that has contributed to society by fi nancing a school in Ghana, a poor African country. Closer to home, we have major banks such as HSBC doing their part to conserve the environment by supporting the Tree-top Walk near Henderson that allows the public to enjoy and appreciate nature. Critics argue that these acts of social responsibility demonstrate how big corporations have the welfare of the public at heart and can be depended on. However, to believe that companies are altruistic and perform these acts of kindness with absolutely no ulterior motives is too idealistic a view to adopt. Instead, I believe corporations practise corporate social responsibility, not purely out of moral obligation, but to achieve their profi t-maximising objects. These charitable acts will greatly increase their publicity, and can be seen as an alternative form of advertisement. For example, oil company BP extensively invested in social projects after its disastrous oil spill off the coast of Mexico so as to improve its damaged public image. Hence, the notion that companies pursue corporate social responsibility with an ulterior motive renders them untrustworthy.
Critics may also argue that not all big corporations are necessarily profi t-seeking but rather, may exist to achieve a social aim. Companies like The Body Shop are good examples. The Body Shop champions many social causes – it supports fair trade by purchasing raw materials from disadvantaged communities in Africa although it might reduce its own profi t margin; it also supports putting an end to human traffi cking by displaying such messages on product wrappings although doing so might incur extra costs. Undeniably, there may be social enterprises that do not pursue profi t-maximising goals; however I feel these are simply exceptions to the rule, and these social enterprises often are the minority.
In conclusion, big major conglomerates cannot be trusted given their profi t- maximisation objective, which result in unethical means of production, placing the interest of the company before the well-being of consumers and manipulating public mindset. Although there exist businesses that do good, they may be performing good acts with ulterior motives, or are part of the minority group of social enterprises that is not representative of most major businesses.
Marker’s comments:
“Disneyland with the death penalty” was the damning judgement by foreign press on the state of Singapore’s affairs in 1994, in the wake of American teenager Michael P. Fay’s vandalism charges. To date, Singapore, known both from within and without as a rigid no-nonsense nation with little tolerance for dissent, has continued to garner bad press for its iron grip on national issues. Despite this, its leaders have often exhorted the need for change, contrary to popular opinion that Singapore is set in its ways. While it is indeed notable that Singapore has continued to redefi ne itself by changing the status quo or going against conventional wisdom, the impact of this is only limited. Changing the current state of affairs in some cases can be seen as farcical, while successful changes to the current state of affairs have, at best, only resulted in incremental differences.
Some point to the recently concluded Singapore General Election 2011 to attest to the fact that Singapore does indeed challenge the current state of affairs. This election resulted in the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) garnering only 60.1% of the popular vote, its lowest since independence in 1965. More signifi cantly, the opposition Workers’ Party drew much attention by fi nally managing to win a Group Representative Constituency (GRC), and winning by a respectable 54% against the PAP. Considering the fact that parliamentary elections have been relatively tame in Singapore, and that the opposition only managed to garner 2 elected Parliament seats in the previous elections of 1997, 2001 and 2006, the 2011 election saw signifi cantly more active involvement by the people in politics, taking to rallies and following discussions online, and the victory of securing 6 elected seats by the opposition. The dramatic change in voting patterns and outcomes in the political arena suggests that Singaporeans are not afraid of making themselves heard through the ballot box, resulting in relatively large changes to the status quo of politics here in Singapore.
Moreover, some also argue that Singapore is quick to challenge the current state of affairs in terms of managing the economy. Since independence, Singapore has been renowned for its tight budget position and fi scal prudence. Even in times of crises like in 1973-74 where infl ation hit nearly 25% due to OPEC’s decision to triple the price of oil, the 1987 Black Monday crash, the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis where the Singapore dollar depreciated by 20%, or the global slowdown after the 2001 World Trade Centre bombing, Singapore has staunchly refused to back down from its stand on balancing the budget. Yet the 2008-2009 fi nancial crisis prompted the slashing of a “sacred cow”, by dipping into the reserves for the fi rst time, using S$20 billion to strengthen the economy for long-term capabilities. Similarly, while the fi rst Central Provident Fund (CPF) policy of 20% employer contribution rate and 20% employee contribution rate was implemented in 1965, the Singapore government has shown that this is not cast in stone, instituting changes, notably in 1998 where the employer contribution rate was slashed by 10 percentage points. Furthermore, Singapore has shown itself to be ready to challenge this current state, when it increased the employer contribution rate in 2009 after a period of economic boom. It is with such nimble deftness that Singapore operates its economic and fi nancial policies, which lead people to believe that it challenges the current state of affairs, having no qualms of changing the status quo.
Yet the changing of the status quo is at best farcical in Singapore, primarily in the area of politics. A fi rst-past-the-post system in Singapore has seen the ruling PAP occupy 81 out of the 87 seats after the 2011 elections, and 82 of 84 previously in 2006. Despite change, one can argue that this is extremely limited, as the PAP not only retains its grip on the government, but also, with signifi cantly more than two-thirds of the seats, it can pass legislation unilaterally. In the same vein, the opposition’s fi ve additional seats translates to only a tiny proportion of seats in Parliament, and, even considering their GRC win in Aljunied, it ultimately represents a tiny step in the direction of change.