This is a posting I made back in 1997 with regards to the de-emphasis on foreign MNC investment, re-focus on grooming local entrepreneurship.
Goh Meng Seng
‘æ 12 �€
ŠñŒ�ŽÒ�FMADCOW (
[email protected])
ŽåŽ|�FRe: Manufacturing industry doomed in Singapore
View: Complete Thread �i‹¤ 75 žŠ—¯Œ¾�j
Original Format
–Ô�ã˜_’d�Fsoc.culture.singapore
“úŠú�F1997/07/30
[email protected] (Edmund Chia) writes:
Edmund Edmund, you miss the cue here.
> While I quite agree with the fact that local enterprises have not been
> given as much assistance as might have been possible, I do not feel
> that MNCs have been over-emphasized, and IMHO much of the standard
> criticisms of the pro-MNC policies have come more sectional interests
> that may not have taken a wider view.
Supression and over-looking is different!

Wider view? In the wider view,
MNCs have no loyalty to you! IN wider view, MNC will inevitably go away one
day! (Some of them had already done so!) You call this not wider view? I am
not asking people to boot MNCs immediately, but to make preparations for the
eventual happenings; to encourage, as well as grooming more local entrepreneurs into
big MNCs! Give more opportunities to them, not assistance.
>
> I believe that Singapore has been trying to get local entrepreneurs to
> move production offshore, and these entrepreneurs have received
> incentives to do so.
>
Receiving incentives to do so? How big can the incentives be? Those who have the
economical power, has done so, going to China, regional; but how many of them? Those
who have not done so, they don't have enough economical power to do so! Why? Because all
these while, they are not given the opportunities to grow!
> As for policies to encourage entrepreneurship - I'd say that its not
> as simple as that. It was probably even harder for Hong Kong
> entrepreneurs to succeed - competing against established British
> corporations, low govenrment assistance, etc - yet the fact they
> succeeded is testament to their own ability, and not the assistance
> they received from government. In contrast, Singapore simply does not
> have the 'entrepreneurial culture' that exists in Hong Kong. We have a
> very well established MNC culture where people feel comfortable and
> operate well within the stable confines of a hierarchy, but not
> go-getters prepared to take risks.
>
Nope. HK enterprises do not grow out of assistance from govt, they grow
without the help of their govt, as well as interventions of their govt in
every opportunities. You have totally miss the point. The inability of our entrepreneurs
to grow is due to our all "too efficient" govt intervening in every aspects of our
economy; right from what you eat to what you wear to what covers over your head.
In HK, if you dare, everywhere lies opportunities! Govt is kept to minimum, unlike our
Termasek Holdings which have its invisible hands in every corners; anything that can make
money in Singapore, they have a hand in it; even Singapore pools and the now forthcoming
Soccer Pools! Stop blaming us, Singaporean for not being entrepreneurs! Our educational
system says that we need more engineers to feed the foreign MNCs!! If our govt deliberate
cultivate such "MNC culture" how can you blame our faithful citizens of not venturing out?
>
> Again - I must say that we can not 'groom' entrepreneurs in the sense
> that there is a course you take and if you pass with an A1, you are an
> entrepreneur. If such a mindset towards entrepreneurship persists,
> then we will never develop an "entrepreneurial culture". We can
> however remove impediments to entrepreneurship - if that is what you
> mean by 'groom' - by making it easier for individuals to obtain loans
> for projects, or organizing 'trade fairs' for small businesses to
> display their wares, exchange ideas, establish contacts, etc.
>
You must have a very narrow mind! Look at how Japan & Korea "groom" their
entrepreneurs.. not by your typical Singaporean mind of having courses &
certificates! First, trim down your GLCs & all those stats boards. Don't say
you privatised Singapore Telecoms; how can you say you privatise a Stats board
when you only issue less than 25% of its stocks?
Our entrepreneurs can compete openly, but only on fair playing ground. If
Govt Linked companies are to be in every field, do we expect a fair playing
ground for everybody?
> As for the MNCs, I think you have been too hard on them. Yes, MNCs are
> here for the profit, but it is not as easy to pack and leave as you
> suggest. A well-established MNC would have made a strategic commitment
> in Singapore that could be very expensive to abandoned. Staff would
> have been trained, machinery bought, contacts established, etc - and
> these would take considerable time and money to replicate - if indeed
> it were possible to replicate some of the infrastructure available in
> Singapore. In other words, they can not simply pack and leave without
> a great deal of thought, time and preparation. Then also, they must
> much to keep them bound to Singapore.
>
>
Please do a study of how many MNCs have come and go due to lower production
costs in other places. The problem is so acute that even PM Goh has to sound it
out loud. The catch is, no matter how you want to put it, with the steady pace of
development, they will ultimately leave Singapore for greener pastures. We should not
trick ourselves into thinking that they are so good to us that they will not leave us.
They will go, eventually, and the question is, how are we going to cope with that?
With even bigger GLCs like Singapore Technologies? And thus, less opportunities for our
local enterprises?
Your argument of the so call "created competition" by making two GLCs fighting themselves
are so flawed. It will only lead to bad competition. We have noticed there are instances
of open fightings between big GLCs, but where does it lead to? Your argument that local
entrepreneurs may not offer "Global Advantages" (whatever it means) is also flawed. It is your
typical Singaporean mentality of kiasu and intolerance of failure that leads you into such
narrow-minded conclusions. Let me ask you, when SinTel first come about, does it has the so call
"Global Advantages"? It is only throughout these 20-30 years, they achieved it,no? Then how
can you kill and brush local enterprises aside like this? They need to get hands on inorder
to learn the trade! If you are going to rule HK, people like Lee K.S. (Hutchison) will not grow
into such aspects! This is a ridiculous argument!
So we come to the final point: we should be more tolerant to failures and weaknesses; we should help
local enterprises to improve themselves instead of brushing them aside! Give them a chance; without such
chances or opportunities, how can you groom local enterprises? remeber the old days when everyone shun Japanese
goods? But the Japanese did not brush those companies aside; they let them improve and today, they are one of those
standards keepers!
Wake up Singapore! Before it is really too late!