Much of the current turmoil in Asia and Africa is blamed on the British Empire, the Dutch and the Portuguese, imposing their political systems and culture on other countries. While this is partly true, we are where we are and there's no point finding fault in history if we are to move on with our lives.

Having said that, the end of the British Empire in the late 1940s did help shape today’s world, in particular, the independence granted to colonies for assisting the allies in WWII. For each country set free, the shock of self-determination after centuries of dominance was bound to lead to turbulence but after seventy years there should be stronger signs of global stability. Yet we still live in broken years with the end of inequality seemingly a long way away.

Where South Africa is concerned, the most notorious obstacle to peace was the imposition of Apartheid in 1948, the year when many countries were set free from colonial control. Having already been granted independence in 1931, it seems the Afrikaners enforced segregation after WWII to quell any uprisings that may have arisen when blacks saw the end of colonies elsewhere in the world. Liberation for others turned out to be a filip for oppression of the blacks; and as we have recently been reminded, 42 years of struggle then passed before racial inequality ended with the release of Nelson Mandela in 1990. Yet as Mamphela Ramphele, Bantu Biko’s lover said, the Africa of today is not the one the black leaders envisaged. The elite hierarchy and brutal police still exist with the only difference being that it’s blacks not whites who are the cause of oppression. With luck, Ramphele’s new political party, Agang, meaning Build, will bring changes and she believes this can happen within 3-5 years ; but free South Africa has only existed for twenty years, which seems very young for stability. Also, the centralised political system left by the Afrikaners is at conflict with the separatist and native tribal culture. Hopefully Ramphele is the person who can unite South Africa again and complete the task that Mandela and Biko started.

To turn to Asia, you only have to look at Genghis Khan in the 13th century to know that conquering through invasion and fear existed there long before the British Empire. Regretfully, today we still have dictatorships such as that in North Korea. Post-war independence and easy access through travel and technology has made it easier for corrupt and violent governments to be empowered by states like China and Russia and their scant regard for human rights. With this kind of influence, it’s hard to see a way forward other than a campaign for the end of corruption led by the UN and Transparency International. Some form of amnesty like the IRA had in Northern Ireland may also be necessary.

As for the Middle East, in 1948 the Jewish People’s Council helped themselves to a state of Israel in Palestine and the war still rages. The allies felt guilty for not ending the holocaust sooner so tacitly supported the seizure of land. Palestinians weren’t responsible for starting the second world war and shouldn’t have paid the price for what happened to the Jewish people, either then or at the start of the twentieth century with the rise of anti-semitism. That the British had a Mandate for Palestine, which allocated part of the Palestinians’ land to Israel only aggravated the situation. Restoring the political states to the pre 1948 position is the only right thing to do.

In conclusion, the world took on a different shape after WWII, with unrest following freedom. Seventy years later, we’re still fighting for liberation from oppression, previously the colonial powers, now many countries have returned to their own racial conflicts. Corruption at the state level is also a major factor and no-one can blame the British for that. Even so, there has to be optimism for the future. Without hope we may as well throw in our hands now. After the Arab spring in the Middle East, maybe the world is heading for more equitable societies but I’m not sure it will happen soon without a revolutionary and global campaign for peace. As politicians are led by self-interest, there also needs to be a strong push from the not-for-profit sectors to ensure a fairer social order. In the ideal world, charitable organisations would be part of elected governments to balance the natural greed of people who usually end up with the power. I really don’t see how political parties can achieve peace on their own because let’s face it, every country and every nation has made a mess of it in the past.

In the words of Rohini: If grown-ups want children to share everything and stop fighting, then they should also behave like that.

I recently came across Nkosi’s haven, set up in the name of Xolani Nkosi, an African boy who died in 2001 of an AIDS related illness. He travelled the world with his foster mother, Gail Johnson, to help get rid of the taboo around the disease. Johnson first met Nkosi when he was a baby in a care centre where his birth mother was dying.

“It was a very personal and mutual understanding,” she said. “I had had a graphic encounter with an Aids death close to my family, and I wanted to do something more than just talk about it. And there was Nkosi. All I had to do was to reach out to him.”

He was with her for nine years, during which period I’m sure she came to care about him but I remember her saying once that although he was exhausted from his illness, she pushed him to do more because it was important he get his message across. In some ways, I suppose that’s true but humanity should have come first especially as he was a child. I couldn’t help feeling at the time that as good a person as she was, there was still the impersonal mistress/servant attitude that allowed her to urge him to perform even though he was ill. Some parents also push an adopted or foster child in ways they wouldn’t use their own offspring. I don't know if this was the case with Johnson but if it was and even for the greater good of others, this wouldn't make it right.

Eight years ago, I was with a couple of American friends in Kenya. The camp we were at organised two safaris a day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon so the drivers could have a break inbetween. If there were signs of wildebeest crossing a river then we’d go out by exception on an all day trip. However that wasn’t enough for my friends who tipped the drivers extra to persuade them to take us out all day, every day. I protested because it was an extra burden on the rangers, to which one friend replied, “They’re used to it,” and, “He can have a nap in the jeep.” I don’t know if you’ve ever tried it but sleeping in a vehicle is never as comfortable as lying down on a bed. Anyway, she fell out with me after that because my objections made her feel guilty and spoiled the trip she looked forward to all year long.

It’s not only Americans who think like this but the derogatory manner towards servants and staff is pervasive throughout society so it’s no wonder that some people of African origin are still angry. No other nation has been as widely used for slavery as theirs and given that it’s only about fifty years since blacks were given the vote in USA, twenty since the end of Apartheid in RSA, the memory of inequality is still fresh. If we are to remember the Holocaust in WWII we shouldn’t be dismissive of the global indignity forced on Africans.

As for Sri Lankans, we’re treated like pond life by Arabs, even in Sri Lanka, because that’s how our maids are treated in the Middle East. An attitude encouraged by Rajapaksa's government, who only this yeawr banned women under 25 from going abroad to work in menial jobs, because of the inhumane way they are treated.

When I first wrote this blog, the issue seemed to be one about race but after looking at it in more detail, the core problem is to do with the master/servant relationship. I can’t see how this attitude can change organically. Servants will always be thought of as inferior, whether by their own people or by other races; and this is something I've felt quite strongly about since a child, as do others I've met who lived around servants. The most we can do is educate and legislate to protect basic human rights, which is all the more difficult when issues cross international borders or different races.

Last year I went to a conference for trustees on charity investment. Most of the attendees were silver-haired accountants in grey suits so I stuck out like a sore thumb in my chocolate brown. One gentleman struck up a conversation with me, in the process of which I explained I was a writer and contracted my finance skills to not for profit organisations. “Nice little earner,” he said then his eyebrows shot up after hearing I worked pro bono for charities as it doesn't feel right to charge them fees if you can earn an income elsewhere.

His reaction was the general tone of the seminar. An investment banker had been invited to speak about portfolio management and advise trustees how to increase their investment income. He seemed like a very nice man: clean-shaven and as humorous as you can be in a room full of number-crunchers, talking about hedging and investment strategy. What did shock me though was his statement that he didn’t operate an ethical investment strategy. In fact he advised against it. One of his slides even had British American Tobacco as part of a portfolio. Given that the tobacco industry exploits poverty and children by selling cigarettes to developing countries, knowing that the poor smoke to stave off hunger, I was disgusted by his comment and even more disgusted when not one single trustee objected to his advice. It could be that they didn’t want to embarrass the host by saying anything, and nor did I, but more likely than not they were and still are profit-motivated over and above charitable principles.

There is nothing wrong with maximising income for your organisation but when trustees and investment advisers benefit from making others ill, I despair for the values we all live by. However, I can’t see a way to introduce ethical policy investment other than through legislation, as moving away from existing portfolios clearly isn’t anything trustees will change by themselves.

In the words of Rohini: You shouldn’t make people  ill so you can take their money.

Nelson Mandela’s recent illness got me thinking about the apartheid years in South Africa. Amnesty International didn’t recognise him as a prisoner of conscience because they only support those who have neither used nor advocated the use of force. From what I have been told, the ANC did initially target government installations, but not people like the IRA did, or more recently, the attacks on the Twin Towers. However their actions went against one of Amnesty's basic tenets because violence as a weapon is wrong, whether against physical objects or individuals.

This precept then leads to the question: should a hero be someone who has always rejected aggression? I don’t condone violence but have lived in the safety of the UK for most of my life. How do any of us know what kind of people we would be if we had been brought up in the brutality of South Africa’s apartheid regime? It would test even the most decent of people. Mandela said, "At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.”

Which brings me to Steve Biko who was also a political activist, killed in 1977 by the police, even though he used non-violent means to spread his message. It was he who coined the term, “Black is beautiful.” He was also one of the first leaders to tell blacks to start thinking of themselves as humans not slaves. Trained as a doctor, at the time of his death he had a wife and three children for which he left a letter that stated in one part: “I've devoted my life to see equality for blacks, and at the same time, I've denied the needs of my family. Please understand that I take these actions, not out of selfishness or arrogance, but to preserve a South Africa worth living in for blacks and whites.” Twenty-eight years separated the birth of Biko (1946) and Mandela (1918). In the 1960s, when Biko was a young adult and Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island, more blacks in Africa were given an education to meet the start of the country's white brain drain. I don’t know the individual characteristics of either man but I can’t help feeling that the better educated and enlightened black African made it easier for Biko to act peacefully.

As for the civil war in Sri Lanka, while I was researching my novel I came across Rajini Thirinagama, a doctor who was initially sucked into working for, then taking a lead role with the Tamil Tigers. She later denounced armed struggle and the LTTE after realising they were terrorists like the government; but she paid for it with her life when she was shot dead on the way home in 1989, aged 35 and a mother of two young girls. Like Biko she died while fighting for the rights and freedom of others.

It takes strength not to retaliate with violence against people who are savage towards you, so it would be easy to choose Biko over Mandela and Thirinagama as a hero. However, Thirinagama renounced bloodshed and should be recognised for her courage in publishing a book about violence in Jaffna, The Broken Palmyra, knowing that it would inevitably lead to her death. Similarly, under Mandela, the world has seen the power of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which when used correctly can bring about change for the better. Each of the three protagonists played a part in their country’s move towards justice and apart from Mandela’s global fame, it is hard to say that any one was or is more heroic than the other.

Sri Lanka is on the front page again and once more for the wrong reasons. @TherealNihal tweeted earlier in the week asking what Sri Lankans thought about David Cameron’s visit to Colombo for the Commonwealth summit. I saw his tweet a few hours after he posted it and in Twitter terms a late reply is as useful as a judge who won’t vote on the X Factor. So having missed the moment, I’ve brought my views here.

I should say from the outset that I'm sceptical as to the sincerity of any politician who now claims to be interested in the tens of thousands who were used as a human shield, then massacred by the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) in 2009. The time for action was then but there wasn't any outside intervention. Everyone was glad for an end to terrorism in the North so even decent and reputable people dismissed the poor and the nameless who were sacrificed so others could live a better life. Thankfully there are organisations and individuals like Amnesty International and journalists who want the Sri Lankan government to be accountable for the right reasons.

If Cameron is genuinely interested in the Sri Lankan people, he was right to attend the summit and bring up the subject of the 2009 genocide, because dialogue achieves more than a refusal to negotiate ever will. Canada, India and Mauritius’ absence from the summit isn't really much of a protest. But rather than engaging in discussions, Cameron publicly threatened Rajapaksa with UN sanctions, which leaves him open to criticisms of hypocrisy as there is still a question mark the size of a banker’s bonus hanging over Tony Blair’s conduct in starting the Iraq war. As an indication of the scale in the two wars, the lowest reported killings that I've found is 100,000 in Iraq over 6 years and 20,000 in Sri Lanka in the final few months of the hostilities, which is the basis of the allegations of war crimes against Rajapaksa. Different timescales, different statistics but you get the drift. They're similar so warrant the same action.  (I should point out that both of these estimates vary widely, which is why I've picked the lowest, rather than risk overstating the issue.)

As for the effectiveness of any UN investigation, Russia and China have been dipping their hands into Sri Lanka since the end of WWII and are a strong force there. They’d veto any UN initiative, making the whole process less than useless. Similarly, if the unlikely happened and there was an UN investigation of Blair and Bush for the Iraq war, it would be stymied by USA. After all, Obama did recently try to block legal action against Bush.

So whether or not Cameron issues warnings in Colombo is irrelevant. He is only an irritant for Rajapaksa who has the well-known human rights activists, the Chinese, Russian and the Japanese on his side. If our Prime Minister wants to increase his global presence, he’d be better off trying peace initiatives, as were used to end the civil war in Northern Ireland, although the Rajapaksa dynasty is in a much stronger position than the IRA were.

In the words of Rohini: If you let your children be naughty, you can’t show off and scold other people’s kids when they do something bad.

When I was at school, a good English friend of mine made a comment about the number of immigrants coming legally to this country. She then realised what she’d said in front of me, apologised and said her opinion didn’t apply to me because she knew me. I wasn’t sure what to make of the situation. I’d come across prejudice before but it was the first time I’d had to deal with the hypocrisy of racism. I wasn’t sure if my friend actually thought I was different, was regurgitating her parents’ views or worse still, if she did believe I was an immigrant who shouldn’t be in her country. This incident was a generation ago and attitudes today are less narrow-minded because of the many mixed race people around but every few years or so, I am reminded that an opinion about others may not apply to someone you know.

I was recently talking to a charity founder who works full-time helping vulnerable children. She has just had a baby and is juggling motherhood with her vocation. When we speak about charity matters, I can hear her daughter in the background but it doesn’t bother me at all. In fact, I enjoy it.

I mention this because when I have recruited people for a team in an office-based environment, I’ve been let down badly by working mothers and now am wary of taking on women with young families. I say this with caution because I know that many feel guilty about holding down a job and leaving their children with minders. However, my finance roles usually encompass tight deadliness and high stress environments and I don’t want to slave until 3am doing someone else’s job after I’ve finished mine; or not be able to easily speak to a colleague who’s been granted the privilege of working from home because they’ve got a young family. I can’t explain the frustration of being in an office, under pressure yet unable to have a professional conversation with someone because there’s a baby and a toddler in the background demanding attention. To get round this problem, companies should offer crêches in the office, subsidised or free if both parents need to work for a living. I do however have less empathy for those who chase high salaries or put career ambition first and expect others to regularly make sacrifices for their family.

I feel differently about the charity founder because she’s making personal sacrifices for the benefit of others, not herself. It also comes down to the environment I’m in. Most of my charity conversations happen while I’m at home and relaxed, whereas if I’m stuck in an office, surrounded by sober grey suits, I expect colleagues to have a business-like approach. It feels out of kilter to bring a family situation into the room, even if it’s over the phone, and it’s as disruptive as bringing children to work. If that happened, nobody would get anything done, including me. I’d be too busy playing with the kids. I also make more allowances for someone who thinks of others before themselves.

Which leads me to the £1,000,000 question. Without phoning a friend or asking the audience, do you hold an opinion about a group of people but make an exception if someone you know belongs to that group?

I know two people who have birthdays on Halloween. One is a lovely sweet lady I met on the internet through watching wildlife. She suffers from arthritis, is confined to a wheelchair and is surrounded by a loving, caring family. Her courage is an inspiration. The other person is someone I used to work with and who travelled to the office on a broomstick, with her familiar on a shoulder. She wasn’t skilled or first-rate at what she did, which is why she had to discredit colleagues to make herself look good. She often said she came from a not so wealthy background and that was what made her ambitious.

While motivation or the drive to succeed comes from what’s missing in our lives, insecurities are often used as an excuse for bad behaviour; but aside from extreme cases like with victims of domestic abuse, we all have choices in the approach we use. There are ways and means of getting what you want without alienating yourself from others. It's not about momentary lapses when you wish you'd held your tongue or kept your temper, it's about not treating others badly as a way to get what you want.

As far as motivation goes, middle class teenagers and adults often drift through life without a drive to succeed because they’ve rarely known hardship so they go with the flow; although they sometimes have a competitive side that shunts them through their career. They also tend to project confidence, which is more prized than skills. As a consultant, if your clients don’t believe in you, they won’t believe the advice you give. That’s why advisors often bluff their way through meetings then dash back to the office or ring a colleague to check they’ve got their facts right.

I know an IT manager who promised a client in a sales pitch that he could deliver a technical solution but he didn't admit his theoretical network was untested. Back in the IT lab, he realised his proposal didn’t have a cat in hell’s chance of working. At first he lied to everyone then confessed. Because he’d delivered the presentation with confidence he was a hit with the client and they gave him time to come up with another solution. Had he been nervous at the pitch, he'd have been forgotten straight away. (He lost the client in the end though as he couldn’t deliver anything suitable.)

At the other end of the spectrum, a lack of confidence can be damaging both socially and professionally, especially when a young adult, in which case having friends who believe in you can bolster self-image no end.

Sometimes prejudice is a barrier to success. If you’re female or in a minority social group you will inevitably come across narrow-minded views from even a moderate colleague. There are laws to prevent this affecting progression at work but unless it’s a serious issue, you say your piece, pick yourself up and get on with life. That moderate colleague is probably also being unjust to ginger-haired and disabled people, in fact anyone who isn’t a clone of their own personality.

Success isn't only about what has been achieved, it's also about how you got there. Nor can it be easily measured because everyone has a different goal. For me, it's about having an impact, no matter how small, through my charity work and writing. While I have a free hand with fiction and can let my imagination loose, my charity work keeps me grounded. It also reminds me that my problems aren't that bad compared to a six-year-old child who runs through an African village in search of aspirin for his dying mother's pain.

For a few who have achieved a certain level of success, popularity can lift them above laws that apply to the rest of us. J.K. Rowling passed off her pseudonym Robert Galbraith as a military man in the security industry, which leaves a bad taste in the mouth because the military put their lives at risk for the safety of others. To trade on their reputation was wrong. Does it make Rowling a monster or the Harry Potter books less interesting? No, but there has to be one justice for all. As with the IT manager though, once you’ve reached a level of popularity, it seems you can more or less get away with actions for which others would be answerable. It’s not right of course but it is regrettably the world we live in.

To end, I'd say that the working environment, private, public or not for profit thrives on competition and plays people against each other to a certain extent. Unfortunately this induces dog eat dog behaviour as in the colleague I wrote about at the start of this blog. Even people who are decent socially can be unfriendly in the office. Survival of the fittest comes to the front again. It's not just about individuals and their insecurities, it's also about throwing everyone together with a common corporate aim but separate personal goals. It shouldn't be necessary to be like this.

In the words of Rohini: If you want something, you shouldn't try and get it by showing off and saying bad things about your friends. Except if they’re not nice then Buddha will forgive you.

Yesterday the BBC reported that the NUT object to two Muslim and Sikh schools in Coventy on the grounds that they will have a detrimental effect on the city. This is a hard one to resolve, especially as Coventry has a history of race issues going back decades; so the NUT’s objection may be more valid than if the schools were in a more open-minded city. However if the objection is to Muslim and Sikh schools, it should also be to those that are Jewish, Catholic and other faiths. There has to be one rule for all.

When I was at secondary school, we had an assembly in the morning, with Christian prayers. A group of Jewish pupils had a separate service at the same time then joined the rest of us for general school news. This system allows individuals to follow their own faith while integrating at a mixed faith set-up.

Of the two new establishments, the Muslim Coventry Leadership Academy for Girls said it would aim for a balance of 50% Muslim and 50% non-Muslim pupils. The Sikh Seva School Coventry said it was hoping for a 50% Sikh intake. This is fine so long as it is representative of our society. But the 2011 census results are that 59% of the English population are Christians, 5% Muslims and 1% Sikhs.

Higher education and the workplace aren’t or shouldn’t be separatist and children are unprepared for later life if they are prevented from learning to integrate while growing up. We are a multi-cultural society and that can’t be catered for through segregation.

In the words of Rohini: Grown-ups shouldn’t stop children from being friends just because their families have different gods.

Having described the Booker Prize as a marketing event, I feel I have to show a little humility today. I submitted a screenplay to a BAFTA competition recently to be told it didn’t win but the panel flagged it as, “having potential with an interesting point of view.” I am going to cling to the illusion for a few more days that this wasn’t a standard rejection and they actually meant it.

Anyway, my screenplay is a multi-cultural, coming of age, comedy drama (yes, you can make that many genres work together) involving the lack of hospital funding in the UK, which is what this blog is really about. For professional reasons, I’m reading around NHS Finance at the moment but won’t send you to sleep by giving you the details. Surprisingly, the difference between direct and indirect costs doesn't appeal to anyone outside the world of numbers. There is one fact though that you may find surprising.

The government pay for A&E services, based on 2008/9 activity. If attendances rise above this level, then apart from an inflation uplift, all that hospitals receive is 30% of tariff for the extra patients. Whether you look at this sitting down, on your feet or while doing a headstand, it doesn’t make sense. Let's say car crash victims arrive in A&E in 2013 and there hadn't been any local road accidents in 2008/9. On the face of it, the government would only pay for 30% of the cost in 2013. I’d like to think the hospital would accept all cases but medical staff shouldn’t be put in that situation. Next time you read in the papers about people being turned away from A&E, think about what might be going on. Hospitals can’t treat patients if they’re not going to be paid a fair price for their work. They’d soon end in deficit and be criticised for failing to manage their finances.

In the words of Rohini: If you’re sick, you should be allowed to see the doctor.

I was asked to write a short blog about the Booker Prize, given the announcement of the winner yesterday. Normally, I don't discuss other authors except if I've enjoyed their work, and it feels wrong to do so the day after they've won an award. However, the Booker Prize isn't a true prize as such because short-listed publishers have to contribute towards publicity, making it more of a marketing event. So I thought I'd add my opinion for what it's worth.

When I first heard about The Luminaries by Eleanor Catton, I was more in awe of the 832 pages that had been written, rather than the fact that she is the youngest, at 28, to have been nominated for the prize.

On hearing the length of the novel, I have to admit that my first thoughts were, did anyone actually wade through all this and who could maintain a story for so many pages? Without a doubt, Catton has an elegant poetic style that is worth reading just for its beauty but is that enough?

A few weeks ago, I started then tried to finish the novel but found it hard going. I can't help feeling that if it had been reduced to a more manageable size, I would have enjoyed it. The pacing is slow and I know to my cost, that once that happens, the reader loses interest. It seems to me that this is another example of style winning over content, which is a pity as I am sure there are some good stories buried in there.

Catton is a more artistic author than I am, or ever will be, and I wish her luck and good fortune with her writing. Based on The Luminaries, it's just not for me, unfortunately. Did she deserve to win the Booker Prize? I haven't read the other novels so I'll say probably. Emerging talent needs to be recognised and encouraged. Should publishers contribute towards publicity for such an award?

In the words of Rohini: If you give someone a prize, you shouldn't make them pay for it.