Skip to main content

From “The End of The Nation State” to Inclusive Society and Stronger State


Just finished reading Ohmae’s “The End of The Nation State” (Chinese edition), I feel confusing, wondering and a bit of frightening so I ask myself is it relevant to Singapore and what have it got to do with Singapore Budget 2012?  

This popular and influencing book was first published in 1995 and it was to provide future trend for business strategies and advisories.   In 2012, when we look back and assess the predictions of the book, I have a mixed feeling – is business consultancy the right way for a state even though Singapore is the most business minded country in the world?

To a country likes Singapore, our leaders are strong believers of international consultants, what will be the outcome after believing and practising the suggested business and management advices?  Perhaps, these advices are more suitable to a business rather than a state, because up to today, we still see border and nation state – countries are still deeply involved in crisis solving like the euro debt crisis, US debt crisis, not to mention the political and military actions. 

Back to our budget 2012, the theme is “inclusive society and stronger nation”. Some describe it as a budget for the poor, a budget with a heart, helping list for senior citizens and disables, more assistances for medical care and housing, pro-Singaporeans and limiting the foreign workers etc.  These measures are quite different from the trend mentioned in “The End of The Nation State’, especially the civic minimum, inconvenient averages, the size of 5-20 million people.     

However, in the 1990s, we were getting (now still getting) advices from international consultants, from EDB, IE, LTA, MOE, to even small public services, you could see foreign consultants here, here and there.  This is not to mention the Singapore government, Temasek and GIC that even engaged more reputable consultants.       

When a country is so strongly believe in international business consultancy, it will also act and behave like an international business, of course also compensating top salary to people running and managing Singapore and Singapore Inc, GLCs etc.  Even they are not top rated and cannot compete in the borderless world as international business manages; they can still enjoy “The End of The Nation State’ world salary.  Just like a Chinese saying ‘同人不同命 - same human being different fate’, so blame yourself not a man in white. 

We cannot deny there are some right predictions and suggestions from Ohmae, especially for international businesses and MNCs.  The 4-I (Investment, Industry, Information and Individual consumers) are good advices and challenges that businesses have to face. To business, they may enjoy a borderless world. But to form successfully regional economy with different countries involved, like the growth triangle of Singapore, Johor and Batam, it is still a real challenge.  Comparatively, regional economy within a big country likes Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang; Beijing and Tianjin; or even Chongqing; all started later than our growth triangle have produced better result.       

As advised we run a country like running a business, so Singapore increases the population to more than 5 million, to avoid to be tied down by the civic minimum we begin to care less about the poor and under privileged, however, when Ohmae said average was not a good indicator to represent the whole country, but to justify our growth, we continue to stress the upward trend of average income.
  
Only recently, Singapore government has realised (?) policies and strategies that are good for borderless business, good for the end of the nation state, will affect its support level.  The PAP has to face the elections and paying ministers the compensation that is fit for borderless MNCs without supporting qualification and experience has become a burden.

So, the Budget 2012 makes a small U-turn, a belated turning but we will still have to watch the implementation and its result.  When the PAP believed and adopted strategies in ‘The End of The Nation State’ in the 1990s, they fully accepted the idea of no ‘civic minimum’, bigger population and concentrating on the competitive areas. But it had neglected and failed to provide assistances to the citizens - old, young and poor; infrastructure; and also mental preparations.  As a result, the following key budget initiatives which should be carried out longer ago; only appear now.  They are long over due.  If not for GE2011, you may not even see the helping measures for households in Budget 2012.

Measures for Households:

Rewarding Work for the Elderly
Helping Seniors Unlock Savings
Stronger Healthcare Support
Enhancing Affordability of Healthcare
Supporting Singaporeans With Disabilities
Uplifting Low Income Families
GST Voucher
Improving Bus Service Levels
 (For details, see http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2012/key_initiatives/index.html)

Comments

  1. Omae Kenichi 大前 研一 in one of his book praised Singapore's top decision makers has strong collective wisdom though individually not outstanding as compared to other country. Put in another way, does it mean that SG does not have individually bright local talents?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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...