New capitalism is the new normal, says SID chairman

Must make honest money and be compassionate to all stakeholders...

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 03, 2014
New capitalism is the new normal, says SID chairman
The drive is for a more altruistic capitalism that meets the needs of all stakeholders. MICHELLE QUAH reports

'Corporate governance goes beyond mere conformance to cover a company's performance. Directors have a duty to ensure that companies perform - and not just keep out of trouble. Performance requires some risk-taking too.'
- Willie Cheng
- FILE PHOTO
BUSINESSES and their boards will have to get used to a new normal, says Singapore Institute of Directors (SID) chairman Willie Cheng, as the world welcomes the advent of a new form of capitalism.
"New capitalism" - the basis for the theme of the SID Directors' Conference 2014 on Wednesday this week at Marina Bay Sands - can be loosely described as a more altruistic form of traditional capitalism: one that isn't just focused on maximising shareholder value for a business but on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders.
Speaking to The Business Times on this development, ahead of the conference, Mr Cheng noted that the drive for a new capitalism has come on many fronts, because "the current state of capitalism is increasingly unacceptable".
He points out that capitalism, as we know it today, has had many unintended consequences: huge income inequalities, irreversible environmental damage, the global financial crisis, and so on.

To be able to meet the needs of ALL stakeholders is a utopian idea. It should be how to optimise the conflicting requirements of different shareholders given the constraints and objectives

But it is clear that laissez faire or unbridled capitalism with no regards to the bigger picture is as destructive as communism in the longer term. As usual I think the key is always 中庸之道

子曰：“中庸之为德也，其至矣乎！民鲜能久矣。”
中庸之道大致可理解为，为人做事当恰如其分，既不能“不足”也不能“过分”。
朱熹注：中庸者，不偏不倚、无过不及（不能“过”也不能“不及”），而平常之理，乃天命所当然，精微之极致也。
要特别注意的是，中庸之道，决不是如有些世俗观念所说的折中、妥协和无原则。

source : baidu

Theoretically sounds plausible but moderate is dependent on who looks at it.
The issue is people, your middle of the road is not my middle of the road.
Dependent also on the prevailing trends at the point in time.

只要你自己做事问心无愧，别的也不用去管了

source : 巴金《秋》

^ what if the conscience is callous/hardened?
then do bad things also no guilt.

(03-09-2014, 11:43 AM)kagemusha Wrote: 子曰：“中庸之为德也，其至矣乎！民鲜能久矣。”
中庸之道大致可理解为，为人做事当恰如其分，既不能“不足”也不能“过分”。
朱熹注：中庸者，不偏不倚、无过不及（不能“过”也不能“不及”），而平常之理，乃天命所当然，精微之极致也。
要特别注意的是，中庸之道，决不是如有些世俗观念所说的折中、妥协和无原则。

source : baidu

Theoretically sounds plausible but moderate is dependent on who looks at it.
The issue is people, your middle of the road is not my middle of the road.
Dependent also on the prevailing trends at the point in time.

只要你自己做事问心无愧，别的也不用去管了

source : 巴金《秋》

Personally it means it has to make sense to the common man... and because of my science background, it has to be have desired observable outcome

When one is more equal than the others on entitlements, or when one can cause so much harm to the others without repurcussions, that already don't make sense.

Both system has its pros and cons. Trick is how to strike a balance rather than go extreme. This is the third way which is still WIP becuase ideology is not so simple to change... which is what made Deng XiaoPing special... and also IMHO helped Singapore progressed steadily before Singapore Inc came about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

When you do something bad, do you not feel guilty?
Sometimes, when old folks asked me to buy tissue from them, when I say no, I do feel abit guilty.
I believe human nature if given a choice would do good over evil.
So to do something worse like exploitation, be it on others or environment, would not that make a "normal" person even more guilty?

Some people can almost “六 亲 不 认”。 They can always radicalized their actions. They always think they are reasonably right. You can do nothing with such people or relatives. Anyway, they don't give a hoot about what society they live in, think of them. No conscience or what? Of course most of these people are doing quite well.

In Singapore.A chicken rice seller sells his packet of chicken rice for $4 and there will be many who think he is charging too much.
His hands are swollen from hard work and he does not make very much and work 12-16 hours a day.

Then there are many lawyers who charge $24 000 for 24 hours of work. And people still think it is good value as they are dispensing legal advice. The senior partners usually ask the junior lawyers to do all the work and they oversee the progress.

Both are earning a honest living(sort of) but at a vastly different rate. In this present time and age, it is usually the lower income earners that are screwed. I do think a minimum wage for all is good. Businesses would adjust themselves to higher wages and it would push the lowest income into a more acceptable standard of living in Singapore.

It is ridiculous to think that in a country with one of the highest cost of living in the world have full time workers about $1K a month or about $6/hr.
ANY full time job deserves more than $6/hr. Part time job need not have a minimum wage and chances are that the part timers are generally not doing it to earn a living or support a family.

^^ The conventional econs lecturer will say minimum wage will increase inflation and mismatch demand and supply.

If India increases minimum wage it will hit the country hard as the make up of the labor force is largely at the bottom. But in a labour fluid post-industrial economy like Singapore, actually minimum wage make sense. For sure inflation will increase (your cup of morning coffee) but should be manageable. In addition because of the CPF system, it makes sense to have a tax on foreign labour to make the paying field equal.

However to make minimum wage non mandatory for part-timers pose a problem as shown in other countries. Companies resort to employing 2 part timers for the same one person full time job. Structurally it becomes difficult to implement.

Nonetheless minimum wage should be very targeted in protecting minority rights and not a majority focused policy. End game should be the focus on low inflation and high sustainable growth ie real GDP growth. Both asset inflation and GDP growth through import of labour are not sustainable policies.

Quote:Both asset inflation and GDP growth through import of labour are not sustainable policies.

i think on the contrary. Both have been forced to be sustainable. i think all country G does the same thing if the Natives don't protest strongly and the voting is 'weak" at GE. My 2 cents.