Nearly 1 in 2 business leaders in S'pore ready to tackle geopolitical and other challenges: Report
Kroll surveyed 1,200 C-suite executives from more than 20 markets including the United States, Britain, Hong Kong and Singapore in February. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO
Nearly 1 in 2 business leaders in S'pore ready to tackle geopolitical and other challenges: Report
SINGAPORE – Business leaders in Singapore are among the most confident globally about their level of business preparedness when it comes to dealing with challenges ranging from geopolitical tensions to cyber-security threats and developments in the artificial intelligence (AI) space.
In its first edition of the Business Sentiment Report, global risk and financial advisory firm Kroll found that 48 per cent of respondents in Singapore were 'very prepared' to face the challenges.
This is higher than the 34 per cent in the Asia-Pacific region and 38 per cent globally.
Kroll surveyed 1,200 C-suite executives from more than 20 markets such as the US, Britain , Hong Kong and Singapore in February .
About one-third of all those surveyed work in the financial services industry, and more than one-fifth are in technology companies.
The report highlighted geopolitical tensions, such as tariffs, as one of the most significant business challenges facing organisations over the coming year.
The survey was conducted before US President Donald Trump slapped 'Liberation Day' tariffs on economies on April 2, which he then put on hold as he strikes trade deals with different nations.
Singapore runs a goods trade deficit of US$2 .8 billion (S$3.6 billion) with the US, according to data from the Office of the United States Trade Representative. This means that the Republic imports more goods than it exports.
As a result, businesses here would not have expected to be slapped with tariffs, said Mr Joshua Tucker, senior geopolitical adviser at Kroll. Singapore was hit by a baseline tariff of 10 per cent.
Mr Tucker said business leaders here were probably a bit too optimistic about their ability to predict the US policy on tariffs.
The survey had found that 22 per cent of Singapore business leaders identified geopolitical tension as a significant business concern, compared with 33 per cent globally and 28 per cent in the Asia-Pacific.
Insead economics and political science professor Pushan Dutt believes business sentiment should have since shifted substantially after the imposition of the tariffs.
'One school of thought is that we will live in a Taco (Trump Always Chickens Out) world – that his bark is worse than his bite and he always backs off. However, what Trump has induced in the global economy is uncertainty,' he said.
He explained that Taco-like behaviour increases uncertainty as firms and political leaders will not be able to ascertain how long the tariffs will be imposed for, if and when they will be lifted and how the conditions and types of tariffs could evolve.
'We should distinguish between risk and uncertainty – the first is about known unknowns and the second is about unknown unknowns. We have been catapulted into a world of uncertainty and should not live in denial,' he added.
Mr Tucker said that while tariffs, like other direct business costs, can be factored into decision-making, there are other indirect costs stemming from uncertainty over the US tariff policy.
If businesses do not know what tariffs will be in 30 days, six months or a year, they will not be able to plan ahead to mitigate the effects of tariffs . They may thus be less willing to take large risks, make acquisitions or enter new markets, he added.
Mr Nick Baker, co-lead for trade and customs at Kroll, said companies risk falling into 'analysis paralysis', where they are constantly reassessing strategies but not taking action to implement their plans.
Mr Tucker noted that Singapore is heavily dependent on trade with other economies. The 10 per cent baseline tariff on the Republic , as well as higher tariffs on neighbouring economies, could thus have an 'outsized economic impact on businesses'.
Kroll stated in its report that whether companies can weather the 'economic and geopolitical upheaval' will depend on their underlying financial health.
Singapore companies scored relatively well on this front, with 20 per cent of business leaders here saying they have full confidence in their companies' financial health, versus 9 per cent of respondents in the Asia-Pacific and globally.
Ms Annabelle Cai, managing director in the restructuring practice at Kroll, said 'strategic measures' announced in Singapore's Budget 2025, such as the 50 per cent corporate tax rebate, enhanced wage support for lower-income workers, and more funding support for firms to make AI investments, will help firms to manage rising costs and drive sustainable growth.
A stable government and business-friendly environment contribute to business confidence in Singapore, Ms Cai added.
On the whole, Dr Huynh Bao Tan, senior lecturer of economics at the Singapore Management University, stresses that while Singapore is impacted by the imposition of the tariffs, the 10 per cent levy is imposed across the board, and hence will likely have minimal impact on Singapore's relative competitiveness overall.
'Overall, I wouldn't be surprised if businesses' sentiment has dropped a little (from the time the survey was conducted), but I'm not really expecting things to have changed much,' he said.
'Markets seem quite hopeful that there'll be good outcomes regarding the trade negotiations,' he added, referring to the US trade talks with China as well as the European Union.
Additional reporting by Megan Wee
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Taiwan central bank says US debt rising too fast may impact trust in Treasuries
[TAIPEI] Taiwan's central bank governor warned on Saturday (Jun 21) that rapidly rising US debt could be 'unfavourable' to the outlook for US Treasuries and that US President Donald Trump's trade policies have made investors cautious. Taiwan's US$593 billion in foreign exchange reserves are more than 80 per cent made up of US Treasury bonds, according to the central bank, which said earlier this month that Treasuries were 'sound' and still favoured by investors. It added that there were no worries about the US dollar's position as the leading international reserve currency. Governor Yang Chin-long, in a speech posted on the central bank's website, said Trump's repeated criticisms of the US Federal Reserve's monetary policy have caused concerns about its independence. 'In addition, Trump 2.0's trade policy has made investors hesitant about holding US Treasury bonds; Trump's budget, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' may cause US debt to expand too quickly, which is unfavourable to the outlook for US sovereign debt,' he said. 'All of these have had a significant impact on the international monetary system centred on the US dollar and based on US creditworthiness.' Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill is the centrepiece of his domestic agenda. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The bill would lead to a larger-than-expected US$2.8 trillion increase in the federal deficit over the decade, despite a boost to US economic output, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected on Tuesday. Trump, in his first few weeks in office, also announced sweeping tariffs on a broad swathe of countries and trading partners, including Taiwan, only to pause them for 90 days in April to allow for talks to take place. Yang said Trump had been hoping the tariffs could resolve the US trade deficit. 'However, the tariff policy not only fails to solve the structural problems, it will also impact the US economy, and threaten to further affect the outlook for global trade and the economy.' REUTERS
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
An Iran deal in two weeks? Hard to achieve, even if Trump really wants one
President Donald Trump told reporters that he is interested largely in the coercive part of coercive diplomacy at Morristown Airport in New Jersey on June 21. PHOTO: ERIC LEE/NYTIMES News analysis An Iran deal in two weeks? Hard to achieve, even if Trump really wants one WASHINGTON – Ask diplomats who have negotiated with Iran, and they usually describe it with some variant of: Brace yourself, it takes a long time. It took the better part of two years to put together the Obama-era agreement that all but halted Iran's nuclear program. After President Donald Trump scrapped that deal in his first term, it took 15 months for the Biden administration to negotiate a way to piece it back together – at which point Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vetoed the near-final agreement. So what could Mr Trump, dangling the possibility that last-minute diplomacy could provide an alternative to bombing Iran's main uranium enrichment facility, hope to accomplish in the two-week window he has given himself to make a decision? Not much, the veterans of such negotiations warn. But then again, the environment is very different this time. Ayatollah Khamenei is the final word in all foreign policy issues – but he is also most likely in hiding, US intelligence officials say. Iran's foreign minister and lead negotiator Abbas Araghchi says he is open to placing limitations on Iran's nuclear output similar to what he and his colleagues negotiated with the United States a decade ago. But on June 20 , he told his European counterparts in Geneva that Iran would never negotiate as long as Israel was dropping missiles on its military bases and nuclear facilities, and carrying out targeted killings of Iran's Revolutionary Guard officers and nuclear scientists. Mr Trump, for his part, made clear to reporters on June 20 that he is interested largely in the coercive part of coercive diplomacy. Iran, he insisted, had only minutes left on the clock. 'I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum,' he said. And he dismissed the idea that the meeting in Europe would do anything but slow things down. 'Iran didn't want to speak to Europe,' he said. 'They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help.' Whether Mr Trump is serious about negotiations or just buying time to better prepare for a military assault and its aftermath remains unclear. But there was no public evidence yet that the contacts between Mr Araghchi and the president's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff could lead to a meeting, much less a deal that would satisfy Mr Trump. Or even that such a deal would be enough to hold back Israel's determination to wipe out Iran's nuclear facilities. Mr Araghchi knows every inch of the Iranian nuclear complex and was a central player in negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump exited three years later. But even today , US officials do not know how much sway he holds with Ayatollah Khamenei . Mr Witkoff is the mirror opposite: He knew virtually nothing about the Iranian programme and has spent the past few months cramming on the details of nuclear enrichment and Iranian negotiating history. But he has a tight relationship with Mr Trump that goes back to their New York real estate days and holds considerable sway over what constitutes an acceptable deal. If the two men were able to come to the kind of agreement that has eluded them through two and a half months of negotiations, they would still have to sell it back home. 'These are not normal times,' said Dr Richard Haass, who oversaw Iran policy for President George H.W. Bush and was a senior State Department official for President George W. Bush. 'The pressure on Iran, since they are losing, is more intense than it has ever been. And the pressure on Trump to use military force if it looks like the Iranians are trying to buy time rather than reach an agreement will be huge.' Success may depend on exactly what Mr Trump demands: the 'unconditional surrender' that he keeps talking about or a narrower, face-saving halt in remaining nuclear enrichment, with the understanding that while Iran may retain what it views as its 'right' to produce nuclear fuel, it will never again exercise that right. 'Two weeks may be enough time for an unconditional capitulation. A day suffices for that,' said Mr Robert Malley, who participated in the negotiations that led to the 2015 agreement and then led the failed Biden-era effort to reconstitute some version of that deal. But, Mr Malley added, 'that may be what President Trump wants, but it is almost certainly not what he will get. As the Islamic Republic sees it, it's tantamount to being offered the choice between committing suicide and taking their chances at being killed. History suggests they will take their chances.' Mr Malley noted that there might be room for a diplomatic off-ramp, one in which 'Iran agrees to 'voluntarily' and 'temporarily' stop enriching uranium, which is much easier now that its enrichment capacity is a shadow of its former self.' That, he added, could 'give space for US -Iranian negotiations and halt the mad dash to a US war'. It is the kind of creative approach that, when missiles were not flying, might be wordsmithed over weeks or months in Vienna, then taken back to Tehran and Washington for formal sign-off . Clearly, no one has time for that process now. As he emerged from the talks in Geneva on June 20, Mr Araghchi did not sound in the mood for even starting down that road, any more than Mr Trump sounded very interested in negotiating. The Iranian foreign minister suggested that, in retrospect, perhaps his talks with Mr Witkoff had been an elaborate US -engineered shadow play, a cover for the Israelis as they prepared for war. 'So they had perhaps this plan in their mind, and they just needed negotiations perhaps to cover it up,' Mr Araghchi told NBC's Andrea Mitchell . 'We don't know how we can trust them anymore. What they did was in fact a betrayal to diplomacy.' Iran, he said, would never entirely stop making nuclear fuel. 'Zero enrichment is impossible,' he said. 'This is an achievement of our own scientists. It is a question of national pride.' NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Harvard and Trump restart talks to potentially end bitter dispute
Harvard representatives sought a meeting after other higher education leaders expressed hope that it – on behalf of academia – would reengage with the administration. PHOTO: SOPHIE PARK/NYTIMES WASHINGTON - Harvard University and the Trump administration have restarted talks to potentially settle the acrimonious dispute that led President Donald Trump to wage a far-reaching attack on the school and raised stark questions about the federal government's place in higher education, according to three people briefed on the negotiations. The discussions began again this week at a meeting in the White House. At the meeting, Harvard representatives showed White House officials a PowerPoint presentation that laid out measures the school has taken on anti-Semitism , viewpoint diversity and admissions. In turn, the White House signalled other steps it would like for Harvard to take on those subjects and later sent a letter laying out conditions that could resolve the conflict, according to one of the people. It is unclear how Harvard plans to respond to the letter. A university spokesperson declined to comment on the matter. Harvard representatives sought a meeting after other higher education leaders expressed hope that it – on behalf of academia – would reengage with the administration. And Harvard's outreach came after Education Secretary Linda McMahon publicly raised the prospect of negotiations with a university she routinely criticised . Harvard officials sensed an opening and suggested a briefing on steps the school has taken in recent years, two of the people said. It is unclear how close both sides are to a potential deal and the exact terms any final agreement would entail. In a post on Truth Social, Mr Trump said it was 'very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so.' Two people briefed on the discussions said it was highly unlikely a deal would be reached in the next week. Harvard has been widely praised by Democrats, academics, its alumni and democracy advocates for fighting the Trump administration. But top Harvard officials, according to two people briefed on the matter, have become increasingly convinced in recent weeks that the school has little choice but to try to strike a deal with the White House. The Harvard officials believe that if the university remains at odds with the administration that it is likely to become far smaller and less ambitious as Trump tries to keep pummelling it with funding cuts, federal investigations and limits on visas for international students. Now, the school may find itself having to explain a deal with Mr Trump. One person close to Harvard said that while the school was back at the negotiating table, it would not compromise its values or its First Amendment rights in any deal with the administration. Others briefed on the discussions laid out a broad framework for a possible pact. Under one approach being discussed, the administration would restore a major portion of the billions in federal research funding that it stripped from Harvard this spring. It would also cease pursuit of a range of legal actions against Harvard, including its quest to bar international students who make up about a quarter of the university's enrolment , according to one of the people. In exchange, Harvard would agree to take even more aggressive action than it already has to address issues such as anti-Semitism , race and viewpoint diversity. The White House has pushed Harvard to make new commitments to change its admissions and hiring practices, one of the people close to the negotiations said. Whatever the outcome, the White House's direct involvement, one of the people said, signalled the seriousness of the talks. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing negotiations that were supposed to remain private. Harvard's decision to reopen talks with the administration is a sharp departure from how it has handled its battle with Mr Trump since April. That month, the school cut off discussions with the administration after it received a letter – which the administration later claimed was accidentally sent – that made a series of extraordinary demands that the school believed would have compromised its independence. The White House, according to one person briefed on the negotiations, hopes that an agreement with Harvard might serve as a framework for other elite colleges to strike deals with Mr Trump. Other schools have been in discussions with the Trump administration about making deals that would keep their federal funding intact and avoid the president's ire, two of the people said. Word of the negotiations involving Harvard emerged soon after a federal judge in Boston blocked the government's effort to bar international students from the university. In a social media post on June 20 , Mr Trump hyped the prospects of an accord, asserting that 'if a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country'. Although the Trump administration has targeted other elite universities in recent months, its clash with Harvard has been the most bitter. The nation's oldest and wealthiest university, the administration contended, was a mismanaged well of bigotry that did not deserve any of the federal research money that has helped power American academia since around World War II. Although Harvard acknowledged assorted shortcomings, university leaders were stunned April 11 when the Trump administration proposed broad power for the government over the school. Among other conditions, the administration wanted Harvard to establish 'merit based' hiring and admissions policies, and to see the influence of its faculty curbed. It sought a review for 'viewpoint diversity,' the shutdown of any programmes related to diversity, equity and inclusion, and an outside review to examine 'those programmes and departments that most fuel anti-Semitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.' The government also asked for Harvard to adjust its 'recruitment, screening and admissions of international students,' audits of university data and reports 'at least until the end of 2028' about the university's compliance with the Trump administration's conditions. Before the letter, Harvard leaders had been receptive to reaching some kind of truce with the government, which had been sounding warnings about the university's relationship with Washington. But school officials recoiled at the missive, publicly rejected it, lost billions in federal funding and then headed to court. Negotiations collapsed, and the furore between the administration and Harvard only mounted. The government launched a volley of attacks against the university, including repeated efforts to block Harvard from enrolling international students, a threat against its tax-exempt status and a Justice Department investigation that invoked the False Claims Act, a law usually employed to target entities that try to defraud the government. Meanwhile, the government kept cutting off research money and warning Harvard not to bother applying for funds in the future. Harvard officials outwardly projected defiance and depicted their fight against the government as a righteous confrontation over academic independence. But inside the university, top leaders were surveying the landscape and seeing few optimal outcomes. Even if the university prevailed in court, some came to believe, it could still be dogged by fights with an administration not scheduled to leave office until 2029. And the university's $53 billion endowment was loaded with restrictions, leaving Harvard more financially vulnerable than a cursory glance at its books perhaps suggested. Harvard leaders were keenly aware of perceptions of the government's talks with Columbia University, which agreed to a range of Trump administration demands in its continuing quest for the resumption of $400 million in cancelled grants and contracts. Columbia's approach had been derided as capitulation. But some inside Harvard have weighed whether a settlement now – after a furious fight with the government that included some interim legal victories for the university – would leave the school less exposed to criticism than it would have if it had cut a deal months ago. Trump administration officials had been open to talks for weeks, even as the White House taunted and threatened the school with new actions. Until recently, though, Harvard's top board resisted talks. The members directed the school's battalion of lawyers, many of them fixtures of conservative legal circles, not to engage with the government. The calculus has since shifted, in parallel with a handful of courtroom successes for Harvard and Mr Trump's public venting that the university had drawn a favourable judge. Any deal, though, is certain to be closely scrutinised by the university's students, faculty members, donors and alumni. In an interview in May, Dr Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president, was reluctant to assess any potential agreement before its terms were known. He said, though, that 'it would be a tragedy if Harvard resolved this in a way that gave support and encouragement to the idea of extralegal extortion.' Until June 20 , there had been no public signal of active discussions between Harvard and the government. The judge in Boston, Ms Allison D. Burroughs, an appointee of President Barack Obama, has scheduled a hearing for July 21 to hear more extensive arguments in Harvard's case about cuts to its research funding. Mr Trump himself has routinely bashed Harvard in public and in private. As he concluded lunch in the West Wing on April 1, he mused about his government blocking every cent it could from flowing to Harvard. Later on, he would assail Harvard online as 'a JOKE' that 'teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds.' During the spring, he floated a revocation of Harvard's tax-exempt status and an idea to give its research money to trade schools. On June 20 , though, after his government had resumed talks with the university, the president was far more generous in his assessment of Harvard's leaders. 'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,' he wrote. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
