I thought it was an April Fool when I
read about the so-called ‘uniquely Singapore’ values.
Knowing English and knowing Chinese is
a uniquely bilingual ability of Singapore?
Understanding the West and
understanding China is the uniquely bi-culture expertise of Singapore?
What Lim Swee Say tried to explain was
1 + 1 = 3. Our uniquely bilingual and bi-culture speciality can create more
values than other countries as other countries can only add up the sum but we
can double the sum. Therefore, China and the western countries will appreciate
and value our existence and contributions.
To double up the uniquely values,
Singaporeans will have to have better understanding of Chinese as well as
western languages and culture, so do in areas of business practices. This is
very difficult to achieve. And
importantly, any less understanding of Chinese or the western languages and
culture will not affect the uniquely Singapore values.
This means that the uniquely Singapore
values will not be achieved under the circumstances of 0.5 + 0.5 = 3 or 1 + 0.2
= 3 or 0.2 + 0.8 = 3. But the reality in
Singapore is this is the actual situations.
We may have better command of English, mathematics and science than the
average Americans or Europeans, but it will be very difficult to beat the
average Chinese in these areas, not to mention the Chinese language. The Chinese scholars that we have attracted to
Singapore are not the first rate students is a proofing example.
I wonder how Singapore is able to
create uniquely values based on our language and culture capability, especially
the proficiency of Chinese language.
Therefore, it is quite confusing to
read:
[Mr Lim said: "Try not to impress the Chinese that you can be as Chinese, or even more Chinese than them.(Channelnewsasia, 31Mar12)]
How many Singaporeans will dare to say
they have a better command and understanding of Chinese than a Chinese in
China. If it is true, the Business China
forum for the 1,200 students will have to be 100% conducted in Mandarin not the
uniquely Singapore way of English and Mandarin. Students who are exposed to the
Mandarin environment will have full benefits and first hand understanding of business
practices in China. But the forum seems to suggest otherwise. Is it because
there are students who are not proficient in Chinese?
Let assume we really have Singaporeans who
command better Chinese than the Chinese. If this is the case, their number will
be small and cannot represent the larger population. Otherwise there is no need to have the Lee
Kuan Yew Bilingualism Foundation for children and the Ministry of Education is
trying so hard to encourage students to learn Chinese. For Chinese educated
Singaporeans, they know too well about the richness of Chinese culture and
history and will not pretend to be a Chinese expert.
It
is confusing to learn about the analogy of ‘better Chinese than Chinese’. If we are really so good in Chinese, then
what was the need for this Channelnewsasia’s headline: Lim Swee Say urges students to take greater
interest in Chinese language.
Since Lim was discussing doing business
in China, it is better we focus on Singapore’s contributions to China in the
commercial world.
What can Singapore offer to China? What type of values that we can create and
others cannot?
Offshore
business base
We may add values to China outside the
greater China area.
Perhaps Singapore’s only strength is
being the offshore business centre for Chinese enterprises and state owned
enterprises (SOEs). Activities like IPOs
at Singapore stock exchange, business base for South East Asia, international
arbitration, and even our casinos may help in some ways. Of course, we are
fighting very hard for the Chinese Yuan (RMB) clearing and exchange centre, and
want to attract more RMB denominated stocks and shares, bonds and other
financial products to Singapore.
Even this area, we are fighting very
hard with Hong Kong, London and New York. As you can see no major SOEs are
listed in SGX. What does it mean?
However, the key point is Business
China supposes to assist and help Singaporeans to venture into China either for
work or business. Has Lim given a good advice?
Don’t
follow GLC way of doing business in China
Lim, as a minister, can give advices to
government linked companies and not more than that. His background and experience is good for
government sponsored projects.
His following message to students is
half right half wrong:
[In other words, my own philosophy is that when I'm in China, I try to let them see the difference between us.](channelnewsasia, 31 Mar 2012)
If you are Temasek, GLCs or even MNCs,
the above seems correct. Anyway, because
of your differences, China needs your money or technology. But to a small
business or a Singaporean looking for job in China, the more different you are,
the more you are moving away from the business centre.
Chinese guanxi is built on
inclusiveness not exclusiveness. If you want to be different, want to be away
from them, then you are not in their inner circle.
Students can learn more if local
companies like Da Vinci Furniture (regardless of whether we like or don’t like
the way they conduct their business in China) can share the experience with
students. These are hard truth of doing business in China.
What Lim discussed about were the PAP’s
way of doing business and the problems they faced in China - the experience in
Suzhou, Tianjin or Capital Land projects in different Chinese cities. These are government to government
experiences.
But Lim cannot share with students his
experiences as an opposition, as a small private investor or as a job
seeker. Just like the PAP government
cannot understand the difficulties and obstacles they give to the oppositions
in Singapore. They also cannot
understand the suffering of the SMEs in Singapore, and in China.
What Lim told students is just one side
of the story. GLCs or the likes are not practising entrepreneurship in China.
For real entrepreneurship, it has
nothing to do with bilingual or bi-culture.
"If I am monolingual and expert only in Mandarin, I think I would be limited use to the Chinese because as I said, there are 1.3 billion of them. They do not need one more." (Channelnewsasia, 31Mar12)
Lim’s above analogy is very strange. He seems to
forget ‘do the right thing and do it right’.
Even the monolingual, with entrepreneurship and drive, can do the right
thing and do it right in China.
Comments
Post a Comment