Banyan Tree’s Founder Ho Kwon Ping on What’s Wrong with REITs, Corporate America & Mediocrity | #682

What, what has happened in the last year that has really made you become much more vocal about your criticisms of? Well, you're touching a very sore point. There's one monkey in my back. Okay. I am so pissed off. All your liberals are supposed to be liberal Democrats heading up these companies. They basically turned tail faster than you could say DEI. They didn't even try to have some nominal push back. But in America, the hypocrisy is it's still totally a free market economy. It's a totally capitalist economy and so on. It's all the hypocrisy that I resent. There's enough soul-searching among the Democrats that I think America as a country will get out of this current madness that they are in. But that doesn't mean that I think Pax Americana, American global hegemony will swing back. My sense is that that will never swing back.

If you love this podcast, chances are you value real conversation. The kind that's honest, emotional, and stays with you. Now, imagine a conversation like that about someone you love. That's what we do with our audio service called Folklore. We hop on a 30-minute call with you or someone you choose and turn that conversation into a beautifully crafted, personalized podcast for your loved one. A gift that shows them how much they mean to you and how much you appreciate them, which they can listen to forever. And we guarantee that it'll be one of the most meaningful things you have ever given them because we'll use everything we've learned from interviewing more than a thousand people across 20 countries over the past 5 years, including the prime minister of Singapore. And if you want to make it extra special, add on our limited edition Folklory Speaker style as an old school cassette tape so they can play their story anytime, anywhere. All the details are on folklory.com or reach out to us on WhatsApp at the link in the show notes. So, hope you can check it out because we love to help you create something unforgettable.

And now onto the podcast. What's up everybody? Welcome to another episode of Ya, your thrice weekly podcast where we talk about the hottest news with a touch of what? Terren, good old humor. Good old humor, man. Yeah. Uh, today is a special episode. Been a long time coming. It's a long time coming. It's almost like a year, right? Yeah. I mean, it's almost exactly a year since uh he last came on. Right. Yeah. Since he last came on. So we are very, very glad to have back the founder and executive chairman of the Banyan Group and returning badass. Thank you for that wonderful introduction. Returning badass. Yeah. The first time you were called a badass was in the first episode. And my grandchildren. Well, a badass grandpa. Badass grandpa. I didn't. You didn't call me a badass. You called me badass grandpa. No, I think we called you badass already. I don't think I'll call you a badass grandpa. Oh, okay. I just call you badass. It's better. It's better. That means I'm badass compared to all the other even super badass guys out there. I thought I was kind of like within a little subgroup. No, no, no. The whole group. You're badass. And now you've been kind of given the name by your grandkids as well. Oh yeah. All due to you guys. I had the most fantastic um either Christmas or birthday present where I got from them a mug, a ceramic mug with the photos of all of them and the really nice label to the world's badass grandpa. And it's sitting there on my table as a place of honor. Awesome. Cool.

So, so how has the past year been? Um, it's been interesting. I have just three weeks ago completely replaced my shoulder joint. Oh wow. Completely. It's now like I don't know whether you guys are old enough to remember a TV series called Bionic Man. Bionic Woman. I've got a bionic arm. Wow. And now it twitches sometimes and I sometimes involuntarily hit out. So if I ever hit you in the face, it's not due to my wanting to. It's a involuntary reaction to my shoulder joint. Perfect thing to be able to just punch someone without. Absolutely. What do you mean bionic? You mean there's electrical circuits? No. No. I I mean I. No. I wish I could. I could say it would be so cool if I have an implant AI implant. So just think and it moves double power and then I would hit you with double power and I'm thinking of joining Muay Thai competitions and so on. On the serious side, I've had many, many years of pain in my shoulder joint due to osteoarthritis, due to problems I've had in the past, and I've put off uh replacing it. And one thing I can tell you, if you ever want to do an operation, do not watch YouTube video of what's going to be done. Oh my god. To you. Oh, so you watch those as a preview. I thought I would try to learn something. Yeah. But then you try to you just imagine watch a watch watching a video where there's a little electric saw and you hear the sound of the saw cutting away at your bones and then they take away the entire shoulder joint. Wow. And then they put in their titanium one. So. Oh my. Oh man. God. Wow.

So how long? You said 3 weeks ago? Uh, yeah. Yeah. I think it's about maybe one and a half months. It was in in April. No, April. Beginning of April. So, it's April, May, June. 2 months ago. Wow. But recovering very well now. So, it's We wouldn't have guessed. We wouldn't have guessed at all that you had an operation on your shoe cuz it's a major operation, right? Yeah. But you you wouldn't have you would be able to guess if I were to try to lift. Before that, I couldn't even lift a glass. It would be so painful. Oh. And it would be it's it's affected my whole mood and everything. Now, I can lift it up. I swim a lot every day, but I swim breaststroke. Although I normally swim freestyle, but I can't swim freestyle yet because you can't do the overhead motion. But you know that's that's biggest change in my life in the last one year since I saw you guys and it's been very positive. I mean 3 weeks or whatever one month to still be running around and giving speeches and fireside chats and all that. Well, my my my kids were all my wife and kids were all very uh surprised. I had the operation and they thought they all came. I actually had it in Bangkok of all places and they came thinking they'll be with me for about a month or so. And on the third day, I was out walking and wanted to do everything. So, it was a bit of a let down for them. They brought their pillows. Yeah. They were going to be such nice children, such a nice lovely wife. Why we give him that mark? Now he has to live live up to it. Oh, but that's cool. That's cool.

And I mean a lot of things have been happening in the on the Banyan group front as well, right? Yeah. Yeah. Um and I think you were just recently talking about the future of you know residences and and. Oh yeah. Yeah. So so that's that's a big part of the the way going forward for you all. Well, yeah, that's part of a a whole trend that the largest the larger picture of the last year or so, last two years or so has been my recognition not only of aging, mortality and health, but also about how uh failure or success is really due more to good and bad luck as opposed to what you try to do. Because when we got hit by COVID, we thought we were going to die as a company. We managed to pull through it and we thought we would take us years to recover. We have now already bounced back to way before and we're we're thankfully making more money than we ever have due to an incident that happened somewhere in the world for which we have absolutely no control. And that was Russia invading Ukraine. Oh. And that led to so many Russians and Ukrainians buying properties in Phuket. Oh. And our property sales have quadrupled. Wow. I mean that's just an example of how life happens. Yeah. Yeah. And co happens. You have to deal with it. Bad things. Good things. Good things meaning not the Ukraine war which obviously is a very bad thing. But the the side effects of things that happen without you even knowing it. It happens. So life is just full of unexpected good surprises and bad surprises. So wow. So that's what's happened with branded residences. They're selling really well. Um we're having our 100th hotel opening. That's a Mandai hotel. Okay. Uh that would be 100 hotels. Yeah. I mean the Mandai resort that's something that uh has been years in the making, right? And I believe uh also because of co at one point it was also it was years in the making but as you know we managed the hotel we got involved in the design and so but we're not the owners. The owners are Mandai Wildlife Reserves and there's a multi-billion dollar project to add on additional parks, moving the bird park there and so on. Yeah. In a relatively constrained space. So the project has been I think something like 7 8 years in the making. Yeah. Largely because of COVID contractors delays and so on and um Mandai Wildlife Reserves themselves having to phase a lot of the construction. So, it's it's been something that's yeah, we've waited a long time for.

And how has it lived up to your expectations of of what it should be? I think it's by Singapore standards, it's truly an eco-resort, meaning it's, you know, the only other sort of resorts that you have in Singapore is maybe on Sentosa and that's really very much beach resort. Yeah. This one has really tried to keep up with the idea of um being as green as possible. Mhm. Um we've we've got certification as one of the lowest uh carbon emitting hotels in all of Singapore in terms of the way we've built the hotel and operate the hotel. Um the wildlife there is amazing. When you look out at Mandai Reservoir, you really think you're not in Singapore. The relationship with Mandai Park has been fantastic. So that a lot of people go and it's most of them are families who who go and they get to have access to different aspects of Mandai Zoo and and aspects of Mandai Park that you wouldn't get if you were just a day visitor. Yeah. And now that they've got so many attractions there, I think it's something like seven or eight, you definitely cannot see everything in one day. M so it's very positive for people to just go and stay and stay 2 days 3 days and be able to go in and out. It's like Disneyland. People stay at Disneyland hotels so that they don't have to commute back and forth from some other place. Yeah. I was I just went to the I think the new uh rainforest wild and it just opened my mind about what a zoo could be cuz there's like bungee jumping. Uh there's an artificial cave that was built in there and people can go spelunking in the middle of the Mandai zoo as well. I was just thinking, yeah, actually no one has ever done this sort of almost adventure experience within a zoo and like you said, it's a bit like Disneyland but with a bit more of educational slant to it. I think that's the part that's very interesting, right? that that um you can have a theme park almost uh without having to resort to Disneyland type thrills and you can actually try to have certain themes in mind. Yeah. Like uh nature, adventure, tourism for particularly for for urban habitats like it's like Singaporeans and other people living in cities. It's very hard to experience that within a city itself. So I think Mandai has done a a great job. Another thing they're doing which is very interesting is trying to do more and more indoor activities in recognition that 10 years from now climate change is going to impact us a lot worer and therefore you need to plan more indoor activities that also give people a sense of nature. Oh, so that is a concerted effort with the sustain. As I understand it, it's a challenge that they are aware about just as we have taken on as a challenge that in for example Phuket where we have quite a number of hotels, we've basically taken the fact that climate change adjustment is what we're going to have to uh accept. Climate change adaptation as opposed to climate change mitigation, the increase in temperatures are going to be there. We are preparing for long-term flooding, long-term drought, and we're preparing for that, not trying to prevent that because we're past the stage of mitigation. Now, everybody who's serious will maybe talk about trying to bring temperatures back to not rising as fast as they should, but I think we all accept the reality is that the climate change is with us already. We're in the middle of it and we just have to survive it.

But but how as a as a company do you prepare like are you I don't know investing more in research or when you think about your road map of what you're going to build? Very, very easy for example if you take the places where we have an entire uh almost like a township in Buket, Bintan and in Vietnam we have a large property. So in that area, we're basically saying that whole area will have massive drought. Government will not supply water. What are we going to do? We're investing in our own desalination plants. We're basically also saying there's going to be massive flooding. What are we going to do? And issues involved that that can be quite complicated like we can try to because we're on the seaside, we can try to pump water into the sea. But what if flooding occurs at the same time as high tide? Then you're in deep water. So what do we have to do? M so what are we also going to do if there's no electricity? We are now creating 100% backup uh generator systems not only in hotels but all our residential properties which is never been done by by developers. Basically when you develop a whole condo, you just plug it to the national grid but we're putting 100% um of our own backup electricity. So so that's what we have to do and um It's it's quite serious. I mean you think of flooding the the kinds of technology out there to prevent flooding of your own specific properties. The technology is there. The investment is a lot. But we have taken we've taken this position now in the last 2 3 years that it's no longer mitigation. It's adapting to climate change. It's with us. Okay. Okay. Yes.

So I mean the I mean that's something interesting because the role of businesses in you know fermenting social change or corporate responsibility I think that's something you've always been very passionate about uh you know in last time you came down and in your book you talk a lot about it but I think it's become um an even more acute thing in recent times right seeing how uh how the how geopolitics in the world has been pushing businesses to do things that you know we didn't think that we'd be seeing like 10 years ago, right? And I I've heard you speak very passionately about it in interviews and and all, especially with regards to how businesses are in America are dealing with uh things right now. Like what what has happened in the last, you know, year that has has really made you become much more vocal about your criticisms of? Well, you're touching a very sore point. This is one monkey on my back. Okay. I am so pissed off and I'm particularly pissed off I suppose and very much about Singapore businesses too because if you look at what's happened in the in the in the last year many countries in the global south that are poorer have long recognized America for what it is today what I've referred to as the end of Pax Americana the emperor having no clothes. A lot of countries have recognized that Singapore businesses from large to small. Maybe because of our colonial heritage, maybe because we're so English oriented and therefore very much tied into the Anglophone world. Whereas if you are Indonesia or Vietnam, America matters a lot less to you. Your role models are not Americans. Your paragons of virtue are not American because you don't not in touch with that media. Singaporeans are so westernized even though and Chinese Singaporeans even those who've gone through the bilingual educational policy that lean you put in can speak Mandarin but still totally western in their thinking. So everything they're oriented towards the west and towards America and it bugs me because if you look at the business community and the academic community the whole role model for corporate governance and so on has been America. We promote DEI because it's an American word. We promote ESG. We promote sustainability. Well, those words are in English. I don't know what they would be like in Tamil or in Indonesia and elsewhere, but we adopted wholesale. And it pisses me off that all these big name companies, all these famous household names have such hypocrisy in what they're doing that when Donald Trump basically told people not to promote DEI, I actually have more respect for him because he actually really never believed in it. But all your Wall Street companies, all your tech companies, all your liberals were supposed to be liberal Democrats heading up these companies, they basically turned tail faster than you could say DEI and they dropped everything. They dropped it faster than they really needed to. They didn't even try to have some nominal push back. The universities are much better. I we've seen with Harvard, Columbia, and so on. Probably because they have a lot of younger people there too. But the businesses basically dropped any pretense that they supported any of these things. At the same time where even in the past years when they were talking about ESG and DEI, they were spending more money advertising what they were doing about DEI and ESG than they were really doing. So they dropped it all. And the point that I want to make to my Singaporean colleagues, I made it at the ICCS conference yesterday. I made it at a CNA interview was that Singapore companies better wake up and think for ourselves whether big or small as a company what do we believe in uh because right now we have a government that has been very strong and determined in its promotion of certain values most of which I fully agree with some of which I haven't agree with like 377A and so on but multiculturalism and the the way that the government has been quite forceful about institutionalized multiracialism I think has been great for Singapore and companies are all going along with that. If a day should come when the government of the day doesn't promote that anymore, my guess is Singapore companies would just go along and say, "Sure, okay, fine. Let's just drop multiculturalism." And what I'm trying to use as the American example, as a warning for Singapore companies, big or small, is look at what happened in America and learn from it. Have your own values. Stick to those values. Now, my values and the values we've stood for have never been always the most progressive of the day. We are not a woke company. In many ways, we disagree with the wokeness that's going on in America. But we have certain aspects of what we believe in are woke. Certain aspects are probably quite conservative, but we examine those values and we stick by them. And my concern is most companies in Singapore and elsewhere today are just glibly following what is the most expedient thing to do. So they basically all would talk about ESG because it's talked about but they don't truly have values of their own.

But you know like um there's there's one thing about what a company should do but uh I can what if it's the case that without the government support be it the government of the time this company might not survive. So then what about the argument that okay yes we compromise this a bit but at least we can survive we can keep the livelihood of our staff going like sometimes like yeah how do you gra? No, I I can understand that. I can understand that if the government of the day as in the US is threatening you so much that if you did not comply with something Yeah, your your company's livelihood is at stake right? Um and as Harvard has done because Harvard has is the richest university in the world. So they can stand quite a bit of this. But but my point is that the company if you looked at it the companies law firms, some of the law firms in the US when the when Trump told them to do certain things actually pushed back. They sued them and so on. But your Wall Street and and Silicon Valley companies basically the minute Donald Trump said okay, no more DIO. Oh great. No more DEI. M. Now, I can understand it definitely in all parts of the world we as companies are are always harassed by the governments of the day and I'm not so noble that if a government tells me I must do ABC, I'm going to go and resist them when they will when they have the power to do bad things to me. But my point is if that ever should happen, then you have to recognize you have to fall in line and you fall in line reluctantly. You fall in line and say I have to do this for the sake of my employees. In the abandonment of DEI, ESG and everything woke, what happened in in America and Wall Street, it was without even the slightest protestation. It was, oh great. So for you, you as long as you make a stand because people can understand circumstance. But you at least show that you have a certain sentiment that you're being forced to uh give up. Well, as long as you show that you have your consistent views. I I think a lot of companies I do not think should be as woke as what the most woke community is in America. And the woke community can pretty can be pretty crazy if they go woke. But my point is have your own values. You can have more conservative values. I may be having more liberal and progressive values. It doesn't matter that I think everybody has got the right to have their own conservative values. But if you did not believe that much in a particular issue, say so. Give your reason for saying so and defend it. Now that's my only point. I'm not saying companies should willy-nilly promote DEI. Some companies have promoted DI to the extent of it being quite crazy and in my view excessive. But every company has to examine what they want to stand for.

I I'll just give you our example. 30 over years ago, way before corporate social responsibility, sustain sustainability, ESG and all that came around, we had to contend with the activist environmental groups of the day like Greenpeace who were quite radical in their view that the protection of endangered species is the primary objective of conservationist societies and that there is no consideration of a trade-off between development and conservation. Very simplistic in my view. Coming from the global south and as an econom as an economist, life is all about tradeoffs, not something it's not so easy to just do something and everything is fine. So to me, at that time, we resisted all the pressures about various things that would deal with um conservation and so on and we created a motto which today 30 years later is still our guiding star and that motto is Embracing the environment, empowering people. In the same phrase, meaning that our commitment to CSR and to sustainability is not just about the physical environment. It's about the human environment too. It's about the villages that we work within. It's about people and we've stuck to that throughout. So that even today when people talk about sustainability, I always make the point at sustainability conferences that people are still talking because it's coming from the west that sustainability is about physical environmental sustainability, about carbon emissions and so on. What about social sustainability? What about even corporate sustainability? The things that so many private equity companies do when they buy over a company, right? And then they gear it up and then they pay back everything that they they use, you know, the model very well and then they leave the company there high and dry. And if the company does well, fine. If it doesn't do well, let it go bankrupt. But the PE fund has already made back the money. Do you call that sustainable? Mhm. So these are the very same companies that talk about sustainability because they plant 10,000 trees and yet they're creating an entire social economic environment that is not sustainable. What about the overall corporate emphasis on growth at any price? A shareholder-driven mentality as opposed to a stakeholder-driven mentality. Is that in the long term sustainable? If the only goal of a company is to maximize shareholders benefits as opposed to a wide array of stakeholders benefits, is that sustainable? But no company would talk about that. So to me, sustainability is a much more complex issue than the comfortable issue of how many trees I'm going to plant, carbon offsetting that I'm doing. That's just buying yourself out of a guilt trip. What about sustainability in its more holistic definition? So in that sense, we are not paragons of virtue. We push back because we have a definition of what we mean sustainability to to be. What corporate uh governance should be. We have a clear idea. Now, not every company needs to be what we believe in and I'm never saying that. But we definitely stand for what we believe and we will argue it out. And I'm simply saying that other companies better start thinking about that. Not only Singapore companies, European companies, other Asian companies, they should start thinking about it because what the American blowout has shown is that in this whole blowout where the emperor has no clothes, the CEOs have no clothes too.

But don't you think that by speaking so passionately and vocally, you there's going to be more people who would say, "Oh, is the Banyan Group really as as good uh as they say? I mean, are you are you just inviting them come look at what we do and like um if you want to criticize you will challenge them? We're quite um well, first of all, I'm not saying we are at all um as I said, paragons of virtue. There are many things that we do you could probably find real fault with. Okay? So that's the first thing. I'm not out there um sort of preaching to the whole board what they should do, but we are trying. I think I would argue we are trying. We are in many p cases probably quite contradictory and as I mentioned to you, life is all about trade-offs and sometimes those trade-offs are not that comfortable. There are probably quite a number of cases where we have been less environmentally friendly than what others would say we should be for the sake of maybe even the pursuit of profits because we need do maybe in in the pursuit of other issues like our stakeholders and our associates. But at least one thing I can tell you, what we're not doing is we are not pretending to be something that we're not. I think it's the hypocrisy that that angers me, not so much that I'm pushing a particular plank of what uh you should be and and you you you cannot be a hypocrite if basically They're saying to the world, "Look, I'm trying, guys, but I'm not perfect, and you probably can find a lot of fault with me." The the guys I'm not happy with are the big companies with their very glib ads that basically say, "We're doing all these fantastic things." And then when the tide runs out, they're shown to be basically naked because they they just run away from things that they claimed that they were doing years ago. It's that hypocrisy that I'm against. I'm not saying we are we are great and all of you are not great and because then then you're just as much a victim of hubris as I've always been against.

But I mean just thinking of it because even for for yeah for us having studied in the US and seeing such an adversarial relationship between the government and the universities was shocking. You know, I can't imagine something like that in Singapore where, you know, the prime minister shuts down the university or anything like this, but just thinking about it culturally, I mean, there are a lot of markets um I mean, Singapore might be an example, but say the Chinese market where businesses and governments, they have a they have a much um more entrenched relationship and the ability to be even uh in those markets requires you to be have a much closer relationship with the government. So isn't aren't American corporations trending towards that as opposed to uh, you know, we expect them to to be these paragons of virtue? They're just trending towards what what actually is more normal in the rest of the world. Well, I I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I mean if you if you were to say how um how American and Western businesses lambast uh the Chinese economy because they would say these are all state state-owned enterprises, state controlled enterprises. So that's absolutely true. Nobody's denying it. They're totally state-owned enterprises. They very openly have to follow what the government tells them to do. And but at least there's no hypocrisy there. They they all admit it basically they are servants of the party and they have to do what the party tells them to do and you just hope that it's a good industrial policy. But there's this whole pretense that America the American economy is a totally free economy and that the for example the defense companies, the aerospace companies, there's a there's a whole pretense that in fact they're not equivalent to a state-owned enterprise which they are. The whole military-industrial complex, the defense industries in America. I mean, they're as much as a defense industry in China and the the hand and glove kind of collusion between various sectors of the economy and the whole massive protection of American tech companies to the exclusive protection and promotion of American tech economies, tech companies. Let's say in Europe when European regulation laws try to control US tech companies and the US government hits back at at um uh European companies, the the very close cooperation between state and big companies in the US I would say has a lot of similarities with what China is doing itself. In China, there's no hypocrisy because it's obvious these are owned by the government. So let's not get around and think that they are in any way independent. But in America, the hypocrisy is it's still totally a free market economy. It's a totally capitalist economy and so on. So it's all the hypocrisy that I resent, not the fact that the defense sector uh the defense industry and and the American defense policies are hand-in-hand. To be realistic, they always have been, but the pretense that it's not is what I'm against.

So, you know, having having been in business for so long, is this something that surprised you, the hypocrisy, or is it something you've always had an inkling, but just that it all came out of the floodgates at once? Is that is what surprising? I think you're absolutely right. I mean, you know, Eisenhower, President Eisenhower, uh, in 1960, I think when he retired, already warned in a famous retirement speech. Eisenhower warned about a military-industrial complex. You check it up in the in the all the textbooks, American history and so on. So, it's well known the very close relationship between various sectors of the American economy. the whole protection of American businesses by their own government which everybody does, frankly. It's the hypocrisy. Now, you're absolutely right that I think this has grown up. Many people have known of this hypocrisy and it's the same, but at the very, very large level. Then it's the hypocrisy about Pax Americana. After World War II, America became the most powerful country in the world and in 1945 after 1945. And then when they started having the whole the whole thing about the Bretton Woods um framework, IMF, World Bank and so on, that was all largely an economic arrangement which cemented American hegemony. Now, that sounds as if I'm pro-Russia or pro-China when I say it, but if you ask a lot of independent historians, they would say without a doubt that this is actually the truth. But it was good for most countries. Right after World War II when you had Russia as a Soviet Union and you had the Cold War, Europe and many other countries basically came under the American wing and the whole so-called rules-based order was anybody would tell you is a complete euphemism for an American dominated order. M. Everybody accepted it, including Singapore and the rest of the world because it was good for us under the American umbrella. But of course, with euphemisms. Yeah. Uh, it was supposed to be good for us, but as we all know now, because the recent years have recent experiences have shown it, the rules-based order is rules-based for whom? It was at for a long time definitely America set the rules. When it when America did not want to live by its rules, it did not. And we've seen even way back in the 60s, 70s and so on, it didn't play by the rules that itself set. Everybody was supposed to accept it. But because overwhelmingly the rules benefited everybody, but it just benefited America a little bit more. M. It has come so clear now that the rules only benefit America. The whole World Trade Organization, the whole free trade system, the global trading system and globalization and so on benefited of course China, benefited America. But now look at what Trump is doing with with the tariffs. Um, that's and everything else that's been happening. The whole the whole withdrawal from from Europe now is a sign that Pax Americana has run its course and with that people's eyes are opening up and they're beginning to recognize that the whole international order that was supposedly to protect human rights, to protect democracy, the free world, America was there to protect the free world and it was but it protected itself and the free world. Now the emphasis now is towards, as I've said, a fortress Americana back. It's a back to the future scenario of the 19th century and before where essentially America is going to be a global superpower, Russia will be a global superpower, China will be a global superpower and all three will be competing against each other, collaborating with each other to maintain each other as being the top dogs in the world and everybody else basically can decide who they have to play up to. So, it's it's not an unusual arrangement. Yeah. For longer than shorter, world history has consisted of major regional powers with their spheres of influence around them and so on. Only during the last 300 years, you had a Pax Britannica with the whole world under the British Empire. Then you had the whole world less the Soviet Union and China under America. And that is dissolving back to to the future where essentially America will be surrounded by its own spheres of influence. China will have, whether we like it or not, Southeast Asia under its main sphere of influence and Russia will have um the rest of Eastern Europe. So, it's back to the future.

And is that something that is very worrying to you or it is just the natural progression of you know civilization? It's not worrying to me because if you if you were if you look at history um statesmen such as Bismarck, Kissinger have all alluded to uh basically spheres of influence and great reg and regional powers and so on as being the the sort of equilibrium state and I think that's probably what the world has been for the last few hundreds of years where you had no global one single global more power. So I think we we are moving to a more natural state frankly. Um but it but the transition to this natural state is not going to be without a lot of tensions.

But but do you see what's going on in American politics as something irreversible? I mean ultimately uh, you know, before Trump was president, it was Obama as well and people saw a very different direction from where America. You you raise a very interesting question because I def although I talk very much about the end of Pax Americana and the hypocrisy that accompanied Pax Americana which I definitely think is inevitable. I don't think that American domestic politics is necessarily going to go that way of of a Trump direction. I think one of the most important things for any observer of American politics to recognize is that the that is that the American political system, probably more than any other in the world, has got the strongest ability to self-right after nearly overturning. um they they're within the American society the mechanisms are having gone to one extreme and then coming back is to me quite powerful compared to many of the European societies where like like pre-war pre-war World War II Germany when it went one way, it just sort of went the whole way. Yeah. I I personally don't think you're going to see a fascist America. I don't think America is going to go down the drain in terms of domestic politics. There are enough people in America today who are anti-Trump. There's enough soul-searching among the Democrats that I think America as a country will get out of this current madness that they are in and I think America remains one of the most vibrant societies and economies in the world. I have huge admiration for that. M. But that doesn't mean that I think Pax Americana, American global hegemony will swing back. My sense is that that will never swing back. And the interesting thing if you're even an amateur student of history is that all historians have said that for all empires in the world, they begin to collapse when the young people, the soldiers at the center of the empire are no longer willing to go to the extreme ends of the empire to protect that empire. Mhm. When Romans were not willing to go to Scotland to defend that remote part of the empire, when Scottish people were basically pretty primitive in the Roman days, began to rebel against the Roman Empire and Rome would not send people out to suppress it. That's the unraveling of the empire. Whether it is the Austrian Hungarian Empire, whether it was the Ottoman Empire or any other empire. Now when you look at America today or you look at what happened in Afghanistan and that trend I think will continue and the the willingness of Americans to defend the world order. Uh, do you really truly believe that American soldiers from Ohio and Missouri will go to fight to defend Taiwan? They'll send a lot of drones or send a lot of military equipment because the defense industry will gain like they did in Ukraine. But when an empire is not willing to have its young men and be killed in the defense of the empire, the empire unravels.

But but I guess from Trump's perspective, that is the way forward for correct. Absolutely. Yeah. And I think he's very I think the thing about Trump, if you look at leave aside his personality which is certainly unique to say the least. I think he recognized far earlier than any of the Washington consensus, the neocons, the neoliberals, people whose entire lives were invested into a into an ideological defense of the old world order. America protecting the world from bad people and all that. America is a defense against everything bad. America has, you know, all these fantastic things. Trump realized very early on that's not going to happen anymore and therefore he pulled back. But with his very colorful language and everything else, he's he's determined to go back to a world which existed hundreds of years ago. America is a superpower. And that's why the media doesn't particularly liberal media doesn't get it right at all. They say Donald Trump is an admirer of, you know, bloodthirsty dictators like Putin and Xi Jinping to some extent maybe. I don't know his personality. But on the other hand, I think it's a recognition on his part that basically let's carve up the world, guys. I am the top dog here. You are the top dog there. You, Ping, you're the top dog there. And let's forget about the rest. We will compete against each other. We will argue. We will fight. But we have a modus operandi between us, major three major powers. I will respect. Everybody else, I couldn't care less about. That's the new world that he sees coming and which I think will happen whether you like it or not. And he's just he hasn't clothed it with the beautiful diplomatic language that you get in foreign affairs or or in Harvard Business, you know, Kennedy School of Government. He's put it in very pithy ways. But if you look behind it, that's the new world that he's talking about. America out for itself. Russia, you out for yourself. China and out for yourself. But as long as I'm still better than you, China, that's good enough already. And certain areas will cooperate, but screw everybody else. M.

So then where does that leave to leave nations like Singapore, you know, where I would imagine a global world order that is lives by the rules is better for us, but in a in a one that is carved up. How does that impact? Cuz everything you're saying I I can understand, but in day-to-day day-to-day lives or how we think about the future of Singapore, is it more of our companies building up our values because we can't depend on anyone? How how would it trickle down to well countries like us on on the side of following other countries in terms of values creation? You're absolutely right. Let's stop following America in terms of values creation. Let's create our own values. That's certainly one. And the other area, let's say in geopolitics is this whole South China Sea issue. I think that instead of the old strategy of let's let's get the Americans to play off against the Chinese, let's also promote AUKUS with Japan, Korea and Australia against China and so on so forth. Let's just move as ASEAN as quickly as we can but without the loss of our own sovereignty to try to establish within this part of the world uh a slightly more rules-based order. Now the one major area in this part of the world where there are no rules or to put it another way we don't want to play by Chinese rules is the South China Sea. Right? That's the most important one. Taiwan is a separate issue. It's very much a domestic issue. Yeah. Okay. But I think what we have to be worried about is not trying to play off America against China and so on is to really try to have a united ASEAN front about where we stand about the South China Sea. Have a principled stand and get to some place of negotiation with the Chinese as to as to a code of conduct for the South China Sea which as you know the Chinese and ASEAN countries were moving towards more of a code of conduct without being so without easily resolving the sovereignty uh issue. M. M.

But but the challenge for us will be if America pulls out uh and we have to deal with a China we don't particularly want to go back to a 16th century relationship with China where all the Southeast Asian states were vassal states of China. But but again if you're a student of history, you recognize that the danger is the countries near to China are always asked to be vassal states of China. But if you're further away from China, you'd never have to be afraid that China is going to colonize you. China for 5,000 years has never projected its its imperial power beyond its neighboring areas. Unlike unlike Europe, which projected power thousands of miles away through during the imperial period of European history. Yeah. And Australia would sit together or like where would they sit uh Australasia that I don't. Well, I put it more stark terms. Should I put it in relatively stark terms? I think because of its ethnocultural heritage, Australia doesn't really understand where it should be. Mm M. And it's determined to be a white country in a very, very non-white part of the world. And its political decisions are not guided by purely impartial politics of being a sovereign country. Australia ganging up against China is not exactly the wisest thing in the world. M. Australia maintaining a policy of total independence and sovereignty which incidentally I think even a very small country like Singapore is doing. I actually think Singapore's foreign policy towards American China is quite principled. I do not think Singapore would join AUKUS. I don't think you get any Southeast Asian country joining AUKUS. AUKUS is clearly an attempt to contain China. I think it's very foolish to try to contain China because that's going to be a cause of war. And why should Australia contain China except for its ethnocultural heritage? They don't identify with the rest of this world with this part of the world. And if you look at Australian domestic politics, there's been periods when Australian prime ministers have said, "Look, we are part of Asia." Yeah. And then the Australian prime minister say, "Yes, we're physically here.

But no, our heritage is British. It's white." Right. Yeah. It's true. Uh, when we, when you spoke about, uh, American companies ditching DEI and multiculturalism as part of their identity, a lot of them also, I mean, a lot of people have said that maybe it's the realization that it actually doesn't do anything for their bottom line, and that's why they move away from it, right? But I think for you, you've, I mean, you've always prided yourself on, I mean, you've always talked about multiculturalism and diversity is a very important part of your values. Is, I mean, is there really like, why, why do you think the American companies have been so quick to dismiss the positive aspects of what diversity brings to them for their businesses? And like, is that, is there something that they're missing that, that, um, that, or that they're finally catching up with now that Trump has given them an excuse to? I don't think all, I think to be fair, not all American companies are ditching DEI. I and so on. I think many are not. I think probably, ironically, the most profitable companies are the fastest ones to ditch all this. It's the tech companies and particularly Wall Street. Mhm.

And Wall Street capitalism actually is a, is a very unique variant of capitalism. And it's not as if it's the only type of capitalism around in the world. You've got Japanese-style capitalism, you've got Nordic-style capitalism, you've got German-style capitalism and so on, so forth. You've then got Anglo-American capitalism. Angle, because the British also bit of it, but even then the British, uh, the British, the constraints on the British capital markets and so on, in terms of salaries, in terms of, uh, in terms of governance, uh, are far less constrained than in America. America is the only place in the world where chairman and chief executive is one and the same person, for example. It's the only place in the world where you can have, um, you can have bonuses that are 5,000 times more than what the next employee would get, even when the company is losing money. And because of that, people will always say, and they're correct also, that the American economy and particularly its financial sector and the financialization of the American economy, which is another separate issue altogether. There was the industrialization of the American economy. Now it's financialization of the American economy. Right? You don't find that the industrial companies in America are doing that well anymore, from Boeing to all the other companies that were industrial. The financialization of the American, American economy with Wall Street, private equity, private credit, SPACs, and all the rest of it has generated multiple times more cash than anybody ever thought of. And so the beneficiaries of all that are clearly in pursuit of maximizing shareholders' benefits. And so there's a lot of lip service being paid to stakeholder capitalism. But the way it's really practiced would be in many of the family-owned companies in America with a long heritage. Uh, but in Wall Street, it's basically the pursuit of short-term, uh, shareholders' benefits, short-term wealth. And then you're absolutely right, then that many companies would say, anything that gets in the way of maximizing short-term shareholders' benefits, I should ditch. Mhm.

But then, but then my point is, if that's the case, and you believe in it, well, at least argue it like Michael, like Milton Friedman did. He argued very vehemently, though he was never a billionaire. He argued very vehemently that stakeholders' benefits is all rubbish. The sole purpose of a company is to maximize profits. And as an economist, he, and a Nobel Prize winner, he argued that. But so I give him, I don't agree with him, but I would respect him. It's, I have very little respect, I think, for people who basically talk one way and do another way. If you talk one way and you do the same way, I don't have to agree with you, but at least I respect your integrity and your, and your, your integrity of adhering to what you believe in. Mhm.

So, so when it comes to, you know, having values, you know, you know, you talk about how for the most part, the Singapore government's emphasis on multiculturalism has been good. Um, but do you find that the more almost competent or paternalistic a government is, the less robust companies become? Yes. That's why I have actually, well, that's tying to another thing, and talked about young people's acts. Okay. But I've tied to, in, in the conference, I was saying that I think we need to go beyond institutional multiculturalism. To its credit, the government institutionalized multiculturalism. HDB rules about minorities having to stay in X amount, and then many other rules, national service rules, uh, national language being English as a working language, official languages, and it's all been institutionalized and force-fed to Singaporeans. Nowadays, young people would say it's force-fed. But when you look at the history of Singapore, how, in fact, the British tried to impose upon Singapore a divide and rule philosophy, which they did skillfully for hundreds of years. Um, when Singapore became independent, it wasn't exactly a society where the different races were happily mingling with each other. The British ensured that they would favor certain people and not others, and so on, so forth. They did divide and rule. So the government had to come in and basically enforce multiculturalism. I think they've done that. It's been successful to the extent that all of us now accept multiculturalism. But I don't think we are at all promoting interculturalism. And there's a huge difference. Multiculturalism is the respect for different communities coexisting with each other. Interculturalism means the encouragement, promotion of a more dynamic form of interaction, which is to get the cultures to really interact with each other more. I think we've achieved the first state where truly, truly young Singaporeans and others will really, truly respect what we've gotten. And when they'd see other countries practicing racial prerogatives or racial discrimination, I think even the majority race in Singapore, the Chinese, would recognize that that is not acceptable. Mhm. Right. And you always have to measure against the majority race, not the minorities, because it's, it's how the majority race is willing to accept certain norms. So I think even the majority race in Singapore accepts that multiculturalism has to be defended and protected. But are we now doing more to promote it? And that's, you're absolutely right that I do not think that's the role of government anymore. To be fair to government, if they're going to try to even promote more interculturalism, they're going to be intervening more and more into the lives of companies and individuals. Yeah.

But just to give you an example, what we are doing, not to exactly again, put us out there as a paragon of virtue, but because we truly believe that DEI strengthens our company. M because of that, we've got 97 or some, a lot of nationalities across just 15,000 associates across something like 27, 28 countries. So for a company of a medium size, we are very multicultural and we recognize the need to promote that more, and we actually go out of our way to do so. We have global town halls, meetings where, and and global, uh, Banyan Academy sessions where we have, uh, learning and development sessions where we create teams of people to prepare for competitions with each other or different things and so on, or by Zoom because it's so widespread. But the point is, we purposely put teams, people together in a team to reflect interculturalism. M we have pre-opening task forces and post-opening task forces for, for hotels where we send in more people, right, as a task force, and we choose people not just on their skill sets, we choose people on the basis of their difference with each other. So even within our own small company, we recognize that respecting people's cultures is not enough, we have to go out of our way to get people beyond their comfort zone. So with that, we get an Arab by Jani to meet a PRC Chinese to meet an Indonesian and a Mexican as part of a task force. And we just recently opened in, uh, in Mandai. We put together these task forces, and it's not as if I'm doing all this because of, I'm, you know, what do you call it, altruistic and so on. Obviously, I believe in it as a value, but it's very instrumental towards the health of my own company. M yeah, I'm not a do-gooder alone. The stronger we, the more we get our management teams together and understand each other, the more I can, I can be an effective global company. So it's very much part of what's good for the company itself, not just good for society and so on. Yeah.

So, so what I get from that is what you're saying is that businesses play a role in that interculturalism. Absolutely. But, but, you know, given that, I mean, the Banyan Group largely is in hospitality with human-to-human interaction, but are you also saying that small companies, let's say like for us, a company of five, uh, where, I mean, we don't deal that much with face-to-face, and if it's already tough enough, you know, in the industry to survive, to add on the fact that we have this additional responsibility, isn't that a bit like, uh, as the business, I'm like, okay, why is this our problem? So, no, it's not your problem, except within your domain. I'm not asking you to go out of your way to promote interculturalism. If a company like yours, but let's say you do have different cultures in your own company, then I'm saying you should try to actually, uh, probably have a session, just even a small company like yours. Let's say you've got some, you've got an Indonesian intern here, or even you've got, you've got other minority races here and so on. You should probably have a session where you have a meal where you try to get people to understand. And how much does he understand about Indian culture? I don't know. Uh, I mean, he arranged, arrange wedding, but you haven't invited us for Deeper Valley for a while. Har. So, yeah, that's your example right there, right? My, my point though, is that I'm not preaching that people should go and do things beyond their normal business. Yeah. Yeah.

But, I mean, for example, have you ever investigated whether you could do a, a podcast, uh, to an Indonesian audience, tying in with a podcaster in Indonesia, for example? I, I don't know. That's even part of your normal work. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So, I'm saying the, the, the point that you've made is a good one, because many people react that way that, I really got my own problems, man. Yes. Don't, don't dump this additional stuff on me. I got my own problems. And my point is, yeah, of course you got your own problems. I'm not asking you to go and do things beyond that. I'm not doing things beyond that. I'm not spending tons of money to promote something, uh, you know, more than what I would normally do. But I have a sensibility that these are the things I should try to do within my normal course of activities, bring value to your business as well. Correct.

I mean, you did mention that you did feel that maybe the government has hit the ceiling in terms of promoting multiculturalism, but, I mean, could there be more done? Like, maybe, uh, mandating that businesses need to partake in some of these, uh, interculturalism activities? Because I, I think there have been, there has been criticisms in Singapore that, you know, uh, maybe there are GLCs that are very successful, but they're not bringing with them or, or giving contracts to the Singapore, the smaller Singapore companies, Singapore companies that work with them. So, could there be more that the government does to actually encourage this intercultural? That's a, that's a different topic altogether, which I totally agree with you. I don't think has anything to do with interculturalism. My, my, my, I've long advocated that if you are a GLC, Yeah. and you're doing business overseas, we should have a pretty transparent system whereby a Singapore supplier or a vendor gets a specific advantage over another company. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do that. Very specific, stated so that there's no corruption involved. Yeah. I see. But why, why can't a Singapore GLC say, who, who would say that I'm now opening a contract for XYZ, right, in certain country, I will somehow give, without contravening local regulations on fair play and so on. I don't know what local recognition can be, but, but so far, it's been a case of, if you are, if I'm a GLC and I'm doing something overseas and you are a Singaporean provider of services or products, I have to treat you like everybody else. Now, I actually don't believe in that. I think there should be some overt favoritism. Overt, so that it's completely transparent. Yeah. Okay. Because I think, I think if you talk about Singapore companies going overseas, how do you go overseas unless you have some help in going overseas? And the GLCs are very big. They are going overseas in their own way. Yeah, they can compete. And I do think they need to support Singapore companies in an overt, transparent manner and, and then as part of their values, stick by it, so that if they're criticized, of course, they have to make sure that these do not contravene any local rules. But so long as they don't, if they're criticized by the local media and so on of that country, stick by it. M.

But then, how do you balance that with, you know, like, let's say when it comes to F&B in Singapore, you know, there is a lot of talk that F&B is dying in Singapore. And if you go online, uh, people are saying there's one school of thought saying it's all the landlord's problem. Another school of thought is that the F&B themselves are not innovating enough. And if they're not strong enough to survive regardless of circumstance, that's on them. So, you know, what you just said about how there almost needs to be some sort of, um, affirmative action for Singapore companies to go abroad, wouldn't, would you say that that kind of like softens Singapore companies? And, uh, as opposed to like the companies, if they are truly that good, they should figure it out themselves? How do you, how do you balance? I think one way of balancing is time-limited. So if you're a Singapore company and you are competitive, if your price is 5% higher, you're the lowest bidder at 5% higher. Yeah. Then I will, I will give you a contract for, I will support you for up to, as a company, as one GLC. Another GLC is something else. That I may give you a contract once or twice, and after that, no more. I think it's easily, you've heard in economics about the infant industry argument for tariff protection. Correct. It's very legitimate that if, if you use the argument of free trade, that's how the British basically got into India and wiped out the Indian textile industry. Free trade. Yeah. Right. So there came about a very, very, uh, how should I put it? Transparent argument for tariffs for protecting your own infant industry. So if you can justify, even in economics textbooks of international trade, the infant industry argument that a country needs to have some tariff protection so that its infant industry can export. So why can't you have a philosophy whereby as a GLC, I will for, you know, a certain amount, either you use quantum, maximum quantum of X million, or maximum two years, or whatever it is. It's an infant industry argument. It's an infant industry argument to the extent that I will help you, not forever. I will help you for a short period of time or limited volume of money, then you're off on your own. But the parallel on the analogy is totally justifiable. Otherwise, how do we help our companies make that first foray overseas? You have to have help. But that help should not be a form of dependency. Oh, entitlement. Yes, absolutely. It has to be time-limited.

When you mentioned the problem of F&B in Singapore, it, I think it goes both ways. M I have, I think the problem about our entire commercial sector being owned by REITs. M is that REITs basically only have one job and that is to basically maximize their returns and pay it all out to stakeholders. And you would not be a good REIT manager if you were thinking about proactively creating the offerings in a mall so that it would be more interesting in the long term and make your mall more competitive against another mall. M when the same owner, let's say Capital Land and a few others, GLCs, Maple Tree, Capital Land, when all the GLCs in fact effectively own all the commercial real estate, then the competition of the REIT managers against each other is purely on my REIT being able to deliver a slightly higher return than your REIT. So, we're two REIT managers having a great beer because I'm able to return a higher return than yours. You don't care as to whether your REIT is actually more popular or not, until the day comes where there's such an oversupply that basically the REIT prices go down and so on. But there's no interest to try to curate a very interesting, uh, mix of tenants. M Now, you have in other countries where where the shopping centers and malls are not owned by REITs. They're owned by either public companies or family-owned companies. They still make a lot of money. They still squeeze rents, but they at least have a greater interest in curating a more interesting long-term, uh, competitiveness. M

I mean, that's very interesting because I mean, I have seen some comment, um, commentary from people who work in REITs that kind of defend the argument that, um, they do try their best to ensure a mix, but at the end of the day, when you read it, it's all about profit maximization. So, do you also see that as contributing to, you know, right now there's a lot of, um, franchises coming to Singapore and kind of, I mean, we see it even in the heartland coffee shops or food courts, that they're taking over the, the more mom-and-pop shops. Um, and on one argument, it's that if they can still offer a good product, uh, at a good price that Singaporeans can come to enjoy, is that a bad thing? As opposed to, uh, why are they replacing this one vestige of Singapore cultural food, um, that maybe might not be as, uh, new a product, but it has that Singapore DNA in it? And like, what I'm hearing from you is that there is value in preserving that, rather than just going for, okay, which, even though it's an interesting mix, if they're all like foreign-owned companies rather than local brands, it damages us in the long term. Well, I, I, I wouldn't be even so emotional about something that is Singapore versus not. Let me just give you another example. I had considered putting up the hotels we own into a REIT, a Thai-based REIT, because most of hotels are there. Then I walked down Laguna Phuket, and the very first hotel we ever built and owned was managed by Ducatani Group, Duc Laguna, some 35 years ago. We sold that hotel to Duc's own REIT, and I walked past it the other day, and it is so sad because it has not been maintained properly. It's barely at the level of okay maintenance. I talked to my friends who are who are owners of Ducid and said, can I work with you, joint venture to actually beautify the place? There's so much land there, and we can basically tear down this, keep this, and develop this and put even property sales. Because I would make so much more money. It would make a lot more money. But three years down the road, because I have to do this and that, cannot. REITs are REITs cannot do greenfield development. REITs have to just return money as quickly as much as they can. So they attempt to create anything is very, very limited because again, it's only the short-term return that you're measured by. Mhm. So the, the cap, the structure of a REIT is ideal for data centers, warehouses, things that basically give you a return that's consistent all throughout the time. But if you have things like, uh, shopping centers, which are even less susceptible than hotels, I think hotels are not suitable for REITs because they, you, without even talking about doing something nationalistic about preserving Singapore culture, etc. If I want to do something which is in fact for the betterment of the REIT, but it's three, four years down the road. I want to do a major Capex renovation so that over a 10-year period, the ultimate return is still higher. I can't do that. So the limitation of a REIT is very, very structural, and it's really good for data centers. It's not good where human beings are involved and you have to make choices about making the place more beautiful, not beautiful where there's judgment calls. M

So, but just thinking about, um, Singapore, and we just talking about how Singapore multiculturalism is really good in Singapore and all, is Singapore do you see it as a more desirable place for global citizens to live today compared to what it was 10 years ago? Are we, is it, I mean, we thinking about it as a city versus all the other global cities of the world, because we have this model of multiculturalism that honestly, you don't see in a lot of other places. Is Singapore still a very attractive place for people to move here and live and work here? I think it's a very touchy subject because when you talk about, I think the question should be, is it an attractive place for Singaporeans to to live as opposed to foreigners coming in? Because the reason I question that is, I'm not so sure that that many foreigners come here because we have such a thriving multicultural society, as long as it's safe. I think they come here for a lot of other reasons for which Singaporeans are not very happy about. M when you look at all your multi-billionaires, the family offices that come here, um, I alluded to something else in the social cohesion talk, which we haven't touched upon here. And the point I made was that I think we have done quite well in terms of multiculturalism for race and religion. I think class is beginning to rear its head in Singapore, and every society has always had income inequality. Singapore is a capitalist society, as much as Hong Kong, or as much as Dubai, or as much as Norway, which is totally capitalistic. But we used to be more like the Nordic countries in our espousal of egalitarian values. You don't flaunt your wealth. You don't pride yourself on flaunting your wealth. Over the last 10, 15 years, possibly because of the, the trying to attract private money to come into Singapore as a private wealth management place, and then as place for family offices and, and so on. We've moved far more to become like Dubai and like Hong Kong. M So the egalitarianism that Singapore had in its early years, where you had rich people as much as here, but it would be, there's a bit of a social pressure on the older generation of Singaporeans not to show off, just as it, as there was in America many years ago, and just as there still is today in Japan. I don't know for how much longer, but there are lots of rich Japanese when they don't flaunt their wealth because it's looked down upon. It's not that's being a bit crass to show your wealth. And in the Nordic countries, they still are. I don't know for how much longer. But in, I know that when I was growing up in Singapore, if you had a Rolls-Royce in Singapore, you tried to hide it. You just keep it, but you don't drive it around. In Hong Kong, you just drive it around everywhere. Look at Singapore today. Every rich kid parks in front of a hotel, his Lamborghini. Every little tycoon who's rich, who, in fact, a lot of non-tycoons buy secondhand Rolls-Royces just to show people that they have a Rolls-Royce. Now, that's the erosion of the values of egalitarianism. M So when you ask me whether Singapore is a great place for foreigners to live, I don't know how to answer you that because I think the foreigners who love to live in Dubai because they love to flaunt their wealth, more of them are now finding Singapore an interesting place to be because here you can openly flaunt your wealth more than you used to. But is that a good thing? I don't know.

So, so then going, I mean, going along the lines of what you said about Singapore being a place for Singaporeans, you know, the pro, the thing you mentioned about, I'm not saying Singapore should be a place for Singaporeans. That's kind of like a slogan for anti-immigration, which I do not believe in at all. I think we absolutely need immigration, and I, and I do not belong to the group of Singaporeans who would say foreign talent is a joke. Let's not hire. Let's get rid of all the bloody Indians who are back in the doing all the back offices of the banks. Let's, you know, let's be xenophobic against Singaporean. Singapore for Singaporeans is to me a populist slogan that I would absolutely refuse to be associated with. Yeah. So, I mean, I, I wasn't alluding to that, more about the people who are living in Singapore, whether they are born in Singapore or come from abroad. I was getting more towards the future of Singapore because, you know, what you were saying about how REITs managing things like hotels and malls, there are downsides to it. If it's all about profit maximization, um, as a country, I mean, like for me personally, looking at Singapore, you know, the past elections, just looking, it feels like Singapore is becoming more of like a company itself. Um, and how, how, like, how would you guard against that? I know as, as individual citizens, it's hard to change that, but how, in your ideal world, would Singapore evolve to adapt to the new world order, the changing world order, the fact that we We need to develop values of our own and not become soft because things are decided for us? Like, like how can that, that change, and, and what should we be thinking about? What should entrepreneurs be thinking about? What should be, uh, future policymakers be thinking about when you put it in that total way? I'm not sure one has an answer because what should politicians be thinking about and what should young Singaporeans be thinking about are quite very different things. Politicians should consider thinking about protecting Singapore in every possible way. Right? You cannot really expect a government to really re voluntarily and very proactively reducing its own role in government. I mean, that's not natural. Yeah. U so government should continue to protect Singaporeans against COVID, against foreign invasion, against this and that and so on. So if you're, if you're Lawrence Wong today, you have a different set of priorities. If I'm a young person today facing a Singapore where everything is kind of blandly wealthy, and I wake up every day kind of filled with a low level of depression and angst because I, I'm without purpose. Um, and I've said this before also, that young people in poor countries are filled with much more purpose than young people in rich countries. No fault of young people themselves, but there's a general sense of angst among younger Singaporeans that I don't know really what to do. I've got a pretty good life. The worst I can do is go to poly. Only a handful of people go to it. So I go to poly, and then my parents can send me to Australia for school, and I come back here and I get a job. I get some job. There's no issue of fighting for a job because Singapore unemployment is very low. So I'll get a job. It may be not the best job, and I, you know, I go to nightclubs at night and so on. And you kind of paddle your way through, sleepwalk your way through life with a low level of angst, but nothing enough to make you want to rebel, or more importantly, make you want to have self-agency to say, I will break out of poverty. I will be the first kid in my family to go to university. I'll be the first one in my family to buy a house, first one to buy a car. These are all very concrete reasons for you to want to really work hard. M There's not much reason a young Singaporean wants to work hard. Work hard for what? That's not fault of government. What can government do? And that's the irony that when people talk about how Hong Kong people, not so much now because Hong Kong is a bit of a bad place right now, but how Hong Kong people are so entrepreneurial and Singaporeans are not. I tell people the obvious reason is because Hong Kong has no safety net. M So do we want as Singaporeans to have so no safety net so that you can, that would make us more entrepreneurial? That's not necessarily a good thing, right? Singapore has got safety nets which we want to have, but then the flip side of safety nets is that you're not so hungry anymore. So my point to young people, as opposed to government, is that they should have a greater sense of self-agency. They should have a greater sense of, I can make a change in my own life. Not, I'm going to change the world and so on. But this, this low-level angst which I sense among young people, my point to them is, hey, that's not the government's fault. It's not your parents' fault. It's not your employer's fault. You are sleepwalking through life because you choose to sleepwalk through life. Go and change it. Change your life. You want to be doing this, go and do it. You want to sail around the world, go and do it. You want to do this, go and do it. Just Well, this is like a Nike ad now. Just do it. Right? I mean, that that's what I would tell young people. And so, it's not like in an ideal world, what would government do? What would parents do? And what would this and that do? It's in an ideal, not an ideal world, in the real world of Singapore today, young people have got to sit up and say, "I'm no softer than my parents. The world I was born into is one which has led me to be like this and where I spend all my afternoons gaming because that's the only thing to do and my life is pretty much in a rut. Now, how do I get myself out of a rut?" And it's not throwing stones at the government. It's just finding some other purpose in life. Whatever it may be, it may be a small thing. It may be to to work in the SPCA and help, you know, stray dogs. It might be volunteering and doing this. It might be starting up your own little startup. Do something that makes that is within your own control that gives you some sense of purpose and some sense of control over the future of your life. M

And I know like before the podcast, we were talking about how, I mean, one potential consequence of that is that we become a mediocre city. Um, like, um, maybe you can just elaborate a bit more, like why that is such a big concern or why that could become a big issue. That's a big issue to me because it's the most realistic, it's the most realistic negative, um, possibility, right? It's not the most realistic possibility. I'm not so down on Singapore to say that's likely to happen. But what I am trying to say is that I don't necessarily agree with the idea that, uh, Singapore is facing such a turbulent world with geopolitics that we all got to really, really worry. Um, we'll get through it. We've gone through worse crises than this. Um, and every country goes through geopolitical issues, global recessions, and so on forth. Um, and I don't think we're going to be invaded. I think without having to say much more, I think we all know Singapore is going to be and has maintained itself as a poisonous shrimp. If somebody would want to eat us, that's all we need to say. So to me, the most realistic negative scenario for Singapore is not a very dramatic one. In fact, unfortunately, if it were a dramatic one, people can be galvanized to action. Mhm. If you're a young Israeli today, you'll be probably very purposeful because the downside for Israel is actually survival or war. It's not. The downside for Singapore is not war. Although it's theoretically possible, it's not. All these things we talk about, even with a global recession, we have got enormous reserves. We can go through it and so on. The real threat that I think has the highest likelihood of a downside for Singapore is that over the next 10, 15 years, we will become a mediocre global city. We will always be a global city by definition. We will always be a prosperous one. But will we be really first cut in terms of innovation, in terms of all the metrics that we talk about, or will we gradually decline to a state of mediocrity, wealthy but second in line? If you look at the list of global cities, that's definitely the first tier global cities, and there's lots of pretty decent secondary global cities, and it'll be this decline and probably just settling there as a second-rate global city, which is not a bad thing at all. It's still very happy for its citizens and so on. But it's this gradual decline into mediocrity, and then Singaporeans themselves will become mediocre. And mediocrity, the danger about mediocrity is that the people who are mediocre and the people who are in a mediocre situation don't generally know it. M The people who are in a desperate situation know it. Yeah. The people who are in a really high-flying situation know it. Mediocrity is this soft fog that blankets us and cuddles us, and we just live happily as in and wallowing in our mediocrity. So it's not that bad a fate. Yeah. We'll still be a prosperous society and so on. But a mediocre society is not one where you want to challenge your kids. Do you want to be mediocre? M

I mean, do have, are there examples of that you've seen of other cities that have gone through this? Because I did read recently about the strange parallels between what happened in Japan that lost their kid from the '90s and from the '80s and '90s with where Singapore is today. Right. Um, are they, do you see any examples from history that we should look at to just to be, to warn ourselves about what where we shouldn't be going? I don't think you can, I can, you can name mediocre cities or who have that have gone down. Giorgio loves to use the case of Venice as a global city and how world history has changed. That's that's a sort of different thing where objective circumstances changed. Okay. So when, when George talks about Venice, it was that the Venetian Empire was at the very heart of the Mediterranean. But when the focus moved to the Atlantic, then Venice became just a tourist attraction, right? So Venetian Empire disappeared. You can talk about, um, the, the UK, the, the Midlands in the UK, Birmingham, Liverpool, um, because of industrialization, were primary cities in the world producing so much industry, and now they're very mediocre British cities because circumstances have changed. You can talk about in the US, many cities have become, times have passed them by, right? The steel boom in Philadelphia created a number of great cities. Those are all situations where, of course, the global circumstances have changed, and in Singapore, that clearly is also a threat. A lot of Singapore's primacy as a global city was due to its location in the world. Now, how is that going to change over the next 10, 20 years? I'm not sure. Um, you've seen the rise of Dubai as an airport. Has not really reduced Singapore's role totally, but it has, that it has reduced it a bit. Dubai is truly now a global hub. The advent of new aircraft has made it possible for people to go from the UK straight to Dubai once, and then they go to all the way to Australia without stopping in Singapore. Now, that technology can easily result in a situation where one of the major routes for for Singapore traffic has been Australia, Singapore, and UK. So you can imagine things changing, supply chain, supply lines changing so that Singapore's role as a port may diminish, etc. So if you take part of that happening, and then you take on the fact that Singapore itself is relatively mediocre, and we want to ride on our own success and we don't think of new ways to innovate, and, and right now, I think the government is well aware that all of us are in this bit of a bind today. All of us. It's not government's fault. I think it's all of us. Because right now, one of the biggest attractions of Singapore is to be a family office for other companies coming. I think the government is well aware, we do not want that to be the fate of Singapore alone. We do not want to be a Monaco. We do not want to be a Dubai. We want to promote life sciences, technology, cutting-edge research. So many billions of dollars have been put into research in Singapore so that we can grow not only unicorns. We can be at least a hotbed for innovation like Israel has been. Now, the jury is out on that, but it's not easy to do. AAR has tried it, and it's not been easy to do. So the jury is out. So, but what it does demonstrate is that there's this continual attempt to find new ways by which we can be cutting edge and we can be relevant to what it means to be a first-tier global city. All it takes is a failure to do so. A failure to realize that these are real exigencies that we need to follow on, and then gradually we become, gradually a soft decline into mediocrity. So, so you mentioned that that is the most realistic negative outcome. Correct. So to flip it, what would a positive outcome in your eyes look like? A positive outcome for Singapore, for Singapore would be that we are small, but we are incredibly innovative, and we are a place where people want to come to Singapore not because of tax breaks and so on. I mean, I still, I mean, I think it's great to have some degree of tax breaks, no inheritance tax and so on, but you don't want to be a place where only the rich will come and put up a family office here because to me, being the center of family offices is something like it's what tax havens want to be. It's what Monaco wants to be, and Dubai. I see a much better future for Singapore than that. I, I would like to say that Singapore can really be in its own way a very innovative city. And when I say in its own way, I keep on stressing that too many of young people think that, uh, they want to set up a startup. They again want to follow the West. They want to do a startup in a consumer startup, which is ridiculous because if you're doing a consumer startup, when you're in America or in China, you've got a few hundred million people right away, you do that startup that is an app-based startup. Immediately you got an audience. All these crazy people doing startups in Singapore for the Singapore market. I've got guys doing startups for tourism and travel. I mean, why? And yet we, we have a very strong STEM background with our universities are world-class. There's lots of things coming out that I think you know about Lucenses and the cancer technologies and so on. There's so many things that are not going to become Forbes magazine cover story. M They're not going to become unicorns, but they could well be the, the critical but non-famous plugins to various other aspects of of a technological ecosystem. Mhm. And these companies could then be worth a few hundred million and be sold to somebody else, and the guys go and do some other stuff. We are already quite good in the venture capital field in the sense that a lot of Singapore has been quite good in being a center for people to come and set up, uh, uh, VC funds and PE funds to finance startups. M So you've got, we are in a way the ASEAN startup capital, not because our own guys are coming up with a lot of things, but a lot of bright guys from Indonesia, from even Israel and India, and all coming to Singapore because there is the beginning of an ecosystem of financiers here who are willing to look at investing in startups. So I think all I'm saying is that you don't need to spell it out. You just need to say you want of a place where your kids and my grandkids would say, this is a really cool, exciting, happening place to be. We have got some of the most important fundamentals already. We've got security and safety, which is important. We've got a good and robust educational system. We've got a great national health system. We are just a little bit mediocre in our thinking. M Now, change that. And I'm not saying the government will change that. If you rely on the government to change that, it's all hopeless. So Singaporeans have got to have more self-agency. They've got to be more passionate and say, "I want this. I have this dream of what I want Singapore to be." You got a whole bunch of young people dreaming that way, and I think we can create a very vibrant, innovative society. That's the plus point. The positive aspiration for Singapore. The negative decline is not Singapore be eaten up. It's you want to be mediocre. It's the worst thing you can be. It's not so bad. But do you want you, you? It's like talking to a kid. You're not going to ever become poor. You're not going to be out on the streets. I've given you enough education. I've given you enough money in your bank account. You're never going to become any of that. So to my kid, I would say, okay, you want to have a mediocre life? Yeah, that's about the worst that would happen to you. Or do you want a life which is not necessarily to be a billionaire, but do you want a life that is exciting, full of hope for yourself, full of promise, and full of full of self-agency that I can do things? That's, that's the choices for young Singaporeans. That's a, that's a good resounding, uh, war cry. As young parents, I think that's helpful. I'm going to tell my kid that. Uh, just play that part. Just, just take that extract and play it out because it is something I'm thinking also for my 9-month-old is like, yeah, if, like, anything she does, I would like that, you know, she gives her all to it, um, and don't just like float through it, as you say. But I don't know, I mean, she's 9 months. I don't know when she's 10, I don't know how, how, um, how difficult it would be to, to kind of like, um, get her to, uh, understand or appreciate that. I think you can start the STEM classes at 11 months old. You can, you know, you can do every night when she's sleeping, just play, play, um, play lectures, play on a video lectures on Einstein's theory, and she'll absorb it. Is that what you, your grandkid? Oh, absolutely. I've been doing that. Oh, absolutely. Oh, really? Oh, that's. No, the serious side of it is, just give you an example. My, my, my daughter, uh, is now in Australia in, in on the Margaret River area with her three boys, ranging from one, uh, one, three, six kind of years old. Three boys altogether, and it's all about, it's all about discovery. They look at the plants, they go in the water. She's trying to expose them because Singapore doesn't have that much nature. It's all about exposure. Looking at little insects, uh, taking little tree leaves out and, and studying this and that, just making them excited about the natural world, making them inquisitive. So that when one of the grandkids came to our house and have a little fish pond, he jumped in the fish pond and started taking out some fish, little baby guppy fish to bring home. M So it's this, it's this sense of inquiry, the sense of excitement that the world is a very exciting place to be. If you start your children young in thinking the world is an exciting place of discovery every day, then by the time they're teenagers, they will have it in their mindset that the world is an exciting place to discover every day. But if, but if you teach them from very young to just let them play with their iPad and phone and watch TV and so on, and become passive recipients of the world around them, then you only have yourself to blame when they later grow up absolutely uninterested in the world because you haven't made it interesting for them. So I guess what I take away from that is I should bring my kid to your fish pond. That's, uh, that's, that's what I will do. Yeah. Ah, no problem. It's, um, $25 per copy. There's a lang downstairs your house, right? Just go there. It's a canal. But you know what? No. You know what do parents, Singapore parents would say? No. They'll catch dengue fever. Yeah. So I mean, Yeah. I think like

Right now, even we bring our kid to the sand, to the grass, and just letting her play. Yeah. And don't be so scared they get dirty. Yeah. And the food drops on the floor. Science has already said as long as it hasn't lasted even if it's the most polluted floor. Yeah. Five seconds. So grab it out in five seconds and give it to them to eat. Maybe they get a bit sick, but then they get, you know, they're not going to die. So be a bit more resilient. Yeah. Teach them about resilience. Teach them about excitement. Don't, don't cuddle them all the time. That's how they begin to not have an interest in the world. Very true. Very true. Sound advice. But yeah. Uh, but yeah. So now we just have one final question, which is the one show thing, which you did the last time. Uh, and now it's back to you. Uh, I mean, we will go first, so you have a bit of time to think about it. Uh, it can be a show, it can be something that can be shared through a link with our audience. Yeah. It doesn't need to be a show, doesn't need to be a book, but can be a song. Anything. Yeah. So you got a couple of minutes while we talk through ours. Sure.

Uh, I'm reading this book now. I, I don't know, maybe because in recent times I've, I've just been wanting to move away from reading American fiction. I don't know, maybe it's because of what's going on around the world and all. So I've been forcing myself to try and read, uh, English fiction from writers in other places. So I recently, uh, read, uh, like *Water for Chocolate*, a Mexican, Mexican writer, very famous book. And I always, I've heard people talk about it, and I heard that about a movie adaptation, but I, I never understood, uh, why people liked it so much. And when I started reading it, I think my logical side, my brain was like, I can't process what's going on because there just seems to be so many outlandish things happening in the book. And over time, I realized, like, basically, it's a, just a style of writing that I wasn't used to. Uh, that maybe because I've been reading too much American or English, uh, fiction, that the style of writing of just magical realism and just allowing your mind to go to places and have and form images in your mind that you're just not used to and not having to fall within the confines of normal logic and story structure. Uh, actually, it became a very relaxing experience of reading it. So, it started out pretty stressful for me at first, but opening up my mind to just like, okay, just go with the story. Doesn't matter that it's, it's so outlandish and out of this world and you can barely visualize it. But just the feel and the vibes of the reading actually became a very relaxing experience for me that allowed, allowed me to relax a bit before going to bed every night.

And how long have you been reading it already? I finished it, uh, a few weeks back. Uh, but yeah, it took me about a month to get through. Mhm. Uh, and you know, I'm generally a very like, logic, the story structure, very important kind of person, right? So, so for me, it was, it was, it was nice to be able to release all that and just enjoy the story for what it is. I mean, actually, that's true. When you watch foreign language films, they also open your mind to like, how different films can be. Uh, and I mean, okay, take for example, growing up, okay, I never used to watch Hindi movies a lot. Uh, but some of the best Hindi movies I've seen are like three and a half hours long, but it's a great movie because there's not typically your 60 to 90 minute, you know, 90-minute blockbuster. Uh, it's just different conventions. Yeah. We're so used to Hollywood story structure, the happy ending at the end, that when we don't get it, suddenly we feel like, oh, something's off with the world. But yeah, this, even for reading, I didn't realize that I had been so ingrained in that form of writing that I didn't, I, I needed to open my mind to other forms of fiction as well. Ah, okay, cool.

Um, mine is a company that I came across because I mean, I do like, uh, keeping track of the most interesting startups that are coming out, not just out of Singapore, but around the world. Uh, there's this one company, I don't know where it's based, but it's called Taj. And essentially, what it offers is, you know, you have like places you can apply for jobs, you can have places to apply for internships, but this is a shadow job portal. So basically, you apply to shadow someone who is doing great work in a certain industry. Uh, and I thought this was interesting because, uh, I mean, I've been an intern before, and sometimes as an intern, you hear that, you know, you need to be ready to just do all the busy work and absorb like a sponge. But I thought this was an interesting offering where, um, you can shadow people who are already doing, uh, things at a level that maybe you aspire at, and you just follow them around. And for the people who allow people to be shadowed, of course, it's a commercial model, but I thought this was, uh, interesting. So you get like private chefs, bridal designers, athletic, athletic club founders, uh, who might not be looking for an intern, but they just, you just follow them around.

He shadows a porn star also? Um, I'm sure. I mean, OnlyFans, maybe. Yeah, maybe OnlyFans. I'm sure that would be very popular. Is there an age limit for the intern or anything? Um, I don't know. So even food hospitality, there's the, um, like chef, met private chef, wine bar owner, Italian spirits distiller. So I thought, you know, like for people to, um, really find what they're interested in, sometimes you, like, you don't need to just do busy work, you can actually follow because sometimes the work is not as glamorous as people think. Uh, and I think it's also important people realize that. And this shadow job thing, I never thought about it as a, as a way for people to experience work. So I thought this is an interesting startup. I don't know how it's doing. Uh, but I just thought it's a cool concept. In Singapore? No, no, no, not Singapore. Um, yeah, overseas, I think. Cool. Yeah. So that's for me. Uh, and what about you? I'm supposed to think of something that was interesting and cool recently. Yeah.

Mmm. Well, I, I guess, um, I'd mentioned to you that I, I, I spend quite a bit of free time half, half watching Netflix and half working, which obviously you tend to forget the plot of what's going on. So I don't remember many Netflix thrillers or movies at all, but I just sort of put it on while I'm working. But the one episode I, I clearly remembered is simply because an old friend of mine was the, the lead person in this particular short period of the episode. And this is the, the US, uh, series *The White Lotus*, where series three was shot in Thailand. And of course, they, the big thing was about the Thai pop star, the K-pop star who's Thai, called Lisa, was in it. And she played, she had, I, I don't know Lisa, but there was a guy who played the monk, and he had to sound, he has a British accent. He's Thai, and he's an old friend of mine who actually offered me my first job in Thailand. Oh, um, 5,000 baht a month, which, if you can translate, is kind of like a few hundred dollars. And he's a well-known journalist and even podcaster and everything today. Yun, you should look him up. So he played the role of a very learned monk. Uh, he's actually quite racy in real life, but here he was espousing all these, all these very, very stereotypical wisdoms, you know, the kind of jewels of wisdom that you would get in an American Hollywood movie about Buddhism, which is very stereotypical. And he could do it all with a straight face. So I kind of watched it with interest. Oh, that, um, he was doing it with a straight face. So afterwards, I congratulated him and told him that the next role he has to play is a, a Thai, Thai mafia boss because he's, and he could have a new career at the age of 70s something as a, as an actor. So that's the first time I've seen somebody I know. Yeah. Yeah. Um, on screen, big scale. And I mean, that movie, it is globally famous. So he's not an actor by trade. He doesn't act much. No, no, no. His, his son Prada Yun is a movie producer, uh, and in the movie world. And, and I guess, you know, the people in *White Lotus* and so on, and they asked him for somebody who's going to play a wise monk. So they said the dad. I see. But the dad is skinny. Um, most monks are actually quite fat, so he didn't fit the role. But I guess Hollywood wanted a monk to be quite skinny also. I see.

I mean, I mean, speaking of Netflix shows, I did want to like end off by asking you about this one, you know, very critically acclaimed show about, you know, international relations and, um, things that are very intellectual. It's called *Single's Inferno 2*. Um, and one of the, the key features of that show was that, um, everyone's on Inferno when they escape to Paradise. Paradise happens to be a Banyan Tree Hotel in Korea, right? So, like, how involved were you in that process? I wish I could say I was actually, um, so involved that I could have been one of the reality stars, but in actuality, I only got to know about it from our GM and so on after the whole thing was done. I, I don't know how we managed to pitch for it. I'm glad we got pitched for it. And there have been several other places. I mean, the *Single's Inferno* was the whole thing was set in Banyan Tree, but you know, one of the reasons, I don't know if you did you see any episodes at all of? Yeah, I watched it, but then, you know, they need to be together in a Banyan Tree room, right? Yes. And you've seen probably the reason they chose it is that the Banyan Tree Club and Spa in, so every room has got a private swimming pool. Oh, yes. A little relaxation pool. So if you wanted to have romantic things happening in the reality TV show. Did they ever show things happening in the pool? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. They would do, they would even like scatter petals around the pool. And Yeah. I mean, it wasn't racy, racy, but it was suggestive. Okay. And then do you have a few Banyan Tree hotels in Korea? Because I don't think they just went to the same one, right? No, we have a few. We have in, we have Cassia and Socho. We have, we have a few other hotels, but that one, I think it was filmed there. Yeah. Yeah. But just to do a final pitch for Banyan Tree, we are the location of choice for people who want to show, um, romantic but not racy movies, not only *Single's Inferno*. The other one I know about was this, I think it's a Korean movie or Chinese movie, I'm not quite sure, where it showed a young couple kissing and then it was shot by a drone. So the drone withdraws into the air, and they're standing on the rooftop of Banyan Tree, Bangkok at Vertigo. So you sort of see them sort of kissing each other as if they're just in a normal place, and then the camera pulls back and they're up on the rooftop of something that's 60 over stories high. So Oh, that's great, man. Yeah. So next time you do a podcast, do it, um, in Banyan Tree Seoul or do Banyan Tree Mandai. We can get arranged some songs. Yeah. Yeah. Hey, about the Mandai. I mean, okay, Mandai is great, but we, one of our things is like we want to bring Yalabat, um, to the international market. So we might take you up on that offer. Yeah. Yeah. *Single's Inferno* next. *Single's Inferno 3*. The Yalabat version where you have differing views and we put you in a hotel room. Yeah. And then put you in a pool and you talk about international. Yeah. And I will tell you, I know the producers of *Single's Inferno 4*, and so you two could be definitely among the contestants. Oh, wow. Like we need to talk to our wife about that. It's too big an opportunity. Yeah. Like we have to go. I must watch that. Is it on Netflix? Oh, yeah, it is. So if I just type *Single's Inferno*, how many seasons have they had already? Three seasons. But the late, it's the latest. The latest one is good. It's like 13 episodes. The latest season. It's the one with Banyan Tree. Yeah, it's the one with Banyan Tree. Yeah, the latest season, *Single's Inferno 3*. But it's just like any of those reality TV shows where they compete and all that. I mean, it's interesting. It's all faked, is it not? Or is it real? Do you think? I mean, there might be certain elements of like putting these people together, but what is nice compared to more the US dating shows is that you actually see them kind of have awkward conversations like two people meeting for the first time, and it's not just all about the sex and all. It's the social aspect to it is quite interesting. And there's real awe when they move from, you know, the Inferno, which is an island with no facilities, and then they take a helicopter and end up at the Banyan Tree, and there's an awe when they discover the hotel room and see all the amenities there. And that's the kind of awe that you experience when you travel to a resort. We should take some clips and use it in. Yeah. And I mean, it's a fun thing to watch to just judge people. Is anything? Yeah. From the private privacy of your own room, just judge people. Yeah. Starting tonight. Awesome. Okay. Thank you so much for coming on and to everyone, uh, listening. I hope you enjoyed that. And, uh, yeah, thanks. We'll talk to you all soon.