More pertinent questions will be helpful.
The fact that decent people are willing to accept a role of the same level and pay from ST to a MNC speaks volume of the MNC > GLC rhetoric.
speaking as someone with experience of both, the culture between a MNC and a GLC is drastically different.
GLC has a chartered career advancement. Things will happen if you don't do anything stupid so there is no real demand for performance. The business is also stable, customers from the same pool will keep turning up. Profit and losses are not something to worry about. You can see projects that squander 500k on with no real value stagnate itself for years continue to hang around for nothing. so you keep talking about the same project years after the project charter was drawn up (if the charter was done) The staffs have so much free time that they begun focusing on petty politics over real delivery. Therefore creating the notion of a retirement village for those who will otherwise not survive the abrasive competition of the real world.
MNCs has no career path chartered. You move up if you do well and an opportunity presents. So the demand for performance is ruthless. Business can be a roller coaster and customer/suppliers don't remain the same. One moment, you are doing a project with them and the next moment, they become your competitor. The staffs have no time to focus on politics as they are all challenged to deliver. If you as much as to waste your time/efforts on the sort of GLC petty politics, you fall back behind. Not to mention the foreigner waiting to replace you when you falter. In MNC, anything goes and it is where really competent people exist. Those from GLCs who move to MNCs are known to U turn back because they cannot survive in MNCs.
Of course those GLC people are at liberty to disagree.
