Comments on: MDA responds to AG’s report

By: Chee Ken Wing

Chee Ken Wing — Mon, 17 May 2010 17:24:22 +0000

This is a mighty old post but it’s the first time I read MDA’s response to AGO’s remarks. The problem is that the evaluation panel should never have an interest in the stake of the company, stock options or not. It is a matter of corporate governance and incorruptibility.

Members of the evaluation panel are required by the government instruction manual to excuse themselves from the evaluation process if there are conflicts of interest. A direct parallel can be drawn from the IM3B (Procurement) regulations. One cannot authorize public spending in a company the person has an interest or stake in.

In short, if someone wants a stake in the company, then don’t sit in the evaluation panel. If that someone sits in the evaluation panel, that person must stay away from investing in the company.

By: Leonard

Leonard — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:42:55 +0000

Translation: “We have guidelines but we can sidestep them at our own discretion.”

By: Meng Weng Wong

Meng Weng Wong — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:29:48 +0000

You know, guys, the presence of a conflict of interest isn’t an automatic trigger to kill a proposal. I hate to point out the obvious but the oldest son of MM LKY got a government job, where he seems to be doing just fine. In a meritocracy, sometimes the social graph connects, and sometimes it doesn’t. Anyone who insists it must never connect might be enlightened by a class in basic statistics.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:45:42 +0000

I agree we need to move on from this and carry on the mission to support entrepreneurs.

1. The IDM team within MDA is not completely equipped with the right skillset- this is fine as we do not expect them to be former entrepreneurs or venture capitalists, all they need is to get a GOOD advisory board and LISTEN to their input.

2. The policy has very little alignment of interests and need a rework. With a few gaps in the process, loop holes will be taken advantage of irregardless of who is involved or where we are located- We do know mentors sometimes do take equity stakes because there aren’t enough good deals in Singapore, as long as they are declared, personally I don’t see a problem.

3. The quality of mentors is the downside of the scheme, not the ideas nor talent in Singapore. They need to be screened and overhauled OR add another layer of advisors to up the quality- This issue as of this moment is still not addressed. The issue is not the funding discrepancies, it is the fact that investments are made with poor rate of success, extremely poor in my opinion.