While DMS and Brandtology are interesting examples, you also have to look at the context in why some companies are funded as well. In fact, I will say that they are the exception rather than the norm. Sure, I will not dispute that VCs will pump money but in this period of time, they will just do it slowly and with a few and far between. For example, one of the founders of Brandtology has a very successful track record of selling a company in 7 digits to one of the GLCs in Singapore. Hence it is not difficult to raise 2M for them. That being said, there are a lot of small start-ups which will not be able to raise adequate financing to grow fast and most likely if they don’t find a bootstrapping strategy to ramp up, they are likely to be submerged.

The funding gap from S$0.5 to S$4M is very real, and requires smart money to elevate a lot of start-ups to the next level.

@D Hooray! I’ve always wondered when you’ll convert.

Over-engineering works in most cases – safer highways and HDB buildings, cleaner water, more efficient bureacracy, etc – just not for entrepreneurship. One should remove the more illogical barriers that are in place for entrepreneurs, and let them do the rest. After all, breaking down barriers and doing the impossible are what entrepreneurs do for a living in the first place.

Too-many-cooks is a symptom of the underlying fallacy that Gov (or anybody really) can somehow make good decisions on how to pick the winners – be it an industry, a company, a technology, or individuals.

While this may be true for industries such as Oil & Gas, Manufacturing, Finance, etc. that SG has done excellent work in developing. This is impossible for tech startups because of just how fast things change and how disruptive technologies and ideas can be. Even the smartest VCs know it’s a chance game and 10% blockbuster is damn good performance.

Here’s an alternative suggestion:

“A RISING TIDE LIFTS ALL BOATS”

JFK said it first, TJ Rogers repeated it brilliantly to House Committee, Paul Graham echoed Rogers’ speech yet again. (http://www.paulgraham.com/5founders.html)

Instead of handing out billions to agencies and having that hopefully trickle down to the right hands. (which, most of the time, a large chunk get lost in translation in all the layers of admin and marketing cost within agencies, and then another chunk gets to wrong awardees who waste or abuse them, and then another chunk goes to the supporting costs in accountants, secretaries, project managers, auditors, lawyers just to make sure everyone’s ass is covered- and by the time if any of it left actually end up in the hands of entrepreneurs who try to do something with it, it’s already 12-24 month later and the opportunity window is probably already gone. It is just impossible for this process to be efficient.

Instead of picking the boats, raise the tide.

To use mobile industry as an example – build superfast wireless networks and make it FREE, force telcos to charge 5% for billing instead of 50%, subsidize all smartphones device cost 50%, make SMS free, etc. The mobile entrepreneurs and startups will automatically happen.

It’s how Japan did it (by force of their dominating DoCoMo), it’s how Korea did it, and it’s how we can do it – and the difference is, we are part of a GSM English-speaking culture, such that whatever works here can probably be exported to most parts of the world. Our innovations just need to be ahead of the curve and that’s why we need infrastructure ahead of the curve.

(sorry i can only share my thoughts on mobile/wireless where my experience lies)

D

p.s. dont get me wrong, i love singapore, i think it has the best government in the world, just not one that knows how startup works. (i just became singaporean =D)

- it certainly sounds like the VCs around town is getting ready to put some money on the table. but investing is easy, exiting with a reasonable return is another story. i am not convinced with brandtology at the moment nor am i clear with DMS, but i am certainly behind them 100% to see any light of day.
- i have some knowledge of iJam, SEEDs, BAS and OTC, let me comment on each
– iJam —
Right direction, wrong mentors + B/B+ training/workshops, poor criteria. Can be improved, I will show them how in a few months
– SEEDs–
Good scheme from way back, new guidelines that look promising. Old and untested panel of judges. Not sure if they have been changed post “bombs” but if not, they should consider to have fresh/”relevant” faces.
– BAS–
Great matching scheme. Due to “bombs” there are elements of cold feet or “micro managing” so I have heard? Either way, intentions are there and positive, individual liquidity/appetite/”powder” may not be enough post Lehman and that I can understand.
–OTC–
Good premise, did not launch with a bang, still pretty low profile. Very low volume/liquidity, mainly because deals aren’t very exciting. Can be improved perhaps by a new group of owner.

Brother – don’t need to worry so much, things will get better, want to know why, drop me a line in a few weeks.