The Pleasure of Quarells

The other half buzzed me this morning, furious that I had put her on the "cc" list to a host of thank you notes to people we had met at a function last night. This happened to be a function which she had been invited to on a professional basis and her objections to my notes was the fact that the url of this blog entry is on the signature of my professional email. As enough of my readers can tell you, some of the things I say in blogosphere can be offensive. I think I've offended anyone who can be offended and the poor girl has been at the wrong end of complaints of groups of people I've had a go at recently - namely Caucasian Expats and Singapore Chinese women.

Needless to say, I don't take warnings, especially if they come in the form of advice to adhere to social norms. Celine Dion may have sang "That's the way it is," but I simply cannot accept that most things are worth lying there and accepting things as they are. I don't have the courage to devote my life to a cause of taking down a big power like my online friend Tenzin Tsundue, a Tibetan activist who is more than happy to spend spells in an Indian jail provided he's able to make a point about the atrocities committed by Communist China in Tibet. So since I'm not in an Indian jail, I live my "rebellious" nature on this blog.

One might also ask why I put this url onto my professional email when I have the potential to offend. My standard answer is that for me the professional is also the personal and visa-versa. What I hope is that people who deal with me see my thought process on the issues that I discuss. I do rant on personal issues at times but even then, you get an an idea of how I tick and its often up to you to decide how I can best suit your commercial needs if you think I can.

My friend, Datuk Vinod Shekar once said, "The people who like you will like you and those who don't won't. So don't get caught up sorting out issues - move on."

Having said what I've just said and letting everyone know that we had an argument, I'm exceedingly happy. Her arguments are not without merit and more importantly her motives to call and address issues with me came from a desire to see me succeed. She specifically wanted me as her guest because she wanted me to mix with a crowd that might have valued me and I think she felt sad that I had screwed-up. Knowing this makes me so happy despite the quarrels.

I remember my Dad once told me that there is a difference between women who are ambitious for themselves and women who are ambitious for you. I think I'm realising what he means. I had the PGFNB before who was interested in whether I made money or not because, hey I spent it on her and her needs. The only big "turn-on" she got was when I was "suited up."

This girl by contrast is willing to take me as I am. She actually told me she likes me in "raggy writer" mode rather than "PR Slick" mode. Yet, she's willing to do something that will help "PR Slick" come through because she realises that it pays the bills much better than being "raggy writer."

I don't know if this is "THE" relationship for me, only time will tell. However, I can and want to tell the world that I am actually happy that I woke up next to someone who cares for me and I'm actually involved with someone who makes me happy enough even when we quarrel. As Green Day says, "It's something unpredictable but in the end it's right."

The Gorek and the Cojones

As someone once remarked, I have a history with strange women. Somehow, the relationship I've had tend to be good while they were hot and since most of them were with single mothers, I usually ended up liking the kid(s) far more than the mother. However, I've now done something completely against nature - I'm actually in a relationship with a woman whom I've never felt so happy with and her two-and-a-half -year old is also a gem in my life.

However, there is an area of this relationship that's what you could "complicated," for want of a polite term. A friend of mine who was highly interested in the lady in question is disgusted with me for not being open with him about my relationship. He's asked me never to speak to him again and he no longer wants anything to do with me. All I can say is that I never set out to hurt this friend. Things just happened and I will regret the loss of this friendship - the faults in handling this situation are mine and mine alone.

On her end, it looks like things could get even more complicated. Two of her friends were subjects of a previous blog entry, one in which I expressed an opinion on American Expatriates that one cannot call flattering. It seems that the gentlemen have taken offense and one of them and his girlfriend are particularly upset because they were hopping that my lady friend would be with the younger of the pair. In the words of one my friends - "They had hopes for her, hopped she'd get an American and then this Chinaman came along."

The couple have invited "US" to their place. I think they'll be checking me out and I need to assure them that I am throughly unsuitable. I've realized from my own experiences and prejudices that it's rather pointless trying to change preconceived notions. People get very unhappy when you try to change their opinions (which is a lousy admission to make from a PR Consultant), they appreciate you far more if you confirm that you are the lousy bastard that they alway thought you to be.

I on the other hand, will have to accept that they are her friends and I cannot entertain the notion of a long term relationship with her unless she has a social circle, independent of me. If I am serious, and for once in my life, I'm sure I am, I should encourage her to have them as friends, and I must make it a point of being civil - as it's often said, it's no skin of my back to make life happy for a woman who brings out the best in me.

What get's interesting though is the fact that they're going to ask a lawyer friend of their's to draft a legal document to prevent me from blogging about whatever conversation that we might have. This is actually amusing, particularly when you think that the main parties in this game are Americans - the very people who bleat on about the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. These are the people who proclaim themselves to the be saviours of the world and the bringers of liberty. When the Singapore Government sues an American Newspaper for slander, these are the very first people to scream - "Repression."

Suddenly there's a writer who writes something that upsets them and lo and behold, they're actually trying to impose a legal constraint and the best part is, these supposedly educated people don't have a legal leg to stand on. Do they actually expect me to take them seriously?

I admit to having an ego. It's a big one and I think it's gotten me into trouble before. Mine, like other egos gets bruised. But I've lived in the public sphere long enough to understand that if you cannot take criticism you have no business being in public's eye. Back in the day's when I was being published in the main stream press, I had people respond to what I wrote positively and those who disagreed with me. Now, my writing is confined to this blog and participation in the Online Citizen. Like I've said, if you disagree with what I write, you're welcome to comment. If you want to express your opinions but don't want to communicate with me directly - use a third party. My favourite litigator and reporter sometimes do that with me.

Debates are not always expressed in diplomatic language and when passions are aroused, things don't always appear civil - I got the reminder during the AWARE incident.

I also admit that there are times when it is necessary to sue for slander. If someone writes something about you that is not true and obviously damages your livelihood, you should jolly well fight back.

However, trying to use cheap intimidation techniques to prevent someone from expressing an opinion of you is another matter. To try and do something that is obviously so is worse. I like the Spanish term - It shows the lack of Cojones (balls). The only thing to do to people with no balls is to kick them there - they'll find their balls eventually.

The animosity of our respective friends towards us is actually quite funny. We even mentioned that our relationship has started thanks to all the people who don't want it to happen. We'll be sure to give them the Honoured seats at our wedding - now that's an interesting thought.

I Poke as When I like to Poke, even if you dun Want me to Poke You, It's My Right to Poke You whether You Like it or NOT

I'm currently engaged in an online debate on the topic of marital rape. The debate is centred around the fact that a few people have decided to get a petition signed to make marital rape in Singapore a crime. The debate is getting particularly interesting because it's now getting personal. I have officially been accused of being obessed with the topic of "rape," at the expense of marriage.

Before I go into a rant, let's start with the fact that this debate is taking place in Singapore and in an online forum as opposed to being placed on the streeets or even in parliament.

Why is it interesting that the debate is taking place in Singapore? Well, it's down to the fact that Singapore has a proud tradition of being a pioner in Asia and even on the global stage when it comes to the area of promoting the rights and welfare of women. Modern Singaporean women have more opportunities to 'get ahead' in life than many of their Asian counterparts in terms of education and career. As my mother says, "When you're a Singaporean woman with a Caucasian husband, you can say with some pride that it's because you genuinely want to be with him rather than because it's an economic necessity." (I may beg to differ but she has a point)

Singapore has a set of laws specially designed to help women. Although I do think the Women's Charter screws men in many ways, it's overall effect has been beneficial to society as a whole.

So, it's actually quite astounding that a country that has done so much to advance the rights of women continues to accept the justification of 'marital-rape.' I've argued before that the Women's Charter disadvantages men because it places the sole responsability of providing for the family on the man. Getting married is a financial comittment and even if you get rid of her through divorce, you still pay and pay and pay. Why should men bother with marriage?

Well, now I have my answer - if I get married, I can force myself on my better half and do what ever I want to because we're married and since we're married, I can't be persecuted for rape.

If I sound strange in the portrayal of this situation, that's because it is. Rape, as everyone should know is a violent crime. Contrary to what the porn mags may tell you, rape is not an excercise of sexual passion but an excercise of violence and power. Look at war situations and you'll find that rape cases rise. Bosnia was a good example. You had one group trying to 'ethnically cleanse' another and what better way to dehumanise a group of humans than rape their women? Darfour is another example of where rape is use as a tool in 'ethnic cleansing.'

Even in economically and socially stable countrie, instances of rape usually start out in the hospital with the victim recieving medical treatment for their injuries. Someone from the "Keep Marital Rape Legal" crowd tried to point out to me that not all rapes are violent. You don't have to beat her up to force her - just drug her. But if you've studied simple biology, you'll realise that even if a woman is drugged and unconcious when the act is being done to her, she'll know in the morning. In crudest gynacological terms - an unlubricated vagina will tear if forciblly pennetrated.

Do I need to even go into emotional trauma that rape victims go through to drive home the point that rape is a repugnant crime? I put it this way, it's a well known fact that in prisons (those nice places for the best society has to offer), rappist rank as the lowest of the low - if you feel like roughing someone up - the rappist is fair game. What does it tell you about the nature of the crime when even the lowest of the low regard you as gutter trash?

So why haven't we made "marital - rape," the crime that it is. Rape is rape but thanks to some legal querk, we now have a situation in SIngapore where a man can happily force himself on his wife as an when he likes. And there is deafening silence from the Fundimentalist Christian groups who campaigned so vigerously to keep consensual homosexual sex illegal.

I haven't heard of Professors Thio Su-Mien and Li-An standing up in public forums to address this issue, which is a shame because they have the power to create public awarness. Like them or not, they make headlines. Forgive me for being cynical but I cannot see how it is "moral" for one party to force itself onto another causing great physical and emotional damage but it's "immoral" and against mainstream values for two consenting adults to share intimacy in the privacy of their own bedroom?

A few have tried to argue that marriage implies that consent is automically implied. Erm, I'm not sure how they worked that one out. A woman, they argue has conjugal duties to perform in the marriage. I mean, why else would you want to get married to someone that you have no desire to sleep with? I remember my stepfather reminding me that the best sex a man can experience is when he's in a loving marriage.

But that still does not justify the violence that is involved in the rape. At best a woman can report that she's been physically assaulted but not rapped. But if this was a real justification for keeping marital rape legal, why don't we apply it across the board - I mean, why bother with rape when you can be charged with assault?

A wife who witholds sex from her husband fails in her conjugal duties to the marriage. It is unreasonable for anyone to be in a marriage if they're not having sex with their spouse. I remember my sister telling me, when Gina decided to no longer have sex with me - "Funny you can have sex with everyone except the person you should be having it with."

What can a bloke do if the wife refuses to give it at home? As my sister pointed out, you can get your nookie elsewhere. There are enough sham marriages around to show that there are couples that do have sex with everyone else except each other.

Alternatively, there's medical treatment. There are recognised medical and psychological conditions that prevent a woman from having sex. These are best treated by psychologist and gynacologist.

Then there's divorce. We've established that if a woman consistenly withholds sex, she's in breach of her conjugal duties. This is unreasonable behaviour and recognised as grounds for divorce.

Not all of these options are great but they are options. There is no justification for a man to force himself onto a woman without her consent, even if that particular woman happens to be his wife.

By insisting on the fact that marital rape be treated as a crime, I was actually accused of not understanding the fundimental nature of marriage. What exactly is the fundimental nature of marriage?

It may be hard coming from a divorced man but I believe marriage is about two people wanting to be together for a mutual benefit. I think this remains true even in this day and age of dual income families. Yes, once in a while you can expect couples to quarell - people are individualistic and from time-to-time you should expect the desire to "be ME" colliding. But by and large, people enter the compromise of marriage because they feel they get more benefits.

So if this is marriage, isn't the act of forcing yourself onto a woman against her consent a violation of marriage? Marriage can be irritating and frustrating but it should not be damaging. A woman who witholds sex is irritating and frustrating but not damaging. Rapping a woman on the other hand is. So, why do we even consider marriage as a protection from rape when the act of rape is in itself the worst type of violation of the spirit of marriage.

The Purpose of Records

My latest half was in distress last night because she finally confessed that she was seeing me to a friend of hers. The friend then proceeded to lecture her on how awful I was and all the evidence was placed on my blog. This friend of hers proceeded to describe me as mentally and emotionally damaged and mentioned to her that I have a "History."

I don't deny the charge of having a history. I think those who know me well enough know that I have no right to claim that I have lived a life that is acceptable to the mainstream and for the record, I don't exactly fit terribly well into the fringes either. I have made certain choices in life, some of which were pretty awful, others which turned out to be better than expected. I'm not proud of everything I've done. I've fallen short on some of the ideals that I set out for myself. But then again, I've had moments of pure bliss.

What I have for a life is recorded in this blog and the world is welcome to read what I've written. I can guarentee that my thoughts will please everyone. As two of my most loyal readers have told me, "I don't always agree with what you say," and that's the way things should be.

I'm also welcome to criticism and often wish that there would be more debate. Cyberspace is an open forum and allot of the content in forums is for the most part - shit. However, as long as it does not become harassment, I think we should always be welcome for all criticism and comments. I chose to put my life in the public domain and so I have to accept the reactions of those who read me.

For those of you on multiply and don't mind being part of multiply, you are always welcome to post your comments. For those of you who don't wish to join multiply but feel that I've moved you into responding, you are welcome to post your comments at http://burningli.blogspot.com or even on facebook.

I look forward to more disagreements and agreements to the life and thoughts that I've held.

Glory: Glory: A Few Less Ayrabs, Spicks and All That for the Bush Administration

Am currently in the slow but steady process of recovering from spraining my back. The pain has been excrutiating and it limits my mobility. Although I only had to walk with the help of a cane for a single day, I'm not as sprightly as I should be.

However, life is such that there are things to write about and thanks to two more Americans in Asia, I have another topic - Obama versus Bush. As with all things political, opinions on the subject can be very devisive and the journalistic/legal ideal always says that one should be "Objective," and able to separate the personalities from the jobs. Lawyers for example often defend people they personally find repulsive because they are bound by a higher ideal namely the idea that even the most repulsive criminal needs a voice in court. Journalist are bound by ethical considerations to hear ALL sides of the story.

I am not a journalist or a lawyer, though I deal both groups on a frequent basis and while I admire the ability to remain "Objective" in situations that require you to get emotionally involved, I'm thankfull that I don't have to be objective in allot of what I do. Opinions may be like arseholes (everyone has one) and like arseholes, you can tell allot about a persons level of education by their opions, especially in the area of politics.

This is especially clear when you deal with people who think that "Obama is MUCH WORSE than Bush II." Let's be clear, this is an opion and people are entitled to hold their opions but when such a statement is made, we have to wonder what forms the basis of this opinion.

For the record, I think President Obama has dissapointed. Part of it had to be expected, the expectations people had of him on inaugural day were unrealistic and bound to happen. However, the President has to be responsible for the dissapointment he's caused. He acted fast to order the closing of Guantanamo Bay for example, but ordering it and seeing that it gets done are two different things. Somehow, actually removing this insult to America seems less interesting than telling people you want it done.

Then there's the Middle East. He gave a fabulous speech explaining America's position to the Muslim World. There were plenty of quotes from the Koran, which touched his Arab host. He even made some right sounding noises about making peace between Israel and Palestine. However, rethoric is meaningless if not turned into reality.

Since that wonderful speech in Cairo, Israel's Ethically-Challenged Prime Minister, Binyamin Nethanyahu has ordered even more constrution of settlements in the West Bank - a direct violation of every peace treaty signed (The 2001 Sharm Al-Shiek Report headed by Former Senator Mitchel found that there was a direct link between suicide bombings and the construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip). The World's "MOST POWERFUL" Man has merely been "concerned." By contrast, Egypt has lost the opportunity to lead UNESCO because some of it's diplomats made "Anti-Israeli" remarks. Is anyone surprised that the Muslim world is saying "F* O" to American rethoric on the subject of making peace in the Middle East - It's merely worrying that Israel is actively provoking confrontation but something is actually done if the Muslim and Arab world say that Israel is less than perfect.

President Obama will have plenty more opportunities to screw-up. The American government is already in gigantic deficits trying to support wars and stimulate its capital starved economy. The President is also opening a can of worms with healthcare (though he is right to try to do something about a system that's clearly failing most Americans), that traditionally screws up American politicians.

So, yes, Obama has dissapointed and has plenty of opportunity to really fuck up the nation and the rest of the world. But not exactly sure how anyone can even suggest that the "House Nigger" in the White House is doing a worse job than the "Fag" before him.

Seriously, what did the Bush II Administration do for America and Americans. We got a few trade deals signed, I suppose and few African nations got to play host to the Cheerleader. I suppose you could say that you got more "safety" from terrorism because America invaded and occupied a country based on lies and deception.

Does anyone really care about American troops? I can't see how a sane person can say that their former Commander-in-Chief, George W did. I don't call fabricating evidence to send young men to die caring for them. How can you call sending troops into a possible life-endangering situation with inadequate support, care for your troops? I guess Donald Rusfeld and Dick Chenney thought it was acceptable but then again, I don't them or their loved ones near the front line.

How much did the Iraq War, the key legacy of the second Bush Administration cost America. Let's see - 4,000 troops and many more crippled and scared for life, and a couple trillion dollars of American Tax Payer's money - not that the American tax payer gets a bonus if the war turns into an economic success.

But then again, who really gives a shit about the American tax payer? According to George Bush II, the only ones that mattered were nice honest guys like Ken Lay of Enron, which is why they got tax cuts and breaks. Really, who gives a shit about a couple of Niggers in the slums or Spiks crossing the Rio Grande?

I mean, we could all see the real value of American tax payers to the Bush II Administration when Hurrican Katrina hit. A few wops, niggas and hicks drowned and "Brownie was doing Heck of a Job."

Or should we talk about the Patriot Act, which allows the government to spy on citizens and arrest people at randome for "Un-American" remarks. Why is it that when the Thai's have Le Majeste Laws to prevent criticism of King Bhuminphol (Who actually cares about his people), we call it a violation of freedom of speech but when the Patriot Act prevents criticism of the way the "war on terror" is fought, we call it safety.

Forgive me for being ignorant but I'm not sure how fucking up American people by sending their sons to a war with no justification worse than trying to reform healthcare? Yes, Obama is spending lots of money but it's aimed at trying to keep Americans in jobs, which is a darn sight different from spending it on a war with no direct benefit to the people who voted for you?

Then again, I suppose the crowd that think "Obama is MUCH WORSE THAN BUSH II," don't mind the loss of human life and the violation of their precious civil liberties if it means the world will have a few less Ayrabs, Spiks and what nots.

FOREIGN talent vs forign TALENT

It's 4am and I'm having a bout of insomnia, which is pretty silly considering I actually had a bit to drink and did some brain excercises, namely I managed to get my aunt an audience at the Saudi Embassy, where she managed to give HE Dr Jamil Merdad, the new ambassador some pointers of where he could learn Chinese. His Excellency is keen to learn Chinese and if ever there was a sign of how Asia is growing in importance to the Arab World, it is this.

Anyway, the month of August was National Day month and the usual blast of patriotic songs were thrown at us and the usual grumbly people decided to grumble about all the good cheer. This year, however was different in as much as the fact that we were celebrating our achievements amidst the worst economic downturn in fifty years. It's hard to drink champagne when you know that you might be out of a job the next day.

Which of course, leads to the usual debate of forigners. Does Singapore have too many of them or are we lacking in the necessary talent that we desparately need to import it? The Minister Mentor went as far as making a speech on how our economy would slow to killing point if we didn't have forigners and the usual group of liberals moaned that we had too many of them and Singaporeans were being killed by unfair policies in favour of forigners. Who is right and who is wrong? As with most debates both sides had their points.

It's actually frustrating to be Singaporean at times. Everyday you read government communiques exholing the virtues of the forigner. The message is simple - you need the forigner to do the work that you the local are too incompetent to do and it's not message you like to hear when you live in your own home. For those of us who grew-up elsewhere, it can be particularly irritating - when you live in someone elses country, you're told to expect the other guy to get all the good things because, it's his country not yours. But then when you come home expecting goodies, you get told that the other guy needs to cut your cue because...your country needs him. It is sometimes easy to get exceedingly frustrated as a Singapore citizen. You serve your nation in the military for 2 1/2 years but can only expect to earn something like S$3,500 per month in your working life. Then, some barrow boy comes over here and gets the same job you have but he'd be crazy to work for anything less than $7,000 a month excluding house, car, kids school fees etc.

When you look at things this way, it's pretty easy to get frustrated with Singapore and being a Singaporean. The refrain is simple, I'm better of having another passport but living in Singapore. Having said all of that, I don't think Singapore should shut it's doors to forigners who join our shores.

If there's anything we should think about, it's the fact that baring a few exceptions, Singaporeans are basically migrants. Yes, the PAP government did a fabulous job in delivering the macro-economic goodies but ultimately, Singapore's prosperity comes from the fact that we had a migrants culture. When people move outside of their home lands, they're driven by a powerful urge to create a better life for themselves. Migrants, whether they're economic or social migrants do things like do dirty jobs that the locals shun and they start businesses, probably because they face discrimination in the job market. These are the very factors that drive an economy and society forward.

I take the example of London. I used to pay my British friends the backhanded compliment that, "London only moves because forigners run the place." Thanks to a high influx of migrants, London's services run (which is pretty amazing in itself), you have basic provisions thanks to Pakistani's, the hodge podge of cultures has made London a city of enormous artistic creativity and also entreprenurial activity - the City of London is a World Financial Centre. Migrants have even made British Food (traditionally not known for exciting) - sexy.

Across the Atlantic, the situation is similar. Silicon Valley, that bastion of American technological and entreprenurial genious thrives on Chinese and Indian labour. The Chinese are the engineers, while the Indians handle software.

If this is clear for the UK and the US, surely the same should be true for Singapore, a nation that was founded by migrants who merely wanted a better life. Sometimes, as a native born, I don't really appreciate what it's like to be a Singaporean and so I hang out with my favourite Naan Maker and the Nepalese Community.

For Singaporeans who had plans to emigrate, they'd be surprised by the extent to which many of my favourite Naan Maker's friends and relations will go through just to get a Singapore Permenant Residence and ultimately citizenship. It's something that local borns don't always appreciate but, to the Naan Maker and his clique, being a Singapore citizen is an achievement, it's a step in the right direction.

To me, that's probably the most powerful thing anyone can bring to a new country - namely a desire to be part of that country. This force is more powerful than money or even talent. A rich talented man only stays as long as it suits him to. A man with a desire to be there, will find ways of staying even if you don't want him to.

I'm happy that Singapore has seen an influx of Indian nationals. The Indian Nationals are by and large, middle class, educated professionals. Those in the IT industry do have SKILLS that the economy needs - in short they are what you call TALENT, with a small emphasis on the fact that they're forign. I had the privillege of attending the IIT Alumni association's APEC meeting last year and one would be shocked by how India has produced world-class people en mass. How did they do it? They did because they faced competition - very tough competition. IIT proudly claims that a 98% failure rate is acceptable - that's the percentage of people who fail to get in (And we think NUS is tough.)

So, when you're faced with people who are used to such competition, we, Singaporeans simply need to get better and not run to the government for protection - if anything, the government could do with facing competition from a group of people who are used to competition.

Of course, you do get the Citizens of Caucasia who are FORIGN talents as opposed to forign TALENTS. But then again, if you follow the trend of the good citizens, it actually says hell of allot more about you than them if you entrust them with your life savings. In short, you deserve what you get for not applying basic common sense.

At the other end of the scale, I'm quite OK with the advent of lowly educted Chinamen and China girls coming here. Thanks to the Chinaman, I can get fat and drop dead before my 40th birthday - the Chinaman loves cheap buffets and the island is filling up with affordable bbq buffets - fun but not much good for the heart.

My father would probably prefer if I concentrated on trying to hitch myself a nice girl from China (The last one had a daughter that decided that I was TOO FAT and NOT ENOUGH HAIR to be her stepfather thus bringing my relationship with her mother to an early end). His gripe is that our Singapore girls (particularly the Chinese ones) have flat faces, small tits and huge arses - thus creating a desparate need for greater diversity in the gene pool.

Which leads one to the ultimate argument in favour of having a lose policy on the movement of people. Nature has shown that it's exceedingly unhealthy for a species to be too inbreed. Quite often quacks who don't know anything about genetics tell you that inbreeding means you keep good genes within the family - the truth is, all the genes get screwed up. Hence, the idea of the "Pretty Princes" is something of a misnomer - royalty in Europe got inbreed and so allot of them ended up looking wierd. Princes Diana and Princes Grace changed that for the House of Windsor and Grimaldi because they gave a good dose of fresh genes to the family.

In Singapore, we're quite inbreed. Work in an industry and you'll know everyone there is to know. I'm in PR and I'm running across journalist whom I have to call Auntie cause they all knew my mother - it's not six degrees of separation but three in Singapore. It's kind of cozy for me, but is it health? I think not. It's healthy to have new blood being pumped into the system, whether it's from above as in Indian IT professionals or from below, as in China born workers. Inbreeding screws up living things, including societies.