Food for Thought (Part 2 and a Half) – A Glimpse of the Future with El Presidente Trump

His power of persuasion had won him the battle. Having done and dusted, but the bravado of President-elect Trump continues to draw attention, and headlines. As I mentioned in my last article “Faith vs Fate”, the Trump factor is a divergence from capitalism seemingly in a form of socialism which is worth the effort in making further assessment. Since Marx and Engels over a century ago, socialism is the old-new phenomenon making its presence felt in modern history.

It is widely acknowledged that Trump won the election by engaging on the fear of unsustainable job security in which the middle class society was widely affected. People’s hidden uneasiness was shaken out by the charismatic billionaire in which the poll census failed to detect. Broadcasting Islamophobia, and xenophobia to which Trump had done to a degree of success, was in my view nothing more than another new norm to a stoic nation which have been through many wars for various causes in modern history. The turning point for Trump was that ‘change’ in which Obama wanted to deliver in his presidential campaign 8 years ago did not come to full fruition. ‘Change’ is a very sellable term, and it’s becoming a cliche in any political campaign around world. Admit it, we all want it even though we don’t know what precisely that is, or the consequence it will bring. The idea of ‘change’ in times of uncertainty naturally welcomes the sense of comfort, and security. There is nothing worse to befall a typical American family when jobs are hard to find. So, people rationalised that there was nothing to lose by giving the job to the other guy who claimed to know where to make the repairs, and hopefully to bring about that ‘change’ that was promised 8 years ago.

Home Front

There is little to write about on the happenings with Trump other than the events already covered by the press. I admit it’s hard to put the pen down on issues related to Trump, because for every strange action, or statement he makes arouses the psyche. In so far as guessing the mind of the next Commander in Chief, nothing came short of a surprise. For a start, the appointment of Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn as strategic advisors to the Trump’s administration both known for their skewed and biased views on other than what is “white”, and Islam respectively. It is presumed the roles given to these men would fit their credentials, except hints of their predisposition towards dissonance by politicising race and religion brings caution to mind. On the other hand, I could have over analysed the outcome. Both characters are probably chosen to frame a ‘macho’ image of Trump to impress on the world that he is someone who means serious business. After all, he is a celebrity with an image conscious personality. Still, the signs are clearly laid out to pester our senses.

International Front


During the course of the US presidential campaign, Trump spat harsh accusations at the opponent, and made strong statements to deconstruct the political and economical plans commissioned by the Obama administration. These unmitigated jibes have retracted to a degree giving to reason what said was strictly rhetorical without serious intent. So, was it intended to subvert China’s authority when President-elect Trump broke diplomatic protocol by accepting a congratulatory telephone call from President Tsai of Taiwan, much less “twittered” about it? Following which, Trump demonstrated very little reservation in curbing his enthusiasm (by more twittering no less) criticising China on manipulating monetary policy, and building a military base on a disputed location in the South China Sea. A twitter outburst was broadcasted on main stream media presumably intended to vindicate his action, but only to find it supplementing the offence against China despite Vice President-elect Pence’s prior effort to cover his tracks on the Taiwan blunder. Fortunately for Trump making his mark in this era when China has progressed to reach a level of greater maturity in accepting the transparency of western democracy, and its occasional features of oddity.


Cuba is an old nemesis of the US. To what point is valid now raising issues of long past on Fidel Castro when he had already kicked the bucket?

Is Trump playing Kennedy?

What war is Trump fighting?

In the wake of his bravado behaviorism to the cause of both China and Cuba, not only deemed inappropriate, it does not hit home coming from a man who is to serve as the next President of United States.

Is there any valid point to warrant verbal reactions with intend to invite political tension on the international scale?

Is a little professional etiquette so hard to come by?

The recurrence of unheeded retort is a call to further clarity of the mind that must now be encouraged. There will be no easy fix not even for ambassadors when the man himself cannot hold down his crude ranting. The thought of Trump as a child dressed in suit, and tie is near to that judgment. Nonetheless, you can be sure this is Trump’s best rating on prime time television since “The Apprentice”.


I surmised that the TPP agreement was to be Obama’s ticket to revive the SME (small medium enterprises) in the country. Building on the platform of greater trade with Asia Pacific countries where growth is now centered, which will eventually lead to more job creation for the middle class population. The TPP is obviously a trade bloc specifically designed to block China from the bountiful trade of immense wealth which has benefited the country over a number of years. TPP could haul up a great deal of those trades to the US shores. My assessment on the formation of TPP was not a ‘dumb deal’ as some would think, but rather a sly move by Obama. Single bilateral trades without having the presence of China lurking in the background does not bring the same effect to the US. In other words, US wanted to lure the wealth from China through countries which China is trading. Reinventing business and trade processes impacted by competition is the nature of the game fostered by globalisation. TPP was one opportunity that Obama saw without breaking any law by articulating a trade framework that was conditionally favorable to both Asia Pacific countries and the US, setting China aside.

With income per capita one third, and the population of 4 times of the US, competing with China head on was an impossibility. The Chinese have tremendous appetite for trade, and they have the numbers to be exceedingly competitive. Straight fight in trade is the makeup of globalisation in which the Chinese has the upper hand. Leveling the playing field with TPP could help the US in the long run if given a fair deliberation, and chance on its implementation. At this pace, the Chinese freight train is not stopping over at any parts of the US.

It’s Globalisation, Not Trump.

The strategic push for modern globalisation 20 years ago was to lift the status of wealth in poor and rich nations, and spreading it more evenly across the globe. It exposes all markets to competitive trade where US recognises China as its greatest contender. The pros saw the global industry reinventing itself in trade, and businesses notably by the aid of information technology. The cons saw the disintegration of the middle class industries in developed countries, and decoupling of the institution of solidarity between the people and government which incited the movement of socialism on anti-establishment.

Indeed, globalisation has turned middle class social economy in developed as well as developing countries on its head. The first 5 years of the globalisation movement which started 20 years ago, saw mid-size factories in my country (Malaysia) such as textile folded up. Larger cap industries were able to stave off the stiff competition from China until now. Currently, frailty is showing in our steel industry. Any product, or services which can be duplicated are most likely to throw in the towel to the Chinese. But, globalisation delivered the process of evolving creativity and innovation where industry from all sectors in the global market reinvented itself in an organic fashion. Manufacturing industries adopted automation to remain competitive in the global market. Whilst, retail and service industries employed information technology to raise sales. Could Trump’s corporate tax cut to prevent the country’s manufacturing industries from migrating across the border be the answer to sustainable corporate growth, or a proclivity to devolution?

About 60 years ago, the late South Korean president Park Chung-hee once described his country was the poorest, and most impossible on the planet. The shift in its nation’s perspective towards globalisation had revolutionised their socio-economy, and politics. It is now by far the most successful democracy, and one of the wealthiest nation in the world. Korea is always reinventing itself, and is never boring.

It is a widely accepted view that any effort by the government to intervene in protecting the business enterprises of the public sector would only be a quick fix. Protracted protectionism of any form could encourage complacency which could hinder the market creativity to evolve further.

Global Leadership Shift

Following Brexit, US presidential election and the more recently Italy’s ‘No’ vote to the referendum for a constitutional reform, the air of anti-establishment is thick and weighs heavily on governments around the world to do more for the middle class living standard. We can expect laws to be broken when anti-establishment body makes their challenge. It is like a child wanting to be freed from parental control, and responsibility. Juvenile emancipation motivated by precocious nature of a child is a reflection of people’s desire and political movement in the world today. There is however, an underlying concern when anti-establishment movement trivialises the rules of engagement which may give rise to disorder. It’s a common tactic no less for any far right party to undermine the work of the incumbent government. Thence, in the effort to achieve greater liberalism it is pivotal that laws of the land must be respected to maintain predictability, and order just as a child can only be legitimately set free from parental responsibility through mandate of the court. The success in our system of governance can be measured by the degree of order that it brings when applying its mechanism to mitigate, or even relief dissent to foster unity. The collaboration between the people and caretaker of the nation must prevail through the process of the law for all intents and purposes.

Whatever the circumstance, the momentum of globalisation will ensue. China will continue to ride with the wave in its dominance to expose and expand its economy to the world as did the US for a considerable period in the 20th century. Trump’s indication of an economic policy which looks more inward will possibly witness a shift in global leadership even in the drive of climate change.

The conduct in action without sufficient thought process from the future leader of the free world has far, and wide implications. Trump’s public gaffes are no accident which have shown his irresponsibility and disregard to the integrity of the law designed to protect and uphold the nation’s decorum. Afterall, decent people are brought up with proper mannerism to show respect towards our fellow man in the understanding that we share the same God given right to exist. My intention is to conceptualise those spoken views by assessing them at odds in hope to ascertain what is to come.