TR EMERITUS

Phillip Ang * The author blogs at LikeDatOsoCanMeh.      Read More →

Often people have a desire to start their own business, they have ideas, new holistic concepts. But on the way to the realization of their goal, many formal procedures have to be completed and administrative issues resolved. OCBC Bank and Osome, who launched a revolutionary service, are well aware of how many aspects require attention when starting a business, how many points need to be considered, and how valuable is the time of entrepreneurs. Inspired by the idea of resolving all formal issues as quickly as possible, Osome, a fintech for business management, together with OCBC Bank, one of the largest banks in Southeast Asia, created a unique service for budding entrepreneurs who want to start a business in Singapore. The combined efforts of the two companies will now make it possible to set up a company and open a bank account in one day. The whole process takes place online, which eliminates the need for customers to visit offices and make phone calls. Company registration is carried out through a special Osome application with an intuitive interface, available in the desktop and mobile versions. The client uses the chatbot to download the necessary information in a few clicks, after which the expert Osome guides the client through the registration procedure. Osome not only prepares all registration forms, but also provides services for verification and reservation of the company name, preparation of the charter of the company, prepares minutes of the first board meeting. The client can only sign the necessary documents with his electronic signature. Through the use of artificial intelligence and process automation, incorporation can be completed in 38 minutes. After successful completion of registration, the client receives a link to instantly open a business account. The step-by-step instructions will take no more than 10 minutes. For entrepreneurs, OCBC Bank created excellent conditions for doing business: the client starts with one of the lowest initial deposits required in the market and without a minimum balance during the first 6 months. Victor Lysenko, founder and CEO of Osome, commented: «Our goal is to free entrepreneurs from mundane maintenance issues that hold them back from doing business. Thanks to our partnership with OCBC, they can power through the formalities within a day and get their company up and ready. This is how it should be, and we are excited to be the ones to make it happen». In 2019, OCBC Bank received the Euromoney Award for Best Asian Bank for SMEs in 2019. More than half of Singapore's SMEs rely on OCBC Bank. The Bank is actively developing the digital sector - an area that it will use in the future to strengthen its position and stimulate growth. The creation of a new service together with Osome is a testament to the company's orientation towards the implementation of innovative solutions. Osome's activities is based on providing online accounting and tax services for entrepreneurs in Singapore, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Business owners simply send their documents to a special messenger, where they are sorted, structured and the accountants compiled reports and remind of deadlines. Having started its activities in 2018, Osome has already managed to gather an international client base of more than 2,300 customers and will secure investment support for the further expansion of its business and development of new projects.   Osome and OCBC Bank      Read More →

Picture this: 1) A man says, “I love you”. That is what the eye sees. 2) Then, the camera zooms out a little, and what is revealed is the beads of sweat running down from the man’s forehead with what seems like a gun pointed to his right temple. Question: Did he mean it (when he said I love you)? 3) And the camera zooms out even more and what is further revealed is a child holding that gun. Question: Are they playing a game? 4) After that, the whole picture comes to full view as the man smiles and you realised he was the boy’s father. They have been playing cops and robbers. 5) The son was pointing the plastic gun to his father’s head, and that’s where the father uttered, “I love you.” 6) It was a genuine show of affection between a father and his son, playing together, having fun. What’s the relevance of all that mike? Well, I thought about that just after I read about Obama’s reply when he was asked by a moderator in a charity event this question, “If today’s global leadership should be a source of worry?” Obama said: “What we need, in terms of global leadership, is people who are comfortable with and understand complexities. But that, of course, requires citizens to be comfortable (with) and understand complexity.” He added: “The world today faces not just a crisis of leadership but a crisis of citizenship.” So, the relevance of my father-and-son’s illustration above is about understanding complexity in this current global climate, which included what is most existentially pressing about us, that is, the climate emergency. Or, seeing things, the complexity and all, in its proper context. While I leave the crisis of leadership aside, as I have written much about it, I would like to talk about the crisis of citizenship. I feel that we need to have an eagle-eyed view of things so that we may be able to see the full picture rather than one of an ostrich-eyed view where the image that comes to our mind is a big feathered bird with its head buried in the sand. Just as leaders have to step up and be accountable and responsible, its citizenry have to take ownership too of what is the democratic process whereby they exercise independent and unbiased thinking to hold their leaders to account; and not turn inward and tribalistic, coaxed by irrational fears and anxieties, thereby eschewing the real cause behind the complexity because it would take time, objectivity, patience and an open mind. More relevantly, that would take an eagle-eyed view of things. Let me end with a recent example: it is the post written by the founder of People’s Voice, Lim Tean. He said: “the total pot available for Singaporeans (is) $167 million compared to the $238 million that is spent on foreign students.” He added: “PAP spends $167 million on grants and bursaries for Singaporeans but $238 million on foreign students??” MOE head Ong Ye Kung came forward and asserted that the post is “false and misleading”. Ong said: “Almost all of MOE’s annual Budget of $13 billion was spent on Singaporeans. The figures of $167 million and $238 million are therefore not comparable.” If I may use that father and son illustration, I guess the first picture would be this: “PAP is favouring foreign students as against local students.” If the camera pans out a little, you will see the gun with these words in support of the first picture: “PAP spends $167 million on grants and bursaries for Singaporeans but $238 million in foreign students??” (Note, the “??” says a lot). Then, as the camera pans out even more, in comes Ong who reveals that about $13 billion were spent on Singaporean students. That’s the annual budget allocated. And that is equivalent to the moment the child holds the plastic toy gun unveiling the father and son playing with each other before the father says, “I love you.” But the picture does not stop there. If we as citizens are to hold the government accountable, we have to take the eagle-eyed view and go deeper or see further. We have to ask, “Is Lim Tean merely expressing an opinion because it should be noted that the numbers were not denied by the MOE?” In any event, this is what Lim Tean said: “Anyone who reads my post and the series of posts I made on this subject last week would have been under no mistaken impression that I was discussing the amount of money spent on grants and scholarships and not the overall spending on all Singaporean students.” If this is so, is POFMA applied correctly or fairly? But if it is meant to manipulate, to give a biased view or to divide the society, is POFMA then justified? How about freedom of speech? Is that an irresponsible statement or one intended to bring out a point that our government may have spent disproportionately based on grants and scholarship alone? Is there more than meets the ostrich’s eye then? Alas, whatever it is, I fear that nothing is really what it seems. And more so, if we hold the ostrich-eyed perspective. You see, Lim Tean’s figures were not disputed. But as it stands alone, it gives one impression. Yet, when you compare Ong’s figures, you see another side to it. The picture is amplified for some context. And then, as the camera zooms further, the depth of the picture is revealed, where one questions Lim Tean’s intention, where one also asks about the necessity of Pofma, that is, it is being unfairly applied as against the freedom of expressing one’s view and opinions? Needless to say, things get more complex as we delve deeper. And we are called to separate the wheat from the chaff. That is what the citizenship needs now, especially at such time where the global leadership is facing a lack of trust, accountability and transparency. Michael Han        Read More →