More APs to GLCs will cut into growth of SMEs

robertteh SG

In the case of Malaysia, their people are not happy with APs (import permits) being granted to only certain people with connections to the government.

In our case we may be facing the same risk of creating bigger and bigger networks of GLCs which function as monopolicies without creating new technology start-ups or net job gains.

GLCs only use the public monies to save government expenses by privatising them so that such GLCs could charge higher market fees.

MediaCorp fails to take off the moment they are run on commercial basis.

We are now expanding our GLCs and granting more and more APs of all sorts to our GLCs who at this moment only benefit from using tax payers' monies paid for essential services. GLCs only look good but do not create businesses for the economy. They tend to bid for government jobs and cut into domestic sector of the economy thereby curtailing growth of the economy.

The role of GLCs should be objectively studied so that we will not end up creating a monster economy with APs granted to all the GLCs which in turn benefit only certain people connected the system of GRCs. GLCs can be re-constituted into smaller units for take over by SMEs to run them more profitably with expansions plans based on full market practices not government support in tenders. (Articially made to look good is not real efforts and success)

Salman SG

APs were issued to individuals essentially, the same cannot be said for the GLCs. One benefits individuals while the other brings revenue back for the country coffer. In other words, there is no basis of comparison bewteen the two.

After having put much thought into this GLC matter, I have concluded that it is actually good for Singapore. Many local SMEs are badly runned and never expanded in their respective fields when given the chance in the 80s and 90s. They are so stingy and could never keep or develope talent, some made nonsensical investments and some were too cautious. So how can these people complain now about govt involvement? What difference does it make to Singaporeans whether its a govt monopoly or private monopoly? At least the GLCs go to where SMEs don't go and are at least professionally managed compared to SMEs. Also, GLCs treat people better than local SME bosses.

robertteh SG

Small and Medium Enterprises are and should be the growth engine of a successful economy. This has been recognized by the government lately after the last two recessions when they found out that foreign MNCs they have been promoting all these years do not have root in Singpaore and would make decisions to shift out their operations to wherever offering them better deals and opportunities.

If our economic policies have been based on nurturing local indigenious content and technology start-ups, we will not come to the point of wanting to get government into business. It is not that bosses of SMEs are stingy or do not know how to do business like employing right people to run them. The real problem was created far far back when we took the step of giving all the incentives to foreign companies while neglecting to grant the same to local.

GLCs are run essentially by connected academically qualified civil servants they regared as talents who cannot think entrepreneurial or able to compete as well as the private sector businesses. The failures of Singapore economy to grow in the direction of third-wave technology start-ups can be seen clearly when we objectively look at our economic upgrading as compared with Korea and Taiwan or Finland and Switzerland. Many smaller countries are well on the way to building their own technology sector in manufacturing and services owing to their paying attention to broad-based education and nurturing their real technology applications among the masses.

GLCs are merely re-constituted from some original public services in certain areas where the government wanted to cut down its expenditures or charge for services to market values to avoid welfarism. We might have gone overboard in avoiding welfarism to the point of making unwarranted surpluses from the ordinary citizens from housing to utilities. I have given many examples before in other posts on the same subject. It is all about the fundamental of government. One step wrong, all the rest will be wrong no matter how we try to fix them. We will succeed only when fundamentals are right. Is our government going to promote the locals and facilitate them in growths and setting new directions for growths.

GLCs now have to go into bidding for government jobs in order to sustain their profitability. Mediacorp failed because of lack of entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector. The fact that any GLCs are big is not success. Public monies and public tender opportunities given to these GLCs are the real sustenance.

So you see, GLCs are artificial creatures and they are now largely supported by public monies and public opportunities so that they can be more profitably run. By letting these GLCs operate within the domestic sector, government is competing with the local businesses which finally are deprived the opportunities and cannot grow.

Why do we reach the point why government has to step in to do business? It is the same as why we keep promoting elitism to the point where we have to ask where are all the practical entrepreneurs gone? People are factor of success. By facilitating and promoting people's growth intellectually or in business, it is real good corporate governance.

Without governing the correct first steps and addressing the fundamental all will go wrong and finally the country will be without talents and without entrepreneurs and only the leaders will be left to decorate a bit of this or that to look good policies which do not work.