Separated by a Common Language

One of the strangest phenomena in the magical world of social media, are random Americans from Trump country having issues with my English.  How it hurts my feelings, and devastates my self-esteem, knowing I will never be able to spell as well as these fine creatures from the dark side of redneck reality.  How it diminishes me, and emasculates me, that I will never have the eloquence and mastery of language, as these intimate lovers of their sisters and mother.

I have been told it is “program”, not “programme”; that it is “kilogram”, and not “kilogramme”; and that it is “monogram”, not “monogramme”.

I have advised that words like “sanitise”, “evangelise”, and “romanticise” should be spelt “sanitize”, “evangelize”, and “romanticize”.

I have been harangued on how “colour”, “humour”, and “neighbour” should be “color”, “humor”, and “neighbor”.

I have been lectured on how, “analyse”, “paralyse”, and “catalyse” should be “analyze”, “paralyze”, and “catalyze”.

I have been reprimanded that it is “apologize”, not “apologise”; “organize”, not “organise”, and “recognize”, not “recognise”.

I have been rebuked on how it should be “defense”, not “defence”; “license”, not “licence”; and “offense”, not “offence”.

I have been reproached on the evils of “analogue”, “catalogue”, and “dialogue”; instead of “analog”, “catalog”, and “dialog”.

I have been corrected that it is “leukemia”, instead of “leukaemia”; that it is “maneuver”, instead of “manoeuvre  “; that it is “estrogen”, instead of “oestrogen”; that it is “pedophilia”, instead of “paedophilia”; that it is “diarrhea”, instead of “diarrhoea”; and so many, many, many more.

It is attributed to George Bernard Shaw, that Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language.  For this, I must squarely blame Noah Webster Jr., and his jihad against “English” English, and for a distinctly American spelling.  Of course, I fully deserve this for taking miseducated English lessons from people who can scarce tell the difference between “their”, “they’re”, and “there”.  I am amazed at people who know only one language, and yet cannot speak it well.

Quora Answer: Under Singapore Law, is It an Offence to Criticise Foreign Politicians?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Under Singapore law, is it an offence for a person to criticise, or slander, foreign politicians, and heads of states, such as Queen Elizabeth II?” 

No.  Singapore has no such legislation, covering lese majeste, for either external or internal dignitaries.  In the case of a foreign dignitary, there is the Defamation Act, Cap. 75.  However, any such legal proceedings much take place in Singapore, and filed in country.  I seriously doubt someone truly important and powerful would want to fly in simply to sue an ordinary citizen, and undergo the legal process here. 

Defamation and slander is often difficult to prove and even more difficult to quantify in terms of damages.  If the slander is serious enough to impact a foreign head of state, then there has to be some basis of truth or a malicious campaign that would entail the use of laws other than defamation. 

On a related note, the Head of State of Singapore has very stringent laws protecting the dignity of the office.  As per the Penal Code, Section 121A: 

121A. Whoever compasses, imagines, invents, devises, or intends the death of or hurt to or imprisonment or restraint of the President, shall be punished with death, or with imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not sentenced to death, also be liable to fine. 

Essentially, merely fantasising a violent BDSM tickle-fest of the President’s person could carry the death penalty.  And if they have not hanged you, but merely incarcerated you for life, you will be fined. Such an indignity.

Quora Answer: Will Singapore Invade West Malaysia in the Future?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Will Singapore invade, and occupy, West Malaysia in the future to stay relevant?”

What has occupying Malaysia got to do with staying relevant?  War is seldom the economically viable option.  Militarily, Singapore would likely win every battle because it has a vastly superior military.  And then we will proceed to lose the war because occupation would sap all our resources, and resistance would kill more people than the battles themselves.

Such an act of aggression would isolate us internationally, dissipate any political goodwill, disintegrate ASEAN, and cost us a major trading partner.  Additionally, many Singaporeans have friends and family across the border.  That means we can discount this being a national unity exercise.  This would likely lead to the collapse of the government, and punitive international sanctions.  We are a trade hub.  Without trade, this country will swiftly decline.

The continued growth and development of the region is a good thing.  When Malaysia prospers, we prosper.  We have a larger, wealthier market for our goods and services, we can take advantage of their hinterland by restructuring our financial services and economic expertise to invest in them, and work towards closer economic cooperation.  That is how we stay relevant.

Being Retirement Ready

The average Singaporean has not prepared adequately for retirement.  Most people do not fully consider that their standard of living may drop, with reduced income; or that their lifestyle choices will be constrained by their lack of planning.  Retirement planning is, thus, one of the major areas we should look at.

Diamonds are Not “Forever”; They were Never Even Rare

Diamonds are not as rare as people believe.  They rank as the most common of the traditional precious stones.  Rubies, sapphires, and emeralds are rarer, especially at high quality, and gem experts have said so for decades.  The price of diamonds was raised by a monopoly, and by an advertising campaign that convinced people this arrangement was tradition.

The Campaign That Invented a Tradition

De Beers controlled 80 to 90 per cent of global diamond supply from 1888 into the late 1990s, the longest-running monopoly of the modern era.  By 1938, the Great Depression had gutted demand.  Diamond sales were collapsing.  De Beers hired N.W. Ayer & Son, an American advertising agency, with one brief: make diamonds essential to love itself.

Ayer did not advertise a product.  It built a social norm from nothing.  Diamonds appeared on the fingers of Hollywood stars.  Lecturers visited American high schools to teach students that a diamond ring belonged in every engagement.  Magazines ran romantic diamond storylines planted by the agency.  In 1947, copywriter Frances Gerety wrote four words that closed the loop: “A Diamond is Forever.”  Advertising Age later named it the greatest advertising slogan of the twentieth century.

The financial result speaks for itself.  Annual US diamond sales sat at US$23 million in 1939.  By 1979, that figure reached US$2.1 billion.

The “Salary Rule” was Never a Tradition

De Beers introduced a benchmark: a man should spend one month’s salary on a ring.  Sales stagnated.  In the 1980s, the benchmark doubled to two months’ salary, a figure with no basis in custom, invented entirely by ad copy.  In Japan, where De Beers ran a parallel campaign from 1968, the local benchmark reached three months’ salary.  Different countries received different numbers, tuned to what each market would bear.  None of it traced back further than an advertising brief.

The slogan also served a second purpose, rarely stated aloud.  “Forever” discouraged resale.  A diamond meant to last a lifetime is a diamond that never re-enters the market to compete with new stock.  De Beers protected its own pricing power by convincing buyers that selling a diamond back was close to sacrilege.

The Collapse Now Under Way

The empire built on that campaign is coming apart.  De Beers reported an underlying EBITDA loss of US$511 million for 2025, against a US$25 million loss the year before.  Parent company Anglo American has written down De Beers’ value by US$6.8 billion across three consecutive years: US$1.6 billion in 2023, US$2.9 billion in 2024, and US$2.3 billion in 2025, cutting its carrying value from over US$4 billion to US$2.3 billion.  Anglo American’s group net loss reached US$3.7 billion for 2025, driven by that impairment.  Anglo American Chief Executive Officer Duncan Graham Wanblad confirmed the company is in advanced talks to sell or spin off De Beers entirely.

The cause is structural, not cyclical.  Laboratory-grown diamonds, chemically and optically identical to mined stones, now account for more than 45 per cent of US engagement ring purchases, up from 5.2 per cent in 2019.  Lab-grown prices fell 74 per cent between 2020 and 2024 as production capacity expanded by over three hundred per cent.  De Beers’ own realised price per carat fell 7 per cent in headline terms in 2025, and 25 per cent once inventory rebalancing is included.  Pandora, one of the world’s largest jewellery brands, dropped natural diamonds from its collection entirely and grew sales after the switch.

An industry built on manufactured scarcity is now watching real scarcity disappear from underneath its own marketing.  A stone that was never rare, sold at a price justified by a slogan written in 1947, is losing to a laboratory-grown version nobody can tell apart with the naked eye, at a fraction of the cost.  The three months’ salary rule was never a tradition worth honouring.  It was an invoice, written by an advertising agency, and the industry that sent it is now the one going broke.

---

Terence Nunis | Executive Chairman, Equinox Zenith | Author, The 1% Playbook: The Billionaire Cheat Code

Keep Calm & Brexit

The near-term outlook of Brexit is grim for the UK economy.  There has been capital flight, a drop in productivity, and reduced foreign direct investment.  The thing is, none of the major parties truly give investors confidence.  Any sort of investment in this market has to be long term, and part of an overall diversification strategy.

Quora Answer: How Do Companies Invest in Each Other?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How do companies invest in each other?”

There are several way that a company may invest in another.  The simplest way is to take an outright equity stake in the other company by buying shares in the other company.  By buying a certain number of shares, the investing company can gain a seat of the board of the company invested in.  Such a purchase can either take place over the counter where a company builds its position gradually, or it can be via a direct deal between the boards of both companies. Such a deal involves the transfer of funds or equity instruments such as special share placements.  A company can also take equity in another if the latter is in debt to the former.  The creditor company takes an equity stake in lieu of debt.  But this is only likely if the debtor company is projected to provide a decent return on investment, and the creditor company is taking advantage of the situation.  In such a scenario, funds may not change ownership.

Sometimes, to secure a business proposal, two companies will take equity positions in each other.  This may involve issuing new shares, diluting existing holdings, swapping equity, or variations along these options.  Such a scenario does not typically involve fund transfer.  Another common scenario is when a company, by design, takes a majority stake in a company that is a major shareholder of another company.  This is an indirect way of gaining control of a potential strategic partner or competitor.

As can be seen, in the vast majority of scenarios or their variations, actual funds seldom change hands.  Nobody writes a proverbial cheque.