4 ms·

I worked for a startup for three years whose small sAPAC headquarters moved from Sydney to Singapore. I was young, enthusiastic and very well performing (I was

I worked for a startup for three years whose small sAPAC headquarters moved from Sydney to Singapore. I was young, enthusiastic and very well performing (I was measured in my job each week by customers). I found most of the Singaporean staff I met a) thought I was slightly crazy b) either loved me, or hated me for the same reason: I didn't slavishly adhere to rules, particularly when it came to giving customers what they wanted. If the entire (US founded) company had that idea the company wouldn't exist at all: particularly when you're a small company competing with giants, flexibility is required to win business. Singapore suffers from the India problem: they're technically talented, but the adherence to authority means they don't produce many innovative companies.

shmulkey18 15y ago
Here we come to the nub of the matter, at least for the average HN reader: a country which is characterised by slavish obedience to authority and a willingness to trade off autonomy and the right to do something that may offend others for "social order" is a country which is very unlikely to foster a robust start-up culture. Start-ups rely on the willingness of founders and investors to be bold, break the rules, and act without concern for what others may think. This, in turn, requires a society which embraces disorder, spontaneity and a certain degree of rebelliousness. It's not an accident that the two countries with the most robust start-up scenes are the US and Israel, both characterised by messy and sometimes annoying individualism, robust debate, and intellectual ferment. It's hard to be believe that a nation like Singapore, whose citizens happily trade off freedom of speech for trivialities like clean streets and the "freedom" of people not to be offended will be capable of producing the kind of rough-and-tumble Darwinian business environment and culture in which start-ups flourish. An aside: my read of the Indian national character is that is much closer to that of the Americans than that of the Singaporese: individualistic, pluralistic, and tolerant of disorder and creativity. These is, of course, much to still be achieved in India, but I think the vector is pointed in the right direction.

shmulkey18 15y ago

Here we come to the nub of the matter, at least for the average HN reader: a country which is characterised by slavish obedience to authority and a willingness to trade off autonomy and the right to do something that may offend others for "social order" is a country which is very unlikely to foster a robust start-up culture. Start-ups rely on the willingness of founders and investors to be bold, break the rules, and act without concern for what others may think. This, in turn, requires a society which embraces disorder, spontaneity and a certain degree of rebelliousness. It's not an accident that the two countries with the most robust start-up scenes are the US and Israel, both characterised by messy and sometimes annoying individualism, robust debate, and intellectual ferment. It's hard to be believe that a nation like Singapore, whose citizens happily trade off freedom of speech for trivialities like clean streets and the "freedom" of people not to be offended will be capable of producing the kind of rough-and-tumble Darwinian business environment and culture in which start-ups flourish. An aside: my read of the Indian national character is that is much closer to that of the Americans than that of the Singaporese: individualistic, pluralistic, and tolerant of disorder and creativity. These is, of course, much to still be achieved in India, but I think the vector is pointed in the right direction.