The Things About Western Democracy ......

I�ve made a promise to my other half that I�m going to restrain myself when it comes to the topic of Caucasians in Asia. Since her Caucasian friends get offended by what I say on this blog and have placed her in a difficult position, I will make the effort to keep that promise to her and will refrain from getting personal.

However, I think it`s important to have a voice on one of the most interesting debates going on between the "West" and the "Rest" of the world. One of the key debates has been about political systems, namely on the topic of human rights and democracy. On one hand you have the official stance from the West, which has been to express concern about democracy and human rights and then you have the rest of the world that say`s "Sod off, let us figure it out our own way." This debate has grown increasingly interesting with the rise of China, which technically remains a communist nation.

As an Asian who has grown-up in the West (UK, Germany and to an extent the USA), this debate gets very interesting from a personal perspective. It's not difficult to feel that a lot of Western lectures on the topics of democracy and human rights are humbug. If you look at history, the West (Europe and America) is as guilty of pursuing its own economic self-interest above all else when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. The British did not colonise India out of love for the Indians but to secure a market for British goods. Likewise, the Americans have been guilty of using the stick when imposing it`s economic rights in Central America.

The Western powers in recent years have been especially guilty of humbug in the Middle East. In recent years we`ve had an American President preach the importance of democracy and freedom in the Middle East, only to isolate and attempt to cripple a democratically elected government in Palestine, mainly because the party in question didn`t see things through the Westerners political point of view. Things like Abu Ghrib and Guantanamo Bay have also hurt the ideal of the West as a Champion of human rights. Former Secratery of State, Madaline Albright says, "When we talked about human rights, the Chinese would storm out in anger - these days they smile politely and talk about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib."

After 8-years of living back in Asia, I'll say it, it's irritating when you hear a Western leader talk about human rights and democracy - you want to say, "Come On, you just want the money." Singapore is an example of this - we`re stable and safe and ally of Western interest and beyond making a few noises when we cane one of their vandals or hang a petty drug dealer, no Western leader will actually entertain the idea of getting Singapore to become more democratic or nice - if anything, I've had Westerners sing the praises of the Singapore system.

Then there`s also the idea that you can`t impose your ideals onto people. People have to decide what`s right for them in their own cultural context. Iraq is a wonderful example of how imposing your values can work when you don`t bother to understand the local system.

Having said all of this about the West, is the message that it`s preaching necessarily wrong? I think the answer is no. Yes the West is guilty of humbug a lot of the time when it goes into the preaching of values and then acts contrary to those values - as any Palestinian or Iranian could tell you (Both the US and UK took part in removing a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister who didn`t believe in BP`s devine right to drill Iranian Oil)

But that does not mean that democracy or at least accountable government as seen in the West is a bad thing. Look at basic economics. The most developed countries in the world, namely the USA and Europe all have a democratic system of government, rule of laws and checks on power. These systems also safeguard rights of the individual against the state. Say what you like about America but it`s one of the few countries I can think of where you can tell the cops to sod off if they're harrasing you.

Is there a link between democracy and human rights and progress? It`s hard to establish a link when the world`s fastest growing economy is a commnuist dictatorship, but then again, let`s look at stages of development. China can grow fast as long as the current system remains stable. The country can rely on being a cheap manufacturing outpost for multinational companies.

The US and EU have long reached that stage, yet they`ve remained consistently prosperous. Standards of living in Europe are the highest in the world. Why is that so? Part of it is because they started before the rest of us. But more importantly the system has allowed individuals to rise and fall according to their talents. The system puts a check on big monoliths trying to crush people. No matter how bad a US President is, you know he (up til now they`re all guys) needs to face the voters and after 8-years he has to retire. Big US corporations get dragged through anti-trust the moment they look like they're going to screw consumers.

Let`s ignore the fact that a lot of preaching by Western politicians is humbug and look at the product of democracy itself. In the West it has been wonderful at keeping its citizens happy. When adapted to the East, it`s worked pretty OK too. Taiwan or "The Other China" has a messy democratic government but no Taiwanese seems to be clamouring for the Communist System acorss the water. India complains that it`s democratic system makes it tough to develop rapidly but at the same time, India may have produced a more sustainable model based on producing brilliant entreprenurial companies in high end technological sectors.

Democracy and the promotion of individual liberty is not a bad thing, in fact it is a very good thing in itself. Yes, the rest of the world shouldn't accept the Western model wholesale nor should the Rest of the world endure lectures by Western leaders on the values of their system.

However, that shouldn't be an excuse to reject it wholesale. We need to look at things from the West, particularly the things that work and ask ourselves why they work. Democracy is not wildly efficient for effective leaders but it`s startlingly easy at removing bad ones with minimal bloodshed. Power is kept in check. As bad as Bush II was, the American system kept him in check and after 8-years he had to leave office. Had the checks not been there, you might have had to see a coup. The system works at encouraging social mobility and surely that has to be a good thing too. It`s something the rest of us should take note of.

In Need of Craftsmen

Am currently in Germany to celebrate my mother`s 60th birthday with her and it`s been a week since I�ve been pottering the house catching up with reading good fiction and listening to music. It�s nice to catch up with my mother and stepfather as well as with my sister and youngest brother, Christopher. Unlike previous trips, where I�ve come in to celebrate Christmas and get a dose of winter chill, I�m here to celebrate a few family milestones - stepgrandmother turned 90 and mum turns 60, while Tara hits the three zero mark. Just to show you how time has flown, Christopher turns 18 and is now pondering what to do for his national service (9 months in the German army).

Life in Germany is always fairly laid back for me and I`ve noticed that after the stresses of living in Singapore, most Germans here live in a fairly relaxed environment. For the average Asian and to a certain extent Americans, it`s hard to understand how Europeans get away with working so few hours and having so many holidays. The relatively laid back situation in Europe makes it easy for Americans to say "No wonder why we're top dog," or for Asians to claim, "We`re the place to be for the future." Look at world politics today. Everything seems to be about a conversation between Washington and Beijing, with nobody being terribly bothered by what takes place in Paris or Berlin. On the economic front, the companies that continue to make the news tend to be American multinationals or State-Owned Chinese firms gobling up everyone elses "strategic" assets.

While this is true, I think it's a mistake to write-off the European way. America and China dominate global headlines like two gorillas banging the table but Europe provides a different model of getting things done -which I believe still has a lot going for it. Let`s start with economics for example. Europe (as defined by the Euro Area) is actually the world`s biggest economy and although the Euro will take a while to be a serious contender for world`s reserve currency, more and more of us in the developing world look to earning Euros as a sign of prosperity while we groan when we earn in US dollars. The number of European multinationals drawfs that of their American counterparts and yet think of all the European brands that stand for world-class quality (German cars, Italian fashion, French cheeses etc)

There has to be something about Europe that is going right and I think I was reminded about it when I had an apple tart at Rolf`s Bakerie this morning. Europe remains a land of crafsmen, where small shop keepers take pride in their work and give you the best that they can deliver. I look at my eating habits here. I eat a lot of bread everytime I come to Germany and I drink loads of beer. By comarison I don`t eat much bread or drink much beer in Singapore. For one, beer is exceedingly expensive in Singapore but the quality of the product isn`t there. Why? Answer is simple, unless I`m at a specialist baker (exceedingly expensive) the bread I get in Singapore usually comes from a mass produced factory while the bread that I eat in Germany comes from a baker who makes the bread by hand and with pride. Likewise with with meat, it`s from a butcher who takes pride in his (most butchers remain guys) craft.

There`s something quite special about dealing with craftmen who provide you with solutions that work best for you as an individual. Europe is undoubtedly expensive, especially for anyone earning in a currency a lot weaker than the Euro, but somehow when you deal with quality work, price does not seem like a major concern. Have you heard Mercedes drivers complain about the price? Across the Atlantic, you had Henry Ford who believed in built-in obsolesence, in teh case of Dailmler, it was about making sure the car lasted forever.

If my local baker is anything to go by, Europe has kept it`s prosperity by keeping it`s craftsmen alive and encouraging them to take pride in their craft. The EU is by no means perfect. There are too many self-interest squabbling at any given time and the fear of "Fortress Europe" remains a threat to the idea of open commerce. While the European Union is far from perfect, it`s done amazing things by helping craftsmen on the continent work together in alliances. Suddenly craftsmen have economies of scale and can compete with multi-national conglomerates.

The alliance of craftmen model is worth looking at and trying to emulate. Big is good but it`s not necessarily better. Ironically, huge American companies like GE strive to maintain "small company" culture. When the individual has pride in his or her work, they`re likely to be better at it.

In The Land of the Impotent, the Limping Cock is King!

There's something strange in the land of Singapore when it comes to sexual issues. Over the last year, there have been two issues in particular that have come to mind. One is the issue of homosexuality. This is an issue that has captured the media headlines and while I'm not exactly a supporter of all things Fagotty, I've written fairly extensively on the topic. The less publicised but probably more important issue is the issue of 'marital rape.'

Singapore is notorious for it's laws governing sexual acts. For the longest of times, it was illegal for a woman to suck her husbands penis as a sexual act on its own. It was only acceptable if it was going to lead to something else. Needless to say, the police didn't really go round trying to enforce this law ....I can imagine how much fun the lawyers would have had over this in court. Finally the government realised how silly it was and scrapped the law.

But let's leave aside Singapore's contributions to FHM and talk about something more serious, namely very screwed-up priorities when it comes to sex. The screwy nature of our attitudes towards sex can be seen in the penal code.

Firstly it is illegal for two adult men to have sex (the anal variety). I'm a red blooded heterosexual guy and I love "Pussy" and can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to poke an arse or have their arses poked. However, I also cannot see any justification for making it illegal for two CONSENTING ADULTS to carry on a PRIVATE ACT in the privacy of their own bedroom. The current legal position is a wonderful cop-out - "We will maintain the law but not enforce it," says our Prime Minister.

Why must we criminalise a PRIVATE act between CONSENTING Adults? Well, a few people actually think their morals will be affected even when they're far away from the act. What's more alarming these are actually highly educated people with degrees in REAL subjects like LAW from the best universities that the world has to offer.

Watching highly intelligent and competent people try and work the logic of this argument is quite funny and I think it gets the press excited. AWARE was fun for me, for once the media came to me.

What's really sad about Singapore's attitude to sex is that while we are happy to keep a PRIVATE ACT between CONSENTING adult in the privacy of their bedroom criminal, we are, if postings on the Online Citizen are anything to go by, very reluctant criminalise the act of rape.

In Singapore, the land where women are supposedly educated and allowed to succeed in the corporate field, it is perfectly acceptable to rape your wife. "Marital RAPE," is perfectly LEGAL, because of the word marital.

Unlike the issue of homosexuality, nobody seems to want to write about husbands who think it's perfectly ok to RAPE their wives. The only news you get is online on the Online Citizen, Singapore's favourite gripe-site.

Again, it's almost funny to hear the views that people have. One guy actually said that it won't be rape if the wife would learn to move her legs a little and use KY jelly. Another clown actually accused me of being an "enemy of marriage." This would be very funny if the people involved were not so uneducated that they would not know how to get online. Needless to say, the very clever people in the "family values" brigade are perfectly fine with it. Nobody has said anything other than to complain about KY Jelly in the online space.

Let's sum this up. In Singapore:

It is AGAINST the LAW for two CONSENTING ADULTS to engage in a PRIVATE ACT in the privacy of their bedroom

But it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for one adult to USE COERCION (aka FORCE, VIOLENCE) to FORCE another person into a sexual act AGAINST THEIR WILL.

It could be the fact that I'm just a pleb, but can anyone explain to me the logic in this situation?

Who says Singaporeans are normal, boring people who don't go for the kinky? The laws on sex reflect a nation that is highly confused about the activities in the bedroom. Here's another example:

If I want to READ a magazine with pictures of NAKED ladies I would be committing a criminal act.

But if I wanted to GET LAID, all I have to do is to head down to Geylang with a budget of around S$50 and I can get splendidly laid by an Indonesian or Thai girl, who may, for all I know be highly infected with something nasty or to be more gentle....UNDER AGED.

OK, I support the government's stance on prostitution. Lee Kuan Yew very wisely pointed out that you will never stomp it out and criminalising it will make it worse. It is better to allow it to run but keep it under the control of the law.

However, how can you seriously argue that seeing a picture of a naked girl who is more often than not over 18 be more harmful than paying for a girl to spread her legs? Then you look at it from the girls perspective. The girl who poses simply needs to pose for a camera, while the girl who is selling her body has to accept the customer and be nice to the customer even if he's smelly and downright awful. I know which I would rather do (incidentally I have not posed naked or sold my body) but then again, it' illegal to pose naked for a camera but its perfectly ok to sell your body.

Let's think about it, we are seriously warped when it comes to the issue of sex. I mean where else in the world can you think of where it's perfectly acceptable for a man to rape his wife and have people say that she failed her conjugal duties. Where else can two consenting adults find themselves in hot soup over a private consensual act in the privacy of their bed room because someone far away from them thought it was making them turn ...happy?

Come on, isn't it time we started applying practicality and common sense, things we claim to have in abundance, to the sections of the penal code that apply to sexual acts?

I am a Biggot, Sexist,Nazi,Commie, Zionist, Jihadist Rolled into One and Sucks Boo if you don't like it

I just posted a comment on the Online Citizen is response to the entry by the editor about how a blogger had used "Gutter Journalism" to disguised as "Citizen Journalism." The blogger had posted a story about how a friend of hers was assaulted by another girl who was aided by her "Ang Moh" (Caucasian) boyfriend. The report had stirred a few passions that bordered on the racist and the editorial team of the Online citizen took issue with the fact that the blogger in question had stressed the fact that one of the people involved was a "Caucasian"

To a certain extent, I can't help agreeing with the editorial team at the Online Citizen. Passions can easily be raised by misconceptions and the phrase "Responsible" journalism should not be taken as a cheap phrase invented by the Singapore government. Journalist do have a responsibility of sorts to ensure that their reports are factually accurate. A false report or more often inaccurate reporting can have human consequences. With the exception of Datuk Vinod Shekar, who seems to revel in every controversy thrown at him, most of us worry about our reputations and how damaged reputations can ruin our livelihoods - hence PR consultants get hired.

I also believe that PR consultants also have a duty to ensure that there is accurate reporting. During the Zim Trial in July, my opposite number and I actually became friends and would make sure that the journalist covering the trial got to speak to both sides. Like the lawyers in side the court room, we had a job to do but it didn't have to get personal - ie we worked to get a fair story told.

Having said that, I don't think journalist should be held responsible for the reactions of their readers and if journalist cannot be held responsible for the reaction of their readers, shouldn't the same be more so of blogs and writers?

Let's differentiate between two things here. In every medium there is a news report of an event and then there are opinions. News reports should be factual and as far as possible "Bias-Free." Take court reporting as an example - you MUST have both sides of the story. The job my opposite number and I had at the Zim trial was actually easy - we made sure the press turned up (well I did, I worked for the plaintiffs and press coverage was in my favour), stayed interested and got to hear from both sides. Manipulating news is done subtly.

Opinion pieces are a different matter. A writer of an opinion piece has no obligation to be "fair" to everyone. For example, if I like banana splits, you can't say I'm wrong to write that in an opinion piece on banana splits and you cannot actually hurt me if I said that banana splits are nicer than apple pie.

The glory of being a writer of opinion pieces is getting people to respond. Not all responses are pleasant. Freedom of Speech often invites people to spew a load of trash at you whenever they feel like it. This is especially true on the internet, where as everyone else seems to write under a pseudonym. I rather not, if I have something to say, I should be able to stand by it. I have, much to the horror of the other half, I've taken on groups of people that one would imagine would be suicidal for me to taken on.

Even negative responses are worth responding to. A few days ago, a "pro-lifer" in the US responded to an article I wrote on a website (and have since forgotten about) accusing me of being a supporter of murder (article was about abortion). I was, in his words, "Spewing propaganda and lies." I actually responded to him. Why risk the wrath of "fanatics" one might ask? Being called things like a liar and yes, I've been called an "Anti-Semite," are not pleasant but it shows that you have hit a raw nerve. You've done your job as a writer.

As a blogger, I write because I have an opinion that I want to express. I don't seek to incite hatred and I do take a certain risk that people will be offended. Sometimes I want certain people to be offended. Note that there is a difference between being offensive and doing damage. My poor better half has had to contend with friends of hers that I've offended. The people I've offended have always been welcome to respond to what I write - freedom of speech means you have to accept challenges to your views no matter how robust and if you accept people challenging you, you find that they become more accommodating. The "pro-lifer" was actually quite civil and not the "fanatic" I imagined he would be.

For me, I get the question - "How does a PR consultant blog?" The instinct of a blogger is to say it as it is and not be afraid of causing offense. The PR consultant by contrast seeks to minimise offence. One of the rules for people like me is supposed to be don't write things that will upset your clients.

There is an easy way to get around this. Work with clients you believe in. David Ogilvy said,"How can you advertise a client if you don't believe in their product enough to use it yourself?" My mother was horrified when I admitted that part of the reason I went for lasik was because Alcon is my client. Point being - I cannot sell the virtues of a product I don't believe in.

The point here is simple. When you work with a client you believe in, you are more likely to blog in a way that promotes your client. With few exceptions, I actually like the people I've worked with and that makes you more inclined to say nice things about them.

PR consultants also need to tell clients that PR works only with credible mediums. What defines a credible medium. The common answer is a credible medium looks at things critically - ie one that does not "Kiss Ass" to its paymasters. One of Microsoft's better PR moves in recent years was to hire Robert Scoble, a blogger, whom the Economist dubbed, "The Serial Blogger." Mr Scoble's blog engages "netizens" into discussions about Microsoft products. He is at times critical of the company's products and the company tolerates this. Why? That's because his criticisms of Microsoft make him "credible" in the eyes of the people who read the reviews and this in turn brings in more sales for Microsoft. Furthermore, the internet allows one to receive complaints, which are then used for feedback.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. However, not everyone can articulate their opinions and not everyone can sway opinions. It's always best to encourage those who can do the swaying to do more of it.

More Bad Generals

Been a strange two days. The other half has taken her mother and kid off to San Jose and it's kind of strange getting used to the idea that I can't just pick up the phone and call and I got to accept that for at least this week (we have about a day together when she get's back before I fly off to Hamburg for two days), I'm back to being single.

I feel disorientated with the return to "singledom," which was a state I used to take as my natural state. I think, after I managed to get Gina to divorce me, I was pretty confident that this was it for me as far as being in any form of partnership was concerned. I was also pretty sure that I would have nothing to do with graduate Singapore Chinese women.

Well, I admit I am singing a very different tune. She's younger (Tara's age) and Singaporean Chinese. A graduate with an architecture degree who works in media sales. There's something special about her...so much so that although the relationship is in early days, I find myself wanting to be with her for as long as I can.

Anyway, since she's in the US, I might as well rant a bit about things involving the US, of which one of the issues that has been making the news is the rather public comments made by General Stan McChrystal, the man who will be the commanding general in Afghanistan.

The good general is being castigated by the "media" for taking his views public, so as to put his Commander-in-Chief in a tough spot. General McChrystal has said that he needs at least 40,000 troops on the ground to secure the American position in Afghanistan. This is supposedly contrary to what Vice-President Joe Bidden wants and although the General's boss, Defense Secretary, Bob Gates still supports the General, he's made the point that views should be presented to the President but in private. The General, it seems has committed the sin of trying to go one up on the "Commander-in-Chief."

Personally, I'm for McChrystal. Having served my stint in National Service, I'm all for top soldiers who are willing to take on civilian politicians in the public arena. During the last few years, I became an admirer of the former Chief of General Staff of the British Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, who had the courage to tell the politicians in public that he thought they had lost the plot in Iraq. Unlike his American counterparts who saluted the mistakes they knew the politicians were making and then criticized them once they retired (with full pension), General Dannatt made his comments public and while in office. To the credit of the British Establishment, General Dannatt stayed in his office - though the word has it that Prime Minister Gordon Brown personally blocked his promotion to becoming Chief of Defense Staff.

Why did I feel such a compunction to salute General Dannatt? Why do I feel that same compunction to salute General McChrystal? The intellectual pundits are telling me that these men broke the fundamental rule of being soldiers - they interfered in politics and that is supposed to be a really bad thing. I remember when I was a student and the discussion turned to the role of the military and it's relationship with politicians, the answer a lot of people gave was, "Who elected you, the solider?" My Favourite Young Politician who can't even serve a day in PTP (Physical Training Phase) with crying, actually told me, "I would salute the politician over the solider any day - the politician plans."

Yet, in spite of all these influences, I can't help but wish that we had more top brass like Generals Dannatt and McChrystal. To me, I believe that such men are necessary to put a reality check on politicians who play with the lives of troops whenever election fever looms.

Let me clarify my position. I don't think soldiers should become politicians. They're two different games and a good soldier does not necessarily make a good politician. Somehow, once a general gets used to the perks of civilian office, they find it hard to let go. Eisenhower was a great general in World War II but his record as President was dull, at best. Over here in Southeast Asia, the Generals don't have a particularly good record of running the show - and I'm not even going to discuss Nigeria, which has had a history of military brutes thinking they could run the country.

However, I do believe that every senior military commander has a fundamental duty to look after the troops under his command. War is a brutal business and it's usually paid for with the lives of the troops on the ground. Yes, I know, when someone joins the armed forces, they do so on the understanding that they could die in a war - but having said that, the leaders of these men have an obligation to make sure that they're chances of getting killed in combat are minimized and if the guy dies, it's not in vain. I'm with George Patton when he says, "It's not my job to die for my country, I just make sure the other son-of-a-bitch dies for his."

When you look at things this way, what is a general supposed to do? I believe that the top brass has to ensure that the troops know the job and they're prepared for it - ie they need to be trained for it and they need to have adequate equipment for the job.

So, when you look at things this way, Generals Dannatt and McChrystal are doing exactly what good Generals should do - they are looking after the troops under their command. Why did the politicians get upset with General Dannatt? The answer was simple - he pointed out that British Troops did not have the right equipment to do the job - Whitehall was trying to fight a war on the cheap at the expense of the lives of troops. Why is McChrystal in hot soup with the media? He's pointing out that you need to put a certain amount of troops on the ground to get things done - the man is fully aware that former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld screwed the troops by sending too little of them in to hold the country together - despite being otherwise advised by the generals.

You'll always notice that the media tends to portray top brass in a negative light. The generals and admirals are somehow in a secret conspiracy to hide this or that from the President. The truth could not be further from that. Good Generals and Admirals are a lot less bloodthirsty than civilian politicians. In the Bush Administration, it was the ONLY person who had seen REAL COMBAT who did want to go into Iraq (Colin Powell).

Unfortunately politicians tend to think that wars can be fought on the cheap. George Bush I did a fabulous job in kicking Sadamm out of Kuwait - unfortunately, his mastery of that war was lost on his son. The Old Man set a clear agenda and let the generals run the show, and more importantly provided the necessary support for them to do the job. Maggie Thatcher did something similar in the Falklands - there was a clear objective and experts got what they needed to get the job done. Fag Boy Bush and Tony Twat thought they could go in and kick a bit of arse and come out smelling of roses - unfortunately the towel heads had other ideas and started shooting back.

The Generals were blamed for being "good" boys who went along and saluted whatever the Nancy Boys wanted, which they was not possible. You cannot expect to work miracles and you shouldn't even try when it means another human being pays with his life for your fuck ups.

If General McChrystal is being "Bad" because he's making it public that he thinks Afghanistan needs 40,000 troops, I say we need more bad generals like that. Iraq became a quagmire because Rumsfeld didn't think the views of his generals were worth a shit and thought he could win a war on the cheap. Unfortunately that's not how it works. To ram in your point, you sometimes need to place the politicians in a tight spot. If General McChrystal says he needs 40,000 troops to secure the military objective, he should have them. If the politicians think its not worth the cause, they should not send in the troops at all. Which is worse, to speak out of turn and upset your superior or to allow your superior to send people to their deaths unnecessarily? I know which option I'd go for.

A Question of Service

I've just had the most amazing weekend with the other half. I don't know but somehow we managed to create opportunities to be together and for once in my life, I find myself actually enjoying being in a relationship and the idea of bringing it further is actually something I look forward to rather than dread.

Anyway, since I am in a special state in the relationship, I'm going to try and talk about something else so that anyone who reads this blog won't kill themselves out of sheer boredom. I mean there is nothing so repulsive to the general reader as soppy news and nothing quite as enjoyable as disgusting news. So, where can I start except the topic of National Service and foreign talent.

For me, National Service was probably one of the most interesting periods of my life. It was, as they say, the first time I got to know the "real" Singapore as opposed to the happy glam glam world that my parents lived in. I suddenly realised that Singapore had yobs, spoke it's own unique language and was despite the best efforts of the government, wonderfully interesting.

Even if you were to remove the tragedy of Exercise Swift Lion from the two and a half years I spent, National Service was emotionally traumatic. I mean, there I was, the son of a fairly well to-do man from a preppy British Public School being thrown in to run around with the grunts - what else could I feel but quite disorientated.

At the same time, it was the most exhilarating experience and I say this including the experience of Swift Lion. If losing two people did anything for us, it made the friendships that were made all the more precious. As I write this blog entry, I can tell you with all honesty that the best friends I have ever made come from this period of my life. It's as simple as this, you never know who your friends really are until the chips are down (as they often are in the army) and I'm blessed with the handful of friends that I made in those moments.

If you ask me what I think of National Service, my answer is probably two-fold. I loathed the idea of reservist because I'm way out of the routine I had and when you're self-employed, you have to live with the fear of losing client relationships and business opportunities, which are crucial to your livelihood.If you ask me if I could go back and not go through those two and a half years, the answer is no - I'd still go through them because if I hadn't I my life would be poorer for it - lacking in the friendship that I made.

I can't call myself a die-hard patriot but I believe that National Service is an important institution in Singapore. In a society which segregates people as a matter of necessity, National Service exists to unite people and that, I believe is something that has become all the more necessary. For all the complaints about Singapore, it's still a good place to be. Life is comfortable especially when compared to many of our neighbours. However, while there are privileges to citizenship, there must also be responsibilities and for a Singaporean man, national service is one of them.

So you can imagine why I get peeved by the government's policy of exempting groups from this institution. The mantra is "We need foreigners to keep things moving," and the government is so desperate for immigrants into Singapore that it actually rolls out the red carpet and creates a situation where the ordinary citizen feels that it's better to be a foreigner living in Singapore than a Singaporean.

For the record, despite my rants about various groups of expatriates, I am not anti-foreigner. No society can afford to be isolated from the flows of human migration. I am sympathetic to migrants. Singapore was built by the sheer energy of migrant labour and it will continue to be built by migrant labour.

I also believe that we must accept that not everyone wants to settle in Singapore. There are people who come here to work, make a contribution and then go back home. Like it or not, the expatriate labourer is a fact of life in just about every modern society. As my mother once reminded me - "We were expats too." (Back in the days when Lee was being transfered round Europe)

What I find hard to swallow is the idea that it is so necessary to attract certain groups of people to make Singapore home that we must give them special privileges. One of these comes from the exemption of National Service. According to the Prime Minister in a report in the Today Newspaper on 16 September, 2009, it is.

He described the necessity to such exemptions by saying, "We would not get the people we wanted," and then had to say that such people were the "Spice in the Singapore Mix." This former Brigadier General (yes, he was CO of 23 SA, where I spent the better part of my National Service) said that he would "not want to be their platoon commander."

This is interesting because it raises several questions about the type of society that we want to live in and the way we want things to go. What for example does the Prime Minister mean when he talks about "The people we want."?

Does he mean high-net worth individuals? Is he trying to make Singapore into a playground for the world's well-to-do ala Monaco? This is a possibility. Singapore is a centre for Private Banking and we're now building two casinos, where hopefully the world's high-rollers will lose enough money.

But how exactly does exempting them of their children from National Service help Singapore? The ultra-rich have always been very mobile and besides, all you want them to do is to park some of their money here and spend a little. Singapore is already doing this for ultra-rich in Indonesia - just walk into any private hospital and you'll realise that Singapore would have no private healthcare industry without Indonesian Chinese.

Is the Prime Minister trying to talk to professional classes? It's not reasonable for him to want to attract them into becoming Singaporeans. Professional people may not have a gazillion dollars to park there at once but over time can bring in vast value.

But aren't we already extracting our value out of the transient expats? And besides, how many of the professional classes would take up citizenship? As an American citizen said,"I keep my US Passport because the US government has extraction capabilities which Singapore does not." That sentiment is not just echoed amongst the expats from Western countries. Many of the Indian IT workers take up permanent residency here but few if any I know take up citizenship - India is an up and coming force in the world - Singapore is not.

So who exactly is it so necessary to attract that we have to exempt them from National Service? If you want to go down the social ladder, there are plenty of poor Chinese, Bangladeshi and Filipinos who would gladly spend two-years being indoctrinated in the Singapore system - so who exactly are the groups that we need so desperately that we have to exempt them and their children from National Service?

Then there's the point of loyalty. A few years ago, another Prime Minister asked,"Are you a stayer or a quitter?" The message was clear - leave Singapore forever - Bad, Come back - Good. The point here is, surely those who serve National Service are more likely to be stayers rather than quitters once they invest a portion of their lives in Singapore.

So let's put the question to the Prime Minster, do we want stayers or quitters? If you roll out the red carpet and shower a person with privileges and then you tell him or her that they have to commit a certain number of years to Singapore and they run away - they are surely quitters. You need his or her loyalty more than they need your citizenship - hence this should be a question of the value of citizenship. Wouldn't it be better to have someone who is so desperate to be Singaporean they're willing to serve National Service and then enjoy the privileges of citizenship. Surely, these stayers are more valuable - the type of people you want to command in a platoon.

If you ask me, this sounds like the government is grasping for a policy here but thankfully not all of us are grasping about the question of identity. I remember an ophthalmologist I know who was asked, "Are you a Singaporean?" To which he replied,"Are you asking me if I have served National Service - Yes I have."

Getting Low on Ris

I've just come back from a very happy moment with the other half and so, instead of commenting about something serious, I thought I would drop a line or two about Miss Ris Low, Singapore's recently dethroned Miss Singapore World.

Ris, as we all know by now, is a 19-year old with a fairly cute face, fairly attractive body but sorely lacking in the brain department. Thanks to Ris, we in Singapore have a new sport - ripping the piss out of our beauty queens. Instead of talking about how our Sovereign Wealth Fund is spending the tax payers money, the chattering masses in coffee shops and internet chat rooms are ripping the piss out of Ris.

The girl cannot help but set herself up to be ridiculed. The more she does anything, the more you want to cry - STOP, you're fucking yourself. Her first act of folly was to give an interview about her fashion sense to Razor TV, the internet TV arm of Singapore's flagship newspaper, The Straits Times. Razor TV scored a coup and it's interview with Ris talking about her diploma in "Horse Pee Telly Tee," and how she'd wear something "Ret and Lout" when she's feeling naughty - "Something BOOMS." The most daring thing Ris has "Won, was a Piece of Bikini and just jeans."

OK, you get the drift. Miss Cute Bod is not much more than that. She can barely string a sentence together in English and it was ironic that in her maiden speech as Miss Singapore World, she declared that what she wanted to do was to show people that,"Not all beautiful people are bimbotic."

That was the funny part. What was not so funny was the fact that a few days after winning the contest, it was discovered and publicized that she's got a criminal record for having fraudulently acquired other people's credit card numbers and then used it for a shopping spree. At the time of the contest, the girl was serving a probation period. Instead of offering to resign and apologizing to the nation, she hung on for a few more days until enough pressure was placed on the organisers for her to be persuaded to go.

Ris has been a source of amusement for Singaporeans. It's not everyday that one of our own makes it to the world wide web's piss take list. The newspapers were happy too - the girl made instant copy for them. I mean, she much more fun to read about than earth quakes next door that actually kill people.

But let's leave the jokes aside. Ris is undoubtedly stupid and a silly opportunist that had the misfortune to get caught being stupid and opportunistic by the media. However, while the girl is an easy target to take the piss out of, her folly reflects a few social problems.

Let's start with her inability to speak understandable English. It's actually acceptable to not be able to speak English at all, let alone well. Contrary to what the rest of the English Speaking world may think, English is not the only language on the planet. There are people who don't speak English but they do speak another language.

What can non-English speakers do when they're in situations where they have to communicate? The two strategies are:

a - Struggle in English but make sure you're from a country where nobody expects you to speak English. That way, the English speakers become more patient with you and in fact they end up admiring you for trying to speak a language that's not your own. If I remember correctly, Miss China won kudos for taking her interviews in English back in, I think, 2003.

b - Speak through an interpreter. That way you work in the language you are comfortable in and thus appear more confident. The South American Beauty contestants always speak through an interpreter.

Unfortunately neither option is available to poor old Ris. At the age of 19, she belongs to a generation of Singaporeans who were educated in a system where the language of instruction is English. Furthermore, the girl is studying for a diploma in "Horse Pee Tality," so one has to assume she has enough brains to pass entrance exams, which are not known for being easy in Singapore. This is not some refuge from China trying to struggle in a foreign land.

So, if Ris has been through an English-language based education system up to pre-tertiary levels, how is that she is totally unable to string a sentence together in basic English? Either she's really stupid (which is convenient for the rest of us), or there has to be a failure in the system somewhere down the line.

I'd like to think that Ris is a freak of nature when it comes to her inability to string simple sentences together. However, I've heard enough, supposedly highly educated people (educated at some of the top universities in the world) struggle to speak in basic sentences and so, I'm inclined to suspect that there has to be a systematic failure in the education system.

OK, the language issue or rather than the lack of it is very funny. What's not so funny is the fact that her criminal record came out in the public after she won the crown.

The first people who should be shot for this are the organisers. Miss Singapore World does go onto the International Stage in the Miss World Contest. Surely anyone organising the contest would be conscious of this and do everything to ensure the candidates for the crown are somewhat 'kosher.' Besides, Singapore is a small and highly computerised place. Everyone has a number that's used for everything - so it's not exactly difficult to do a background check on the contestants.

Now, if the organisers of such a high-profile contest have such lousy due-diligence, what does that say about other organisations in Singapore? Are we as Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew says, "Complacent." Ris was stupid enough to get exposed in the media - what happens in organisations that don't receive so much media attention?

More worryingly is the fact that when the news of her "criminal" past came out, the girl refused to resign. Her line of defense was something like, "I'm sorry, I know what I did was wrong but I worked very hard for this crown." She totally does not get the point. She's supposed to be an international ambassador for the country and she fails to see that there is a certain amount of moral authority one needs to do the job in a credible fashion. In short, this little Bimbo loves her position more than she loves other things.

As repugnant as I find her behavior, can you really blame her? She's a 19-year old girl - impressionable and easily influenced by the elements around her. So, knowing that about her, what does that say about our culture.

Obviously not allot. I mean we have a culture where a minister can get away with not offering his resignation when his ministry seriously screws up. It's more important to the powers that be that the said Minister remain in his office - which admittedly a highly paid one. It's on public television and when you, the member of the public gets upset, the media "scolds you" for being "complacent."

How else can you expect this 19-year old with not much brain to react when this is what the so called "leaders" of society do? Ris has not much brain but sees a way to the top. The top shows that it is above the rules of human decency. So what do you think she thinks? If political leaders believe they are entitled to office just for being who they are...well what do you expect of a 19-year old beauty queen?