do we want Americans overwhelming us telling us how to run our lives – something which has become especially true with the recent financial crisis. I mean do you really want the people who screwed up the world by hidding and playing roulette with your money telling you about how to manage your money?
When Americanisation, which is a lot of ways the same thing as “globalisation” gets too overwhelming – the locals fight back and they can win.
This was brought home to me at a recent work-shop on Afghanistan, organised by Singapore's Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS).
One of the most interesting (I use the term politely) was a talk given by Mr Muhammad Sabir Siddiqi, Director Development and Public Awarness, Afghanistan. The poor man had the unenviable task of admitting that the current Afghan government and its international allies (USA and its NATO allies) were losing the propoganda war against the Taliban.
The question is simple – How? If there's anyone you should be able to beat in a propoganda fight – it should be the Taliban. You are talking about a group of religious thugs who spent nearly a decade setting the entire country back by several decades by banning any form of communication with the outside world as “Un-Islamic.” The Taliban are the very people who held mass executions (read stonnings) for things as simple as “witch craft” and they had a habit of beating up girls (read throwing acid) who had the audacity to go to school. This is the type of brand equity that usually gets you barred for life from people's toilet bowls.
By comparison, you have the Afghan government and its American allies who have the experience of Maddison Avenue behind them. America's brand equity is “pursuite of happiness.”
I asked Mr Siddiqi how it was possible for the brand equity of the Taliban (read – murderous thugs) was beating the Afghan government and its American patron (read – sweet hot blonde). His answer was - “The Taliban and its backers know the system in Afghanistan.”
I think the situation goes beyond communications. However, Mr Siddiqi made a very valuable point. The Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and its American backers disgregarded local sensitivities. They invested heavily in things like internet and TV campaigns in a country that had no internet. This might have worked in the US or Europe – but in Afghanistan?
By contrast, the Taliban communicated through the Mosque and the Maddrasah's. They went out to meet the people. They also learnt how to become very effective users of modern communications like the Inernet and TV.
Like it or not, the group that most sensible people would have imagined should have been flushed into the toilet bowl of history have made a “come back” and they've now set up an office in Qatar with the full blessing of the Americans.
How did this happen? Simple – the Taliban were open to using global technologies but remembered the local. Unlike the American backed Karzai government, they slowly rebuilt their base from the bottom up rather than trying to impose anything from the top-down.
I remember a local inventor telling me his frustrations in dealing with a local authority in Singapore. He describes how he provided a solution to them and they told him, “No one else in the world does it the way you do?” His reply was “nobody else has the unique needs that we do.”
Businesses and governments should be global. However, they ignore the local needs. At best this is expensive. At worst – we get a situation where the likes of the Taliban can make a “come back.”
Saturday, January 07, 2012
The Distraction Over Salaries
Singapore has started out 2012 with a bit of a bang. Everyone had a major talking point this week – namely the topic of salaries or more precisely the salary of the cabinate. The Committee that had been established in the aftermath of last year’s General Election to look into the issue of Ministerial Salaries, finally revealved its findings.
In a nut shell the Committee decided that there would be an all round pay cut from the President down to the most junior cabinate minister. The President took the largest pay cut of about 51 percent while the Prime Minister and his colleagues took pay cuts ranging from 30-40 percent. Both the President and Prime Minister made the annoucements that they would accept the recamendations of the Committee.
This was good politics. The issue of Ministerial Salaries had been a hot button issue in the General Election and the Presidential Election. Taking a pay cut was a signal that the powers-that-be were going to listen. Furthermore, there’s the issue of good timming. The Finance Minister had spent the preceeding days telling us to get ready for an economic slowdown and the announcement that the Prime Minsiter was willing to take pay cut of slightly less than 40 percent was good old fashioned leadership by example. A few members of the opposition make the point that Singapore’s Ministers remain the world’s best paid (Our Prime Minister still makes four times more than the US President) but by and large we, the people were satisfied.
However, I don’t think we should get too satisfied. Taking a pay cut was the easy part. Analysing why a pay cut was necessary in the first place is another matter.
Let’s start with the basics. For many years, we the tax payer were told that we needed to pay our ministers exceedingly well because it was the only way to keep them honest and it was necessary to pay top-dollar for top talent (always a precious commodity).
It was acceptable until the government services became less than exemplary. One only has to think of the limping man waltzing out of a secured facility as an example.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the only one. In the years preceeding the General Election we got a dose of things one associates more with a third world backwater than a premium metropolis – think of floods, over-crowded buses, a lack of affordable housing and violent youth gangs. All of that is before you throw in the various losses made by our Soverign Wealth Funds, who insisted on keeping things secret thus giving the impression that they had something to hide.
In these various instances, the government spent a significant amount of time and resources justifying its handling of the situation. The case of Mas Selamat was particularly poignient. The public wanted an offer of resignation by the Minister but what we got was a scolding from our founding Prime Minister for being complacent in expecting the government to do its job.
This wasn’t exactly top-talent in action nor did the powers-that-be seem terribly honest. So, suddenly paying the expensive ministerial salaries became ….well harder to justify.
The government needs to recognises this. The Prime Minister has sold the fact that his is a “Rolls Royce” government and he has to ensure that Ministers perform like a “Rolls Royce.” Ministers who perform below par without justification should be ruthlessly dismissed.
You cannot expect a customer to pay for a “Rolls Royce” but receive a “Fiat” and be greatful for it because the neighbours in Malaysia and Indonesia only have “Proton Saga.” The customer in this case is no longer willing to be greatful that he has a car in the first place. Nor will the public accept a discounted “Rolls Royce” government performing below par. We the paying public were told that we need to pay for a “Rolls Royce” government and that’s precisely what we expect to receive.
A more important issue is the fact that Singapore has become an exceedingly unequal society. The Gini Coefficient points to the fact that two thirds of Singaporeans earn well below the national average of S$4,500 a month. The remaining third earns way over that benchmark.
This is in itself not an issue. America has exceedingly unequal yet there have been relatively few riots since the Rodney King incident in 1994. How this happened? The simple answer is that while the rich have gotten richer, so have the poor. Societies start facing social unrest when the rich get richer while the poor get poorer and even more importantly the rich are seen to get richer at the expense of the poor.
The US provides another example – “Occupy Wall Street.” This movement is driven by the fact that poor and Middle Class people are pissed off with very rich bankers getting rich by messing up their mortgages through fraudulent means.
In Singapore, we’ve been lucky to have governments that have been smart enough to move in to redistribute the pie when things look a little uneven. However, there is a sense that the government has a role in keeping the wages of the poor and now the Middle Class down. I remember someone telling me, “In Singapore, the policy is – KILL THE SME.”
The most prominent area where this can be seen is in the area of rental space. Fact remains, the government is the largest landlord in town. It has the power to raise and reduce rents for small businesses.
The government is not only the landlord of land space. It rents out taxis – which is supposed to be the job of last resort for Singaporeans. Taxi drivers rent their cars from the National Trade Union Congress (controlled by the government) and they have to pay all the expenses of running a taxi (petrol etc). In return they are theoretically allowed to make as much money as they can.
However, the government makes things harder. Renting a taxi is expensive (around $90 –a day and it has to paid daily). Certain roads on the desired routes come with a toll and you’re allowed to stop in certain places. To make matters worse, we actually had a former Minsiter of Transport who publically declared that he wanted to move local Singaporeans off cars (including taxis) and onto the public transport (buses and trains) as part of a national effort to go green. So there you have it – the taxi driver has to collect money for the same government that’s actively trying to put him out of business.
This is the most obvious example of how the government works to keep wages or the earning capacity of the citizens low. I’ve mentioned it more than once – whenever cleaning aunties earning a few hundred a month for 12-hour daily shifts want a few cents a year more, the powers that be rush out to warn the public about creating inflationary pressures (which doesn’t seem to apply when Ministers want several hundred thousand a month more).
Its one thing to earn less than your peers. I take myself as an example. I am a writer and the industry I deal with is publishing. I’m likely to make way less than my peers in investment banking, oil&gas or shipping. Those industries are more capital intensive and so the money floating around them is likely to be greater.
It’s a completely different thing when I’m earning less because the people in power take an active role in keeping my wages down. Look at the taxi drivers. Its tough enough looking for customers to pay for the daily rental. The effort of making a living becomes a joke when a government minister publically declares war on your business.
It is a nice gesture of the cabinate to take a hefty pay cut. However, whether the Prime Minister is paid $20billion or $2 does not affect me. What affects me is my ability to make a living. I can accept that I struggle for a living. However, that struggle becomes somewhat unacceptable when the powers-that-be are actively increasing my burden.
Cutting the pay of the top national leaders makes good politics but it does not make better social or economic policy. The answer for Singapore lies not so much in cutting the money for the top but in allowing the bottom two –thirds earning below the national average to rise their incomes.
The concept of a minimum wage has been rejected as a socialist tool to scare off foreign investors. I don’t think this is necessarily true. Singapore has long past the stage where it sells on being “cheaper” (Whatever you can make cheaply, China will make even cheaper and India will service cheaper).
However, this is NOT the ONLY way to raise incomes for the lower part of society. At the very least the government can lower rents during tough economic times so as to ensure small businesses like hawkers and taxi-drivers keep more of the money they make. (Interestingly enough the government won’t lose since it will probably collect more by way of tax).
The government should look at creative ways to help lower income people earn more. Subletting of flats should be encouraged as should car pooling. Employers who come up with creative ways to compensate people should be recognised.
These are just some possiblities one can think of in working towards the most pressing issue of the day – namely helping the poor get richer. We need to give the poor a sense that they can achieve if we’re move forward. This rather than getting a few well paid ministers to take a pay cut (which they’ll take for political purposes) is the most pressing issue that we need to work towards
In a nut shell the Committee decided that there would be an all round pay cut from the President down to the most junior cabinate minister. The President took the largest pay cut of about 51 percent while the Prime Minister and his colleagues took pay cuts ranging from 30-40 percent. Both the President and Prime Minister made the annoucements that they would accept the recamendations of the Committee.
This was good politics. The issue of Ministerial Salaries had been a hot button issue in the General Election and the Presidential Election. Taking a pay cut was a signal that the powers-that-be were going to listen. Furthermore, there’s the issue of good timming. The Finance Minister had spent the preceeding days telling us to get ready for an economic slowdown and the announcement that the Prime Minsiter was willing to take pay cut of slightly less than 40 percent was good old fashioned leadership by example. A few members of the opposition make the point that Singapore’s Ministers remain the world’s best paid (Our Prime Minister still makes four times more than the US President) but by and large we, the people were satisfied.
However, I don’t think we should get too satisfied. Taking a pay cut was the easy part. Analysing why a pay cut was necessary in the first place is another matter.
Let’s start with the basics. For many years, we the tax payer were told that we needed to pay our ministers exceedingly well because it was the only way to keep them honest and it was necessary to pay top-dollar for top talent (always a precious commodity).
It was acceptable until the government services became less than exemplary. One only has to think of the limping man waltzing out of a secured facility as an example.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the only one. In the years preceeding the General Election we got a dose of things one associates more with a third world backwater than a premium metropolis – think of floods, over-crowded buses, a lack of affordable housing and violent youth gangs. All of that is before you throw in the various losses made by our Soverign Wealth Funds, who insisted on keeping things secret thus giving the impression that they had something to hide.
In these various instances, the government spent a significant amount of time and resources justifying its handling of the situation. The case of Mas Selamat was particularly poignient. The public wanted an offer of resignation by the Minister but what we got was a scolding from our founding Prime Minister for being complacent in expecting the government to do its job.
This wasn’t exactly top-talent in action nor did the powers-that-be seem terribly honest. So, suddenly paying the expensive ministerial salaries became ….well harder to justify.
The government needs to recognises this. The Prime Minister has sold the fact that his is a “Rolls Royce” government and he has to ensure that Ministers perform like a “Rolls Royce.” Ministers who perform below par without justification should be ruthlessly dismissed.
You cannot expect a customer to pay for a “Rolls Royce” but receive a “Fiat” and be greatful for it because the neighbours in Malaysia and Indonesia only have “Proton Saga.” The customer in this case is no longer willing to be greatful that he has a car in the first place. Nor will the public accept a discounted “Rolls Royce” government performing below par. We the paying public were told that we need to pay for a “Rolls Royce” government and that’s precisely what we expect to receive.
A more important issue is the fact that Singapore has become an exceedingly unequal society. The Gini Coefficient points to the fact that two thirds of Singaporeans earn well below the national average of S$4,500 a month. The remaining third earns way over that benchmark.
This is in itself not an issue. America has exceedingly unequal yet there have been relatively few riots since the Rodney King incident in 1994. How this happened? The simple answer is that while the rich have gotten richer, so have the poor. Societies start facing social unrest when the rich get richer while the poor get poorer and even more importantly the rich are seen to get richer at the expense of the poor.
The US provides another example – “Occupy Wall Street.” This movement is driven by the fact that poor and Middle Class people are pissed off with very rich bankers getting rich by messing up their mortgages through fraudulent means.
In Singapore, we’ve been lucky to have governments that have been smart enough to move in to redistribute the pie when things look a little uneven. However, there is a sense that the government has a role in keeping the wages of the poor and now the Middle Class down. I remember someone telling me, “In Singapore, the policy is – KILL THE SME.”
The most prominent area where this can be seen is in the area of rental space. Fact remains, the government is the largest landlord in town. It has the power to raise and reduce rents for small businesses.
The government is not only the landlord of land space. It rents out taxis – which is supposed to be the job of last resort for Singaporeans. Taxi drivers rent their cars from the National Trade Union Congress (controlled by the government) and they have to pay all the expenses of running a taxi (petrol etc). In return they are theoretically allowed to make as much money as they can.
However, the government makes things harder. Renting a taxi is expensive (around $90 –a day and it has to paid daily). Certain roads on the desired routes come with a toll and you’re allowed to stop in certain places. To make matters worse, we actually had a former Minsiter of Transport who publically declared that he wanted to move local Singaporeans off cars (including taxis) and onto the public transport (buses and trains) as part of a national effort to go green. So there you have it – the taxi driver has to collect money for the same government that’s actively trying to put him out of business.
This is the most obvious example of how the government works to keep wages or the earning capacity of the citizens low. I’ve mentioned it more than once – whenever cleaning aunties earning a few hundred a month for 12-hour daily shifts want a few cents a year more, the powers that be rush out to warn the public about creating inflationary pressures (which doesn’t seem to apply when Ministers want several hundred thousand a month more).
Its one thing to earn less than your peers. I take myself as an example. I am a writer and the industry I deal with is publishing. I’m likely to make way less than my peers in investment banking, oil&gas or shipping. Those industries are more capital intensive and so the money floating around them is likely to be greater.
It’s a completely different thing when I’m earning less because the people in power take an active role in keeping my wages down. Look at the taxi drivers. Its tough enough looking for customers to pay for the daily rental. The effort of making a living becomes a joke when a government minister publically declares war on your business.
It is a nice gesture of the cabinate to take a hefty pay cut. However, whether the Prime Minister is paid $20billion or $2 does not affect me. What affects me is my ability to make a living. I can accept that I struggle for a living. However, that struggle becomes somewhat unacceptable when the powers-that-be are actively increasing my burden.
Cutting the pay of the top national leaders makes good politics but it does not make better social or economic policy. The answer for Singapore lies not so much in cutting the money for the top but in allowing the bottom two –thirds earning below the national average to rise their incomes.
The concept of a minimum wage has been rejected as a socialist tool to scare off foreign investors. I don’t think this is necessarily true. Singapore has long past the stage where it sells on being “cheaper” (Whatever you can make cheaply, China will make even cheaper and India will service cheaper).
However, this is NOT the ONLY way to raise incomes for the lower part of society. At the very least the government can lower rents during tough economic times so as to ensure small businesses like hawkers and taxi-drivers keep more of the money they make. (Interestingly enough the government won’t lose since it will probably collect more by way of tax).
The government should look at creative ways to help lower income people earn more. Subletting of flats should be encouraged as should car pooling. Employers who come up with creative ways to compensate people should be recognised.
These are just some possiblities one can think of in working towards the most pressing issue of the day – namely helping the poor get richer. We need to give the poor a sense that they can achieve if we’re move forward. This rather than getting a few well paid ministers to take a pay cut (which they’ll take for political purposes) is the most pressing issue that we need to work towards
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Full of Crap – But Encouraging Non the Less
This has been something of a funny little year. If I were to look back and analyse my decade in Singapore, I could say that it was largely dissapointing and filled with crap. Yet, despite of all of that, it was also a year filled with optimism and as this year comes to an end, I find myself writing my yearly summery with a sense that I might have at least one more decent year in me to do something interesting.
Much to those worry of those who love me most, I have come to except that I am meant to life in a world of uncertainty and turmoil. In a funny way, the world is moving to suite people like me. In the Middle East there was the Arab Spring, which saw huge people-power demonstrations brining down long standing autocrates like Ben-Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Qaddafi in Libya. These were men who had an 'iron-grip' on power for decades thanks through a combination of ruthlessness with domestic opponents and convincing outside powers (Westen ones) that it was in their interest to keep them in power. However, when their people.....simple ordinary people, had enough – these rullers had no choice but to flee.
In a curious way, what happened in the Middle East was a catalyst for things to happen elsewhere. In the Western world, people had enough of being screwed by powerful elites and occupied Wall Street. Even Singapore wasn't spared. We had two-elections and suddenly our normally politically apathetic public discovered our love to our country at the ballot box.
Something amazing happened on this little island that usually accepts being browbeaten as a necessary fact of life. The people forced the government to listen. The Ruling Party lost an unprecdented six-seats in the General Election and its prefered candidate barely squeaked home in the Presidential election despite every concievable advantage. The much maligned Singapore electorate showed an incredible amount of wisdom by returning a government with a good track record but at the same time giving legitimacy to the one opposition party that had the hunger and know-how to form an alternative government – the Workers Party. Opposition politics in Singapore has moved from being about disgruntled ego-maniacs to being about an intelligent alternative.
All these changes might not necessarily be better from the point of material gain. However, its a wonder from the point of view of the human spirit. For me, I discovered that my only hobby has become my only asset. This blog has doubled in size and I've had people tell me that I've managed to strike a chord with them.
I still haven't figured out how to make blogging pay and I'm not the only one. My fellow intelligent bloggers tell me that they haven't either. However, we will continue to do what we do – which is to put across different views from the mainstream and to get people thinking.
Gone are the days when Singapore could survive as a robotics factory for the Western World. We on this little island need to think and debate. We need to find our own solutions instead of relying on the government to be the almighty and all knowing guide. I do what I do in the full knowledge that I may risk offending someone but I pray that even when I offend, I am able to provoke a thought. I take the view that as a patriotic Singaporean it is my obligation to put forth my views about what it is good and what is not good about this nation from this nation.
On the professional/personal front things moved in interesting directions. For once I had to live without a monthly retainer. Having to worry about my next meal was rough....Thankfully, I have Huong back in my life and I am starting to appreciate what my Dad once said about having a woman with ambition in your life. Thanks to Huong I am now helping Vietnamese in Singapore learn English. It's not making me rich but it pays bills.
In a way, you could say that whatever “teaching” I've been doing has been starting to pay off. My first and final professional strikes of the year came courtesy of Mr Glenn Lim, Director of 20Twenty Pr. I met Glenn for a brief period in 2005 when I worked at BANG PR. He was my intern and when he returned to BANG after I left, we continued our friendship. I will not hessitate to keep stressing that he has become a far better PR consultant than me. He has proven that small one-man-agencies can win in both online and off line PR. He blessed me with work on New Zealand Natural and with the Family Business Network. I look forward to more collaborations with him.
I also need to thank Ms Kavita Balakrishnan and her brother Venkat for their friendship. I met Kavita two years ago when she worked for one of my business partners. It was she who ensured that I had the warmth of friendship on my birthday and at Christmas.
In a funny way, I also bless this year for blessing someone else. Joyce, the love of my life has just got herself a job paying a decent salary. I thank God for giving her a chance to do what she needs to do – to look after Yooga.
Life had a few promises. I was approached by a headhunter online trying to recruite me for Accenture. I also had the good fortune to work on a project with former Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Tun Mussa Hitam. Unfortunately, the relationship with Edleman Malaysia proved to be based on something other than mutual respect – a fact that I was to discover five months after the job was done.
As always, I am greatful to Mr PN Balji, former Editor-in-Chief of the Today Newspaper. It was thanks to Balji that I managed to work on one of the most interesting projects I've worked on.
However, I am more greatful for his introduction to a man who has given me hope for Singapore – Mr Philip Wong. Mr Wong has dedicated his life to inventions and at the time of writing he may have something that could change the way the human race does things.
Through my work with Mr Wong, I have had the privillege of meeting Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, the CEO of Real Kaiten. Ms Chong, a leading member of the ruling party's youth wing has has founded a company that sees opportunity in a part of the world that nobody looks at. She sees profit in making sure that people have a chance to live properly.
Much to those worry of those who love me most, I have come to except that I am meant to life in a world of uncertainty and turmoil. In a funny way, the world is moving to suite people like me. In the Middle East there was the Arab Spring, which saw huge people-power demonstrations brining down long standing autocrates like Ben-Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Qaddafi in Libya. These were men who had an 'iron-grip' on power for decades thanks through a combination of ruthlessness with domestic opponents and convincing outside powers (Westen ones) that it was in their interest to keep them in power. However, when their people.....simple ordinary people, had enough – these rullers had no choice but to flee.
In a curious way, what happened in the Middle East was a catalyst for things to happen elsewhere. In the Western world, people had enough of being screwed by powerful elites and occupied Wall Street. Even Singapore wasn't spared. We had two-elections and suddenly our normally politically apathetic public discovered our love to our country at the ballot box.
Something amazing happened on this little island that usually accepts being browbeaten as a necessary fact of life. The people forced the government to listen. The Ruling Party lost an unprecdented six-seats in the General Election and its prefered candidate barely squeaked home in the Presidential election despite every concievable advantage. The much maligned Singapore electorate showed an incredible amount of wisdom by returning a government with a good track record but at the same time giving legitimacy to the one opposition party that had the hunger and know-how to form an alternative government – the Workers Party. Opposition politics in Singapore has moved from being about disgruntled ego-maniacs to being about an intelligent alternative.
All these changes might not necessarily be better from the point of material gain. However, its a wonder from the point of view of the human spirit. For me, I discovered that my only hobby has become my only asset. This blog has doubled in size and I've had people tell me that I've managed to strike a chord with them.
I still haven't figured out how to make blogging pay and I'm not the only one. My fellow intelligent bloggers tell me that they haven't either. However, we will continue to do what we do – which is to put across different views from the mainstream and to get people thinking.
Gone are the days when Singapore could survive as a robotics factory for the Western World. We on this little island need to think and debate. We need to find our own solutions instead of relying on the government to be the almighty and all knowing guide. I do what I do in the full knowledge that I may risk offending someone but I pray that even when I offend, I am able to provoke a thought. I take the view that as a patriotic Singaporean it is my obligation to put forth my views about what it is good and what is not good about this nation from this nation.
On the professional/personal front things moved in interesting directions. For once I had to live without a monthly retainer. Having to worry about my next meal was rough....Thankfully, I have Huong back in my life and I am starting to appreciate what my Dad once said about having a woman with ambition in your life. Thanks to Huong I am now helping Vietnamese in Singapore learn English. It's not making me rich but it pays bills.
In a way, you could say that whatever “teaching” I've been doing has been starting to pay off. My first and final professional strikes of the year came courtesy of Mr Glenn Lim, Director of 20Twenty Pr. I met Glenn for a brief period in 2005 when I worked at BANG PR. He was my intern and when he returned to BANG after I left, we continued our friendship. I will not hessitate to keep stressing that he has become a far better PR consultant than me. He has proven that small one-man-agencies can win in both online and off line PR. He blessed me with work on New Zealand Natural and with the Family Business Network. I look forward to more collaborations with him.
I also need to thank Ms Kavita Balakrishnan and her brother Venkat for their friendship. I met Kavita two years ago when she worked for one of my business partners. It was she who ensured that I had the warmth of friendship on my birthday and at Christmas.
In a funny way, I also bless this year for blessing someone else. Joyce, the love of my life has just got herself a job paying a decent salary. I thank God for giving her a chance to do what she needs to do – to look after Yooga.
Life had a few promises. I was approached by a headhunter online trying to recruite me for Accenture. I also had the good fortune to work on a project with former Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Tun Mussa Hitam. Unfortunately, the relationship with Edleman Malaysia proved to be based on something other than mutual respect – a fact that I was to discover five months after the job was done.
As always, I am greatful to Mr PN Balji, former Editor-in-Chief of the Today Newspaper. It was thanks to Balji that I managed to work on one of the most interesting projects I've worked on.
However, I am more greatful for his introduction to a man who has given me hope for Singapore – Mr Philip Wong. Mr Wong has dedicated his life to inventions and at the time of writing he may have something that could change the way the human race does things.
Through my work with Mr Wong, I have had the privillege of meeting Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, the CEO of Real Kaiten. Ms Chong, a leading member of the ruling party's youth wing has has founded a company that sees opportunity in a part of the world that nobody looks at. She sees profit in making sure that people have a chance to live properly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)