Comments on: Sports sponsorship – a commercial decision alone?

By: SingaShadow

SingaShadow — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:26:32 +0000

(a) The sponsorship of the NZ team may have to do with striking a good will with Australian and NZ. If you recall, SIA/Singapore had quite a fierce fight with Quantas for trying to secure an entry into the Australia (and maybe also the NZ) market.

(b) The bigger issue is the efficacy of state-owned enterprises. It is a hindrance when business partners and competitors are always weary if there’s any political agenda. If people desire state-owned enterprises to function as pure business entities, then these enterprises have to be kept clear from “national interests” (which probably includes a “duty” to direct its profits back to the people maximally).

This issue particularly concerns Singapore since its economy is largely state-driven (if you consider how many large companies are state-owned directly or indirectly).

By: sgcynic

sgcynic — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:46:39 +0000

I too find it hard hard to separate the objectivity of Temasek’s business investments and consistent publicised losses from the subjectivity of people’s perception and emotions and “rants”

By: luvmibiz

luvmibiz — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:39:06 +0000

SIA should have seen it coming…..bad bad bad…..

By: Tong Ming

Tong Ming — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 13:02:32 +0000

I agreed that it is just not ROI. I don’t think enough is done by our GLC or TLC for local sponsorship. Excuses such as they are privatised and commercialized are just not convincing enough. If they are truly privatised, then they should sink or swim and not expect government to bial them out in times of trouble. Time for them to do more !