"Get out of my elite uncaring face?"

OK let me start this post with a quote from a rather unhappy reader who is rather buay-song (pissed off) with Limpeh.

"But the line is crossed when you try to imply that you know more than others, such that you belittle their plight"
.
Well I could quote more from this Barrie, but one sentence is enough for now. Is Limpeh guilty of elitism? After all, in Barrie's words, he can't stand my "air of self-superiority". (Self-righteousness maybe, but self-superiority?) Am I just another version of Wee Shu Min - "Get out of my elite uncaring face?"  Or is elitism vital for our society's survival? Let's talk about this issue today.

I was reminded of something I saw on TV recently - there was a debate on the Channel 4 programme "Ten O'Clock Live" hosted by David Mitchell about elitism in the UK. The crux of the debate was this: the current prime minister David Cameron of the Conservatives went to Eton followed by Oxford. The deputy prime minister Nick Clegg (head of the Liberal Democrats) went to two expensive super snob private schools followed by Cambridge. The current head of the opposition Labour Party Ed Milliband also went to Oxford as well after a very privileged upbringing. So this begs the question: if all three major political parties are headed by posh, rich snobs who either went to Cambridge or Oxford, then how different can they possibly be? Is there a real element of choice for the voter at the ballot box when all we get to choose is which posh, rich, elite snob gets to rule us?

British PM David Cameron

David Mitchell had several guests and one of them was Billy Bragg, a musician and left-wing activist. Bragg complained that none of these rich snobs from any of the parties could possibly relate to ordinary people who never went to university and work in supermarkets, petrol stations, primary schools and post offices all over the country. Bragg preached for a change in the way we approach politics, a fundamental shift of power from politicians to the people, whereby ordinary people would get more say in the way the country was run, what laws were made, how the money was spent etc. 

One of the other guests then pointed out, "Is it so bad that our prime minister was well educated? Do you want someone who is smart to run your country or do you want someone for failed his O levels to by your prime minster?" One of the other guests then mentioned that he had a cleaner whom he respected and appreciated a lot for the good job she does - but he wouldn't want her to be the next prime minister given that her expertise lies in cleaning, not running a government. 

By that token, in the case of Singapore - guess where Lee Kuan Yew was educated? Cambridge. Law. Would you have rather had someone who wasn't an elite like that as a founding father of our nation? Do you think we would've enjoyed this economic miracle that Singapore is so proud about today had our founding father had been say someone more like Seng Han Thong (who can't even bloody speak proper English to begin with and went to a crap university)?

So going back to Barrie's quote - I think he shares the same kind of left-wing ideals that Billy Bragg talked about in that programme. Bragg's left wing Utopia, where everyone had a say and there wasn't an elite who ran the show. Where no one had the right (or the audacity) to try to imply that they knew more than others, where everyone basically acknowledge that they knew no better than the next man in the street and that everyone is essentially equal. 

Really? 

Is every man equal? Now where would Bragg or Barrie get such an idea from? 

Now it could be from an American source - the quote "All men are created equal" is taken from the US declaration of independence: written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Note that this was written after the abolition of slavery - so the concept of equality was very important to the Americans when this was drafted. So yes, in that context, how can one disagree with the sentiment that all men are created equal? 

What does this mean in practice? It means all people have the same rights. Regardless of sex, religion, or race, appearance and/or any other factor. We all have the same rights, and none have more. But does that by logical extension, means that all our opinions are equally valid on any subject from global warming to the credit crunch to funding education to censorship? 

Let's take an issue which I don't know that much about - I don't have children. Recently, there was a discussion in the UK parliament about the levels of background checks that those carers working with children are subjected to - nannies, baby sitters, specialist carers etc. I have never worked as a nanny or baby sitter before either. Should my opinion on the issue be valued as much as say a parent of three children or someone who has worked all her life as a nanny, or at least someone who works with children professionally, like a primary school teacher? Given that I am none of the above, surely it is completely fair for some people to tell me that they know more than me - at least on this issue. And hey, even if they don't want to do so, let me be the first to concede that I don't know much about this issue - so really, I don't even think I should express an opinion on it.

Limpeh's children tend to be cute, cuddly, fury and of the animal variety... no human children please!

This really has nothing to do with how educated I am - rather it is directed related to my personal experience. Academically, well I am brilliant - but an uneducated mother with three kids is far more qualified than me to voice an opinion on the issue than I am in spite of her lack of formal qualifications. If she implied that she knew more than me, I wouldn't object - not at all, for she is totally justified to do so.

Now I know some of my readers are fans of the show The Apprentice and the 2012 UK series is fine full swing at the moment - yay! Now for those of you who aren't familiar with it, here is how it works: there are two teams and they are both given a business-related challenge. There is usually a bit of a power struggle if two people come up with different strategies and both think "your idea is crap, my idea is so much better, if we use my idea we will win, if we use your idea we will sink without a trace."

And of course, Lord Alan Sugar's boardroom is no primary school classroom and Lord Sugar is not a nice primary school children. He won't hesitate to tell people things like, "shut up! I've heard enough! You were totally wrong on this task! You don't know what you're talking about!" But of course, this is Lord Sugar with a business empire worth US$1.14 billion. He knows a thing or two about the business world and you're not going to pull wool over his eyes.

I have been following the show for many series ever since I got involved in the show in 2007 (no lah not as a contestant but I was part of a panel to judge one of the tasks and yes I got to meet Lord Sugar) and it's clear how sometimes someone comes up with a really bad idea and you just wanna scream at the TV - "don't do it! It won't work!" And of course, this is not just an intellectual debate about business ideas - the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Each team needs to win the task and in the losing team, one person will be fired - and it's usually the person who came up with the bad idea who gets fired.

It is especially dramatic in the final stages of the show, when the project manager has to bring back two people into the boardroom for the final showdown, knowing that one of them would have to be told, "You're fired." That is when they try so hard to defend themselves, justify their choices, explain why they did the things they did and some lie, some exaggerate and they do whatever they can do to persuade Lord Sugar to keep them in the process. But at the end of the day, Lord Sugar isn't going to be nice and say that everyone is just as talented or smart - hell no, his job is to fire the weakest of the three. In his own words (see clip below), "I'm not Saint Alan, the patron saint of bloody losers." And to the viewer, it's usually fairly obvious whose fault it is and most of the time, Lord Sugar gets it right.

I know The Apprentice is a reality TV entertainment programme but at the end of the day, it does highlight a few very harsh facts about the business world. Some people are better than others and when you put them to the test, one team will triumph over the other and usually the winners have better ideas, have come up with a better strategy, worked better as a team or a combination of all of the above. One doesn't have the luxury to tell everyone that their opinions are equally valid - hell no. Those who know to win in life and  those who don't know would be told "you're fired". This is no primary school classroom - this is reality of the business world, wake up and smell the coffee. With that in mind, it does really throw Barrie's statement out of the window, straight into the rubbish bin where it belongs. Let's look at his statement again:

"But the line is crossed when you try to imply that you know more than others, such that you belittle their plight"

Really? Limpeh knows a lot about about some things in life and those things which I do know about (eg. working abroad, learning foreign languages, fashion) become topics on my blog. Naturally, I pick topics that I know very well so I can write with authority. I don't know much about keeping cats as pets, so no that's not a topic that you're not going to read on my blog. Nothing against cats, just never had one as a pet and probably never will. Such is the realities of life - we live in a world where some people do know more about others. Those who don't know much shouldn't be silenced, but they know that if they try to talk about a topic that they don't know much about, they will pay the price for coming across as ignorant.

There is a big difference between assuming an air of authority over a topic and being plain unsympathetic. Now I have talked about finding work on my blog and in particular, finding a job in financial services:
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/q-getting-job-in-finance.html
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/q-jobs-in-banking-part-2.html
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/for-peixian-business-world.html
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/finding-that-ideal-job.html

I believe I do speak authoritatively on the topic for the following reasons:

• I have an impressive career history in not one but two industries. 
• At the age of 28, I decided to leave finance to try working in media - hence taking me out of my comfort zone, having to start all over again in a new industry where I was faced with a very steep learning curve. 
• At age 36 now, I have proven myself in both industries in various countries. 

I left the world of finance at 28 to work in media - a big career change.

Now most people embark on a career and stick to it, faithfully climbing that career ladder step by step. In doing what I did at the age of 28, leaving the comfort of a very well paid job to start afresh in a totally unrelated industry, I believe that kind of challenge has made me very sympathetic to someone who say, is made redundant and is forced to look for a new job. Now my regular readers will know that as I have talked about it already - I wasn't after more money, I was after a new experience. I have always wanted to work in media but ended up in finance instead and I thought, if I don't do this now, I'd never do it and I don't want to regret not having the balls to give it a go. 

I probably lost a lot of money, sacrificed a lot of potential earning from finance but I fulfilled a dream to have worked in media not just in London but in so many countries as well. If you think trying to work in a new industry in your hometown is hard, how about doing it halfway around the world, in Istanbul or Prague where you often have to struggle on in a foreign language eh? I fought, I struggled, I worked my fingers to the bone over the years - I'm not some fat cat banker who has never left the comfort of his office, oh no, I've paid my dues in the world of media alright before returning to finance. 

One of the many film sets I worked on in the past...

So for Barrie to try to imply that I don't have the right to imply that I know better than others .... hello, uncle? Do you know who you are talking to, alamak? You think Limpeh is some spoilt brat rich kid who knows nothing? This is why I get so fed up with Barrie and decided to end my discussion with him on the Yale issue by deliberately not publishing his last comment (much to his frustration and he did mention that on his blog) - like I said, hate me by all means, but please know whom you are hating. Don't hate a boogeyman hate figure that you've created in your head to project all your fears, frustrations and disappointments over the years as that's not me. Believe you me, once you get to know me, I'm sure you'll find plenty of things to hate anyway but be fare - hate me for whom I am please. 

Do I belittle the plight of those in Singapore who are facing unemployment because of the large volume of cheap PRC labourers? Again, that's bullshit - he's trying to make me look like some kind of elitist hate figure who is out of touch with what happens on the ground in Singapore. Now my regular readers will know that I have always been pointing the blame squarely the PAP on this issue and have always used the following cartoon to illustrate the situation. 

If anything, I have been reading emails from my readers and often spending quite a lot of time helping them with career and education advice, ranging from those who don't quite know which academic route to take to those who are looking for the best way to get a good job. If trying to give good advice makes me guilty of "implying that I know better than others", then yeah guilty as charged. Why do you think these people came to me for advice in the first place if they didn't think I knew better than them? Duh. Would you go to someone who knew less than you for advice? Double duh. And my regular readers know that I am always helpful and encouraging, particularly to those like Peixian who lack the self-confidence to believe in themselves. Belittle their plight? I'm not the bad guy here - Barrie just wishes I was. Go ahead, have a read of the Peixian series here and you decide if Limpeh is the bad guy. 

http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/for-peixian-business-world.html

http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/peixians-questions-part-2.html

Let me make a calculated guess as to why Barrie made this assertion. Either he believes in a left-wing Utopia where there is no elitism and everyone's opinions are equally valid... Or maybe he dislikes me so he projects a trait onto me which he wishes to be true: "LimpehFT must be stupid." When I try to talk about my scholarships or my university, he brushes that aside and accuses me of bragging, boasting and being arrogant, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that I am obviously not as stupid as he wishes me to be. If I was indeed really that bloody stupid, then I would have no right to imply that I knew better than anyone. Erm... but guess what? Limpeh is actually not that stupid you know? Indeed, even Barrie's own readers point it out to him on his blog here: http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/i-was-right-about-limpeh-fts-air-of.html (Scroll down to the comment section.)

Anonymous said...
"Limpeh is a scholar, star athlete and linguist who speaks multiple languages. And currently a globe trotting corporate high flyer.
And you expect him to see your point of view?
Seriously ... look at at our US/UK trained mandarins and PAP MPs.
To be fair, Limpeh has been pretty honest about his disdain for the masses and he did frame the discussion in such a way that he was always going to win ... Technically speaking."15 April 2012 10:36 PM

Shame this person didn't leave his/her name but I salute him/her - after all, clearly this person doesn't like me, yet s/he is smart enough to stick to the facts and criticize me for my "disdain for the masses" but hey, at least s/he recognizes me to be an elitist who may not see the point of view of someone amongst the masses and you know what? Guilty as charged. But that's quite different from implying that I am so bloody stupid that I have no right to imply that I know better than others. There are another comments on his blog which left me laughing as well:

Anonymous said...
"having read both his entry and yours, I'm afraid you are the one who got it wrong. You are getting personal - why complain abt his "air of superiority" etc when all you have to do is argue his points one by one. Instead you obfuscate the issue and calls him names instead of arguing on facts..which he does..Get a life man!"13 April 2012 8:47 PM

Anonymous said...
""Air of superiority"? Barrie, so far you seem to be the one who is not focusing on the issue by dishing out labels like that on LFT. And your comparison of US to Singapore on human rights is plain wrong. US trumps Singapore overall in terms of freedom of speech, minority rights etc. You are getting carried away with the Muslim discrimination in America by suggesting it is a US government policy. The only such policy relates to racial profiling in security sensitive areas."15 April 2012 3:26 AM

Oh this is all getting quite funny - but I go back to the original argument: we need to find leaders in our midst: business leaders, political leaders, community leaders who do know better than the rest to lead us. My regular readers have seen this graphic several times in my previous posts - it illustrate my point that not all humans are made equal. Okay, it deals with only one aspect: IQ, but my point remains.

Some of us go on to become successful like Lord Alan Sugar, whilst others end up penniless and unemployed like my useless uncle. Why? It boils down to what we have done with our lives since our birth makes us very unequal by the time we get to adulthood. And of course, someone like Lord Sugar has natural business acumen, whilst my uncle has nothing more than mush between his ears.

And if the issue is indeed about 'boasting', then I think one has a dilemma here: if modesty forces us to be silent about any personal qualities or achievements, then it would prevent us from sharing our insight into certain issues. Take for example my recent post where I compared French and Singaporean societies, I had to disclose that I speak French at near-native standard, I have studied in France and have worked for a French company. I felt I had to disclose that because some of these insights into French society can only be gleamed by someone who has lived in France amongst the French, rather than say, a Singaporean who has only visited France on holiday for eight days and speaks no more than eight words in French.

Guess what? All journalists do that - now I read a lot of the financial press everyday. It's boring stuff but I do it for work. I have to know what is going on in my industry - and one of the things I do is I liaise with the financial journalists a lot whenever we have a new product launch. I schmooze them to get them to write about my brand new product so I don't have to spend my marketing budget on advertising and still get some free publicity to raise the profile of my new fund product. Besides, getting a respected journalist to talk about your product is far more effective than splashing out for a glossy ad. So whilst I am not a journalist myself, I happen to watch them quite closely as I read their work in the very specialist area of financial journalism. I usually get anything from 30 to 50 articles emailed to me on a daily basis and I have to blitz my way through all of those articles.

Now financial journalists are always very keen to prove that they're not just some journalist who doesn't know her hedge funds from structured products and probably doesn't know what ETFs are. Now there are some journalists who are indeed like that as they don't have a finance background - but there are some who have worked for a bank or asset management firm for a while before moving into financial journalism and they are not shy about mentioning their background. There is no place for modesty in the hard nosed world of financial journalism, I don't want to waste time trying to explain the basics to a clueless reporter who doesn't know the difference between a SICAV and a SICAV-SIF. I don't want to talk to the reporter who doesn't understand the UCITS IV directive. I want  to deal with a serious reporters, not time-wasters.

So you get the idea - fuck modesty, tell me precisely what your background is, how qualified you are, what a high flier you are and how fucking amazing you are and I'll deal with you. Sorry if that sounds tasteless when I am prepared to throw modesty out of the window along with humility/humbleness into the dustbin. Such is the nature of the circles I roll in. Hey, this is just the soft side of the banking world - the media side of it, but still, people are as hard as nails and I am very much influenced by my environment. I'm sorry if Barrie finds that offensive to his values (which I do respect) but tough. Such is the way of the world and I am a product of this world. By that token, I'm hardly unique.

I read a lot about autism and my regular readers will know that I have a severely autistic nephew. I have even written a few pieces sharing my family's experiences with my nephew:
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/q-autism-at-school-play.html
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/autism-in-singapore-part-2.html
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/singapore-education-system-vs.html

Whilst I am not a medical professional, there's nothing to stop me from sharing my family's story about our struggle with autism because it lends peer support to other families like us coping with a family member who is dealing with autism. Over the years, I have gone online and read so many articles and one of the first things I need to know is this: am I reading an article written by a medical professional or is this simply a family member sharing his/her experiences as a non-medical professional? I need to know, so I know how to interpret what I am reading and I get very frustrated when they are not clear. I'm like, "look if you are just a concerned parent then say so, or if you do have a fucking phD then say so too, but damnit be clear!"

Hence I feel it is totally acceptable to support one's articles with one's credentials. Barrie may find this in really bad taste, but put yourself in my shoes for a moment and imagine you're doing a search for articles on autism and you're faced with so much information and you need to know which ones are most useful? That's just the way I am - I am pragmatic, I would much rather sacrifice humility in order to eradicate doubt and guess what? I'm hardly alone in this aspect - I am merely doing what other professionals do in my industry.

I don't have a problem with people boasting or bragging - believe it or not, it is a risky move that may backfire. If they are willing to take the risk, then let them. I remember being at a party recently when this young lady bragged about being able to speak Spanish and so of course, I started jabbering away in Spanish at this lady (Limpeh is fluent in Spanish), only to expose her as a fraud who only knew a little. But to then try to shoot them down for daring to mention their achievements... that's petty. I say, if they are able to impress and win respect, then good for them - and if they make a fool of themselves in the process, then please go ahead laugh at them.

So what do you think? Have you got an opinion on elitism? Please let me know - leave a comment, you know the drill. Thank you!