Having worked in financial services for many years, I would explain that it is not uncommon to come across openly gay and lesbian people in this industry. One of Deng Xiaoping's sayings comes to mind, "不管黑猫白猫，捉到老鼠就是好猫" ("Regardless of whether it is a black cat or a white cat, as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat.") Most people who work in financial services primarily interested in making money, so they really don't care what your skin colour is or who you are attracted to - it is whether or not you can earn your keep in the company and if you have the right skills to be an asset to the team. I have worked in sales for many years in financial services and boy, it's a ruthless environment. You're only as good as your last month's sales figure and it didn't matter if you were black or white, gay or straight, male or female, fat or thin - as Deng put it, it was catching the mice that mattered and if you could sell, the company would love you and cherish you. If you couldn't sell enough, then they would get rid of you pretty quickly.
 |
| Is this about money or gay rights? |
Thus for companies like Goldman Sachs, they are most interested in hiring the best talent and they realize that talent comes in all shapes and forms - so this is a strategy which matters in a place like Singapore. Not all gay people are talented or of any use to Goldman Sachs - but there are indeed some gay talents who are looking for a gay-friendly environment for them to work in and in presenting themselves as a very gay-friendly employer, a gay Singaporean would definitely prefer working for Goldman Sachs rather than a local Singaporean bank. And there are gay people who are great fund managers, accountants, sales managers, analysts and strategists who can bring great value to Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs want such talents in a competitive market place.
You may think, hang on, surely you're talking about a really tiny niche market here - is it really worth Goldman Sachs to have such a policy just to tap into this small niche market, without actually knowing if there are any gay talents out there who may be able to add great value to the company? You're right - it is an unknown entity they are tapping into - being attracted to members of the same gender doesn't make you any more likely to succeed at anything. There are smart gay people and there are stupid ones, there are eloquent gay people and there are inarticulate ones. However, there is high enough statistical probability that amongst the gay community in Singapore, there might be some talents that are worthy of a job at Goldman Sachs - thus it is an initiative that would usually yield good results.
 |
| What has being gay got to do with investment banking? |
Besides, a huge international company like Goldman Sachs, they do have a global presence with offices in so many countries - this kind of LGBT recruitment schemes have been tried and tested in places like New York, London and Sydney and thus it is a tried and tested formula that has worked before. This is nothing new for them. Whilst this may seem like a novel or controversial concept in Singapore, nobody would even bat an eyelid when they hold a similar event in London. Whilst the number of talented gay individuals recruited into Goldman Sachs through this scheme may be ultimately quite small, I would like to share a chart with you. It's really nothing new but it's worth looking at again.
Yes we can talk about lofty ideals of equality and gay rights - but at the end of the day, Goldman Sachs wouldn't be doing this if they weren't getting something out of it. The positive PR with the liberals in Singapore is just a positive by-product of this policy. But the fact is that in a competitive market place, where all the top banks are competing to hire these top 15% 'game changes', you cannot afford to neglect any section of society where such talent may lie.
 |
| Good HR & PR practices go hand in hand: it is good a company to be gay-friendly. |
Put yourself in the shoes of a diamond miner and you are in an area which has diamonds: you know you can easily find very small diamonds easily but these are not worth as much as a very big one. One huge diamond would be worth more than a pile of tiny diamonds - why? In one word: scarcity. Huge diamonds are extremely rare whilst very small diamonds are common and that's what every diamond miner is dreaming of: finding that one huge diamond. Those in the top 15% 'target hires' are like these huge diamonds to companies like Goldman Sachs, the company acting headhunts such talents. So if someone said to the diamond miner, "hey, have you tried digging over there, on that hill called Mount Gay? Others have found huge diamonds there." Of course the miner would try digging there, because your mission is to find huge diamonds wherever they may lie.
Singapore has a strongly pro-business attitude, this desire for profits has driven the country's economic growth over the years and has turned it into one of the world's richest countries. Thus in this context where the needs of big businesses always come first, companies like Goldman Sachs need to have recruitment policies which enable them to tap into the best talent in order to thrive in this very competitive environment. Whilst Singapore's government remains extremely conservative and refuses to budge on the issue of section 377A, it would be big business organizations like Goldman Sachs who will eventually force the government to back down on this issue in the context of Singapore.
 |
| It will be big businesses that will determine the future of gay rights in Singapore. |
Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing said that while discrimination had "no place in our society", foreign companies should "respect local culture and context" and "not venture into public advocacy for causes that sow discord among Singaporeans". I must say that this makes no sense whatsoever and the minister is talking bullshit. If Goldman Sachs decides to have a gay-friendly stance when it comes to recruiting gay people, then that is a private matter for Goldman Sachs, it has nothing to do with public advocacy at all because this is not a stance that will affect ordinary Singaporeans. This will only affect the employees of Goldman Sachs in Singapore and potentially those who are thinking of applying for a job with Goldman Sachs.
If an individual has a problem with Goldman Sachs being gay friendly and having this pro-gay stance in their HR policies, then I have a simple solution: don't work for Goldman Sachs. There are other companies in Singapore who do not speak up on the issue of equality or gay rights issues at all - go work for them instead. Why is this so hard to understand? It's silly when people complain, "oh my company requires me to work long hours, it's so unfair" and I'm like, "duh, go work for another company that doesn't make such demands on you then if you're really so unhappy about the situation. No one is forcing you to work for this company, it's not like National Service where you have no choice."
 |
| This is an internal affair for Goldman Sachs. |
In the meantime, Goldman Sachs should have the right to have this stance without this ludicrous accusation about sowing discord amongst Singaporeans thrown at them. This is an extremely bad choice of words Mr Chan, because what you said is simply untrue as this is a private, internal matter for Goldman Sachs at the end of the day. If the government is really that uncomfortable with Goldman Sachs, then tell them to get out of Singapore - but will the Singapore government be ready to tell one of the world's biggest investment banks to get out of Singapore over this? No, get real - they are here to stay in Singapore, so Mr Chan needs to be aware about what he is dealing with here. He feels he needs to say something (or risk looking inept) but surely that's when he should have contemplated his words a lot more carefully rather than come up with a ludicrous accusation like that? Heck, I work for a small company and we carefully verify everything we say on our press releases - it is shocking that no one would have double checked the statement issued by Mr Chan. It's just shockingly bad PR at the end of the day and yes we've been here before quite a few times, dare I mention Roy Ngerng again? Will the PAP ever learn?
In any case, Mr Chan actually had the audacity to claim that discrimination had "no place in our society"- yet he then goes right ahead and attacks Goldman Sachs for a pro-equality stance? Talk about contradicting yourself in the same sentence, I'm not even going to to attack him for his homophobic stance here - if you're going to be homophobic, fine, but don't contradict yourself in the same sentence for crying out aloud. Seriously, do these PAP ministers ever get anyone to proofread these statements before they deliver them? Is this just a question of bad speech writing or are they that oblivious to their gaffes? Do they not realize how shockingly bad they are when it comes to any kind of PR?
#Facepalm #Aiyoh #alamak #Bodoh #Goondu #PAPPRDisasterstrikesagain
So there you go, that's it from me on this issue. How do you feel about Goldman Sach's actions or Minister Chan's reaction on the issue? Please do let me know what you think by leaving me a comment below, thanks for reading.
Not surprised at all. A disproportionate of PAP MPs are christians. I believe the figure is somewhere around a third of PAP MPs are christian? The 337a is still being kept to retain the support of conservative Singaporeans which still form a significant portion of the electorate.
ReplyDeleteThe govt cannot do much against these big banking corporation supporting LGBT rights simply because S'pore is a banking hub and these big banks provide jobs for Singaporeans so govt has no choice but to lick their balls.
Not necessarily so - being Christian does not necessarily make you anti-gay or homophobic (or in the case pro S377A). There are Christians who are open minded, progressive and liberal - and of course, there are very conservative Christians who are vehemently anti-gay (and everything in between). You can't just assume that Christian MPs are all homophobic and pro S377A.
DeleteAs for Singaporeans, I say, put it to a poll and let's see just how conservative they really are. Even in the most gay friendly European countries, there will still be some religious people who are vehemently anti-gay, but that's not the point. You need to understand how laws are made - you don't need 100% consensus to pass a law, usually a parliamentary majority would suffice. So in the UK for example, we now have gay marriage and same sex couples can get married and there are some religious people who have kicked up a big fuss over it - but so what? They are in the minority and will just have to accept the will of the majority who want to have gay marriage in the UK. You can't please everyone in the land, so the next best thing is simply to do the right thing.
Towering has a point. Politically-active evangelical Christians are incapable of separating religion and state because their worldview demands them to shape society towards what would please the invisible sky-man. While it's true that many Christians have a live and let live approach towards LGBT persons, the sort who are politically active are vehemently homophobic and will gleefully commit all kinds of PR disasters to slam homosexuality. Their persecution complex is so sadomasochistic that they will take pride and private joy in being ridiculed by the public for their PR disasters, because their ideology declares that if people ridicule them for speaking in the name of God, they must be doing something right. You'll have better luck counselling The Joker and Harley Quinn out of their sociopathy.
DeleteWell then Davin, these politically active evangelical Christians need to wake up and smell the coffee. They risk alienating moderate Christians and non-Christians if they allow their religion to determine the way they behave. In a democracy, you need to win over the majority of people who are voting, not just appeal to those who share your religious beliefs.
DeleteIf these Christians really want to act in this ridiculous manner, then I say, they should stay the hell out of politics and be active in their own church or whatever Christian organisation they can belong to - at least that way, they are not imposing their religious beliefs on non-Christians and they can wax lyrical about the church, jesus, bible yadayadayada etc all that all day.
This is why it is so important to have a secular society - where we separate religion and law, because these christians sure as hell are not going to impose their religious views on militant atheists like me who definitely do not believe in any form of religion.
PS. Like ex-smokers who are vehemently anti-smoking, I am an ex-Christian who knows only too well what I am rejecting.
As a fellow former Christian, I'm sure you know all too well that "waking up and smelling the coffee" is something politically-active evangelical Christians are utterly incapable of. You can't explain the notion of winning over the "worldly" society to them when they're completely invested in the idea that they are the special ones who will be saved and favored by Jesus, whereas the other "worldly" people will all burn in hell. Why would they care about the opinions of unbelievers except to proselytize to them and convince all unbelievers to gobble up the Gospel of Christ? You express dismay that they can't separate religion and law because they have absolutely no concept of it. Christianity to them is not a religion - it's an emotional relationship that they're utterly invested in and there is no difference in the affairs of the church and the affairs of the state. It's through this conviction that there are people like Thio Su-Mien who pretend to be "feminist mentors" and tried to execute a hostile takeover of AWARE because they believe AWARE is pushing an exclusively lesbian agenda.
DeleteI'm sorry, but I'll have to touch on the persecution complex again. The sort of evangelical Christianity who are politically active immerse themselves in an us-vs-them mentality of the righteous Christlike children of God versus the worldly legions of sin. They abhor worldly concepts like evolution and the woman's freedom of choice to abortion because they believe these ideas are products of Satan for the sole purpose of testing their faith. They think it's some kind of spiritual warfare and you will hear them rant away about how it's a war over their souls. They wax lyrical about the church, Jesus and the Bible because modern philosophy, modern ethics, modern science and modern attitudes are all tools of Satan to them.
Back to the point about Christians who have infiltrated the PAP government. It isn't untrue that the ranks of the civil service and legislature are chock-full of evangelical Christians who are utterly convinced that they're doing God's work by imposing their Christian values on society. It's because of them that films receive ludicrous amounts of censorship. It's because of them that A-Mei was ordered not to sing about gay love at a music festival. It's because of them that ineffective sex education stressing on abstinence is dished out to children. It's because of them that factual information about being LGBT was vehemently protested in public. It's because of them that Christian values get to have their day in Parliament and nobody bats an eye because there is an increasing proportion of the Chinese elite who buy into God's blessing = material wealth on earth.
Yup, I can only shake my head in despair and agree with you.
DeleteLet's compare this to the CHC/Kong Hee situation. At least Kong Hee is in an environment where he is not imposing his doctrine on people who are not Christians, they choose to go to CHC and whilst you may not agree with his doctrine, at least he is doing it within the confines of a church and not trying to do it to the general public.
I respect the rights of individuals to decide what they want for themselves - such as choosing to go to CHC if that is what they want, but I draw the line at people trying to impose their religious standards on me.
This is one of the times when I wish I didn't pull off all the crazy and stupid shit I did when I was younger i.e. piss into someone's locker and set fire to it while at ACS, setting up a completely and abhorrently offensive website when I was 13, performed all that amount of trolling in the forums of Hardwarezone etc. I would have easily joined a political party and run for MP without all that dirt that is going to be readily dug up on me.
DeleteI've had way too many professors in Yankeeland who tell me that I'd be fantastic in Congress, but heaven knows I have so much dirt on me I'd make an impossible candidate.
You know, Limpeh, you really should consider the trustworthiness of your sources before agreeing with them. Somehow, I don't think a source knows very much about either the civil service or legislature if it talks about the proportion of Christian public servants without also talking about the proportion of non-heterosexual public servants. Indeed, it would be worth thinking about the influence the Dunning-Kruger effect has on how strongly one asserts a position.
DeleteHi LIFT,
ReplyDeleteI think CCS was trying to placate a substantial number of ultra-conservative S'poreans who are homophobic (in my opinion, out-of-syn with the rest of the developed world). As you said, SG cannot afford to lose these big banks. I recall LKY himself saying S'poreans have to accept that some CEOs of MNCs in SG are LGBT.
I would say the west wasn't as LGBT-friendly, say 10 yrs ago. John Browne, a highly-regarded former CEO of BP, had to resign in 2007, when news of his sexual orientation was revealed to the media.
Hi el28, thanks for your comment but I must correct you on the John Browne case - he stepped down because he had committed perjury (lying in court) over the way he met his ex-boyfriend (who was a prostitute, he met his ex through a website for gay escorts). His ex threatened to do "spill the beans" and it was under that pressure that Browne stepped down.
DeleteThus it was not his sexuality per se, but his dishonesty - perjury (lying in court) is a criminal offence, had his ex been a female prostitute rather than a male prostitute, he would have been forced to step down as well. He was lucky he didn't end up in jail for the charge of perjury.
What John Browne did was wrong of course - but please don't misrepresent the facts to make it sound as if he was a victim of homophobia when clearly, he was not. He was made mistakes, he was dishonest and he had no one to blame but himself.
As for Mr Chan trying to placate the conservatives, no excuses - #epicPRfail. The bottom line is that you ought not contradict yourself in the same sentence regardless of whom you're trying to placate or please. Don't make the claim that discrimination has no place in Singaporean society and then attack GS for being pro-equality in the same sentence. If he wanted to placate the conservatives, then just make a downright homophobic statement and condemn GS. Now, he's only made himself look bloody stupid in contradicting himself like that.
DeleteLike seriously, do these ministers ever get anyone to proof-read these statements where they so blatantly contradict themselves? #Aiyoh
Hi Limpeh,
DeleteThanks for correcting me - I got my facts wrong. I've just read the Wikipedia on John Browne. Wow, he's lucky, he wasn't imprisoned for perjury.
I agree with your statement about CCS being self-contradictory (he probably hasn't realised it, and sadly many S'poreans won't as well). These ministers have made so many blunders in their speeches, they need a PR person to proofread everything before they open mouths.
Hi LIFT, perhaps you have underestimated the degree of demigodic status given to Singapore ministers. When you have such a compliant mainstream media and bunch of bootlickers from PA dying to lap up every single word, boy they become really deluded that whatever they touch will turn gold, whatever they far will smell good and whatever they say will be canonised. Thats the degree of croniness us folks are used to seeing and you won't believe how often my folks and myself have facepalmed ourselves seeing the sort of faux pas our leaders can say in public which would have landed them in ridicule say in Taiwan or Australia where I used to live.
DeleteSo yah, I think the state of bad PR and stupid public statements is these folks are so well shielded from public backlash by our lapdog media they simply are in a different stratosphere of delusion. No prizes for guessing if they can ever survive outside Singapore ithoutthe entire entourage.
Hi el28, yeah John Browne made many mistakes and only had himself to blame at the end of the day for lying/perjury etc - he was using the services of escorts/prostitutes yet he wanted to give the image that he was squeaky clean. That was what brought his downfall - the lies and had he been a straight man using the services of female prostitutes, the same thing would have happened.
DeleteAnd Shane, yeah #facepalm #aiyoh ref: bad PR. Good grief. They have no need for good PR when the situation is as you've described Shane.
Good for Goldman Sachs. As a Catholic, I am much less concern about an event like this than about the fact that the government deemed it right to control a company taking a stand.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality is a hot button topic and where the PAP can reliably count on a majority support from Singaporeans. In light of the fallout from the CPF debacle, this could just be a cynical attempt at shoring up their support base.
ReplyDeleteIf this was an attempt at shoring up their support base, then it has failed. It didn't go far enough to appease the anti-gay lobby who would have wanted to see the government do a lot more in response to Goldman Sachs going ahead with this event: all they got was a lame-ass statement that contradicted itself in an incoherent manner. That's fucking pathetic - that's a PR gaffe on an epic scale, that's such a pathetic PR disaster that only the idiots at PAP are capable of, no one else can fuck up on this scale when it comes to PR I swear.
DeleteSo even if this was an attempt at shoring up their support base by turning against gays, guess what? They failed, like epic fail! You think the anti-gay lobby is so easily pleased, they are probably just as pissed off: they're probably saying, "Goldman Sachs holds a gay event and the best the government can do is issue a lame-ass statement that contradicts itself in the same sentence? How useless and stupid is that? What kind of pathetic lousy stupid response is this?"
Duh. PAP does NOT understand PR at all. #epicfail
Shoring up support? Please even though i am a heterosexual I strongly support equal rights and would never support a party that deems male homosexuals illegals but females perfectly ok.
DeleteThank you Choaniki :)
DeleteAgreed. PAP is totally clueless when it comes to PR, and only a matter of time before they commit the next PR gaffe.
DeleteLike choaniki, I believe in equal rights for all. PAP is doing a political juggling act. Pandering to the right, while trying to be progressive and liberal.
Good article.
ReplyDeleteFound another article that try to fight against it by wearing white to fight against the pink dot.
The link is below:
http://therealsingapore.com/content/alfian-saat-my-analysis-wear-white-campaign-against-pink-dot-2014
Hi Limpeh, if a degree is not important as you claim, how do one get an interview for a job in the financial services? Any other ways a candidate can prove themselves without getting a degree?
ReplyDeleteHi LOF, good question there but a complex question indeed. Not sure I can do it justice here (I may need a full blog post) but I will try, okay?
DeleteJobs in the top banks (and other companies in the financial services sector) are highly sought after and for every one job that gets advertised, they will get hundreds of applicants. Amongst those hundreds of applicants will include some from very good universities and some from so-so universities (and some without a degree). Now every company will have a different way of sorting out a huge pile of applicants. There is no one-size fits all rule.
Some companies will automatically reject applicants without a degree or have not come from a good university. Others look for other aspects such as work experience and other relevant skills that the applicant may have displayed through other aspects of his/her life (you'll be amazed how my achievement in sports have gotten me more interviews than my degree). A lot of it really depends on the gatekeeper and how s/he chooses to perform this role.
Say if a gatekeeper gets 10 applicants for the job, then the gatekeeper has the luxury of reading each CV in detail and considering all aspects of every candidate's strengths and weaknesses, maybe even inviting all 10 applicants to an interview to see what they're like in person.
But if the gatekeeper receives 100 CVs for that one position (and the company is currently advertising for 5 positions to be filled), then the poor gatekeeper cannot possibly read all 500 CVs, let alone interview 500 people. Something has got to give and so they will start rejecting people for the following arbitrary reasons:
- lack of relevant work experience
- lack of relevant skill training
- lack of relevant degree
- went to a crap/so-so university
- or simply, nothing special, bland, boring compared to the more outstanding candidates
It really depends on how fierce the competition is and if it is a good job with a good company (with a generous pay package) - I can guarantee you that the competition will be fierce. If it's a less attractive job with a small company, that's when they will get less applicants and the gatekeeper will spend more time reading your CVs and you will have a greater chance to get that interview.
There are many ways to prove yourself via soft skills - I have blogged about this aspect of 'soft skills' already and I refer you to these posts:
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/facing-up-to-cheaper-foreign.html
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/lets-talk-about-soft-skills-again.html
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/soft-skills-universities-and-bad-advice.html
So let me conclude by suggesting this: say you don't have a degree from a top university, how do you make sure your CV even gets read in the first place then? Well, go for jobs that you do have a chance of getting - start off somewhere like a SME, a smaller company is far more likely to receive 10 applicants rather than 1000 applicants or that one job. Prove yourself there, gain the relevant work experience in a real working environment before you try to apply for a job with a big bank or one of the big players in the financial services - that way, at least you're using your work experience to get the gatekeeper to sit up and take notice of you, rather than your academic prowess. Personally, as a gatekeeper myself, I always view relevant work experience as far more valuable than a good degree because it demonstrates that the candidate has proven himself in the real world - someone has been willing to pay this person good money to work for them, that means this person is tried & tested in the real world. A good degree shows that you're smart, sure - but you're still an untested entity until you get the relevant work experience.
No simple solutions here, but I hope this helped.
Thank you!
DeleteYou're welcome - that was a good question. I may expand it into a full blog post at some stage.
Delete