One of the saddest things about Singapore is that the small
business is often regarded as an irritant and an inconvenience to the grand
scheme of things. If you read the official version of our fabulous success
story, its always down to a benevolent and wise government that had the
foresight to welcome multinationals to build up our nation from a third world swamp
into a thriving global metropolis.
While I don’t dispute the official version out of hand, it paints
an unrealistic picture of what actually happened. Yes, the government,
especially in the early years, got the key things right. I don’t dispute that
multinational investment is on the scale of things good in as much as your
average Singaporean worker has to produce things and services according to “world
standards” as opposed to “Singapore standards.”
However, this was true, it white washes the fact that many
of the guys who made Singapore tick were small time traders who supplied
essential services that kept the show running. A few made vast fortunes and most
of them managed to earn a simple enough living without having to look for handouts
(which in Singapore speak is a very good thing).
You’d imagine that these people would receive some credit, especially
in a nation that makes so much noise about being a small nation that does big things.
In America, which is famous for doing everything big, small business people are
often regarded as heroes. This isn’t the case in Singapore, where our founding
father even went as far as to say, “We didn’t have entrepreneurs, our people
were mostly traders.” Why does our small nation have such a blind spot against
small time businesses?
Having spent 15-years as a freelancer and five as a full-time
corporate employee, it’s dawned on me why the government has a blind spot
against small businesses. It’s not so much a question of money but a question
of mindset.
Employees develop a “wife” or “vertical” approach to life.
Your livelihood is dependent on a single employer who gets your loyalty in return
for providing a steady pay cheque.
A small-time trader or entrepreneur develops a “prostitute”
or “horizontal” mindset, where you look to many sources for your income and the
wider your net the more you earn.
If you look at things through this scope, it becomes clear
why the government treated and still treats the small-time trader as a nuisance.
Employees know where they’re proverbial rice bowls belong. Small traders don’t.
In recent years, the government has seemed to have shifted
its mindset and started encouraging “entrepreneurs” and “entrepreneurship.” If
you look carefully enough at the website of say, Enterprise Singapore, you’d
find that the government is offering lots of money to people starting up businesses.
Block 71 Ayer Rajah Crescent in Singapore’s West, houses an amazing number of start-ups
with the next “killer” technology to take the world by storm.
Unfortunately, the government’s approach to creating
entrepreneurs has been pretty much like how it attracted multinational investments
– throw money and offer tax advantages.
While money, tax breaks and stability are important for cultivating
entrepreneurship, there is missing element namely, minimal government interference.
To get entrepreneurs running, you need to leave them alone and that’s something
our “top-down” society seems unable to do.
The most recent example of this can be seen in an incident
involving an actress called Ateeqah Mazlan. Ms. Mazlan caused an internet storm
when she reported a home-based business to the Housing Development Board (HDB)
and filmed herself doing so. More on the story can be found at:
The government stepped in to tighten the proverbial noose on
home-based businesses. More can be found at:
If you read through the lines, you’ll note that the noose comes
from not allowing home-based businesses to use third party delivery services to
get around the rules on restriction of movement. Third party delivery services
have been allowed to function in order to keep things running and established
food and beverage outlets are allowed to use them, so one would have to ask,
what exactly is the issue home-based businesses using them?
A petition was circulated online to allow home-based
businesses to function within the rules of the circuit breaker, thus earning
the wrath of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and Minister
for Muslim Affairs, Mr. Masagos Zulkifi. More on the report can be found at:
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/irresponsible-incite-home-based-business-put-pressure-government-grant-exceptions-says
and on Mr. Zulkifi’s Facebook page:
While the Minister has a point when he says that the rights
of the entrepreneur should play a secondary role to the larger public health
issue, one should note that the petition calling for the reinstatement of
home-based businesses was very clear that this was to be “in compliance,” with
the circuit breaker.
Let us be clear that what the home-based businesses were
calling for was not an “American” style freedom of movement and disbandment of all
stay-home orders. Singapore’s home-based businesses are clearly aware that the
rules are there for a reason and were merely asking to operate within the
rules. Many Singaporeans have made the same point as can be seen from:
Question remains, why is there one set of rules for
home-based businesses that help the poorer communities earn extra money and one
for established businesses? Home-based businesses are not asking for the government
to help or asking for the tax payer to subsidise their income and the point
that cannot be stressed enough is that the home-based businesses are not asking
for exemptions from the existing rules. They merely asking for the right to operate
within the rules and not for any special exemptions.
The government for its part has shown that it is capable of
flexibility. One example can be seen in the way that it has ring-fenced wet markets
to prevent crowds from overwhelming them. Surely, if the government can find a workable
solution for wet markets, it can do the same for home-based businesses.
Surely, a government that claims to value resilience and
independence should not have a bone to pick with a segment trying to be
resilient and asking to work within existing rules, unless I’m missing
something here.
No comments
Post a Comment