Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner of Hustle Fund, and Jeremy Au discussed:
1. Trump Win vs. Southeast Asia Trade: Trump’s 2024 landslide election victory across the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, will reshape Southeast Asia’s economic landscape. His proposed “global 10% tariff” on all US imports and a targeted 60% tariff on Chinese goods may severely disrupt Southeast Asia’s trade flows. Singapore could face challenges for export-driven industries and its role as a key transit hub for US-China trade. Chinese-funded products manufactured in Southeast Asia—such as solar cells produced in Vietnam— may now face similar tariffs as those directly from China. Biden-era “reverse CFIUS” restrictions, which limit US investment in Chinese firms across sectors such as AI and advanced manufacturing, coupled with Trump's new China hawk administration will further accelerate American LPs and MNCs to redirect foreign direct investment (FDI) towards Southeast Asia instead of China.
2. China Talent Flows: Known as the “Delaware of Asia,” Singapore stands to benefit as both US and Chinese firms seek a neutral and stable base for regional Asia operations (versus Hong Kong). As US-China tensions deter many Chinese families and professionals from pursuing American education and career paths, Singapore has become an appealing alternative. Singapore, a nation built by immigrants, has long maintained a social contract that includes national service (NS) obligations as a cornerstone of fostering social cohesion among its diverse population. However, the country has historically faced complex challenges in determining which types of immigrants to accept, how best to integrate them into society and to improve income inequality. Jeremy shared a story about a former Thai employee who had to leave America after her H-1B visa renewal was denied during Trump’s first term, illustrating how Trump’s immigration policies could drive talent to return to the regional tech ecosystem.
3. Silicon Valley Divided: Opinions remain split, with Trump’s pro-deregulation stance sparking optimism in some corners, evidenced by a surge in Bitcoin prices and positive reactions from equity markets. Supporters point to potential gains for sectors like crypto and tech equities, alongside corporate tax cuts that help maintain profits, boost R&D, and provide attractive exit opportunities for venture capitalists. Concerns were raised that while deregulation under Trump may fuel market growth, higher tariffs could exacerbate economic disparities and be the wrong solution for the middle class.
Jeremy and Shiyan also talked about how China exporters like BYD electric cars will now increasingly focus on Southeast Asia markets, Singapore’s low birth rate like Japan and the growing number of startups building digital AI companions.
Conduct predictive carbon modelling and more using AI with Nika.eco, this month’s newsletter sponsor!
Have you ever wondered how governments decide where to best strategically place telco towers, hospitals & nursing homes? Or perhaps how insurers price premiums based on sea level rise and other climate risk? More so than ever in this age of machine learning, these critical decisions today are being supported by large geospatial models that are trained with millions of spatial data points. However, such computing environments can be incredibly complex, expensive and tedious to set up. Nika.eco offers a DevOps solution that significantly saves cost and time by allowing researchers and data scientists to create an optimised geospatial machine learning environment with just one click. Reach out to info@nika.eco if you are a geospatial data scientist or climate researcher who is interested to partner on a pilot or research opportunities.
(01:15) Jeremy Au:
Hey Shiyan.
(01:16) Shiyan Koh:
What's up, Jeremy?
(01:18) Jeremy Au:
What's up is the US elections. I was definitely staying up the past two nights kind of like reading and following the US elections. How about you?
(01:26) Shiyan Koh:
I mean, it's Singapore Fintech Festival, right? So there's a lot of people in town, there's a lot of events, and then I think there's the overlay of the election, the election results, so, definitely a busy week.
(01:35) Jeremy Au:
Yeah, no, I was just chatting my friend. I was like, Hey, I'm surprised by how much my job, you know, literally 12 times was away and across the world is so pegged to this election. Right. If that makes sense. I'm not pegged to the Brazilian election. I'm not pegged to the, I don't know, Estonian election, but I'm very much pegged to the US election.
(01:56) Shiyan Koh:
I mean, I think that's true with people around the globe, right? When elephants dance, ants have to be careful. So If the US is dancing, if China is dancing, we all gotta pay attention. China is our biggest trade partner. US is our biggest source of FDI. So not to mention sort of how free trade oriented we are in general here in Singapore. So I think there's a lot of interest in what happens. And then I don't know.
(02:17) Shiyan Koh:
I think also Singaporeans feel entertained.
(02:20) Jeremy Au:
Thought about every texty uncle who has a point of view about US politics.
(02:23) Shiyan Koh:
Yeah. I mean, I think it is a style of politics that is very unique, right? It's very different from what happens in Europe or, or, or Latin America, or even in other parts of Asia, not to mention our own backyard. So I think it's a spectacle and Americans are good at entertainment. The event of the industry.
(02:39) Jeremy Au:
Yeah. I mean, we talked about how Singapore DFD is a price taker in terms of the US elections and the policy, right? I mean, it doesn't have the abilities like global policy. It's a price taker. And I think also to some extent about jobs, since we're focused on technology, which is about global technology trends that often emerge from China and America, but also it's about a lot of the, LP capital flows, right. USD dollar denominated, but also focusing on like cross border, other dynamics as well, in charge of a global fund. So I think our jobs are a little bit more indexed to this election compared to say, if I was doing, I guess manufacturing is a bit impacted now, but you know, local services in Singapore, Indonesia, you're running a barber business or like a bubble tea business, I can imagine those are a little bit less impacted by the US elections, but I think for people who are obviously in big tech and everything, obviously lots of impact.
(03:24) Jeremy Au:
So, elephant in the room here is Trump victory. It was a close race for much of it, but the outcomes were not even close. It looks like Trump won the Senate, they won the House and he won the White House.
(03:34) Shiyan Koh:
Yeah. I mean, I don't know how close it was, right? I think we perhaps wanted it to be close, but she became the nominee, what is it? A hundred days ago.
(03:43) Jeremy Au:
Yeah.
(03:43) Shiyan Koh:
So she didn't have a ton of time to, I think, get out and prepare. And I think also from the democratic party's perspective, they didn't run a primary. They didn't run the standard process where you have all the candidates kind of beat each other up. And so I don't think necessarily that the Dems did themselves any favors by pushing the Biden dropout to so late. And I think it also created a perhaps sense of betrayal. Like, wait, you guys were going to keep pushing this old octogenarian on us until the debate exposed the fact that he was like probably not up to doing the job. That feels like a betrayal. So. I don't know. I think we have a lot of liberal friends, probably.
And I think there's an idea of you want a leader that you can feel is moral and ethical and can look up to, but think the federal the presidential election is also a vessel for people's feelings about everything, right? That you're like, I am happy or unhappy with this thing. And I think you see a thing in US elections where at midterms, they'll switch people out, right?
So it's, it's sort of like, okay, you had two years. Did anything change for me? No. Okay. I'm going to change it. So people don't stay empowered that long and it flips back and forth. And so I think it is challenging in general for the incumbent party. I don't know. This is like the best way to communicate your unhappiness. It's not totally clear in some dimensions what the federal government has impact wise in terms of like state and local politics, but a tough problem.
(05:05) Jeremy Au:
I think what's been interesting, of course, is a lot of folks kind of like reacting and thinking through what their reactions should be. I think on a, like you said, on a personal level, I think everyone does feel invested. People in Singapore and Indonesia and Vietnam and Thailand, Philippines, everyone's watching the news as well. And obviously I think, American trade, American foreign direct investment, American military, right, is very much present right, across the whole Southeast Asia. So it's not just, of course, like a popular dynamic as well, but also there's a business and commercial and national security interests at stake as well. So I think, people started reacting to the Trump victory. I was at lunch with entrepreneurs, with you. And basically I think the context was like, wow, Bitcoin is going up, right? So, so that was one direct impact that came up from the US election because Trump is more pro-crypto than Kamala. And I think by people have viewed Biden administration as being anti crypto. So I think that was a big part of the Bitcoin price going up.
(06:04) Shiyan Koh:
Think in general, Trump is perceived to be more pro deregulation. So whether it is crypto or whether it is FTC and like some of the antitrust work that has been done during the Biden administration I mean, equity markets are up, right? So I think there's a general feeling that, Hey, businesses, business will be better, it will be less constrained. And I think. If you are somebody who is in risk on assets like crypto or the equity markets, then, you feel happy about that. I, I guess maybe the sort of thing that I think about that is maybe a little bit of a Debbie Downer is that don't know that this helps like the factory worker who lost his job in Detroit. The guy who's angry basically about his personal financial situation is not net better off with unfettered deregulation. And maybe you can make this sort of like tax cut type of argument and things like that, but there are structural issues in the US that actually require money to fix, and I guess it's not totally clear to me that there is a strong Republican agenda to do that.
And I'm not sure the Democrats have a great plan either, right? I mean, if you remember if we go back all the way to the economic history NAFTA, the WTO, it was like a bipartisan deregulation, right? But that set off a bunch of cascading effects that I'm not totally sure have been addressed. And if you look at the skew in the electorate, right, it's non-college educated voters came out really strongly for the Republicans. And I think they're the ones who are most negatively impacted by globalization. But at the same time it's not clear that increased deregulation plus let's slap tariffs across the board is going to benefit this part of the electorate. So I, I don't know. I mean, I think we're capitalists. We own equities and we probably will do better, but I'm not sure that The American population necessarily got to do better.
(07:50) Jeremy Au:
Yeah. I think it's a tricky conversation because it's a multi dimensional aspect about it, right? I mean, there's a history aspect. There's the, who exactly benefits? And then obviously it's cut by education. It's also cut by geography, right? Which state you're in and also which industries are impacted, right? So I think lots to unpack here. I would say that, from my kind of like economist hat, kind of like coming on here at the end of the day, equity markets, like you said, are going up because of that deregulation piece, but also because of his push to preserve the tax cuts that his first administration had pushed through. And he wants to preserve that for corporations, right? So corporations will have maintain those tax cuts. And so they're more likely to continue having a large profit pool which obviously can be spent on dividends, can be spent on R and D by benefits, I think, large public companies. And obviously what's interesting for you and I, of course, is that it benefits us as venture capitalists in both good and bad ways, right?
I think in obviously good ways that that probably means that going into public markets, continue to maintain a big exit reward, right? Because, taxation is not high, equity markets are high, lots of liquidity in the system because he's also generally in favor of lower interest rates. The other aspect that we have, of course, is that we have questions about specific verticals, right? So Bitcoin, obviously crypto is up as blockchain technology is up as vertical because of Trump administration, climate tech and ESG as verticals are down. I think that would be the market perspective because of this. And then there's a big question which is for startups that are trying to describe incumbents and let's say we just find incumbents as big technology, like Google, Meta, for example, other incumbents is Trump. You know, it's unclear right now because I think Biden's administration was antitrust, obviously, but it's also unclear where Trump is going to land on that as well.
(09:31) Shiyan Koh:
Yeah, I mean, I think deregulation and tax cuts are one part of equity markets being up and impacting corporate profits, but tariffs, I think, would negatively impact corporate profits. And so I saw an estimate that was like, it's quite a significant impact to corporate profits if we're slapping tariffs on everything. Globally and then I think there's just this crazy wild card, right? Which is like, Trump says a lot of things. Who knows what he's actually gonna do? He, he doesn't have, I think he has a history of changing his mind on a bunch of things. And I think there's this Elon wanting to cut out 50,000 civil service jobs or whatever it is. And so I think again, this is one of those things where it's I'm pro efficiency. That's probably Singaporean. But I think there's just back to the continuing to hollow out the administrative state. I don't know, without sort of demanding sort of accountability on delivering citizen services doesn't seem great for me. So right, it's like there's a very fundamental American mistrust of government, which is like government's not very good at its job, therefore we should defund them, and oh, there's so few of them, and they continue to suck.
See, we were right, continue to defund them. And then I think, the flip side is also true, right, where in places where they have added bureaucracy. They haven't necessarily achieved at a very high level. And so that continues to feed that mistrust. So don't know, hard problem. I'm not a US citizen, so it's not exactly my problem to solve.
(10:50) Jeremy Au:
Yeah, I think that, tariffs are obviously kind of a very like old school weapon, but, they seem to become much more popular, obviously over the past decade. And, the protectionism is a phrase, obviously it's a loaded word as well in terms of economist perspective. So let's talk about that because it's obviously a big part of it is I think that if we think previously talked about in previous podcast episode is he has promised, for example, a global 10 percent kind of like tariff on all imports to America and a 60 percent tariff on China and maybe even more, right? If something else happens.
So I think there's an interesting differential impact. And I think the tricky part is obviously we're evaluating the policy as he currently sees it. And obviously he's very big into like big opening offers, so he wants a price anchor in the negotiation, right? I think I was reading this great book by Scott Adams who wrote, the Dilbert comic, right? But I think he noted that Trump is very good at creating these giant visual images and he kind of negotiates down and he looks like a very reasonable person after he negotiates down from that opening position, which is a classic business negotiation dynamic that we have here, right? But I think directionally, of course, I think it's still true, right? Is that, there is going to be more tariffs that should happen under this administration. And I think there will be more of that tariff exposure is going to happen or, or be heightened on Chinese businesses as well.
So I think, I think we can play with that, I think, base case as the scenario. So, I'll take the first step at kind of like charting out what it means for Southeast Asia, right? I think that first of all, Southeast Asia has a lot of trade flows within Southeast Asia with America and with China. And I think that Singapore as a middleman between China and America is more likely to lose, I would say, from some of these policies because as a middleman, you're tied to the flow, right? In terms of container ships, moving from China to America. So I think from the perspective of where Singapore is a middleman between China and Singapore, that flow is likely to slow and then I think Singapore benefits or stands to lose, I guess, from that decrease in trade. That would be my high level point of view. Any other points of view you think that you have Shiyan?
(12:52) Shiyan Koh:
I think that's probably fair. I think we see the flow of a lot of Chinese companies trying to set up entities outside of China to address the global market. I do think there's the challenge of how deeply, the commerce department digs, right? Which is, I think they already identified some PVs being manufactured in Vietnam as fundamentally funded by Chinese. And so they want to slap the same china tariff on that, regardless of where is the sort of purported country of origin. So I think depending on how hardcore they get on that. I think that's going to be challenging for the region. So I think I, the, the task for China is to sell to the rest of the world that's not the US right. And try to build up there. So I think, what is it like even the number one selling car in Singapore today's BYD electric car. They are dominating Brazilian electric car industries, Chinese cars, but it's really hard to not have access to the largest consumer market in the world.
So I think it's like an interesting, it's an interesting problem, but I think to the extent that multinationals are looking to build more sources outside of China. So you saw, I think Apple started selling their first Indian produced iPhones. I think that is beneficial for the region. I think it's still harder for the Chinese companies trying to diversify out.
(14:02) Jeremy Au:
Yeah. So I think we're going to see more American FDI into Southeast Asia via Singapore, so that we want to impact because, I mean, I think there's no hope of a reopening for Chinese funds or American capital to flow into Chinese investments. I mean, it was already being hammered. We previously talked about it by the reverse CFIUS that was done by the Biden administration, which also prevents American LP investments into Chinese kind of like beneficiary investments in lots of fields from national security to AI, but I think this kind of like the final nail in the coffin, I would say for at least another four years if not longer, because I think successors are likely to inherit those policies as well. So, I think more FDI will flow to the region via Singapore.
And then I would say that also more Chinese FDI or capital is going to flow into the region because previously they would have wanted to go to America. They wanted to buy American equities or treasuries or assets, but I think, they're going to diversify, move into Southeast Asia. And I think Singapore will continue to benefit as the Delaware kind of like tax jurisdiction, court jurisdiction, incorporation jurisdiction, and headquarters jurisdiction for both Chinese as well as American multinational corporations.
(15:09) Shiyan Koh:
Yeah, I think that's fair. I'm a little bit worried about like the xenophobic tinge of the incoming administration, and so I also wonder from an immigration perspective if Singapore and the region will benefit more from people who might have thought they were going to go to the US, but actually opt to stay or go to more neutral third parties or folks who thought they could get visas in the US aren't able to get them because I think last time round, Trump made it pretty hard for people to get H 1B renewals and so that's like another possible benefit for the region as well as just from a talent inflow or retention perspective.
(15:42) Jeremy Au:
Yeah, you know, I did have a employee while I was in the US. Her H 1B was not renewed under the Trump administration, which our lawyers told us had never happened before in the history of H 1B. And so, we tried to do an appeal, but long story short is that she had to return to Thailand where she's part of the kind of like local startup ecosystem today. So I think there'll be one example of talent that would be kind of like returned to their home system, which is, not a bug, it's a feature, right? I mean, I think that if you're focusing on local American jobs for American workers, then the feature or the output is that non Americans would not be, or would not find it easy to stay in America for some of these jobs.
I think we also see that for Chinese students, I would say. So if you look at Singapore universities, there's a lot of Chinese national students. I mean, I think the core of it, of course, is that these Chinese families and parents wanted their kids to grow up with international education to also have more diversification in terms of their cultural and social experiences. And I think they would have chosen America in the past, like Los Angeles or New York, or San Francisco as places to raise their kids. But definitely I've met many Chinese nationals in Singapore who say that they don't feel welcome in America. They find it too difficult to go there.
And they also worry that if there is any escalation of the conflict between China and America because of any of the flashpoints, like South China Sea or Taiwan, then they fear that their visas or their assets might be kind of like revoked or there's some sort of legal risk there as well. So from that perspective, it's better to kind of like make a longer term bet on migrating to Canada or to Singapore as places to be in.
(17:17) Shiyan Koh:
That's an interesting point, right? Because, I mean, I think you cite Canada and Singapore, both countries that have fairly more open stances towards immigration and I think our point of view is always that bringing talent actually grows the pie. So it's not just about keeping jobs for citizens, but it's about growing the pie for citizens with the addition of talent, and I think that actually is what one of the US 's great superpowers, right, is that they can attract the best and brightest all over the world to come to the US and do research, start companies, and I hope that doesn't change too much, but, I mean, I think the record from the first Trump administration is that I think all of those immigration programs will get tighter.
(17:52) Jeremy Au:
I mean, I think the question is how they get tighter, but if they end up building like a pathway for high skilled immigration, which is what I think Silicon Valley who are supporters of Trump are saying that that's kind of like the plan. Obviously, let's see what the shape of the negotiations would be across the Senate, the House and the White House, but at least they're all Republican parties. So it's going to be interesting to see what that flavor turns out to be.
I think it is fair, of course, that, every country, cares about their borders, right? I mean, I think the EU is also pushing hard on securing its borders. If you look at every Southeast Asian country, it's a no brainer that you control your border in terms of who comes in, who doesn't come in. And actually, I think Canada is pushing back against immigration right now. I think the current administration is quite unpopular because of the perception that there's too much immigration, especially on the lower end of unskilled immigration through the asylum and other programs.
So, I think by nature, societies are not highly accepting of immigrants. I mean, I would also hesitate to say that Singapore is very open to immigration, I would say. I don't know what the right word here is, but, if you look at all the countries in Southeast Asia, I think everybody has a little bit of an ambivalent attitude towards immigration, I would say.
(18:58) Shiyan Koh:
It's true. I mean, I think it's very primal, right? You want to create your tribe versus other tribes, so who's in and who's out. And that is a challenge, I think, for countries that are immigrant nations. You're not Orang Laut, and neither am I. We are the product of immigrants who showed up here. So. I mean, unless there's something you're not telling me, but I'm guessing you're not. So, I think, I think it's an interesting question to wrestle with, right? Which is to say, what constitutes a Singaporean? Who gets to decide what that looks like? And to really acknowledge that, we are strengthened by immigrants, that we ourselves are immigrants. And also I think, we always talk about our declining birth rate, which is that in the absence of immigration, like you actually have population decline because we are not actually at replacement rate. We're not even close to replacement rate. And so that's like a different sort of policy problem to deal with.
(19:51) Jeremy Au:
Yeah, I mean, it's you and I both have two kids each, so, that's twice that of the average Singaporean in Singapore. And two is that doesn't replace the two of us, right? You need 2.1, 2.2. So yeah, I think Singapore, without immigration would look like Japan, I would say, in terms of aging and shrinking population base. So it's kind of like a not an easy conversation. The answer is probably somewhere in between, right? What's the right flow or right type of immigration that from the policy perspective. But yeah, personally, if you look at my 23 and me test, I mean, a large percentage of my family obviously were migrants from China. But of course, I do have some Southern Southeast Asian DNA, my blood as well. So, it's a, I'm a fusion, I guess.
(20:32) Shiyan Koh:
Yeah, but I think, but I think the bigger point is that it's just really important that we feel that bread and butter issues are well taken care of for citizens. If people feel like they're being well taken care of, they're able to thrive and lead good lives, then I think people are more open to being more accepting. If people feel like they're somehow not, they're being short changed in any way, then that's when people are like, Oh, that guy's taking my thing. That guy's taking my thing. And I think that's, that's something that is really important for politicians to think about, which is to how to continually engage citizens and hear their concerns.
And I think we're also in this like strange part where most Singaporeans material needs are taken care of, but I think inequality makes people feel like they're always striving for something unattainable, so I think there's this sort of what's the good life? Okay, I got my flat. I, my kids are in school. I have access to healthcare. I have a job. I have food. Right. I'm not like, where in Maslow's hierarchy are we now where, like, how do I get the self actualization?
(21:33) Jeremy Au:
Yeah. I think Singapore has also gone through its own piece, right? I think there was a, kind of like one to two decades where it was very much focused on bringing in blue collar, low skilled workers to support the growth of some of our industries. And then Singapore pushed back because of concerns about integration and assimilation. So now Singapore is much more focused on highly skilled or highly wealthy individuals for immigration. But of course that seems to be perpetuating, I think, the income inequality divide. So a little bit of a Goldilocks dynamic. It's immigration can't be too hot, too cold, somewhere just right. I think that's kind of like a balancing game that has to be figured out.
(22:04) Shiyan Koh:
Yeah. I think the NS thing also is like a big sticking point. I mean, for men, so I don't know. What if adult male PRs also had to do reservist? Would that feel better?
(22:16) Jeremy Au:
Well, the sons of PRs do already have to do national service. So, I think it's a bit of a intergenerational social contract. Actually it was an interesting debate that we happened over one of our WhatsApp groups where, you know, that there are families who did not do national service and now they want to come back to Singapore. And then, it caused a little bit of a debate in our WhatsApp group, obviously, because for those of us who had done national service or still doing the follow on reservist cycles, I did a 40 or 50 years old, it's kind of like a bit of a weird dynamic where there is a social contract that has been done, which is, guys will sacrifice two years of their life to protect the nation and you can make some arguments whether it should be men and women, you can make arguments about whether it's one years or two years, you can make argument, about can it be more flexible in terms of timing. But I mean, at the core of it is there's some kind of social contract, right? That everybody has now accepted as part of our operating system, assumption that it happens, right? And interestingly, I think what my reflection I had from that debate Where everybody obviously was very diplomatic and professional in terms of having that debate, but also I think there was some emotions where people felt like, there's a bit of symbolism and obligations, right?
I think social contracts are fragile but it can be very lasting, right? Because, it's dependent on everybody assuming that this is the trust and we don't have to trust a bilateral transaction in a sense that it's not a transaction between you and me. It's I made a transaction agreement and trust the state and society that it happens. And then everybody will follow the same social norms, right? So we are thinking like, This national service thing, it's like both fragile in a sense that, once you change it, everybody kind of does a free for all, for whatever it is, but it's also very strong because of its relationship and social nature. So I think it's an interesting dynamic and definitely plays a big part in the whole immigration debate for Singapore.
(23:54) Shiyan Koh:
Yeah, I mean, that's why I proposed it, right? Which is to say hey, if you made adult male PRs do reservists, obviously you're not going to make them do the two years, right? But the reservists I think has like an integration benefit as well. So, you know, it,
(24:08) Jeremy Au:
Are you proposing that for, for people who want to become PRs, like similar to the American military, they can volunteer for the military. And that's I don't know what's the word kind of like, bonus points for your immigration scorecard or, I mean, in America, if you volunteer for the army, US army, it's a pathway to citizenship.
(24:24) Shiyan Koh:
I think it's acknowledging that it takes all types of people to make up a country and iIf you sacrifice time, like that's valuable, right? It's not just like, Hey, I showed up and put a bunch of money but I sacrifice time or effort or some skill or expertise. Then you're not just like collecting PRs or passports or whatever it is. You're saying like, Hey, I'm actually going to go do something because I think, I mean, I agree with you, which is that citizenship comes with rights, but it also comes with responsibilities. So I think NS is a responsibility. Voting is a responsibility, right? And then I think there's sort of softer like civic engagement responsibility that we don't really enforce, but ideally, those are actually the bonds that connect us together, right? Which is okay, how do I help my fellow citizen? How do I behave in a manner that helps our society progress? And so if you're a new entrant, um, and you want to be part of my team, then maybe there's an argument to be made that here's one way to do it. I don't know. I'm not in charge of anything. We're just spitballing.
(25:22) Jeremy Au:
I mean, it's true, because I was reading this article about this Myanmarese national who was on his way to church and then, he saw that there was a kid, kind of like on the, it was a ledge of a HGB flat and then everyone's kind of like really concerned, and then he was off to an initiative to climb a pipe and you know put the kid back in the window right and save the life and then up there he kind of like shimmied his way down because he was worried that if he went in through the window he might be considered like a crime right and then so you know he risked his life again climbing down right you know and then i thought it was interesting where the comments tread on reddit and all the articles on Facebook was like, this is the person who deserves a citizenship or this guy deserves to be part of society, because there's a recognition that this is the kind of person, I'm putting them air quotes here, right? That has the civic responsibility or duty that people would admire or want to be part of your tribe, which is, I think, a very primal thing, right? Which is if you respect that person, you want that person to be part of your tribe.
So, before this, he was a Myanmar national who was here on a short term work and now he is somebody who people respect because he's a hero, and so I think that definition of heroism or civic responsibility and sacrifice is something that we kind of intuitively understand. But of course, once you start codifying the programs, it becomes a little bit loaded, but I think that's, I think it's a interesting nexus.
(26:36) Shiyan Koh:
Yeah, I think so. And I think, I mean, I don't know. I think we probably have a, don't know what the right word is because it's, we sort of have this hey, you're here at an EP or some work permit or whatever. It's an economic transaction. You come here, you do your job and then you leave. And we don't impose any obligations on you. You don't impose any obligations on us. But at the same time, if somebody comes and is like, Hey, this is a pretty nice place. I'd love to stay longer, like I want to be part of this. What are ways that they can demonstrate that, that, are not just I went to a fancy college and I have lots of money. Because I think it takes all types of people to build a great society. And if there are other ways that we can think about that, it's like somebody comes and volunteers a lot, even though it's, they're not just here as economic agents, basically, they're also trying to make the community, the space around them, improve. I think in general I don't know, people would view that quite positively.
(27:30) Jeremy Au:
Yeah. So it will be interesting to see how that flow happens. I would say that, I have new neighbors who are Chinese from China. Lots of kindergartens have a lot of like Chinese nationals, for example. Obviously the other migrants as well from Southeast Asia, from the rest of Southeast Asia, like the Philippines, from Thailand, who are also joining Singapore and Southeast Asia as an ecosystem. So I think it'd be interesting to see how that plays out in terms of assimilation, integration.
(27:53) Shiyan Koh:
Yeah. And we should encourage more of it, actually. I think that's, you know, people lament social media and like keyboard warriors and everything. And I think the direct antidote to that is you actually have to engage with real people in physical space.
(28:08) Jeremy Au:
Boo. I want my AI companion.
(28:12) Shiyan Koh:
Oh my God. I get pitched so many of those. And so like on one hand,
(28:15) Jeremy Au:
Apparently, the Andreessen Horowitz, it's the speed run batch has a lot of them, right?
(28:19) Shiyan Koh:
Yeah, so on one hand, I'm like, yes, it's good. Someone is trying to address the loneliness epidemic, but on the other hand, I'm like, well, shouldn't we encourage people to make real friends? Not just give them digital friends? Or do you think the future is that we all have digital friends?
(28:36) Jeremy Au:
Well, I mean. I think we're going to get more and more digital friends. That's my answer. And yeah, I think some people are going to go 100 percent digital friends. I mean, I think Japan is like the canary in a coal mine. They have the what's it called? The shut ins, right? Otaku is a soft version of being somebody who likes anime, but I think they have these I can't remember the exact name, but people who are a hundred percent shut in, they only interact with the world through anime and kind of like the online world. And they can't handle the real world, right? And I was reading this wonderful article where they have this like socialization program where they take these people and they make them do a classic Japanese pilgrimage where they visit all these shrines in a route as part of the re socialization approach. And I was like, wow, it's like basically like our de-radicalization process for kind of religious extremists that we have in Singapore, which is, it's basically a socialization program. If that makes sense, like this deprogramming stuff slash brainwashing programs that people have is basically a socialization program, right? Where we surround a person with 10 other people who think the same way about something ish and that is apparently enough to kind of like reprogram them.
So, if your entire world is 10 digital avatars that tell you that staying online is great, you're probably going to be like, okay, I'm the average of those 10 opinions. I should stay online. And if you are average of those 10 people will be like, Hey, I believe that I can be a normal, productive, member society who can hang out people without murdering them or, fighting them or being angry at them, then apparently that's a form of deprogramming, right? So it's kind of an interesting dynamic where culturally, social norms are a huge part of it.
(30:05) Shiyan Koh:
I mean, that's profoundly depressing. I mean, how did you even become de socialized to begin with, right? You, you have a job, you have family. You can't just be a totally isolated human.
(30:15) Jeremy Au:
Well, it's just like how orange juice is tastier than oranges, right? It's like you take all the good stuff on orange and then you process it and make it even better and juicier and then you make it super convenient and much more accessible than oranges, and then suddenly you're drinking orange juice that says 100 percent natural on the front, but then turns out it's a giant carbon sugar spike to your blood system, right? So instead of me having to set up a time to talk to Shiyan every two weeks, talk about podcasts and talk about business, I can just press my Shiyan iApp, you know, on my iPhone. And then I just get a distilled, funnier version of Shiyan, who is always has a perfect microphone and always available, even at 3:45 AM in the morning. And I can talk to her in the morning, instead of talking to the real Shiyan.
(30:55) Shiyan Koh:
Nothing beats the real Shiyan, Jeremy. Let us be clear.
(30:59) Jeremy Au:
Shiyan's like, we want organic, humanely raised, you know, humanity.
(31:03) Shiyan Koh:
This is the artisanal, this is the artisanal hand raised version of Shiyan. How dare you replace me with some artificial copy.
(31:12) Jeremy Au:
All these blemishes and imperfections, we're very cranky without coffee. That's who I am, I don't need some sort of airbrushed, perfectly energized, only two cups of coffee at that moment type of person.
(31:24) Shiyan Koh:
Oh gosh. Yeah, the AI future, man. It's crazy.
(31:27) Jeremy Au:
Yeah. Well, on that note let's wrap things up and let's see you in a few weeks time.
(31:32) Shiyan Koh:
Sounds good. Thanks, Jeremy. Take it easy.