Hi guys, I know I have not posted a blog post in a while but given the heavy traffic to my blog recently, I've decided to leave the notes for my latest podcast up as a blog post. Here is the hyperlink to the podcast on Spotify. So let me begin with a quote: Alex I know you live in London, you can have a work permit, you may even have a British passport but you will never be accepted as one of them. Now you think that may sound like hate mail sent to an Asian comedian in the West like Jenny Tian or Ronny Chieng but no, the most surprising part of it all is that it is hate mail sent to me by Chinese Singaporeans back home - I don't get hate mail from white people, all the hate I get tends to come from my hometown of Singapore and sometimes that even spills over the border to Malaysia. This made me think, really? Is that what you think us migrants really want and crave? How do you measure this form of acceptance in the West? What is this acceptance that you speak about? Can we define exactly what it means please? So, that's what we're going to talk about today.
Now this is based on the assumption that people in the West will only accept migrants who are very similar to themselves: they must have the same skin colour, speak the same language or at least a language that is closely related and must have the same religion. A good example of this is when Ukrainian refugees settled in Poland after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 - the Ukrainians were welcomed with open arms in Poland as they are culturally very similar to their Slavic cousins just across the border. However, a lot of Asian people simply assume that white people in the West would freak out if they realized that they have an Asian neighbour or colleague - is that really the case? Are white people in the West really that racist when they meet a non-white person? Let's have a reality check here to see if that kind of racism actually does exist and spoiler alert: no, it doesn't. But hey, I bet you probably knew that already.
Our previous prime minister Rishi Sunak was our first Asian prime minister, surely that speak volume about how British people completely accept the idea of having an Asian leader for the country as we simply wanted the best person for the job regardless of skin colour but wait - not everyone voted that they liked him or accepted him, he simply took over from Liz Truss in a leadership contest. So it was only the Conservative party who got a say in that election and even then, not everyone backed him. I'd like to believe we live in a post-race society where we judge people as individuals. Don't get me wrong, we're still judgmental and will discriminate against you if we don't like you, except we won't base that on your skin colour but it will be something a lot more personal - like we would look down on you if you were a poor person with a really awful job, regardless of your skin colour. Bigotry is 2025 has become a lot more sophisticated and personal.
By the same token, let's look at the situation in Singapore - are locals 'accepted'? Example of the Chinese kid Chen who was ostracized by the rest of the classmates despite being Chinese Singaporean.. Chen certainly wasn't accepted by his peers in school - not that he cared about trying to be the most popular kid in class. He was quite content being left on his own, reading a book whilst the rest of us were playing games or chatting away. There was a part of me that felt sorry for him but I never tried to befriend him. Chen is definitely very autistic but then that's another story for another day.
There are people we do want to get along with - take my team at work for example, I definitely need to be accepted by them, I need them to trust me, I need to have a good working relationship with them. But in my case, I achieve this by winning their trust, by demonstrating that I am intelligent, experienced, resourceful and I am great at solving complex problems. This has nothing to do with whether I'm culturally similar to them - that's simply a red herring, we're a lot more focused on practical matters related to work and earning money. I always use this quote when it comes to people at work: I'm here to make money, not friends so I don't have to like you as a friend as long as you're useful to the team. Well, such is the nature of our relationships in the business world - we are so pragmatic as our priorities are very clear.
So let's use my gymnastics club for example of my life outside the context of work - I train at my local gymnastics club regularly and loads of people use those facilities, am I good friends with everyone there? No, I am not. I pick and choose whom I want to befriend and if there's someone I feel I don't have that much in common with, then I really don't feel the need to talk to them or get to know them any better. I certainly wouldn't go as far as to ostracize them or say nasty things to them in a bid to drive them away, but I wouldn't make any effort to try to be friendly to them by the same token. Am I "accepted" or "well-liked" there? Well, I can walk into the gym, I feel welcomed, I look forward to seeing the friends I get along well with and that may be only a portion of the people in the room but that's fine with me. It has never ever been my intention to win some kind of popularity contest. As long as I have enough friends there, I'm happy enough there.
There is a huge difference between having "enough friends" and "accepted/liked by everyone" or at least being so well liked that you can legitimately claim to be popular. The former is something we all aim for, whilst the latter is this impossible standard that nobody achieves. Even people who seem hugely successful are not often liked by everyone - thus take Elon Musk for example, he is the world's richest man yet public opinion is deeply divided about him. But would the fact that some people don't like him actually bother him all that much? No, because he's incredibly rich and your opinion doesn't matter to him at all, not in the least bit. Donald Trump's opinion does matter and of course, we can talk a lot about their recent public fallout but this brings me to my next point: not everyone's opinion carries equal weight and this is why we're not bothered with popularity. I care deeply about what my business partners and clients think about my ability to deliver at work because that has a direct impact on how much money my company makes - but why should a random stranger's opinion matter to me? Why is the bar set so ridiculously high for migrants then, that they must somehow win a popularity contest when locals are not subject to the same test? Can't migrants just be measured by how rich they are or even by how happy they are? After all, there isn't that much correlation between our wealth or happiness with how popular we are amongst the local community. Can one actually monetize this kind of "popularity?" No.
Indeed, a lot of rich people build high walls and use their wealth to shield themselves from the unwashed masses - so in a recent podcast I talked about a very rich lady Sue, she lives in a big house with high fences, that's in a very expensive neighbourhood, so she has plenty of privacy compared to say someone who lives in an apartment block. She doesn't use public transportation, so she doesn't have to face people on a crowded bus or train. She dines in expensive exclusive restaurants so once again, she doesn't have to face poor people. When she has to take a flight, she only flies first class, so once again, she doesn't have to sit next to a poor person. I could go on but as rich as Sue is, she uses her wealth to put as much distance as possible between her and poor people - she certainly isn't interested at all in the concept of popularity at all as she doesn't care what poor people think of her. There are a very small group of people whose opinion matters to Sue and here's a hint: none of those people are poor. I'd like to be as rich as Sue but I don't really crave "popularity" per se and here's why: I believe that a lot of the people out there are quite stupid or at least misguided.
As for poor people, heck, they're really not that fussed about "popularity" either - they are far more concerned with their basic needs like earning enough money to provide for their families, having decent food at meal times, getting enough sleep, getting adequate healthcare. Being well liked, popular and accepted by their communities is pretty far down their list of priorities. So imagine if you offered a poor person a chance to make a lot of money by going on a reality TV show, but in order to make that money, that poor person has to say something highly offensive that will make them very unpopular as a result. Would the poor person think, no being popular is more important to me than money, I won't do it, I need people to like me or would that poor person just say, I need the money, just tell me what you want me to say and give me the money, I'll find a way to cope with the consequences whatever they may be, I want the money.
So if rich people aren't seeking popularity and neither are the poor, then we can come to the conclusion that this popularity (however you wish to define it) or this general acceptance, this ability to be liked by as many people as possible, isn't really such a desired quality; most of us just crave money and wealth instead because we're pragmatic. Now our ability to make this money that we all need and crave doesn't necessarily depend on us being popular.
You might think of very popular singers like Taylor Swift as people who cash in on this popularity but that isn't actually the case. She is a well established singer with a distinctive style which she sticks to, she isn't going to try do a K-pop style single on Korean just to appeal to K-pop fans or perform in an opera just to appear more cultured and refined - she isn't trying to appeal to everyone through every single genre of music, she just sticks to what she does best. She doesn't have to be accepted or liked by everyone in order to become successful! Likewise for politicians - you rarely have a politician who is trying to appeal to every single voter given that the winner only needs to beat their opponent, so politicians usually identify as right wing or left wing and then they would usually just appeal to their power base along with the small number of undecided voters. But let's be clear here please: neither Taylor Swift nor your average politician tries to appeal to everyone out there - in fact, nobody in the real world actually does that because it is simply impossible to do so.
I'd like to use the analogy of skiing to make my point: I got introduced to winter sports when I was at university and I totally fell in love with it. Now I try to ski a few times each winter as it is something that brings me a lot of joy. Some years ago I tried to introduce my sister to skiing and it didn't work out well, even after a few days of lessons, she couldn't stay up for more than a second or so and skiing does require a good sense of balance, something that seemed to confound my sister - the more she fell, the more terrified of falling she became and in the end, she plain just gave up and accepted that this was just one of those things she will not be able to accomplish. She will never ever go skiing again in her life and she is more than happy with that decision. I can't live without skiing as it brings me joy but for my sister, skiing has only brought her pain, fear and suffering - this is because I'm an excellent skier who has tackled the most difficult black slopes in Europe like a pro whilst she is someone who never mastered even the basics. Thus socializing and becoming popular, having loads of friends is the same thing - it is very similar to skiing. If you're great with people and derive great joy from these social interactions, then being popular and very well-liked comes naturally to you. But if you don't like social interactions and the thought of going to an event and having to speak to strangers fills you with dread, then you're going to be so relieved when you're told, "you don't have to go to that event after all". Whether you want to become popular, well-liked and accepted by everyone is therefore a personal choice for us to make, just like the way I choose to enjoy skiing and my sister avoids it. My sister has other activities and hobbies which bring her joy and it doesn't matter that we choose different leisure activities - all that matters is that we do have something that can bring us great joy.
And let's turn this around and look at it from the point of view of the host country in the West: there is also a similarly pragmatic attitude to immigration. If you ask the public here how they feel about migrants, the answer will be usually about getting the right kind of migrants - for example, if a migrant is a doctor or a nurse who is going to work in one of our local hospitals treating the sick, then of course such a migrant will be welcomed. But if it is just someone who has no skills, no intention to work and just want to sponge of the state, then we will not want to accept this kind of migrant. The answer is a very pragmatic one based not so much on cultural or personality traits, but rather what this migrant can contribute to the society here. Need I state the obvious? Pragmatism prevails over this concept of "popularity".
My theory is that these people have decided that migrants are doomed to fail - these are people who have decided that migrating is a bad idea, so they have created a criteria that is so impossibly high that virtually nobody can possibly meet those high standards, so everyone will fail, thus proving their theory to be correct. Thus they are claiming that unless a migrant is 100% totally accepted by the host country they are a failure. But why turn this into a popularity contest as if this is the only criteria that matters? I am helping a friend with an immigration issue at the moment as she needs a work permit and the government sets out clear criteria for highly skilled migrants who qualify for these work permits. The only criteria that really matters at the end of the day is whether or not you have the right skills to qualify for one of those visas for highly skilled migrants and no where on that list of criteria is "popularity". There are people in places like Singapore who would never ever migrate to the West - maybe they don't like life in the West but for the majority of them, it is because they would never be able to meet the criteria to obtain a work visa as a highly skilled migrant. Thus such people cast disdain on those who have managed to make it to the West and settled down there, so this whole argument about 'acceptance' like them setting a very specific criteria to prove that you've succeeded in the West like, "you must prove that you've been 100% accepted by the locals otherwise you're a failure." It is designed for even the most successful migrants to be unable to tick that box, despite being extremely rich and successful. Thank you very much for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment