Message from Ken Ang, owner of Wavelength Innovation Technologies (Singapore), via FB, 3 June 2012.
play
If a govt’s role is to be a provider of a platform for businesses to conduct their business activities and at the same time foster entrepreneurship and helping various industries move up the value chain.
But i dont really see that here in SG or just half-hearted attempts that fizzle out after a few years like IT or Life Science.
What really bothers me is that GLCs are competing directly with local SMEs and subsequently monopolizing the relevant industries, even pawn shops are now.I have read about China decentralizing and privatizing their state entities like the big four banks and airlines but in SG i see how govt through GLCs are consolidating and strengthening their stranglehold on the industries they engage in.
What is your outlook for SG’s economy and youths in the next 15-20 years, given this climate?
I always feel that we are a sprinter and not a marathon runner, and we lost the plot from the very beginning; as early as the 60s and 70s by not enforcing joint ventures with the foreign investors who set up their manufacturing facilities here and then allowing them to relocate in the 90s; while not having learnt anything valuable from them other than gaining a few decades of tax and job opportunities.
————————-oOo————————-
Photo and Text © Alen Cordic and C Cordeiro-Nilsson 2012
Hi Ken,
I can see that we are not focusing on quite the same issues when talking, but I will try to address your question and point of view.
With my post of Paddy Ashdown’s TedsTalk on FB, the point of fascination for me relates to how global processes are right now forcing even academic theories in various fields to come up with more integrated theories in order to explain and understand current phenomena in the field of international business that relates to my work in research.
Your questions and concerns however, seem related more specifically to the role of the State, which in my view, is interesting only to the extent of how that role is currently being defined in relation to other agents of change on the global scene, and then again, back in relation to my field of research.
In other words, the matter of state governance is interesting but not primary to my interest with my posting of Paddy Ashdown’s talk.
When it comes to the governance of Singapore per se, I will need to say that this space is not intended for such debates – my FB page, albeit open to public, remains still a personal space, currently used as a means to keep in contact with my network of family and friends, and I would prefer to keep it as such.
There are however other forums of interest that you can find over the Internet that might prove more interesting and useful for your purpose – the Online Citizen for example is one such forum that you might be interested in joining (?).
But having said that, I could share my point of view on what you wrote and asked above, with regards to the ”Singapore climate”.
My perspective of state governance and in particular, Singapore’s state governance is multi-levelled, from global and local perspectives. Even within the ’global’ and ’local’ dimensions, there are varied tiers of perspectives. One could even discuss Singapore’s inter- and intra- regional roles on the ’global’ level. And on the local level, one could discuss state governance in various sectors from family planning, health, education to various finance and business sectors.
This multi-levelled, multi-dimensional perspective is necessary for any debate and discussion on state governance, but in the case of Singapore, more prominently so because Singapore in itself has not in the least, a fairly unique geographical location that has lent itself to its history from the times of the British East India founding of the country as a free port of trade.
From then on, its immigrant history, its colonial governance, its path to modernization in post-colonial times, various other global events that include the World Wars and the Cold War, the Asian Economic Crisis etc. have all had an impact on the decisions taken thus far for the country to remain economically competitive and be able to survive on the global scene. All this, and I have not even begun to speak about more local events that have occurred during Singapore’s path to modernization and national identity building. Concrete events such as the racial tensions and riots of the mid-1900s, the struggle between political ideologies that have threatened the cohesive fabric of Singapore’s civil society, even softer social issues such as the development of ’Singlish’ (Singapore Colloquial English) as national identity building that began as lingua franca in Singapore’s early beginnings in trade, all shape the country to what it is today.
On top of that contextual background, then consider the point of view from where I sit, in Sweden, in Scandinavia that is Northern Europe where currently, what is mostly in the news is the current European political dissonance of the Euro crisis that affects most notably Greece, Spain and Italy. The civil unrest in the Middle East also fronts the news where bloody unrest continues with no clear end in sight to civil violence – Syria for example.
All of this goes to show – that no single form / framework of state governance is ideal. Utopia remains a concept. State governance in general is a dialogic process of flux in relation to local and global events, where even the group of countries forming the EU has long had difficulties pulling together to a united front on various policies that benefit the region.
With the above contextual background in mind, where one could describe my perspective on Singapore’s state governance as rather more etic, more integral in perspective, I will now go back and address what you wrote above.
You said:
”If a govt’s role is to be a provider of a platform for businesses to conduct their business activities and at the same time foster entrepreneurship and helping various industries move up the value chain.”
Actually, any role of state governance would be more than what you have just described above. There are certain implicit assumptions made if the role of state governance were to be defined as such that needs to be uncovered and put into perspective. Your definition for example, severely narrows the perspective of what a government should and is meant to do, even at local level.
In the definition construct above, following the argument put forth, one could suggest that part of the ’entrepreneurial’ spirit is to be independent and hands-led free. To that extent then, too much involvement of state governance in ’entrepreneurial efforts’ would kill the very spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation – so where is the point of discord? That the government is not doing enough? Or that it is doing too much?
You said:
”But i dont really see that here in SG or just half-hearted attempts that fizzle out after a few years like IT or Life Science.
What really bothers me is that GLCs are competing directly with local SMEs and subsequently monopolizing the relevant industries, even pawn shops are now.I have read about China decentralizing and privatizing their state entities like the big four banks and airlines but in SG i see how govt through GLCs are consolidating and strengthening their stranglehold on the industries they engage in.”
In your first paragraph, you stated that the government is supposed to help ’entrepreneurial efforts’ that in the end you perceive as ’half-hearted attempts’ (which is a subjective perspective in this instance), following that in your next paragraph (quoted directly above), you voiced concern that Government Linked Corporations (GLCs) are competing with Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs). To a certain extent, one could suggest that GLCs are the government’s ‘entrepreneurial’ efforts at large on behalf of the country of Singapore, where the State acts as an Individual player on the global scene, for the economic betterment of the country and its people.
Again, if you wish for your concerns to be taken seriously on the political scene in Singapore, I think it would be useful if you could pinpoint exactly what it is that you are concerned about regarding the function of GLCs in relation to SMEs in Singapore, or at a broader level, at which aspect of state intervention (policies and regulations) that you are concerned about, outlining your agenda.
It seems what is being defined is a false dichotomy between ”GLCs” and ”SMEs” – the question then is – in which frame would this dichotomous definition be valid? On what grounds are they comparable and why, to what purpose?
Once those grounds are established, perhaps a more serious debate on the issue can be presented and your concerns, your agenda can be moved forward.
You have also brought up the example of China ”decentralizing and privatizing their state entities”. While that may be true to some extent, China as a country is not a good example of comparison in terms of state governance to Singapore in general, not in the least because of its much longer history, its fairly homogenous social fabric (compared to Singapore) and its sheer geographical size that lends itself to a population demographic that is many times that of Singapore. China has 19.2% of the world’s population. Singapore has only 0.074% of the world’s population – and even less space within which to manage its population. These facts mean that China has different issues to manage and address compared to Singapore. Its policies, state regulations and approach to socio-political and economic problems necessarily need to be different from Singapore’s.
A better comparison could well be between Singapore and Denmark (0.08% of world’s population) for example as illustrated in an article written by former Danish Ambassador to Singapore, Professor Joergen Oerstroem Moeller entitled, ”What Makes Singapore Different?” (2012).
You said:
”I always feel that we are a sprinter and not a marathon runner, and we lost the plot from the very beginning;”
From where I sit in Scandinavia, the policies and outlook of current Singapore governance contain elements that would define it as both – a sprinter and marathon runner. And that ”the plot” viewed from any vantage point needs to be put into a larger perspective in the midst of unfolding global events and happenings.
If you take a look at the discourse of ”Singapore International Incorporated” or ”Singapore Inc”, a corporate metaphor that was first introduced in 1994 at a London forum by Philip Yeo, then Chairman of the Economic Development Board that became more explicit in the mass media by mid-2000s, you’ll see that it encompasses many of the difficult paradoxes and challenges the country has had to manage in the past, and is currently managing. This is not an enviable task for any government to take upon especially in the current economic uncertainties, where the Euro crisis threatens global economic repercussions, but a task nonetheless that is currently being addressed to the best of Singapore’s ability.
You asked:
”What is your outlook for SG’s economy and youths in the next 15-20 years, given this climate?”
I think I’ve outlined my general perspective quite some and one can conclude that my perspective of the ”Singapore climate” is different from where I sit.
For one thing, my point of view necessarily differs from yours for example, because we are two different individuals, with different backgrounds and we are literally located at different positions on the globe that provides us with different ’lenses’ – these are relevant factors that all lend a filtering of point of view and understanding of situation. It is not a matter of who is right or wrong, but a matter of different points of view.
From my side, part of what makes the “Singapore climate” in terms of the local political scene would be Singaporeans finding their voices in matters of state governance not in the least because current technologies and social media platforms allow for such.
And while I am not against multiple perspectives in matters of state governance on the Singapore scene – in fact, shared ideas and cross-disciplinary interaction often lead to creativity and innovation – what is of concern to me is the validity of argumentation, of opinions and ideas put forth in public forums regarding state policies and regulations i.e. how well founded are these opinions and ideas? And to what extent would they push forward the overall agenda of the country as such?
Singapore is still a young country and for that matter, it is also only recently that the people of Singapore have had courage enough to voice their concerns regarding current political affairs in Singapore. This in itself while inherently good in intent, can have both positive and negative impact for the country as a whole, depending on the direction in which this develops. There are always two sides to a coin.
And it is this aspect that Singaporeans will need to be very wise about and tread most carefully in order to continue to have an economically viable space on the global scene, not only for Singapore’s youth beyond the next 15 – 20 years but for Singapore’s aging population – we should not forget our parents and grandparents, should we?
In my view, what is needed is a maturing of thought and ideas from the people of Singapore themselves. Meaning to say, it is not useful for Singapore in general for Singaporeans to be ”complaining for the sake of complaining” (this is a well-known Singapore stereotype that most will recognize with humour, though its effects in reality could be left more desirable) – it will do the country no good.
Rather, if there were authentic issues of concern, then these can and should be first properly researched, validated and then presented through proper socio-political channels in order to be weighted and heard at all. The current system in Singapore allows for that.
What has been happening from specifically the PAP particularly in the past decade, is an opening up of discussions and forums to the public in general – what can be viewed as a positive move towards a more ’consensus’ style of governance and management that I would personally recognize as being characteristically ’Swedish’ in style, albeit with certain differences still to be addressed.
Given the opportunity to be heard, what Singaporeans need to do is not to take this opportunity from the government to complain of ’unfair treatment’ as how a wailing child might go to their parent – even if some aspects of Singapore’s political discourse unfortunately encourage this behaviour – but rather, use the platform for authentic concerns, bearing in mind always, the overall betterment of Singapore as a country.
To conclude, I’d like to say Ken, that despite what I wrote above, I can see things from your perspective as well and given that, I can understand your concerns and how you feel. And I recognize that you are not alone in feeling this way.
But if it helps, perhaps you could look beyond the local events and activities to Singapore’s current global efforts, branding and positioning. Then consider those efforts in relation to how Singapore is trying too, to find balance and address its local issues.
Would a socio-political fabric and economic situation of Greece or Syria be preferable to what Singaporeans are experiencing today? These examples are extreme and to many Singaporeans, unthinkable and highly remote, but the situations of these countries are very real nonetheless.
In my view, the Singapore government has taken some hard measures as a means to its end. This is not unknown and has long been debated on the international scene, where one example comes from 1976 when the Dutch Labour Party voted to expel Singapore from Socialist International. Singapore’s PAP responded with a ferocious defense to the Dutch memorandum via Devan Nair (also by S. Rajaratnam and Goh Keng Swee), in a fight for the country’s right to manoeuver within the realm of international capitalism, where Singapore could be said to have re-defined ‘socialism’ in that effort. Already back then, the country had gained a steely and steadfast reputation. Being popular and doing the right thing, are not the same thing. And Singapore is not always ‘popular’ on the international scene.
To which end, for your consideration, is an article written by Provost Professor Chua Beng Huat entitled, ”Singapore in 2006: an Irritating and Irritated ASEAN Neighbor” (2007) as a good background read. You can of course, come to your own conclusions about the events outlined in that article.
And in light of that, perhaps then bring your concerns to the relevant public forums on the state governance of Singapore.
CMC
[This post was taken to my blog, due to a character count limitation on FB for messages posted].