Quora Answer: Why Do Discussions about Singapore's Defense Focus So Much on Malaysia?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why do discussions of Singapore’s defense focus so much on Malaysia?” 

When we consider the geopolitical situation in Singapore, the nearest, most likely belligerent, is Malaysia.  Singapore separated from Malaysia, in 1965, and even then, we had people like Syed Jaafar bin Syed Hassan Albar, the so-called “Lion of UMNO”, calling for Malaysian troops to take back Singapore and instigating a racial riot.  Since that time, Malaysian political leaders have not been shy in threatening violence, in threatening our sovereignty, and in pushing the boundaries of the relationship whenever possible.  As recent as December 2018, Hishammuddin bin Hussein, the former Defence Minister, wrote on Facebook, that Malaysia should move beyond a verbal spat into actual military action.  Would any Singapore politician be so careless with escalating a territorial dispute? 

Malaysia is not our ally.  Malaysia is an uneasy neighbour.  Despite our investment in Malaysia, we would be foolish to think that Malaysia’s political elite are grateful.  They have this entitled mindset.  Mahathir bin Mohamad himself has likened our relationship to that of an elder brother - Malaysia, and a rebellious younger brother - Singapore.  He supposes that Singapore has to follow Malaysia’s lead in policy.  That is an unacceptable besmirchment of our sovereignty.  In light of all this, should we trust Malaysia?  They cannot even adhere to contracts, and have to be arm twisted to sticking to the terms of treaties.  They are just across the Causeway, and sit on the north of the Malacca Strait.  Malaysia is the only Southeast Asian nation that could conceivably threaten us. 

Indonesia, for all its size, does not have the means to invade Singapore.  They can barely secure their own territorial waters from illegal fishing, let alone threaten Singapore with invasion.  They do not have the lift capability.  There is no other nation in the region close enough or sophisticated enough to threaten any form of military action, whether an artillery strike, or an air raid. 

It is no coincidence that Singapore has built up a military that dwarfs Malaysia’s in all metrics, and does not rule out preemptive action.  We not only maintain a stronger military on near war footing, but we are ready to invade them to create strategic depth.  That is our insurance policy.

Quora Answer: What is the Income Asked, When Buying Term Insurance, if the Policy Owner Changes Jobs?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “While buying term insurance, yearly income is asked.  But if someone leaves that job to start a business, and dies during this period, will the insurance company check the bank statement of the insured person before settlement?”

Your annual income is required because the underwriting process requires the insurer to ascertain that you can afford the premiums of the policy.  Once the policy is incepted, your change in income is irrelevant.  Your change in occupation from a less risky one to a more risky one might vary the coverage, however.  For example, if you left your job as an office manager, and became a travelling salesman in the Amazon to sell condoms made from poisonous pitcher plants, for your own business.

If, in the course of this new job, or business, you pass away, the claim process is as per normal, requiring the death certificate to prove death.  In the event of an accidental death claim, this will likely require a coroner’s report.  In this entire process, your bank statement is irrelevant.  Bank statements are only subject to interest if there is reasonable cause to believe that there is fraud.  The insurer themselves may not request your bank statement due to banking secrecy laws.  This will be requested by the police.

Quora Answer: Should Pakistan Cut Diplomatic Relations with Singapore?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Should Pakistan cut diplomatic relations with Singapore?”

On what basis would Pakistan cut more than 50 years of diplomatic ties with Singapore?  Pakistan and Singapore have excellent relations, and these ties have been affirmed in recent visits.  Singapore has regularly sent rescue personnel, and aid, both in funds and requested items.  This generosity is acknowledged.  Singapore last sent aid for the Pakistani floods in 2010, both from the government and other entities.

Singapore also acknowledges that it was a Pakistani national, sent by their government, which helped set up our national shipping line, NOL, in 1968.  The founding director was Captain Muhammad Jalaluddin Sayeed.

Singapore is also one of the larger foreign investors in Pakistan, with cumulative FDI of just over US$2.5 billion.  Bilateral trade stands at just over US$2 billion as well.  Why would Pakistan cut off diplomatic relations, and lose an important trade partner then?

Quora Answer: Should Brazil Allow the US Military Passage through to Invade Venezuela?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Should Brazil allow the US military passage through its lands, for them to invade Venezuela, in the event of a war?”

No.  Brazil is part of Mercosur, just like Venezuela, although Venezuela’s membership is suspended.  It would be against the charter for Brazil to allow that.  Also, considering the political situation within Brazil, it would be political suicide for any Brazilian administration to overtly do that.

Secondly, it would make more sense for the US to invade from the sea, where all the major population centres of Venezuela, and all the oil infrastructure is, instead of fighting their way across the mountains and jungle, and potentially sustaining greater casualties.

Finally, a Venezuelan invasion is not feasible when Venezuela is supported by Russia and China, two Security Council members.  The US does not have a good reason to declare was, other than the fact they do not like the leftwing dictator.  That area of South America is all ruled by leftwing governments.  This will make any military action messy.

Beginning with the End in Mind

The following is my address for Division A’s Achievers Day, held on the 20^th June 2020.

Toastmasters has a tagline that claims, “Where Leaders are Made”.  That is not true.  We cannot make such a claim when we do not have a proper leadership development programme.  What we have is an executive training programme focused on effective communication, team management, relationship development.  These are ingredients for leadership, but that is not leadership.

There are many definitions of what a leader is.  However, many definitions conflate a leader with a manager.  A manager manages resources, people, budget, programmes.  He is the steady hand at the tiller, ceteris paribas.  And Toastmasters creates a lot of managers.  We manage the club, the Area, the Division, the District.  We manage expectations, funds, time.  That is not leadership.  Being the president of a club, the division director, the District Director; none of that makes us leaders.

Leadership is more than that.  Leadership is the ability to let go, and let people grow.  Leadership is the skill of choosing a team, and turning water carriers into generals.  Leadership is about developing strong characters who will challenge us, sharpen us, push us to the limits.  Leadership is to inspire people, and make them feel that they are part of something greater than themselves.  Leadership is to challenge the status quo, to shake the foundations of inertia, and rattle the rust of ossification.

When we step up, we begin with the end in mind.  Just as our beginning is the end of our predecessor’s term, our ending is the beginning of our successor’s.  We have to understand that, and plan for that.  As the Division Director Elect, for Division G, I am not here to clock my time, to make up the numbers, to fit in.  I am here to make a difference, I am here to change things, I am here to win.  To that end, I believe in planning as if I am going to war.

At the end of 2019, we  had a discussion at my club, AIA Toastmasters, and it was a collective decision that I consider running for Division Director.  To that end, by the end of January, the sitting Division Director was informed, and we had already prepared the strategic plan for the next three years.  By the end of March, we had the core team in place.  By the April, the entire Division Council was in place.  We had our Division Council meeting in the fortnight after it was confirmed I was Division Director Elect.  In that time, we had trained our Area Directors, put in place our timetable of action, and begun conversations with clubs in the Division.

Putting together a team meant finding the best and brightest.  Personally, I do not believe that we should be limited to people from the Division only.  That sort of tribalism is for small-minded people.  When we want to succeed, we take the best and brightest, regardless of club or Division.  We want people with this burning desire to win, and win in the most brutally efficient manner.  And that meant finding people of strong character, who would challenge my decisions, and keep me focused.

My Division Council is exceptionally large – 18 people.  There are ten Distinguished Toastmasters.  I will be the 11^th by the end of the year.  Out of these people, eight of them are from outside the Division.  They include our triple District champion, and future world champion, Ng Kin Foong,  They include senior people such as Robert Ng, Sivanesan K. Murugayan, and Mohamad Saddiqi bin Mohamad Said.  I wanted the best and brightest, and I went for them.

When picking our team, we must consider first, values, then ability.  Ability without values is an impediment.  People with the correct values, on the other hand, can be cultivated.  I got both.  I picked people who have tried and failed because failure is the best teacher.  There is little worth in successful people who have never dealt with defeat.  I chose people based on what they do outside of Toastmasters.  We have, in Toastmasters, many people who speak well.  That is the nature of our organisation.  But how many of us have experienced that after all was said and done, a lot was said, and nothing was done?  We are not here to entertain hot air.

The Division Council of 2020/2021 begins with the end in mind.  Accordingly, we plan for the Council of 2021/2022.  We will identify candidates for the next Council, and afford them an opportunity to shadow the current Council, and retain institutional knowledge.  They will be invited into the executive training programme to align their mindset with that of the current team to promote continuity, and growth.  This should be the practice of succeeding Councils.  We should always plan immediately for succession and handover.  We begin with the end in mind.

Why do we need all this?  This is because, for too long, Toastmasters have existed in a bubble.  We do not have proper handover of roles, no proper documentation process, no strategic vision.  We had no leadership, and we exercise no leadership.  This is the real reason why our membership has dropped 20%.  Covid-19 is an excuse.  People were looking for reasons to leave, and the pandemic provided it.

We are not going to fix this by chartering more clubs.  Most of these new clubs will die by the next three terms.  We are not going to fix this by running speechcraft.  Speechcraft programmes are a waste of time and effort.  We are not going to fix things doing the same tired programmes over and over and over again.  And that is what we have been served up – more of the same.

If we want people to subscribe to Toastmasters, we must understand what people want, and sit on their side of the table.  Most of us make the mistake of trying to appeal to the same things we like.  We fail to ask what is in it for them.  We have failed to appeal to their self-interest.  We have forgotten what it was like to be new.  Nobody joins Toastmasters to be a better speaker.  People seek to communicate effectively because of something they want.  Rhetoric is a means, not the ends.  As such, we need to shape how we present the programme to corporations, to organisations, to groups of people.  And then, we need to believe in their journey, and be there for that, until these people can stand by themselves.  We are not going to charter clubs for the sake fit to fulfill an artificial target.  That is not leadership.  That is being a civil servant.

The immediate goal for the new term is to set the standard we want to achieve, which is to be the absolute best.  This is part of our personal as well as professional branding.  We need to instill this burning desire to be better than the last term, and cultivate a culture of pride in excellence.  The role of the Council is to instill this burning desire to be better than the last term.  Not one step back.  Ever.  We will never settle for mediocrity.  We will never do just enough.  The goal is excellence on all fronts.  I hope you will all join us in that endeavour, and drive us to those heights.  Together.

Quora Answer: Can a Spouse Access an Irrevocable Trust in a Divorce?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Can a spouse access an irrevocable trust in a divorce?”

Unless the spouse had prior access as a trustee of beneficiary, he or she may not access an irrevocable trust.  The irrevocable trust is considered a distinct entity from the settlor of the trust, by law.  This means that even in the event of an extremely acrimonious divorce, it is not possible for the contending party to access the trust, to engage in a process of discovery to ascertain the assets of a trust, or make a claim on it.  This is precisely why wealthy people create trusts.  Trusts also protect assets from claims by creditors, or even a bankruptcy petition.  They mitigate tax exposure, and are an excellent means of squirrelling wealth away, since they may not be compelled to disclose their holdings.

Quora Answer: Is It Illegal to Borrow Something from a Store if You Return It Later?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Is it illegal to borrow something from a store if you later return it?”

The definition of theft is the removal, from rightful ownership or custody, of an object, without the permission of the owner or custodian.  Regardless of the intent to return it, the act of taking it is theft, and therefore, an offence.  Should you later return it, the offence is mitigated, but that does not mitigate the fact that an offence has occurred.  You have to consider, also, that whatever you took, if it was merchandise, is not a used item, and the value has depreciated.  You have already cost the business money.