Is there a free market given all the GLCs in the market?
-
We dun need the relatives of the lee families to run the GLCs. Is Singapore really shortage of talents?Originally posted by ben1xy:The high labour cost has resulted in the hollowing of many manufacturing sectors, this is the salient factor on why the government needs GLCs present to help develop the high-value added industries.
What high-value added industries we have that has helped singaporean with their jobs? -
Has Singtel recoup what they have invested in other countries?Originally posted by ben1xy:Singtel is doing quite well overseas... they acquired one Thai company, One Indonesian and there's one more... i think it's in the Phillipines and i think all 3 acquisitions remain pretty competitive in their respective markets. though i still seriously think they overpaid for the acquisition of optus.
Is Singtel making money for the many singaporeans who bought singtel shares with the CPF?
The answers is obvious. -
i wun rebut your first statement. coz i feel uncomfortable tooOriginally posted by SnowFlag:We dun need the relatives of the lee families to run the GLCs. Is Singapore really shortage of talents?
What high-value added industries we have that has helped singaporean with their jobs?
for your second comment;
our 4-pillars. bio-tech, chem, electronics and precision engineering. these are the industries that attract MNEs here.
hmm.. i would like to ask whether u r familiar with the flying geese model? I'll assume that u r... anyway... with the Asean 4 and China catching up... we have to keep upgrading and staying in front. Do u seriously think we are able to do that without having GLCs as the upstream intermediaries?
S'pore is forced by external circumstances... it's not that the government is purposely making our lives difficult. It's just that the competition from China and the Asean 4 is too intense.
maybe we can sidetrack a little and discuss how do we solve this problem? that would be more productive than juz criticising -
30 years. that is how long it will take before we'll see the results.Originally posted by SnowFlag:Has Singtel recoup what they have invested in other countries?
Is Singtel making money for the many singaporeans who bought singtel shares with the CPF?
The answers is obvious.
again i would like u to look at the aggregate level. Telecommunication companies have all been performing badly. i would attribute this to the deregulation... resulting in companies over paying in their acquisition. But in an industry where fixed cost of RnD is so high, such a move is needed to gain scale economies. So we can't judge now. Besides DoCoMo, most telecommunication companies have been shareholder value destroyers over the past 5 yrs. so we shld judge by industry standards -
Originally posted by ben1xy:i wun rebut your first statement. coz i feel uncomfortable too
for your second comment;
our 4-pillars. bio-tech, chem, electronics and precision engineering. these are the industries that attract MNEs here.
hmm.. i would like to ask whether u r familiar with the flying geese model? I'll assume that u r... anyway... with the Asean 4 and China catching up... we have to keep upgrading and staying in front. Do u seriously think we are able to do that without having GLCs as the upstream intermediaries?
Because we are not allowed to do so. No one in singapore are allowed to pose a challenge to the lee family. The problem with GLC are they are run by ppl with littlle industry experience. I seen too many cases. I rather gahment accept scolars with several years of work experience than directly from universities
S'pore is forced by external circumstances... it's not that the government is purposely making our lives difficult. It's just that the competition from China and the Asean 4 is too intense.
maybe we can sidetrack a little and discuss how do we solve this problem? that would be more productive than juz criticising -
singtel shares is one of the biggest joke.
everybody to have a share of the pie. knn, most of them are still losing.
why? even though they posted one record results after another? -
i agree with this pointOriginally posted by SnowFlag:The problem with GLC are they are run by ppl with littlle industry experience. I seen too many cases. I rather gahment accept scolars with several years of work experience than directly from universities -
The problem with GLC are they are run by ppl with littlle industry experience. I seen too many cases. I rather gahment accept scolars with several years of work experience than directly from universities
the people they use are always the same. they switch from directorship to another. -
actually... i reckon they gave out shares for 2 reasonsOriginally posted by dragg:singtel shares is one of the biggest joke.
everybody to have a share of the pie. knn, most of them are still losing.
why? even though they posted one record results after another?
1. the deregulation agreement at the WTO. it wun look good if we have an SOE mah
2. Singtel by being a GLC have been facing a lot of international critics.. they think that we are a S'pore Inc. and that Singtel is a political tool. that's why we had failed biddings in HK and Malaysia. so to make it seem more politically correct... they had the sahre system. how much of the shares to the public hold ah? 30% or is it 40%??? -
Risky? ok lor. i dun want to disagreed on this.. but my point is... they should just admit that SG market is too small and weak to have a real open market .. that is all.. admit that there is a monopoly rather then trying to sell us their stupid wayang show and have ppl like that salman con to think Singtel and M1 are owed by DIFF boss....Originally posted by ben1xy:my point on this slightly differs. i always thought it's more like a show for the world to see. which i dun disagree with because the telecommunication sector is really important for S'pore's economy and i really hope no foreign competitor will emerge and topple Singtel.. that would be too risky. Speaking of which, Singtel is S'pore's largest corporation. sometimes it's sad when u think abt it. But what really is the root problem? GLCs? or is it us? IMO its the whole meritocracy systemtake makes us so risk adverse. sighz
-
can't openly admit la... will face backlash from the international community... lets say Singtel tries to acquire a telecomm company in China.. then they dissaprove cause we nv open up our own sector. then how?Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):but my point is... they should just admit that SG market is too small and weak to have a real open market .. that is all.. admit that there is a monopoly rather then trying to sell us their stupid wayang show and have ppl like that salman con to think Singtel and M1 are owed by DIFF boss....
dats wad happened in the China CNOOC case mah -
they should take concrete steps to slowly open up the local market. temasek should slowly withdraw their holdings in local listed company and invest overseas.Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):Risky? ok lor. i dun want to disagreed on this.. but my point is... they should just admit that SG market is too small and weak to have a real open market .. that is all.. admit that there is a monopoly rather then trying to sell us their stupid wayang show and have ppl like that salman con to think Singtel and M1 are owed by DIFF boss.... -
I remember once there were talks by the govt to withdraw somewhat from the domain of private businesses. What happening to it? just talk only?Originally posted by dragg:they should take concrete steps to slowly open up the local market. temasek should slowly withdraw their holdings in local listed company and invest overseas. -
got action lah.. temasek sold their share to other GLC lor.. or companies owned by some very important people lor...Originally posted by pat33:I remember once there were talks by the govt to withdraw somewhat from the domain of private businesses. What happening to it? just talk only? -
If leaders don't want Chee Soon Juan to ask difficult questions in the next election like "where is our monies", who is to blame if he said something that might be interpreted as defamatory.Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):got action lah.. temasek sold their share to other GLC lor.. or companies owned by some very important people lor...
Who will be at fault if the leaders do not publish accountable and transparent investment processes to allow people to check the professionalism of such corporatization and decorporatizations resulting in people speculating about losses or poential wrong doings.
If MOM does not publish accurate and reliable unemployment figures and the only way is for professors in the NUS to interpret such information. Does the MOM then hold the professors responsible for not telling the true picture. Who is at fault if figures on temasek investments or diversements are not given and citizens have to dig them up by speculating the worse. -
i do agwee that we can all be proud of our nation's achievements over the last 40 years. however, it seems to me that those achievements have been overly perceived to be largely attributable to the goodness of our govt. i'm not saying they should not receive kudos for taking us this far but i do wonder if it would have made any difference if they were not around, or some other brand of govt were to have led us.Originally posted by ben1xy:but why is it that people think that everything the govt is doing is wrong? we hvae made so much progress within 40 years.
after the second world war, most asian economies were in shambles so in a certain sense we all re-started from scratch around the same time. now, isn't it coincidental of those re-building economies, the ones that were most successful were Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea? With the exception of Korea, the other two dragons didn't have our brand of govt. What abt the more prosperous states in Malaysia like Penang and Johor? What abt Indonesia? Which group of people have prospered as well?
it seems to me the success of these nations, cities or particular social groups has more to do with a certain culture than any specific leadership. -
it wun be fair to compare s'pore with taiwan or Korea. they have a bigger population and they have natural resources. LEt's look at a country similar to ours then, HK. The government adopted a lasseiz faire approach and took a back seat. If we study their economy carefully, they havent been doing well... their only real competitive industries are:Originally posted by snow leopard:i do agwee that we can all be proud of our nation's achievements over the last 40 years. however, it seems to me that those achievements have been overly perceived to be largely attributable to the goodness of our govt. i'm not saying they should not receive kudos for taking us this far but i do wonder if it would have made any difference if they were not around, or some other brand of govt were to have led us.
1. plastics
2. light metals
3. electronics
4. clothing n textile
and of coz there is the financial sector.
but in terms of the former 4 sectors, these are all low-value added manufacturing with not much prospects. in fact..most of these activities have now been transferred to the Pearl River Delta region.
additionally, they has been a lack of birth of more technologically advanced industries and value-adding sectors. I will attribute this to a lack of govt. intervention. Like i said, GLC is needed to develop downstream activities, thats why we need them to engage in risky investments (some will fail definately) and that is my side of the debate
actually, Taiwan and Korea's government intervened heavily. Korea was highly criticised for crony capitalism and relationship lending with the government bestowing low cost capital based on networks. and of coz... when such things happen.. there will be corruption.Originally posted by snow leopard:after the second world war, most asian economies were in shambles so in a certain sense we all re-started from scratch around the same time. now, isn't it coincidental of those re-building economies, the ones that were most successful were Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea? With the exception of Korea, the other two dragons didn't have our brand of govt. What abt the more prosperous states in Malaysia like Penang and Johor? What abt Indonesia? Which group of people have prospered as well?
it seems to me the success of these nations, cities or particular social groups has more to do with a certain culture than any specific leadership.
Taiwan... wah.. their politics is a big headache. SOEs play an even more pervasive role in their industry.
and i have argued on the HK case in the above reply.
let's compare our fiscal policies with those of indonesia n malaysia, we all knew what happened to their currencies during the 97 crisis.
even then... M'sia has many GLCs... example: Proton. again this is a good example of correcting market failure. Dr Mahathir wanted to use Proton to spearhead their industrial drive (like Korea's HCI drive centering around Kia, Hyundai, Samsung and Daewoo) and to promote backward linkages to help develop the surrounding clusters and to push up their technology level by a notch.
This has actually been my arguement. We can harness the GLCs in such a manner and help boost our economy -
Originally posted by Lazylordz:screw me
-
[quote]Originally posted by ben1xy:
it wun be fair to compare s'pore with taiwan or Korea. they have a bigger population and they have natural resources.
it won't be fair if you compare total economic output, but on a per capita basis, there is ground for comparison and we're quite similar. the bulk of taiwan's and korea's economic might lies with their industries. natural resouces has little to do with their success hence their situation is like ours.
LEt's look at a country similar to ours then, HK. The government adopted a lasseiz faire approach and took a back seat.
if a lassez faire approach results in a per capita GDP higher than ours, one can't help but wonder what all the steering and control have amounted to?
If we study their economy carefully, they havent been doing well... their only real competitive industries are:
1. plastics
2. light metals
3. electronics
4. clothing n textile
so we have a longer list we can be proud of? our economy is so dependent on air travel and US demand anything that upsets these two will make us cough blood. i'm not here to belittle my own country and am proud of our legacy. however, i don't find any cause for feeling one up over HK. to me, we're in the same league.
but in terms of the former 4 sectors, these are all low-value added manufacturing with not much prospects. in fact..most of these activities have now been transferred to the Pearl River Delta region.
i see that as a rational and obvious move to take advantage of low labour costs, a situation not dissimilar to ours.
additionally, they has been a lack of birth of more technologically advanced industries and value-adding sectors. I will attribute this to a lack of govt. intervention. Like i said, GLC is needed to develop downstream activities, thats why we need them to engage in risky investments (some will fail definately) and that is my side of the debate
has there been a lot of technological advancement or value adding here? let's talk about technological advancement first. inviting investors with more sophisticated technology to set up shop here means we have advanced technologically? i think there's no lack of talent around the region and if skills need to be acquired, can be acquired in many cities, not just singapore. so technological advancement? unless we have advanced ourselves.
secondly value adding. what is value adding? the value adds to who? let's say raw materials cost 50 cents. our processing and manufacturing cost another 50 cents (it can't be expensive otherwise investors would've gone elsewhere). say the final product ships out at $10. rightfully the value-add that is attributable within our shores = final price - cost of raw materials = $10 - $0.50 = $9.50. but is that really what we get? no. all we get is simply that 50 cents as $9 is shipped back to the owners of the plant as profit.
actually, Taiwan and Korea's government intervened heavily.
sounds just like singapore ... except in the case of Taiwan, with the death of Chiang Kai Shek, his son liberalised the country further and even allowed an opposition party to take over. as a result of those reforms, taiwan's economy has better internal drive, less dependent on investments, which is why taiwan's economy could weather through the storms of the 9-11 recession that hit us so badly.
Korea was highly criticised for crony capitalism and relationship lending with the government bestowing low cost capital based on networks. and of coz... when such things happen.. there will be corruption.
you know, this is strangely reminiscent of POSB's bailing out of DBS ...
Taiwan... wah.. their politics is a big headache. SOEs play an even more pervasive role in their industry.
no doubt their politics is a joke but the pervasiveness of private enterprises is not a bad thing at all and have resulted in such multinationals like Acer. if our govt is wondering why they can't take our GLCs into the world, they only have to look to taiwan.
let's compare our fiscal policies with those of indonesia n malaysia, we all knew what happened to their currencies during the 97 crisis.
why are you comparing with indonesia or malaysia? you didn't understand me. i said "the more prosperous states in Malaysia like Penang". the purpose of including penang is to point out that despite all the inconveniences or even unfairness imposed by the govt, hardworking and resourceful people can still find a way for themselves and therefore success need not necessarily be attributable to a good govt.
even then... M'sia has many GLCs... example: Proton. again this is a good example of correcting market failure. Dr Mahathir wanted to use Proton to spearhead their industrial drive (like Korea's HCI drive centering around Kia, Hyundai, Samsung and Daewoo) and to promote backward linkages to help develop the surrounding clusters and to push up their technology level by a notch.
you see, they are nurturing proton, kia, hyundai, samsung, daewoo ... what brands are we nurturing? besides SIA that is ...
We can harness the GLCs in such a manner and help boost our economy
we can, but i think harnessing is a simple word that needs to be examined more closely. if we harness the way we're harnessing now, all that we'd harness would be nutshells. that is the problem. fundamentally our GLCs are not competitive and our govt knows it and has been blaming us for not being good enough. but are we to be faulted? or are we not harnessing the right way? in yesteryears, low level manufacturing lends itself easily to simple, top-down harnessing but in today's knowledge based economy, top-down harnessing can hardly be effective.
quote] -
sorry .. something went wrong with my post... shet! i spent 15 mins on that!... i'll redo it tomorrow
suay
lol -
[quote]Originally posted by snow leopard:
it won't be fair if you compare total economic output, but on a per capita basis, there is ground for comparison and we're quite similar. the bulk of taiwan's and korea's economic might lies with their industries. natural resouces has little to do with their success hence their situation is like ours.
I cant agree with this, because Taiwan and Korea both had strong steel indutries which were pervasive in their industrial push. anyway.. lets ignore this point. i would argue that they have a bigger domestic market. something which S'pore doesnt.
if a lassez faire approach results in a per capita GDP higher than ours, one can't help but wonder what all the steering and control have amounted to?
HK is now facing big problems and the government doesn't have the ability to intervene. i would argue that we r in a better position
so we have a longer list we can be proud of? our economy is so dependent on air travel and US demand anything that upsets these two will make us cough blood. i'm not here to belittle my own country and am proud of our legacy. however, i don't find any cause for feeling one up over HK. to me, we're in the same league.
i am not here to put HK down. what i am pushing is that we r in a much more competitive position than they are in. Not good.. but definately better.
i see that as a rational and obvious move to take advantage of low labour costs, a situation not dissimilar to ours.
exactly. HK has China to lean on. We don't. that's why we have to keep upgrading. after the CEPA agreement, it has actually helped HK significantly. We, however, don;t have that luxury.
has there been a lot of technological advancement or value adding here? let's talk about technological advancement first. inviting investors with more sophisticated technology to set up shop here means we have advanced technologically? i think there's no lack of talent around the region and if skills need to be acquired, can be acquired in many cities, not just singapore. so technological advancement? unless we have advanced ourselves.
secondly value adding. what is value adding? the value adds to who? let's say raw materials cost 50 cents. our processing and manufacturing cost another 50 cents (it can't be expensive otherwise investors would've gone elsewhere). say the final product ships out at $10. rightfully the value-add that is attributable within our shores = final price - cost of raw materials = $10 - $0.50 = $9.50. but is that really what we get? no. all we get is simply that 50 cents as $9 is shipped back to the owners of the plant as profit.
For your first paragraph. leveraging on MNEs was exactly how our 4 pillar industries were created. Domestically, firms like ASA and MIT has become competitive global players.
for your second paragraph. we have to enter value-adding indutries. we can't compete on low labour cost. knowledge is all we have.
sounds just like singapore ... except in the case of Taiwan, with the death of Chiang Kai Shek, his son liberalised the country further and even allowed an opposition party to take over. as a result of those reforms, taiwan's economy has better internal drive, less dependent on investments, which is why taiwan's economy could weather through the storms of the 9-11 recession that hit us so badly.
please dun take offense, but i think u have misunderstood Taiwan's politics. Chiang Ching Kuo (sp?) was a more dictative ruler then his Dad and he wrestled power back from the upper echelons of the government. it was only after China was recognised did it bring the KMT's hope of recapturing China to an end and they were forced to democratised. in fact their downstream firms actually developed unplanned surprisingly. if u would liek.. do have a read on 'the developmental state' by Wu Yongpin.. its quite an in-depth analysis over their political strucutre
you know, this is strangely reminiscent of POSB's bailing out of DBS ...
yah... but we cant let DBS go under ma
no doubt their politics is a joke but the pervasiveness of private enterprises is not a bad thing at all and have resulted in such multinationals like Acer. if our govt is wondering why they can't take our GLCs into the world, they only have to look to taiwan.
i agree! i think u have misunderstood me as defending our government blindly. i will only defend things that i deem them to be doing right. and Yes, we have a lot to learn from Taiwan.
why are you comparing with indonesia or malaysia? you didn't understand me. i said "the more prosperous states in Malaysia like Penang". the purpose of including penang is to point out that despite all the inconveniences or even unfairness imposed by the govt, hardworking and resourceful people can still find a way for themselves and therefore success need not necessarily be attributable to a good govt.
exactly! so let's depend on ourselves! if the Chinese community did so well in adverse circumstances. why can't we? let's look at ourselves and stop shifting everything to the government.
you see, they are nurturing proton, kia, hyundai, samsung, daewoo ... what brands are we nurturing? besides SIA that is ...
yah. actually i agree with an earlier comment. lets have a balance with the more experience executives and the scholars. the experience businessperson would have had hands-on experience and definately better business acumen.
we can, but i think harnessing is a simple word that needs to be examined more closely. if we harness the way we're harnessing now, all that we'd harness would be nutshells. that is the problem. fundamentally our GLCs are not competitive and our govt knows it and has been blaming us for not being good enough. but are we to be faulted? or are we not harnessing the right way? in yesteryears, low level manufacturing lends itself easily to simple, top-down harnessing but in today's knowledge based economy, top-down harnessing can hardly be effective.
Yes. we need to improve. we need to constantly improve and not get complacent.
i am very interested in your comment abt the government blaming us. i am not living in S'pore and i didn't get tp hear that part. could u elaborate more on how they blame us? many thanks in advance! -
Originally posted by ben1xy:
I cant agree with this, because Taiwan and Korea both had strong steel indutries which were pervasive in their industrial push. anyway.. lets ignore this point. i would argue that they have a bigger domestic market. something which S'pore doesnt.
larger as it is, Taiwan's domestic market is still puny compared to the worldwide demand necessary to support its globalised industries. like Singapore, Taiwan needs to reach out to the world to prosper hence their situation is not dissimilar to ours.
HK is now facing big problems and the government doesn't have the ability to intervene. i would argue that we r in a better position
we haven't really gotten out of our problems either so i shall argue that we're no better.
i am not here to put HK down. what i am pushing is that we r in a much more competitive position than they are in. Not good.. but definately better.
but that's not what the statistics tell us ... hong kong's economy will be more tightly interwoven with china's and in the long run will ride the wave better than us.
exactly. HK has China to lean on.
so shouldn't HK be in a better position?
We don't. that's why we have to keep upgrading. after the CEPA agreement, it has actually helped HK significantly. We, however, don;t have that luxury.
having a god father is one thing but being ingenious is even more crucial and that comes with freedom to make choices and to practise business acumen. if everything is centrally directed, if the destiny of everyone lies within the hands of a select few, we would be (and we have been) at the mercy of the mistakes of those chosen ones who have proven to be human after all ...
For your first paragraph. leveraging on MNEs was exactly how our 4 pillar industries were created. Domestically, firms like ASA and MIT has become competitive global players.
past formulas don't work as well anymore, even the govt has realised that and is emphasizing biomedical research now ...
for your second paragraph. we have to enter value-adding indutries. we can't compete on low labour cost. knowledge is all we have.
compared to low labour cost industries, of course high value adding industries are better ... but still not as good as being the owners of these high value adding industries for at the end of the day, most of the value that we add goes to the owners ... we're simply providing a service - manufacturing service.
please dun take offense, but i think u have misunderstood Taiwan's politics. Chiang Ching Kuo (sp?) was a more dictative ruler then his Dad and he wrestled power back from the upper echelons of the government. it was only after China was recognised did it bring the KMT's hope of recapturing China to an end and they were forced to democratised. in fact their downstream firms actually developed unplanned surprisingly. if u would liek.. do have a read on 'the developmental state' by Wu Yongpin.. its quite an in-depth analysis over their political strucutre
no offense taken. essentially, after Chiang Kai Shek's death, the country liberalised so much so that today, the nationalists are no longer in power. this is indeed a radical transformation and while i'm not saying whether or not this is the best political outcome, the benefit to their economy is evident in terms of the strength with which they weathered the 9-11 and other recent global storms.
yah... but we cant let DBS go under ma
my message was, since we're no different from them, why condem them when we're gulty of the same practices? Aren't we slapping ourselves?
exactly! so let's depend on ourselves! if the Chinese community did so well in adverse circumstances. why can't we? let's look at ourselves and stop shifting everything to the government.
there is a fundamental difference. if no one supplies water to me, i can build my own well. if no one gives me jobs, i can find my ways. if someone ties my hands behind my back and stuff my mouth with propaganda, i am left helplessly to be taken at ransom.
yah. actually i agree with an earlier comment. lets have a balance with the more experience executives and the scholars. the experience businessperson would have had hands-on experience and definately better business acumen.
sounds fine but i feel that ultimately we should simply let things be. we have nurtured our children as best as we could. the only way for them to grow further is for them to seek their own destinies. by dictating where they go and what they do, they can never develop the wings to fly far.
i am very interested in your comment abt the government blaming us. i am not living in S'pore and i didn't get tp hear that part. could u elaborate more on how they blame us? many thanks in advance!
the authorities have always been harping on foreign talent and many of the leg shaking, cosy jobs are given to ang moh expats. all these indicate that we're not as well regarded as we ought to be. -
Originally posted by snow leopard:
Like to join in.... if u dun mind.
larger as it is, Taiwan's domestic market is still puny compared to the worldwide demand necessary to support its globalised industries. like Singapore, Taiwan needs to reach out to the world to prosper hence their situation is not dissimilar to ours.
However, there are strong internal Co. that are expanding agressively into China. For example, TSMC, UMC all have wafer fabs plant in China already. There are about 2m taiwanese working in China itself as well. IMHO, basically they are taking advantage of the situation to expand into low cost country. SGP do not have such Coporation around.
we haven't really gotten out of our problems either so i shall argue that we're no better.
but that's not what the statistics tell us ... hong kong's economy will be more tightly interwoven with china's and in the long run will ride the wave better than us.
Would agreed. Like it or not. The integration of Hong Kong and China is coming much faster than the 50 yrs needed. Economically, Hong KOng is totally dependent on China.
compared to low labour cost industries, of course high value adding industries are better ... but still not as good as being the owners of these high value adding industries for at the end of the day, most of the value that we add goes to the owners ... we're simply providing a service - manufacturing service.
I agreed with the above.
no offense taken. essentially, after Chiang Kai Shek's death, the country liberalised so much so that today, the nationalists are no longer in power. this is indeed a radical transformation and while i'm not saying whether or not this is the best political outcome, the benefit to their economy is evident in terms of the strength with which
HOwever, I think they are going overboard with the political agenda so much so that it is hindering their economical growth. Most of the ppl in taiwan are cursing on the govt on imposing rules on trade with China.
there is a fundamental difference. if no one supplies water to me, i can build my own well. if no one gives me jobs, i can find my ways. if someone ties my hands behind my back and stuff my mouth with propaganda, i am left helplessly to be taken at ransom.
yah. actually i agree with an earlier comment. lets have a balance with the more experience executives and the scholars. the experience businessperson would have had hands-on experience and definately better business acumen.
sounds fine but i feel that ultimately we should simply let things be. we have nurtured our children as best as we could. the only way for them to grow further is for them to seek their own destinies. by dictating where they go and what they do, they can never develop the wings to fly far.
I agreed totally. Teach us how to fish... not give us the fish. That is reality of the environment now.
the authorities have always been harping on foreign talent and many of the leg shaking, cosy jobs are given to ang moh expats. all these indicate that we're not as well regarded as we ought to be.
The ability does not warrant the pay. I believe it is the Asian values where hard work is the norm... but not the selling. -
actually diggo addressed most the issue i wanted to. but since i am enjoying this, i'll continue
larger as it is, Taiwan's domestic market is still puny compared to the worldwide demand necessary to support its globalised industries. like Singapore, Taiwan needs to reach out to the world to prosper hence their situation is not dissimilar to ours.
i agree with this.
we haven't really gotten out of our problems either so i shall argue that we're no better.
but that's not what the statistics tell us ... hong kong's economy will be more tightly interwoven with china's and in the long run will ride the wave better than us.
my arguement is the same. HK has China to lean on. if not for China they'll be in big trouble.
a result of their lassez faire aprroach. this is a sweeping statement, but there are many economist that would agree with me. i can provide references to justify my arguement if u need me to.
having a god father is one thing but being ingenious is even more crucial and that comes with freedom to make choices and to practise business acumen. if everything is centrally directed, if the destiny of everyone lies within the hands of a select few, we would be (and we have been) at the mercy of the mistakes of those chosen ones who have proven to be human after all ...
i agree with u. on a side note.. S'pore not that bad right? i've always thought that maybe politically we;re restrictive, but economically we're pretty liberal? correct me if i'm wrong.
past formulas don't work as well anymore, even the govt has realised that and is emphasizing biomedical research now ...
this is what i have been arguing for. constant upgrading
compared to low labour cost industries, of course high value adding industries are better ... but still not as good as being the owners of these high value adding industries for at the end of the day, most of the value that we add goes to the owners ... we're simply providing a service - manufacturing service.
O, definitely! if we r the ownder that will be better. but somehow that isn't happening. is it the govt's fault or ours? i think it's a bit of both. sometimes, i really think we need to look towards ourselves a bit more often.
no offense taken. essentially, after Chiang Kai Shek's death, the country liberalised so much so that today, the nationalists are no longer in power. this is indeed a radical transformation and while i'm not saying whether or not this is the best political outcome, the benefit to their economy is evident in terms of the strength with which they weathered the 9-11 and other recent global storms.
i agree with this
my message was, since we're no different from them, why condem them when we're gulty of the same practices? Aren't we slapping ourselves?
O, i think u've got my stance wrong. i said they practise relationship lending and crony capitalism. i didn't say it was wrong . i do not subscribe to the neo-classical view, i feel strongly that for a country to succeed, the govt must play a pervasive role. which is exactly what all the Asian countries have been doing all this while.
there is a fundamental difference. if no one supplies water to me, i can build my own well. if no one gives me jobs, i can find my ways. if someone ties my hands behind my back and stuff my mouth with propaganda, i am left helplessly to be taken at ransom.
my area of research is actually focusing on China's development. i can assure u that the people there face a much tougher business environment than S'poreans, but speaking with some of the more successsful entrepreneurs, what struck me was they knew the govt will not help them, but still persevered anyway. maybe we should learn?
sounds fine but i feel that ultimately we should simply let things be. we have nurtured our children as best as we could. the only way for them to grow further is for them to seek their own destinies. by dictating where they go and what they do, they can never develop the wings to fly far.
hahaa.... i'm still very young. i'll fight for my destiny too
the authorities have always been harping on foreign talent and many of the leg shaking, cosy jobs are given to ang moh expats. all these indicate that we're not as well regarded as we ought to be
honestly, i dun like it either. -
The best is to publish all a/c.Yes.Originally posted by robertteh:Who will be at fault if the leaders do not publish accountable and transparent investment processes to allow people to check the professionalism of such corporatization and decorporatizations resulting in people speculating about losses or poential wrong doings.
.
But it will put Sg assests in a dangerous positions.Internationl or even local
big speculators will amush Sg dollars and other finance markets.
This is similiar to we wont tell people how much guns we have.
How much assests we have?US$100 to 200 billions,90% is cash convertiable.
Right.If we exposed too much,some will form allied ,say US$10B
to have a big gamble.
We dunt have second chance.We have many kids to feed.
We may tasted life,but they dunt.
Be careful,for the sake of our kids.