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 ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...