Hmm…that is the irony. They did not practise what they preached.

When there is a successful case, they tend to use it as an example but they forgot about how these entrepreneurs were being treated when they first started off.

Understand many roles not only of own role so that communication can be make across the “board”, otherwise there will be “expensive” lessons to be learnt for entrepreneur.

Don’t repeat and follow the biotech’s lesson in Singapore. Knows what one getting into.
Period.

There are 3 types of people:

The first are people who know all the problems and selectively place their bets

The second are people who don’t care or don’t know about the problems but just go ahead to bet

The third are people who analyze too deep into the problems they never dare to bet

i am not from your age group. Being younger, i am not sucked into that same system as most of the protagonists in your statements are. I am Singaporean too and I recently graduated. I am neither pro nor anti-govt. I believe incumbents will always have both accolades and brickbats thrown at them all the time and yes the current administration might be more than a tad cold and unfeeling in policies at times.

I am not going to counter your points. I believe they are valid from your own personal experiences and perspectives gained over the years.

All i want to say is i believe in a better future for Singaporean entrepreneurs. I believe the only way out of a difficult situation is to look on with optimism. If you cannot do that, at least do not pour undue scorn and scepticism on others who do. Offer your viewpoints + reality checks and help those who are hopeful succeed if you wish.

Accepting the status quo without contributing does not help. I am not addressing these at you. I believe you guys care enough to offer your opinions and I really appreciate it. I created an organization to advance youths’s interest in entrepreneurship because we need a community to feel that there are other youths who think like us and social support is paramount.

But we mustn’t spend all day taking about these issues, lets take a proactive attitude and try to build an empire in the situation that is giving to us. (Which is not too bad thinking that I could be born in other war torn places or if I am fighting for hunger or worse, disease.)

Can it be true ??? Well, ask those around who bid projects against GLC and its’s related companies, and you see the same thing as happened in NKF, where sometimes “relationship matter more than anything else”. Maybe it just human nature or “guanxi”.

I won’t say it’s wrong but it’s just business as usual. The case of open-bidding is sometimes a “smokescreen” to bring price down and reap good profit though in reality at expense of service and product and to show that companies is “open to competition and ideas”. Most usually already has a pre-determined company to work with. Open-bidding is just “a very good way” to get proposal for free and don’t have to pay expensive consultant to do it, and moreoever, also get a diversity of ideas.

True or not, well, just mix around with people who “been there” will help one find the answer.

Perhaps, that’s why ppl say that business world is deceptive, cunning and shrewd, and to succeed require a “distinctive mindset” to win. Ever wonder why Singapore GLC keep losing money in oversea investment ??? I believe the lack of international business experience and understanding of other culture is the cause. The same thing they apply to Singapore can never applies to other countries but yet GLC try to do likewise. They seem to take a single food for everybody approach. Other country’s people are just to “disobedient” compare to the “obedient” Singaporean.

Another example: Temasek holdings own controlling interests in SMRT, Capital Land, Singapore Power and SIA. These companies are huge and it is difficult for privately own companies to compete with them since they are all under the ’same group’ and thus take part in synergies that may be unavailable to the private sector. (Example: Most of Capital Lands’ malls are close to MRT stations and they have sheltered walkways to the stations. This definitely benefits the population but a privately own company may find it more difficult to build the same shelter or build at that location.)

Of cause, this may be necessary due to national interests and consumer interests (Singtel controls the local telecommunication network, NTUC and SMRT keeps fares low) but nevertheless they may restrict the growth of the private sector since these companies would likely beat any competition due to their size and funding..

Also I feel that there are more red tape in government linked companies than private ones. The proposal someone has to write for Capital Land to get a retail space would have to be longer and nicer.. :)

Actions are guided by people balancing incentives with opportunity cost.

People start up companies because they think they can make more money and lead a happier lifestyle by doing so than by working for someone else. That’s the high incentive. These people understand that failure is not death - you can recover and use your hard-earned knowledge to succeed when you try again. That’s the low opportunity cost. Getting these two forces to balance correctly is very much shaped by culture and environment.

Sam Cheng is right that young people with less commitments have an easier time starting up companies. Again, this is as true in Silicon Valley as it is in Singapore. Mainly because younger people can’t always see the true cost of failure for lack of experience!

There is some role for government programmes to work on strengthening the incentives (by promoting new enterprise as a noble goal and showcasing local heroes) and by reducing the opportunity cost (by working to remove the stigma of failure with established companies). But as Sam says, get too involved in the details of the creative process and you do much more harm than good.

WeiChang, I’m curious to know how Temasek Holdings restricts the growth of the private sector. I won’t pretend to know anything more than the basics, but I was under the impression it’s basically a big fund (regardless of where the money comes from), so saying it restricts growth is like saying the big US private-equity funds are slowing down the US economy, which is not true.

Yoav

One thing for sure that I have seen many times amongst my many friends that wanna start out;

”
Sit there and think too much, you wont get anywhere.
Sit there and plan too much, you still in the same place.
Sit there and worry too much, you are still stuck.
”

Paddy
BAK2u.com

But I do also take Yuri and SamCheng’s point that environment will play a pivotal role. Environment can be molded by govt policies, friends, climate, existing industries etc. It’s pretty broad.

Sim Wong Hoo once said that he succeeded because 天时地利人合. It might well represent an ‘asian’ and ‘local’ pespective to entrepreneurship. We have a less developed capital market in the early days - so luck seemed predominantly important. Today, with EDB on the ball and government support, its going to be easier. But I guess we still need to see a blend.

Lastly, guess its not good to talk about ‘average thoughts’. I think all of us CAN be great entrepreneurs - we didn’t have the word ‘worker’ stamped on our heads when we were born. Think about this: If we did’t send our brightest to Oxford or Harvard for polishing, would they have become the scholars they are percieved to be? I am just assumming - if SamCheng had a chance to go somewhere(NOC?) during his younger days, maybe he might have a fire bigger than any of us.

Singapore doesn’t need a few great entrepreneurs who amidst all the adversity and high cost of living, he can still do it. What Singapore need is to develop a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. Isn’t this is what gov trying to achieve all this while ??? And why did it fail despite all this effort ??? Sure, ppl say that Singapore is still young compare to other country, the fact I choose to disagree because our gov has increasingly growing unpopular with public and oversea, and so what’s the chances entrepreneurship will flourish in the future ??

It is no longer “I can do it”, but “we can do it”, and why only a few dare venture ??

If culture of entrepreneurship is developed here, there won’t be gov’s interference at all, and so why there isn’t so. And what is the ratio of ppl going entrepreneurial directly after graduation ???

Been positive is one thing but to remain positive without finding out the cause of all this is just denying oneself.

Supposedly if someone know that he won’t have enough money to pay for housing in future, what is the chances of that person going to entrepreneurship ???

However, entrepreneurship is not about the government or any large institutions. It is about nerve, energy, ideas and the heart to take risks for an individual, all of which a Singaporean is able to invoke and use to great fruition under our system. One could blame the government for taking all these away from him but then I highly doubt that these individuals would make it in another place as well if their will could so easily be extinguished in the first place.

These are ‘average’ thoughts, ‘average’ mentality for the ‘average’ person. An ‘average’ person wouldn’t be a great entrepreneur because by definition, they are just ‘average’.

Naturally, the system could be better, but for an individual, we can’t sit down all day and wallow. We have to make do with what we have and try to succeed using our will, as we wait for our ’system and situation’ to improve.

It’s sad situation we are in. There are two possibilities why ppl want to become entrepreneur in Singapore:
1) Get a taste of been the own boss and ride on the trend. This is especially attractive to graduate who are supported by universities.

2) Season employee who are pissed off by corporate who tends to comprise of incompetent and incapable management. Usually the ppl below work hard to cover the management’s incompetencies, but then management get all the rewards “secretly” when thing is done.

Another main problem with Singapore is that gov want a say in everything. Often gov’s help turn up to be the reason why thing won’t work. The problem is that blogosphere has already erode the gov’s credibility and expose their ever-changing policies in term of coming way to make money from public. Like ERP increasing, car park been privatised to make money, and land sell at high price to property developer like nobody business, giving themselves huge pay. Ppl will not believe that gov is helping them but in fact find way to get $10 out of every $1 invested as happen in the past for GST and progress package thing.

If Singapore is such a money-culture thing, most will rather want as much money as possible to survive, rather than lack of money, and definitely been entrepreneurial is not the way to go if money is the main priority.

Sure ppl can bootstrap, but for how long in term of ever-rising cost increase by gov and their so called free market ???

To promote entrepreneurship, it probably better to have someone established in the field to lead change (if he could) than a bureacratic and unpopular gov organization. At least, that’s more credible. Commit someone like SimWongHong who has experience to lead change not someone of big org with huge salary to lead change. The tendencies for big org is have status quo since why employees will want to take risk for high-pay job ??

Bjorn, when you work in the society, we will like to hear of your experience in working life. You probably agree on what Yuri said.