Yee Jenn Jong /

Picture from www.nonprofituniversityblog.com

SMU don, assistant professor Chung Wai Keung, is spot-on in his interview with the Straits Times on 6 April. (“Our risk-averse culture hinders social mobility”, Straits Times 6 Apr 2011). In it, 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 the National University of Singapore (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 preferring 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 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 need only train good manpower for MNCs. We need to train 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 lips service to promoting entrepreneurship. In my letter to the Straits Times forum on 14 August 2010 (http://yeejj.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/st-forum-aug-14-2010-dont-tie-down-talent/), I 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 circle  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 in 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 tems of loans and access to venture funds.

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

—————

Jenn Jong has started various education businesses, the most notable of which is ASKnLearn, used by some 50% of schools in Singapore today for their e-learning needs. Since selling ASKnLearn, he has taken the plunge again by creating more start-ups and mentoring other start-ups. He 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.

Jenn Jong also blogs at http://yeejj.wordpress.com

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

裘佐柏:新加坡选民害怕非行动党政府执政?

维权律师Khush Chopra: 我由衷认为,我们不会过分忧虑“不是人民行动党政府执政的新加坡”,而且我们已经准备好做出改变。 前《海峡时报》主编日前于《南华早报》(SCMP)刊登一篇有关《新加坡大选:不同政党存在为何影响些微》,警示反对党: “当扳倒人民行动党的声浪过高,新加坡的选民反而会重投执政党的怀抱。” 文章中点出新加坡反对党目前混乱、毫无头绪和颠三倒四的动向,造成反对党在来临的大选中难以有任何具影响力的结果。其中“难以团结的反对党”与“无补选策略”是推动选民再次将投票投向人民行动党的关键因素。 文章以措辞强烈的声明批评反对党的现状,作者直言新加坡反对党虽多,但因各党派的混乱和毫无头绪,导致反对党並无胜算。 文章的核心论点围绕在反对党四分五裂的现状,稀释了反对党的票数。如同英语中谚语:厨子多了烧坏汤(too many cooks spoil the…

Heng Swee Keat: Resilience Budget to help save jobs and support companies during difficult times; urges people not to have “excessive expectations”

On Thursday (26 March), Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat took to…

MOH says MediShield Life limit covers a majority of subsidised bills despite only paying S$4.50 for an elderly man’s post-subsidy bill

Recently, the nation was given a shocking news when they found out…

丢狗只下排水渠“让它们游泳”? 狗主行为惊动各单位

有人将狗儿“丢“到排水沟的行动被拍成视频放上脸书,引起爱狗组织的关注,也惊动了动物与兽医事务组,初步调查了解,丢狗者是狗只的主人,他表示只是带它们到该处游泳,并没丢狗。 爱狗社媒专页Chained Dog Awareness in Singapore于上周末(5月9日)在脸书帖文指出,有民众看见一名男子,疑似将四、五只小狗丢到排水沟去,但因所知不多,因此呼吁网民协助救狗狗。帖文中也附着一个14秒的视频,只见一名穿着黄背心、戴红帽的男子将小狗丢到排水沟去,然后就走到一旁。 有关帖文立刻引起民众关注,有者甚至赶到现场后留言,怀疑事发地点是在贝雅士蓄水池上段,有者顺着水流开始寻找小狗。 不过,该爱狗组织随后跟新帖文,在没有获得更多详细讯息下,却上载有关视频表示道歉,该组织也提醒当前仍处于阻断疫情措施期间,因此促请参与寻找狗狗的人士回家。 该组织随后在傍晚5时45分再次跟新帖文,表示有关视频已经获得动物与兽医事务组关注,并找到了丢狗狗的事主,确认事发地点在流向贝雅士蓄水池(Lower Pierce Reservoir)下段的排水沟,狗狗和主人在一起。而狗狗的情况都良好。 动物与兽医事务组在帖文中澄清,事件正在调查中,但是被丢下水的狗只都是成年狗,其中一只品种比较小。