Thursday 8 June 2017

Bad bosses, cheap labour & cutting corners: who do you blame?

Hi guys, a topic on a lighter note for today. There has been much discussion on one of my recent articles about working for bad bosses and I am going to talk about bad bosses today. I'm in my 40s, I've been in the working world long enough to have worked for both good and bad bosses - especially since I had been self-employed for many years, that means going from contract to contract, working for different companies and experiencing a much bigger number of bosses and management styles in different countries compared to most people who just stick to one job at a time. Indeed, I have had both good and bad experiences and on top of that, I've also been in a position where I've had to manage staff myself, so I do wonder what people who have worked under me have to say about my management style. Are bad bosses simply irrational and very stupid people or is there a method to their madness?
Why are people surprised that there are bad bosses? 

I'm not at all surprised that there are bad bosses out there - what surprises me however is the fact that people can actually be shocked that there are bad bosses out there! Just because you are in a position to hire or manage someone doesn't automatically mean that you will adhere to some kind of moral code to make you a good boss. Think about it - you need to pass a driving test before you are allowed to get behind the wheel of a car and drive on your own, but do you need to pass a test to get some kind of parenting license before you're allowed to make a baby? Hell no, that's why we have some pretty terrible parents out there who are completely unprepared and unable to fulfill their roles are parents, clueless about parenting. Likewise anyone can hire an employee - there's no test required to become an employer. There are employment laws in each country which protects the rights of the employees of course - the same way there are laws to protect the rights of children, but these laws do not demand bosses and parents to be "good" by any definition, it just draws a line at where their conduct is so bad it becomes a criminal offence. Take something like nepotism or favourtism for example: if a parent favours one child over another unfairly, or if a sleazy boss favours the pretty, young lady over the fat, bald guy, it isn't illegal per se. Immoral perhaps, but definitely not illegal. The law only extends that far; we're adults after all and left on our own to resolve such situations.

Why do people have such faith in 'the system'?

In Singapore especially, the population is genuinely law-abiding and there is an aspect of our culture whereby citizens always trust figures in authority. Citizens are expected to follow the law and trust he government, students are expected to obey their teachers in school and do as they are told, children are expected to listen to their parents and be filial. All that would work well to deliver a very orderly society if those in charge: the government, teachers, parents etc are all benevolent and can be trusted to take good care of those in their charge. I suppose Singaporeans want to believe that bosses would generally be benevolent - that they would take good care of their workers in return for their loyalty and hard work. Well, at least that's how the system is supposed to work in principle. I suppose if you really trusted the system wholeheartedly, you'll sleep better at night knowing that everything will be alright. I grew extremely cynical of this from a young age as my parents were teachers and they were both terrible parents and teachers because they were both severely autistic. Please note that there isn't an element of blame on my part, I accept that things were bad as a result of their disability but it doesn't change the fact that I grew up with little faith and trust of people in positions of authority. It is a double edge sword as I was far more prepared to deal with the harsh reality.
What if figures in authority are untrustworthy, flawed or unreliable?

What is a good boss then? 

A good boss is basically someone who has good business sense to defend profits: when you have a good worker in the company, a good boss will realize that it is necessary to take good care of this good worker so s/he doesn't get a better offer from a rival company and take all those skills, training and experience to a rival company. Not only would a good boss make sure good workers are paid what they are worth, but also that they are treated well, are kept happy with perks at work so they will not think about leaving. A good boss would also spot workers who are not pulling their weight and they can either try to rectify the situation with the worker in question or get rid of that dead weight altogether. Companies do spend a lot of time, money and resources training staff up to do their work well, so a good boss needs to ensure that these resources are not wasted on incompetent staff who keep making stupid mistakes, you also want to make sure that you do spend a lot of money and resources training up your most talented, valued staff, only for them to leave you to go work for a rival company because you have treated them badly or unfairly. Thus it is this management of human resources that is key to being a good boss:  big companies can have a dedicated HR department to handle this important issue but in smaller companies, this is simply handled by the bosses.

So what is a bad boss then? 

Now we know what a good boss is, we simply look at the opposite of what a good boss does. A bad boss would fail to recognize when workers are doing well - this can cause problems because you don't want to remove any incentive for workers to excel in their job. If the boss fails to take notice whether you have done well or not, then you may think, "why bother putting in the extra effort if the boss doesn't care either way?" This effects the overall morale of the work environment and eventually people get by with doing as little as possible, since they have no incentive to try harder. Likewise, a bad boss allows incompetent workers to get away with mistakes - I don't mean to say that the boss must 'punish' anyone who makes a mistake, but rather the boss should always address the situation: so for example, if a new worker makes a mistake because of inexperience handling a kind of procedure, then a good response could be, "okay, this is clearly an issue that we need to address through additional training, so let's review of training procedures to make sure the worker will be able to handle this kind of situation in the future and avoid such mistakes happening ever again." And of course, if the fault clearly lies with the worker, then good boss would never let the worker 'get away with it' whilst a bad boss may ignore the problem which may occur again and again if left unresolved. A good boss would lead by example, a bad boss would do all kinds of irrational stupid shit that would lose him the respect of others.
Do you have a boss who leads by example?

So is a good boss always on the side of the workers? 

Not necessarily so. The boss owes his loyalty not to the workers but to the company and his primarily responsibility is to ensure that the workers deliver, that productivity is high and that everyone does the jobs they are paid to carry out. Sometimes taking the side of the worker can be the wrong thing to do - let me give you an example. I once dealt with this company some time back - we were looking at the possibility of using their services when this woman (quite a low level clerical staff - let's call her 'Kelly') made a mistake. First she told me that they were happy to give me a sample for free as a gesture of goodwill, then she said no no we have to charge you for it, then finally she said, no we cannot give you a sample without taking an order. Whilst messing me around like that, she made me fill up numerous forms for this sample (that was supposed to be free, but then I was happy to pay a modest amount of money for) - you get the idea. Some companies are willing to give out free samples as long as you give them all your details, so they may follow up and then sell you something eventually. At the end of the process, I went to one of the directors (let's call him Zac) to complain about the way I had been treated by Kelly. The moment I mentioned her name, Zac immediately starting telling me what a fine worker she was, how she never gave him any problems - that was before I had even told him what she did. It was impossible to even explain why I was unhappy with what Kelly did - I felt he was way too defensive.

So I remembered I had spoken to another woman in that company before - let's call her Laura. I called her up and calmly explained to her what Kelly did and what Zac's reaction was. Laura immediately apologized on behalf of the company (to which I said, "this has nothing to do with you, you have nothing to be sorry about") and then she explained that Zac is Kelly's line manager, it is his job to make sure she doesn't make stupid mistakes like that. If Kelly makes a mistake like that, then it reflects badly on Zac and that was probably why he got defensive. She also explained that both Zac and Kelly have been working very long hours to meet a deadline for a major project, which may go someway to explain why Kelly made a stupid mistake and Zac was especially irritable. I said I wasn't even thinking of 'blaming' Kelly's manager for her mistake - the simple response would be to acknowledge the complaint and then address it through training. In refusing to even listen to me, Zac had not only missed an opportunity to address Kelly's mistake (leaving the possibility of her making the same mistake again in the future), he also lost a customer: me. I simply didn't have faith in a company where the staff are more keen to defend their record rather than address their mistakes. Zac may have 'stood up' for Kelly - but was he a good boss? In my opinion, no, he wasn't. There is a time to stand up for your workers but under no circumstances can you defend the indefensible: after all, Kelly did make a mistake, you can't defend that. Even Laura thought Zac's reaction was completely inappropriate.
What about companies who hire cheaper staff from abroad rather than pay more for the best workers?

Well, companies that do that will usually offer an inferior product. You can't hire workers who will do the same job for less money and expect the same quality when it comes to the results - are you willing to make that compromise just to save some money? Some companies will say yes to that and I have a good example from my childhood in Singapore. In the hawker center near my parents' home in Ang Mo Kio, there were two hawkers selling curry puffs: let's call them auntie Amy and Uncle Ben. Auntie Amy made beautiful curry puffs and you could expect chunks of succulent chicken meat along with a generous wedge of hard boiled egg in every freshly made curry puff. Even her pastry was especially fragrant as she used top quality butter for her curry puff pastry. In contrast, Uncle Ben would cut corners: his curry puffs contained only curried potatoes - no meat, no egg. Instead of using butter in his pastry, he used vegetable cooking oil as that was cheaper. His curry puffs were also slightly smaller than Auntie Amy's gourmet, jumbo curry puffs - that meant that he only charged 50 cents for each of his curry puffs whilst Auntie Amy charged $1 for each of hers. The two curry puffs were of vastly different quality - if you wanted a better curry puff and don't mind paying a bit more, then of course you would go to Auntie Amy. But what if you were buying snacks to feed say your colleagues and you really just want the cheapest option? Then you went to Uncle Ben: so when the local primary school had a party and needed curry puffs as part of the catering, they always got it from Uncle Ben. Even Uncle Ben would admit that Auntie Amy's delicious curry puffs are better than his, but he isn't trying to compete with her on quality - just price.
Auntie Amy vs Uncle Ben: different strokes for different folks

There is indeed a place for companies who do follow Uncle Ben's business model. Take hotels for example: you can stay in a luxurious five star hotel and enjoy excellent service, but only if you're prepared to pay hundreds of dollars a night there. If you go to a more basic one or two star hotel, the service you get there is going to be much poorer but you spend a lot less money there. The budget hotels get to save money by spending far less on hiring highly trained staff - they are the kind of companies that will gladly hire foreigners who will do the work for a lot less money; sure quality gets compromised in the process, but so what? Their customers are looking for bargains and will gladly overlook the poor service, scratches on the mirror or the slightly torn bed sheets. In short, you get what you pay for - nobody can go to a one-star hotel and expect five-star quality, that simply isn't being reasonable at all. Thus by that token, is your employer offering a five-star quality service or the one-star budget option? Are they following auntie Amy or uncle Ben's business model? What are your expectations, what kind of environment would you prefer to work in?

Case study: a bad pizza in Rome?

When I visited Rome two years ago, the guy who ran the guesthouse where I was staying warned me to stay away from the restaurants which were right next to the main attractions like the Colosseum, the Pantheon, the Roman Forum and the Trevi Fountain. A large volume of tourists pass through these famous attractions on a daily basis, so these restaurants rarely ever do repeat business. So these restaurants can afford to cut corners both in terms of the quality of the food and service, knowing even if the tourist is very happy with his experience, he is probably never going to return anyway. He recommended the restaurants in a more residential neighbourhood where the restaurants do rely on repeat business from the locals clients. But I could see his point: you were to open a restaurant which was going to rely primarily on the tourist trade, why would you bother using a more expensive brand of cheese or wine, knowing that you're rarely ever going to do any repeat business anyway? The temptation is definitely there to increase profit margins by cutting corners and these restaurants do get away with it. There is also very little incentive for them to try harder. In contrast, a restaurant in a residential neighbourhood dependent on repeat business would never get away with cutting corners, of course and I was told to only eat in places where I can see a lot of locals. So within the right context, there's nothing wrong with Uncle Ben's business model of cutting corners as it does maximize profits.
What kind of company do you want to work for? 

Uncle Ben's business model really isn't that hard to understand: a company can cut costs by using inferior ingredients and/or by hiring cheaper staff who are less competent but are willing to accept lower pay and worse working conditions, the product produced will be of inferior quality, but there's a section of the population who are more than happy to settle for an inferior product as long as they can pay less for it. That is why we have a range of hotels from super luxurious five star hotels to very basic one-star hostels (and everything in between). So if you want to know what your employer's business model is, simply look at how they price their products: do they take pride in providing a superior product that may cost a lot more than their competitors, or are they trying to capture a section of the market that is price conscious and looking for bargains? Let's take bicycles for example: in the UK you can get a very basic bicycle for around £50 to £60 (even less if you are willing to buy second hand) whilst high end bicycles can cost as much as £10,000. Say if you want to go work for a bicycle shop, then take note of the prices of the bikes in the shop - are they high end or low end? A shop stocking high end shops would be probably more likely to hire quality sales and technical staff to service the clients who are spending a lot of money on their bikes, whilst a shop offering super cheap bargains are probably operating on such thin margins that they will simply hire the cheapest staff to work in their shops. But what kind of customer service can you realistically expect if you are buying the cheapest bike in town?

What are you worth to your employers? 

Okay so you have identified a company that provides a premium, quality product for their customers, they don't come cheap - in all probability, they will be more than happy to pay good money to hire the best staff to make their quality products and/or provide an excellent service. The same way an expensive, classy restaurant would only say buy the finest, freshest ingredients for their kitchens, how are you going to convince the gatekeepers at these organisations that you are amongst the best in your cohort, that you are indeed the crème de la crème amongst your peers - that you deserve to be paid more than your competition? Do you have a CV that is stunning and impressive? Well, allow me to speak as a gatekeeper then and I will be blunt: if I see a mediocre CV, then I would think, "nothing wrong with you, but you're just not good enough. I'm looking for someone exceptional, not just plain average. Go work for an average company where they will hire average people like to to provide cheap goods and/or services. Please don't take this personally. You won't fit into a company like ours. I expect to be impressed when I read a CV and you failed." If you have made some poor decisions and squandered your student years, then there's an awfully heavy price to pay when you are applying for jobs. You reap what you sow, if you have nothing but a sorry record to show on your CV, then you will only be good as cheap labour for companies that cut corners to provide an inferior product/service.
What are you worth to your bosses?

Your nationality really doesn't matter for the top white collar jobs. 

There are two Polish guys at my gym who work for Google - they are both quite senior IT engineers and are paid substantially more than their British counterparts in the IT industry because they are just so incredibly good at their jobs. When you are that highly skilled, you don't need to try to undercut the market by accepting a lower pay - no, you go to a company like Google and demand an extremely high salary because you're simply the best in the business. In today's job market, you shouldn't have to rely on your nationality to somehow protect you from foreign competition - be it from the most brilliant brains from abroad or workers from third worker countries willing to do the same job for less money. You can't expect your government to somehow protect you from the realities of competition in the job market - the best you can do is to find your niche, become an expert so you would be able to face up to any kind of competition the market can throw at you. And if you're less productive than some ill-qualified worker from a third world country without any relevant experience, than oh boy, you're really shit and deserve to be treated as such in the business world. I hate it when young people have this sense of entitlement when it comes to good jobs - nobody owes you anything, it is up to you prove to your employers that you're indeed worthy of the job. Don't blame bad management when your job gets outsourced to China or India, blame yourself. Such is the harsh reality of the working world.

A funny story to finish with. 

Okay, let me end with a funny story: so my friend Maria applied for a job with a small company but she had her doubts - are they going to be a good company to work for? They are a new company and don't have much of a track record. So she came to me for help and I tried to do my research but with a new company there just wasn't much info out there. I tried a different technique - nobody in this company knows me, so I pretended to be a headhunter and called up some of the people who were at this company (they listed their details on Linkedin). As a gatekeeper, I knew exactly what buttons to press and I said that a rival company was expanding into London and would be interested in taking a look at their CVs, were they look for a new job or are they happy where they are? Out of the four people I approached, three told me that they were flattered but didn't want to change jobs as they were very happily where they were. Only one guy told me that he'd leave if the money was right - which was a fair point, everyone has their price. But it does look like these guys were all pretty content where they were, I then asked them why they were not interested in the exciting new opportunity and they all gave me the same reply: their boss is very good and takes great care of them, it is rare to find such a good boss in the business world. So I was able to go back to Maria and told her that she should go for this job as it was a superb (albeit somewhat young) company. My friend Greg found himself in a similar position a few months later and I pulled the same trick - this time all five of the people I spoke to were desperate to leave and I almost felt bad giving them false hope. And what was their reason? Bad management, bad bosses. They were all desperately unhappy there, goodness me. I warned Greg to stay away from that company.
Is your company a happy place to work?

So there you go, in conclusion, I don't think bosses are so irrational that they would deliberately sabotage their businesses by hiring incompetent but cheaper workers from abroad. There is a method to their madness - from uncle Ben's plain curry puffs to the bad restaurants in central Rome - there are times in the business world where cutting corners, using the cheapest ingredients and hiring the cheapest staff does make sense and will help maximize profits. And if you do realize that the company has bad management, then why would you want to work for a company like that? I certainly wouldn't! But if the only kind of companies that will hire you are companies who are looking to cut corners by hiring the cheapest staff who will accept much lower pay, then I have to point the finger at blame at you and point out that highly qualified, highly skilled people don't have that problem - only mediocre, below average people get treated as just cheap labour in this competitive environment. What do you think? Is there a place for companies that follow Uncle Ben's "corner cutting" business model? Would you work for a company like that? What have your experiences been working for different kinds of bosses and companies? Leave a comment below, thanks for reading.

24 comments:

  1. I feel you are missing out one point. What if your previously good company got bought out by a private equity or competitor who is just looking to raid the reserves and/or maximise profits?

    Your Auntie May previously was able to produce quality products but then she was bought out by Rotitalk group and they cut the quality and size of the curry puff but are banking on the Auntie May brand to bring back repeat customers.

    My previous Japanese company bought out their European competitor and started making some "changes" and you wouldn't believe how many people left or were forced to leave after that. Now for some background info, this European company was a business unit spinoff from another UK company that had been previously bought out by an American private equity company. Most of the staff remained behind and continued to grow since the private equity company left them alone. One of the staff, who later became my boss, already went through 2 changes company name changes. For reasons unknown to me, he was later forced to leave by the Japanese board. Actually from my last count almost all the IT staff from Europe (except for one senior administrator) had already left not long after the buyout by the Japanese company.

    So sometimes due to politics staff could be forced to leave and it has absolutely nothing to do with good or bad bosses or companies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Choaniki, in 2017, no one can expect the world to stay exactly the same without any changes happening. Management will change, old bosses will retire and let new ones take over. We have to constantly adapt to the changing circumstances that the world throws at us, maybe your company is a good place to work today but if it turns bad, then it is quite simply time to move on and change jobs. There's no point, nothing to be gained by throwing a tantrum to accuse bad bosses of not being fair - it won't change anything, all you can do is move on to greener pastures.

      In Auntie AMY (not May, I called them auntie Amy and uncle Ben because I had originally written it as auntie A and uncle B), say some company buys her out and her curry puffs diminish in size and quality - do you think her clients are going to gladly pay the same price for a much worse curry puff? Would you? I wouldn't. Why should I? If she expects me to pay the same price for a worse curry puff, hahaha, then she'll lose me as a customer. No way. The parent company may decide as a strategy to create a 'budget' rather than a 'premium' product and that's fine, but don't expect customers to pay premium prices for a budget product. We're not stupid.

      As for your case, shit happens - there was a take over, either adapt to the new circumstances or leave. The latter, leaving, seems like the most sensible and rational option, which is why so many people took that route. I am surprised at your statement because I don't think that most people in this day and age are desperate to hold on to their jobs regardless of the circumstances - most of us are happy to move on to greener pastures if things change for the worse. If the management decides to raid the reserves - then leave. But you can't always maximize profits by cutting corners - it is not as straight forward as that. It is a very shortsighted approach to a complex issue - cutting corners = an inferior product = piss off some old customers whilst gaining new ones looking for a bargain. The only way to make money from the cutting corners approach is to produce a budget product, LOWER your prices, attract new customers who want a lelong lelong bargain - but that's changing the whole business model altogether.

      Simply cutting corners without lowering your price is commercial suicide, business 101. Everyone knows that. Don't piss off your customers when you're not so unique they can't just dump you and go take their business elsewhere.

      Delete
    2. @LIFT I read Amy as May, maybe too much UK election news overload.

      I am not bitter or fingerpointing when I made my previous post. Hey I was the first to jump ship from my IT team! I'm merely stating facts.

      And businesses cutting corners once they have established their brand happens more often than you think in Singapore. Not sure how it is in the UK though. But high rental prices could be a major factor why big brands cost cut. Again not trying to play the blame game but listing facts.

      Delete
    3. @Choaniki, we don't have a crystal ball, we are not able to predict the future but we must be prepared for changes as they come. All we can do is adapt to the new circumstances presented before us rather than go into denial mode as the world changes around us.

      As for businesses cutting corners - I think that depends on one thing: competition. If you are say, the only hotel in a small town and the nearest competition is 20 km away, then you can cut corners all you want and tell the guests to bugger off 20 km down the road to the next hotel if they are not happy. But compare this to a street in Caernarfon where I visited some years ago - there's one street facing the seafront with great views of the beach. It is full of guesthouses/B&Bs/hotels etc. If you tell your guests to bugger off, they're on a street full of options to choose from. In that case, you probably would think twice about driving your customers right into the hands of your competitors next door. In this context, cutting corners would be commercial suicide if you're the only one who does so and your competitors don't.

      Likewise in the simple curry puffs analogy, if the quality of your curry puffs go down the drain and there are say 5 hawker stalls selling curry puffs in the hawker center, guess what? Your (ex)customers are just going to flee to your competition once they realize you're cutting corners. Like I said, this is not rocket science: customers are not stupid.

      So if you are in a niche market or you have no direct competitors, then yeah by all means, cut corners and save money to maximize your profits. But if you have a lot of competition, then cutting corners (when your direct competitors don't) is just plain commercial suicide. You didn't give enough details about what you meant when you talked about established companies cutting corners, but all I can say is that if they are dumb enough to commit commercial harakiri, then they deserve to lose customers and go bust. I certainly don't think Singaporean customers are dumb enough to be fooled by these companies who cut corners.

      There is a huge difference between cutting corners to provide a low-cost, cheaper alternative to cost-conscious customers and trying to short-change your customers by providing an inferior product whilst charging a premium price. Like I said, customers are not stupid.

      Delete
    4. @Choaniki I'm curious to find out why you have so little faith in Singaporean consumers/customers, that they'll allow themselves to be screwed by companies who cut corners. It is one thing to choose to stay in a one-star hostel if you are genuinely looking for a cheap option, but who would pay five-star prices to stay in a terrible hotel who cut corners at every available opportunity? Especially if you have competitors out there who do what you do - cutting corners, if poorly executed, is indeed commercial suicide.

      Delete
  2. @choaniki
    Good point. Case study: HungryGoWhere got acquired by Singtel and their dev-team all left en-massed, leaving behind the site/service.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Any thoughts on the UK election results and what is likely to happen now that parliament is hung?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am taken by surprise - I thought it would be close but the polls got it wrong again (the polls have been terrible: Brexit, Trump, now May's hung parliament). No idea. Everyone's talking about it. May could have an unholy alliance with the DUP to get the numbers, the parties on the left don't have enough seats to form a working coalition. I don't know - all I know is that if I knew this was happening, I would've bought some Euros yesterday. I'm flying off to Riga today with the £ having fallen 1.5% against the Euro.

      Delete
  4. This post makes me want to eat curry puffs. Maybe even attempt to make my own curry puffs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think curry puffs are overrated lah. I don't really miss them. Old Chang Kee did do a pop up in London recently and it was just down the road from me so I went, but when I was told there was a 1.5 hour wait, I gave up.

      Delete
    2. Plenty of other tasty pastries to choose from i bet!

      Delete
    3. When curry puffs are good they can be very nice, but if they're not good then they're meh. Especially if they are just filled with potatoes and not much meat or peas - then it's like, pastry + carb filling which is not satisfying.
      I prefer chinese style "pizzas" you can get at Chinese bakeries which are sausages and green onions and sometimes corn and ketchup on a bun. Am attempting to improve my baking skills so I can make some.

      Delete
  5. It is almost a common adage-" Singaporeans do not want this kind of job, therefore you have to accept inferior standard of service, simply because there is no one else to do it." Or " Don't complain, even if you migrate, you will be treated as a 2nd class citizen elsewhere.

    In my 40s. Born and bred in Singapore. Served NS. I find both statements a slap in the face.
    1) Is employing the so-called "inferior people" the only way to solve labour shortage in some sectors. What about training, leading by example, showing the right attitude, job satisfaction beside monetary reward?

    2) 2nd class citizen elsewhere? I am already a 2nd class citizen in my own country. People from less developed countries who do not serve NS got their Singapore passports, worse, they may be just using Singapore as a stepping stone to a more advanced economy. So if you really have the chance why not move away? The government see more value in the new citizens than in their local born sons. This is just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Observer are u saying the SG gov is just like our parents who abuse their own children, treat them with disrespect, but treat outsiders with courtesy and even act submissively towards them? 😆

      Delete
    2. Good grief Observer is this the first time you are reading my blog?!?!?!?!

      Delete
  6. Hi Limpeh, Have you heard of this guy yet?
    https://twitter.com/asianlovetrump
    https://www.youtube.com/c/LingAnderson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No actually and just because he's Asian too doesn't mean he's gonna make any sense. Lots of dumb Asian people around you know. I am in Riga now and will see his social media when I get back.

      Delete
    2. What does this have anything to do with LIFT's narrative? He is neither Singaporean, from UK or have anything to do with this blog post.

      Delete
    3. OK I am back in London now and I had assumed that you were talking about someone else - there's another Chinese American guy who loves Trump but I have never ever come across this guy. Good grief, he can't even speak English properly and I was like, is this a comedy act? A parody? His English was just bloody painful to listen to anyway. I couldn't stomach him for more than like 10 seconds. Atrocious.

      Delete
    4. Well some people will always love a Trump. The kind of people who blame 100% their failings on their bosses, on foreign cheap labor and on governments that implement austerity measures. If Trump wasn't so racist i think he would be super popular amongst the heartlanders here

      Delete
    5. Xiaxue loves Trump lol.
      The guy I was asking about doesn't actually have much to do with this post just wanted to put it out there :P
      Sadly I don't think it's a parody although it is very unintentionally funny?

      Delete
    6. I hate Trump. But you guys already knew that.

      Delete
  7. Oh and he has a blog too https://linganderson.tumblr.com/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not owning a blog and not knowing where to share this, but could apply the same logic to any country, any job application.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0akSw1PtP2Q

    ReplyDelete