I would like to respond to SLK’s letter on ‘Policies ought to support business ecosystem’, published in the Opinion page on August 2, regarding the impact of the reduction in age limit among foreign directors on the country.
In my opinion, these foreign directors have profited enough off the local market. Despite having been in operation for decades, these companies – often family-owned – have not been active in training locals to assume more senior positions.
Not only would a good director draft a solid succession plan, the plan would have been in motion long before their retirement. Take for example the company I used to work for.
Leading up to my director’s retirement, his children were already prepped and trained to take over the cores of his business.
Surely, if my old company could plan so far ahead, others could, too. There is no reason to say that the reduction in age limit would leave them with little time to formulate a succession plan.
Even if these foreign directors could not find the right successors in time, instead of folding their businesses and leaving, why not sell their companies to interested locals or other foreign investors?
More importantly, how could the writer think it unfair that the age limit for foreign directors is at 60 when even locals are finding it difficult to hold on to their jobs beyond that age?
CL
