COMMENT: Hidden harsh truth in Future Economy committee's report
ricky l
In an Economy, no one can completely operate on its own.
Sometimes you need :-
(1) the Government to set up a framework, a strategic direction, some policies, some fundings, some eco-centre for certain industries, some incubation, some pooling of resources, and fundings etc.
(2) the Entrepreneur, Business, Organisation, Investor, Venture Capitalist, R&D researchers etc - will need to think on their own how best to expand their business, venture overseas, push their ideas into business viable ventures etc.
(3) the Workers need to be align to catch the opportunities, get itself train and educate themselves to be employable
(4) Educators who need to come up with training courses to train the right skill workers that are useful to the Economy.
So the point of this article though has pointed out some useful points - should not disregard the fruition of the entire Committee's effort without seeing how the report will be translated into Economic fruits.
Sometimes you need :-
(1) the Government to set up a framework, a strategic direction, some policies, some fundings, some eco-centre for certain industries, some incubation, some pooling of resources, and fundings etc.
(2) the Entrepreneur, Business, Organisation, Investor, Venture Capitalist, R&D researchers etc - will need to think on their own how best to expand their business, venture overseas, push their ideas into business viable ventures etc.
(3) the Workers need to be align to catch the opportunities, get itself train and educate themselves to be employable
(4) Educators who need to come up with training courses to train the right skill workers that are useful to the Economy.
So the point of this article though has pointed out some useful points - should not disregard the fruition of the entire Committee's effort without seeing how the report will be translated into Economic fruits.
ricky l
Its outcome and fruition can be seen only after its implementation - which will require at least 1 to 2 years or longer to see result.
Only then, whether it indeed work or not will be apparent.
Only then, whether it indeed work or not will be apparent.
ricky l
Without giving it time to work and say it won't work - is like putting the cart in front of the horse - and is not fair to the Committee.
ricky l
Eg. even US - a Big Economy that adopt the total "Laisse Faire Economy" - didn't work out of benefiting everyone in the Economy - where only a few enrich themselves enormously where the majority is struggling to earn a living.
Else how to explain the populist voters that push up Donald Trump and how to explain the Brexit phenomenon?
Thus an Economy that is free-wheeling without Government intervention - is not going to work.
Else how to explain the populist voters that push up Donald Trump and how to explain the Brexit phenomenon?
Thus an Economy that is free-wheeling without Government intervention - is not going to work.
ricky l
Also Government will need to negotiate trade deals with other Countries, attract foreign investment into Singapore, tie up with other Countries to do Eco-industrial park, cities etc.
And to get Universities, Polytechnics, Schools to train the manpower to do the jobs.
Who say you can rely on businesses to do it on their own without Government intervention?
Don't seems to make sense - to be completely "free wheeling".
And to get Universities, Polytechnics, Schools to train the manpower to do the jobs.
Who say you can rely on businesses to do it on their own without Government intervention?
Don't seems to make sense - to be completely "free wheeling".
- kokGovernment is there to intervene with the power vetted by people.
Else it call anarchy or ruleless. - kokThe writer is not talking about freewheeling but less control.
Singapore government is consider taking too much control in eye of the world.
To the extent of asking couple when to make love, how big space they need to make love, maybe which position to make love? - ricky l@kok, which aspect of business or entrepreneuship are too much control?
I thought we are experimenting everything under the sun :-
(1) uber, grab etc - where other countries try to stop them eg. taiwan
(2) driverless car are being tested everywhere - even though they are not fully matured
(3) clean energy - eg. solar panel, even windmill, etc
(4) drone
(5) robotics
(6) mobile apps, mobile payment etc
(7) bitcoin
(8) blockchain
etc etc
Singapore economy are so open - same as HongKong.
Not sure which aspect of our economy are under "so much control".
ricky l
Eg.
(1) Centralised kitchen are being funded by Government - so that SMEs who want to export overseas can tap the centralised kitchen to ensure quality, cleanliness, hygiene to export overseas (without the need to commit their capital to build centralised kitchen) - and the centralised kitchen are shared by many SMEs.
(2) 3D printers are being funded by Government - so that SMEs and firms can make use of it - without the need to put in upfront investment in buying the 3D printers - as they are shared.
(3) Government co-fund automation that improve productivity of SMEs and firms.
Etc etc.
All these will help to boost Singapore local firms to help to generate more business growth - without the need for capital to finance automation.
So is Government doing "too much control" or are the Government providing the needed financial assistance and know-how - to boost local business capability?
(1) Centralised kitchen are being funded by Government - so that SMEs who want to export overseas can tap the centralised kitchen to ensure quality, cleanliness, hygiene to export overseas (without the need to commit their capital to build centralised kitchen) - and the centralised kitchen are shared by many SMEs.
(2) 3D printers are being funded by Government - so that SMEs and firms can make use of it - without the need to put in upfront investment in buying the 3D printers - as they are shared.
(3) Government co-fund automation that improve productivity of SMEs and firms.
Etc etc.
All these will help to boost Singapore local firms to help to generate more business growth - without the need for capital to finance automation.
So is Government doing "too much control" or are the Government providing the needed financial assistance and know-how - to boost local business capability?
ricky l
Government has helped a local fish breeding firm - to go overseas (Brunei) to setup vertical farming to breed thousands of tons of fish for food and ornamental fish ---- that have the capacity to export the fishes all over the World - boosting the firms business and revenue multiple times - into a local MNC.
So is the Government controlling the business too much or aiding local business to expand into overseas market?
So is the Government controlling the business too much or aiding local business to expand into overseas market?
ricky l
Government has bring in many local big enterprises to help to build eco-Cities in many Countries such as China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar etc.
So is the Government providing assistance to local companies to grow or "too much control on local business"?
I am trying to be objective and I look at facts.
So is the Government providing assistance to local companies to grow or "too much control on local business"?
I am trying to be objective and I look at facts.
ricky l
Eg.
Government setup Centralised Social Entrepreneur to help to manage hawker centres - that are affordable to low income people (such as offering some low price food per stall) - by offering lower rental, centralised collection of utensils, centralised sourcing of raw materials, train hawkers to cook food through training course, to retain recipe of famous food etc...
So is Government "doing too much control" - or is providing assistance to boost business growth for hawkers?
Government setup Centralised Social Entrepreneur to help to manage hawker centres - that are affordable to low income people (such as offering some low price food per stall) - by offering lower rental, centralised collection of utensils, centralised sourcing of raw materials, train hawkers to cook food through training course, to retain recipe of famous food etc...
So is Government "doing too much control" - or is providing assistance to boost business growth for hawkers?
ricky l
Perhaps the Government should compile a statistics - how much $ the Economy has generate as a result of the above help that the Government has intervene directly.
This empirical data will prove to critics that the intervention indeed has bear fruits in generating $x billion of dollars in GDP.
This will prove the critics wrong.
This empirical data will prove to critics that the intervention indeed has bear fruits in generating $x billion of dollars in GDP.
This will prove the critics wrong.
ricky l
And all sort of PMDs (Personal Mobility Devices) can used on the pedestrian path &/or road - some run on batteries like e-scooter, some can be hoover, some can stand, some can sit, some on 2 wheels, some on 3 wheels, some on 4 wheels, some can sit one person, some can sit 2 person, some can sit 3 person ---- so many pattern.
Did Government "control too much"?
Did Government "control too much"?
ricky l
Based on what i know, Government help business and not trying to control what business can do and what business cannot do.
ricky l
Actually, the real issue why Singapore did not have too many local large entrepreneurs - the real reason is - Singapore does not have a large domestic market with large consumer base.
For eg. US has big domestic market - thus they have facebook, microsoft, apple etc.
For eg. China has big domestic market - thus they have Alibaba, Huawei etc.
For eg. India has big domestic market - thus they have Tata etc.
For eg. Indonesia has big domestic market - thus they have big local conglomerate etc.
For eg. S Korea has big domestic market - thus they have chaebols eg. Hyundai, Samsung, LG etc.
Singapore has a some domestic market of only a 5 to 6 million people - unlike the above has few hundred million people to billion people --- thus Singapore must have GLCs and helped to build local SMEs to become MNCs.
For eg. US has big domestic market - thus they have facebook, microsoft, apple etc.
For eg. China has big domestic market - thus they have Alibaba, Huawei etc.
For eg. India has big domestic market - thus they have Tata etc.
For eg. Indonesia has big domestic market - thus they have big local conglomerate etc.
For eg. S Korea has big domestic market - thus they have chaebols eg. Hyundai, Samsung, LG etc.
Singapore has a some domestic market of only a 5 to 6 million people - unlike the above has few hundred million people to billion people --- thus Singapore must have GLCs and helped to build local SMEs to become MNCs.
ricky l
And local GLCs and local MNCs (such as Hyflux, OCBC, UOB, etc) - will have the financial muscle to go overseas and expand its market - domestic + overseas market - to overcome our small domestic market.
ricky l
Those big domestic market for eg. 300 million people - one product sell for $100 to 300 million people - the Company will be a $30 billion company.
For Singapore of domestic market for eg. 6 million people - one product sell for $100 to 6 million people - the Company will only be a $600 million company.
So you see the difference - using math?
For Singapore of domestic market for eg. 6 million people - one product sell for $100 to 6 million people - the Company will only be a $600 million company.
So you see the difference - using math?
ricky l
And without the Government initiative to help business and industries to drive digital economy for every sector of the Economies - but leave it to the private sectors --- do you think all the businesses in every sectors take the initiatives to go Digital Economy to drive and complement their traditional business - such as online shopping, online payment, web transaction, mobile apps transaction etc. ?
David N.
one big mistake government made is to let the commercial demand and supply determine price factor and, this let to unscrupulous landlords (some are quasi government public) imposing huge rentals price for businesses. Yes, Government setup Centralised Social Entrepreneur to help to manage hawker centres - that are affordable to low income people (such as offering some low price food per stall) - But not really low food price helping the average and lower income needs as the price of food isn't that low and mostly higher than other non-centralized food centre. Lowest is SG $12.80 for example nasi lemak but at certain coffe out lets its only SG $2.20 Additional item is min. SG. $1.00 Talk of Coffee Tea all coffee shop are charging as and when they like to increase price to SG %1.40-$1.50 per glass as of they are operating in
aircon food court faced with high rental. Why didn't our highly paid elite civil service look into this matter???
aircon food court faced with high rental. Why didn't our highly paid elite civil service look into this matter???
ricky l
In Singapore, Singaporeans wait for 2 to 3 years to get a new public flat.
In some other places, people need to wait for 30 years to get a new public flat.
In some other places, people need to wait for 30 years to get a new public flat.
kok
@ricky,
Public housing need not exist in alot of place, like Malaysia or Indonesia.
It serve as politic goodies only.
As such there is no need to provide public housing
Public housing need not exist in alot of place, like Malaysia or Indonesia.
It serve as politic goodies only.
As such there is no need to provide public housing
kok
@ricky,
Facebook do not depend on local market at the start. There is no local or foreign market for facebook. Instead facebook idea is not new. Before facebook we already have Friendster and MySpace.
And GLC at sometime is overshadow SME or even swallow them. For example how DBS want to acquire UOB. NTUC is another example that overshadow local supermarket. And we needless to talk about tele-comunication company. And we also have Comfort Taxi monopoly of market and anyhow raise price until the emergence of Uber.
Facebook do not depend on local market at the start. There is no local or foreign market for facebook. Instead facebook idea is not new. Before facebook we already have Friendster and MySpace.
And GLC at sometime is overshadow SME or even swallow them. For example how DBS want to acquire UOB. NTUC is another example that overshadow local supermarket. And we needless to talk about tele-comunication company. And we also have Comfort Taxi monopoly of market and anyhow raise price until the emergence of Uber.
ricky l
@ kok,
Facebook don't require local market for its growth.
This is correct.
Just point to your attention that Singapore is going Digital Economy in a big way :-
(1) Fintech, Blockchain - is the national initiative to coax, push and encourage Singapore financial sector to go Digital Economy to overcome boundary
(2) IHL, training courses, training fund, automation grant, mobile apps initiative, online shopping, online payment, online transactions etc - are all provided assistance for Singapore business to go Digital Economy
Thinking aloud, if no government initiative - but leave to private sector - you think Singapore will succeed to go Digital Economy in a big way?
Also if no GLCs, won't our SMEs and local business face competition or swallow up by foreign MNCs, our local big Enterprise?
Do you think GLCs will help Singapore to succeed much better together with local enterprises as compare to no GLCs?
Facebook don't require local market for its growth.
This is correct.
Just point to your attention that Singapore is going Digital Economy in a big way :-
(1) Fintech, Blockchain - is the national initiative to coax, push and encourage Singapore financial sector to go Digital Economy to overcome boundary
(2) IHL, training courses, training fund, automation grant, mobile apps initiative, online shopping, online payment, online transactions etc - are all provided assistance for Singapore business to go Digital Economy
Thinking aloud, if no government initiative - but leave to private sector - you think Singapore will succeed to go Digital Economy in a big way?
Also if no GLCs, won't our SMEs and local business face competition or swallow up by foreign MNCs, our local big Enterprise?
Do you think GLCs will help Singapore to succeed much better together with local enterprises as compare to no GLCs?
kok
Government do control what business can do or cannot do thru LAWS and REGULATIONS.
For example you cannot run retail in certain warehouse area.
Until recently it is illegal to use PMD on park connector or pedestrian walkway at all. Only after heavy lobby from some interest group then government look into it. One of such group is e-scooter enthusiast community Big Wheel Scooters Singapore.
Before that we also have the rules that residential unit cannot used for business address at all. So a lot of SOHO has to rent a "virtual" business address in commercial building.
The writer in the main article is asking how fast Government can react when new invention come out. Government is still slow in changing rules despite being one of the most efficient.
For example you cannot run retail in certain warehouse area.
Until recently it is illegal to use PMD on park connector or pedestrian walkway at all. Only after heavy lobby from some interest group then government look into it. One of such group is e-scooter enthusiast community Big Wheel Scooters Singapore.
Before that we also have the rules that residential unit cannot used for business address at all. So a lot of SOHO has to rent a "virtual" business address in commercial building.
The writer in the main article is asking how fast Government can react when new invention come out. Government is still slow in changing rules despite being one of the most efficient.
ricky l
Singapore is too small a Country - to be left to chance - with due respect to the private sector.
By treating the Country as an Inc - by pooiling resources, pooling funds together, collating information (now through data analytics, big data, meta data), more effective training and deployment of manpower resources ---- the chance of success is much higher - than leaving to chance.
Don't you think so?
By treating the Country as an Inc - by pooiling resources, pooling funds together, collating information (now through data analytics, big data, meta data), more effective training and deployment of manpower resources ---- the chance of success is much higher - than leaving to chance.
Don't you think so?
ricky l
And the ITM (Industry Transformation Map) -- will be the more detail, specific approach to transform industry by industry, sector by sector - to upgrade, transform and stay relevant to meet the challenges and the disruptive headwind.
ricky l
So cannot see why this article feel that the Committee is not - solving and targeting industries to face the challenges of future Economy with the ITM (Industry Transformation Map)?
ricky l
However, I will tend to agree that more should be done and can be done - to bring the innovation outcome into the market, developing new companies or grow more companies with the new innovation and entering into more markets with the new innovation.
COMMENT: Hidden harsh truth in Future Economy committee's report
A government that has created and institutionalised a crutch mentality in its citizens since independence is facing a harsh new truth: economic success will come only if the people start thinking and acting for themselves.
The recently-released report by the Committee on the Future Economy is a reflection of how broken the top-down system of economic development has become.
It is a classic example of how the planners have been sleepwalking their way into the land of the unknown.
The report is long on strategy and short on tactics with a view on the ground – and more seriously, some members of the intelligentsia are echoing this sentiment rather strongly.
Jason Tan, an economist at Centennial Asia Advisors, said in a scathing Facebook post, “(It) is disconcerting – even discomfiting – when five ministers on a 30-member panel, aided by thousands more in sub-groups and consultation groups, cannot come up with refreshing policy directions to bring Singapore forward.”
The 108-page report’s language reflects its helplessness. Deepen and diversify international connections, innovate and scale up companies, make digital a way of life, keep Singapore open… the list goes on.
There is nothing precise, nothing specific in the report. Yes, it is not easy to come up with a silver-bullet solution in today’s anarchic world of disruptive technology and a very important leader who makes policy decisions on Twitter.
Still, Manu Bhaskaran, Senior Adjunct Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, felt the committee could have tackled the issue of structural changes.
“Singapore faces a plethora of big structural challenges such as high costs, loss of competitiveness, threats to our regional hub position, our failure to boost productivity, weak innovation outcomes
despite immense mobilisation of resources and innovation inputs, weak SMEs and the absence of large private local firms, rising inequality, inadequate social safety nets, especially the inadequacy of CPF to provide sufficient retirement income in cash,” Bhaskaran said.
despite immense mobilisation of resources and innovation inputs, weak SMEs and the absence of large private local firms, rising inequality, inadequate social safety nets, especially the inadequacy of CPF to provide sufficient retirement income in cash,” Bhaskaran said.
That is a long list, indeed.
And Dennis Foo, nightclub boss, said, “Dealing with urgency on current issues is as important as planning for the future. Without addressing the present it will be harder to deal with the future.”
At a deeper level, the committee’s report is the clearest example of how the government cannot
continue to operate the way it has been doing all this while.
continue to operate the way it has been doing all this while.
A lot of today’s problems go back to a system that used a centralised structure to run the country. It achieved solid results in the last 50 years but for the next 50 years, Singapore needs a system that will allow a free flow of ideas, even those that run counter to established thinking.
A new book on how Uber and Airbnb dared to go against rules is instructive for a Singapore struggling to find light at the end of the economic tunnel.
It will be a leap of imagination to expect Singapore to go the way of the two American innovators and go against rules. Their way is really disruptive.
Brad Stone, the author of the book “The upstarts: How Uber, Airbnb, and the killer companies of the new Silicon Valley are changing the world”, said, “Uber started rampaging over local transportation laws when it appeared competitors might capture strategic ground.
“Airbnb knew it violated the strict housing rules of New York and elsewhere but pushed ahead anyway.”
The fear among the ruling politicians must be a belief that Singapore will go through a period of severe pain and chaos if a laissez-faire approach is allowed.
But to continue the old system of control can lead to even more hardship. And worse, changes may be forced upon them when they least expect it – and from the outside.
The report is the clearest indication yet that fundamental changes in the way Singapore is governed are needed.
The economy is the best place to start since that is the country’s lifeblood and its leaders’ often-repeated source of ruling legitimacy.
P N Balji is a veteran Singaporean journalist who was formerly chief editor of Today, as well as an editor at The New Paper, and currently a media consultant. The views expressed are his own.
Related link: Future Economy committee releases report
Overseas markets increasingly important for local companies: IE Singapore Survey
- By Patrick John Lim
- Posted 16 Feb 2017 23:55
SINGAPORE: The overseas market has become increasingly more important for local companies, according to the International Enterprise (IE) Singapore annual survey. The results of the survey were released on Thursday (Feb 16).
It found that local firms recorded growth in overseas revenue that outpaced total revenue growth. Revenue from overseas also contributed to a larger share of a company’s bottom line.
According to IE Singapore's findings, overseas revenue for local companies grew by 4.2 per cent in 2016 compared to a year earlier, and faster than total revenue growth of 1.3 per cent.
For small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), overseas revenue accounted for 53 per cent of total revenue - 3 percentage points higher than in 2015.
China, Myanmar and Vietnam were also identified as key markets for SMEs.
IE Singapore said it facilitated more than 450 projects globally in 2016, with the majority in China and Southeast Asia. Of these, 75 projects were related to entering completely new markets or new lines of businesses. Additionally, 45 were e-commerce projects, a 181 per cent increase from 2015, according to the agency.
Said Standard Chartered Bank’s regional head of research for Southeast Asia, Edward Lee: “At the moment, there is a bit of caution with regard to investments to the West. If your market (leans) towards the west you may be questioning if you need to prepare some strategies. But if you are looking to this part of the world, I think (it) remains very keen to be open to trade and to business opportunities.”
As the region urbanises rapidly, IE Singapore expects more opportunities to arise in infrastructure and the digital economy. The agency is looking to deepen its presence in key markets in order to provide better support for companies.
“For 2017, companies are facing greater uncertainty, but (from the) Government's perspective we want to continue to ensure that we have the support and where possible increase the support for them to manage the risks and manage the uncertainties. This includes looking at markets beyond a country; going much deeper,” said IE Singapore CEO Lee Ark Boon.
In 2016, IE Singapore assisted 37,000 companies through their various schemes. More than 10,000 firms have received a total of S$73.4 million in grants.
- CNA/dl