Singapore needs to break away from risk averse culture to succeed in the 21st century

SMU don assistant professor Chung Wai Keung is spot-on in his interview (“Our risk-averse culture hinders social mobility”, Straits TImes 6 Apr 2011). In the interview, Prof Chung pointed out that Singapore’s risk averse culture weighs down its social mobility because it discourages entrepreneurship, a crucial means by which the low-income can scale the social hierarchy. He stated that while the government encourages Singaporeans to take risks, the whole system discourages students from doing so. It becomes more rational for students to just find a job after leaving school.

I know, because I am a product of our system. I studied entirely in Singapore, from kindergarten to university, and continued onto postgraduate studies at NUS immediately after graduation. I was told to study hard from young and to do well academically. I did so obligingly. The only reason I did post-graduate studies was because I was conditioned to keep going as high as I can academically as it is a safe route to take. Midway through my PhD studies, I decided it was not what life should be, as least for me. I moved progressively to take more risks, going first into a statutory board, then as a professional manager for an entrepreneurial SME before initiating a technology start-up company.

 In running a start-up in the highly competitive dotcom environment, I quickly realised that none of the academic qualifications I had mattered. To the customer, it was about whether we could deliver our products and services to them in a cost-effective manner and about customer service. It was a humbling experience to be questioned by customers if ours was yet another one of the many “me-too” dotcoms and by staff if the company had any potential at all. The experience taught me many things the books and even my MBA studies could not. We survived only because we responded constantly to customers’ needs and kept innovating.

 The move eventually paid off when we grew the business to become a leader in its field and sold it off to a public-listed firm after 7 years of hard work. I did not regret my move in any way along the journey, even when there were times I nearly became poor or even bankrupt at some points in our fledging business. In various periods during the initial years, we had just enough to pay expenses for the current month. I am however, an exception amongst my peers who have moved on to good-paying safe careers.

 We often hear Singapore is a small market. We make it even smaller because there are few opportunities to develop good start-ups. Government officials play-it-safe by going for large companies for contracts, even when smaller companies can fulfil the requirements at a lower cost. We run GLCs so well that its leaves SMEs little space to develop. We suck the top talents up by tying them down with scholarships at a young age. We make things too safe in Singapore because we are afraid to fail. We label people who fail – in school, in work and in business. We teach students there is a right and a wrong way to do things. Hence they become progressively afraid to try unconventional ideas. In this 21st century, we need to figure out how to train students for job types that they will do 10-15 years later that do not now exist. We cannot use the same approach as we did when Singapore needed to only train up good manpower for MNCs. We need to train up creative people to take on the world. We need resilience in our people to dare to try, dare to fail and dare to rise up again if they fail.

Unfortunately, I feel we have missed the mark in our approach. We missed it in our education philosophy, we missed it in the way we develop our SMEs. We pay lip service to promoting entrepreneurship. In my letter to the Straits Times forum on 14 August 2010 (https://yeejj.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/st-forum-aug-14-2010-dont-tie-down-talent/), I’d suggested a few things for the Minister in charge of Entrepreneurship to consider. I like to suggest again the following:

  1. Cut down the number of bonded scholarships by government and statutory boards. Don’t tie down talents while they are young and do not continue to propagate this mindset that you need to get a scholarship to get into the elite in order to succeed in life.
  2. Actively foster links between our tertiary institutions and overseas tertiary institutions known for churning up entrepreneurs. Immerse willing students into offshore programmes to develop them and to cultivate ties for the future.
  3. Have an active cultivation of innovation, entrepreneurship and risk-taking in primary and secondary students through schools’ curriculum and activities. Review the over-emphasis on academic achievements and re-evaluate how else we can educate students to have a balance of academic knowledge and life skills.
  4. Change the mindset of government officials to not play-things-safe and award contracts only to large companies if small companies can meet all the requirements at a lower cost. It can even be implemented such that GLCs and MNCs do not compete for contracts that are smaller than a certain size to allow SMEs the space to bloom.
  5. Review accessibility of funding to SMEs, both in terms of loans and access to venture funds.

 Singapore needs to be bold, think radically and revamp herself to continue to stay competitive through innovation and enterprise in this 21st century.

This author believes that one must live life without regrets and we should all learn to take the plunge to do things passionately rather than regret later for not trying at all.

TODAY Mar 13, 2008: After the award, what next?

Written by Esther Fung 13 March 2008, featuring interview with me.

(Source: http://www.asiaviews.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=2%3Aregional-news-a-special-reports&layout=blog&Itemid=9&limitstart=3736)

WHEN it comes to recognition, small firms may have too much of a good thing going.

Just ask Mr Yee Jenn Jong, chief executive officer of e-learning business ASKnLearn, who recently trashed as spam an email inviting him to be part of a ranking of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Singapore.

He gets so many of such emails, he said, and rarely bothers with responding because, as he pointed out: “Some of these awards are quite tiring to apply for; they come with a lot of forms, interviews. In some cases, you even have to pay to apply.”

The number of business excellence awards and rankings has proliferated in recent years. True, winning one of the more well-known ones can boost the image of a company’s products and services, differentiating it from the thousands of SMEs operating in Singapore.

But critics say that “momentary glory” is all it sometimes brings. Some firms think the sheer number of such competitions has diluted the recognition accorded to winners.

“The recognition is not as it was before, although it’s still good to be awarded,” said Mr Abdul Rasheed, CEO of telecommunications services provider Navcom. As of last December, there were some 170,000 active SMEs with substantive business operations.

The judging criteria of some awards ? which these days are handed out by a range of agencies, including accounting firms, banks and government-linked bodies ? can be “quite mechanical” and may not truly reward enterprise, said Mr Sunny Chin, CEO of engineering firm Robotronics Land.

Often, the criteria include quantifiable factors such as annual revenue and net profit, and non-tangibles such as achievements, business practices and future expansion plans.

But the winning of an award should be more than just the earning of a badge, says Mr Chin. That is why he suggests that organizers model their awards on Miss Universe pageants, where the winner is groomed to be an ambassador over the course of a year. That means nurturing the firm with grants, management training and help in overcoming barriers when expanding overseas.

That’s not to say current practice achieves little. “Rankings and awards are an acknowledgement of an enterprise’s good work,” said Mr Lawrence Leow, president of the Association of SMEs. “Such awards set a benchmark for good entrepreneurship and encourage enterprises in Singapore to do better, propelling them to expand domestically and overseas.”

Likewise, recognizing supportive official agencies has paid off. Mr Philip Yeo, chairman of enterprise development agency Spring Singapore, said last July the Action Community for Entrepreneurship awards had “been instrumental in raising awareness among government agencies to be pro-enterprise” and in turn, they can improve the regulations “to support and encourage SMEs to grow and prosper”.

And that’s important. More than awards, what would better stimulate the set-up of successful businesses is a combination of pro-enterprise policies and a breed of enterprising individuals, said Mr Leow.

During the recent parliamentary debates, at least five Members of Parliament expressed concerns about whether SMEs got enough support from the Government. Mr Lee Yi Shyan, Minister of State for Trade and Industry, gave assurance that the Government “is committed to create the most conducive environment for start-ups and SMEs”.

For instance, with the help of financial institutions, Spring Singapore made available 3,573 loans worth $716 million last year.

Awards make up but a small part of a business-friendly landscape, say entrepreneurs, and it is better access to funding and more flexible business regulations that will go a long way to boost entrepreneurship.

“If it’s relevant and not too onerous to apply for and it’s good for our business, we will continue to apply for the awards,” said Mr Yee. But ultimately, what shareholders and staff want is long-term profitability, “so, firms need to get business fundamentals right”.

Links related to my entrepreneurship journey

Below are some links from published sources related to my entrepreneurial journey:

Education Magazine, published when ASKnLearn was just 9 months old in Sep 2000: http://www.asknlearn.com/2004web/press_2000_edumag.htm

Feature in IDA newsletter (2007): http://www.ida.gov.sg/insg/post/Home-Grown-Companies-Win-Global-Accolades.aspx

Feature in NUS School of Computing profile of alumni (2006): http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~cisaa/aa/aa-aug-06-highres.pdf

Feature by Straits Times (2008) on how we took a polytechnic’s  invention and made it commercially successful: http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20080425-61862.html

First publication of magazine by ASKnLearn: http://www.asknlearn.com/2004web/newsletter/anl75.pdf

A blogger, Lee Xun Yong mentioned my positive entrepreneurial example when writing about Singaporeans being entrepreneurs: http://msjoyce-crs.blogspot.com/2006/05/singaporeans-make-poor-entrepreneurs.html

A blogger from Ngee Ann Polytechnic writes after my talk on my entrepreneurial journey: http://www.squarecirclez.com/blog/asknlearn/57

Two Norwegians students from Norwegian School of Entrepreneurship write about my entrepreneurship journey after an attachment at ASKnLearn: http://www.asknlearn.com/2004web/newsletter/ennovate3.pdf

TNP Jun 25, 2004: Some who struck out on their own

graceng@tnp.com.sg

THEY were once employees in the civil service or with large private corporations.

Now, as bosses of their own companies, Mr Lim Der Shing and Mr Yee Jenn Jong provide jobs for dozens of Singaporeans.

Mr Lim, 29, had worked with SembCorp Industries for eight months before quitting to set up a campus recruiting company in 1999.

Jobsfactory, started with his girlfriend (now his wife) Huang Shao Ning, now employs 11.

Mr Yee, 39, who spent six years in government service, two of these at a statutory board he wouldn’t name, founded e-learning courses and education technology provider AsknLearn in 2000. It currently employs 50.

Mr Yee sees more benefits than just job creation for Singaporeans when entrepreneurial start-ups like AsknLearn spring up.

‘The call for entrepreneurship by the Government is not just for job creation, but to enable Singapore to plug in quickly to opportunities in the new global economy,’ said Mr Yee.

‘Without a vibrant group of entrepreneurs, it will be hard for Singapore to regionalise quickly. Hopefully, some of these new SMEs run by savvy entrepreneurs will develop into big global names, like Creative, Informatics or Hyflux.’

(rest of article deleted)

ST Forum Aug 14, 2010: Don’t tie down talent

ENCOURAGING ENTREPRENEURSHIP

THE Minister-in-charge of Entrepreneurship, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, discussed the issues Singapore faces in promoting entrepreneurship in Wednesday’s report (“Wading into the Blue Oceans”).

Mr Lee is right that we have strong fundamentals for doing business. Starting a company here is easy and inexpensive. The problem is that we do not have the right culture for Singaporeans to be entrepreneurs and for entrepreneurs to be creative and globally competitive.

I can think of three reasons why.

First, the mindset that an education is aimed at securing a good job, preferably with a large company or government institution; all the better if one obtains a scholarship to do so.

Government institutions perpetuate this mindset by ever increasing the number of scholarships, publicising the prospects of scholarship holders and fast-tracking their careers. We must cut the number of bonded scholarships and give more non-bonded awards for good performance in universities.

This will leave a larger talent pool of young people who are not tied down to organisations before they even dream of becoming entrepreneurs.

Second, the lack of exposure for young talent: Our tertiary institutions must allow more overseas tertiary twinning programmes, especially in places known for entrepreneurship, such as in the United States, Hong Kong and Taiwan, and in countries that are key future markets for Singapore, such as China and India.

The friendship built up by young talent across cultures may one day bring forth entrepreneurial Singapore companies with global ambitions. While our universities have taken steps in this direction by having offshore campuses and tie-up programmes, the pace should intensify and permeate to lower levels.

Few secondary schools have serious entrepreneurship engagement, and business school programmes are mostly theoretical in nature. Such engagements should go beyond business plan competitions. There can be more places that are easy for young aspiring entrepreneurs to develop ideas and test market products.

Finally, civil servants should change their play-it-safe mindset and take on more risk with local start-ups. The mindset that one has to play it safe to avoid mistakes that could affect future promotions is not good for our local industries.

Singapore has been successful in attracting the best companies to set up here to provide jobs. We now need to establish global entrepreneur-minded companies.

Yee Jenn Jong

ST Forum Jun 15, 2004: Entrepreneurs from public sector: Quality, not quantity

 

http://www.pscscholarships.gov.sg/COMMON/Entrepreneurs+from+public+sector.htm

Entrepreneurs from public sector: Quality, not quantity

 SENIOR Minister Lee Kuan Yew recently brought up the issue of releasing civil service scholars into the workforce as entrepreneurs.

 I was awarded a bond-free bank scholarship and am now an entrepreneur. I also spent six years in government service, with two of these at a statutory board.

 As I was not a scholar in the civil service, it was easier for me to leave the board and set up a technology start-up.

 Scholars who do well will find it extremely hard after six years to move out of their comfort zone into the risky world of entrepreneurship.

 Their methods of management are also very much tied to the civil service way. It is efficient, structured but bureaucratic. The ways of the private world, especially in an entrepreneurial setting, are totally different and only the flexible can survive.

 I had set out with a goal of being an entrepreneur one day, so I was ready to make sacrifices. Even so, I was not prepared for my experiences as a new entrepreneur.

 Competitors with funding 10 to 50 times greater than mine offered free services. Players with established products controlled the market well. However, my firm has survived.

 My fear is that in its enthusiasm to meet SM Lee’s objective of sending up to half of its scholars into the private sector as entrepreneurs, the public sector will create mini government-linked companies.

 Reluctant scholars may be pushed into starting businesses tied to the apron strings of these organisations and be given easy contracts to get their businesses started.

 Singapore would have created many entrepreneurs but of the wrong type. They would not succeed outside Singapore, or even in Singapore without support.

 Because I had no such privileges and came close to running out of funds several times, the business had to succeed or I would have been bankrupt. There is no greater motivation to succeed.

 The move to encourage scholars to become entrepreneurs is a positive one. Singapore needs entrepreneurs, the type that helped Hong Kong and Taiwan succeed, and the type that China and India are churning out daily.

 However, I recommend that it be done this way:

 Encourage the younger scholars to become entrepreneurs, particularly those with around two years’ experience. They would have enough exposure to government operations but not have the fear of losing their high salaries

 Award some bond-free government scholarships. Give the graduating scholars the choice of joining statutory boards that deal with private sector, such as the Economic Development Board. But limit their contract to two years.

 Do not count how many scholars become entrepreneurs. This may start a trend of creating reluctant entrepreneurs.

 Do not create artificial incentives for them to leave. If they want to become entrepreneurs, wish them luck and leave them alone.

 If they fail, there should not be a government job waiting. Never mind that this may prompt only 10 per cent of the scholars to become entrepreneurs. It is quality we want, not quantity.

 

Mr Yee Jenn Jong

————————— Reply ——————————- 

The Straits Times 19 Jun, 04

Would-be entrepreneurs have ways to pay for studies

We refer to the letter, ‘Entrepreneurs from public sector: quality, not quantity’ (ST, June 15), by Mr Yee Jenn Jong. We would like to thank him for his thoughtful letter and for sharing his experience with us.

The Government awards scholarships to about one-third of the top talent of each Alevel cohort (defined as those in the top 10 per cent in terms of results).

About half of each cohort of scholars eventually leave the civil service, although we do not know how many of them become entrepreneurs.

 The Government will not stand in the way of scholars who wish to leave after a few years if they do not see themselves making the civil service their lifelong career.

 We agree with Mr Yee it should not provide incentives, support or fall-back job guarantees to encourage more scholars to go into business. Doing so is against the enterprising spirit.

 However, we do not believe the Government should award bond-free scholarships, and encourage the scholars to become entrepreneurs after spending two years in the Government.

 A young Singaporean wanting to become an entrepreneur has many avenues to fund his university education. No Singaporean has to forgo a university education for lack of funds.

 The Government cannot justify funding scholarships without requiring a bond, or only to release the scholars two years later.

 

If we did so, how would we explain to taxpayers if the scholars later decide not to become entrepreneurs? 

Mr Yee deserves respect for having taken the plunge to become an entrepreneur, overcoming the many difficulties and making a success of his business.

 

However, scholars who remain in the civil service also deserve respect. They contribute in a different but equally vital way to the Government and the prosperity of the country. 

We need an efficient civil service, staffed by properly paid, capable civil servants, for entrepreneurs such as Mr Yee to prosper in Singapore.

 Joyce Chia

Assistant Director (Public Affairs)

for Permanent Secretary

Prime Minister’s Office