Desparatebeep

For the Love of Blotchy

2012-02-14T16:17:00.000+08:00

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.

A Question of Faith

2012-02-10T19:11:00.000+08:00

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.

Arrested but Not Really.....

2012-02-07T19:03:00.001+08:00

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.

The Elephant in the Middle East

2012-01-31T00:26:00.001+08:00

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 World's Local …......

2012-01-11T00:49:00.001+08:00

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.”

The Distraction Over Salaries

2012-01-07T03:40:00.002+08:00

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

Full of Crap – But Encouraging Non the Less

2011-12-31T17:13:00.000+08:00

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.

Bring Back the CHRIST in Christmas

2011-12-26T22:57:00.001+08:00

Christmas has now departed into Boxing Day and so I thought I would try and write a few words about what it was like to spend Christmas in Singapore instead of heading back to Germany. Although I had a pretty good Christmas with friends and family, I find myself agreeing with Pope Benedict. It’s time to bring CHRIST back to Christmas.

Everyday of walking down Orchard Road (Singapore’s main shopping district) was a nightmare. Not only was the place crowded with shoppers, one couldn’t help but be bombarded with endless, meaningless promotions to get you to buy things that you don’t really want or need. Yes, I am well aware that Christmas is supposed to have gone beyond its Christian roots and become a “universal” festival. However, a trip down Orchard Road has confirmed my belief that we’ve merely moved away from the Gospel of Christ to the Gospel of Mindless Consumerism.

OK, let’s clarrify, I am not against business. Of all people, I should be very pro-business and I should be greatful when people like retailers do well. I am also not against gift giving or having a good meal (though I should probably have a lot less of those). What I can’t take is how all of this has over shadowed the most significant part of Christmas – Christ.

I’ve not been confirmed in Church so you can’t call me a Christian in the truest sense of the word. However, I believe in the divinity of Christ and his message. If you read the Gospels and try to understand what the man was saying, you’ll find that he was preaching a simply put powerful message. This message is revered by everyone or at it least in should be.

Let’s face it, everyone agrees that Jesus is Holy. Christians see him as “God, the Son.” The Muslims revere him as one of God’s greatest prophets (Fact – the Koran mentions Jesus more often than it mentions Mohammed and it talks about Jesus’s return to fight the Anti-Christ). There is a sect of Hinduism that recognises Jesus as a Saint and the Dalai Lama has described Jesus as a Bodhisatva. Everyone agrees the man was Holy – we merely disagree with the extent of how holy he was.

So let’s start with our common ground – Jesus was Holy and what he said and did was sacred. From here we need to look at why he was so.

I think the answer is fairly simple – he taught us that life was about something greater than ourselves. Life, if you are merely focused on “Me, Myself and I” is pretty pointless. As I get older, I also realise that when people become so focused on themselves at the cost of everything else – they also don’t get very far.

I don’t believe that Christ was advocating being a doormat for every mercenary shit on the planet. My former half’s former pastor said it best – “Meek does not mean stupid.” There are times when one has to be firm about certain things. However, I believe that Christ did teach people that it was important to be driven by something other than the need to feed yourself.

If you study the Gospel, Christ talks about the willingness to “carry ones cross” to follow him. He urges rich men to sell their posessions and distribute it to the poor so that they could become followers of his. One of his best sound bites was “Man cannot serve two masters.” You serve money or God not both.

Once again, I don’t believe he was being “anti-business.” I don’t think Christ ever argued that one cannot make a profit. What I believe he said was that ones motive had to be about more than just making money.

Business should make money. However, that money has to benefit humanity rather than encourage greed. Businesses need not necessarily be philanthropic but at the very least they should create benefits – ie they should provide people with a means of making a living as well as making life better through the products or services that they provided. Businesses that encourage greed and thrived because of it would eventually fail.

There may be a point to this argument. Look at the banking system, which moved from being about lending money to people to being about creating financial products based on some fantasy to create vast sums of money for a few people. When you are focused on lending money, you remember things like risk and return. When you are focused on creating money out of thin air, you forget basic laws of physics.

I look at the people who have topped the Forbes Rich List consistently over the last two decades. Two names stick out – Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Both are highly decent men who were driven by something more than just personal enrichment. I know the technies will hate me for saying it but Bill Gates did do something good when he made computers useable to the average person. Sure Microsoft PC is dull when compared to Apple Mac but serves a purpose and it gives people a chance to do more that what they ever dreamed of before. Bill Gates has created vast wealth for ordinary people – Seattle is filled with ordinary people who did the ordinary thing of taking a job with Microsoft for normal wages but ended up becoming millionaires through their stock options.

Warren Buffet only invest in “real” businesses (those with a genuine product or service) . He avoids things that are complicated and don’t make sense even to the chaps who created them. Buffet avoided investing in “Dot.Com” because it was too complicated and he realised the valuations were created by funny money rather than something real. What’s the result of this – Mr Buffet has created wealth for people and his AGM (Annual General Meetings) are constantly packed. Mr Buffet does not need to hide behind “National Security” and “Libel” laws to show that he’s making money.

Messers Gates and Buffet have made legendary fortunes by not being obsessed with personal enrichment. Their focus has been on doing something else and by doing their something else well, they’ve made their fortunes. Warren Buffet says it best, “I am more interested in processes than proceeds – though I’ve learnt to live with those too.”

The Gospel of Christ is in people like Gates and Buffet. The Gospel of Mindless Consumerism is in the people who gave us the Sub-Prime Crisis. Both have created wealth but only one has been sustainable.

People should give gifts at Christmas and they should spend time with friends and family. What we should not do is to see Christmas as an exercise in buying things we don’t need and stuffing ourselves into something unrecognisable.

Christ taught us to look at life as something greater than ourselves. Its tough doing it but when people find the strength to do good, they become better people. When they don’t the worst in them takes over.

In the last few years, the world has gone through something of an economic downturn. This has been brought about largely by a culture that encourages people to behave at their worst. This is the type of culture where Christmas is celebrated by excessive spending driven by the need to own more for the sake of owning. This is the state where we talkbout “Xmas” and other variations of the festival because the Christ has been forgotten.

Given the economic downturn that we’ve been living in, isn’t time we brought back the CHRIST to Christmas and worked on having a culture that encourages us to bring out the best in each other?

Who Gives a Shit At Christmas about Plebs?

2011-12-21T00:13:00.001+08:00

You have to hand it to Singapore's Mass Rapid Transport (SMRT) for their ability to demonstrate a tin-ear to the demands of the public and the worst possible time. The disruption of the North-South Line on Thursday 15 December 2011 was a slap in the face of a nation that takes so much pride in the fact that it has a “World Class” transport system. While the disruption on its own was bad, the company proceeded to make matters worse by its inept handling of the situation – the infamous “income opportunity” message it flashed to all its taxis is currently competing with Whitley Detention Centre's lack of a window grill as a symbol of incompetence.

The only saving grace of this whole afair was the fact that the Singapore Government acted like it cared. The Prime Minister cut short a holiday and called for a public enquirey while the transport minister proceeded to become very vocal. Thanks to the pressure ontop, the management of SMRT proceeded to run a series of checks on the rail system and what did we find? It turned out that there were a mere 61 faults in the rails and 13 trains were found to be deffective.

I don't think this is acceptable by anyone's standards, let alone for a nation that takes so much pride in how it has climbed to the top of the world in just about everything. It brings me to the last days of my national service, when the powers-that-be could happily tell us that five out of every hundred fuzes were deffective and they only bothered to discover this after two people died and this wasn't the fault of the all caring defense procurement companies.

Its been a decade over since the incident in New Zealand took place and although I like my contemporaries have managed to move on from the emotional trauma of the incident, I still get irked whenever I read about incidents in Singapore that were caused by disregard by upper echelons for the people below them. I don't blame my commanders for the incident. Looking back at the incident, I can accept that my bosses did the best that they could in the circumstances that we were thrown in.

What I cannot and I should not accept is the way the Committee of Inquirey found a host of safety lapses between the people who were supposed to buy the ammunition and the people who were supposed to receive it on our (The people who fire the gun) behalf and then out of the blue the story that came out of this was how they were dupped by greedy Americans who outsourced it to shoddy Chinese Manufacturing. Nobody was persecuted for what can only be described as criminal negligence. This was an eye-opener to the way the world worked – too many of the “right” people were making money from defense procurement to allow this incident to blow a hole into the system even if it cost two lives and countless of injuries. I suppose you could say my batch got lucky – Ronnie and Yin Tit paid for one faulty fuze. I hate to think what the battalion would have been like with if we got all five out a hundred faulty fuzes (We fire around 400 plus rounds per exercise – at that rates, we'd all have come home in body bags).

Nearly a decade and a half later, I'm no longer reading about fuzes for an artillery round but trains. Sure, nobody died when the train service got disrupted but whoes to say that it wouldn't happen the next time. In a way, the faults from this incidents are more unforgivable than the fault that caused the explosion in New Zealand all those years ago in the sense that these are faults that could easily have been detected.

The train system shuts down every single night by midnight and it only reopens five and a half hours later. A basic inspection of the system is supposed to detect faults like this. Sure, I can except that you can repair all the faults immediately but surely in that time, you can repair some of the more serious ones?

So one has to ask – how is it possible that we're now finding 61 faults to the rail system? More seriously – how the hell are we finding out that we have 13 defective trains running across the system. Surely one could have repaired at least one of those trains in a basic nightly inspection. Why are we running 13 defective trains on the system?

What's worse for SMRT is the fact that it has asked for and received the right to increase the rates it charges consumers. Thanks to the Young Muslim Politician who Supports the 2008 bombing of the Gaza Strip from Pasir Ris GRC aka Thambi Pundek, I knew what the transport opperators were claiming (he was trying to hawk it) - “They were not making money from providing transport at the current fares they were charging.” They were of course making enough money to pay the CEO of SMRT her S$1.6 million annual salary as well as dividends for the shareholders (largest one being Temasek Holdings).

Well, I'm not going to go into the financial statements of the transport opperators but what's clear is that the money which seemed to flow to the senior management and majority shareholders didn't flow into simple routine checks that could have saved people a lot of agravation and trauma.

I lived in London for three-years as a student. I used the tube regularly enough. The tunnel system was built in the Victorian era and in many ways, the fact that the system works is a miracle. When you compare the facilities we have to what London has, we're way ahead in terms of modernity and the latest technology.

Yet, despite this, I never heard of a massive train disruption on the tube system in the three-years I lived there nor in the subsequent years since then. By contrast, Singapore's much younger and much more modern system has produced 61 faults and 13 deffective trains within a space of two decades.

For all its faults, the London Underground understands that it needs to do basic things. The tube user is at the centre of the system. Sure, its not glitzy or comfy to travel by tube but the system doesn't get broken down by basic faults. Money is spent on doing basic things to ensure the system runs.

By contrast Singapore has a system that lavishes money on the glitz and the glam and somehow neglects basics. Swanky stations make Ministers feel good when they brag to the world about how great we are. Opperator CEOs look good when they buy swanky gadgets. Nobody except the end user suffers when basic things are not taken care of.

I couldn't except being on the receiving end of this disregard for the small man when I was in National Service. I don't see why I should stand for it now that I'm older and way past military liability. These are not things I receive as part of someone elses generosity but things I pay for as a consumer and a tax payer.

Acountability is not a wishy-washy Western liberal dream that is unsuitable for Singapore's “Asian” society. Demanding it is the most practical and patriotic obligation of every citizen.

Jobs for Sale

2011-12-16T18:58:00.000+08:00

If you are worried about looking for a job or keeping your existing job, do not fear for there is an industry that will gladly take you up – it’s called “Jobs for Sale.” This isn’t exactly a new industry but its been gaining a bit of publicity thanks to pesky people on the Internet who don’t understand business and the importance of economic growth.

The concept behind “Jobs for Sale” is wonderfully simple. All you have to do is to find someone who wants a job and get them to pay you for giving them a job. Like many industries, “Jobs for Sale” is particularly hot in Asia. This region has lots of poor saps who are desparate for work that they’ll happily get their home villages to mortgage themselves and they’ll pay you to get a less than minimal wage in your country.

If you’re from the USA, the figure can get as high as US$10,000 per person and the price lowers if its near by. Singapore, for example isn’t a bad place to opperate your own “Jobs for Sale” business. Its smack-bang in the centre of a region filled with desparate and poor people who will some find the money to get a job into Singapore. The rates are not bad – you can make about S$6,000 per person per year. So, imagine if you could get 10 clowns into the country. You’d earn something like S$60,000 a year without having to do to much.

The downside of this business is also liveable. The key is to stay on the right side of the immigration authorities. You need to pay off a “workers levy” which will cost about S$3000 a year. The second most important thing to do is to ensure that the people you sell a job to happen to be “Darkies” from other parts of Asia or Africa. “Darkies” unlike “Pink Blotchies” do not have annoying things like embassies that complain about wishy-washy things like “Human Rights.” You should also make it a point to house the “Darkies” in a place far away from rich residents who might complain about the “smell” coming from the “Darkies.”

You don’t have to spend money on housing “darkies” either. If your cards correctly, you can actually make money – enough to pay off the money you spent in levy payments. All you need is something like $10 a day for a bed space.

The nice thing about Singapore is that the infrastructure for this business is in place. For example, if you don’t pay the “Darkies” who you employ business, you can always let refer the case to the Ministry of Manpower. The Ministry will take about two months to investigate and that should give you enough time to look for “specialist” to help you remove the pesky workers who actually have to gall to do something as UnSingaporean as expected to get paid. We have people called “Repatriation” specialist who will happily help you to help you get your problem to disappear.

Do the maths and you’ll realise that this is a growth area and it’s a good time to get onto the bandwagon. Sell enough jobs and before you know – you may even get the opportunity to claim an award for contributing so much to the nation’s economic growth.

The Rot and Hope

2011-12-01T22:25:00.001+08:00

Just read a story by Alex Au who is one of Singapore's most prominent bloggers that confirms one of my biggest heart breaks – there's something rotten in the state of Singapore. The story was about a boss who brought over 600 foreign workers from Bangladesh and housed them in cage. Instead of paying them, the boss in question allowed them to rot there and as expected, one of them actually died. As a result of this, the boss was – wait till you hear this – 4 weeks in jail and served a $36,000 fine. You can get the details of the story at: http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/jail-for-bosses-who-mistreat-workers-says-judge/

I don't know what it is but I'm shocked. I shouldn't be – I've lived here for over a decade. This isn't the only time I've read about how badly people can be treated especially if they have the misfortune of being born dark skinned and from another Asian country. As far as an alarming number of Singapore's educated professionals are concerned, the proverbial “Darkies” from the rest of Asia are blessed enough to clean our shit.

What's more worrying is that there have been too many times when the system, which prides itself in being above the petty prejudices of people, sometimes accepts and supports the prejudices. In this case the system showed itself to be as rotten as the people who committed the crime. Let's look at this case. The man conned the vulnerable into the country on the promise that they would have a job. The people that he conned flocked to Singapore in the hope that they'd have the chance of supporting their families. Instead they ended up living in a cage with no job and no money. He fed them two insignificant meals. One of the men ended up getting chicken pox and died as a result.

For cheating and dare I say causing the death of one of them, he was finned $36,000 a sentenced to four weeks in jail. Now, let's compare this to what you will get if you suggest that the powers that be in this little island are less than perfectly clean or if you damage property but not human life?

Let's start with Michael Faye, the American Teenager who caused one of our bigger diplomatic rows with the USA. Mr Faye decided that it was fun to damage other people's property and for that he got a few strokes of the cane. Since the US President of the day complained, we made the mistake of reducing his strokes by two instead of increasing them (Mr Faye is a Pink Blotchy and therefore considered above human in Singapore Speak).

While I may have agreed with Mr Faye's punishment – let's compare this to what this man got. Mr Faye was a brat and showed no consideration for someone else's property. As an expat child Mr Faye was enjoying the good life in Singapore but when the time came for him to face the music for his misdeeds he ran squealing to the US Embassy claiming he was somehow special. I remain unsympathetic towards Mr Faye and I am disgusted every time the Singapore Government lightens the sentence of someone from a Blotchy Country because the Blotchy Head of Government says something. I personally feel that if Pink Blotchies can get away every time their governments squeal, we the people have an obligation to delivering the extra-sentence that our government reduced.

Having said that, let's compare Mr Faye's crimes to Mr Paul Lee's. Mr Faye was a brat but he never took a life or even caused a physical injury. Yet he will now be scared for life. Mr Lee on the other hand brought people to Singapore on false promises and housed people in conditions that caused the death of someone. If Mr Faye's damage of property is worth several of the best, surely Mr Lee's damage to human life has to be worth something similar?

Now, let's look at what you get if you suggest that the people ruling Singapore are a shade less than squeaky? Well, in November 1995, the International Herald Tribune had to pay a mere $214,285 to settle a libel case against the powers-that-be. In 2008, a blogger called Gopalan Nair was arrested for accusing a judge of being a “Prostitute,” in a libel case that involved one of the powers-that-be and sentenced to three-months in jail.

I do agree that there should be laws against slandering people. Calling people names that damage their reputations should have a price. However, did International Herald Tribune and Gopalan Nair kill people? Did they cheat anyone, especially the vulnerable? No, they didn't. In fact they took on the most powerful people in the land and rightly or wrongly they paid the price.

Let's look at the price of calling someone in power a name and the price is either a few months in jail or a hefty fine or even both. However, if you cheat a couple of hundred darkies and place them in conditions that causes the death of one of them, your financial penalty is six times less than slandering the powerful and the jail time is three times less.

I'm sorry, but isn't there something wrong here. We are supposed to be a country that prides itself in its justice system. We make it a point of telling foreign investors that they can deal with a somewhat fair legal system when they invest in Singapore. We are a country that announces to the world that we practice this thing called “Equality of all before the law.” We claim that we are “Ruled by Law.”

So since we're making all these claims, where exactly is the equality of the law here. It seems clear that there is one law for Pink Blotchies and Posh Singaporeans and another law for Darkies and poor Singaporeans. Are we ruled by law or are we ruled by the whims of the man on top?

The lesson from these cases here is that as long as you live in Singapore you better bow-down and kiss the feet of every impotent Pink Blotchy but you are perfectly entitled to kick the shit out of any Darkie. If you tell the Blotchies that you don't wish to donate your hard earned money to their scam, they are entitled to complain to their embassy and our government will rush to defend their right to rob you blind. On the other hand you are entitled to kick the shit out of Darkies – even if you end up killing one of the buggers the law will slap you on the wrist with a fine that you can always pay in installments (Mr Lee incidentally had more than enough cash to pay people off) and you may get housed in jail at the tax payers expense.

The saddest thing about this whole affair is that it could have been prevented. As Alex Au's report points to – the police were called several times and somehow they couldn't find anything wrong. They merely had a glance at the premises and saw that everything was OK.

Seriously, what's the point of having police officers if the only idea of investigation is to make a phone call or just have a quick look at things?

Just observe the way the police take an active role in questioning Darkies who happen to be sitting at the corridor minding their own business. A darkie who has the misfortune of wanting to stroll at night will undoubtedly be questioned by police.

However, if Pink Blotchies want to get drunk and display their culture by singing their folk songs (Ere' we Go, Ere' we go is a Blotchy Folk Song that's played during football matches), nobody seems inclined to say anything. When youth gangs start loitering, the police are equally blind to the problems they may cause.

Seriously, there's something so rotten in Singapore and with Singaporeans that it's gone beyond the state of funny. How can we as a society tolerate and accept this as being part of our natural landscape?

Well, there is hope. I think the first ray of hope comes from people like Alex Au who report the things that the mainstream media don't. We need more people like Alex Au and Andrew Loh the former Editor of the Online Citizen and now Public House, who are willing to look for the voices.

The internet provides people like these men to organise voices together. They help remind Singaporeans that they have an active role in creating the community that they want. My only regret is that being a good person is financially crap. Neither Alex or Andrew is racking it in from the advertisers nor do they have the privilege of having people willing to pay for the content that they provide. Both Alex and Andrew are better patriots than say – The Young Muslim Politician who Supports Israel's Blockade of Gaza from Pasir Ris GRC aka Thambi Pundek. Both have accepted that they're going to be struggling to pay bills to do what they do but yet they continue. This is genuine love for the country. So at the ground you have the Alex Au's and Andrew Loh's who will get people thinking and hopefully standing up for themselves.

There is hope from the top too. Mr Lee had the audacity to try and appeal his already light sentence and ran into Justice VK Rajah. Thank God Singapore still has judges like this man who understands what justice is. He rightfully rejected Mr Lee's appeal and proceeded to chide the lower courts for giving him such a ridiculously light sentence.

There is something rotten in the state of Singapore but there's also hope. As an ordinary citizen struggling to make a living, its tough to deal with the rot but when you know there's hope life becomes a little lighter.

The Beautiful Racist

2011-11-28T11:18:00.000+08:00

I'm so grateful to the Prime Minister for making the point that there must be no compromise on the issue of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism. Singapore has always taken pride in the fact that it's a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. Yet, if you believe media reports, our so called tolerance for racial and cultural diversity has taken something of a knock. It seems people have been flocking to cyberspace to revel in being ugly racist and its necessary for the government to get involved in legislating away our racist tendencies.

So, here's an interesting question – exactly how racist are Singaporeans? Do we really need the government to teach us how to be nice, tolerant people? Like everything in Singapore you have to look beneath what you see to get the real answer. If you ask me, I would say that after a decade of living in Singapore, the answer is – it depends on who you are talking about. If you talk about “official” Singapore or the Singapore that the powers-that-be you would like you to see, the answer is that Singapore talks a good talk but manipulates racism to suite its political needs.

Let's look at the “official” position. As far as officialdom is concerned, Singapore is a harmonious society that has somehow managed to keep people of different races living and working together in peace and harmony. All our senior government officials make the right noises about race and religion. How can you argue against the Prime Minister when he says that we will NEVER compromise on the fact that we are a multi-racial and multi-cultural society? I personally think the Prime Minister is right when he says that we need to be open to people from all over the world. Singapore does need skilled and hungry people to keep things moving.

The powers-that-be have reacted well in managing race-relations on many of the key occasions. Our most recent example came when a member of the ruling party's youth-wing posted a rather crude but provocative poster about young Muslim Children on his Facebook account. The young man was made to resign and he issued a public apology. The government has on a few occasions clamped down on bloggers who have written disturbing things about “other” communities.

The government also uses “carrot” measures as well as “stick” ones when it comes to the management of race-relations. I remember attending a conference on crime and terrorism prevention. One of the speakers couldn't stop praising the way Singapore's government worked with the Muslim community in rooting out terrorism suspects and avoided creating the “us-versus-them” atmosphere that became common in the West after September 11, 2001.

So, on the surface of things you can't fault the Singapore government for its management of race-relations. Or has it?

If you scratch beneath the surface, things are not as rosy as they look. Let's start with the fact that there are policies that are exceedingly questionable. The most obvious example can be found in the armed forces. Everyone knows that being Malay is a handicap if you want to have a career in the military. If you are a non-Malay and you want to kill off a promising military career, all you need to do is to date a Muslim girl and habour thoughts of marrying her and converting to Islam.

Perhaps this policy had a use in the early days of independence when our most likely opponent in a military conflict were predominantly Malay-Muslim nation states. However, as we move away from the possibility that future conflicts will be against nation states but “non-state” actors, we need to ask ourselves if this policy is justified. One might even argue that open discrimination against promoting Malay-Muslim's in the uniformed services is detrimental to National Security as our security focus shifts from a potential conflict with predominantly Malay-Muslim Nation States to working with Malay-Muslim Nation states to defeat the “non-state” actors like terrorist groups.

The most ridiculous example of this open discrimination against the Malay-Muslim community can be seen whenever a production-house is selected to shoot a commercial for the armed forces. My Dad used to lose out on this business because his crew were local Malay who had served National Service. My father remains a respected director and in his day was considered the best within the region (excluding India and China). Leaving aside the fact that he was and in many ways remains pricy, you would imagine that the Singapore government would have given the job to a regionally recognized local director who hired local Singaporeans who served their National Service. Despite my father's contributions to Singapore, he and his film crew were denied entry into military facilities while foreign directors with on many occasions a lesser reputation than my father and their foreign film crews (usually Hong Kong) were given open access to military bases.

That is unfortunately not the only example of “official” racism. My favourite comparison is in the police presence in Orchard Towers (Pink Blotchies contributing to the economy by selling things to Darkies) and Geylang (Darkies sponging off the economy and Pink Blotchies by working for Pink Blotchies and buying things from them). If you look at the way the police behave in these areas, you'd get the impression that a group of darkies sitting by the roadside having a cup of tea constitute a greater threat to the peace than a group drunken Pink Blotchies. I'm not sure how they worked that one out?

Wait for the season when the government decides it needs to do something about the vice-trade. The police will round up a group of girls from a “darkie” country and deport them. The press will then announce with great fan-fare about how the government is cracking down on vice. There's only one problem – the Blotchies who are contributing the most money to the trade and therefore the reason why “Darkie” girls from other parts of Asia are the trade are left untouched by the law. As such, the vice-trade in Singapore remains a highly lucrative business.

Officialdom doesn't see anything wrong with being obviously racist. I like my White South-African friend who only got his employment-pass when he visited Immigration and showed that he was obviously a Pink Blotchy. My friend was asked “What do they call you?” The question was asked several times and he finally got what they were alluding to when the guy asked the question and pointed to his skin. You got to laugh at the situation here. My friend is from South-Africa, a country that was officially racist and proud of it. Yet when the country decided that it didn't want to be racist, everyone came out and said they saw themselves as “South African.” By contrast you have Singapore, a country that talks about “regardless of race or religion” yet sees nothing wrong in having its government officials rubbing their skin while asking, “What do they call you?”

The law as they say is colour-blind – that is if you have the misfortune of being a darkie who has a employer who decided to hire a “repatriation company” to send you back home at you expense when you get injured on the work site. Its somehow not illegal for the “repatriation company” to hold you against your will in what can only be described as a cell and then bundle you out of the country and then send you the bill.

So, let's ask ourselves, how serious is the government about multi-racialism? It might be worth asking ourselves how “un-racist” we are since we don't seem terribly disturbed by this.

I suspect that the government knows it can allow certain things to happen because the public is oblivious to certain things and lives in fear of darkies from other parts of Asia.

If you talk to the average Singaporean, you'd be shocked by some of the attitudes that they hold. My ex-wife comes to mind. This “graduate” Singapore Chinese girl couldn't bear the thought of me having Malay and Indian friends. Despite being on the generous end of a local Indian crook, she once declared, “I can't work for Indians for the rest of my life.” The woman had been to school long enough to get a degree. She had obviously worked with people from other races and yet she couldn't accept that I might friends beyond my own race. I remember she objected my interactions with a sales girl because I was “Flirting with a MALAY.”

I suspect the blame lies somewhere in the teaching of languages in Singapore. Gina's father, Yong Koon, the egg seller wasn't immune from bouts of chauvinism. However, he belonged to a generation when people of different cultures mingled together and somehow had to find a way of getting along. The end result was everyone had to pick up everyone else s languages.

Anthropology teaches that language is culture. So if you work on this idea, you'll see that when you have a situation where people pick-up each others languages they also pick up each other. While the pre-independence generation had its prejudices their unity was more natural. They worked together and understood each other because they could relate to cultures beyond their own.

Then some bright spark in the Ministry of Education decided that they would reorder people's ethnic identity. People were told – if you are Indian you learn English and Tamil, if you are Malay you learn English and Malay and if you are Chinese it's English and Mandarin. The government got especially stringent on eradicating Chinese dialects. According to Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding Prime Minister – the human brain isn't large enough to learn Chinese dialects in addition to English and Mandarin (though its OK to learn Arabic and Hindi).

The result of this policy was an end to natural integration. The only language people had in common was English, the language of to coloniser. Having English was a good move in the sense that it allowed Singapore to connect to the rest of the world. However, having English as the ONLY language people had in common reduced the things people had in common. Instead of creating a situation where everyone has a bit of everyone elses culture it was you have your own culture and an imposed culture and the only means of communication was through the imposed culture.

One only needs to go across the Causeway to Malaysia, a country that has laws that discriminates against one ethnic group in favour of another. Officially there is a preferred race. Yet race-relations in Malaysia seem to work more naturally. Malaysian politics is messy when compared to Singapore's and race does play a role in politics. Yet when you interact with Malaysians, you'll find they're race-relations work better than in Singapore.

How is this possible in a “racist” country? Answer – the minority Indians and Chinese accept that the majority Malay-Muslim population gets certain perks but by and large people are left alone. People have to mingle and pick up various languages between various communities as well as various cultures.

On paper Singapore has done a better job of managing race-relations than Malaysia. However, Singaporeans are struggling to reconcile their national and cultural identities because its been defined for them. By contrast people are comfortable with their National and Cultural identities because it's grown from the ground up. Integration is a natural process rather than an enforced process.

The Arena

2011-11-23T23:41:00.000+08:00

I attended a conference organised by the Institute of South Asian Studies (isas) today. The general theme of the conference was about how South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka) could better engage with South East Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Laos, Timor Leste, Myanmar, Cambodia and Brunei). Since the conference was held in Singapore, the main thrust of the conversation was about improving economic ties, particularly with India -Asia's “Other” Giant.

However, another important discussion was discussed – the issue of security. South Asia has flash points – particularly the India-Pakistan rivalry. However, there was also the issue of the growing possibility of growing competition between Asia's two giants – China and India. One of the plenniary discussion involved the issue of security in the Bay of Bengal. The discussion panel had a former Vice-Admiral from the Indian Navy and an adviser to the Chinese government discussing the security issues of their particular nations in the area.

This topic of rivalries got me thinking. Why isn't Singapore offering itself as a meeting point for rivals to thrash out issues far away from the pressures of their domestic audience. We've talked about being a “hub” for nearly everything else so why can't we be a hub for “sports diplomacy?” Singapore is what you could call an ideal arena for all the great rivals of the world to play out their rivalries on the sports field.

They sports is a substitute for war. Nations play sports against each other to release national tensions that might otherwise go towards fighting wars. Look at Europe. When the British Isles were brought together into the United Kingdom the wars the various Kingdoms had were replaced by sporting rivalries – think of the England vs Scotland football match or the England vs Wales Rugby Match. Further afield the English have stopped going to war with the Germans. During the Cold War the only real fight between the Superpowers was at the Olympics when they would duke it out to see who emerged top of the medal table.

The more nations play together the less likely they are to fight wars against each other. It's a bit hard to shoot and kill someone you're meeting on the sports field.

So, creating opportunities for people to play together is a good thing and Singapore is in the unique position to doing this. We try to be friends with nearly everyone and just about everyone likes us. We're a wonderful neutral venue.

Creating sports events will provide a boost to the economy. Sports is big business in terms of television and tourist receipts. Why else to countries try so hard to host events like World Cups and Olympic Games?

Imagine this! Singapore could host an annual football match between Israel and Palestine. Like Israel, Singapore is a small non-Muslim state surrounded by larger Muslim neighbours. We have, however, a significant Muslim population. In other words, we have something in common with both sides.

The Israelis and Palestinians like football. They're passionate about it and they should be made to play together.

We could also host an annual cricket tournament between India and Pakistan. Both nations are cricket mad and instead of living out their rivalry through nuclear bombs they should live it out to cricket. Singapore provides a wonderful neutral venue. We have a significant Hindu and Muslim community for both sides to feel at home and we have the facilities to cater to their various needs.

Let's not forget about China and Taiwan. The majority of Singaporeans are descended from Fuji an Immigrants as are the Taiwanese. Our majority Chinese population speaks Mandarin, the language of both sides.

Singapore has played a deft hand with both Chinas. We have followed the official line of recognising the People's Republic as the only China but we've also kept our relationship with the Republic of China (As Taiwan is officially known) good enough for them to allow us to use their facilities for our military exercises.

So why can't we provide the two China's with a venue to live out their rivalry. Let both them meet annually for a game of something or other.

The government had a point in bringing great sporting events like F1 and the Youth Olympics to Singapore. It should be more whole hearted in its efforts to get Singapore to be an arena for the world's sporting events. Doesn't have to be on a global scale – just large enough to get two large nations focused on Singapore. The economic benefits are there. The political and security benefits are there.

So what are we waiting for? Isn't it time the bright sparks in our various ministries start working out how we can turn Singapore into the world's greatest sporting arena?

Strong Government or Strong Society?

2011-11-20T09:11:00.001+08:00

Whenever one wants to compare the two emerging powers of Asia the most usual place that they start at is the difference between the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi.

The Games in Beijing was superbly organised. The Chinese government knew that world would be focused on Beijing and it wanted to put on a show. Beijing's normally toxic areas were made green, slums and the beggars were removed. Residents were given a crash course in English so that they could be more helpful to international visitors.

By contrast the games in New Delhi could only be charitably described as a mess. Corruption reached such a ridiculous level that toilet paper supplied to the organisers ended costing as much as a bar of gold. Conditions in the village where the athletes were staying looked like some Delhi's slums and instead of removing the existing slums from public eye – the slums grew worse.

Simply put – China has a government that knows what needs to be done and does it while India has a government that does everything wrong. As the head honcho of an Indian multinational in Singapore once said, “You come to India with US$10million promising to create several hundred jobs and the Indian investment authorities will snarl and ask you 'why?' So you go to China and the Chinese have a grin on their face and say 'when!?' ” When you have this comparison you cannot help but feel that China's rise to the top is inevitable while India will somehow remain swimming in the shit despite its vast source of talent.

Democracy is blamed for this disparity. The Indians will point out that China is a Communist State where the government will simply bulldoze its way to get things done. If you need roads and railway tracks built it will be done with a blink of an eye. The Indian Government by contrast has to contend with democracy and a population used to things like human rights. You cannot bulldoze people out of their homes just like that in the name of economic development. As far as many well to do Indians are concerned, India needs a government like China's to grab the nation by the scruff of its neck pull it, kicking an screaming into the prosperous age.

However, there is a counter point that both Fareed Zakharia and Guruchandran Das have pointed to. Both men have argued while China has a far stronger government than India – India has a “strong society.” While the Indian government is helplessly inefficient, India has certain infrastructure advantages that China and other authoritarian states lack. These advantages are found mainly in the “soft” skills of its people. Places with “strong government” have superb physical infrastructure. However, places that have a “strong society” have people who are creative and resilient and will succeed and create the solutions that the governments aren't able to. I think of one of the opening lines of “The White Tiger” by Aravind Adiga - “Apparently, you Chinese are ahead of us in every way except you don't have entrepreneurs.”

There is a certain truism in this. India for its lack of physical infrastructure has a system that has allowed brilliant individuals to come up and somehow create fortunes out of nothing. While India has lost the race for foreign investment to China, India has been breeding small successful enterprises that have succeeded in spite of the Indian State. The most famous example is in IT. I'll always remember Arun Jain, Polaris's CEO telling CNBC Asia in 2004 - “Indian IT has succeeded because the Indian Government has stayed out of it and as long as it leaves us alone we shall be fine.” Funnily enough IT is only one area that has thrived in spite of the Indian government. India has also produced top quality bio-tech firms and let's not forget Bollywood too. If you look at the areas where India excels, you'll find that they're in the same areas where America excels. The USA is like India – a strong society rather than a strong government.

Not only does India produce world-class firms in high end industries, India has also provided the people to run corporations from the developed world. The prime-example that comes to mind is Citigroup which is Vikram Pandit as its CEO and Deepak Sharma as Chairman of its Private Bank. Singapore's DBS bank which is consciously trying to model itself on Citibank hired Piyush Gupta another Indian National as its CEO.

Let's face it – the Indian government may have bungled organising the Commonwealth Games but India is not just providing the people to do cheap things for Western firms – it's providing the people to run those firms too. Just think about it – the FDA is approving an increasing number of drugs based on research and clinical trials done in India.

How is India, the land of dreadful infrastructure producing world-class firms in high tech industries as well as corporate CEOs while China is not?

One argument is that India's physical infrastructure and government system is SO BAD that all the Indians with brains leave. The Chinese with brains and drive are too busy milking the opportunities in China to think of leaving. If you look at Singapore as an example, you'll see that there's a certain truism to this. The Indian Nationals who come to Singapore are highly educated while the Chinese are peasants.

However, let's not ignore other factors too. English speakers has been one major language that India has. India is the second largest English speaking nation after the USA (and given the influx of Hispanic Immigration into the USA let's not rule out the possibility that India may well become the world's largest English speaking nation one day). India's advantage with the English Language is that multinationals find it easier to get the right people from India than they do from China.

There's also a case to be made for India's democracy as well its legal system. While the Indian Legal system is mired in corruption and notoriously slow it has a legal system based on the rule of law. By contrast China has a system based on the rule of personality. As bad as the practice of law may be in India, there are rules to settle commercial disputes as well as to protect intellectual rights. In China things work like clock work as long as you keep the right fractions happy. Intellectual rights don't exist in China.

It's not just “fluffy” artist who get uptight over copyright. If you were in software or anything involving scientific research, you will also need your intangibles protected if you want to commercialise things.

China is thriving on a “brawn” economy while India has a “brain” economy. While Chinese “Brawn” is ahead in the development race the argument is that India's “brain” economy will be more enduring. In a way China is lucky in that its only used a small percentage of its “brawn” and it can tap on a vast source of “brawn” in the way that the Arabian Gulf States can tap on their oil for years to come. However, cheap brawn becomes less cheap and other cheaper places rise up. Vietnam comes to mind as a place that is grabbing the “cheap labour” work from China. Brain economies by contrast can last longer and command a higher price. Getting the right idea and the right execution takes brain and you can't do it on the cheap.

Strong societies can survive with awful government. It's questionable whether weak societies with strong governments can hold if that government ever becomes weak. One only needs to look at places like the former Yugoslavia or Saddam's Iraq to see what happens when you remove the strong man.

Both Tito and Saddam held their respective nations together. They were simply more powerful than everyone else in their own countries and so everyone else was united in fear and hatred for them. Once they left the scene the various ethnic groups realised that they hated each other as much as they hated the strong man so they ended up killing each other.

India is as if not more culturally diverse than Yugoslavia or Iraq were. Yet India has held together for over 50-years. Say what you like but India could only have done this by keeping its democracy. New Delhi sets the tone for certain things like defense and foreign affairs. Outside those broad perimeters the Tamil Speakers of Tamil Nadu can live their own separate lives from the Hindi Speakers in the north. English has helped provide the necessary glue whenever the different people have needed to come together. If you look at Indian IT companies, you'll find that they're usually based in Bangalore (Southern Indians are traditionally good at numbers) but run by Hindi or Gujurati entrepreneurs (Northern India produces the business people)

Can China last without the Communist Party? As far as the Communist Party is concerned the answer would be no. However, the party has been on a desperate quest to find a reason for continued success. Since China has long ceased to be a Communist Country in all but name, they need something else to hold the nation together. The alternate answer seems to be drawn from Singapore – the ability to deliver high rates of economic growth. So far so good. However, what happens when the party can no longer deliver the growth? Tienanmen in 1989 was incidentally a time of rampant inflation. Back then the army was willing to shoot. Its questionable whether today's PLA will follow the order to shoot its own people.

In a way, that's a sign for optimism. It shows that people have become so used to certain things that it will be impossible to put a lid on certain desires. While the economic boom has yet to hit the vast majority of Chinese, the Communist Party will simply never be able to revert things to be the way they were during the days of Mao. There are far too many people in China who have tasted the “good life” and had international exposure to accept the country living under a system where all but one percent are eeking a living.

The Communist Party has the luxury of playing the growth card for a while. There's also Nationalism, though one would argue that this may eventually lost credibility as politics gives way to economics (to all intents and purposes China and Taiwan have been unified by economics).

However, the party, if it wants to maintain stability will eventually have to consider devolving power to regions in the way that reduces Beijing's role to that of New Delhi or Washington DC.

If you look at development theories, you can draw a comparison with growing up. “Strong Government” is like coming from a family that can provide you with contacts and education. It gives you a good start in life. “Strong Society” is rather like self-reliance. Ultimately you need self-reliance to endure. In an ideal world one will have both or at least you start with one that leads to another.

There is a case for optimism in both China and India. If you look at both Asian Giants, they're strengths and weaknesses mirror each other. On the economic front the popular image is that China does manufacturing while India does software. However, not only is Sino-Indian trade increasing there's been “cross-pollination.” The Indians are getting manufacturing and the Chinese do get software and services.

On the social front things have the potential to get interesting. Both nations are resurgent. For Indians who see their nation as a “great power,” it is no longer acceptable to have incompetent and blatantly corrupt government. The comparison with China is galling and Indian governments will have to contend with an insistence by the up and coming class to get its act together.

For China there is a growing realisation of how the rest of the world works. The nation has understood that isolation doesn’t work. A growing number of people have seen how the rest of the world works and will not accept anything else. This won't necessarily lead to Western style two-party democracy. There is a chance that the Chinese Communist Party will evolve into something like Japan's Liberal Democratic Party (which was as liberal and democratic as China's Communist are Communist.)

What will be interesting for China will be how returning Chinese workers will shape Chinese society. Chinese workers outside of China have found an ability to develop habits of cooperation in order to survive. I think of the way Chinese workers grouped together and sat outside Singapore's Ministry of Manpower when they got cheated. They're ability to get together and stick together was admirable – it was the stuff that builds societies. It will be a blessing if this spirit of cooperation continues.......

The Problem with Size

2011-11-13T04:39:00.000+08:00

The Problem with Size

A significant moment passed by on Friday at 11am. There was the magic 11.11.11.11 (11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of the 11th year) and lots of people in Asia decided that it was an auspicious time to get married. The next time we're going to have a magic date will be at 12 noon on the 12th of December next year and then we'll have to wait another century the series of magic dates to go by.

I've always found the 11th of November to be significant. It was Armistice day – the day when the first World War ended. While World War II gets more press, in many ways, World War I was the more terrible conflict. The entire European continent which had given birth to the modern era had descended into a brutal war that bankrupted countries that were centres of empires. World War I ended the reigns of several monarchies and broke apart empires that had lasted centuries (Austria-Hungry and the Ottomans in Turkey were broken apart). The global centre of gravity shifted from Europe to the USA. The British Prime Minister who had administered an empire that the sun never set on became increasingly dependent on the American President for support.

Funnily enough, not very much seems to have changed in a century. Europe is once again in the proverbial shit house. America, the world's remaining super power is tottering on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to misguided military adventures. The world is now looking for an emerging super power to bail it out – this time it's China, which was derided as being the “Sick Man of Asia” a century ago.

The new emergence of China and the very visible decline of Western power is traumatic for Westerners – especially Americans. You just have to listen to the number of times senior American Administration officials complain about “Unfair” Chinese trade practices to get a sense of how traumatised the Americans are by China's rise. There is no other way to describe American complaints about Chinese buying of certain companies as - “Scared Shitless.”

While the fear of no longer being top dog may be understandable, giving into it would be a mistake. The lesson of history have shown that size is a vastly overrated experience. One only has to look at the great powers of the day to see that an obsession with size is usually the undoing of the great power.

China was by far and away the world's leading economy. The Chinese were the most innovative people around. They invented things like gun powder, paper and printing. The Chinese knew about things like decent roads and lived in cities while the Europeans were still struggling to get out of their caves. Then all of a sudden in 1500, the Chinese stopped inventing things and innovation moved to Europe. Suddenly Europe became superior to China. As an ethnic Chinese educated in the British Isles, I can safely say that the biggest shock to the Chinese psyche came during the Opium War. The Chinese had grown up thinking they were the centre of the earth. Then they got their butts kicked by this little dinky island on the North Western Corner of Europe.

The Europeans remained the world's top dogs until World War I. From 1500 until 1914, the Europeans became empire builders. The British were the most successful but they were not the only ones in the game of building empires. The French and Dutch were equally enthusiastic about acquiring colonies. When Bismark unified the German Princely States at the end of the 1800s, the Germans also entered the game. As well as being a family feud between the Royal Families of Europe, World War I was also a conflict of empires.

While America is not an “empire” in the conventional sense, it's become top-dog because its a huge place. America simply had more resources than Europe and so it could play the role of “King Maker” in Europe and later on in Asia. Today America remains the world's super power because it is the only nation that has the ability to deploy the greater number of resources to any single point on the globe.

Let's face it, being big helps. God as they say, is on the side of “Big Battalions.” In a fist fight, the advantage is always with the big guy because he can take more damage and each hit he delivers does more damage.

Size does matter. As such, big nations like China and India will have vast advantages over places like Hong Kong and Singapore. The two emerging Asian giants can deploy and develop resources in ways that smaller nations will never be able to. In Singapore we have to accept that China will always be able to make things cheaper than we can and India will always be able to do the back office stuff cheaper. They simply have more people and space.

Having said that, size is not necessarily everything and an obsession with being big can be a handicap. Why did China fall behind Europe when it had been so much more advanced for so many years?

Simply put, the Chinese got obsessed with size. China as far as the Chinese were concerned, was the centre of the earth, the largest and most advanced place on earth. China was not helped by Confucius who argued that people should place their trust in a strong central government that knew better than anyone else. The so called wise men of their day argued that China was the top dog because it was the biggest block on the street and could easily win by using size. Adventure and innovation were discouraged and then it stopped altogether.

By contrast, Europe was a collection of small states that had no choice but to innovate and focus on doing things well. The collection of states had to either cooperate or compete to survive and to grow their societies. The British ended up building the empire that they did because they had no choice but to venture abroad to grow. While adventurers and innovators in China were regarded as the shit you scrape off the bottom of the shoe, in Europe they became part of folklore – buccaneers like Sir Francis Drake and Sir Richard Grenville (My former school house was named after the man) were heroes in their day and revered long after their death for their daring to take on the conventional wisdom of the day.

These people made Europe great and then the Europeans fell into the same trap as the Chinese did. They believed they were the centre of the world and instead of working together and finding ways to expand and so on – the Europeans decided to kill each other in the competition to be the biggest guy on the block.

The Americans it seems are falling into the same trap as the Chinese and the Europeans before them. We all know that America and Americans have been focused on being bigger and better than anyone else. However, the focus in the last decade seemed to be on being bigger rather than better. Flick through magazines like Forbes and you'd find glowing references to how America had the “biggest” banks, oil companies, manufacturing plants etc. Follow the American media and you'll get the sense of trauma whenever someone has something bigger than can be found in America. Life for America and Americans was comfortable when the nearest rivals were Germany and Japan – which had economic but not military clout. Things are different now that the “rivals” are China and India, which are not only becoming wealthy but they are militarily independent of the American military umbrella.

I think the Americans should take a leaf from Europe and lose the obsession with size. Europe had lots of giant empires that thought they were the centre of the world. They became so obsessed with size that they forgot about everything else. The crowned heads that ran Europe fell out and we got World War I. The rulers of Europe didn't learn their lesson and we got World War II. It was only with the trauma of two World Wars that the Europeans decided to focus on being good and today, Europe is home of some of the best things that the world has to offer.

Look at Germany as an example. The Kaiser wanted to catch-up in the quest for Empire building and so he ran into opposition from the established Empires in Britain and France. The result was World War I. The Hitler decided that Germany needed more “Lebensraum” (living space – he needed to be bigger) and we got World War II. Then all of a sudden the Germans got partitioned into West and East. The world would not allow the Germans to be big and so they focused on being good.

Today Germany makes the best cars in the world (Mercedes, BMW, Porche, Volkswagen) and despite the high cost of doing business in Germany, the country is funnily enough the world's largest exporter (ahead of China, which is the workshop of the world). How does Germany with the highest labour cost in the world out export China with its advantages in cheap labour and land? Germany has a sector of small companies that happen to be the best in the fields they're in.

The same is true of France and Britain. London no longer controls an Empire where the sun never sets. It is however, a world city in things like finance. Like the Germans, the British and French have become less obsessed with size and more focused with being good.

The EU is admittedly in deep shit – however, let's look at the area of where Europe has fallen into the toilet bowl. The answer is simple – these were the areas where the Europeans returned to being obsessed with size. I believe that the EU is on balance a force of good. However, the Europeans became so obsessed with having the world's largest trading block they admitted countries that were simply not ready. Greece never had the fiscal discipline of its Northern European neighbours before it joined and it should be no surprise that it has become the nation that will pull the entire frame work down.

The idea behind the EU was to create the USA on Europe. In theory this is good. America has thrived for so long because it was successful at combining the advantages of being small and big at the same time. America is a big monolith in International affairs. However, most Americans are free to act as small individuals living in their small towns. In the corporate world it has been shown that the most innovative companies are usually small clusters. America is a collection of small clusters.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, American culture lost this ethos of being about small but clever groups. Suddenly, it was all about size and being big. Look at General Motors, which was for so many years the world's largest corporation. The company was all about being 'big,' that it forgot about being good. Even when its finances were being pulverized by competition from the likes of Toyota and Volkswagen, the company was obsessed with size – ie we make more cars than anyone else haha – erm what's the point in making lots of cars if nobody wants to buy them.

The reemerging China and India should draw lessons from this. China has been especially guilty of promoting state-owned giants to drive its economy and presence on the world stage. The Chinese Government seems to have forgotten that the “real” success of the Chinese economy is to be found in villages and cities. These small companies lack the resources of the state owned giants and so they have become remarkably efficient. China needs to stop focusing on “big” and look at finding ways at bringing up the guys who are “good.”

India has been blessed with rotten government and this has helped the development of its dynamic IT sector. While the IT sector has produced some giants like Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys and Wipro, the industry is in fact driven by many small dynamic companies. I think of companies like Polaris, Nucleus and MphasiS that have found a niche for themselves. These companies focus on being good rather than on being big.

Being big helps but being obsessed by size is a problem. The most successful companies and countries are usually those that find ways of being big without being obsessed by size. The best 'business model' is the 'cooperation' model rather than the “top-down monoblock.”

Look at the UK as an example. You have London, which is a collection of village. There are the Oxbridge Universities which are in reality a collection of small specilialised colleges working together. The British may not run an empire but London is a “world-capital” and the Oxbridge Universities are constantly amongst the world's best.

America endured over the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were a huge monoblock controlled by Moscow. The USA is a collection of states working for a common purpose . In the end the USA prevailed because its people and its allies believed in the system that allowed them enough room to be individuals but gave them the security that size brings.

America has prospered for so long because its been about being a good place that happens to be big rather than about being a big place. As Americans worry about being overtaken as the biggest dog on the block by China and India, they should remember that what made America was not its size but the fact that it was a good nation.

Shangri-La on Earth?

2011-11-07T03:25:00.000+08:00

My favourite litigator once made the point that Singapore is the “Celestial Kingdom.” He had mentioned this as a strategy of a trial we were going to hold for the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who supports the Israeli blockade of Gaza aka Thambi Pundek. He made the point that if you think about things logically, Singapore has nearly everything that you could possibly want.

He's right. If you think about things rationally, Singapore is everything a city should be. We are rich, green and clean. It's not just the Vietnamese, Chinese and Nepalese singing our praises. Americans, Brits and Continental Europeans also make the point that Singapore is “wonderful.” The US navy boy says it best, “If you think Geylang is your worst area – come to the USA.” I've often said this and I'll say it again, we must be the only nation on the planet that is better loved by foreigners than it is by the locals.

Well, if you ask our Minister for National Development, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, he'll argue that Singaporeans are exceptionally happy. When an opposition member of parliament (yes, we know have those), made the brief point that we should follow the Bhutanese example of looking at happiness – Mr Khaw proceeded to tell the world that as far as he was concerned, Bhutan is NOT Shangri-La on earth. In fact, its filled with poor, ignorant and unhappy people who are worried about their next meal. The next day the national news paper proceeded to come up with a survey telling the population that we the locals are exceedingly happy with the state of things.

I'm not exactly sure which Singaporeans Mr Khaw was referring to. Perhaps he was thinking of the ones living in S$35 million penthouses or the ones of super scale scholarships. If he's thinking of this group as being “Happy” he may have a point. However, if Mr Khaw were to travel outside Sentosa Cove, he might be surprised with the reality on the ground.

It's not just grouses on the internet. Sit in the coffee shops and you'll find that online chatter is only a public reaction to the feelings vented in coffee shops. Singaporeans from all walks of life are frustrated with the way things are going. The Minister might point out that his party did win 60 percent of the popular vote and 81 seats in an 87 parliament is pretty darn good by any ones standards. However, I would caution the minister not to get complacent.

As far as the average Singaporean is concerned, life has become harder and to make matters worse, there seems to be a protected minority who seem to be getting richer. What is especially hard for the people to take is that the protected minority sounds like it is more interested in protecting the status-qua than it is about increasing and working to a more equitable distribution of the pie.

Not all the criticisms against the powers-that-be are fair. I still believe that our Ministers are on the whole decent chaps. However, not all is well in paradise and we need to look at why the locals feel like shit despite statistically having one of the most decent lifestyles on the planet.

I suspect part of the problem is presentation. The powers-that-be have been fed stories by the toadies on the ground like the Young Muslim Politician who supports the Israeli Blockade on Gaza aka Thambi Pundek about the real situation on the ground. I pray that the desire for the truth by the Ministers last longer than the after-effects of the last election.

However, I think the problem here is that you have a government that has grown so used to getting its own way based on economic statistics that it has failed to see that life is about a little more than just about growth figures.

Let's get it clear. I am not criticising the focus on economic growth and fiscal prudence. You need to have money to get things moving and you can only do that in an economy that is growing. If you look at the USA and Europe, you'll also realise that there is a lot to be said about fiscal prudence. A government that can pay its bills is also a government that can look after the people when the chips are down. I remember my Dad being upset with me when I quit the teaching job because he pointed out that I had, “Quit working for the only people in the market with money.”

Money is necessary to survive. As has been pointed out, not even death solves money worries. As one lawyer I knew said, “The difference between a lawyer and a prostitute is the prostitute stops screwing you when you die.” If your financial problems are bad enough, the lawyers will be there to hound your heirs.

So I'm not anti-growth. I think all right thinking people should be pro-growth. However, if growth and having money were the main thing, Singapore's ruling party would not have lost seats in the last election. If I am not wrong, in 2010 we were the fastest growing economy on earth with an astonishing 15 percent annual growth rate. By right, people in 2011 should have been way too busy trying to make a fortune and we'd be dying to keep the government doing more of the same. That wasn't the case.

We are one of the few nations with money. We are part of a lucky few with this thing called “economic growth,” and yet we have lots of very pissed off people. There has to be a reason for it.

The logical place to start is to follow the money trail. Singapore has a lot of money but it is concentrated in the hands of the very few. If you follow the Gini coefficient, which the world's main yardstick for measuring dispersion of wealth, Singapore is one of the most unequal societies on the planet. If you follow the statistics of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, you'll find that two-thirds of Singaporeans earn less than the national average of S$4,000 a month. Back in the days when I was working on the Ministry of Manpower Learning Festival, I had the shock of discovering that the average graduate in a “real” industry (hard core things like engineering – not wish wasy things like writing) in a sizeable company could expect to finish his career on a salary of a shade under S$5,000 a month.

OK, this sounds like a lot of money if you converted it to Thai Bhat or Vietnamese Dong. However, Singapore has long ceased to be a “third-world” country in terms of its infrastructure and its cost. Our march into the first-world has come along with the fact that your average family needs two incomes to survive.

As poor as he was, my father's father refused to allow my grandmother to do anything vaguely commercial. Her presence in the work force would have been a slap on his face. Now, I have my father reminding me to only get involved with women who can earn a living.

By contrast, Singapore has the world's highest paid ministers. Our Prime Minister earns more four times more than the US President for a country that isn't even a suburb of LA. We also have very highly paid officials. One of the few people I know who has the luxury of a housewife is my former army commander. He's a super-scale military scholar who was on the promotion fast track and became a full colonel before his 40th birthday.

Generally, Singaporeans do accept this situation. Good government has to have a price. There's no reason why politicians should be badly paid. It is better to have smart people in the bureaucracy than idiots and as everyone from the rest of ASEAN will point out, its nice to deal with bureaucrats that you don't have to bribe.

However, this difference becomes harder to swallow when government is less than what it makes itself out to be. Mistakes can be forgiven. However, when salt is rubbed into a wound it becomes a different issue.

I don't begrudge the Ministers their salaries. Sure, the guy earns in a month more than what I and my closest friends make in a year – but as long as he does the job reasonably well, I don't care what he makes. If he goofs up, I may get cross that my taxes have gone into “less than perfect” performance – but then again, I've not always been perfect on the job.

What becomes unforgivable is when the powers-that-be start treating their perks as an entitlement and expect you to continue buying their reasoning. To put it crudely, they do it because they can and people don't like being screwed by the people who are supposed to look after them, especially when times are tough.

When it comes to foreign competition, the people to have to accept that this is “globalisation”. The power-that-be don't – it's called “National Interest.” When government controlled businesses rise prices it is called “earning more to give you more.” When a small business man tries the same thing it is called “profiteering.” When the cleaning lady needs 10 cents a month extra, it is called “inflationary unless she learns how to be more productive.” When the managing partner of a big law firm becomes a member of parliament with an allowance three times the national average wage to supplement his already generous salary it is called “attracting talent.” When a blogger says you should sentence physical abuse harsher than slander it is called “Criminal-Libel.” However, when the Attorney-General's Chambers changes a rule in the middle of a judicial enquiry that affects the rights of the accused, it is called “Creating efficiency.”

The list goes on. However, the list in itself isn't bad on its own. What becomes bad is when the powers-that-be start defending it. It shows that their interest is not with the people paying for their perks but with continuing their hold on the perks. Lee Kuan Yew, our founding father and revered elder statesman promptly lost his status as such in the eyes of many when he started accusing the public of being complacent when the public started complaining about the former home-affairs minister's performance when a limping man strolled out of jail. Despite the boo-boo, the cabinet spent more time and focus on defending its performance than it did on finding the man, despite the fact that he was billed as the worst terrorist in our history.

Now, after having had its nose bopped in an election, we're hearing a lot of talk from the rulers about how we cannot have a “full-democracy.” Apparently there is not enough talent to field two “A-class” teams in our political system. The increased opposition presence is tolerated because it is “constructive” or “consultative” opposition. Having an opposition that thinks it could be a government is called “pressure to be populist,” and that is a codeword for Domesday. In short, you need to keep the current rulers in place forever at the rates they're being paid because it is good for you as a citizen of the nation to keep the powerful, powerful.

Now, let's look at Bhutan, the small Himalayan Kingdom that came up with this idea of “GHP” or “Gross Happiness Product.”

In a way Bhutan's situation is unique. People remain happy because – well, for the large part they don't know any other way of life from what they've known for thousands of years. Internet and television are restricted. Much as one might like to keep the place in “isolation” away from the big bad world, it is impossible. Sooner or later, the modern age will have catch-up with Bhutan.

Bhutan has a fault line in that it did try and impose its ethnic identity in some pretty draconian ways. Ethnic “Druk” people have to wear national costume by law when they are on home soil.

Mr Khaw is not wrong when he makes the point that Bhutan is not the “idealistic” paradise that the more romantic amongst us would like to believe it is.

The fact that Bhutan has faults should be no surprise and these faults need to be taken into consideration when assessing the place. In a way, Bhutan is doing something about this and you can only wish them well for it.

While Mr Khaw was not wrong in pointing out that Bhutan has its faults, he was wrong in condemning it wholesale. His condemnation of the country has allowed him to gloss over one of the most important things that Bhutan has done in recent years – it has been one of the few societies where democracy has been imposed on its people instead of being imposed by the people.

Bhutan's “King-Father” Jigme Singye Wangchuck who ruled until his abdication in 2006, was an absolute monarch. When he declared his abdication, he also “ordered” a general election and divested most of the monarchy's powers into the post of an elected Prime-Minister.

Unlike the scenes of jubilation in the streets of places like Egypt and Tunisia when an autocrat was removed from power, the people in Thimpu were in tears when the monarch of the day decided to surrender his powers.

However, the “King-Father” stuck to his guns. His argument was simple - “Democracy is the only way to protect the long term interest of the people.” He's looked at his own record and argued rightly that while he has not been a bad king, he cannot guarantee that his successors won't be.

The “King-Father” also decided to abdicate to give his son the chance to grow into the job and to guide him. However, what guidance the “King-Father” gives is strictly a family affair. Since his abdication, the “King-Father” has done precisely that – he's been a father to the king and nothing else. He's not travelled abroad as Head of Government and Head of State. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, Bhutan has a Head of State who is the King and a Head of Government who is the Prime Minister. The “King-Father” is respected but both the people of Bhutan and the rest of the world know that he no longer has a role to play in affairs of state.

How is it that an “Absolute Monarch” running a country that people think of as being as far away from modernity as you can get can give up power so easily while a group of democratically elected and very clever politicians on an island that is proudly plugged into the modern world cannot?

Seriously, if you listen to the way Singapore's politicians speak, you can't help but get the impression that they seriously believe that Singapore can only be run by PAP candidates for all eternity. The talk about the possibility of a “non-PAP” government is spoken of in terms of bette noire science fiction terms – 'One day(in the dark gloomy future) if the PAP fails.....' In the mean time institutions which are meant to be a counter to a possible rogue government are crippled. Think of the Elected Presidency which was supposed to be a check on the government. The Elected President can only act on advice of the Prime Minister and when he doesn't have to he acts of advice of people the Prime Minister has a hold over.

It took the loss of four-seats, including three ministers in an election for two former Prime Ministers to finally retire from cabinet. Lee Kuan Yew set the precedent of becoming a “senior minister” in Goh Chok Tongs government and a “Minister Mentor” in Lee Hsien Loong's. Old Prime Ministers don't die , they just get consultancy jobs that allow them to travel round the world as if they were still in charge. The old joke was that Singapore was a Christian country – we had “The Father,” “The Son,” and “The Holy Goh.” It took the shock of the election to break the possibility of former Prime Ministers continuing in cabinet on multi-million tax-payer funded salaries after retirement.

Both the elder Mr Lee and Mr Goh have damaged their legacies by refusing to hand over properly. Mr Lee lead the team that built Singapore. He was the one who said no to corruption in public service and stressed the importance of ensuring leadership renewal. Yet his refusal to step aside until he was pushed has ruined this. Mr Goh was a very good Prime Minister who will now remain in our memories as the man who's wife made some unfortunate remark about “Peanuts” as well as the man who tried to bribe the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang with public funds in the 2006 election. How sad!

As Prime Minister, the younger Mr Lee will now have to find the proverbial “mojo.” He's suffered one of the “worst” election results in Singapore's history and his preferred candidate for President barely scrapped by and was effectively rejected by two-thirds of the electorate. As the election of 2011 showed, talking about economic growth and dolling out a wad of cash to the electorate is not going to work.

Many of us (myself included), voted for the PAP because on the whole they haven't been bad. I speak for myself but I don't think I'm alone in this but I also voted for the PAP because I wanted to have an MP who could bring home the bacon. The opposition managed to contest every ward bar one which is in itself an achievement. However, they were scattered amongst different parties and voting for them would be a protest vote more than anything else. However, this election has thrown up the very real possibility that a credible alternative in the shape of the Workers Party is emerging. The Prime Minister will have to struggle to keep people like me loyal to his party.

Personally, I worry for Singapore beyond elections. Even if another party were to take power, all our politicians have been so used to a system that allows those in power to behave as if they had divine rights.

While an alternative voice is welcome, what is needed is stronger institutions that go beyond personalities. So far Singapore has been OK because Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong have been good guys (when you balance everything). We have to move to a stage where we have more than just blind faith in ensuring that our leaders are somewhat decent and honest.

At the end of the day Singapore is a decent place to be. However, it is a society living in the hope that its top men will always be good and wise. It has few institutions in place to ensure that those in authority will behave. It's not difficult for a clever rogue to gain power and rob the people blind.

Bhutan's King-Father had the foresight to work towards creating a system that would depend on more than the personality and character of the man in charge. Democracy doesn't always produce the best government or the best leaders. However, it has proven that it provides the most efficient way of removing bad government (which is in many ways more important than producing effective government) and it gives people a stake in society – thus ensuring a strong society takes root.

Bhutan may not be the paradise that the romantics make it out to be. However, thanks to the wisdom of the King-Father, it will has a better chance of continuing its hold on claim to be Shangri-La on earth than Singapore in the long run.

Where the West still Wins

2011-11-04T16:06:00.000+08:00

Like all good Western Educated Asians, I am an “Anti-Colonial.” I never saw the “White Man” as my savior. When I was a small child I refused to cheer for the British whenever there were documentaries about the Japanese Invasion of Singapore in the 1940s. Even when I learned history and knew about the awful deeds of the Japanese (and the comparatively benign deeds of the Crown Colonizers), I could not accept the “White Man” in Asia as the good guy and the savior of the “natives.” The political heroes of my childhood were people like Mao (Mad Communist Fucker that he was) and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam. Much as I disagree with Communism and admire the Jeffersonian ideals that made America, I held up Mao and Ho as people who didn't capitulate to the American lead world. Thanks to them I do not see the ideal as being part of the bigger, better Western World. I want to be the small weakling who beats the bigger stronger man on his day.

That does not mean to say that I am “Anti-Caucasian,” or “Anti-Anyone-in Particular.” I made my friends in the West. I love my American and British family. I have good memories of my time in the UK. I even have good friends who happen to be Caucasians who have made Asia their home. I am merely unable to “bow-down” to the “Gwei Lo” on a personal basis and I cannot accept that educated Asians continue to have the mentality that is good to do so. I cannot accept that the Western View of the world is necessarily the right one either. I've seen Orchard Towers at night on more than one occasion to realise that after a few beers, your average Pink Blotchy is exactly the same as your Bangladeshi Worker – he only pays more for his vices.

Having said what I've just said, I do believe that there is one area where the West and the Caucasian part of the West still rules the world – namely the area of human decency. The West, for all its problems, has a culture that provides room for people to grow. Asia, for all our recent triumphs has one major cultural flaw – we cannot help screwing ourselves in the race for better things. As I get older and see more of this disparity between East and West, I believe that human decency will save the West and the lack of it will hold Asia down.

This was brought home to me most recently by two letters in the local press about why it was a bad idea to extend training opportunities to foreign workers. The letter writers felt that the idea was bad because it would be expensive and what money we had should go to training Singaporeans. They also argued that uneducated foreign workers if educated would come and steal jobs from Singaporeans and cause all sorts of problems. They argued that it was better to redesign jobs to make them “noble” and “appealing” to Singaporeans instead of allowing “uneducated” foreigners to come in and do the jobs.

OK, I understand the sentiment. In the past few years Singapore has seen a dramatic demographic shift and our ideas of ethnicity and culture have been forced open. Such changes are traumatic. The entry of highly educated Indian Nationals who don't look on their Singaporean cousins as the “lucky” ones has been like a bucket of cold water on the local Indian Community. For the Singaporean Chinese, meeting fellow Yellow Skins who think them as nothing more than richer but less pure versions of themselves has also been something of a shock. It easy to blame the outsiders whenever the world you know starts to crumble around you.

Where I fail to sympathise with the writers is their view that keeping “uneducated” people down and out somehow helps them. The argument runs like this – an uneducated man who becomes educated will become a threat to us and therefore there will be less good things for us.

I guess in Singapore we call this “Kiasu” or “Afraid to Lose.” We like to think of this as a virtue. We are afraid to lose, so we work hard and earn more etc. However, there is a flaw in the idea of “Kiasuism.” It assumes that there is only so many good things and if I can't get the good things, I must ensure that you cannot get the good things too. It is “Everyman” for himself.

Kiasuism when taken to the extreme would be funny if didn't affect you. Think of the typical Asian school, which is highly competitive. As the “Tiger Mum” points out – the ideal of kids being free to play and discover themselves at school is a wishy washy Western invention. School in the Asian context is all about studying to get the top exams. Western Universities are filled with Asians who kick ass (I wasn't one of them) when it comes to exams. Simply put, the Westerners are busy in the pub while the Asians are busy swotting (Conversely the Asians suck at thinking and people skills).

You have great Asian students who study hard. The “A” grade means more to the average Asian student than the Western one. You could say the Asian kid is driven by the “Kiasu” mentality. However, the kiasu Asian is also the shit that feels scared that you might get a better mark than him – so he hides reference books in the library to ensure you do not have access to the materials you need. I kid you not, Singaporean and Hong Kong schools have found missing library books because people have hidden them. The idea is simple – I know I can't get an “A” so I make sure that you can't too.

Now, you apply this to the work place. I am an educated man. Therefore I am entitled to a high paying job in a big company. You by contrast are a lowly educated pleb and so all you are entitled to clean my shit for $300 a month. It is not in my interest to see you become educated because you might become a competitor for my high paying job in the company.

When people think like this, they become obsessed with screwing each other instead of being excellent at their jobs. Resources, as they say are finite and if we don't get them we also have to ensure the other guy does not get them because there will less for ….me, myself and I.

OK, the West isn't immune to this. When you listen to successive American administrations talk about unfair Japanese and now Chinese trade practices, you can't help but feel that the Americans cannot accept that other people can fight back and be big dogs too. This is also true whenever the Americans talk about oil in the Middle East. Its almost as if only the USA is entitled to have a secure energy supply.

Leaving aside trade and energy policy, Americans and other Westerners are not afflicted by this symptom. Let's not kid ourselves – racism is rife in parts of America. However, Americans suddenly find the ability to overcome their racial prejudices when someone succeeds. Look at the number of revered sporting heroes in America. Being “black” is usually a handicap in the US but if a black man excels at something people forget the color and see the excellence.

Being an immigrant is also tough in the USA. However, when an immigrant finds a way of excelling, he or she becomes a folk hero and the good deeds of the immigrant cause laws to become more flexible and humane.

In Europe, people are less obsessed by success. However, if you are willing to work hard and don't disturb the natives, you will be left alone to do pretty much as you want. Chinese migrant communities in the West are generally respected because they don't encourage their kids to go on welfare and they work hard and set up businesses which benefit the natives too.

I can understand when Europeans complain that they are being exploited. They do have migrants who come and live off social services that are funded by local tax payers. My stepfather works in a hospital filled with people from outside Germany. They only German they've picked up is the word for “Welfare Office.” Why bother working in your own country when you can go to someone elses and live off their tax payers? This isn't the situation in Singapore.

Say what you like about the West and Westerners but this ability to allow good deeds and contributions to overcome personal prejudices is a strength. America is currently in the shit. However, it has a culture where it will find enough people to start its proverbial engine again. Europe has its problems too but somehow the Europeans will find a way of working together to get things moving.

Look at the British and the way they treat foreigners. When an Indian actress was abused on TV by a native born British girl, the British public was incensed ….not with the Indian girl but with the British one for behaving “indecently.” White British People could not take another one of their own behaving indecently to an Indian girl.

I think of my stint on an English jury. In the first case I was on, a group of 12-White English Working class people were on the side of a Lebanese boy against white Anglo-Saxon policemen.

This innate sense of decency amongst the British is their salvation. For all the faults of the nation and the people – they have decency and although there's no hard evidence for it – Britain has benefited from this. I look at the way in which your average Briton stood up for Shillpa Shetty and the way Indian Conglomerates have gone shopping in the UK (Jaguar for example is now part of the Tata Group).

The British have not had mass demonstrations about this. They're happy to accept Indian money and understand that this may save Britain and your average Brit from being flushed down the toilet that the bankers would have the country in. Think about this – you are an average Indian industrialist thinking of a place to invest in. Would you invest in a place where even when you give them your money and create jobs they'll complain that you are taking over. Or will you chose to be in a place where the natives will stand up for people like you whenever you have been treated indecently?

By contrast, we in Asia and in Singapore in particular have a nasty habit of not being able to tolerate the well being and success of anyone we deem not one of us.

I take the example of the story of a Chinaman who snuck into Singapore not once but twice, illegally. What did this Chinaman do? Well, he ended up starting up three, thriving noodle shops – thus creating prosperity for Singapore and dare I say, Singaporeans.

So, how did we reward him. We caught him and gave him 12 of the best. Point being – he broke the law on immigration and that was somehow so bad that he had to be canned 12 times.

What's particularly interesting about this case is the fact that I seem to be the only person who remembers it. When it first happened, a few intellectual journalist bitched about this – but then everyone lost interest in this. As far as the general public was concerned, this Chinaman got what he deserved – he came here by breaking our law and then proceeded to exploit Singaporeans by setting up a business that was profitable.

In the US, the General Public would have fought his case and spoke highly enough of the guy and somehow they would have found a way of creating an amnesty to allow people like this to thrive and bring the country up with them.

I say again, America is in deep shit but somehow it allows little migrants to climb in and turn the place around based on their sheer hunger alone. Hispanic Immigrants to the USA are going to be the salvation of the USA. You can live in the shit but there is a system to allow you to rise beyond it.

Here in Singapore, we somehow can't bring ourselves to look at deeds and actions instead of where people come from. Huong, the lady in my life has a record for “vice-activities.” When I go with her to deal with immigration officials, I get constant remarks like, “Do you know she has record with us etc.” I think they get shocked when I say, “Yes,” I am aware of her record and I wish they'd stop giving her a hard time and check “real” crooks. For all her faults, Huong is clever and enterprising. She is constantly looking for opportunities for business to help friends and family. She is simply the type of person we need. Yet, officialdom cannot look beyond her passport.

Huong is better for the economy and well being of the nation than people like the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC aka Thambi Pundek who is questioning the loyalty of Mainland Chinese who volunteered to serve National Service from the comfort of his Commanding Officer's Office.

Somehow, we, as a people cannot accept the idea of prospering together. Its like the only acceptable person is a government scholar “guiding” the economy or an employee of a giant “multinational” that creates instant jobs.

Unfortunately governments need tax payers and multinationals can relocate as and where they chose to go. You cannot build a sustainable economy on government dictate and multinational investment alone (though both are good). You need people who are willing to find ways of making a living beyond gifts from the MNCs and Government. If your local population won't – you have to encourage people like Huong or the C hinaman who set up his noodle shops. They may have a bit of shade but on the whole they more good than harm to the nation.

A wise man once made the distinction between strong government and strong society. Places with strong societies can survive weak governments. Places with strong governments but weak societies are only as good as good as the government of the day.

For all the lousy governments that have plagued the Western World, Western Societies have survived and even thrived. Can places like Singapore survive if we had anything less than the government that we have today?

Fallen Man and the Morally Upright and Very Clever Woman

2011-10-24T19:22:00.002+08:00

When I first decided to go public in cyberspace about why I thought I should become a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), I was warned that I could be perceived as being a little narcissistic. Who else would proclaim their faults to the world and then ask for a job in public service in a country where everyone in public service is supposed to be a paragon of virtue?

I guess they may have a point here. I haven’t achieved much professionally and the less said about my personal life the better. However, after looking at some of the speeches given in by people in the job, I became more confident about wanting this office. I was particularly encouraged by a very clever and morally upright woman. I am talking about Professor Thio-Li-Ann.

Professor Thio Li-Ann is a professor in the faculty of law at the National University of Singapore (NUS) and she was an NMP in out 11th Parliament (from 18 January 2007). Her academic credentials (Oxford and Harvard Law School) are beyond reproach. Whatever you think of her, you have to admit that she is clever and capable and morally upright in her beliefs.

My academic credentials are more humble. I got my bachelor degree in anthropology and communications from Goldsmith’s College, University of London. Much to the disgust of my parents, I proceeded to spend my time in the union bar, arguing that I was hard at work observing how culture was being formed over a few pints.

Anyway, I decided to see if I could deconstruct Professor Thio’s most infamous speech. Despite having no legal training, I am confident that I can pick apart her arguments and I believe that if she could be a Nominated Member of Parliament, why can’t I?

Let’s see how I’ve done?

My Responses are marked in red:

377A serves public morality : NMP Thio Li-An

Two camps championing two distinct criminal law philosophies are polarised over whether to retain or repeal s377A which criminalizes public or private acts of gross indecency between two men, such as sodomy.

This act covers a public and private act.

There is already a law covering public obscenity or if one uses the good professor’s words “Gross Indecency.” So, since there’s already an act in place to cover public acts of “Gross Indecency” what “extra” protection does 377A provide for the public that the existing act does not? If it does not provide us with much needed protection - what is the use of having 377A?

If we are talking about a private act between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, we need to ask ourselves how this law protects us? Is there a public health issue? Is there a national security issue? If we understand the purpose of laws in society as being there to protect vulnerable people - we have to ask ourselves who exactly does this law protect?

The ‘liberal’ camp wants 377A repealed. They offer an ‘argument from consent’ –government should not police the private sexual behaviour of consenting adults. They opine this violates their liberty or ‘privacy’. They ask, ‘Why criminalize something which does not “harm” anyone; if homosexuals are “born that way”, isn’t it unkind to ‘discriminate’ against their sexual practices?

The key question here is why do we need to keep an act that is between two consenting adults criminal? Who does the State protect when it enters and governs activity in the bedroom?

These flawed arguments are marinated with distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake – repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties.

This is an ingenious suggestion - we need a law to govern how two adults behave in the bedroom so that we can protect our liberties. If I am reading the good professor correctly, we need more government regulation to become more free.

The ‘communitarian’ camp argues from ‘community values’ – these social conservatives want 377A retained, to protect public health, morality, decency and order. A Keep 377A online petition attracted over 15,000 signatures after a few days.

How does keeping a private consensual act between two consenting adults protect public health, morality, decency and order? As for the 15,000 signatures it is merely an indication of the good organisation skills of a certain group promoting an agenda.

Like many, I applaud the government’s wisdom in keeping 377A which conserves what upholds the national interest. ‘Conservative’ here is not a dirty word connoting backwardness; environmental conservation protects our habitat; the moral ecology must be conserved to protect what is precious and sustains a dynamic, free and good society.

Once again, how does keeping a private act between consenting adults uphold the national interest. Will there be an outbreak of a nasty virus if two consenting adults do something in the privacy of their bedroom? Will there be a national security issue if two grown-ups do something in the privacy of their bedroom?

The welfare of future generations depends on basing law on sound public philosophy. We should reject the ‘argument from consent’ as its philosophy is intellectually deficient and morally bankrupt.

This is a shockingly disturbing argument from a learned law professor. The key word in laws governing sexual behaviour is “Consent.” Sexual activity requires two or more parties. All parties in the act must be able to provide consent (children and mentally disabled are considered unable to provide it). If you do not have consent from a person who can provide it, then you have a case of sexual assault or rape - something which everyone can agree on as being an act of criminal brutality and therefore morally repugnant.

Sir, the arguments to retain 377A are overwhelmingly compelling and should be fully articulated, to enable legislators to make informed decisions and not be bewitched by the empty rhetoric and emotional sloganeering employed by many radical liberals, which generate more heat than light.

So, what are the compelling arguments?

The real question today is not “if” we should repeal 377A now, or wait until people are ready to move. This assumes too much, as though we need an adjustment period before the inevitable. The real question is not “if” but “should” we ever repeal 377A. It is not inevitable; it is not desirable to repeal it in any event. Not only is retaining s377A sound public policy, it is legally and constitutionally beyond reproach. Responsible legislators must grapple with the facts, figures and principles involved; they cannot discount the noxious social consequences repeal will bring.

What are the noxious social consequences?

Debate must be based on substance not sound-bites. Let me red-flag four red herrings.

Good point – let’s have the substance from the good professor?

First, to say a law is archaic is merely chronological snobbery.

What exactly is chronological snobbery? How is it snobbery to suggest that something which might have worked in 2AD is no longer applicable to 2011AD?

Second, you cannot say a law is ‘regressive’ unless you first identify your ultimate goal. If we seek to copy the sexual libertine ethos of the wild wild West, then repealing s377A is progressive. But that is not our final destination. The onus is on those seeking repeal to prove this will not harm society.

So what exactly is the objective here? What is the objective of keeping a private act between consenting adults criminal? Do we protect anyone? Interesting to note that the good professor has spoken of the onus of those seeking to repeal the act to prove that it does society no harm when she has failed to mention a single group that the law protects?

Third, to say a law which criminalizes homosexual acts because many find it offensive is merely imposing a “prejudice” or “bias” assumes with justification that no reasonable contrary view exists. This evades debate. The liberal argument which says sodomy is a personal choice, private matter and ‘victimless crime’ merely asserts this. It rests precariously on an idiosyncratic notion of “harm” – but “harm” can be both physical and intangible; victims include both the immediate parties and third parties. What is done in ‘private’ can have public repercussions.

Good point from the professor. Harm can affect both immediate and third parties. Hence we do not encourage smoking because second hand smoke kills third parties. However, despite the overwhelming evidence that smoking causes harm to immediate and third parties it is not a criminal act. So, let’s ask the question - who are the possible third parties who will be harmed so badly that we need the law to step in, in order to protect third parties from two consenting adults doing something in the privacy of their bedroom?

Fourth, some argue that legislators should be ‘open-minded’ and decriminalize sodomy. However, like an open mouth, an open mind must eventually close on something solid. They urge legislators to be ‘objective’ and to leave their personal subjective beliefs at home, especially if they hold religious views which consider homosexuality aberrant.

I don’t have to like homosexuality or homosexuals. I will NEVER want to engage in homosexual sex. I don’t want to think of my male friends engaging and deriving pleasure from it. However, whatever my personal beliefs, I still ask - why is it necessary for someone who does enjoy homosexual sex with a like-minded consenting adult in the privacy of their bedroom to be considered a criminal under the law.

This demand for objectivity is intellectually disingenuous as there is no neutral ground, no ‘Switzerland of ambivalence’ when we consider the moral issues related to 377A which require moral judgment of what is right and wrong – not to take a stand, is to take a stand! As law has a moral basis, we need to consider which morality to legislate. Neither the majority or minority is always right – but there are fundamental values beyond fashion and politics which serve the common good. Religious views are part of our common morality. We separate ‘religion’ from ‘politics,’ but not ‘religion’ from ‘public policy’. That would be undemocratic. All citizens may propose views in public debate, whether influenced by religious or secular convictions or both; only the government can impose a view by law.

We can disapprove of certain acts based on our personal or religious convictions. However, does personal disapproval mean that private acts of totally unrelated consenting individuals should be criminalised by the state?

Incidentally, one does not have to be religious to consider homosexuality contrary to biological design and immoral; secular philosopher Immanuel Kant considered homosexuality “immoral acts against our animal nature” which did not preserve the species and dishonoured humanity.

Kant like the rest of us had his opinions - but still does not answer the question of why it is necessary to criminalise a private act between two consenting adults?

The issues surrounding s377A are about morality, not modernity or being cosmopolitan. What will foreigners think if we retain 377A? Depends on which foreigner you ask. Many would applaud us! Such issues divide other societies as well! The debate is not closed. A group of Canadians1 were grieved enough to issue an online apology to the world “for harm done through Canada‘s legalization of homosexual marriage”, urging us not to repeat their mistakes.

There are people all over the world who don’t like homosexuality, lesbianism and so on. For every group who doesn’t like something there is another who does. The question remains, who does 377A protect and why is it necessary to keep a private act between consenting adults criminal? Whether you like an act does not make it necessary for the state to abolish it. States should only interfere in private acts if it constitutes something like a national disaster....

Singapore is an independent state and we can decide the 377A issue ourselves; we have no need of foreign or neo-colonial moral imperialism in matters of fundamental morality.

There are no constitutional objections to s377A

Sir, there are no constitutional objections to retaining 377A while de-criminalising heterosexual oral and anal sex. Three legal points are worth making.

First, there is no constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. It is not a facet of personal liberty under article 9. Nor is there a human right to homosexual sodomy though some like to slip this in under the umbrella of ‘privacy.’ Human rights are universal, like prohibitions against genocide. Demands for ‘homosexual rights’ are the political claims of a narrow interest group masquerading as legal entitlements. Homosexual activists often try to infiltrate and hijack human rights initiatives to serve their political agenda, discrediting an otherwise noble cause to protect the weak and poor. You cannot make a human wrong a human right.

There is no constitutional right to sodomy full stop! Yet the heterosexual variety is legal while the homosexual is not. Is there is necessary reason for this? This is not about homosexual rights but a question is why it is necessary for one sexual act to be illegal while another one of the same nature remains perfectly legal. Contrary to what the good professor may think, this does become an issue of personal liberty under article 9. The question of why does it remain necessary to criminalise a private act between two consenting adults remains unanswered.

Second, while homosexuals are a numerical minority, there is no such thing as ‘sexual minorities’ at law. Activists have coined this term to draw a beguiling but fallacious association between homosexuals and legally recognized minorities like racial groups. Race is a fixed trait. It remains controversial whether homosexual orientation is genetic or environmental, perhaps both. There are no ex-Blacks but there are ex-gays. The analogy between race and sexual orientation or preferred sexual preferences, is false. Activists repeat the slogan ‘sexual minority’ ad nausem as a deceptive political ploy to get sympathy from people who don’t think through issues carefully. Repetition does not cure fallacy.

This is totally irrelevant. Whether there are ex-blacks, gays, polka dots and so on does not answer the question of why it is necessary to keep a private act between consenting adults criminal.

Science has become so politicized that the issue of whether gays are ‘born that way’ depends on which scientist you ask. You cannot base sound public philosophy on poor politicized pseudo ‘science’.

So, let’s look at the most credible science backed up by the most credible research and see what that says.

Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder; there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with this. Just this year, two high profile US activists left the homosexual lifestyle, the publisher of Venus, a lesbian magazine, and an editor of Young Gay America. Their stories are available on the net. An article by an ex-gay in the New Statesmen this July identified the roots of his emotional hurts, like a distant father, overbearing mother and sexual abuse by a family friend; after working through his pain, his unwanted same-sex attractions left. While difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those wanting to fulfill their heterosexual potential. There is hope.

Professor Thio is a professor of law not a professor of psychology. The American Psychiatric Association would beg to disagree with Professor Thio on the notion of homosexuality.

As for the “ex-gays” - there are people who find their sexuality later in life. Heterosexual men do experiment with homosexuality and women are experiment with both sides. However, for most men, once they find their sexuality they are pretty set in it - they are either homosexual or heterosexual.

Singapore law only recognizes racial and religious minorities. Special protection is reserved for the poor and disadvantaged; the average homosexual person in Singapore is both well educated, with higher income – that’s why upscale condo developers target them! Homosexuals do not deserve special rights, just the rights we all have.

I agree - homosexuals should only have the rights that the rest of us have. So why don’t consenting adult homosexuals have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their bedroom. Isn't this a right that the rest of us have?

‘Sexual minorities’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are vague terms – covering anything from homosexuality, bestiality, incest, paedophilia – do all these minority sexual practices merit protection?

The good professor has twisted the answer by arguing against consent. Sexual practices like bestiality and pedophilia are not protected because animals and children are not considered able to provide consent. It’s been proven that incest does cause harm to third parties (children born out acts of incest). The same cannot be said of homosexuality.

Third, 377A does not breach the article 12 guarantee of equality. While all human persons are of equal worth, not all human behaviour is equally worthy. We separate the actor from the act. In criminalizing acts, we consider the wrongfulness of the act, the harm caused and how it affects the good of society.

So what is the harm caused and the affect on the good of society if two consenting adults do something in the privacy of their bedroom? Revolutions are caused by issues like unemployment and poverty. Revolutions occur because people get tiered of tyranny - of being bullied and dare I say rapped. They do not start revolutions because two consenting adults had consensual sex in the privacy of their bedroom.

Parliament has the power to classify; this involves a choice, like distinguishing murder and manslaughter. Classifications which satisfy the constitutional test of validity are called “differentiation”; only invalid classifications are called “discrimination.” Criminalising same-sex sodomy but not opposite-sex sodomy is valid “differentiation.” S377A does not target any specific actor; it would cover a heterosexual male experimenting with male sodomy.

Fair enough - but then why should people experimenting in the privacy of their bedroom with other consenting adults be penalised as criminals?

Valid classifications must have a clear basis and be rationally related to a legitimate purpose. In serving public health and public morality, 377A passes constitutional muster with flying colours.

Public Health Argument

Sir, public health and safety is a legitimate purpose served by the 377A ban on homosexual anal and oral sex. Both these practices are efficient methods of transmitting sexual diseases and AIDs / HIV which are public health problems. These are not victimless crimes as the whole community has to foot the costs of these diseases.

So all the more reason to ensure that the public is armed with facts.

Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like ‘gay bowel syndrome’, anal cancer. ‘Acts of gross indecency’ under 377A also covers unhygienic practices like “rimming” where the mouth comes into contact with the anus. Consent to harmful acts is no defence – otherwise, our strong anti-drug laws must fall as it cannot co-exist with letting in recreational drugs as a matter of personal lifestyle choice.

Finally! The good professor says something that is scientifically believable. However, what is true of homosexual sodomy and “rimming” is also true of the heterosexual variety. So why is the homosexual variety illegal and the heterosexual one not? If there is a public health argument in criminalising sodomy based on this fact, surely it should apply to both heterosexual and homosexual sex?

Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels. The New York Times reported that even informed homosexuals return to unsafe practices like bare-backing and bug-chasing after a health crisis wanes. A British Study showed that the legalization of homosexual sodomy correlated with an upsurge of STDs among gays. Common sense tells us that with more acceptance, any form of consensual sexual behaviour increases. Sodomy laws have some deterrent effect.

Wrong! It is not the act of sodomy that marks difference in heterosexual and homosexual sodomy but the issue of higher promiscuity and frequency levels. If I may detract for a bit - Professor Thio has argued that it is necessary to keep homosexual sodomy illegal because it causes diseases amongst a “numerical minority” - so are we to assume she is on a mission to protect homosexuals while leaving heterosexuals to get diseases etc?

It is rational for the state to target the most acute aspect of a problem. The legal issue is not whether the state should be concerned with heterosexual sodomy but whether it is reasonable to believe same-sex sodomy poses a distinct problem. Medical literature indicates that gays have disproportionately higher STDs rates, which puts them in a different category from the general public, warranting different treatment.

Once again - the point remains - it is the higher rates of promescuity that promote the “higher” rates of STDs amongst the homosexual community. The key here is to promote “responsible sex” (monogamy and condom useage) amongst homosexuals (which they are likely to do) rather than ensure that homosexual sodomy remains illegal (the gays will still have annal sex - thus making all public health arguments irrelevant)

Incidentally, if one believes the statistics of the Ministry of Health - HIV/AIDS has long become a heterosexual condition as opposed to one that is specific to the homosexual community. The rates of HIV infection amongst heterosexual men outweighs that of the homosexual and bisexual community. Furthermore heterosexual infections do cause far greater damage in that innocent women (new infections amongst women come from loyal spouses who get it from promiscuous husbands) and its even passed onto children - thus providing far greater “harm” to third parties than homosexual sodomy.

The onus rests on opponents of 377A to negate every conceivable basis for treating homosexual and heterosexual sodomy differently. They cannot, because classifications do not need to be perfect and can be under-inclusive; valid classifications only need to “go some way” to serve the legislative goal, which 377A clearly does.

The science and the understanding of science provided by the good professor on this matter can only be charitably be described as “criminal ignorance.”

Public Morality

Sir, the power to legislate morality is not limited to preventing demonstrable harm. The Penal Code now criminalizes the wounding of both religious and racial feelings (s498).

S377A serves public morality; the argument from community reminds us we share a way of life which gives legal expression to the moral repugnancy of homosexuality. Heterosexual sodomy unlike homosexual sodomy does not undermine the understanding of heterosexuality as the preferred social norm. To those who say that 377A penalizes only gays not lesbians, note there have been calls to criminalize lesbianism too.

We may not like homosexuality but does that mean that a private act between consenting adults should be criminal? Thus far the “public health” argument in favour of keeping 377A falls flat. So what else is the good professor coming up with other than “I don’t like homos therefore what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms should be criminal?”

Public sexual morality must buttress strong families based on faithful union between man and wife, the best model for raising children. The state should not promote promiscuity nor condone sexual exploitation. New section 376D criminalizes the organisation of child sex tours. Bravo.

Bravo for this sound piece of wisdom. So, shouldn’t the good professor turn her considerable energies to criminalising marital rape, child abuse and domestic violence and dare I say heterosexual adultery. These causes will help strengthen the concept of a strong family than stopping the “numerical minority” of homosexuals from doing things to each other in the privacy of their bedroom.

The ‘argument from consent’ says the state should keep out of the bedroom, to safeguard ‘sexual autonomy’. While we cherish racial and religious diversity, sexual diversity is a different kettle of fish. Diversity is not license for perversity. This radical liberal argument is pernicious, a leftist philosophy based on radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. It is unworkable because every viable moral theory has limits to consent.

How did she work this one out? What defines perversity here? Is perversity criminality? Obviously the answer is no. We are not talking about assault and the removal of the ability to give consent. I may not like certain sexual acts. I don’t want to participate in them or to see or hear about them. However, do I believe that two people who do like those acts should be criminalised for engaging in them in the privacy of their bedroom?

Radical individualism would demand decriminalising consensual adult incest; but the Penal Code is not based on consent as s376F reflects. The state has always retained an interest in regulating conduct in the bedroom – the issue is which type?

Wrong. The argument from consent strictly applies to people who have the ability to provide it and that it does not cause harm to third parties. The science thus far shows incest does while homosexual sex is limited to immediate parties.

Radical egalitarianism applied to sexual morality says the state should not morally distinguish between types of consensual sex. It exudes a false neutrality but actually sneaks in a substantive philosophy: Hedonism which breeds narcissism. This extols satisfying desire without restraint as a matter of autonomy. But some desires are undesirable, harming self and society.

If one applies this argument, it is also applicable to heterosexual as well as homosexual sex. Given HIV statistics, one might argue that the message of restraint should be focused on the heterosexual rather than homosexual community.

The argument from consent ultimately celebrates sexual libertine values, the fruit of which is sexual licentiousness, a culture of lust, which takes, rather than love, which gives. This social decline will provoke more headlines like a 2004 Her World article called: “Gay guy confesses: I slept with 100 men…one of them could be your hubby.” What about the broken-hearts involved?

There’s Annabel Chong who was proudly penetrated 250 times by 70 men. How is that different from the 2004 “Gay Guy” that Professor Thio has cited? Ones sexual habbits are unrelated to ones sexual orientation. As Annabel Chong has shown there are promiscuous heterosexuals and there are actually very monogomous homosexuals. Professor Thio's headline is equally applicable to heterosexual men and women and it still does not constitute a legal, reasonable answer as to why two consenting adults cannot do as they please in the privacy of their bedroom.

If you argue from consent, how can you condemn any form of sexual self-expression, no matter how selfish or hurtful? But, no man is an island. Ideas, embodied in laws, have consequences. Don’t send the wrong message.

Adultery is hurtful yet people do it. Is it criminal? No. Why? Shouldn’t we criminalise adultery to save society from selfish and hurtful consequences?

The issues raised in the Petition fall apart on rigorous analysis.

Rule of Law vs. Rule of Good Law

Sir, government policy is not to pro-actively enforce 377A. Some argue that just keeping this law on the books will erode the rule of law. I disagree. It is not turning a blind eye on the existence of homosexuals here; it is refusing to celebrate homosexuality while allowing gays to live quiet lives. This is prudent, as it is difficult to enforce ‘bedroom’ offences; such intrusive powers should be judiciously used anyway.

This lies on the faulty assumption that the government of the day will remain wise and benevolent in its use of certain powers. I’m with the guys who said, “In God we trust - everyone else pays cash.”

How does it not erode the rule of law if you have a law and then declare that you will not use it? Not only should laws protect someone - they should be enforceable and enforced when they are breached. If they are not they are redundant.

We have other hard-to-police laws which embody communal standards of public decency, such as laws against nudity visible to the public eye, even if you are at home. Law is a Moral teacher and makes a moral statement; 6 years ago, Singapore symbolically blocked access to 100 porn sites, as a ‘statement of our values.’ We value our values, while remaining realistic.

Visible nudity to the public eye does cause “harm” to a third party. Sexual behaviour in the privacy of the bedroom does not. There is an argument to suggest that pornography can damage minors. There is no suggestion that private acts in the bedroom do the same.

A non pro-active policy does not mean 377A will never be enforced – who knows what another season may require? Policies can change.

Sir, citizens are not just concerned with the rule of law but with the rule of good law. Laws which violate core moral values will alienate many and bring the system into disrepute. Indeed, many citizens see keeping 377A as evidence the government is defending the right moral values, which lends legitimacy.

Keeping 377A is evidence that the government wants clauses to get political opponents if they don’t have anything else to get them on. This is not necessary - that what ISA is meant for.

Incidentally we are also concerned with being governed by silly laws, which could be randomly applied to catch out the vulnerable from unfair prosecution.

Criminalising Moral Wrongs – which?

Sir, it is true that not all moral wrongs, such as adultery, are criminalized; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterers know they done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual orientation right.

No, not all adulterers believe they are doing wrong. Nobody lobbies for adultery as a sexual orientation right because it is not a criminal offense.

Homosexual Agenda and Social Consequences

Conversely, homosexual activists lobby hard for a radical sexual revolution, waging a liberal fundamentalist crusade against traditional morality. They adopt a ‘step by step’ approach to hide how radical the agenda is. Liberals never ask: what happens next if you repeal 377A. Responsible legislators must see the Big Picture.

Traditional morality will remain whatever the law says. The Bible, Koran etc have not changed despite all the legislation that sometimes contravenes what certain Holy Books preach. Truly devout adherents will continue with their beliefs.

Whether I believe in the morality of homosexuality is irrelevant. What matters is whether two people who are consenting adults can do as they please in the privacy of their bedrooms no matter what anyone else thinks. I may not like sodomy but I don't believe that fact should make someone I don't know a criminal because they do something I don't like in the privacy of their bedroom.

Pro-gay academics identify 5 main steps in this agenda in their study of foreign jurisdictions.

Step 1: repeal laws criminalizing homosexual sex. They consider this “pivotal” to advancing the homosexual agenda. Why? Without this, they cannot advance in the public sphere or push for government funding and support for special programmes, such as the New York Gay High School. Governments don’t promote criminal activities. You need to change the criminal law before changing civil law.

If I am reading this correctly, she is saying, “We cannot allow two consenting adults to do something in the privacy of their bedroom because they may one days ask for money from the tax payer.”

There are two separate issues here. One is should we keep a private act between two consenting adults criminal. The other is about asking for government support for funding of programs. Let’s deal with two separate issues at a time.

But decriminalizing sodomy is only the tip of the iceberg which is 1/8 of an ice mass – we must see what lies beneath the water to avoid a Titanic fate.

Step 2 is to equalize the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex; in some countries, this is as low as 13. Do we want to expose Sec 1 boys to adult sexual predators? To be sexually creative?

We don’t want to expose 13-year old girls to sexual predators either. Age of consent in Singapore remains way above 13 and I think the issue here is about the age of consent not about annal sex. The solution is to raise the age of consent. As of the time of writing, young girls are being exposed to sexual predators through human trafficking - I wonder if the good professor has an issue with that?

Furthermore the issue is not the age of consent. The issue remains the legality of whether consenting adults can do as they please in the privacy of their bedrooms.......Nobody agrees with the age of consent for boys and girls being 13. We are debating the issue of why it is necessary to criminalise a private act between two consenting adults. Nobody has said anything about age of consent –

Step 3 is to prohibit discrimination based on ‘sexual orientation’. But would this not include all sexual behaviour? “Sex before 8 or else it’s too late” is the motto of the North American Man Boy Love Association. Should we judge pedophilia or be relativist and promote “anything goes” sexual experimentation?

Keep the age of consent at an adult age and you no longer have the issue of legalising paedophilia.

Sir, to protect homosexuals, some countries have criminalized not sodomy but opposition to sodomy, making it a ‘hate crime’ to criticize homosexuality. This violates freedom of speech and religion; will sacred texts that declare homosexuality morally deviant, like the Bible and Koran, be criminalized? Social unrest beckons. Such assaults on constitutional liberties cannot be tolerated.

The same can be said of “anti-semitism.” Why is it a jail able offence in some countries to suggest that Hitler may have killed 5,999,999 instead of 6 million Jews? Censorship of debate only bottles up a genie waiting to explode with a vengeance.

Steps 4 and 5 relate to legalizing same-sex marriage or partnerships, child adoption rights. This subverts both marriage and family, which are institutions homosexuals seek to redefine beyond recognition. Will MOE then commission a book copying the US “Heather has 2 mummies” called “Ah Beng has 2 daddies?” What if parents disagree with their kids studying homosexual propaganda?

Is legalizing same-sex marriage progressive? It is if you want a genderless planet where “husband” and “wife” are considered discriminatory terms, to be replaced by “spouse”.

I am surprised Professor Thio is against Gay Marriages. She has argued that the gay community suffers from a high rate of STDs because of their greater promiscuity. Surely, she would want the homosexual community to be tied down into the monogamy of marriage.

Incidentally, it was a Catholic Priest who pointed out that “Marriage” does not make people faithful to each other. Married men continue to keep Geylang’s business recession proof.

We want to be able to say, Majullah Singapura, not Mundur Singapura!

Repealing 377A will further batter the institution of ‘marriage’ which we must bolster! This is because the arguments raised to challenge a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, equally apply to challenge legal distinctions between lawful heterosexual marriage between man and wife and unlawful homosexual unions.

We do not recognise homosexual marriage. What about unmarried heterosexual couples. Are these couples unlawful?

To reinforce the moral foundations of a pro-family policy that permits only heterosexuals to marry, it is permissible to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. To say that 377A discriminates is effectively to say that marriage laws discriminate and are unconstitutional.

What exactly is the link between marriage and sodomy? Is her argument - heterosexual marriage is legal and therefore a heterosexual man can penetrate a woman's annus despite all the obvious public health hazzards of sodomy while homosexual marriage is not legal and therefore homosexuals cannot have sex. The good professor is doing the legal fraternity a diservice if she assumes heterosexuals have sex only when they are married .....how about the unmarried heterosexuals having sex. Are they in the same camp as the homosexuals or the heterosexuals? Where exactly does marriage fit into the equation of whether we should distinguish between hetero and homosexual sodomy?

Legalising sodomy would set a bad example; by signaling approval, it may change both attitude and conduct; coupled with sexual hedonism, it makes a mockery of strong family values. 377A helps to protect against this harm.

Which sodomy are we walking about here? What is the argument? How does allowing homosexuals to have sex in the privacy of their bedrooms undermine family values? There is no evidence to suggest that allowing homosexuals to do certain things in the privacy of their bedrooms will undermine how the family functions. Take for example the average family of one father, mother, son and daughter. The “down side” is the son is a homosexual and has a homosexual partner. What does this mean? The parents can accept this or they don’t. The son will either continue to function as part of the family or he will cut his ties and live his life accordingly.

When you think about this, this is no different than if the son marries a girl. His parents either like, love and accept the girl. Or they don’t - and so the son leaves the family to be elsewhere. There is no hard evidence to specify that it was the particular fact of the son being a homosexual that undermined this particular family.

Academic supporters of the homosexual agenda like my colleague Michael Hor argued online that even if 377A was not enforced, discriminatory policies against homosexuals could be built on the logic of its existence. But taking his logic, repealing 377A would mean the government would be less able to resist claims for homosexual marriage or for promoting homosexuality as a desirable lifestyle in schools, as this would be ‘discriminatory’.These foreign developments warn us that the advance of the homosexual agenda here is not remote.

To slouch back to Sodom is to return to the Bad Old Days in ancient Greece or even China where sex was utterly wild and unrestrained, and homosexuality was considered superior to man-women relations. Women’s groups should note that where homosexuality was celebrated, women were relegated to low social roles; when homosexuality was idealized in Greece, women were objects not partners, who ran homes and bore babies. Back then, whether a man had sex with another man, woman or child was a matter of indifference, like one’s eating preferences. The only relevant category was penetrator and penetrated; sex was not seen as interactive intimacy, but a doing of something to someone. How degrading.

Victorian England had something similar. Women were to be seen and not heard. Homosexuality was not celebrated yet women were regarded as property - when a woman married her property went to her husband.

Polygamous societies were not much better. If I’m not wrong, you can be punished by death for being a homosexual but you can have a thousand wives whom you treat as property.

To link women’s rights and position in society to homosexuality is ingenious but faulty.

It was only when marriage was invented by the Jewish Torah that the genie of sexual impulses was forced into the marital bottle, so that sex no longer dominated society – this discipline provided the social base for the development of western civilization.

The concept of marriage existed long before the Jewish people. What the Jews tried to do was to create a concept of monogamy. However, one should note that the Jews were fairly open with the concept of mistresses. Abraham the Patriarch of the Jewish and Arab people had a wife called Sarah but a “Mistress” called Hagar. Incidentally is Professor Thio suggesting that Western Civilisation is superior to others?

Homosexuals as fellow citizens have the right to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour. We should not be subject to the tyranny of the undemocratic minority who want to violate our consciences, trample on our cherished moral virtues and threaten our collective welfare by imposing homosexual dogma on right-thinking people. Keep 377A.

It is possible to separate a dislike for homosexuals from the desire to make homosexual acts illegal. The good professor has failed to show a single credible legal reason as to why two consenting adults have to be criminalised for their behaviour in the privacy of their bedroom. Allowing two consenting adults to do something in the privacy of their bedroom is not an imposition on us to surrender our fundamental values and beliefs. She has failed to indentify who the law protects and what harm repealing it would cause.

The argument that many people dislike homosexuality and therefore acts of consenting homosexual sex should be made illegal is what you would consider fitting for a playground and not a parliament or court of law. Professor Thio has failed to show a sound logical and legal reason as to why it is necessary to keep a consenting act between consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom criminal. How can any logical and reasonable person of sound mind keep 377A on the statuette books based on her arguments?

Democracy and Debate

Sir, we Singaporeans will continue to debate and disagree over controversial moral issues as they arise. We should make substantive arguments and not think with our feelings; the media should present both sides fairly, without bias.

However, I have noted a disturbing phenomenon over the 377A debate– the argument by insult. Instead of reasoning, some have resorted to name-calling to intimidate and silence their opponents. People with principled moral objections to the homosexual agenda are tarred and feathered ‘homophobes’, ‘bigots’, to shut them up. This strategy is unoriginally imported from foreign gay activists, which stifles creative thinking and intellectual enquiry.

I don't think this is restricted to the debate on homosexuality. Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in many European nations. As awful as it may be, I believe criminalising debate is not the way to go. The only way to question views is to challenge them with evidence.

When you shout, full of sound and fury, and call your opponents nasty names, this terminates public debate. No one wants to be called a bigot. But think about it – if I oppose incest, am I an incestophobe? If I oppose alcoholism, am I a winophobe? If having an opinion means you are bigoted, then we are all bigots! What is your phobia?

Well, if you display an irrational fear of something it is not unreasonable to conclude that you have a phobia of something. Professor Thio has been thus far irrational in her views of homosexuals and therefore one can reasonably assume she is homophobic.

Where certain liberals accuse their opponents of being intolerant, they demonstrate their own intolerance towards their opponents! They are hoist on their own petard, guilty of everything they accuse their detractors of!

One of my colleagues, a young professor, suffered these vicious tactics when the Straits Times published an article this May where Yvonne Lee argued against repealing 377A. This well-researched, cogent article so incensed homosexual activists that they flooded her with a torrent of abusive, lewd emails and wrote to her head of department calling for her to be removed from her job. This appeared to be a co-ordinated campaign.

We academics are used to disagreement, but why write to her employer and threaten her livelihood? Why vilify someone and seek to assassinate their personal and professional reputation? I hope the House joins me in deploring these malicious attacks which also assault academic freedom. She is owed an apology. I would be ashamed to belong to any academic institution that cravenly bowed down to such disgraceful bully-boy tactics.

Same can be said for a parliament that saw listened to an argument filled with irrational statements and yet proceeded to bow down to the forces of irrationality and proceeded to mock the concept of the rule of law in a country that prides itself in legal transparency.

This August, I had my own experience with this sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of hatemongering. It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed.

I believe in free debate but this oversteps the line. I was distressed, disgusted, upset enough to file a police report. Does a normal person go up to a stranger to express such irrational hatred?

Smear tactics indicate the poor quality of debate and also, of character. Let us have rational debate, not diatribe, free from abusive rhetoric and tantrum-throwing. As Singapore approaches her Jubilee, My hope for the post-65 generation is that we will not become an uncivil civil society borne from an immature culture of vulgarity which celebrates the base, not the noble.

I’m sorry you had to suffer abuse. Then again, such is life in the public eye. If you can’t take it ..

I speak, at the risk of being burned at the stake by militant activists. But if we don’t stand for something, we will fall for anything. I was raised to believe in speaking out for what is right, good and true, no matter the cost. It is important in life not only to have a Brain, but a Spine.

One of my favourite speeches by PM Lee, which I force my students to read, is his Harvard Club speech 2 years ago where he urged citizens not to be “passive bystanders” in their own fate but to debate issues with reason and conviction. I took this to heart. To forge good policy, we need to do our homework and engage in honest debate on the issues. Let us also speak with civility, which cannot be legislated, but draws deep from our character and upbringing. Before government can govern man, man must be able to govern himself.

Well Said.....So why don’t we allow people who can govern themselves to do as they please in the privacy of their bedroom?

Sir, let speaking in the public square with reason, passion, honesty, civility, even grace, be the mark of a Citizen of Singapore.

The Wedding and the Funeral

2011-10-14T18:06:00.001+08:00

My Grand-Auntie Luan died two-days ago. Last night, the family held a short, informal gathering. It was a touching moment. A few tears were shed but I felt that the gathering had the feel of a celebration of a life well lived rather than a wake for the departed. I remember telling Uncle Jeffrey I was sorry for the loss of his mother and he said, “No, don’t be sorry – she had a good, long life.”

He’s right; she lived until 85, which is a good innings by most standards. Her old age was what you could call a good one. While she had plenty of health issues, she constantly in the presence of loved ones and from what I gathered from her family, her passing was peaceful. What more could one have wished for?

These simple facts of her life ensured that despite the few tears shed, the family gathering became a celebration of her life rather than mourning for her death. Her passing is the end of an era for my mother’s side of the family. My mother’s grandmother’s children and their spouses (Grand-Aunt Luan was the wife of Grand-Uncle Peter, my grandma’s elder brother) have gone and as clichéd as it sounds a new era for the family begins.

This point was brought home by the fact that Grand-Aunt Luan passed away a week after her grandson Jonathan got married. Grand-Uncle Dick (Husband of Great-grandma’s adopted daughter, Eunice) pointed out that Grand-Aunt Luan had not been eating much towards the last few days of her life. However, when it came to Jonathan’s wedding she found her appetite again. You could say that she waited to see her grandson get married – enjoyed the party and then she left on a high-note. When you look at things this way – Uncle Jeffrey could not have been more correct – she had a good life.

Grand-Auntie Luan’s children and grandchildren have made it a point to ensure that her passing will be a celebration of her life. By doing that, they made sure that Chinese New Year celebrations at their house will remain a happy occasion and although the three old ladies who used to be the centre of attention (Grandma, Grand-Aunts Violet and Luan) are no longer around, the family love will continue.

What freaks me out was Jonathans wedding. Don’t get me wrong, I’m really happy he’s found Crystal. They look good together and their wedding dinner was a fabulous occasion.

My problem is – I still think of Jonathan as a small kid and seeing him do something as grown-up as getting married is freaky! Suddenly it makes me realise that time is really flown by. The children that I once knew are growing up. What happened to all the “little cute” guys I knew.

First it was my baby brother Christopher. When I thought of Christopher it was all about giving him tight hugs and jumping in his bed in the morning. Now, he’s in university. The last time I had to say good bye to him, it was at a tube station in Hamburg, he was in the German Military and we saluted.

Now, it’s Jonathan getting married and taking that big step into setting up a life on his own with the woman that he loves. I can’t believe it and he still looks like a young boy.......

Grand Aunt’s passing and Jonathan’s wedding has been two reminders that life moves. My mum made the point that nothing is finite so treasure the people that you love now and don’t wait till they’re gone.

I didn’t spend all that much time with my grandma. I lived overseas most of my life and so only saw her on holiday. Then when I moved back, I continued to treat things as they were. Grandma seemed to be one of those people who would last forever. She had her bouts of ill health but other than that she was pretty indestructible. Then one day she was gone.

When I look back at my own experience, I have the regret that I wasn’t the better grandson I could have been. I do wish that I had found the time to share a decent moment with her.

However, I look at Grand-Aunt Luan’s passing and I bless the fact that there is God out there who saw to it that Jonathan was a better grandson to his grandmother than I was to mine. God was good to see that Jonathan could share his special moment with his grandmother. I’m sure it made her passing easier.........

An Open Letter to the Prime Minister - Ordinary Singaporean Looking for the Job of Nominated Member of Parliament

2011-10-11T03:34:00.001+08:00

Prime Minister:

This note will probably come as something as a surprise to you but since I have escaped certain death twice this year; I figured that I might be being saved for something special. I have no idea what that special something is but since you are the key to one of the special things I would like to try and do, I thought I would draft a note to see how far I would get.

I am looking for a job in politics. Since I am not a member of the PAP, I can’t be a Member of Parliament nor do I wish to take the job since I have no desire to be everyone’s problem solver of last resort. I am however, looking to the possibility of being a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP.)

Why would anyone want to take this job? Well, I believe that I am qualified for the job and my presence in parliament would provide the government with a view from the ground that it would never be able to get through polls and grassroots feedback.

I am far from being a star that you can show off. You could say that in almost every way, my life has been something of a disappointment. However, I have had my moments of glory. In short, my life is probably the same story as your average working Singaporean. Like the majority of Singaporeans, I am struggling to make a living but somehow in that struggle, I have found a certain purpose in that very struggle.

You could call me a “failed entrepreneur.” I am the owner of a small public relations practice. I call myself failed in the sense that I haven’t made much money from this business. However, I can tell you that in the course of this business, I’ve learnt the lesson that the small man can stand up and have his day. As a one-man show, I have handled some of the biggest brands in the world. Amongst the clients I have serviced are GE Commercial Finance (Since sold to Standard Chartered Bank), Alcon, 3M and Underwriters Laboratory (UL).

As well serving big brands, I’ve also helped promote Singapore to the wider world. My proudest moment came when the Saudi Embassy, under former Ambassador, Dr Amin Kurdi hired me to coordinate the embassy’s efforts during Crown Prince Sultan’s visit to Singapore in 2006. As well as working for the Saudi Embassy, I also helped promote Saudi Culture through two projects with Saudi Aramco in 2004 and 2006.

However, life hasn’t been just about rubbing shoulders with the Excellencies and high flying civil servants to set the tone for Singapore. I count amongst my best friends, an immigrant from Nepal as well as a former prostitute who married a former prison convict. For brief period in 2004, I had to call Hotel 81 in Geylang Lorong 12 my home.

I am, as they say, not unfamiliar with the fact that Singapore has a gutter. As much as I have been part of Singapore’s sexy, I am also familiar with the underbelly that nobody wants to talk about. My familiarity with both sides of Singapore provides me with the unique view of Singapore as it really is rather than what any particular vested interest group may like you to think it is.

Having seen both sides of Singapore in the last decade, I remain a patriotic Singaporean. I am at time critical of certain things and I am at times grateful for things being the way that they are. I am one of the odd balls who moved back from the more “liberated” West because I believed Singapore was the place that I could do most for. Things haven’t exactly turned out the way I thought they would but on the balance of things, after a decade of being at home, it seems that I made a decent enough choice.

Like you, I am a Gunner from the 23rd Battalion Singapore Artillery. I have served National Service in a combat unit and in a combat vocation. I believe that there are things about Singapore that are worth defending and even though I am now past the age where I’m obliged to do it militarily, I’ll gladly to it in public service.

I am also what you could call a creature of the new media. I maintain a blog, which I started back in 2006. Much to my surprise, I have had over 17 thousand page views. I blog under my own name and every time I participate in online discussions, I use my real name. I believe very firmly that if you need to say something, you should be able to take the consequences. You are free to check out my blog, which I have since translated, thanks to Google into Chinese, Hindi, Malay, Vietnamese, Thai and Tamil. I believe I make positions clear, I have been critical of government but I pray that what criticisms I’ve made were constructive.

I need a job and I believe the job of NMP needs someone like me. I understand that a select committee will be formed to look into who gets one of the available slots. Since I don’t know anyone on the committee, I pray that you would do me the honour of putting my name forward and that I would be considered for this position. It would be an honour to serve in Parliament.

I hope I’ve been brief but informative enough in telling you why I believe I deserve this chance to serve my nation. If you or anyone in parliament needs to know more, do feel free to contact me so that I may have the privilege with telling you what you want to know.

References can be provided if required.

With Warmest Regards

Greatness

2011-10-09T04:57:00.001+08:00

There can be no doubt that Steve Jobs; the late CEO of Apple Computers was a great man. If you were to look back at the last two-decades of human history and ask who was the greatest man, Mr Jobs would certainly be one of the leading contenders.

Mr Jobs was a revolutionary thinker. It was his brilliant strategic vision that made Apple one of the most valuable companies (at the time of writing, Apple is competing with ExxonMobil to be the most valuable company on the New York Stock Exchange) after it had been written off.

Every entrepreneur dreams of coming up with a product or service that will change an industry. Mr Jobs did this in about half a dozen industries. First he came out with the Mac, which revolutionised personal computing. Then, when he got kicked out of Apple in May 1985, Mr Jobs went on to create NeXT Computers (which produced the basis for many of Apple’s later inventions) and then to Pixar, the company that changed the face of animation (produced Toy Story, the first-ever full length animation feature film.) When he returned to Apple in 1996, Mr Jobs went onto change the way we use desktops with the iMac, listen to music with the iPod and use mobile phones thanks to the iPhone.

With his track record, you could call Mr Jobs a genius. He had the unique ability of understanding what people would want before they themselves knew it and creating the technology to suite those needs. Mr Jobs understood the technology and he understood the business. You could say that the only other person who understood business and technology was Thomas Edison who lived nearly a century earlier.

Mr Jobs was not without his faults. He was not above using intimidation and humiliation of his subordinates. He was also not above using “monopolistic” practices that were more commonly associated with his rival, Bill Gates of Microsoft.

However, all of these things grew into Mr Job’s public persona and on the whole; you could say that it made him even more enduring to the public imagination. If he was terrifying to work for, it was because he was a demanding perfectionist. Say what you like about the man but he did build his wealth from giving us things that changed our lives for the better and without “ravaging” the world in the manner of the robber barons of the past century did.

His personal story was also appealing. You could call it – “The stuff that makes epic movies.” His birth-name was not “Jobs.” His natural father is a Syrian Muslim called, “Abdulfattah John Jandali.” He was in fact given up for adoption to Paul and Clara Jobs. Much is also made of the fact that Mr Jobs dropped out of university.

His life had ups and downs. He created Apple back in the early 1980s with Steve Wozniak and was unceremoniously dismissed in May 1985 by the man he brought into be its CEO. His return to Apple in 1996 was the “comeback” story that most of us can only dream of.

Mr Jobs has done more than enough to deserve the title of “Great.” He is rightfully revered by the technology and wider community for his achievements. His death on October 5, 2011 at the age of 55 marks the loss to humanity of a man who single-handedly did so much to make life better for so many. Amongst the people delivering eulogies was the President of the USA. Even his old rival, Mr Bill Gates, paid tribute to man who had brought us so many good things.

As great as Mr Jobs was, he had one major failing. To the millions of Apple product fans around the world, I might be committing an act of heresy to speak of his failings, but failings he had and his major failing provides an important lesson in leadership and personal development.

Mr Jobs’s biggest failing was this – everything he did was about him. In one sense this might not matter much. Who cares why he brought us the various “I” products – fact remains, he brought them to us and we’ve benefited from them.

However, on the wider scale of things, Mr Jobs’s failure has wider implications on how people view professional and personal management. Mr Jobs is and will remain to be revered by people all over the world and as much as we may want to learn from the many things he did right, its important to learn from the things he did wrong.

Let’s start with the obvious – Mr Jobs’s relationship with Apple. He was the founder and visionary leader. He was ousted from the company. He came back to run the company at the point when it was crumbling and remade it such that it ended up taking over several worlds. This speaks volumes about Mr Jobs as talented and visionary entrepreneur.

However, Mr Jobs never really made much of an effort to distinguish between him and Apple. The legend is that it was Mr Jobs’s personal vision that got Apple to bring out the host of revolutionary products. It was Mr Jobs’s vision that marketed these products into “Must have’s” for the world. Crudely put, Apple’s success was Mr Jobs’s.

Apple and Mr Jobs were one and the same. Apple was brilliant because Mr Jobs was. For an organisation, this works well provided the brilliant founder running the company remains so indefinitely.

Unfortunately, Mr Jobs was human and had a very human fault – he was prone to ill health. In 2004 he was diagnosed with a mild form of pancreatic cancer. He only resigned in August 2011, two months before his death. When he resigned, shares in Apple fell by a mere five percent (which is significant if you take Apple’s market capitalisation into consideration.).

As the tributes to Mr Jobs pour in, the question remains – “What is Apple’s future without Steve Jobs?” This valid question should be worrying Apple Employees and Shareholders. Will the company be able to survive with Mr Jobs? Will the company be able to remain brilliantly innovative now that Mr Jobs is gone?

Greatness is often measure by personal achievements – your greatness depends on what you do. Where many great fail to take that step into “True – Greatness” is that the truly great men know when to leave the stage and in many cases leave the stage at their own choosing.

In this respect, Mr Jobs failed to take that step into true greatness, unlike his less flamboyant rival, Mr Bill Gates at Microsoft.

Like Mr Jobs, Mr Gates played a key role in revolutionising the technology industry. Unlike Mr Jobs, Mr Gates operated on more than just being a reflection of his personal glory.

Yes, Windows and MS Dos are inferior products to the Apple Mac. Both systems were not creations of Mr Gates (he bought them off someone else). Mr Gates did not build his fortune by personal brilliance in technology and entrepreneurship. He did by having a vision (Computer on every desk) and then bringing together the various parties to make it work (from the original creator of DOS to the team at IBM).

The PC may not have the sex appeal of the Apple Mac but for most of us, it remains a reliable tool that we use out of sheer necessity. Ironically, Apple ran commercials that summed it up. PC was personified by a dull chap in a tweed jacket while the Mac was personified by the sexy young man dressed in a hip manner. As is often said, “Girls may be attracted to bad-boys but they marry the good boys.” PC may have lacked sex appeal but has proven reliable enough for most of us to stick by it.

The same is true of Mr Gates. He may have lacked Mr Jobs’s showmanship and strategic flamboyance, but he more than made up for it by being reliable and dedicated to his core message of a computer on every desk. Who built the greater fortune? Who has made more for ordinary people? Mr Gates didn’t recreate the way we listen to music but he’s made being rich accessible to ordinary people.

More importantly, Mr Gates has separated himself from Microsoft. He stepped down as CEO and handed the reigns over to a successor he trusted. He has used his vast fortune to make a difference to the world we live in thanks to his foundation.

You may not like Mr Gates but you cannot argue against the fact that he has been an immensely decent person. Microsoft was where he made his money. His foundation will be the place where he secures his name in history – he is the one person who may single-handedly find a cure for diseases like malaria and TB, which make a difference to a bigger number of people than a new phone.

In short, Mr Gates has managed to work his way into “true-greatness” in a way that Mr Jobs failed to do because he understood that things were more than just about his personal brilliance. Mr Jobs did brilliant things at Apple and at the companies he worked for (Pixar and Disney.). We celebrate Mr Jobs for brining us great products and giving us technologies that enhanced our lives.

Mr Jobs and Apple were brilliant. However, the question remains, is Apple capable of surviving without Mr Jobs? In a way the signs are encouraging. The only other entrepreneur and innovator is Thomas Edison, the man who created General Electric (GE). Today GE remains the only surviving member of the original NYSE. However, there are other signs to suggest otherwise – namely the stories about Mr Jobs’s controlling personality.

By contrast, nobody will forget Mr Gates. History will remember him not just as the man who built what was the world’s greatest fortune (US$100 billion plus in the 1990s) but as the man who gave so much to making the lives of the world’s destitute much better.

There are Foreigners and there are Foreigners

2011-10-06T05:24:00.001+08:00

For anyone hanging around Singapore’s chattering class and surfing the internet, it’s easy to get the impression that there is a large gap between the rulers and the ruled in Singapore. This is especially so when it comes to the very touchy issue of foreigners. As far as the chattering classes are concerned, foreigners are the source of every social ill. Why are houses in Singapore so expensive? The answer is because the foreigners have made it so. Why can’t I get a job? The foreigners have taken them. Why are public service standards declining? The foreigners have made public transport unusable.

The rulers on the other hand, have been trying desperately to remind us that Singapore has a very precious commodity – economic growth. The only reason why we have this precious commodity is because we have “foreigners” to drive it for us. Why is Singapore prosperous? That’s because we are open to foreign investment and talent.

With two extreme views being thrown around, what’s the reality when it comes to foreigners in Singapore? Well, the answer is probably both and the reality is that the difference in view between the powers-that-be and the chattering classes is in fact not that great when it comes to issue of foreigners. The reason for this is simple. As far as the nation is concerned, there are foreigners and there are foreigners. The government has divided the two different groups into neat little categories called “foreign TALENT” and “foreign LABOUR.” What do these labels mean?

The official reasons are this – “To be a ‘TALENT’ means that you have a ‘professional’ skill of sorts. Chances are, you have a degree from a recognised university and chances are you work at middle-management level at the very least. If you are known as ‘LABOUR,’ you merely here to do manual work and you are most likely to have barely completed high-school.” What does this mean in “real-speak?” As far the officials are concerned, “TALENT” is a necessity and therefore something we have to go all out to woo, while “LABOUR” is what we grudgingly accept from our Asian neighbours. Funnily enough, there’s very little disagreement between the rulers and the ruled on this matter.

As far as the ruled are concerned, the “Talent” happen to be the type of people that we want to accommodate. Put any pale skin in front of any particular Singaporean, you’ll find them trying to change their accent to “fit-in” with the “welcomed” guest. However, when you put a Chinaman in front of a Singaporean, you’ll find that even the half educated, who can barely string a sentence of English together, wills start complaining that the Chinaman has failed to “integrate” into Singapore society by failing to learn English.

So, funnily enough, the rulers and the ruled seem to agree on the two different classes of foreigners who are inhibiting Singapore. You could say a part of this is due to history. The foreigners who came from places where the natives were slightly pink tended to come as the “overlords,” whether they were Colonial Administrators in the 1800s or Senior Managers in the 2000s. As Lee Kuan Yew our Founding Prime Minister says, “The Superiority of the White Man was a fact of life.”

On the other hand, the foreigners who are dark skinned, came in and are still coming in to shovel our shit. You can’t blame the foreigners for doing what they do. The “dark” skinned people are coming to Singapore because – hey, they make more money shovelling our shit in one day than their folks make on the farm in a year.

You can’t blame pink and blotchy people for coming here either. Would you rather be in a place where you’re just one of the plebs or in a place where the natives will kill themselves just to clean your shit-stained arse with their tongues? If only people would do this for fat and bald men? The reason for pink-blotchy and dark foreigners coming here is obvious and if one were in their position, one would probably be doing the same thing – finding a way to get into this little island that welcomes people from all over the world.

You also have to give credit to the foreigners for doing lots of good. The dark foreigners do things like keep Singapore’s streets clean and they look after our kids. The pink-blotchy ones have also done credit to us. Where would the Singapore advertising industry be without the likes of Neil French, former Global Creative Head of the WPP Group? What needs to be questioned is the Singaporean attitude towards both groups of foreigners.

Its become a serious enough issue in the sense that Singaporeans seem to be allowing their personal views to ruin some of the very things that make Singapore so good – a place where there is something called “justice, equality and fairness.”

Let’s start with the pink-blotchy people. Generally, many of them do come from countries where certain skill sets in certain industries are more developed. As such, a good portion of them end up as senior managers in the big companies that employ the majority of Singaporeans. Neil French former global head of the WPP Group comes to mind as does my stepfather, Lee Smith, a former creative coordinator of what was then known as Lintas. Many of them have also started small enterprises, which have benefited Singaporeans.

From my personal and family circle, the name that comes to mind is Hans Hofer, the founder of Appa Guides. His story is well known. Mr Hofer came to Singapore in the 70s after a stint in Bali. The man came up with the idea of adding colour photos to guide books and somehow managed to produce a publishing empire. Years later, he sold out to the German Publishing Giant Langenscheidt. Mr Hofer employed Singaporeans and made Singapore a place to visit for people in the publishing industry. The likes of Mr French and Mr Hofer are rightly revered. If you look at their achievements, they’d be heroes even if they didn’t spend a good portion of their time in Singapore. These men are genuine talents. Unfortunately, the pink-blotchy community has a few duds.

In the advertising industry there is a chap called Alan Ardy, who has reinvented himself as the industry eccentric. Mr Ardy’s claim to fame was seducing my stepfather’s Thai maid and when that couldn’t get him the attention he sought, his wife accused my mother of stealing a cross-stitch book – a fact that is insulting not only on the account that it insinuated my mother was a thief but also the fact that she would stoop to steal a book on cross-stitching (something my old-lady has never been known to like).

Mr Ardy is a sorry excuse of an old queen who was jealous of the fact my stepfather ended up with my mother instead of him. If this was any other country, Mr Ardy would probably be left to wallow away his days in the Admiral Duncan in Soho (Gay Pub that got bombed while I still lived there). However, this is Asia and Mr Ardy has had the good fortune to be born the right colour. Go to any industry function and you’ll find Mr Ardy holding court as if he were king of the world. Mr Ardy has proudly offered to show me the number of women begging to for him to get into their panties and he’s always done this as he leers at me.

The nicest thing you can say about Mr Ardy is that he’s harmless. If the talented Asians in the industry want to have a laugh with him, so be it. If there are any women dying for him to get into their panties, I think they’ll be disappointed. In fairness to Mr Ardy, he tried to make a living in advertising and he didn’t swindle people.

Things become less pleasant when you start talking about the charlatans who actively promote theft and in some cases – genocide. I start with the likes of Fred Seaward, Pastor of Elim Church – Gina’s pastor. When you first meet Fred, he’s actually quite nice. He always seems happy to see you and his warmth is dare I say it, quite genuine. Attend one of his services and you’ll realise why he’s so keen to be your friend. What he wants is your soul.

Officially, it’s not him but Jesus. However, if you listen carefully enough, Fred hasn’t actually passed a soul to Jesus for quite sometime. Miracles come in the shape of donations – “We asked you for money to buy a car – we prayed, there was a miracle – we raised enough money for a five-door car instead of a four-door one. Praise the Lord.” Fred isn’t ashamed to say that the car he’s collecting for is for – his wife. You could say that if working-graduate-professionals are stupid enough to contribute to Fred’s coffers, you should let them. He never held a gun to their head and they just donated.

Where I take issue with Fred is in his active promotion of his version of Christianity of common sense and decency. He was smart and kept his views to “Isn’t it wonderful, we’re claiming one back from Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism etc.” However, my ex-wife had a way of repeating what he taught – “Those people in Indonesia and Thailand – they sin and they sin – you know what they’re religion is – that’s why God sent the Tsunami to punish them.” I don’t know about you but for me that borders of the promotion of genocide and the stirring-up of religious hatred – both are serious crimes in Singapore. Yet, nobody seems to complain about this. Singaporeans of all colours seem quite content to listen to Fred talk about “The Chosen People,” and their steal land is to be encouraged. It seems quite acceptable to talk about how people of different faiths deserve to be wiped out on mass because they had the good sense not to contribute to Pastors coffers. This is not acceptable by most decent people’s standards. Yet Fred remains untouched by the powers-that-be.

In the secular world, you have crooks like Roger James Hamilton and Dave Rogers. Messer’s Hamilton and Rogers are the stars of a show called “Badman and Robme.” How do they make a living? They sell memberships to a club called – “I’ll Make You RICH if you give me YOUR money.” I actually went to one of his seminars. His theme was as simple as “You can get rich if you give me money and I let you meet my billionaire friends.” Erm, if you had a personal data base of billionaires, you wouldn’t sell them to the highest bidder! The scam was obvious. People fell for it. Mr Hamilton couldn’t even be bothered to hide much.

He was happily claiming that the Depak Chopra Institute was behind him even though they had sent him legal notices about it. He claimed genius status from Cambridge even though he got a third. Yet, despite peddling what is blatant fraud, our Commercial Affairs Department couldn’t find anything wrong with him and the local press had this incredible urge to be “fair” to Mr Hamilton and somehow the urge to expose the obvious fraud went as far as pork chops in a mosque.

Now, if you look at the darkies who come over to Singapore, you’d find a somewhat similar story. Just as there are good and bad pink-blotchies, there are good and bad darkies. Girls from China, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia have been known to work as prostitutes. The chaps from Bangladesh get roped into selling duty-free cigarettes on the streets of Geylang.

However, most of the darkies are hard working, decent people. If you look at Singapore hard enough, you’ll realise that it is the darkies who keep things moving. Our kids and old folks are looked after by Filipino and Indonesian maids. Our streets are kept clean by Bangladeshis. Indian, Chinese and Thai labourers build new buildings in the hot sun. Singapore’s leaders trust their lives to Ghurkha’s from Nepal. The darkies are not as refined as the pink-blotchies since most of them have barely left high school if they’ve even been to primary school in the first place.

The darkies are a little unsure of many of the social norms like volume control when chatting on the phone. Travel on a bus and the loudest voice usually belongs to a darkie chatting away with someone back home. However, when all of this is said and done, the darkies are a decent hard working community doing the jobs that Singaporeans won’t do or selling services that Singaporeans are more than happy to pay for. Nobody is forcing the local Singaporean man to head down to Geylang!

However, officialdom in Singapore doesn’t seem to take too kindly to this fact and our officials are on a mission to ensure that the darkies don’t get any funny ideas. The police will probably claim that this is necessary. I think of a Ministry of Manpower official who told me, “If they commit a crime, we can’t let them in,” after I told her that a group of darkies merely wanted to work in Singapore and pay tax – something which locals and Pink-Blotchies aren’t rushing to do. My question to her is – exactly what crimes have the darkies committed that warrants the official stamp of disapproval against them.

Let’s acknowledge that there is blatant racism against dark people in Singapore as there is in quite a few places. What’s a little frightening about the racism in Singapore is that it is actually in official policy.

I know of a White South African who couldn’t get a work permit. He’s a dental technician, the type of skilled professional we’re looking for, yet for some reason he was denied the right papers. Finally, he decided to see the people at Immigration. True enough – he got the permit. Reason was simple – they realised that despite having the word “Africa” on his passport – he is white.

You have the case of making Saudi citizens apply for visas. This was a restriction imposed on Saudi Arabia after September 11, 2001. The argument ran something like 19 of the 22 hijackers were Saudi citizens so we have to be careful. However, this argument fails when you consider the fact that nobody has considered imposing visas on Americans and British citizens in the light of the 2008 financial crisis. If you use the argument that we have to be careful because 19 Saudis were terrorists, surely the same has to apply to Americans and Brits since the financial crisis was caused by American and British Bankers (who have on the balance of things caused far more damage to the world than the hijackers could have).

Singapore isn’t exactly trying to shy away from Saudi Arabia. In fact, we’re unashamedly trying to take their money. However, our easing restrictions on visas for Saudi’s entering Singapore has been quite pitiful and we’ve been content to allow Washington and Tel Aviv dictate our views on the Middle East – which is like asking Pamela Anderson to set a good example to teenage girls in a convent.

Whenever you compare the treatment that officials give to pink-blotchies and darkies, you are bound to see a scandalous contrast. Look at the police presence in Orchard Towers and Geylang – areas that offer hookers and booze.

In Orchard Towers the police presence consists of a car parked at the opposite end of the road. In the mean time you have girls actively soliciting for business (soliciting is a crime even if prostitution is not) along Singapore’s main shopping district. You have lots of alcohol, which means you get to see pink-blotchy culture at its best – the scum rises near the surface.

Whenever the boys in blue feel obliged to act, it’s always against anyone who objects to being pushed around by pink-blotchy scum.

In Geylang you have a lot less booze and the girls who are not in legal brothels tend to be standing along the ally ways. The booze drinkers usually stick to the coffee shops that sell them the booze. Yet the police are active in the area.

Darkies who sit together in a bus stop are likely to be questioned by the police. There are, needless to say far more instances of trouble in Pink-blotchy land in Orchard Towers than there are in Darkie Land in Geylang. However, the authorities look at what goes on in Orchard Towers as a bit of laddish fun while what goes on in Geylang is a crime waiting to happen.

Look at Singapore and you’ll realise that there parts where Pink-blotchy people might visit are always, without fail immaculate. There will always been a well ventilated, air-conditioned room for the pink-blotchy person and the government officials will be, without fail – attentive.

Compare that the Work Pass Division at the Ministry of Manpower. This is the division of the Manpower Ministry that deals with the foreign workers or more specifically the Darkies. Since no Pink-Blotchy is about to visit this section of the Ministry of Manpower, the ministry has invested close to nothing into ensuring that the place is halfway decent. The customers are after all Darkies and the staffs there is merely dealing with darkies. How does the system work at this section of the Ministry of Manpower?

The answer is simple. There is a small waiting room, which is fully air-conditioned. This is where the officials sit. People are processed in this room. You give them your details whenever they call you for an interview. If you are an unfortunate Darkie who has been called to this part of the Ministry of Manpower for an interview, you are processed and then told to wait outside.

It doesn’t exactly matter if it’s a hot day. Somehow, the officials there have figured out that there is a tin roof over your head and so you don’t get the full force of the sun. Since you are a darkie, as opposed to a pink-blotchie, this is considered significant shelter. You waiting time in the outdoor heat can vary. One of the standards runs merely from 10am to 6pm. Darkies are told to wait outside and they are to wait and wait and wait, until the Ministry of Manpower’s officials remember that they are supposed to deal with a bunch of darkies.

In the mean time, the darkies are supposed to sit there and endure the fact that its hot and there’s isn’t a vending machine within walk able distance. This is after all a place for Darkies. In Singapore’s official speak, I guess this is acceptable.

If I remember it correctly, the only place that had such a similar difference between pink-blotchies and darkies was South Africa. I remember they had a system called Apartheid and somehow that was wrong. I’m just looking for someone to explain to me why what we’re doing is not.

Can You Get It Right?

2011-10-01T03:06:00.002+08:00

One of the most amusing things about Singapore is its legal code when it comes to the area of sex. Although we have sold ourselves to the rest of the world as an anally obsessive society that views sex as a National Obligation rather than a social pleasure (We are not lusty Westerners or Whores from the rest of Asia), we have some of the most liberal laws in the world when it comes to prostitution. As long as you’re not forcing people to work in the business, you are free to sell your body in “oppressive” Singapore – something which you most certainly wouldn’t do in “Liberal” New York. However, while we have a thriving Red Light district, we have banned all forms of pornography. Smuggling a copy of Play Boy into the country could get you a similar fine to smuggling cigarettes. What is interesting about sex as an industry is even more so when it comes to private acts in the bedroom. For many years we remained a country that banned the blow-job as a means to an end (technically the lady can do it to get you hard – but you’ve got to do something else after you’ve got it up – don’t ask me how they tried to enforce this). We, as a nation, remain one of the few on the planet where marital rape remains a perfectly legal activity. Simply put, if I’m in the mood and the Mrs isn’t, I’ll just force myself onto her. As far as the penal code is concerned, its my legal right as a husband to get plenty of action regardless of what she thinks (of course the Woman’s Charter protects her property in ways that it doesn’t for her body. She initiates divorce and I end up having to maintain her. I cannot claim a penny her even if she makes in a day what I make in a month). However, if I was a homosexual, I would be committing a criminal offence with my consenting partner is we decided to have sex in the privacy of our bedroom. According to the Society of Conservative She-Males, allowing two consenting adults to do something in the privacy of their bedroom would ruin the morals of society. The Prime Minister, unfortunately seems to agree with this and so, we have a law called S377A. However, the Prime Minister himself as declared that the law will not be “pro-actively” enforced. When you look at the various contradictions in Singapore’s legal code when it comes to governing sexual activity, one can’t help but be amused. I, for one, have always found S377A amusing because it brings out the worst in my fellow countrymen. You have intelligent, working professionals lauding the conservative she-male as a bastion of morality when she makes the spurious argument that allowing two-consenting adults to do something in the privacy of their bedroom is somehow bad for everyone else who isn’t privy to the act. The keeping of S377A was ridiculous and just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse, they promptly did. Thanks to the stupidity of the law enforcers, Singapore’s favourite Pantomime, Mr M Ravi (Westerners call him a “Human Rights” lawyer – the people who actually know ie the Indian Community prefer the term nut-job but then again, this is Singapore so the views of Westerners prevails the views of local Indians), is actually going to have the chance of winning a case based on solid legal arguments. The background of the case is simple enough. Two chaps were caught doing something naughty in a public toilet in a shopping mall in September 2010. The men were charged under S377A. Mr Ravi then challenged the constitutionality of the act and the Attorney General’s chambers then withdrew the charge and replaced it with charge S294A, which deals with public obscenity. Mr Ravi, who has a talent for publicity, promptly continued the challenge to S377A. The man has suddenly found that you don’t need the circus when you represent clients. He’s found a very brilliant legal point – S377A actually contradicts section 12 of the Singapore Constitution which “Guarantees” Equality of all. How can you argue against that? Well, the likes of the conservative she-males will argue that sexual orientation is not the same as ethnicity or religion so sexual orientation does not get the same treatment as race or religion. However, that argument fails because the lesbians are perfectly entitled to have lesbian sex. Not only is it perfectly legal for lesbians to do what they want in the privacy of their bedroom, lesbian events are happily publicised to the rest of the world. So, it’s OK to do naughty things if you are a heterosexual and a dyke but somehow being a “Fairy Boy” is a crime? Does that make sense? Anyway, the challenge is going through the courts and the moment and I’m sure everyone will have plenty to say about it. My question remains – why did the AGC decide to bring charges against the men under S377A? I agree that the men deserved to get charge but the charge should have been for public obscenity. Let’s face it, I don’t mind what you do in the privacy of your bedroom but do I necessarily need to run the risk of running into someone committing a sexual act in a public place. More importantly, do I need my kids running the risk of watching you do naughty things in public? So yes they should have been charged for public obscenity. However, the law of S377A is specific. It refers to anal sex between two men and nothing else. There is no record of the two men having anal sex. The available records show that the men in question were having oral sex. So, regardless of whether the justices find in favour of Mr Ravi or not, S377A would not have worked anyway. The men were not in contradiction of the law. Now, here’s the question – why didn’t anyone in the police department or the AG’s chambers pick that up. You are talking about the chief prosecutor in the land here and if I, with non-existent legal experience can pick that up, why the hell was the nation’s chief legal prosecutor unable to? Is this sloppy police work or this an oversight by the Attorney-General’s chambers? In a way, this question is redundant. The fact remains, the prosecutor and legal enforcers actually charged two people under an act that simply did not apply to them. They have handed Mr Ravi a golden opportunity and to his credit Mr Ravi is running with it. The PAP got a nasty shock in the recent General and Presidential elections because the public basically felt that we were paying lots of money for public services that were not up to par. This glaring in Mas Selamat’s stroll from Whitely detention centre. It was glaring when there floods in Orchard Rd. In a way, the government needs to thank Mr Ravi for picking on the act of S377A and turning it into an issue of homosexual rights. This will take away attention from what is a less sexy but in a way more prominent issue – governmental incompetence and the management of it. The government has received its electoral mandate. It has been shown the issues that it needs to confront. It needs to do it instead of trying to obscure things if it wants to retain its commanding presence at the next election.

The Rat Finds his Groove

2011-09-26T18:28:00.001+08:00

It’s easy to feel sorry for Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority. Ever since he was elected to succeed the charismatic Yasser Arafat in 2004, Mr Abbas has been living like a rat that is caught in between an angry gorilla and a drunken elephant on one hand and a swarm of very irate hornets on the other. As far as Israel and the US are concerned, Mr Abbas has been totally ineffectual in keeping violent Islamic extremist under control and so he’s failed to guarantee Israeli security. As far the Islamist in Hamas are concerned, Mr Abbas has sold the people out to Israel and the West. Both sides have made it a point to place Mr Abbas at the sticky point between the fire and the frying pan. When he allowed Hamas to stand for an election, they had the audacity to win it in a fair electoral contest. As such, Israel and America decided to punish him by withholding taxes which the Palestinian Authority rises on Palestinians but is collected by Israel. When he tried to pacify the Israelis and Americans by sacking Hamas from the unity government that the Saudi’s helped him negotiate, they promptly took over the Gaza Strip by force and despite Israeli sanctions and invasion in 2008, they’ve actually succeeded in running something resembling a viable state. To be fair to Mr Abbas, the job of running the Palestinian Authority was never an easy one. Compared to his predecessor, Mr Abbas is dull and uninspiring. Say what you like about Mr Arafat but when he spoke he could get the people up in arms or to lay down his arms. By contrast Mr Abbas only seems able to get people to mock him. It also hasn’t helped that his Israeli and American counterparts have shown him less than zero respect. Israeli Prime Ministers, Ehud Olmert and Binyamin Nethanyahu have made it a point to humiliate Mr Abbas whenever they have had the chance. Mr Abbas says he’ll negotiate for peace in return for land – the Israeli’s promptly move more settlers into the West Bank as they sit down to negotiate. Not everything that Mr Abbas does can be blamed on someone else. Let’s face it, Hamas have gained a foothold with the Palestinian people because they have been everything that Mr Abbas has been unable to be. Hamas, as most neutral observers have pointed out, won elections in January 2006 because they ran honest and competent administrations in the Palestinian territories. By contrast, the areas run by Mr Abbas’s Fattah party were rife with corruption. The Western world may condemn Hamas for refusing to acknowledge the “right of Israel to exist,” but as far as a good many Palestinians are concerned, Hamas fights for Palestinian interest rather than Israeli and American interest. Sure, Israel did bomb the living daylights out of the Gaza strip in 2008 but as far as most Palestinians are concerned, that’s no worse than what happens in the West Bank – Israel merely takes the land that everyone else regards as Palestinian. Mr Abbas has nobody to blame except himself in this respect. Had his party been a bit more honest and a bit more inclined to the welfare of the Palestinian people, the threat he faces from Hamas would be a lot less severe. You would think that Mr Abbas would have merely slunk away into a hole to escape these pressures. Nobody would blame him if he did. However, he’s recently seems to have found his groove much to the annoyance of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Nethanyahu and the Islamist in Hamas. Mr Abbas’s decision to go straight to the UN to make the case for Palestinian Statehood is a brilliant strategic move. It’s clear that he’s going to lose in Security Council. The Americans have already announced that they’ll veto such a move. However, that is precisely the point. Mr Abbas will lose in the Security Council but he has the votes or at least enough votes to scare Israel and the USA in the General Assembly. At the time of writing, the Economist has argued that at the very least, Mr Abbas will see an upgrade from being a mere ‘entity.’ This won’t translate into much change on the ground but Mr Abbas will ensure that his existence is more than just an amusing fact for Israeli and American right wing politicians. The Palestinians will have to be treated as a nation – even if it is one without viable land. More importantly, Mr Abbas will be justified in having an armed force. More importantly, this is the first time that Mr Abbas has been able to project himself as “fighting” for the people. Any defeat in the Security Council through the expected American veto will prove that it is not Mr Abbas that has been a stumbling block to peace but Israel and America. If Mr Abbas gets the votes in the General Assembly as he is expected to – it will become very clear to the world that American and Israeli insistence for negotiations without preconditions is the insistence of a school yard bully rather than someone interested in making peace. Mr Abbas will also be able to show the Palestinians that he’s found a way of fighting for them without incurring violent retaliation from Israel. Suddenly Mr Abbas can portray himself as a clever fighter as opposed to the guys from Hamas. Now, the international community needs to act to support Mr Abbas’s move. There is no moral or logical reason for the Palestinian people not to have “statehood.” Both Palestinians and Israeli’s agree that they need a “two-state” solution. However, this won’t happen as long as only one side is regarded as a state. The main onus is on Israel. The Israeli nation has argued that it wants to be left alone by its ‘hostile’ Arab neighbours. Perhaps this was true in the 1960s, however, this increasingly less so. In 2002 and 2006, Saudi Abdullah proposed that Israel withdraw to its 1967 borders in return for diplomatic recognition by all 22 members of the Arab league. Israel has refused to even consider this – this is despite calls by US President Obama to use 1967 borders as the basis of negotiations. The settlements are illegal and building them on territories recognised as Palestinian as effectively an invasion. If Israel wants to stop terrorism against its citizens, she should stop building settlements and bring new Jewish Immigrants into Israel’s 1967 borders. The Sharm El-Sheikh report chaired by former US Senator George Mitchell found that there was a direct correlation between settlements building and suicide bombings. Stop settlement building and you stop the suicide bombers. As one Jewish currency trader I met said, “Of course the Palestinians are throwing rockets at us – we’ve locked them up in cages – what do you expect them to do.” If Israel were willing to stop settlement buildings and move back to its 1967 borders, it would make it easier for Mr Abbas and other Palestinian leaders to sell the idea that the Palestinian people have to give up their right to return to the homes they were turned out off and more importantly to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish State. Even Hamas has agreed to recognise the “Reality of Israel,” so there is hope if Israel shows a willingness to give back land it has taken. On the other hand, the Palestinians need leadership that takes responsibility for its own actions. Arafat had charisma but as an Algerian friend of mine pointed out – “That Bastard, stole everything.” Palestinians need to find a way of making what little they have work for them. They have the mercy of the Muslim world to provide them with the money and trade routes. Palestinians speak Arabic, the universal language of more than 100 million people. They have education and they are ironically near enough Israel to take advantage of a working economy that is well plugged into the Western world. The West also needs to help Palestine turn into something like Turkey – a strong democratic state where the majority of people happen to be Muslim. Mr Abbas has found his groove – let’s hope he stays on a roll – it could lead to something spectacular and unprecedented – peace and prosperity in a region known for violence.

How powerful is the Pen?

2011-09-21T03:39:00.001+08:00

Monday, September 19, 2011 will be a very special day for me. It was the day I had the first hand experience of the changing media landscape. At around 1500 on that day I was described by someone as a “Useless blogger with no credibility and not read by anyone.” Half an hour later, I received a sms telling me that I was “Quick to sell people off.” I replied that I would only do so if the price was right or if I was doing a public service at about 1700. Two hours later, the same person sent me a note saying, “I beg off you…” and that was followed by a phone call, imploring me to edit one of my postings because it had just come up on a Google search and he feared his misdeeds would become easily available. I edited the post in return for undertaking that the person in question promised to be become a nice person to his family. However, that really got me thinking about the new communications world that we live in today. Thanks to the internet, information has become readily available. For better or worse, information is so easy to get hold off that professional censors have been on the retreating end of the battle. This has been especially visible in the politics of totalitarian regimes that had a heavy hand in censoring the media. The internet and “smart phones,” have made it easy for people to organise demonstrations efficiently and effectively. One has to look at the General and Presidential Elections of 2011 in Singapore to get an idea of how the internet has been changing politics. Singapore politics is traditionally boring. There are usually so many uncontested seats in a General Election that the ruling party is returned to power before the first vote is cast. Presidential elections are even more predictable – the person that the government praises somehow ends up walking into the Istana without any contest. This time things were different. There was a contest in all but one constituency and the presidential election was won by the ruling party’s preferred candidate but only by the skin of his teeth. A few members of the ruling party, including an independent political analyst have argued that the talk about the internet changing things was pure hype. After all the ruling party did win 81 out of a possible 87 seats in parliament and the preferred candidate did win the Presidential Election. Their argument runs like this – the internet postings gives an impression that Singapore is highly polarised and people are going to vote out the ruling party in a landslide causing a revolution similar to the Arab Spring that ousted long time rulers like Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. That didn’t happen and so the argument runs – this proved that the internet chatter is purely hot air for a disgruntled minority. As appealing as this argument might be, it is misleading and dare I say delusional. This argument assumes that the internet is a magic wand that you can wave to make things happen. This attitude is similar to the idea that advertising invents product advantages and the right lawyer can convince judges and juries about things that don’t exist. Bill Burnbach, the legendary founder of DDB once made the point that, “Advertising cannot invent a product advantage that doesn’t exist.” Advertising is a method of communication and not a product advantage. The same is true for the internet. It is a forum for communications and not a magic wand. Singapore’s 2011 elections were like all other elections before it – they were about issues. Votes were won and lost based on how the public viewed certain issues. Generally speaking, life in Singapore remains fairly liveable and a large part is due to good governance. Then, there was the issue of the opposition. While the opposition fielded more attractive candidates than they had before, they remained fragmented and fought for the sake of fighting rather than on forming the next government. These were old fashioned reasons for voting. You have to consider the fact that Singaporeans may not be happy about certain issues and let off steam on the internet – but on the overall scheme of things they want the PAP government – it’s done a fabulous job. I know, I am one of them – I’ve been a critic of certain policies and of the presentation of policies but I believe that this is a government that has generally done what I want it to do. I also voted for Tony Tan because I thought he was the best person for this primarily ceremonial role. I simply didn’t feel angry enough to try to kick the party in the gonads… Effective communications can make the difference between success and failure. It cannot alter ground realities. Like many voters, I know whether my buses run on time and whether my bus ride is going to bankrupt me, regardless of what is being said in the main stream or on the net. What the internet did do in the election was to allow alternative view points and it gives us a different way of communicating. Things were easy in the day when the mainstream media was the only way of getting messages out there. The person who controlled the media could simply pump messages out to the masses who would passively accept them. As the governing party, the PAP has the levers of control of the media, which they used to their advantage. What the internet does is that it allows more voices to have their say. To all intents and purposes, this is the only forum available for opposition politics. Thanks to the internet, the PAP is not the ONLY voice around. Think of Tin Pei Ling who was caught stomping her foot online like a petulant child and posing like a naïve girl with her Kate Spade Handbags. In the mainstream media such videos would have been edited out by an editor. Now, people merely upload pictures and videos onto sites like Youtube and hey presto, your worst party pictures are known to the world. On a more serious note, there was the issue of Dr Tony Tan’s son’s lack of national service. This story broke on the internet and the main stream media had to react by giving more coverage to the issue. Simply put, control of the agenda was no longer in the ruling party’s hands. If there was only mainstream media they could talk about all their good deeds and expose the follies of their opponents. Thanks to the internet, they found that their follies being exposed. So how did the internet change things? It gave the opposition a chance to fight back. As a consumer of messages, I heard both arguments and I could make up my mind, which one I liked better. Like it or not, the PAP won because the opposition was merely a better prepared opposition rather than a credible alternative government. The margin of victory is by most standards very respectable and the number of seats held remains commanding. However, much of this has to do with the system of electoral boundaries. If one analyses the results, the PAP is in danger of losing its dominance thanks to the internet. The reason is simple; the PAP is so accustomed to fighting as if it was a gorilla with a baseball bat going into a boxing ring against a Yorkshire terrier that has had three of its hind legs broken and its teeth removed and its been given a lobotomy the night before and being cheered on by the crowd. If you follow this analogy the internet is a magic tool for the Yorkshire terrier. No, it doesn’t give him super strength to take on the gorilla. However, this is the magic tool that allows the terrier to heal his legs so he can run around rather than wait to get beaten up. It is also the tool that puts his teeth back in so that he can nip the gorilla (which won’t hurt initially but if done enough times….) and more importantly it allows the Yorkshire terrier to even the odds by inviting a untold number of Yorkshire terriers into the fray (think of bees – one is small and insignificant – if the swarm comes after you – run). In this round, the gorilla wins because it’s still the biggest animal and the army of Yorkshire terriers hasn’t learnt to fight as a single unit. However, the little nip from the Yorkshire terrier has shocked the living day lights out of the gorilla. Suddenly the gorilla is crying that life is unfair because the Yorkshire terrier isn’t sitting around to clobbered on the head and finds a way of nipping back at the gorilla – which if you listen to the comments about how Singapore cannot afford a ‘two-party’ system is precisely what’s happening. In five years time, the Yorkshire terrier and his very large family will learn to work together. Furthermore, this magic tool, which healed the Yorkshire terrier’s wounds, might be able to give the gorilla food poisoning on the day of the fight. Suddenly the odds have shifted in favour of the Yorkshire terrier. The good news for the gorilla is that the same magic tool that has helped the Yorkshire terrier can also help the gorilla. How? This has to do with the fact that the internet is an active form of communication. It is two parties talking to each other and not one party giving dictation to another. This was precisely where the PAP failed. Look at the way the Prime Minister was left apologising for mistakes a few days before polling day. Look at the way the Prime Minister devoted one day of an election campaign to address concerns of the people on the net only a few days before. He looked miserable – in short, he was the gorilla with a club getting the shock of his life because the Yorkshire terrier didn’t wait to get clobbered and actually nipped back and the crowd cheered for the Yorkshire terrier instead. The internet is not going to magic away certain ground realities which have thus far been in favour of the ruling party or if you like, the gorilla with a club. However, the rules are changing to neutralise the advantages of the gorilla. The Yorkshire terriers suddenly realise they can hurt the gorilla and the idea that they can take down the gorilla has entered their heads. It’s up to the gorilla to realise that the rules have changed and his game plan must follow suite.

Harry's Legacy..............

2011-09-17T21:34:00.002+08:00

Singapore’s Founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew turned 88 a few days ago. The man who once dominated (and in many ways still dominates) Singapore by his mere presences has become noticeably more frail in his old age but as his performance in a dialogue hosted by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy showed, his mind is still sharp.

One of the most prominent moments in this dialogue was the final question. Someone asked him what his vision was and he replied that it was not important what his vision was but what the questioners was. He was, as he said, “walking off into the sunset – he may even stumble.” That reply was vintage Mr Lee. In that statement, he showed that he was already thinking about the one question that nobody else seemed to want to talk about – what happens after he leaves the stage. Let’s face it, Mr Lee is 88, an age where everyday you have is something of a bonus. Like it or not, Singapore has to accept the reality that Mr Lee can drop dead anytime soon and life has to continue.

Say what you like about Mr Lee but he’s been a driving force in making modern Singapore what it is today – the thriving, clean, green and very efficient international metropolis. When Singapore was ejected from the Malayan Federation back in 1965, Mr Lee had the foresight to provide a vision and to surround himself with brilliant people like Dr Goh Keng Swee and S Rajaratnam. He was wise enough to allow these brilliant men to get on with the task at hand.

If you look at his obsessions, you’d realise that Mr Lee was for the most part right in what he wanted for Singapore. How can anyone argue against things like honesty in public service or equality of all before the law? In his years as Prime Minister, Mr Lee was obsessive in not only creating prosperity for Singapore but in making life in Singapore pleasant. The Singapore today compares very well to countries in the developed world of the USA and Europe – I was reminded of this by a young US navy boy in Geylang who said, “If this is your worst area, come to the US and I’ll show you a bad area.”

Mr Lee’s achievements are internationally recognised. I remember Sanjiv Misra, former head of Citigroup’s Asia-Pacific Commercial Banking saying, “It’s not just Singaporeans who are enthralled by him.”

I don’t believe I’d be exaggerating to say that everything in Singapore today is as a result of Mr Lee’s vision. Two Prime Ministers later, we are still living in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s era and despite holding no official position today, Mr Lee’s presence within Singapore is commanding enough for him to need to mention that he is “no longer in charge.”

So, it’s all the more important for us to ask what life is going to be like without Mr Lee. His presence in our lives has been so prominent for so long that its departure might cause a shock to the system.

In one sense, there is a case for optimism. Singaporeans are used to having a decent lifestyle and are not about to give it up. Simply put, we take things like drinking from a tap as a given and so any government that changes any of these things will face a public revolt.

Even if you look at the ‘hot button’ issues in this election, you’ll see that they have their roots in Mr Lee’s policies. Mr Lee argued that it was necessary to pay top dollar to get top talent and to keep it honest. When the government slipped up – most noticeably in the case of Mas Selamat’s stroll out of Whitley Detention Centre, we got upset because this was not top talent in action. Thanks to Mr Lee, we expect a certain standard from government that is higher than in other countries. To Indians, Italians and the French may shrug if their ministers are less than competent – Singaporeans cannot accept it. If you look at the PAP’s loss in the recent election – much of it has to do with a perceived moving away from Mr Lee’s original vision.

Alcon had it right – “Today’s innovation is tomorrow’s expectation.” In the 60s an honest and competent public service was a new thing – today this is the least we expect from the public service.

However, there is a case for pessimism and in this case its best summed up by the person of the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who feasts during Ramadan aka Thambi Pundek. In short, the good life that Mr Lee has provided Singaporeans has produced a young generation who have become spoilt and are unable to deal with a world outside of Singapore or in a world where the need to exercise brain power is a given.

On one level, the case for pessimism is harmless. Take the question of what is India’s national language. If you have read a little bit, the answer is obviously Hindi. Ask someone like the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who feast during Ramadan and the answer is Tamil. The reason is simple; Singaporeans have been preconditioned into thinking that an Indian is automatically someone descended from Tamil Nadu. The conditioning is so strong that the richness and variety of what India is has been lost on the likes of this young man. If you are not from Tamil Nadu – how can you be Indian? The lack of knowledge goes beyond basic geography – you’d think a 21-year old with a normal sex drive would know one of the woman’s sweet spots – the clitoris. Unfortunately for him – he never heard of that part of the female anatomy. I repeat, it’s not that he couldn’t find it – he didn’t know this part of the female anatomy existed and this is in a country that prides itself in teaching basic biology.

He is unfortunately not alone in this level of ignorance. When Saudi Aramco had a cultural display up in Marina Square in 2006, members of the public would ask the Saudi delegates, “Which part of Dubai are you from?’ I know Dubai has been much better at publicising itself than the other parts of the Gulf but surely anyone who has looked at a map will know that Saudi Arabia is way bigger than Dubai.

Is Singapore’s education system lacking so badly? Well, I wouldn’t want to say it is but somehow the students who come out of the system lack basic curiosity or at least the desire to find out about the world beyond their HDB block. As long as the facts are told to them by a single trusted source – why question? I remember Andy Mukherjee, the former Bloomberg Columnist describing a group of NTU journalist he had just given a lecture to as being ‘Curiously uncurious.”

Basic alack of curiosity is amusing when it’s the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who feasts during Ramdan aka Thambi Pundek tries to show off his loyalty to the system through his ignorance about general affairs. It’s downright worrying when this ignorance is translated into the national level. Ironically, one of the biggest culprits of this is Mr Lee himself. In the early 1990s he arrogantly flew up to Beijing to lecture the Chinese on how to get things done. The result was the Shuzhou Industrial Park – which was a White Elephant for Singapore until the Chinese became majority shareholders. Several billion dollars later, Mr Lee decided to trample round the Middle East trying to lecture the Gulf Arabs on the virtues of George Bush II’s Middle East policies that were obviously failing the Middle East and more worryingly he started writing articles in Forbes to berate Lebanese for not helping Israel to bomb them back to the Stone Age.

Unfortunately all of Mr Lee’s comments are treated as revered wisdom and because of that Singaporeans swallow what he says as gospel and they to view the world in the same way that Mr Lee does. How do you do business with someone when all you know about their country is based on an old man’s prejudices.

Let’s look at Mr Lee’s other big achievement – multi-racialism. Up until recently, Singapore was a proud multi-racial society. However, thanks to Mr Lee’s comments about Muslims, its questionable if Singapore’s racial harmony can be taken for granted. As far as he was concerned, Singapore’s Muslim’s need to be less strict about integrating with the rest of the public. What exactly did he mean by that? Singapore’s Muslims are amongst the most liberal in their outlook? A good portion of them drink and dare I say gamble. How much more do you want them to abandon a faith that is the centre of their culture and how much more do you want them to get trampled by your views when you’ve already trampled them of their birthright in land that was technically theirs?

Most worryingly for Singapore is that there is a lack of honesty amongst certain people. I remember the Young Muslim Politician from Paris Ris GRC who feasts during Ramadan aka Thambi Pundek, proudly telling a former editor that he was told by his seniors that if he told the Minister the feelings on the ground, he would be told off for not selling government policies. It was only the shock of the last election that the Minister has insisted that he’s told the truth.

In not so many words – we have a culture where everyone is only concerned about sucking up to the top and sugar coats things to avoid trouble. Sucking up becomes one of the key characteristics to advance in life or at least save you from being told off. Yes, I agree that it is necessary to know how to manage superiors. However, it is another story when sucking up to the top hides them from the truth of what’s going on. As I remember my Dad telling me when I delayed bad news “You don’t want to tell me because you don’t want to upset me, but do you know how much time you delayed from me finding a solution.”

This is probably Singapore’s biggest failing. Mr Lee has to bear responsibility for playing a key role in creating this culture. After his initial cabinet stepped down in the early eighties, Mr Lee stopped being “Primus Inter Pares,” the leader who listened, set a vision and allowed people to get on with it. He became “God” or should I say “Minister Mentor,” a character with no official designation other than to teach people what to do. He had the wisdom to step aside when he left the Premiership in 1991 but ironically consolidated more power and people became afraid to engage him in an honest manner.

By doing this, Mr Lee created the very notion that power should last forever. Mr Lee has a done a brilliant job in ensuring that there is no money corruption in the public service. However, his consolidation of power and removal from the ground has helped to accentuate a culture of “power corruption.” I take the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who feasts during Ramadan aka Thambi Pundek as a prime example. He cannot help bragging to you about how close he is to certain members of the government.

What does he gain from this? He’s not in it for the money. He just gets the thrill that people who served the nation might respect his worm like mind for having power. Unfortunately this isn’t limited to him.

In the trial of Zim Integrated Shipping versus Igal Dafni in 2009, you had the example of a former CEO of Port of Authority of Singapore telling the former Area President of Zim Integrated Shipping how he could get round loopholes in getting Singapore Citizenship. Her intentions were admittedly good in that she wanted Zim to come to Singapore. However, telling rich people who to get round the laws sounds fishy when you have relatives in the immigration department.

Then again, let’s look at the various Dr Susan Lim versus the Singapore Medical Council. You had the Director of Medical Services at the Ministry of Health who was also the Secretary of the Singapore of the Medical Council acting as complainant and judge at the same time. As expected, the judge couldn’t rule against this and questioning this could be contempt of court. However, any rational mind will tell you that something is grossly wrong with the system.

The biggest example is the “White Horse” system in the Ministry of Defence. Contrary to what the former Minister of State for Defence might tell you – the sons of prominent people somehow get “different treatment” from the rest. Just think of Dr Patrick Tan’s 12-year deferment when his father was Minister of Defence.

The beauty of this system is that the people top remain honest to a fault. It’s just that somehow, somewhere along the line; the minions felt that they’d get into trouble if they didn’t create privileges for their masters. The masters never objected to this and so they have to have some responsibility for this.

Mr Lee in his early days was a wonderful example of this. Both his sons went through National Service and served in combat units. He’s made it such that being his son is more difficult than not being his son. Our Prime Minister, who is his son, has earned his success.

Has this happened down the line? The Prime Minister has done it. He made sure that when his son broke MINDEF protocol, his reprimand was public. However, what happens at the pinnacle doesn’t filter down.

Mr Lee was right in insisting that we have no money corruption. He has however; allowed power corruption to foster and this will be the undoing of Singapore if it is not kept in check.

It’s easy to fight money corruption. If immigration demands a bribe at the Causeway, you pay and then lodge a complaint. You can be rest assured; the offender will pray to be at the gallows. In this aspect, we the public will never allow this to happen because it affects our lives in an immediate sense.

Power corruption is tricky in that it’s often legal and it’s virtually impossible to prove. As former Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr Mohammed Mahathir said, “You say everything in Malaysia is under the table, well in Singapore it is just over the table.”

However, it doesn’t make any better than the type done for money. Basically what happens in power corruption is the bottom and top lose the connection. As anyone stroke patient can tell you when the brain and legs lose the connection you get a situation where you simply can’t move – the brain can send out the signals and the leg muscles can be strong but when there’s no connection, nothing happens.

With a country, the rot doesn’t set in so immediately. It takes a bit of time to set in but eventually the rot takes effect.

So far, Singaporeans have shown the ability to stop some of the rot through the ballot box. The question is, would the opposition politicians prove to be made of sterner stuff when it comes to holding power. The case for pessimism is there. As one former writer says, “The Government types are actually fairly decent – it’s the liberals who can be really vicious.” Let’s just pray that the public’s tolerance is lower than the likes of the Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC who feasts during Ramadan aka Thambi Pundek when it comes to tolerating nonsense of those in power.

If Only Osama had listened to Vito Corleone

2011-09-13T12:25:00.001+08:00

Now that the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the USA has gone by, it is time to make the politically incorrect point that Osama Bin Ladin one fatal error – he forgot to watch the Godfather. If he had, he may have come across the advice that the Godfather, Don Vito Corleone (played by Marlon Brando) gave to his godson, Tom (played by Robert Duval) – “A lawyer with a briefcase steals more than a gangster with a gun.” The Old Don knew what he was talking about. The last decade has been marked by two traumatic man-made events. The first is the September 11 attacks, which left a powerful psychological impression on the world. The second event is the Sub-Prime crisis. While the attacks of September 11 were by far the more physically dramatic of the two-events, the sub-prime crisis is in many ways more insidious and more damaging. Let’s make no mistake – damage was done during the September 11 attacks. Nearly three thousand innocent people lost their lives, the Twin Towers were destroyed and the Pentagon was damaged. Then you have to take into account the fact that September 11 was the springboard for military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have cost several thousand lives more. However, while the effects of the attacks were dramatic, they can’t exactly be called strategic victories. Instead of weakening the US National Fabric, the attacks proved to be a focal point for the nation. In terms of international diplomacy, the US gained tremendous amounts of sympathy and goodwill from around the world. The French went as far as to invoke a NATO resolution declaring that an attack on one NATO member was an attack on the entire alliance. Osama became the most convenient “villain” for the US government to focus on. Prior to going into Iraq, the US government was in a position of strength. It was only the Bush Administration’s blatant disregard for international law and mishandling of international opinion that cost it goodwill. The Sub-Prime crisis of 2008 has been far less dramatic than the attacks of September 2011. There was no crashing building and there have been no reports of death caused directly by the Sub-Prime crisis. However, this does not mean that the Sub-Prime crisis has been victimless. An untold number of small businesses have been forced into bankruptcy and an even greater number of people have lost their homes. In the case of Iceland, an entire nation has gone bankrupt, ruining thousands of people through no fault of their own. What makes the Sub-Prime crisis so much more difficult to deal with is that unlike September 11, there’s no particular villain to focus on. American Foreign and Cultural Policy could be defined by being everything the Soviet Union was not. Then, when the Soviet Union collapsed there was Saddam Hussein. After Saddam there was Osama bin Ladin. These characters provided Western policy makers with an easy narrative. All they had to do was to deal with the “Bad Guys.” Reacting to September 11 was easy – all that was to needed was to “Hunt down Osama and the terrorist.” In the case of the Sub-Prime Crisis, there was no Osama. Yes, bankers were blamed for being a little greedy. However, the bankers could not be blamed for everything and more importantly the bankers were not doing anything illegal. While many people complained that bankers like Stan O’Neal of Merill Lynch and Chuck Prince of Citigroup were paid hundreds of millions of dollars after being sacked for running up losses in the billions, the fact is the severance payment they received was perfectly legal. It is not an exaggeration to say that the bankers who played a key role in the Sub-Prime Crisis did more damage to the economy of America and the Western World than Osama did when he decided to order the crashing of the planes into the Twin Towers. The image of the crashing planes and the collapsing towers was dramatic. However, the American nation regrouped and there was no economic melt down. No big names had to file for bankruptcy. By contrast the Sub-Prime has lead to trillions of dollars being lost in the effort to recover bad debts created by reckless lending. Even more money has gone into prop up institutions like AIG and Citigroup, which played a leading role in creating the crisis but cleverly positioned themselves as being “Too Big to fall.” Institutions like Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers have gone bankrupt, throwing thousands of people out of work and leaving thousands of investors in financial ruin. Ordinary people have been kicked out of their homes. You can buy decent houses in places like St Louis for US 7,000 dollars. Both the US Dollar and the British Pound have collapsed against their major competitors. It was big news when the Australian Dollar was parity with the US Dollar. Nobody batted and eye lid when the Australian Unit became stronger. The Hindustan Times recently reported a story on how the Indian Table Tennis Federation failed to hire a Swedish coach because they were going to pay him in US Dollars instead of Indian Rupees. The collapse of the British Pound has been equally dramatic. In the “Sterling Crisis” of 1992, when Sterling was rejected from the ERM, it took two and a half Singapore dollars to buy one pound. That was an all time low. Today the rate hovers slightly above two Singapore dollars to a pound. The economic damage is not just American and British. The Euro Zone is also in crisis. Countries like Greece are deeply in debt and holding onto the hope of bailout from larger nations. A generation of people in Spain have never held a steady job in their lives for the simple fact – there are no steady jobs. The Sub-Prime crisis has done more damage to the economies of the Western World than September 11 ever did. Unlike the September 11, 2001, nobody has called for the ‘hunting down’ of the perpetrators. How many ‘prominent’ names have gone to jail for doing so much damage to the economy? Not only has nobody gone to jail but many of the big banks CEOs have retired on very high severance packages. Don Vito Corleone had a point and Osama should have taken his advice. Instead of trying to bring down the Western World’s economic system through death and destruction, he should have worked with a team of bankers and lawyers to perpetrate the culture of greed. The lynchpins of the systems he sought to destroy have done a far better job of it than he did.

I’m On the Way

2011-09-01T05:37:00.002+08:00

I am, as my mother once said, “On the wrong side of my thirties” and if you look at things carefully, the life I’ve been living is pretty miserable. I’ve never held a job in a decent organisation for more than a year (so much so that when I left my last job, PN Balji advised me, “Be an income man – you’ll never explain why you’ve never worked in an organisation for long – it will be tough if not impossible to get hired”) and I’ve spent the last six-years living in a hovel. As for my personal life, the less said the better (unless you’re writing drama scripts). However, it looks like there may be hope, even for the likes of me. I can’t quite say that I have arrived but at least I can say that I am on the way. The message was delivered by the most unusual and unlikely of all messengers – “The Young Politician from Pasir Ris GRC aka Thambi Pundek.” (He’s just informed me that he would rather be referred to as Thambi Pundek than the Young Politician from Pasir Ris GRC). It all started out with an SMS. I told him that it was time to stop spreading fear and panic about the losing candidate in Saturday’s Presidential Election (Dr Tan Cheng Bok – former MP for Ayer Rajah GRC) and to start concentrating on healing the party (PAP). He decided that I was seeing things the wrong way and he needed to meet with me to “rebut” my beliefs and offered to buy me a decent lunch. Well, I’m not one to argue with someone who is offering to buy me lunch and so I met up with him to listen to his intellectual analysis of politics in Singapore. He had fun telling me that the Presidential Election was a grand endorsement of PAP policies – “Over 70 percent of the electorate voted for PAP men,” he said. His argument was simple – both Dr Tony Tan and Dr Tan Cheng Bok were PAP men and so a vote for both of them was a vote for the PAP. Not sure how he worked that one out – if you follow the logic the PAP won 100 percent of all the votes cast since every one of them was a former government/PAP man – Dr Tony Tan is former Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Tan Cheng Bok is a former MP, Mr Tan Jee Say is a former senior civil servant and Mr Tan Kin Lian ran NTUC Income Cooperative (A government controlled organisation). Anyway, half way through his monologue, YPPRGRCTP (Young Politician from Pasir Ris GRC Thambi Pundek) said, “Hey, your blog is being monitored by ISD – you know they can call you up anytime – just like that.” He then went onto announce to me that “I know the person monitoring your blog and I’m one of the point people.” This was the news that made my day. If I haven’t arrived, this was the sign to say that I am at the very least on the way to somewhere. Seriously, how many of my former school, army, university and work mates can possibly claim to be important enough to be monitored by the State? Singapore is small state. However, we’re a small state that takes pride in being exceedingly stable in a region known for instability. Our politics, until recently was a fairly predictable affair. Elections were never a question of who would win but a question of the winning margin. Law suites are also predictable – you simply had to follow whose interest was at stake. If you were a foreign publication in a libel suite against a senior member of the government, you’d know the outcome – the only unpredictable element would be the amount awarded in favour of your opponent. To keep this happy situation going, Singapore has a very strong security service. Like our former Colonial Masters, the British, we have an “official secrets act,” and while we may have gotten rid of colonial rule, we’ve maintained some of the laws of colonial administration – namely the right of the government to hold you for a period of 60-days without trial. Thanks to Osama and his gang, these laws have been tightened. Our little Red Dot of a nation has an extensive spy network. OK, it’s not the CIA or Mosad or dare I say the KGB – but our Internal Security Department (ISD) is well funded and its network is extensive. OK, I’ve been aware that I’ve been monitored or at least my published writings have been. Anyone is consistently published in the media is monitored. The Ministry of Information and the Arts (MICA) not only has an efficient system of distributing information; it has an equally extensive system of monitoring information. The chaps, who do this, don’t just monitor mainstream publications. Cyberspace, particularly blogs are monitored. So, it’s not a surprise to me that ISD has glanced at my blog as well as the various publications I’ve written for in the past. However, I have to admit that I was especially pleased with the way the YPPRGRCTP great pride in telling me that I was being monitored and he knew the people doing it. Obviously, he thinks I’ve become important enough for the powers that be to monitor me closely and he is happily trying to find ways for me to admit to doing something awfully salacious so that he can score some brownie points by denouncing me to the powers that be. So, now that I’m officially being marked out as being important enough for the powers that be to place me under surveillance and to let me know – I need to think of ways to help the YPPRGRCTP get ahead in his career as a worm and find something that will remove any shadow of doubt that I have officially arrived. Wait for the next instalment of what I have to say next – it could be a grovelling apology and promise to remove myself from cyberspace – in which case you know why – I’ve arrived and will be joining the likes of Alan Shadrake in the list of millionaire authors created by the Singapore government – wish me luck and do find ways of contributing to my welfare.

Where do you move to when you have no limbs?

2011-08-29T04:15:00.000+08:00

Election season ended with one of the most memorable elections in history. As expected, former Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, won the election to be Singapore’s next president. For once, there was no need to qualify political adjectives with the phrase, “By Singapore Standards.” The winning margin of 0.34 percent or some 8,000 votes out of over two-million cast was as narrow as its gets nearly everywhere else. How did this happen in a place where elections usually means life carries on as usual and results are more predictable than weather in the Sahara? What does this mean for politics in Singapore?

Well, let’s start with the obvious. The vast majority of voters are still with the establishment and good old fashioned things like a reputation for reliability and political smarts as well as help from the main stream media help.

For most of us, Dr Tony Tan was the “preferred” candidate of the government. Both Prime Minister and Emeritus Senior Minister had said nice things about him and suddenly the mainstream media started giving his views on things as minor as toilet paper quality an unexplainable amount of attention. However, that didn’t deter us from liking him. Enough voters remembered Dr Tan as a minister and he was remembered for being likeable enough. The man only retired from the cabinet in 2005. Our last memory of his cabinet performance was taking a different stance from the cabinet during the debate on building casinos – hence the image of him being a senior member of government who dared disagree with the main stream remained.

Even his weaknesses were explainable. As Executive Director of the Government Investment Corporation (GIC), he was subordinate to the Chairman, who happened to be Lee Kuan Yew, our founding Prime Minister and former Minister Mentor. Hence it was possible to argue that he wasn’t the main decision maker when GIC decided to invest heavily in the then loss making Citigroup and UBS. His most serious weakness, namely the question of his sons rather cushy National Service career was accepted by the silent majority – yes, we know there’s a White Horse system and Tony’s boy wasn’t doing anything worse than what other White Horses did and do.

Then there was his performance during the campaign. He spoke intelligently enough and displayed enough gravitas for people to accept that he was “Tried and Tested” enough to have as the symbolic helm. On a personal basis, I liked the fact that he made the point that it is important to “Run for the office that exist rather than what you’d like it to be.”

Say what you like about the man but he is aware of the realities of being a public figure. There are more than enough forums outlining how he’s shifted position of various policies and that he’s not as independent as he’s making himself out to be. Could he be, as one blogger put it – “A double headed snake?” Well, perhaps he is – but then again, is he merely doing what needs to be done in politics to get the job done?

Much as the post of President in Singapore is ceremonial and the President should be above the petty squabbles of politics – having a President who knows how the game is played is useful and in many cases acceptable. Idealism is admired in politics – naivety is a dangerous trait in a national leader – even if that leader is primarily symbolic.

I take all of these factors into account and despite my misgivings about the way he’s handled the question of his son’s National Service record – he was and is the most qualified of all the four candidates. In that respect, I believe that the best man did win on the night.

However, while Singaporeans were willing to give Dr Tony Tan a chance at the polls, we have to look at his margin of victory. By all accounts, Dr Tony Tan has to consider himself a very lucky man. He is President by virtue of the “First-Past-The-Post” system we inherited from the UK.

This system means the person who gets the job is simply the person who gets the most votes rather than the person who receives the largest share of the votes. If you look at the UK as an example, even the most prominent leaders like Mrs Thatcher or her Labour Predecessors of the 1970s never won a lot more than forty percent of total votes cast. They merely won more votes than their contenders. Is this system necessarily fair? No, it isn’t.

However, the British system has produced relatively stable governments than many nations on the continent using “proportional representation” systems which are better at reflecting the national share of the vote. Britain’s current coalition is the first of its kind in living memory or at least amongst people my age.

Dr Tony Tan is President because he won the most votes on the night. He is not President because the majority voted for him. If you look at the numbers – nearly two thirds of the electorate didn’t. Luckily for Dr Tony Tan, this is a competition of individuals and not parties – if it were, the other three candidates could easily have kept him in the cold by forming a coalition against him.

What does this mean? Well, I’d say that the message is similar to the one delivered at the General Election. Singaporeans generally like the establishment as it is – it’s done a fairly good job on the macro-level. However, we think the establishment needs to listen to us and show a bit more concern about us. To make sure the powers that be get the message – hit them where it hurts most – placing a few more opposition leaders in parliament.

We all saw Dr Tan as the establishment candidate but he was more than that. He was a qualified candidate for a post that in many ways is a waste of his qualifications. We’re willing to give him a chance.

However, we want Dr Tan to remember that he works for us – “The Electorate.” The margin of victory is so narrow that Dr Tan cannot escape the fact that he’s only president by luck. Face it, he had all the advantages, yet he had a wafer thin majority. The message to him is clear – “you’ve got to make us happy.”

This will be a test for Dr Tan. On one hand he has to face his former colleagues in cabinet who will undoubtedly remind him that his scope to do anything is limited. If you read the constitution, the President only has powers to say “no” to the government on certain occasions. He is legally obliged to do whatever he’s told to by the government. However, he also faces a growing number of young voters and netizens who want him to be “independent” in his thoughts. There’s also the fact that the older voters who supported him could easily defect to his nearest rival – Dr Tan Cheng Bok, former Member of Parliament for Ayer Rajah.

The other Dr Tan had a powerful and very appealing message – “Singaporeans first – Unifying Singaporeans.” Like Dr Tony Tan, Dr Tan Cheng Bok has been in politics for a long time. He is familiar with the workings of the ruling party and while he may not have had Dr Tony Tan’s experiences of dealing with the cabinet and in policy formation – he was far closer to the ground and his record of putting nation before party is unquestionable. This man stood up and voted against the “NCMP and NMP” (Non-Constituency Member of Parliament and Nominated Member of Parliament) schemes despite the fact that the party whip was in place (Whips in the Westminster tradition are legalised party thugs – they “persuade” MPs to vote along with party decisions rather than with their individual conscience).

The man showed an incredible grasp of what the ground wanted. Simply put – we, the people feel like second class citizens in our own land and we can’t help feeling that there’s a Singapore for some and a Singapore for others. Dr Tan Cheng Bok’s offer to put us first is appealing. Then, as my favourite Young Politician from Pasir Ris GRC says, “Lots of people in the PAP support him and he had plenty of supporters in the Workers Party.” If you chat to enough voters, you’ll find that the main difference between the Dr Tan’s is the fact that Dr Tony had a higher national profile. Should he mess up, we would happily vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bok instead.

If Dr Tony Tan is smart, he’ll offer Dr Tan Cheng Bok a seat of Council of Presidential Advisors. This is the body that the President has to listen to when he doesn’t have to listen to the government. The principle is simple – “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” By doing this, Dr Tony Tan will bring Dr Tan Cheng Bok and his supporters into his camp. This is a move that the Prime Minister will have to support. Dr Tan Cheng Bok may not have been his preferred choice – but the election results are such that he cannot afford to alienate Dr Tan Cheng Bok, either on the national level or even within party lines (Dr Tan was once elected into his seat with some 88 percent of votes cast in his constituency.)

Of the two candidates who were not former members of the party, the most interesting one is Tan Jee Say. Mr Tan was a high flying scholar, who moved into the private sector and later into politics.

He ran on a campaign of making the President an office that provides “Checks and Balances” on a very powerful government. While the constitution as it stands does not allow the President much room for manoeuvre, Mr Tan has rightfully suggested that the government will have to think twice before challenging a President who has a democratic mandate. Let’s face it, the President is elected by every member of the electorate – the Prime Minister is only voted in by his constituents. Mr Tan is also right to point out that part of the reason for making the Presidency an elected post was to put a check on potentially spendthrift government.

The message is appealing. Mr Tan is not. Let’s face it, what exactly is Mr Tan’s record of public service? He gained some attention during the General Election and then, when he didn’t get his seat, he happily resigned from the party (Singapore Democratic) to run for the Presidency. If he was that interested in “serving the people” or acting as a “Check and Balance” surely he would focused on building his party into a force credible enough to take on the ruling party in parliament rather than going for the Presidency, which is primarily ceremonial?”

Power in Singapore comes from control of parliament. If you want to limit the powers of the current government, you need to start with a seat in parliament. Winning one seat as an opposition is tough but it isn’t impossible. Mr Low Thia Khiang, leader of the Workers Party understood this well enough. He held onto Hougang for nearly two-decades, building up a track record as a person who could look after the electorate. He waited and took his time and when the ruling party was vulnerable, he struck. We cannot rule out the possibility that Mr Low has the potential to be a potential Prime Minister, should the ruling party ever fail. People will trust him because he’s built up from the ground.

The more perceptive will realise that Mr Tan is hopping to parachute himself into high office. First he joins a political party – then when it doesn’t win, he rushes into another election where he thinks he can use their ideas. This smacks of political opportunism. In the investment banking scene, you could argue that opportunism is a good thing. However, you are talking about politics what is usually a conservative country. Jumping from here to there smacks of political opportunism rather than genuine interest in the public.

Furthermore, while Mr Tan was never a member of the ruling party, he was a senior member of the civil service. Sure, the ruling party will think twice about blackmailing him (he knows where the proverbial bodies are buried) but the converse is also true. He cannot claim to be “guilt-free” of the “sins” of the government.

The image of Mr Tan’s blatant sense of political opportunism was most clearly visible when he started complaining about how the campaign period was too short for him to correct his image of being confrontational. May be he is right. However, his complaint makes him sound like a spoilt child. Sorry, politics is a rough game. The guys in power have the advantage of choosing when elections take place. You either enter the game on their side or you learn to fight by the rules they set. Mr Tan new full well that the Presidential Election would come after the General One. He should started building his brand equity much earlier. Say what you like about media bias but the man is also at fault.

Having said all of that, Mr Tan is highly intelligent. His ideas are worth listening to and despite being a relative novice; Mr Tan did win the votes of one in four Singaporeans. He cannot be underestimated.

What can Dr Tan do? Well, the answer is simple – take his better ideas, repackage them and sell them as your own. Ideas in politics are not copyright and as long as you are in power, you have the means of putting them into action.

Look at Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Both came from parties known as being closer to the socialist left than the business right. However, both the New Democrats and New Labour took ideas shamelessly from their right wing opponents and made them their own. Both Clinton and Blair spoke of “economic growth” with a kinder face. George Bush II who was an awful President but a first rate Governor of Texas was also good at this – think of his “Compassionate Conservatism.”

Dr Tan with the backing of the Prime Minister should look at how he can “borrow” some of Mr Tan’s ideas and make them their own.

Finally, there was Mr Tan Kin Lian, former CEO of NTUC Income, our largest insurance cooperative. Mr Tan noticed the way things were going and quickly conceded defeat. As he predicted – he lost his deposit.

In way, one is tempted to feel sorry for this Mr Tan. However, he deserved it. Mr Tan made much of his experience running the insurance cooperative. Halfway through the campaign, he lost the plot. He made wild promises about donating half his salary to the public and how he would raise the wages of pensioners and National Servicemen. – Nice gesture – but the President simply has no authority to do this. Purse strings are controlled by the Ministry of Finance and the President is merely a gatekeeper on past reserves – he does not allocate revenue. Hard to trust someone who has no idea which office he’s running for.

Dr Tony Tan has won a tight fought race for an office with very limited scope. He has, however, cards he can play. He needs to read the public mood correctly and play his cards accordingly if he wants to make this Presidency the shinning star of his brilliant career.

The Question of Service

2011-08-26T02:22:00.000+08:00

Singapore’s liberals are going to be very upset with me, but of all the Presidential candidates running for Singapore’s highest office, Dr Tony Tan is easily the most qualified. The man has that distinguished, dignified (though he admittedly looks better in the media than in the flesh) look that makes him perfect for the largely ceremonial post.

His experiences as the head of Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC), Deputy Prime Minister and most recently Chairman of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) have given him the experience of dealing with large sums of money and the bureaucratic machinery that the President is expected to be able to handle.

As a Minister, Dr Tan was regarded as one of the “good guys.” He was close enough to the top but also had a reputation for having an independent mind. Even passionate “anti-PAP” voters like my mother who advised us “Vote for anyone EXCEPT the PAP,” take the position of “Vote for TONY.”

So, when you add up all these factors, the Presidential Race is Dr Tan’s to lose. His performance is almost flawless – when the other candidates blab on about how independent minded they’ll be, Dr Tan has rightly pointed out that he’s running for an office that exist rather than an office that he wishes he had. What could sound more reasonable than that?

Well, unfortunately for Dr Tan, he may well lose an election that was his for the taking. The reason boils down to a “Question of Service.” Nobody is questioning Dr Tan’s unquestionable service to the nation – instead the world is questioning the service of his son, Dr Patrick Tan.

The story is simple. When Dr Tan Senior was Defence Minister in the middle 1990s, his son Patrick enlisted for National Service. He disrupted his service to go abroad for studies (which is acceptable and done). When he returned from his studies, he mysteriously ended up being posted into some obscure unit to study – soil (How did he get that posting?). Somehow, the younger Dr Tan not only found a way to get a cushy job during his full time service – there’s even the question of how much reservist time he actually served.

This doesn’t bode well for Dr Tony Tan. Suddenly his record for decent service is looking less decent. As far as most of us are concerned, it can’t be a coincidence that Dr Patrick Tan’s National Service ended up in “cushy” land when his father was Defence Minister. How is it that none of his sons served a day of their National Service in a combat unit? What does this mean? Simply put – in a theoretical war situation, none of the Tan boys will be on the front line.

To be fair to Dr Tony Tan and his son’s, this is part of the system – it’s called the “White Horse” system. Children of prominent figures in society are marked out before they enter National Service. The official reasoning given by a former Minister of State for Defence was, “So that people will NOT give them special treatment.” Poor old Cedric Foo was dubbed “Cedric Fool.”

Sorry, anyone who has been through National Service (Most MEN) knows that is blatantly not true. You notice it in small things like – how some people never do push-ups for the same thing you do or how is it that some companies mysteriously get certain privileges that the rest of the battalion don’t. One of the biggest areas where you notice the “White Horses” comes from postings. How do some people end up in some jobs while others do not?

This is a systematic issue rather than a personal issue. By and large, the majority of “White Horses” are very nice people and they’ve been brought up to be embarrassed by the treatment that the system accords them. I take my former Deputy Manpower Officer (Dy S1), who is the son of a former Member of Parliament – you couldn’t find a nicer person than him. He remains a humble and gentle person. The “real” White Horses are humble and find themselves in an embarrassing position every time they’re signalled for special treatment.

So, in many ways, you can’t blame Dr Patrick Tan for getting a “cushy” National Service posting. Chances are, he never asked for it – it was handed to him on a plate and he took it. Simply put, who wouldn’t take something decent if it was offered to them? There are good chances that Dr Tony Tan never ordered anyone or even suggested to anyone that he wanted his sons to get cushy jobs.

Having said that, the incident reflects very poorly on Dr Tan and if he loses the election, this will be the very things that will rightfully does it. It has shown that Dr Tan is either very naïve or at worst, his integrity is questionable.

Let’s start with the obvious. When you want to climb the political ladder in a country that prides itself in having no corruption – its not enough to non-corrupt – you have to be seen to be non-corrupt. As Defence Minister, Dr Tan had to be aware that his son’s posting might be a controversial topic. Dr Tan has to this date made not one effort to show how he distanced himself from his son’s posting.

It’s not that difficult to do. Look at the way Mr Lee Kuan Yew got our current Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong into politics. He got his deputies, S.Rajaratnam and Goh Keng Swee to bring him into the party. Then, when he handed over power, he handed it to Goh Chok Tong, who was Prime Minister for 14-years. The cynics will still point out that there had to be some political manoeuvrings there – but you can’t actually pin-point anything on the Lees.

The Elder Mr Lee has also made it clear that he didn’t want his children to be “spoilt.” The Lee Family in Singapore is a tightly run ship and other than the Lees in politics – the others stay out of the limelight in the way that the Suhartos in Indonesia were never able to. Mr Lee has somehow ensured that there are enough urban myths floating around of how he doesn’t tolerate certain kinds of behaviour. One of them comes from an old school teacher who attended my grandmother’s wake. She tells a story of how she threatened to cane Lee Hsien Yang, younger brother of Prime Minister Lee. The Young Boy had threatened the school with “You know how my father is?” The story goes that the Prime Minister came down from the Istana, ordered the Principal to summon the school and promptly canned the boy in front of everyone. Message – just because he’s my son, I won’t allow you to give him perks.

Dr Tan could easily have done something similar. All he had to do was to point out how removed he was from the selection process. Cynics may not have been appeased but at least it would be a better answer than what’s been given now – “It’s all a pack of lies.”

This then leads to the next nail in Dr Tan’s proverbial coffin. He has shown that he simply doesn’t get communication. Thanks to the internet and social media platforms like Facebook – communications is a two-way street.

Dr Tan has had the advantage over the other candidates in terms of main stream media coverage. I saw the Presidential Debate on TV and he actually did better than the rest. That was the easy part – he had the machine to control the messaging in the main stream. Unfortunately, the game is quite different in cyberspace. This was something that the PAP machinery failed to realise until it was too late in the last election.

Dr Tan’s team has done a poor job of communicating in cyberspace. When the story of the younger Dr Tan’s posting was broken online – the reaction time in responding to the story was pretty slow. Instead of responding calmly, rationally and persistently, Dr Tan’s team went as far as to take down his Facebook page. Yes, people on the next can be nasty, crude and unreasonable. However, you still need to face them and as long as you keep your cool and stay objective – you can win them over. Taking down your Facebook page on the other hand is tantamount to admitting defeat – it’s like burning down the walls of a conquered city. – This isn’t exactly the reaction of a man you would expect of a man who is touting the value of a steady hand.

Then there’s the final response of Dr Tan and his sons – namely to accuse people online of deliberately trying to malign them and the institution of National Service. Sorry, it’s not going to work.

They are reacting to a story that broke online. As such, everyone is more inclined to believe the online story than to blame them. The facts are such – all the boys got cushy national service jobs when the father was Minister of Defence. The questions remain. Did Dr Tan exercise undue influence to get his sons cushy jobs? How did things happen? Dr Tan has dismissed this as a pack of lies as have his sons. Erm, sorry that’s not good enough. It’s not good enough to say – “I’m great – believe me.” You need to show why your version is the believable one. Dr Tan hasn’t done this and it should be no surprise why he was booed when he gave his acceptance speech.

Politics in Singapore is getting rougher and the ruling party cannot expect its mandate to be taken for granted. It seemed that the Prime Minister understood the message after the General Election. Unfortunately, the lessons seem lost on his preferred Presidential Candidate.

Dr Tan may yet win this election. He should pray that the older generations and those who are not active online come out and vote for the virtues he once represented. However, even if he wins the Presidential Election, as most suspect he will, he needs to answer some questions and he needs to be convincing – otherwise he can expect some dark clouds to hang over any presidency he may have

The Vote for What?

2011-08-25T02:51:00.001+08:00

After a lifetime of not having to vote, Singaporeans are currently in a happy vote fest. Three-months after voting in a General Election, we are about to vote for a new President. At the time of writing, Singapore only has two more days of actual campaigning before polling day on August 27, 2011.

While the Presidential Election hasn’t generated the same excitement as the General one, there has been quite a bit of discussion in the chat-rooms and in the coffee shops on which of the four Tans running for the highest office in the land is best suited for the job. On the surface of things, the talk about who is going to be President is interesting. If you look at the office of the President, it’s basically a ceremonial one or if you want to be unkind – a redundant one.

Despite all the chatter about the various powers that the President holds, real power, as in most Commonwealth Countries, lies in the hands of the Prime Minister as the leader of the largest party in parliament. Like the British Monarch, the only perk that Singapore’s President actually has over the Prime Minister is at ceremonial occasions (Actually, its less fun – the sovereign can keep a Prime Minister standing as he or she delivers her report, the President by contrast only has a bigger chair on National Day).

The Singapore Constitution has been written in such a way that the President can do lots of things – ON THE ADVICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER. What does that mean in plain speak? Simply put, the President can only do what he’s told to by the Prime Minister.

However, sometime in the 1990s, the constitution was changed to make the Presidency an elected one (the President is the only individual elected by EVERY Singaporean – the Prime Minister is only elected by his constituents) and to give the President some areas where he’s allowed to act on his own discretion – namely in the two key areas of vetoing the drawing down on past reserves and on the appointment on certain key civil service appointments. While the President may not have to “ACT ON ADVICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER” in these areas – he needs to ‘CONSULT THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS.’ What exactly is that? A council of the great and good who help the President know what he’s doing. One doesn’t exactly need to point out that Parliament has a say in influencing who gets on this council of great and the good.

The lack of actual powers of the President is so well known that incumbent was known to make cryptic remarks like “Ask God” when he was asked if he was going to run for a second term, a few weeks after he said he wouldn’t. One of his predecessors even went as far as to call the Prime Minister of the day – “Boss” whenever they were in private. In return for knowing who’s boss, the President is well rewarded – like the British Monarch, the President is looked after by a Civil List – this means a small salary of S$4 million plus.

So, why does anyone really care about who becomes the President? I mean, as long as the President looks reasonably dignified and waves on National Day, why should anyone care who becomes President?

I suspect the reason is simple. This is the only other chance we’re ever going to get to slap the government for the next five-years. As I have often said and many would probably agree with me – the Singapore government has done about 70 – 80 percent of things right. So, most Singaporeans are in no rush to kick out the government.

Where most of us get ‘cheesed off’ with the powers that be, comes in the form of style. As a visiting school friend of mine was said, “Singapore is run like Churchers – it’s a giant school.” Listen to enough government official communications and you’ll get the feeling that you’re reading a school report. “We the teachers are smart – you the kiddies don’t know what is good for you so listen to us.”

That was tolerable when they were getting things right. However, in the last few years, they’ve been less right than usual. One only has to think about Mas Selamat, the limping man who waltzed out of a secure facility and only caught a year later by …..Malaysians. The government was simply out of tune with the ground. What was more frightening than the actual gaff was the arrogance of officialdom. Instead of apologising – we, the public were consistently reprimanded for expecting ministers to resign instead of being satisfied with the sacking of two Ghurkhas.

So, when it came to the last General Election, we put the ruling party back into power with a heavy mandate (60 percent) but we gave the opposition more seats. For the ruling party, this was a slap in the face. Suddenly, the Prime Minister got rid of the ministers we wanted him to get rid off and started looking into the issues that we wanted him to address. – A good chunk of the electorate now gets it – slap the government at the polls and they listen.

Unfortunately for the powers that be, this feeling may actually move to the Presidential election. Yes, the President can’t do much but we, the electorate can send the sharp reminder to the government that we can hurt them by not voting in their preferred candidate – or at least giving the preferred candidate such a nasty scare that he remembers who’s boss when he’s in the Istana. Poor Dr Tony Tan is currently suffering from this reaction. This former Deputy Prime Minister was once regarded as one of the “good guys,” – he was thought of as an “Independent Thinker.” However, once the Prime Minister and “Senior Minister Emeritus,” started saying nice things about how great he was as a potential President – the internet crowd started digging up dirt on the man. Now, the interesting thing about Dr Tan is how is how his son managed to get posted to cushy job as a Defence Scientist when he was Defence Minister.

Is it fair for Dr Tan? Well, it may not be but then again, the government hasn’t exactly been fair when it comes to the presidency either.

Let’s start with the obvious – the criterion of who can be President isn’t exactly fair to begin with. One of the key requirements to run for President is that you must have either been a minister or a CEO of a company with a paid-up capital and turn-over of S$100 million. That instantly disqualifies quite a few people. Then, when you look at that criteria, you’ll understand that the people who can run either won’t or they’re going to be exceedingly conservative – you don’t get to those positions by rocking the boat. Let’s face it; of the two candidates who are not former members of the ruling party, one of them was a former civil servant and the other the CEO of the Insurance Cooperative – which is to all intents and purposes an arm of the government.

No matter how much the candidates talk about being “independent” of the government, it’s hard to believe them. It’s easy to dismiss this as “saying anything to get the job.”

However, to be fair to the candidates – there is at the very least some semblance of competition. During the last election for President, the candidate was unopposed. Everyone else who made the grade decided not to run. The one person, who tried to run, didn’t make the grade – he was a CFO rather than a CEO. The fact that he didn’t make the grade would have given the government the result it wanted. However, that wasn’t enough – they had to dig into his past and publish his dirt – which included things like disputes he had with his condominium management committee a decade ago.

We the public simply don’t want elections being ‘fixed.’ Other countries have survived with different centres of power and as far as most of us are concerned, there is no reason for one group to have unquestioned power.

We also remember the treatment of the last President who did what he was supposed to do. The late President Ong was a former Deputy Prime Minister who believed that he had a job to do, no matter what the government thought or felt. He gave a public press conference about the teething problems he had with the government. Didn’t actually make any allegations but he provided an independent view on what was going on. Somehow that was a bit too much for the powers that be – somehow, when the man died of cancer, there was a “committee” that decided he would not be accorded a State Funeral – surely this is something that would be considered an automatic given for a former Head of State.

In many ways, who wins the election is not important. The candidates are generally accepted as decent people who would do justice to the job. What is important, however, is whether this Presidential election is the beginning of a new way of doing things? Will the government accept that it is no longer the unquestioned authority on all matters in the country? Could this be the beginning of government being about a conversation of equals rather than between the great and good with the dull and obedient?

When Boy’s can’t Get Laid

2011-08-20T12:51:00.000+08:00

It’s a little tempting to be smug about being ethnic Chinese these days. America is in deep financial trouble and so the world is looking to the cash-rich Chinese for a bail out. Britain has gone through the shock of riots that are better associated with the Middle East and one is tempted to gloat at the fact that we’ve not seen an ethnic Chinese amongst the rioters. The Western is losing its shine and the Chinese world is glowing.

As tempting as it is to gloat, it’s probably best to hold the celebrations for a while yet. While China is currently and increasingly being viewed as an alternative bedrock for the rest of the world, it’s quite possible that the Middle Kingdom is going to be the source of a host of geo-political problems in time to come.

The reason is simple – China is going to be filled with boys who can’t get laid. In a report by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in January 2011, some 24 million Chinese men of marrying age could find themselves without a wife. Thanks to a combination of a “One-Child” policy that has been in effect since 1978 and cultural preferences for boys coupled with growing economic development (which usually takes away people’s interest in making babies), China is going to be awash with lots testosterone. The statistics are fairly simple – there are 119 boys for every 100 girls born and in some parts of the area, the imbalance goes up 130 boys per 100 girls.

What does this all mean? Well, for a start, it’s clear that women born in China can expect to have a lot more fun while men are going to have a problem. Men are going to outnumber women by quite a large margin. Culturally, women tend to marry older and more established men. So, in a family of more than one boy, the younger brother is going to be competing with his older brother from the same pool of women when it comes to looking for a bride.

For women, this situation can be fun. I remember being at Churcher’s College when girls were first welcomed into the junior classes (there were a handful in the 6th form.) The 13 girls who entered the first year had the undivided attention of 400 boys. They were to put the centre of much wanted attention. The gender imbalance at school got a little more balanced within two-years when girls could enter in the third year. However, by the time I left, things had cooled down a bit but the lads still outnumbered the girls.

It wasn’t all bad for us as the lads. For those of us who didn’t get a girl in school, the solution was simple – look outside the school grounds. There were, for example, enough desirable chicks in the local comprehensive and right at the other end of town, there was Bedales, my sister’s school, where the girls were known for being good looking (much better than at Churchers) and for being wide open to having a bit of fun.

Unfortunately for the boys born in rural China, they’re not going to have this alternative since this gender imbalance is going to be nation wide. Look at it this way, if you’re a peasant from rural China, what are your choices? Move to the city and you compete with the better off and more sophisticated city boys as well as sophisticated foreigners. Move abroad and chances are you’re still at the bottom of the social ladder when it comes to looking for a bride.

It’s cool to talk about the Chinese surplus of cash. It’s not polite to talk about it at the moment but will probably become vital to discuss, is the surplus of Chinese testosterone. China is going to have 24 million young men who are going to have a problem getting laid. Just to put things into perspective, that 24 million is larger than the entire population of Australia and New Zealand combined. There will be more Chinese men looking for brides than people in the Nordic world (Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark).

Testosterone can be tricky because it’s the very thing that makes men aggressive. This is the thing that drives men to want sex. Napoleon Hill, the author of “Think and Grow Rich,” makes the point that a high sex drive can be highly beneficial for a man – he just needs to know how to control it. You’ll find that men tend to blossom in later years (late 30s to early 40s) because it takes a while to learn how to divert the energies that you’d use into getting laid into productive work.

It’s not unreasonable to assume that married men or men in steady relationships are going to be a lot more focused on economic productivity than on getting laid. Simply put, if you are getting laid at home – you don’t need to keep looking elsewhere for it.

When you look at these assumptions, it’s not hard to see that the possibility of 24 million men who can’t laid, running round the place is going to be problematic.

The solution is simple – you either find them a bride or you keep them so busy and channel their energies into other things that they forget about their lack of opportunities. The third alternative is you export them out of the place.

Finding a bride is the toughest option of the lot. The gender imbalance is the result of 30-years of upholding a “one-child” policy in a culture that promotes men over women. To reverse it, you’re going to have to get people to start making girl babies and those girl babies won’t be any use for reproduction for at least 16-years.

This becomes even more complicated by the fact that China has been on the express rout to getting rich. As the developed world has discovered – when you get rich, you find people being less interested in having kids.

There is the possibility that you have to import women from elsewhere. Short of promoting human trafficking, you have the problem of making the men attractive enough for the women to want to be imported from elsewhere.

This leaves us looking at the possibility of keeping them busy. At the most peaceful stage, the solution is to keep this number of men in jobs that are going to occupy so much of their time and take so much of their energy that getting laid and the lack of opportunities to get laid will be the last thing on their mind.

Somehow, the domestic economy needs to be grown at such a rapid rate that these numbers of young men who can’t get laid coming into the market are absorbed in jobs. The London riots have shown what can happen when you don’t keep young men busy and if you have 24 million young men who have a problem getting laid and getting work, you have the perfect recipe for disaster.

Alternatively, one can look at sending these men into institutions like the army. However, armies are expensive for the state and China already has the largest army in the world by population (something which the Chinese government is trying to reduce). Getting them into the army means you may have to do things like give them a purpose – which means pick fights with people – bored men with the skill to kill are an especially lethal combination.

So, we look at exporting them. However, you have to ask yourself, where exactly are you going to export them to? The Western World as well as Japan are struggling to give their own citizens jobs, so they’re not likely to give yours any jobs. One possibility has been in the countries you invest in. One of the chief complaints about Chinese investment in Africa is the fact that China has also exported its labour to do the jobs – which means the African nations don’t the get the number of jobs they were hopping to get. However, things between China and Africa seem to be working out in some way.

This is a problem that requires imagination, which isn’t exactly a quality China’s central planners are known for. You can’t expect a world currently preoccupied with an economic crisis to look at 24 million horny men in 2020. However, this is going to be a major problem and unless China and the world focus on it now, we can expect 2020 to be a very interesting year

Is the Wrong Generation Dying Out?

2011-08-16T14:04:00.000+08:00

Watching the London riots play out, reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my best friends when I first met him. He said, “I can’t stand English people [he is incidentally English] except for the old ones. Unfortunately for England, the wrong generation is dying out.”

Perhaps I’m being coloured by my own perceptions here but I always thought my friend had a point. With the greatest love and affection to the guys I went to school with, I don’t have the best images of the English of my generation. I think of the tramps who lined up on Dean Street. All of them were young, white and English.

However, whenever I think of “Old” English people, I have nicer images. I think of the Westons – the family that took me to the airport from school whenever I went overseas. In many ways, Old Mr Weston represents the best of England. His handlebar moustache and cheerful smile whenever he saw me stays in memory till this day. Mr Weston fought in World War II. When he came back home, he became an entrepreneur. As well as running the local taxi service, he had a chip shop and a B&B. He was protective of his family and the community that he served.

I’ve noticed something similar in Singapore too. When I married Gina, I noticed a difference between her and her parents. I think of the egg seller who worked hard, refused to let his wife go to work and somehow put two kids through university. He gave money to charity and was active in his community. He told his kids – “Do good deeds.” By contrast, Gina simply couldn’t get round to caring for people in different circumstances. Let’s not go into charity – she couldn’t walk past a Malay wedding without passing uncalled for remarks. My Aunt couldn’t help but tell me “What a load of fucking racist crap have you got yourself into?”

When you look at how the UK has gone from Mr Weston to the tramps on Dean Street and how Singapore has gone from Gina’s dad to Gina – you cannot help but ask – “What the hell happened?”

I guess you could say that life became too good for the young. In a way there is a truism in this and the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. After World War II, successive Labour Governments implemented the Welfare State. In Singapore, my father’s generation struggled as independent businessmen to build up enough money to ensure people like me could go to university and good comfortable jobs. There would always be enough money around to ensure we could focus on studying instead of worrying about having enough to eat.

Let’s not knock this. As much as we might want to talk about the “Good Old Days,” they weren’t really that good. The intention behind the Welfare State was correct – it was to give the poorest in society a helping hand. The intention of getting your kids into university is correct – parents are supposed to want their kids to be better than they were.

However, when good intentions are taking into excess, they can have side effects. If I look at my generation of Singaporeans, we simply don’t have the hunger to succeed and build something better for our succeeding generations. We don’t need to. Somehow, life has always been mapped out for us. All we’ve had to do is to follow.

In the case of the UK and countries with a welfare system – the system has moved away from being about giving the poorest of the poor a helping hand to being about keeping political lobbies looked after. For the welfare recipients, there is no reason to do anything for yourself – why work for money when you get it for free.

I am also reminded by the Old Rogue that, “Welfare is not for the poor. It’s for the people who administer it.” Across the Western world, vast numbers of people have been employed to administer the welfare system – it’s not in their interest to see things change. Powerful political constituencies with vested interest in the status quo have been created. As a result of this, you get a generation of people that sees state benefits as a right rather than a privilege.

When people have an entitlement mentality, they lose the ability to think for themselves or to develop decent social networks of self-support. When they fight for something, it’s not to better society but to protect entitlements.

As awful as Mrs Thatcher sounded, she had a point. Something had to be done to get people to solve their own problems. Thanks to Mrs Thatcher, the UK did become a more dynamic place. My uncle Nick, who is English, pointed out that, “Thatcherism has made people in England willing to work harder.”

Personally, I don’t think the issue is much of a case of things being “too good,” but a case of social structures and values changing.

If you look at the Singapore case, you cannot argue with parents wanting children to have education or a good life. Singapore has benefited from having a more educated population. We’re in the position to look for better, higher paying industries than our neighbours because our population has the skills.

Despite my rhetoric, I actually don’t have a problem with governments and multinationals. Singapore has done well because it has had competent civil servants. The multinationals do hire Singaporeans because we can do the jobs they provide.

What I disagree with in Singapore in many ways is the way a generation has been brought up with a sense of entitlement. If I go to university, I am entitled to a good, secure civil service job. If I buy a house, I am entitled to make pots of money from it – hence I no longer talk about my home or my house but my property.

When you think of everything as an entitlement, you find it hard to change. Listen to how Singapore Government Linked companies talk and you’ll understand why they can ONLY operate in Singapore. The media industry was particularly rife with entitlement mentality. “The Market is TOO SMALL for competition.” – Read – “We are entitled to make money regardless of what you think.” Sure, you’re entitled to make money as long as you provide the consumers with what they are willing to pay for. You are not entitled to make money because of who you are.

I think the UK has a somewhat similar but more subtle problem. I agree with my former guardian who said, “The Brits lost it when they lost sense of duty.” Nothing exemplifies this better than the Royal Family. You have the Queen who has a very strong sense of duty. She believes that it is her duty to sit on that throne and do all the things a Head of State (incidentally she’s Head of State of Australia, New Zealand and Canada as well as the UK) does until she drops dead. She’s stuck with Prince Phillip despite the fact that the man can’t help but put his foot in his mouth (slitty eyed Japanese) and is womanizer.

By contrast, you have her kids who can’t hold their marriages together and more worryingly are more than happy to feed their linen to the public. I think Prince Charles is a wonderfully kind and decent person but did I really need to know about his desire to be a tampon to some old bag?

I have no problems with the so called English “class system” as it used to be. The working class, as represented by Mr Weston – worked and they worked hard. By contrast, the tramps have realised its easier to get by doing nothing and rioting when they don’t get their next fix of nicotine. People like Mr Weston had an obligation to family and the wider community.

If you look at the traditional British aristocracy, you’ll find that they’re trained with a sense of duty to look after the people. As elitist as the Public School system is, you are, as one Old codger pointed out, “trained to get along with people from all walks of life.” In the days when the British had an empire, the elite took hardship better than the working class – they were trained to by elite Public Schools.

The Public School system has become more academic. Has it become better at training people who understand that leadership is about caring for people under you? That’s debateable. Progress is inevitable – when Britain no longer had colonies, the elite schools had to reinvent themselves as bastions of academic excellence rather than training grounds for colonial administration. If you look at exam results tables, they’ve done a pretty good job. The question, have they produced an elite that understands that it has a role in producing people with a decent set of values?

Funnily enough, the British institution that seems to have done the best job in keeping up to date with modernity but maintaining decent values systems is the military. Nobody questions the ability of British officers trained at Sandhurst to lead. Nobody doubts the British “squadies” ability to work. Somehow the army prison has the lowest rates of re-offenders of all prisons in the UK. I think part of the success of the British military as compared with the civil institutions is that the military has understood that it needs to keep young people (especially men) busy and the structure of the military provides young men with the security that they are cared for as long as they do their part.

Funnily enough, one country that has held relatively well is the USA. This is despite the debts and financial crisis. The USA has a terrible inequality problem. Yet we’ve not had a noticeable riot since Rodney King in the 1990s.

Part of the reason is because you have an elite that understands the principle of giving back. Bill Gates has made more money than anyone else in history. He is currently on course to give more away too. Simple – the system allows you to make as much as you can but you also understand that you need to give something back.

It is true that the problems in America are in a large part due to “crony capitalism,” or at least an implicit collusion between banks and government. However, you also have genuine elite that is not selfish. You have people Warren Buffet, the most successful investor of all time, writing op-ed pieces in the New York Times telling the US government to stop coddling the super rich. Mr Buffet rightly argues that you don’t need to look after the people who don’t need to be looked after. He is for the record, not a softy liberal.

Something has to be done and we need a system that generates ideas and also allows a certain value system to be maintained. How do you ensure and encourage people to get rich through their talents but at the same time understand that they have an obligation to give back. How do you give a helping hand to the poor without robbing them of their pride and incentive to move ahead? These are questions that need to be answered – so isn’t it time we start debating them?

Let the Apes Run the Show!

2011-08-15T04:55:00.000+08:00

One of the hot movies of this year is called “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” This movie is supposed to be the prequel of the 1968 and 2001 and one version of “Planet of the Apes.” The premise of all these movies is simple. One day, the apes will achieve human like intelligence and become the dominant life form. Human beings will end up either as slaves or game for the apes to hunt for the fun of it.

These movies have all been success. Science fiction is always fun and there’s something innate in human nature to be terrified of anything that is remotely different. What’s more terrifying than something different is the idea that you may one day be in an inferior position to something that you once dominated.

I look at the way the American establishment got very upset with the Japanese in the 1980s and have since transferred that angst to the Chinese when the little Yellow people started doing things like buying American icons like the Rockefeller Centre. The pundits couldn’t help but draw pictures of America being bombarded by Yen Signs and although tried not to do it, they ended up blabbering about the “Yellow Peril.” The reality was quite different. While the Japanese and the Chinese today have made some headline grabbing purchases but the fact remains that the biggest investors in the USA are British – the Anglo-Saxon cousins.

Why didn’t anyone make a peep when you had the likes of Hanson and James Goldsmith’s buying up US assets and throwing people out of work? There was no “British Peril” there. If anything, the Americans started portraying the English corporate raiders as ruthless but very charming and sexy – just think of Terrence Stamp’s character in Wall Street.

Let’s not put to fine a point on it – the American establishment is simply terrified of little Yellow People, who don’t speak the same language and follow a somewhat different set of beliefs beating them at their own game (let alone being superior to them). If the ruthless billionaire who is about to throw you out of work is the same colour and speaks the same language (which is why there’s been less paranoia about Indians running multinationals – the Indians speak excellent English), it’s not as scary as someone who looks different and more importantly doesn’t exactly want to be you (Americans usually assume the world wants to be like them and they can’t handle it when the rest of the world say ….no).

This isn’t limited to the USA. If you surf the internet in Singapore, you cannot escape people complaining about arrogant Indians from India who expect Singaporeans to have a “slave mentality” towards them. It’s not that the Indian Nationals and to an extent the PRC Chinese are arrogant. We, the Singaporeans have been so used to thinking ourselves as the most advanced beings in Asia (as close to the West as you get), we simply cannot take other Asians being our bosses.

So, if we get this way about our fellow human beings, this is sense of paranoia must be magnified a million times over when the former slave becoming our master happens to be from another species. Hey, we don’t like the idea of being locked up in a cage but we’re quite happy to see other species locked up. We think it’s a violation of rights when the likes of Singapore’s former Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew talks about making graduates breed with other graduates to get smarter babies. We have no problem breeding faster horses (a multi-billion dollar industry) or smaller, bigger, fleshier dogs. As far as human beings are concerned, we are the only species on the planet with “rights.” Everything else is meant to serve us and if it can’t – we eat it. It is incidentally perfectly OK to be a meat eating human but totally unacceptable to be a man-eating tiger.

Well, I don’t want to be locked up in a cage or anyone’s sport. However, if that day happens, would it really be a bad thing? If you look objectively enough, having one of the “other” species take over the planet may not be such a bad thing. Let’s face it; the human being is an exceedingly destructive creature. We happily destroy everyone else’s home in the name of progress.

I don’t need Al Gore to tell me that cutting down rainforest is bad. I live in tinny Singapore, which gets covered in smog whenever the large neighbour, Indonesia, starts burning down trees. You might get pissed off with the Indonesians for doing it because you’re breathing crap – but you sympathise because you, as a human being would happily burn the trees too if someone told you that this was a way to progress. We are the only species on the planet that acquires stuff for the sake of it. Every other species simply takes what it needs. A pride of lions can survive on a single kill for a week or two. One human beings needs this and that every day.

So, when you look at things like that, letting apes take over may not be such a bad thing. For a start, they’re going to cut down hell of a lot less trees. Most ape species climb them and a civilisation of apes may end up finding a way of building cities that work in rain forest rather than cutting down the rain forest to do it.

Then there’s the fact that apes are simply less warlike than human beings. In our system, we have people like the neoCONS who think that it’s perfectly acceptable to march their troops all over the place to be slaughtered. Yes, gorillas, chimpanzees and orang-utans do get into violent displays or temper with each other but they rarely kill each other and when they do, there’s usually a purpose to it (usually a case of one has to die for the other to survive).

Let’s face it, a silverback gorilla, the leader of his troop will do the fighting himself rather than get others to do it for him. When you have to do the fighting, you understand pretty darn quickly that you can get hurt as well as do the hurting. This realisation makes you less likely to get violent and start conflicts. Humans on the other hand are quite capable of getting others to do the fighting for them – so they’re more than happy to get into large scale conflicts – hey war is fun as long as I’m not the guy risking my neck. I don’t get fights on a personal basis because I don’t want to risk getting hurt.

When you look at the other ape species and the societies that they form, you’ll find that they seem to have a system that’s more in harmony with nature. They use only what they need. They only use violence to survive in their own personal space and they don’t pillage and burn things down. In short, the other ape species are living a life that is far better for the planet than the one we’ve imposed on society. As is said in the 2001 version of Planet of the Apes “The Strength of an Ape is nothing when compared to the cunning and deviousness of the human.”

So, go and watch the “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” Have fun doing it but don’t pander to the fear mongering. Instead, welcome the prospect of another species taking over. They may actually have something worth looking forward to.

A Decade at Home

2011-08-09T04:03:00.000+08:00

Singapore’s National Day (August 9th) is well into its early hours. The upcoming celebrations that are being advertised all over the place are a reminder to me that I’ve lived here for a decade now. With the exception of a few trips abroad (mainly across the Causeway), I have lived in this little Red Dot for the better part of ten-year – this is slightly after two-decades of moving around all over the place.

It’s been quite a decade. I came back to Singapore from the UK, filled with dreams. It was simple; I started corporate life in Citibank Singapore and coming back home to start my working life sounded like the logical choice since I already had my foot in a big brand name over here. I had this idea that I would become an AVP at Citi before my 30th and show Carra, the wonderful woman I had fallen for back in 1999, that I was well and truly worthy of her. I would try and emulate Edmund Koh, former Regional Director, Consumer Banking at DBS – who had started out in advertising before moving to the bank.

Well, it hasn’t worked out that way. I am far removed from the lofty career aspirations that I once had. At the wrong end of my thirties, I often find myself struggling to find my next meal and I no longer think of myself as having a career. I am probably the only graduate who’s been forced to look to my less-educated friends to help me out from time-to-time.

So, you might imagine that I’d be cursing my decision to go back to Singapore, a homeland, which I’ve only really gotten to know in the last decade. I’m not – in fact, I’m actually quite happy in the sense that the last decade has given me a wealth of experiences that I don’t think I would have been able to get anywhere else.

Somehow I’ve managed to run up and down the social ladder in a way that wouldn’t seem possible anywhere else. I can brag of helping my nation foster better relations with another one at the government-to-government level (Saudi Arabia – Visit of Crown Prince Sultan to Singapore in 2006). I can proudly claim to have worked with some of the most prestigious brands known to man (General Electric, 3M, Alcon and UL come to mind.) I’ve actually written a speech for Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew (though by the time it had been passed up the chain – there wasn’t a word that I had written). The Prime Minister has even commended me for some of the articles I’ve published. I’ve done all of this as a one man band, without being part of a big international agency. I look at these little achievements and ask myself, could I have done this elsewhere? The answer is no. If I was a one-band in London, I’d be busy trying to get my local corner shop into the Evening Standard.

Yet, at the same time, I’ve had plenty of disastrous lows. Back in 2004, I found myself having to camp out in Geylang Lorong 12, because I had no home to go to. I’ve had the unfortunate experience of having to be at a police station because I was a victim of assault. I’ve been questioned by the police because I was with someone who was an open public nuisance.

Once again, I compare these lows with my life in London. I lived in Soho, an area known for pimps, drug dealers and other shady characters. In those three-years, I only had one physical encounter on the streets and I didn’t get a scratch out of that. By comparison my ex-wife left me with a 7x12 haematoma in one of her many instances of violent behaviour towards me. Might this have happened elsewhere? Who knows – I just know it happened in Singapore.

So, how does that make me view Singapore? Well, for the most part, I enjoy the many great physical amenities that the place has to offer. As one Kuwaiti fellow I meet said, “From a facilities management point of view – Singapore compares very well – in fact better than many countries in the West.” I don’t feel a loss comfort when moving from the West to Singapore. If anything, going back to the UK when I was still at school, felt like I was heading back in time. When Singapore had run ahead in the use of laser disc, the Europeans and British were still on VHS systems. Say what you like about our public transport system – but it’s still pretty darn good, especially when you compare it to quite a few cities in the USA.

What I do miss about the west is decent manners, particularly on the public transport. I do wish that people here would understand that it makes life easier if you allowed people to get off the bus before you get on and moving to the back of the bus doesn’t hurt you. However, other than that, I don’t feel a great sense of elation when I go to Germany or a great sense of deprivation when I come back to Singapore. I have long since lost the desire to set foot in the UK or the USA (though I ought to try and see my step-dad on his 80th) again.

So, you could say in many aspects, Singapore has been quite a good home. I enjoy the fact that I can walk out late at night without getting mugged. I like clean streets. I like the fact that toilets do flush. These creature comforts do matter. I’m very clear, I’d be more than happy to help Thuy grow up here if her mother so asked me to. People ask me why I don’t leave Singapore for elsewhere, and the honest truth is because I like the nice things that Singapore has to offer. These are things that everyone in Singapore has access to. It’s not like moving to another part of Asia and I’m locked away from the rest of society in a prison of privilege. I look at the riots going on in London and I think I did make the right decision to move.

Yes, I do think the PAP has done a good job despite my criticisms of public policy. If you look at things from an objective, rational point of view, we have been blessed with a government that on the whole has done what a government is supposed to do – provide the people with an opportunity to care for themselves.

What I do feel is lacking in Singapore is probably best summed up by the term – the human spirit. I first felt it in the army, when I was sent to Thailand. When you first see rural Thailand you understand why every Thai girl who is selling her body is doing what she does. However, when you leave the place, you feel sad to leave. Somehow you can’t help but feel that these people who have so much less than you, have something important that you lost a long time ago. I feel this sense of emptiness whenever I finish visiting my Dad in Bangkok and head home.

It’s not just Thailand. Cross the Causeway into Johor and you find that people in Malaysia are nicer. They are less uptight about themselves. They actually smile and give you a sense that they wish you well. I can laugh and joke with immigration officers on the Malaysian side. On the Singapore side, you feel like you want to slap the bugger as he tries to intimidate you for the sake of it.

We, as Singaporeans talk about how advanced we are as a society. I agree we are advanced but at the same time, we’ve paid the price for it. We pledge to build a “democratic and prosperous society based on justice and equality, regardless of race, language or religion.” We have no physical ghettos – yet, if you talk to people long enough and you’ll realise that Singapore has plenty of mental and spiritual ghettoes.

You see this most clearly when it comes to the topic of “other Asians.” If you trawl the internet, you will find no shortage of grouses of women from China stealing husbands (China girls ask for cash – Singaporeans just expect an endless supply of gifts and other freebies), arrogant Hindi speakers who refuse to learn Tamil (Incidentally for Singapore readers – the National Language of India is Hindi) and best of all – Chinese waiters who can’t speak a word of English (Assuming this is what you call what Singaporeans speak). However, when you get a posting of a few Caucasians beating up a taxi driver after a drunken brawl, you’ll find people rushing to defend them – “Oh…you can’t judge a race by a few idiots etc”

You have to thank the Young Pariah from Pasir Ris GRC for illustrating this most vividly. He proudly tells me about how he sacrifices his seat for some young Caucasian executive on the MRT (We must respect to the superior culture, you know). By contrast, I had to physically remove him from his seat to give way to a pregnant lady from China.

It’s not just views on racial integration that illustrates the ghettos that we place ourselves in. Just look at the success of the likes of Pastor Prince – Singapore’s chief intellectual export. What does the good pastor peddle? He peddles a snake oil known as “McGod.” This is the theory that Christ died for your sins and therefore you are “ENTITLED” to be rich, healthy and successful. The best part about the good pastor is that ALL of his followers are graduate professionals with degrees from reputable universities.

Why do young graduate professionals from respectable universities feel the urge to buy this snake oil? I suspect that it is because they’re used to being told that they are ENTITLED to certain things and when they have to struggle, its painful. So when the good Pastor comes along with his oil – they swallow it.

I like the fact that these people who willingly give a portion of their salary to the Good Pastor (You should know his character by the fact that he changed his name from Singh to Prince) are the first people who berate you for giving coins to an old Malay lady begging on the streets (You shouldn’t support the beggars syndicate, you know).

My favourite example of people stuck in mental and physical ghettos are from the family Thio. This group of highly intelligent lawyers are on crusade to eliminate the term “homosexual” from the conscience of the world. Mama Thio, who was the first lady to be dean of the law faculty at our local university claims that she had a chat with God to get him to spare us from the ravages of the 2004 Tsunami. Bad enough she believes she has reached this level of spirituality – she publicly states that she has this apparent relationship with God – it is worse that rational people actually believe her.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out why, after a decade of living in Singapore, my closest friends include a Nepali chef and a Vietnamese Entrepreneur (well, we’re a little bit more than friends). These are the people who work for their living. They are down to earth and are not born with a sense of entitlement. What they want to do is to find a little space in Singapore and make a living. Since these guys are living with their feet on the ground, they pay respects to the Almighty but they are quite aware that they have their destiny in their own hands and so they make a living without cheating people.

Why can’t Singaporeans accept people like this? I suspect that as we celebrate our 46th birthday, we are still hurt adolescents bent on messing up the good work that preceding generations have provided for us.

Are You Ever Ready for Anything?

2011-08-07T19:26:00.001+08:00

You have to credit the Singapore government for coming up with one of the most ironic points of the day. In a session to 250 youths, our Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Teo Chee Hean made the point that one is never really ever ready to join politics and even till this day, the man who is a heart beat away from the Prime Ministership says that he still feels completely “inadequate.” This is a wonderfully human admission from a senior member of a government that has made it a point to be totally ready for anything.

I admire Mr Teo for this moment of humanity. Mr Teo is a military man (former Chief of Navy). As such, he should be more aware than most about the very real fact that you can never really be fully prepared for anything.

Let’s face it; the military officers in just about every military in the world are trained to think of every possible scenario. They do things like play make plans, study battle tactics and play war games. Thanks to Hollywood, we are all familiar with the scene of senior military commanders huddled up in the room playing what looks like chess – except that this time it’s with real lives at stake.

Lower down the food chain, we’ve now invented simulators to give the boys a ‘feel’ of what its going to be like. However, despite all the technology and training time that goes into making a solider, nothing can fully prepare a solider for war other than being in a war.

At the time of writing, I am living out my military fantasies on a Facebook game called “Army Attack”. It’s fun to imagine myself being a big war hero. However, I suspect I would probably pee in my pants when the first shell lands and explodes next to me and I have to deal with real life casualties. I’ve often made the point that the two military funerals I had to attend were two too many. Yes, I agree that a nation should use its young men to defend itself but it should only use their lives when it has no other choice.

War is not the only thing that one can never really be fully be prepared for. Take parenthood for example. How many of us are fully prepared for the realities of being a parent. Thousands have books have been written about the subject. We’ve had role models in the shape of our own parents. There is so much advice about parenting out there; you would imagine that it becomes easier with every generation.

Yet, despite the availability of information on the topic, how many of us are ever prepared to be parents? OK, I don’t have my own kids – but even then you’d imagine that I would be a know-it-all when it comes to being a parent. I studied biology and anthropology – so I should be pretty familiar with the various roles that parents should play in nurturing a kid and raising them to deal with society. I have had two stepfathers to add to my father and two stepmothers to add to the other I already have. As such, I am spoilt for choice when it comes to parental role models. I have so much “simulation” knowledge of the subject that I have to be an expert.

However, I was not prepared when Thuy became a part of my life. To put it crudely, I was overwhelmed by the feeling of having to live for something greater than myself. OK, having experienced it once, it became easier when Yooga popped into my life. However, I wasn’t prepared for the many bouts of separation that his mother imposed on us.

Let’s face it, everybody can teach us the brain stuff. It’s easy to process information. In this day and age, you should be shot for basic ignorance. Thanks to Google, you can find out just about anything with a click of a button. Getting information does not require much physical effort. The processing of information doesn’t burn any additional calories either.

However, nothing can prepare you for the emotions of dealing with the situation. We all know what to do in certain situations but yet we often fail to act. A Kuwaiti fellow I once knew made the point that he was a cancer patient who was in denial for a year. Did he know he had cancer? Yes he did – but he was overcome by fear. He’s not the only person to be this situation when your emotions overcome your intellectual knowledge?

I guess you could say that the first thing you need to do is to be honest about your feelings. Most of us like to think of ourselves as nice people who don’t get greedy or frightened. We convince ourselves that we will always be that way. However, when the situation comes, we end up being less so and screwing ourselves. Just look at the stock market. Everyday, thousands of people clever and rational people play the stock market. They tell themselves that they are not greedy or fearful. Yet, everyday you get people who get burned on financial markets because they got greedy, frightened or both.

Yet there are people who don’t get burnt on the stock market. In fact they become quite good at playing shares – my late grandmother was one of them. She was, I suspect, one of the few people who could resist the temptation to give into greed or fear. I suspect she understood that those emotions existed in her and could get to her. Thanks to this self-knowledge, she would act before she would get affected by them. She didn’t make a vast fortune on hot tips. More importantly she didn’t get burnt when the hot tips proved to be less than hot or cooled dramatically. The old lady left her much better educated children with a decent nest egg when she died – not bad for a woman who spent the better part of the last four decades of her life as a housewife.

Self-knowledge is hard to get hold off. Who really wants to admit that they might have a short coming or two? Yet, despite this, there is much to be gained by achieving it.

I think Mr Teo’s admission of weakness is a welcome change for Singapore. Successive PAP governments delivered pretty darn good results for the people on just about every facet of social development. While this was good, it had the unfortunate side-effect of developing a “God Complex” within our government.

Analyse the last election and you’ll find that the ruling party’s main message seemed to be “Trust us because you always have and you won’t be disappointed.” When people pointed out their mistakes like the escaping limping man or the great floods in the city square, they got defensive – “How dare you question us – we’re Godlike and can do no wrong.” The most amazing example of the Deus Complexus (God Complex according to my very hazy school boy Latin – trying to show off here) came from the Former Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who never apologised for insulting a good portion of the population – he merely “Stood corrected.”

God Complexes prevent problems from getting solved. All you have to do is to think of the way the government rushed to defend one of their own when the limping man who was allegedly the most dangerous terrorist of all time waltzed out of their prison. Everyone kept talking about how we “need to judge the man by his distinguished record than an incident,” than finding the said terrorist.

That annoyed people and so when it came to voting time ……the public made themselves heard as loudly as they could.

So, is Mr Teo’s sudden admission of his inadequacy a welcome change in the way business is done? Let’s hope so. A government filled with people who are secure enough to admit their own failings is more likely to be a government that gets round to the business of solving problems for the people instead of a government bent on defending a perfect record when it is clearly not perfect.

Too Much of a Good Thing

2011-08-01T03:00:00.000+08:00

If you want to know about the direction of the world economy, you could do no worse than to look at a story in Reuters and the Hindustan Times, of a Swedish Table Tennis Coach who refused to work for the Indian Table Tennis Federation because they were going to pay him in US Dollars rather than Indian Rupees. He argued quite reasonably that he had bills to pay in Swedish Krona and the US Dollar had only been declining by 25 percent every year against the Krona. By contrast, the Rupee was holding steady – and so he was much better off being paid in Rupees.

How times change? There was a time when the US Dollar was unofficial currency of the Third-World. If you worked in places like Indonesia, Brazil and dare I say India, you made sure that your bill was in US Dollars because if you billed in local currency, you might have the rude shock of finding that the value of what you billed had become worthless by the time you finished your job.

Well, this isn’t the case now. American tourist are finding the world increasingly expensive as the once almighty Greenback takes a tumble against currencies both major (Euro, Yen) and minor (Rupee, Real etc). For the rest of us, the US is starting to look like a cheap holiday destination. For Americans the only comfort must come from the fact that they have their British cousins in the same boat. How my father must cursing me for not going to school in the UK now, instead of when I did – which was ten years ago. Back then, the pound changed hands for three Singapore dollars for every pound. Today, it trades at about one point nine eight Singapore Dollars to the pound. If I was now at school, the Old Man would be saving about some seven thousand Singapore dollars a year just on the exchange rate.

So what’s happening? Over a decade ago, it was the USA and the UK which were booming. Asia was coming out of a financial crisis in 1997 and we relied very much on Western markets to survive. Today things are a bit different. It is Westerners who come over to Asia to look for jobs and not all of them are in high powered positions. Hong Kong had a host of British visitors called F.I.L.T.H (Failed in London Try Hong Kong) doing menial jobs that the locals wouldn’t do. Singapore, being further away from an increasingly assertive China, is a bit less harsh to Westerners. We still love them but there is a decreasing amount of expatriate packages. It’s not an uncommon sight to see Caucasians taking the bus or hanging around HDB estates these days.

A part of it is probably natural. Asia is home to three fifths of humanity and sooner or later, you have to expect the many Asians on the planet to go for some of life’s nicer things. In a way much of this was started by Japan. Back in the 1800s they saw the rise of the West and went out of their way to emulate the technology and the systems that made the West grow. When they were defeated in World War II, they had the good fortune to do so at the time when America was desperate for prosperous anti-Communist bastions. Money was pumped into Japan and the Japanese were prevented from having a military. Japan prospered and when things started getting expensive in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore become the next in-line to plug into and benefit from the global capitalist system. Hong Kong and Taiwan then became engines for China and Singapore became an engine for places like Malaysia and Indonesia (We have been much slower in trying to develop our neighbours than Hong Kong and Taiwan).

A generation of Asians have studied in the West. We feel at home in English and dealing with concepts like the “Rule of Law” are things that our growing generation expects. Contrary to what some of the regions autocrats might believe, we want things like laws, accountability and fairness, not because they are Western but because they are the things that make society prosperous. In most of Asia, this is the growing generation and the momentum for improved governance and prosperity can only grow.

Then let’s take into account the fact that Asia is playing catch up. For most of us, we are at an earlier stage of development than much of the West. As such, there is simply more room to grow. China and India have made headlines with their growth figures. However, the class that has benefited from growth in the Asian Giants are only a minority. Rural China and India remain poor – so much so that entrepreneurs like Polaris’s Arun Jain, who made a fortune in IT doing work for Western multinationals are trying to find ways to apply their knowledge to lift their poor country brethren out of poverty. If you think both these Asian Giants have achieved anything – wait till the vast majority start climbing out of the poverty trap.

Much has been made of the great rise of Asia. What is less looked at is the decline of the West, particularly the USA. Once again, we shouldn’t get too carried away writing off America. American multinationals continue to dominate the world and American universities continue to produce the best scientist, artist etc. However, this is becoming less so and the average American is feeling less secure than he or she did a generation ago.

The key reason for this is simple – bad money management. America remains the world’s largest debtor nation. With the exception of the eight-years under Bill Clinton, every American Administration has run a budget deficit. What is true of the American government is also true of the average American household. Your average American household has something like five-credit cards per working adult and all of them are maxed out to the tune of something like US $20,000. A baby born in America today inherits a debt of a hundred or two thousand.

Such figures are staggering and hard to imagine? How did it happen? Americans were not always like this. My late step-grandmother, Joan was a depression baby – she was conservative with money and avoided extravagances. When she died, her estate was large enough to put my younger brother Max through college with plenty of spare change. For Joan and her generation, money was scarce and therefore something which had to be conserved and treasured. Thanks to such attitudes, the USA had money to underwrite World War II and to provide Marshal Aid to Europe in the aftermath of the War (So much so that when George Marshal went to Westminster Abby, ALL the crowned heads of Europe stood up).

What happened since then? How did America go from a creditor nation to being a debtor nation within a generation? Part of the answer is circumstances. During the Cold War, America the Super Power in the West and it had a need to spend heavily on things like defence and propping up allies in various parts of the world. Militaries are expensive and the Americans spent heavily to keep their military machine going. Today, one of the biggest expenditures in the American budget is for the military. The US spends more on defence than the European Union and China combined. You might argue that part of this was necessary. There was the “Cold War,” and most recently there’s the “War on Terrorism.” However, even then there are ways of saving money when you fight wars. George Bush I did it best.

He waited for Saddam to invade Kuwait. Built up an alliance of Arab Nations and limited the military adventure to getting Iraq out of Kuwait. At the end of the day, Old Man Bush could send the bill to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who were more than happy to pay for a good portion of it.

By contrast Bush II decided to invade Iraq despite the objections of the rest of the world (You are with us or against us) and not finishing a job in Afghanistan (His Dad finished Noriega in Panama before looking elsewhere). As such the Americans have continued to foot the bill for two wars. The only way that America pacified Iraq has been to bribe various fractions who are likely to kill each other and Americans when American money runs out.

Stupid military expenditure is only part of the reason. The key component in America’s lack of financial discipline is cultural – which is ironically one of America’s greatest strengths. We, the rest of the world, love America because it remains one of the most optimistic and therefore innovative societies. Think of most of the great inventions of the day like the Internet – these are all American inventions.

Not only has America been at the forefront of scientific invention – it has also been at the forefront of financial innovation. In a way this has been a blessing. Entrepreneurs in the USA have easier access to credit than in most places. Bankruptcy laws are relatively lenient. As such, it is easier for an aspiring entrepreneur to get things going – fail and start again until he gets it right in the USA than any other part of the world. Americans have a high tolerance for failure provided the failure gets up and tries again.

If companies cannot get bank loans, there’s a market to raise funds. For big companies there are the financial markets. Now, small individuals can go onto the internet and get loans or loan money to people at an agreed interest rate. When I worked for GE Commercial Finance (South East Office which has since been sold to Standard Chartered Bank), I found a myriad of ways to raise funds – ie equipment leasing, factoring and so on.

This is good in as much as anyone with a dream has an option of raising money to make that dream come true.

There is however, a downside – namely when the lines between tolerating mistakes and condoning bad behaviour blurs. It’s one thing to help a guy who had a run of bad luck. It’s another, when you bail out obvious criminal activity – just think of Enron when you had a huge multinational, which was obviously cooking the books and everyone turned a blind eye to it until there was no more money to keep the show going.

Yes, in business, credit is important. There will be times when you need to pay bills and you have yet to be paid. You cannot tell your suppliers that they have to wait till you get paid simply because they deal with you not your clients.

However, easy credit can be very addictive. Why bother watching the pennies when the bank is more than happy to provide you with a never ending credit line? In business debts can be a good thing if you do things like buy assets or invest in something or other. On a personal level this is not bad too – most of us have a mortgage to buy a house, which becomes our biggest asset once we pay off the bank.

Debt becomes dangerous when it goes into things like buying the stuff that you don’t need. It’s one thing to take a loan to buy a house or put your kid to school. It’s quite another when you use it to live in a spa or buy fast cars. Things like this go down in value and when they do, they are worth less than the loan you took out to buy them. Unfortunately the easy credit which made it easy for businesses to start up mostly went into buying things that have no real value.

Furthermore, the finance industry got extra creative. Creativity in itself is an asset. However, when carried to far this can be dangerous. For example, a mortgage is good loan for both sides in the sense that the borrower is using debt to gain an asset while the creditor knows that if there is a default, he gets something in return – an asset. It’s a totally different story when you make a loan that isn’t backed up by anything other than high interest rates. Fine while the guy raising junk bonds can pay the interest and principle. It’s a different story when things go belly up.

In short, the finance people found so many clever ways of raising money; they didn’t even understand what they were doing. A lot was said about the “new” finance models which reduced risk and maximised returns. It reached a stage when the wisest investor of all time, Warren Buffet declared that these new products were “Weapons of Financial Mass Destruction.”

Mr Buffet has been proved right. The entire American nation forgot about risk as well as returns. Nobody thought it was worth teaching the young that money was something to be conserved. The idea of getting ready for a rainy day never crossed anyone’s mind – then it stormed.

American policy makers are now very upset with China for having the audacity to save. Apparently this is bad for the world because it leads to an economic imbalance. However, you can’t blame the Chinese for wanting to preserve themselves and take care for the days which may not be so rosy.

Isn’t it time for a culture change?

The Great Transport Debate to Nowhere

2011-07-21T05:05:00.001+08:00

There’s something interesting happening in the state of Singapore. Two months after the General Election and a month before an expected Presidential Election, Singapore is having something called a “Debate.” The public transport companies have made the announcement that they’re planning to up their prices and the newly emboldened Worker’s Party, which has become Singapore’s main opposition party is crying foul. The Workers Party then went onto suggest that the problem with Singapore’s transport system is that it is run by two listed companies that are driven by the “profit” motive raI’her than the desire to serve the public. The Workers Party then proposed “Nationalising” the system - placing it under a “non-profit” organisation that would have the interest of the public at heart.

The government then had a field day by pointing out that “Nationalised” utilities had failed everywhere else and stopped short of accusing the Workers Party of being a group of dreamy socialist.

It’s good to see a debate. It was even better to see the Straits Times, long lampooned for being a government mouth piece, publishing a piece by Mr Gerald Giam, a prominent member of the opposition. This is something that has not been done in the living memory of the senior journalist that I know.

While I welcome the debate on public transport, I think both sides have missed some of the most crucial points. The noise of political rhetoric has drowned out some common sense.

Let’s start with the Worker’s Party. They are right to scream foul at the proposed increase in public transport. While public transport in Singapore is generally good, especially when compared to elsewhere – service standards haven’t exactly been improving and we, the lay people are feeling the pinch. A decade ago when I first moved back to Singapore, a $10 top-up could last me a week. These days, I use that within 24-hours. I also find that bus waiting times have become ridiculous – I’ve been expected to wait 48 minutes for a bus while seeing several buses of the same number arrive at the same time. I don’t call this good service and reading about another price increase doesn’t exactly make me happy. All credit to the Worker’s Party for doing what an opposition should do – question and cry foul whenever it thinks the government is overriding its authority. .

However, I believe the proposed solution has a major flaw. It works on the assumption that “non-profit” means altruistic and it relies on the idea that government is a solution. “Nationalising” has become a dirty word around the world for a good reason. While Singapore can boast of some pretty efficient state-run institutions, the general trend shows that once private sector dynamism is injected – things get a lot better.

Placing the system under government control will require lots of money. Both transport companies are listed and taking them off the market will require the buying out of shareholders. Then you need to put in a layer of bureaucratic administration to run the system. If you talk about building the administration of the existing companies, you’d be living in a fantasy world. You can expect the existing staffs that were hired under private sector conditions to insist on being hired under civil service conditions. This can only make the cost go up. In an age of global dynamism and movement, the last thing Singapore needs is more civil servants.

Which leads to the next point – when have civil servants been known for being sensitive to the needs of the consumer? While politicians may have to face the voters every five years – civil servants do not.

Furthermore, the term “non-profit” is something of a misnomer. We assume that “non-profit” organisations are altruistic because they don’t distribute profits to shareholders. However, that does not mean they don’t make money. As the NKF incident in 2005 showed – non-profit organisations merely distribute the money differently – it comes out in the shape of salaries, benefits and other goodies. Richard Branson tried to do this when Britain started a “National Lottery.” Mr Branson made a huge song and dance about how he wasn’t going to make any money from running the lottery – it would all be for charity. Thankfully British regulators were on this occasion smart enough to notice that Mr Branson was charging vastly higher administration fees that the next “profit-driven” bid. Let’s get it straight – “non-profit” does not mean altruistic and “profit” does not mean evil.

Then let’s face the fact that state-run transport systems work best in the nations of Northern Europe where people are taxed highly and the people understand that they’re paying for the system – they’re doing through their taxes rather than directly through the organisation. Singaporeans don’t have that mentality yet. Our mentality when it comes to state subsidies lies closer with our former colonial masters who see government gifts as being “free.”

If the Worker’s Party is guilty of being naïve and using faulty assumptions – the government is guilty of something that could be worse – humbug. Thanks to the use of the word “Nationalising” the government is positioning itself as a champion of the free market enterprise that supposedly made Singapore what it is today. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let’s look at the word “nationalising.” To use this word is to imply that you are brining something under government control. The term does not apply to Singapore. Let’s face it; both the SMRT and Comfort Delgro are only private companies on the surface.

Yes, both have listings on the stock market and are governed by stock exchange rules. However, let’s look who the majority shareholder of these companies is? Yes, Temasek Holdings, a private sector company that is merely owned by the Ministry of Finance, even if they officially two different entities. You cannot make the government own and control what already owns and controls.

The government has long maintained that it leaves the private sector alone. Unlike governments elsewhere, our government is supposed to the business people get on with it. Many foreigners who have set up shop in Singapore might be inclined to agree. I remember an Indian national telling me, “If you don’t think much of your EDB (Economic Development Board) – wait till you meet their Indian counterparts.”
This may be true on the surface. However, the business people in Singapore, particularly those running big organisations that run a section of the economy like transport - are more often than not the same people who run the government. Just look at how many former military chiefs have been on the board and management comities of both SMRT and Comfort Delgro. I remember SMRT having one Admiral and one General as CEO. Even Singapore International Airlines (SIA) the darling of Singapore industry is filling up its management comity with former Air Force Chiefs.

SIA gets away with it because protection by the Singapore Government is useless to its core business – which is international travel. Things are different for SMRT and ComfortDelgro. They have a monopoly on their business and you cannot call their business model free-enterprise filled with competition. As Mr Giam rightly pointed out, we the consumers don’t exactly have a choice

You can, if you dig deep enough into our transport system companies find all the arguments that the government is making against the Worker’s Party’s plans to “Nationalise” the system. Land transport is not run by private sector companies but profit making departments of the government.

What can be done be done about this? Well, let’s start with the realisation that governments are good at doing certain things and businesses are good others. These two don’t exactly compliment each other and the skill sets required to be good at the government things are not the same skills that are needed to be good at the business things.

Then let’s look into the fact that the private sector usually trumps the government sector in certain things because the private sector has this thing
called “Competition.” Governments throughout the world have found that competition is the best way of getting things like innovation and productivity doing up. Let’s look at the UK, which was the first country in Western Europe to privatise state utilities. Electricity, gas, water, Telco’s and the airline became dramatically better after privatisation. The failure was British rail. Why did everything else succeed under privatisation but fail when it came to transport. The answer was simple – everything else saw competition enter the market. In the case of privatising British Rail, the government merely broke up a nation wide monopoly and created millions of small local monopolies which had bugger all interest in improving life for the consumer.

Singapore is unique in many ways and can’t copy the British example wholesale. However, where the comparison between Britain and Singapore is similar is in transport. Instead of having many regional monopolies, we have two – which is about right considering we are many times smaller than the UK. Furthermore both companies have even more extensive monopolies than the ones in the UK. As well as owning the subway system, both companies own the bus and taxi service.

As with the UK, the key lies in creating real competition in the transport sector and separating the government and the business. Governments need to understand that their key role is to see that the infrastructure both physical and legal is workable. Governments also have to enforce the rules. As such, the less contact governments have the business people, the more likely they are to be able to provide fair enforcements. The business people need to focus on providing a service to their consumers while finding a way to turn a profit and keep the wheels of commerce going.
What can be done?

Well, let’s start with understanding that the basic infrastructure should belong to the government. Roads and rail tracks will owned by the government which will then lease them out to the providers who will be responsible for the upkeep.

Then we should take a leaf from the aviation industry. Property such as interchanges and rail stations should be privatised. Let’s property developers find ways to creating transport hubs into thriving commercial districts.

Then the city should be divided into routes the same way the global aviation industry is divided up. Routes should be then auctioned off to the highest bidder who will then be able to provide a bus or train service for a limited number of years. Certain routes will be more popular than others which means that those holding them will want to ensure that the service remains decent enough for them to keep their routes. Less profitable routes can be hived off to smaller providers in the same way that budget airlines have been taking and making a profit out of the routes that traditional airlines have found unprofitable. This would create entrepreneurship in the transport sector.

Then there’s an issue of taxis. A few days ago, Conrad Raj, one of the main old timers in the media industry proposed letting cab drivers own their own cabs. This is a brilliant idea. This will create greater incentives for taxi drivers to work harder and to look after their cabs. Why shouldn’t a taxi driver be an entrepreneur? The government could make good money from creating more competition between incentivised entrepreneurs.

Competition has been proven to be a good thing and the last thing we need in Singapore is more government. Let’s work towards separating government and business and create a better Singapore.

You Know something is Overrated when…..

2011-06-20T14:02:00.002+08:00

I used to have a dream that I would one day be able to place the letters MBA behind my name. The idea was sweet. I would get my first degree in the UK, work for a huge multinational for about three-years and then head towards Kellogg School of Management in Northwestern University to do my MBA. In short, I thought it would have been cool to be part of the great corporate network.

Well, things didn’t work out that way. I never got into a “big” corporation – I think the closest I’ve been to a multinational was two weeks at Rapp Collins. Didn’t have the credentials and earning enough for my next meal became a bigger priority to getting my MBA. However, as I continued to pound the streets looking for work, I still harboured the dream of calling myself “Tang Li, MBA”

That was until I meet “Chutiya Bhai.” My dreams of ever becoming an MBA went to the shit. Thanks to Chutiya Bhai, I realised that having an MBA was not everything it was cracked up to be – I lie – I realised that having an MBA might become detrimental to my state of mind. It was like fantasising over a hot chick for ten-years and then one day, you go on a date with her and you realise that she’s so rotten on the inside that shooting yourself before the date is over looks like a viable option.

Chutiya Bhai has an MBA amongst a host of other qualifications. He’s a very clever person. However, he is also unpleasant. Give him two minutes of your time and he’ll take two days telling you how rich and successful he is and how he managed to get to that stage by jacking over his professional colleagues. The man’s idea of saving money is to avoid paying his local coffee shop for food he’s eaten.

He did admit to me that he had a few personal issues to resolve with his family. However, you would imagine that someone with an MBA would have the education and
character to rise above it and succeed brilliantly. He didn’t – his only friends were the Old Rogue and myself – that was of course until Joyce decided she would rather be with me than with him (despite the fact that he makes loads more money than I do). If Chutiya Bhai was not bugging the Old Rogue about his issues in the office, he would bug me. We were meant to solve the world’s issues for him. Much as I did spend a lot of time in his company – I felt that, “If this is what an MBA does to you – thanks but no thanks.”

Ever since I’ve lost the ambition to get an MBA, I’ve been able to see things more clearly. I realise that MBAs do not make the best business people. Two of the best people I know are a Vietnamese girl and a Chinese egg seller. Both have debateable qualifications. Yet both have risen up from nowhere by having the right people-smarts. Both have helped bring prosperity to others and so have been rewarded in turn.

To be fair to Chutiya Bhai, he’s not the only person to shatter my dreams. One of the most prominent people to shatter my dreams was Professor Thio Lee-Ann, a former Nominated Member of Parliament and a Professor of Law.

Like the MBA, I had a dream of going to Oxford. Unfortunately, I was coming out of a bad love relationship and a drunken spree during my A-level year and so I didn’t get the grades required for Oxbridge. However, that didn’t stop me from admiring Oxbridge and holding up the place as an ideal of what a university should be. I suspect I didn’t make much of a student career at the University of London because I felt like a poor relation to the Oxbridge Universities.

The Professor Thio Lee-Ann came along and shattered my dreams about Oxbridge. I read her arguments during the debate on the repeal of 377A (the section in the Singapore Penal Code that criminalises anal sex between men) and was stunned.

This supposedly clever woman who had a professorship in law proceeded to produce pages and pages of drivel about how letting two consenting adults have sex in the privacy of their own bedroom would be bad for society. Her argument went along the lines of – if you let consenting gay adults have sex in the privacy of the bedroom, you will ruin society because everyone might turn gay. The clincher of her argument was – Anal Sex is like sticking a straw up your nose.

Not sure how she worked that one out? Throughout her ranting, she failed to provide a single, logical and legally sound argument as to why a private act between two consenting adults should be a criminal act. Her arguments were befitting a trash collector than a professor of law.

What was most shocking to me was finding out that the good professor had been to Oxford. I mean, I guess you could say that our local varsities have a way of passing certain people, but one would surely expect better from Oxford! How the hell did a woman with such an inability to think rationally and critically graduate from a University that is renowned for producing some of the greatest minds of our time.

Furthermore, my respect for the Oxbridge institutions were shattered when our Prime Minister, a Cambridge Graduate, and his cabinet (filled with Oxbridge graduates with MBAs) refused to recognise the drivel that Professor Thio was sprouting for what it is and proceeded to agree with her – they decided to keep 377a in the penal code but promised not to enforce it – which is a beautiful contradiction in terms.

I suppose I should be grateful to the likes of Professor Thio and Chutiya Bhai. These are people who help you to realise that sometimes the lost dreams that you had were lost for a reason. When you meet them, you suddenly become grateful for the things that you did not get and you bless your fortune for giving you the things that you had. When it comes to institutions, I think it’s always best to meet the products as well as reading the brochures.

What’s next for George?

2011-06-19T06:00:00.000+08:00

I am really happy that Singapore’s much liked former foreign minister; George Yeo will not be running for the Presidency. Mr Yeo, who was regarded as one of the more ‘liberal’ members of the ruling elite would have had an awful time as President.

He would have been caught between his former cabinet colleagues who would expect him to be on their side and the public who would have expected him to be an independent minded President. Mr Yeo has wisely decided that it is better not to be caught between a rock and a hard place.

So what’s next for Mr Yeo? If you look at his credentials and his number of years of service to the nation, Mr Yeo should have plenty of options. He could, for example, take on the role as an advisor to a number of statuary boards and government linked corporations. He could easily take up a role as a lecturer, talking about Singapore’s place in the world. Not only would Singapore’s universities hire him, he could also lecture in universities around the region.

Personally, I think Mr Yeo should be bold and look for opportunities beyond Singapore and the Southeast Asian region. He should look towards getting a senior management role in a big multinational – which if you consider GIC and Temasek Holding’s investment in some of the world’s largest corporations, should not be too difficult.

To put it simply, Mr Yeo’s presence at a multinational corporation like General Electric (GE) or 3M or JP Morgan would help his former cabinet colleagues seal the argument about the need to pay themselves high salaries.

The argument for paying ministers high salaries has always bordered on the need to counter corruption (well paid people have less temptation to look for bribes) and to attract talent. On the corruption front, this argument has worked relatively well. Singapore has been a steady number four on the list of the least corrupt governments in the world (though the more cynical do argue that Singapore should be number one).

On the argument of attracting talent, this argument is less effective. The initial argument for paying Ministers high salaries was that it was necessary to bring bright minds into politics, which might otherwise have gone into the private sector.
As far as politics is concerned, it is OK for big countries like the USA to accept that you can pretend to be a President for US$20 million in a movie instead of being the President for US$400,000 a year, but it is not possible for small countries like Singapore. We need the best political talent we can get and we need to pay high salaries to stop them from running to places like JP Morgan and GE.

However, there’s one small problem. If you look at the pre-ministerial careers of most of our cabinet ministers, you’ll find that more often than not they’re careers have always been in Singapore and in the public sector. We have plenty of former military people and other civil service types and even the rare few who have spent their careers in the private sector have spent it in Singapore – Tony Tan, former Deputy Prime Minister for example, was the CEO of OCBC and our former Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong was once at Neptune Orient Line (Temasek Holdings is a primary share holder).

This in itself has not been a bad thing. As governments go, the Singapore government has been acknowledged as a fairly good one. Our public sector is filled with bright people who do quite a good job in running the show.

However, having good people does not mean we’ve been getting the best. The point about paying high salaries has been that we need to attract people who might otherwise have gone to JP Morgan into politics. However, not one of our cabinet members has come from international organisations. The majority have in fact been bread at home and on government scholarship – ie they’ve been bonded to the government before they could even decide if they wanted to go for jobs at places like JP Morgan.

Not only have our top people started in the government, they’ve stayed within the protection of the Singapore government after they’ve retired from active cabinet duty. Think of the most high profile retirees, Senior Minister Goh and Minister Mentor Lee, who became advisors to the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Government Investment Corporation respectively.

So, how good are our top people? They’re good by Singapore standards but where does that leave them on the international stage?

Well, Mr Yeo should look at answering that question and discover what he can do on the international stage. Getting a job at a top level corporation would be a good place to start.

Alternatively, Mr Yeo might decide that he wants to do something entrepreneurial or perhaps philanthropic. Mr Yeo has made plenty of money from his career as a minister and built up a contact base of movers and shakers. All he needs is a little bit of imagination and he could start something that could make an impact on the world. Look at what former US Presidents do. Bill Clinton’s foundation is devoted to fighting AIDS while Jimmy Carter travels round the world trying to make peace.

Losing an election could be the start of something great for Mr Yeo if he puts his mind to it. Chris Patten lost an election and became a much respected Governor of Hong Kong as well as European Commissioner. Mr Patten travels the world writing books and giving seminars. He’s Chancellor of Oxford University. In short, we think of Mr Patten’s success and the failure of a lost election has become a distant memory. This should encourage Mr Yeo in his post-political career.