Skip to main content

Can the PAP move away from profit-maximisation model?

Can the PAP move away from profit-maximisation model? And learn something from Jing Shang.


When Singapore Management University (SMU) board of trustees chairman Ho Kwon Ping comments on the failure of business schools to convey the right ethical values to students, I wonder whether this can also apply to the PAP or not.  

He said: 'Business schools have not only failed to convey the ethical values which might have mitigated, if not prevented, the business excesses leading to the last global recession; but indeed, much of the fault for the excesses actually lay with business schools themselves.'

He, therefore, advocated a shift from the profit-maximisation model of business to a more balanced view of performance.

'There must be new, rigorously devised, defensible and quantitative measures of corporate performance which take into account the interests of all stakeholders.'
(The Straits Times, 25 July 2011)

This sounds familiar to Singapore Inc, a country manages like a company and the sole purpose seems to focus on profit maximisation only. 

Move away from profit-maximisation model

The Singapore government since independence has been engaging in profit-maximisation model. Not only the government and its agencies are doing businesses, even the suppliers of public goods like public transport and housing also focus on profit making.

I am not sure about Ho’s suggestion of ‘balanced view of performance’. Can we assume and extend it to include quality of life, a balanced and managed growth for the benefits of Singaporeans, or a protection of minimum life support for the poor?  Of course, Ho is talking about business and I should not put words on his mouth.

However, because of Singapore Inc, the PAP is running Singapore like a business.  What Ho’s calling for business schools to take a more critical view of themselves, in a keynote address at the 12th International Conference of the Society for Global Business and Economic Development has its significant reference to Singapore Inc as a business identity.

Education and ethics

He dismissed a trend among business schools to offer courses on ethics and corporate governance as superficial.

'Business schools should not see their role as just trying to mitigate their graduates' future ethical lapses by rolling out more courses which try to impart ethics or business sustainability.

'The problem is not an external one which ethics courses can solve. It goes to the heart of what we think the role of business is in society, and to whom are managers ultimately responsible.'
(The Straits Times, 25 July 2011)

Hence, when manages the Singapore Inc, the PAP should consider its role and responsibility in the society.  It used to do these in the early years for employment, affordable housing and transport. 

In the name of money, we are in debt to society

In searching of money and profit maximisation, we always come across news headlines like:

<Murdoch gives Singapore top marks for ministers' high pay> -- maximising pay for ministers?

<NTU's 2011 grad earns $20,000 a month> -- maximising starting pay for new graduates? 

<More seeking help for gambling problems: SOS>
-- maximising profit for a gambler?

<S'pore will spiral down if govt is weak> -- maximising power for maximising profit?


Who cause the social ills? Can we afford to slower down with a better balance between profit and life?
Is there a need to give An (Hong) Bao year after years, especially before elections?

We owe Singapore society a debt of not caring for people who are left behind and who are disadvantaged under the profit maximisation model.


A refreshment from Jing Shang

I have just finished watching the series on Jing Shang晋商(山西Shanxi businessmen. Hundred years ago, Shanxi businessmen built their businesses overall China and even expended them to overseas.

They had input culture (drama, opera), values (mainly Confucianism), and trade into one solid foundation for doing business. Through culture and values, they planted the seeds of trusty, honesty and loyalty into their businesses. 

Shanxi businessmen were the ones who established the modern financial institutions (票号) more than hundred years ago in China.  As we all know, without trusty, honesty and loyalty, a financial institution will not survive and expand. These financial institutions were established without law and legal protections (there was no company, banking and financial law) and no formal acknowledgement from the government (there was no legal person status). 

In the later years toward the end of their closurethese financial institutions even sacrificed themselves for the benefit of their depositors.  Which financial institutions today will sacrifice themselves for their depositors?  If this is the case, there is no need for central banks in the world to pass laws to protect the interest of the depositors.    

For those who can understand Mandarin, I recommend you to watch the last episode called “Old trade mark 老字号”. It is a summary of the whole series. Of course, if you have time, it is beneficial to watch the whole series. This can also serve as a typical case study for business schools on social responsibility.

Part 1 of “Old trade mark”

Part 2 of “Old trade mark”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting

因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。

  因为有比较, 才知道做得不够, 才明白什么叫做易通。 如果只有一套解决方法,很难看出好坏,方便还是不方便,易通还是不容易通。用新方法代替旧的系统,人们当然会做比较,尤其是科技产品,使用的人很多,一用就马上看到结果。 这是一个竞争的世界,即使一党独大,也要考虑到便民。当人民觉得不方便,不好用,不易通,就会反映,发声,不满。为什么没有预先想到,最可怕的是测试时,已经接到反应,还是不加改善。或许,行动党还抱着“令伯”最大,用者自行解决问题。 易通公交收费系统的整合,似乎缺少一种人文,沟通,反而更加多表现出政府的独断独行。尤其重要的是,如果只有一套系统,我们是看不出问题,做不出好坏的评价。 这其实证明国会里不可以只有一把声音,没有比较,没有进步。

梁文辉可能有点傻, 但却是真的真情流露。