TR EMERITUS

One of the things that I remember most about starting out was being asked if I was interested in trying to write for the Today Newspaper. The person who asked me, was a senior writer in the Straits Times and she made the suggestion when I went to visit her in her office. She had to make this offer in hushed tones. There was a reason for this. Back in the days when there was “media competition,” the top management of both media houses (SPH and MediaCorp) took the competition personally. The team that went to the Today Newspaper were from The New Paper and considered “traitors” to the management of SPH. The same was true for those who went from MediaCorp TV to help set up SPH MediaWorks. I found this attitude strange. I had grown up in the UK where business and political competition were a fact of life. Sure, companies would “compete” and try and come up with things to win consumers over and to keep good staff. However, I never heard the phrase “too small for competition” until I moved back to Singapore nor had I heard of top management taking it personally when staff left to join a competitor. However, as life required me to come up against the political system more frequently, it became clear where this attitude amongst out top business people came from. In the 2006 election, we got the hear the argument that Singapore was too small to support a two-party system. To anyone outside Singapore, this is a strange idea to put forth, especially when it seems like the governing party in question has done a decent enough job. Why would an institution in a position of strength be so keen to try to convince people that natural laws did not apply to it. In fairness, this isn’t something that is particularly unique to the PAP or Singapore. If you listen to American politicians talk about China, you’ll notice that the superpower has developed something of a weird fascination with the aspiring one. Take the following from two diplomats: Sure, the People’s Republic of China does not have a good record of accepting competition to its power. The Chinese Communist Party, particularly under Xi Jinping has become even more monopolistic in its attitude to power. However, in this case, the Chinese have a point. The world is large enough for America and China and while China’s economic rise has been impressive, the fact remains, the average American remains richer than the average Chinese and whilst China’s military has been “modernizing,” it’s been modernizing from the 1950s whilst the American military is preparing for the space age. So, here’s the reality of life – no one is above the laws of competition. If you study nature, you’ll notice that animal and plant species are designed to compete and everyone in the eco-system has a purpose. The same is true for business and politics. The dominant species only remains dominant as long as it remains strong and has enough food. In the case business and political economic systems, its clear that the dominant beast are dominant as long as they give the market what it wants or they create markets for their products and services. The problem only steps in when the dominant beast starts to believe that its position of dominance is “God-given.” Again, the story of Singapore’s media giants is instructive. SPH and MediaCorp went to the government and got the government to restore their monopolies. Everyone seemed happy and secure and the top management spent their time gripping on each other’s platforms about whether readership or viewership was better. What nobody noticed was the fact that the general public got bored with both of them and turned to the internet and a host of “alternative” sites run by people who were motivated by things other than money. The advertisers who were paying the media monopolies noticed it to and moved their money accordingly. Revenue figures dropped and eventually, SPH, a company that that effectively had a license to print money ended up becoming a “non-profit” dependent on government handouts. Competition exists to keep everyone on their toes. If you look at nature, you’ll notice that even the biggest animals have to stay on their toes or they become a meal for predators. No animal gets the idea that its survival, particularly at the top is a given. So, human institutions need to understand the same is true for them. A dominant player is there because it serves the market rather than being served by the market. Top nations, top companies, top political parties and so on need to remember that they are servants to ordinary folk rather than the other way round.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.    Read More →

The Democrats have reportedly gone on record indicating that Joe Biden will not be the presidential nominee for America's Presidential Election in November. Support for Biden has dropped tremendously since the Biden administration aided and abetted the genocide that Israel is committing in Gaza. ;nbsp;  Read More →

Yesterday, Minister Edwin Tong (“Edwin”) had to parry off a barrage of questions about the biggest catch of his ministerial career, thus far - Taylor Swift. But the bait to lure her in left some parliamentarians and citizens wondering if it is the right thing to do. It seems to smack of a-cloak and-dagger deal, where plausible deniability was the chosen pathway. The elephant in the room comes from Thailand. PM Srettha Thavisin said “he was informed by the promoter that Singapore Government had offered subsidies of up to US$3 million (S$4 million) for each concert, in exchange for Swift agreeing not to perform elsewhere in South-east Asia during the Eras Tour.” When a prime minister has to step in, and blow the bugle, you sort of get the feeling that things are more than meet the eye. What is the upside then? Well, Edwin quickly got his ducks in an economic roll with this assurance: “I can assure members of the House that the economic benefits to Singapore are assessed to be significant and outweigh the size of the grant.” Economists have in fact estimated that our economy will get a $500m shot in the arm in tourist receipts, ticket sale, flights, hotel stays as well as entertainment, retail and dining. It’s all good in the economic front. The downside? Well, it’s hard to say. Edwin defended his courtship of the superstar with this pitch: “This helps to brand Singapore as a fun, vibrant destination. Singapore faces intense regional competition for these concerts, and we will need to continue investing in our infrastructure and software to continue attracting marquee entertainment and lifestyle events.” He does have a point. It’s about branding, and we aspire to be the Pepsi-Cola or Nike of South-east Asia when it comes to top-notched, billboard-worthy star performances. Everytime the National Stadium or Sporthub remains vacant, we are bleeding millions. So you have to spend some to get some. Especially one this huge in stardom attraction, you need to get a bigger bait. And this requires daggling a fat carrot in front of the Tay-Tay’s team. That said, the exclusivity deal did strike a raw nerve with some leaders in the region. It is one thing to compete between businesses and private individuals, but it is quite another when it comes to competing between neighbours. It gets more complicated, and one has to question whether we have crossed the ethical line. Be that as it may, I should not be so naive to think that when nations compete, it is always a case of love-thy-neighbors, or offer them the other cheek. In the end, it’s still the unspoken Darwinian law of survival of the fittest, the fastest and yes, the swiftest. The prize goes to the one who knows how to cut a deal, a big fat one, even if it means under-cutting it to win. It’s just more complicated on that level of engagement, with million mouths to feed and a reputation to keep. Maybe my concern that this would set a bad precedent and sour the demonstration of public comity amongst nations is an exercise in vain hope and impracticality. But still, I feel more thought has to be given to this considering what the long run impact will be for such intensity in competition. Will it turn out to be a rush to the bottom of the barrel? Will there be boundaries that nations have to respect? Is there other ways of attracting superstars rather than paying them, and depriving others, all done with the knowledge that the ones laughing all the way to the bank are the superstars themselves? As a side note, it is said that the rich will grow richer, and the poor, poorer. Is this then one of the ways the top percentile amongst us add to their already overflowing wealth acquisition, and leave many earnest and talented seekers far back in the competition trail? Food for thought?   Michael Han    Read More →