Making one of e most entrepreneurial race unentrepreneurial
-
Does it make you wonder why after so many years, after so many incentives and attempts to grow local enterprises, the government has not really succeeded is getting Singaporeans to start their own businesses and create jobs for other locals?
The puzzle lies.. Why is it so hard to get the most entrepreneurial race to be entrepreneurial?
Everywhere you go, you can see Chinese immigrants with successful business.
For example,one source cites 2/3 of the companies in Malaysia are owned by Malaysian Chinese and thats why they need to have bumi putera policies.
For those who want to argue that the government is good at creating jobs, i hope there is a fair comparison against countries like Taiwan.
Taiwan Jobless Rate Highest for October in 15 Years 3.19%
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200011/25/eng20001125_56136.htm
Why is it so hard to get one of the most entrepreneurial race to do start-ups? -
Because of the environment. First its too small for both private and government linked bodies to compete. The environment here is just not condusive for small businesses to take root and flower. Second because of the regulation and control here. Before we create anything we will ask for permission (regulation) first. Somehow I don't see an entrepreneur doing that. Here is a good place to work but not to start business. Third is the costs. There are cheaper places to start business. Here it might not pay cos rental is so high, your effort goes into paying for overhead costs before you can earn a profit.
-
I think for small retail start up not easy loh...The rental is high... and if you enjoy some success the landlord raises the rental. Also there's no guarantee of success on the first round, and its not easy to get the capital to start again.Originally posted by virtualchick:Because of the environment. First its too small for both private and government linked bodies to compete. The environment here is just not condusive for small businesses to take root and flower. Second because of the regulation and control here. Before we create anything we will ask for permission (regulation) first. Somehow I don't see an entrepreneur doing that. Here is a good place to work but not to start business. Third is the costs. There are cheaper places to start business. Here it might not pay cos rental is so high, your effort goes into paying for overhead costs before you can earn a profit.
Singapore is a place for those with deep pockets....
All the students today are loaded with so much workload that they entangled in the paper chase. Having invested so much of their life in getting papers, its hard to see them trying a different route -
expensive!
and those wad help ppl startup biz funds la...
its bull.
all they wan is get ppl to start biz den snatch their business away once its profitable. the real ownership never belonged to those entrepreneurs, despite their efforts.
proactive in promoting entrepreneurship, my arse. they have the right to sell the business any time they wish. -
Waah.. today got a feature on retail start up..but the rental to be as low as $1000 must be some ulu spot with small shop size.. the world is driven by efficient markets... if the traffic is good the landlord raise rental...
My friend leases a small shop in Queensway shopping Centre selling jeans rental $3000.. work enough only to cover rental and its tough work considering that she has to do all the packing labeling herself.
If its was Taiwan it would have been easier to sell in the streets or find a night market that has good traffic at lower rental.
I am quite unhappy with how Singpost overcharges the local business
For example Jap to Sin on EMS 900g
it would only cost 1660 yen or 21SGD
http://www.post.japanpost.jp/english/fee/intel/ems.html
but from Sin to Jap for a 900g on EMS it would cost 45.8SGD
http://www.singpost.com/quick_services/quicks_02postage_cal.asp
thats a whopping 100%++ more expensive... but i heard they are planning to liberalize the market... hopefully the prices fall like the telcos -
Here in Singapore, before you can make, the gov must make first...
Even if you fail, the gov also makes...
The more you make, the makes just as much if not MORE from you...
Stay here with your business long enough, you will be bled dry eventually... -
Agree..... govt is always in the lead.... telling us what to do.... in time, all our idea just goes away...... we just follow, no longer lead....Originally posted by ShutterBug:Here in Singapore, before you can make, the gov must make first...
Even if you fail, the gov also makes...
The more you make, the makes just as much if not MORE from you...
Stay here with your business long enough, you will be bled dry eventually... -
Have u been to AMK NTUC Hypermart??
Its HUGE! they sell everything...besides groceries, electronics, books, clothes, furnitures, cd/dvds, daily neccessities, etc ,etc...
look at the other parts of AMK...its like a ghost town...all the business taken away by this GOVT business venture...
its really killing away entrepruneurship and enslaving the whole population to be employees taking meagre salaries home..
We know that in businesses, the big corporates will eat the small businesses...
but government eating small businesses? wow...Uniquely Singapore!
so our dearest govt is venturing into more money profiting ventures like, newpaper stands(buZZ), funeral parlours, garang guni trades, taxis, convenient stalls(Cheers), etc...
How to compete with govt? they make the rental so high, and give u more competition...
p.s: btw, isn't trade unions suppose to be independent and a voice of people and businesses welfare?? how come our NTUC belongs to the govt? and supports everything the govt says? How come our trade union"NTUC" earns so much money?(Fairprice,Cheers,BuZZ, etc) sounds more like a profit-oriented company to me rather than a trade organisation -
the chinese population in indonesia is 1%, yet they control 70% of the indon economy
the chinese population in phillipines is 3%, yet they control 60% of the phillippino economy..
the chinese population in thai is 15%, yet they control xx% of the thai economy...
the chinese population in SG is 78%, yet they own the whole SG economy..
this is why the past govts in indonesia, phillipines and thai are very fearful of chinese communities... therefore, strict laws have been impose to change their chinese names, banning their festivals and showing their culture..
Quoted from wiki
"Chinese market dominance and intense resentment amongst the indigenous majority is characteristic of virtually every country in Southeast Asia." (Chua, 2003, pg. 61)[Full citation needed] In the countries with small Chinese minorities, the economic disparity is remarkable: with 1% of the population in the Philippines and 3% in Indonesia, Chinese controlled 60% and 70% of the nations' private economy"
Even in Singapore, if you work in a sg chinese company..u will find the management very financially shrewd..
But the Sg govt has killed off all chinese entrepreneurialship... we are ruled by elites!!! woooooo!!!! -
actually i got the title of the thread from a review of LKY memoirs...Originally posted by pinkish purple papayas:the chinese population in indonesia is 1%, yet they control 70% of the indon economy
the chinese population in phillipines is 3%, yet they control 60% of the phillippino economy..
the chinese population in thai is 15%, yet they control xx% of the thai economy...
the chinese population in SG is 78%, yet they own the whole SG economy..
this is why the past govts in indonesia, phillipines and thai are very fearful of chinese communities... therefore, strict laws have been impose to change their chinese names, banning their festivals and showing their culture..
Quoted from wiki
"Chinese market dominance and intense resentment amongst the indigenous majority is characteristic of virtually every country in Southeast Asia." (Chua, 2003, pg. 61)[Full citation needed] In the countries with small Chinese minorities, the economic disparity is remarkable: with 1% of the population in the Philippines and 3% in Indonesia, Chinese controlled 60% and 70% of the nations' private economy"
Even in Singapore, if you work in a sg chinese company..u will find the management very financially shrewd..
But the Sg govt has killed off all chinese entrepreneurialship... we are ruled by elites!!! woooooo!!!!
The reviewer said under LKY authoritarian government , He managed to do many impossibles, one of them is extinguishing entrepreneurship spirit in Chinese. -
In sg, non-elites are penalised for success. So why bother.
If I were to be in business, I will do it in any neighbouring countries. Not in Sg.
Similarly, right now I will save up because I know that the system will not take care of me and will only see me as a liability. So I am thinking where I want to retire and bring my money there... -
Yes, this is the popular path many are taking now...Originally posted by mistyblue:In sg, non-elites are penalised for success. So why bother.
If I were to be in business, I will do it in any neighbouring countries. Not in Sg.
Similarly, right now I will save up because I know that the system will not take care of me and will only see me as a liability. So I am thinking where I want to retire and bring my money there...
Most locals will have left Singapore in future, leaving mostly foriegners and new migrants here, who will eventually the ones who will actively tell our almighty gov to step down when they realized they're being had just like us... -
No wonder,he is a bah 2!!!!!!Originally posted by kilua:actually i got the title of the thread from a review of LKY memoirs...
The reviewer said under LKY authoritarian government , He managed to do many impossibles, one of them is extinguishing entrepreneurship spirit in Chinese. -
yeah i agree.. i am planning to base myself overseas in 2-3 years time. Wont give up Singapore passport coz its still very useful..the Singapore passport is visa free for many countries.. but i dont feel any loyalty for Singapore under PAP... Singapore is a company not a country... if there is a war i would throw my passport into the dustbin... Must repay PAP all the pragmatic attitudeOriginally posted by mistyblue:In sg, non-elites are penalised for success. So why bother.
If I were to be in business, I will do it in any neighbouring countries. Not in Sg.
Similarly, right now I will save up because I know that the system will not take care of me and will only see me as a liability. So I am thinking where I want to retire and bring my money there...
Anyway i think there are lots of foreigners from third world countries who would be glad to take my place. -
i agree with you that the chinese in singapore are a different breed. When you look at the chinese minority in other countries, even those in developed countries like Canada, UK, US, Australia, either seem to do well in business or at the very least, make ends meet, call it survival instinct. If these Chinese can survive in other countries as a minority, what more about those chinese in singapore, who make up more than 70% of the population.Originally posted by pinkish purple papayas:the chinese population in indonesia is 1%, yet they control 70% of the indon economy
the chinese population in phillipines is 3%, yet they control 60% of the phillippino economy..
the chinese population in thai is 15%, yet they control xx% of the thai economy...
the chinese population in SG is 78%, yet they own the whole SG economy..
this is why the past govts in indonesia, phillipines and thai are very fearful of chinese communities... therefore, strict laws have been impose to change their chinese names, banning their festivals and showing their culture..
Quoted from wiki
"Chinese market dominance and intense resentment amongst the indigenous majority is characteristic of virtually every country in Southeast Asia." (Chua, 2003, pg. 61)[Full citation needed] In the countries with small Chinese minorities, the economic disparity is remarkable: with 1% of the population in the Philippines and 3% in Indonesia, Chinese controlled 60% and 70% of the nations' private economy"
Even in Singapore, if you work in a sg chinese company..u will find the management very financially shrewd..
But the Sg govt has killed off all chinese entrepreneurialship... we are ruled by elites!!! woooooo!!!!
Do we have a chicken and egg situation here? Is it the gov that kill off chinese entrepreneurship in singapore or is it the chinese singaporean who can't stop sucking the gov pacifier after all these years? Who is to blame? Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese. Maybe we should ask this question to the immigrant chinese singaporean who is doing well in a developed country. -
I dont think history books would write Singaporean Chinese are less entrepreneurial than other chinese because Singaporeans blame and point finger at the govt.Originally posted by saffron60:i agree with you that the chinese in singapore are a different breed. When you look at the chinese minority in other countries, even those in developed countries like Canada, UK, US, Australia, either seem to do well in business or at the very least, make ends meet, call it survival instinct. If these Chinese can survive in other countries as a minority, what more about those chinese in singapore, who make up more than 70% of the population.
Do we have a chicken and egg situation here? Is it the gov that kill off chinese entrepreneurship in singapore or is it the chinese singaporean who can't stop sucking the gov pacifier after all these years? Who is to blame? Gov point finger at people, people point finger at gov...neverending story, but this is the story of singaporean chinese. Maybe we should ask this question to the immigrant chinese singaporean who is doing well in a developed country.
The history books would write that the Singapore govt failed to remove the pacifier after so many years so its the govt's fault. -
Ah...but the chinese in other countries as a minority don't have a pacifier and worse still, don't even have 'parents' to look after them, yet they can still make it. I'm not saying that they are 'better' than the singaporean chinese, but ultimately they are survivalists. Has singaporean chinese forgotten their survival instincts? If it is an inborn thing, surely the chinese singaporean will still find a way out of their current dilema and help themselves instead of hoping and wishing....Originally posted by kilua:I dont think history books would write Singaporean Chinese are less entrepreneurial than other chinese because Singaporeans blame and point finger at the govt.
The history books would write that the Singapore govt failed to remove the pacifier after so many years so its the govt's fault. -
Hmm SG people to much of comfort... many unlike the American can still go on after an average of 16 times of failure...
But tkae to account there are sucessful one like Denise wee ,Adam Khoo, victor Khoo, the sakae sushi , bread top , siong song and more local establish entrepreneurial... I am on my path to become a succesful one..... -
I dont really see it as the problem of Chinese Singaporean. They are just like blank piece of harddisk that inherits the values or (the OS) of the system. If a PRC Chinese was adopted and raised here, he would be like Chinese Singaporean, more honest, less challenging of authority and more afraid to take risks. These values are inherited through socialization in the education system and the environment.Originally posted by saffron60:Ah...but the chinese in other countries as a minority don't have a pacifier and worse still, don't even have 'parents' to look after them, yet they can still make it. I'm not saying that they are 'better' than the singaporean chinese, but ultimately they are survivalists. Has singaporean chinese forgotten their survival instincts? If it is an inborn thing, surely the chinese singaporean will still find a way out of their current dilema and help themselves instead of hoping and wishing....
If you ask why Chinese Singaporeans lack the “survival instincts” i think its because they are suck into the paper chase. The Singapore System overemphasizes on academics and distorts the environment of an average Singapore teenager.
Even for working adults, I can see many people try to beat poverty by going for private degrees rather then using their “survival instinct” to start a business. And when academic is not their forte, its really a waste of human resource. They may have started a business or gone into other careers. -
If you look at Singapore's economic environment, you will see that the majority is government controlled/linked, and in expanding their empire, starting from their home base, the smaller guys simply do not have the economies of scale to compete. Case in point, NTUC. Of course the people also frequent NTUC because they percieve NTUC to be cheaper, being government linked. So it is a vicious circle.
Singapore govt is pragmatic because the majority is chinese. Chinese are pragmatic and that's why they are successful the world over.
Sometimes it is not that we are afraid to fail, but because the people here are not receptive to failure. Fail once and you may never get to try again.
Now look at a guy who gets retrenched. What does he do? He drives a taxi. Life here is such that while you may never be rich, you will not starve. And in that I would say the government has done a good job in providing stability and jobs for everybody. Unless you are so unlucky as to not be able to drive, no money to learn and nobody to offer you a job. Which could happen.
Regarding the workfare supplement, why is it that you need to work before you are entitled to it? What if you really could not find a job?
Coming back to Singapore capitalist economy, you will see that it is become quite boring with the same brands being replicated in the shopping centres. Go to town, go to Ang Mo Kio, you will see the same brands again and again.
I am not an economist. I cannot back my claims with figures. But my instincts are strong. And they tell me, Singapore is not a good place to start a business. I might think differently in Hong Kong, for example. Especially if my uncle, my cousin, my sister are in successful businesses themselves. Even in Shanghai you can see the hope and daring of the people, and feel the vibe, the bustle of the marketplace there. I have no solution. The market here is really very small. And if everyone around you have stable jobs in companies, why should you be any different? People are smart. If it pays to start businesses, they would have done so already. Why struggle for something uncertain and unprofitable if you are already comfortable.
Question is, when foreign investments move to cheaper places, what will come of people who have been trained to be worker ants do? -
Originally posted by saffron60:
I hope that the tone of your post is not intended to be racist, in the manner that you have derided Chinese in Singapore as being dependent on a Government pacifier.
Ah...but the chinese in other countries as a minority don't have a pacifier and worse still, don't even have 'parents' to look after them, yet they can still make it. I'm not saying that they are 'better' than the singaporean chinese, but ultimately they are survivalists. Has singaporean chinese forgotten their survival instincts? If it is an inborn thing, surely the chinese singaporean will still find a way out of their current dilema and help themselves instead of hoping and wishing....
If you have any clue about Singapore History, perhaps you should consider what the Chinese community was BEFORE LKY was even born, and when Singapore was ruled by the British Colonial Government.
Singapore was a thriving city with contributions from the various communities formed by different peoples, from different societies coming from different places all over the globe - with the CHINESE being the main racial group that provided the thrust that made Singapore a success for the British Colonial Rulers.
The British Colonial Rulers had given authority to the local community leaders to run the affairs of their respective communities, while the Colonial Government took care of the Internal and External Securities.
What happened to this entrepreneurial characteristics of the various communities in Singapore - especially that of the Chinese majority since LKY and his political party came into power from the late 1950s ?
Was there not a systematic dismantling of the economic power that were in the hands of the Chinese scions in Singapore, who posed a political threat with their private wealth, and the economic power that they wield over events in Singapore ?
During the early days of politics in Singapore, the various competing political parties had the moral and FINANCIAL support from the various businesses and individual personalities.
The well known scions with their large family wealth and private industry were able to own many aspects of Singapore businesses that kept Singapore humming - owning banks, newspapers, broadcasting media, printing houses, and many of the main infrastructural services.
These private businesses in private hands were at times influenced by partisan politics, contributing to the development of a vibrant political environment during the early days of the post-colonial period.
Can the LKY personality - that we know - tolerate such an environment ?
One example of the move to neutralise the political strength of private wealth can be seen in the manner in which the LKY government dealt with the Singapore public bus system - in which the strong hand of government killed a long established lucrative business operated by private capital and initiative.
Many reasons were given for the dismantling of the ten public bus companies that were in the hands of Chinese entrepreneurs that operated during the Colonial days to the early 1970s, when the ten bus companies were dismantled and consolidated into three regional companies, and then finally regrouped into one national Singapore Bus Services.
By the late 1970s, Singapore Bus Services was restructured through a name change into Delgro Corporation, with heavy NTUC participation and investment of funds generated and collected from a large pool of "forced" union memberships of the Singapore work force.
Not too long after, the Scheme B system was introduced to allow Private Buses to complement SBS, but with heavy restriction on its routing and operating hours that made it untenable for long.
Within five years, government linked City Shuttle Service was formed, followed by Trans Island Bus Services.
By 2004, the bus transport system was restructured and merged with the operations of the MRT system - to form SMRT and Singapore Shuttle Bus.
The heavy hand of Government involvement stretched across the entire spectrum of the economy, in which political appointees to various government linked companies are given the extra perk to cut through red-tapes, allowing them to operate with less restrictive rules when compared to private ventures.
From its PRIMARY function of representing workers' welfare, the National Trade Union Congress has used its position - and using its financial strength through workers' contribution - to muscle out private enterprise in unfair competition backed by government help.
Neighborhood stores that served the various communities simply faded from their traditional roles, and despite the supposed economies of scale with operations provided by NTUC Fairprice - are the prices anything but fair ?
The two preceding examples reveal the government policies of the Ruling Party aka the Government in creating a 'Political Economy of Social Control'.
For over 45 years, the Ruling Party has made 95 per cent of the population live in Government built housing by simply increasing the cost of land for private development - that will naturally force private housing to be much higher than public housing.
Ingeniously, having forced private housing to be higher in price, HDB then moved public housing prices closer to a "shoulder distance" in pricing to that of private housing.
Unfortunately, the 95 per cent of Singaporeans do not actually own the HDB building that are leased for 99 years only; and unlike freehold properties purchased, the funds used on 99 year property will simply evaporate at the end of the 99nth year.
Much like the value of a car worth zero - at the end of the ten year COE.
With a one party dominated parliament, a slew of legislations were easily passed to allow the government to dominate the economic and political landscape; and in the process rounding up Singaporeans like cattles into the absurdly demarcated politcal-electoral corals.
With a negative attitude towards Social Welfare - what pacifier from this government are you referring to ?
If at all, Singaporeans have been offered a goreng pisang that certaily will not help us with our present political-economic constipation. -
I need to bring up a point on GST. We are increasing our GST to 7%. This is becoming on par with well developed countries. However they have social welfare, while we do not. How does the government justify this?
-
My reply was in response to the earlier post about comparisons between the singaporean chinese and the chinese minority in other countries. Of course, when you are talking about the singapore born chinese, what you said about the 'blank slate' applies, especially since they have been brought up through an academic system which values meritrocacy. And that's one the reasons why the singapore chinese are so fundamentally different from the minority chinese in other countries (although chinese families value education but education system is different). When the conditions are right, the survival instincts should kick in. Maybe singapore doesn't have these conditions and as a result people get stuck in their comfort zone. So back the original question, should people just sit and wait till gov change their ways or should people do something on their own first while waiting for the gov to change (that is if they ever change)?Originally posted by kilua:I dont really see it as the problem of Chinese Singaporean. They are just like blank piece of harddisk that inherits the values or (the OS) of the system. If a PRC Chinese was adopted and raised here, he would be like Chinese Singaporean, more honest, less challenging of authority and more afraid to take risks. These values are inherited through socialization in the education system and the environment.
If you ask why Chinese Singaporeans lack the “survival instincts” i think its because they are suck into the paper chase. The Singapore System overemphasizes on academics and distorts the environment of an average Singapore teenager.
Even for working adults, I can see many people try to beat poverty by going for private degrees rather then using their “survival instinct” to start a business. And when academic is not their forte, its really a waste of human resource. They may have started a business or gone into other careers. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
[color=darkred]I hope that the tone of your post is not intended to be racist, in the manner that you have derided Chinese in Singapore as being dependent on a Government pacifier.
nope, it isn't, it's just based on my observations, because earlier i was talking to another forumer about the comparisons between the chinese singaporean and the chinese minority in other countries. Being a majority in singapore, the people have been given 'goodies' over the years and these 'goodies' are the pacifiers, designed to keep the people content and quiet. But as you can see, more and more people are getting dissatisfied with the ruling party.If you have any clue about Singapore History, perhaps you should consider what the Chinese community was BEFORE LKY was even born, and when Singapore was ruled by the British Colonial Government.
as one forumer mentioned earlier, singapore's domestic economy is small and that's one of the reasons why sing gov can have their hands in so many areas of the economy. I'm not surprised that the sing gov took over the private transport companies, after all, it is a public service and the gov aimed to make it uniformed, efficient and accessible to people from all walks of life.
Singapore was a thriving city with contributions from the various communities formed by different peoples, from different societies coming from different places all over the globe - with the CHINESE being the main racial group that provided the thrust that made Singapore a success for the British Colonial Rulers.
The British Colonial Rulers had given authority to the local community leaders to run the affairs of their respective communities, while the Colonial Government took care of the Internal and External Securities.
What happened to this entrepreneurial characteristics of the various communities in Singapore - especially that of the Chinese majority since LKY and his political party came into power from the late 1950s ?
Was there not a systematic dismantling of the economic power that were in the hands of the Chinese scions in Singapore, who posed a political threat with their private wealth, and the economic power that they wield over events in Singapore ?
During the early days of politics in Singapore, the various competing political parties had the moral and FINANCIAL support from the various businesses and individual personalities.
The well known scions with their large family wealth and private industry were able to own many aspects of Singapore businesses that kept Singapore humming - owning banks, newspapers, broadcasting media, printing houses, and many of the main infrastructural services.
These private businesses in private hands were at times influenced by partisan politics, contributing to the development of a vibrant political environment during the early days of the post-colonial period.
Can the LKY personality - that we know - tolerate such an environment ?
One example of the move to neutralise the political strength of private wealth can be seen in the manner in which the LKY government dealt with the Singapore public bus system - in which the strong hand of government killed a long established lucrative business operated by private capital and initiative.
Many reasons were given for the dismantling of the ten public bus companies that were in the hands of Chinese entrepreneurs that operated during the Colonial days to the early 1970s, when the ten bus companies were dismantled and consolidated into three regional companies, and then finally regrouped into one national Singapore Bus Services.
By the late 1970s, Singapore Bus Services was restructured through a name change into Delgro Corporation, with heavy NTUC participation and investment of funds generated and collected from a large pool of "forced" union memberships of the Singapore work force.
Not too long after, the Scheme B system was introduced to allow Private Buses to complement SBS, but with heavy restriction on its routing and operating hours that made it untenable for long.
Within five years, government linked City Shuttle Service was formed, followed by Trans Island Bus Services.
By 2004, the bus transport system was restructured and merged with the operations of the MRT system - to form SMRT and Singapore Shuttle Bus.
The heavy hand of Government involvement stretched across the entire spectrum of the economy, in which political appointees to various government linked companies are given the extra perk to cut through red-tapes, allowing them to operate with less restrictive rules when compared to private ventures.
In countries like UK, where the gov had privatised some of their train lines, it turned out to be a disaster and the gov had to buy back these lines, and in the process, lost huge amounts of money. The public transport system is not a very good example of the gov getting their 'greedy' hands on the local economy, i don't think. Another forumer mentioned about AMK NTUC hypermarket, i think that's a better example. There are some areas in economy where i think that the gov should allow the local businesses to thrive.From its PRIMARY function of representing workers' welfare, the National Trade Union Congress has used its position - and using its financial strength through workers' contribution - to muscle out private enterprise in unfair competition backed by government help.
Ya, i agree with this, as mentioned earlier. Just diverting a little, if we compare what's happening the retail sector in msia, you will find that it is not that different from what's happening in sing. According to a well known market research company, the current trend is that more consumers are going to large retail outlets, e.g. hypermarkets, departmental stores and less people are going to the small grocery shops. In msia, these hypermarkets and departmental stores are not GLCs. I think the sing gov should allow local businesses to thrive in the large retail outlet sector. With that in mind, getting into the large retail outlet business is a very expensive affair and small time businessmen cannot afford to get into it. The realities of the markets in both msia, sing and other asian countries is that consumers are moving towards the large retail outlets, so small time businesses are slowly being squeezed out (when i say small time businesses, i mean grocery stores and the like).
Neighborhood stores that served the various communities simply faded from their traditional roles, and despite the supposed economies of scale with operations provided by NTUC Fairprice - are the prices anything but fair ? -
Originally posted by saffron60:My reply was in response to the earlier post about comparisons between the singaporean chinese and the chinese minority in other countries. Of course, when you are talking about the singapore born chinese, what you said about the 'blank slate' applies, especially since they have been brought up through an academic system which values meritrocacy. And that's one the reasons why the singapore chinese are so fundamentally different from the minority chinese in other countries (although chinese families value education but education system is different). When the conditions are right, the survival instincts should kick in. Maybe singapore doesn't have these conditions and as a result people get stuck in their comfort zone. So back the original question, should people just sit and wait till gov change their ways or should people do something on their own first while waiting for the gov to change (that is if they ever change)?
