# Bernard Leong | AI Strategy - Educate, Advise and Build > Helping enterprises adopt Generative AI and enterprise-grade AI systems with rigor and clarity. Public Ghost content for AI and LLM tooling. This file includes a bounded export of public pages first, then recent public posts. Append `.md` to any post or page URL to get the content in Markdown (for example, `/example-post.md`). ## Pages ### About Bernard Leong URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/biography-about-bernard-leong/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T00:00:39.000Z ## **AI Leader, Strategist and Educator.** I help enterprises navigate the complexities of Generative AI—from empowering leaders with practical skills to guiding organizations in building enterprise-grade AI systems that deliver measurable impact. I started [Dorje AI](https://dorje.ai/?ref=bernardleong.com), a startup building the next generation of business operating systems for financial applications in enterprise resource planning systems as the co-founder and CEO in May 2024\. **Other activities:** I am also angel investing focused on Web3 and AI where I can do deals directly either through my sourcing, the [XA network](https://xanetwork.co/?ref=bernardleong.com), or friends leading a deal. I am the founder and host of the [Analyse Asia podcast](https://analyse.asia/?ref=bernardleong.com). I am married and have three children and you can read about [my parental philosophy here](https://dadsintech.substack.com/p/bernard-leong-technology-angel). I teach Digital Transformation & Strategy as an adjunct Associate Professor at [NUS Business School](https://bizfaculty.nus.edu.sg/faculty-details/?profId=750&ref=bernardleong.com) and the business and technical aspects of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning specifically on Generative AI and Large Language Models at the [Institute of Systems Science](https://www.iss.nus.edu.sg/about-us/staff/detail/442/Bernard%20Leong?ref=bernardleong.com) (NUS-ISS) part time. On my corporate history, in my last role, I was the group chief digital and information officer for [Woh Hup,](https://wohhup.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) a Singapore construction conglomerate. Before that role, I was the head of [artificial intelligence and machine learning](https://ml.aws/?ref=bernardleong.com) for ASEAN in [Amazon Web Services](https://aws.amazon.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) where I spearheaded the strategy and go-to-market sales execution in Southeast Asia and built lighthouse customers with major key customers. I was also formerly the head of [Airbus](https://airbus.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) Aerial Asia (VP-level appointment) under Airbus Defence and Space, and the Head of Post Office Network & Digital Services in [Singapore Post](http://www.singpost.com/?ref=bernardleong.com). At Airbus, I worked on the go-to-market strategy for the drone delivery business and digital services relating to satellite and drone imaging across the Asia Pacific with China included. Before that, I led two business units in Singapore Post within 4 years and 1 month: Post Office Network and Digital Services and managed both P&Ls > S$40M and teams of over 500+ employees. My achievements included the SAM omnichannel platform which formed the backbone of the smart post office in the future and won two global awards, the successful implementation of the historic first secure & authenticated drone delivery where I advised many posts and aviation regulatory authorities in the space and executing the digital transformation successfully from setting up the social media council, building successful mobile apps with great user experience and the new corporate website which I have managed to build by aligning many stakeholders in the company. I am the founder of a podcast side project called [Analyse Podcast](https://analysepodcast.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) (formerly Analyse Asia) where I interview thought leaders across Asia and the US on business, media & technology and now at 350K+ subscribers on YouTube. I am currently an [entrepreneur-in-residence](http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/centres/entrepreneurship/eir/EiR%5FBLeong.cfm?ref=bernardleong.com) for INSEAD Business School since Jan 2011 where I advised MBA students on product development, connecting to the local startup & venture community. I have [one patent](https://www.google.com/patents/US8478009?ref=bernardleong.com) under my name so far. Formerly, I was a mentor to [JFDI.Asia](http://jfdi.asia/?ref=bernardleong.com). I graduated from the Global Solutions Program (GSP) 2016 at the [Singularity University](http://singularityu.org/?ref=bernardleong.com) @ NASA Ames Centre where I spent 2.5 months in Silicon Valley from June to August 2016\. Previously, I was the co-founder of SGEntrepreneurs an online media portal focusing on entrepreneurship in Singapore which was acquired by [TechinAsia.com](http://www.techinasia.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) in 2013 (that in turn, was acquired recently by SPH media). Formerly an academic and research scientist, specializing in computational biology, theoretical physics, and economics. I have a strong interest in public policy. I have published papers in prestigious journals in these fields (ApJ, Physical Review D, Cell). While my professional capacities have hovered around start-ups and corporates, I have other side interests which you might not know. I was an ex-producer in various drama productions in the UK and a co-founder of the social-political blog: Singapore Angle (now defunct) years back. My first degree began at the [National University of Singapore](https://nus.edu.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) with a double major BSc with merit in Physics and Materials Science and ended with my PhD from [Darwin College](http://www.darwin.cam.ac.uk/?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Cavendish Laboratory](http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/?ref=bernardleong.com), Cambridge University. An important note is that I have no political ambitions and neither am I affiliated with any political parties here in Singapore in case you mistook me for someone else. I remain an independent observer of what is going on in the world. My passion is in technology, media and entrepreneurship. I prefer to call myself a pragmatic idealist. If you truly believe in an idea, you should invoke your passion and energy to pursue it and at least make small changes to the environment such that it will hit the tipping point someday and cascade into a major change. ### Award and Accolades - [LinkedIn Top Voice](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/meet-newest-singapore-top-voices-experts-leaders-creators-65yuf/?ref=bernardleong.com) in Singapore, Jan 2026\. - [Senior Accredited Director](https://credentials.sid.org.sg/872e8f24-a94e-4bfb-b3e2-a6c1c504e6f8?ref=bernardleong.com#gs.49zl9u) from Singapore Institute of Directors, Jan 2024. - [SCS Fellow](https://www.scs.org.sg/membership/fellows?ref=bernardleong.com) from Singapore Computer Society 25 March 2022. - Postal and Parcel Technology International Awards 2017: Digital Innovation of the Year for the SAM Omni-channel platform. - World Post and Parcel 2017 Award: Retail Access Category for the omnichannel SAM digital platform. - Formation National Serviceman of the Year: Letter of Commendation from Singapore Armed Forces for my military reservist duties, 2014 - Singapore Computer Society (SCS) IT Leader Awards: Professional of the Year, 2010. - Winner of NUS Outstanding Young Alumni Award, 2007. - Overseas Research Scholar, British High Commission, 1998-2002. - Commonwealth Scholar, Cambridge Commonwealth Trust, 1998-2002. - Lee Foundation Scholar, Singapore, 1998-2002. - Dean’s List for outstanding academic performance, National University of Singapore, 1996-1998. - Gold medal, British Petroleum Science Colors Award for outstanding leadership and academic achievements, 1997-1998. - Military Commendation of Outstanding Service from Commander, 3rd Infantry Brigade, 1994-1995. ### Specialities: - General Management with regional experience in expanding across Asia Pacific (including China and India) as a senior executive. - Digital Strategy (Web, Mobility and Social Media), Business Process Outsourcing. - Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning - Quantum Computing - Product Management, Lean Startup Methodology, Agile Software Development. - Technology: Consumer Internet, Social Media, Digital Advertising - Programming languages (Python, Ruby, Java, LaTeX, C++, C, Perl, MySQL, PostgreSQL, XML and HTML5, CSS3), Cloud Computing: Amazon Web Services, Server Architecture & Content Management Systems and Mobile Platforms (iOS & Android). - Early Stage Investor (Deal sourcing and closing, Due diligence and Fundraising/M&A) - Theoretical Physics & Computational Biology ### Contact Me You can read [my profile on Linkedin](http://www.linkedin.com/in/bleongcw?ref=bernardleong.com) or send me an InMail message with no cold calls on seeking investment and I will respond within 3-5 days. I will be concise with a yes and no to the ask. On investment opportunities, do not try to cold call me and you are sure to get a no. The trick is to get a referral from someone I know very well. Consulting, business, speaking and teaching opportunities are welcome. You can subscribe to me on my LinkedIn Newsletter: [The AI Playbook](https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/the-ai-playbook-7448561348503937024/?ref=bernardleong.com) here [Subscribe on LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7448561348503937024%22%20target=%22%5Fblank&ref=bernardleong.com) I still code for fun and here's my GitHub account: - [Github](https://github.com/bleongcw?ref=bernardleong.com) You can find me on the following social media platforms: - [X (formerly known as Twitter) at @bernardleong ](https://twitter.com/bernardleong?ref=bernardleong.com)[Bluesky](https://bsky.app/profile/bernardleong.bsky.social?ref=bernardleong.com) at @bernardleong.bsky.social - [Mastodon](https://mastodon.social/@bernardleong?ref=bernardleong.com) at @bernardleong - [Threads](https://www.threads.com/@bleongcw?ref=bernardleong.com) at @bleongcw ### Legal Disclaimer: The opinions and thoughts expressed in any posts here are in Bernard Leong’s personal capacity and do not represent the views and opinions of any organisation he works for. ### Disclosure Policy: I work on the principle of transparency. If I use a product, attend a sponsored event, or discuss a company to which I am either an advisor, board or investor, I will disclose. ### Publications & Patents URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/publications/ Last updated: 2024-06-25T03:01:02.000Z ### Business Publications and Citations - **Bernard Leong**, “[Digital Transformation](https://www.dropbox.com/s/khku1pjrmntdluz/MER%20Summer%202017%20-%20Digital%20Transformation%20by%20Bernard%20Leong.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com): The Future Post Office”, Mail and Express Review, Summer (May) 2017. - **Bernard Leong**, “[The Future of Drone Delivery](https://www.imda.gov.sg/news-and-events/impact-news/2017/03/the-future-of-drone-delivery?ref=bernardleong.com)“, Infocomm & Media Development Authority of Singapore Impact Site. Citation Sources: [Channel News Asia](http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singpost-s-drone-delivery-trials-some-key-takeaways-8599940?ref=bernardleong.com), [OpenGov](http://www.opengovasia.com/articles/7466-what-singpost-learnt-from-its-drone-delivery-trials?ref=bernardleong.com). - **Bernard Leong**, “Best Practices for Chief Digital Officers & Three Principles in Digital Transformation”, CXO Insights, Feb 2015. ### Patents - **Leong Chung Wei Bernard**, Patent US 20120155722 A1: [Generation and analysis of representations of skin conditions](https://www.google.com/patents/US20120155722?ref=bernardleong.com), US 12/971,140 on 12 June 2012. ## **Academic Publications** ### Biology and Bioinformatics - **Xi Chen, Han Xu, Ping Yuan, Fang Fang, Mikael Huss, Vinsensius B. Vega, Eleanor Wong, Yuriy L. Orlov, Weiwei Zhang, Jianming Jiang, Yuin-Han Loh, Hock Chuan Yeo, Zhen Xuan Yeo, Vipin Narang, Kunde Ramamoorthy Govindarajan, Bernard Leong, Atif Shahab, Yijun Ruan, Guillaume Bourque, Wing-Kin Sung, Neil Clarke, Chia-Lin Wei, Huck-Hui Ng,** “*Integration of external signaling pathways with the core transcriptional network through transcription factor colocalization hotspots in embryonic stem cells*”, [Cell 2008](https://www.bernardleong.com/publications/Integration%20of%20external%20signaling%20pathways%20with%20the%20core%20transcriptional%20network%20through%20transcription%20factor%20colocalization%20hotspots%20in%20embryonic%20stem%20cells) Jun 13 ; 133(6): 1106-17. - **Gulliaume Bourque, Bernard Leong, Vinsensius B Vega, Yi Ruan, C L Wei and Edison Liu**, “*Conservation and Transposon-mediated evolution of Transcription Factor Binding Sites in Mammalian Genomes*”, [Genome Res. 2008 Nov;18(11):1752-62](http://genome.cshlp.org/content/18/11/1752.long?ref=bernardleong.com). - **B K Goh, Bernard Leong, C L Kee, C H Lin, B Lim, Y L Lee and S H Tan**, *“Establishment of a Skin Toxicogenomics System to identify Potential Skin Toxicants in Pre-clinical Drug Trials”,* Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 35(Suppl)(10):S6, 2006. - **Jun Xu, Bhylahalli P. Srinivas, Shang Yew Tay , Alicia Mak , Xianwen Yu , Serene G. P. Lee , Henry Yang , Kunde R. Govindarajan , Bernard Leong, Guillaume Bourque, Sinnakarupan Mathavan and Sudipto Roy**, *“Genome-wide Expression Profiling in the Zebrafish Embryo Identifies Target Genes Regulated by Hedgehog Signaling During Vertebrate Development”,* [Genetics, Oct 2006;174(2):735-52](http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/genetics.106.061523v1?ref=bernardleong.com). - **Yuin-Han Loh, Qiang Wu, Joon-Lin Chew, Vinsensius B. Vega, Weiwei Zhang, Xi Chen, Guillaume Bourque, Joshy George, Bernard Leong, Jun Liu, Kee-Yew Wong, Ken W. Sung, Leonard Lipovich, Vladimir A. Kuznetsov, Paul Robson Lawrence W. Stanton, Chia-Lin Wei, Yijun Ruan, Bing Lim, Huck-Hui Ng**, *“The Oct4 and Nanog transcription network that regulates pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells”,* [Nature Genetics, 38(4):431-40](http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n4/abs/ng1760.html;jsessionid=D6D20541761013CA73992469A9C80C40?ref=bernardleong.com). April 2006. - **Thomas A. Down, Bernard Leong and Tim J. P. Hubbard**, *“A Machine Learning Strategy to Identify Exonic Candidate Binding Sites in Human Protein-coding Sequence”*, [BMC Bioinformatics, 7:419](http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/7/419/abstract?ref=bernardleong.com), Sep 2006. ### Economics, Entrepreneurship and Public Policy - **Bernard Leong, Alison Wee and Ho Yuen Ping**, “*Is an enterprise framework necessary for an entrepreneurial university? A comparison of entrepreneurial university technology start-ups in Singapore & Sweden*“, Science and Public Policy, 35(9):647-656, Nov 2008. - **Toke Aidt, Bernard Leong, Daniel Sgroi and William Saslaw**, *“Power Laws, Maximal Efficiency and the Turnover of Sports Managers”*, [Physica A, 370(2):697-703.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437106003475?ref=bernardleong.com) - **Bernard Leong,** *“Finding the Golden Path, Can Singapore be a Silicon Valley?”* 6(3):62-63, [Innovation Magazine](http://innovationmagazine.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), August 2006. ### Physics - **Abel Yang, William Saslaw, Phil Chan and Bernard Leong**, “*The robustness of the galaxy distribution function I: Effects of merging and evolution on the galaxy distribution*“, published to the Proceedings of the Conference in Honour of Murray Gell-Mann’s 80th Birthday, eds. H. Fritzsch and K. K. Phua, pp 597-604, 2010, World Scientific, Singapore. Download from [arXiv.org](http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.0176?ref=bernardleong.com). - **Bernard Leong and William Saslaw**, *“Gravitation Binding, Virialization and the Peculiar Velocity Distribution of the Galaxies”,* [ApJ, 608:636-646, 2004.](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib%5Fquery?bibcode=2004ApJ...608..636L&db%5Fkey=AST&ref=bernardleong.com) - **Daniel Baumann, Bernard Leong and William Saslaw,** *“A Universe that Changes its Global Symmetry*“, [MNRAS, 345:552-560, 2003.](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib%5Fquery?bibcode=2003MNRAS.345..552B&db%5Fkey=AST&high=3f93f437eb22554&ref=bernardleong.com) - **Bernard Leong, Anthony Challinor, Roy Maartens and Anthony Lasenby**, *“Braneworld Tensor Anisotropies in the CMB”*, [Phys. Rev. D66:104010, 2002](https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208015?ref=bernardleong.com). - **Bernard Leong, Peter Dunsby, Anthony Challinor and Anthony** **Lasenby**, *“(1+3)-Covariant Dynamics of Scalar Perturbations in Brane Worlds”,* [Phys. Rev. D65:104012, 2002](https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0111033?ref=bernardleong.com). ### Ph.D Thesis - **Bernard Leong**, *“Spin Torsion, Braneworlds and Changing Symmetry in the Universe”*, [gr-qc/0311016](https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311016?ref=bernardleong.com), Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Feb 2003. ### Undergraduate Proceedings - **Bernard Leong**, *“Numerical Computations in Satellite Orbits”*, Proceedings of Undergraduate Science Research Programme, National University of Singapore, NUS Press, 1997. - **Bernard Leong**, *“Atomic Force Microscopy in Biological Molecules”*, Proceedings of Undergraduate Science Research Programme, National University of Singapore, NUS Press, 1998. ### Engagements URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/engagements/ Last updated: 2026-06-18T14:08:23.000Z **Speaking Engagements:** Here is a summary of my past speaking engagements. You can always contact me if you are interested in engaging me to give a talk, moderate, or be part of a discussion panel or formal interview on a personal or corporate basis. ### **Speaking Engagements** ### **2026** - Moderator, "[The 100x Company: Rebuilding the Business Around AI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4beyIW%5Fi3RI&t=1671s&ref=bernardleong.com)", Super AI Conference, 11 June 2026 - Speaker, "Your AI Deployment is Moving Fast in the Wrong Direction", AI Context conference, 11 June 2026 - [梁忠伟：当智能不再稀缺，教育应培养什么？](https://www.zaobao.com.sg/forum/views/story20260507-9013594?utm%5Fsource=ios-share&utm%5Fmedium=app), 7 May 2026, Published in [Lianhe Zaobao](https://www.zaobao.com.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) based on [this article](https://www.bernardleong.com/when-answers-are-free-with-ai-what-is-education-for/). - Speaker, "AI in 2026: From Agentic AI to Harnesses", ST Engineering Digital Town Hall, , 21 May 2026\. - Speaker, "From AI Agents to Colleagues?", INSEAD Business School, 29 April 2026. - Keynote, "Beyond the Shadow: Mastering Governance for Agentic and Third Party AI" organized by Cranium AI and ISTARI, Singapore, 10 March 2026. - Panellist, Digital sovereignty and AI in Southeast Asia, [UBS OneASEAN Summit 2026](https://www.ubs.com/global/en/investment-bank/ib-conferences/apac/onesean-summit/overview.html?ref=bernardleong.com), 5 March 2026\. - Speaker, "Agentic AI Patterns in Architecture & Construction", Singapore Institute of Architects, 25 Feb 2026 ### **2025** - Speaker, YPO Philippines Gold, 17 Sep 2025, Manila Polo Club. - Speaker, "[Startups in the era of AI: What Changes & What Stays the Same](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lCTWL9AX2b1WShq5V1bUFRi9xNzYYPmj/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107153133178695040949&rtpof=true&sd=true&ref=bernardleong.com)", Super Return Conference 2025, 16 Sep 2025, Marina Bay Sands. - Panellist, "Can Southeast Asia founders build global-grade AI startups?", Deal Street Asia 10th Anniversary PE-VC Summit Conference, 11 Sep 2025, . - Speaker, "What Generative AI can and cannot do", DSO National Laboratories Learning Day with NUS, 25 July 2025\. - Podcast Guest, [How AI Is Reshaping Development, Business Models, and Startup Growth](https://youtu.be/QHZYnwP-VTk?si=TkzH9NNn1HUizet5&ref=bernardleong.com), BRAVE Southeast Asia Technology Podcast. - Panellist, [Risks and resilience in AI and digital trade](https://www.ciip.group.cam.ac.uk/risks-and-resilience-in-ai-and-digital-trade-workshop-held-in-singapore/?ref=bernardleong.com), organized by Cambridge Industrial Innovation Policy (CIIP) in partnership with UNIDO and Lloyd’s Register Foundation, 18 July 2025, 12-1 pm, Innovation 4.0 NUS. - Podcast Guest, [Building Dorje AI and what VCs get wrong about AI in emerging markets](https://kristieneo.substack.com/p/building-dorje-ai-and-what-vcs-get), The Upside Podcast, 29 May 2025\. - Speaker on Digital Transformation, CIO Milestone Program: CIO Leadership in the Digital Age, 25 March 2025 organized by GovTech & Digital Academy, GovTech Singapore. - Speaker on "How to build an AI-first Startup" in the "Technopreneurship: Enabling Innovation and a Start-up Ecosystem", 6 March 2025 organized by Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Singapore's Singapore Cooperation Programme. ### 2024 - Moderator, Momentum AI Reuters Conference in Dec 2024\. - Moderator, XA Network, Tech Titans Series: Interview with Henry Chan, CEO of Shopback, 14 Nov 2024. - Speaker, Urban Land Institute (ULI) Hong Kong, "AI, Real Estate and Beyond: What the paradigms shift in Gen AI and why real estate industry should know about.", Virtual Talk, 7 Nov 2024\. - Panellist, AI: Game Changer or Costing Us The Earth, GreenTech Festival Singapore, 22 Oct 2024\. - Podcast Guest, [AI GTM and change management for enterprises](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDg694CI8SU&ref=bernardleong.com), Fractional Podcast by Swarm AI. - Podcast Guest, [Demystifying AI: Simplifying Complex Terms for Everyday Use](https://youtu.be/1aMe-SgdcUw?si=OVIBbl%5FDw%5FWyDjZ6&ref=bernardleong.com), Techburst Talks with Charles Reed Anderson, 24 Sep 2024\. - Moderator, "*Generative AI: Governance, Innovation and Education*", 30 August 2024, NUS-ISS Learning Day 2024. - Keynote Speaker, *An Executive's Guide to Generative AI in Real Estate* for Urban Land Institute HK and Undivided Ventures on 4 June 2024, Hong Kong. - Moderator, [*Forget Killer Robots: Is AI already destroying our planet?*](https://youtu.be/rYHBybF0Sws?si=8d6ZFTNM7oj0U47p&ref=bernardleong.com) on Solutions Stage, 16 May 2024, 3.00-3.55 pm, [GreenTech Festival Berlin 2024](https://greentechfestival.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), Germany. - Panellist, [*AI for the Common Good*](https://youtu.be/LPEpZrPmzzI?si=0Kiue2IIG0u3SFj3&ref=bernardleong.com) on Main Stage, 16 May 2024, 1.30-2.00 pm, GreenTech Festival Berlin 2024, Germany. - Panellist Speaker, *AI for All: Harmonizing AI for Equitable Impact,* EEI 8th Global Electrification Forum (GEF), 18 April 2024, 1.20-2.00 pm US Eastern Time. - Podcast Guest, [*How this physicist became Fortune 500*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC1d48Rpv-g&ref=bernardleong.com) \- words of wisdom about business and life [](https://www.youtube.com/@yanatvsg?ref=bernardleong.com)in [Yana TV SG](https://www.youtube.com/@yanatvsg?ref=bernardleong.com), 5 April 2024 - Speaker, [*Simplify Your Business with AI*](https://www.iss.nus.edu.sg/community/events/event-details/2024/03/26/default-calendar/nus-iss-webinar-simplifying-your-business-with-ai?ref=bernardleong.com) for Institute of Systems Science - NUS, 26 March 2024. - Podcast Guest, [Bernard Leong: Disrupting ERP Systems](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0lzKm0PvX8&ref=bernardleong.com) \- E393, [](https://www.youtube.com/@JeremyAu?ref=bernardleong.com)BRAVE Southeast Asia Tech Podcast with Jeremy Au, 13 March 2024\. ### 2023 - Moderator for Panel "The Future of Southeast Asia's Startup Ecosystem", XA Network AGM 2023, 11 Dec 2023\. - Founders & Investors Connect in XA Network and Stashaway Event, Judge, 16 Nov 2023\. - "Decoding AI: Understanding its Potential and Limitations. Are we in the age where Androids dream of electric sheep?", Panellist, [Corenet Global \[Singapore Chapter\]](https://singapore.corenetglobal.org/home?ref=bernardleong.com), 2 Nov 2023\. - "Simplifying Your WorkLife with AI", Speaker, [Young Entrepreneur Network (Y.E.N)](https://yen.network/en/index.html?ref=bernardleong.com), "Innovate and Elevate" event, 28 Oct 2023\. - "Visioning 2030 Technologies and their Impact", Moderator, Institute of Systems Science Learning Festival, 20 Oct 2023. - [Tom Verrilli in conversation with Bernard Leong](https://schedule.sxswsydney.com/sessions/e5a0c509-0d36-5aaa-ab76-054891cacfe2?ref=bernardleong.com) of Analyse Asia in SXSW Sydney 2023, Podcast Stage, 18 Oct 2023 (YouTube Video, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Google Podcasts coming soon) #### 2022 - "What is Legacy Technology and how to manage them?" Learn, Unlearn and Relearn, Corenet Global Singapore Chapter, 22 July 2022. - "[How to think about Investing in Web3 & Crypto](https://www.dropbox.com/s/5swmew3qx9p9yfw/XA-Web3-Masterclass.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com)", [Insignia Partners Academy](https://www.insignia.academy/?ref=bernardleong.com), 4 May 2022\. - "Managing and Sustaining Innovation", Institute of System Science, Digital Transformation Leadership Class, 16 April 2022. - "[An Investor's Guide on Investing in Web3 & Crypto](https://www.dropbox.com/s/5swmew3qx9p9yfw/XA-Web3-Masterclass.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com)", 18 March 2022, Master Class for [XA network](https://xanetwork.co/?ref=bernardleong.com). #### 2021 - Fireside Chat for "Leadership in the Digital Age", CIO Milestone Program for CIOs for Singapore government by Institute of Systems Science, 1 Oct 2021\. - [AI x Gov Webinar](https://www.aixgov.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), “The Future of AI” panel, 27 July 2021. - AWS Webinar with Northbay in Pakistan, “AWS in retail and ecommerce with AI/ML”, 25 May 2021. - AWS ASEAN Summit 2021, “[Machine Learning in FSI: Hyperpersonalization](https://asean-resources.awscloud.com/aws-summit-online-asean-2021-financial-services/machine-learning-in-fsi-hyper-personalisation-l200-2?ref=bernardleong.com)” with DBS, 18 May 2021\. ([Youtube Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G27n1SAMbNE&ref=bernardleong.com)) - AWS Startup Chats on Clubhouse, ASEAN Startups: AI, Machine Learning and AWS, 7 April 2021. - AWS AI/ML ASEAN Week, “[Enhancing Customer Experience with Personalization](https://asean-resources.awscloud.com/asean-workshop-series-machine-learning-edition/enhancing-customer-experience-with-personalization-searce?ref=bernardleong.com)“, 23 March 2021. - AWS Innovate: The AI/ML Edition, 24 Feb 2021, “[Strategies to accelerate AIML at scale From idea to POC and achieve business outcomes](https://resources.awscloud.com/ai-and-machine-learning/part1-strategies-to-accelerate-aiml-at-scale-from-idea-to-poc-and-achieve-business-outcomes-level-100?ref=bernardleong.com)“. #### 2020 - APAC AI Conclave 2020 Webinar: Opening Remarks and Moderator: “How to build great AI/ML products”, 26 Nov 2020. - AWS Tech in Fashion Week ASEAN: [Create Real Time Personalized Experiences for Customers](https://asean-resources.awscloud.com/asean-webinar-series/hands-on-workshop-create-real-time-personalized-experiences-for-customers-2?ref=bernardleong.com) and [2021 Revealed AI Driven Fashion Predictions](https://asean-resources.awscloud.com/asean-webinar-series/2021-revealed-ai-driven-fashion-predictions-2?ref=bernardleong.com). - AWS ASEAN Artificial Intelligence Webinar: [Applications of Computer Vision from Safety to Security](https://asean-resources.awscloud.com/asean-webinar-series/applications-of-computer-vision-from-safety-to-security-2?ref=bernardleong.com), 20 Oct 2020, ASEAN. - AWS [AI/ML – The Technology Disruptor in Financial Services and Institutions (FSI)](https://asean-resources.awscloud.com/asean-webinar-series/aiml-the-technology-disruptor-in-financial-services?ref=bernardleong.com), 25 Sep 2020, ASEAN. - AWS ASEAN Artificial Intelligence Webinar: Leverage AI to detect Fraud, [Building Scalable Personalized Experiences with Amazon Personalize](https://asean-resources.awscloud.com/asean-webinar-series/building-scalable-personalized-customer-experiences-with-amazon-personalize-2?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Digital Transformation with Document Digitization](https://asean-resources.awscloud.com/asean-webinar-series/digital-transformation-with-document-digitization-2?ref=bernardleong.com), 13 August 2020, ASEAN #### 2019 - Podcast Guest on [Techburst Asia Episode 1: Future of Drones](http://charlesreedanderson.com/podcast/tba-001-bernard-leong-airbus-aerial/?ref=bernardleong.com). #### 2018 - Speaker and Panellist, “Future of Cargo Delivery with Drones”, Supply Chain Logistics Digital Trasnformation Forum 2018, 28-29 Nov Singapore. - Speaker and Panellist, NUS Engineering Industry Day, 21 Nov 2018. - Speaker, “Completing the Picture: How Aerial Intelligence transform disaster recovery and infrastructure inspections”, 15 Nov 2018, CoreNet Global Singapore Chapter Symposium, Singapore. - Panellist, “Developing a strategy to scale IoT from R&D, Proofs of Concept to wide scale applications”, 19 Sep 2018, IoT World Asia, Singapore. - Panellist, “How can startups and corporates partner together to bring new innovation to new markets”, Origin by Technode, 17 Sep 2018, Singapore. - Speaker, “Technologies of Tomorrow: Drones”, 12 Sep 2018, [World Economic Forum ASEAN 2018](https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-on-asean?ref=bernardleong.com), Hanoi, Vietnam. - Speaker, “Simplifying the Sky: Civilian applications of drones in critical infrastructure inspections and cargo delivery”, Taiwan Drone Forum, 14 June 2018. - Speaker, “Airbus Commercial Drones: Evolution from Platform OEM to Digital Service Providers”, EU-China Drones Workshop, 6 June 2018, Shenzhen, China. - Panellist, “[The Future of Mobility](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cdCVfrjfI&list=LL&index=77&ref=bernardleong.com)”, InnovFest Unbound 2018, Main Stage, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore on 5 June 2018. - Panellist, “Co-innovation and Collaboration to create New Revenue Streams”, FutureNow Stage, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore, 5 June 2018 - Speaker, “Simplifying the sky: Transforming Disaster Recover and Insurance with UAVs” at Startup Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand on 18 May 2018. - Speaker, “Simplifying the Sky: Transforming Disaster Recover and Insurance with UAVs” Civil Security Congress & Exposition, CIVSEC 2018, Melbourne, Australia, 3 May 2018. - Speaker, “Understanding from the World Above”, Drones Workshop: Getting the Future Ready organised by Singapore Insurance Institute, Singapore, 27 April 2018. - Panellist, “Live Better in Smart Cities empowered by AI”, School of Computing, National University of Singapore organised by Live with AI, 12 April 2018. - Speaker, “Autonomous Transportation and its implications”, IEEE 4th World Forum on Internet of Things, 6 Feb 2018. #### 2017 - Panellist, “[Book Night: Discussion on Ray Dalio’s Principles](https://greatowls.com/book-night-post-event/?ref=bernardleong.com)“. 22 Nov 2017 organized by Great Owls. - Panellist, “Drones: The future of AirFreight”, Payload Asia 2017, 11 Oct 2017. - Speaker, “Lessons from SingPost Innovation & Transformation Journey” in National Environment Agency (NEA) Innovation & Learning Fiesta conference, Singapore, 6 Sep 2017. - Panellist, “Future-Proofing your Tech Investments: Developing Right Infrastructure towards a Smart Nation”, Reimagine Yes Summit 2017 by HP Enterprise & Intel, 29 August 2017. - Speaker & Panellist, “Being in the forefront of Digital Transformation”, SMEICC & SME Expo 2017 by Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry (SCCCI), 17 August 2017. - Panellist, “Innovate to Survive”, ConnectGov 2017 Conference in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 6 July 2017. - Panellist, “[Digital Transformation in the spotlight](http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/hub/digital-disruption/digital-transformation-in-the-spotlight?ref=bernardleong.com)“, Business Times and NCS Business Roundtable, May 2017. - Speaker, “Bringing drones into the mix”, World Mail & Express Europe Conference 2017, 7 June 2017. - Speaker, “Enterprise Leaders: On Your Mark, Get Set, Go.”, Digital Talent Analytics at CommunicAsia 2017, 24 May 2017. - Panellist, “Singularity University – A Global Impact Challenge”, LEVEL 3, 14 March 2017. - Panellist, “E-commerce & big data – Innovation & the impact on competition”, GCR Live Singapore – 6th Annual Asia-Pacific Law Leaders Forum 2017, 3 March 2017 #### 2016 - Speaker, “Transformation of the Post Office & Mail Delivery”, Rotary Club Singapore West, 8 Dec 2016. - Speaker, “Re-Imagining the Post Office & Mail Delivery”, Pecha Kucha Rojak Digital, National Art Gallery Singapore, 2 Dec 2016. - Speaker, “How to execute Digital Transformation”, Daimier Financial Services Leadership Conference, 8 Nov 2016. - Panellist, “IP & Competition Issues in Flow & Transfer of Data” in “Navigating IP & Competition Laws in the Digital Economy” conference organised by IPOS, Maxwell Chambers, 18 Oct 2016. - Speaker, “Transforming the Post Office and Mail Delivery: The SingPost Story”, CIO Academy Digital Transformation Event, 5 October 2016. - Speaker and Panellist, “Last Mile Distribution”, BopHub World Convention, Singapore, 22 Sep 2016. - Speaker, “SingPost Alpha & the future of Drone Delivery”, Post Expo 2016, Hong Kong, 25 May 2016. - Speaker, “Transforming into a Smarter Customer-Centric Enterprise”, 5th Annual Enterprise Innovation CXO Forum 2016, 14 April 2016 - Panellist, “The Future of Personalization: Delivering the Right Experience in the Right Context”, 5th Annual Enterprise Innovation CXO Forum 2016, 13 April 2016. - Panellist, “Pathways to Value for IoT – Tests and Challenges for Innovation”, IOT Asia, 31 March 2016. - Panellist, “Understanding what makes SEA users unique”, Google Think Publishing 2016 Singapore, 22 March 2016. - Speaker, “Rethinking Drone Delivery with Open Source”, [FOSS Asia 2016](http://2016.fossasia.org/?ref=bernardleong.com), 18 March 2016. - Speaker, “Driving Successful Digitisation: From Traditional to Postal Digital Mail,” The Journey to Digital Transformation Event organised by SingPost, 17 March 2016. - Panellist, ‘Economics of Happiness: Bosses, Productivity and Job Satisfaction’ the British Council Singapore, 14 March 2016. - Speaker, “SingPost Digital Transformation: From Post Office to Traditional Mail”, IDC Asia Financial Services Congress 2016, 4 March 2016. - Panelist, “Technology and Innovations Panel Discussion: Staying Ahead of The Curve”, Last Mile Fulfilment Asia Conference, 3 March 2016. - Speaker, “SingPost Alpha and the future of drone delivery”, ASCENT Series by Supply Chain Special Interest Group in Singapore Computer Society, 27 Jan 2016. #### 2015 - Speaker, “Defining digital transformation for your business to enable you to make the right changes into a customer-centric organisation”, Digital Disruption Asia Summit 2015, 2 Dec 2015. - Panellist, Internet of Things, France-Singapore Innovation Summit, 13 Nov 2015. - Speaker, “SingPost Alpha and the Future of Drone Delivery”, [IDC’s Asia Pacific Internet of Things and Big Data Analytics Conference 2015](http://www.ap.idc.asia/events/view/agenda/?event%5Fid=584&loc%5Fid=1114&ref=bernardleong.com), 22 Oct 2015. - Moderator, “Singapore as Asia’s Startup Node” Panel, Asia Recon in muru-D Singapore, 5 Sep 2015. - “Thinking Big Data in a Digital Transformation Age”, Paypal Fintech XChange, 2 Sep 2015. - “Focus on the customer: The SingPost journey”, the Customer Experience Imperative hosted by Olswang and Forrester, 16 July 2015. - “How to build the RIGHT product & not the NEW product”, JFDI.Asia, 29 May 2015. - Speaker, “Fireside Chat: Building a Mobility Strategy for SingPost’s customers”, Enterprise Mobility conference 2015 organised by IDC, 16 April 2015. - Panellist, “Alumni Advocates: 2020 Productivity Grand Challenge”, organized by The British High Commission and British Council, 9 March 2015. #### 2014 - Panellist, “Building tech companies in Singapore – what’s the way forward?”, TechVenture Conference 2014, 24 Sep 2014. - Judge, [BattleHack 2014](https://2014.battlehack.org/singapore?ref=bernardleong.com#register) Singapore organized by Paypal and Braintree, 14 Sep 2014. - Speaker, “[Living Digitally](http://www.slideshare.net/bleongcw/living-digitally-39044225?ref=bernardleong.com)“, Who’s Looking? Surf & Turf Exhibition Panel Discussion “Connecting People in the Post-Internet World: How are technologies and networks changing social behaviour?”, 13 Sep 2014. #### 2013 - Keynote speaker, [You are a startup, then what?](http://www.slideshare.net/bleongcw/you-are-a-startup-then-what?ref=bernardleong.com), Nanyang Polytechnic, 19 Nov 2013. - Speaker, [New is Easy but Right is Hard: Hacking Product Management](https://www.bernardleong.com/2013/11/15/new-is-easy-but-right-is-hard-hacking-product-management/), Hackers & Painters, Blk 71, 15 Nov 2013. - Speaker, [Minimum Viable Product](https://www.bernardleong.com/2013/09/30/minimum-viable-product/), Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), 27 Sep 2013 - Speaker, [The Signal and the Noise](https://www.bernardleong.com/2013/10/02/the-signal-the-noise-pr-marketing-startups/), JFDI Asia, 19 Sep 2013 - Speaker, [A Modern Approach to Customer Development](http://www.slideshare.net/bleongcw/a-modern-approach-to-customer?ref=bernardleong.com), Nanyang Technopreneurship Centre for summer school between Nanyang Technological University & Chonnam University, Korea, 18 June 2013 - Moderator, Fireside chat with [Jason Sew Hoy](http://www.twitter.com/jsewhoy?ref=bernardleong.com) ([99Designs.com](http://www.99designs.com/?ref=bernardleong.com)), Startup Grind Singapore, 7 June 2013. - Moderator, “[Business Models Design for Digital Platforms & Marketplaces](http://e27.co/2013/06/04/scaling-digital-businesses-despite-varying-regulations-and-cultures/?ref=bernardleong.com)“, Echelon 2013 Conference, 4 June 2013. - Speaker, “[Lies, Damned Lies & Vanity Metrics](http://www.slideshare.net/bleongcw/lies-damned-lies-vanity-metrics?ref=bernardleong.com)“, JFDI Asia, 8 May 2013 - Keynote Speaker for Institution of Engineers Singapore (IES) 2013 Design Awards, [Start From the User](http://www.slideshare.net/bleongcw/start-fromtheuser?ref=bernardleong.com), 23 March 2013. #### 2012 - Speaker, [Startup Grind Singapore](http://www.meetup.com/Startup-Grind-Singapore/events/90096512/?ref=bernardleong.com), 6 Dec 2012. - Speaker, “[Mobile or Web First?](http://www.slideshare.net/bleongcw/mobile-or-web-first-15075586?ref=bernardleong.com)“, Singapore Computer Society, IDM Chapter, 7 Nov 2012. - Panelist, “How to be a Kick Ass CTO”, [FailCon Singapore](http://singapore.thefailcon.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) 2012, 15 Oct 2012. - Speaker, [That Thing You Forget to Do: Lessons in Product Development, Management & Marketing](http://www.slideshare.net/bleongcw/that-thing-you-forget-to-do-lessons-in-product-development-management-marketing?ref=bernardleong.com), [JFDI.Asia](http://jfdi.asia/?ref=bernardleong.com). 1 March 2012\. The presentation has been broken into a three-part series in [SGEntrepreneurs](http://www.sgentrepreneurs.com/?ref=bernardleong.com): [Part 1: Product Development](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/toolkit/2012/03/04/that-thing-you-forget-to-do-part-1-product-development/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Part 2: Product Marketing](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/toolkit/2012/03/09/that-thing-you-forget-to-do-part-2-product-marketing/?ref=bernardleong.com) & [Part 3: Product Management](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/innovation-technology/2012/03/15/that-thing-you-forget-to-do-part-3-product-management/?ref=bernardleong.com). - Speaker, [Internet Trends & Entrepreneurship in Southeast Asia](http://www.penn-olson.com/2012/02/04/arena/?ref=bernardleong.com), [TechInAsia](http://techinasia.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) (Penn-Olson) Startup Asia Entrepreneurs-Investors Meetup, 4 Feb 2012. - Panellist, “[Starting Up in Singapore: The Good & The Bad](http://www.penn-olson.com/2012/02/02/discussion-panel-starting-up-in-singapore-the-good-and-the-bad-liveblog/?ref=bernardleong.com)“, Penn-Olson Startup Asia conference, 2 Feb 2012. #### 2011 - Panellist, “Tech Strategies: How to Cross the Chasm”, The ideas.inc. Start-Up Conference, 15 Oct 2011. - Speaker, INSEAD Business Plan Class, 14 Sep 2011. - Speaker, “A Ring to Bind Them All?” (A Guide on searching for an engagement diamond ring) & “Building and Managing Tech Teams in Asia: The Tech Conundrum”, Barcamp Singapore 7, 10 Sep 2011. - Panelist, “Mobile Social Commerce & Location Based Services”, Social Media World Forum Asia, 2 Sep 2011, Singapore. - Speaker, Rotary Youth Social Entrepreneurship Challenge (RYSEC), 6 August 2011, Singapore. - Speaker, “The Future of Location-Based Advertising Technology”, Smart Mobility @ CommunicaAsia 2011, 23 June 2011, Singapore. - Panelist, How does new tech affect payments at brick and mortar businesses?, 17 June 2011, Echelon 2011, Singapore. - Speaker, Linkedin Media Lunch and Influencer Engagement Session, 31 May 2011, Singapore. - Speaker, The New Media Asia Conference 2011, 11-13 May 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. - Speaker, Start-up Weekend 2, Microsoft Auditorium, “3 Things about Product Development”, 30 April 2011. - Speaker, Rotary Club Tanglin Club, “Building a Mobile-Web startup: The 2011 Way”, 25 April 2011. - Speaker, Rotary Club Suntec City, “Why Mobile Matters & How to Take Advantage of It”, 21 Jan 2011. - Speaker, HDB ICT Seminar 2011, “Why Mobile Matters & How to Take Advantage of It”, 20 Jan 2011. - Panellist, BizAsia 2010/2011 Opening Ceremony, “Global Trends – Emerging Markets & Their relevance to Youth Entrepreneurship”, 19 Jan 2011. #### 2010 - Judge, 21st INSEAD Business Venture Competition Finals, 8 Dec 2010. - Delegate, Asia 21 Summit, “Unity in Diversity: Responsible Leadership in the Asia Pacific”, 3-5 Dec 2010. - Panellist, “Ensuring the Future of the Internet”, INET Singapore 2010: The Internet – Past, Present & Future, 18 Nov 2010. - Panellist, “Digital Marketing: Ad Networks”, Accelerate Conference, 22-23 Sep 2010 - Speaker, BlinkBl-nk, “A Universe Less Ordinary”, 15 Sep 2010 - Speaker, GeekCamp 2010, “A Poor Man’s Guide to Biocomputing”, 4 Sep 2010. - Speaker, Ascendas Lunch Time Talk Series: Emerging Trends of the Mobile Ecosystem, Ascendas Singapore, 24 August 2010. - Speaker, Open Web Asia – Southeast Asia, Kuala Lumpur, 13-14 July 2010. - Chair, International Communication Association (ICA) Conference 2010, Singapore, “States of Play: Social Media & Interpersonal Communication in Southeast Asia”, 26 June 2010. - Panelist, “Mobile Applications: The State of Play”, Echelon 2010, 1-2 June 2010. - Panelist, “Can ASEAN be the next Silicon Valley?”, ASEANpreneurs Day 2010, 26 May 2010 - Panelist, “Location Based Services, Face Recognition and Augmented Reality”, Samsung Bada Developer Event, 21 May 2010. - Speaker, “A Brave New World” on web/tech innovations, Republic Polytechnic, 20 May 2010 - Speaker, “Up-and-Coming New Infocomm Innovations”, in Parenting in New Infocomm Age seminar, organized by IDA, NTUC, NLB and Tampines Community Club, 20 March 2010. - Guest on FM938 Live “The Living Room” with Pamela Ho on “Latest Trends in Social Media”, 15 March 2010 - Panellist on FM938 Live “Campus” on Social Networking Trends, 12 March 2010 - Panellist, “Considerations for Applying Social Media Marketing in Asia”, Social Media Marketing Conference by Pacific Conferences, 2 Feb 2010. - Guest Speaker, “Three Tales for Social Networks”, #comm215 class “Digital Media Across Asia” by Professor Netzley, 27 Jan 2010. #### 2009 - “Building Online Communities for Non-Profit Organizations: Kiva and Oxfam”, Barcamp Singapore 4, 21 Nov 2009 - Speaker on “The Chronicles of a Mobile-Web Economy” and Panellist, 16th Infocomm and Media Horizons Conference, Institute of Infocomm Research, A-STAR, 7 Oct 2009 - Panelist, Social Networking Forum Asia, Panellist on “Monetising and developing the strategic relationship with operator and publisher”, 22-23 Sep 2009. - Speaker, Executive Summary Workshop, NTU Ideas Inc Business Competition, Sep – Nov 2009 - Lecturer, “Building Online Communities: Marketing, Business Strategies and Trends” (in Chinese), NTU Nanyang University for MSc TIP (Chinese) Programme, 4 Sep. - Speaker, “Thoughts on Social Networking from Offline to Online”, TEDx Sentosa, 11 July. - Moderator on Panel “Budgeting for Innovation/Experimental Marketing”, Ad-Tech Singapore, 9-10 June. - Invited by Nokia to attend Nokia N97 and Ovi Store Launch, Kuala Lumpur. - Speaker, “Self-Organization, Economics and Football Managers”, TEDx Kuala Lumpur, 3 June. - “Much Ado about Social Networks in Asia”, a talk and breakout session in Unconference 2009, Biopolis, Singapore. - Invited by Nokia to attend Nokia Developer Summit 2009 in Monte Carlo. - “The Importance of Being Social – a talk about social networks”, Barcamp Kuala Lumpur 2009, Inti College, Subang Jaya 3-5 April. - “The Undercover Technologist – new ideas in social networks and voice recognition”, Barcamp Singapore, 28 Feb. #### 2008 - Guest Lecture for CS4260: E-Commerce Business Models, NUS School of Computing 19 Feb 2008, “From the Lab to the Web: Web 2.0, Online Social Networks and Virtual Worlds”. - Challenges & Opportunities in Interactive & Digital Media Investments, organized by Singapore Venture Capital & Private Equity Association, April 2008. - Singapore Facebook Developers’ Garage: Marketing and Monetization of FB Apps: Hype or Gold Mine?, Microsoft Singapore, March 2008. ## ### Press & Mentions URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/press-mentions/ Last updated: 2023-10-22T07:52:11.000Z - “Four honoured for IT Contributions”, Business Times, 8 March 2010. - “Securing an $800,000 change”, Straits Times, Digital Desk, 8 March 2010. - [“Seeking out that Niche Market](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/wordpress/2010/06/APDay2010%5FBiztimes.jpg?ref=bernardleong.com)“, Business Times, 1st June 2010 - “[Can Asean be the next Silicon Valley](http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100601-0000211/Can-Asean-be-the-next-Silicon-Valley??ref=bernardleong.com)?”, Today, 2 June 2010\. - “Local Start-ups eye Overseas Market” by Grace Chng, Straits Times Digital Life, 5 Jan 2011\. - Mobile Advertising – Chalkboard, Channel 8, 23 Jan 2011\. - [The Asian Scientist Spotlight: Dr. Bernard Leong, Chalkboard Co-Founder & CTO](http://www.asianscientist.com/features/bernard-leong-cofounder-cto-chalkboard-neoteny/?ref=bernardleong.com), 22 August 2011 - [Taking mom ‘n pop’s Chalkboard online, Globe and Mail](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-new-pioneers/taking-mom-n-pops-chalkboard-online/article2163306/page1/?ref=bernardleong.com), 12 Sep 2011 ### Teaching URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/teaching/ Last updated: 2025-07-23T11:21:31.000Z I have taught subjects from physical sciences to business and management occasionally. I may attach my teaching notes here for those wanting to learn something new. If you are keen to engage me for paid corporate workshops and adjunct teaching, you can contact me directly via LinkedIn. ### Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning **Corporate Business Workshops for Generative AI** with NUS Business School and Institute Systems Science: UAE Government and Majid Al-Futtaim Group in Dubai, iPeople Group in Philippines, InJourney in Indonesia. [**Custom Generative AI systems for Enterprises**](https://www.iss.nus.edu.sg/executive-education/course/detail/custom-generative-ai-systems-for---enterprises/artificial-intelligence?ref=bernardleong.com)under the Institute of Systems Science from Jan 2025 onwards. It is a technical course specifically on Large Language Models: Transformer Architectures, fine-tuning models, retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and agentic AI. [**Generative AI for Business and Government Leaders**](https://www.iss.nus.edu.sg/executive-education/course/detail/generative-ai-for-business-leaders-%28or-government-leaders%29/artificial-intelligence?ref=bernardleong.com)under the Institute of Systems Science from 2024 onwards. I have taught corporate classes for different government agencies in Singapore (Ministry of Communications and Information, ACRA, Home Team Singapore), senior business leaders from the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII, India), [Ayala Group](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/iss%5Fnus%5Fnusiss-acceleratingdigitalexcellence-activity-7312730540904722433-NZpd?utm%5Fsource=share&utm%5Fmedium=member%5Fdesktop&rcm=ACoAAAAD8Z4BmAMIpxy56%5F-NHggeKacWFmpXdPM) (Philippines) and multinational companies. [**(Generative) AI to Supercharge Products & Workflows**](https://www.iss.nus.edu.sg/executive-education/course/detail/%28generative%29-ai-to-supercharge-products-workflows/artificial-intelligence?ref=bernardleong.com)under the Institute of Systems Science. I have taught corporate classes for different government agencies in Singapore (Home Team X, ACRA, Ministry of Communications and Information, National Tourism Board, Ministry of Education, Sentosa Corporation) and multinational companies (Visa, NCS Group, ST Engineering). ### Digital Strategy & Transformation **BMS5121S: Digital Transformation and Strategy** \- Taught 2 semesters in NUS Business School under the Strategy & Policy Department for FY 2022-2023 (Jan-Apr 2023), 2023-2024 (Jan-Apr 2024) and upcoming 2024-2025 (Jan-Apr 2024). **BMS5121:** Digital Transformation: Planning and Management for Masters in Management, NUS Business School under the Strategy & Policy Department from August 2024 to November 2024\. ### Entrepreneurship **MPS 812: Entrepreneurship –** Taught in the School of Physical & Mathematical Sciences, Nanyang Technological University from 2011-2014. - [Entrepreneurship 1: Introduction, Identifying Ideas & Business Opportunities](https://www.bernardleong.com/2011/08/07/entrepreneurship-1-introduction-identifying-ideas-business-opportunities/) - [Entrepreneurship 2: Executive Summary & Business Plan](https://www.bernardleong.com/2011/08/12/entrepreneurship-2-executive-summary-business-plan/) - [Entrepreneurship 3: Marketing Plan, Strategies, Distribution & Channels](https://www.bernardleong.com/2011/08/27/entrepreneur-3-marketing-plan-strategies-distribution-and-channels/) - [Entrepreneurship 4: Business & Rapid Growth Strategies](https://www.bernardleong.com/2011/08/31/entrepreneurship-4-business-rapid-growth-strategies/) ### Mathematics - [**Probability Teasers You wish that you have the answer**](https://www.dropbox.com/s/zfgb5yngwtds7zi/probability-bl.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com)**:** This is a compilation of some probability problems which have baffled me for ages. V1.0 contains the birthday pairings problem, Buffon’s needle, and Eddington’s Controversy. I will gradually update this article with more examples. - [**1st Year Mathematics for Natural Sciences**](https://www.dropbox.com/s/zbuu3dwri4249gj/mathphy.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com) Here are some notes in mathematical physics that concentrates on Vector Analysis, Lagrangian multipliers, and Coordinate systems. In postscript or pdf format. This set of notes is used to guide my first-year students who are doing Mathematics for Natural Sciences Tripos at Cambridge University. ### Physics I have enjoyed teaching physics in the past few years and particularly enjoyed teaching the topics in physics which interest me most. In the process of teaching, I have met interesting and enthusiastic students, who always come back to have a good and refreshing discussion on interesting problems and ideas in physics. Relativity remains to be my favourite teaching subject, both special and general. - [**Black Holes in Higher Dimensions**](https://www.dropbox.com/s/lrn2782rh5l76qy/essay.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com)**:** The essay which I submitted for my Part III Mathematical Tripos examinations for 1998/1999, under the supervision of Professor Gary Gibbons in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics. In the essay, I review the various kinds of higher dimensional black hole solutions in classical general relativity, Kaluza-Klein gravity, and String/M-theory and the issues which would relate these solutions to the search for quantum gravity. - **General Relativity: Problems and Solutions:** The problems and solutions to the 4th year course (or Part III in Cambridge Physics Tripos) in Cavendish Laboratory. This course is taught by Dr. Mike Hobson from the years 2001 to 2003 and I have supervised this course for the past four years. There are three problems and solution sets in postscript format: [problem set 1](https://www.dropbox.com/s/l6f1dm7w7nmx87p/gr%5Fexamples1.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com), [solution set 1](https://www.dropbox.com/s/m42xv8uw913p1l9/grsup1.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com), [problem set 2](https://www.dropbox.com/s/8qcnojbyc52x33c/gr%5Fexamples2.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com), [solution set 2](https://www.dropbox.com/s/q9un68vp1umu5kr/grsup2.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com), [problem set 3, ](https://www.dropbox.com/s/up5k4hgd5viiouq/gr%5Fexamples3.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com)and [solution set 3](https://www.dropbox.com/s/920hq8ohyhyso9h/grsup3.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com). - [**Electrodynamics and Special Relativity**](https://www.dropbox.com/s/2pnut0ne4vatg64/edysr.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com): The problems and solutions to the 3rd year course (or Part II in Cambridge Physics Tripos) in Cavendish Laboratory. The course focuses on the study of spacetime diagrams in special relativity, basic electrodynamics, and the relationship between electrodynamics and special relativity. - [**Summary of First-Year Physics**](https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdwpx48hq77fc3n/year.pdf?dl=0&ref=bernardleong.com)**:** I have summarized the notes for the first-year Cambridge students studying physics. It consists of mechanics, electromagnetism, and modern physics. ### Executive AI Education & Enterprise Advisory URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/corporate-offerings/ Last updated: 2025-08-03T02:02:26.000Z I provide AI Strategy and Executive Training from Leaders. Empowering boards and leadership teams to leverage Generative AI responsibly and effectively. Our services include: - **Executive AI Workshops**: Tailored for senior teams to understand, apply, and scale AI. - **Strategic Advisory**: Build AI roadmaps that align with business priorities. - **Implementation Oversight**: Ensure enterprise-grade systems deliver measurable impact. ### Home Hero URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/home-hero/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T02:34:14.000Z ### Bernard Leong | AI Strategy - Educate, Advise and Build Transforming Generative AI from Theory to Execution AI strategy, enterprise-grade implementations, and executive education for global leaders [Subscribe](#/portal/signup/free) ### Subscribe URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/subscribe/ Last updated: 2026-06-07T23:45:39.000Z Get essays on AI strategy, technology, education, and the systems shaping business and society. ### Writing URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/writing/ Last updated: 2026-06-07T23:48:16.000Z A collection of essays and notes on the ideas shaping technology, business, education, and society. ### Newsletter URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/newsletter/ Last updated: 2026-06-07T23:53:21.000Z Browse previous newsletter issues and updates. ### Books URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/books/ Last updated: 2026-06-07T23:55:20.000Z A home for book-length projects, chapters, and structured collections of writing. ### Hi I am Bernard Leong URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/home-about/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T02:36:36.000Z **Hi, I’m Bernard Leong.** I help leaders and organizations move generative AI from possibility to practice. My work combines technology, business strategy, and systems thinking — translating fast-moving AI capabilities into practical decisions, operating models, and enterprise-scale implementation. Across startups, corporations, governments, and universities, I’ve seen that the real challenge with AI is rarely the model alone. It is the system around it: the workflows, incentives, governance, data, talent, and leadership choices that determine whether AI becomes a productivity tool, a strategic advantage, or another stalled transformation initiative. This website brings together my work on that frontier — books, essays, podcast conversations, executive education, and field notes from helping organizations adopt AI. You can explore the writing archive, learn about my engagements, or subscribe for reflections on generative AI, enterprise transformation, and the operating systems of the future. [*Find out more about me*](https://www.bernardleong.com/biography-about-bernard-leong/) ## Posts ### Pragmatic Idealism URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/pragmatic-idealism-book/ Last updated: 2026-06-19T06:19:08.000Z A Collection of Reflections, Principles and Thoughts in my lifetime by Bernard Leong. Here are the essays which I will compile into a book: - [The Privilege of a Lifetime is to Be Yourself](https://www.bernardleong.com/the-privilege-of-a-lifetime-is-to-be-yourself/) - [Index while Read](https://www.bernardleong.com/index-while-read/) - [How I think](https://www.bernardleong.com/how-i-think/) - [How I read](https://www.bernardleong.com/how-i-read/) - [How I write](https://www.bernardleong.com/how-i-write/) ### Safety by Subtraction: Why Anyone Serious About AI Agents Should Write Their Own Software URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/safety-by-subtraction-why-anyone-serious-about-ai-agents-should-write-their-own-software/ Last updated: 2026-06-17T00:32:18.000Z What building a Slack-driven agent for my own publishing system taught me about where the real engineering in agentic AI actually lives. Last month I gave an external AI agent the keys to a production system I run every day, and the most important line of code I wrote was the one I didn't write. --- ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/06/Dongpo_Fig5_What-Is-Dongpo.jpg) The system is called Dongpo named after a famous Chinese poet, [Su Shi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su%5FShi?ref=bernardleong.com) in the Song Dynasty. It is the social-media publishing pipeline behind the [Analyse Podcast](https://analysepodcast.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) — it drafts posts with an LLM, queues them for human approval, schedules them, and publishes to seven platforms. It already had a dashboard, a REST API, and a database. I wanted to know one thing: could an off-the-shelf agent run this from Slack without being handed the keys to the kingdom? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/06/Screenshot-2026-06-15-at-13.10.48.png) The Dongpo mobile responsive app in a glance The answer is yes. But the part that mattered was not the agent being clever. It was the plumbing and the guardrails — and what they taught me about a claim I now hold with some conviction: anyone serious about AI agents should write their own software. I made that case on stage last week at AI Context 2026, in a talk titled *Your AI Deployment Is Moving Fast in the Wrong Direction* (11 June 2026). This is the basis on how my team is building on an enterprise product for customers to control their AI agents. What follows is the build behind the argument — the engineer's version, with the code left in. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/06/Screenshot-2026-06-15-at-13.12.51.png) Using Jonathan, the AI agent to perform actions on Dongpo Not "buy an agent." Not "prompt an agent." Write the software the agent runs inside. Because the agent's intelligence turned out to be the cheapest, most interchangeable component in the entire system. Everything that made it safe, attributable, and useful was ordinary engineering — the discipline of deciding what a piece of software is allowed to do, and then making the forbidden thing physically unavailable. ## The thesis: capability boundaries beat prompt boundaries, every time Here is the central design decision. The agent can draft a post. It can approve a post. It can schedule one, and it can reject one. It cannot publish. Not "it has been instructed not to publish." Not "the system prompt strongly discourages publishing." It *cannot* publish, because there is no `publish` tool in its toolbox. The function does not exist in the surface it can call. You cannot jailbreak your way past a tool that was never shipped. No clever prompt, no role-play, no "ignore previous instructions" reaches an endpoint the agent has no handle to. This is the difference between a guardrail and a wall. **A guardrail is advisory — a string in a prompt that a sufficiently creative input can talk around. A wall is structural — a capability that simply isn't in the set.** Most of the industry is still arguing about how to write better guardrails. The more durable move is to design the capability surface so the dangerous actions aren't in it. If you have read my earlier piece, [*When Code Gets Cheap, Judgment Gets Expensive*](https://www.bernardleong.com/when-code-gets-cheap-judgment-gets-expensive-the-story-of-building-arrakis-engine/), this is the same argument from the other end. There I claimed that as models make code generation nearly free, the scarce skill becomes judgment — knowing what to build and what not to ship. The Dongpo build is that thesis rendered in Python. The model was the easy 80%. The judgment — which tools exist, who the agent is, what gets logged — was the expensive 20%, and it was all software I had to write. ## What I actually built The architecture is deliberately boring, which is the point. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/06/Dongpo_Fig0_Agent-Architecture.jpg) [OpenClaw](https://openclaw.ai/?ref=bernardleong.com) is an off-the-shelf, open-source agent runtime — its own LLM, its own Slack channel, its own scheduler. I did not modify it. It runs on a single EC2 host I named Jonathan. Between OpenClaw and my product sits the only thing I wrote for this integration: the Dongpo MCP server. It is roughly 300 lines of Python, living in the product repo, exposing seven typed tools over MCP's stdio transport. Each tool is a thin wrapper over a REST endpoint Dongpo already had. That is the entire integration surface. Seven functions. `draft_from_text` calls `POST /posts`. `approve_post` calls `POST /posts/{id}/approve`. And so on. There is no business logic in the agent layer — none. The product stays the source of truth; the MCP server is a translation layer between the agent's intent and the API that already existed. The agent has no AWS credentials and no database access. It reaches the product only through the public API, authenticating as a Cognito user in an "agent" group via standard `USER_PASSWORD_AUTH` — exactly like any scripted integration a contractor might write. The EC2 host can read its own secrets and nothing else: no DynamoDB, no S3, no SQS. The agent is a *user* of my product, scoped by the authorization I already had, not a privileged backdoor wired into the internals. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/06/aws-architecture-dongpo-final.png) Dongpo and Jonathan (AI agent powered by OpenClaw & EC2) in an architecture diagram There are two ways to drive it. *Pull*: I @-mention the agent in Slack and its LLM picks the right tools. *Push*: a separate Slack approval bot posts every new draft as an Approve / Reject / Schedule card, and I clear the queue with one click each. Same tool surface, two ergonomics. ## Ten things that broke, and what each one taught me ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/06/Dongpo_Fig4_Ten-Learnings.jpg) The architecture diagram took an afternoon. The list below took the rest of the time. Every item is a real failure, not a hypothetical, and each one points at where the engineering in agentic systems actually lives. **1\. Wrap, don't rebuild.** The tools map one-to-one onto endpoints that already existed. The temptation — and I felt it — is to let the agent layer "improve" things, add a little logic, reshape a response. Resist it. If your product has an API, the MCP server is a translation layer, not a second home for business rules. Keep it dumb. The product stays the single source of truth, and your agent integration stays a few hundred lines you can read in one sitting. **2\. The strongest guardrail is the tool that doesn't exist.** I have already made this point, so I will only add the operational version: decide the forbidden action *first*, before you write a single tool, and then simply do not ship it. "The agent must never publish without me" became a one-line architectural fact — there is no publish tool — instead of an ongoing prompt-engineering arms race. The safest capability is the one that was never in the set. **3\. Tag every agent action.** The moment an agent can mutate state, you need attribution. I added one field — `actor_kind`, either `human` or `agent` — and a "via agent" pill in the dashboard. That single field is now the most valuable line in the schema for trust and for debugging. When something looks wrong, the first question is always "did I do this, or did it?" Build the answer in on day one; retrofitting provenance after the fact is miserable. **4\. The agent is a user, not a backdoor.** Because it logs in through the same Cognito flow as everyone else, every existing authorization rule applies to it for free. I did not invent a new permission model for "the AI." I reused the one I had and put the agent inside it. This is the cheapest security win available, and most teams skip it because granting the agent direct database access feels faster. It is faster, right up until it isn't. **5\. The Socket Mode trap.** I tried to run two agents off one Slack app. Button clicks started landing in the wrong process. The cause: Slack load-balances interactivity events across *all* of an app's open Socket Mode connections, so a click meant for the approval bot could be delivered to the other consumer. The fix was a dedicated Slack app for the bot. The lesson generalizes — when two consumers attach to the same realtime channel, learn how the platform fans out events *before* you design around it. "Obvious" sharing is often quietly unsafe. **6\. The model's defaults will fight you.** My A/B draft generation started silently dropping platforms — returning zero characters for some short-copy variants. The cause was specific and instructive: GPT-5 spends invisible reasoning tokens before any visible output, and on very short generations the reasoning budget consumed the entire allowance, leaving nothing for the actual copy. The fix was `reasoning_effort="none"` for short tasks, plus per-task model selection — cheap `claude haiku or chatgpt 4.1 mini` for the agent's drafts, a premium model only where the dashboard needs it. Newer is not drop-in. Profile the model against *your* task shape, not the benchmark's. **7\. Design for how humans actually click.** Clicking **Schedule** on a fresh draft failed with "approve it first," and clicking any button hid the others — so Schedule was effectively unusable. Nobody approves and then comes back later to schedule; in the user's head, scheduling *implies* approval. I made Schedule approve-then-schedule in one action. Map tool semantics to the user's intent, not to your internal state machine. Then watch a real person click before you call it done. **8\. Separate pure logic from transport.** The Block-Kit building, the action parsing, the dispatch — I wrote all of it as pure functions, with I/O only at the edges. When the Socket Mode problem (see #5) forced me to rip out HTTP and rewire the transport, the core logic and its tests never moved. You *will* get the transport wrong at least once in an agent system. Keeping the testable core transport-agnostic is what lets you survive that without a rewrite. **9\. Platforms lie about their own state.** The Facebook integration "should have worked" — the Page was granted — but `GET /me/accounts` returned empty. Meta's granular permissions don't surface Pages there anymore; you have to read `granular_scopes[*].target_ids` from `/debug_token`. The general rule: when an integration should work but returns empty, suspect that the platform's data model changed under you, not that your code is wrong. The vendor's API is a moving target you don't control. **10\. The last mile is ops, not code.** Going live was blocked by, in order: SSH locked to a stale IP, an EC2 box that wasn't registered in Session Manager, IAM eventual-consistency, and a hand-generated Slack app-level token. None of it was AI. All of it was the boring plumbing that decides whether a working demo becomes a running system. The agent was the easy 80%. The unglamorous 20% — auth, transport, provenance, deployment — is where the demo quietly dies. ## Why this means you should write your own software Read that list again and notice what is missing: prompt engineering. Almost nothing on it is about making the model smarter. It is about deciding what the model is allowed to touch, who it is when it acts, what gets recorded, and how the pieces talk to each other. That is software engineering. It is the part you cannot outsource to a model or buy off a shelf, because it encodes *your* judgment about *your* system's blast radius. This is why I distrust the "just add an agent" product category. The dangerous version of agentic AI is the one where the agent is handed broad credentials and a long list of capabilities, and safety is a paragraph in a system prompt. The safe version is the one where someone sat down and wrote the thin layer that makes the agent a scoped user of an existing product — and deliberately left the loaded gun off the table. The strength of the agentic flow, then, is real but narrow: an LLM is a genuinely good controller for a well-designed tool surface. Give it seven typed tools that map cleanly to a real API, and it will orchestrate them from natural language better than any menu I could build. The limitation is the mirror image: the agent is only ever as safe and as competent as the surface you expose to it. It has no judgment about what it *should not* do. That judgment has to be compiled into the shape of the software — into which tools exist and which never get written. > Anyone who is serious about AI agents should really build their software. So if you are serious about agents, the question is not "which agent should I buy." It is "what is my product's capability surface, who is the agent inside my authorization model, and what is the one action I will make structurally impossible." Answer those, and you are doing the real work. Skip them, and you have shipped a guardrail where you needed a wall. The most important tool in my agent's toolbox is the one I never built. What is the tool you most need to leave out of yours — and are you brave enough to ship without it? ### Resources: \[1\] I wrote a version of this post for board of directors and c-suite executives: [**The Dispossessed: The Strongest Guardrail Is the Tool That Doesn’t Exist**](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dispossessed-strongest-guardrail-tool-doesnt-exist-bernard-leong-if2zc?ref=bernardleong.com) on my LinkedIn Newsletter. \[2\] "Your AI Deployment is Moving Fast in the Wrong Direction" Talk, AI Context conference, 11 June 2026. ### The AI Operating System URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-ai-operating-system/ Last updated: 2026-07-21T04:59:31.000Z *The Enterprise Playbook for Executing AI from Scratch to Scale. It is the working title for my new book, gathered from my experiences.* [Explore the book](https://www.bernardleong.com/the-ai-operating-system/) **Sample Chapters (Coming)** **For Business and Government Leaders and Senior Management** (Under [The AI Playbook LinkedIn Newsletter](https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7448561348503937024&ref=bernardleong.com)) - [Brave New World: Why the AI Job Apocalypse Keeps Not Arriving](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brave-new-world-why-ai-job-apocalypse-keeps-arriving-bernard-leong-8vkbf?ref=bernardleong.com) - [The Dispossessed: The Strongest Guardrail Is the Tool That Doesn’t Exist](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dispossessed-strongest-guardrail-tool-doesnt-exist-bernard-leong-if2zc/?trackingId=HIWY7k%2BuT%2F%2BgNnFTM3nvdQ%3D%3D&ref=bernardleong.com) - [Ghost in the Shell: Where Is Your AI Harness in the Enterprise?](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ghost-shell-where-your-ai-harness-enterprise-bernard-leong-qumec/?trackingId=xnLmGj5lR6mY17R2n%2F2GyQ%3D%3D&ref=bernardleong.com) - [The Second Foundation: Why Knowledge Without Judgment Won’t Survive the AI Era](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/second-foundation-why-knowledge-without-judgment-wont-bernard-leong-1gtcc/?trackingId=zHFY4v9fSJm6hM3rxl%2BAxw%3D%3D&ref=bernardleong.com) - [The Spice Must Flow: How Building the Arrakis Chess Engine Exposed the Real Challenges of Enterprise AI Production](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/spice-must-flow-how-building-arrakis-chess-engine-exposed-leong-xntjc/?trackingId=TfThTDQ7SzKMa15QuMS1xQ%3D%3D&ref=bernardleong.com) **For Technology Leaders and Software Development Leads** - [Safety by Subtraction: Why Anyone Serious About AI Agents Should Write Their Own Software](https://www.bernardleong.com/safety-by-subtraction-why-anyone-serious-about-ai-agents-should-write-their-own-software/) - [Where Is Your AI Harness in the Enterprise?](https://www.bernardleong.com/where-is-your-ai-harness-in-the-enterprise/) - [When Answers Are Free with AI, What Is Education For?](https://www.bernardleong.com/when-answers-are-free-with-ai-what-is-education-for/) - [When Code Gets Cheap, Judgment Gets Expensive - The Story of Building Arrakis Engine](https://www.bernardleong.com/when-code-gets-cheap-judgment-gets-expensive-the-story-of-building-arrakis-engine/) ### Where Is Your AI Harness in the Enterprise? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/where-is-your-ai-harness-in-the-enterprise/ Last updated: 2026-06-03T03:09:01.000Z Five frontier AI companies have moved their war front. OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Google, and SpaceX/xAI have all decided the harness — the operating layer wrapping the model — is the product. The model is becoming rented infrastructure underneath. Most enterprise boards have not been told. Worse: most enterprises do not have one harness. They have many — partial harnesses from Salesforce, Microsoft, vertical SaaS vendors, consultancies, and internal teams, each assembled one procurement cycle at a time without a wall diagram. I call this the *fragmented harness*. The strategic question is no longer which model. It is where in the stack you actually compete — and own. --- OpenAI now ships Workspace Agents, an Agents SDK with a model-native harness, and Frontier — an enterprise platform for deploying, governing, and managing AI agents at scale. In February 2026, Sam Altman hired Peter Steinberger, the creator of OpenClaw. OpenClaw is the fastest-growing open-source AI agent in history — 196,000 GitHub stars and two million weekly users in its first three months. OpenClaw itself moves to an independent foundation that OpenAI sponsors but does not own. Anthropic has split its product surface into Claude Code, Claude Cowork, and Claude Design — three domain-specific environments built on the same underlying model. Microsoft is folding Agent 365 — generally available in May 2026 — into the Windows and Microsoft 365 stack as the control plane for identity, governance, and lifecycle management. Google has rebuilt Vertex AI into the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, launched at Google Cloud Next in April 2026\. SpaceX — which merged with xAI in February 2026 — has secured an option to acquire Cursor for $60 billion later this year, with Microsoft having looked at the same deal before pulling out. The pattern is unmistakable. The model has become a component. The product is the system that wraps it. None of these companies are competing on whose model is smartest. They are competing on whose system around the model is most defensible. This is not a contrarian take. It is the consensus among the people building the frontier — and most boards have not yet been told. ## What a harness is, and why a board should care A large language model, on its own, is a stateless reasoning engine. Give it a prompt, get a response, and it forgets you the moment the response ends. To turn it into something that can do useful work in your business — read a contract, draft a quote, escalate a ticket, reconcile an invoice — you have to wrap it in scaffolding. The industry has converged on a name for this scaffolding: the harness. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/canonical_harness_v1.svg) **A harness is everything around the model.** It includes the tools the agent is allowed to use, the memory it carries between sessions, the context it sees about your business, the orchestration logic that breaks a goal into steps, the recovery paths when something fails, the governance gates that decide what the agent may do without human approval, and the evaluation systems that tell you whether it is doing the right thing. The model reasons. The harness does everything else. The analogy that travels: the model is the CPU. The harness is the operating system. You do not run applications on the CPU; you run them on the OS. The CPU gets faster every year and more interchangeable every year. The OS is where the work actually lives — and where the lock-in actually accumulates. AI has now reached its operating-system layer. Most enterprises are still arguing about chips. For readers who want the engineer's view of why this matters at the implementation layer, [Sau Sheong's "Own Your Harness"](https://sausheong.com/own-your-harness-2f5299a855a7?ref=bernardleong.com) is the clearest treatment I have seen. The argument that follows here operates one altitude up — at the layer where the decisions are made by people who do not read source code. ## The five-player tell ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/five_player_grid_v1.svg) Five companies. Five different paths. All five have decided that the harness is the product. The model is becoming the rented infrastructure underneath. The Steinberger move is the most telling of the five. OpenAI did not buy OpenClaw — they hired its creator and let the harness itself stay independent. Both Meta and Microsoft were also bidding; Satya Nadella reportedly called Steinberger directly. The non-negotiable condition that closed the deal was keeping OpenClaw open. **The founder went into the building. The harness stayed in the commons.** This is what acquiring harness expertise looks like in 2026: pay any price for the people who design the operating layer. Treat the open foundation around it as a strategic asset, not a competitor. ## The fragmented harness — the diagnosis nobody has on a wall diagram Here is what almost no enterprise has on a wall diagram. They do not have a harness. They have many. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/fragmented_harness_v1.svg) Salesforce Einstein owns one slice of their AI operating system — the customer record, the case history, the next-best-action logic. Microsoft Copilot owns another — the inbox, the calendar, the document drafts. Claude for Work owns a third. ChatGPT Enterprise a fourth. A vertical SaaS vendor owns the contract review slice. A consultancy delivered a custom RAG pipeline that owns the policy-lookup slice. The data lake team built something internal for a fifth. Each of these is a partial harness. Each owns a portion of the company's institutional memory. None of them talk to each other. None of them produce a single audit trail. None of them are governed by one policy. Most enterprises did not decide to operate this way. They arrived here by accident, one procurement cycle at a time. A Chief Marketing Officer signed for one vendor. A Chief Operating Officer signed for another. The Group CIO signed for a platform deal. Nobody put the diagram on the wall, because the diagram does not exist. I call this the **fragmented harness** — an unintentional operating system assembled from a dozen vendor SKUs, each calibrated to its own fleet's telemetry, none calibrated to yours. I see this in every executive workshop I run. We will draw the AI stack on a whiteboard, and within ten minutes the room realises that nobody in the company has the full inventory. Not the CIO. Not the CISO. Certainly not the CEO. The auditor will eventually ask for it, and the answer will have to be reconstructed from procurement records. Once you can see it, you cannot unsee it. The first job of an AI operating model is to name where the fragments are and decide which ones to keep, which to consolidate, and which to own. ## The Owned Harness Doctrine ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/four_layer_stack_v1-1.svg) Three principles, in the order a board should adopt them. **Principle 1 — Portfolio, not posture.** Owning your harness is not binary. It is a portfolio decision. For commodity workflows — meeting notes, summarisation, generic drafting — rent the whole stack and do not apologise. For workflows where memory compounds into IP — customer history, policy interpretation, claims adjudication, regulator-facing decisions — own the layer that touches context and memory. Rent the model. Rent the base scaffolding. Own the part that decides how the agent behaves under pressure. **Principle 2 — The harness encodes your operational truth.** Every threshold, retry budget, and recovery path inside an AI system is a calibrated answer to one question: what does failure actually look like in this fleet? When you rent a harness, you are running someone else's playbook in your business. Their thresholds were tuned on their telemetry, their failure modes, their users. For commodity workflows, that is fine. For mission-critical workflows it is malpractice in slow motion. **Principle 3 — Governance is decided at the harness layer or it isn't decided at all.** Audit trails, data residency, sovereign-cloud routing, model-swap protocols, regulator-grade explainability — these are properties of the harness, not the model. You do not bolt them on after the fact. You build them in or you accept that you cannot deliver them. Every conversation I have with a regulated insurer eventually returns to the same point. The compliance officer never asks which model you used. They ask: can you reproduce this decision and show me the trail? That trail lives in the harness or it does not exist. ## Compound reliability is a board metric Here is the arithmetic that should change how a board thinks about AI for the rest of its career. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/compound_reliability_v1.svg) A 10-step agent in which every step succeeds 99% of the time will complete the full task end-to-end about 90% of the time. At 95% per-step reliability, end-to-end success drops to 60%. At 90%, it collapses to 35%. Most enterprise AI failures show up in board reports as "the AI doesn't work in our context." That is almost never a model problem. It is a compound reliability problem, and compound reliability is a property of the harness — its recovery paths, its tool-result handling, its memory management, its evaluation gates. The model is not the bottleneck. The system around it is. This is why a better harness on the same model can move an agent from the 30th percentile to the 5th percentile on a public benchmark. It is also why it can move a regulated workflow from "lawyer veto" to "production deployment." Same intelligence. Different scaffolding. Different result. ## How harness ownership lands in APAC The owned-harness argument lands distinctively in Asia, and the reason is structural. Four forces compound here in a way that shapes how every harness decision gets made — though each force plays out differently across the region. The OpenClaw foundation model deserves the attention of every APAC enterprise — and especially every government technology team. An open harness with foundation governance offers a third path between "rent everything" and "build everything from scratch." For a mid-cap insurer in Jakarta or a sovereign cloud programme in Abu Dhabi, the route to harness ownership may run through participation in an open foundation, not through a six-figure procurement deal. The same logic explains AI Singapore's deliberate multi-architecture strategy with SEA-LION and Malaysia's choice of DeepSeek as the base of its first sovereign LLM stack — open weights plus your own harness gives you a sovereignty story that closed-weight rentals cannot. This is harness ownership *through contribution* rather than through procurement — and it deserves a serious look from every Permanent Secretary and every Group CIO who has been told the choice is binary. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/apac_four_forces_v1.svg) This is the texture of the harness conversation as it happens here. What it looks like in Brussels or in Bay Area boardrooms is for people closer to those rooms to describe — I do not have the visibility, and I do not propose to call it from a distance. What I can say is that the people making these decisions in Singapore, Jakarta, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, and across the Chinese platform ecosystem are not waiting for an external playbook. They are designing harness boundaries now, under their own constraints — because their regulators, their procurement officers, and their auditors are already asking the question. ## The portfolio diagnostic Five questions to ask of any AI workflow in your enterprise: 1. **Memory compounds.** Does this workflow accumulate institutional memory that gets more valuable over time? 2. **Regulator-visible.** Will a regulator one day ask you to reproduce a specific decision made by this workflow? 3. **Mission-critical.** Is this on the critical path for revenue, mission, or duty of care? 4. **Switching cost.** In 24 months, will leaving the current vendor cost more than it would today? 5. **Operational truth.** Are your failure modes, latencies, or edge cases materially different from the vendor's typical fleet? ### Score your workflow 0 / 5 yes Reset Memory compounds. Does this workflow accumulate institutional memory that gets more valuable over time? Regulator-visible. Will a regulator one day ask you to reproduce a specific decision made by this workflow? Mission-critical. Is this on the critical path for revenue, mission, or duty of care? Switching cost. In 24 months, will leaving the current vendor cost more than it would today? Operational truth. Are your failure modes, latencies, or edge cases materially different from the vendor's typical fleet? 3+ YES #### Own the harness. Build the layer that touches context, memory, and governance. Rent the model. 2 YES #### Partial ownership. Rent the model and base scaffolding; own context and memory; insist on portability clauses. 0–1 YES #### Rent the whole stack. Do not apologise. Reinvest the saved capital in the workflows where you do own. The scoring rule is deliberately blunt. Three or more "yes" — own the harness. Build the layer that touches context, memory, and governance. Rent the model. Two "yes" — partial ownership. Rent the model and base scaffolding; own the context and memory layer; insist on portability clauses. One or zero "yes" — rent the whole stack. Do not apologise. Reinvest the saved capital in the workflows where you do own. This is a portfolio decision. It is not a binary one. Anyone who tells you to "own everything" is selling you complexity. Anyone who tells you to "rent everything" is selling you optionality you will lose in 24 months. Anyone who tells you the only path to ownership is to build everything from scratch has not been paying attention to what just happened with OpenClaw. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/four_layer_stack_v1.svg) ## Close You will not get to opt out of these decisions by buying your harness. You will only get to opt out of making them yourself, which is a different and much worse thing. Every enterprise has a harness in 2026\. Most do not know where theirs is, because they rented thirty pieces of it from twelve vendors and nobody put the diagram on the wall. So the question is not whether to adopt AI. It is the one your board will eventually ask, the one your regulator will eventually ask, and the one your competitor's CEO is asking right now. **Where is your harness, and who controls it?** --- ## Sources and further reading **The five-player moves** - [OpenAI Frontier announcement](https://openai.com/index/introducing-openai-frontier/?ref=bernardleong.com) (February 2026) - [OpenAI Workspace Agents](https://venturebeat.com/orchestration/openai-unveils-workspace-agents-a-successor-to-custom-gpts-for-enterprises-that-can-plug-directly-into-slack-salesforce-and-more?ref=bernardleong.com) (April 2026), VentureBeat. - [OpenAI Agents SDK update with model-native harness](https://openai.com/index/the-next-evolution-of-the-agents-sdk/?ref=bernardleong.com) (April 2026) - [Anthropic Claude Cowork](https://claude.com/product/cowork?ref=bernardleong.com) (January 2026) - [Anthropic Claude Design](https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/17/anthropic-launches-claude-design-a-new-product-for-creating-quick-visuals/?ref=bernardleong.com) (April 17, 2026) TechCrunch. - [Microsoft Agent 365](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-agent-365%20and%20Microsoft's%20Frontier%20Suite%20announcement%20at%20https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/03/09/introducing-the-first-frontier-suite-built-on-intelligence-trust/?ref=bernardleong.com) (GA May 1, 2026) - [Google Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/introducing-gemini-enterprise-agent-platform?ref=bernardleong.com) (April 22, 2026) - [SpaceX/xAI option to acquire Cursor for $60B](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/21/spacex-says-it-can-buy-cursor-later-this-year-for-60-billion-or-pay-10-billion-for-our-work-together.html?ref=bernardleong.com) (April 21, 2026), CNBC **OpenClaw and the Steinberger hire** - [Peter Steinberger's announcement](https://steipete.me/posts/2026/openclaw?ref=bernardleong.com) (February 15, 2026). **APAC sovereign AI deployments** - [AI Singapore's multi-architecture SEA-LION strategy](https://govinsider.asia/intl-en/article/what-singapores-sea-lion-teaches-us-about-the-makings-of-local-language-ai?ref=bernardleong.com) (Llama, Gemma, Qwen, Apertus), GovInsider. - [SEA-LION official site](https://sea-lion.ai/%20and%20SEA-LION%20v4%20technical%20overview:%20https://www.marktechpost.com/2025/08/25/sea-lion-v4-multimodal-language-modeling-for-southeast-asia/?ref=bernardleong.com) - [Malaysia's Strategic AI Infrastructure with DeepSeek and Huawei Ascend](https://www.bernama.com/en/news.php?id=2424455&ref=bernardleong.com) (May 19, 2025), Bernama. - [Malaysia DeepSeek deployment](https://www.businesstoday.com.my/2025/05/19/malaysia-makes-history-with-deepseek-worlds-first-national-scale-open-llm/?ref=bernardleong.com), BusinessToday **Regulatory frameworks** - [MAS FEAT Principles](https://www.mas.gov.sg/publications/monographs-or-information-paper/2018/feat?ref=bernardleong.com) (Monetary Authority of Singapore, 2018). - [SDAIA AI Ethics Principles](https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/about/Pages/AboutAI.aspx?ref=bernardleong.com) (Saudi Arabia, September 2023). - [UAE Charter for the Development and Use of AI](https://uaelegislation.gov.ae/en/policy/details/the-uae-charter-for-the-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence?ref=bernardleong.com) (July 2024, twelve principles). - [EU AI Act Article 13](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/13/?ref=bernardleong.com) (Transparency and Provision of Information to Deployers) - [EU AI Act Article 14](https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/14/?ref=bernardleong.com) (Human Oversight). **Conceptual reading on harnesses** - Sau Sheong, "[Own Your Harness](https://sausheong.com/own-your-harness-2f5299a855a7?ref=bernardleong.com)" — the engineer's-view companion piece: - Anthropic engineering, "[Effective Harnesses for Long-Running Agents](https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/effective-harnesses-for-long-running-agents?ref=bernardleong.com)" (2026). - Vivek Trivedy, "[The Anatomy of an Agent Harness](https://blog.langchain.com/the-anatomy-of-an-agent-harness/?ref=bernardleong.com)," LangChain (March 2026). - [OpenClaw AI](https://openclaw.ai/?ref=bernardleong.com) Foundation ### When Answers Are Free with AI, What Is Education For? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/when-answers-are-free-with-ai-what-is-education-for/ Last updated: 2026-04-21T23:25:54.000Z *AI reprices knowledge. The education systems built on knowledge accumulation are breaking. The question is whether we have the imagination to rebuild them.* When I first showed ChatGPT to my son, he was six. I typed in a question he had been curious about, and the screen filled with a confident, well-structured answer. His first response was not amazement. It was suspicion. He looked at me and asked, “*Where did the answer come from*?” --- That instinct — to question the source of an answer that arrived too easily — is the precise capability our education system should cultivate. Instead, we spend twelve to sixteen years training students to do the opposite: to accumulate answers and reproduce them under exam conditions. In a world where AI generates answers on demand, that model is not just outdated. It is broken. The reason it is broken lies not in technology but in economics. AI is repricing the value of knowledge itself. When intelligence becomes abundant — when a reasoning model can draft legal memos, debug code, and summarise research papers — the market value of possessing that knowledge collapses. What remains scarce, and therefore valuable, is judgment: the ability to ask the right question, to verify an answer against reality, and to make decisions under uncertainty. Our education systems are optimised to produce the commodity. They need to be redesigned to produce the scarcity. ## The Bottom Rungs Are Disappearing This is not a theoretical argument. The labour market data is already moving. A [2025 Harvard study by Hosseini and Lichtinger](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract%5Fid=5425555&ref=bernardleong.com) tracked 62 million workers across 285,000 U.S. firms and found that junior employment in companies actively adopting generative AI declined by 7.7% relative to non-adopters within six quarters. Senior employment in those same firms continued to rise. The researchers call this “seniority-biased technological change.” I call it reverse-ageism — and it should alarm every parent and educator. [A parallel study from Stanford’s Digital Economy Lab](https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/publications/canaries-in-the-coal-mine/?ref=bernardleong.com), led by Erik Brynjolfsson, analysed ADP payroll data and found that employment for software developers aged 22–25 dropped nearly 20% from its late-2022 peak, while developers over 26 remained stable or grew. The National Association of Colleges and Employers projects 2026 as the worst graduate job market since the pandemic. The mechanism is not mass layoffs. Companies are not firing junior employees. They are not posting junior positions in the first place. The bottom rungs of the career ladder are being quietly removed. For graduates trained to believe that knowledge accumulation leads to career entry, the pathway is fracturing. Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA, [framed this dynamic with precision](https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/jensen-huang-says-ceos-imagination-183000742.html?ref=bernardleong.com): > “Because you're out of imagination. For companies with imagination, you will do more with more. For companies where the leadership is just out of ideas, they have nothing else to do, they have no reason to imagine greater than they are then when they have more capability, they don't do more” The same logic applies to education. Schools that view AI as a threat to be banned are the institutions “out of imagination.” Schools that redesign assessment around judgment, verification, and reasoning are doing more with more. ## The Ban Question Is the Wrong Question In my academic circles even though I am a trained academic but now an AI practitioner, the debate over AI tools follows a familiar pattern. One side argues for banning AI totally from coursework. The other advocates unrestricted access. Both miss the point. Banning AI tools that future employers will require students to use is not protection — it is a disservice. Unrestricted access without structure produces students who outsource their thinking entirely. I have observed this first-hand: students who do not read the assigned reports but instead ask an AI to summarise the material into five to ten key takeaways. The tool becomes a shortcut past the thinking, not a catalyst for deeper engagement. The right question is not whether students should use AI. It is how we assess them when they do. I tested this in my Digital Transformation course over the last year at NUS. For the individual assignment, I required students to submit a two-page essay on an assigned use case — along with every AI tool they used and every prompt they entered (which is a requirement by the University if AI tools are used). Across my first two cohorts, only one earned a distinction for that specific assignment. The pattern in the data was clear. Weaker students used fewer than five prompts, produced essays overloaded with information, and failed to discriminate between what mattered and what did not. They treated the AI as a vending machine: insert question, receive answer, submit. The stronger students used iterative prompts, refined their reasoning, and engaged with the source material before prompting. Prompt quality correlated directly with essay quality. The student who earned the distinction did something none of the others attempted. I had deliberately embedded hallucinated and incorrect data into the assignment brief itself — a trap I had warned students about repeatedly in class. Trust no output. Verify everything. The student cross-checked the brief, identified the planted errors, and built an essay that demonstrated genuine critical judgment with above 8 pages of prompts. That is the skill that matters in an AI-augmented world. A parallel concern: children below 12 should not use AI tools without adult supervision. In fact, you can start with a child at the age of 9 where their cognitive capability of structuring questions are in the beginning stages. Current AI systems use reinforcement learning dynamics that push users toward their existing biases and preferences. For adults, this is manageable. For children whose critical reasoning is still developing, it creates a feedback loop that substitutes confirmation for inquiry. The tragic [teenage suicide](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/technology/chatgpt-openai-suicide.html?ref=bernardleong.com) [cases](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/technology/chatgpt-openai-suicide.html?ref=bernardleong.com) (source: NY Times) linked to AI chatbot interactions in the United States are the extreme consequence of this dynamic. For teenagers, structured controls — analogous to screen time limits — are a minimum safeguard. ## From Walking Encyclopedias to Working Minds The transition in the job market is real, but it is a transition, not an apocalypse. AI removes the boring and repetitive parts of professional work. The doctor trapped typing reports which he or she recalled after the meeting with patients rather than improving her specialisation and focusing on patient outcomes, the lawyer performing mundane research for years before reaching partnership work — AI automates the drudgery. What remains is the judgment layer: diagnosis, strategy, creative problem-solving, ethical reasoning. The education system must shift to producing graduates who are ready for that layer, not the one below it. This means moving from an answer-based system to a question-based system. We do not need graduates who are walking encyclopedias, entering examinations to unload memorised content and forget it within a week. We need graduates who can interrogate a dataset, verify a claim, frame a problem, and exercise judgment under uncertainty. I am reminded of a physics course I took as an undergraduate at the National University of Singapore. [Dr. Alfred Huan](https://www.linkedin.com/in/alfred-h-b92b3145/?ref=bernardleong.com) taught electromagnetism to second-year students, and his examination was open-book. Students could bring every textbook, every problem set, every solution manual into the exam hall. That was decades before AI and it was an innovative approach to test students of their capabilities in physics rather than having them to memorize all the use cases and test them. Today, a reasoning model could solve those physics problems. But the ability to know which equation applies to which physical situation — to see the problem clearly before reaching for the tool — remains irreducibly human. Alfred understood something that our education systems are still catching up to: the value was never in possessing the answers. It was in knowing what to do with them. In a world where intelligence is abundant, the question is whether we have the imagination to educate for judgment — or whether we are, in Jensen Huang’s framing, the institutions that have run out of ideas. ### **References:** 1\. Hosseini, S.M. and Lichtinger, G. (2025). “[Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change: Evidence from U.S. Résumé and Job Posting Data.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract%5Fid=5425555&ref=bernardleong.com)” Harvard University. SSRN Working Paper. 2\. Brynjolfsson, E., Chandar, B., and Chen, R. (2025). “[Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence.](https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/publications/canaries-in-the-coal-mine/?ref=bernardleong.com)” Stanford Digital Economy Lab. 3\. National Association of Colleges and Employers (2026). “[NACE Job Outlook 2026 Survey](https://www.naceweb.org/?ref=bernardleong.com).” 4\. Huang, J. (2025). [Remarks in Mad Money by CNBC](https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/jensen-huang-says-ceos-imagination-183000742.html?ref=bernardleong.com) at NVIDIA GTC 2025 keynote. NVIDIA Corporation. ### When Code Gets Cheap, Judgment Gets Expensive - The Story of Building Arrakis Engine URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/when-code-gets-cheap-judgment-gets-expensive-the-story-of-building-arrakis-engine/ Last updated: 2026-04-14T12:47:58.000Z This is the story of building [Arrakis Engine](https://github.com/bleongcw/Arrakis%5FEngine?ref=bernardleong.com), an open-source chess coaching AI that pairs [Stockfish](https://stockfishchess.org/?ref=bernardleong.com)'s analysis with reasoning LLMs to give children and their parents something chess platforms don't: actual coaching. Released on 7 April 2026\. I will talk about the lessons learnt while building Arrakis over the weekends and sometimes in the chess competitions where I sat and waited for my son. It's an honest account of what AI-assisted development requires from the human in the room on building any app to be production ready. --- Every evening during the build, I had the same thought: **this is not good enough*.* Not in a discouraging way. More like a calibration device. The product wasn't done, the tests weren't complete, the large language models (LLMs) output had problems I hadn't fully solved yet — and that persistent dissatisfaction kept me honest. It kept me testing edge cases I might otherwise have skipped, checking whether metrics I'd implemented were actually correct, and getting real feedback from the coaches and other chess parents rather than shipping something that looked finished but wasn't. That instinct — to stay uncomfortable until the system earns your confidence — turned out to be the most important thing I brought to 18 days of AI pair-programmed product development. More important than the architecture. More important than the tools. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/Arrakis-Engine-Dashboard.png) The Arrakis Engine Dashboard - Running the Data Pipelines ## The gap that started everything I have a rule in the my household that all my three children has to beat me in chess before they reached 12\. My eldest daughter Eleanor beat me at 9 years old and she did not have a chess coach. She chose to learn either lessons from [Chess.com](https://chess.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) and from her school friends in the Rosyth School chess club. She eventually come up with different ways to beat me all with her own merit. She shared how she beat me to my younger children with the following comment, "All you just need to do is take away daddy's queen." I am proud of Eleanor's resilience and grit and ability to learn fast. My second child, Evan, started playing competitive chess at 7 years old after a humiliating defeat. He beat me at the age of 7 and these days, I could not even win a single game at all. Within a year, through the help of a private coach and advice from his school coach and other chess parents in the Rosyth School, playing at the [Fernvale Chess Club](https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100089337376162) every Friday and advice from an old friend (with his son used to playing competitive chess then switch to tennis), he progressed well, being part of the only unrated team to win overall 4th in the National Schools Teams (NST) under 8 championships and 2nd in the North zone in Singapore. While he has achieved results to my surprise, he has a long growth path ahead of him because I often tell them that to be good at something is easy, but to be great at something requires deliberate effort and focus. My youngest daughter, Estella beat me at 5 years old and would be starting her own chess journey very soon at the age of 7 this year. The cycle repeats itself for me one more time. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/eb4517be-b4df-4eed-8f2d-82d2a30e8204.JPG) A chess set which my wife bought me for my 50th year old birthday. When I am with my son for every competitive game, even if I bring my laptop to work while waiting for him, I ended up focusing on how to calm him down after every loss. Even if he gradually won more and more games and be less emotional about the losses, I know that he will eventually hit a wall given that he does not record every game like the best players do. I have read enough chess biographies and spoken to parents how the best players in the space operate. However, I have to be clear, the intention is not to make a grandmaster or even anything remotely close to a national player, but to help him understand what it takes to be great at something with both talent and grit. Eventually, my children will find what they loved someday like I do with theoretical physics that extended my path to artificial intelligence and quantum computing and then excel to the next level which I can never achieve given the limits I have reached despite the odds I faced then. Chess teach many lessons to the kids in their early lives. The first is to be able to cope with losses in the short term and always looking forward to the next game. The second is that if you lose the game and able to go through the game review with recording, you learn a lesson smiliar to agentic AI design pattern called reflection. Through reflection, you learned and reviewed from your mistakes and get better. Third, chess helps the child to develop how to think 5 to 10 steps ahead. I am not a typical Singaporean parent. There are a few games which I insisted that my children should learn before they reach 18: chess, poker, go and mahjong. Poker and mahjong are games where they have to understand short term tradeoffs versus chess and go are games where they need to think long term and ahead against the challenges which will come to them later in their lives. Evan managed to get away at first by asking his opponent with the consent that he can take a picture of it. He has started recording recently after a lot of nudging and with advice from his school and private coach helping him to review the game. That comes to the story why I ended up building Arrakis engine but to assist him in games that he has lost in chess.com and lichess and also a tool to augment the coaches on how to advise him based on his strengths and weaknesses. After every game online, the ritual is the same: open Chess.com or Lichess, run the game review, stare at a graph that swings between green and red. The app marks blunders. It suggests best moves. It gives you centipawn numbers that mean nothing to a nine-year-old. **What an online chess system does not do is to coach.** A good chess coach doesn't just identify errors — they reason about them. "You've been rushing in the middlegame all week. Last Tuesday you had a similar position and gave it away because you didn't check your opponent's best reply. Let's slow down and practice that." That's a fundamentally different task from evaluation. It requires connecting patterns across games, adapting language for the student's age and level, and building on prior lessons so you're not repeating the same advice session after session. The gap between analytical truth and pedagogical wisdom is large. Chess engines are extraordinary at the first and useless at the second. When reasoning large language models (LLMs) in AI like Claude Opus 4.6, ChatGPT 5.4 or Deepseek R1 thinking mode arrived — models with genuine chain-of-thought capability rather than pattern-matched response generation — I thought the pieces might finally be in place to bridge that gap. Nobody had connected Stockfish's precision to an LLM's reasoning in a way that would work for a parent sitting with their child after a game. So I decided to find out if I could build it. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/Arrakis-Engine-Games.png) ## Start simple. Earn the complexity. I want to be precise about what I mean by **AI pair programming**. I deliberately avoid the term vibecoding, because I started coding at 9 years old being fluent in COBOL and C by 12 years old. Of course, building an AI-native company and teaching generative AI to both engineers and business executives, I have changed how I code. Every major technological change has forced me to changed my practices in coding. By this time, I code for fun but directed product and technical teams to build products at lightning speeds. Of course, I didn't type natural language prompts and watch a finished application materialise until three years ago. As the technology grew, I have started to change how I program from python to English. I worked with [Claude Code](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview?ref=bernardleong.com) — Anthropic's AI coding assistant that operates directly in your terminal — as a pair programmer: I directed the architecture, made the product decisions, and iterated on design. Claude Code implemented, refactored, debugged, and wrote tests alongside me. Over 300+ prompts across the 18 days. Think of it as having a tireless senior engineer who can context-switch instantly between Python, TypeScript, SQL, and CSS — but who needs you to know what you're building and why. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-11-at-10.08.54.png) Claude Code in Action The first decision I made was to start simple only with basic hypertext markup language \[or [HTML](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML?ref=bernardleong.com) in short\] and [python](https://www.python.org/?ref=bernardleong.com). Not because simplicity was the end goal, but because I wanted to understand the problem before I optimised a solution for it. I avoided using javascript libraries and the better languages which have evolved for example, typescript, tailwind CSS, javascript libraries such as node.js, react.js and node.js. The reason is that I am not familiar with the languages and my aim is to switch to these with AI coding once I have a proper understanding of what I was trying to achieve with a simple build. On the first weekend — three version milestones on day one — I had a working command-line tool in Python. It fetched games from Chess.com, ran every move through Stockfish at depth 22, and sent the analysis to an LLM with a carefully structured prompt. The output was a coaching brief: game narrative, key lesson, critical moments, a personal letter to the player. No dashboard, no database UI, no bells. Just a pipeline I could test, watch fail, and fix. One thing I did do, was to prompt the LLM to provide coaching guidance based on the age of the child. This decision — start with CLI before building any interface — paid dividends later. When I moved to a web dashboard, I was adding a view onto a working system, not trying to build the system and the interface simultaneously. One practice I adopted early and never abandoned: before Claude Code wrote any significant new component, I asked it to **ask me clarifying questions first**. This sounds minor. It isn't. An AI pair programmer will make assumptions about what you want and implement against those assumptions competently. The result looks correct — the code runs, the tests pass — but the underlying design choices may not be the ones you would have made had you been asked explicitly. When you require the AI to surface its assumptions as questions before writing a line of code, two things happen. First, you catch misalignments before they're baked into a codebase you now have to unpick. Second, and more importantly, the questions themselves force you to be precise about what you actually want — which is frequently less clear than you think it is until someone asks you directly. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/Arrakis-Engine-Patterns-2.png) In practice, this meant that before implementing the coaching history injection, I didn't just say "make the LLM remember previous sessions." I worked through the AI's questions: How many sessions back? Should the history be injected as structured data or as narrative summaries? Should the prompt tell the model explicitly what it previously recommended, or should it provide the raw coaching output and let the model draw its own connections? Each question produced a design decision I had to own. The implementation that followed was mine — the AI had just made sure of it. This discipline matters more, not less, as codebases grow. It's easy to maintain coherent architecture when everything fits in your head. Past a few thousand lines, the AI's assumptions start accumulating in corners you haven't visited recently. Requiring clarifying questions is a forcing function that keeps the design decisions in the hands of the person who understands the product, not the tool that's implementing it. The web dashboard started with Python's built-in HTTP server and basic HTML. Functional, not beautiful. When I moved to a Next.js and React frontend on day seven, it wasn't because I'd planned to — it was because the system had earned that complexity. The data model was solid, the pipeline worked, the coaching output was worth displaying properly. The rewrite wasn't starting over; it was investing in a foundation that had proved itself. That progression — Python CLI to Python HTTP server to Next.js — mirrors how I think about technical architecture generally. Complexity should be earned, not assumed upfront. ## The problem with "good enough" LLM output The hardest engineering problem in this project wasn't the Stockfish integration or the Next.js component architecture. It was the LLM coaching layer — specifically, the repetition problem. The first version of the coaching prompt produced output that looked reasonable on first read. The narrative was coherent, the advice was specific. But when I ran it across multiple games for the same player, a pattern emerged: the LLM was giving essentially the same advice, game after game. Different games, different mistakes, same coaching letter. "Work on your endgames. Practice tactical puzzles." It had found a local optimum and was stuck there. This is a failure mode that's easy to miss if you're testing on a single game and calling it done. I wasn't, which is why I caught it — but it required rebuilding the prompt from the ground up. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/Arrakis-Engine-Patterns-1.png) The solution had two parts. First, coaching history injection: I restructured the prompt to pass in the last five games' coaching summaries explicitly, so the LLM knows what it has already said and can deliberately build on it rather than repeat it. Second, explicit variety instructions in the prompt itself: the system is told, directly, to avoid formulaic output and to find the specific lesson this particular game teaches — not the general lesson this type of position suggests. The difference was substantial. With coaching history in context, the LLM starts making connections: "Last week we worked on not rushing in winning positions. In this game you actually did that well — you converted a rook endgame cleanly. The problem today was earlier: you gave up a pawn in the opening for insufficient compensation." That's a coach tracking a student's development. That required understanding what the prompt was and wasn't doing and rebuilding it with a different architecture. I learned something more general: LLM output that looks good in isolation often degrades when you run it at scale across a real dataset. The evaluation discipline — running the pipeline on enough games to surface pattern failures — is as important as the prompt engineering itself. ## The real distribution of time Here is what the 18 days actually looked like, roughly: 25% planning and architecture, 50% testing and validation, 25% building features. That ratio surprises people. The received narrative about AI pair programming is that it's about building faster. It is — but "faster" means faster iteration, not less time spent on quality. If anything, AI-generated code requires more deliberate testing because you didn't write it line by line and therefore don't carry the same intuitive model of what it does. I started with zero tests and ended with 240: 227 unit tests, Stockfish integration tests, live LLM API tests, and a full end-to-end pipeline test. The testing wasn't a phase at the end — it ran throughout, and it caught things I would otherwise have shipped. The win probability formula, the [average centipawn loss](https://www.chess.com/blog/raync910/average-centipawn-loss-chess-acpl?ref=bernardleong.com) (or ACPL) capping at ±1000 centipawns (the same standard used by [Lichess](https://lichess.org/?ref=bernardleong.com) and Chess.com), the move classification thresholds by player tier — I checked all of these against the source data to verify my implementation was correct, not just functional. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/Arrakis-Engine-Patterns-6.png) Arrakis Engine Analytics on Openings That last point matters. At one point my intuition told me a metric might be wrong. Not that the code had a bug — that the underlying calculation might not match what it was supposed to measure. I went back to the [Lichess methodology](https://lichess.org/@/mullerrj/blog/chess-accuracy-and-acpl-explained/pCxNOHqU?ref=bernardleong.com), verified the formula, and found the implementation was correct. But the instinct to check is part of what makes software trustworthy rather than merely working. I also got external validation by showing the product in its half baked form to the coaches and the parents. It is great when some chess parents are in the software engineering space and I suspect there is a correlation there on why our kids are into chess. Chess parents and coaches provided feedback to the early versions and gave feedback on what was actually useful versus what looked sophisticated but didn't help. That feedback shaped decisions: which visualisations earned space on the dashboard, what the coaching letter needed to say differently for a seven-year-old versus a fourteen-year-old, how to structure the weekly report for a coach preparing a lesson. None of that can be automated. It requires knowing the domain, knowing your users, and being willing to act on what they tell you. --- ## What reasoning models actually change The technical decision with the most impact on this project wasn't the architecture or the testing framework. It was the requirement that the coaching layer only runs on reasoning models — LLMs with genuine chain-of-thought capability — and explicitly refuses to use instruction-tuned models that produce shallow output. The difference is stark. When I tested coaching with a standard model, the output was generic: "Avoid blunders. Practice endgames." True advice, useful to no one. When I switched to a reasoning model, the quality transformed. The LLM traces the position: "On move 23, you had Nxe5 which wins the exchange. But you played Qd2 — I think you were worried about the back rank threat. But after Nxe5, your opponent's best reply is Qd7, and your back rank is safe because your rook covers it." That's a model working through a position, not matching a pattern. The reason is architectural. Chess coaching requires multi-step reasoning at every level: tracing tactical sequences, connecting patterns across games, calibrating language for a child's age, producing reliable structured JSON. Instruction-tuned models are optimised for response fluency, not for the kind of deliberate inference that coaching demands. Reasoning models do the hard work by design. The implication extends well beyond chess. Any domain where an AI needs to produce advice that's grounded in a specific situation — medical, legal, financial, engineering — will see the same quality gap. The question for builders is whether your use case actually needs reasoning capability or whether pattern-matching is sufficient. Getting that assessment wrong in either direction is expensive. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2026/04/Arrakis-Engine-Reports.png) Arrakis Report Engine --- ## What this means for technical leadership I'm a CEO who builds. I've been deliberate about that — maintaining genuine technical capability, not just technical fluency — because I think it matters for how you lead AI implementation work. Arrakis Engine is partly a personal project, partly a stress test of my own thesis. > **What I found is that AI pair programming doesn't lower the bar for technical depth. It raises the bar for judgment.** When implementation is cheap, the decisions that matter are architectural: what to build, in what order, with what constraints. The choice to start with a Python CLI and earn the Next.js frontend. The decision to cap ACPL at ±1000 centipawns rather than using raw engine scores. The design of the coaching prompt to include history and variety. The practice of requiring the AI to ask clarifying questions before implementing anything significant. The call to require reasoning models and document why. These are judgment calls that require domain expertise and product experience — neither of which an AI pair programmer provides. > The "solo founder plus AI" model is real. But the differentiator isn't prompting skill. It's knowing your problem well enough to make good decisions faster than you'd otherwise be able to test them. Evan asked me last week for "more details on my openings from his recent competition." That's user feedback I'll act on — it'll probably become the next feature priority. The most important thing I built in 18 days is a system good enough that its users want more of it. I have open sourced this because I am aware that many parents might need a tool like this to help their children. **Arrakis Engine is open source:** [github.com/bleongcw/Arrakis\_Engine](https://github.com/bleongcw/Arrakis%5FEngine?ref=bernardleong.com) **Acknowledgments:** I thank the chess parents from Rosyth School specifically Gan Ying Kiat, Edward Teo & Jeremy Lim where we discussed the different chess engines that led to me building Arrakis and [Fernvale Chess Club](https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100089337376162), the coaches: Mr Lee Peng Keong and Arlan Cabe and many others who have provided feedback on Arrakis Engine. ### Balancing Vision and Reality: The Startup Founder’s Dilemma URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/balancing-vision-and-reality-the-startup-founders-dilemma/ Last updated: 2024-10-13T00:58:54.000Z Every founder of a startup struggles with a conflict of visions. This internal tension between what is ideal and what is practical shapes the decisions, actions, and perspectives that ultimately determine the fate of their company in the short term or long run. While the probabilities of success are slim—perhaps one in a million—it is this dilemma that shapes the journey of building a business from day one. This essay explores how Thomas Sowell’s *A Conflict of Visions* can illuminate the challenges that startup founders face, focusing on the constrained and unconstrained perspectives and how they influence trade-offs in the startup world. --- ### **Understanding Sowell’s Conflict of Visions in a Nutshell** Thomas Sowell’s *A Conflict of Visions* embodies two contrasting worldviews: the **constrained** and **unconstrained** visions. Both are grounded in a shared concern—how to address the complexities of human nature, societal structures, and resource distribution—but they diverge in how these challenges are approached. In the **constrained vision**, human nature is viewed as inherently limited, self-interested, and flawed. Because of this, social institutions, traditions, and market mechanisms are seen as necessary tools to manage these imperfections. Change is approached cautiously, and pragmatism is key. Conversely, the **unconstrained vision** is optimistic about human potential, seeing people as capable of achieving progress and overcoming limitations through reason and innovation. Human nature can be improved, and societal structures can be transformed to create a better world. Those who hold this vision often embrace bold ideas and sweeping reforms. While these visions often lead to conflicts in fields like political science, economics, and sociology, they ironically stem from the same core assumptions and intentions—addressing human nature, societal organization, and resource distribution. Both the constrained and unconstrained visions aim to create a better world, but their divergent paths create tension over the means to achieve that end. The conflict between constrained and unconstrained visions revolves around the role of markets and government intervention in **economics**. Proponents of the constrained vision, such as **Milton Friedman** and the **Chicago School of Economics**, argue that market-driven solutions and deregulation are the most efficient paths to prosperity. This vision accepts that inequality is an inevitable outcome of capitalism but believes that free markets, driven by self-interest, lead to overall economic growth. In contrast, the unconstrained vision, championed by **John Maynard Keynes**, advocates for government intervention to correct market failures and reduce inequality. Keynesian economics, exemplified by **FDR’s New Deal**, supports large-scale government actions like public spending and regulation to ensure social equity and full employment. These visions affect how social structures and problems are viewed in **sociology.** The constrained vision, represented by **Émile Durkheim**, sees traditional institutions like family and religion as essential for maintaining social stability and managing human flaws. Durkheim argued that these institutions evolve to curb selfish behaviour and promote cohesion. Conversely, the unconstrained vision, exemplified by **Karl Marx**, views social change as necessary to address systemic inequalities. Marx’s theory of **historical materialism** calls for the overthrow of oppressive structures, believing that true human potential can only be realized by dismantling systems of inequality, such as private property. In politics, the constrained vision is evident in conservative and classical liberal ideologies that emphasize limited government and personal responsibility. Political figures like **Margaret Thatcher** advocated for gradual reforms, believing that long-standing institutions are necessary to manage human imperfection and maintain social order. The **unconstrained vision**, on the other hand, pushes for significant social reforms, as exemplified by **Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal**. Roosevelt's policies called for an expanded role of government in areas such as healthcare, social security, and employment programs, aiming to address the widespread economic inequality of the time. His vision was built on the belief that government intervention could transform societal systems to provide greater equality and opportunity for all citizens, particularly during times of crisis. The same dynamic plays out in the world of startups, where founders, much like policymakers, navigate the push and pull between what is ideal and what is realistic. Despite sharing the goal of building a successful company, founders must balance the visionary ambition of reshaping industries with the pragmatic limitations of resources and market constraints, often embodying elements of both visions in their leadership approach. This underlying irony makes the conflict even more complex and central to a founder's journey. ### **The Constrained Vision in Startups** Founders with a constrained vision approach their business with realism, focusing on the limitations of resources, human capacity, and market dynamics. They understand that trade-offs are inevitable and often prefer to manage these challenges with caution and discipline. - **Risk and Growth**: Founders with a constrained vision will typically opt for sustainable, steady growth over rapid expansion. **Sam Walton**, the founder of **Walmart**, exemplifies this approach in the early days of the company. Walton focused on building a strong foundation through efficient operations, competitive pricing, and a focus on rural communities before moving into larger markets. His strategy emphasized steady, calculated expansion, ensuring that each new store was profitable and well-integrated into the overall business. By prioritizing cost control, logistics, and customer service, Walton built Walmart into a retail giant through a methodical approach, emphasizing long-term sustainability over rapid, unchecked growth. This conservative scaling helped Walmart become a dominant force in retail, with a focus on operational excellence and long-term success. - **Capital and Equity**: These founders are careful when raising funds. They weigh the cost of dilution against the need for capital, often choosing smaller, manageable funding rounds to retain control of their company. An example would be **Basecamp** founders Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson, who resisted external funding for years, growing slowly while maintaining full ownership and control over their product. - **Efficiency vs. Innovation**: While innovation is crucial, constrained founders prioritize efficiency and proven methods, carefully balancing new ideas with the need for predictable outcomes. **Howard Schultz**, the former CEO of **Starbucks**, provides a real-world example. Schultz embraced innovation in Starbucks’ growth, but he focused on incremental improvements that aligned with the company’s established brand and customer experience. For instance, when introducing mobile payments and loyalty programs, Schultz ensured that these innovations were thoroughly tested and smoothly integrated into operations before widespread implementation. He avoided disruptive changes that could have jeopardized Starbucks' core model, choosing measured, data-backed innovations with a higher probability of success. The trade-off for Schultz was clear: adopting new approaches without compromising the efficiency and reliability of the existing business model, demonstrating the balance between sticking to what works and selectively embracing innovation. Founders with a constrained vision are pragmatic, recognizing that ambition must be balanced by reality. They understand that every decision involves a trade-off, and their focus is on managing these trade-offs in a way that sustains the long-term health of their company. ### **The Unconstrained Vision in Startups** In contrast, founders with an unconstrained vision are driven by bold ideals and a belief in human potential. They focus on what could be, rather than on the current limitations, and aim to push boundaries to reshape industries and markets. - **Risk and Growth**: These founders are often willing to take bigger risks in pursuit of transformative growth. **Elon Musk** embodies the unconstrained vision with **Tesla** and **SpaceX**. Musk pushes for moonshot goals, like colonizing Mars or creating a sustainable future through electric cars, with little regard for present limitations. His vision is bold, often pushing the limits of what is technologically and financially feasible, but it has also led to groundbreaking innovations that reshape entire industries. - **Capital and Equity**: Founders with an unconstrained vision often prioritize rapid growth over retaining control, embracing large rounds of funding to fuel expansion. Travis Kalanick from **Uber** is a prime example. Early on, Uber raised significant capital from investors like SoftBank and others, despite heavy dilution of equity. The founders understood that scaling quickly and disrupting the global transportation industry required massive capital, even if it meant ceding ownership. Their focus was on long-term dominance, not short-term control, demonstrating how visionary leaders sometimes sacrifice equity to achieve bigger goals. - **Efficiency vs. Innovation**: For these founders, innovation is paramount, and they are willing to experiment with untested ideas that could redefine their industry, even if it means accepting higher short-term risks or inefficiencies. **Amazon**, under **Jeff Bezos**, exemplifies this mindset. Bezos famously prioritized long-term growth over immediate profitability by investing heavily in unproven technologies like cloud computing (which led to the creation of **Amazon Web Services**) and expanding the logistics network. These moves were initially costly and came with significant risk, but they ultimately reshaped entire industries, showcasing Bezos’s commitment to future potential over short-term financial gains. Founders with an unconstrained vision are idealistic, seeking to push beyond limitations and disrupt the status quo. They prioritize bold action and innovation, trusting in their ability to shape outcomes through creativity and ambition. ### **Navigating Trade-offs in Decision-Making: Balancing Constrained and Unconstrained Visions** At the heart of both the constrained and unconstrained visions lies the inescapable reality of trade-offs in any business. Startup founders are constantly confronted with competing priorities: growth versus sustainability, innovation versus risk, speed versus quality, and many others. How these trade-offs are approached depends largely on the founder's mindset—whether they lean toward a constrained or unconstrained vision. Founders with a constrained vision focus on managing trade-offs with realism, operating within known limitations. They view every decision as a compromise and emphasize careful, pragmatic management of risk. Stability and long-term sustainability often take precedence over short-term gains, with risk being something to minimize and control rather than embrace. These founders prioritize efficiency and proven methods, opting for strategies that are less risky but have a higher probability of long-term success. For them, sticking to what works—while making gradual improvements—often provides the surest path forward. On the other hand, founders with an unconstrained vision see trade-offs as challenges to overcome rather than limitations. They are driven by ambition and believe that human creativity can transcend existing constraints. Risk is not something to be avoided but rather a necessary step toward greatness. These founders are willing to sacrifice short-term efficiency to pursue long-term innovation, embracing bold, untested ideas with the potential to redefine industries. They believe that transformative success is often the result of taking calculated risks, even if those risks involve inefficiencies or uncertainties in the short term. The tension between these two approaches is inevitable in any startup, and it can lead to strategic clashes among founders who embody different perspectives. However, this conflict can also be a strength when managed effectively. A founder with a constrained vision might advocate for a more cautious, data-driven approach, while a founder with an unconstrained vision pushes for disruptive, high-risk moves. By balancing both perspectives, a startup can harness the benefits of innovation while maintaining the discipline required for long-term success. Similarly, in matters of capital strategy, one founder may prefer to limit fundraising to retain control, while another may argue for large capital injections to fuel rapid growth. Finding a middle ground allows the company to grow without compromising its core vision or losing control over its direction. In the end, managing these trade-offs thoughtfully—by leveraging the strengths of both constrained and unconstrained thinking—can help startups navigate the challenges of today while positioning themselves for future success. ### **Conclusion: Navigating the Conflict of Visions in Startup Leadership** In the end, every startup founder must navigate the conflict and find a way to live between the constrained and unconstrained visions. The key to success lies not in choosing one over the other, but in balancing the two. Founders who can manage trade-offs thoughtfully—recognizing the importance of both discipline and ambition—will build companies that are both resilient and transformative. By embracing both the pragmatism of the constrained vision and the boldness of the unconstrained vision, founders can guide their teams through the challenges of today while pushing the boundaries of what is possible for tomorrow. **Additional Note:** You can listen to the Google Notebook LM on how these two AI hosts have learned from my article: [https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/28f40a0e-2070-4529-887b-cce9091d8a12/audio](https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/28f40a0e-2070-4529-887b-cce9091d8a12/audio?ref=bernardleong.com) [Sign in - Google Accounts![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/icon/faviconV2)Google Accounts![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/thumbnail/googlelogo_color_74x24dp.png)](https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/28f40a0e-2070-4529-887b-cce9091d8a12/audio?ref=bernardleong.com) ### The Privilege of a Lifetime is to Be Yourself URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-privilege-of-a-lifetime-is-to-be-yourself/ Last updated: 2024-01-29T14:57:48.000Z The time has finally come. It is the time to explore, create and build. This is not the best of times, as the era of cheap money is over in an inflationary and high-interest business environment. This is not the worst of times because the best companies are built at a time when the economy is in its most dismal state. Being outside of the startup world for a decade, I am finding my way back in and taking nothing for granted. Hopefully, the years of preparation over the course of the past 12 years with corporate experience will allow me to navigate better. It is the chance to be a beginner and look at everything with a fresh pair of lenses untainted by what people deem as conventional wisdom. This is the comeback story which I have told myself to write once the years of wilderness in the corporate world are over. It is the fight that I have been relishing for the longest time. All those days of impatience and pondering when I can get back into the arena are finally over. I have learned and walked through [the struggle](https://a16z.com/the-struggle/?ref=bernardleong.com) and often aspired to be part of the [Inner Ring](https://www.lewissociety.org/innerring/?ref=bernardleong.com). To overcome the struggle is to understand why you want to do this in the first place. Being an entrepreneur is never going to be easy and there will be good and bad days. There is no certainty that I will be successful. That probability is a one-in-a-million chance hence the failure rate is extremely high. I have to accept that the odds of success are as high as anyone else in the field. As for the inner ring, you have to realize that it's a never-ending cycle. The allure of joining an "Inner Ring" of exclusive, seemingly important people often fades quickly, revealing that these new connections are no more fulfilling than your old ones. This is because the desire to be "in" is a fleeting pleasure, and once the novelty wears off, you'll find yourself seeking another exclusive circle, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion. The irony is that once you're in, you too will make it difficult for newcomers to join, just as it was made difficult for you. Unlike wholesome groups formed around common goals or interests, these Inner Rings thrive on exclusion; it's their very essence. However, if you focus on the quality of your work rather than the allure of exclusivity, you'll naturally find yourself in a circle that truly matters—one based on skill and genuine respect, rather than superficial social hierarchies. This authentic circle won't be the source of scandals or crises, but it will fulfil the true purpose of your profession and earn you lasting respect. There will be tradeoffs and things that I will not compromise. My family and their needs remain to be the top priority. To walk the path without breaking the law is the next thing that I do not compromise. Last but the least, the quality time I would like to have with friends whom I value is not a tradeoff I would give away. I learned to accept that there is no perfect state to start with. You go to war with the army you have and not the army you want to have. The key is to be who you are and not who others think you are. We often hear about the importance of being unique and authentic. The advice to "be yourself" is almost a cliché, but what's often left unsaid is how much effort it takes to maintain that uniqueness in a world that constantly tries to make you conform. Don't underestimate the energy required to stand apart. While it's tempting to believe the fairy-tale notion that being yourself magically erases all difficulties, the reality is different. Authenticity comes with its own set of challenges, but it's a price worth paying. Continual effort is required to preserve your individuality, but the rewards—being true to who you are—are invaluable. What I've come to understand is this: It's the journey, not the destination, that should be your true objective, and it's from that journey that your ideal life will emerge. This doesn't necessarily mean you'll achieve fame or financial success. Your ultimate dream might be entirely about living a life rich in happiness, free of regret, and guided by a sense of integrity. I've realized that while money can offer options, it can't make up for a life half-lived or bring you inner tranquillity. The real purpose of life is to evolve into the person you were meant to be, continually growing and rediscovering yourself. I have often told myself over the past decade that my eventual destiny is to be an entrepreneur, a founder and a wartime CEO because I live for the purpose of making a difference and not standing by the sidelines. It is in that perspective that I am getting back into the arena and fighting the battles that will give me the final ride of a lifetime. Now the hard part. ### Index while Read URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/index-while-read/ Last updated: 2023-10-29T07:23:25.000Z Since the pandemic began in early Feb 2020, my reading speed is restored to a book per week given the grueling work schedule I have to undertake. Oftentimes, when I share my reading habits with friends, they often ask me the question, "Are you constantly reading for the sake of reading? What are your aims in reading?" Frankly, I have resolved both questions years back when I heard an episode entitled "[How to remember everything](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/how-to-remember-anything/id1346314086?i=1000434480571&ref=bernardleong.com)" on Worklife with Adam Grant's podcast. I will explain why and how reading has helped me to sharpen how I think strategically about different issues from business to geo-politics that are breaking the old paradigms in the past few years. If you have listened to the episode, there are three key important points where Adam Grant explained why memory is important and can be put to good use. First, he spoke to Josh Foer, the author of the book "[Moonwalking with Einstein](https://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-Einstein-Science-Remembering-Everything/dp/0143120530?ref=bernardleong.com)" and a science journalist who went from having a poor memory to become the national champion for the United States Memory Championship. It is worth reading Josh's book as it depicted the different techniques in how you can improve your memory on knowledge which you want to retain. Second, Adam Grant illustrated the story of [Sean McVay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean%5FMcVay?ref=bernardleong.com), a 30 year old NFL coach who *can recall, on command, almost any moment he’s ever seen on a \[American\] football field.* Third*,* you can train your brain to remember and retain important information. In Josh Foer's book, he presented different memory techniques, for example, using a location and description of items within that location such that it creates and maps different mnemonics. Pattern recognition and establishing mapping and links between objects and facts are different tools that you can use to build up your memory muscles. For a long time, I have read without a purpose, other than analyze papers on my research areas in my previous life as an academic and learning new knowledge where I can incorporate new mental models to help me to think. The most important skill I have learned is to read, question and then read another book that furthers my understanding. For example, I like to describe situations like how a physicist builds mathematical models or a mathematician leverages game theory to analyze my opponents' next moves. Learning behavioral economics allows me to see beyond the logical steps in putting everything on a spreadsheet, calculate the tradeoffs and risks, and augment my existing frameworks in figuring out how a well designed system can be gamed with human behavior. After listening to this podcast, I found the reason why I have always enjoyed reading and the real value that I want to extract from the exercise itself. From then, I have only one goal: ***I want to read, remember and index every strategy, tactic, mistake and difficult situation experienced by well-known businesses and startups for the past hundred years dated back to the Standard Oil owned by John D Rockefeller***. Every book I read from investing to business operations, I draw important lessons of what the founder & his team have done right or wrong. This consequently builds a process to how to work through the challenges if I encounter a similar event in the future. I call this process **indexing while reading**. As it is impossible to go through everyone's journey in business, learning and understanding the lessons from the past on how businesses incorporate innovation is important to me. If I want to build what truly matters, this is the most important playbook I have. It facilitates me on how to think a few steps ahead by remembering what has been there before and how different teams came to the conclusion to make the right or wrong business decision in the process. This follows how Sean Mcvay is utilizing his memory of every moves in the past NFL games to figure out the counter strategy against his opponent in his next NFL game. While it sounds like a simple process, it is hard to execute. First, there are many volumes of information about businesses. My choice of books are in the following: the business operator's autobiography or biography followed by the business biography. There are situations where a great business operator does not write anything down other than shareholder letters, for example, Warren Buffett and Michael Burry. Hence if you want to index the lessons properly, you have to collect these information and place them in a way where you can recall them as quickly as possible. Second, I have two questions when it comes to learning about a business which has either succeeded or failed. For successes, the important question one has to ask, "What does great look like for \[company X\]?". For failures, "What could my team or I have done differently in making the decision or call on how we move forward against a competitive threat or move beyond just being number one?" These questions form the bedrock on how I index business strategies and tactics. When I read, I am no longer going for a word for word analysis, but I am searching for the most important points which I have not previously interpreted the same information with another perspective or point of view. Third, we are not silicon computers but carbon based living creatures with limited memory capacity. You need to have means and ways to remember each situation. I used annotations and highlights in digital books to help me remember each situation and when I encounter a situation, I will remember the part which I have annotated followed by retrieving the information from the book even if there is only physical copy of the book. Here are three examples of books which I have read and index certain key points which I learned a few things from: "[The Man Who Solved the Market: How Jim Simons launched the Quant Revolution" by Gregory Zuckerman](https://www.bookdepository.com/Man-Who-Solved-Market-Gregory-Zuckerman/9780593086315?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxdSHBhCdARIsAG6zhlVdUA%5FqlyWidoVqRRrvpBBpfl4AQcKjDIGmHMufdYgStII4ukPTWzAaAnheEALw%5FwcB&ref=bernardleong.com): The book is about the history of Jim Simons, a well-known mathematician who created the [Chern-Simons theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chern%E2%80%93Simons%5Ftheory?ref=bernardleong.com) that has profound influence to theoretical physics and condensed matter theory. I learned the Chern-Simons theory when I was studying string theory in Cambridge, but was not aware that Simons went on to build Renaissance, a hedge fund that has the [strongest return on investments (ROI) against other funds](https://www.businessinsider.com/renaissance-technologies-hedge-fund-bests-warren-buffett-10-biggest-holdings-2019-11?ref=bernardleong.com#1-bristol-myers-squibb-1), for example, Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway and Ray Dalio's Bridgewater funds. If you read the book, Simons brought in brilliant mathematicians and physicists who built the machine learning algorithms in the past few decades. The one lesson I indexed from him from the book, "Don't be greedy, if you have already made the money, walk out when the table is still hot." In doing that, he has infuriated brilliant mathematicians and computer scientists, for example, Leonard Baum, most well-known for the [Baum-Welch algorithm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baum%E2%80%93Welch%5Falgorithm?ref=bernardleong.com) who devised the winning strategies, left the firm out of frustration and made huge losses after leaving Renaissance. Jim Simons' years of success revealed that he was able to know when it is the right time to walk out of the table in a high stakes poker game like trading in Wall Street. ["The Ride of a Lifetime: Lessons Learned from 15 Years as CEO of the Walt Disney Company" by Bob Iger](https://www.amazon.com/Ride-Lifetime-Lessons-Learned-Company/dp/0399592091?ref=bernardleong.com): For most people who have read the book, the key takeaways of the book will be how Bob Iger have made bold moves and aligned his stakeholders in the media and entertainment industry by acquiring Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars, bringing Disney back to life with disruptive moves like Disney+. I index a different and secondary lesson from what most people will read from the book. You may not know this fact: very few number twos in any corporation, who progressed to the role of the CEO, had succeed in the job. What this book told me, is how to index a number two so that you know that he can be an extraordinary number one. If you read the book carefully, the influence of Tom Murphy, a legendary business operator, entrepreneur and mentor to Bob Iger showed him the path to how to make good bets and decisions to grow the business. It is the influence of an entrepreneur to the number two which is what I understood from the book. ["The Company I keep: A Life in Beauty" by Leonard Lauder ](https://www.amazon.sg/Company-Keep-My-Life-Beauty/dp/0062990942?ref=bernardleong.com)(son of [Estee Lauder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Est%C3%A9e%5FLauder%5F%28businesswoman%29?ref=bernardleong.com)): What I have indexed from the book, is how to bring up the children of a family business so that they can take over the business someday. It is often a challenge in Asia for family businesses where succession takes the centre stage in identifying the right person to take it on. If you have read the book, Leonard Lauder explained his upbringing from understanding how his mother sells and innovates on the Estee Lauder brand and his father operates the business in a systematic and logical matter. Leonard Lauder took a major decision to join the US navy as a military officer for a few years to learn more about the world. After launching his own brand, Clinique, he made a different move from his mother by turning Estee Lauder into a multi-brand conglomerate and faced resistance even from the founder herself. If you want to understand the psyche of your children and how to let go and let them take over your business, Leonard Lauder's book is a must read. The index while read approach is how I have taken my reading to the next stage. Even if you read every piece of information and index every situation, do remember this quote from Mike Tyson: > "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." Last but not least, history does not repeat itself and does rhyme, and remember that you have to adapt the strategy for the changing times, because situations and circumstances change in a different age and time. ### The Metaphorical Startup URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-metaphorical-startup/ Last updated: 2023-10-29T07:24:23.000Z I never hide the fact that I will go back to the startup world as a founder and CEO someday. That someday can be tomorrow or a few years. Time is the only limiting factor for me. Because I insist on high standards, the path will be tough or I may not live to see the final stages of the startup. While I have no ideas at the moment, I have a mental model in what kind of company that I want to build. In this essay, I share my “secret plan” to why, what and how this startup will look like in the future. Here’s the plan in three steps: 1/ Find an existing business that has a sustainable cashflow and build a team to operate the acquired traditional business, 2/ strip and remove any inefficiencies and automate whenever possible with the business using the best technologies available in the market and change the business model at the same time and 3/ build a profitable business out of this first business, rinse and repeat to another business and the cycle goes on. The eventual business is a conglomerate, diversified with different verticals and it is the reality in how a business survives and thrives in Asia. Here are the three conditions which I have designated what vertical this metaphorical startup sits: 1/ the metaphorical startup is in a traditional industry where it is either highly commoditized or the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is between 6 and 50%, 2/ there exists inefficiencies in business processes within the industry or the business where automation and digitization tweaked the CAGR rate significantly or disrupt the market with an alternative business model that has a counter proposition against the incumbents, 3/ there is fragmentation in the industry where there is no clear winner in the space or the market share of the top three are within 10 to 15% which the incumbents and upstarts do not care about this metaphorical startup. In the first seven iterations of the business, partnerships is on the lowest priority and any business require partners or 3rd party help to grow at this state is going to fail. It is important to note that there must exist an opportunity to switch the business model in the original business that allows the counter positioning to happen. In that situation, a transition cost must incur not more than 30% decline in the original business. Here’s how I envision the startup looks like to an outsider. It is best to illustrate with a metaphorical image of an existing business. Let’s start with the decision that I buy a restaurant with a healthy business margins of 5-10% profits. The first response I will likely to hear from friends and investors I know will be, “After all the training and experience you have in technology, why are you wasting your time in a business that uses no technology?”. That’s their perception and I will get rejection from any investors in building a restaurant. Here’s what my plan looks in the surface but the inside story is different. Everything looks the same in the first three to six months, and I am happily bringing friends to wine and dine in my metaphorical restaurant. What I do, is to internally make incremental changes in the business specifically in the operations. Every workflow in the business is examined and re-designed either with complete overhaul or augmentation of the existing workflow with digital means. The way to cook the food is scientific using a combination of Sous Vide methods and automation, reducing the daily operation workload of the chefs. In the process, I switch out the POS system to enable a better digital payment system so that the customer can swiftly pay and walk out of the restaurant. Last but not least, the eventual aim is to automate that people can just walk in and walk out of the restaurant without touching a cashier, but only with the waiter focus to serve the customers, with a tablet computer. The tablet computer interfaces with the customer and personalizes the experience towards the customer’s tastes and preferences. Behind every experience from business operations and customer engagement, artificial intelligence and automation are embedded and not the center piece of what the system works. Human creativity is the other part to drive this business to its growth path. Of course, by improving the customer experience drives more revenue and reduce the wastage of the system, for example, living on old and outdated systems, grows the CAGR of the business. I might even switch out the original business model of the restaurant. For loyal customers to the restaurant, I switch to a subscription model which allows me to drive up the lifetime value of the customer above 20%. The final step is to expand this business as quickly as possible across geographies with the business model that is nimble and agile within 3 years. If I can configure the business efficiencies into an innovation solution or template, I will open for third party use and of course, rely on partnerships to scale through that. I have explained this mental model to close friends who have asked me this question, “When are you coming back to the startup world?” Of course, I will and I am aware that I am close to eight years out of the system. It is not a question of when, but a question of how and what to make it work. Of course, failure is possible. To deal with analysis paralysis, I have a rule in my mind: I should only do this business if the failure rate sits within 30-40%. ### When Software meets Hardware (or Physical Assets) URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/when-software-meets-hardware-or-physical-assets/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T04:45:32.000Z Software is eating the world and disrupting the business models of traditional industries. In this essay, we discuss why hardware (or physical assets) imposes constraints to the disruptive nature of software startups with the failure of sustainable unit economics. In the past year, we have seen the next wave of upstart companies such as Uber and Lyft have gone public with valuations higher than what their predecessors have imagined. At the same time, we saw the disastrous attempt by Wework to go public, taking their valuation from 60-70 billion down to the 5-8 billion. While we read about the excesses and follies of the founders of these companies like tabloid gossip, we have not really grasped why these companies have failed to live up to their promise. It is not surprising that there have been naysayers and critics out there who have questioned both the unit economics and viability of the valuations presented by these companies. So what has happened? Here is what this short note seeks to address. I have an underlying conjecture to why these companies has failed to meet their expected valuations and promise to their investors. The easiest way to articulate this is the following:[ software is eating the world according to Marc Andreessen](https://a16z.com/2011/08/20/why-software-is-eating-the-world/?ref=bernardleong.com) but software faces a challenge when they start integrating with physical assets. While the market opportunity promoted by the venture capitalists looks really huge, the unit economics of these companies are not able to justify how that market opportunity can be reached. but software faces a challenge when they start integrating with physical assets. While the market opportunity promoted by the venture capitalists looks really huge, the unit economics of these companies are not able to justify how that market opportunity can be reached. The best way to think of this is to compare companies that have achieved success in the last decade versus those who have reached astronomical valuations and gone public recently. In the last decade, Facebook, Google, Salesforce and Netflix are examples of companies which have achieved success in the market. The reason for their success lies in three components: huge market size, clearly articulated and robust unit economics and network effects. Once all three conditions are met, you can see why they have became powerful companies who many would love and hate at the same time. Contrast to Uber, Wework and many of the up and coming companies that requires to interact with atoms from physical assets to human beings, only two out of the three conditions are met. Companies like Uber and Wework met the conditions of huge market size (which the venture capitalists will love to have) and network effects, where once you are the top of the pack, it is impossible for the rest to catch up with you. However, the one thing which they cannot justify is the unit economics of the business. The unit economics impact the business model by answering whether these companies are sustainable. Till today, Uber and Lyft are running at massive losses. Why is that so? The problem lies with the fact that they need to sustain their competitive advantage of network effects. In doing so, these companies have a high marketing cost, that rakes up the huge losses with the acquisition of new supply in the form of human drivers or physical assets and retention of the existing demand and supply. If Uber and Lyft raises prices today to stop the bleeding, the customers will have no where to go except going back to the old days where taxis reigned. It is in my belief that this is the likely scenario moving ahead. Anecdotally, during my recent trip in San Francisco, I have heard from many that their costs of their current rides are beginning to increase. We have seen this before. In the days of the dot com boom and bust, we see a rise of companies which are made up of great ideas but they failed with the unit economics and network effects. It took another decade for the same set of so called “bad ideas” to become viable with the right business models. What is happening to Uber and Lyft and these big unicorns with huge valuations and business models tied to business assets, is similar to what we have seen in the dot com bust. The gigantic valuations failed the smell test of unit economics and consequently, their business models are not viable in the long run. History does not repeat itself but it rhymes. It just means that there will come a time where a similar set of companies will rise only with the right unit economics. For the dot com companies that failed in the 1997-2004 era to work, technologies such as cloud computing and mobile operating systems are the enablers that justify the unit economics and made it work. Similarly, there exists a path where the costs of these physical assets should be reduced with the help of technology. Let me add one more complexity to the problem which these fast growing startups need to solve. Most of these companies such as Airbnb and Uber touches physical assets and these physical assets have a cost. In order to ensure that they can justify their high valuation and market opportunity, they went on the path to be vertically integrated. In order not to be held hostage by the network of the assets that make their business work (and allowing them to grow and make losses), they resorted to go deep by buying fleets and integrating into the supply chain. The asset light model which they have used to justify their existence have morphed into asset heavy, which explained why they need so much money. In doing this, they [recalibrated the value of the assets](https://www.bernardleong.com/2019/05/07/recalibration-of-value-in-the-sharing-economy-internet-companies/) and consequently driving down their prices that are not sustainable which traditional spaces in the same sector would be able to afford. The next thing to realize is that hardware is not as malleable as software. If you are a hardware startup without thinking of how to leverage the unit economics of software to help you, you are in deep trouble because anyone in China can replicate your hardware even if you have patented it. Unless your company is Apple and have the capability to own all the materials which your competitors cannot get their hands on, it is not possible to make hardware work without thinking of business models associated with software. Similarly, when software enters into hardware, you get the same problem in reverse. It’s easier to explain this with a simple example. There was a time when I was in the logistics business. In this business, the way to think about the unit economics of last mile delivery is the cost per delivery by a medium (a driver, a parcel locker) from point A to point B. In Singapore, the unit cost of each delivery is $x (and don’t expect me to reveal the number). The traditional logistics companies usually charges 1.1 times of $x, but the on demand startups similar to Uber coming into logistics, charges 0.9 times of $x, making the business model not sustainable. I was lucky that the logistics business which I was working for, are trying to work out how disruption will kill us. We went back and forth internally to argue out whether the unit economics will work. We betted that it did not and stuck to the $1.1x pricing, and eventually we won it out because the companies that bled, failed the customer experience and the unit economics at the same time, and hence not able to achieve the network effects. That is the reason why last mile delivery is not disrupted in different markets. What the VCs don’t realize is that the on-demand logistics startups have not broken the unit economics of a last mile delivery down to the price of the medium, the human labor cost and the other peripheral costs associated with it such as petrol prices. The way that we should think about this, is that physical assets impose constraints to the business, similarly to the venture capital business. I like to explain this in the following way: we can definitely invent space ships, time machines and warp drives because the laws of physics allow them to exist, but the cost that requires these out of the blue technologies exist don’t just decrease with throwing money at the problem. That’s no way at this moment, that you can invent a spaceship with throwing trillions to try to make a warp drive work, but the energy demand just made it impossible. Hence, entrepreneurs need to understand that physical assets obeys the law of physics and business gravity, while the investors need to get a better hold on the costs involved. ### Thinking about Communication, Truth and Media with Thermodynamics URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/thinking-about-communication-truth-and-media-with-thermodynamics/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T04:51:21.000Z The laws of thermodynamics in physics have contributed significantly to our understanding of energy and phenomenon in the physical world. In this essay, I explain how these laws of thermodynamics have offered me perspectives on communication, truth and media. In physics, we have a generally accepted formulation on the [laws of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws%5Fof%5Fthermodynamics?ref=bernardleong.com) or the study of heat. The best way to express the first three laws of thermodynamics to a layman is in a sequential order: “You can’t win”, “You can’t break even” and “You cannot get out of the game”. The [first law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First%5Flaw%5Fof%5Fthermodynamics?ref=bernardleong.com) introduces the concept of energy and is a statement about the quantity of energy, and accounts how the system obeys the conservation of energy. The second law defines the concept of entropy (or amount of disorder in a system) and focuses on the quality of energy and explains why and how energy will eventually be degraded. The [second law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second%5Flaw%5Fof%5Fthermodynamics?ref=bernardleong.com) is fundamental in our understanding of systems and explain why the arrow of time goes in one direction. In fact, there is an analogous version of the 2nd law developed by [Claude Shannon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude%5FShannon?ref=bernardleong.com) in information theory and not surprisingly, the [disorder in information](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy%5F%28information%5Ftheory%29?ref=bernardleong.com) always increases. The [third law of thermodynamics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third%5Flaw%5Fof%5Fthermodynamics?ref=bernardleong.com) explains why it is impossible to reach an orderly state in the form of absolute zero, and to the normal person, it shares analogies with the concept of marginal utility in economics. The state of absolute zero is when all atoms are in orderly mode. In addition, there is a [zeroth law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth%5Flaw%5Fof%5Fthermodynamics?ref=bernardleong.com) which introduces the concept of temperature, where you have objects A, B and C, and if A is in thermal equilibrium with B and B is in similar situation with C, then A is in thermal equilibrium with C. For those who are mathematical buffs, it is the associativity property in how we count things with addition and multiplication. The best way for me to think about communication, speech and media comes from the laws of thermodynamics in physics. Here’s how I will express them in communication, media and information. First, I assert that I am putting down in how they look analogous to the actual laws of thermodynamics. It is important that I am using physical models to understand a system and not define a system. Analogue Zeroth Law: If A is talking to B and B is talking to C in any physical or virtual location, therefore we can conclude that A, B and C are in the same conversation. Analogue 1st Law: All information can be expressed as the totality of truths and untruths in the system. Analogue 2nd Law: The entropy or disorder on information expressed and communicated always increase upon on human interactions and interventions. Analogue 3rd Law: The absolute truth in any system is impossible to attain. The analogue zeroth law version that I have adapted creates the concept of communication and how it is expressed by using conversations between three people who are interlocked with a conversation. The same can be applied to either one-to-many or many-to-one situation. In many-to-many situation, every conversation can be expressed using the information communicated and expressed in that medium. [Marshall McLuhan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall%5FMcLuhan?ref=bernardleong.com)’s central thesis in media studies states that “[the medium is the message](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The%5Fmedium%5Fis%5Fthe%5Fmessage?ref=bernardleong.com)” fits the mental model I have cast how information is conveyed through conversation between people. It is independent of the channels which the information can be transferred through, be in the printed media, the social media channels such as Twitter and Facebook, or video broadcasts such as TV and streaming services. The analogue first law defines how the quantity of information is conserved between different conversations and interactions. The information can comes in two forms: what is true and factual and what is not true and not factual. You can see how communication can release both information and mis-information at the same time. How we communicate in different languages also translates between information and mis-information. The analogue second law defines that all information degrades with time in the conversation. I have a piece of anecdotal evidence to explain why this law mirrors the observations of human communication. The best way to think of this is online forums, where the thread of a topic is started with proper discussion of the topic. You will get different perspectives and diversity at the start of the conversation. Internet trolls will eventually come in and start degrading the quality of the conversation. By the way, Internet trolls are not a phenomenon that emerges with the digital space. If you believe that this is only true in digital media, I will say that history has also shown us that similar behaviour happened in different historical periods. The book [“Infamous Scribblers” by Eric Burns](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/119964.Infamous%5FScribblers?ref=bernardleong.com) chronicles how the founding fathers in the United States uses media in the 18th century to argue and fight each other on their ideologies. In fact, the book depicted how physical newsletter and newspaper were used as weapons by both sides to troll each other while delivering both information and mis-information. I will drop an additional surprise that the columnists were also using anonymity and pseudonymity to attack their rivals in a world without Internet two hundred years ago. Hence what we are seeing today about misinformation is polluting the social and political discourse across the world is not that similar to people in that age. In fact, with the analogue second law, I can explain why we often repeat the same mistakes in history. The world order which we lived today was established after World War 2 where the people of that time lived through the horrors of war, and decided to build institutions to uphold the peace between nations. Gradually, the information on why this is important is slowly disappearing with generational change and we begin to see people wanting to upend the system that our forefathers have build. Information degradation has always been a feature of human society, and as a result, what we are seeing now, is relatively similar to the past. I conjecture that a society will start to fall apart if we see a disproportional amount of mis-information in the system due to the degradation of information in the process. Order is only restored if most people can agree the truth and facts on their perception of the modern society. Of course, the last law is about establishing the truth of systems and it is impossible to reach absolute truth in any system. Strangely, I see similarities of the third law to one of the core theorems in mathematical logic: [Godel’s incompleteness theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s%5Fincompleteness%5Ftheorems?ref=bernardleong.com). [Godel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt%5FG%C3%B6del?ref=bernardleong.com) discovered that you can have a consistent mathematical system but there will exist something that you can neither prove or disprove, thus making it incomplete. In simple English, you can have a set of truths that appears consistent and logical but there exist one assumption that can be neither proved nor disproved, hence rendering the whole set of truths incomplete and requiring us to further investigate. In fact, the third law express one of the central challenges for philosophy that it is impossible to attain absolute truth and make it explainable to anyone unless they have faith in the system. The laws of thermodynamics offers me another perspective in how I should be looking at information, communication and media and its impact to the changing social and political landscape across the world. The question that remains often on my mind, is how the present situation can be rectified and what potentials solutions are out there to resolve the current clear and present danger. ### On Loyalty URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/on-loyalty/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T04:54:43.000Z Loyalty is an under-valued virtue in the times of today. Yet it has helped me navigate the difficulties over the course of my career. In this essay, I explain why the virtue of loyalty is important to me and how I have incorporated the value into my tours of duty in my career. When I was growing up, the common narrative that I have heard from my father and people in his generation was that they were prepared to work for life in the same company. My father was working to achieve the aspirations of the middle class, having a stable job and ensuring that I have enough education such that I will live a better life. In the 1970s to 1980s, there were very few choices for my father. Singapore was starting its journey as a manufacturing economy and subsequently evolving towards a knowledge based economy. There was one achievement from my father that I could never reach in my life. My father worked in the same company for 50 years, and retired at 68\. That means that he started at 18 only with a primary school education. I knew of this because I saw a photo he showed me receiving the award from his company in his final year. That was the only time which he told me about his achievement. He was a humble man and I often felt that I fell short of. He knew the owners of the family business from father to son. I am proud of my father for his loyalty and will never be able to do the same for any company which I work for. Yet, I believe and think that there is something to be said and lessons to be learnt about what my father has managed to do. Loyalty is a virtue within the Chinese culture and I grew up with many stories in Chinese history how loyalty can be a virtue and a liability at the same time. Unlike my father, I never envision my path as an employee working for many years in a company. The times I was living in were drastically different from the environment which my father was operating in. First, a knowledge based economy is rapidly changing and any business can be disrupted very quickly. I remembered that engineering was the course which the Singapore government were advocating in 1980s, and many of my peers went into engineering, only to be disappointed what they were eventually doing. Maybe I was lucky to grow up with a view that the only way to survive is to be ahead of the curve, and work on things that will become important in a few years later. It helped me to navigate my own career despite all the difficulties I have endured in the process. Second, we do not have the luxury to be able to stay in a company for long. Unlike family businesses that may have a longer term view, most businesses were professionally run with the turnover of executive leadership happening once every three to five years. Any individual who has found purpose in his or her work within a conducive environment for those three to five years, may discover a drastic change in environment that ended their motivation to stay longer. I long held this view that people do not leave companies because of compensation, but the work environment and know the value of how your contribution will advance the company’s mission and vision further. Third, technology and cultural changes also made it difficult for people to stay long in their jobs. By the time when I started my studies in the University, the media started advocating that any graduate in the next few years will discover that their average life span in a company is about three to five years. Here’s how I have incorporated this virtue in my life which I feel that it’s the most important thing I have learned from my father. I have an entrepreneurial spirit. ****An environment or changing circumstance can take a man off from being an entrepreneur but can never take away the entrepreneur off the man.** From startup to corporate life, I have adopted an approach that every job I take is a tour of duty similar to how soldiers in the military do in the course of their career, similar to what Reid Hoffman, Chris Yeh and Ben Casnocha described in their book “[The Alliance: Managing Talent in the Networked Age](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20763746-the-alliance?ref=bernardleong.com)“. Where I differ from the approach that the authors advocate in their book, is that I embedded loyalty into their framework. I will tell a story in how my father’s loyalty helped me in gaining trust with the people operating in the front line of the business. During my tenure in SingPost, I was leading a small team of 15 as the head of the digital services, and was eventually asked to take over the post office business (which is their retail footprint) that shifted me from managing a very small team to a very large team of a few hundred people. I have to understand different business lines and the front line operations. Most of the people in the post office were front line service ambassadors and branch managers who were similar to my father and they have worked in the company for a very long time. Upon the announcement of my role, I was asked to give a short speech to the managers and also to some frontline staff who were there. At that point, given that I am heading digital transformation, they have fears that their jobs would be automated away. Hence it would be difficult to start the conversation with what I was specialized in. Instead upon quick reflection and thinking on the fly, I adopted a different approach. I started the short speech by telling the story of my father who have worked in the same company for fifty years, and told those in the frontline that I appreciate their loyalty to the organization. I added that I shared their aspirations to want to work and build a better life for their children, who I happened to be lucky and did well in my career. My position is that I will do my best to upgrade their environment with technology and ask them to learn technology at the same time so that they will be relevant for their work. What I learned after the feedback from human resources, is that they took it very well and was open to work with me. Over the two years, I spent my time working to improve their work conditions to the best of my ability and at the same time, work out what it would look like for them so that technology do not displace their jobs. Even though I have left the role because of my own career aspirations, I have maintained great relations with the frontline staff. From time to time when I visit any post office in Singapore, the staff will recognize and speak to me as if I am an old friend. Loyalty is an under-valued virtue which many businesses do not value today. In any corporation I joined and worked for, I often take the view that I should respect and learn from the people who have been there for a long time. Where it really helps, is that they are able to give you advice and tips in how to work thru the environment. It is important to be aligned with the values and culture of the company you work for. Of course, your ethical backbone is part of how you build your own career. In every corporate role I have worked for, I stay loyal to the company after I have left. As a consequence of staying loyal to the company I work for previously, I often avoided to join another company in the same industry. That explained why I have worked in the postal, ecommerce logistics, aviation and now cloud computing. As a result, I paid the price for not being specialized in one industry. I see it differently from people who think that way. In fact, having worked in different industries, it gave me the perspectives which will become useful if I become a CEO someday. Last but not least I retain the fond memories I have for the company, whether the role has worked out or not worked for me. Loyalty often allows me to part with amicable circumstances and I do not want to burn bridges in the process. Loyalty has grounded me in a way and offers me insights from time to time in how I take an empathic approach to how I lead and manage people. ****Story behind the picture:** **I took the picture of general [Yue Fei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yue%5FFei?ref=bernardleong.com), a well-known military leader known for his loyalty in the West Lake, Hangzhou, China. His story has a tragic twist where he was executed for the very same loyalty he has for his king who ordered him to death.* ### Thinking about Cycles & Open Web URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/thinking-about-cycles-open-web/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:36:03.000Z While we are often busy with our daily lives, we are oftentimes interacting with the changing environment around us. We often see that that conventional wisdom is overturned by disrupting forces or paradigm shifts. Hence I often tell myself that it is important to look at what’s ahead and what’s changing around my environment and figure out the response to change. Lately, my observations indicate that the current cycle of the Internet might be coming to an end while a new cycle emerges. Probably somewhere around 2004 to 2009, when the Internet was still recovering from the wounds of the dot com crash, there was the open web movement where many wanted to democratize the contest of ideas in the digital space. Blogging is one of those open movements where everyone can create a site for themselves and express their thoughts. Eventually, we see the rise of citizen journalism and the bloom of a thousand schools of thoughts. Like everything else, whether you are blogging or even podcasting, you are sold to the dream that you can create content from anywhere and reach out to an audience out there without getting access thru gatekeepers. The open web is a counter culture towards the dominance of Microsoft where the open source movement was considered the niche. The Internet was booming with new energy and ideas and we have a web 2.0 movement that celebrates the coming of the open web. In the utopia of the open web, you can create and build a movement from scratch and reach a new audience that you never know existed. There are other side benefits to the open web concept with respect to commerce. If you build your own product, you can leverage on the Internet and sell without the challenge of paying physical stores which are rent seeking and stop your product in getting distribution from the masses. Then something happened, some of the platforms that enable how you can build freely on the Internet started to have investors and shift into the commercialization mode. The shift with capital infusing into the open web generated competition. Competition defines winners and losers and in the end, consolidation happens everywhere, whether content or the tools that enable the generation of content. In the end, we ended up what we see today where certain platforms become dominant and eventually limits what those who want the open web to be. It is history repeating itself with some rhymes in a certain era of human era. When I think about the digital world today, it is similar to the era where Microsoft dominates the world from the operating system to the browser. Some argued that the anti-trust case brought to Microsoft stopped them and eventually opened the way to the new Internet giants of today. I disagree with that assertion but only accept that that event just pressed the brakes against Microsoft in complete domination. What really destroyed Microsoft’s domination, was innovation and how people making small changes slowly that eventually jumpstarted with the entrance of the iPhone defining the current mobile era. I have suspected that intense competition on the Internet between platforms has led to the waning of the open web. In China, the open web is dead given how the Chinese technology giants are competing against each other daily and finding every small advantage to put themselves in pole position. You cannot have your own blog and build your audience in China. You need to go through one of the channels from Wechat to Douyin to find your distribution. Is the open web truly dead for those who dream of digital utopia? I don’t have an answer but I have a perspective to the question. We are now in another era of closed web again similar to the time where Microsoft have completely dominated the operating system and the Internet. There seems to be a few branches that are opening to new possibilities for those who dream of digital utopia. I believe that somewhere in those few up and coming technologies whether it is artificial intelligence, virtual/augmented reality or cryptocurrency; and the capabilities will shift the current period to another era of open web. I am equally sure that competition and capitalism will drag the upcoming era of open web back to a close one at some point. Perhaps, human nature is why we have often seen cycles happening in our history. The circumstances and the technology shifts may change but the human lessons are always the same. ### How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/how-the-economic-machine-works-by-ray-dalio/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T05:09:26.000Z One of the most important books I have read in 2017 was Ray Dalio’s principles. He has recently published an interesting video which reframed the way which I have understood economics. It is the best economics 101 which makes me think differently about our economy in terms of productivity, long and short term debt cycles over 10 years. If you are reading Ray Dalio’s “Big Debt Crises”, this video will be a good primer to watch before diving deep into how he understood financial crises and offered his understanding of each one of them in the 20th and 21st century. Let me share my interpretation of Ray Dalio’s “Principles” book as well. For me, Ray presented a roadmap to how he thinks and understands the work around him grounded to the realities available to him. In the book, he explains the set of principles which he identified that are important to how he operates. One of key principles is radical candor and the importance of hearing diverse and diverging views such that he can make important decisions without subjecting to potential biases. In reading the book, I believe that there is a deeper message than just reading and adopting his principles in work and life. What I believe Ray Dalio wanted the reader to do, is to figure out his or her own life and write down the set of principles that are important to them. It does not have to be the same set of principles that Ray has utilized in the course of his life. It is important that cultural and social backgrounds can differ between people and hence I did not think that his intention is to impose his values, but merely provide a system to how each one of us out there to write our own “principles” book that guides our own lives. That is perhaps, the most important lesson I have learned from the book and constantly re-read it whenever I am in doubt. You can learn more on Ray Dalio’s website: [Economic Principles](https://www.economicprinciples.org/?ref=bernardleong.com). ### How I write URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/how-i-write/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T05:11:48.000Z Writing is an enjoyable endeavour for me. It allows me to express my thoughts, perspectives and opinions on matters. Why do I like to write? The first reason is that it enables me to review a subject which I might have read for a while and at the same time, express my thoughts to help me understand better what I have learned in the process. Second, it is one of my aspirations to write a book someday and the book will not be about my life. The only book I have ever written is my [doctoral thesis](https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311016?ref=bernardleong.com) now hidden in the Cambridge library with probably very few people reading it,. The entire process took me eight weeks of solid kitchen sink writing approach i.e. just throw in everything and rectify later, checking of citations and sources and followed by three months of intense editing and reviewing by my thesis supervisors and fellow colleagues in the space. Third, it assists me to encapsulate my thinking process and tells me in brutal honesty, “Do I really understand this?”. Writing often helps me to visualize the concepts and principles and applies them in the form of supporting evidence to the real world. The irony for me is that before 15, I enjoyed writing in Chinese, mainly spurred by my love of Chinese calligraphy where I recited old poetry from the Tang and Song dynasties and read Chinese classics and novels. After 15, I was forced to do a reverse course. Within a year, I made a conscious effort to work on writing in English. I was lucky to have an English literature teacher by the name of Mrs Alexander in my high school, St. Joseph’s Institution to guide me. She taught me how to write and that in turn, built up my confidence in English writing. The challenge I had at that point in time is that my grammar is extremely weak. Yet, she often encouraged me to focus on my strengths and not my weaknesses in writing. Her view is that persistence and grit matters more than talent in writing. Her advice is that I should write what I think, structure it logically similar to how I enjoyed my science subjects. She made a remark that has deeply etched onto how I write for the years to come. To her, the style of writing is something that one gains in the process with his or her experience in writing. In addition, I add a caution for those who are writing in different languages. It happened to me as I become more and more fluent in English, the instinct I have observed is to translate everything into Chinese or vice versa. In retrospect, languages are forms of expressions and have their own systems in communication that a one to one translation or mapping does not work. I shared an anecdote that happened to me when I was teaching a technology business class on social networks to a group of Chinese students a decade back. The first thing I did was to work with my Chinese friends in doing a direct translation of an English deck (about 30 slides) I have prepared previously for another class. As I gradually build the presentation by speaking in Chinese, I discovered the flow was very disjointed and the muscle memory of how I wrote in Chinese came back to me. In the end, I decided to build the presentation from scratch and wrote out how I would presented this in Chinese, and reduced the presentation from thirty to six slides, because it conveyed the thinking better and it made the flow clearer to someone who is proficient in the Chinese language. That ended up being well received by the students who I have taught in the process, because I was engaging them on how they would think of the same subject. As years go by, with the invention of blogging, writing becomes easier for me. Blogging is a form of writing where you express your ideas quickly on a digital canvas or paper. You can first omit the grammatical errors or the structure by building a quick first draft to see if your readers resonate with your thinking process. When you write, you are trying to build a rapport with the people who are reading your body of work. Hence blogging remains a great experimental engine for me to write even till today. I often write in rapid fire on a subject and then go back to make corrections to the article. As I am trained as an academic, I have instinctively cited works which I have read and made mentions (which I know many writers or bloggers out there even will not do). Citations are often deployed to acknowledge the past body of work before you, because they can help the reader to trace the evolutionary path of the ideas that has transpired before. I still believe that proper citations are part of the process in earning social credibility. Here’s how I advise people who enjoys writing as part of their learning activity and it does not translates to how a professional writer should write: - ****Have a central thesis in your writing:** I often start with a central thesis on the idea that I want to write about and determine what makes the subject worth writing. The central thesis sets the narratives which you want to push in your article. I am perfectly aligned with what Marshall McLuhan’s view in his book, “Understanding Media” that the medium is the message. Story telling is an important part of writing as anecdotes, examples and stories build up the narratives that facilitates the engagement between your audience and you. - ****Sketch out your thoughts on paper or on the digital canvas quickly:** I will write a quick draft on paper, sketching out many ideas on the same subject and drawing the different ideas that have preceded before me. In that process, I determine whether I am contributing to the conversation. That helps me to build up the reference links and citations later. If the situation is to employ a concept to argue why a phenomenon exists, it is important to explain the concept that implies its existence and how real world observations may or may not support the thesis. - ****Style is more important than grammar:** The grammar is not important until when you revised the article later. My instinct is publish first and then correct. We lived in a world that people react to speed rather than the form of the writing. I am sure that I have annoyed people who are stepped in traditional forms of English grammar and writing. It’s nothing personal but I don’t let them affect how I write. Let me be clear on this. I respect the grammatical rules of any language, be it English, Chinese or German, but I believe that when I write, what my readers want are the insights or ideas that I deliver to them. My readers are not interested in how I position words or sentences in the form which grammarians might want to see. Anecdotally, the most popular articles on my portfolio are often the ones with the most grammatical errors (and I will go back often and fix them when either my friends pointed them out to me or I find the error myself). I have come to understand the style of writing is more important than the rules of writing. It’s the style that I engage with the audience who enjoy reading my articles and it’s not the rules of writing that attracts them to me in the first place. If I give you the access to my articles on my personal website, you will discover that each article has at least thirty to fifty revisions over a long period of time. I often correct my own writing style because my thinking on the subject evolves. Of course, if I have more resources, I will hire a professional or an editor to help me with the editing and copy writing. My final word to those aspires to write and build their audience, is to write with a simple voice and develop your style as time goes along. To me, writing is just a simple activity that helps me to express my ideas and engage my audience or critics in the process. References (which I recommend for reading to those who aspire to write): \[1\] William Strunk and E. B. White “The Elements of Style” \[2\] Steven Pinker, “The Sense of Style: the thinking person’s guide to writing in 21st century”. \[3\] Jerry Jenkins, “[The 12 best books on Writing that I’ve ever read](https://jerryjenkins.com/best-books-on-writing/?ref=bernardleong.com)“ ### How I Read URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/how-i-read/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T05:15:47.000Z I have a daily habit of reading for 30 minutes. That does not mean that reading is a simple activity. Before 15, I hated reading English books. The only books that I enjoyed reading were Chinese literature and English comic books. I was remarkably bad in English and extremely proficient in Chinese. My laziness contributed to the problem. Something happened during the second year of my high school. I came across a scientific book that changed my life. “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking inspired me to work towards being a theoretical physicist. I worked backwards and figured out that I need better grades in English as a first step such that I will eventually study my PhD in physics with Cambridge University, UK. As a result, I transitioned from an absolute slacker who often read Marvel and DC comic books, Chinese literature and fantasy & science fiction stories to an avid reader of English books. Within two years, I scored a distinction in English literature with the aid of a very inspiring teacher in St Joseph’s Institution. Eventually, the distinction for general paper was reached in 4 years when I studied in college. There are three parts to how I have trained my reading competency after working on that proficiency about 7 years before I started my studies in the university. The goal is to always be better and it helps me to strive for being more competent after reading each book. The purpose is to dive deeper and shift past the superficial popular accounts of scientific literature. The first part is to learn how to read a book properly. I will recommend Mortimer J Adler and Charles Van Doren’s book “How to read a book”. I lamented the fact that If I have read this book first (and till my first year in my doctorate studies), it will have halved the amount of time to achieve the reading proficiency quickly. The tools offered by Adler and Van Doren have helped me to scan and dissect the different types of books: fiction, non-fiction and academic literature involving science and mathematics. That greatly enhances the speed of reading for me. One of my friends like to comment that I burn through books but it takes a considerable amount of time to get there, and my advice to the earnest reader: be patient. The second part is to understand that reading as an activity consists of different levels. Anyone can read a book but not everyone can understand a book. It is broken into three stages: classification, analysis and criticism of the book. First, you classify the book into a set of categories which you have pre-determined and then pigeonhole the book into where it might fit into your reading habits. As you are reading the book, you start to analyse the book, determining the key messages from the author and at the same time, breaking down the arguments and perspectives from his point of view. Last but not least, you need to define your own point of view, in what you agree and disagree with the author. I do not agree with all the authors who I have read. For example, I have a strong opinion against postmodernism philosophy, but I have sieved out the tools of analysis from postmodernism and apply them towards my thinking tool box. Consequently, I am not drawn towards one point of view, but am able to see a larger set of solutions within the problem that I seek to solve. The second and third stages will take more time out from the reader. It comes with relative ease as you build out a relatively robust framework to how you decide on a position over an issue. Tools in thinking and understanding bias systems from philosophy will be useful to acquire in the process. The last part is to find a great mentor. I have the fortune of meeting Dr Chong Siew Meng, a day time pathology professor but a night time astrophysics and mathematics specialist. He was my first mentor and I would credit my success in getting to Cambridge with his mentorship. A lot of people assumed that he has taught me in depth. What he taught me surprisingly is to learn how to read. I will often ask him a question, and he will lay out the title of a book relevant to the subject. As part of the exercise, I will finish the book and figure out a few more questions in the process. I will go back to him in less than 2 weeks, and he will push three more books towards me to read. In the process, I find some answers but I ended up with more questions. Till I started my doctoral studies, I have reached independence and started searching my own sources to further my knowledge. For academic training, it is remarkably useful because I started to read the original references where the knowledge from the books are derived. If I summarize what he really taught me in one sentence, it is just “he taught me to read, understand and criticize any subject better”. Reading creates a type of thinking muscle for me. Here’s how I have evolved in reading over the years: - ****Focusing on one subject area and read everything on that area in one go**: As I dived deeper in a subject, I will go to the expert in the subject areas and ask for the five most important books to read, and using the bibliography to search for the next set of references to read. In that process, I can learn a subject matter quickly. You can apply the same strategy to fiction, where I spent two summers during my doctoral studies doing the chronology of Hugo and Nebula prize winners and started reading the first fiction book winner till 2003\. When I read on a subject, I do not include periodicals, magazines, Wikipedia entries or internet articles as part of the reading suite. It has to be books, academic journals and periodicals and high valued magazines such as Harvard Business Review or The Economist. - ****Non-linear approach to reading**: I have a specific approach to how I read now as compared when I first started. When I read a paper, I start by figuring the key messages, and removed the details from the start. Yes, I am skimming the contents quickly to find where the common points are. Then I will go back to the book when I want to specifically understand a particularly theory or point and the anecdotes, evidence and examples that back that thesis. I don’t read one book at a time but about 4-5 books at a time. It will take me 4 weeks to read a good book but three days to a week to read a great book. The most excruciating books I have ever read that took me at least nine months to read: Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” and Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”. - ****Taking a position against the author:** In reading a book, you are being treated to a point of view. The author is constantly trying to convince you that he is “right” on the subject and his ideas on the subject matter matters. Actually, that’s what he has set out to do. I often take an adversarial perspective against the author from the start, and look for positions that differ from his or her reasoning. It’s not easy to do because reading has that little effect of prodding you towards a particular point of view. Unlike television or podcasts, it’s more detached. When in doubt on a subject, I reduce to reading as the ground state to understand a subject. I urge everyone here to think about your reading because it does indicate how you will look at a subject matter review. I don’t think that I have reached that depth yet as a reader. Like everything I do, I feel that I am really at the start of a tall mountain. ### How I think URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/how-i-think/ Last updated: 2026-06-19T06:15:34.000Z Here is a framework that I explain to others to about my thinking process. Basically, how I think is broken into three parts: break the problem and solve by first principles, build or understand a strategy around a problem by a Bayesian approach i.e ascribing probabilities and statistics to a set of solutions that might tackle the problem that is complex and emergent, and lastly, figuring a business problem using basic unit economics and perspectives while figuring out how irrationality or behavior models might affect them. When I think, I am often trying to solve a problem. For me, every problem must start with a question. As a trained theoretical physicist, I am trained to think from first principles and use orders of magnitude and scale to figure out where the laws of physics apply. The laws of physics are immutable and stand against the test of time. At the same time, we have theories in physics that are constantly built and deploy to solve existing problems. The beauty of physics is that you have the mathematical and philosophical toolbox to break an extremely complex problem down to small units where you can solve it individually. How do I solve a problem once I have framed it into a proper and reasonable question? The why is often important before we ask how and what. First, I break the problem down to a scenario where the problem in the system can be modeled by a set of assumptions. In the same light, the agents within that scenario are dictated by the rules within that system. Sometimes, we can observe the system and find the set of rules and sometimes, we can make an educated guess on the rules. While I might want to set my thinking process by logical assumptions, I often relied on intuition to make an educated guess for the problem that I might be solving at that moment in time. There are times which I cannot express why my tuition keeps telling me that no matter how someone may convince me the logic of the argument, but they are driving us to the wrong set of conclusions. Many times, I discover that the underlying assumptions are wrong in the process. I have learned to trust my intuition more as the years go by. Hence I do caution that I may not be able to communicate why something is wrong because I need a longer period to understand the problem and only to know in time, that my intuition is right. First principles thinking are good for solving technical and engineering problems, and allows me to troubleshoot problems associated with technology. In science, it’s never about proving something right but merely establishing whether a way of thinking will lead to a set of consequences by deduction and eliminate the possibilities by falsification which is inductive thinking. In technology business, we often hear the concept of building your case with hypotheses and put them to the test by collecting and analyzing the data. The analysis will lead us to the conclusion whether the hypothesis is right or wrong. However, it is not the complete Swiss army knife to everything. The second framework I used is often use for thinking about strategy and complex systems. This framework came from an interesting field of statistical physics, when we approach a problem using a statistical framework. It’s easy to ascribe a simple law of physics to how one atom or molecule move but when you have a system of many interacting molecules and atoms, you apply the statistical physics approach of an ensemble. In doing so, you discover another way of thinking which allow you to discover emergence where a macroscopic system might governed by very simple rules but yet yield different consequences depending on its evolution. Self-organized criticality in biological systems and macroeconomics can be applied into thinking about public policy. This approach allows me to think about complex problems from public policy to business strategy. This approach allows me to build a heuristic model to draw out a subset of solutions to a complex problem but at the same time, ascribe probabilities to each scenario. What it means, is that I can find a strategy to solve a business problem with at least 20-50 different combinations, but I will follow up by putting a probability on each one of them. In doing so, I can select those which will give me the likely outcomes. In real life, I have a different approach to find the set of solutions by taking the opposite and extreme position that I have on the problem. Then let everyone debate against me, and then I find the median solution to find the true middle which I can compromise or trade off. Most situations in life and work are not clear cut and dry and it requires me to expand the space of all possible solutions to the problem. The last framework is to use economics to think about business problems. I look at a business problem by building the basic unit economics and figure out the effective addressable market. It’s meant for me to understand a business and how it works. The problem relies on the demand and supply and applying economic theories to look at how businesses uses technology to improve their operations or build new business models. Lately, I have started to put a toolbox of behavioral economics and try to seek out the bias in how the logic might drive you one way but the results are otherwise. To make decisions relating to people, I often employ a thinking tool which I called perspectives thinking. In my mind, I set up how each stakeholder in that situation wants and thinks about the issues, and then I seek to find an alignment or a common thread that everyone can agree on and move them towards that alignment. It’s not perfect but it’s the only way for me to get things done or in other words, solving the problem by an inch everyday. When different people have their own agendas at stake, we cannot win without compromises and trade-offs. While logic and numbers are the best way to convince me, I have taken an empathic approach lately to see beyond the numbers, and understand the human costs involved. It is important to think and be critical about how you assess very situation. ### Examining the Super App Strategy in Southeast Asia URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/examining-the-super-app-strategy-in-southeast-asia/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T05:26:20.000Z In this article, we examine the super app strategy adopted by the ride hailing companies in Southeast Asia. In the same spirit, we want to validate the strategy that are adopted by both Grab and Gojek in comparison to US and China and explain the challenges which these companies has to overcome so that the strategy can succeed. A major cultural and paradigm shift in the startup scene across Southeast Asia has taken shape since the US election in 2016\. Prior to that, most startups aspire to be the “pick your name – US technology giant (for example, Google, Facebook, Uber, Amazon” of Southeast Asia. However, in these days, you hear startups in the region proclaiming themselves “pick your name – Chinese technology giant for example, Tencent, Alibaba, Meituan-Dianping or Bytedance”. That shift came from the perception that the Chinese technology giants have been expanding their presence in the region. The paradigm of investing in local champions was explored very rarely by US technology companies, probably with the exception of [Yahoo!’s acquisition of Koprol](https://techcrunch.com/2010/05/24/yahoo-koprol/?ref=bernardleong.com) (which was the Foursquare of Indonesia then) and [Google’s acquisition of Pie in 2016](https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/google-eats-pie/?ref=bernardleong.com). Around the late 2000s to early 2013, the Chinese technology companies have poured steroids in the form of funding into local companies along with other major players from Japan (mainly SoftBank), Korea and other countries such as South Africa (Naspers). As a result, they have extended their proxy war from China to Southeast Asia against their own Chinese counterparts but also against the US technology giants. The success of WeChat, a messaging app built by Tencent and Alipay, a payments app created by Alibaba fostered a major innovation in mobile applications. The super app is the consequence of incrementally placing additional services into a frequently used app typically messaging or payments, and making it to be a Swiss army knife of your daily life. Analogously, it is similar to the concept where your moments of life are digitized into set of functions that can be solved for the mobile app. The first consequence which many did not appreciate, is the bypassing of the mobile operating systems owned by the duopoly of Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android. The second consequence, is the innovation of a new business model for emerging markets. What many did not realize, is that Tencent has managed to build a business out of messaging apps from the desktop to mobile era. MSN messenger and ICQ were the earlier incarnations from the West, but it is Tencent who made the sustainable business model of micro-transactions through their QQ desktop messaging app and disrupt themselves later with a mobile version called WeChat. The best way to summarize Tencent’s core competency is that they execute their business model successfully by leveraging their competitive advantage of the massive distribution in their apps. The business model can put any form of content in the form of gaming, music and books and Tencent’s strength in distributing and monetizing made them a formidable foe against their western counterparts even with the same or greater scale. The Tencent playbook is now considered as an alternative model against the US tech giants who could never get the micro-transactions model work properly in emerging markets. Hence in Southeast Asia, with the exception of Singapore which really looks like a city in the US, say New York or San Francisco, everywhere else is an emerging market. Does that mean the super app model pioneered by Tencent can be translated to the region? Gojek and Grab are now the flag bearers of the super app model and evolved their companies in different ways but harnessing the same strategy to achieve dominance in the region. The purpose of this article is to examine the super app strategy in Southeast Asia, and adopt a critical lens to validate whether the strategy embraced by Grab and Gojek can or will eventually work. We are not interested to explore why they are pushing their media narrative to the market. The secondary purpose of this article is to look at how the infrastructure in Southeast Asia is compared to China and explain how success will look like for Grab and Gojek if they have executed the super app strategy successfully. In short, we want to answer, “What does success means for Gojek and Grab if they have executed the super app strategy? We are in the early days and if you ask me today, “Who will win, Gojek vs Grab?”. My answer is that I don’t know but I know how to assess the winner if one has successfully implemented the strategy and we have at least two to three years for their strategy to play out across Southeast Asia. #### What is a super app? What is a super app and what does it mean to be a successful super app? Before we set off to answer the question, it’s best to define what a super app is for the context of our conversation. The best way to define a super app is a mobile (or a new platform such as augmented & virtual reality) application that has a feature with an extremely high recurring usage and activity, and consequently, create and build an ecosystem where other mobile applications can provide products and services on the top of app layer to facilitate service based transactions. For example, WeChat is a mobile messaging app, where they build the infrastructure for other apps to build on top of their app to facilitate transactions, for example, payments for services or ecommerce transactions. Alipay is the other super app, which leverages on the high volume of payment transactions to incentivise users into usage of other services within the app itself. If we look at Gojek and Grab which have started as ride hailing apps from the very start, their main thesis is that they both have a high recurring app usage based on ride hailing. To be fair, Gojek was the first to integrate with a local bank to facilitate payments for their food delivery and other services in Indonesia and truly embrace the super app ethos. In Indonesia, it is safe to say that Gojek is a super app in Indonesia but outside of Indonesia, it is not. They have the advantage of being a first mover but the fragmentation of Southeast Asia made it difficult for their super app expansion. I will illustrate with a simple example which I believe that it will be fixed in due time. A user in Singapore is unable to pay for the ride hailing service in Indonesia because they are not using a regional payments platform such as Cybersource (wholly owned by Visa). The inability to extend payments for their service made them vulnerable in entering other markets, but they owned the largest market in Southeast Asia which is Indonesia. Grab, on the other hand, have been laser focused and expanded their ride hailing services across the region including Indonesia and they have shifted to the super app model by leveraging on the high recurring usage. In Grab’s model, they have also built up their financial services and payment systems to shift the grab app towards a super app model. The core assumption that a highly recurring transaction system will push the user towards other services within the app is what Grab and Gojek are betting on for the next stage of their company’s evolution. #### Why the Super App works in China and not US The best way to understand why [the super app works in China](https://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/?ref=bernardleong.com) and not in the US is mainly attributed to the business model and the infrastructure which the services of the super app are built on. The easiest route to understand this is via digital payments. What propelled Alibaba and Tencent towards the super app is the freedom that the financial and monetary regulatory agency in China have given them. Unlike the US, which have cultivated successful payment networks such as Visa and Mastercard, China has no payment infrastructure to start off with. The best way to think about it is the following: Why have Visa and Mastercard not able to increase their market share in Asia and instead relying on credit card revenues for the past two decades? The technology is there and they can easily do this. The reason is that they are living on financial instructure that were developed decades back, where the transaction fee is rather high in the emerging markets but reasonable in developed markets in Asia such as Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. The problem is that most people do not realize that when a customer is making a payment, there are many things happening in the payment infrastructure layer, for example, you need a bank to act as a clearing gateway for the transaction and at the same time, check whether the transaction is fraud. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/china-digital-economy.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/wordpress/2019/06/Screen-Shot-2019-06-09-at-10.36.45-AM.png) How China is beating US in Digital Payments (Credits: [McKinsey](https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/china/chinas-digital-economy-a-leading-global-force?ref=bernardleong.com)) What Alibaba and Tencent have managed to do, is to have this financial layer built but at a much cheaper cost against the US payment networks and the additional advantage is that they are built for emerging markets. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/mckinsey-mobile-money.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/wordpress/2019/06/mckinsey-mobile-money.png) This diagram explains clearly how Tencent and Alibaba found the digital payments model and built the underlying financial infrastructure that break the China Union Pay (or Visa/Mastercard) model. Credits: [McKinsey](https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/mobile-money-in-emerging-markets-the-business-case-for-financial-inclusion?ref=bernardleong.com) The core payments infrastructure that is built by Alibaba and Tencent can withstand a large market size such as China. If we do not factor in the regulatory tax that will be imposed by India, Indonesia and Brazil, either the Alipay and Tenpay infrastructure can be easily integrated to facilitate these payments better than the ones brought by US. The core payment infrastructure also explains the major problem to why Facebook cannot build a WeChat clone despite we have known that Mark Zuckerberg and Dave Marcus have acknowledged Tencent’s success with WeChat and desperately want to clone it for the rest of the world. The reason is that Facebook will not be able to hit its unit economics with the payment networks of Visa and Mastercard. That is the harsh reality for low cost digital payments, where you need the scale and a cheaper and better infrastructure to facilitate the transactions. However, there is now [a way forward with the launch of the upcoming stable coin for Facebook](https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/06/facebook-libra-launch/?ref=bernardleong.com) and that is to leverage on the innovations provided by blockchain technology. The blockchain technology offers Facebook a way out to circumvent the payment networks and that will provide them the infrastructure which allows them to challenge Tencent and Alibaba on payments. This will not happen now, but we are now at the turning point where Visa & Mastercard will be caught in a digital disruption in the next few years. While a lot of technology pundits like to argue that the UI of a super app does not translate to the user in the US market, they do not realize what Facebook really need to build for their super app is a cheaper payment infrastructure subject to the laws of US financial regulatory agencies. As Facebook have revealed their plans with blockchain and introducing a stable coin for transactions, it is likely that they will tap on this infrastructure to bypass Visa and Mastercard to build out their own super app with both WhatsApp and Facebook. #### Can Grab and Gojek’s super app strategy work? Someone posed this question to me in my podcast whether Gojek or Grab will win in Southeast Asia. Let me paraphrase my answer specifically pointing the question to “How do we know when Grab and Gojek have successfully executed their super app strategy?” Here are a few metrics to how I will know whether Gojek or Grab will be successful. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/grab-super-app.jpeg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/wordpress/2019/06/grab-super-app.jpg) Grab’s visualization on what they think that their super app is. (Credits: Grab) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/gojek-super-app.jpeg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/wordpress/2019/06/gojek.jpeg) Gojek’s visualization on what they think that their super app is. (Credits: Gojek) To be a successful super app as we have seen in the WeChat case, we need the following: - ****Can third party apps thrive on the Grab or Gojek ecosystem?** First of all, the WeChat app ecosystem in China have enabled at least ten to twenty unicorns which have been built on top of their ecosystem. For example, Pinduoduo relied on WeChat for their customer acquisition and deployed on Wechat’s mini-program and has managed to go public within 3 years since its formation. It is impossible for any media outlet or product/service to acquire customers in a rapid short time without leveraging on Wechat’s ecosystem in China. Similarly, the same can be said of Alipay by Alibaba. In addition, Tencent has a robust developer ecosystem where they have successfully implemented the [Wechat mini programs](https://walkthechat.com/wechat-mini-programs-simple-introduction/?ref=bernardleong.com) (which is similar to the [instant app concept](https://developer.android.com/topic/google-play-instant?ref=bernardleong.com) from Google Android) to drive the flywheel of getting developers to create and develop new applications for users. - ****Do they have their own independent payments system that they have access as compared to Facebook, Tencent and Alibaba?** Due to the fragmented nature of how digital payments are regulated across Southeast Asia, Gojek and Grab will be forced to work out partnerships with local payment systems or be forced into at least one or both partnerships with Visa and Mastercard with a lower but premium rate. This simply means that they have no control on their payment infrastructure. This can go two ways: one, the eventual fate is that Grab and Gojek have no control over their destiny as compared to the US and China tech giants and two, they have to develop an underlying financial infrastructure that is outside of the regulatory boundaries, and in that case, I will hazard a guess that they will have to develop a blockchain payment tech in the process. Well, Gojek is ahead of Grab by [the acquisition of Coins PH](https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/18/gojek-coins-ph-philippines/?ref=bernardleong.com) which is a blockchain technology company in Philippines. - ****What is the jobs to be done for the user of Grab and Gojek app?** If you ask me this question at the start of Grab and Gojek’s startup stage, I will say that it’s the convenience to bring me from point A to B with a cheaper cost against the incumbents i.e. the taxi companies. Then ask the next question, what is the jobs to be done for the super app? In my opinion, the customer gets the ability and convenience to get their daily and recurring transactions done with the different services that intersect with his or her life quickly and efficiently. For example, a customer might use the ride hailing app for 4 to 5 times daily, and then need to book the barber once a month and occasionally need to buy movie tickets probably once per week. If the payment system is integrated, the customer can do it easily via the super app. Let me apply the principle of charity here, I can accept Grab’s argument that the super app idea will work in Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand but for Singapore, I very much doubt so. It has nothing to do with Grab but two factors such as accessibility to payment systems and integration with local services come to mind. Based on the metrics on the above three factors, I can determine clearly who will be the winner. Actually, given how investors or business people think based on my interactions with them, I am inclined to think that Indonesia will be the most important market because the story of “after China, India and Brazil, which is the next big market” is the easiest to sell. China has shown that any foreign player will be given a high degree of difficulty in market entry. India has shown that any foreign player will be given a low degree of difficulty in market entry but they are also learning from the Chinese, Korean and Japanese in how to protect their own market. Every smart person who I spoke to in Indonesia told me that the nationalist problem does not exist there, but I am sceptical of that. So, to end, I do hope that either Gojek or Grab will succeed or one of them must succeed. It is in the interests of the Southeast Asia region to show that it operates as one single market and at the same time, demonstrates that investors can see returns on their investments. ****Author’s note and acknowledgments:** **I thank Jon Russell, Michael Smith, Tim Culpan and many others who I have discussed this either thru the podcast or twitter. In addition, BL thanks James Hull and Carol Yin for reading the first drafts and addingtheir feedback to improve the article. I will be adding a reference section and updating constantly on the links to reflect the discussion on this topic which has been going on.* ****Additional points for further discussion:** - Michael Norris have pointed out that one major factor for Wechat super app success is attributed to the strategic partnerships that they have spent years to build out within China. The same is for Alipay by Alibaba Group under Ant Financial. I might expand on this aspect in the context of Southeast Asia in a future article. - James Hull, host of China Tech Investor podcast, released a thoughtful tweetstorm on the post, and you can read [his comments from this link here](https://twitter.com/jameshullx/status/1137590577128599553?s=20&ref=bernardleong.com). He has pointed out that merchant acquisition strategy by Tencent is one of key success factors for Tencent to make Wechat into a super app. - There is an ongoing discussion in Analyse Asia’s Telegram Group where different people have offered up different perspectives on the super app. One strand of argument is to explore the strategy from the consumer or in a more technical language, user point of view. I agree with that assessment but we need more data on the user’s usage patterns from Gojek and Grab super app. - This article has been reproduced in Global Coin Research and Deal Street Asia with my approval. ****References**: \[1\] [Analyse Asia podcast interview with Jon Russell ](https://analyse.asia/2019/05/10/episode-297-gojek-vs-grab-dawn-of-the-super-app-with-jon-russell/?ref=bernardleong.com)Episode 297 and you can hear it direct via [Overcast](https://overcast.fm/+DUtQL3d9U?ref=bernardleong.com), [Spotify](https://open.spotify.com/episode/0AZVp8KjPllzXiNYjp9C2L?si=2nD6kih5S8uNHzb5hgswmQ&ref=bernardleong.com) and [Himalaya](https://www.himalaya.com/en/episode/107656/59192211?ref=bernardleong.com) \[2\] Tim Culpan, “[Grab’s bonfire of the vanities is blowing smoke](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-08/grab?ref=bernardleong.com)“, Bloomberg \[3\] Michael Smith from SeedPlus, “[(My take) Grab vs. Go-Jek: Inside Asia’s Battle of the ‘Super Apps](https://seedvc.blog/2019/03/22/my-take-grab-vs-go-jek-inside-asias-battle-of-the-super-apps-fortune/?ref=bernardleong.com)‘.” Smithy has pointed a [couple of issues with Grab’s app](https://seedvc.blog/2019/05/31/i-mean-i-dont-love-grab-but-this/?ref=bernardleong.com), and I believe that they should act on his feedback. \[4\] Jon Russell from TechCrunch, “[No, Gojek isn’t valued at 10 billion … yet](https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/08/no-go-jek-isnt-valued-at-10-billion-and-yes-i-am-a-pedant/?ref=bernardleong.com)“. \[5\] Connie Chan from Andreessen Horowitz, [“When One App Rules Them All: The Case for Wechat & Mobile in China”](https://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/?ref=bernardleong.com) ### How to shut down a zombie company gracefully URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/how-to-shut-down-a-zombie-company-gracefully/ Last updated: 2023-10-29T07:24:05.000Z In the past few years, somewhere between I left the startup world to the corporate world till the birth of my 2nd child, I have worked to help some founders of zombie startups or companies to shut down their companies and transition to move on with their lives after that. In this article, I share the process in how I helped them to work out the shutting down details and in the hope that others can help their friends who might be in this process. Shutting down a company is never easy for any founder. Oftentimes, there are a multitude of factors that made it difficult for any founder to call it a day. After shutting down my company, I took on a different path in the corporate sector. It felt a long time ago, but the startup I co-founded was officially shut down in 2014, despite we ceased all technical and business operations in June 2012\. Even in my corporate day job, I have to go through procedure after procedure to get to the finishing line in shutting down the company. It was an arduous journey, mainly because we did not build on the right foundation. Setting up a company is easy but shutting down is extremely difficult especially when you take money from investors and the worse situation from government grants as well. While it is normal for founders to go to successful founders for advice, I have been approached by another group of founders a few months later after the closure of my startup for a different kind of advice. It started with one or two founders who wanted advice on how to shut down their companies and move on. While it is not a scalable endeavor, I just took one or two cases by referrals for about 3-4 years. Everything remains confidential and I have to navigate the complexities in helping the founder to map out his or her path ahead. Gradually, I have done that as part of my giving back to the startup community till the birth of my 2nd child. It has been a distance from the time I have stopped and hence I have decided to put it down on paper by only revealing the thinking in how to do it but not the confidentiality that was entrusted to me. The problem is described as the following: **“I have worked in startup X as a founder for many years and see that it’s going nowhere. I have a change in my personal situation recently and need to think about the future. How do I shut down the company given that I have investors who have been supportive and long time employees?* A change in personal situation can mean many things. It could mean a founder has just gotten married and will have a kid on the way. The money from the startup could not allow him or her to make a decent living and hence he or she can move on. It can also mean that the founder is no longer passionate about the area which he or she has started with. Sometimes, the product market fit was not there. Last but not least, the company has evolved into something that was totally different from what it was envisaged. Yet, the common thing is to help this founder to move on from something that was not clearly working. What they want to know is how one can gracefully shut down a company. The meetings will be kept confidential and I will listen to their situation and put together a plan where they can execute and eventually shut down their zombie company. In the process of helping them shut down, I have done my best to guide and help them think about what to do next. While I have an extremely difficult time to transition to a corporate career, these founders were lucky that there was a period of traditional companies looking for startup founders to hire. It turns out that I have an address book to different digital heads from major companies out there who might be in need of startup talent and hence as part of the process, I help them to find a job as well. I remember the advice that was given to me from a late old friend, Professor Patrick Turner from INSEAD when I was in the same situation. He reckons that shutting down a startup gracefully is as important to a founder who manage to find success in building a unicorn. In Patrick’s words, a crashing startup is similar to a plane crash landing and your job as the startup founder is to ensure that everyone on the plane land safely with the least amount of casualties possible. Except for a well-known Chinese classic “Romance of Three Kingdoms” where the failures are celebrated, history is often written by winners. Of course, like any normal human being, suffering a high profile defeat is extremely painful. Yes, time heals the wounds but the scars remain. From laying off people to make sure that the customers are informed of the shutdown, closing down a startup company is a daunting task. Learning to control the psychology of defeat and failure is probably something that I am still working on even till today. Here are the steps which I have suggested to founders who have to overcome the psychological barrier of shutting down their companies: 1. The first thing is to inform all shareholders that you are closing down the company and get the company to be struck off from the registry in that particular jurisdiction. 2. The next thing is to work out how much left in the bank account so that you can do three things: one, pay out the liabilities to vendor and employees you need to lay off, two, cancel existing contracts and three, getting the accounting and audit documentation done so that you are compliant with the law of the land. If you have employees, just make a few phone calls to your other startup friends and competitors, and you will be surprised that they will help you to find a home for them if recruitment opportunities are available. 3. Then execute each of the steps one by one till you are the last person standing, get the accounts audited and then get the company shut down and struck off from the register in that country’s jurisdiction. What I discover from my experience in counseling these founders, the difficult conversation for the founder to convey to their family, friends, investors or business angels who has started with them proved to be the toughest for them to overcome the psychological barrier to shut down the company. You may find this surprising but in an Asian society, the founder often felt more guilty in letting them down and hence I believe that more effort has to be conveyed on the front of the investors to understand that making investments in startups have a high risk of failure. To end, for those who might think that giving up might be a failure, I have this little quote to close this conversation even if you have transition to a corporate role just to pay the bills, “One can take the man (or woman) off the market from being an entrepreneur, but they can never take the entrepreneur off the man (or woman).” ### Recalibration of Value in the Sharing Economy Internet Companies URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/recalibration-of-value-in-the-sharing-economy-internet-companies/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:37:17.000Z Recently, with the rush of Internet companies from the sharing economy era either going public or have gone public, we are beginning to see commentators and pundits in the technology space questioning their value to the market. When we think about these sharing economy Internet companies, a few examples will come to our mind: ride hailing companies such as Uber, Didi, Grab, Ola and Lyft and travel and accommodation experiences companies such as Airbnb and Oyo Rooms and corporate workspaces such as Wework. Let’s starting by looking at the valuation of these companies vs their traditional companies in the same industry: - Airbnb is reported to be [worth US$35B](https://www.vox.com/2019/3/19/18272274/airbnb-valuation-common-stock-hoteltonight?ref=bernardleong.com) before their current move towards a public offering as compared to Hilton (at US$25B), Marriott with the acquisition of Starwood (at US$43B) and Bookings at (US$80B) - Uber is seeking for a [US$90-100B valuation](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47871117?ref=bernardleong.com), with Lyft [has just gone public with US$24.3B](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lyft-ipo/lyft-valued-at-24-3-billion-in-first-ride-hailing-ipo-idUSKCN1R92P4?ref=bernardleong.com). - Wework is estimated to be worth [US$50B with 425 locations and an operating losses of US$2B](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48127919?ref=bernardleong.com) and their nearest competitor IWG (who owns Regus) has 3306 locations but have a US$4B valuation and an operating profit of US$200M (note that we convert GBP to US$ for their respective valuations). The major criticisms on these new wave of technology companies that interact with real world physical assets are the following: one, they are stilling running at a loss with lots of subsidies particularly in the transportation space; two, they are over-valued as compared to their counterparts and three, the claim on their high valuations against their competitors are predicated on the advantages of technology and network effects without the need to own the physical assets and workforce. The workforce are viewed as contractors and hence the additional costs to maintain them from healthcare and safety are not included. As a result, some technology pundits and commentators out there concluded that there could be no value in these companies and some even felt that these companies going public are likened to Ponzi schemes where the investors in the private market are now passing the liabilities to the public market i.e. retail and institutional investors. I have a different perspective to these types of companies. Their value to the economy has been their consistent ability to recalibrate the prices of physical assets and shaving the regulatory tax with the authorities that govern them i.e. the cost imposed by governments on the owner of these assets such that safety and interest of the customer are ensured and the right to operate these businesses. For example, Uber leverages on driver subsidies and high volume of consumer transactions to push down the price of a customer taking a ride from point A to B and skips the regulatory tax that a traditional taxi operator need to adhere such as driver insurance, training and having the license to operate and not set prices that customers might be ripped off. In the case of Airbnb and Wework, these companies are recalibrating the value of the real estate and bypass regulatory tax of how a hospitality and hotel chain will run. After all, like Uber, they did not need physical assets to sit on their accounting balance sheet. By recalibrating the value of physical assets downwards, these companies have managed to shift the regulatory tax down for everyone. However, as they are going public, they will face the serious risk that is how governments across the world might impose the regulatory tax by setting new laws on them from forcing them to include the fleets and labor force under their care. We have seen in Asia that most governments have started to impose a new set of regulatory tax onto them while at the same time, reducing that tax and revising the requirements for traditional companies within the same space. Once that regulatory tax comes in, the value of these companies should reduce or be pegged to how a traditional company will work in that space. In turn, these companies will be tested to become sustainable and profitable, which they don’t seem to be able to do so in this moment. So what does that mean for new digital companies in general? We are now seeing a new wave of Chinese companies which are taking the same model and start applying to food and beverages companies. I will refer you to this [podcast conversation on China Tech Investor](https://overcast.fm/+PLdQjYlSY?ref=bernardleong.com) by Elliott Zaagman, [James Hull](https://longhedge.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/assets-atoms-versus-electrons/?ref=bernardleong.com)and Michael Norris. For example, Luckin Coffee is using the same model to challenge Starbucks in China by reducing prices, and using blitz-scaling strategies similar to a software company to recalibrate the food and beverage industry. In fact, they have also tried with bicycle sharing companies but the unit economics just collapsed given how they pushed the prices down till the transportation authority impose regulatory taxes on them to render them with no choice but to fold in the process. The recalibration of value by these startups implies that there will be another wave of companies in the future that will do deeper with the vertical integration. I will hazard a guess that autonomous vehicles will disrupt Uber someday but that company may be now small today or not exist yet. These companies have succeeded by recalibrating value by allowing investors to accept that they have to make losses today so that they can be the winner of the market category. However, we have seen from [Uber S1 filing](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/000119312519103850/d647752ds1.htm?ref=bernardleong.com) that transportation is much more local, meaning that Uber’s booking engine might have economies of scale but the assets that are linked up by their network are not. That sets up a strange dynamic to how investors will value these companies in the future. ### Perspectives on the 9-9-6 work ethic in China URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/perspectives-on-the-9-9-6-work-ethic-in-china/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:35:16.000Z The 9-9-6 work ethic championed by technology companies in China suggests that every tech worker there should work from 9 am to 9 pm for 6 days a week. Within a year, it has gone from the envy of people outside of China to a serious pushback from the Chinese technology workers. In truth, the term 9-9-6 is a metaphor for Chinese tech workers to work long hours. The [origin of the term 9-9-6](https://supchina.com/podcast/ep-42-to-996-or-not-to-996-that-is-the-question/?ref=bernardleong.com) has been well covered by Rui Ma and Ying Ying Lu in their podcast. For some of my Chinese friends who are actually on the ground with very reputable technology giants there, the usual work hours starts from 10 am to 11 pm per day, and typically if you work in Shenzhen, the worst time to get rides on Didi is about 11 pm, because most people get off work after that time. Mike Moritz from Sequoia Capital [hailed the 9-9-6 work ethic in China](https://www.ft.com/content/42daca9e-facc-11e7-9bfc-052cbba03425?ref=bernardleong.com) and warned Silicon Valley is in danger of being displaced as a technology nexus in the world if tech workers in Silicon Valley continue to demand work life balance and perks for their jobs. The work ethic even become [the name of a podcast](https://996.ggvc.com/category/podcast/?ref=bernardleong.com) for GGV Ventures, a well-known venture capital firm which invests in both US and China. As the China and US trade tensions escalate, the Chinese economy start to head for a slowdown. Leveraging that reasoning, the Chinese technology companies have started to made both tech and operation workers redundant and emphasized that they should work harder. Even [Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba Group encouraged his employees to continue](https://www.weibo.com/1897953162/HphXuy5BY?filter=hot&root%5Fcomment%5Fid=0&type=comment&ref=bernardleong.com#%5Frnd1555660105002) (note that the article is best read in Chinese) despite [the backlash](https://supchina.com/podcast/chinas-exploited-tech-workers-fight-back/?ref=bernardleong.com) from an [anti 996 group](https://996.icu/?ref=bernardleong.com#/zh%5FCN) building their case in Github. When I first heard and read about the 9-9-6 work ethic in China, I was very sure that it was not sustainable. From my perspective, this will take a few years to unravel, but it was challenged in less in a year. Yet I believe that it’s a natural cycle of how people from developing nations catalyses the explosive economic growth until it reach the developed nation status. When I was growing up in Singapore as it was still a developing economy, hard work and long hours are the only way to attain high social mobility. At the same time, I witnessed the rise of Japan during that period. An analogous version of the 9-9-6 work ethic was also popular with the Japanese. It took a few years to unravel, with workers going into depression and suicides happening. It is not surprising because working beyond 40 hours is not sustainable. Analogous to the technology industry in China, the Japanese gaming companies have also demanded their workers to work overtime. Eventually, there were enough critical mass of suicides among Japanese game developers that they have to create a black list to punish firms for pushing this. The 9-9-6 culture is temporary and eventually, like the other cultures of the world which evolved towards a developed status, people will eventually demand work life balance. The problem is that most people conflate working long hours to getting more things done. Unfortunately, efficiency and overwork often and rarely go hand in hand. Once the culture of the nation starts to shift towards creative work, overwork can be counter productive. In fact, when I returned home to Singapore in the mid 2000s, the attitude shifted from working long hours to work life balance. Why are people working such long hours in China? The reason is that they want to achieve economic well being after going through a tough period where people died of famine and had no opportunity of even working. What has happened in the process, is that the 9-9-6 work ethic is used to spin why some technology companies are more successful than the other in China. There is conflation between three things: working hard and working long hours are synonymous to work achievements in life. However, in reality, it is much more complex than that. As I have learned in my own way, when you start to have a family, your priorities change and you want to start reducing that work hours, but it does not take away what I want to achieve in life. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/Imperial_Stormtrooper_model_in__GoRogueSG.jpeg) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/wordpress/2019/04/Imperial_Stormtrooper_model_in__GoRogueSG.jpg) Picture credit: Imperial storm trooper (taken by Bernard Leong) Let me break it apart here. We should all work hard in our lives and that work ethic will carry you very far. Particularly when you are young, you need to learn as much as possible so that the work experience and additional skills become the foundation for your success in later life. Working long hours does not mean that you will eventually become successful in your career. In fact, I have started to insert breaks so that I can reflect and think so that I won’t be caught in making wrong decisions in work. That’s the reality. When it comes to decision making and setting and executing a strategic vision is anti-correlated to the number of hours you work. In fact, it has more to do with how much rest you have. Yes, we should work hard, but we must allow ourselves to have the rest to think so that we can engage in deep work. While you may think that I sound against working long hours, I do see the merits of 9-9-6 mentality. For founders and well-compensated senior leaders of a company, the 9-9-6 mentality is a must. I don’t think that any founder can get away from it. If you don’t try to work very hard for the business as you are fighting for survival, then it’s unlikely that you succeed. When you work on something you really love, and in my case, even on my side project of building a weekly podcast, you will naturally adopt the 9-9-6 work ethic. If you are senior leader in a multi-national corporation, you definitely need to have a 9-9-6 mentality but not doing in the expense of your family or other things important to you. In the weekends, I often reflect on the past work week and write down what I need to do in the following week from prioritizing to tasking. In fact, I often joke to people that I am a 0-0-7, i.e. 12 am to 12 am and 7 days a week. However, what it really means, is that my mind is focused on the task and I focus on building something better every week, not by explosive pace, but with an incremental craftsman mentality to eventually work toward where I will like it to go. Even when I am resting and attending to other matters, I know that there is a part of me processing work challenges and thinking of solutions at the same time The analogy is how I look at my learnings in the subject of theoretical physics, after going through a 9-9-6 work ethic to finish my doctorate within 3 years. While re-reading the literature, I develop new insights and perspectives on the same subject as I have been transitioning into both startup and corporate careers. Difficult concepts such as physics and mathematics are osmotic and requires time and patience to take it to the next stage. That’s why working long hours don’t work when it comes to creative work and innovation. The last thing I want to say about the 9-9-6 work ethic is about people. As leaders, I only expect myself and my immediate reports to work hard and not long. I do not think that everyone is cut out for that as everyone have their own set of issues that they have to cope with. If we want to enforce the work ethic onto others, merely being inspirational is not enough. Investment banks and management consultancies insist their employees to have a 9-9-6 work ethic, but they compensate them well. So, I don’t see why the Chinese firms continue to squeeze their workers on the pretext that 9-9-6 is essential for China’s future success. What the Chinese technology firms are facing the backlash, is that the leaders believe that they can extract more out of their employees without better compensation. Like everything else in life, if you are setting an example, how do you expect others to follow? Hence this is an important consideration when you adopt 9-9-6 work ethic and start to impose such work ethic to the rest of your workforce. In the long run, my prediction is that China will evolve towards the current state of Japan and Singapore in a few years time. Expecting everyone to work in such harsh conditions is just not sustainable. This is not about laziness and productivity. Yet, I remain surprised by the pace of change in China so quickly on 9-9-6 work ethic as I thought that this will take at least a few years or if not a decade, to change when people become comfortable and start questioning why they are working so long and getting so little. In macro-economics, Japan and Singapore have suffered from low birth rates and economic productivity as a result of the spill over effects of working long hours. Essentially, the Chinese government will have to grapple this problem. Starting families are part of the economic cycle and the long hours now championed by the CEOs and founders of Chinese companies may find themselves at odd with the agenda of the government in the longer term. In the end, as any nation progresses towards innovation and creativity, work life balance will emerge and I won’t be surprised in a few years, the 9-9-6 work ethic becomes a future euphemism for Chinese economic development. ### When you join a startup, Please keep your eyes wide open URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/when-you-join-a-startup-please-keep-your-eyes-wide-open/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T07:31:58.000Z Oftentimes, you will read stories about employees being screwed on stock options in a startup or founders being total jerks during the acquisition process and leaving the employees nothing. Here’s a way to put everything in context before anyone of you decide to join a startup. In short, please keep your eyes wide open before joining a startup and understand the different perspectives. I want to ceveat the takeaway at the beginning of this post before you read further. The purpose of this article is to put in context to how and what one should do if they want to join a startup as an employee and at the same time, put in context on how founders handle their own situations and at times, may do things that might end screwing up their own employees. I caution the reader to understand the different perspectives so that everyone understands what they are getting themselves into. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/Toy-soldiers-in-the-Flower-Dome-Gardens-by-the-Bay-Singapore.jpeg) Picture Credits: Toy Soldiers by Bernard Leong Here’s a typical situation (and you can add your own complexity to the situation but they usually differ by different parameters or [read this incident with Eero](https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/5/18297619/amazon-eero-price-fire-sale-mesh-wi-fi-buyout?ref=bernardleong.com) in [detail](https://mashable.com/article/amazon-eero-wifi-router-sale/?ref=bernardleong.com#UWEybVr7pPOV) with [comments from my friend Michael Smith Jr](https://seedvc.blog/2019/04/06/amazon-bought-eero-for-97-million-and-employees-still-got-screwed/?ref=bernardleong.com) from SeedPlus VC): **You join a startup as an employee probably being compensated about 90-95% what you would have been compensated if you are with a multi-national or regional corporation. You are given some stock options which are valued at $X. If the startup is eventually acquired or go public after various stages of funding, the value of your stock options will be priced at the valuation of $Y and if $Y is greater than $X, you make some extra money as bonus in addition to your salary. If your company is in a critical situation close to a shutdown and has to be sold at a fire sale price of $Z where $Z is lesser than $X in valuation, then your stock options are worthless, and you lose your bonus and you have earned less than what you should have. Then you are being told by the rest of the world that you have been screwed by your employer.* The problem with the situation prescribed above is that everything which an employee values about a startup is the lottery ticket and salary which they have negotiated from the start. It does not capture the different facets or complexity to why an employee might choose a startup over a multi-national corporation. There are many reasons to why an employee joins a startup. First, they have decided that the environment of a multi-national corporation are not for them. Not everyone will get free food and great perks in Google or join a brand like McKinsey or Goldman Sachs stick behind their backs and guarantee successful career tracks. Some employees decided that they are cogs in the wheel, earning good salaries but doing bullshit jobs. Hence they want an environment which they can learn the most. Of course, the startup is an environment where they can take on different roles at different times to solve company problems. The learnings and experience acquired help individuals to grow and offer another path for them to success. Sometimes, it’s about the startup culture. Some companies walk the talk and they really have the culture. Believe me, I doubt that 95% of the startups really have “culture” because everyone is in a fire fighting mode. Hence, a good startup culture might offer an environment for you as the employee to thrive. Of course, if your startup has the culture and be successful, then your lottery ticket is a bonus. So, why do I talk about the employee from this perspective? The times when you as a startup employee think that you are screwed, is often encumbered with the following baggages: first, you hate your startup job; second, you hate the environment where the culture spoken by the founders does not exist, and three, they don’t compensate you well. So, if all three factors align and a fire sale happens with $Z < $X, then you will really think that you are royally screwed by the founders of the startup. I empathize your plight but the clear advice I will give you is that you should have quitted your job sooner and not now. Let me explain how you should see the founders’ perspectives in a startup company. There are a couple of things which are conflated with your compensation and stock options. It’s best to decouple them. First of all, startup founders are either not compensated i.e. not taking a salary or take a salary which is grossly below the market rate, say 50% of how much they are earning. When I was a founder or CTO of a startup, I earn $5K when the company raised the first seed fund to give a runway of 18 months, and if I have gone to take a real job, it will be at least falls within $10-15K depending on the scope of the role. That financial situation changes when the company reaches at least series C funding and becomes a proper company. The founder’s only route to financial happiness happens during acquisition or the company going public, with the amount of equity in their hands. They have to live with delayed gratification and it becomes harder when the founder gets married and starts having kids. The danger for every founder is during series A-D stage where the company runs out of money or be caught in any external situations that can drive them out of business, for example, regulation. In fact, if you do a comparative basis, the lottery ticket the founders have is far worse than an employee. That’s where the beef of the fire sale comes in where the founders are forced to sell the company at a lower price. It renders all employees with stock options zero. Let’s take the situation further and examine what founders think about when they have to do that. Most founders are human beings with at least a set of core values and principles. If not, most founders have inflated egos which they will not like their employees walking out later to tell the rest of the world that they were jerks by making all stock options value zero with their bad management of the company. The first thing that I believe that they think on their minds is that if the company runs of money, every employee will be out of a job. The fire sale solves a few things: retain the employees with jobs, and at the same time, providing a way out for the founders to exit. In fact, the investors or the “evil VCs” might be compensated first depending on the liquidation preferences they sign. Hence if you are a founder and if you have a family, then your situation is really dire. Oftentimes, extreme situations require extreme actions. Yes, the founders might have sold at a price that might cause your lottery ticket to be zero but they kept the whole thing alive. If the company have a fostering environment for the employees, keeping it alive might not be a bad option. I do not doubt that there are founders who are jerks out there and care for themselves. In this situation, I will explain what might be going on the founders’ minds in a fire sale. To end, if you want to join a startup as an employee, there are few things in your consideration: - Are you compensated fairly in your own perspective? - Has the startup provided you the environment and the right culture to succeed? - Have the founders the right set of principles or ways of working that at least you know when in bad situations, they will not screw you over? When you are about to accept an offer from a startup, please have a honest conversation with those three questions and forget about the lottery ticket because that is a bonus and not an entitlement. That’s why it is important when you join a startup, please keep your eyes wide open. Suggested follow up reading: - Steve Blank’s “[Startup Stock Options – When a good deal has gone bad](https://steveblank.com/2019/04/10/startup-stock-options-why-a-good-deal-has-gone-bad/?ref=bernardleong.com)“ ### Why the Bitcoin Value is not Zero URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/why-the-bitcoin-value-is-not-zero/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:34:57.000Z The main thesis of the article is that we argue why the bitcoin value is not and can never be zero. The alternative title of this article should be how to price a bitcoin with a mathematical formula. It has been more than a decade since the bitcoin paper entitled “[Bitcoin: An Electronic Peer to Peer Cash System](https://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/?ref=bernardleong.com)” has originally floated into the online world by the mysterious founder, Satoshi Nakamoto on 31 Oct 2008\. Since then, there are technical and business development tracks that led bitcoin into going mainstream. The original bitcoin concept is simple: decentralizing trust system using a peer to peer system, building digital scarcity by limiting the number of bitcoins in circulation and distributing the coin using a proof of work algorithm which many termed it as mining. Yet till today, bitcoin is still as controversial as ever. It is originally designed as a currency for transaction but ironically, it become an asset that carries a value and behavior to gold. There is no intrinsic value for bitcoin because you can use the cryptocurrency to make any form of purchases. The mathematical model that Satoshi Nakamoto has illustrated with his groundbreaking bitcoin paper is sound and open and there lies no back doors to how the currency can be manipulated. The security of the cryptocurrency is one of the most under-estimated features when people discuss the advantages of bitcoin as an electronic cash system. Bitcoin is a triumph of creating a new monetary currency in the digital world in safe and secure manner to the ledger between financial transactions There have been arguments put up by economists that [bitcoin violates the efficient market hypothesis](http://crookedtimber.org/2018/02/09/bitcoin-kills-the-efficient-market-hypothesis/?ref=bernardleong.com) and what it means for the [financial markets](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/opinion/bitcoin-financial-markets.html?ref=bernardleong.com). The reason why it does is that the same economists who are arguing about this assigned zero value to bitcoin, i.e. it’s an object that has no inherent value, and coupled with common misconceptions about bitcoin in the general public, it creates an alarm that bitcoin might eventually become a Ponzi scheme that will rob the people who have made the purchases. However, there exist other investments in the main stream that is similar to bitcoin. Gold is probably one of the assets which does not have an intrinsic value. What sets gold apart from bitcoin, is that human societies have determined with their degree of belief that gold has an intrinsic value and can be priced to a non-zero value and it helps that you can see the gold bars. Whereas, there is no physical manifestation of bitcoin and hence it becomes a challenge for many to define the exact value of the bitcoin. The main thesis of the article is that we argue why the bitcoin value is not and can never be zero. In some sense, what I want to offer is to find a method to price a bitcoin. In fact, I offer a simple way to price the value of the bitcoin: > **Value of the Bitcoin = Degree of mistrust of the bitcoin holders against the current monetary institutions + price of the blockchain technology normalized over the investors who set the current value of bitcoin.** The two variables can be quantified in a simple way. First, the degree of mistrust can be interpreted as the degree of belief against the current monetary institutions. One of the key reasons why bitcoin flourished during the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008 is that many people has lost faith in the traditional monetary institutions of power. The effect of bailing out the major investment banks has generated mistrust among the common populace towards the traditional monetary institutions of power. In fact, another way to look at this is to understand the decentralized nature of bitcoin. If two people agree that bitcoin is worth a value greater than zero, then the value will be there despite what many people would disagree to. The value of bitcoin has been positive because the amount of people who are holding a bitcoin has gone past the tipping point. In other words, bitcoin has gone beyond critical mass and move past the escape velocity. In order for the bitcoin value to be zero, it means that all the holders of the currency will ascribe to zero, and this is not possible unless regulatory bodies stepped in and made the cryptocurrency illegal. However, different governments have instituted different policies for bitcoin and hence as a result, bitcoin has achieved a non-zero value on that. In fact, I will hazard a conjecture that the bitcoin value will fluctuates in opposing directions of how the populace view the major financial institutions. If their faith is restored along the way, the bitcoin value will diminish because people will go back to the traditional fiat currencies instead of looking for alternative assets to hedge. The other variable which was never priced into the value of bitcoin is the blockchain technology. What many failed to recognize, bitcoin is the first successful implementation of the blockchain technology. One can imagine the same argument can be made for [Ethereum](https://www.ethereum.org/?ref=bernardleong.com) in the same way except that ether is being used more like an exchange trade funds because it pegs the price of most alt-coins in the markets after their initial coin offerings. That is not say that the price of the blockchain technology will be the same, increase of decrease. What we have learned with most technology disruptions is that the technology will eventually commoditized. If that is the case, it will settle to a low non-zero value. The price of the bitcoin is currently hovering around US$3-4K, and surprisingly, for comparison, the price of gold is close to more than US$3-4K depending on price fluctuations. What this is telling us is that the people who are holding the currency have somehow inferred that bitcoin is the digital gold, both without intrinsic value, but yet we hold it as an asset that we can make exchanges if the current money system will to collapse. Of course, the holy grail of finding a formula to price a bitcoin is still out there. ### On Limited Time URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/on-limited-time/ Last updated: 2026-06-17T00:33:22.000Z Since turning 40s, I have been thinking about my life from now to the end. If I adopt a statistical thinking about my own mortality, this is a dangerous period of my life, because I can hit by any illness. Hence I have the impetus to sketch out my thoughts on the limited time and where I want to be heading. > *“For what it’s worth: it’s never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There’s no time limit, stop whenever you want. You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. And I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the courage to start all over again.”* > > *― **Eric Roth,* The Curious Case of Benjamin Button Screenplay* By October 2019, I will be 45\. By conventional wisdom and how macroeconomics work out, my professional life will end by 65 if the retirement age will be extended. It means from 45 to 65, I have only 7300 days to really execute the remaining days of my life. I have often told myself that I will never retire. Even if I am not able to work on what I would wake up every day and be passionate about, there are still side projects which I have abandoned earlier in my life that I want to do. As a matter, as family life creeps in, I have discovered that I have been less engaged with the world and strangely since I have my first kid, I have very few meetings in the evening. When you have children, your priorities have also changed in the process. Suppose if I turn 65, what will I do then? Chief among them is go back to theatre production. In my younger days, it has been one of my passions and going back to theatre production and changing the user experience with technology from how we can re-design the backstage to the front stage is something that I often want to do. Either I develop a script myself based on life experiences or work on existing material and port it to the stage. The beauty of theatre is similar to a startup. You assemble a production team and a cast of characters and you rushed to put a viable product on stage and then either it works or fails. It’s simplistic and there are many analogues between a startup and a theatre production. If my analytical abilities are not failing, I will like to return to theoretical physics. The beauty of studying theoretical physics is that even you have left the field for a while, you can still come back and work with a pen and a piece of paper. Theoretical physics is an osmotic subject, and as I age, my understanding has evolved and in fact, I have stopped thinking about difficult problems but looking at problems which are simple to state but require longer time to think and work it out. There are three problems which I want to look at if I have the opportunity. The first is the two body problem in general relativity. For those who have studied Newtonian theory, the two body problem has an analytical solution meaning that you don’t need to resort to numerical approximations to determine the trajectory of the physical bodies such as stars out there. Unfortunately, general relativity is a non-linear theory, and hence finding that exact two body solution is not a simple feat. It sounds like a simple to state problem but it’s rather hard to solve, but there are some ideas which I like to tap on and figure it out. Another problem is something that I often think that it’s a conjecture or an educated guess on my end. What does quantum tunneling mean in physics? One outrageous idea is that maybe in the quantum scales, there might be ways of tapping into extra dimensions which might be very small. What if quantum tunneling is actually a manifestation of extra dimensions? We have seen experimental evidence of quantum tunneling and that powers the transistors which power the modern computers. Yet, we don’t have a clear idea what it really means. The idea is to reconcile quantum tunneling as a manifestation of extra dimensions and it looks extremely seductive but I will try to rule it out. The third problem is about energy. As one grows with a deeper understanding in physics, energy is an interesting problem. One simple problem which I want to understand is to calculate the amount of energy generated during photosynthesis of plants. Unlike animals, plants are much more complex and demonstrated interesting processes that drove modern molecular biology today. You might be surprised that RNA interference was known in plant biology before it was shown in animals such as mice. Thinking about energy problems in plants might be a way to devise interesting solutions in food sustainability for the future. How about now? I have been thinking about how to optimize my time better. I have a corporate day job, a side project and a family. Each demands a reasonable amount of time. I have started to exercise a lot more and putting hacks to myself so that I can focus on the tasks at end. Till now to 45, I am thinking how to cut more stuff out of my schedule so that I can focus. That’s the trade off which I realize that I have to make. During a stage of my life, I hoped to get onto honors from young global leaders to Forbes list, and then into prestigious organizations out there. As my age becomes the barrier given the age limits in these things, I realized that it helps me to think less about them and more about the work. In fact, those used to be distractions but lately, I think that maybe it’s good for me in the longer term. I often think that I am far too ambitious for my own good. What I am often worried lately, is to lose that self-belief that I am meant to do great things in this short life within the vast Universe. Recently, Sam Altman from Y Combinator wrote an interesting essay entitled “[How to be Successful](http://blog.samaltman.com/how-to-be-successful?ref=bernardleong.com)” (and anyone who wants to be successful should read this) based on his experience and learnings about successful people who he has access to. I find one lesson from him particularly useful for myself, that is compounding yourself. As I have indicated earlier in an essay I wrote about [the simplicity of business](https://www.bernardleong.com/2016/09/07/simplicity-in-business/), Warren Buffett’s success is built on simple principles but hard to follow unless you are very disciplined. Warren Buffett often talks about the effect of compounding in your own investments, and hence aspiring to be the exponential curve might also be important as well. Hence this quote from Sam Altman’s article might be useful for why the individual needs to think about compounding ourselves. > *“Compounding is magic. Look for it everywhere. Exponential curves are the key to wealth generation …* > > *You also want to be an exponential curve yourself—you should aim for your life to follow an ever-increasing up-and-to-the-right trajectory. It’s important to move towards a career that has a compounding effect—most careers progress fairly linearly. …* > > *As your career progresses, each unit of work you do should generate more and more results. There are many ways to get this leverage, such as capital, technology, brand, network effects, and managing people. …* > *Most people get bogged down in linear opportunities. Be willing to let small opportunities go to focus on potential step changes. …* > > *I think the biggest competitive advantage in business—either for a company or for an individual’s career—is long-term thinking with a broad view of how different systems in the world are going to come together. One of the notable aspects of compound growth is that the furthest out years are the most important. In a world where almost no one takes a truly long-term view, the market richly rewards those who do.* > > *Trust the exponential, be patient, and be pleasantly surprised.”* > > **Sam Altman’s “How to be successful”** From now to 45, I want to focus, plan and work out probably what I would like to spend the next 7300 days of my professional life**.* ### Why Digital Transformations Fail Case Studies II - Digital Assets are not Free URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/why-digital-transformations-fail-case-studies-ii-digital-assets-are-not-free/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T07:43:48.000Z In this article, I want to focus on a specific problem that is common with the mindsets of incumbent operators about digital assets. This mindset problem has a drastic effect on the P&L and how the failure to fund digital assets can be detrimental to digital transformation. Using a simple example of how a hypothetical traditional news media company often fail with digital transformation in that mindset. Here’s a simple situation that every digital leader will face in a traditional corporation: suppose you have implemented a digital solution, for example, building a set of social media assets for the whole organization for distribution of marketing content across them, there are costs from hiring a community manager and implementation of digital advertising campaigns that need to be borne. Typically, the process will go in the following way: the digital leader will have to get the other business unit leaders to pay for it. You will hear this from an incumbent business unit leader who often make this snarky comment, “Why should I pay for the social media management tool for distributing onto Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter where it is so simple that the digital team should do it for free?” Of course, there will be a budget conversation between different people and it will always be unresolved. It will slowly snowballed into the other digital asset implementations. The consequence is that the company’s P&L for digital teams will always be negative, and then the board will question. Then the incumbent business leaders will accuse of the digital teams for sucking money, and then, the board pulls the plug on the digital teams. What has happened in the whole process, is a type of mindset which incumbent business leaders with no digital mindset have. They assumed the ****zero marginal costs for digital distribution to be zero business costs**, and of course, if you are doing P&L math for your business, you will know that it’s obviously not true. The “digital assets are free” mindset is one that occurs at least 70% of the time, and often appears as an insignificant cause until much later, when every cost needs to be scrutinized and the negative P&L of the company is blamed on the digital teams. Let’s try to take the perspective of the incumbent business leaders here on why they think that digital assets and distribution are free and why their businesses should not pay. The first argument is relatively simple, assets such as Facebook and Linkedin Pages and twitter accounts can be registered for free, and with the Internet, you can distribute digital content at any time and any where with a press of the button. What they often ignored is that the digital asset for marketing is similar to the television ad that the company is buying. The effort to create the content that will make the social media pages viral has a cost, and given that there are so many social media platforms to manage, you need a tool that can help your community manager to work effectively and efficiently, that also has a cost. Of course, hiring a social media community manager, that itself is also a cost. What happens next is that these incumbent business leaders will make a leap of faith argument which borders on the preposterous. Since it’s free to acquire digital assets and the efforts to manage them should be free, then why should I pay you to build mobile and digital apps to connect the internal and external customer? That is one of the key reasons why digital transformations fail. The failure to assign a digital cost to a P&L of the incumbent business unit simply postpones the problem till a later date. The best way to illustrate how this problem is to use a traditional media company. Suppose we have a traditional media which prints newspaper and build their revenues via subscription and advertising. For subscription, the business model online and offline are similar, but in the case of advertising, that calculus changed significantly. The reason is that advertisements are priced differently for both offline and online distribution. When a traditional media company brings in a chief digital officer, they typically need three things: first, building an online presence with a digital version of the newspaper; second, set up digital communities via social networking tools and distribution of content across different digital channels and third, find a business model for the digital newspaper. The problem is that both the decision maker and the incumbent business leader from print will believe that the digital leader’s role is to augment the physical paper and turn it digital. If you look at a piece of newspaper content written by a journalist from the physical paper business unit, then it should be free for the digital channels to distribute it. The problem is that there should be a cost assigned to the distribution of the article in the digital world, the management of the content brand in the digital space and last but not least, it’s human endeavor to curate before sending the content out. In the end, the incumbent did not pay the digital a single cent because the digital assets are for free, and of course, finance comes into the way because the incumbent needs to look good with the revenue numbers. Hence the digital unit becomes the loss leader. It is obvious that where this is heading. How can this issue be resolved? The best approach is to do a shadow P&L where the reporting for the digital work unit is accounted and paid for. The digital leader should set pricing to how much it costs to distribute content. In order for the marginal costs to be zero, the incumbent should churning out at least a high number of them. However, most newspaper have limited amounts of content due to cost pressures. Hence it is important to understand and take into consideration, why the digital unit is a loss leader for the organization. ### When Leadership and Management differs URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/when-leadership-and-management-differs/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:35:38.000Z [Leadership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership?ref=bernardleong.com) and [management](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management?ref=bernardleong.com) are two different concepts which I think about from time to time. Through self-reflection in my daily engagements as a leader and manager and reading business and history books, I have gradually evolved my thoughts on these issues from time to time. Why do I see them as different concepts? Management is defined as the organization and coordination of business activities in a profit driven or non-profit structure. In management, we seek to optimize our systems and processes to drive and maximize the best outcome to generate profitability for the business. Management is a difficult endeavor because you have taken different factors and constraints into consideration that might be imbued by the systems, rules and processes set by the organization. As a manager, I have deemed the following activities as important: one, setting the strategy of the business and how we can achieve growth and profitability; two, hiring and managing great teams of people with proper metrics set for them and for myself as well and three, be an editor and making sure that the ideas of the team are captured well and at the same time, seek to help them and unblock resources when they are faced with difficulties. They may be other activities which a manager have to be involved with, but I believe that the focus of the manager is key to whether a team can or cannot perform. Leadership is the practical skill of building, guiding and managing a team and sometimes, the activity may intersect with management. There are situations where the leader and manager within us will have conflicts and separate what it means to be a leader and manager. For example, in a situation where a company has decided to make people redundant in order to cut costs and improve profitability, the manager is given a directive from his board or immediate superiors to do the hard thing of making the cuts. Sometimes, people are made redundant with the reasons being no fault of their own. Then the leader in us will take the right steps to do the right thing even if that conflicts with what the manager side in us should be doing. Being a leader is far more important than being a manager because you put yourself in the position that you have to lead and not to do the easy things when required. There are a few guiding principles to how I want to lead and manage. I can share them but these should read with my perspectives in mind, and not others. Different people sees leadership and management differently and some people conflate them as the same entity which clearly, is not true when you start seeing exceptions occurring everywhere. You may or may not agree with me. - Whether I am a manager or a leader, my mantra is that I always tell my team that their next jobs must be better than mine. It is important to build and manage people who might be more successful than you. That’s a hallmark of successful leadership. - As a manager, I will keep important matters professional or key decisions confidential, but as a leader, I often choose the course of action that will matter the well-being of my team. If we have to do layoffs, as a manager, I will make the difficult decisions in consultation with key and core members of my team but I as a leader, I will help those who are made redundant but of no fault of their own. - As a manager, I will always align with the people that I report to. However, there may exist times where leadership will shift towards doing the right thing than worry about my own skin. - In times of difficulty, I often believe that it is more important to be leader than to be a manager. In difficult times, leadership matters to everyone and it is important to manage everyone’s morale. - If you are not doing your job well enough or you are not given the resources to make your team successful, the most difficult thing to do is to fire yourself or in better language, resign from your job. As you can see, management and leadership represent different facets in how we conduct ourselves. Ultimately, I believe that we should be leaders first above and then managers second. ### Why Digital Transformations Fail Case Studies 1 - How to Align and Build a Corporate Website URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/why-digital-transformations-fail-case-studies-1-how-to-align-and-build-a-corporate-website/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T07:45:26.000Z In this article, I want to specifically drill down to a concrete example about why digital transformation can succeed and fail. In the first case study, I want to explain why and how a corporate website can be easily built and offer a solution to what remains to be the most difficult digital transformation work in a company. To summarize the [first](https://www.bernardleong.com/2019/01/26/when-digital-transformations-fail-i-the-incumbent-disruptor-dilemma/) and [second](https://www.bernardleong.com/2019/02/04/why-digital-transformations-fail-ii-fighting-the-immune-system-dna-of-the-incumbent/) articles I have written about digital transformation, for every digital transformation to fail, typically consists of the following: (a) the inability of CEOs and boards to deal with the incumbent & disruptor dilemma, (b) the counter attack from the immune system in the form of cultural and operational DNA from the company and (c) lack of education and short term thinking towards digital transformation. I have written these case studies to be company neutral, and it will be based on not just my experience but incorporating other stories so that you can get an understanding on why digital transformations fail for many companies. In fact, if there is one central theme which I will want my reader to take home, digital transformation is about people. People remain to be the focal point in how you can make it work or fail. ****Case Study 1: Transforming a Corporate Website** The most difficult digital transformation project I have under-taken in my role is transforming a corporate website. In short, the CEO who I worked for, tried to change it for four years and there were strong pushbacks from different heads of business units. The owner of the corporate website was the head of marketing and his digital marketing team. The story goes like this. The entire executive team was supposed to spend five minutes in a leadership meeting to agree and approve the concept and let the head of marketing follow through with the change. What transpired was an argument among different business leaders that went beyond the concept but to specific design concepts whether the buttons should be red or blue or it should look like an ecommerce or airline booking site. The meeting went for an hour, and no one agreed on anything. In the end, the head of marketing resigned as a result of not getting anything done with his entire team demoralized. In the end, the CEO tasked me to take over the project with the digital marketing team placed under my charge until the next head of marketing would be hired. Since I was in the same meeting and witnessed the entire discussion, I realized that the problem is not with the design but everyone having their own opinions and perspectives to how the new corporate website should look like. I asked the CEO for a small budget to the extent of about less than 20K, and then assured him that I will get the approval done in 5 minutes with the rest of the executive leadership team. However, I need that meeting to happen in 3 months time. I went back to the digital marketing team and tasked them to find me three design vendors. Prior to that, I have written a design brief based on first discussions I have with the CEO and COO of the company to agree what they want the new corporate site to look like. The rationale for the design brief is to find three design vendors to build a mock version of the corporate website fully aligned with the design lexicon and language which I have implemented successfully in my past projects but at the same time, integrate and align with the other 15 people in the executive leadership team including the CEO and COO. In my framework, this new mock site will have a modern feel adhering to the values of the company and fully design responsive, i.e. it should look like a mobile website when viewed on a smartphone and a desktop website if I browsed it on a laptop or desktop. I simplified the problem for the digital marketing team that the responsive design should be split between two screens, any screens below 7″ which will adhere to a mobile smartphone and anything above that, which correspond to a tablet, desktop or laptop. I have also sought advice from my mentor who’s spearheading a very successful digital transformation from another company. He suggested to me that in order for the entire company to agree to the new corporate design, he scheduled meetings for every owner of a specific part of the website on Friday evenings between 5-8 pm, and without their sign off or input, they will not be allowed to leave. Of course, in where I am, that would be impossible to pull off. While I was doing that, I took a look from what others are doing and replicated their best practices. One particular example was the idea of launching the new corporate website in beta, such that the customer will be able to see the new site from the old site, and decide if they want to switch it fully. Upon 80% of traffic converted to the new site, we completely flipped the switch and at the same time, resolved the problems that might come with the old ones. Upon reviewing the design vendors, we have decided on the final one within two weeks of the first month based on the design brief I have written. I have specifically asked for the mock website to be delivered two weeks prior to the meeting. My team was extremely worried as the timeline was extremely aggressive. I assured them that the two weeks before the actual meeting is important. What I did not add to the story when I tell it on panels, is that I did a poll within the executive leadership, which design vendor has produced the best design best suited to their tastes? It turned out that it was not the one which the digital marketing team and I thought were the best, but the one which was most optimized and incorporated different viewpoints. I requested a short URL which I can write on a white board such that anyone in the meeting can access any form of the website in any device. The mock corporate website was delivered two weeks in advance. Knowing that the product will be on time, I have set up 1:1 with my other colleagues within the executive leadership and randomly showed them the versions of the new site with either mobile or desktop. My first question after demonstrating the new site was, “Tell me, what do you not like about this new corporate website design?” Trust me, nothing was nice from the first word. Everyone has different feedback and I have compiled all of them into one document. So, I went back to the team and the design vendor and listed the collective feedback into twenty points. I told them that by hook or by crook, solve the first five, which involves changing button colors, language and layouts that everyone hope to see for their individual pages, and I will speak about the next ten during the presentation which I will lay them out in phases that it will eventually be implemented and the last 5 comments were just not possible unless I have more resources. The day it came to the actual meeting, I started the presentation with a short URL on the board, and then ask them to take out whatever device of their choice from smartphone, tablet or laptop, and then lay out the design concept of the new corporate website, and in the process, discuss the ideas coming from the other business heads particularly those who have major objections. I was careful to explain how I incorporated their feedback and lay them out in phases for future implementation. Within the 4th minute, I just asked everyone, “This new mock website surely looks better than the current site which look like a website from the 1990s. Can I get the approval to do this?” The consensus was unanimous and I got the approval to build the new corporate site. Of course, getting the website approved was only half the battle. It took about 6 months to get the beta version to show up with the new version and another 6 months to fully transition into the new website. Most challenges arise from the working level and typically, it were more about presentation of content than core website features. There were constant attempts to block the website but the digital marketing team have mitigated the risks. To me, from the approval to the implementation of the corporate website, this activity remains to be the most difficult one I have solved. The problem as I have shown is not about technology. In fact, we can easily implemented it within three months to make it fully design responsive and search engine optimized. What remains difficult is the leaders in the room. Each of them have a different view or perspective to what this new website should look like. Hence I have identified very early that the challenge is to align them to agree on the site rather than trying to show them designs to get approval in the process. ****Major Takeaways** Digital transformation is often about people and rarely about technology. In fact, the most important thing for the digital leader is to focus on how to align the stakeholders and unlock resources while letting his or her team to do the work of building and manage the digital assets. ### Why Digital Transformations Fail II - Fighting the Immune System & DNA of the Incumbent URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/why-digital-transformations-fail-ii-fighting-the-immune-system-dna-of-the-incumbent/ Last updated: 2022-04-19T01:32:38.000Z As I have discussed in depth on [the disruptor and incumbent dilemma](https://www.bernardleong.com/2019/01/26/when-digital-transformations-fail-i-the-incumbent-disruptor-dilemma/), I want to dive deeper into the incumbent’s world. We define the incumbent to be the current status quo with the traditional businesses which generates 80-95% of the revenues of the company and 10 to 30% on the profitability of the company. The challenge for every digital transformation is to break into the current systems, processes and rules of the company. The traditional company have built these systems, processes and rules over a period of time, stemming from mistakes which they sought to correct and at the same time, protecting the company from harm in the form of compliance. One must appreciate and understand that these systems, processes and rules are there for a reason and they erode over time because the internal and external environments have changed due to circumstances or technologies which disrupt the company’s business model as a whole. The best way to understand these systems is to use a biological perspective. The role of the disruptor is often similar to how a virus attacked the biological system from the outside. When a human being contracted the flu virus, the medication prescribed by a doctor are not meant to be counter-attacking the invader, but rather to excite the immune system within the body to react and counteract against the external virus. That’s why your doctor often asks you to sleep and drink more water and your body need time to recover against an external virus attack. How does this analogy translate to the company? The people within the company, typically who have been in the establishment for at least 5 years or above, constitutes the cultural DNA of the company. They have adhered to a set of values that best described the company, but the systems, processes and rules are set in place like an immune system of the body. The moment the disruptor enters into the company, it is no surprise that the immune system will react against you. Hence most digital transformations don’t last very long, typically on the average of 2-3 years. In fact, the CEOs were the ones who introduced you as the virus and they might be later bounded by the systems, processes and rules to reduce the amount of support given to the disruptor. Hence, you see the disruptor is also being thrown under the bus as a result of internal politics of the company. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/Learning_Chinese_with_my_daughter_with_the_wooden_bricks_forming_a_house_of_cards_with_the__year_of_the_goat_on_top..jpg) Photo Credits: A photo I have taken: House of Chinese Blocks and depicts the challenges of digital transformation when it comes to dealing with a two-speed systems. What do the disruptor needs to do in order not to trigger the immune system to attack you? There are few things you should do. The first is not to rush into the digital transformation but first assess the state of digital in the company which you are supposed to perform the digital transformation. Most digital leaders enter into the arena and started the war without fully understanding the constraints and parameters of the effort required. Assessing where the company is at the moment is important. Let me use a very simple example, a digital leader might be very fluent with suites of apps such as Microsoft Office or G-suite for collaboration, communication and connectivity for successful companies out there. If the organization did not have those tools, the imperative task is first equip everyone with the digital tools in place. The second is to focus on education and win over the independents of the company and not the cynical or skeptical. You will never be able to convert the remaining 25% of the people who are stuck in their ways. What most digital leaders do not do, is to focus on the education for the rest of the company. Of course, we will love our digital tools to be like Apple products with very little instructions and very intuitive means of learning to use the features by yourself. However, reality is complex. The digital leader’s task is not just external transformation but also an internal one. That being said, there are always counter examples in the form of anomalies. One such successful digital transformation anomaly was the Developmental Bank of Singapore (or DBS in short), where they focused on converting the incumbents to be disruptors and focusing on bringing their current staff with them. It’s a slow but rather effective process because you empowered the staff with tools of innovation where they already understood their customers’ pain points and problems at the very start. Sometimes, education can be accelerated. Most people under-estimated how their frontline workers can be empowered easily. The growth is exponential where more and more of the incumbents are converted to disruptors. If you are thinking of building a shared services app which allow your frontline workers to apply for leave, book rooms or get their pay slips, you should at least accept that there are at least >80% who have smartphones in their pockets. That becomes easier to make that conversion. Some companies short-tracked the education by bringing external people in at a quick pace. The challenge is not in retaining the incumbent but the disruptors, because the environment may not be build to allow the disruptors to survive for a very long time. The third strategy is to minimize costs while dealing with a two speed system. Minimizing the costs is not a simple task because it requires the tradeoffs. Most digital leaders’ instinct are to build. Sometimes, it might be better to buy, enhance the organization and let the users understand the benefit, and then make one more switch to build. The two speed system problem for digital leaders is that you need to straddle between the legacy systems while trying to push ahead with a new and effective system which everyone wants to be on. Instant gratification dictates that most digital leaders will focus most of their time on the new system and devote least of their time on the legacy system. Part of the problem is cost, and what happens usually, is that the legacy system will suffer and implode in the form of security hacks. Hence it’s important to make the transition for both old and new systems concurrently and that usually takes about 1.5 to 2 years (based on my experience). The most significant use case for many digital transformations have to go through in the recent years is the shift from owning your own physical servers (which follows a capital expenditure or CAPEX model) to cloud computing (which you must first suffer with the CAPEX being amortized and take depreciation damages follow by an operating expenditure or OPEX model). Usually, everyone says that it’s a cost savings exercise. This is easily dispelled because very few have ever dared to factor in the transition costs of switching into the mix, otherwise their numbers don’t look so good. That’s where leadership from the executive team has to come in to price the longer term goals against the short term ones. The two speed problem is extremely real because the digital leader’s instinct is to accelerate the development and deployment of the new digital assets while not focused on the current old legacy system that is a pain in the neck. You need to solve both problems at the same time, but putting emphasis on different things at different times. Most digital leaders did not have financial controllers on their teams and that’s why their costs are often higher than expected. The cost management system should be in place for the entrance of the digital leader, and this is something that the CEO or the board should put in place before things get awry in the process. Once you have these three perspectives in place, how does one perform the digital transformation? - ****Start from the top and bottom:** A digital transformation does not start with the digital leader, but start from the CEO. It is important that the CEO must set the agenda from the very start. It is important to adopt a middle out approach, from both top and bottom. If you have frontline operations that can be enhanced by digital capabilities, you can push the digital transformation from both ends and eventually propagate to the middle management level. The battle is already half won if the c-suite and board level demonstrates that they can use the digital tools. - ****Customer Centricity:** The problem with most people is that they are only focused on the external customer. Most digital transformations often forgot about the internal customer, and do not build an aligned user experience flow from the internal to external customer. The best way to how digital leaders can do this, is to live the life of the customer facing roles and see the reality before putting the digital capabilities in. How do you know when a digital transformation works? It is when you transition from building or managing the existing systems to true blue sky innovation. For me, at least, in Singapore Post, was to switch from building and revamping the existing digital assets to drone delivery. One might be surprised that the most difficult digital project for me is the corporate website of the company. I will leave that story to another day, and will explain how I have eventually solved it with the help of learning from others. Oftentimes, when I am asked about why digital transformations work for certain companies and failed for most companies, I have an answer that I truly believe and often related both in humility and perspective. I have often narrated my opinions in the following, “My view is that neither I am nor my team are the reason to why our digital transformation were really successful. The best way is to think about the DNA of the company. The company must have some innovation DNA that led them to succeed in the distant past or made it work with the external environments. Only if the company can accept my DNA in the process, that will allow the process for the disruption to integrate and build change within.” Note: You can also read [Part 1 ](https://www.bernardleong.com/2019/01/26/when-digital-transformations-fail-i-the-incumbent-disruptor-dilemma/)of the series. ### Why Digital Transformations Fail I - The Incumbent & Disruptor Dilemma URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/when-digital-transformations-fail-i-the-incumbent-disruptor-dilemma/ Last updated: 2023-01-15T14:01:22.000Z In the first of the “why digital transformations fail” series, I want to highlight the rarely discussed incumbent and disruptor conundrum that are faced by many senior leadership executives and board members. In the same conversation, a few potential solutions are proposed to address this complex problem. In the past decade, as many traditional companies facing disruption from young and dynamic upstart companies, they are forced to undergo transformations or to be specific, digital transformations. How did that happen? Most companies in traditional industries have been business as usual and put very little investment into their technological or digital infrastructure. When new digital companies started to infringe into traditional industries such as logistics, banking, insurance and real estate, chief executives and board members started to wake up and realized that they need to do something. As a practitioner, I have made a couple of observations about how I know when transformations fail. No digital transformation and even the ones which I have executed are without problems. Surprisingly, most of these problems are related to people and organizational structures. As I often put it in a succinct manner, **“People love to talk about transformation but they hate to change.”* ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/Rise_and_shine_lions_in_the_Singapore_zoo._at_Singapore_Zoo.jpg) Picture I have taken in the Singapore Zoo: Sleeping Lions There are some problems relating to the execution of digital transformations which are well documented in Harvard Business Review along with other business periodicals and journals. But there are some deep issues that are prominent but are always swept under the carpet. When I sit in different private roundtables, these hidden problems are discussed by chief digital officers, chief information officers & chief innovation officers but if I probe deeper, they rarely surfaced to boards or business owners out there. One specific problem that is rarely discussed is what I termed as the incumbent & disruptor dilemma in digital transformations. The best way to characterize is the following: **There is an incumbent with a declining business that is generating significant revenues (typically more than 30%) or profits (about 10% EBITA) and has either refused to invest in digital technologies or suffer significant technical and management debt at the same time. The CEO brings in a disruptor in the form of the chief digital or transformation officer in the view to fix the declining business by turning it omnichannel with the use of digital technologies. The incumbent, out of fear of the disruptor eating his lunch, will set to find ways to stop the disruptor from succeeding by blocking resources or stonewalling the changes that need to be made for the business. As a result, the overall business suffers a loss of revenue with the disruptor leaving the company and the incumbent staying with the revenues declining further till the point of no return. The CEO and board have no choice but to explain the failure of the digital transformation and let the company die or get acquired.* The best way to think about this as I often do is to think from different perspectives. I often adopt this approach because I have been sitting in the disruptor role. Once you analyzed the different perspectives, you will realize why the incumbent and disruptor will act in different ways that accelerate the failure of the business unit and the mis-alignment of incentives is so glaring in hindsight. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/Aquaduct_Tokyo_Midtown.jpeg) A picture of the aquaduct that I have taken in Tokyo and demonstrates how turbulent complex situations can be. Let’s start with the disruptor first, because it’s the easiest and most instinctive from my point of view. The disruptor is mandated to bring digital technologies to shift the business into an omnichannel world where customers can access the same products and services. As with everyone, building digital revenues takes time as we have witnessed money-burning startups that can push the traditional business to their needs. Most companies are afraid to fight fire with fire because if they are public, the stakeholders will push them not to do that. While it’s easy to buy or build technologies and platforms to augment the traditional channels, the number one challenge that remains for the disruptor is distribution. Distribution is important to how businesses succeed. What I mean by distribution here, is the sales and marketing channels that have enabled the traditional business to succeed in the past. The problem is that the disruptor does not own the distribution. Sometimes in order to achieve synergy to build more revenues for the businesses, the disruptor needs to integrate his digital channels into the current operations or workflow of the traditional business. Hence in order for the disruptor to succeed, he needs the distribution and the operations workflow that integrate the digital channels as part of the ingredients to succeed. The other problem which the disruptor faces are what I call the “your revenue is insignificant” problem. If there is no investment, there is no growth, and if you don’t start to shift your business focus, external forces such as well-funded cash-burning startups by venture capitalists will threaten the business and send it to downright spiral. Most boards and CEOs love the 80:20 rule but in disruption, the 80:20 rule is inadequate for the overview of where the business is heading. They forgot how the company succeeded when it was still a startup or upstart, and where they are now is different from the past. How about the incumbent? The incumbent business owner is typically an older person who runs the business for a significant amount of time and has optimized the operations and workflow of the business to ensure that it keeps generating profits for the businesses. The incumbent is extremely fearful of the disruptor for a few reasons which anyone can totally understand from his or her perspective. First, the incumbent has to pay for the disruptor to exist. In most businesses, the CEO will coerce the incumbent to fund the disruptor’s businesses. If the disruptor succeeds, it means that the incumbent can be replaced. So, if you are the incumbent, what will you do? Of course, the natural instinct is a zero-sum mentality. The disruptor has to lose in order for the incumbent to survive. Out of every ten situations, I am going to guess, nine out of ten CEOs will back the incumbent if the disruptor starts to complain about the incumbent is not helpful. Two, the incumbent is not given the incentives to ensure the disruptor succeeds. He or she is likely to be subjected to a 5-30% year-on-year growth for the business unit. There is no chance for him or her to succeed unless he or she cuts costs. Where do you think he or she will cut? Of course, it’s the disruptor. By adopting a passive-aggressive stance on the disruptor, the incumbent can make the argument if the disruptor increases his or her costs, the incumbent is unlikely to hit his key performance indicators. Third, the incumbent is a risk of losing his job if the disruptor succeeds. Most companies have no succession planning or provide incentives for the incumbent to go to their next roles or stage of careers. That’s probably why their only survival instinct is to make sure that the other guy does not succeed. Very few incumbents in different businesses will want their disruptors to succeed. I have seen one or two incumbent business unit owners, but these people are the ones I truly respect because they see the success of the organization as more important than themselves. I often go in that spirit but I have yet to see many incumbents really want to do the right thing. To survive, I have decided that my role as the disruptor is just a tour of duty, given where I want to head (which is really not to work in the same organization for a very long time). My perspective is that I will hand the reins back to the incumbent when I am done with the digital transformation (despite the hostility). That begs the question. Are there any potential solutions that can resolve this incumbent and disruptor dilemma? Here are a few solutions which I propose (based on my private discussions with various executives). - ****Give the disruptor the full P&L and the incumbent business unit:** To me, this is a no-compromise situation and very few such situations happened in reality. It’s [vertical integration in a way](https://www.bernardleong.com/2019/01/13/why-vertical-integration-is-my-default-choice-of-strategy-in-business/) and of course, I favour this approach given that I had that situation once. This usually happens when the incumbent is totally working in a zero-sum mentality and will adopt passive-aggressive stances to slow things down. Here’s my argument for why this works better than the other way around. Think of a business major, there’s very little chance that this person can run a technological and digital product team, but if you put in a science or engineering major who has the right set of skills and expertise, and with logic, you can learn easily what the business major can learn. The information asymmetry or specialization provides the disruptor with the advantage to run a traditional business unit by adding the right digital products and integrating them to change the supply chain that can build new revenues for a dying business. There is the extra motivation for the disruptor who will not attempt a complete overhaul but given the set of constraints put incremental innovation that improves the business both in the short and long term. - ****The CEO and board have to create a set of stretched but realistic goals, targets and milestones that aligns the interests of the incumbent and disruptor**: This is a middle-of-the-road solution. Most executive leadership teams and boards adopted this approach but avoided the execution. The reason is that there are a set of difficult conversations to which everyone from the CEO, disruptor and incumbent have to agree to. A senior executive who I respected, suggests the concept of a shadow P&L that aligns the goals for both the incumbent and disruptor. Let me take this idea a bit further and how this approach can work but require three ingredients coming together: (a) the CEO and board have to manage their expectations and adjust the growth targets for the incumbent and provide a budget for the disruptor to get things working, (b) the incumbent needs to provide a set of cost-saving measures while retaining the profits without killing the golden goose of the company and (c) the disruptor has to first put the digital infrastructure in place to integrate into the existing distribution advantage of the incumbent and then generate the revenues. In fact, most of the time, these conversations never took place. How does the CEO convince the board about the hockey stick growth for why digital transformation will rejuvenate the business? This graph below from Bradley, Hirt and Smit’s “Strategy Beyond the Hockey Stick” offers a realistic picture of how transformations create long-term value with those companies which made it work. - ****Put the disruptor reporting to the incumbent:** This approach is very popular and fails 99% of the time (which I am pretty sure if the data exists). The reason is extremely simple. The incumbent will move forward with business as usual and has zero incentive to allow the disruptor to flourish. Digital integration is a form of window dressing and the incumbent has no incentive to change the current set of operations and processes because it is highly optimized till now. - ****Hide the disruptor somewhere and let it run like an independent company against the incumbent**: It’s an interesting approach but very few companies have managed to do that because the first instinct from the board and executive leadership is to reintegrate the company into the current one. The approach is simple: hide the company from the incumbent and let it run like an independent startup till the point it can challenge the incumbent. This obviously set up alarm bells for the incumbent and they will refuse to work with the independent disruptor sitting elsewhere. So, is there an example out there? Well, in the early days of Alibaba Group, Jack Ma took a team of engineers and create Taobao, which is an eBay-like marketplace. They did not let the rest of their team know that it’s part of Alibaba till everyone in the company highlighted it as a threat against their other competitor, eBay China. Tencent’s Wechat is the other prominent example that shift the paradigm of the company from desktop to mobile messaging and killed their golden goose, QQ desktop messenger. It’s surprising that you have not seen similar examples from US companies. Why do you think that the General Motors and Ford out there have not created a Tesla competitor? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/realistic-hockey-stick.png) Picture credits: The realistic hockey stick growth achieved by successful companies based on data from Bradley, Hirt and Smit “Strategy beyond the Hockey Stick” The incumbent & disruptor dilemma is a difficult subject which I suspect many companies have but are afraid to talk about it in a meaningful and thoughtful manner. I have yet to see upfront conversations on this topic across boards and executive leadership teams. However, most traditional companies are in the midst of their digital transformations and the threat of external competition might not be imperative to them. To end, I like to leave this quote from Daenerys Targaryen, a fictional character from the “Game of Thrones” television series for those who are in board positions and executive leadership to think about the dilemma when it comes to disruption. > “They can live in my new world or they can die in their old one.”****– Daenerys Targaryen* from Game of Thrones.** ****Acknowledgements:** **I thank Charles Anderson, my mentor - Paul Cobban and my wife \- Yuying Deng, together with many unnamed senior chief digital executives with who I have discussed this topic on different occasions.* ### What have I learned so far from taking my daughter through Khan Academy? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/what-have-i-learned-so-far-from-taking-my-daughter-through-khan-academy/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T08:03:30.000Z Recently, my daughter has started her first year in primary school. As she was fully educated in a pure Montessori pre-school, I was curious to see how an online education would work for her. So I started her with Khan Academy last year. Here are the lessons which I have learned as a parent and why Khan Academy may still have a long way to go as an online tool to educate kids over the past year. Let me first share the entire process of how we started. I have set up a Mac desktop computer for my daughter at home early last year. In the process, I have taught her basic procedures such as turning it on and shutting it down, get her to key in password for her own account on the computer. On the first occasion, I got her to turn on the web browser and brought her to [Khan Academy](https://www.khanacademy.org/?ref=bernardleong.com). I registered her with a user account. In parallel, I have also registered a parent account so that I can monitor her progress and at the same time and check out the courses myself. Let me do a quick introduction to Khan Academy. It is a non-profit organization created in 2008 by [Salman Khan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%5FKhan?ref=bernardleong.com) with the goal of creating a set of online tools that help educate students all the way to university. Salman Khan originally used online videos to educate his niece on mathematics and gradually expand the curriculum to other areas of learning from English (American English) to computer programming. Of course, it’s free and anyone can access it anywhere. It will be interesting if I can get Eleanor to be interested in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) subjects. How did we start? The easiest way is to follow the mathematics course by grade. Eleanor studied in a pure Montessori pre-school in Singapore and it’s the only one out of the two with all the teachers properly certified with international credentials. We would love to let her continue but it is unfortunately by law that we need to send her to a local primary school at the age of 7\. My wife and I have decided that our kids unlike us, have better access to knowledge out there via the Internet. Hence the only two important elements we would want them to gain through the course of their education are just the following: (a) they must have the passion and enjoyment of continuous learning because the knowledge are already available everywhere and evolving at exponential rate, (b) the ability to learn fast and be critical about what they are learning. By the time we have started, Eleanor was already taught in her school with basic arithmetic and geometry. So, we went through the online course, typically going through 20 minutes (equivalent to four short topics) of online video, and followed by a small assessment test about 7 questions. We originally started with the iPad, but the user experience on the Khan Academy mobile app was just not up to standard. I have switched her to a desktop after three lessons. As we progressed, Khan Academy has a unit test component and a final test that will see if she has passed the entire topic block. Through going through some nights in the weekdays and then sometimes intensely about one to two hours over weekend or during my annual leave period, we have completed a reasonable amount of early mathematics courses for kids. In the process of doing this, I have added other tools on her table other than the computer: an abacus, a notepad, pencil, ruler and eraser. Sometimes, we solve the problem on paper before transferring the final answer to the online dialog box. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/khan-academy-1024x580.png) Screenshot of how a parent’s dashboard look like from Khan Academy. To be fair, her Montessori education imbued her with a very strong foundation in mathematics particularly in geometry which gave her a relatively easy advantage in completing the course topics. Based on her pre-school education, she was an equivalent of at least a grade 2 in the US education system with some parts of grade 3 (which includes multiplication and division). **What have I learned from working with her on Khan Academy?** - ****The online education from Khan Academy is meant for children in advanced economies and it will have to do more for developing or frontier economies**: First, the parent or teacher who is guiding the child on Khan Academy, must have at least basic education and of course to access the content, both video and assessment, you must have at least a relatively high speed broadband. Remember the mobile app does not work very well and hence it is not likely that a child from an emerging economy such as Indonesia can access that knowledge base that easily. The basic criteria made the access to the online education limited to children within advanced economies such as Singapore, Japan, Korea or major cities in Asia Pacific. The other implication is that there should be challengers to Khan Academy in the emerging markets because there are both language and access barriers for kids in those markets. - ****Short spurts of video and gamification of the platform works to spur her on:** She enjoyed the videos as they are relatively short. It’s the short attention time spent for kids on digital devices. Sometimes, if she’s tired, she just watched two for the day and skipped the rest. I credit this to Salman Khan in how he has approached teaching these topics online and he has made it easy and nice to watch and listen. Other times, she will try to do as much as possible. I notice that she was eager to go to the next block of the mathematics course quickly, and of course, the badges of achievement boosted her confidence and pushed her to do more. I suspect that there is a degree of gamification going on in the platform. Typically, I will listen to the video along with her, and guide her carefully with some nuances on the topic. - ****The parent has to let go when it comes to exercises and assessments:** As the platform has a strong assessment component, I started to help her from the start and gradually realized that I was being too helpful. So, I have to do the hard thing by taking a step back. I told her that she can work on the problem while I do something else. She resisted and it created some tension between us. The rationale is that if you help her too much, she may not know how to solve the problem herself. I realized that when we started to solve mathematics problems involving words and require logic as part of the process. Yes, [you cannot be a Tiger mother or father](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/opinion/stem-girls-math-practice.html?ref=bernardleong.com) when it comes to this. The dependency of having the parent there to help should gradually go away. Believe me, I am still struggling with her on this all the time, but we have to gradually let go. - ****She will gradually start exploring other courses:** Eleanor has asked me randomly at times to go to other courses instead of mathematics. We have started with basic programming which used javascript as a starting language, and American English grammar course (and she really liked this one for some reason), which to my surprise, helped me in re-learning the basics of the language again. Gradually, she wanted to learn how to type on a keyboard fast (and [this one from BBC ](https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/articles/z3c6tfr?ref=bernardleong.com)is excellent), and I have started searching to find an appropriate typing course for her as well. As I have used a geometric stacker and taught her how to solve the [Tower of Hanoi problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower%5Fof%5FHanoi?ref=bernardleong.com) with 3-7 blocks when she was four, she was able to do one small part of the course involving computer algorithms. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/Geometric_Stacker_from_Melissa__Doug_for_my_daughter.jpeg) The geometric stacker set from Melissa and Doug which I use to teach Eleanor how to solve the Tower of Hanoi from n=3 to n=7. Unlike most parents who have kids that want to turn on the digital devices all the time, the greatest challenge for me is to get her to turn on the computer and do it herself. She insisted that I am always there when that happens. Overall, online learning offers a different way to how we can educate our kids. However, after attending and completing just one online course with a considerable amount of effort, there is still much to be done. Despite the promises of online education having the ability to teach many at scale, there are still challenges ahead involving certification and signaling. ### Why Vertical Integration is my default choice of Strategy in Business URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/why-vertical-integration-is-my-default-choice-of-strategy-in-business/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:36:29.000Z [Vertical integration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical%5Fintegration?ref=bernardleong.com) is a concept in microeconomics and business management where it is an arrangement in which the [supply chain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply%5Fchain?ref=bernardleong.com) of a company is owned by that company. The best example of a vertically integrated company is Apple. Apple’s vertical integration is precisely the reason why it is [difficult to compete with them](http://techland.time.com/2011/07/01/why-competing-with-apple-is-so-difficult/?ref=bernardleong.com) despite the company is now going through ongoing turbulent currents. Why am I a fan of vertical integration? There are weaknesses associated with this model. I will name the most common three reasons. First, you are your own supplier whether in components and services, and if part of your supply chain is not competitive against the other available vendors out there, you may be forced to switch and you incur high transition monetary costs for both potential organizational and structural changes. Second, it requires a specific investment to compete against the players already out there and of course, time is of the essence if you want to get a product out in the shortest time to go to market. For example, if you are buying components from a company that innovates and specializes on that core competency, unless you have a good reason that you can do it cheaper, faster and better, trying to vertically integrate by building a competitor is not cost efficient and can achieve a totally different outcome which you want your company to benefit from the economies of scale that it enjoys against your other competitors. Third, it leads to the monopolization of markets, but it’s in the eye of the beholder. If you are Amazon and you are leading, why do you care if you have a high market against your other competitors? [Peter Thiel](https://www.inc.com/zoe-henry/peter-thiel-how-to-build-a-monopoly.html?ref=bernardleong.com) will tell you that most powerful and high growth companies will eventually strive to monopolies. Let me explain why I am in favor of vertical integration as a strategy in business. First of all, I like the fact that I can build the different parts of businesses in a modular manner like how I fit lego bricks to build a few things and eventually lead to a strong, sustainable and robust structure. Second, as an executive who has worked in both start-ups and multi-national corporations, I have worked on many strategic partnerships with other companies and at times, it might be better if we have just built a competitor from scratch and instead of wasting our time partnering with them. The problem with partners is that you will have to make a tremendous amount of effort to integrate with them. At times, they may not be reliable and they have their business agenda which may or may not align with your businesses. In simple words, sometimes it’s best to trust and use our own hands to do the work than rely on others. I often like to make the following comment in a seemingly joking manner to professional friends in my network by saying the following, “Don’t be surprised if you will find me starting an ice cream shop or restaurant someday. It’s not going to be an ordinary restaurant, because I will vertically integrate every part of the user experience from how the food is made to the stage where it’s served to the customer aligning both the customer and the operations team on the ground. I will leverage on the special technology stack I have from AI, IoT (and pick your buzzwords) to blockchain where you do not know that they are the technology layers that empowers the business operations of this restaurant or ice cream shop and make it better than everyone else.” The reason why I made the above comment is that vertical integration is the best model that I feel most comfortable to execute as compared to the other strategies I have leveraged in my corporate career. Till date, it has happened to me once and that experience was great. I was first the head of digital services where I spent most of my time trying to align the digital assets to solve other business units’ needs. One major challenges (which I will elaborate in future articles someday) in digital transformation is that the heads of the traditional business units may not agree with your digital integration to add digital business revenues on top that may or may not disrupt the supply chain. Finally, when I held the portfolio of being both the head of digital and post office network together, I was able to drive the vertical integration from digital to the offline retail at a much faster pace than both the predecessors before me, because I was uninhibited by being a digital native who can enhance and augment the traditional business quickly. That can never be done if it has been the opposite of requiring two heads to align on business strategy. In fact, upon takeover, all digital integrations were done within half a year, as compared to them taking two years and the project was in constant delay. I was convinced after the results that the best way to do digital transformation is to have profit and loss control for the digital leader to have control of both digital and traditional business at the same time. Let me offer an example of how having the vertical integration mindset can drive better business outcomes. You may have heard many examples from Apple to Amazon in different aspects of their businesses from retail to logistics, but the best one is Uber Eats. When Uber first started Uber Eats, they started their own “restaurants” to serve the customer. The reason is that they want to capture the user experience not just from the customer who order the food, but also the chefs and the restaurant staff who are waiting for the order to come in, prepare the food and then hand over the food to the Uber food delivery men and women. Through a fully integrated model, they were able to understand the problems clearly in each stage of the supply chain. They realized that they need to integrate with the point of sale (POS) systems, and how to ensure the user experience are completely aligned from the restaurant to the customer across their platform. Being vertically integrated, they discovered that most consumers do not care about lunches that much as compared to their dinners. So, in addition to the restaurants, they also have their own “restaurants” where they use a central kitchen in the city to prepare and deliver the food. What they have benefitted, is that they are able to drive more revenues and disrupt the supply chain. Finally, I am not against the idea of partnering with other businesses if that is not the core competency of my business. However, as Jeff Bezos put it elegantly, “Your margin is my opportunity.” If my partner proved to not as good as what I want them to be, then I will definitely get my team to explore and exploit that opportunity. ****Acknowledgements**: I want to dedicate this article to both [Justin Gong](https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-gong-25722b3b/?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Fang Yi](https://www.linkedin.com/in/fang-yi-1129415/?ref=bernardleong.com), who I have met during the Zhuhai airshow 2018 and have that spirited discussion on this topic during our evening drinks in the bar. They have inspired me to pen this. ****Picture Credits**: **A photo of a city built in Lego which I have taken during the Lego World Exhibition in Fort Canning, Singapore 2017.* ### Bits to Atoms URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/bits-to-atoms-thinking-about-technology-business/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T08:11:29.000Z Where will science and technology be heading in the next decade? One of my thinking frameworks to analyze and forecast what comes next is to leverage the basic concepts of physics to understand what is going on in the technology business world. Currently in the market, there is a plethora of technologies known to many in the form of various buzzwords: [artificial intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial%5Fintelligence?ref=bernardleong.com) (AI), blockchain, autonomous vehicles in the form of self driving cars or drones, [quantum computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum%5Fcomputing?ref=bernardleong.com), gene editing with the advances of [CRISPR](https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17594864/crispr-cas9-gene-editing?ref=bernardleong.com), materials science and many others. Oftentimes, it is difficult to tear apart where or how they are or intrinsically related to each other. Most technology breakthroughs came about by adopting a multi-disciplinary perspective. For example, Fermat’s last theorem was solved because there was an intrinsic link between algebra and geometry. The key to solve that problem was to prove that the theorem is a consequence from another in an almost totally unrelated field. If it does not help, the structure of DNA was mapped by biologists experimentally, but Crick and Watson’s discovery of the double helix using crystallography offered the answer to the missing link with the help of physics. The same goes with many quantifiable and well defined problems in business or technology. My starting point in thinking about technology is deeply rooted on the principles of physics and how the laws of nature work in a physical system. However, I often use physics to build toy models in how I approach a problem in other fields. Hence in the way to think about technology and how it evolves, I used the concept of “bits to atoms” to help me to navigate where we are and how applications in business and society come about. The concept of “bits to atoms” came from one of the few influential books in my life called “Powers of Ten” which describes the different orders of magnitude from quarks to electrons, electrons to molecules, molecules to larger structures all the way to the Universe, and it was made into [a short documentary film](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0&ref=bernardleong.com) directed by Charles and Ray Eames. The order of magnitude method is a very powerful method in physics where we can estimate the answer by virtually thinking of the scale where the answer might lie. It allows us to construct toy models that might reflect the actual reality by putting the quantities which we can measure, and hence we get direct and quantifiable results to our problems. One direct application to business, is that it allows us to scale an operations by putting orders of magnitude and how we can grow efficiently 10x without having to add too much resources to achieve the results which we want and the economists termed it “economies of scale”. Marc Andreessen’s “[software is eating the world](https://a16z.com/2011/08/20/why-software-is-eating-the-world/?ref=bernardleong.com)” idea needs no introduction. In the past few years, many traditional business have become aware of how digital are beginning to disrupt their supply chain and allow startups to break them by new business models which they cannot counteract without huge cost to their organization. If you examine the recent buzzwords such as fintech or proptech, they are basically the intersection of applying digital technologies into the financial and real estate businesses and most of them are incremental and very few or rare exponential. The reason is that most technologies require a certain amount of “energy” to break out in the form of adoption and marketing, similar to the activation energy for chemical reactions to take place. If you are familiar with Geoffrey Moore’s theory about how technology products have to cross the chasm before gaining mainstream adoption, the analogy here is remarkably similar. Here’s how I think about technologies from bits to atoms and this framework can be eventually to molecules and beyond with large scale genomics and molecular biology: ****Bits to create and shift Bits**: Basically, all digital technologies come in the form of electrons moving across transistors and performing computational transactions. Bits are basically information that can be transmit and transfer between objects such as computer networks or people in the form of social networks. In the first two decades since 1993, most of the successful Internet companies are merely using bits to create and shift bits, for example, when you take a photo and upload to instagram or facebook. In a bit to bit world, it is difficult to associate real monetary value and most of the activity spent are in the digital world. That is why for a long time, many investors do not know how to value technology companies such as Google and Facebook as they are basically companies trading the activities of bits to bits. Of course, the most direct business model for bits to bits is advertising that has been adopted by Google and Facebook. Tencent from China, on the other hand relied on a different business model called micro transactions where they allow their users to buy bits in the form of virtual gifts or add digital inventory within the company’s portfolio of gaming apps such as Honor of Kings. ****Bits to understand Atoms:** As we create more and more data either through text, image or video, we began to create portraits of the world, and understand the world around us. Hence we are beginning to use bits to understand atoms. For example, using deep learning to identify the objects in the world. In using bits to understand atoms, we began to digitize the world and create a virtual twin or map of the same object. One way of thinking is that we are using bits to digitalize the real physical world so that we can create simulations of different scenarios and situations and experiment the alternative realities of what could have happen. The business model is in how to leverage the data to drive efficiency in the supply chain or compute the best possible path how best to maximize the returns on the physical twin of the object by experiment different scenarios of the digital twin. In such a situation, we think about how to develop data analytics as a service where businesses can tap and build their data to produce customizable insights. ****Bits to shift Atoms**: The mobile revolution allowed the bits to begin interacting with the real world. With the evolution of code that interfaces with the objects in the real world, we begin to see how bits can shift atoms. The smartphone is the device that allows users to issue commands in the form of bits to send the communication via cloud services to touch the atoms which are in the form of real world assets such as cars and real estate. The biggest revolution in the past decade is that you can use bits to shift atoms, meaning you can connect a service using an application programming interface (or you will know it commonly as APIs) to make atoms around you to move in the way you want to. Combining with geo-location data and algorithms to efficiently map the driver’s path, you can summon a car with the help of the ride-hailing app. Similarly, with geo-location data and information on homes, you can rent an apartment to stay at any time and place with the ease of a digital payment system. The current revolution in autonomous vehicles is a direct application of using bits to shift atoms. We leverage on AI to learn the surroundings and use code to steer the vehicle be it a drone or self-driving car to the safest and secure path. It’s simplistic to think of autonomous vehicles as just driving a car using programming, because it requires the computer in the car to recognize human behavior which can be unpredictable and adapt while acting safely on the road within split seconds. In thinking of using bits to shift atoms, you can think of micro-services such as a drone doing a package delivery from point A to point B, or performing a cleaning service by spraying chemicals to clean a building of a certain set of dimensions. Given the huge cost of hardware at the moment due to slow advances in materials science, using bits to shift atoms have also created asset light companies such as Uber, Wework and Airbnb, where their true value is to reduce the regulatory cost and at the same time, re-calibrate the assets such as taxis (or cars) or rental prices of commercial and real estate spaces. ****Bits to create Atoms**: The best way to think of this is to imagine the replicator used in the science fiction TV series, Star Trek. The replicator is an imaginary device where it can create any object out of atoms for a specific use. Captain Jean-Luc Picard, a protagonist of the show will say, “Earl Grey tea, hot” and a tea cup or mug with earl grey tea will appear. The closest technology that offers a glimpse on how bits can create atoms is 3D printing and pre-fabrication technologies. As materials science evolve with digitization, the prospects of using bits to create and construct atoms to materials of our choices will become interesting in traditional industries such as construction. ****Atoms to create, shift or compute Bits**: This might sound counter-intuitive which most people do not realize that the analogue world can provide methods of computation back to the digital world and make it faster. The current digital computer leverages on a simple logic model based on Boolean algebra with ones and zeroes. With the advances of quantum mechanics, one can construct a way to compute using quantum states known as qubits, and to create a quantum computer, you need atoms that can behave in a quantum mechanical way. A quantum computer is able to synthesize all the possible paths of a problem statement and offer the most probable outcomes and at the square root of the speed which a classical computer can do. As you can see from bits to atoms, you can easily break down and classify technologies in different states and begin to find interesting applications what you can forecast what might come next. One interesting perspective is to find the intersection points between hardware and software particularly, a total vertically integrated model which might disrupt the entire traditional supply chain of an industry. ****Picture Credits:** **A photo I have taken in 2121 Museum in Tokyo, Japan showing the digitization of the real world with the clothing and hardware devices that collect information.* ### Define Your Own Narrative URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/define-your-own-narrative/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T08:15:48.000Z If you do not define your own narrative, you can never achieve why you are who you are, who you want to be, where you want to be. One of the things that I dislike most is whenever anyone tries to stereotype, label or pigeonhole me into their own narrative of who they think I am. The one thing I learn from such situations is that you should never allow them to define your narrative and instead you should be the one deciding who you are, even if there are misconceptions out there. Why do I not like that? First of all, this has nothing to do with arrogance and ego that made me feel this way. I have also learned that it’s not personal from the other person’s perspective. Everyone has his or her own aspirations. I have my own dreams and aspirations and I may not reach them by the end of my life. I do not want to be talk down nor be shouted at. Sometimes, people do that to put you down in your place. If I am working for someone, I understand that I have to toe the line till the day I leave the job but in no way, I should stop believing who I want to be or where I want to be. In daily interactions, I often do my best consciously not to judge anyone based on his or her initial set of skills or specialization or place them under this or that bucket during a job hire. The second reason is about growth. We all have a choice to how we want to grow and who we want to be. Yes, everyone can start off with an initial job or responsibility based on their initial configuration for example, a university degree in engineering or accounting. However, they gradually learn and build upon their skills and then shift towards where their career trajectories lead them. It may be that they might be very good at something but sometimes, depending on your financial situation, you might decide that it is the right job for you but not the right career for your life. What does one mean by defining your own narrative? It means that ****you define who you are, why you are here, what you believe and you want to do and where you want to go**. You just have to write a set of narratives what you want others to know about you. It’s simple and you just need to create a new document and type it in, and then keep it for yourself as a reference on days when you feel like giving up or stop believing what you set out to do. There will be people who will choose their narrative to write your story. They will judge you and they will write things that defy your narratives. We do not have a choice to how history or people will judge us, but what we can do to our best efforts, is to do what we love and be principled and honest even if the present moment might judge us unfairly for the short term but for a future moment that offer us a fair hearing in the long term. Here are some samples of what people have told me in the past and how I have defied them and still continue to build my own story every day of my life: **“You are not in the top schools within Singapore that will guarantee you to go to Cambridge University and study theoretical physics. Besides, you are not even in the physics or mathematics olympiads or involved in science research programs instituted by the Singapore universities which means that you have no aptitude for the subject.”* **“You should not do a podcast because you do not have the looks or the voice to get one going.”* **“You cannot be a business leader given that you have been a technologist for most of your life. You are better off being a head of engineering.”* **“You have not worked in and you are not suitable for this job.”* It turns out that in life, the only way to make it work is grit and perseverance. Sometimes, luck plays a part too. My surprise is that I have met people who I know that they are far more talented than I am in the area which I work in, and they ended up achieving far less. I have also suffered failures in the process, but I have learned that when it’s not working out, I should admit it honestly, fire myself and move on. What are the steps that you have to do towards defining your narrative? First, focus on your work and passion and not think about what others are doing that seek to compare you against them. I do not mean that you should ignore your competition. Yes, peer pressure and publicity are tempting and my first instinct is to suppress them continuously one day at a time. Believe me, I am doing that every day and doubt that it will not end until I succeed or give up. Second, work for and work with people with the following features: one, people who give you autonomy and space to maximize your talent and potential; two, people who are open minded and have a knack for learning new ideas; three, people who are optimistic and achieves through successive quick wins towards a bigger goal. As long as it does not change who you are and who you want to me, you can be your own boss or work for someone who you share their ideals and beliefs. Sometime the best people to talk to are the people who are your biggest critics, and there must be a respect shared between you and the other person. To summarize, you should learn to write your own narrative, otherwise, someone will write it for you. Here’s a saying which I hope that you can walk out with, “*When writing your own story, do not let someone hold the pen*.” ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/07/story-quote.jpg) ### Handling Layoffs in Startups URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/handling-layoffs-in-startups/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:36:19.000Z Many years ago, one of the startups which I co-founded ran out of money, and with the remaining resources we have, I was forced to lay off the remaining employees of the company which they do not deserved to be made redundant. That experience has traumatized me and from time to time, I reflected about the incident. It helped me to frame my thinking around hiring and how to advise people in similar situations. Here’s a framework which hope that it might be of help to those who may have no choice dealing with such difficult situations. Recently, there are different articles on startups layoffs in the region. Startup layoffs are tough and can be daunting for both the employers and the employees. There is no right and wrong to startup layoffs and one cannot ascribe justice to that. Here are some thoughts on startup layoffs and what founders can do about it if you have to face that situation. There is never a day where I will not forget about the day which I have to lay off all the employees in my startup six years ago. The startup I co-founded was on the brink of collapse and the only right thing to do is to shut it down gracefully as best as we can, put the remaining resources to pay off employees for a month and then follow with the shutdown procedures from accounting to closure. Over the years, the wounds are painful in the short term and the scars etch in my mind from time to time. What happened when I have to lay off people in the midst of a startup going down in flames? During that time, my co-founder (and CEO) of the company was not in the country and hence I have to do the hard thing by myself. The first thing is to make sure that the severance package is in place. We managed to have resources to do a month severance. Even when I have to put the bad news to them and do the layoffs, I could not stop myself from tears. Eventually, I did that, and at the same time, I have informed all of them that the next thing to do is to make sure that they have safe landing. Within 24 to 48 hours of the layoffs, I have contacted all the other startup founders I know in the market, and started to contact them if they are interested in developers and designers. I was willing to put the references in so that they could take these employees. Given that the employees are on employment passes in Singapore and have families to feed, I have to make sure that they can find a job. Probably I was lucky and offers did come to them but they have all decided to leave the country and head back home. I kept in touch with them even till today. What can one do in such situations? Probably, through going thru such a traumatic experience, I will suggest a few things. First, make sure that you go thru the employment contracts and prepare the severance contracts that address the layoffs in a fair and compliant to local manpower laws in the country. Second, you have to be honest that as a co-founder or owner of the business, you have failed and explain to them upfront why your company need to shut down. In the case of laying off to ensure the company is sustainable, just tell the truth and explain the rationale to why you want to do so. People want the truth and you should tell the truth. If press outlets put a story to your startup, it’s fair game. As I have said many times, I don’t have a problem with the press covering startups failing in positive or negative light. What I despise is when a journalist violates the trust and lied about the discussion. I was asked by a journalist and I have repeatedly told him that I would not discuss the shutdown of the company. The journalist lied and asked me to chat on the shortfall of series A funding in Singapore. I have reluctantly agreed and of course, he wrote a different story. As a result, I have blacklisted the journalist and will never speak to such a low life again in my life. At that instant, I owned a media outlet and it was fair game that the outlet that I owned, also covered it as well. We just threw a party at our own expenses (without company money) to bring the journalists in and told them that we were shutting the company down. If you are an employee who believes that you are laid off in an unfair manner, you have the right to go to the media outlets to voice your story. Do take a step back to understand why the layoffs are done and if the founders of the company have treated you fairly. Third and this is dependent on your perspective as a business owner, some people do not see that it’s their responsibility to help the the laid off employees find a job. For one, I do see that it’s my responsibility and it’s about how we lead people. If we don’t know how to lead people properly without seeing that responsibility, then you should not be running a startup. I spent a significant amount of time to ensure that each employee that I laid off gets three interviews at least, and I was only thankful to the other startup founders (even competitors) who were willing to take a look, and they tried their best to accommodate the request at such short notice. By the way, all the laid off employees were given jobs within that 24-48 hours cycle, and I was thankful that many have come to our aid. The other startup founders were also upfront to tell me straight that they cannot hire as well. Oftentimes, I think about what I can do differently. As a result of that incident, even in my corporate roles, I have avoided hiring too many people too fast and too quickly. I kept within my budgets and put a workload measure before I want to assign a headcount to it. At the point when I have to lay off people, I was not married. Today, I am married with kids and that additional knowledge also factored into my calculus in what I need to take into account when hiring other people. When we are employers, we have the responsibility for our employees in the form of providing a proper working environment, unlock resources to how they can complete the tasks to their job and at the same time, ensure that they can reach their goals and targets. If they are not up to the task, firing them is justified. At the back of my mind, even I am in a corporate role, I always have a backup plan in mind if my business unit is forced to shut down and lay off employees from me to my team who do not deserve to suffer such a fate. When I interview startup founders who come to me for corporate roles, I often ask them about their experiences in laying off people. It gives me an indication on how they conduct themselves during such times. As for myself, years later, the story did have a happy happening for one of the employees. I met one of the former employees who I have laid off during an event in Thailand recently in May 2018\. I am aware that he was involved in startups after he moved back home. We have not met in years. So when I was at that startup event in Thailand, I just thought of him and dropped him a message that I was in the event, and wondered if he’s keen to meet. He responded and came within an hour just to meet me. When I saw him and asked him how he was, he told me that he’s now the head of engineering for a startup company growing well in Thailand and I am just happy for him to do so well, even though from time to time, I have to reflect on how to deal with such a situation in the future. ### Future of Mobility in Innovfest Unbound 2018 URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/future-of-mobility-in-innovfest-unbound-2018/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T08:29:47.000Z During June 2018, I was invited to speak as a panelist on the topic “Future of Mobility” in the keynote stage in Innovfest Unbound conference. I contributed to the discussion on explaining how unmanned aerial vehicles aka drones can help to change the way how we think about transportation. ****Synopsis of the panel from the conference:** **The future of transport is about more than driverless cars. The problem of moving people around efficiently is of utmost importance, as the global population grows and concentrates in already overcrowded urban centers. But transport includes sectors like shipping, aviation, rail, and even goes underground (i.e. subways). Then there’s also the question of space travel. On this panel, we discuss the big ideas in the future of transport.* Here’s the [video on the entire panel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05cdCVfrjfI&list=LLnKBoblsGXxSzCH%5FCpVws%5Fw&ref=bernardleong.com) on Youtube. ### Learn from Everyone, Follow No One, Observe The Patterns & Work like Hell URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-only-career-advice-i-give-to-others/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T08:32:20.000Z Here’s the career advice in twelve words which I will offer to anyone: Learn from Everyone, Follow No One, Observe the Patterns, Work like Hell. It’s simple and easy to remember but it is based on two important principles which I have engraved into how I think, work and apply in my daily life: continuous learning & seeking what’s next. Oftentimes, I have been asked to give career advice to students out there who are thinking about the next steps of their lives. No matter at which juncture of my life, I do not often view myself as a success. The reason is that once you to think like that, it is likely that a failure will come. Going through relative cycles of failures and successes, I have started to put one hack into my mind: continuous learning and constantly asking “What’s next?”. I have learned that staying true to myself and what I believe that may be counter-intuitive to me often helps me to achieve my goals better against listening to people who dispense platitudes that might not work for me. I realise that it is important to have a network of mentors to help you understand yourself better and be there to push you back when you might have made a disastrous mistake. Hence my advice to anyone out there: > Learn from Everyone, Follow No One, Observe the Patterns, Work like Hell. ****Learn from Everyone:** I read any book for at least 30 minutes a day. The reason is that it keeps me learning something new today. Sometimes, I will do a random search on a topic of choice and look for journals, periodicals and research articles that relates to the area. If you just rely on reading, it is unlikely that your learning will be maximized. One important thing I do is to network and at the same time, talk to people who are working in the area. It is key to prepare the questions you have in mind beforehand so that you can focus on defining the problem correctly. While you will get different perspectives, opinions and whims from different people and books, you must learn to think critically, classify the information properly in different lens and assess where your position is. ****Follow No One:** Once you have learned from everyone, you must form your own perspective or opinion on the matter. You can have strong opinions but loosely held so that you may change your mind if your circumstances or constraints may change with time. The deeper implication in this verse is that you have to write your own story. You are who you are and you are the only person who decide how your story is going to be written. I read many biographies to understand the lessons of successes and failures from different people and how they ascend to be the top in their fields. However, no matter what you do, you cannot live their lives, but your own. For myself, I do not follow anyone and I cannot be anyone. It is important that I have to be who I am and continue to write my story as I move to get to where I want to be. ****Observe the Patterns:** It is important to observe the environment around you, and think about how things are the way they are. In physics, we modeled physical systems by putting a set of mathematical rules and tools that allow us to understand reality. Everything is complex in our reality, and the only way is to observe everything around you while figuring out the patterns that are in play. The difficulty is to read into the signals which might trick you into thinking in a particular direction and hence it is key that you seek alternative opinions to balance your perspectives on different issues. Once you found the pattern, the question will switch from why to how to maximize that information asymmetry you have learned. ****Work like Hell:** Everything in life is often a combination of deliberation and execution. First, focus your strengths to work through all the different configurations in your mind and follow that with all the energy in the tasks at end. It is important to break the problem into smaller chunks that you can resolve them one at a time. You enjoy what you do and that’s something I learn in the days of my life. If you are passionate about what you do, you will always end up better than where you start off from. Of course, that must be balanced with a constant urge to learn and ask where the next steps are. I hope that this advice in twelve words will be able to help you to figure out your future. Most advice are often useless and irrelevant to people. The only advice the matters is the one you live by in your life. ### Live to Fight Another Day URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/live-fight-another-day/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:36:54.000Z If your startup is near death or showing signs of potential failure and you have probably less than 2–3 months of run rate, what should be your strategy in such a difficult situation? There are a few scenarios: - You are in the midst of fundraising, and the investors you approach are not responding. You are holding out hope for them to come to you. Should you continue to engage them or talk to new investors in the hope that a fresh round of money will help your startup to tide over another 6–12 months? - You are in the midst of selling your product but the traction is getting slow. You might hear from many people that your product is what they want, and yet, your sales number show otherwise. Should you continue to iterate the product to fit the people who are willing to pay you or give up on the product? - You are in the midst of a personnel turmoil. People are leaving the company for better pastures. Even if you can raise another round of funding, you have to re-hire new people and rebuild from scratch. Should you give up and shut down the company? Whenever I speak to founders who come to me on the following three scenarios, I find that they often cling to the hope of fundraising, try to stop the bleeding of the personnel and focus least on selling the product. The whole order in how founders come to this reasoning is totally wrong but hindsight is often 20–20. It may be easy to give advice to anyone, but the honest truth is that I had been through all three of the above incidents and had no choice to shut down my company, Chalkboard in 2012 and fire people who did not deserve to be fired. I have taken the responsibility to shut down the company, apologise to my investors and clean up the mess that was encumbered with. It took me three painful years during my corporate career to shut down the company gracefully with debts cleared and get the company struck off from the register. Over the years, while I was patiently engineering my comeback story (which will be some time in the future), I have thought about how to handle such difficult times if I will encounter them again. I had the fortune of having a great advisor with my late friend, Professor Patrick Turner from INSEAD Business School who passed away two years back. He provided me the counsel that I needed during that period of crisis, which I thought I should share it here, and it might help those in crisis to think through how to move forward. In fact, his advice did not help just one but two of my companies as it helped to exit another startup I co-founded to a happy ending. Patrick Turner gave me his advice in the analogy of a falling plane. He asked me if I was on the plane that was crashing down with many people that might hit many buildings on the ground, what’s my response? In times of life and death, the only way to do this is to figure out to steer the plane to safety and save as many lives as possible. Yes, there might be collateral damage but it is important to ensure minimum casualties. The art of the whole thought experiment is to minimise the amount of damage as much as possible. It may end up that you have no choice to shut down your company or engineer an exit, but in the same light, figure out how to survive so that you can fight another day. Once you get the falling plane analogy or what I will termed as the Turner advice, how does that work into the failing startup situation? Here’s how I have condensed the scenarios into a set of principles which I will adopt to make sure that it won’t happen again. The first thing is to ask yourself what you can control and what you cannot control. If you will to ask me to rank all three scenarios again, I will rank them to what I can control and what I cannot control. > ****My advice to you is that when your startup is showing signs of failing, focus on what you can control and throw away the options what you cannot control.*** The first priority is to make sure that we focus on sales and make sure that there is incoming revenue to pay the bills for everyone. The reason is simple: it’s something that you can totally control. If people have to leave, then accept it and make sure that you can slowly rebuild the team to fight another day. Don’t incur more bleeding by raising salaries with money that you cannot afford. Figure out how to distribute the job out with people leaving or outsource it till you can hire back people back in. Your only focus is to ensure the startup stay alive if you believe in the mission of the startup. There is another school of thought that if your startup cannot take off in a few months, you should quit. My view is that this school of thought is equally wrong, because different business problems have different gestation periods, and some might take a longer time to build and succeed. It really depends on what you believe. How about fundraising even if you hope that some venture capitalists or angel investors will save your day? I will be blunt and tell you to stop dreaming. Yes, in the world of venture capital, they don’t like you to be profitable but great traction because it means that they have to take a high valuation, but if we don’t do that, we are just lying to ourselves and we have no choice by continuing with “steroids and drugs” like what happened to some supposedly startup unicorns. It’s the situation where some startups have to continue & get doped by financial morphine and be forced to sell if the money funnel will suddenly dry up. That does not mean that in times of survival, you might need to raise a small round from family and friends to stay alive. Ultimately, if you truly believe in the mission of your startup, it is important to set priorities based on what business you are building rather than the external factors you cannot control from hiring that rock star you think he or she is or fundraising from people who have their own views that might not align with yours. ****Author’s note:** **Some INSEAD students often asked me why I am still an entrepreneur in residence in INSEAD Business School even though I have been in corporate life for 5 years. You can take a man off the street in being an entrepreneur but you cannot take the entrepreneur off the man. I often answered that I remembered my friends not in good times but how they treat me in bad times. I have asked the school that I am to be rated by the students during my sessions with them and check with them if my counsel to them is valuable. The day when it is not useful, it’s time that I should stop. My personal reason is that I felt that I owe Patrick Turner a great deal of gratitude and the reason why I kept continuing is to help the people he cared about (which are his students in INSEAD) like the way he did for me even though I am not from the school. Patrick was also my reference when I got my first corporate job in Vistaprint. It is only this way that I can remember and honour him as a great friend and continue to live and fight another day.* ****Acknowledgments:** **I thanked my wife, Yuying Deng for proof-reading this post before publication.* ### The Compassion Principle in Management URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/compassion-principle-management/ Last updated: 2021-07-04T08:55:59.000Z Sometime earlier this year, I was invited by the British High Commission in Singapore to talk about the new modern workplace coupled with the new cultural and social practices. It was an interesting conversation which examined management in a physical environment. An interesting question prompted me to state a general principle which I state in how I manage people regardless of workplace and cultural differences. Whether it is a open, closed or hybrid office concept, the essential principle to bear in mind is that the workplace is all about the people in how they operate in the environment in the most productive, efficient and within cultural norms that are both culturally and morally acceptable. It does not matter how technology is being infused into the environment because it is how people leveraged on these tools whether it is a collaborative online tool or a communication protocol via some sensors. From remote to face-to-face working, the way we work is often seeped in how we communicate in order to get things done. As corporations expand regionally and globally across different geographies, we are often reminded of cultural differences and how we need to make adjustments to adapt to them. Someone from the audience asked the panel whether there are any general principles that one can adopt to the modern workplace. I gave a surprising answer that may stem from my roots as a theoretical physicist who is constantly reducing anything down to something as simple as possible. The best way, as I explained, boiled down to one simple principle which some might call empathy or compassion. I often operated on what I termed the compassion principle in the way how I managed people regardless of environment and cultural differences that ****you should not do unto others that you do not want others to do to you***. This principle is remarkably universal among different cultures no matter how much nuances we remind each other that we are different people living in different parts of the world. In managing people particularly in handling difficult conversations, I adopt this principle so that the outcome remained professional and not personal. This is not a simple principle that one can learn immediately to use but requires one to practice over a period of time and even till today, I am still refining my approach with this simple guiding principle in mind. ### Simplicity in Business URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/simplicity-in-business/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:37:31.000Z The best businesses have one interesting feature when the company’s vision and strategy are described by the founder of the company: **the business strategy for the company is extremely easy to communicate but difficult to execute.* This insight came about after I read the book [“Warren Buffett: Ground Rules” by Jeremy Miller](https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062415561/warren-buffetts-ground-rules?ref=bernardleong.com) based on insightful analyses of Buffett’s annual letters to the shareholders from Berkshire Hathaway and Elon Musk’s two blog posts on Tesla’s strategy in [2006](https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me?ref=bernardleong.com) and [2016](https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux?ref=bernardleong.com) repeatedly. What is remarkable about all these writings centered on how these founders can state their strategy without fear of being copied by anyone out there and yet no one can achieve the same feat as they have done. They encapsulate clear thinking from first principles that very few can match. If you can state the mission and vision of your company without fear and lay out the strategy to how you can achieve them with the next steps, it can be a competitive advantage for you against all the other competitors. The methods that they adopt require a tremendous amount of hard work and a strong attention to details and can never be achieved by people who are either out to flip a company for exit or clone an original company for another market. If you read Buffett’s annual letters to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, the concepts he utilized to explain his investment thesis are remarkably simple. He distinguish how simple compounding and treatment of the stock market as a voting machine in the short term but weighing machine in the long term can lead to the returns that Berkshire Hathaway can achieve. Anyone can easily replicate his approach and yet no one manage to do so and that includes Goldman Sachs. Yet, no one can match Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger in how they have built and managed a successful investment portfolio in Ohama without the noise coming from Wall Street. The reason is that Warren Buffett takes a long term view on how he invests in companies and stick to simple fundamentals such as compounding, merger or acquisition arbitrage and market indexing in how Berkshire Hathaway evaluates a company for investment. The lesson here is that Warren Buffett does not need any complicated jargon to hide how the value investment thesis works. While reading Buffett’s letters, I appreciated the clarity in how he can apply a simple principle in finance to drive a point in how he operate with Berkshire Hathaway. Elon Musk’s blog post on Tesla’s strategy in 2006 was another gem about simplicity in business strategy. In that post, he simply outlined the strategy and master plan to how Tesla will achieve its mission with the electric car over ten years by building three versions of the electric car: > “Build sports car. > Use that money to build an affordable car. > Use that money to build an even more affordable car. > While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options.” — Elon Musk in 2006 How did Elon Musk achieve the above roadmap in the past decade? The first electric car was the Tesla roadster, a high end sports car which the rich can afford, followed by a sedan electric car which is the Tesla S pegged at the value of the Mercedes Benz and finally to an affordable electric car at US$30k which is the Tesla 3 that generated a total of 300k orders pledged by potential customers within a week. If you have traced Tesla’s timeline and milestones, Elon Musk has simply achieved the entire roadmap in ten years. Any car company can replicate his strategy and yet they did not choose to do so and fail when they tried to. Even though Musk’s strategy is easy to state, it is hard to execute as Tesla has to build itself into a brand where it can actually achieve a great amount of interest when it launched Model 3\. Once he achieved the first strategic roadmap, he has recently written a new blog post to highlight where Tesla will be in the next 10 years, which makes it not a car company but a sustainable energy company. Here is [Elon Musk’s plan](https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux?ref=bernardleong.com)for the next decade: > “Create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage. > Expand the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments. > Develop a self-driving capability that is 10X safer than manual via massive fleet learning. > Enable your car to make money for you when you aren’t using it” — Elon Musk, 2016 When a company’s vision and business strategy is easy to communicate and difficult to execute, it sets up an intangible type of barrier to entry for the business against their competitors. This is analogous to the concept to how great companies are depicted by the triangulation of product, company & category to become category kings as depicted in the book “[Play Bigger](https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062407627/play-bigger?ref=bernardleong.com)”. Most of the time, people will laugh at the declaration and dismiss that their ideas are against conventional wisdom. Yet we all know that the true visionaries are not afraid to move forward with their convictions and take on challenges that are difficult, and build the future. ### How Great Founders have convinced me within 15 minutes URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/how-great-founders-have-convinced-me-within-15-minutes/ Last updated: 2021-07-11T04:55:04.000Z Sometime last year during a date night with my wife, I told her that I can decide within the first 15 minutes of my conversation with a founder whether I want to invest in a company or idea. We took a list of those which I have recorded in my own spreadsheet and told her private that I would invest if I have the money and discovered that it was fairly accurate. In fact, the best investments out of my portfolio are done within 15 minutes and the rest which I took time to deliberate and ponder usually never panned out. It’s not based on some emotion or feeling. It also worked for me on startups which I don’t partake in but will have done it if I have the cash. > “In the future everyone will have their fifteen minutes of fame.” — Andy Warhol How I came to this conclusion is really interesting. For a start, I have heard at least ten thousand pitches from many founders over the past ten years from startup competitions to evaluating investments as an early stage investor or in a corporate role. Eventually, I reflected and thought about it carefully. It came down to one word: ****clarity**. The ones which convinced me within 15 minutes all shared a few common features: - ****Describing the problem clearly and offering a counter intuitive way of looking at the problem** **:** The person articulated the problem very clearly and within his or her depiction of the problem in the first three minutes, he or she will introduce a set of insights that re-configure how the startup would solve the problem clearly and explain why the current perception to the problem is wrong. Communicating this clearly usually involved having experience in the industry and what they have learned from their failures as well. - ****Breaking down the solution in the form of a product or service very well that can help the person imagine the future with a product roadmap**: It is more than just conveying how the features of your product or service can solve the problem but laying out a clear product roadmap solving the intricacies of the problem, for example, targeting a niche market which can asymmetrically attack the larger market segment of an existing industry where the incumbents are totally helpless. - ****Articulating the process of forming a great team to move forward:**The person usually discussed his or her team and conveyed where the missing pieces of the whole jig-saw are. Usually, they bring in one or two people with the right experience and at the same time, focus on their weaknesses rather than strengths, and what they are looking for to supplement the right people in the future. - ****Intellectually curious and draw you to argue with them and yet stay respectful when you disagree with them**: I always assume that they know more than I do, but when I try to poke holes, they will stay respectful when they disagree, but it leaves me thinking after that, whether they might have a point. The power of evidence coupled with logic usually made me take a second look in my perception. It is about trying to convince you why they believe in something but leave it up to you to make up your mind. Within our conversation, they provide clear indicators what they should be focusing to make the business work and not wasting time [doing things that are not work](http://www.aaronkharris.com/things-that-arent-work?ref=bernardleong.com). Usually, what they do are usually counter-intuitive, and the methods of customer acquisition do not scale the company. They usually build up a proper customer base to the product or service through a variety of non-standard methods and are able to pin-point to a set of metrics that are not vanity based. You can also distinguish those who are out to flip a company vs those who are here for the long run. In conclusion, I often caution myself against the 15 minutes view of things based on logic and try to remove the biases that may come in play, but I have learned to trust my intuition and will continue to kept score to find the anomalies or failures contrary to that. In fact, within that 15 minutes of conversation, the key is to ensure that you are focused in listening to what the other person has to say. Before you start to criticise them on [their silly ideas](https://medium.com/r/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcurt.is%2Fwhat-a-stupid-idea&ref=bernardleong.com), it is important to make sure that you hear and think critically on the subject at hand. Needless to say, those who won me over within 15 minutes are few and far between, like a needle in the haystack. ### Growing from a Product Manager to a Manager of Products URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/growing-from-a-product-manager-to-a-manager-of-products/ Last updated: 2021-07-11T04:58:35.000Z Here’s an interesting learning when I started my current role in my first month two years back. During that time, I have to reset my intuition about products within an organisation from a product to an omni-channel view of products. In short, there’s a fundamental difference between being a product manager and a manager of products. The unfortunate reality is that most product managers I have encountered, failed this transition after speaking to many of them. In the process of working with my product managers, I have discovered this difference and here are some thoughts to how one must learn to transition from a product manager to a manager of products. Let’s start by looking at the two perspectives from product managers to manager of products. ****Product Manager:** The responsibility of the product manager is to ensure the product/service market fit, and allocate the appropriate resources given to achieve commercial success. In a start-up at an early stage with 1–5 employees, the CEO is a product manager and hence the focus to achieve the product/service fit with the market, and build the scalable revenues. However, a product manager in a corporation has a different perspective. It is likely that the corporate product manager need to compete for budgets, and because of key performance indicators (KPI), the product manager live and die by the product, and sometimes, depending on the bureaucracy and politics of the organization, it creates a siege mentality for the product manager and his or her team and result in the lack of collaboration with other product managers. It is in this light that the product manager cannot transition into a manager of products. ****Manager of Products:** In simplicity, when you graduate from a product manager to a manager or head of a business unit, you become a manager of products. An implicit transition that happened in this change is that you inherit a portfolio of products/services where their performances are varied. The natural instinct is to cut the losses and remove the under-performing units. Here lies the dilemma — sometimes, a product or service is under-performing because of lack of resources and if the product or service has the capacity to leapfrog the entire organization across the S curve, cutting the product out of the entire portfolio can help the manager’s P&L for the short term but inevitably destroy the organization in the long term. Here lies the challenge for every manager of products where they have to allocate resources in a more holistic manner. In my perspective, I have to make a mindset change very quickly. Here is a framework which I have adapted in my approach as a manager of products: - ****Think strategically and long term:** While it is easy to do a cost-benefit analysis of a product and axe a product to save costs, it is important to start by looking at what the industry will evolve in the next 5–10 years. Once you have a longer term objective, you can work backwards to how your products will change over time. Sometimes, it results in finding the missing dots that can connect. - ****Think omni-channel:** Your objective as the manager of products is to ensure that customers access your services seamlessly and easily. Hence you need to build a omni-channel approach to how you can deploy your product and service to the market via sales and business development. On the engineering end, you need to think about how the access points work. Five years ago, mobile is not even a channel to begin with, but now it is the most important channel and getting that moment of time from the customer to use your application. - ****Think about managing the transition of disruption & not the disruption:** It is also the responsibility of the manager of products to figure out how to get more resources to make investments for the future. The most difficult transition for any organisation is to stick to a physical channel because it is building huge chunks of revenues and let the disruptor die, only to discover that it becomes a problem in a few years time. Focus on the small wins while maintaining the big picture within your frame of reference. In short, when you become a manager of products, your perspective has to shift, and the best way which I have always told everyone who I have mentored: **“Learn from everyone, follow no one, observe the patterns & work like hell”*. ### How to Build the Right Product but not New Product URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/how-to-build-the-right-product-but-not-new-product/ Last updated: 2021-07-11T05:00:49.000Z Over the course of past few years as a product manager and evolving now as a manager of products, I have often reflected on how I think about building products. One insight that I have developed is that you focus on building the right product and not the new product. In fact, you need three important ingredients: (a) the technology facilitates the right user experience, (b) the timing of product to the market is right and (c) making the offline experience seamless from the online world and vice versa. How do you know that you have build the right product? I have a couple of check points to cross validate on the products which I have worked on in my professional life. - ****Will I use this product or service myself?** It’s a simple question but my suspicion is that a lot of people actually don’t ask themselves this brutal question. When the product is built, I will test drive the product myself to convince myself if it is used. From mobile applications to web services, I often have this anxiety when a designed product from my team goes to the wild. I will use the service as a customer to convince myself and often have that fear that it will fail. Of course, when it works magically, I am only glad and my immediately question is, “How can I improve the product better?” - ****What is the customer and product/service provider journey?** In designing my products, most people often focus on the customer journey. Actually, the journey on how the product/service provider (which is your business team) needs to operate with respect to the customer is equivalently important. In designing the process and intersecting the administrative and operational processes into the customer journey helped to push the product better. - ****How does it facilitate a transition from the online to the offline and vice versa?** Given that [software is eating the world](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460?ref=bernardleong.com), most digital services today are intersecting the boundaries of the online and offline world. Hence, thinking of how the digital service leads to a real world transaction becomes ever important in that process of product building. - ****Seriously being first-mover or last-mover has no advantages:** The way I think about is that there is no difference between the first and last mover advantages. The only advantage is whether you are building the product for the needs of the customer. If your product is perfect for the customer and the timing is right, it does not matter whether you are the first or last to take the product to market. If you need inspiration, Apple is not the first to make the smartphone, Google is not the first search engine and Facebook is not the first social network. To summarise, to build the right product requires a triangulation of three things: (a) the alignment of customer experience with the product, (b) the right timing for the business of the product to work, and (c) a seamless transition from online to offline. Just remember what Craig Federighi from Apple said: “[New is easy, but Right is hard.](https://www.bernardleong.com/2013/11/15/new-is-easy-but-right-is-hard-hacking-product-management/)” ### How to evaluate "Uber for X" companies URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/how-to-evaluate-uber-for-x-companies/ Last updated: 2021-07-11T05:03:27.000Z Recent discussions centered on “Uber on X” companies whether they justified their ultra high valuations, their asset light business model and their survival rate if and when the “bubble” will burst. Through discussions with investors and industry players, I have evolved my understanding. In this short article, I compile my thoughts on how one should look at “Uber on X” companies, and how a vertical such as logistics company perceived such companies and why some of these ‘Uber for X’ companies cannot disrupt logistics as they hoped to. 1\. The way to think of Uber for X startups is to think of a service that is on-demand. If the service to the customer is a need and have many recurring transactions, then an on-demand service that brings the online or mobile to offline will works. So, the first thing is to establish whether you are truly a Uber for X is to fulfil this condition. For example, food delivery make senses because all of us need to eat, and hence at certain parts of the day, the on-demand service becomes essential. If you try to do the same for laundry services, it only serves a very small population and it’s likely that the recurrence is very small, given that how many of us have to send our suits for dry cleaning. Most people conflate the consumer to consumer market with the business to business market and none of the Uber for X companies including Uber have provided the solution to scale to the enterprise market. The reason is that the business model for enterprise level required service levels that are close to these companies owning their own supply, which totally decimate their asset light advantage against the traditional X companies. 2\. It’s a naive way to think of Uber for X startups just as a mobile or an online booking tool. It is more than that. Other than an online booking tool, it also solves three other problems which a lot of tech pundits and clueless investors are either totally unaware of: (a) ****discovery** of the service provider, (b) ****curating** the service provider thru ratings (and you do know that if your rating is < 4 in Uber, you can’t be a driver there) and (c) ****incentivising** the service providers to stay on the network, i.e. provide additional perks for the service providers to stay on the platform instead of the service provider directly bypassing the platform to work with the client. For example, most taxi apps provide additional perks to the cab drivers from petrol subsidies and discounts to ensure that they would not go direct to the customer. That locked-in network effect is why on-demand taxi mobile apps are working and not the rest. Unless, the Uber for X can successfully solve all three with one online booking platform with an integrated offline high recurring service, investing in these companies do not make sense. 3\. A lot of people are beating the drumroll on how Uber for X can kill Fedex, UPS and DHL in logistics. First of all, the logistics companies have bundled their services in different segments: same day delivery, next day delivery and optimised delivery via cross border or within the city. Uber and all its clones are essentially on demand logistics companies that are focused on same day deliveries. Even with their efficiencies, a consumer to consumer market is nowhere of the size of what logistics companies are doing with deliveries from fulfilment centres to the consumers with an optimised fleet. All logistics companies, big or small, have a business model that is asymmetrically and diametrically opposed to Uber. Uber and its clones are essentially asset light and relied on demand and supply matching. They are market efficient but not cost optimised. In traditional logistics companies, the main reason why they have optimised fleets is that they have accumulated data about demand and supply and leveraged on major contracts to keep their costs low. Ecommerce has driven this demand even higher and hence the advantage of having optimised fleets and not depending on supply and demand models makes sense. For Uber to reach the scale of UPS or Fedex, they have to end up building up their own fleets. The only situation that I can ever see Uber doing this is to have a fleet of self-driving cars and that’s when they can compete in the space of traditional logistics companies. So, why are UPS, Fedex and DHL not investing in Uber clones? After all, to make the assumption that the executives who work on these companies do not understand disruption are simply silly. The reason is because they can convert their same day delivery services to Uber like services as of when they want to do it. It may be slower, because of technical debt, but they can decouple easily to do that. The only saving grace to why there is value to Uber and its clones is that they are solving the real problem of same day deliveries which is not a solved problem with traditional companies. Let me help everyone by stating the business problem: **Are you able deliver the goods from point A to B with the lowest cost and on demand as of when the customer want it?* Understanding these three core points will provide a checklist on how to evaluate the Uber for X companies. Interesting references which is worth reading: - [Why lots of ‘Uber for X’ companies may be in trouble](http://fusion.net/story/142578/homejoy-uber-for-x-startups-may-be-in-trouble/?ref=bernardleong.com) - [Uber Bonds Term Sheet Reveals $470 Million in Operating Losses](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-30/uber-bonds-term-sheet-reveals-470-million-in-operating-losses?ref=bernardleong.com), Bloomberg. - [How to Miss By a Mile: An Alternative Look at Uber’s Potential Market Size](http://abovethecrowd.com/2014/07/11/how-to-miss-by-a-mile-an-alternative-look-at-ubers-potential-market-size/?ref=bernardleong.com) by Bill Gurley. ### The Shokunin Way URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-shokunin-way/ Last updated: 2021-07-11T05:06:39.000Z Every year, my wife and I spent a week in Japan where we spent our time looking at product design, and understanding how the interfaces on different products there work. Watching documentaries such as “[Jiro dreams of Sushi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiro%5FDreams%5Fof%5FSushi?ref=bernardleong.com)” and “[The Kingdom of Madness and Dreams](http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/28/7301455/the-kingdom-of-dreams-and-madness-review?ref=bernardleong.com)” provided me inspiration on why everything I do should have the attitude of Japanese craftsman, called the Shokunin way. Learning from my past failures while learning the skills for the next journey, I have adapted the Shokunin thinking into product and general management. If you have watched both movies “[Jiro dreams of Sushi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiro%5FDreams%5Fof%5FSushi?ref=bernardleong.com)” and “[The Kingdom of Madness and Dreams](http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/28/7301455/the-kingdom-of-dreams-and-madness-review?ref=bernardleong.com)“, you would observe that both Jiro and Hayao Miyazaki spent their daily life being brutally focused in doing the same thing in repetition daily and in perfection. Most people usually stopped at the repeating process but not spending time to think about the processes where they do their work. In Asia, from my observation, only the Japanese focus on perfection even in the simplest task. If you are in any part of Japan, any service professional are focused on their work and seek to ensure a great customer experience. You do not see it anywhere else in Asia. Not just being good at doing at what they do, the Japanese has actually innovated on the daily processes and built on top of what they do. That’s why we have the lean manufacturing process from Toyota which was subsequently used by Eric Ries and reframed it for startups to the lean startup process. The [shokunin model](http://adriancheok.info/uncategorized/secret-for-innovation-the-shokunin-spirit-of-japan/?ref=bernardleong.com) is pretty simple and I just quote someone here: “**The Japanese word shokunin is defined by both Japanese and Japanese-English dictionaries as ‘craftsman’ or ‘artisan,’ but such a literal description does not fully express the deeper meaning. The Japanese apprentice is taught that shokunin means not only having technical skills, but also implies an attitude and social consciousness. … The shokunin has a social obligation to work his/her best for the general welfare of the people. This obligation is both spiritual and material, in that no matter what it is, the shokunin’s responsibility is to fulfill the requirement.*” – Tasio Odate In the past few years as I am developing the set of skills for my next journey, I have adapted the shokunin into both product and general management skills. In my roles, I focus my thinking as a craftsman by being laser focused on the product and the task in management, and keep iterating and innovating while going thru the processes of building that product. A craftsman attitude can also be applied to general management where you lead people and if you are not convinced, just take a look at how Jiro and Miyazaki led their teams who take their work seriously every day. In fact, I have applied this to my podcasting project: [Analyse Asia](http://analyse.asia/?ref=bernardleong.com). When I started Analyse Asia, I want to understand the problems faced by someone who wants to make their podcasts. I did not stop there. I want the sound quality of podcast to be high and also put efforts in making the product better after every episode. In fact, in each step of building the podcast which I have worked through about 42 episodes, I have started innovating to make my hobby more efficient and fun for myself. Through many iterations of working on the podcast from sourcing for guests to sending the podcast for distribution, I understand better the problems of being a podcaster and found a set of interesting problems which I might eventually plan for my next commercial venture. I seek perfection in what I want to do, and in this process, it also allowed me to develop a full stack approach to any business that I am thinking about even for my corporate day job. ### Why I want to reach Flow again URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/want-reach-flow/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:15:25.000Z I happen to be one of those lucky few who do the things that I like to do. At an early age, I have decided that the best way to enjoy life coupled with my epicurean beliefs, is to focus on what you like instead of being forced to like what you get. That is why building a product or writing a new mathematical equation appeals to me more than making money at an early age. Yet, over the course of my life, there is only one occasion where I experienced a condition called “flow” (which I came to understand it recently). It happened years back and due to unfortunate circumstances, I never recovered and often pondered why I can’t get into that form again. Recently, reading Steven Kotler’s “[The Rise of Superman](http://riseofsuperman.com/?ref=bernardleong.com)” and Mihaly Csikszementmihalyi’s “[Flow](http://www.amazon.com/Flow-The-Psychology-Optimal-Experience/dp/0061339202?ref=bernardleong.com)” have provided me the impetus to think about reaching flow again but for a different set of goals. I share the concept of flow here, and for those who might be interested, you can continuously pursue your passion and reaching flow in anything which you do. To summarize the idea of [flow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow%5F%28psychology%29?ref=bernardleong.com), it’s a concept in positive psychology pioneered by Mihaly Csikszementmihalyi: > “The concept of “flow” or known as zone, is a mental state in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement & enjoyment in the process of the activity.” Most manifestations of flow comes from sports performance, music, education, artistic or mathematical creativity and very rarely in other areas for example, business management and other activities that require focus and attention. Group flows are even rare, which Csikzenmentmihalyi proposed that a group can work together such that each individual member achieves flow. Successful management teams can achieve that kind of flow. In fact, the writers in most Japanese sports anime such as “[Prince of Tennis](http://princeoftennis.wikia.com/wiki/Prince%5Fof%5FTennis%5FWikia?ref=bernardleong.com)” and “[Kuroko no Basket](http://kurokonobasuke.wikia.com/wiki/Kuroko%5Fno%5FBasuke%5FWiki?ref=bernardleong.com)” incorporated the concept of flow into their story with the protagonists reaching the “zone” of perfection and use that as the basis to argue that relentless perseverance and passion can overcome the lack of talent or prodigies with talent but without discipline. There are six factors which encompass an experience of flow: (a) intense and focused concentration on the present moment, (b) merging of action and awareness, (c) a loss of reflective self-consciousness, (d) a sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity, (e) a distortion of temporal exeprience and (f) experience of the activity as intrinsically rewarding. These factors can occur in combination when a person reach “flow”. There are three conditions which has to be met to achieve a flow state: 1. One must be involved in an activity, with a clear set of goals and progress, which adds direction and structure to the task. 2. The task must have clear and immediate feedback, so that the individual can negotiate the changing demands from the circumstances and allows them to adjust their performance to the flow state. 3. One must have a good balance between the perceived challenges of the task at hand and their own perceived skills, and must have confidence to complete the task. For myself, I have only reached flow once when I was studying in Cambridge. I was solving a chain of difficult problems in quantum field theory, string theory and black holes. The overdrive and relentless pursuit to focus took me weeks to solve them. In fact, it was so challenging that I found the solution in one problem during the dream and then woke up to write it down. Once those set of problems is solved, I have no problems to transverse anything in the subject. One additional consequence of that exercise, I wrote out a solution to a research problem which aided me in thinking about my PhD thesis during that period of time. However, unforeseen circumstances broke that flow and what made it worse, is that I know that I never recovered or find a way back into flow again in the following years. The only consolation is that I found is teach two very talented individuals how to reach that state and they have both become very successful in the field now. I often have fond memories of Cambridge given that it is a very intellectually stimulating and what is even more exciting, is that there are talented people who one can interact and push you to move beyond your limit. Coming back, I want to reach the state of flow for my own personal development and career again, given that I understand it better now through books on why I was so happy back then in reaching it even for a temporal moment. I know why I want to do so, I want to go beyond just being happy to do what I like but reach a kind of perfection that I am satisfied with in what I do. The state of flow is still far away which can inspire me to focus on what I do everyday. ### The Future Media Barons of the World URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/future-media-barons-world/ Last updated: 2021-07-11T05:13:47.000Z In the recent months, the world of media has undergone a lot of change, with large amounts of venture capital poured in Buzzfeed and the technology savvy business men starting to own the printing news press, for example, Jeff Bezos owned The Washington Post. With the recent news that showed clashes between the editors and journalists against their business overlords, we are presented the view that technology and media do not mix. Yet, the future of media requires technology which has innovated on distribution. In this essay, I explain this conundrum between technology and media and provide a view in what is necessary for the future media barons to own in the world ahead. > “The medium is the message.” – Marshall McLuhan The inspiration of this post arises from watching the series “[The Newsroom](http://www.hbo.com/the-newsroom?ref=bernardleong.com)” written by Aaron Sorkin. I remain very much a fan from the days of “The West Wing” till today. In the last two episodes, Sorkin condensed the conundrum of the traditional newsroom steeped in journalistic integrity and failing business model versus the up and coming media platforms that focus on distribution metrics & sensational content (which may not be important for the rest of the world but nevertheless the centre of attention). The ending where Charlie, the fictional president of the news network died of a heart attack while engaged in a conflict with Pruit, the billionaire and owner of the network, over editorial differences has amplified that conundrum. Although we see the parallels in the real world where the editors of the [New Republic revolt](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/05/the-new-republic-implodes.html?ref=bernardleong.com) against their media owner, Chris Hughes (a former co-founder of Facebook), we did not see it leading to any death of a human being (and [Reid Hoffman](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/when-disruption-hits-fan-why-so-reid-hoffman?ref=bernardleong.com) is among those who sympathise with him). Of course, drama has the ability to exaggerate the theme of content quality versus business interests. I am often fascinated by the media industry, both as a previous media owner of a news portal and at the same time, an avid content creator and producer. I found it strange that the new upstarts of technology is at war with the traditional media owners and editors. Traditional media such as the printed press, television stations and newsroom find it hard to accommodate the changes brought about by the digital world. The media executives of the traditional media business have a choice. They could choose to live in the current reality or die in their old world. For strange reasons, they prefer to die in their old world than find ways to accommodate to the new one. Reid Hoffman offered an interesting reflection from his defence of Chris Hughes: > In this new era of ambitious and abundant journalistic experimentation, stasis guarantees irrelevance. Instead of invoking past legacies, it’s a time for adaptation, new thinking, an appetite for risk. It’s easier to criticise how dumb the executives are in holding on to their existing beliefs and not shifting quickly to the new business reality. It is too simplified to attribute blame to them. The underlying problem with the media industry, is that they too have a [technical debt problem similar to the mobile industry](http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/12/9/mobile-platforms-and-technical-debt?ref=bernardleong.com). The technology which they use to distribute and broadcast their content is totally deemed irrelevant by the Internet. At first, they thought that they can control the content but that is commoditised by people who are creating similar content for free. If they are smart enough, they will have shifted to the digital world quickly like the way how periodicals such as “The Economist”, Financial Times & the Guardian have. In fact, even the prestigious “New York Times” is only at the start of shifting its model towards the new digital world. Digitization erodes the control of content by the mainstream press and [bifurcates the market segmentation](https://www.bernardleong.com/2014/11/17/digital-disruption-traditional-companies/) into two ends: (a) the high end market of important and accurate content where customers would want to pay for, for example, Bloomberg terminals with market data, (b) the low end market where niche bloggers or new social platforms which create, curate and distribute the content at a massive scale. The hollow out of the middle ended traditional printing press. Why do we need journalists to write quality content about a subject where the subject matter expert can easily write a blog post through medium or post his or her insight through twitter? As a matter of fact, the way in how journalists are educated should be similar to how traditional businesses are restructured against disruptors of their business. How do we see the new media barons in the next few decades? I have a couple of perspectives on this: 1\. Content is no longer controlled in the hands of the few, but the quality and writing will be respected for those who are passionate in the subject or true subject matter experts. If you are a journalist or editor, you should specialise and be good not just in the writing but also the understanding of the content. If you want your media owner to respect your view, you should be equally eloquent in how content can be curated and distributed. If there is a role model, Anna Wintour of Vogue is a great role model which mastered at curating fashion content and at the same time, demonstrate the propensity to try new platforms in distributing her content with her parent company, Conde Nast. 2\. The new media owners are not going to be like Rupert Murdoch who controls media assets and content. In fact, the new generation of media owners are masters in harnessing media assets not from a command and control method but rather decentralized of distribution and micro-targeting of the niches. 3\. Mass targeting or advertising through media will shift towards a micro targeting of niche audiences. That is demonstrated by social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. The irony is that the traditional media networks are unable to tap into this form of micro-targeting because they have a traditional mindset of selling media at bulk rather in small chunks packaged with “a pay as you go” model. 4\. Although we see a flurry of activity in the low end market for media, we have not seen a lot of activity in the high end market. In fact, in Asia, most journalists in traditional media are afraid to venture into the digital media world as compared to their western counterparts. One successful example is Re/Code, in its previous incarnation as All Things Digital in a mainstream media business, where their real revenue come from conferences rather than content. Currently we see a lot of experimentation happening in the US, but very few in Asia, probably the main media activity are happening in north east Asia, much less to say in Southeast Asia. ### Startups Dilemmas in Asia: Bad Revenues & Pivot URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/startups-dilemmas-asia-bad-revenues-pivot/ Last updated: 2021-07-11T05:17:02.000Z Here’s a scenario which I have encountered when various founders sought me for advice across Southeast Asia. They have successfully raised a significant amount of money through investors with a revenue model based on their initial product with the intention to expand to other markets or scale the revenues up with more aggressive sales or marketing tactics. As they start their next cycle, they discover that their business model is not scalable as they originally thought it would be. In such a situation, they are tempted to pivot to a different model given that they have some cash runway. The question is that how they should pivot. Here are a few considerations if anyone out there are thinking about turning around their startups. Let me summarise the situation with a few perspectives in mind: - ****You have a working model with your product to generate revenues.** However, it is not scalable or it does not work in another geography. In a honest assessment, you are generating what I called “bad revenues”. I have encountered that situation in my previous startup because we focus too much on business development partnerships to scale distribution instead of adding customers to scale revenues. The reality is that the paying customers are the ultimate judge of whether you are successful. Of course, if you are not in a common market like US, India or China, the different geographies exacerbate bad revenues, rendering the original revenue model useless unless selective customisation of the product might be able to mitigate the issue. - ****You need to pivot by building another product or service that might have a shot in generating good revenues.** The rationale is that if the present model is generating bad revenues, you need to figure out how to generate good revenues. Upon realisation of the bad revenues generating from the current business model, the business team triggers a red alert and focuses their efforts to find another product-market fit, and discover a few possibilities that might generate good revenues. The difficulty is that the founders need to find a way to align the team or do change management so that they can move away from the present model and shift to the new one. - ****You have financial runway given that you have raised a recent round from your investors.** Usually, founders come to me in three situations: (a) they have a lot of runway and discover that the startup will die if they continue on their current course, (b) they have half the amount left and need to find a way to battle the burn rate because they are wasting money to acquire bad revenues, (c) they have nearly no money left and have to either ask existing investors to sink in money or find new investors to continue the story. The pivot is used to justify that new round of financing and the founders believe that the new product has corrected their initial mistakes and hope that the investors give them a second chance. On hindsight, it often look like a great idea, except that investors are less likely to give second chances unless you get a huge revenue upside from the new product. What made it worse for the founders upon pivoting to develop the other product, they discover something called transition costs, which amplify the startup’s financing woes quicker. In the above three points, I have basically drilled down the problem into three perspectives. So, should we do the pivot with the remaining runway given that the nuclear option is to close the company and return the remaining money to the investors? Here’s how I typically advise founders in how to mitigate the risks that I have stated in the those three points because I made those mistakes previously and often thought about what I could do differently. - ****Can the bad revenues sustain about 50% of the burn rate of the company while you work on the pivot?**: The reason for this is that you buy yourself some time with the runway you have got. Depending on the situation, I advise differently. If the company has a lot of runway, then I will suggest to the founders to focus the sales team in acquiring customers for revenue, while freeze the development for the technology team so that they can work on the pivot. Then gradually when the pivot kicks in, the founders can shift the business team towards the pivot. This method generates revenue while buying the founders time in the pivot. What typically happens is that the pivot may work, but the burn rate is so bad that the founders did not have the runway to show that it can work. In simple words, you have the product or service but no money to do the marketing and sales, and hence you never know whether you could have made it work. - ****Be critical about the pivot’s product-market fit**: This is where most business and technology people collide upon the need to pivot. The business people insist that they can’t work on the business model in generating revenues, and of course, the technology people kept developing features on the product customised to the business needs. The central tenet here is trust. When founders require my help to think through the issue, I often ask them, “Can you not build a product but rely on refitting your current technology and not automate the process with development until you see the first ten paying customers first?” What does that mean? It means that you create a product with processes and not technology. In fact, it requires the business people to clean up their act and bring in the customers so that the technology people get the urgency to automate the process by developing the new product or service. The best story came from the founder of SecondMarket, where they did not build a product or service but rely on excel spreadsheets as a minimum viable product to allow them gather customers and after some time, they realize what they really need, and build a platform to suit their business purpose. - ****Manage team morale**: This is where Asian startups are not equipped with as compared to their Silicon Valley counterparts. Essentially, if the business team are not bringing revenues and are trying to pivot, it leads to the rest of team thinking that they are on a sinking ship. It is also why the best founders out there advocate a strong company culture. If the team morale is not managed properly, you will see an exodus of people resigning from the company. Hence, the first thing the founders must do is to align themselves before aligning the employees. For those employees who do not back the aligned “do or die” mission, my suggestion is that the founders should part sooner than later. I have that experience and trust me, it really drains your energy so quickly that you feel like “killing yourself”. Not to mention that I have to do the worst when we have to shut down the company: firing people where they should not deserve that. Whatever path you will take as founders, my view is that everyone must be aligned to the pivot and ready for the sacrifice or tough times ahead. Otherwise, you are not being responsible to your investors and also to your employees as well. ### New Questions in Mobile: An Asian Perspective URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/new-questions-mobile-asian-perspective/ Last updated: 2021-07-11T05:56:32.000Z Recently, Benedict Evans wrote a piece entitled “[New Questions in Mobile](http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/11/20/time-for-new-questions-in-mobile?ref=bernardleong.com)” where he reset the conversation on mobile platforms. While there are the few who still harbour hopes for Windows, Blackberry and Sailfish (formerly MeeGo from Nokia), the ship has already sailed with our world living with two dominant platforms: Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android. Rather than rehashing his thoughts and arguments, my purpose for this post is to provide some insight to three of the five questions with an Asian perspective. > “They have a choice: they can live in my new world or they can die in their old one.” – Daenerys Targaryen from George R. R. Martin’s “Game of Thrones” ****Update**: Sameer Singh and I did a podcast discussing “New Questions in Mobile” with an Asian perspective on [Analyse Asia](http://analyse.asia/2015/01/10/episode-12-new-questions-in-mobile-the-asia-edition/?ref=bernardleong.com). ****What happens to the Android OEMs?** At the end of 2013, Samsung has muscled out the rest of the OEMs and became the dominant player for Android devices. However, in the second half of 2014, that dominance was eroded by the rise of Xiaomi and Micromax, challenging them at the low end of the market. It did not help with Apple crushing them on the high end. First of all, the question of which Android OEMs are dominant in Asia is more or less settled with three main players: Samsung, Xiaomi and Micromax. The rest of them: Sony, LG and HTC will continue their decline given the commoditisation of hardware and weakness in software which make them completely redundant. In fact, my assertion is that Samsung will try to take all three markets: high, medium and low, Xiaomi probably trying for high and medium while experimenting the low, while Micromax is all-in for the low-end. Why did Samsung find itself losing market share given its expertise in mass customisation and competitive advantage in the solid state drives in mobile devices and display screens? The most common explanation is their weakness in software. They did try to wean themselves off the influence of Google by developing their own operating system called Tizen. It did not help that they found themselves in an interesting position as a leading smartphone player and could not hold it for long with Apple’s constant iterative innovation with the iPhone. Being hollowed out from the middle end, Samsung found itself in a bad position not just being trounced in the smartphone market but at the same time, playing second fiddle to Apple again with the upcoming launch of Apple Watch which clearly defines their value proposition better than them. So, enter Xiaomi with the competitive advantage of software which Samsung cannot replicate with Tizen, the interesting question to ask is: will they end in the same fate as Samsung? In the next 12 months, they will be asking themselves three interesting questions: (a) can we continuously fork Android just only for China market? (b) should we depend on open Android for the global market? (c) should we develop our own operating system to wean off the dependency on Google’s Android? These three questions seem different on first look, but they are inter-dependent on each other. First, Google will make Android much more difficult to fork, and we already know that Amazon and Cyanogen are finding it difficult to penetrate out the small customer or fan base they have. Second, as long as services like Google web services (Google Plus, GMail, Google Search and Maps), Facebook and Twitter are blocked out of China, Xiaomi can run the forked android without much competition, they can do that without much difficulty. In the same light, Xiaomi have two experts on Android (Bin Lin & Hugo Barra) formerly from Google, which means that they should have probably some knowledge of Google’s roadmap with Android for at least the next one to two years. That means one thing, if Xiaomi wants to be a global player, they will inevitably end up competing with Google and Apple if they want to be a platform and control their distribution. Given the experience of Samsung, the management team of Xiaomi might decide that the long term strategy is to have control of the platform is to develop their own operating system instead of being at the mercy of Google’s Android. After all, they have the capability to do so. With the recent rumor pointing to them [developing on Firefox OS](http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1102&MainCatID=11&id=20141226000080&ref=bernardleong.com), it is likely that they are looking for a hedge. How about Micromax in India? Their strengths are different from Xiaomi. In fact, their survival is tightly coupled with Google. Micromax has developed their distribution model similar to Nokia (in her hay-day) better than Xiaomi and Samsung in the emerging markets. They are now adopting Android One and will continue to drive the price down US$100 to US$33 (which is the bar set by Firefox OS) or lower. Google’s reason for Android is to ensure that their search advertising model will not be held hostage by other mobile operating systems, and hence they will move towards what they have done with Chrome. That sets up what I think that the answer for the second question posed by Benedict Evans might be. ****What is Android going to be?** With the appointment of Sundar Pichai to lead Android and Chrome, Google’s focus is to integrate their offerings in the best way possible. In the past few years, the internal ranks within Google debated furiously on the native vs web app ecosystem. Unfortunately, given the threat of Apple’s iOS, the native app faction of Google has won that argument temporarily with Andy Rubin running Android like a silo. The change of leadership may be a foreshadowing of the web app faction winning that argument. That’s the vision of Firefox OS, except that they are fighting for the same audience with Google. Yes, the native app ecosystem has generated a new mobile economy for developers all over the world. The only issue is that we have a mobile browser inside the operating system. If the equivalent of Paypal or Alipay on the mobile browser is able to reach the level of how seamless it is for 3rd party app developers to plug and play, the web app world will be that future which we will move to. The argument against that from many people is that the current native app ecosystem has locked the 3rd party developers in without the hassle of figuring out rudimentary services as how they get paid or distribute their apps. However, third party developers are similar to construction contractors where they will not stay loyal to the ecosystem when there is a better alternative out there. If there is a way to shave off the 30% commission down to 20% or to 10%, the incentive is there for them to leave. This is the same reason why Google invested in Uber, because in Uber’s interests, self-driving cars are the best way to distribute Uber’s services instead of having unreliable cab drivers which gave Uber a lot of hell now in Asia. It is in Google’s interest to move Android towards the Chrome world, because that’s how they have successfully ended Microsoft’s dominance with their search engine despite the Windows desktop operating system had one point of time 95% of the market. It is that ability that allowed Google to challenge Microsoft’s dominance as it will try to recreate the same environment for mobile operating systems. In fact, the best strategy for Google is to maximise their development on Chrome mobile and desktop browsers, and cannibalise themselves in a managed transition such that their advertising revenues on mobile web grow exponentially against the native app store ecosystem. This strategy will allow Google to take out the Asian OEMs and Apple at the same time because for the Asian OEMs, the whole notion of developing another mobile operating system to Android becomes meaningless, and to Apple, it eats away their dominance on the high end by taking away significant app store revenues which is now significant in the Apple ecosystem. ****Messaging Apps vs Facebook in Asia** Ben Evans has covered extensively on the shifts in layers of discovery and aggregation in mobile. I will not add much except to come up with a specific prediction to make on this point which ties up a potential guess on what Facebook will do in the coming year. When it comes to messaging apps, Silicon Valley will look to Asia for inspiration and not the other way round. My bet is on Facebook cloning WeChat (owned by Tencent) by enhancing Whatsapp in the coming year. Currently, the revenue model for Facebook is totally predicated on advertising. If you examine average revenue per user (ARPU), you discover that TenCent has achieved a different business model against Facebook in the form of micro-transactions. By pivoting from their desktop messaging (QQ) to mobile messaging (WeChat), Tencent has demonstrated how third party apps to leverage their platform. My friends living in China have demonstrated to me that I can book a taxi, discover a restaurant and get food delivered through WeChat, and access to information using the equivalent of Facebook pages that come in both push and pull methods. Facebook has purchased Whatsapp to do something different. That something different is to grow Whatsapp with a different business model that is analogous to how LINE, Kakao-Daum and WeChat are growing through their user base. In fact, Facebook has offered some early glimpse of the strategy by adding custom actions on Facebook pages. If my hunch is correct, Whatsapp will clone the subscriptions feature in WeChat by leveraging on the users and brands on their Facebook pages. Whether Facebook will do the same by allowing third party developers to get on Whatsapp platform, it will be interesting to see. Asia will have a say in how the shifting layers of discovery and aggregation in mobile and the next few years are going to be exciting. ****Notes:** My friend Sameer Singh wrote [a follow up](http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2014/12/expanding-on-new-questions-in-mobile.html?ref=bernardleong.com) to expand on Ben Evans’ piece. ### Perspectives on Venture Capital in Asia URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/perspectives-venture-capital-asia/ Last updated: 2021-07-11T05:54:05.000Z For a while, I want to sketch out some perspectives on venture capital in Asia, given that I have been observing the flurry of fundraising activity happening in Southeast Asia and how the venture capital scene has evolved. Recently, reading an interesting book on venture capital by an author who was both a venture capitalist and academic during my travels to Kyoto has given me food for thought. Lastly, I decide to share my own thoughts in laying out what I call the three conditions for myself if I should ever decide to go into the venture capital business in the far future. ****Staggering Fundraising in Southeast Asia** In 2014, there has been a flurry of fundraising activity happening here in Southeast Asia. Recently, various companies have raised huge amounts of cash in Southeast Asia. The stellar examples include [GrabTaxi’s latest series D round of US$250M](https://www.techinasia.com/grabtaxi-raises-250m/?ref=bernardleong.com),[Tokopedia closing a round of US$100M](https://www.techinasia.com/tokopedia-softbank-sequoia-capital-funding-news/?ref=bernardleong.com), and [Lazada from Rocket Internet raising US$249M](http://www.avcj.com/avcj/news/2384421/temasek-leads-usd249m-round-for-se-asia-focused-lazada?ref=bernardleong.com) a fresh round of financing led by Temasek Holdings, a Singapore sovereign wealth fund. What is interesting from this flurry of news, the valuations for this round of financing are completely undisclosed. There are only two potential reasons on why the valuations are not revealed in public compared to their Silicon Valley counterparts. The first reason is that the valuations are low for these companies who have raised this stockpile of cash. For example, rumours on GrabTaxi’s latest round speculated that the investors for this round[ took 40% equity](http://www.benzinga.com/news/14/12/5055179/nikkei-reports-softbank-to-take-40-stake-worth-249-38m-in-grabtaxi-holdings?ref=bernardleong.com) which priced it somewhere close to US$900M. The second reason is speculative on the basis that the companies are working on the strategy that their competitors or clones would not be able to use their valuation as a basis to raise the same amount. In a fragmented market such as Southeast Asia, the investing climate would allow one regional winner against the global counterpart. In the GrabTaxi case, they are raising this amount to compete against Uber. With the fundraising reaching at a peak, the market can mount itself towards a bubble. If we are to extrapolate from the present trends, the only way towards a bubble is excessive capital in the market empowering over weak companies. ****Perspectives on Venture Capital** During my trip in Japan, I took the time to read an amazing book “[Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Capitalism-Innovation-Economy-Speculation/dp/1107031257?ref=bernardleong.com)” written by William H. Janeway which was highly recommended by Marc Andreessen in the a16z podcast. As an academic and also a practitioner of venture capital, the author is able to integrate economic concepts into how venture capital is deployed in the innovation economy. He drew some insights from economists such as Braudel and Keynes. Braudel drew on the argument that “capitalism does not invent … the market or production on consumption, it merely uses them” to summarize the relationship between capitalism and the market economy. There are two crucial parameters for every entrepreneur and venture capitalist look at in every investment round: economics and control. Usually, in the course of building the company for the future, the entrepreneur is forced to choose between these two forces. If an entrepreneur want to build the company aligned to the original vision, he or she can sacrifice economics (money) for control. Conversely, the entrepreneur might prefer economics over control, and in the process, sacrifice autonomy to the investors which gain the ability to impose change management in the company if things go south. Very few entrepreneurs can have both because everything is negotiated on the table. Janeway added an interesting corollary to the interplay of the economics vs control dilemma with the following: “**cash buys time to find out what is going on; control permits the player to use that time to shift the parameters of the problem.*” The added perspective he offered to entrepreneurs in the book is that assured access to sufficient cash in time of crisis can help the entrepreneur buy the time needed to understand the unanticipated & sufficient control to use the time effectively. From his experience in venture capital, he formulate two laws of venture capital: - **First law of Venture Capital*: “****All entrepreneurs lie**“. Underlying that reasoning, Janeway argued that entrepreneurs often start with lofty goals to change the world. The only issue is that the promises they made to their financiers, customers & employees are unlikely to be realised. The only way to success (with a very small probability) is that the investors have to understand that the entrepreneurs’ confident assertion often challenges any conventional definition of the absolute truth. In contrast, if you have read Peter Thiel’s “[Zero to One](http://zerotoonebook.com/?ref=bernardleong.com)“, the only mitigation to this law is that the entrepreneur observes a “secret” in the industry that no one else in the industry believe and seek to make a successful business based on that “secret”. - **Second law of Venture Capital*: “****No news is never good news**.” If you are an investor and hear nothing from the entrepreneur you invest for a long time, then it is likely that the company is going south as they will not reveal news such as “we lost the deal” or “another revision for the product is needed but we are running out of cash”. Hence to mitigate this risk, it is in the responsibility of the venture capitalist “**to follow the cash with intense focus in order to observe in timely fashion when the entrepreneur’s vision & the recalcitrant reality of the market deviate too far from each other”*. ****The Three Conditions** I have enjoyed my stint in early stage investing. For a portfolio of ten companies I have invested resulted in two exits and one still ongoing with seven gone south. I am often asked about pursuing a career in venture capital As an observer of the venture capital scene in Asia, I have seen many failures in the market. Typically, most venture capitalists in Asia have no operating experience or have not started their own companies. Those venture firms which has succeeded, has three important advantages over the rest: access to great talent, strong network with access to excess capital and understanding of how financing works and operating a company at massive scale. As I leaned stronger towards being a business operator or entrepreneur, I have laid out three conditions that I must fulfil if I want to go into the business of venture capital: - ****Building a company valued at least US$100M (or exit either by sale or taking it public) or running a public company of at least US$1B market capitalisation.** The reason to impose this condition is that I am equipped with the ability to manage a company in a massive scale. On that scale, I would have developed the capability to understand and manage a profit & loss statement for a business (P&L), perform mergers and acquisitions and resource deployment & capital allocation not just within a large company but across geographies. - ****Operating an organisation with a manpower size of between 500 to 5000.** Operating on this scale will give me the insight to help the entrepreneur to scale their organisation or recruiting the right people to scale the organisation. One important learning for me is that on that scale, you learn to put systems and processes in place to structure the company against risk in the early stage. The reason for this condition is two-fold, with one helping to scale early stage employees into managers or bring in managers for change management. - ****Funding sizes above US$150M**: If you perform the time value analysis of the current venture capital and building different financing models to ensure that the internal rate of return of 15-19%, the amount of capital raised to ensure home runs should be about US$150-200M. Anyone who wants to start a venture capital should try to build a model based on assumed hurdle rates and the number of exits based on potential exits (on a 1 in 10 odds). Once you have seen how this modelling of your fund works independent of the industry, you will realise that it is difficult to run a venture capital firm. Until all three conditions have been met, it is unlikely that I will ever enter venture capital. I do have a very strong opinion on what a great venture capitalist should be, similar to my opinion that technical product managers are far more superior against business product managers. I am inclined to believe that venture capitalists who are former entrepreneurs are far more competent against financially trained investment managers. In today’s terms, they are called “operator VCs” or if you want me to name one successful example: [Andreessen Horowitz](http://a16z.com/?ref=bernardleong.com). ### Thoughts on Podcasting URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/thoughts-podcasting/ Last updated: 2021-07-14T00:40:57.000Z One of my recent personal media projects is a podcast called [Analyse Asia](http://analyse.asia/?ref=bernardleong.com), and [outlined my motivation](http://analyse.asia/about/?ref=bernardleong.com) behind this new media project of mine. Recently, various [authors](http://www.marco.org/2014/11/16/why-podcasts-are-suddenly-back?ref=bernardleong.com) claimed that [podcasting might be back in fashion](http://cdixon.org/2014/11/14/the-return-of-podcasting/?ref=bernardleong.com) again. Personally I don’t think that the reasons for the revival of podcasting would affect Asia given that most successful podcasts typically come from the US and Europe. In this post, I sketch out my own thoughts on podcasting and why it has not taken the way like how blogging has done. For me, podcasting is a personal hobby. I enjoyed podcasting because I am one of those old school people who enjoyed audio as a medium to communicate (and I like to listen to other podcasts out there). For some, it is [easy to set up a podcast](http://sixcolors.com/post/2014/11/want-to-do-a-podcast-dont-be-intimidated/?ref=bernardleong.com). The process of recording and editing every piece of interview can be ardous and tedious but my satisfaction comes when the piece of content is published into the open. What makes podcasting fun for me is to have my own personal radio station to chat and discuss the subjects which are dear to my heart. For every episode of my current media project, I have spent at least two hours on average to edit each episode, in addition to the one hour recording time, another hour to upload, publish and distribute the podcast and possibly another one or two hours to research for the topics and speakers to interview. To be honest, I agree with this author on ensuring good quality for the podcast to be [easy listening](http://www.marco.org/2014/11/29/easy-listening?ref=bernardleong.com). I have worked on media for a while but mainly in theatre. Among my successful media projects, I would count an online news portal and a profitable theatre product which I am the producer. Although I have worked on digital platforms, most people do not understand that the real trick in making a digital media platform successful is in the content. Building something and expecting people to come and contribute content are the fastest ways to failure. When I run my product teams these days, I often leveraged on my background in media to improve communication and marketing to the customers. Let me return to the subject of podcasting. I have a theory why text (blogging) and video works better than podcasting, and why podcasting would not enjoy the kind of attention which text and video for a new platform. First of all, blogging went through three eras: (a) the blogger era where everyone is able to write their own online diary to the time where anyone can host their own blogging site through wordpress or movable type, (b) the microblogging era where people can simplify their communications via twitter (or tumblr), and (c) the current long form content era sparked by the new generation platforms such as medium and LinkedIn influencer publishing and better distribution platforms such as buzzfeed and vox media. The tools on text in all three areas: discovery, curation and distribution are getting better and better. If you have observed, text blogging has evolved from blogger to twitter to medium (and coincidentally by the same person, Evan Williams, who has been involved in building and managing all three digital platforms). Contrast this to podcasting where as of today, there is no tool which can make your podcast look better as compared to Instagram which can make your images look better with filters. As a podcaster, I like to have a tool which I can do with one click that can help me to make the audio better, for example, remove repetitive verses or redundant phrases by a speaker on the podcast. As of when that happens, podcasting faces an uphill battle in reaching the same stage as blogging. That being said, opportunities do exist out there where podcasting has the potential to be the next best thing after text. One interesting consequence is that podcasting is adjacent to video. If you can perfect the editing tools for the podcasting, you can move horizontally into video. Of course, video editing on the fly is another major project by itself. If we can have a web platform which can help the podcaster to edit his or her work easily and distribute well (and there are a few good podcasting distribution platforms out there), podcasting can move up one level. ### Digital Disruption in Traditional Companies URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/digital-disruption-traditional-companies/ Last updated: 2021-07-14T00:43:35.000Z Crafting a digital strategy for a traditional company requires alignment between various stakeholders: the management, existing business unit leaders and the digital team. The situation is complex and often requires understanding from various perspectives. In most situations, traditional companies fail to innovate due to letting short term gains take precedence against long term goals. In the recent years, digital disruption has shifted from people deploying digital products to technology savvy customers to the average consumer with technology seamlessly integrated into their lives without them realising. One important consequence is that when digital disruption enters into the domain of traditional business (for example, retail, logistics, media or communications), it bifurcates a normally distributed business model (which used to favour the middle segment of the market) towards two extremes either towards a high end or low end market. Businesses that traditionally target the middle market finds themselves being hit from the low end in price wars and their services/products increasingly commoditised, making their revenues and margins suffer, while they are unable to penetrate the high market due to a lack of branding. Two interesting industries come to mind: - Mobile smartphones in the telecommunications industry: In the current mobile phones industry, Apple is taking the high end part of the business by focusing on being a luxury brand. Local entrant players such as Xiaomi in China and Micromax in India are competing against Samsung which sits in the middle against Apple on one end, and these new players in the other end. The bifurcation of the mobile smartphones space hollow out Samsung in the middle, leaving them in the lurch. - Hotels in the travel industry: AirBnB enters into the travel industry with the brands such as Marriott and Ritz Carlton on the high end, and the AirBnB matching the customers and people with spaces to rent out shifting to the low and medium end. As a result, the budget hotels are feeling the stress of being hollowed out in the middle. How should digital leaders advise their businesses in that middle market? Two ways: target both ends of the market and allow cannibalisation against their current business model in a controlled pace. The trick lies in capital allocation and separation of the products/services moving towards both ends. Digital products often require high cost of acquisition contrary to perception by businesses that it is cheaper against traditional channels. The only competitive advantage for digital is that the channels of customer acquisition can be funneled by smart use of money instead of putting heavy bets on one channel. Digital businesses generate monopolies not by controlling market share but by network effects making it much difficult for traditional businesses to enter without making significant changes in resource and capital allocation. One important issue that traditional businesses fail to grasp is that revenues from digital should drive with an omni-channel strategy. Most people see the threat of digital businesses too late. First they are perceived to be too small when they first started. They typically target the niche market that is adjacent to the traditional market. With high quality customer service and easy access, they generate network effects and by the time, they attacked markets adjacent to them. By then, the traditional business fail to respond because they have to take significant losses in order to make changes to their business models. But shareholders are unable to accommodate the losses and the downward spiral happens for them. It is also fair that some businesses see the threat early, but have no stomach to take on their own boards and shareholders. That inevitably provide the disruptors time and space to eventually overtake them. ### One in a Million @ 40s URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/one-in-a-million-40/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:13:46.000Z I never thought that I want to pen down something upon turning 40\. When I was 20, I thought that I have worked out where I would be at 40\. I stick to my plan till 33, and upon realising that I am heading nowhere, I took a road less travelled. Why should I pen something now at 40? After all, I expect that it is about half the distance or slightly more to the end journey. It will be interesting that I can look back when I will reach 50 and tell myself that I have set myself not to waste any time and focus on what really matters to me. I look back to the past decades and I am happy and contented that I have reached a few major milestones. Of course, there are greater heights to achieve and sometimes, like a drop in a ocean, I don’t really know whether I am really making an impact not just to my life, but the lives of others around me. Of course, I have my own personal aspirations which I want to reach out to. While I am still in the midst of rebuilding myself for the next most important journey of my life, I cannot help but reflect what has transpired before so that I can utilise the lessons learnt to propel forward. ****Reflections of my life upon reaching 40** As the arrow of time moves asymmetrically in one direction, looking back and reminiscing on the what ifs are things which I don’t want to waste time doing. For me, whenever I achieved the milestone, my only question is, “What’s next?” I always believe anyone can achieve his or her one in a million with a relentless perseverance, passion and focus. Somehow in my 30s, I have lost that belief, stranded in the wilderness and struggling to discover my own feet. I am beginning to discover that flow again and hopefully the joy to be passionate and enjoy what I do. It is often when I operate with doing what I like, I can move in flow. I have done it in my 20s by pulling the 1 in a million because I firmly believe that I am that person to achieve that dream. To make the next leap, I have to pull this off in my 40s or even at a later age. It is that relentless focus that motivates me everyday, even though the complexities of family life have also become part and parcel of that equation. The one in a million event in my 20s is to achieve my dream as a theoretical physicist in the university of choice. The best part of the story is that I made it happen, despite the odds. A lot of people can say that it’s obvious. Behind the scenes in making that happen, I went through pains and struggles. The most difficult part is the stigma from others saying, “Only the ones from the top junior colleges can make it there and you have no chance.”. I can add to the story that I score a “C” in physics in my “A” levels and totally missed out. What a lot of people did not know about that story, is that I made an relentless effort from that failure, finding a good mentor (Dr Chong Siew Meng) and studying the subject from scratch during the days when I was in the military service. I was seen reading physics and mathematics books during lunches or deep in the trenches of a military truck in Taiwan reading a physics textbook with a red torch light. Rebuilding from that, I was able to make it there with sheer luck and opportunity. I was also burnt out in the 2nd year of my university. I am fortunate to find another mentor, Dr Chan Onn who asked me to start back from what I like, and it was only through that belief, I got to the destination. While that one in a million is achieved at the age of 28 with me getting the PhD and university of my choice, it did not hit my final goal of being a full time academic. For those who know, the seven years in Cambridge were one of the best times of my life, because I had the opportunity to be in an intellectual utopia, working with brilliant people from all walks of life. Not only I have proven the detractors to my dream wrong, I was able to show that the impossible was possible. It is a personal story but oftentimes when I was in doubt, I will recall and never lose sight of the final destination. Leaving academia was probably the hardest choice for me due to unfortunate circumstances. In 30s, I have to search for what I really want to do in life. It turned out that I do have a plan B, and that plan B require me to move to the private sector. Maybe at a younger age, I know deep in me that I am destined to do great things, and that feeling of destiny never left me despite how much I yearn for a simpler life. It’s the energy that is within me, and building something from scratch like an entrepreneurial venture is probably the best thing that I can do. I do have an end game in mind, but now I have to start a new opening move or a middle game play in the chessboard of life. In 30s, I have to go through a major failure of seeing a startup I built with my co-founder to crash and burn. Although another startup of mine was acquired in the process, I did not think that it reached my expectations. While all that are in flux in my career, the second “one in a million” happened at my late 30s. That is finding my wife, Deng Yuying. Probably near 35, I was about to give up in searching for the one. If she did not appear that day in the former Hackerspace Singapore at Bussorah Street, we would not have met. If I was not nudged by some strange cosmic forces to send her a SMS just before she left for France, we would not have continued to stay in touch and eventually get married. Yes, I have found the One and probably as a hopeless romantic, I am thankful for the wonderful family life and braving together on the challenges of raising a young daughter, Eleanor with a medical condition. My wife is now in the process of pursuing her dream and I believe that she will be able to succeed and probably achieve much more than myself. Now I am 40\. Where will I be at the age of 50? Will I be able to get to the end game that I desire? For the one in a million @ 40s, it goes back to the most boring parts of life that I have been through in 30s. Strangely, after the failure of the startup, I have thought about starting up another company. However, a few things hold me back. I reflected on what made me reach the first one in a million @ 20s. The truth is that I have failed many times in order to get to one success. As a result, I am very resilient to failure and the only thing when I fail, I just want to wake up the next morning and get back into the arena. However, I know that if I do that immediately, I will definitely make the same set of mistakes that I did earlier. The only way to mitigate this is to go back to the same thinking how I resolve the failure the last time. The solution is to acquire a different set of skills and experience for the next startup. Unlike the other times, where I play a supporting role as a CTO, I have decided that I am going to be the CEO and co-founder of the next company. The challenges of being a CEO do not lie in just the idea or building a simple product, but to make sure that three things that you are good at: hiring and managing people, building tactical discipline and a focussed set of systems in teams to execute and scale from a small startup to a company with sustainable revenues & profit, and lastly able to inspire a team to move through not just good but also bad times. Once I have determined where I want to be in 10 years at 50 and the new set of skills which I need, the rest of the process becomes simple. It is in that thinking that I move into the corporate sector and continue to learn the skills that I need. Some people think that I can only last one to two years. I have already reached the third year. On the contrary, I have that planned for a few more years because there are a few items on my checklist that I need to figure out. While in my first corporate job at Vistaprint, a lot of people did not know that I spent two hours per week between 6-7 pm on Tuesday and Thursday, going through their management training wiki and applied the materials from that wiki to manage and set goals for team in practice. Those knowledge combined with practice have helped me to scale up to my present role as an executive in Singapore Post, heading a business unit. It turned out that on hindsight that choosing Singapore Post is the right choice. I made the choice out of intuition that I am going to work with an interesting and entrepreneurial team. I am lucky to be part of an amazing team with strong alignment and focus. We are all focused to take the company to the next level. I look forward to go back to work every morning and know that we are focused to solve interesting challenges for the future of the company. At the same time, I have gained new business insights scaling up from a product manager to a manager of products and experience in managing large teams of people and financials. The hard choice about going back to where I left off will not come tomorrow but sometime in the future, at least, the next three to four years. If I am ever lucky to reach where I want to be, I am pretty sure that what I learn from Singapore Post, will shape the fundamentals what I will build and make in the future. It is important to be part of a great team because you can extract the best and avoid the worst in going through that experience. I wonder when I come back to read this post at 50, and ask myself again, “Why am I here? How far have I reached? Where will I be going?” Of course, we all fear death (and I do cherish life even more now). The only way that I tell myself from now to the end, is that I must live everyday as if it is the last and pursue my own dreams and aspirations so that I can live this life without regret. I look forward to come back and hope to tell you how I achieve the one in a million @ 40s. ### How to be a good product manager with business background URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/good-product-manager-business-background/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T04:05:58.000Z Here is an opinion I have held for a while: technical product managers in technology companies with scientific and engineering backgrounds are genuinely more superior against product managers who have come up from the business track. The only drawback is that the technical product managers lack three essential skills: business knowledge in sales and marketing, flexibility to deal with business constraints and management experience. Yet, those skills can be learned far more easily against a business product manager who simply do not have the technical know-hows. Even if this is so, it is not the end of the world for the business product managers. A few MBAs or startup founders with no technology backgrounds have posed this question to me, “If I want to be a good product manager in a technology, how can I become one given that I have no technology background?” To answer that question, the best way to think about this is the weaknesses of a business product manager. Like their technical counterparts, they also lacked three essential skills: technical knowledge in how a product is built, demonstrate too much flexibility that they under-estimated the timelines towards their ambitious milestones and giving too much leeway to the customers who demand from the smallest bugs to the high blue sky. Here are some advice that I offer to business people who want to become better product managers or startup CEOs (who have to be a product manager). - ****Learn how a product is made without being an expert:** I have encountered very few business product managers who are exceptionally technically savvy. They do exist and they often exhibited one thing which I find them exceptional. They have learned how a product is built and attempted to build it themselves. For example, if you are going to be a product manager in software company, I recommend that you learn some basic programming or skills relating to the company for example, web or mobile development. If the technology company is focused on mobile, the business product manager should just register for an iOS or Android course, and learn how to build something in a few days. In doing so, I am not asking the business product manager to be a developer but rather have a sense on how much time the entire process requires. That helps the business product manager to be able to match the timelines and milestones for a product without being too over the top. - ****Do experiments on sales and marketing without the product:** If you are trained in the business side, you should be definitely good in figuring out how to build & manage the sales and marketing channels, and do experiments to test the market without the product. That’s the real thing which I often find in weak and incompetent business product managers. They are simply just sitting in their cubicle, waiting for the product to be ready. The real value that a business product manager can deliver is to ensure that the sales and marketing content ready for prime time and at the same time, working with the customers to find out their needs and how to streamline the product for them. - ****Figure out how to achieve your business objectives with the least amount of technology:** One litmus test I can place on a good business product manager: they are excellent in minimising [scope creep](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope%5Fcreep?ref=bernardleong.com), i.e. they do not burden engineering with building up more features. They tend to utilise flexibility in trying to achieve the most by utilising the less. For example, a business product manager may opt to do a mailing list with existing web service than asking his or her team to build one. In fact, some founders with no technology backgrounds built their companies by utilising basic content management systems and subsequently develop customers till they figure out exactly what they need to build. Ultimately, a product manager should not tilt towards technology or business but have the right balance to achieve product-market fit with the customer. ### The Trouble with Two Sided Marketplaces (and how to deal with them) URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/trouble-two-sided-marketplaces-deal/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T05:28:23.000Z How do you deal with two sided marketplaces? Although the value propositions are different due to the nature of their marketplace challenges, one can basically break some of their questions into the following: (a) I am running a two-sided marketplace with demand and supply (or some may call it a chicken and egg problem), which side should I focus first? (b) How can I grow both sides at the same time and what are the ways to do that given that I have no control on either sides? To answer that question, I relied on my previous experience in running a two sided marketplace type startup and also fine tuned my experience into a simple principle as to how you can turn them from a two sided to a single sided marketplace. Basically, in a two sided marketplace, the company makes money when a buyer and seller come together to make a transaction. The most convenient examples based on the collaborative consumption concept comes from AirBnB and Uber. In AirBnB, the buyers are the consumers who are looking for a room to stay in a city while the sellers are the landlords or people who intend to sub-lease their property to cut down the amount of rent required. Uber on the other end, utilises the demand of consumers to get transportation at any location or time and match with the supply of transportation so that the consumer can get from point A to point B. If that is not simple enough, you can think of app stores such as iTunes and Google Play, where the developers sell their apps thru the distribution of users within IOS or Android ecosystem. Most two-sided marketplaces have the following properties: - The seller is responsible for listing and promoting the product/service that he or she is selling to. Let me also include a disclaimer that in Asia, most sellers are lazy and would expect the marketplace owner to do the work for them. So, don’t expect to build something and dream that your sellers will show up. The answer is that you have put in a lot of effort to acquire them. - The marketplace owner will try their best to have an automated or hands off approach. In theory, that’s the dream of every platform owner, but the reality is that in the early days, you have to do the dirty work in getting the marketplace working. - The buyer and seller have competing interests and wants to maximise their interests economically, i.e the buyer want to extract the most value in monetary terms while the seller hopes to spend as little as possible. So, the interest for the marketplace owner to make a small fee out of the whole transaction, and hence their role is to ensure that the process flow for the whole transaction has to be simple and efficient for both buyers and sellers and at the same time, able to bring some revenue to the table for the platform. Most startup entrepreneurs faced the following chicken and egg problem: you have to incentivise both buyers and sellers to come and use your marketplace and in some sense, you have to double the amount of effort. So, given limited time and resources, the question is: which should I focus first? The answer appears to be complicated from the first glance. After all, I have worked in a two sided marketplace once and after a tedious and tiring experience, I have told myself to avoid it as much as possible. If I have the choice, my preference is not to do it. Of course, I cannot dissuade some of you not to do so. You can choose to believe me or not. I have grown a mobile advertising network from 0 to 2K businesses distributing across 10 million transactions per month across both mobile and web applications in various platforms in the span of 9 months. Believe me, it’s a lot of hard work and tears and I always wonder what it would be a better way to do this. In my world, I could have increase the distribution by simply not wasting my time to work with 3rd party developers in Asia, because the culture is simply not there to allow anyone to do so. If I have a second chance to do this again, I will have just build my own apps and not waste time with partnering. Quoting my favourite line from the founder oF LVMH, “If you control your distribution, you control your brand.” I have distilled down to how I can turn a two sided marketplace to a one sided marketplace after some reflection through experience and also learning from the successes and failures of other two sided marketplaces. In this case, I will advise the entrepreneur to focus on failed cases more than success cases. The basic principle is as follows: ****you should only build two-sided marketplaces or turn two sided into a single sided marketplace where the user acquisition of one side is of least resistance and focus on the other where revenues are of paramount importance.** If your user acquisition on both buyer and seller sides are horrible, I will be harsh to tell you to give up instead of wasting your time. As a matter of fact, I have challenged this conjecture against people who write “academic” pieces about two sided marketplaces and give bullshit advice (where they have not run a two sided marketplace) to entrepreneurs. Of course, they found no counter examples and gave me half baked answers. For example, the third party developers in Asia are one of those red herrings which a company thinking of building APIs for community should avoid. It is because they are in a survival mode and prefer to be consultants than using your API to be efficient. If you want to run a two sided marketplace with third party developers in Asia on one side, my answer to you is “Good luck!” So, why should you turn a two-sided into one sided marketplace? The answer is focus. You have limited resources and time to run your company. Let me use an example of a successful two sided marketplace that worked on the principle I have stated. If you think about it, Groupon, AirBnB and Uber all have one common trait which passed thru their blood: they are focused in acquiring the sellers which are small & medium businesses, landlords or drivers who need customers. The best part for them is that their buyers are far simpler to acquire because they are just consumers stuck with a need that you and I would need. For example, a consumer wants the best discounted deal (Groupon), a place to stay when they travel to another location (AirBnB) and a transport which takes them from point A to B where the resource is hard to acquire at certain times of the day (Uber). In each one of them, the user acquisition for buyers are of least friction where the other side is where they focused on. You have to identify which side is frictionless and build the other side that is not frictionless. In the case of some property websites where they match buyers and sellers, the equation is flipped to the other side. The entrepreneur will fake it until they make it where they scrap listings data from other sides to draw the buyers in. ### The Single Founder Dilemma URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/single-founder-dilemma/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T05:24:38.000Z Here’s the question which I am being asked by many people who want to apply to accelerators or planning to start up new businesses. “Should I be the sole founder or find a co-founder?” The answer is not so straightforward. Most accelerators often preached the need to have co-founders and tend to drop applications by single founders. There is justification in why they chose to do so. After all, 9 in 10 startups fail, and, following on with you get 84% with multiple founders vs 16% with single founders in the successful startups. Does that mean that you should not attempt to be a single founder? In this essay, I take a contrarian view that you can be the single founder if and only if you satisfy a set of conditions. Through talking to different entrepreneurs (and analyzing the successful single founders), I have established how a single founder can work out by satisfying the following conditions (and you do not need all of them, but a combination of some): - ****You have a very clear vision:** The startup you want to build have a very clear vision. In addition, you truly believe that you can fulfill that vision and build the business from startup to a real company with sustainable revenues. - ****You understand the industry and focus on how you can make your business work within the industry:** You have been in a particular industry for some time and built up both the operating experience and network where you know how to execute on that vision. Typically, you are a veteran in the industry, and observe something that the rest of your peers did not manage to see, and at the same time, figure out how to defend against competitors or upset the incumbents within the industry. - ****You want to shoulder the entire responsibility:** Instead of having co-founders who can share the blame, you decide to should the entire responsibility if the venture fails. Actually, this may be good for some people who do not want to worry if they fall out with their fellow co-founders or have a difference in vision with them after some years of work. It also minimize the hassle of seeking another person’s opinion as you know that you are the person who want to own the decision process and shoulder the entire responsibility if you make the wrong call. - ****You have been through the startup experience (with or without co-founders) at least once:** In some cases, the single founder learned from experience what they want and do not want in the next startup. In this situation, the entrepreneur can be led to be the single founder due to a bad fallout that resulted in loss of friendship or betrayal. One other situation is that they realize that they cannot reconcile with another co-founder on the direction of the company and decided that they should go solo for the next one. They have also undergone the tough times and understood the trials and tribulation of being in a startup. - ****You want control and want to dilute as little as possible:** This is probably the most prominent reason why some founders decide to go solo. It’s all about control. You want to have control of the vision, the execution and how the company eventually turns out. In the same light, coupled with past experience, you will not want investors to dilute you the way they might have in the past startups. However, there are other mechanisms to assure control even with multiple founders: preferential shares and putting co-founders as directors to the board. - ****You have access to a vast network and know how to work the partnerships:** Particularly in cases where the founder have industry experience, he or she may be able to access people within the network pertaining to that industry. The network can allow you to work the partnerships with companies as a competitive advantage which the other competitors against your startup may not. In some situations, you may be setting up the situation for future investment or acquisition if someone within the network is a decision maker, champion for you in the corporate sector and putting a word for you. - ****You are born in a family of entrepreneurs and have observed how the whole process works:** I notice this with people who are borne in the family of entrepreneurs. I am sure that it happens everywhere and this is not just an Asian phenomenon. As they have witnessed first hand on how their parents or relatives have operated as entrepreneurs or in business, the entrepreneur is able to learn some of the soft skills which may take experience and time for some rookie entrepreneurs who do not have that access. The other advantage is that the family might have resources, networks or advice for the entrepreneur, making it frictionless for them to be able to start business without the fear or the need for companionship with co-founders. That being said, I have also observed some even with that family background fumbled badly as single founders as well. - ****You have mastered the art of hiring people, i.e. you know how to identify people who can work with you:** One of the challenges in startups is hiring and having a good skill in identifying people who can join you. You can build a founding team and not make those early employees as co-founders. The only downside is that you might have to compensate more upfront to hire someone because they are not founders. There are ways to build incentives such that the employees will work to achieve, and hence it resolves the challenge. - ****You have access to capital**: If you have access to capital or you have built up a cash reserve to begin building your startup, the single founder option can be an appealing one, as the focus is that you need to hire the people who might be able to help you to scale. Bootstrapping startups take time but the single founder can use that opportunity to optimise and re-invest back the profits back into business. If you seriously want to be a single founder and you are confident that you can pull this off, my advice is that you should not even bother to apply to an accelerator or any similar organisations who preach the multiple founders mantra. ### New is Easy but Right is Hard: Hacking Product Management URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/new-is-easy-but-right-is-hard-hacking-product-management/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T05:10:03.000Z A great product is a synthesis of technology and business thinking. How do we decide what goes into the product and determine the roadmap of the product? How do we establish the balance between the business and technology of the product? In this post, we discuss some interesting lessons learned on product management and why both business leaders and technologists don’t get it. > “New is easy, but right is hard.” > – Craig Federighi (Head of iOS & Mac OS X, Apple) ****Product Management in a Nutshell** Traditionally, product management is a function within the company where a product manager focus on the following objectives: (a) planning the business strategy and analysing the market segmentation, risks and competition out there, (b) figure out the product roadmap and interface with the engineering lead and team to deliver based on the timeline and milestones set, (c) collate customer feedback, both qualitative and quantitative and find ways to build up customer base, (d) figure out the marketing plan using different channels, (e) manage the financials with profit and loss (P&L) and (f) collaborated with cross-functional teams to execute on the product. Of course, if a product does not work out, the product manager can choose to close down the product. Whether it’s a startup or a corporation, a product manager takes responsibility on the success or failure of the product. In a startup during the early stage where it’s just a two to ten men team, the CEO is typically the product manager. In my case, during my tenure as a CTO of the startup, my role was closer to a product manager than an engineering leader, because on top of architecting the platform and planning the product, I have to do the strategic partnerships with 3rd party developers and web publishers, pre or post sales follow up, and collaborated with the business teams to achieve the targets for our company. In modern day, product managers are no longer limited to someone with a business background. If you examine the interesting technology companies such as Amazon, Facebook or Google in the US (and not in Asia), some product managers rose from the engineering leadership or the companies prefer hiring engineers to be product managers. Having an engineering or scientific background offered some advantages but yet at the same time, it does not mean that the engineering person can rest on the laurels. Like the business person, the engineering type product managers have to break through a steep learning curve and understand basic business fundamentals. The danger is that the engineering type product managers dismiss basic business concepts and do not move away from a technology centricity to a user centricity role. There exist a chasm between business and technology/engineering leaders. In the world of the business person without any understanding of how things are built and made, they start with the following line of thinking: (a) customers gave feedback that they need X features, (b) determine whether it should be easy to build them without consulting the engineering team and of course, they usually miss out the obvious test cases that might lead the user to unintended consequences and (c) they want the features to be built by tomorrow and of course, they are being pushed back with resistance from engineering teams who would begrudgingly obliged to entertain their request but got their timelines and milestones totally screwed. On the other side, the engineering leader also make a similar set of mistakes: (a) they have the mentality that we built and customers will come, and insist that marketing is a waste of time, (b) insist on technology centricity by being fixed towards certain choice of software without thinking about the constraints of the problem and (c) they do not negotiate with the business owners and I have seen this happening a lot more in Asia where technology teams are just being rolled over by the business teams without pushing back, and in the end, got themselves screwed. Of course, how do we determine between good and bad product managers? Ben Horowitz, co-founder of the famous venture capital firm, [Andressen Horowitz](http://www.a16z.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), offered a good essay entitled “[Good Product Manager/Bad Product Manager](http://www.stanford.edu/class/e140/e140a/handouts/ProductMgmt.txt?ref=bernardleong.com)” which gave probably the best answer to how we should measure ourselves to be good product managers. ****How do we decide the product roadmap?** Most products usually fail for the following reasons: - ****Too much emphasis on business/technology & lack of focus on the other (technology/business):** A very common aliment for a lot of product managers and often leads to the product managers firefighting and going through crisis after crisis. What usually happens is that there is a lack of delegation or either the engineering or business team leads are unable to deliver the results and end up getting the product manager to take their roles. The product manager should be the editor and get the teams to perform and not ended up performing for either teams. - ****Too much features & too little room for experimentation or patience to work for the long haul:** Product managers in corporations faced this problem more than in startups. Typically the startups are experimenting so much that they did not let the experiments to take its full course. What usually happened is that senior management ended up closing the product offering and not giving positive results or time for the product manager to take it further. - ****Lack of integration between marketing, sales & product development, and that’s why growth hacking is important:** A good product manager puts up a chart and look at everything from a top view. The feedback from customers drive how much marketing is required and how the product might morphed into, hence it is really important that the product managers adopt an integrated and data drive approach. What typically happens, is that they are too specialised on one side. The best way is to lay out all the different aspects of the product with a timeline and do a stacking of the priorities so that the product manager focus different things at different times. I have learned from experience that good product management is how one properly manages their time and not responding to crisis or business owners being anxious. Don’t be fooled by people who tell you how intense startups can be and you are firefighting fro your product. You can achieve work life balance by managing the integration smart and planning out well on how the whole thing comes together. - ****Execution only limited to specific points of time and not over-arching**: A lot of product managers only focus on the pre and product launch dates and totally ignore the post launch. The reason is that most people do things in a last minute fashion and do not keep a consistent schedule. Hence, the product manager should ensure to plan a balanced and consistent schedule where pre, during and post launch activities are happening and keeping the various teams in check. Once we understand how product managers can screw up, then it would be easy for me to offer some advice on how we should decide the product roadmap: - ****Determine the business objective of the product:** The product manager and the business owner determine the business objective of the product, and worked out what metrics constitute the success or failure of the product. They have to convey the same objective to both business and engineering teams to ensure that everyone is on message with the outcome. - ****Align the team on product development, sales, marketing & customer data collection to business objective with timeline and milestones:** Set out the plan with a timeline and milestone chart for all the teams so that everyone knows what everyone is doing. - ****Do not be distracted by your competitors and say no to adding new features or total perfection:** A product manager should know about the direct & indirect competition out there but do not be led by the competitors when it comes to the product. The biggest mistake that most business product managers make is to tell engineering to add more features with the misconception that they will be able to sell to customers. I learned from brutal experience that business owners or product managers often make excuses that they cannot sell a product because of missing features or features that do not exist. That is when you know whether this person is really good at what he or she is doing. It is also the reason why a lot of engineers in Asia are cynical about startups because a business product manager cannot do what he or she is supposed to be good at selling and marketing the product. Always take the product to 80-99% perfection and let the market tell you how it should move, and not try to achieve the third law of thermodynamics where that perfection does not exist. - ****Hold yourself accountable to a set of metrics:** The product manager needs to set of metrics for himself and his team to achieve. The metrics must also be flexible such that the circumstances might change to force the team to pivot the product to another business objective. - ****Ensure everyone is on message:** A tip to do this is to write the press release for the product launch or other related matters before the launch such that it focuses the team towards aligning the product development, sales & marketing with the press release. Of course, staying on message whether it’s the technical or business lead with the press is important. - ****Relentless execution from pre, during and post-launch of product:** Getting the team to execute flawlessly and ruthlessly without fail is important. In Asia, we are still grappling with quality compared to the US. The product manager needs to introduce the culture of taking the time to get it right than to rush things. Most product failures and firefighting arise from teams getting confused messages from business owners. The product manager has to be relentless in the execution phase of the teams. ****A Tale on Product Management: Hacking Google Voice into a SMS server for the United States Market** One of the most interesting things I have done in my career as a product manager is to deploy a simple short message service (SMS) for United States (US) customers to post their updates to our advertising platform in Singapore. This innovation incurred only two days of development time and was done at 5% of the original estimated cost, savings that were crucial to our bootstrapped startup. At that point in time during 2010, I was the co-founder and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of a Singapore-based startup called Chalkboard. Chalkboard was an advertising platform that helped business owners with physical stores target location-based ads to consumers in the vicinity. Chalkboard worked through third party mobile applications or online websites on location aware web browsers. Our customers were busy owners of small-medium enterprises with little time to deploy daily promotions and advertisements. Therefore, we designed our platform to be as convenient to use as possible. Upon signing up with our service, customers would provide basic information of the business location and the first promotion message (within 140 characters). Promotion messages could come in the form of today’s specials, seasonal offers or discounts or a new product launch. Customers could send as many promotion messages as they want at any time or day, with the latest message replacing the last one. We offered three input methods for them to update their promotion messages. The first method was a web-based interface through our platform. The second method was through a tweet sent from an associated business Twitter account. The last method was to send a SMS message from the business owner’s mobile phone to a designated local number. The SMS method was very popular in Southeast Asia. Older business owners, who are less tech savvy, often updated their promotion messages using SMS. Our data showed that in Southeast Asia countries (Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia), approximately 50% of our customers used the SMS method, followed by 45% using the web interface and only 5% used Twitter. By late 2010, our business had expanded to the US. We were about to start deploying our service to trial customers in the city of San Francisco. Due to geographical reasons, deploying the SMS service was a tricky matter. At that point in time, to keep things in context, SMS to web services such as Twilio were not available. If we followed convention to set up an SMS server in the US, it would require us to fly a software engineer to US to do so and incur costs that would be significant to our bootstrapped startup. Yet, our profiling of US customers and experience in Asia indicated that US business owners above 40 were likely to use the SMS method. It became crucial to validate our hypothesis, as we did not want to alienate this segment of US customers. Any solution had to satisfy the important constraint that we do not stretch both financial and engineering resources. After brainstorming with my team, we came up with a solution. We worked intensively over two days to build a SMS system consisting of a mobile handset placed in Singapore and a pre-paid SIM card from the US that could receive free incoming SMS. We utilized a free service called Google Voice available in the US. First, we paired the business owner’s local US mobile number with our platform, and informed the business owner to send their latest promotion message to our designated pre-paid US mobile number. The pre-paid SIM card number was linked to a Google Voice account. The SMS from the business owner would reach the Google Voice account in the form of an email. We then extracted the promotion message from the email using the Google Voice API and pushed it to the consumers. This solution incurred only 5% of the estimated cost of setting up a SMS server in the US. Upon implementing and experimenting our service in the US market, we discovered that very few customers (less than 1%) used the SMS method to input their promotion. Most US customers (70%) used Twitter instead. As there was insufficient traction in the US market with the SMS method, we removed the SMS service and offered only services based on Twitter and the web dashboard. The impact of this innovation made a difference to how our business would operate in the US. First, it allowed our sales and marketing team to collect quantitative data and understand the profile of our customers in the US. Second, it incurred very little financial and engineering resources, which were then better used building technologies crucial to the core business. Finally, the solution could either be scaled up (by installing a US SMS server) or removed quickly without hassle. ****Epilogue** The product manager has to balance between different priorities and aspects on the business of a product. We are often distracted by the competition and not focus on saying no when we need to. Continuously iterate and improve the product is not just engineering but there are other engines such as marketing and sales at work which are part of the whole package. To come back to the theme of the talk, always remember what Craig Federighi says, “New is easy but right is hard.”. ****Author’s Note:** Here are the slides for the whole talk I have given in Hackers & Painters on 15 Nov 2013 at Blk 71\. I thank the organizers for inviting me to do this talk on product management. ****[New is Easy but Right is Hard: Hacking Product Management](https://www.slideshare.net/secret/eNgif575RJU0it?ref=bernardleong.com)** from ****[Bernard Leong](http://www.slideshare.net/bleongcw?ref=bernardleong.com)** ****References:** \[1\] Ben Horowitz, “[Good Product Manager/Bad Product Manager](http://www.stanford.edu/class/e140/e140a/handouts/ProductMgmt.txt?ref=bernardleong.com)” \[2\] Ken Norton, “[How to hire a product manager](https://www.kennethnorton.com/essays/productmanager.html?ref=bernardleong.com)“. \[3\] Ian McAllister, [What distinguishes the top 1% of product managers from the top 10%?](http://www.quora.com/Product-Management/What-distinguishes-the-Top-1-of-Product-Managers-from-the-Top-10/answer/Ian-McAllister?srid=3wR&st=ns&ref=bernardleong.com). \[4\] Jeff Weiner, [How to Spot the Five-Tool Superstar](https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130121221644-22330283-how-to-spot-the-five-tool-superstar?trk=mp-reader-card&ref=bernardleong.com) \[5\] Jack Dorsey, [The CEO as Chief Editor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs0R-UvZ-hQ&ref=bernardleong.com). \[6\] Eric Ries, [The Product Manager’s Lament](http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2008/10/product-managers-lament.html?ref=bernardleong.com). ### Initial Feedback & Next Steps on Open Source Angel Investment Templates URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/initial-feedback-next-steps-on-open-source-angel-investment-templates/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T04:19:02.000Z Recently, together with [Huifen Zheng](http://aicalico.com/2013/11/03/angel-investment-templates-debt-and-equity/?ref=bernardleong.com), we launch the [open source angel investment templates](https://www.bernardleong.com/2013/11/05/open-source-angel-investment-legal-templates-convertible-loan-shares/). Our aim of the project is to facilitate angel funding in Singapore for both startups and angel investors. At the same time, we hope to provide a set of documents to help overseas entrepreneurs from other parts of the world, which incorporate in Singapore with the aim to receive financing from Singapore investors. With the initial launch, we have received some feedback from the users and even enthusiasts within the community here in Singapore who have created interesting applications with the legal documentation. - ****Putting Version Control Technology on Legal Documentation:** As a technologist and programmer, I have programmed, stored and collaborated on source code with other programmers through version control repositories such as GitHub. As the initial phase of the legal documentation was done through revisions via email between Huifen and myself, the next step is to apply the technology of version control to the documentation. What if we can take a step further and put the legal documentation we created into a repository and edit & improve the documentation similar to the way we do programming? The idea of using a version control repository has been raised by [Clay Shirky in a TED talk](http://www.ted.com/talks/clay%5Fshirky%5Fhow%5Fthe%5Finternet%5Fwill%5Fone%5Fday%5Ftransform%5Fgovernment.html?ref=bernardleong.com) and not surprisingly, the Y-Combinator series seed legal documentation has a [GitHub repository](https://github.com/seriesseed?ref=bernardleong.com). The [idea and feedback](https://groups.google.com/forum/?ref=bernardleong.com#!topic/openfrog/T%5Fu3GzcKzUA) have been raised in the [Open Frog forum](https://groups.google.com/forum/?ref=bernardleong.com#!forum/openfrog), a Google group run by the JFDI.Asia team. Through the efforts of [Sebastiaan Deckers](http://www.twitter.com/sebdeckers?ref=bernardleong.com) (@sebdeckers) and [Veronica Ng](http://www.twitter.com/veronism?ref=bernardleong.com) (@veronism) from [Cofounders.SG](http://www.cofounders.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) who have spent many hours of efforts working in the last two days, our open source angel investment templates are now hosted on [GitHub](https://github.com/cofounders/legal?ref=bernardleong.com) and a more web friendly version: [http://legal.cf.sg/](http://legal.cf.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) for viewing by entrepreneurs and investors. You can check out their efforts and provide us with feedback. This will enable us to improve and iterate on the existing documentation while others might want to fork our legal documentation for their own use. - ****Additional Description on the Debt & Equity documents:** While we have spent a significant amount of time to work out these initial templates, we also received feedback from entrepreneurs that they need some guidance in understanding some of the legal terms and what it means for them if they apply certain conditions. Of course, both Huifen and I would want to write more on each one of them and explain the rationale and how these contracts work for entrepreneurs and investors. As the initial work has been done, we would both write from our individual blogs with her covering the legal aspect and myself on the entrepreneur and angel investor perspective. We are in the midst of working to see if we can have a feedback session with entrepreneurs to see how we can improve these documents. If you want to understand these, James Chan, co-founder of Silicon Straits and investor, have written on this topics: [Redemption & Put Option](http://www.motochan.com/2013/01/03/term-sheet-from-hell-diabolical-redemption-put-option/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Veto Rights](http://www.motochan.com/2013/02/25/term-sheet-from-hell-constrictive-veto-rights/?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Liquidation Preference](http://www.motochan.com/2012/12/30/term-sheet-from-hell-molten-liquidation-preference/?ref=bernardleong.com) and they are all worth a read. We want to work with lawyers and investors within the community to continue the efforts to strengthen the legal documentation for the ecosystem. - ****Creation of Additional Templates on other legal matters:** Of course, we have requests from entrepreneurs to help and churn other documents such as non-disclosure Agreements, employee contracts & stock option plans. To undertake these initial efforts did take a lot of time and effort for both Huifen and myself, and we will work slowly on this. If any entrepreneur and angel investor will engage a lawyer to reproduce the initial angel investment document we created, it would cost at least S$3-5K excluding billing hours. As each startup requires its own customisation of the contract, we have to think through what the common clauses we can cater for each of these addition requests. Of course, if others are willing to step in and work with us, we can move the needle further. ### Open-Source Angel Investment Templates URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/open-source-angel-investment-legal-templates-convertible-loan-shares/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T04:16:08.000Z The origin of these efforts came from our mentoring work in [JFDI.Asia](http://jfdi.asia/?ref=bernardleong.com), INSEAD Business School & young entrepreneurs seeking advice and meeting with overseas entrepreneurs who plan to move to Southeast Asia or seek investment from investors in Singapore. Working with a corporate lawyer & mentor to JFDI.Asia, Ms Zheng Huifen, we have released these documents as part of our modest and humble contributions to the ever growing entrepreneurial ecosystem in Singapore and out to Southeast Asia. ****Disclaimer:** **The templates are free for use, however the authors cannot be responsible for the consequences of use. Startups and investors alike should read and understand the templates and determine the suitability for their particular situation. If in doubt, you should consult professional advisors. The authors welcome questions and comments to improve the templates but we are not able to consult for free as we have our day jobs.* Here are the documents which you can view and download: 1\. [Convertible Loan](http://blcw.me/1cAlxnZ?ref=bernardleong.com): a term sheet (for convertible loans), with a convertible loan investment agreement. If you are asking whether it’s a convertible note or debt, this [article](https://medium.com/what-i-learned-today/aa0e22f444c9?ref=bernardleong.com) can help you to navigate in plain English. 2\. [Share Purchase](http://blcw.me/1fbc2gG?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Shareholders’ agreement](http://blcw.me/1cwSWUw?ref=bernardleong.com): a share purchase agreement, an accompanying resolution for the company to issue new shares, and a shareholders’ agreement. The documents are also available on Scribd: - [Convertible Loan Agreement](http://www.scribd.com/doc/181086881/Convertible-Loan-Agreement?ref=bernardleong.com) - [Shareholders Agreement Template](http://www.scribd.com/doc/181086880/Shareholders-Agreement-Template?ref=bernardleong.com) - [Resolution of Transfer of Shares & Share Transfer Instrument Document](http://www.scribd.com/doc/181086882/Resolution-of-Transfer-of-Shares-Share-Transfer-Instrument-Document?secret%5Fpassword=wztci037q8xf847gl15&ref=bernardleong.com) You can also check out [Huifen’s page](http://aicalico.com/2013/11/03/angel-investment-templates-debt-and-equity/?ref=bernardleong.com) as she also writes about law and technology. ****Updates:** Our work have been covered in [Tech In Asia](http://www.techinasia.com/singapore-startups-download-opensource-legal-documents-save-grief/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Digital News Asia](http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/sizzle-fizzle/singaporean-duo-releases-open-source-angel-investment-templates?ref=bernardleong.com), [E27](http://e27.co/2013/11/05/hey-angel-investors-and-startups-here-are-legal-templates-you-can-use/?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Straits Times](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8226/Angel%20Investment%20-%20Beta%20Version/straitstimes-07112013.png?ref=bernardleong.com) (7 Nov 2013, Money, B15). Here is the official press release for the release of these documents: The entrepreneurial ecosystem in Singapore has grown rapidly. We see the emergence of accelerators such as JFDI.Asia and Silicon Straits, strong concentration of startups within the iconic Block 71 and large exit activity such as [Viki’s US$200M to Rakuten](http://allthingsd.com/20130901/exclusive-japans-rakuten-acquires-viki-video-site-for-200-million/?ref=bernardleong.com). While a local startup typically starts with Singapore as its initial market and expands to the rest of the world, many entrepreneurs from overseas have also come to set up shop here, either to set up a local entity to attract investment or to use their Singapore base as a gateway to markets in the rest of Southeast Asia. One interesting trend is that local investors are also starting to invest into the outer rims of Southeast Asia where promising emerging markets of Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia are taking shape. There is growing interest in angel investing as many firms and individuals see technology startups as a promising asset class with high potential rate of return (ROI). With a flurry of entrepreneurial activity, most entrepreneurs as well as angel investors face immediate challenges regarding the contractual process. Most entrepreneurs are technically trained, and struggle with the lack of legal knowledge to structure the control and the economics of the investment. Not many startups can afford the legal fees required to draft and negotiate investment contracts. This puts founders at a disadvantage. With a poor legal foundation, we have also seen how a startup starting off with a bad term sheet with investors ended in grief when their companies are swallowed by vulture type investors seeking a quick flip instead of value creation. The same problem may also affect individual angel investors who are new to the game. Their lack of understanding of basic term sheet clauses and due diligence also cost them when their investments are diluted by later rounds of financing. On both sides of the game, there also seems to be a lack of understanding of basic share structure upon incorporation. Sometimes, parties attempt to copy term sheets from other deals which they may not fully understand, and which is unsuitable for the individual situation. This creates a bigger mess because of the difference in jurisdiction & legal structure between US and Singapore. They ended up spending more money on legal tussles when the process could have started simpler. In view of these hurdles facing founders and investors, we decided to follow the [spirit of what Y-Combinator](http://ycombinator.com/seriesaa.html?ref=bernardleong.com) did years ago: launching a set of open source term sheets and share transfer documents. While every startup has their own unique history and every angel investor has their own whims as shareholders, our starting point is that these investment templates are entrepreneur-friendly. The aim of this open-source project is to facilitate angel funding in Singapore for both startups and angel investors. At the same time, we hope to provide a set of documents to help overseas entrepreneurs from other parts of the world, which incorporate in Singapore with the aim to receive financing from Singapore investors. We have seen many of such requests and hence, we decide to build our solution for both purposes. In our experience, angel investors are by default friendly to entrepreneurs, already known to the founders, and are focused on the company’s eventual success. They are vital to funding young, promising companies through the Valley of Death. Knowing this, entrepreneurs should not exploit these templates such that it compromises the rights of the investor and the investment. We are distributing two sets of documents, one for debt and one for equity funding under Singapore law: 1\. [Convertible Loan](http://blcw.me/1cAlxnZ?ref=bernardleong.com): a term sheet (for convertible loans), with a convertible loan investment agreement. 2\. [Share Purchase](http://blcw.me/1fbc2gG?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Shareholders’ agreement](http://blcw.me/1cwSWUw?ref=bernardleong.com): a share purchase agreement, an accompanying resolution for the company to issue new shares, and a shareholders’ agreement. The efforts behind this work are from [Huifen Zheng](http://aicalico.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) ([@AiCalico](https://twitter.com/AiCalico?ref=bernardleong.com)), a corporate counsel and Bernard Leong (@bleongcw), an experienced early stage investor and entrepreneur. The inspiration for this project comes from their experience in mentoring the teams in JFDI.Asia and guiding entrepreneurs who come from all over the world. We also acknowledge Juanita Sabapathy from [Kolibri](http://www.kolibri.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) for sharing the share purchase template and we have made changes to the document such that it is general for use. Like any start-up, these documents are in their first version and we would update them regularly and also provide more in depth details on the structure as we move along. We hope that the community can help us to improve the documents such that it can become a standard for the entrepreneurial community here in Singapore. ****Disclaimer:** **The templates are free for use, however the authors cannot be responsible for the consequences of use. Startups and investors alike should read and understand the templates and determine the suitability for their particular situation. If in doubt, you should consult professional advisors. The authors welcome questions and comments to improve the templates but we are not able to consult for free as we have our day jobs.* ****About the authors:** Huifen Zheng ([@AICalico](http://www.twitter.com/AICalico?ref=bernardleong.com)) is a Singapore-qualified lawyer and has been a technology/ R&D corporate counsel for several years. She is now a LLM candidate at the University of Edinburgh, specializing in the law of technology and innovation. Huifen writes about technology and law at aicalico.com. Dr Bernard Leong ([@bleongcw](http://www.twitter.com/bleongcw?ref=bernardleong.com)) is an angel investor and former co-founder of SGE.io acquired by Tech In Asia recently. He has invested in iHipo (acquired by PotentialPark), Padlet (who is now with Y-Combinator) and Lunch Actually. He also serves as an entrepreneur in residence for INSEAD Business School. Bernard writes about technology, media and entrepreneurship at bernardleong.com ### Why I chose a corporate career after a failed startup URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/why-i-chose-a-corporate-career-after-a-failed-startup/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:15:05.000Z Recently some entrepreneurs came to me with the following dilemma: their startups are not going anywhere and they are considering shutdown. Some of them started as entrepreneurs for all their lives, have families in the process and have never considered the possibility of going corporate. Hence they thought about making a career switch. The follow up question from them was, “Why did you choose a corporate career and was it tough for you to manage the transition?” After explaining my rationale to them on various occasions, I thought that it might be good to share my perspectives on why I have decided to do that before starting up another company within the next 5-10 years unless something cropped up. To answer the question, the first thing you should do is ask yourself the question, “Where do you see yourself in 5 years time?” It is the same question which I asked potential employees or interns during their interviews. My belief is that good managers genuinely ask this question with the intention to know whether he or she is aligned with the person and at the same time, work out whether he or she can help to groom the candidate to the next stage of their career. I do the same for people I hire and I look for managers who do the same or help me grow in the future. I typically do not take up a job if I can sense the slightest detail that something is not right about the person. To guide you the process, here’s my answer to that question and I explained this to people who asked me the question. Within the next 5-10 years, I am going to do another start-up but this time, I will be the CEO of the company, providing the strategy and vision and at the same time, leading and managing a team that can scale from one to 10K employees if it worked out. Before I do that, I reflected on what my weaknesses are in the last startup and pondered about the strategic mistakes we made collectively as a company that led to her demise. By being self-aware and really honest about my vulnerabilities, I have came to the conclusion that I have to acquire the following set of skills: ability to strategise and take long term view, managing multiple teams and work with larger cross functional teams across different regions and learn how to scale a company by understanding and implementing processes & systems. The best place to learn these skills are not in a startup or a mid-level enterprise, but in a multi-national corporation. Yes, there is the bureaucracy with processes and systems that would hamper you given your own entrepreneurial roots. The way to handle that is not to dismiss but to have a clear understanding on why they are implemented in the first place and how you can work around them without creating chaos. When the job in Vistaprint came up, it was a start-up role, because I am tasked to lead a team which takes ideas to prototypes from senior management of the company. At that moment, my bosses were not hired and I grabbed the opportunity to learn strategy, business development and financial projections. I did not stop there. They have some internal learning systems for management and I just took the spare time from a hectic schedule to read the articles during lunch and started to weed out the missing gaps I have. At the same time, I learned how to cooperate with different cultures from emerging economies such as India and Indonesia, and more mature economies such as Australia and Japan. Those experiences helped me to grow as a person and guide me towards where I want to be in general management. I did not let my specialised role sandbag me into career opportunities limiting to going towards technical roles but I learned everything I need to be a good and effective executive or general manager in the future. What is rewarding is that I am learning about what makes a company successful because at one point of their lifetime, they were startups. Once I understand where my objective is going to be, I can build a roadmap for myself to get back to where I want to be in 5-10 years time. Of course, there are other practicalities as well. To be upfront, during that period of time, I was without salary for a few months, got married and after two months, expecting a baby and got myself to a mortgage. One of the fortunate principles I managed to hold close to was not to be desperate. I really spent my time working on finding the correct role for myself and not let finance be part of the equation. It is hard but it’s worth it because you are going to spend some years of your life to be there. Once you get this right, the transition into a corporate career becomes simpler and easier in the process. Getting a corporate job has helped in many ways to help and finance another one of my startup called family, and we have managed to stabilize the household with owning a home and our daughter getting medical cover from the company insurance for an unexpected condition that came up. Over the past one and half year, I am paid properly while learning the skills I can cultivate for that future I want to build not just for myself now, but for my family. Overall I have worked with a lot of smart and kind people in Vistaprint at the same time, and I am proud of the things that we have built for the company as a team. While working hard on my corporate role, I gave some time to help the team in SGE which subsequently led to its acquisition from Tech in Asia, stayed connected to the ecosystem as a connector and now an angel investor looking for interesting companies to invest. As I am committed to my goals, one of the hardest thing I have to is to turn all other opportunities along the way – turning down all offers to be CTOs or senior engineering roles for other startup companies. It is not them but their goals do not align with mine at that point in time. If it is not clear by now, this is also my answer to people who have been constantly asking or begging me to be their CTOs and it’s a no, and this is why. So, it is the same advice that I give to people when they decided that they want to go into the corporate route for a while. By the way, I have not found that startup idea yet but I am constantly exploring and analyzing new ideas and opportunities. While that is happening, I can spend my time cultivating the set of skills that I truly need for the future: to be an effective executive. ### The Signal & the Noise URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-signal-the-noise-pr-marketing-startups/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T05:19:45.000Z In the customer discovery phase of a startup, the startup team typically encounter a phenomenon called the signal and the noise. The signal answers the question whether your startup is genuinely gaining traction and generating viral user growth. The noise shrouds your vision with all the drums banging about the promise of your startup. Both signal and noise constituted both marketing and public relations (PR) portion of a startup. How do you build a proper marketing and PR plan while relentlessly focused on delivering the minimum viable product? ****The first step: Build a media plan that is integrated with product development & customer discovery** Always start with a plan. Every startup typically starts with a group of founders building a minimum viable product with a set of features that are tested against a set of hypotheses requiring customer validation. In the majority of my encounters with startups, they are either too obsessed with product development or getting media attention. Either extreme is not appealing because it does not achieve the objective of what they really want: solving the pain point for the customers who will pay for your product/service. As a former media outlet owner (SGE.io), here are the two types of messages which I have often received from entrepreneurs: - **“We have launched our product X. Can you cover us?”*: This is the classic case where the team has completed the first launched version of the product and expected people to come to them. Of course, it gets worse when they expected to be covered and that comes to my next point. - **“We sent an email to journalist X from your outlet and he/she has not responded to us. Can you help us?”*: Of course, I put up the politically correct version of the question. You have no idea when I get nasty emails from entrepreneurs demanding to be covered because they are the next big startups and also intimidating us that he has already gotten coverage from our competitors. When I receive such emails, I would typically nudge journalist X about customer service and collect the data about the entrepreneurs. It turns out that Journalist X is really busy and have to write four stories a day to satisfy their key performance indicators for the media outlet. Not to mention, their calendars are filled with meeting startup founders who may pitch new stories to them. Nine out of ten cases, the entrepreneurs often engage journalist X in the eleventh hour and expect to be covered. Only a few entrepreneurs have heeded my advice in how they should engage the media for press coverage, for example, the founders of [RedMart](http://www.redmart.com/?ref=bernardleong.com). The first question I often asked them, “What is your story?”. The variant of that question is, “what is the angle that you want the media outlet to cover you?”. I am going to share the secret sauce here as I have done with all the entrepreneurs who I have met. The way to do this is to plan your media coverage way ahead in time. Typically, I tell the entrepreneur to create a spreadsheet with the following fields: Only a few entrepreneurs have heeded my advice in how they should engage the media for press coverage, for example, the founders of [RedMart](http://www.redmart.com/?ref=bernardleong.com). The first question I often asked them, “What is your story?”. The variant of that question is, “what is the angle that you want the media outlet to cover you?”. I am going to share the secret sauce here as I have done with all the entrepreneurs who I have met. The way to do this is to plan your media coverage way ahead in time. Typically, I tell the entrepreneur to create a spreadsheet with the following fields: ****Day Number/Date/Time:** Starting from the first day of your startup all the way to the 100th day and the first year. This is to set your timeline and milestones for product development, customer discovery and media engagement. ****Product Development:** Note down which day on this column when you will launch product X, feature Y, a strategic partnership. Make sure that you tie your team to delivering on the dates with each milestone. ****Team addition or important milestone:** Note down an important hire who would be joining your company. Make sure that you have at least one week before letting the world that you have joined. ****Customer Discovery:** You should make sure that the product development sync with your customer discovery work. Ensuring the hypotheses for customer validation are also implemented in the same stage. ****Media Engagement:** Making sure when you are ready to get media to promote the story. Once you have that spreadsheet built up, the first thing you want to do is to write the next press release documenting the story you want to tell. This press release should only be known to your team who has to deliver the product to the story you want to build. Of course, there will be changes to the product and the story, but the media plan helps the team to stay focused to their goals and objectives. The last tip I want to offer is to engage the journalists early and not late. At least, get to know them before you engage them for a story. Their work schedule are pretty hectic and often they have to visit a couple of leads per day. Like any endeavours in a startup such as fundraising, you should make sure that the journalists are in your network fund and you are constantly checking in with them such that when you pitch the real story, they are ready for you. ****The Noise** Generating awareness for your startup is not an exercise for customer discovery or validation. It’s easier to call it “noise” and I do not mean it in a bad way. Although it does not generate real bumps for the business objective, it is a process to get your startup “show-roomed” by investors or people who are looking for technology ideas to clone. The common misconception is to lump PR and marketing in the same bundle during the startup phase, but they are actually different things. Here are some rules to help you with engaging the press to generate “noise”: - ****Journalists are divided into friendlies, neutral & offensive**: Start to build a relationship with journalists. Be friends with all of them, but make sure that you distinguish the friendlies, neutral or offensive. The friendlies tries to cover everyone in good light. The neutral cast their opinions in either direction. The offensive is to challenge your startup’s market position, find glitches or customer complaints or put tough questions to your interview. To be honest, you will encounter all three. So, learn to live with it. It’s alright not to answer questions which you do not want to. My advice to entrepreneurs: please prepare yourself to be ready for all kinds of questions. One integrated approach is to answer questions the same way which investors would throw your way to you and have a story ready on your finger tips. - ****Learn to Engage on a friendly terrain during crisis management**: I have also advised entrepreneurs who need help in crisis management. The typical situation comes in the following forms: (a) your company is featured in negative light, (b) a glitch in the product, (c) your company not doing well, (d) people quitting your company or ex-employees dropping a bombshell for you and etc. My advice to entrepreneurs: (a) never engage on the media outlet if they do not allow you to put your side of the story, (b) don’t be defensive and confront the situation head on by putting up a statement, (c) don’t blame the media outlets or journalists for putting these crisis situations in front of you and (d) learn how to turn the crisis into a positive. In the words of Oscar Wilde, “**There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.*” or I will paraphrase, “Good or bad PR is better than no PR.” - ****PR does not translate to customers:** Please make sure that this line is in your employees & your DNA. Getting featured on a prominent technology blog has no impact to your startup getting real customers. That’s the most important thing. Once your startup is out in the open, expect competition and random people popping by your side to check out who you are. The intangible benefit from the noise is that you can use it as a tool to attract potential investors, employees or people who might get the word out that you exist. ****The Signal** The signal is important to your startup because it creates the blood flow (in the form of revenues) that will keep it going. While you can read up everything on customer discovery, learning how to market your startup to customers is extremely important. With these three rules of thumb, it is important to focus on the signal, which is to map the marketing plan to discover, gather and convert customers to paying customers: - ****Learn everything you know about SEO, social media and online ads and make it happen**: Whoever is going to be the hustler, they better start to do the following: learn how to do basic search engine optimisation for your site, create facebook page, pinterest, twitter and any relevant social media page for your site, and try out google, facebook and twitter ads to create the funnel to lure customers who are interested in what you do into your site. On your site, you need to track accurately the user sign up rate or the user dropout rate. Don’t just do all these in one day, but making sure that it’s a continuous and iterative effort similar to your product development. - ****Content marketing via your company blog, good copywriting on your site and help/tips to educate user**: Use the blog to write about the trends and the industry that your start up is in, focus on tips and how-tos on educating the user or generating awareness to how users can maximise their returns on your site, and make sure that you continuously edit the marketing language on your site so that customers can understand your value proposition. All these helps to generate customers by pointing them towards becoming one. Teaching your customers from step one to close the loop is an important endeavour and do not assume that they understand every button and purpose in the site or app. - ****Updates not in the form of spams**: You can have your mailing lists and send latest updates to your customers. The best way to generate customers is not to spam them, but to make your advertorial look like content or tips to enhance your service. Be sparring in how often you email your customers, and figure out how to retain them as your customers. ****Marketing as Signal & PR as Noise** Bringing it all back to you, the signal and the noise are synonymously linked to two functions for the startup: marketing and PR respectively. Learn to focus on the signal and be less reliant to noise is how you can navigate the terrain out there to make your startup successful. ### Minimum Viable Product URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/minimum-viable-product/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:15:47.000Z Why do startups need a minimum viable product (MVP)? How do we define the features for a MVP? What are the principles that we can use to move the team towards building that MVP which can be subjected to a lot of distractions in the market? ****What is a minimum viable product?** The [minimum viable product](http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/08/minimum-viable-product-guide.html?ref=bernardleong.com) or MVP in short according to Eric Ries, author of “The Lean Startup” is the version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort. Notice that it’s not being (a) minimum only which you will create bad products that no one want to use or (b) just being viable where you require better resources like those in a multi-national corporations to build good high quality products that hope to roll out with maximum impact to the market out there. In a startup where you are straddled with limited resources, the need to focus on essential features in bringing the MVP to market is an important component. ****Why do we need a minimum viable product?** Essentially most startups would fail. Hence understanding the reasons why they may fail allude to the notion of adopting the MVP development strategy. In a startup, we are dealing with two unknowns: (a) the product roadmap – “what is the final business objective of the product” and (b) customer discovery – “how do we know whether the customers really need this product to solve their pain point?”. The allure of a good plan, a solid strategy and a thorough market research for a major corporation mapped to a startup is a perfect trap to the failure of a startup. It does not mean that you do not plan at all. It just means that you have to plan with two frames of reference: survival and long term. The first frame of reference is survival which pushes the entrepreneur to work with limited resources and build a product to attract a customer base for the company (and hopefully, the customers pay too). The survival mode requires short term thinking and forces the startup team to think within a timeline of 3-6 months. The second frame of reference is strategic long term thinking which takes the entrepreneur off the survival mode and imagine an ideal world of unlimited possibilities, i.e. how we can build this product to a final form that enjoys customer success and disrupt the entire industry. Startup failure usually culminated in either the entrepreneur too entrenched in a short term or long term thinking. The trick is to be able to switch between this two modes of thinking. Hence a minimum viable product means that you have to build a product with the least amount of features and achieve maximum customer impact. Minimum viable products require discipline. Do not mistaken that to be launching crappy or irrelevant customer products which some startups alluded to. The product must work flawlessly for the small set of features advertised and allowed the business team to collect enough customer data to validate whether the business can be scaled. For a good set of misconceptions about the MVP, this [article](https://medium.com/lets-make-things/308d8f009b13?ref=bernardleong.com) should suffice. Lack of focus and execution also constituted why some startups fail. Bad product managers usually displayed the following traits: (a) when they cannot sell a product to the customer, they blame the product for having less features, (b) they crammed too much features without developing a set of working hypotheses to test whether the customers would use the features. It is painful to work with bad product managers and I have my fair share learning the trade of building and shipping products at a rapid pace. Learn to say no to product managers who keep insisting that we need more features, because chances are, they don’t have a clue. A good product manager is able to map business requirements to a small set of features with the engineering team and willing to take the risk of being too accommodating to customers. ****How do you decide features in a MVP?** To guide a product manager and his engineering team, here are seven simple and robust principles which I have adopted: - ****Less is more in product development:** Being disciplined about features is not the responsibility of the technology team, but the same with the product and business owners. The first rule of thumb is to brainstorm and kitchen sink all the features for an ideal product that you want to build. Once you have the ideal list and together with your team, start to reduce the set of features down to the minimum set that are subjected to two constraints: the shortest amount of time to take the product to market and the product having the capability to allow the business team performing experiments on customer discovery & validation. - ****The most Boring feature is the most Important one:** The trick to customers loving a product is not to have too many or new features, but the quality of the feature. Most business owners, particularly in Asia, dissed the quality argument and ended up with a product that embedded too much features and not able to achieve their business objectives. The best example to demonstrate the argument is Instagram. There are many photo sharing mobile applications in the landscape but Instagram attracted the largest number of users and growth because they focused on making the most boring parts in a top notched form. The killer feature is the most boring feature: the uploading of the photos to their server and push into different social networks are remarkably fast as compared to other apps in the same category. Signing in can be simple but to make it flawless without attracting “404s” is a different ball game, and that comes to my next point. - ****The path of least resistance or Minimise Friction:** In Dave McClure’s pirate metrics in growth hacking, the first three stages: acquisition (user awareness), activation (user sign ups) and retention (generate usage activity) are core steps to drive initial growth to your platform. The key is to ensure that the steps involved in activation and retention phase have to be flawless and minimise friction for the users. If you observed most new emerging digital services whether web or mobile, the sign up process typically uses Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn connect as a single sign on system. The reason is to minimise the friction to create an account using an email, username and password. These social platforms allowed you to extract information about the user such that you can fill up the fields automatically without much hassle. At the same time, you can also leverage the social graph from these networks to probe or attract their connections to sign up on your service as well. A simple one click action is far more superior than giving user multiple choices and as different digital devices emerge beyond desktop and mobile such as wearables, your amount of actions are constrained by the screen size of that particular device. - ****Think Scarcity – Demand vs Supply:** Scarcity is a fundamental feature on human society where our needs and wants are matched against limited resources. That implies that we cannot have everyone and bound to make tradeoffs in our pursuit of products. This feature gives rise to the fact that you may want to have mechanisms to limit the supply to your product and drive up the demand. The most interesting example is the Mailbox app. In the initial user growth phase, the makers of the app sent out limited invites and demanded that those who have installed the app to a long queue. Here’s what I have discovered upon continuously clicking on the app to check how far I am away from getting my invite. The number towards getting my chance to use the app increased rapidly, and I notice that I was subconsciously drawn to using the app often. Driving users towards an action using the scarcity principle could also create the power of habit with your users. - ****Focus on Closing the Loop for the user:** You can drive user growth easily, and what you must always to do is to close the loop for the user. This is a fundamental question to ask, “What is the one action that matters to the user such that it creates that transaction?” The Uber mobile application is a great example. In the sign up step, it has acquired your credit card details. Following on to the phase where you use the app, within three steps of locating you will lead the driver to your location. Upon the driver picking you up and sending you to the final destination, a simple click pushes the payment transaction and close the loop between you and the company. Closing the loop is essential because there is no point in getting user traction without them closing the loop that generates the transactions that matter. - ****Iterate & Refine with User Feedback & Usage Data:** Launch the MVP fast and get user feedback & usage data. In the early days, every customer will ask for more features and it is very easy to be distracted. The way to navigate around dealing with the inundation of noise on user feedback is to adopt the following rule: i**f and only if there is no traction to the first version, do a tally check on all the user’s features request and work out which one to implement first.* Always trace the development of a new feature to how it could help to enhance the company’s business objective, and that’s the north star you need to angle your team towards. The best story I like to tell was how Jason Goldberg, co-founder of Fab.com sent a special login to an investor (who he has turned down to meet) and it gave a clear picture of the killer metrics that the company was growing at an exponential rate. In the end, the investor led a round of US$40M to fund them. - ****Be prepared to pivot if it’s not working:** Upon a few tries, you still could not build user traction. The best course of action is to pivot, meaning that you work on another idea. It is alright to pivot, and if you do not believe me, Odeo failed and became Twitter. ### Debunking the Management Myth about In House vs Outsourced Engineering URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/debunking-the-management-myth-about-outsourcing-engineering/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T04:10:15.000Z In the past few years, most companies advocate the myth of outsourcing as a way to cut costs on engineering. One myth advocated by people in business strategy and operations to justify why it is better to outsource from an expensive place to a less expensive one is that only the specifications of the product input leading to the outcome of the product matters and not the quality of engineering. The problem with that view is that you pay peanuts to get monkeys, i.e. you pay less to run an engineering team because it affects your profits and loss (P&L) but you end up giving a lower quality software engineering product to your customers. That explains why a lot of companies, particularly in Asia cannot take innovation to the next level. With the evolution of the product manager to lower the quality risk, does that mean that there is no room for in-house engineering? Here are some thoughts on the management myth about in house and outsourced engineering. #### The Management Theory on Outsourced vs In-House Engineering till Today Here’s how a business owner justify engineering costs: - ****Engineering is a cost structure that is incurred to produce an output that has positive input to the business:** That’s obvious and that’s why we have corporations and startups putting tonnes of money paying for engineering (be it software engineering or others) to move towards a business outcome, i.e. revenue. - ****The engineering teams are a loss leader in the cost structure**: As sales are the only revenue generator for the company, there is an imperative need to justify the trimming of engineering teams or outsource the engineering to a lower quality place. The extreme argument given by some Asian managers is that we should just outsource to country X by one ten of the price so that we can achieve economies of scale - ****The quality of the engineering does not matter, but the specifications that lead to the outcome matter:** This is the strongest argument used by business people. You just need to define the technical specifications and mapped out the business requirements clearly to the technology product. It sounds simple, but from my experience, most business owners have no clue on how to map the features to the product, or justify to themselves that they should build more features or introduce scope creep so that they can get more revenues. In most realistic cases, adding more features accelerate the downfall of the product. - ****The product manager as the interface between the business and engineering teams**: Of course, the management theory about outsourcing has evolved across the decade. One method of mitigating the quality risk is to have a product manager sitting in between the technology & business teams and map the requirements between both worlds. This improvement has taken the argument further to why we should outsourcing the engineering teams out there rather than have in-house teams within cities with high labour costs. The best description of technical debt came from Jeff Atwood aka Coding Horror: > *Technical Debt is a wonderful metaphor developed by [Ward Cunningham](http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?TechnicalDebt&ref=bernardleong.com) to help us think about this problem. In this metaphor, doing things the quick and dirty way sets us up with a technical debt, which is similar to a financial debt. Like a financial debt, the technical debt incurs interest payments, which come in the form of the extra effort that we have to do in future development because of the quick and dirty design choice. We can choose to continue paying the interest, or we can pay down the principal by refactoring the quick and dirty design into the better design. Although it costs to pay down the principal, we gain by reduced interest payments in the future.* > > *The metaphor also explains why it may be sensible to do the quick and dirty approach. Just as a business incurs some debt to take advantage of a market opportunity developers may incur technical debt to hit an important deadline. The all too common problem is that development organizations let their debt get out of control and spend most of their future development effort paying crippling interest payments.* Clayton Christensen wrote an interesting anecdote on how Dell lost its competitive advantage by outsourcing engineering to its vendors such as Asus, and ended up in tears when the vendors leapfrogged them in technology competency. Samsung is most well-known for producing a critical component of technology for a particular industry (for example, solid state drives for mobile phones) and then use that as a way to figure out the roadmap of their competitors who outsourced the components from them. That’s why they gave Apple a run of their money. Here’s the first message that I want to spread: the management theory about outsourcing engineering in the last decade without the product manager is actually wrong, because it fails to regard technical debt as a crucial component that will bring about the downfall of the company. Think about it, ****the more you lower the quality of engineering you outsource, you end up bringing in more technical debt, and till you grow big and large, you are unable to innovate because your foundations are of a lower quality**. With the evolution of the product manager, does it mean that there is no justification for in house engineering teams anymore for major corporations? #### What successful companies have taught us about In-House and Outsourcing Engineering What have we learned from successful companies like Google, Apple and Amazon? A few things, first, they don’t outsource their teams and keep it at the heart of where the innovation are. Amazon took a step further by spinning out their engineering resources into Amazon Web Services (AWS) so that the startups and corporations out there (who pay for their cloud computing services) end up “subsidising” a portion of their large engineering costs. It means that the engineering teams in Amazon are generating revenues and at the same time, lowering the costs for the company. In all three companies, the quality of engineering is really important and the focus is to ensure that you do not end up outsourcing your core competency to your competitors out there. To do that, you need an in-house engineering to continuously build and iterate on your core products. Given the evolution of the product manager to lower the friction in solving the risk of quality in outsourcing, is there really no justification for in-house engineering? Here are a few thoughts which we can learn about for startups and corporations: - ****You can outsource non-critical components:** If technology is the core focus of the company, you should not outsource the core competencies elsewhere. For startups, if engineering is not a core function, then outsourcing it and build on other competencies such as business development, sales and marketing, it’s perfectly justified as well. - ****Can we justify the existence of in-house teams?**: You can have a good product manager who takes the core competencies and outsource it elsewhere, the outsourced team building on those requirements may not have the vision or core knowledge to improve the product to the next level and make the next big leap forward. Imagine if Google outsourced its entire search team out there, will the outsourcing team have the capability or the expertise to improve the search algorithms? The answer is no because the outsourced team neither have the core cultural DNA to build these core components. Yes, you can justify the in-house engineering team because they possess the cultural DNA to innovate. - ****In-house engineering teams are required to resolve the innovator’s dilemma:** An interesting question about corporations is that you should minimise operational costs and maximise profits. However, this creates the innovator’s dilemma within a corporation, which I have earlier shown how Dell lost its competitive advantage as a result of outsourcing. How do you get corporations to innovation from within? The answer is the evolution of the in-house engineering teams, and how to transition them such as they can turn their engineering value to create new business value is an interesting question to explore for the future. How are we able to extract that innovation? ****Author’s Note**: **The author thanks his colleague, Byron Fuller for interesting feedback and comments that further refines the arguments and ideas about what this post is about.* ### Building & Managing Technology Teams in Asia: Setup & Configuration of a Startup Team URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/building-managing-technology-teams-in-asia-3-setup-configuration-of-a-startup-team/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T04:08:22.000Z How do we set up an engineering or technology team within a startup? What are the pieces that deemed essential or not? Upon hiring your first engineers, what are the best practices for the startup phase before you move into the intermediate setup? After working, building and managing different engineering teams from startups to corporations, I have gradually come to work out what I deemed as the minimum viable setup, learned a set of best practices on how to scale an engineering team as the company grows. In a nascent environment, the best approach is to adopt the agile software development model in a startup environment, where the engineering team can build a set of features and iterate upon feedback and data from users. However, as the engineering team grows, the priorities of the organisation changes with the complexities of building not just for your customers but also your colleagues in your company. There is a philosophy which has increasingly become appealing to me in building your engineering team: ****build something which people within your company love/want/need to use.** It sounds simple but it is actually difficult to execute. What’s more interesting is that it aligns the business owners and the engineers in a collective mode of thought and execution. For business owners, it actually demonstrates you whether the word of mouth marketing model will work. Think about it, if people within the company does not want to champion their own products, how are they going to convince other people to champion them? If you are not convinced, try asking your engineers why they just loved Dropbox, Evernote and GitHub and advocate that you should use it. Why is this important? In a nascent environment, you do not have the luxury of a quality assurance engineer who can devise tests to search for bugs and issues or “dogfooding” the company’s product. So, the early software engineers have to find ways to make testing not part of the hassle but in an automated fashion. In a startup, the [test driven development](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven%5Fdevelopment?ref=bernardleong.com) (TDD) \[1\] is a process that is more crucial for both front-end and back-end engineers. #### Setup & Configuration of a Technology/Engineering Team When you start an engineering team, you need to set it up in a way that are suited to the needs of the organisation. Don’t be dogmatic about it because software development comes in all shapes and sizes. For example, the needs of a business to business (B2B) and a business to consumer (B2C) are very different. If that does not sound so bad, how about adding the complexity of a hardware (car, watch or Google glass) in the process or dealing with mobile operating systems (iOS, Android, Windows Phone 7)? How should be the initial setup really look like? While I will dedicate a separate post totally on how and what to look out for in hiring engineers, here are some heuristics to how I think about the initial setup which I learn through my years of experience: - ****Hire two engineers at a time & not one:** If the CTO is taking one of the software engineer roles, then you just need to hire another one. There are times where the CTO is being made to do the product management & growth hacking (as in my case for one of my past startups), then hire two. Yes, hiring two engineers accelerates the burn rate. The best reason I can offer is that the two engineers serve very different functions and if you don’t split it up at the start, the technical debt on your product grows quickly at the business expense. The other reason is culture and unless the software engineer or developer is a real lone ranger, having a pair can actually allow them to bounce ideas off each other and gradually they can also learn and grow together. For later stages, when you grow your team, you can also introduce [pair programming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair%5Fprogramming?ref=bernardleong.com) which are the cornerstones of some top programming houses who practice agile methodologies. A disclosure on my end: I have not implemented pair programming to my teams and I often get mix reviews from my peers (fellow CTOs or Vice Presidents in Engineering) in the industry and it’s either really great or really bad. - ****The first 2 engineers should be a front-end and back-end engineer:** If the CTO is taking one of the roles, then you need to find the other one. Most software development adopts the [model-view-controller](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller?ref=bernardleong.com) model. In layman terms to the business owners, this means that the product is built in a set of modules which clearly splits the business logic, the infrastructure and the presentation layer (where the marketing team make content changes without too much hassle). Having a specialised backend engineer means that he can focus on putting the right infrastructure layer in place which can be scaled up or down as the company grows. The backend engineer can focus on optimising the performance and build the components that the front end engineer will adapt and push it into the presentation layer i.e. the customer view of the product. The front end engineer is typically the person who puts the presentation layer that the customers faces and brings the designs from the UI/UX guy to reality. At the start of the company, both engineers are equally vital. If the CTO starts off as one of the roles, the key is to gradually find the replacement for his software development capabilities, transition the guy to be the head of engineering and subsequently to a chief technology officer of a corporation as the company grows. - ****Try to hire an user interface(UI)/user experience(UX) designer within your team:** Having a designer right beside you is the best thing you can ever have within your engineering team. In the early stages, he helps to take your wireframes and produce the mockups on the look and feel. In US, the roles of the UI and UX are separate particularly in successful companies. However, given the dearth of talent in Asia, I often look for UI designers who has a passion to learn about UX and think about the flow of their designs and guide them by giving them interesting references and sending them on training courses (if the opportunity arises). For the UI designer moving towards UX, it’s a way to build their career and portfolio at the same time. Hence, it’s a hack which I have changed in the context for Asia. The same would work for mobile development, except that you have to bear in mind the same principle of a front-end and backend engineer works as well. The complexity lies in the amount of devices that you need for testing and also making sure that you can provide engineering support if you expand to a second platform. One philosophy I have seen that it has consistently work for mobile developers is the following: always start from one platform (iOS or Android), work out the kinks and issues with the engineers who specialise in one platform before you extend into the rest of the platforms (Windows Phone, Blackberry). As I have worked in both mobile and web, I have built my framework in thinking about the whole platform as mobile-web such that I see them as one piece rather than separate. To me, the desktop is another screen size and my web or mobile product must be responsive by default. If we are working on native applications, for example, within the iOS or Android framework, our focus is to make sure that we leverage on their software development kits (SDKs) and at the same time, optimise their performance. In any case, my ideal first configuration is usually a team of four with three software engineers (including the CTO) and one UI/UX designer. #### Best practices to build an Engineering Culture - ****Align them with the company’s business objectives:** Through experience, it is often good to keep the engineering team in loop with the business objectives of the company. First, it aligns them with the rest of the company and also help to provide a sense of urgency and mission. Dogfooding the product is an essential characteristic of a good engineering team. The reason is that they are just not building but also using and improving the product. - ****Understand their work habits and maximise their input and output:** It is silly to constrain the engineers to normal working hours. What really matters is that you emphasise on delivery and punctuality when it comes to important meetings. By giving them that flexibility, you give them the ease to focus on what they need to do. How about working from home? I do not start giving that privilege until I am absolute confident that they can deliver what they promise. In an early stage where you are building up team dynamics, it’s best to have the team together and slowly ease them if they prefer to work in remote. - ****Have very few meetings as much as possible and be part of their water cooler conversations:** Unless necessary, it’s best not to have too much meetings. Often, an hour meeting on product discussions with the business owner, sales or marketing teams are good enough. Most engineering teams have a water cooler area, for example, a skype chat window which is shared among the team for internal discussions and chats. It’s important to let them vent out steam in the water cooler and be ready to help when they need it. Besides, a lot of interesting technology conversations often happened when the engineers go for a beer, and that’s how you can foster interesting synergies within the team. - ****Allow experimentation and let them articulate their expertise:** Let your team experiment with new technologies and allow them to dedicate some time towards that. First, it improves their craft and sometimes, through serendipity, they might discover a way to apply the technology towards making the product better. Sometimes, to ensure that I get a complete picture of the technologies, I will check in with them on what technologies they would adopt for a specific problem, for example, optimising number of API calls, increase the speed of content delivery or securing an architecture against specific types of hacker attacks. In some cases, organise talks from other reputable software engineers within the ecosystem or get them to attend developers conferences where they can learn from fellow developers in the same space. - ****Give engineers time to refactor the code & optimise performance:** Oftentimes, business owners under-estimate the issue of technical debt and prefer to use the engineer’s time to build more features. I have seen many Asian business owners (and some are even trained in top MBA schools) doing that. What they totally under-estimated, is the amount of technical debt that they are putting on the product. It’s important to give a sprint or a month to allow the engineers to refactor the code and optimise the performance in the product. If you want a good example, the [case study of LinkedIn](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-10/inside-operation-inversion-the-code-freeze-that-saved-linkedin?ref=bernardleong.com) came to mind where Kevin Scott, the top engineer did a code freeze for two months so that they can refactor and optimise the infrastructure for the future. - ****Rest and recovery for engineering teams are crucial:** Whether it’s a startup or an unit within a corporation, it’s important to manage the business owner’s expectations. As engineers are valuable resources, it is important not to overwhelm them or burden them with roles that are not in engineering unless necessary. The problem why it happens is that the business owners see engineering teams as costs that they cannot recover. If you are working with business owners who has the wrong set of expectations, you can prepare yourself for a lot of hell. As a manager of engineering teams, I have made it a point to avoid calling anyone on public holidays unless the server crashes (which only happens one in a blue moon) or a critical event. Here’s a story I can share with you: one engineer of mine has never experienced a proper Christmas and New Year holiday for years before he joined Chalkboard and I made it a point that he will not get a call from me during those two days. I told him that unless the server breaks down, he’s supposed to enjoy his holiday. Letting your engineers to go on a rest and recovery period is important so that they are more refreshed to deal with heavy lifting work. - ****For teams adopting Agile Methodology – Spend less time on stand up meetings but more time offline within engineers:** Be strict about the standup meetings everyday and constrain it to fifteen minutes. It’s important that if there are blockers, the engineers can take it offline. - ****For teams adopting Agile Methodology – Gathering qualitative & quantitative feedback on the team after each release cycle:** It’s essential to do a review meeting after each sprint and let the engineers provide feedback to what went wrong in the last sprint. For the manager, it will be good to gather metrics like burn-down charts and velocity graphs to look at how the whole team has performed as a whole. What is important for business owners who are planning to build their engineering teams with the chief technology officer (CTO) is that they need to think about their career path. A lot of Asian business owners tend to treat them as workers rather than craftsman. Without the first step to rectify this cultural attitude, you will lose members of your team every now and then. ****Notes:** \[1\] Test-driven development (TDD) is a software development process that relies on the repetition of a very short development cycle: first the developer writes an (initially failing) automated test case that defines a desired improvement or new function, then produces the minimum amount of code to pass that test, and finally refactors the new code to acceptable standards. ### Decisions: Fast and Slow URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/decisions-fast-and-slow/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T04:01:01.000Z Making decisions on issues are parts and parcels of an entrepreneur’s life. Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” describe the two systems where there is a part where we make quick and slow decisions based on the complexity of the issues at hand. It’s not difficult to decide simple issues, for example, buying of equipment and software for the team, but not easy when you are faced with making strategic decisions. No one is perfect and even I have made mistakes in making decisions. In the past year, I have been reading and thinking deeper about decision making process for strategic issues. The issue is that when we reflect the mistakes we made in our decision making, hindsight is 20-20. > “Making a decision reduces opportunities in the short run, but increases opportunities in the long run. To move forward your career, you have to commit to specific opportunities as part of an iterative plan, despite doubt & despite inconvenience.” > —**Reid Hoffman & his dad, “The Startup of You”* To start, let me start with a few situations which you will probably encounter in the course of an entrepreneur’s life: a. You started a fruitful first meeting with an investor, and have subsequently a few meetings. The investor continued to linger you around and appeared to be interested in what you do. The only issue is that nothing has been closed, not even a term sheet. You have invested in your keynote presentation, your effort and time above building your own business to woo this investor. You are not sure about pulling the plug. What should you do? b. You are talking to a potential strategic partner that has the capability to increase your distribution channels, and you have invested time and energy to work with the corporate employee who has championed your start-up as a potential partner. The discussions have dragged on and your business are starting to crumble. You are not sure about pulling the plug. What should you do? c. You want to hire this person as a potential executive to your company, but he or she is not committal to come to a decision. You put an arm and leg in the hope to get this person hired, hope to entice him or her with higher salary, more stock options and equity. You have run out of options and you are not sure about pulling the plug. What should you do? In all three situations where anyone including myself, the common answer is to bear a “let’s wait and see” and “perhaps thing may change in the next few days”. Unfortunately, nothing happens even you give a few more days to let things take the natural course. We justify to ourselves why we should not give up, because we have invested in a significant amount of effort to cultivate the relationships. The irony is that in all three situations, the correct decision is to pull the plug on all three situations instead of being dragged on. It sounds counter-intuitive but if I am faced with the same situation again, I would have pulled the plug. Are there ways to mitigate the risks that come with such decision making processes? Yes, there are. The way to do this is to lower the stakes of the issue. The first thing is not to attribute every example on the list that I have laid out to be “do or die” or crisis situation. In every avenue you pursue to grow your startup, you should not bet everything on one event, i.e. a product launch and expect people to come or a partnership that brings you public relations value. Reading books on how founder-CEOs have made great decisions, you see three ingredients: (a) the decision is counter-intuitive, data-based driven and not confirm to the herd mentality, (b) laying out options and really mapping the reality to the decision making process and (c) making a series of small bets to show how the counter-intuitive decision leads to a competitive advantage. You do not need to be fast in showing the world how your company is presented to the world, but you should be slow to build up every aspect even basic administration details (like your incorporation details because it impacts your shareholding and director liabilities) and accounting. The key trick is to build everything slowly and then get the building ready for prime time. Once you have lower the stakes i.e. you make small bets, you can place small bets to each and every situation and focus on what you need: customers. ****Customers bring revenue and grow your company, hence the decisions you should make about complex strategic issues are strictly calculating how you can gather more customers rather than partnerships which you really do not know whether you can gain traction.** Of course, the best way to be better in decision making is to examine every decisions you make everyday. I have checked every decision I make in work and thought about their ramifications to the objective which we try to achieve. Only with more experience, we can be ready to make really difficult strategic decisions in the future. Here’s a set of books which I have read and examined on the process of decision making: - “[Thinking Fast and Slow](http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555/ref=sr%5F1%5F1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376105709&sr=1-1&keywords=thinking+fast+and+slow&ref=bernardleong.com)” by Daniel Kahneman - “[Little Bets](http://www.amazon.com/Little-Bets-Breakthrough-Emerge-Discoveries/dp/1439170428?ref=bernardleong.com)” by Peter Sims - “[The Greatest Business Decisions of All Time](http://www.amazon.com/FORTUNE-Greatest-Business-Decisions-Time/dp/1603200592/ref=sr%5F1%5F1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376105797&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Greatest+Business+Decisions+of+All+Time&ref=bernardleong.com)“, by Verne Harnish - “[急着成功的人的不急的技术](http://www.books.com.tw/exep/prod/booksfile.php?item=0010536127&ref=bernardleong.com)” by 吉田典生, a book recommended by my father in law, and an amazing companion to “Thinking Fast and Slow” in explaining how you build up a company without being fast, but building everything slowly. The result is that you build a great company with strong foundations. Unfortunately, the book is written in Japanese and translated to Chinese. ### Where you want to be depends on you URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/where-you-want-to-be-depends-on-you/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:16:14.000Z An [article](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/2013/07/29/singapore-a-better-than-silicon-valley-for-hardware-makers-bunnie-huang/?ref=bernardleong.com) and [a counter-argument](https://www.facebook.com/calvin.cheng.lc/posts/10151781294506221) to the article from two friends of mine (who I highly respect) inspired me to write this. I will summarise the article first. The article describes a well-respected hardware maker, Bunnie Huang and his views on why he considered Singapore as an ideal place to be in. Of course, the counter argument came from a local software leader and community organiser for the Python community, Calvin Cheng who argued that Singapore do not have interesting hardware companies as compared to Silicon Valley. Of course, the debate “Silicon Valley is a better place than \[name of another place\].” popped up again. ****The “better place” argument is the wrong question.** For years, I have struggled with this issue and also debated with different people why I think “Silicon Valley is a better place than Singapore or Beijing”. It is further exacerbated by [the failure of my last start-up](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/2012/04/27/chalkboard-calls-it-quits-after-saying-no-to-acquisition-offer-from-silicon-valley/?ref=bernardleong.com). Months later after I have shut down the company, I caught up with my old friend, [Brian Wong](http://www.twitter.com/brian%5Fwong?ref=bernardleong.com) who is the co-founder and current CEO of Kiip in Echelon 2012, a technology startup conference for Southeast Asia. He has been a great friend and took me out for lunch with another buddy of ours as we knew him before he became famous. During our conversation, he made a comment which made me think about leaving Singapore. He told me that the last startup I did was an interesting company that has lots of potential. He added that if my company had been in Silicon Valley and not Singapore, it would not end this way for not being able to raise money and added that there would be soft landing options such as an acqu-hire to cushion the failure. Over the course of the last year, that remark left me pondering whether he was right. With the progress of time, the wounds turned into scars and I found time to reflect over my future and think ahead where I want to be in the next decade. I have figured out a few things in the process. First, the “better place” argument is the wrong debate to have within yourself and others. Through my exchanges with other entrepreneurs about the non-existence of Series A funding in Southeast Asia over the year, I found it exhausting because the arguments are wasted on which place is better or such. What I came to the realization, is that the most important thing to myself is to find the opportunity to go to where I want to be, not because of it’s a better place, but rather whether the economics and the environment allows me to maximize my chances of success and impact. When I lived in Cambridge for seven years of my life, I found meaning that I was working on tough scientific problems and enjoyed the environment where a scientist is well-respected and gets good career opportunities. That environment and economics do not exist in Singapore which is where I am now. It’s just that Asia arbitrages technology and to them, a scientist is less respected than the engineer with the exception of Japan. That’s why Japan is still leading in innovation and number of Nobel Prize winners because they are probably the only culture which respected craftsmanship from plumbers to inventors better than any other Asian country. Having a family also made me think as well where my children will get maximum opportunities for their lives. For some particularly the expats, it may be in Singapore because they enjoyed the low taxes and great careers, but for others, I prefer to be in the US because I share the principles of innovation and opportunities which can not only offered to me but to my children in the future. I have started working on how I can move to US within the next few years because I want to move to a place where I can maximise my chances of success and make my dreams come true. I do not want to move a place because the argument is about “Silicon Valley is better than \[X\].” Ultimately, In a global world today, with so much mobility, you can choose to move to anywhere and maximize your chances. It really depends on you rather than the environment. The environment is there to maximize your chances of success. If it’s somewhere else, it’s up to you to take the step and go there. ### Strategy & Execution URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/reflecting-on-strategy-execution/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:55:06.000Z The best part about being a start-up is that everyone within the founding team gets the opportunity to cross pollinate ideas and execute the market hypothesis so that we can fail fast and pivot if necessary or double down if we discover the secret sauce. However, as a company scales, the short term focus on survival switches to taking a long term view with strategy. > **“You’ve got to think about big things while you’re doing small things, so that all the small things go in the right direction.”* – ****Alvin Toffler** While in a multi-national corporation setup, strategy takes the centre stage. Unfortunately, coupled with bureaucratic processes, the organisation loses her nimbleness to move quickly and in the process, missed out opportunities that might disrupt or take the company to the next level. Recently, my friend, Michael Smith told a tale based on his experience in trying to pitch a path for Yahoo! Messenger. In his anecdote, he obtained the support of the CEO but the people who blocked the process turned out to be the heads of the region who would most likely to benefit. As a result, a startup coming from nowhere called TenCent, become a multi-national corporation and did what Yahoo! and Microsoft could not do: monetizing their messenger clients. Whether I am an entrepreneur or a corporate employee, I hold myself to one central tenet: the work ethic that I execute to the best of my ability. Whenever the CEO or manager asked me to solve a problem in the past, I usually ended up fixing the problem with the path of least resistance. However, it generated the image that I am good at execution and lacked strategic thinking. Self-reflection helps me to clarify what some people has unfairly labelled me with “lack of strategic thinking”. Through a process of being really critical and hard on myself and coupled with the opportunity to sit on strategy brainstorming sessions in my current company, I realised where the problem for me really is. In the agile development process, the way to think about the problem is to break it down into solvable parts and then iterate and improve based on data collected and feedback. I embraced the agile process all the time which is essential in the startup phase. The reason why that approach works for the phase is that the startup is in search for the scalable business model. Hence until you figure out the secret sauce in making your company successful in the form of revenues and profits, the strategic thinking process is not essential. To me, strategy is important but not in an early stage of the startup. Strategy is a complex process where you need to gather different views and options towards culling the beast based on your ability to grasp details while executing on the ground. That comes to my next point. > **“Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action comes, stop thinking and go in.”* – **Napoleon Bonaparte** There are three lessons that I learned from working on different aspects of strategy in a team: 1\. ****Focus on the “Why” question and give your team (and not just yourself) to think deeply and do not make your mind until you have seriously evaluated all options**: I discovered this the hard way. Some leaders have a pre-conceived notion of the answer to the question and their process of gathering options and opinions is just plain nonsense. You can easily tell those who have already made up their minds but sought consensus as a form of appeasing others who might not agree with the strategy. These are the failure cases I witness at first end, and I kicked myself for not pushing harder to counter. What I discovered is that people with consulting backgrounds tend to treat strategy as a philosophy and not marry it with cold and harsh operational details or capability to execute. That’s why we have some companies failing to achieve greatness in the process. To ask “why”, the leader needs to be able to execute well. In a corporate organisation, the manager or leader is a facilitator rather than the idea generators. The employees brainstorm and organise the ideas so that the team decide what the key focus or in a short, the strategy that will take us to the next step is. 2\. ****Be critical in everything and focus in building the story behind the strategy:** As a builder, I prefer to test and toss ideas out and pushed the imagination rather than being the critic. However, in strategy, the role of the critic is just as important as the mover because the process requires different perspectives and puts everything in context. What comes after all the brainstorming, is the story. What’s the story that you are going to build such that the teams can execute on the strategy? First, provide the why and then how and what. Chaining the details from a strategy brainstorming process into a document is a difficult one because you have to cut the fat and limit the essence of the strategy into a few bullet points. Although details are not important in the strategy document, they are extremely important when the strategy is disseminated to the teams. That is the difference to why some CEOs fail because they are not good at execution. The essence of the strategy process is to decide what are the things you should not do, so that you can focus on those which will define the organization. In my own opinion, to execute well is to go the extra mile and get things done not just for my customers but to people who worked with me. 3\. ****Most people in corporations succeed in being strategic but failed in execution.** I can say the same with some people who made the transition from corporations to startups. It’s not a bad thing because the difference in the abilities of such people lies in building a great company compared to an average company. There exist people who can think strategically as well as execute well and there is a direct relationship to that. Most people sees being strategic to set up the process and let the rest follow. There is more than that, successful execution lies not in setting up different initiatives and putting the teams in place but also the follow up effort to ensure that the idea is not just producing one fluke result. In a startup, focus on one initiative and get 10x return before being strategic in setting up new initiatives as you grow the company. I learned in the hard way that the best people are the so-called “talent” but they are people who have a good heart and execute to the best of their ability. To me, my valuation on good talent is decided on their ability to execute and think with a good heart. I have already made up my mind that I will found and build the next startup as a CEO in that distant future which I know are some years away. One critical success factor to being a good CEO is the ability to make good business decisions, because the margin of error becomes lesser as you scale the company from a small outfit to a multi-national player. The reason why that future is a few years later rather than now, is that I want to chalk up the 10K hours to understand every detail about an organisation not just technology and strategic partnerships but people management, operations and finance and execute well as a team player. Till that future dawns, I do not limit myself in being a good business operator who can execute but also a manager who can think strategically and marry the beautiful and complex strategic thinking process with cold harsh operational details. ### Lessons from a University Society’s Constitution URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/lessons-from-a-university-societys-constitution/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:52:40.000Z During my third year as an undergraduate in the National University of Singapore, I co-founded the National University of Singapore Astronomical Society (otherwise, in short, NUSAS). Despite that I have been acknowledged as “the founder”, I held the perspective that everyone on the founding team (or we called the zeroth committee) and the few hundred signatories to petition the creation of NUSAS are all founders. It was something that I have built sixteen years ago and I moved on after leaving for Cambridge University to pursue one of my dreams in life: a PhD in cosmology and astrophysics. Upon leaving NUSAS in the good hands of a very competent team after me, I thought I have left it behind and came to understand a very important lesson in life: you can build something and whether the organisation survives after you, it is not up to you to decide. All you can do is to build a strong foundation and hope that future generations will figure out the challenges that might come later. Through very painful personal experiences before NUSAS, I learned to be detached from my own creations so that I do not feel disappointed if things do not work out for them in the future. It did not limit to the astronomical society I have built with many others but later to movements and startups as well. That was what I thought until a week ago. A week ago, I received a note via Facebook from one of the founding team members from NUSAS. It came about because the present executive committee has decided to push ahead changes that do not respect the principles on how the past executive committees have believed in. As a result, the alumni and the current batch of seniors have organised themselves to have a meeting with the present executive committee. With the gathering of many people from the past and present, I have shared some thoughts on how NUSAS came about and part of the design that I have placed into its constitution. At the same time, I have also debated on parts of the constitution with the current generation of students, not to push them towards any position but facilitate an understanding on the context in how the document came about. As for the outcome, we are all hopeful that we can all work together for the better and help the present team to navigate through the changes which they want to make. As a result, I have learned a few lessons from the whole incident and I will share it here: 1\. ****A founder’s passion never dies:** When we built the society, we were faced with many challenges and most of them was against authority and bureaucracy. We managed to solve them and put together a constitution by design so that each generation has the choice in making decisions with some form of checks and balances in place, for example, in order to change the constitution requires a quorum for two thirds of the majority. I still remembered that I spent 24 hours without sleep writing the document, putting only the best intentions against my own selfish desires to ensure that it can passed with the office of student affairs in the university and the registrar of societies of Singapore. One can never be detached from what they have spent a lifetime building. Yet, despite all the idealism we have in creating the initial spark, there has to be an acknowledged pragmatism that it may not turn out the way you wanted. 2\. ****We should make changes to outdated documents with patience rather with haste:** Every constitution including the famous United States Constitution is written to address the problems and challenges of that time. Some clauses, thought to be helpful at that point in time, may not be useful for a present day world. Yet, it is interpreted to the future generations that the best way to change things is to have more discretionary powers. The future generation might want it for the best of intentions, but as Lord Acton put it succinctly, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Changing discretionary powers for the executive committee may lead to unintended consequences for the future. 3\. ****Think of the foundation of everything you build and design it such that it can withstand problems in the future:** The interesting thing to me is that I have designed the constitution in a way such that it can withstand but not solve problems in the future. During the debates with the juniors, I am able to explain how different clauses are meant to withhold the principles that the society are found in good faith and also able to agree that certain outdated clauses should be scrapped but with due processes. I find it ironic that I have not taken this design thinking into my recent failed company. Of course, I am grateful that this incident has reminded me that when I build the now or next company or movement, I will put more effort into its design and foundation. To conclude, I often find it surprising how small a part of life is taken up by meaningful moments. Most often they have finished their course quickly before they start although they cast a light on the future and make the people who have originated them unforgettable. Everyone must have dreams and ideals that they believe in, because that’s what our lives worth living. ### My Network Fund URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/network-fund/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:27:19.000Z Recently, I have made a transition from an entrepreneur in a failed startup to an employee in a multi-national corporation. I see this as part of the learning process that I need to go through before heading back to start another company in the future. I have learned that the hardest part about bouncing back from failure is to be patient, i.e. taking a step back from everything, learning the skills required for the next venture and wait for the right opportunity, time and place to get back to the arena. > **“An idealist is a person who helps other people to be prosperous.”* ****— Henry Ford** One crucial piece is to double down on my network fund which I have built over the years. Through online social networking services such as LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook, I have built, maintained and engaged my contacts over different channels. No matter how the digital tools help to organize the address book of people who I have met, nothing beats a face to face meeting. Currently, I am living in Singapore and we have a startup community that spans across the whole of Southeast Asia. Lately, many entrepreneurs and investors from the US and Europe have travelled to Asia in search of new opportunities. Hence, I have made it a point to take at least two meetings a week either early in the morning or late in the evening with people from all walks of life. I usually only take meetings from a stranger if he or she has been referred by someone who I know in real life. Unless he or she has a compelling value proposition, it is unlikely of me to take cold calls. Once every few months, I will take half a day of leave to spend time as an EiR in INSEAD Business School to meet up with MBA students who are planning to start their new ventures here in Asia. Sometimes, I meet them near my workplace before or after office hours and hear their story. So, in short, I am blessed with many meeting opportunities to hear many people sharing their own interesting stories with me. ****The “Investment” Principles in my Network Fund** Over the years through networking and meeting new people, I set the mission of my network fund to do one thing: to enable and connect people and be of value without expectation of any return. If I get anything in return, it is a bonus rather than an entitlement. I have adopted the following guiding principles for my network fund: 1\. Listen and understand what the person is looking for: Depending on the flow of conversation, if possible, hear his or her story and figure out what he or she needs. I will usually take the story in good faith and if it turns out that I discover that the person has lied, I will cease the follow-up communication very quickly. 2\. Share what you know and be upfront about things: As the central tenets to the network fund are credibility and trust, I will share what I know and be upfront about the good and bad on anything. For example, when overseas investors and entrepreneurs from Europe and US are here to raise funding or build a new venture, I often list the problems and challenges faced by the local community so that they are not under any illusion. My view in life is that we should be honest to people about things even if it is not what they like to hear. When it comes to hearing pitches and ideas, I just give my impressions and that includes the disagreements I have with the idea. I end with one disclaimer to the person who pitched the idea that I disagree with, “Please do not accept my opinions as final. If you believe that this is what you want to do, please go ahead and start. I am happy to be wrong in that situation.” 3\. Determine how I can be of help and do the follow ups: Upon the conversation ends, I will determine how I can be of help and set the follow ups for the person who I meet. For introductions, I tend to do it within three days unless I am out on a holiday or be bogged down by domestic matters (for example, taking care of a new born). Sometimes, my record is about 99% given that I may occasionally miss. There are times that I will not provide any assistance and typically it is that it is not relevant to the person who they wanted me to introduce. Sometimes, the follow up is just to seek an introduction to the editorial team of a media outlet I own. Typically, I will do the introduction not just to my team, but also to the other media outlets who are perceived as “competitors” to us. In my worldview, the Southeast Asia entrepreneurial ecosystem is very small and it is not really beneficial for us to fight each other but work together to expand the pie. Even if they do not think so, I prefer to operate this way so that I can provide better value in my personal capacity. For my meetings as an entrepreneur-in-residence in INSEAD, I will ask the student if I have provided any value for them. If I don’t, I should not be there. In short, I enjoyed building my network fund and sometimes, my happiness come in the joy of helping others to succeed or attain their goals to what they enjoy doing. That, to me, is the greatest return of all. ### Pragmatic Idealism URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/pragmatic-idealism/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:20:00.000Z If I have a choice in life to choose between a builder and a critic, I choose the life of a builder hands down anytime. To me, a builder is a person who create, inspire and make a difference in enhancing and delivering better value to others’ lives. I dislike the life of a critic because it is cheap to rant against ideas and work which everyone spend their lives building up. Perhaps, through the passage of life which I have continuously living it to my best everyday, I despise cynicism and choose to be forever idealistic in what I want to pursue. However, everyone pays for the idealism that withstands the fabrics of realism. > **“Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a great ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.”* ****– Bertrand Russell, Autobiography** Hence I adopted a philosophy of life which allows me to embrace my idealism and negotiate the difference with realism. I coined that term “Pragmatic Idealism”. In the roles I have played across my life: academic, entrepreneur, early stage investor, technologist or now a corporate employee, I applied my philosophy consistently across to the way how I want to move forward with my life. Here are the principles of pragmatic idealism which I held to myself: 1\. Believe in your dreams and the only thing that stands between dreams and reality is your own hands to make it happen. 2\. Focus on the idea or product and negotiate what can be done and cannot be done. Yes, I have dreams to build a foundation that disrupts academia or inspire the future Nobel Prize winners from Asia and further Mankind’s aspiration to space exploration and other technological exploratons in any way. There are many ideas on my mind and the only way is to focus on those which I can make it work and then go back to work on others till the right time and opportunity surfaces itself. 3\. When you feel despair that you are very far away from your dreams and fear that you may not live to accomplish them, remember that you are just a drop in the ocean, and there will be other drops and other people who will carry on the work from you. 4\. Gather people to work with you and build the ship with them. I made it a point in my life that I will cite and acknowledge others in things I have written or ideas who I have learnt from or help me to build things on my journey. ### Hiring Fast & Slow URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/thought-hiring-fast-slow/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:48:36.000Z A very common fallacy that comes with a start-up getting funding particularly at the seed stage is to ramp up the hiring quickly and scale the company quickly. The reason why the fallacy came about is because the investor expects that you are scaling the company with the business model that is expected to work. In honest truth, all startups at the seed stage have not figured out the business model. The typical mentality is to “hire fast, fire fast”. To be honest, learning from the past lessons, I prefer to hire slow & fire fast. Some people says that you edit or pivot the product to help the business to grow. Another essential element is to edit the team. If you want to avoid the hassles of friendship being messed up or hiring the wrong person, you need to get rid of the pre-conceived notion that you should hire fast to scale. The key is to hire slow and really slowly. Please remember this rule with the following advice: 1\. Don’t hire fast because you need to scale fast, because if you hire the wrong person, you will not scale and send yourself crashing. You should hire slowly and take your time to decide why you should hire the person. 2\. Don’t hire fast because the person agrees with you and seemed to tick correctly on your checklist. It’s likely that you miss out the parts where this person can totally not align with you. 3\. Don’t hire fast because the person seemed to have a background that you might think that will work for your startup even if he’s from a top notched company. In most cases, the person might have chalked up the CV to provide the mirage to make him or her to look correct on your radar screen. 4\. Don’t hire fast because you are under the pressure to scale up the company. The pressure to scale up the company will lead you to increase the burn rate so quickly that you might collapse and die without realising it. 5\. Don’t hire fast because you feel that your competitors are gaining on you. 6\. Don’t hire fast because everyone wants this guy and you need to pay an arm and a leg for it. You should only hire this person because his or her skill set match what you need to build or improve the function or system which you have built. You should give a fair compensation and not be dictated by the terms which you are being forced to accept. My advice is to do it totally the opposite way: hire slowly and really slowly. If you have received seed stage funding, don’t start spending money for the wrong reasons. That comes to my point for the future startup I want to build. Should I get venture money, I don’t intend to move quickly, but I want to figure out the system from sales to business development. If only the founding team members can do sales with the system and gain 10x revenues by ourselves, then we hire a sales person. Till date, I have not seen any sales or business person who can really deliver in Southeast Asia market. For every person you want to hire for any function, do a 10x first on that particular function before you delegate it to the next person because you already have a system that works. You only hire fast if you have an outstanding working relationship with this person in previous stints such that you knows not just his or her strengths but weaknesses as well. Otherwise, for everyone else, do it slowly, fairly and deliberately. ### If you control your distribution, you control your brand URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/opinion-if-you-control-your-distribution-you-control-your-brand/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:33:14.000Z In the far future, I have three guiding principles to what I will not do in building the next company. One of the three principles is ****try not to partner anyone as much as possible, whether the partner is a start-up or a large multi-national company***. In a simple business perspective, the principle underlies one central theme: distribution. > “**If you control your distribution, you control your image.*” > – Bernard Arnault, President, LVMH Distribution in a business has many meanings to different people. For some people, it means strategic partnerships between two parties and one of them leverage on the other to get more customers or traction. To others, it means the different channels where your product can be distributed. From any start-up to large multi-national company, acquiring distribution is pivotal to its success, because if you are in a business whose revenues are totally dependent on volume, the more distribution you have, the better it gets. From what I have learned in my last experience, trying to forge strategic partnerships with too many big and small companies can scale but also destroy a company. Here’s a dilemma for start-ups. How do you grow fast and scale? The natural thinking is that because you are small, go and be a parasite and leech on a larger organism and leveraging on the organism’s strength to feed and protect yourself. It’s a Darwinian survival instinct. That school of thought will work if the ethos of an ecosystem in the region is centered on collaboration and win-win thinking. The unfortunate problem is that if you are locked in an ecosystem (and it’s likely in Asia) which either of the pre-requisites do not exist, even you have distribution with no revenues, you are toasted. To get the partnership with larger companies, your problem is that they are dragging your feet and wasting your time and resources such that you run short of holding power and implode in your own. Of course, there are companies who succeed based on leverage on partnerships to build distribution. Most well-known among them is Microsoft, who distribute the Windows operating system through partnerships with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Another example is Admob, building a big mobile advertising network by being dependent on third party developers. I realize why I can never be a fan of Microsoft because I can never get the end to end integration or any form of control over user experience and always have to rely on some pieces that render the structure imperfect. I remained true to why I liked companies like Apple and Amazon and used their products much more than Microsoft. The distinction is the end to end control and reduce the dependencies as much as possible. It’s in my last experience that I prefer to have end to end control to everything such that whatever product that is built so that we can ensure the best customer experience. In that vein, one of the mistakes which I believe that I should take responsibility for is not to agree with my team that we should build our own mobile app in all platforms. If we had built and controlled our own distribution at the same time which we distribute our API out to 3rd parties, we would not have collapsed. I took responsibility in agreeing to a logic that 3rd party developers or larger partnerships can build scale quicker (which is correct on paper but failed on practice). If we have that control in the first place, we don’t need to depend on partnerships to bring in customers. For the next time, we want to approach our customers direct. I prefer to base the company’s success to how many customers I touch each day. It reduces your company to one objective: build something that people want and generate scale and revenue from there even if it takes more resources and slower time to build. That philosophy is vital to Apple’s success which came out from Walter Isaacson’s book “Steve Jobs” is what I truly want to build a future company upon. That philosophy on end to end control naturally extends to my perspective towards distribution. To me: **If you control your distribution, you control your brand.** ### The Hardest Part about Bouncing Back from Failure URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/reflection-the-hardest-part-about-bouncing-back-from-failure/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:16:35.000Z During conferences e.g. [FailCon Singapore](http://singapore.thefailcon.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) or fireside chats e.g. [Startup Grind Singapore](http://www.meetup.com/Startup-Grind-Singapore/?ref=bernardleong.com), I have been often asked by entrepreneurs and investors about coping with failure in the aftermath of Chalkboard’s demise. Essentially, there are a few sides to that question, “How do you recover from failure?”. The first level is personal, in how you view the whole exercise. The next level is how you manage that failure towards people around you, for example, partners, former employees, investors or any random people within the ecosystem. Till today, I am apologetic towards my investors and employees for the failure of Chalkboard, but the important thing is not to carry it as a baggage with me for the rest of my life. The real message is to accept failure and move on, because in the larger scale of things, that failure meant nothing. I have a personal story as to how I have learned to manage failure better. Contrary to public perception, my whole life has been littered with failures. From all those incidents, I have learned in the most difficult way that the tough part about bouncing back from failure is not depression. *The hardest part is to be patient, i.e. taking a step back from everything, learning the skills required for the next venture and wait for the right opportunity, time and place to get back to the arena.* Coming back to the story, when I was 16, my dream was to study theoretical physics in the realm of astrophysics and cosmology in Cambridge University. It’s very specific to the level that the probability for me reaching there is one in a million and I seriously do not have a Plan B. There are a couple of obstacles during that period of time, for example, having your classmates telling you that you will never make it there because you are not a physics olympiad or from a top school. Of course, it did not help when I did not do so well in my “A’ levels physics, with a ‘C’ grade. That, of course, blew any chance of going to Cambridge for my undergraduate studies. Yet, during that time, I actually ignored what people said and preferred to try all the way to get there. However, I was interrupted by two and a half years of compulsory national service, i.e. I need to serve in the army. After the first year of my national service, I started the process to work on my dream again. During that time, I found four hours within a day during lunch and dinner to start learning my mathematics and physics all over again from books. While working alone for that dream, I have decided that I need to find a mentor by the name of Dr Chong Siew Meng. He happens to be a medical doctor who has an amazing grasp of theoretical physics and mathematics. It took me three years of hustling to get him to accept me as a student and it turns out that he has educated me in a different way, by teaching me how to fish than to give me any information to what I need to learn. As that process went on, things did not go smoothly. Sometime around my 2nd year of university, I burnt out. Other than speaking to my mentor, I also spoke to another mentor of mine from the Special Program of Science in NUS, Dr Chan Onn. His answer to my woes is just simply, “Go and do what you like.” In the end, I did that and through a lot more pain and struggle, I finally get to do the PhD I wanted to do for all my life. The story with my mentor Dr Chan Onn did not end there. I went back to him 18 years later after the failure of Chalkboard. He is now in the private sector but his wisdom and counsel still remain important to me till today. There was the same answer 14 years later and he said exactly the same thing to me, “Go and do what you like.” His view is that he will be saying the same thing to me 20 years later if I ever go back and seek his advice again. Yet, this time round, is to start and build a new business again delivering value which is totally different from the problem of studying towards getting a PhD. The skills I need to learn are totally different and also require me to take a step back and figure out different components. All I can say now is that I need to take a step back and learn different set of skills and thinking from the environment around me. Even my day job is a learning experience for me, and I firmly believe that some of my current experiences will eventually come back and hopefully help me to build that future I want later in life. ### That thing you (forget to) do part 3: Product management URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/that-thing-you-forget-to-do-part-3-product-management/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:39:21.000Z Product management is probably the toughest of the trio, and that’s why I leave it to the last. The essential aspect of product management is to sew the threads of development and marketing with data measurement, customer feedback and team execution. One of the most frequently asked questions from start-up founders is, “If there is conflict within the team on the direction of the product, how should we decide?” It’s actually not a tough question if the founders are analytical, logical and able to stomach their own egos and say, “Yes, this did not work and let’s try something else.” #### Product management: The lean start-up and permanent beta In the [first article](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/toolkit/2012/03/04/that-thing-you-forget-to-do-part-1-product-development/?ref=bernardleong.com) of the series, we stressed on the importance of planning and execution. We built on the existing framework of Eric Rees’ “The Lean Start-up” model, where we create a product using the agile methodology, gathering user data and feedback, and iterating to the next version of the product. If we find that the feature of the product does not deliver, then we pivot to something else. The concept is intrinsically simple because the product is permanently beta and constantly evolving to the point where it can address almost 99% of customer needs. What people often don’t figure out is the actual implementation in practice. I want to point out some challenges that founders face with their employees in Asia as compared to Silicon Valley. The first problem is attitude. Everyone has heard of the ideal Silicon Valley employee: Passionate, always ready to give and execute on ideas and put in 150% because his future is tied to the company. In reality, many employees are far from that ideal. Some engineers are afraid to speak up and even upon being encouraged to do so, got scared when being challenged. The worst part is that they have an employee attitude in that they only work from 9am to 6pm. Most people are aware of these problems and have encountered them. You probably can’t change their attitudes overnight, but everyone can take a step to nudge them in the right direction. This problem has everything to do with product management because the project is affected when founders can’t convey their vision and mission to the employees and excite them to do something that means everything. Here’s a way to induce agile development slowly in a typical Asian setup. First, let the engineers plan a small feature that they are going to build. Be the critic and bring up different issues that might affect the feature. Remember that the product managers has to oversee every aspect of the product, and dealing with loose ends is pretty important. In fact, one understated problem I’ve observed that is frequently encountered by software engineers is the backend infrastructure which often does not scale with the growth of the product. Usually, costs and time is the issue. Most technology people do not convey the technical debt or express the latent business costs that comes later. As a result, these issues get ignored by the management (and the same problem happens in a lot for big Asian companies too). It will spiral into bigger problems and the technical guy telling the business guy (be it founder or employees), “I told you so.” Second, in an agile framework, the developers of the product: Software engineers, frontend developers and builders are sprinting while the product manager is running a marathon. What usually happens is that people want to do this too quickly. It takes a team at least four to five cycles of development to really have the kind of intuition and insight about infrastructure. Hence anyone thinking that agile development behaviour can be learnt within two to three cycles are dreaming. To build a good hacker culture requires time and space. It reminds of something that I often ask myself: Why can I achieve a high level of productivity in the [Sanger Institute](http://www.sanger.ac.uk/?ref=bernardleong.com) (which is my ideal workplace) more easily than compared to Singapore? My answer is culture and people. If there is no empowerment in the culture, the company’s burden will only be shared by the two founders even in a 20-person team. If you make the environment horrible for your employees, you should not complain when things are not moving. One other thing you might want to do is to constantly find interesting things you see from other companies out there, and ask how they can be done if it’s your company. It might allow you to take best practices and also understand the thinking processes of your team. #### Constructing the Killer Metrics from Data Product managers need to find metrics from the data they measured. There are two types of metrics and most product managers in Asia do the first but not the second. The first metric is a vanity metric, which comes in the form of user downloads, user registrations, and users inviting friends to the app or web service. The second is the killer metric, which centers on how users are constantly using your app or web service, and how they might evolve new social practices. It’s easier to illustrate with an example. The retweet feature in Twitter started off as a social practice, where influencers and tastemakers share insights from people they think are interesting. Eventually, it is used to measure how influential a Twitter user is. A killer metric should lead to two things: (a) how viral your web service or app can be and (b) how you might convert a social practice into a feature to increase user engagement with the product. There are differences in consumer-facing and enterprises apps but both converge in terms of usage patterns and analytics you can derive from user behaviour. If your service seems to work with one group of people and not another, you might want to figure out why that is the case. Someone asked me, “How many people should you gather feedback from?” The answer is as many as you can get. But do you listen to all customer feedback? The answer varies. Managing customer feedback can be challenging, but the way to do it is to break their feedback into three types: (a) Useful and informative and you can see immediate ways to merge their feedback with a small tweak in your product features, (b) a small nuance that provides you some ideas for the future but not now, (c) blue sky and totally irrelevant. Here’s something I have noticed when a start-up goes to an organization to do product demos. They are two groups of people: (a) the ones who wants to champion your technology and help to grow your product and (b) the ones who will shoot you down and think that they are smarter than you in developing the product. The key to deciding which feedback to adopt is to classify internally with the team what is sensible and what is not. In fact, only in start-ups, the sales people are much more connected to the technology team than in bigger organizations but the problem often lies in communication. #### Bringing it together: The roadmap, media plan and data analysis If you are a product manager, take a spreadsheet and draw up a plan that integrates the product features, content and help roadmap (managed by software engineers and designers), the product marketing (manage by sales, marketing and business development people), and the data analysis (which is likely to be the founder). Then share the plan with everyone with explicit timeline and milestones. You should get some feedback to see if the deadlines are realistic, and spend a day reviewing this with every team. With this process, your life will be so much easier when you press the execution button. Everything will be set in motion. Of course, no product manager is perfect, and we often learn from our mistakes. The last thing I want to emphasize is that a successful product involves people and resources. While in Asia, given the cheaper costs that comes with technology arbitrage, we don’t deem people to be important. However, growing people to be part of the company is important to achieve real success. Whether you are going to build the best product or not, depends upon planning and team execution. Both processes requires people. If there are days where you feel like nothing is working, you should probably ask the question, “Once upon a time, the most successful companies of today started like us, why did they scale and why aren’t we doing the same?” ****References:** \[1\] FrameThink: [The Four Viral App Objectives (a.k.a., “Social network application virality 101?)](http://framethink.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-four-viral-app-objectives-aka-social-network-application-virality-101/?ref=bernardleong.com). \[2\] Eric Rees, [Startup Lessons Learned](http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/?ref=bernardleong.com). ### That thing you (forget to) do part 2: Product marketing URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/that-thing-you-forget-to-do-part-2-product-marketing/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T05:30:43.000Z #### How start-ups should view product marketing There are two important questions to answer, whether you are a founder or an employee of a start-up. What’s the mission and vision of the start-up? How do we communicate the product to the customers so that they know that we are solving their problem or fulfilling a latent or present need in their daily lives? The questions are fundamental because it focused on the why and not the how of products. So, in order for a product to go to market, it needs to overcome two barriers: ****How will your customers hear about your product?** This is the awareness problem in product marketing. To solve this problem, you can either engage mainstream or social media, build a story around your start-up and then get the message out in the market. A lot of times, most people conflate this with the distribution, which is in fact the next question: ****How do your customers access or buy your product?** This is the distribution problem in product marketing which the team within the start-up have more control. It involves the team working out what sales channels and distribution centers your product should go on. For example, the iTunes app store or Android market is a distribution channel for mobile app developers to sell their apps to customers. The same can be said of software as a service (SaaS) platforms where a team selling web services can harness as a possible distribution point for their web products. Another aspect of the distribution problem is the strategic partnerships your startup build with a large multi-national company which are usually not within your control and depends on how much the big company really needs you. #### Product Marketing: PR and Awareness The first rule to doing product marketing is that you should never associate public relations with vanity. Whether it is a social or mainstream media site, the objective is to associate the message you want to propagate about your business to the potential customers. Everything else is immaterial. Hence it is not sensible to do a machine gun approach to send out press releases to bloggers or journalists and expect them to cover you. It is essential for start-ups to work out a media plan that goes concurrently with the product development process. For example, you might want to do a soft launch of your mobile app in order to acquire feedback for improvement from early adopters. The objective is to grow users, and hence the article must provide a link for potential users to download your app. The message should be about how the app from your start-up solves either a problem or need from customers. Why should you stop there? You should continue to match the roadmap of your product development to your media engagement plan. So, every press release must fulfill a business objective about the product. Once you understand the process, you should also construct a list of the media you want to engage. By the way, do not wait till the product is launched and then engage the press expecting them to want to cover you. Everyone in the press is busy but they want new stories. So you should build relationships before that. Where do you meet these people? Usually, you meet them during conferences and networking events. Usually, people from the media are friendly and you should build rapport with them. Do not expect them to paint you in a fantastic light, and sometimes you need to provide the angle for them to cover you. Work with the people who understand your start-up, and don’t be offended if they don’t respond to you immediately. One important rule is target who you might want to cover you from a publication. For example, in SGE, you can [contact our editor](mailto:editor@sgentrepreneurs.com) directly to let us know about a story. The difference between Asian and US press is that the former is more friendly and does not attempt to be edgy when they ask you questions. Usually, Asian start-ups can get shaken with aggressive questions from the western press. You should just answer what you can and politely decline if the questions are too controversial or an attempt to push you to provide confidential information. You don’t need a media trainer but make sure you have a FAQ made for the entire team whenever the press tries to probe about the start-ups. The next thing is to build up your social media assets and used them to propagate your message. Having Facebook and Google Plus pages, as well as a Twitter account and a LinkedIn page will suffice (read: [Minimum social media assets businesses should have](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/web/2012/03/08/what-are-the-minimum-social-media-assets-you-should-have/?ref=bernardleong.com)). If your business is location sensitive, have a FourSquare location page will be vital as well. Sometimes being cheeky and creating an image that propagates an internet meme might help to draw customers to your website. Some advice on engaging the press. You should use your discretion in how much you want them to know. If they are trustworthy, you might want to let them know certain confidential stuff but with the understanding that they are off-the-record. Finally, just remember, PR is building awareness. There are cases where a company gets heavily featured in both mainstream and new media but it saw no conversions to customers coming to your site to buy the products. So, you need to make sure that you are engaging the correct channel to find your customers. If you are building an app for people who like extreme sports, getting tech blogs to write about you will not get you the customers. You might want to find the influencers or tastemakers of extreme sports to help you spread the word. #### Product Marketing: Distribution Distribution is the other part of product marketing which most start-ups in Asia do really badly. The reason is that they often conflate press to bringing customers to the site or download the app. Hence, from now onwards, you should make sure that these two issues are separate. Here are the few things which you need to ask yourself in working out your distribution channels: ****What is the platform and delivery process that allows you to distribute your product among users in a quick and robust way?** If your native mobile application is a paid app and requires a lot of downloads with a good payment mechanism, you should look at the apps store platform where most of the apps are making the most money. If you are distributing the app for free, you might want to make sure that you get an app store platform that can reach out to many users quickly. You might want to figure out how to get to the stage where your app is on the featured list of that apps store. The same rule applies to web services. You can distribute your product through web service providers. If you have a fantastic web service that complements a web browser, the question becomes, “should you write a browser extension such that you can distribute your service through this browser?” Accessibility is an important rule when figuring out distribution. If you are using a payment platform, you should try to do within 2-3 frames so that the user can easily purchase your web service or download your app. Similarly, working with strategic partners (larger MNCs) will be similar. You should find out how they can add value to you before becoming part of their offerings. It’s great PR to work with big companies but if they are half-hearted in delivering their services, you might want to reconsider because getting a strategic partner requires you to fulfill tough and stringent service-level agreements (SLAs). One more thing I want to share about distribution is the firehose strategy: Should you create an API to allow 3rd party developers to help you distribute your service quickly? It really depends on the nature of the businesses. You should create an API to market your presence and increase user growth, as well as to avoid spending time and effort to maintain something that does not solve your business objective. But do avoid the mistakes pointed out by [this article](http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2010/08/the-new-api-movement-may.php?ref=bernardleong.com) when building APIs for 3rd party developers. Product marketing helps your company to build up the awareness and distribution of your product to users. As for how to measure the metrics, iterate and manage the product, we will leave it to the last installment of the series to discuss that. ### That Thing You (Forget to) Do Part 1: Product Development URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/that-thing-you-forget-to-do-part-1-product-development/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:33:36.000Z ****How Start-ups build & develop products** Everyone thinks that a start-up is just about building one product. But it is more than that. Founders of a company cannot just build a product and expect people to use it. The entire theme of the article is to focus on what things most people tend to forget to do in their start-up. The entire product process requires three intersecting themes: development, management and marketing. These three aspects will involve both the business and engineering co-founders and employees, and how teams scale up depends on how they communicate between themselves and execute to the timeline to the day of the product launch. Product development is only one part of the product cycle. That’s the part I will focus on this article. Managing the product from feedback of users and marketing the product are also tied to build up the start-up as a sustainable business but we will talk about that later. How shall a team of co-founders start in their product development cycle? The answer is a product roadmap from the very start with a clear vision and mission of the company in how it solves the one important problem from the user. The team should not build immediately, but instead formulate a plan where the three aspects are stacked together in a simple operating plan with the timeline and milestones properly defined for the entire team. Everyone signs on with the plan and then execution. The problem with most people in Asia is that they avoid the question, **“Why are we doing this?”* Hence having a vision and mission for the product will enforce the founders of the company to come up with a plan. ****Planning without Execution is a pipe dream. Execution without Planning is waste of effort & time.**. Looking at the aspect of product development, I believe that the agile development strategy is ideal for start-ups with two to four members. Hence I have broken down into three important pieces that sums up on how the start-up can build the product with resource constraints but achieve the maximum impact such that they can test the product with customers and iterate upon the feedback: 1\. ****Feature building (Engineering and Design):** Most start-ups, whether they are in Asia or Silicon Valley, should be able to build the features conceived by the founders and the employees of a start-up. It is important to take a big whiteboard, and clearly lay out the wireframes and components on how the technology works. In the case of the website, we look at the how the user navigate within using different buttons that have clear defined actions. What most people forget to do in Asia, is to focus on one business objective, and make sure that they use analytics to measure the success on how a user actually performs the action on the site. The same can be said about mobile development, where the layout of the mobile screens and the user experience can be drawn to show how the user navigate across the phones. Even if the users may be accessing different mobile platforms (iOS, Android or WP7), a good whiteboard that lay out the components and wireframes of the mobile screens will allow the developers to find common features to build and then enhance others which might take advantage of that one particular platform. I have included a list of things that most people should think about when it comes to design and build the technology product and in this case, I specialize it for websites and native mobile apps. Two important lessons that I have learned from building features: first, less is more – focus on one business objective and leverage all the functions within the website or mobile app to nudge the user towards the action which will fulfill the business objective. For example, if your business objective is to grow users by getting tastemakers or influencers to invite more people, you should focus on what kind of incentives that you can entice them to invite more users; second: alignment with how users perceive that you are solving their problem. For example, if you are building an app where it measures the heartbeat of the user, you must ensure that the feature can be easily utilized by the user to perform that action. 2\. ****Content:** In Asia, most software engineers and product managers seem to forget about the need to include strong content such that the users will continue to look forward to new updates and changes. Content is not an engineering feature but it requires constant updates. For example, it’s easy to extract or scrap data from sources. The key is that content should be dynamic and not static. If you are building a platform which is consumer-facing, the content you provide has to be constantly updated. Most Asian apps fail the mark because they think that the content is a one-time process. It’s more a social practice problem than a technology problem. While in Asia, most engineers embrace the web 2.0 vision but they seem to forget that dynamic rather than static content is important to drive user traction and growth. That comes to my next point. 3\. ****Help (or educating) the user:** Most software engineers in Asia derive ideas from Silicon Valley, and in the process, some assume that a normal and average user will be able to figure out the app. One thing that most founders of start-ups doing consumer-facing websites or apps forget to do is to educate the user. We cannot assume the user knows how to use the website or the app unless we prompted them to. In fact, most successful websites and native mobile apps flourish because they are able to guide user towards one simple process (made up of 3-4 steps) and the action which they want the user to do, is clear and concise rather than having too many options all over the place. Putting instructions within the app or website serve to guide the user better and at the same time, allow you to add value to their user experience. ****References that you should read on building good products:** - [Smashing Magazine](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/?ref=bernardleong.com): This website accumulates the best practices and experiences from many web designers and developers in developing websites and native mobile apps. They usually provide case studies on font colors, color and shape of buttons and how to enhance user experience in different types of sites, for example, e-commerce sites. - Look at [Mobile UI Patterns](http://mobile-patterns.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) or [Pttrns](http://pttrns.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) for good mobile design and interfaces. - Choice of the right [Color Palettes](http://thedesignmag.com/27-color-tools-and-resource-for-choosing-the-right-color-palette.html?ref=bernardleong.com) for your website or mobile apps. - Concepts of [Agile Software Development](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile%5Fsoftware%5Fdevelopment?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Kano Model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kano%5Fmodel?ref=bernardleong.com) ### How will you educate your children? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/how-will-you-educate-your-children/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:41:14.000Z My wife and I have discussed and debated on the question when we do our family planning on many occasions. Both of us have different views, given our backgrounds. While thinking deep and hard about the question over the month before I started work coupled with great conversations I have with various friends, I have distilled down to three principles that have given me the kind of culture I like to instill in my children in the future, regardless of where they will be schooled. > I’ve never let my school interfere with my education. **– Mark Twain* The starting point on education is that you need to spend adequate amount of time with your children and not outsourcing it to others, i.e. teachers and tutors. I am thinking in the line of at least two hours a day. The academic institutions are going to be part of their lives but we have also realized that going through that route does not ensure that our children are able to adapt to the fast and changing environment. In the context of Singapore, I do not see the point of stuffing them with tuition which I believe, a total waste of time. Instead of trying to pigeon the skills and ideas that I like them to have, I have prefer to build it around three principles that will guide us to educate them, which, in turn becomes a learning experience for me as well. - ****The passion to learn:** How do you make yourself relevant to the world ahead? The key is not in going to schools but rather with a good attitude. In my interaction with young people today through teaching, I have discovered that many of them lacked the attitude to learn. In fact, most prefer that they will just do enough. In fact, as human beings, we should enjoy learning every day to the day we die. The key issue is that a lot of people do not show passion but to learn just to get through life. The real challenge is how to inculcate the passion to learn in a child. How do we get them interested in understanding and hacking the things around them? - ****The ability to build and create something of value:** With the passion to learn, the next principle is the ability to build and create something of value. I recalled the days when I first touched the Apple II computers, and just quickly learned how to open the shell of the computer and wrote BASIC code. Creating the environment around them to allow them to build and create things so that they can add value not just to their own lives but to others as well. The key is to allow them to develop the passion to learn and enhance them with the tools so that they can learn to build and create. It does not matter what form of the things they build and create as long as they enjoy themselves in the process. Having the environment to allow them to hack stuff is key to nudge them to have fun. Building and creating something of value to me, are better indicators than just grades from school. - ****The skill to manage resources:** While engaged in the ability to build, they have to learn to understand and appreciate that resources are limited. The ability to manage resources from people to money. On this note, the tools that I will deploy are the board games that allows us to learn implicitly on how we apply strategy or game theory and probably some computer games, if my wife do not object to the playing time. What I have not said here, is the set of ethical values that I would like to impart to my children. It is a complex question to answer because one man’s meat is another’s poison. In my view, that is the additional component that my wife and I will have to think about further. That being said, the environment and culture we will build around the child, are going to be crucial to his or her development. ****Author’s note:** A big thanks to my wife on the conversation which is still ongoing. Also want to thank Christopher Ng Wai Chung, Shaun Martin, my friends from Singapore Angle (Loy Hui Chieh, Kai Chong and Ee Loong) for their insights on the issue. ### Building and Managing Tech Teams in Asia: Cultural Nuances & Scope Creep URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/building-and-managing-tech-teams-in-asia-2-cultural-nuances-scope-creep/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:12:40.000Z In the second part of the series I am building up on building and managing tech teams in Asia, I want to focus on the problem of scope creep and why paying something cheap might cost you more. The other highlight of the article is to understand the various cultural nuances present in Asia when it comes to getting your Asian engineers to deliver a product without flaws. Finally, we conclude on how to reduce scope creep by focusing on the business people with a simple argument of efficient feature rather than adding too many of them that do not work. ## Asia Tech Teams and their Cultural Nunances Probably, if you have the time to speak to various founders of a technology start-up in Asia, you will hear this common feedback from them about their teams, be it outsourcing through a vendor or programming house or building internally: - ****They over-promise and they cannot deliver:** This is common but there are two sides to the comment. The first is from the perspective of the business owners. They want to get the product out quickly but the problem is that they under-estimated the amount of scope required to build the product, and usually they introduce scope creep to the product without confining the scope of the product properly. The problem lies in the business owners’ lack of familiarity on the technology aspect. To cure that problem, the business owner should do three things: (a) talk to friends who are product managers or CTOs to get some realistic gauge of the product that they are building, (b) read books on project management, agile software development and get some thinking from web design blogs, for example, Smashing Magazine, to learn some best practices about web design and (c) reducing the scope of the product to three features of the prototype and stick to it.The second perspective is from the technology people who are often either too honest or too ready to get business. The “too honest” group will get fed up with the business people for full of scope creep, and the “too ready to get business” group will end up taking the project without realizing that hell has just begun. - ****They can build the feature but the product is imperfect:** Sometimes, the management team dictates how the product is built and to the credit of the technology team, they build it. However, the product can work for the test case but failed for the other cases. How can that happen? The problem is that there is no planning on the technology team to provide adequate unit testing or even instructions to the layman how they can use the product. - ****They cannot imagine beyond the technical scope of the product:** In harsher words, I often hear my western counterparts or fellow Asians educated either in the US or Europe saying, “They can’t think.” I do agree with the “they can’t think” given the Asian hierarchal culture nuance of “obeying your elders”. However, as product owners and managers, we should encourage to work out how the product works and then put questions to the issues which they might be facing before they start coding. The missing link between the engineers and the business people is the social practice on how the feature is delivered. To mitigate that risk, the engineers should code the feature with an internal discussion on brainstorming the problems which might arise from usage and let the business people test and offer feedback. The tech team should look at several examples of how the same feature is delivered through other web services or mobile It is important to note that all project managers or business owners should know that they should add a 2x to 5x to the number of days which the whole software development project take. So, if your programming house tells you that they take 100 days to finish the project, be prepared that it will be 200-500 days. The best programming house will finish it within 150-200 and the rest follows. Most outsourced programmers and freelancers will give up the project if they exceed 300 days. So, here’s a rule of thumb. Why does this happen? In a project that you outsourced to a vendor, you have to pay half the money upfront first and then the rest upon completion of the project. In some cases, the payment is split due to the completion of milestones. It’s a problem of economics when the vendor or freelancer takes half the payment and then runs away by the time when they realize that it’s too much work and it’s never going to end because of scope creep. What happens in the end, both loses. The business owners have to salvage the situation and look for another vendor, ending up paying twice the amount. The vendors walked out burnt too with their teams not paid properly and all hell broke loose. ****The real challenge is …** The best way to deal with the scope creep is to be really honest about what you want and what you can’t have. Draw up a list of 20 things you want on your site, then systematically eliminate and prioritize which ones come first. Then in the end, focus on the 3-5 things on the list that really matter to the business. If something can be added without hassle, you can get the software engineer to add them later. Life is never perfect, and half the time, you are trying to constrain resources to deliver the highest amount of impact. Business people should learn that the perfect product should have lesser features but works in a seamless way without hassle. The best way to explain this to them, “You can create a feature of buy and add an e-commerce element to your platform, but what’s the point if your payment page keeps getting errors because you don’t spend money to perfect the experience of users buying the stuff from your site?” ### Building & Managing Technology Teams in Asia: The Tech Conundrum URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/building-managing-technology-teams-in-asia-1-the-tech-conundrum/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T03:09:17.000Z In Asian countries, most mobile-web technology start-ups have found major difficulties in building technology teams. A few factors contributed to the problem, with lack of talent being the most common cited reason. Other factors include weak entrepreneurial ecosystem and inactive programming communities. Any start-up founder with a business background will tend towards outsourcing the building of the technology to freelance programmers or programming houses as a result. The problem is also endemic in large technology companies in Asia. The common argument put forward by most business owners is cost effectiveness. However, drawing from various anecdotal evidence, the small and medium business owners tend to end up spending more. I want to debunk the cost argument and reveal some hidden costs in building technology that most business owners do not see that would come back to bite them in near future, and present this conundrum of whether to build an team within the organization or outsourcing the technology to freelance programmers or programming houses in a clearer light. ****Why Companies outsource and the cost effective reasoning does not work** In a typical start-up particularly one in the mobile-web technology space, should you build your own technology team or outsource your technology building to someone else? If the technology you seek to build exists, it is likely that an Asian business owner will pay a programmer to clone it. Why is it cheaper to clone? On a macro-economical scale, the Asian business owner is trying to perform a technology arbitrage where he or she clone something and execute the same business at a lower costs. You will hear about the thousand Groupon clones in China, or the AirBnB clones in Southeast Asia or Middle East funded by a few group of people. The common thinking among people with business but no technology background (particularly those with MBAs) is to outsource. Of course, if you are Asian (or even American), you will typically hear everyone telling you to outsource the job to Indian programmers. In fact, the common case studies most people will cite are the multi-national corporations from Microsoft to Nokia claiming success in outsourcing their operations to India. Unfortunately, when you start talking to start-up owners even if they are trying to clone a Silicon Valley start-up, you will start to hear the following about Indian programmers: (a) they are lazy and very hard to manage if you are far away, (b) they don’t seem to understand your instructions because they seriously cannot communicate and (c) they don’t get what you want to do correct and worse, they made a mess out of it. This is not intended to insult or dissuade you against using or hiring Indian programmers. The same problem spread across most Asian programmers. Very few and good Asian programmers exist but chances are, the lure of a giant salary from an investment bank or a multi-national company will draw them away. One must be wondering why most Asian companies (even for start-ups) have consistently perpetuated the myth that outsourcing is good for building web and mobile technologies. Cost effectiveness is often cited as the main reason. If you are outsourcing specific operations which are mechanical, the reasoning is correct. However, some people with business backgrounds (particularly MBAs who were former consultants and investment bankers) tried to map the same reasoning into building their start-ups. The eventual result is that most of them crash and burn because they did not have a proper technology team or worse, not even a technologically inclined co-founder. The same goes for middle to large businesses in Asia. Why is that so? Why are these people did not want to invest more resources in building proper technology teams in Asia and wasted money later to repair large scale IT infrastructure or technology failures? ****The Intangible Cost of Technical Debt** **“Shipping first time code is like going into debt. A little debt speeds development so long as it is paid back promptly with a rewrite… The danger occurs when the debt is not repaid. Every minute spent on not-quite-right code counts as interest on that debt. Entire engineering organizations can be brought to a stand-still under the debt load of an unconsolidated implementation, object-oriented or otherwise.”* ****– Ward Cunningham** The management from any start-up or company often justifies their outsourcing of technology based on the argument of cost effectiveness. It’s a very one dimensional argument and we can’t really fault them because their intention is to take the product (a website or a mobile application) to market at the shortest time possible. What they end up discover later, is that the solution that they are building is not entirely what they have intended or some failure in the IT infrastructure which they did not foresee like database crashes or security breaches. What business theory did not teach them is the problem of [technical debt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical%5Fdebt?ref=bernardleong.com) in building a web or mobile technology. When a business owners builds a website by outsourcing it to a freelancer or a programming house, they often rely on them to pick the correct technology to implement the solution. What they don’t realize is that the business model for freelancers and programming houses is that they need to make a profit by working in several projects at the same time. For a start, both your business objectives do not align, because you have no awareness of your technology and you are being held hostage if problems happened by the vendor. Since we know that if the team you are outsourcing to is not focused, it results in three things: (a) lack of focus and hence poor code written to build the features on your site, (b) selecting the wrong database infrastructure or frameworks which may not align with your business objectives and (c) drop their hands off the project if you are not paying them enough and ended up you wasting more financial resources to repair the problems you have. So, when you outsource your technology building, you have actually incurred more technical debt with a higher interest as compared to those who start off by spending more money in building their own technology teams but reducing the interest rate of technical debt. The problem will come back to bite you in the future. Precisely, the cost effectiveness argument fail because in the longer term perspective, the technical debt that was incurred in building cheap will come back to bite the business owner. In most cases, it will trigger a rewrite of the code, which the business owner is reluctant or have no choice to pay or they have to give up on the entire technology platform. ****Dealing with the “I can’t hire any tech talent” problem** Another common excuse for most business owners is that there are no technical talent available. As a matter of fact, this is a common problem endemic not just in Asia but also in technology clusters such as Silicon Valley and Zhong Guan Cun. According to some, the problem is worse because the better engineers in Silicon Valley will prefer to work in the bigger companies like Facebook and Google rather than with start-ups unless they are on the ascendency. The correct way to phrase this is that there is no software engineer which fits criteria of your choice. In my experience working in a research institute, most researchers usually enter with no relevant software programming skills. The problem is exacerbated in Asia because most software engineers don’t fit basic requirements. Not just software engineers, the same can be said of user interace and user experience designers for web and mobile. Why is Asia having so much shortage of good engineers? The key reason is that IT programmers are treated like digital coolies, a term which is used for labour workers in trading ports during the 18th and 19th century. There is a lack of incentive for innovation because people do not spent time or provide any incentives to help engineers to upgrade themselves or a feasible and decent career path. As a result, we have a shortage, and the better ones decided that it is better to service clients on a project basis and become freelancers. As a result, due to a mis-alignment of objectives, the problem of technology talent in most Asian countries has grown worse in the past decade. There are ways to build a technology team in Asia but it requires configuration changes in not just building them from scratch and providing some allowance for error. In the next post, I will discuss a few models on how one can build and manage one with also the correct incentives and objectives. However, it requires some resources and a change in business owners’ attitude in Asia. ****Updates** - Sanjay Anandaram (adjunct faculty from INSEAD and also co-founder of Jumpstartup Venture Fund) provided two interesting references: (a) TechCrunch, [Should Tech Startups Outsource Product Development?](http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/17/should-tech-startups-outsource-product-development/?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Serious Changes in the Global Startup Ecosystem](http://radio-weblogs.com/0111718/stories/2004/06/09/seriousChangesInTheGlobalStartupEcosystem.html?ref=bernardleong.com) where he contributed some thoughts on the issue. - Patrick Turner (Professor of Entrepreneur from INSEAD business school) wrote this comment to me via email, “Outsourcing to project-based engineers works much better for start-up teams that have a solid full-time CTO on board. This is obviously because that person is able to control for the deficiencies of remote coders in a way in which teams without such a person cannot possibly do”. ### Are Property Prices affected by who you vote for? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/are-property-prices-affected-by-who-you-vote-for/ Last updated: 2021-08-03T01:50:28.000Z Recently, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew [mentioned](http://sg.news.yahoo.com/aljunied-voters-will-regret-choosing-wp--mm-lee.html;%5Fylt=AjXJfvo4fNmOC7Q3%5FvAAuS0Emtt%5F;%5Fylu=X3oDMTNvcDRqcjk2BGNjb2RlA3ZzaGFyZWFnMgRwa2cDN2Y2Yjk3MWItN2RiYi0zOGYxLWI2NjItNTFlZTY5ZjY3OTllBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyA2FlOTg4NTZjLTczNDktMTFlMC1hNGQ2LWE3N2FkNTYzZGMyNA--;%5Fylg=X3oDMTJoNGFrcnZmBGludGwDc2cEbGFuZwNlbi1zZwRwc3RhaWQDN2Y2Yjk3MWItN2RiYi0zOGYxLWI2NjItNTFlZTY5ZjY3OTllBHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0Aw--;%5Fylv=3?ref=bernardleong.com) that the property prices of Aljunied GRC will go down if the voters of that constituency vote for the opposition. In his words, **“If you have the wrong government, your property prices go right down. Ask why in Hougang the property is not as high as their neighbours.”* Given the residents of Hougang SMC has been voting for Mr Low Thia Khiang for the past 20 years and assuming Mr Lee’s comments to be true, the direct inference is that the value of the HDB flats for the Hougang SMC should now be far lower than similar flats in the same neighborhood placed under Aljunied GRC. The best way to do this is to find out how the prices of the HDB flats in Hougang SMC and Aljunied GRC have fluctuated over the past twenty years. This dataset is difficult to collect and requires HDB to provide them. However, it turns out that we can look at the current 1-year resale transacted prices of flats in both areas and answer the question to a large extent. The aim of this [HDB e-service](http://services2.hdb.gov.sg/webapp/BB33RTIS/BB33PReslTrans.jsp?ref=bernardleong.com) is to “assist potential resale flat buyers and sellers in making informed decisions, taking into account the prevailing trends in the HDB resale market” (source: HDB). So, we did the following by looking at 2 sets of data: 3 room flats & 4 room flats from Hougang Ave 5 (under Hougang SMC) and Hougang Ave 8 (under Aljunied GRC) and computed the median prices. All transactions found in the data set are arms-length transactions which means that we exclude resale transactions that may not reflect the full market price, for example, I buy a flat from my parents at a reduced resale flat price. Hence HDB’s data is indicative of the real market prices. Here’s what we found: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/hougang-prices-sg.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/wordpress/2011/05/hougang-prices-sg1.png "hougang-prices-sg") From the above table, the resale flat prices did not vary signifcantly. In fact, although flats from Hougang Avenue 5 (under Hougang SMC) were older than those from Hougang Avenue 8 (under Aljunied GRC), they seem to fetch higher resale prices. Do note that the Ministry of National Development [control both the demand and supply](http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory%5F661486.html?ref=bernardleong.com) of public housing in Singapore. We all know that buying a flat is an important decision for most families. Hence it is reasonable for us to assume that a couple will examine all the factors which will affect the value of the flat they intend to buy, for example, accessibility to transport, amenities, the condition of the flat and the living conditions in the neighbourhood. If MM Lee’s assertion is true, very few people will buy flats in Hougang Ave 5 and consequently the resale prices of flats in Hougang Ave 5 should not be above those in Hougang Ave 8 under Aljunied GRC. The data seems to contradict what MM Lee has said about flats in Hougang SMC falling below flats in Aljunied GRC. Perhaps the ruling party can provide the facts and figures as to why they assert that property prices under Aljunied GRC will fall if the opposition party wins on May 7. Other Interesting articles: \[1\] Mr Wang, [Property Values and Your Choice of Political Party](http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2011/05/property-values-and-your-choice-of.html?ref=bernardleong.com) \[2\] Sze-Meng Soon, [How Govt and MPs should tackle home affordability](http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory%5F661486.html?ref=bernardleong.com) \[3\] Tay Lay Kuan has extended my analysis on Hougang & Aljunied to Potong Pasir SMC & Toa Payoh-Bishan GRC. [No evidence in MM Lee’s claims on HDB prices](http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/05/no-evidence-in-mm-lees-claims-on-hdb-prices/?ref=bernardleong.com). \[4\] You can read this research paper [“The political economy of housing prices: Hedonic pricing with regression discontinuity”](http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ecswong/publications/JHE.pdf?ref=bernardleong.com) by Wong Wei Kang and Eddie Sue. Have a conversation with my former colleagues from Singapore Angle and the main results does not differ much from what I have computed. \[5\] You can read another post [Hougang constituency 4-room flats retain value well](http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/hougang-constituency-4-room-flats-retain-value-well/?ref=bernardleong.com) by Alex Au aka Yawning Bread that also indicate the prices for 4 room flats. \[6\] Chong Kwek Yan & Giam Xingli published this [interesting analysis](https://www.facebook.com/notes/giam-xingli/no-evidence-that-flats-in-opposition-held-wards-are-worth-less/183135021738371) entitled “No evidence that flats in Opposition-held wards are worth less” via Facebook using multiple comparisons tests. If I am still working as an academic (i.e. I practically have very little time because of the focus I put on my own start-up), that will be the same approach that I will have adopted and I will apply clustering theory to look at the data sets as well. ### 2010: A Year Worth Remembering URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/2010-a-year-worth-remembering/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:14:51.000Z Other than 1994, the year 2010 is the year that is worth remembering. After two lost years, 2010 has reignited my drive in life with many interesting times. The year was fraught with struggles, obstacles and challenges that took the most of me and yet brought out the courage to make a difference. Here are the top ten things which I know why this is a year worth remembering (in no order of preference except the last one which is the most important event): 1. ****Founded [Chalkboard](http://www.yourchalkboard.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) on 15 Jan 2010:** From the beginning (with a former name Chlkboard) to now the next stage with my co-founder, Saumil Nanavati. The company is a location based ad network which seeks to help small and medium local businesses to drive walk-in traffic. I also thanked the team (Nazrul, Chaiwat, Jon and Serge) which we have assembled that are in the midst of our operations from now to next year. So, we have new iterations coming up soon, and do check us out there. For career, this is the most important thing and we have managed to hit almost 9M impressions now within 3 months after scaling up to the next stage. It has almost taken all of my life, and I suppose it will continue to do so next year. 2. ****The Journey with the team in [This Week in Asia](http://www.thisweekinasia.net/?ref=bernardleong.com):** Well, the podcast has expanded to a bigger team, brought in a lot of big guests from Dave McClure, Brian Wong, Sarah Lacy and Mitchell Baker. Of course, some internet pundits in Asia, for example, Serkan Toto, Gang Lu, Akky Akimoto, Rama Mamuaya and many others who have popped by in our virtual studio. Hey, we even got endorsements from Leo Laporte from This Week in Tech and got ourselves in the best of 2010 for TWIT last week. 3. ****[SG Entrepreneurs](http://www.sgentrepreneurs.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) under new leadership:** Gwen has taken over SGE this year and have partnered with Startup Digest and also doing cool stuff with Isaac. Have lunch with her team (Larissa, Yuting, Shannon) and Isaac yesterday. Should be interesting for the year ahead. 4. ****Small successes with [Thymos Capital LLP](http://www.thymoscapital.com/?ref=bernardleong.com):** Happy with the iHipo acquisition by Potentialpark, and also the successful fundraising of [Lunch Actually](http://www.lunchactually.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) (who consolidated [Eteract](http://www.eteract.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) under their portfolio). Two out of ten for me as an investor is a pretty lucky one. Well, kudos to the entrepreneurs Patrick and Arnout (from iHipo), Zam, Violet and Jamie (from Eteract & Lunch Actually) for their great work. 5. ****From award to exco in the [Singapore Computer Society](http://www.scs.org.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) (SCS):** Well, I got the Young Professional of the Year from SCS IT leader awards this year and subsequently joined the executive council to be the editor of IT Society. Sitting in the same meeting room with major players of the industry helped me learn more about the workings of the industry and built up my network. If not more, the experience working with them and the professional secretariat has been great. 6. ****The friendship forged and built with friends in [Hackerspace SG](http://hackerspace.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com):** I have spent at least 9 months a lot in Hackerspace SG. If not more, the friendship and parties are there great. The place is always thriving with geeks learning a skill or two. Well, as the resident scientist there, I will like to spend some time on innovative projects next year and also get back onto the chill out nights. 7. ****The interesting travels of my life:** Where have I been this year? A lot of places: Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Sri Lanka, China and …. No matter what it has been, it has been a year of travel and I think more will be coming soon in the coming year. 8. ****Delegate to [Asia 21 Summit](http://asiasociety.org/policy-politics/asia-21/2010-asia-21-young-leaders-summit?ref=bernardleong.com):** Thanks to Gen Kanai’s nomination. Being a delegate for this event has been an eye-opener for me. It helped to put me in perspective and transition from a start-up guy towards getting into management in a company. Meeting other innovators, social entrepreneurs, public policy makers and business leaders from all over Asia makes the experience very worthwhile. 9. ****The original research work I have done, shared and continued with:** Okay, I only manage to get one paper out this year. That’s pretty quiet in original research. Well, I shared the work I have done in my previous life from [BlinkBl-nk 7](http://www.blinkbl-nk.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) to [Barcamps](http://www.barcamp.org/?ref=bernardleong.com). So, I hope to put up interesting ideas to come. Yes, there is that unwritten book which is 80% done, and I have to bug my collaborators, Michael Netzley and Nicholas Khoo on it. 10. ****The most important thing of all – meeting my soulmate:** She found me in the most unlikely of places: Hackerspace SG. She’s the most important thing that happened to me this year and probably for many years to come. I will leave that much here, and hopefully, a major change in my life is gonna come for the year ahead. It has been the best year of my life and I hope that the year ahead will be a better one too. ### A Mathematical Solution to Eddington's Controversy Problem URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/a-mathematical-solution-to-eddingtons-controversy-problem/ Last updated: 2021-08-03T01:11:49.000Z Sometime back, while reading Fazlollah M. Reza’s “[An Introduction to Information Theory](http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Information-Theory-Fazlollah-Reza/dp/0486682102?ref=bernardleong.com)“, I revisited a solution that I have sketched out years back on the ****Eddington’s controvery problem**. This problem is interesting to me because it exemplifies the type of confusion that existed in probability prior to the introduction of set theory considerations. Eddington is the same astrophysicist who did the solar eclipse experiment to demonstrate the prediction of light bending using Einstein’s general relativity. I thought I should share the solution which I co-solved with Yen Lee, an old friend from Cambridge who’s now a postdoc in Purdue University. To quote the problem, “**If A, B, C, D each speaks the truth 1 in 3 times (independently), and A affirms that B denies that C delcares that D is a liar, what’s the probability that D was speaking the truth?*” Historically, this problem was examined by M. Gardner in an article entitled “Brain Teasers that involve Formal Logic” and to everyone’s surprise, some theoretical physicists and mathematicians are embroiled in getting the correct the number of the solution. So, I will discuss the problem in detail, giving my solution to the problem and explain why Eddington’s answer of 25/71 was greeted with so much protests from the thinkers of the time. (****Warning:** **If you are not a theoretical physicist or mathematician, you will be inundated by a plethora of mathematical symbols, hence you are warned before proceeding to the interesting parts*). To simplify the problem without bringing up the controversy, we make the following assumptions (see the last section of the blog article): 1. All four men made statements. 2. A, B, and C each made a statement that either affirmed or denied the statement that follows. 3. A lying affirmation is taken to be a denial and a lying denial is taken to be an affirmation. Let **a*, **b*, *c* and **d* be the event when A, B, C and D tells the truth respectively, and let - **p* be the event that D lied, - **q* be the event that C declared that D lied, - **r* be the event that B denied that C declared that D lied, - **s* be the event that A affirmed that B denied that C declared that D lied. We are told that A, B, C, D each tel the truth (denote truth as T and false as F) with a probability of 1/3\. Thus, we get the following: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.04.35-AM.png) where == indicates that two logical statements are equivalent. We set up the following logical operations for the problem. The event **p* is the event that D lied, i.e that d is false, so ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.05.07-AM.png) and we use the logical operators && means AND, || means OR and ^ means XOR.Let’s work out **q*, which is the event that C declared that D lies, i.e. q is the event that C declared that “**p* is true”. This happens if either “**p* is true and C tells the truth” or “**p* is false and C lies”, hence, we get the following: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.05.10-AM.png) Then we continue with **r* which is the event that B denied statement **q*, i.e. **r* is the event that B said that “**q* is false”. This happens if either “**q* is false and B tells the truth” or “**q* is true and B lies”, hence ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.06.02-AM.png) Finally, we evaluate **s* which is the event that A affirmed the statement *r*, we run thru the same calculation and find: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.06.19-AM.png) where we use the identity (x == y) == !(x^y). Since the XOR operation is commutative and associative, we can just write: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.06.33-AM.png) You can refer to this truth table which I have painstakingly constructed: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.07.02-AM.png) With the logical relation **s*, we proceed to find the probability that D told the truth (event d) given what A said (event **s*): ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.08.04-AM.png) and we calculate the denominator by setting up the truth table: Therefore we calculate the answer: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.08.41-AM.png) and yes, my solution is slightly different from Eddington’s solution of 25/71, which I will explain how he come to that solution. **How** **Eddington got his solution** In this section, we describe Eddington’s original solution to the problem \[Eddington (1935)\]. Eddington interpreted the question as the following: D has made a statement X, and A stated that B denied that C contradicted X, hence what is the probability that the statement X is true? There are only two premises made in Eddington’s view: (1) D’s statement, X and (2) A’s statement that “B denied that C contradicted X”. He assumed that we do not know whether B and C made any relevant statements. An example will be if B truthfully denied that C contradicted X, there is no reason that C affirmed X. By this reasoning, the only cases which are inconsistent with what’s known are: (1) A truths, B lies, C truths, D truths and (2) A truths, lies, C lies, D lies. If A is lying, we don’t know what B said and if A and B both spoke the truth, we do not know what C said. Since case 1 and 2 occur twice and eight times out of 81 occasions respectively, therefore D’s 27 truths and 54 lies are reduced to 25 truths and 46 lies. Therefore the probability becomes 25/(25 + 46) = 25/71 ≈ 0.35\. Hence that’s Eddington’s answer to the problem. ****A Historical Depiction of the Problem from Gardner’s paper “Brain Teasers that involve Formal Logic”** I thought that it may be good to quote the comments on the Eddington problem here from Gardner’s paper (note that while trying to write out the solution, I have read all the papers cited below by spending a few days digging in old stacks library of journals in Cambridge and, yes, they have Nature papers dated back 1900s): > **“Eddington’s answer of 25/71 was greeted by howls of protest from his readers touching off an amusing controversy that was never decisively resolved. The English astronomer Herbert Dingle, reviewing Eddington’s book in Nature (March 23, 1935) dismissed the problem as meaningless and symptomatic of Eddington’s confused thinking about probability. Theodore Sterne, an American physicist, replied (Nature, June 29, 1935) that the problem was not meaningless but lacked sufficient data for a solution. Dingle responded (nature, Sept 14, 1935) by contending that if one granted Sterne’s approach, there were enough data to reach a solution of exactly 1/3\. Eddington then re-entered the fray with a paper entitled “The Problem of A, B, C and D” (Math. Gaz., October 1935) in which he explained in detail how he calculated the answer.* > **The difficulty lies chiefly in deciding exactly how to interpret Eddington’s statement of the problem. If B is truthful in making his denial, are we justified in assuming that C said that D spoke the truth? Eddington thought not. Similarly, if A is lying, can we then be sure that B and C said anything at all? Fortunately, we can side-step all these verbal difficulties by making (as Eddington did not) the following assumptions:* > **All four men made statements.* > **A, B, and C each made a state that either affirmed or denied the statement that follows.* > **A lying affirmation is taken to be a denial and a lying denial is taken to be an affirmation.* “ ****Related Links:** \[1\] David Stirzake, [Elementary Probability](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DBp12CPDUoOoC%26pg%3DPA75%26lpg%3DPA75%26dq%3DEddington%2527s%2Bcontroversy%26source%3Dbl%26ots%3Db%5FgC926aHz%26sig%3D7D0NPbTz%5FY-5VavUJMGqQ6hRDvM%26hl%3Den%26ei%3DOuUWStnqIsyIkQXktdHjDA%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dbook%5Fresult%26ct%3Dresult%26resnum%3D1&ei=OuUWStnqIsyIkQXktdHjDA&usg=AFQjCNHiNWY60sg6uKJCOOqMgUu9Twnp0A&sig2=gJq2vPsSk7aQWSh6Fspwnw) (presented a solution using Set theory). ### The Many Faces of Moderation URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-many-faces-of-moderation/ Last updated: 2009-09-05T08:17:52.000Z ![dri](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/wordpress/2009/09/dri.jpg "dri")Last weekend, over a few drinks, Nicholas Aaron Khoo threw an interesting question to me that prompted his recent discussion on whether [the Internet can be self-regulated](http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/geekonomics/post.htm?id=63009690&ref=bernardleong.com). The question has been examined in the early days from the submission of the “[Proposals for Internet Freedom in Singapore](http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple%5Fis%5Fthe%5Freason%5Fof%5Fm/2008/04/proposals-for-i.html?ref=bernardleong.com)” by a group of bloggers to the engagement with public feedback on the government appointed [AIMS Report – Engaging New Media: Challenging Old Assumptions](http://www.aims.org.sg/library/docs/AIMS%20Report%20%28Dec%2008%29%20-%20Engaging%20New%20Media,%20Challenging%20Old%20Assumptions.pdf?ref=bernardleong.com) with regards to the issue of [community moderation](http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple%5Fis%5Fthe%5Freason%5Fof%5Fm/2008/06/community-moder.html?ref=bernardleong.com). To Nicholas’ credit, he constructed a well-thought counter example by looking at the example of [Ping.sg](http://ping.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com), a blog aggregator in Singapore that is suffering from the lack of community moderation despite the tools made available by the owner of the platform. Hence my intention of this article, rather than just argue only on the merits of community moderation, also examines the many faces of moderation and self-regulation of the Internet in Singapore When the senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) Lui Tuck Yew [said last month](http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory%5F334426.html?ref=bernardleong.com), about the issue of being “quite apparent the Internet is not an effective self-regulated regime as some may have touted it to be”, three aspects of the argument come to mind: - **The different communication channels in the Internet both support and not support that the argument that it is not effective self-regulated regime:** The diversity of communication channels in the Internet made it difficult to assert the effectiveness of each channel in the overall picture. For example, in the world of online forums, self-regulation is possible with not just the platform owner but his or her appointed moderators who are doing the work. One can also ascertain whether the moderators are credible to do the job. It all depends on how the moderators are appointed in the first place. In Nicholas’ example, he used the blog aggregator which the onus of responsibility is not just on the owner of the platform but also the community which supports the system. As a matter of fact, I can flip the same argument to say that even successful blog aggregators like Digg can be gamed, which made self-regulation impossible. Then we come down to the blogs, which can be complex in arguing whether self-regulation is possible. That comes to my next point. - **The Economics of Self-Regulation or Moderation:** Let me break down the bloggers of a specific type of content (be it sports, entertainment and business) into three categories: the bloggers can choose to have (i) public identities, (ii) pseudonyms or (iii) anonymous identities. One can look at these three types of bloggers and examine how self-regulation decreases with the degree of anonymity. A public blogger, while writing a controversial or challenging article will find it tough to weigh between his or her street credibility and reputation to make assertions or claims without some basis of evidence. Think about it, the self-regulation has already taken place when the blogger writes with his public name on his blog. In fact, whatever he or she says can be subjected to the legislation of the country he or she inhabits. Then look at the other extreme, you will realize by saying what you like, you sacrifice credibility by being anonymous at the same time. It makes it hard for anyone on the street to totally support the position of the anonymous blogger even if the points laid forward held a certain degree of truth in it. Hence it is hard to assert the bloggers cannot “self-regulate” themselves because of a few sock puppets (with anonymous identities) trumpeting some controversial statement. It will be a shock if any public blogger in the Singapore social political blogosphere has condoned the physical assault of a Member of Parliament. The reason is simple. Any reasonable (and not necessarily educated to the highest degree) person will know that it is morally wrong to exert physical harm on another human being. That comes to my final point why I am a firm advocate of community moderation - **Community Moderation promotes a mature and engaged society:** That’s where I will put down the reason why we need to continue to advocate community moderation as a possible alternative to hard-nosed legislation. Oftentimes, in Singapore, some Members of Parliament (from both sides of the aisle) are asking why Singaporeans are disengaged from the community. The reason is that there are not enough civic education or activity in the Singapore society that is leading Singaporeans towards the behaviour of a moderate and mature society. We often hope the other guy will resolve the problem. Instead of using an online example to advocate that self-regulation in the Internet is impossible, I can use another situation in the offline world to demonstrate self-regulation is just as difficult. If I see a gangster beating a normal citizen up, instead of calling the police and try to stop the fight, I stand there and do nothing. Isn’t that situaton equivalent to those netizens in Ping.sg who did not even bother to flag the content that pollutes the platform? Fundamentally, the regulation of the Internet is a complex issue which we are unlikely to solve all of them in one day. There are many pieces and the Singapore government will not concede some of them in accordance with their own interests. That leads me to draw on this final thought about the implmentation of community moderation. In truth, there are two simple ways to set up a community moderation panel for the Internet specifically pertaining to the blogosphere: either let the government appoints its own committee or the bloggers themselve organize themselves into a committee to police themselves. To be honest, neither choices are possible to be implemented, because in both cases, it’s a catch-22 situation. However, as of all situations, the answer surely lies in the middle or a mixture of both situations to proceed towards an optimal outcome. **Related Links:** - Yawning Bread, [On Community Moderation of Internet Content](http://www.yawningbread.org/arch%5F2009/yax-990.htm?ref=bernardleong.com). ### Buffon's Needle and Noodle Problem URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/buffon-needle-noodle-problem/ Last updated: 2021-08-03T01:02:07.000Z Recently, while flipping through a research paper made me think about the estimation of π (which we know is 3.141… ). Here is an interesting problem which is associated with a method to estimate π. A needle of length **a* is thrown on to the plane covered with equally spaced parallel lines with separation *b*. What is the probability that the needle will cross a line? How can this be extended to a random curve of length *A*? I thought I might just share a simple mathematical solution for both the [Buffon’s Needle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon%27s%5Fneedle?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Buffon’s Noodle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon%27s%5Fnoodle?ref=bernardleong.com) problem that I have worked out years back on this problem during my PhD years. The only way to do this is to illlustrate with a figure to show how a needle might land so that it just touches one of the parallels. Making use of the symmetry of the system, we only need to look at one half sgement in the diagram.The vertical position of the needle does not matter because shifting it up or down leaves the state of crossing a vertical line unchanged. The only factors which will matter will be: (a) The needle’s angle with the horizontal and (b) the distance of the centre of the needle to the nearest parallel.The centre P is equally likely to fall anywhere between the parallels, which is essentially, the assumption of uniform distribution and for a fixed angle θ, the chance that the line crosses a parallel will be ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-8.58.09-AM.png) because the line crosses a parallel if the centre falls within **x*\-units of either parallel. (See the dashed lines in the figure). ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-8.58.16-AM.png) The angle θ is thought to be uniforrmly distributed from 0 to (π/2) because of twirling. The crossings that happen for θ also work for π – θ.Now we proceed to compute the probability that θ is between 0 and π/2\. We need the mean value of (**2x/b*) for **x = a/2 cos* θ and it works out to be (**a/b cos* θ). Then integrating to find the average ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-8.59.07-AM.png) and it gives the following relation ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-8.59.27-AM.png) The above relation suggests a geometrical relation between a pure chance experiment and the value of the transcendental number, π, i.e. we can estimate π by tossing a long needle on a grid of squares. We can extend the Buffon’s needle problem to Buffon’s noodle (a random curve of length **A*). Suppose we cut up the noodle into several needles, i.e. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.00.05-AM.png) Hence, tossing the noodle is like dropping a couple of needles at one go. The equation earlier for Buffon’s needle can be extended to ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-03-at-9.00.18-AM.png) Therefore, on average, a random curve of length **A* is expected to intersect the lines 2**A*/(π b) times. ****Related Links:** - [Buffon’s Needle: An analysis and simulation.](http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/reese/buffon/buffon.html?ref=bernardleong.com) - [Mathematica’s solution to Buffon’s Needle](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BuffonsNeedleProblem.html?ref=bernardleong.com) ### Entrepreneurs' Basic Etiquette with Potential Investors URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/entrepreneurs-basic-etiquette-with-potential-investors/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T02:51:36.000Z A couple of incidents for the past year recently made me ponder about the way how entrepreneurs in Singapore, or generally Asians handle their potential investors differently from their western counterparts. Perhaps, in terms of Gladwell’s “Outliers”, the cultural legacy could be the major fact that contributes to their behaviour. Since raising money in such difficult times is so much more challenging, it may also be good to provide some thoughts for those who are optimistic and willing to give it a shot. Sometimes, it’s not their fault to sound that way but they have made it so difficult for the investors to really say yes, for 99% of the time, they really did not know what the other side is thinking. I decide to summarize a few general cases for them so that they don’t make such amateur mistakes. - ****Do not sound arrogant to investors you meet:** I understand that ego is part and parcel of the trait of an entrepreneur. However, there is a base line which each investor have with arrogance. Arrogance can deter an investor away easily. Never make the investor feel that they owe you a living or some entitlement. If you made it sound that your investor owes you a living, it is almost certain that he or she will never put a single cent in you. The problem with arrogance is the following: if you do not sound humble even dealing with him, how can he have the faith to entrust that sum of money with you? It also means putting checks and balances on you can be a pain for the entrepreneur to manage. I have seen very experienced investors turn down good deals because they know that they will incur more pain and depression dealing with an arrogant prick. - ****Do not tell the investor that you don’t need money:** The most common mistake that an entrepreneur made is to tell the investor that you don’t need money. Oftentimes, you don’t need it when it is offered to you and when you really need it, the person who offered the money will say, “Good luck with your ventures” which implies that he or she is not going to put money in you. It is alright to be polite to say that you are planning for future investments and tell the interested party that he or she will be informed, rather than outright tell the investor that you don’t need money. I have a story where a company was offered US$10M for 10% equity when the product was launched. They really did not need the money and told the investor that they don’t need it. In the end, when they are in cashflow problems, they ended up selling the company for a much lower price. - ****Do not tell the investor that you are just checking them out:** This is something that I learned the hard way in Asia, and I bet no business school actually teaches that. I once hear an interesting innovation by an entrepreneur in a business plan competition some years back as a judge. The entrepreneur was queried about the business model and the technology by the judges. After minutes of probing, we realized that the technology is not ready for consumption and we ask the entrepreneur why he took part in the competition, and he said that he was checking the investors out. The funny part is that when the judges discussed the team, we all agreed that they should be the lowest scoring team because they violated the cardinal rule of telling investors that they are “checking them out”. - ****Do not ask the investor to share his contacts or share the privileges his portfolio companies receive with you:** I often think that it is just basic etiquette that when you reject someone for investment, you should not ask for more. I have the unfortunate experience of being asked to share my contacts with investors or the privileges of the link-ups my portfolio companies have to China and other parts of the world. It happened with many people who I taught that they are professional enough to realize that it is not appropriate to do that. Let me put it in another way, if you made so much effort to build these contacts as an investor, will you share it if there is no value proposition for your business and even worse, you need to account to the other partners in your firm? Actually, when I was living in Cambridge and visiting Boston to meet potential investor, I was told by mentors and experienced entrepreneurs that there is a basic etiquette. Of course, some young entrepreneurs in Singapore think that they are being smart to squeeze something out from the investor, which backfired on them practically all the time. If you ask someone for something without reciprocation, you will not expect that someone will give it to you. Not to mention that there is the professional reason that the investor has to keep his core competitive advantage to run his funding business. That being said, if you meet up with one of the investor’s contacts by your own merit and ask the other person to refer to you for reference, that is allowed and completely appropriate. In fact, some businesses ended up getting funding just on that account where the investor did not get directly involved. - ****Do not press your investor or even tell him how to conduct his business:** Never try to press your investor to give you money and tell him how to conduct his business. Even if the process is taking a long time, you should not lose patience and demand an ultimatum from the investor. That is just suicidal and if not stupid. Perhaps, it might be easier to share with you the other side of the story. Every investment an investor makes, depending on the stakeholders who they need to account for, they need to ensure that every stone turned and every page flipped so that their money will gain returns from the opportunity. I am not advocating the entrepreneur not to negotiate and suck up to the investor without principles. The essence is that there are issues which are negotiable. The equity stakes and some aspects of the term sheet can be debated and argued. If you don’t think that the valuation is fair, you can always walk out. Here is the part which I find it ironic when I do my deals. The shortest deals I have concluded within a span of a month is inversely proportional to the potential of that deal. In fact, those companies are the best in my portfolio that has potential for greater heights. Sounds strange, partially because the entrepreneurs made none of the mistakes above and in fact, have done another company before this venture. Hopefully, it might help those to bear this in mind when approaching potential investors. ### The Economics about Banning Political Films URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-economics-about-banning-political-films/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T02:47:59.000Z I have been thinking about the political films discussion that took place during the Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform. Two of my colleagues, [Alex Au](http://www.yawningbread.org/?ref=bernardleong.com) aka Yawning Bread and [Gerald Giam](http://singaporepatriot.blogspot.com/2008/06/political-films-and-ruling-party.html?ref=bernardleong.com) have voiced their opinions about section 35 in the Films Act and their reaction to the comments made by Mr Cheong Yip Seng, the Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMES). Alex Au is worried that AIMES may be trying hard to justify why section 35 should stay after hearing Mr Cheong’s point about the high impact factor that a political film can sway how people think after his visit to a conference in Canada. To reinforce his point, Mr Cheong also cited that Japan and Korea were the other two countries that banned political films. On the other hand, Gerald took a different position by arguing that the political films act benefit PAP more than the other opposition parties. In this post, I adopt the relationship between the demand & supply with the impact of a political film to explain why banning section 35 is a worse option for the PAP to stay in power. Basically, I will address the issue starting from the fear of a political film being potent enough to change the outcome of an election. Indeed I do not dispute with what Mr Cheong said about political films. He is definitely right to say that the political films can have a powerful impact on the audience. In fact, coupled with modern filming techniques that kept on repeating the same subliminal political message over and over again, the film may be so powerful that it would convert a voter to sway to another political ideology. In fact, I can even push Mr Cheong’s argument further by offering the example of the religious fundamentalists under Osama Bin Laden who have adopted such approaches to radicalize people towards extremism. However, something is missing in the entire argument. That missing link is how demand and supply for such political films is correlated to its impact and how much emotions it can stir. If there is a huge demand, the political impact is greater and vice versa. So, the real question that one should ask is under what conditions, a political film can create a huge demand. The answer is when the film becomes a forbidden fruit, i.e. we set up legislation to ban political films that can incite potential damages to society. It’s a situation of high demand and low supply in economics. Seriously, I found out that everyone I know when I was living in overseas, gets a thrill out of watching some of the banned political films in Singapore, for e.g. the Singapore Rebel from YouTube and Google Video in the UK. The reason for the thrill is that they believe that they will not run into problems with the Singaporean law if they watch it in UK. Here’s the part which made it so difficult for our establishment to deal with the YouTube problem. They can ban the film, but they cannot stop people from uploading the film into YouTube and continuously pervade the entire Internet with the film. The enforcement of a ban, bolstered by the printed press, created even bigger demand in people who will go all out to search for the film in Google. The same argument also works for the political films which are used to radicalize people to become extremists. In fact, every time the American media tries to make a big deal out of an video tape from the leaders in Al Queda, everyone will flock to YouTube to search for the video. It is human psychology to find out more about the forbidden fruit and sample it even if you use the law as a deterrence. In this case, given the evolving technologies of the Internet, it becomes even easier for people to get the forbidden fruit and at the same time, believe that the political film must have a high impact such that the establishment bans it. What about the other side when the demand is low and supply is high? To reinforce my argument, I will use Michael Moore’s "Farenheit 911" as an example. For most people outside America, we are swayed by his film to believe that the US administration harbor bad intentions to invade Iraq. As a matter of fact, Michael Moore wanted to use the film to change the outcome of the 2004 US Presidential election. He was so determined that he offered to give free showings of the film to people all over US and marketed the film everywhere so that he can sway the people to vote for John Kerry instead of George W Bush. In the end, he failed even his film was made available everywhere. What happened? A few factors contributed to why the political film achieved so low impact in the US elections. The first reason is that the opposing side created similar films that distorts Michael Moore’s facts in his film, and better still, using the same set of techniques Michael Moore adopted to attack his credibility. The second reason is that the American mass media is divided into different political ideologies, and hence the public develop a type of social immunity to be skeptical about the truths in political films. Imagine Fox News spending every day telling everyone that the movie "Farenheit 911" is a bad movie and they did exactly that. Does that sound familiar? Yes, for the longest time, as Gerald rightfully puts it, banning section 35 of the political films benefits the PAP more than the opposition. In a game theoretic sense, they suffer from being the bully for banning political films and the outcome is that it encourage the situation of high demand and low supply. The situation instigates more people to search for the banned political film. The same goes for publications. Imagine you ban a book today, the next day someone goes to Amazon and buys the electronic copy and downloads it without you detecting it. In fact, the ruling party have so much more resources to create political films of better quality than what has been done by Martyn See. I find it ironic when Martyn said during the seminar that he was out to prove that political films do not make such a big impact as the establishment claims. In fact, by banning it, more Singaporeans are eager to watch it. Since a large population are socially conditioned not to think critically, they start to believe the information from the political films. Of course, at the end of the day, I will not dispute what some naysayers will tell me that it’s a waste of time to try to convince the authorities about abolishing section 35\. That is why they are still holding power. My answer to them is that technologies and social practices change and the same kind of deterrence can falter against the backdrop of innovation in the Internet. I will end with an anecdote told to me by a Singaporean friend who lived in New York. On the day when the Obama campaign executed their internet strategy to organize people using Facebook for caucuses and fundraising through online means as early as July 2007, a Singaporean friend of mine and an expert on social media called up his American friend from the Hillary Clinton campaign and asked whether they have an internet strategy. He wanted to help but got a snub back from his American friends in the Hillary Clinton campaign, "We don’t believe in an Internet strategy." Perhaps history might have turned out differently if they have listened. ### Community Moderation: Thoughts from the Internet Regulatory Reform Seminar URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/community-moderation-thoughts-from-the-internet-regulatory-reform-seminar/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T02:44:49.000Z Organised by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, the seminar on internet regulatory reform happened today at the URA Centre. About 50 people attended the event, excluding the organizers and the bloggers who are involved in the drafting of "[****Proposals for Internet Freedom in Singapore**](http://journalism.sg/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bloggers-proposals-for-net-freedom1.pdf?ref=bernardleong.com)". The aim of this seminar is to present the proposals and at the same solicit some thoughts and comments from the public. Together with [Cherian George](http://journalism.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Alex Au](http://www.yawningbread.org/?ref=bernardleong.com) (Yawning Bread), [Choo Zheng Xi](http://theonlinecitizen.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Ng Ejay](http://sgpolitics.net/?ref=bernardleong.com), Arun Mahizhnan (Institute of Policy Studies) and [Mohan Gopalan](http://magnezium.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), we presented the various aspects and sat on a panel to discuss the proposals. In the process, we drew interesting comments and questions from the audience. After a vibrant discussion, I will like to outline some ideas about the formation of Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) mentioned in the community moderation section of the proposal. For some time, I have been a strong advocate of the [community moderation](http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple%5Fis%5Fthe%5Freason%5Fof%5Fm/2008/04/community-moder.html?ref=bernardleong.com) as an alternative to internet regulation. The intention is not to replace regulation but rather to provide a stop gap measure that deals with the emerging complexities of online communities in the Internet. A simple hypothetical example is that a young and immature blogger can make unintentional statements that might cross the OB markers accidentally. The instant reaction is to report to the police and let the law take action. Imagine in a more mature society like the UK, the more immediate reaction is to bring the matter to the attention to the civil society and only take action if the blogger is really inciting violence offline. The idea of community moderation in Singapore serves two purposes: (i) to educate the individual that freedom of speech comes with responsibility and (ii) striving towards a mature society that allow open debate and diversity. One of the questions which was posed to the panel is the question on how the structure of the IC3 committee can be created and how it can be enforced. We did not elaborate on the details on how a committee can be created and the roles and responsibilities of the IC3\. Instead, each one of us offer a different perspective on how it can be formulated and created. After some thinking on my way home, I sketched out three possible models outlining their advantages and disadvantages respectively: 1. ****A formal IC3 committee seeded by the government (top down approach):** One proposal of the IC3 is to follow the model of films repeal board, where selected individuals from various walks of society are invited to listen to the makers of a film that is banned and made a decision whether it should be repealed. In this model, the committee can be seeded by the establishment and slowly the committee can co-opt members from the Internet community or the industry where the technology is evolving. There are two drawbacks with this model. The first issue is the legitimacy of this IC3 committee and some bloggers might see this committee as cronies to the establishment. The second issue is that unlike the films repeal board, the action taken by the films committee is of a pre-emptive nature, i.e. the film can only be released upon a fair hearing and decision with the film repeals committee. In the case of controversial incidents in the Internet, the action taken by the IC3 committee is of a reactive nature. Hence a formal IC3 committee may not be quick enough to act before the police is alerted if the blogger has totally crossed the line on race and religion issues. 2. ****An formal IC3 committee totally formed by the blogosphere (ground up approach):** In this model, the government does not play a part in forming the IC3 committee. Instead, it is built from the blogosphere. It starts off from an informal group of bloggers who are ready to flag or advise a blogger in the case of the blog entry crossing the OB markers. This model will take a longer time and some experience from the group of bloggers. Similarly, the legitimacy issue will be questioned. The critics will most likely ask, "What is the moral authority of these group of bloggers?" or "Why should we let them police the blogosphere?" If the IC3’s job is to enforce, then the legitimacy argument is valid. Unfortunately, we never conceive the IC3 to be an agency of enforcement. Its role is to serve the purposes of promoting responsible and free speech and issue a condemnation such that the blogger is aware that what’s being said is against the social norm. 3. ****An informal code for all bloggers that naturally creates an IC3 structure in the blogosphere:** This has been tried by several bloggers including myself and failed. The idea is to establish a code of ethics and let the bloggers decide whether they want to abide it. In this model, the group of bloggers select a set of guiding principles that both demonstrate free and responsible speech or best practices in blogging such that they can abide an informal code of behaviour. In this model, the entire blogger community which signed up for the code is the IC3 structure. The majority will be able to persuade the single blogger (who is part of the group) for irresponsible behaviour. Like all models, it has a potential drawback: not everyone will want to adhere to a code of ethics. I do have a personal opinion on this matter and I preferred the third model on the basis that everyone is responsible for encouraging free and responsible speech and not a selected group of individuals. While we cannot transition to the third model immediately as our society is struggling with political and social maturity, something must be in place for the transition. That transition will be the first and second model, and the question which we ask will be, "What is the roles and responsibilities of such a committee? How is action taken when a blogger trepasses?" One immediate answer which I brought up is the following: the IC3 committee can flag and issue a condemnation to the blogger who wrote the controversial comments, and it is up to the blogger to do it or not. If the blogger does not, the law enforcement can take place. The real function is to give a period of time to allow some open debate on sensitive issues in Singapore. If we are seriously striving towards a thinking society, then we better start doing something about open and free debate on issues and not name-calling. That comes to my last point. I don’t have an answer to the questions posed but offered one viewpoint, "The devil always lies in the details." ****Acknowledgments:** I am glad that several members from the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) were present at the seminar. Mr Cheong Yip Seng, chairman of the AIMS committee had offered us his thoughts on the proposal. Tan Tarn How from Institute of Policy Studies and [Siew Kum Hong](http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), the nominated member of Parliament were present. I acknowledged and thanked several members from the public who have contributed their comments and views on the proposal. Do check out [Mohd Hisham](http://www.plurk.com/user/mhisham?ref=bernardleong.com)‘s [twitter](http://twitter.com/juzzywuzzy?ref=bernardleong.com) and [plurks](http://www.plurk.com/user/mhisham?ref=bernardleong.com) on the timeline of how the event transpired. ****Related Links:** - Gerald Giam, [Internet Content Consultative Committee](http://singaporepatriot.blogspot.com/2008/06/internet-content-consultative-committee.html?ref=bernardleong.com) - Alex Au, [Key concerns about internet deregulation emerge at forum](http://www.yawningbread.org/arch%5F2008/yax-899.htm?ref=bernardleong.com) - Andrew Loh, [The long road ahead](http://andrewloh.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/the-long-road-ahead/?ref=bernardleong.com) - Cherian George, [Why we need a bottom-up internet content consultative committee](http://journalism.sg/2008/06/22/why-we-need-a-bottom-up-internet-content-consultative-committee/?ref=bernardleong.com) - Arun Mahizhnan, [Rationality vs Political Expediency in Internet Policy](http://journalism.sg/2008/06/24/rationality-vs-political-expediency-in-internet-policy/?ref=bernardleong.com) ### Official Reply from Singapore Government on the Proposals for Internet Freedom URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/official-reply-from-singapore-government-on-the-proposals-for-internet-freedom/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T02:42:32.000Z For those who wonder about the progress of the proposal, Ms Bhavani from MICA representing the Minister of Information, Communication and the Arts have responded to us on the proposals and said that they will review the suggestions made on the proposals. There is a [ST report "Government looking at Lighter Touch"](http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory%5F235214.html?ref=bernardleong.com) by Zakir Hussain narrating about the responses between MICA and the bloggers on the proposal. The engagement between MICA and us has been cordial and positive and that’s a good starting point for proper debate in our society. From reading the response, my opinion is that they would at least review what we have proposed. We have to wait and see what their eventual policy decisions may be, given that the report by Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) is about to be submitted. In any case, both groups (the bloggers and AIMS) have been in contact, and have exchanged notes among each other through various closed door sessions on regulation issues in Institute of Policy Studies or private emails. Meanwhile, check out Alex’s article on "[The pigeons are among us already](http://www.yawningbread.org/arch%5F2008/yax-875.htm?ref=bernardleong.com)", Clarissa Onn’s ["Bureaucratic ambiguity and Internet freedom"](http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx%5F2008/imp-373.htm?ref=bernardleong.com) and Mohan’s "[Maintaining Racial and Religious Harmony through Criminal Law](http://magnezium.blogspot.com/2008/05/maintaining-racial-and-religious%5F08.html?ref=bernardleong.com)". The [full text for official email reply](http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=192&ref=bernardleong.com) can be found in E-Jay’s SGPoilitics.net. I have attached a copy here. ****Official Reply from Ms Bhavani to Alex Au (on behalf of the bloggers):** Dear Mr Au, My Minister would like to thank you and your blogger friends for the effort in putting up the proposals for Internet deregulation which you had emailed to him on 20 April 2008. MICA is well aware of the fact that Internet and new media technology have evolved by leaps and bounds since we introduced our light-touch approach in 1996\. Back then, MICA had recognised the potential growth and impact of the Internet, and the tremendous opportunities and benefits that it will bring to all of us. We were also wary of its negative aspects. Hence, our response to the Internet was to take a balanced light-touch approach. Our intent with this light-touch approach was to foster the growth of the Internet and to enable us to exploit its vast potential while safeguarding our society from its undesirable aspects. That 79% of our households subscribe to broadband and many Singaporeans especially the younger citizens own a blog or participate in some form of new media clearly show that the light-touch approach had not been without merit. To keep up with the fast-evolving new media landscape, we have been reviewing our light-touch approach and are considering how we could take a lighter touch approach. We have appointed the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) in April last year to study the new media and how best to refine our regulatory framework. We will consider the views expressed in your proposal and other feedback in our review. Yours sincerely K.BHAVANI (Ms) Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts ### Firing of BPL Football Managers and Maximal Efficiency URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/firing-of-bpl-football-managers-and-maximal-efficiency/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T02:33:34.000Z Till today, since the beginning of the Barclays Premiere League, eight out of twenty football managers are already replaced. Sometime back, together with two economists (Toke Aidt and Daniel Sgroi) and another fellow physicist in Cambridge (Bill Saslaw), we co-wrote a research paper entitled “[Power Laws, Maximal Efficiency and the Turnover of Sports Managers](http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple%5Fis%5Fthe%5Freason%5Fof%5Fm/files/PhysicaA.pdf?ref=bernardleong.com)” (which was published in [Physica A](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?%5Fob=ArticleURL&%5Fudi=B6TVG-4JSG6DD-1&%5Fuser=10&%5Fhandle=V-WA-A-W-ZW-MsSWYWW-UUA-U-AAZUUEEWBZ-AACDZYUUBZ-AUDWUAVYC-ZW-U&%5Ffmt=summary&%5FcoverDate=10%2F15%2F2006&%5Frdoc=44&%5Forig=browse&%5Fsrch=%23toc%235534%232006%23996299997%23631876%21&%5Fcdi=5534&%5Facct=C000050221&%5Fversion=1&%5FurlVersion=0&%5Fuserid=10&md5=b0e4e5a5512de17160ee28e3d8541ed7&ref=bernardleong.com) and [got](http://news.softpedia.com/news/Football-Managers-039-Tenure-Is-Determined-By-Luck-Not-Skill-29574.shtml?ref=bernardleong.com) [some press attention](http://www.physorg.com/news71937744.html?ref=bernardleong.com) in the UK after the World Cup 2006). Yes, I have done the “freaknomics” type research by looking at the phenomena of sports managers being fired for all sorts of reasons. It was the research that I have done on the football clubs that eventually led me to watching the Premiere League football till today. It was one of the most enjoyable and multi-disciplinary research collaborations for me. In this short blog entry, I will explain the research work with a “freaknomics” tradition and explain why the current firings will continue to happen because of market efficiency in the Premiere League. Let me start off with a simple situation that you face. If you believe that life is random, any six sided dice you roll will give you a random probability of 1/6, provided that it is not a loaded dice. Consider the following scenario, if you are into sports betting, is the probability of betting in every football match just 1/3 (since there are only three outcomes – win, lose and draw)? An avid football fan will tell me that there are many factors affecting a football match, for example, the manager’s ability, the injuries sustained by the football team, the media reports which goes both ways like speculating this manager will be sacked if he wins or loses a game, or even two big clubs playing is different from a big vs a mediocre one. It turns out that a combination of ideas from physics and economics provide an interesting explanation to why the football managers are getting easier to fire in the recent days. The idea stems from the science of complex systems in physics. In this framework, you look at the macroscopic properties (for e.g. the distribution of the tenure of football managers) that arises from relatively simple microscopic interactions (for e.g. two football clubs playing against each other with a 1/3 win, lose or draw and taking the scores of 3 for win, 1 for draw and 0 for loss). Unlike neo-classical economic theory that is built on deductive analytical methods, for e.g., game theory, the theory of complex systems might be use to ask the question of maximal efficiency in any economic system. So why did we pick the tenures of football managers, if you may ask? There is a background story behind this. Originally, we intend to use the tenures of CEO in Fortune 500 as a dataset to demonstrate our proof of concept. The idea is to demonstrate that the firing of CEOs result in the economic system trying to move towards maximal economic efficiency. However, the problem is that for each data point of a CEO from a certain industry, say IT, I have to pay 5 Singapore dollars for each datapoint. Since we academics are poor people, we have to rely on smarter ways to find data. The inspiration came to me during a discussion with Toke, Daniel and Bill over a coffee break. Since we are thinking of mathematically modeling CEOs and the way that they got fired, the scenarios can be extremely complex, given that CEOs can lose jobs due to mergers, or by many other factors. There must be a dataset out there which is free and easily obtainable using Google search. For some strange reason, I was thinking of football managers and it was likely because I recalled some friends of mine were watching the champions league game that night. Hence it may be better to pick something simple where the job is determined by win, lose or draw like any simple constructed game. The truth of the matter is that we picked football managers because we thought that it would be easy to gather the data. So, being a young and brash scientist, I told the rest that I will spend the night using Google to collect the tenures of the managers for the top 10 Premiere league clubs and do a plot. If the logarithmic plot is a power law, then we can account using the concept of self organized criticality in the physics of complex systems. So, thanks to those football fanatics who have collected the tenure years of the managers who managed their favourite football clubs, I am able to collect about 200 data points and did a first approximate plot and not surprisingly, I got a power law. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-09-at-10.29.06-AM.png) I reproduce the axctual graph where we have 7.1k data points beyond the 2k data points which I have originally used. You can see the power law showing up. Of course, 200 datapoints are too small for the type of idea which I am pursuing. So, over the summer, we got a student intern who helped us to collect all the manager tenure dates and football statistics of all the leagues in Europe and the total dataset is about 7183 managers (datapoints). Instead of telling you the complete story, I will focus on the part which will tell you why we are seeing so much firings recently in the Premiere league. The first thing is that if we splice, cut or mix the datasets of football managers’ tenure in the different leagues, the power laws are consistent throughout and we can measure how volatile a system in firing managers using the gradient of the power law. For example, I can split the datapoints in the seperate leagues – BPL, Serie A, Prima Liga and Bundesliga, the power law will still turn up. We did some statistical tests to examine whether we are getting a real straight line or a curve. It turns out that the French league did not satisfy a power law unless you start from counting the tenure from 2 years onwards. Well, it did correspond to reality, because the French has a labor law that states that you cannot fire someone unless they have worked for you two years. Hence most French managers don’t get fired so quickly after two years. We also tried on other types of sports, for e.g. American football and baseball. That helps us to feel that our idea is pretty robust. So, to cut the long story short, the Premiere League has an exponent of -2.23 (before 2002) which means that they don’t fire managers that often, while the Spanish La Liga and the Italian Serie A leagues, the exponents were far higher like -2.8\. So, we started examining why that is the case. It turns out that European managers are more mobile as compared to the English counterparts. Most European managers spent two to three years before they got fired for poor performances, and they are flexible in moving to another league easily without much problem. A lot of money has been poured into these leagues and the fans demand performance, and hence if a manager starts losing 5 to 10 games in a row, they got booted out by their presidents with the advice of the director of football, a system which is not common in the Premiere League until recently. That comes to my favourite part, with more money into the Spanish and Italian leagues, you find that the better clubs will be better in getting better players. The reason why we see a power law is because in such zero sum games, there is a differentiation of good and bad, i.e. the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. A lot of small clubs will have more firings than the big clubs, because their performance are consistently bad. What are all these results telling us? Here is a way to think about the problem. The interactions of the managers within the leagues and the external forces have built up till the point when it hits the critical mass. That pushed the system into a state which the physicists call it self-organized criticality. Avalanches and earthquakes are examples of systems which exhibit this kind of behaviour once they break a certain threshold. So, what does this mean to economics? The answer is simple. Let me use a result we observed from the data. Suppose you take the data for the English managers and cut it into different eras (1890-1920, 1920-1940, 1940-1960, …) , the power law only starts to manifest when it reaches 1960s. So, we went back to the archives and found two interesting things which happened that caused the distribution to move to a power law. The first is that football matches have moved from the stadium to the TV screen, allowing more people to watch the game and indirectly contribute to the money of the game. The second event which is more significant, is that the wages of football players have gone uncapped. Before 1960s, the maximum wage of a English football player is 20 pounds, but now, it went uncapped. Hence, the competition for talent has led to the system moving towards a maximal efficient state. The best managers and football clubs will start to pay higher for talent. With better talent, they win better games with the correct management. Hence the power law starts to manifest, because the football league has reached a “critical state”. In fact, we predicted a few years back, that if the money into the Premiere League clubs increases, the power law will get steeper. Recently, I added the datapoints in the past few years back to my plot and found that the exponent has increased. Interestingly, the BPL is starting to share similar exponents close to her European counterparts. So, what are we seeing in the Premiere league now is that with more investments, there is a demand for better results, and as a result, we start to see the distinction between good and bad managers and hence, in turn, the power law is a demonstration of how efficient the system is evolved. One interesting feature is that these results cannot be used to point the accusing finger at any manager’s current performance given that the results are purely statistical. Hence, we can’t apply them to one individual. However, we could use the results to calculate the probability of a manager’s survival in the future. ****References:** Toke Aidt, Bernard Leong, William Saslaw and Daniel Sgroi, “*A power law distribution for the tenures of Sports Managers*”, Physica A, 370(2):697-703. ### Interpreting the "Light Touch" URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/interpreting-the-light-touch/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T02:21:27.000Z Recently, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Second Minister For Information, Communications And The Arts gave a speech entitled “[Navigating the Age of the Internet, Singapore and the New Media](http://www.mica.gov.sg/pressroom/press%5F0703221.htm?ref=bernardleong.com)” in the Foreign Correspondents Association lunch time talk. In his speech, he discussed the difficulty in regulating cyberspace and reiterated the “light touch” approach that the government has been using to engage issues pertaining to the new media. Here is an excerpt from his speech: > **Generally, we adopt a *“light touch” approach. Although there is much offensive and untrue material in cyberspace, there is no need, and in fact it is impossible, to pursue each and every transgression. We only need to selectively target those who pose a clear and present risk to the real world. Consequently, we see no need to suppress new media unless specific laws are broken because people have posted seditious or racially offensive content which have come to our notice, and which have gained traction in our society. Race and religion continue to be sensitive and volatile issues that tug at the visceral feelings of people. We had a few such cases in the previous years, and we have not hesitated to prosecute them in court.* I want to sketch out why the touch from the government is not really “light”. Examining past cases showed that the current legislation is not just over-reaching but also can be interpreted broadly such that the offender can be shown (in the legal context) to have broken the law. The best example is the use of the sedition act against the racist bloggers. If you have invoked their wrath without crossing the definite OB markers such as race and religion, you can infer that “light touch” as a tool which the establishment can issue a stern rebuke on issues relating to governance or economy, for e.g., the cases pertaining to Mr Brown and Catherine Lim. The last interpretation of “light touch” is the government’s choice to exercise the option of ceremonial censorship rather than direct enforcement of the legislation. Recently, the establishment acknowledges that it is difficult to regulate the internet even with the help of technology. For example, through Vivian’s speech, we know that the government only ban 100 pornographic internet sites even though there are millions out there. In that example, the light touch is employed to shift a “harmless” OB marker which is dependent on the evolution of social norms and attitudes of Singaporeans over time. Despite the call to clarify the OB markers from the civil society to the government, the current status quo is likely to remain. The establishment will possess the advantage to set the political agenda and rules of engagement. Hence it is important for bloggers (particularly younger ones) out there to be clear on the government’s “light touch” approach on both old and new media. ****Related Links:** Cherian George, **[Looking for patterns in 10 years of ‘light touch’ regulation](http://journalism.sg/2007/08/23/looking-for-patterns-in-10-years-of-light-touch-regulation/?ref=bernardleong.com)* ### The Birthday Problem URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-birthday-problem/ Last updated: 2021-08-02T07:50:26.000Z Three days ago, I discovered that one of my colleagues from Singapore Angle shares the same birthday with me. It reminded me of this interesting first year Cambridge undergraduate mathematical problem: **What is the least number of person*s **required if the probability exceeds 0.5 that two or more persons have the same birthday (excluding the year)?* So, I will offer the solution to the birthday problem (on my birthday, of course) and examine some interesting implications about the solution to this problem. Let me start with the assumptions to solve this problem: 1. We exclude the year of birth from the date of birth in the problem. For example, both John and Harry share the same birthday on the date 28 March. 2. We omit Februrary 29 as a possible birthday. This is easily generalized if you want to include it. Please also omit the year from the birthday as it will complicate the problem. 3. We assume that there are 365 days for an Earth year. Let N be the number of days where you can get a birthday, and in the case that we are living on Earth, N = 365 days, and r be the number of individuals, say r = 23, means that there are 23 individuals. We want to compute the probability of nobody sharing similar birthdays, P (A), hence it is obvious that the probability of getting at least one pair of birthdays, P (B), is just by taking the complement P (B) = \[1 − P (A)\]. Hence, for the first person, there are N days to choose from the year, and for the second person, there are (N − 1) days to pick from the year so that he or she does not share the same birthday as the first person. By induction, we conclude that for the r-th individual, he or she only has (N − r + 1) days to pick from. Therefor the number of ways for no matching birthdays for r individuals are: N (N − 1) . . . (N − r + 1) To work out the probability, we need the total sample space, we need the number of ways r people can have their birthdates without restriction. There are N ways for each person. Using the multiplication principle, the total number of ways that the birthdays can be assigned to r individuals will be: N to the power of r (N^r). We proceed to compute P (A), the probability of r individuals not sharing the same birthdays: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-02-at-3.44.33-PM.png) Therefore the probability of finding at least one pair of birthdays, P (B) is ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-02-at-3.45.05-PM.png) So, we solve the problem. Knowing the solution is not enough, but understanding the implication of the solution is what matters. So, let’s try to put some numbers into the equations. Let’s take N = 365 days and work out a table for different values of r (refer to table 1) . ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-02-at-3.45.39-PM.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-02-at-3.46.03-PM.png) If you realize by now, the more people present in the bar, the more likely that you can find someone with the same birthday with you (excluding the year of course). It sounds counter-intuitive, but the solution is true. I thought that since there are about 50 over social-political bloggers in Singapore, the chance of finding someone with the same birthday is definitely greater than 0.5\. Guess what, I found one same to mine just right next to my doorstep. Lastly, I used to tell this to my female students in Cambridge. If there is a friend coming to you making such a bet in a party with more than 100 people, don’t take the bet. ### The Chronicles of Odex: the ISPs, the Downloaders and the Customers' Privacy URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-chronicles-of-odex-the-isps-the-downloaders-and-the-customers-privacy/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T02:12:46.000Z I have been following the Odex case against the ISPs and downloaders with interest. The matter was brought to public attention came from the Hardwarezone team who identified an online user to be Stephen Sing, the director for enforcement in the company. A post exemplifying his arrogance and gloating over “suing people for illegal downloads” had infuriated many anime fans and members of the blogosphere \[1\]. A knee jerk reaction happened in the midst of the court cases that forced two dominant ISPs (SingNet and Starhub) to reveal the names of the customers who are engaged in illegal downloading. While the anime fans fought back with a [boycott Odex petition](http://www.odexsucks.com/?gclid=COTQwofgk44CFRVdYQodvg0j2g&ref=bernardleong.com) and soliciting donations to take on the company, an interesting event happened two days back when District Judge Earnest Lau made a surprise ruling that may set a precedent for online privacy in Singapore \[2\]. The judge’s 13-pages report \[3\] also revealed some interesting details about the responses of Singnet and Starhub on the case, as he has made a ruling contrary to the earlier cases for PacNet. I will like to outline some details about this case, and cast some points that can be facilitated for further discussion. This landmark case in Singapore has also attracted interest from the international community, particularly the US \[4\], as it may set precedent for content providers and distributors to force the ISPs on the disclosure of users engaged in illegal downloading. A few interesting themes have emerged from the case: namely (i) who should be prosecuting the downloaders, (ii) the rights of the consumers against Odex and (iii) protection of privacy for users by the ISPs. The first two themes are covered extensively by Thomas Koshy \[5\]. The intention of this article is not to discuss whether people should engage in illegal downloading (since the law has stated that it is illegal), but to examine the implications of the case pertaining to online privacy (with regards to the ISPs) and rights of customers on this matter. ****The story from the Odex perspective** Before we dwell further in the subject, we recap the background behind this case. We review it from the perspective of Odex, given that it is an official institution. [Odex](http://www.odex.com.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) is a Singaporean-based company that licenses and releases Japanese anime for the southeast asia region. In 2006, Odex claimed that they sought a US company, BayTSP inc for a software solution that could track and record instances of unauthorised downloading of anime titles over the internet. Following on their claim, the company conducted searches over a 6-month period from November 2006 to April 2007 on 50 anime titles only using BayTSP’s tracking solution. They found over 400K instances of illegal downloading happening in Singapore. According to Odex \[6\], they consulted members of the Anti-Video Piracy Association Singapore (AVPAS) and the Japanese content owners and decided to engage in enforcement action against downloaders in Singapore. Since March to May 2007, Odex filed applications to court to require the three Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Singapore to release information identifying the subscribers, whose accounts are utilized to download the unauthorised anime videos over the internet (via bittorent most likely). Odex is represented by the law firm Rajah & Tann for all three cases with the ISPs. As a result, the applications against Singnet and Starhub have been successful. With the information of the illegal downloaders, Odex went on and sent out batches of letters \[7\] threatening legal action on the individuals together with the list of anime they download. Anyone who has received the letter by a registered mail can contact the company for an out-of-court settlement within a week, which ranges from S$3K to S$9K per legal contract for Odex not proceeding to sue. In addition, the downloader who settle the case, is also made to sign a non-disclosure agreement that he or she will destroy all copies of the downloaded anime and not continue any further downloading. Since Singnet and Starhub faces the same ruling, everyone believes that the result would be the same for PacNet. A surprise court ruling last Thursday decided that Pacific Internet (PacNet) is not required to give up the names of its subscribers who may have been engaged in downloading anime. So what happened? Our first instinct is to ask why the judge has made such a different ruling from the past. It turns out that his report have brought some interesting points that are not known to the public about the case: 1. ****The engagement of BayTSP to track down the illegal downloaders:** The lawyers representing ODEX cited the tracking solution to collect details of unauthorized uploading and downloading of content via the internet using the [BitTorrent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitorrent?ref=bernardleong.com) protocol. They cited the acceptance of the solution using a precedent from the case [“Paramount Pictures Corp. v John Davis”](https://www.bernardleong.com/the-chronicles-of-odex-the-isps-the-downloaders-and-the-customers-privacy/www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D1458P.pdf) \[US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 05-0316, 26 July 2006\]. What turns out interesting is that the judge pointed out that case itself does not demonstrate the tracking solution but rather the judgement of the expert witness, Mark Ishikawa, an experienced hacker, was accepted. The gist of the matter, according to the judge, is that it is not clear whether ODEX did hire the services of BayTSP on the matter. In order for ODEX to make a strong case, according to the judge, they need to show how the methodology of the tracking solution and its success in tracking down illegal downloaders. 2. ****Why the ruling appears so different** : The immediate response from the layman is to question why there is a contradiction between the first two rulings and the current one. It turns out that the story is more than meets the eye. From the judge’s report, we quote the follow passage (section 44): > **44\. I have not addressed all the other submissions raised by the Defence counsel as they are not necessary for this oral decision. I would also like to explain why my decision differs from the Plaintiff’s application against the other 2 ISPs, namely Singnet (in Originating Summonses 95/2007 and 158/2007) and Starhub (in Originating Summons 157/2007).* (a) For the Singnet case, the orders were made by consent. In particular, counsel for the Plaintiff mentioned for Singnet in those 2 applications to record the consent order before the court. > **(b) For the Starhub case, Starhub was represented by counsel. However, the issues raised here were never fully argued before the court.* All in all, in all three cases, the approach each ISP took was totally different and hence it led to the surprise verdict for PacNet which was counter-intuitive to the earlier cases. After the surprise ruling, Odex has decided to appeal against the ruling and since gone on a PR offensive \[9\]. They immediately invited Mark Ishikawa to come to Singapore as an expert witness for the appeal and also the Japanese firms to close ranks with them on the case. In addition, to appease the public, they have promised that they will hire an independent auditor to ensure that they have not made money from the lawsuits. Of course, on the business front, they have also put up a new website and launch a new video for demand website. ****Open Questions** - ****The difference in philosophy on online privacy among ISPs**: After the release of the judge’s report, Singnet has suffered an immediate backlash from the subscribers. Immediately, they released a public statement \[10\] that they did not ‘consent’ to demands by Odex to hand over details about subscribers. They clarified that they would release such information only under a court order or if the law enforcement or regulatory agencies demand such information from them. On the other hand, Starhub and Pacific contested the case. I can offer two guesses to why this is the case. The first is that Singnet decided that they trusted the court for the judgement of the case and passed the information upon the court order. That comes at the expense of the customers who felt betrayed that the ISP did not put up a fight against Odex, while Starhub and PacNet saw the need that they have to. From a customer service point of view, Singnet did not foresee that a token response might not have triggered such reaction from her subscribers. Another possibility is that the Singnet management thinks that online privacy is secondary since illegal downloading is breaking the law while Starhub and Pacific believe otherwise. Either way, both possibilities open up a grey area. Should ISPs be held responsible for the privacy of her customers? - ****Are Singaporeans so afraid of the courts that we do not contest rulings that have serious implications?**: Here is another perspective which I have derived from this episode. Clearly, three different judges provided three different rulings to the same case. Singnet might have worked out that there is no point in contesting because the ruling will go in favour of Odex, after all, it is a issue of infringement of copyright which is clearly breaking the law. Starhub and Pacific saw it differently and clearly drew a different conclusion with respect to the ongoing court cases where the ISPs in United States are facing legal challenges from giant media companies such as Viacom. One can make guesses that Singaporeans are not ready to challenge a position which might have possible grey areas involved. Do I detect some form of “kiasi” culture there? I leave that for the reader to make up his or her own mind. Is online privacy important in Singapore and should the ISPs protect our privacy? These are the important questions for me and I like to hear more from others who might have other perspectives to share on this issue. ****Author’s Note:** *First and foremost, I am not legally trained and it would be good if any lawyers out there can offer their thoughts in the comments section of this post. I recommend Siew Kum Hong’s post \[7\]. Reference \[8\] does help to shed some light on what Dr Toh See Kiat, the president of AVPAS, views the actions taken by ODEX.* ****References:** \[1\] [ODEX director bragging about suing people in online forums?](http://tomorrow.sg/archives/2007/08/12/odex%5Fdirector%5Fbragging%5Fabout%5Fsui.html?ref=bernardleong.com), Tomorrow.SG for the reactions from the anime fans and the bloggers, and the link to the original HardWareZone post that led to the revelation of the Odex director bragging about his crackdown on the downloaders. A [wikipedia entry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odex%27s%5Factions%5Fagainst%5Ffile%5Fsharing?ref=bernardleong.com) has also been written on this matter . \[2\] [Anime case: Odex had ‘no right of civil action’](http://www.todayonline.com/articles/207450.asp?ref=bernardleong.com), by Loh Chee Kong, Today Online, [Odex case: PacNet need not reveal downloaders’ names to distributor](http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/295663/1/.html?ref=bernardleong.com) by Ansley Ng, Channel NewsAsia, 23 August 2007 and [Odex-PacNet ruling may set online privacy precedent](http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/STIStory%5F151426.html?ref=bernardleong.com), Straits Times, 24 August 2007. \[3\] [ODEX Pte Ltd v Pacific Internet Limited](http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2007/08/odex-pte-ltd-v-pacific-internet-limited.html?ref=bernardleong.com) by Siew Kum Hong. An official copy can be downloaded [here](http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/Data/Files/File/GroundsOfDecision/OS159%5F07%20Odex%20v%20Pacific%20Internet.pdf?ref=bernardleong.com). \[4\] [RIAA-style lawsuits hit Singapore anime scene](http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070827-riaa-style-lawsuits-hit-singapore-anime-scene.html?ref=bernardleong.com) By Nate Anderson, Ars Technica \[5\] [Are anime providers stretching the law?](http://www.todayonline.com/articles/206667.asp?ref=bernardleong.com) by Thomas Koshy, Today, 21 August 2007. \[6\] [Anti-Video Piracy Association, Singapore](http://www.avpas.com.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) (AVAPS) website, see the clarification article by ODEX there. \[7\] [Odex’s legal threat letter – “Illegal Online Downloads”](http://www.darkmirage.com/stuff/letter.pdf?ref=bernardleong.com), Stephen Sing, hosted by DarkMirage. \[8\] [Notes from a Conversation with Dr. Toh See Kiat](http://haitaka.googlepages.com/home2?ref=bernardleong.com) \[9\] [Japanese anime firms close ranks with Odex ](http://www.todayonline.com/articles/208525.asp?ref=bernardleong.com)and [Odex to hire independent auditor to show sincerity](http://www.todayonline.com/articles/208537.asp?ref=bernardleong.com), Loh Chee Kong, Today, 31 August 2007. \[10\] [SingNet: We did not ‘consent’ to Odex](http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory%5F152613.html?ref=bernardleong.com), The Straits Times, 28 August 2007. ### Seperated By a Mental Bridge: Thoughts on the Iskander Development Region URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/seperated-by-a-mental-bridge-thoughts-on-the-iskander-development-region/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T02:07:35.000Z Yesterday, the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Ministerial committee started their first meeting on the [Iskander Development Region](http://www.idr.com.my/?ref=bernardleong.com) (IDR) in Johor Bahru. The conclusion of the first meeting leads to the [committee forming four common task force groups to explore the areas](http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/289863/1/.html?ref=bernardleong.com) (on environmental matters, boosting tourism, facilitating immigration clearance and enhancing transport links) identified by a previous meeting between Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Malaysia) and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore) during their recent Langkawi retreat. The principle of the working groups is to achieve a win-win outcome for both countries and the committee will meet every quarter to discuss further cooperation and taking stock. The IDR plan was conceived to follow the Hong Kong-Shenzhen model, which has enjoyed economic success. However, there are notable differences. First of all, in the Hong Kong-Shenzhen model, the model is “one country, two systems”. In the IDR case, we have possibly “two countries and hopefully one system”. From the perspective of Singapore, there are good economic reasons why we need to move to the IDR. First of all, we need to expand our markets and industries to the surrounding and we are reaching the limits of our population on the island. A combined economic region will help to diversify and increase growth for the region as a whole. The Malaysian side will also benefit from the technology transfer and the increased trade between both countries. All these sound too good to be true. So, the question is, “What’s the ceveat?” There are some infrastructure barriers which we need to overcome. The first is the immigration issue. Listening to the stories from my parents’ generation, between 1965 and 1968, even though Singapore has gained independence, people from both countries were allowed to move between borders without much immigration checks as compared to today. I wonder how many of us remember that there used to be the blue Malaysian passport. The next issue is the connectivity issue and those who crossed the causeway often complained of the car jams in the weekend or public holidays. There is only one public bus (bus 170) and very few private transport services to bring you across the causeway. The working groups has taken a start to crack this solvable questions. The key is the mental bridge. Singapore and Malaysia are not just separated by infrastructural issues brought about by two causeways, but the mindset and attitudes of the younger generations are vastly different from the previous generation. Our governments and civil services have also evolved after two generations. There is a mental bridge which citizens of both countries need to cross. Most Singaporeans view the project with a lot of skepticism, citing concerns of security and the change of leadership in the future (which might lift away the current privileges). I am sure that a different set of complaints about Singaporeans will also emerge from the other side of the bridge. The solution, of course, is to resolve that mental bridge by encouraging more interaction between the younger generation of both countries. ### A Dialogue concerning Two Medias URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/a-dialogue-concerning-two-medias/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T02:04:45.000Z A few trends are emerging in the new media throughout the world. First, the online advertising revenues has superceded the mainstream media in UK and US. As a result, a lot of staff in the newspaper agencies are made redundant and some major newspapers are now potential acquisition targets by major big media corporations. The reason is that most of the mainstream newspapers derive their revenues from advertising. Second, a [death threat](http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple%5Fis%5Fthe%5Freason%5Fof%5Fm/2007/04/bloggers%5Fcode%5Fo.html?ref=bernardleong.com) to Kathy Sierra, a prominent blogger in the US has started a serious discussion for a code of conduct among bloggers. The major proponent for the bloggers code of conduct is [Tim O’Reilly](http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/call%5Ffor%5Fa%5Fblog%5F1.html?ref=bernardleong.com), who incidentally started the term “Web 2.0” that documented the 2nd internet revolution. Thirdly, spam and misinformation are slowly creeping into major open web collaborations, for example, the Wikipedia. Cyber vandalism and poison pens prompted tougher legislation in different countries. In this article, I will draw upon a few lessons from recent incidents in the Singapore blogosphere and offer my take as a practitioner on where media policy is heading in Singapore. ****Convergence of New Media in Singapore** For most media policy makers, the biggest headache is the regulatory issues facing new media. In Singapore, the mainstream and new media are governed separately with different set of policies. If you are writing in the mainstream media with a view that counters the establishment, you are chastised by the authorities. Suppose you do the opposite and publish that same article in new media, you are not to be taken seriously. Cherian George has consistently highlighted the issue about “[one country, two systems](http://singaporemedia.blogspot.com/2007/03/one-country-two-systems-for-how-long.html?ref=bernardleong.com)” as a unsustainable system. His argument is relatively simple, > **This neat dichotomy has allowed the government’s dual regulatory regime to operate relatively smoothly: regulators apply far stricter standards to mainstream than to alternative media. In theory, in an age of digital convergence, regulations that are not platform-neutral will be unsustainable as they will generate inconsistencies. In practice, however, convergence has not run its course in Singapore; the dichotomy between offline mainstream media and alternative online media persists.* He further conjectured that a few developments in both the new and mainstream media will either lead to divergence between two medias and inevitably lead to inconsistencies in media policy or a possible convergence if certain circumstances are kept in play. The picture is slightly more complex than just both systems are approaching towards an unsustainable state. Let me pluck three interesting incidents to demonstrate how convergence seemed to be a plausible situation than divergence. - ****An informal mechanism of criticism and feedback is established between both worlds.**: If you look at the GST hikes, [the ministerial salaries](http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/ministers-salaries/?ref=bernardleong.com) and the recent [Auditor General’s report](http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/06/01/auditor-general%e2%80%99s-report-millions-missing/?ref=bernardleong.com), you notice a few subtle changes from the establishment who is evolving their approach towards the critics of the new media. First, when the GST hike is announced, the initial announcement did not take into account about multi-tiered GST and the impact on the middle class. Slowly, the establishment pushed back with their answers to this issue. If you read the budget report highlights of the report, you find yourself reading an academic review (and that is not being sarcastic) of the issues addressed. The ministerial salaries issue has drawn even more fire and awe that even Chua Mui Hoong, a ST journalist had written an article to criticize the salary hike. If you examine beyond the surface, two trends have emerged: first, the establishment are evolving their messages with how the critics respond to their policies and second, the mainstream media is squeezed in a way that they have to write something more critical or see their credibility (which is already diminishing) go further down the drain. Of course, it is a persistent [game theoretic situation](http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple%5Fis%5Fthe%5Freason%5Fof%5Fm/2007/02/the%5Ffirst%5Fand%5Fl.html?ref=bernardleong.com), given that most players in old and new media are rational, save for the crazy few. If you don’t think or believe that it is happening, the mainstream media is consistently taking stories from Singapore blogosphere. - ****Controversy is unsustainable in new media**: A lot of conflict between the Singapore blogosphere and the establishment is driven by the single force of controversy. Not all controversial incidents are good but they cannot be bad either with some cases that are actually forces everyone to think about the implications on an issue. I once made this remark during a bloggers’ gathering that the frequency for a major controversy is about once per very fortnight. From NKF, AcidFlask, Wee Shu Min even to the recent Timeshare and Tomorrow.SG incident, one pattern is consistently observed: things do die down. - ****Specialist bloggers changing the landscape of Singapore**: A respected blogger (who I cannot mention) once offer this view to me, “Celebrity and controversial blogging is the thing of the past two years, and what comes after that is specialist blogging.” Of course, celebrities like [Mr Wang](http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Yawning Bread](http://www.yawningbread.org/?ref=bernardleong.com), Xiaxue and [Mr Brown](http://www.mrbrown.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) are always there, but the emphasis is changing in view of market forces. Socio-political blogging has suffered with the [departure of several high profile young bloggers](http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple%5Fis%5Fthe%5Freason%5Fof%5Fm/2007/04/generations.html?ref=bernardleong.com) and the lacklustre activity of other bloggers. Of course, as old bloggers depart, new ones will emerge. Instead, I will talk about another trend happening in new media. ****Market Forces teaches Media how to bend and Media ushers market forces how to shift** With events organized by young Singaporeans (who brought back the Silicon Valley culture to Singapore), a different and emerging new media community is forming from the Nexus 2007 conference and BlogOut! event. This community forms from a congregation of technology bloggers ([Kevin Lim](http://theory.isthereason.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [James Seng](http://james.seng.cc/?ref=bernardleong.com) – [Tomorrow.SG](http://tomorrow.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com), [U-Zyn](http://www.uzyn.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) – [Ping.SG](http://ping.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com)), media socialists ([Walter Lim](http://coolinsights.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Ben Koe](http://eok.net/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Melvin Yuan](http://www.melvinyuan.com/?ref=bernardleong.com)), the entrepreneur bloggers ([SG Entrepreneurs](http://www.sgentrepreneurs.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Entrepreneur27](http://www.entrepreneur27.org/sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) and [The Digital Movement](http://thedigitalmovement.org/?ref=bernardleong.com)) and other specialist bloggers ([Van Tan](http://vantan.org/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Yesterday.SG](http://yesterday.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) and the famous and yet under-mentioned [Rambling Librarian](http://ramblinglibrarian.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), Ivan Chew). This converging group formed from several communities are engaging the mainstream media (for example, [STOMP](http://www.stomp.com.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) and Straits Times) on issues of web 2.0, technology entrepreneurship and interesting cultural events (World Museums Day), that is outside of the traditional community of social-political blogging. Yet, online advertising in Singapore has not taken off. Most businesses have not tapped into the power of new media or are reluctant to adopt new media technologies to take their products and services forward, compare to China, the online advertising revenues is growing at a [CAGR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAGR?ref=bernardleong.com) above 10%. In fact, the whole southeast asia are experiencing slow growth in online advertising. Hence market forces have not really arrived for many out there to take new media seriously. Another trend that is now becoming popular is corporate blogging. Two years ago, we hear the lonely voice of our first local corporate blogger, [Tan Kin Lian](http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), the ex-CEO of NTUC Income. Fast forward two years later, after chairing a recent discussion about [corporate blogging](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/marketing-branding/2007/05/25/best-practices-on-corporate-blogging/?ref=bernardleong.com), I was approached by some local corporations to advise on best practices on how blogging can help the corporation to move forward in customer services, product launches and internal human resource management. With the success of new media in the US and UK, the establishment has relented to market forces despite their conservative stance against new media. Ultimately, what excites the establishment is a robust and vibrant economy. Market forces will usher them to look to ways in adapting the new media. In fact, a lot of schools are into blogging, podcasts and videocasts and microfunds are established by various agencies (MDA) to start up new companies in this industry. That comes to a much more difficult question for the policy makers: the more I democratize information, the less control I will have. So, where is that balance between the virtues and vices of new media? ****The Chronicles of Mis-Information in New Media: The Spam, Poison Pens and Unfair Commentaries** **“When information is democratized, isn’t vandalism just free speech?”* ****– Stephen Colbert to Jimmy Wales (Founder of Wikipedia)** Inherently, even countries like US and China, the biggest threats in the cyberspace are terrorism and national security. Whether you live in a democratic or autocratic country, you will have no choice to abide by very strong legislation to protect the interests of the state from new media abuse. Increasingly with the democratization of information in the web, the establishment will either create more stringent laws to regulate the media or open up but keeping the fundamentals tighten. The internet has removed the geographical boundaries among nations, and hence, it is no longer possible to stop others from getting information from various sources. Will countries cease to exist with the expansion of the internet? That is a question that we can leave to another day. With open source collaborations such as the wikipedia, trust and credibility are the major forces in how successful operations by wisdom of crowds are gauged upon. A few pieces of misinformation recently has put the credibility of Wikipedia back in question. Cyber vandalism has already happened in both wikipedia and 2nd Life. Spam is entering into forums, blog comments and emails. However, these forms of cyber vandalism and spam can be mitigated with the introduction of new technology. Does that mean that the old model of closing up looks better? There are two ways of looking into this. The first is that we should restrain the access of information and collaboration of important projects to the privileged few. However, we cannot tap into the wisdom of the many others out there. Another way is to educate the populace and teach them how to make their own judgments when inundated with information. A lot of rhetoric and polemic in the Singapore social political blogosphere stems from the fact that the citizens felt that they are constantly repressed and unappreciated. The opening up can help to soften that rage and get the populace to be passionate about the country in general. That brings us down to one last issue: poison pens and unfair commentaries. Given the defamation laws in Singapore cover a very wide area, how are public and even private figures held up against poison pens and unfair commentaries? Let me use two incidents to justify why the establishments fear of poison pens are unwarranted. The first incident is about a local company is criticized on their services and business models by an unknown and anonymous blogger. Strangely, another blogger, after reading the article, went and checked out what the anonymous blogger said was true. In the end, this discerning blogger found out that the poison pen was done by the rival of this local company. Hence there is a form of self-correction in the blogosphere that will ensure that the poison pens do not end up going one way. Another incident is the AcidFlask vs Philip Yeo round two. In the second round, Philip Yeo allowed a blogger ([Aaron Ng](http://aaron-ng.info/blog/?ref=bernardleong.com)) to publish the content of the original blog post that he found defamatory. It is important to note that the blogosphere may not like Philip Yeo as a person, but they did not deny him the right to make his point. That reflects the maturity of the blogosphere in general. If we are to champion freedom of speech, the standards must apply to both sides of the house. In the end, the material is published and some bloggers (to the best of my knowledge) have come to their own conclusion who’s right and the answer is surprising. This incident clearly demonstrated that the biggest noise makers in the blogosphere are usually polarized towards both extremes. Clearly, there is a large moderate group who can make up their minds with clear evidence presented. It is a good example to demonstrate how public figures do not need to fear the poison pen if they are willing to release the information (against the wishes of their lawyers). ****Where does the future lie?** A lot of naysayers, cynics and critics will tell you that the new media will be eventually subdued. The only reason why it is subdued is because people allow the process of being subdued. Others think that new media is a positive experiment to slowly opening up debate and discussion for a civil society. Another group of people believe that some people have already made up their minds to believe what they read in new media. My opinion is that the final answer should lie somewhere in the middle. That balance should lead to a positive and optimistic view about the two medias in the future. ****Addendum** One interesting observation to support my first point about the informal system of feedback and criticism established between both medias is the model adopted by the two other socio-political news aggregators (other than Tomorrow.SG and Ping.SG): [Intelligent Singaporean](http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Singapore Surf](http://www.myapplemenu.com/singapore/?ref=bernardleong.com), which both adopts a manual curation of blog posts and news. Singapore Surf balances news with the mainstream and new media to provide a perspective traversing both worlds. Straits Times has published a report today (9 June 2007) on citizen journalism. According to [James Seng](http://james.seng.sg/archives/2007/06/09/citizen%5Fjournalism%5Fin%5Fsingapore.html?ref=bernardleong.com), the report did not reflect what is really happening in the ground and mainly become a device to glorify STOMP instead of giving credit to many others who have contributed to citizen journalism in Singapore, for example, [Kevin Lim and his backpack](http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=1675&ref=bernardleong.com). [Rambling Librarian](http://ramblinglibrarian.blogspot.com/2007/06/bernard-leong-on-two-medias.html?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Mr Wang](http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2007/06/interesting-post.html?ref=bernardleong.com) have offered their thoughts on this post. ****Acknowledgments:** This article is generated from talking, meeting and crowdsourcing from many interesting bloggers during different gatherings and events. I thank them for their thoughts and opinions which make this whole discussion interesting. ### What do Singaporeans mean by the private sector being better URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/what-do-singaporeans-mean-by-the-private-sector-being-better/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T01:58:14.000Z My colleague, [Kway Teow Man](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2007/04/a%5Ftreatise%5Fon%5Fthe%5Fcivil%5Fservic.html?ref=bernardleong.com) wrote an article to explain the rationale behind the Civil Service Appraisal System. The article prodded me to think about why a lot of people out there are always making this assertion that **“the private sector is better than the civil service”*. On a skeptical note, a few questions emerge, “What do you mean by the private sector? Are you referring to just the multi-national companies (MNCs) or do you include small medium enterprises (SMEs)? What do you mean by better?” I doubt that most people are referring to the SMEs when they mention the private sector. In fact, the local SMEs are facing the same kind of problem as the civil service in attracting and retaining talent even though [their presence are equally important to the growth of our economy](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/entrepreneurship-enterprise/2007/04/17/significance-of-singapore-smes-to-the-economy/?ref=bernardleong.com). It is likely that they are talking about the MNCs where their destinations are the investment banks (Goldman Sachs), the management consultancies (McKinsey), the law firms (Clifford Chance), the high technology companies (Microsoft) and the traditional industries (Toyota). Now we establish that the private sector which people are talking about are the MNCs. The next question is to ask what people do mean by **better*. In my humble opinion, it is virtually impossible for our Civil Service in Singapore to completely emulate the private sector. One obvious difference is the company culture. For example, Google has an interesting policy that their staff can spend 20% of their working time to work on a problem which they are interested. To compare apples to apples, we can ask whether such a policy can be implemented in our public research institutes (for example, Defence Science Organization). From a friend’s anecdote, HSBC has done so well in the previous year that the lowest level of their staff (including janitors) are also invited to the company dinner and dance in one of our five star hotels. The next obvious difference is growth opportunity. It is possible for someone to climb from the low ranks to the highest rank of the company. Some CEOs started off from ground zero in sales or marketing and they moved up the corporate ladder quickly by the sheer volumes they produce. Can we demand the same with the civil servants? Let’s try asking EDB to implement a policy where their officers are graded by the number of foreign investments they bring in. While we acknowledge the point that the CEP system originated from the private sector, the implementation is extremely difficult in the Civil Service. That comes to the final difference is what I call the risk factor. A study done by Booz Allen Hamilton few years back that the average tenure of a top CEO is about 1.5 years. If we look around at our top civil servants, their average tenure in a top position is about 3 years and they get rotated to other ministries, statutory boards or government linked companies. The volatility for a job in the private sector is extremely high as compared to the civil service. That comes to my final point. Other than pay, other factors come in play to support the image that the private sector is better. It comes to this final point. Despite the risk where your job survival is dependent on purely performance and network, it nevertheless promote a more meritocratic image than the civil service where the scholars are destined for high places if they don’t screw up. That I believe, is really why most people think that it is better to work in the private sector than in civil service. ### Why SAF Officers have fast track promotions URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/why-saf-officers-have-fast-track-promotions/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T01:56:34.000Z The headline [“US soldier takes potshots at SAF”](http://www.todayonline.com/articles/176695.asp?ref=bernardleong.com) by Loh Chee Kong (Today, 12 March 2007) examines several themes in an research journal article [“The Roar of the Lion City: Ethnicity, Gender and Culture in the Singapore Armed Forces”](http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/2/265?ref=bernardleong.com) (Armed Forces & Society, 2007, 33:265-285) and the rebuttals from MINDEF in response to several issues raised in the article. The piece was written by Sean P. Walsh, a graduate from United States Military Academy currently assigned to 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Vilseck, Germany. In the article, Walsh explored several themes such as ethnic diversity, professionalism & civil military relations of officers and role of women in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). While most of his sources are cited as private interviews, it is difficult to ascertain the quality of the interviews, given that we only know that one of the interviewees is a United States army officer stationed in Singapore. One issue of interest revolves around the fast track promotion and professionalism of SAF scholars. Walsh asserted that some SAF officers see that their military careers as “a stepping stone to other careers in politics, business, or the civil service” and inferred that there is a lack of professionalism at the institutional level. We offer a hypothesis to show why the policy makers in SAF have decided to adopt such a policy of fast track promotion of military officers, particularly the overseas SAF scholars. The basic reason is to prevent military officers from consolidating too much power such that a military coup is possible in Singapore. In fact, by adopting such a policy, it reinforces the culture of the military being integrated with the civilian government. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew once mentioned the possibility of a military coup if a freak election result happens, **“Without the elected president and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.”* (Reuters, 16 Sep 06). That adds to another dimension in asking the question, “Is a military coup possible in Singapore given that there exist such a mechanism to stop the military officers in acquiring too much power?” (see this article [Après nous, les militaires](http://www.yawningbread.org/arch%5F2007/yax-708.htm?ref=bernardleong.com) by Alex Au). Of course, that is an extremely complex question which we can leave it to another day. ### Revisiting the Gini Index URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/revisiting-the-gini-index/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T01:54:44.000Z In an [earlier article](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2007/01/non%5Fsequitur%5Feconomics%5Fii%5Fthe.html?ref=bernardleong.com), we discussed the Gini index in detail and suggested an alternative to measure inequality with data pertaining to consumption rather than income. We queried earlier whether the Gini coefficient computed by the [Department of Statistics (SingStat)](http://www.singstat.gov.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com), Ministry of Trade and Industry has taken taxation and transfer money payments (for example, the Progress package in 2006) into account. **“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.”* ****– Mark Twain** An occasional paper on income statistics entitled [“Key Household Income Trends”](http://www.singstat.gov.sg/papers/op/op-s12.pdf?ref=bernardleong.com) is released today from SingStat. Two interesting issues are discussed in this paper: (i) the impact of the recent Progress package to the lower income households and (ii) the calculation of Gini coefficient with the income data adjusted with government benefits and taxes. Matching our earlier argument (see Reynolds “Income and Wealth”), the Gini coefficient has dropped from 0.472 to 0.439 (adjusted with government taxes and benefits included) in the year 2006 (as compared to 0.468 in 2005). According to them, the drop is attributed largely to the Progress Package that was weighted in favor of the lower income group. Does that mean the inequality between the different income groups has decreased? Since they did not recompute the earlier figures with the modification of taxes and pre-transfer payments from 2000 to 2005, the question remains unanswered. With this new revelation on the Gini index, can we contest the earlier claim from the Citigroup report on the emergence of a dual track economy in Singapore? The answer is no. To address that question, we have to dig deeper in the General Household Survey 2005 data and examine the assumptions and inferences leading to that conclusion. ****Acknowledgments:** **The author thanks Speranza Nuova for bringing the SingStat paper to his attention.* ### How far can we really go? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/how-far-can-we-really-go/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T01:52:40.000Z Last Saturday, I attended the forum [“Freedom of Speech – How Far Can We Go?”](http://www.nusdsc.com/event.php?ref=bernardleong.com) organized by the NUS Democratic Socialist Club. While you may have read a detailed transcript \[1\] and various reviews \[2-5\] from various bloggers to what transpired in the event, my intention is to provide a perspective drawn from the forum and make an honest attempt to answer the question, **“How far can we really go?”*. To answer the question, we examine the untenable positions in the freedom of speech debate in Singapore. The extreme positions can be either **you have the right to make any statements and not take responsibility* or **you do not give or entrust others the right to make any statements at all*. Let’s start from the second position and work backwards. The establishment has established several out of bound (OB) markers, from politics to racial and religious issues where free speech cannot transgress. The play “The Campaign to Confer the Public Star on JBJ” by [Eleanor Wong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor%5FWong%5F%28playwright%29?ref=bernardleong.com) was open to public viewing last year. In fact, nothing happened to her and there was a public forum discussing this issue in the National Library Board. If that is the case, can we negotiate to expand the boundary? The answer is yes and it depends on whether people can abandon their fear and apathy to put the money where the mouths are. Once you established that you have the capacity to challenge the boundaries of the OB markers, we can look at the first position in perspective. Recent articles on the “No Pork” podcast in Singapore Angle by my [fellow](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2007/02/much%5Fado%5Fabout%5Feverything%5Fprej.html?ref=bernardleong.com) [colleagues](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2007/02/no%5Fpork%5Fpodcast%5Fthe%5Fevil%5Fthat%5F1.html?ref=bernardleong.com) have brought up this question about moral responsibility exercised by our community. Are our community prepared to stand up and take responsibility in condemning controversial remarks, unjustified smearing or bullying and intimidation of others’ views who may or may not agree with yours? The key word and answer to the question we posed is responsibility. It is the social responsibility of the community (for example, bloggers) to keep each other in check on issues which we are free to speak. The community I spoke of is not a lynch mob and must offer reasonable and valid reasons to why they cannot condone someone for making remarks that cross the OB markers. If we can look after ourselves, we would stop providing the State free ammunition and excuses to find ways and means (e.g. counter-insurgency tactics) to police us. How far can we really go? If we are not ready to challenge the boundaries of free speech because of fear and apathy and be prepared to take responsibility to keep each other in check in the midst of crisis, the landscape will always be remain in the current state. ****Acknowledgments**: I thank Huichieh for helpful comments and reasoning behind this commentary. ****References:** \[1\] Agagooga, [NUS Democratic Socialist Club: “Freedom of Speech – How Far Can We Go?”](http://gssq.blogspot.com/2007/02/nus-democratic-socialist-club-freedom.html?ref=bernardleong.com). \[2\] Aaron Ng, [Freedom of Speech – How far can we go?](http://aaron-ng.info/blog/freedom-of-speech-how-far-can-we-go.html?ref=bernardleong.com) \[3\] Charissa, [Review: “Freedom of Speech – How Far Can We Go?”](http://charissaishere.blogspot.com/2007/02/review-freedom-of-speech-how-far-can-we.html?ref=bernardleong.com). \[4\] Kitana, [Freedom of speech, prejudice and the ambit of the law](http://kitana.wordpress.com/2007/02/03/freedom-of-speech-prejudice-and-the-ambit-of-the-law/?ref=bernardleong.com) \[5\] Xenoboy [Proposed Free Speech Curbs Helps Speechless & Grows Economy](http://xenoboysg.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-free-speech-curbs-helps.html?ref=bernardleong.com) ### Non Sequitur Economics II: The Gini in Arabian Nights URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/non-sequitur-economics-ii-the-gini-in-arabian-nights/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T01:50:40.000Z **“Reality is not a matter of opinion. Raw opinion is like math errors or typos – understandable human error, but uninformative. To err is human, to understand is hard work.”* ****– Alan Reynolds, Income and Wealth** In a recent Citigroup report by Chua Hak Bin \[1\] who suggests that [a dual track economy is emerging in Singapore](http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/251935/1/.html?ref=bernardleong.com). In that report, Chua and his colleagues made an argument using the [Gini coefficient](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini%5Fcoefficient?ref=bernardleong.com) to justify that income inequality has risen as a result, which we quote: **Income inequality has risen as a result. The Gini coefficient – a measure of income inequality – has climbed steadily to 0.52 in 2005 from 0.49 in 2000\. This largely reflects the divergent household income trends, where the higher income quartile group saw larger income gains relative to the lower quartile groups.* The Gini coefficient has become a discussion topic among bloggers and journalists on the issue of income inequality in Singapore \[2\]. The question is: just how conclusive is the Gini coefficient in providing the silver bullet to illustrate income inequality? To make life interesting, we demonstrate with a series of counter arguments that the known variations of the Gini coefficient based on income are not robust enough as economic measures of income inequality. Instead, we advance an argument (mainly attributed to Reynolds \[3\]) that consumption among the different income groups is more reliable as a measure for inequality. (Updated 29 Jan 2007) ****The Gini Coefficient in a nutshell** ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/52/67/52673425-42c0-43c2-8b62-cdc32c0a4357/content/images/2021/08/Economics_Gini_coefficient.png) Gini coefficient as explained in Wikipedia in a diagram A picture paints a thousand words and the best way to describe the Gini coefficient is to look at the graph above (extracted from Wikipedia). On the horizontal axis, you start with the lowest income (first 20%) all the way to the highest income (80-100%). On the vertical axis, you measure the cumulative share of the total income measured between zero to a hundred percent. Intuitively, if you believe that all income and wealth are distributed equally among everyone in society, the Lorenz curve is characterized as a diagonal 45 degree line on the graph. In reality, we know that income and wealth are never distributed equally in society, so the resultant picture will be a curve drawn below the straight line, shaped like a bow and string. Taking the ratio between the area bounded by the curve and the area bounded by the straight line, we obtained the Gini coefficient. The easiest way to understand the Gini coefficient is the following. If the gap between the bow and the string is wider, it means that the Gini coefficient is large which translates to a greater degree of inequality as a result. The best way to calculate this ratio is to use the income distribution of the households (raw income before transfer and tax), which is adopted by the [Census Bureau](https://www.bernardleong.com/non-sequitur-economics-ii-the-gini-in-arabian-nights/http//www.census.gov). In fact, [online calculators](http://www.poorcity.richcity.org/calculator.htm?ref=bernardleong.com) are provided to convert such figures into a single Gini coefficient. The Census Bureau in the US will compute out 14 different variations of the Gini coefficients for comparison. However, the most common type used by analysts is based on the conventional measure of money income. ****When Gini can be misleading** There are some situations which the Gini coefficient makes a poor metric to look at inequality. To simplify the discussion, I will discuss some possibilities how it can fail considerably and propose a solution based on qualitative economics in the next section. Since the Gini coefficient is a mathematical construct, one should note with caution how the metric is computed out from the data. Alan Blinder \[4\] demonstrated a simple counter example that there exist cases where you can get two different Lorenz curves with different shapes, but they yield the same Gini coefficient. Imagine the following situation when you have 3.6% for the lowest quintile (the really poor) in the construction of curve A and 0.6% similarly for the same lowest quintile for curve B (see appendix 1). However, if you start tweaking the numbers in the other quintiles, you will end up with the same Gini coefficient. It is known that the Gini index (even different variations of the metric constructed from income) is sensitive to the changes in the middle of the earnings distribution rather than the tails. Hence it is difficult for us to gauge from the Gini index, who is the real poor and who is the real rich. The mistake most people make is that once the Gini index demonstrates that there is inequality, their immediate inference is that the poor is getting poorer. From Blinder’s example, you can already see that it may be the percentage of the real poor is decreasing, but the Gini coefficient is still advocating inequality. This is the kind of inference made by some politicians, journalists and activists in the application of the Gini index to make a **non sequitur* judgement for inequality and income. Seriously, even if the percentage of the really poor is decreased, the Gini index can still reflect a larger inequality gap. So, if the metric is ambiguous in its interpretation from a mathematical viewpoint, the onus is on how the economic data is selected. Most of the time, these coefficients are computed in pre-[transfer payments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer%5Fpayments?ref=bernardleong.com) (for example, the progress package instituted by the Singapore government) and pre-tax (before your income tax sets in). It is known that the Gini index (without taking tax and transfer money payments) is increasing in the US. Once if the coefficient is adjusted for taxes and transfers, a different picture emerges. In fact, the household Gini coefficient was reduced to 0.4 in 2004 \[5\]. So, the two questions which eludes many readers (including myself) from Chua’s analysis on the Citigroup report, “How is the Gini coefficient computed? Does it takes into account with the pre-transfer and pre-tax data?” In fact, the Gini coefficient was computed using the per capital household income from work by the Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry \[6\] and the Citigroup report made their interpretation based on that report. Without further information, one can fathom a guess that they did not take taxation and transfer money payments into account. ****Scheherazade’s Gini: Income or Consumption?** Given the ambiguity of the Gini coefficent, we note that the trend towards rising inequality are dependent on several factors: 1. How do we choose to measure real income and the period of time which that takes place? 2. Are we using the mean or the median average for the income capita per household? 3. Do we take into account of any major event that might create possible distortions to the computation, for example, if Singapore has gone through a major tax reform or recalibrate the way how they calculate their metrics? The central thesis is that the Gini coefficient is measured primarily on income. However, it is just a snapshot and does not reflect anything about the standards of living in society. Before I go to my next point, consider the following situations: - A poor homeless and jobless man in the UK is getting 200 pounds (=S$600) a day through begging and social net, but spends all his money on acquiring drugs. He gets his food and accommodation from the social workers and the church. - A family with middle class income is splurging their money beyond their means on buying luxurious goods, for example, a sports car. - A young urban professional earning about S$6-10K, paying his car and condominum. - A Singaporean PhD student studying in the US with his spouse and kid and earning less than $1.5K a month Some of these cases reflect what income cannot measure. Inherently the PhD student’s earning capability changes when he graduates with his doctorate. The poor homeless man is not spending any money on food and accommodation, but on something else. You will realize that income is a static measure and may not adequately reflect reality. However, consumption on the other hand, provides a better measure on the inequality issue. By studying exactly how the poorest 10% of the population is spending their money, you know why and how they cannot cope. For example, in poor families, they tend to have more kids and education constitutes a major cost in their monthly budget. If 50% of the poor population in the UK is spending their money in buying drugs, the problem with the policy makers is not to pay them more via the social net, but to tackle the drug problem instead. Living standards are better measured by consumption rather than by income. Consumption constitutes the quantity and quality of each household’s food, clothing, housing, transportation and entertainment. In fact, one year’s income is not definitive enough to describe anything about living standards. The real measure should comprise of both the past and future income. Think about the mortgages and loans, which allows consumption to happen from expected future income. Two more arguments actually justify this choice of construction: 1. A household’s income can appear to be lower if somebody in the family is experiencing transition periods, for example, a job loss or illness, and to be higher if someone in the family experience a windfall through 4D and Toto. The consumption averages out over the years by selling assets or borrowing in difficult times and saving in good times. 2. The life-cycle pattern to income from work and savings is another indication why consumption is a better choice. Young people start out with wages and salaries far lesser than what they earned as they approach middle age. In Singapore, a lot of people have no time to accumulate significant savings and have to borrow against their future earnings to afford a house, a car or other expenditure. Once they hit middle age, they will have accumulated some assets, and reinforce their assets by making investments. Finally, when they retire, their savings are drawn upon to finance consumption. Hence, over the entire life cycle, consumption is averaged out. By constructing a Gini coefficient based on consumer spending and income, you get a better reflection of how inequality in society looks (see the footnote in \[7\]). ****How does that look in Singapore?** In Singapore, when someone claims that the income gap is widening, it does not really mean that there are more rich and more poor people. It can also mean that the middle class is being squeezed because their expenditure is growing while their income is stagnating. Using the Gini to infer such arguments can lead to wrong conclusions about what the actual picture is. Getting a hold on our spending habits will provide a clearer picture on how this inequality really looks. ****Acknowledgments**: The author thanks Huichieh & Speranza Nuova for helpful comments to this article. The author also thanks Andy Ho in providing the report \[1\]. ****References and Endnotes:** \[1\] Chua Hak Bin, Lim Jit Soon and Huang Yiping, “Singapore: A Dual Economy”, Citigroup Report, 25 Jul 2006. \[2\] Speranza Nuova, [Inequality and Magic Gini](http://speranzanuova.blogspot.com/2007/01/inequality-and-magic-gini.html?ref=bernardleong.com) (also published in [Singapore Angle: Perspectives](http://perspectives.singaporeangle.com/2007/01/inequality%5Fand%5Fthe%5Fmagic%5Fgini%5F1.html?ref=bernardleong.com)); Yaw Shin Leong, [Of Wealth and Income Equality](http://yawshinleong.blogspot.com/2006/12/of-wealth-and-income-equity.html?ref=bernardleong.com); Yawning Bread, [Sir, may I have the can please?](http://www.yawningbread.org/arch%5F2007/yax-702.htm?ref=bernardleong.com); Texo.sg, [Flapping over Gini](http://texo.sg/blog/2007/01/20/flapping-over-gini/?ref=bernardleong.com); Seksi Matashutyrmouf, [GINI](http://sieteocho7-8.blogspot.com/2007/01/gini.html?ref=bernardleong.com); Kway Teow Man, [A Whole Load of Gibberish](http://kwayteowman.blogspot.com/2006/09/whole-load-of-gibberish.html?ref=bernardleong.com); Andy Ho, **“Rich will get richer, as will the poor”*, The Straits Times, Sep 12, 2006. \[3\] Alan Reynolds, Income and Wealth, Greenwood Guides to Business and Economics. \[4\] Alan Blinder, Commentary, in Tax Matters and Inequality, page 40. \[5\] US Census Bureau, [“The effects of Government Taxes and Transfers on Poverty”](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/effect2004/effect2004.html?ref=bernardleong.com). \[6\] Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Republic of Singapore, [General Household Survey 2005, Statistical Release 2:](http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pdtsvc/pubn/ghsr2.html?ref=bernardleong.com) Transport, Overseas Travel, Households and Housing Characteristics, chapter 3: Household and Housing Characteristics. \[7\] In Chapter 8 of \[3\], Reynolds wrote a review on Gini index constructed from US consumption data. It demonstrated that the inequality only happened between the period of 1981 and 1986, and appears to be a cyclical phenomenon. From 1986 to 2001, consumption inequality declined and wage inequality was unchanged. Appendix 1: Comparison of Income Distributions Producing the Same Gini Index (Source: Alan Blinder in Reynolds “Income and Wealth”). | Income Share of | Distribution A | DIstribution B | | ---------------- | -------------- | -------------- | | Lowest Quintile | 3.6 | 0.6 | | Second Quintile | 8.9 | 11.9 | | Middle Quintile | 15.0 | 15.0 | | Fourth Quintile | 23.2 | 26.2 | | Top Quintile | 49.4 | 46.4 | | Approximate Gini | 0.423 | 0.423 | ### Who should fund basic science? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/who-should-fund-basic-science/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T01:44:02.000Z Recently, William Brody mentioned that Singapore should invest in funding basic sciences rather than applied sciences in an interview. (see ‘Tip to Singapore: Change R&D approach’, Straits Times, Jan 11). A/Prof Lee Wei Ling, the executive director of National Neuroscience Institute (NNI), pointed out in a [ST forum letter](http://straitstimes.asiaone.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:1dfca26979710110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:vgnpdate:1168725540000&ref=bernardleong.com) that the government needs to exhibit prudence in spending on biomedical research and advocate that funding should concentrate on improving human health and confined to areas of research specifically relevant to Asia. In principle, I agree with her reasoning on why government funding cannot be used to fund the basic sciences. The government should fund projects that can yield tangible returns that benefit the people in the short term. However, that does not mean that there is no way to fund basic science in Singapore. The scientists working in basic sciences should look at other possible sources of funding. An alternative solution to government funding is to seek research grants from private foundations from philanthropists. For example, in the UK, basic science research pertaining to genome sequencing is funded by the Wellcome Trust, while in the US, the Sloan Foundation has funded fellowships and grants in the esoteric areas of astrophysics. The scientists dabbling in basic sciences should approach the various foundations or the rich & wealthy to secure new funds for their obscure research areas, for example, particle physics and string theory. Ultimately, basic scientific research is essential to the development of Singapore as a knowledge based economy. The real challenge is whether the workers in the basic sciences are ready to walk out of their ivory towers and start lobbying for their own cause. Related Links: BL, [Can Singapore support basic sciences and humanities?](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/07/can-singapore-support-basic-social.html?ref=bernardleong.com) ### What did they leave out? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/what-did-they-leave-out/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T01:42:43.000Z ****On the aftermath of the BlogTV.SG event with George Yeo** So, you have seen the “Big Boys Blogging” episode last night in [BlogTV.SG](http://www.blogtv.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com). Honestly, I have moved on immediately after the report on the event to the [Singapore Angle team](http://www.singaporeangle.com/about.html?ref=bernardleong.com#writers) and the [teaser](http://www.singaporeangle.com/perspectives/2007/01/a%5Fteaser%5Fto%5Fbig%5Fboys%5Fblogging%5F1.html?ref=bernardleong.com). When I decided to go on the show, I was under no illusion in thinking that engaging in such a conversation with our minister for foreign affairs, George Yeo will make a big difference in our lives. At the very least, it provided me (a private citizen) an opportunity to have a decent and frank conversation with the minister, while at the same time, see and judge for ourselves after the show whether the feedback and criticisms from the other bloggers on BlogTV.SG are valid. The whole event took about three hours to film, but the whole show on TV is only reduced down to about 23-25 minutes. The segment involving Gayle and myself in the discussion was only about 40 minutes. So, the question that is burning in your mind, “Is there any controversial comment or remark that was not disclosed in the final version of the show?” The answer is no. However, there are some talking points which are omitted and reproduced here: 1. ****“As a public blogger, are you afraid of being misinterpreted? Sometimes, it can be propagated as falsehoods, how will you deal with it?”**: His answer to this question posed by me was candid and simple and goes along the lines that if you are prepared to be a public blogger, you should be prepared to handle such situations. However, our minister did not offer any solution if such a problem would arise. 2. ****The use of new media to engage young and older voters:** George Yeo spoke about the need to educate older voters on the use of internet. He raised the example that it would be difficult for the younger bloggers to teach the older generation and thought that he might be able to bridge the gap by setting an example to learn how to do it. This is the actual precursor to the question which Gayle and I posed later to him on the relaxation of new media for political parties in Singapore. To the credit of BlogTV.SG (perhaps with some nudging from us in the [teaser](http://www.singaporeangle.com/perspectives/2007/01/a%5Fteaser%5Fto%5Fbig%5Fboys%5Fblogging%5F1.html?ref=bernardleong.com)), they did not censor the most interesting part in the whole discussion. That was George Yeo’s answer to my follow-up question on whether the opposition will be allowed to use the tools of the new media in the future, given the ruling party is adopting these tools to engage the voters. It does confirm our suspicion that the establishment is planning to relax the control of the internet. After all, they have been dropping hints since the [PM’s rally speech](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/08/transcript-of-pms-rally-speech-in.html?ref=bernardleong.com) last year. Yet I remain skeptical until the official word from the government is out on the issue of freedom of expression in the internet. Given my previous experience coupled with misgivings from the other bloggers, I should count myself lucky that I was not misquoted on both occasions (including the previous ST roundtable). Even saying so, I still advocate that we should speak truth to power in the blogosphere if our views are distorted or misrepresented in any way. It is up to the individual blogger to decide whether to turn up for such events. My final opinion is that we, the bloggers have the advantage of the last word and giving our version of the story will make it difficult for the mainstream media to spin their story. ****Acknowledgments:** I thank the whole Singapore Angle Team for their support and encouragement before and after the event, the BlogTV crew for their hospitality and the hosts (Xue Ling and Flying Dutchman), Gayle and George Yeo for an interesting discussion which transpired in Brewerkz last Wednesday (3 Jan 2007). ****Update:** See [Gayle Goh](http://i-speak.blogdrive.com/archive/237.html?ref=bernardleong.com) for her last word on the issue and some extra segments of the whole interview can be found in [BlogTV.SG site](http://blogtv.sg/index.php?view=episode&ep=12&ref=bernardleong.com). This is a follow up post to this article: [A teaser to Big Boys’ Blogging](https://www.bernardleong.com/2007/01/04/a-teaser-to-big-boys-blogging/). ### A Teaser to "Big Boys Blogging" URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/a-teaser-to-big-boys-blogging/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T01:35:56.000Z Call this a strange coincidence or just luck: each time I meet a politician in some event, I ended up sitting down with him or her in a roundtable or interview weeks later in the mainstream media. The last time that happened was with Penny Low. Our meeting during the [ST political roundtable ](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/07/government-should-let-hotel-open-bak.html?ref=bernardleong.com)was anticipated by a social entrepreneurship event a week earlier. Similarly, my meeting with [George](http://beyondsg.typepad.com/beyondsg/2007/01/blogtv%5Fexperien.html?ref=bernardleong.com) [Yeo](http://ephraim.blogspot.com/2007/01/blogtv-experience-1.html?ref=bernardleong.com) at [BlogTV.SG](http://blogtv.sg/blogs/index.php?ref=bernardleong.com) was foreshadowed by a meeting in a coffee session three weeks earlier. The invitation from BlogTV.SG was circulated to the group on 27 December by KTM. Turns out that Huichieh received the same invitation on 26 December but was then busy with the migration to Movable Type. As usual, I was arrowed, though there was much discussion among ourselves regarding possible questions, most of which were unused. On hindsight, considering that these were rather substantive sort of questions, they probably don’t belong on the show given its format anyway. We were well aware of the misgivings that various bloggers voiced concerning such events. Nonetheless, we figured that it’s best to form a judgment **after* we see things for ourselves. After all, there is a sense in which bloggers possess the last word to what transpired in such events; at minimum, we can always present our versions. Besides, the famous [Gayle Goh](http://i-speak.blogdrive.com/archive/235.html?ref=bernardleong.com) was going too (I knew because she rang me up for possible questions beforehand). Due to a gentleman’s agreement that we will not tell our story until after the show is aired next Tuesday, I will only provide a **teaser* based on my earlier encounter with George Yeo on 4 Dec 2006 (check out this earlier article on my [personal blog](http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple%5Fis%5Fthe%5Freason%5Fof%5Fm/2006/12/choice%5Fof%5Fevils%5F1.html?ref=bernardleong.com)). But this much I will say: there was a somewhat surprising comment from George Yeo during the BlogTV.SG interview and I am pretty curious to see whether it will be aired in the final version. I was told that they will place the extra excerpts of the interview on the site. That is all I will say until the show airs next Tuesday. ****Related Links (Update):** \[1\] George Yeo, [“BlogTV Experience”](http://beyondsg.typepad.com/beyondsg/2007/01/blogtv%5Fexperien.html?ref=bernardleong.com). The picture above is from [Ephraim’s blog](http://ephraim.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com). \[2\] Gayle Goh, [“On Meeting George Yeo”](http://i-speak.blogdrive.com/archive/235.html?ref=bernardleong.com). \[3\] BL, [“Big Boys Blogging” at Brewerkz”](http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple%5Fis%5Fthe%5Freason%5Fof%5Fm/2007/01/big%5Fboys%5Fbloggi.html?ref=bernardleong.com). \[4\] Rambling Librarian, [” Yet another missed opportunity to be on BlogTV.SG”](http://ramblinglibrarian.blogspot.com/2007/01/yet-another-missed-opportunity-to-be.html?ref=bernardleong.com). \[5\] Mr Wang, [“Starring BG George Yeo & Mr Wang? Nah”](http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2006/12/starring-bg-george-yeo-mr-wang-nah.html?ref=bernardleong.com) \[6\] Kway Teow Man, [On Happiness, Expectations and Freedom of Expression](http://kwayteowman.blogspot.com/2007/01/on-happiness-expectations-and-freedom.html?ref=bernardleong.com). \[7\] Cognitive Dissonance, [Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You](http://cognitivedissonancesg.blogspot.com/2007/01/do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them.html?ref=bernardleong.com). \[8\] Elia Diodati, [Engaging a Politician: Your Danse Macabre ](http://diodati.omniscientx.com/2007/01/06/danse-macabre/?ref=bernardleong.com). ### Non Sequitur Economics URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/non-sequitur-economics/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T01:39:58.000Z Chua Mui Hoong’s [recent article](http://kaixin1.blogspot.com/2006/11/chua-mui-hoong-fee-hikes-after-poll.html?ref=bernardleong.com) in the [Straits Times](http://straitstimes.asiaone.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) (Review, 24 Nov 2006) contains a spirited defence of the various fee hikes instituted by the government since this past general election. The article considers the history of fee hikes after each general election, and attempts to refute the politically “seductive argument” put forward by “cynics” to the effect that fee hikes have always been the consequence of PAP win at the polls. > *There are three types of lies – lies, damn lies, and statistics.”* > > *— Mark Twain* Her basic argument is as follows: > “*If price hikes were severe after elections, then inflation rate should go up a year after elections. But the data show otherwise. Since 1980, the inflation rate has consistently gone down one year after all elections. The exception was the 1988 elections. That year, inflation was 1.5 per cent. A year later, it went up, to 2.4 per cent. But after the 1980, 1984, 1991, 1997 and 2001 elections, inflation rate fell the following year by 0.3, 2.1, 1.1, 2.3 and 1.4 percentage points respectively. In fact, after the 1998 and 2001 elections, the inflation rate was negative, suggesting a fall in prices across the board, as the Asian financial crisis and the spectre of terrorism kicked in. While crude inflation rate data may not give a finessed enough picture of the extent of government fee increases, it does show quite conclusively that the overall price increases was hardly crippling, but moderate or negative after elections. So inflation history vindicates the Government from the charge that it saddles the people with fare hikes after each election.*“ The question is: just how sound is this reasoning. To get a handle on Chua’s argument, we need to take a closer look at her use of economic indicators such as the [Consumer Price Index (CPI)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer%5FPrice%5FIndex?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Inflation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation?ref=bernardleong.com) [Rates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation%5Frates?ref=bernardleong.com). ****CPI Index and Inflation Rates** The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a popular measure of price inflation in retail goods and services and the market sensitivity of this index is very high. In simple terms, the index measures the changes of prices in a fixed basket of goods and services purchased commonly by the majority of households. The goods and services measured include food, clothing & footwear, housing, transport and communication, education and stationery, healthcare and recreation & others. Since 2004, the Singapore Department of Statistics (SingSTAT) has adopted 5170 brands and varieties for the computation of the CPI (see \[1\] and \[2\]). The coverage of the statistic takes into account 5400 households which constitute the middle 90% of the income distribution with the remaining tail ends truncated. The rationale for that truncation is the consumption habits for the very poor and very rich differ vastly from the middle 90%. Since the CPI measures the changes in prices of goods, the index can be adapted to calculate the [inflation rates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation%5Frates?ref=bernardleong.com) of the nation. It is important to understand how this value is calculated. The monthly change in the CPI is calculated based on the difference in the index of the present month and the previous month that provides an useful indicator to measure short term price changes. However, to measure the annual changes, the index of the month in the present year (say, August 2006) is compared with the index of the month in the preceding year (August 2005). The annual inflation rate is inferred by comparing the average for the 12 monthly indices with that of the preceding year. To give us some perspective, we obtained the CPI index and inflation rates \[1\] and plotted them from 1961 to 2005\. It is immediately obvious from figure 1 that the CPI increases from 1961 to 2005. As Chua has rightly indicated, if you look at the fee hikes imposed by the government after each election cycle, there is a drop in the inflation rates in the year after each of the elections in 1980, 1984, 1991, 1997 and 2001 (see Figure 2). In fact, to add to what she says, it also turns out that inflation fell from 3.1 to 1.7 in 1994, the year after GST was first instituted, and from 1.7 to 0.5 in 2004, a year after it was raised to 5% (on the other hand, it increased from 0.5 to 1.7 in 2003, a year after GST was raised from 3 to 4%). It is interesting why this should be happening. In her view, the common man’s perception of price increases is different from what reality really is. But one should be careful when interpreting reality using economic indicators. A naive inference from increasing the costs of living will mean that the inflation rate will also go up. So, why is the inflation rate dropping even if the costs are increasing? An answer may be found in market efficiency. As an illustration, consider the electronics gadgets industry. In this sector, prices are always decreasing when better models emerge. For example, a 4 Megapixel digital camera cost $1K two years ago. Today, you can get one with 8 Megapixel for $500\. Depending on the model of the television, computer or digital camera, it’s not difficult to think that the overall prices of these products will drop. This also means that the Singaporean market in such items is efficient in coping with competition. On the down side, market efficiency could also be the very reason why small medium enterprises (SMEs) are not coping well against the big multi-national corporations as the latter are more able to control price changes, making it difficult for the SMEs to compete. ****Unemployment Rates and Inflation** One funny thing about Chua’s argument is this: it’s actually easy to construct an analogous argument to justify the claim that the economy is doing well on the basis of price hikes. Now, it is well known in economics that the unemployment rate is correlated with the inflation rate. If you examine the sudden surges in inflation rates, you will see that these were also the years which Singapore was in the economic boom cycle (look at the periods between 1973-1975, 1980-1983 and 1990-1997). So, wouldn’t the low inflation rate plus the historically higher unemployment rate in the past few years show that the economy is not doing well? If the opposition party argues on that we should have low inflation rates, should then we tell them that such an outcome will mean a higher unemployment rate. Conversely, for Ms Chua, a low inflation rate does not really mean the economy is doing well. ****Connecting the dots: Is Inflation really bad for Singapore?** An intuitive question to ask is how inflation \[3\] gets started in the first place, and whether it is really detrimental to the growth of the economy. It depends on who you believe. If you are in the monetarist camp, excessive growth in the money supply is responsible for sharply rising prices. If the supply of money is increasing faster than the output of goods and services, it just means that there is just too much money for too few goods and services. Since there is a relative scarcity of goods and services relative to money, prices will rise. To complete the picture, the reason for excessive growth in money supply is also attributed to high employment rates. In the good times, companies hire more people and hence there is more money flowing around. It is not puzzling why inflation and employment are correlated this way. If you subscribe to a Keynesian view–which argues that when the overall demand (from customers, businesses, government and foreign investors) greatly exceeds the economy’s ability to meet its requirements, the resulting shortage in supply will accelerate the price of goods and drives inflation at a higher rate–the imperative is to determine how fast inflation will go up. That will depend on where the economy is positioned in the business cycle. Perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, if there is a sudden surge in demand for goods and services following a recession, it does not automatically imply that inflation has taken place. Rather it is the economy performing a self-correction towards achieving market efficiency. Inflationary pressures can be felt in the later cycle when the scarcity principles come knocking on the door once again. Is inflation really a bad thing? The problem with inflation is that it generates a climate of instability and distorts people’s view of the economy. The dot com bust in 2001/02 is an example of this situation: the IT companies were overly hyped by the investment banks with the IT workers demanding a higher pay to offset increasing costs of living. From another perspective, the higher prices offer companies the opportunity to generate more profit which in turn gives the workers better bonuses. Better still, the governments can exploit the chance to generate more tax revenues (particularly thru the GST route). People with the strong tendency to borrow more can pay their loans back with cheaper currency. But it is hard to tell whether it is good or bad for the economy. The moral of the story, as we present to you, is to be skeptical of people from both sides of the house in conjuring non sequitur economics to justify their perspective of the Singaporean economy. **References:** \[1\] The figures for the plots for the Consumer Price Index and Inflation Rates are obtained from the [Singapore Department of Statistics](http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/hist/cpi.html?ref=bernardleong.com) (SingStat). About the details in calculating and interpreting the CPI, please look at this [URL](http://www.singstat.gov.sg/press/cpi.html?ref=bernardleong.com) and [document](http://www.singstat.gov.sg/press/cpipress.pdf?ref=bernardleong.com) from SingStat. The [unemployment figures](http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/communities/others/mrsd/statistics/Unemployment.html?ref=bernardleong.com) (from 1993 to 2005) are extracted from the [Ministry of Manpower](http://www.mom.gov.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) (MOM) website. \[2\] Bernard Baumohl “The Secrets of Economic Indicators: Hidden Clues to Future Economic Trends and Investment Opportunities”, Wharton School Publishing. \[3\] See [Phillips Curve](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips%5Fcurve?ref=bernardleong.com) in Wikipedia. ### Impact of US Midterm Elections to Singapore URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/impact-of-us-midterm-elections-to-singapore/ Last updated: 2021-08-09T01:37:35.000Z Recently, the United States have completed their [midterm elections](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US%5Fmidterm%5Felections%5F2006?ref=bernardleong.com) on 7 Nov 2006\. The [Democrats](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US%5FDemocratic%5FParty?ref=bernardleong.com) has successfully recaptured the [House of Representatives](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%5FStates%5FHouse%5Fof%5FRepresentatives?ref=bernardleong.com) and the [Senate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US%5FSenate?ref=bernardleong.com) from the [Republicans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican%5FParty%5F%28United%5FStates%29?ref=bernardleong.com) \[1\]. From the exit polls (from [CNN](http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/index.html?ref=bernardleong.com)), the main reason for the Republicans to lose power in both houses is corruption and not Iraq (strangely, it’s the fourth most important issue). The first casualty of war in the aftermath of this election is the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. It also leaves the likely scenario that George W Bush will be a lame duck president till 2008 when he completes his second term. With a Democrat Congress and Senate and a Republican president, it is interesting to examine the dynamics and implications of the midterm elections towards Singapore. This article examines the impact of the US Midterm Elections on Singapore and splits the discussion into three parts: (i) a Singaporean’s perspective of this elections, (ii) the prelude towards the 2008 presidential elections and (iii) the impact of the midterms towards Singapore in the next two to five years. **A Singaporean’s Perspective towards this Elections** Since the beginning of Jan 2006, I have been following the US midterm elections closely. One spectacular incident is the [defeat of Joe Lieberman](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/08/reprise-to-bloggers-and-politics.html?ref=bernardleong.com) (former Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 with Al Gore) in the Democratic Primary of Connecticut. The incident is interesting because the bloggers were touted to be responsible for his primary loss. I have argued earlier that it was a combination of factors (from the ground) rather than the internet that led to his defeat, and have speculated that Ned Lamont will not be able to win the general elections. I also reiterate that it is nearly impossible to replicate that kind of netroots activism in Singapore politics because the real translation to votes is from grassroots movement rather than netroots movement \[2\]. In the end, Joe Lieberman won the senate race as an independent and would caucus for the Democrats, leading them to have a senate majority of 51 to 49. From the early indications from the various polls ([Gallup](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup%5FPoll?ref=bernardleong.com), CNN and Fox), it is clear that the Republicans would lose the Congress. However, the loss of the upper house came as a surprise. How did the Republicans end up in such a “thumping” loss? Most pundits believed that the Democrats did not win the midterms, but rather the Republicans lost it. For example, former senator George Allen had the advantage of being the incumbent senator for Virginia (and possibly one of the major contenders for the US presidential race) but lost it with a mistake of making a racial slur on an naturalized indian American. That was the turning point of the Viriginia senate elections and brought his Democrat competitor, Webb to victory. One other reason that assist in the recapture of the Congress and Senate is that the Democratic Party did not field candidates which are on the far left, but the conservative Democrats. That explains why the Democrats is able to make headway in the swing states like Florida and Ohio because these Democrats champion the same kind of values in the American heartland. In short, the entire Republican party was plagued with scandals, for example, the Jack Abramoff’ indian lobbying scandal, the Mark Foley scandal. The situation was made worse, where Bob Woodward’s “State of Denial” and David Kuo’s “Tempting Faith” showed the incompetency of the Bush administration in handling the war in Iraq and the manipulation of the Christian Right with faith-based initiatives in the 2004 elections. In the end, it was the corruption issue which turned the voters off. On top of that, the voters were sick of the endless tirade from the Republicans that if they vote for the Democrats, they will get their taxes raised. What would be the impact of having a Democratic Congress on American politics? From reading the American blogs and mainstream media, the main consensus is that the Bush administration are now placed in a lame duck situation. Most likely, they cannot push through any major policy review. The dynamics adopted by the administration to deal with a left-leaning Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi will be one of the most watched political situations. Even so, in my own opinion, there will not be a few major changes because the Democrats do not want to lose the houses two years from now. The reason is simple because the Democrats need to show to the American people that they can govern in a bi-partisan way. If they do not co-operate with the Republicans and the Bush administration, they are on their way to lose the House of Representatives again (they lost the Congress to the Republicans in 1994). The key issues that the new Democratic Congress will focus are: (i) Iraq war, (ii) roll back the tax cuts for the rich and wealthy and increase corporate taxes, (iii) passing legislation to protect American workers & block outsourcing of some jobs and (iv) approve federal funding in stem cell research (which both houses in the Congress passed and was vetoed by the executive branch of the government, namely the US President) . Let’s look at the Iraq war first. Immediately after the defeat of the midterm elections, Donald Rumsfeld was made redundant from the Bush administration. A lot of attention is now placed on the Iraq Independent Study Group, led by James Baker (a trusted aide of George H Bush or Bush Senior). This is a key issue that can cut both ways for the Democrats and also for the candidates who are vying for the US Presidency in 2008\. There are three options on the table for the Americans in the Iraq war: (i) they “cut and run”, (ii) they stay the course or (iii) they split the entire country into three parts for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. It is likely that they will adopt a hybrid version of the “cut & run” and “stay the course” in order to save their own skin. The important part is to engage the other major players in the region to help, for example, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. That will have a considerable effect in terms of security and stability for the oil rich region, and to Singapore on a lesser effect (which I come back at the third part of the article, given that Singapore is now seeking business partners with Middle East). The next two issues are domestic in nature, relating to the US economy. Currently, the US government is running a trillion dollar deficit and the reason why their economy is not collapsing is because Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, India and many other countries (including Singapore) are buying into their treasury bonds. In order to prevent major American corporations from being bought over by foreign countries, they have to find the money like the way we raise GST to 7% to fund the safety nets for the poor. The most likely scenario is that they will raise corporate taxes and increase personal income taxes for the rich income group. It means that the foreign companies will face new challenges in bringing their companies to the US market in the next few years. Protectionism is also going to be an important issue because the low level jobs and even high level IT jobs are now outsourced to places like India and China. A few things are already in motion to help the American workers, for example, lobbying for a new minimum wage in the Congress and putting regulation on big American companies to hire locals rather than hire elsewhere. The fourth issue is that the Democrat House of Representatives and Senate will approve federal funding for stem-cell research. This is an issue which has divided America, particularly, Bush vetoed the bill due to his support coming from the Christian right. In the past few years, US stem cell researchers have been poached to go to Asia, particularly Singapore to continue their work. The exodus of leading researchers alarmed the American law-makers and it is likely that they want to restore US as the beacon of scientific research. **Prelude to the 2008 Presidential Elections** **(& why it is important to Singapore)** If the economy and the war are the key challenges for the new incumbent Congress and Senate, the other issue which will take centre stage will be the coming [US Presidential elections 2008](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United%5FStates%5Fpresidential%5Felection%2C%5F2008?ref=bernardleong.com). In this election, the Democrats have successfully captured Ohio, one of the swing states responsible for the defeat of John Kerry in 2004\. This might provide interesting dynamics for the next elections. Since the sitting Vice President, Dick Cheney is not running for the presidency, the field is open for both Democrats and Republicans. The names of potential candidates for both [Democrats](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential%5FDemocratic%5Fcandidates%5Fin%5Fthe%5F2008%5FUnited%5FStates%5Fpresidential%5Felection?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Republicans](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential%5FRepublican%5Fcandidates%5Fin%5Fthe%5F2008%5FUnited%5FStates%5Fpresidential%5Felection?ref=bernardleong.com) have already popped up in the mainstream media. ### Two Singapores URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/two-singapores/ Last updated: 2021-08-03T03:02:19.000Z Recently, two unrelated events happen at the same time. The first was about a man named Mr Tan in his forties [commiting suicide](http://www.insanepoly.com/blog/?p=254&ref=bernardleong.com) by jumping off onto the mass rapid transit tracks. The man in forties was a working class man. He was jobless and had a family to feed. He left behind nothing now except his wife and his kids. The second was about a young and bright student named [Wee Shu Min](http://suchvividnothing.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) who wrote an emotive, insensitive and snobbish response to [Derek Wee](http://derekwee.blogspot.com/2006/10/when-i-read-straits-times-article.html?ref=bernardleong.com) who was lamenting about the state of affairs in Singapore. For her remarks, she was criticised by various bloggers ([Aaron](http://aaron-ng.info/blog/the-wee-shu-min-cyber-drama.html?ref=bernardleong.com), [Ben](http://bendecidestoblog.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/wee-shu-min-just-like-another-singaporean-just-better-engrish/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Elia](http://diodati.omniscientx.com/2006/10/20/another-blog-bites-the-dust/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Kitana](http://kitana.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/class-disconnect/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Wee Kiat](http://weikiatblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/looking-back-home.html?ref=bernardleong.com) and of course, everyone from Sammyboy Forums). Her background as the daughter of a member of parliament and a student from the top junior college (RJC) have further ignited the flames. In any case, if everyone take a step back, the whole fiasco is just about the misadventures of a young spolit brat. So, why are these two events related? My answer to the question is what I called the two Singapores. There are two Singapores: The first speaks of a land of opportunity and meritocracy where local and foreign talent can compete in a free market and meritocratic system to move up the corporate ladder of Singapore Inc; and the second depicts a divide that splits between an educated and self-proclaimed enlightened oligarchy and the average day Joe. In short, it is the divide between the working class and the elite, and the wealth gap that is tearing apart the society. In the first Singapore, you are promised that if you are willing to pursue your dreams and make your dreams come true subject to the social compact, you will succeed with the blessings of the state. However, the rule is that your dream is defined by the social contract. In this contract, you exchange your personal political and social freedom with security, material wealth and protection from the state. By the time you have successfully won the scholarship trophies, your future is secured no matter what you do in the future unless you commit a hideous crime. Not everyone might succeed using the scholarship route. Ms Wee belongs to the first Singapore, blessed with a well-endowed background and talent. That success is fermented into arrogance and a lack of sensitivity towards the working class. That comes to the definition of the second Singapore. In this Singapore, if you don’t succeed by the age of 18 by slogging through memorizing and mugging in your high school education, you become part of the working class. Since you do not make the first cut, you enter into the social engineering programme, taking the hypes of that era, from IT to life sciences. Suddenly, you are transformed into a statistic within a Bell curve that have to find ways to make ends meet, struggle between the high and low economic cycles due to external circumstances and live with the hope that your children will live a better life than you. The constant cycle of retraining and retrenchment will squeeze you dry till you find that life is not worth living. That poor Mr Tan is part of that Singapore which Ms Wee did not empathise. She did not feel that there is a need to help that part of the society. Our society needs to change, not just in how we deal with each other, but how we can help each other. Somehow, the win-win culture seems so far away from us, because that is eroded away by the ratrace that begins from the first day of school till you step into work in society. There are other social problems which we need to be made aware of. One friend of mine, who works in the grassroots, are trying hard to champion ways to help the old and helpless in their financial management in his constituency. For those who do not know, we have an aging population with no enough wealth to last them till their deaths. These old and aged were promised a peaceful retirement with enough wealth from their central provident fund (CPF). However, once they retire, they realized that it was not enough to tide them till death. Inevitably, they have to return to work again. If the problem of a poor and desperate working class man is not enough to make society wake up, it might be better if we take a microscope and really examine parts of the society that are suffering from problems masked off. Perhaps, we should cultivate our young to understand the social problems, not by providing them textbooks but real examples through the discourse of social work. If there is one other thing that we can ever persuade our efficient and productive civil service, we need to re-examine our scholarship system, because the system is easily beaten by people who are endowed with better resources. I would not even go to the extent by saying that the examinations for these students are far too easier than those in the past. Meritocracy is a [double aged sword](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/commentary/2006/03/16/meritocracy-as-a-double-edged-sword-to-entrepreneurship/?ref=bernardleong.com) that can be helpful or be detrimental to our civil service. In order to maximize the returns from a student’s point of view, there are times where an individual will exploit the meritocratic system that will contradict morality, credibility and hard work. Our brilliant elite students have now reached the level where it is easy to beat the system with their resources, and there remains no means and ways to test their moral fibre in contributing back to our society as civil servants. The solution is not one silver bullet but a whole array of approaches that stretch from the areas of education to healthcare (and the CPF). Ultimately, we have learnt that too much of everything is bad. Finding a middle way between our capitalist and democratic socialist approaches will be key to repair the rift between the two Singapores. ****Quote of the Day:** > **“Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America – middle-class America – whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America – narrow-interest America – whose every wish is Washington’s command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a president.”* > > ***– John Edwards, Vice-Presidential candidate 2004** **Afterword:** When I first conceived the article, my thoughts begin with a class divide between the elites and the average Joe of the countries. Many people believe that the separation is much further than two parts. The “two Singapores” metaphor is nothing but a mere rhetorical device. To me, it does not matter if anyone will agree with what I write in this article. What really matters to me, is that all of us, from both sides of the houses, can put their efforts in policy (like my friend who spends every day thinking about how to help the old to manage their financial plans such that they will be able to spend the money without having nothing left) to bridge the divide between the two Singapores which I talk about in this essay. ### Is Social Engineering still appropriate for Singapore? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/is-social-engineering-still-appropriate-for-singapore/ Last updated: 2021-08-03T03:00:23.000Z Recently, I was at the annual [National Science and Technology Awards 2006](http://www.a-star.edu.sg/astar/about/action/about%5Fpressrelease%5Fdetails.do?id=0e34e078b07p&ref=bernardleong.com), where awards are given to scientists who have contributed significantly for their scientific pursuits in Singapore. Of course, the night was filled with good food and entertaining speeches from both Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports & 2nd Minister for Trade and Industry) and [Dr Sydney Brenner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney%5FBrenner?ref=bernardleong.com), a Nobel laureate (who won the Science and Technology medal this year for contributing to the research and development in Singapore). In this commentary, we draw a few interesting points briefly from Sydney Brenner’s speech and piece together some [earlier thoughts of mine](http://bleongcw.typepad.com/simple%5Fis%5Fthe%5Freason%5Fof%5Fm/2006/10/to%5Fengineer%5Fis%5F.html?ref=bernardleong.com) on the [life sciences conundrum](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/news-stop/2006/10/09/the-life-sciences-conundrum/?ref=bernardleong.com) to answer whether social engineering is appropriate in Singapore. The essay will address how the removal of social engineering can help to remove the locals’ animosity towards foreign talent. In essence, Sydney Brenner’s speech centred on his role as a catalyst in the research and development scene and some interesting points about the culture of Singapore. For those who might not know this, the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology was formed in 1987 at the National University of Singapore before it becomes a research institute under the Agency of Science, Technology and Research (A\*STAR). It should be interesting to note that he pitched the idea originally to [Dr Goh Keng Swee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goh%5FKeng%5FSwee?ref=bernardleong.com), our former deputy Prime Minister of Singapore. Paraphrasing his words and his tribute to Dr Goh, Dr Goh thought that Singapore’s success at that point (in the 1980s) would not be sustainable in the future and it would be important to transit from a “nation of technicians” to knowledge based economy. Even in its transition, he remarked that it was impatience in Singaporeans that drove the research and development for the past five years (which I preferred to attribute to the establishment rather than the people). It helps to wonder whether that comment is a sarcastic one but it is preferred to be taken as a positive note. Of course, he brought up the point about a generation of young Singaporean scholars who will become the foundation to the next stage of growth in our biopolis. Of course, we can only take a crystal ball and wait for ten years later to see whether they will prove the current critics (including myself) wrong. His comments are reinforced by an earlier analysis (see [Elia Diodati](http://diodati.omniscientx.com/2006/10/11/life-sciences-singapore-and-supply-side-economics/?ref=bernardleong.com)) from an economic perspective. In Krugman’s “[The Myth of Asia’s Miracle](http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/myth.html?ref=bernardleong.com)“, > “Singapore’s growth has been based largely on one-time changes in behavior that cannot be repeated. Over the past generation the percentage of people employed has almost doubled; it cannot double again. A half-educated work force has been replaced by one in which the bulk of workers has high school diplomas; it is unlikely that a generation from now most Singaporeans will have Ph.D’s….” Of course, the interesting conclusion is that the inputs rather than increasing efficiency contributed to the growth of Singapore at that point. This now ties in to the central theme of this commentary. Social engineering of the workforce is one of the dominant forces in Singapore economy. For the past thirty years, our government has launched various drives in different periods of time to encourage young students to study engineering, IT and life sciences. During each cycle, there were great promises and subsequently lead to great debacle. Most of the people who went into each hypes from engineering, IT to life sciences ended up in becoming insurance agents, salesman, stock brokers or jobs which they did not envision themselves to be in. The quotas for the intake to the field of study during that hype will be increased suddenly. It is obvious that the establishment (or the group behind the social engineering) believes in the theory of supply economics that if you increase the supply to fulfil a demand, you can achieve the critical mass that might result in a boom for that industry. This theory is successful for a manufacturing economy where you need to train workers in a collective for mass production of goods. Once this process is replicated to areas that demand research, innovation and creativity (in the Arts), it will start to break down. Thinking without innovation is useless and innovation without thinking is of course, dangerous. Year after year, the accumulation of the failures in the social engineering experiments leads to a disgruntled nation. Those who refuse to adhere to the social engineering process in their student days become the role models until their expertise become fashionable in the interests of the nation. Social engineering can produce many workers and that is the only advantage of such an approach. However, in research and innovation, the success of one maverick invention outweighs twenty patents created. To engineer creativity and innovation is human (and mediocre) but to create an invention that will take the nation’s enlightment to another level is divine. No matter how the establishment tries to wiggle their way out with the conventional excuses of creating jobs for the nation, they cannot run away that these created jobs will not translate the billion dollars boom. In our current approach, social engineering will churn out small and medium size level enterprises, but not a Google. If you want a better example than this, [Creative Technologies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative%5FTechnology%5FLtd.?ref=bernardleong.com) demonstrated that their one achievement outweighs all the Singapore enterprises or government holding companies. Another good and current example is in digital media where a local Singaporean went to the US to pursue his dreams and eventually end up producing movies like the Matrix. Here is an interesting anecdote about my foreign colleagues and bosses who found it difficult to understand Singaporeans for being materialistic and lack of vision. Actually, they are clearly mistaken that Singaporeans possess no vision or dreams but they just want to pursue what they love. Ironically, that is a western value which my colleagues claim that they champion. They only appreciate the current drive by the higher powers to change things but they lack the historical perspective that the young workers (who they are here to educate) realized that they were statistics for the social engineering process and not pursuing something that might be of interest to them. The deep seeded anger cannot be subdued by just welfare but rather the prospects of growth in the job. If they truly understand the rule of value proposition, there must exist future prospects of growth (from pay to promotion opportunities, i.e. find ways to turn an outstanding honours or masters research assistant into PhD), otherwise, the issues will be there, no matter how many years they stay. If our nation is thinking of going beyond a nation of technicians, we need to curb the “impatience” within us and cultivate the passion of Singaporeans to think of greater heights. A brilliant invention takes time. If the establishment want to use that as an excuse to continue the same social engineering, they have to accept the repercussions of a nation who are growing to hate that they are the “statistics” rather than the shareholders of this homeland they belong to. Returning to the question of this essay, there are two answers to the question. Social engineering is appropriate to help the working classes in addressing healthcare, security and domestic problems. However, the approach is useless in the research and development circle. To control research and innovation is like curbing an artist to take his art beyond his level. A balance needs to be struck rather than tend to go to either extreme (too much maverick and too much control). They can still stick to the current approach perhaps for manufacturing industry and that ensures our future prosperity. That is the economic reality based on our size as a little red dot. However, to show our mettle as a little red dot of research, creativity and innovation, we need to allow Singaporeans to pursue their passion (even if their alignment of research interests differ from the superstars which they hire from abroad). Ultimately, that bet to move beyond social engineering will open the space, foster at least a moderate “making a difference” bunch and perhaps the less animosity between Singaporeans and foreign talent. ### Setting the Stage: PM's Rally Speech 2006 URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/setting-the-stage-pms-rally-speech-2006/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:11:26.000Z The Prime Minister’s National Day Message is usually a prelude–or what we might call an executive summary–of the later Rally Speech. The former outlines the main points to be discussed in the latter. In addition, the Prime Minister’s Office presumably composes the rally speech in consultation with the various ministries and after collating their feedback and suggestions. This means that we can also expect the rally speech to introduce or foreshadow new policies that are to be implemented in the not too distant future. (In this respect, The PM’s rally speech bears resemblance to the [State of the Union](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State%5Fof%5Fthe%5FUnion?ref=bernardleong.com) in the United States.) What are the core issues in Singapore that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will be talking about in his rally speechthis year (scheduled for this Sunday, 20 August 2006)? Since taking over from Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong on 12 August 2004, he has completed one cycle of both National Day Message and rally speechin 2005\. Given the historical dynamic between the National Day Message and Rally Speech, it is possible to, drawing upon the former, make predictions regarding the issues that will turn up in the coming Rally Speech. And this post will attempt to do exactly that. ****Recapitulating NDM/RS 2005** For many political observers, the National Day message (NDM) \[1\] and rally speech(NDS) \[2\] in 2005 set up a couple of policies that lead to the general elections this May 2006\. There are several points in the Message that were elaborated in the rally speech(see Appendix), with new policies and ministers assigned to implement them in the workyear 2005/2006. In NDM 2005, the PM succinctly described the state of our economy, highlighted the need for vigilance against terrorism, and defined the key priorities for the year ahead: (1) grow and upgrade the economy, (2) continue to improve our education system with a special focus on ITEs and polytechnics, (3) remake our city, (4) more social welfare for the lower income families and the aging population, and (5) healthcare, finally concluding with an optimistic outlook for the future. That is basically the whole message summarized in one sentence. It ended with a beautiful vision of our city in 2015. In RS 2005, these key priorities were further elaborated and also packaged with the new initiatives and policies designed to handle them. The emphasis on a service culture and the remaking of the city were the key points that emerged. Of course, if one wants to read between the lines, there were also two mentions of “Las Vegas” (mentioned in two different parts of the speech) and “Steve Wynn”, which set up the beginning of the Integrated Resorts project (and yes, we are being politically correct for not using the word “casino”). One particularly striking example of how something that was first introduced in NDM 2005 is later elaborated in RS 2005 concerns the issue of social welfare for Singaporeans in the lower income group. Consider, first, the following is from NDM 2005: > **One challenge is the widening income gap. We cannot reverse this worldwide trend, but we can help lower income Singaporeans to keep up and find new opportunities. We are training them in useful skills, re-designing their jobs to pay better, educating their children well, and helping them with their utilities and transport bills. And we have the ComCare fund, which helps the needy to get back quickly on their feet again.* Now consider this bit from RS 2005: > **The other issue concerning low-income families is to discuss what we can do to work to build up their assets…; What you can do is when a family buys a HDB flat, we’ll assess your income and if your income is in the lower income group, then I think we can put a grant, paid into your CPF, which will help you to buy the HDB flat from us. This is for HDB flat from the Government and also HDB flat if you want to buy resale, you get the resale grant and I will give you this grant as well. So, in effect, if you’re lower income, you have more and I think if we do this, we would be able to narrow the gap between the lower income and the people who are doing better off… I think it’s the right way to do, it’s the right way to help lower-income Singaporeans. So, I’ve told Ng Eng Hen. He says, yes, he’s going to work hard on this.* The focus on the lower income group was continued later with a Progress Package designed to help them. Of course, it is also noted that the opposition parties labeled the Progress Package a “sweetener” for the general elections of May 2006. Keeping in mind the dynamic between NDM and NDS 2005, let us now turn to our crystal ball and make some predictions regarding the coming Rally Speech. ****Predicting the rally speech 2006** This year, the National Day Message \[3\] can be broken down into four distinctive components: (i) global outlook and risks, (ii) adapting to change, (iii) a more open and diverse society and (iv) strengthening our core. In the previous Rally Speech, PM dedicated a significant portion of his discussion to the issue of remaking Singapore in both “software” (service industry) and “hardware” (physical infrastructure), a remaking that led to the 2015 vision. That last speech served two purposes: a blueprint of where Singapore is heading and also an advertisement that preceded the general elections. For the coming Rally Speech, our guess is that we will see an **after*\-sales pitch, i.e. the PAP government has been re-elected and the broad policy specifics geared towards achieving that vision implemented. One big item that will certainly come up during RS 2006 will be the external environment of Singapore, especially with respect to the challenges it poses to our continued development and safety. And so we should be able to expect PM to dwell upon the global economic outlook, the strong momentum of China and India, and its impact upon our immediate region, free trade and protectionism, the continued upheaval in the Middle East, bird flu and transnational terrorism and all the implications they pose for Singapore. But let me focus more on the domestic side of things. Here, there are two main predictions to make. The first, concerns “Risk Approaches”, the second might be labelled “Toward a more Open and Diverse Society”. Let us begin with the first. Here, consider this bit from NDM 2006: > **I know that this strategy \[of coping with changes\] demands a lot from Singaporeans. It means exploring new and risky approaches, instead of clinging to familiar arrangements. It needs trust and confidence between the people and the Government. It also requires us to help those less able to cope with the rapid changes. For example, when oil prices rise, electricity costs more to produce, and buses, taxis and trains cost more to run. We cannot keep electricity tariffs and public transportation fares fixed. But we can and will directly help those in need. This is what the Government has been doing through programs like U-Save and the recent Progress Package. One important strategy to cope with changes is to make our people more resilient, better able to tackle issues on their own instead of looking to the Government to solve every problem.* There are really two sub-points worth noting here. One, there will be a continued emphasis on helping “those less able to cope with the rapid changes”. But before anyone starts thinking “more social welfare”, note that it must be balanced by the second point: making our people “more resilient, better able to tackle issues on their own instead of looking to the Government to solve every problem”. The prediction is this: PM will be announcing changes to several long standing policies–in healthcare, housing and also CPF. Possibly, PM might introduce more flexibility to the use of CPF for healthcare and for offsetting living costs. Some of these changes will be attempts to be more flexible in meeting the ever diversifying needs and desires of Singaporeans (not to mention an aging population), a move away from previous, more one-size-fit-all type solutions. But there is also a hint that there will be more private sector involvement, or privatization simply. In this respect, recent pronouncements by Mah Bow Tan about HDB \[4\] are perhaps indicative: > **Over the years, we have relaxed our policies to make public housing more akin to private housing, through the relaxation of some of the rules on sub-letting of flats, loans etc…Singaporeans are also becoming more affluent and better educated. To meet rising aspirations, we have involved private sector architects to design and build HDB projects… We are also piloting another scheme to allow private developers not only to design and build, but also price and sell the flats to HDB buyers. With additional flexibility to design and price the flats, I hope developers will introduce further innovations in public housing design and development.* Again, it’s not easy to see exactly how far the government is willing to go–whether, for instance, it is beginning to disengage itself from the economy. Only time will tell. Let us move to the second prediction–“Toward a more Open and Diverse Society”. Consider this bit from NDM 2006: > **We are building a more open society, and encouraging freer debate. The media are airing more diverse issues and perspectives. The public is more engaged in helping the Government to work out policies and solve problems. Civic groups are organising themselves, running special schools, protecting the tone of neighbourhoods, or promoting informed debate. The internet is a tremendous tool which is changing the world. We should make full use of it to link up with the world, engage one another, and be a productive economy and vibrant society. But the internet creates new problems too. Not everything on the internet is reliable; it is not easy to tell apart fact from fiction in cyberspace; and instant communications can cause people to over-react hastily and unthinkingly to events. Therefore we must learn how to live with this new medium, and adapt to it. This is a challenge to many societies, not just Singapore. Going forward, we will continue to open up in a considered and progressive way. Singaporeans should express themselves freely but responsibly. We need to help solve problems and build our nation, not chip away at the pillars of our society. We will not always agree with one another, but we must stay cohesive and united in our common vision for Singapore.* Again, let us highlight two distinct though related strands: the first concerns freedom of expression, especially with regards to public policy debate; the second concerns the call for a more “active citizenry”. The issue of political expression inevitably brings us to OB markers–especially with regards to the internet and mainstream media. Without a shadow of doubt, the internet will turn out to be one of the major talking points, and it will be discussed in the context of the larger aim to create a more open and diverse society while at the same time, moderating the perceived excesses that comes with the freedom made possible by the internet and preserving the pillars that hold Singapore together. Needless to say, this is will be a major topic of discussion for the blogosphere. But how exactly will PM elaborate upon what he says in NDM 2006? On this score, we need to go further back in time–before the major flashpoints that occurred this year, for example, the impact of citizen journalism in the 2006 General Elections, and the (in)famous MICA vs. Brown incident–to an important speechthat PM gave at the Harvard Club in 2004 \[5\]. Note also that the earlier speech at the Harvard Club **preceded* the 2004 US Presidential Elections which saw the first rise to prominence of blogging and internet fund raising. The **present* challenge is thus for PM to define the OB markers for the **internet* given what he has said in the earlier speech at the Harvard Club. That speech has been a repackaging of the ruling party’s strategy to update their doctrine of engaging the electorate with the policies, with the mantra, “We are open to suggestions, but we will make the final decision.” That repackaging will now be applied to the internet. Some journalists from the MSM are currently lobbying for the blogosphere to be held to the same standard as they are. We all know that the [solution](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/07/government-should-let-hotel-open-bak.html?ref=bernardleong.com) to their problem is to give them more space, rather than to impose restrictions on the internet. We have already argued earlier \[6\] that the Singapore blogosphere cannot create the sort of significant impact the way it’s US counterpart can (as most recently witnessed in the Connecticut Democratic Primary). Nonetheless, it is possible for the government to attempt to neutralize the perceived influence of the blogosphere by taking out the “centers of power” \[7\]. So much for the predictions; Let’s wait and see and see how many of our guesses turn out to be right. ****References** \[1\] [PM’s National Day Message 2005](http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20050808988.htm?ref=bernardleong.com), Singapore Press Releases on the Internet ([SPRInter](http://www.sprinter.gov.sg/home1.html?ref=bernardleong.com)) website. \[2\] [PM’s National Day rally speech2005](http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/2005082102.htm?ref=bernardleong.com), Singapore Press Releases on the Internet ([SPRInter](http://www.sprinter.gov.sg/home1.html?ref=bernardleong.com)) website. \[3\] [PM’s National Day Message 2006](http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/2006080801.htm?ref=bernardleong.com), Singapore Press Releases on the Internet ([SPRInter](http://www.sprinter.gov.sg/home1.html?ref=bernardleong.com)) website. \[4\] [Lecture by Mr Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National Development, at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy’s Second Anniversary Public Lecture](http://www.mnd.gov.sg/newsroom/Speeches/speeches%5F2006%5FM%5F17082006.htm?ref=bernardleong.com), Ministry of National Development ([MND](http://www.mnd.gov.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com)) Website. \[5\] [“Building a Civic Society”](http://app.feedback.gov.sg/asp/new/new0001.asp?id=501&ref=bernardleong.com), Speech by DPM Lee at the Harvard Club of Singapore 35th Anniversary Dinner 6 Jan 2004, [Feedback Unit](http://app.feedback.gov.sg/asp/index.asp?ref=bernardleong.com) Website. \[6\] [A Reprise to Bloggers and Politics](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/08/reprise-to-bloggers-and-politics.html?ref=bernardleong.com), BL, Singapore Angle. \[7\] [On Management of Dissent](http://tantarnhow.blogspot.com/2006/07/on-management-of-dissent.html?ref=bernardleong.com), Tan Tarn How. ****Authors’ Disclaimer:** **The opinions here expressed are strictly our own, and do not represent the organizations which we work for.* ****Appendix** | **Topic** | **ND Message Speech** | **ND Rally Speech** | | ------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Transition to Manufacturing to Knowledge-based Economy | Grow and upgrade our economy and develop new core-competecies | Create a Research, Enterprise and Innovation council. | | Education System | Pay attention to the polytechnics and ITEs | Discussing the new initiatives and also promote the image of polytechnics and ITEs as possible alternatives. Also feature the creativity of these instituions in the service culture issue | | Social Welfare & Healthcare | Attending to the aging population and people of the lower income gap | New funds for the poor income gap, modification of HDB policies for that income group. Medisave age limit is extended to 80. | | Vision for Singapore 2015 | Remaking the City of Singapore | Improving the service culture and provide the design layout for the city in the next ten years. | This table summarizes the points that coincided between the National Day Message and the National Day Rally Speech 2005 **This article is co-authored with Loy Hui Chieh. The writers thank Wayne for his input, over lunch.* ### A Reprise to "Bloggers and Politics" URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/a-reprise-to-bloggers-and-politics/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:10:24.000Z An entry by a Singapore Economist entitled [“Blogger and Politics”](http://a-singapore-economist.blogspot.com/2006/08/bloggers-and-politics.html?ref=bernardleong.com) has caught my attention today. Two days back, [Joe Lieberman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe%5FLieberman?ref=bernardleong.com), an incumbent three-term senator from the state of Connecticut and also a vice-presidential candidate hopeful, lost the Democratic primary to a political novice, [Ned Lamont](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned%5FLamont?ref=bernardleong.com). The US blogosphere or the **netroots* movement was cited as one of the main factors for Lieberman (see this article from [Time](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1224538,00.html?ref=bernardleong.com) magazine). Coupled with the Connecticut democrats’ unhappiness with Lieberman’s pro-Iraq war stance and closeness to George W Bush, Led Namont was able to pull off a surprise victory in this primary. As I have been following the US midterm elections 2006 closely via both the US mainstream media and blogosphere (for example, [Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Daily Kos: State of the Nation](http://www.dailykos.com/?ref=bernardleong.com)), the intention of the article is to examine the implications of this event in the context of Singapore. This short analysis hopes to complement earlier articles in Singapore (for example, see the earlier articles by [Hou](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/08/mainstream-media-and-blogs-view-from.html?ref=bernardleong.com) and my fellow colleague, [Ringisei](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/07/who-shut-dogs-up.html?ref=bernardleong.com) from Singapore Angle). [Ari Melber](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber?ref=bernardleong.com) asked the question in Huffington Post, “[Did the bloggers defeat Joe Lieberman?](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/did-bloggers-defeat-joe-l%5Fb%5F26933.html?ref=bernardleong.com)” Currently, the US MSM and blogosphere are discussing the repercussions of the Lieberman’s loss in the democratic primary. In his own words, > **Bloggers constitute a small slice of progressive Internet activists, known as the netroots, which includes organizations like MoveOn.org and Democracy for America; informal networks like e-mail lists and MySpace groups; and Internet activists who use websites to raise money, broadcast videos and disseminate information.* Similarly like the Daily Kos blogger, [Markos Moulitsas](http://www.dailykos.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), who was skeptical about the bloggers effect, he examines the other factors which are also crucial to Lamont’s win in the Connecticut democratic primary. Most famous political bloggers in US divert the hype that they are responsible for Lieberman’s defeat. Let us look at the other factors that I believe, have contributed to Lieberman’s defeat: - ****Innovation and Creativity demonstrated by the Lamont strong campaign team:**: Under the leadership of Sean Smith, a Connecticut democratic operative and also campaign manager to Lamont’s campaign, the team has adopted various strategies that made Lamont look like a different kind of democrat. Of course, the basic platform which Lamont ran on, was on his opposition to Iraq war and Lieberman being too close to George Bush. As the events unfold, the team established him with positions on other issues, for example, the Terry Schiavo case and Patriot Act. With all the frustration mounting on the Bush administration’s foreign policy in Middle East and other domestic failures (healthcare and social security), Ned Lamont has managed to come from behind to beat Lieberman. If you type “Ned Lamont” in [youTube](http://www.youtube.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), you find that the Lamont’s political ads are pretty innovative and breaks away from the conventional political ads in the US. One can attribute to Lamont’s background as a businessman who made his money in the media industry. [Jon Stewart](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon%5FStewart?ref=bernardleong.com), from Comedy Central, was the first to pick up the way how Lamont narrate with his approval of his political message. For example, he ends with “I am Ned Lamont and I approve this message” with his team adding, “and so do we all”. He was able to deflect the Lieberman’s negative campaign by running a humorous ad that mocks himself as a person with a messy desk and makes bad coffee. In short, he was also winning the media campaign against Lieberman. - ****Strong grassroots movement by established Democrat internet engines**: Lamont has the support of not only the Connecticut bloggers but also established internet organizations like Moveon.org to help him to do fundraising. Melber also pointed out that the first netroots activist that brought about the defeat of Lieberman’s loss was Keith Crane. He described about the process in how Keith using not only blogging but also normal marketing strategies to help Lamont propagate his message: > **As I write in this new Nation piece, Ned Lamont’s Digital Constituency, the first netroots activist to break through in Connecticut was Keith Crane, a retired truck driver who sparked Internet rumblings against Lieberman in February 2005–without a blog. Crane had never even touched a computer until 2003, when he volunteered to work on Howard Dean’s presidential campaign, and he still types with one finger. After Lieberman voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, Crane began a grassroots campaign to recruit a primary opponent and launched DumpJoe.com. Yet as a Democratic Town Committee member in Branford, Crane did not confine his activism to the Internet. While his website highlighted the infamous image of Bush kissing Lieberman, Crane also created hundreds of “kiss buttons” and Iraq stickers that he distributed in the parking lot at the state party’s largest dinner in March 2005\. He remembers that the buttons struck a nerve because “every car was stopping” to offer a thumbs-up.* - ****Political knife from his fellow Democrat senators**: Most of the major Democrat senators, including their Senate Minority leader, have made it clear that they would only support the winner of the Democrat Primary rather than endorse the incumbent senator ahead of the primary. They were also unhappy with Lieberman’s unwavering support to Bush, particularly his objection to filibuster the Sam Alito’s nomination as a justice to the US supreme court. The MSM in Singapore may hijack this repercussions to this event and hype the blogger effect in US so that they can urge the authorities to take a tougher stance to the blogosphere, using a **[slippery slope](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery%5Fslope?ref=bernardleong.com)* argument that if the establishment don’t do that, they will end up like what happened to Lieberman. I am not going to counter this type of fallacious argument. Instead I will play the **contrarian* and provide a few reasons why it is extremely difficult for the Singapore blogosphere to have significant influence in our political elections: - ****There is no alternative MSM in Singapore:** Adding to my [earlier argument](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/07/government-should-let-hotel-open-bak.html?ref=bernardleong.com) that most bloggers tend to read ST first before quoting them and adding their disagreements with the piece, the second issue is that there are no alternative MSM in Singapore. In the US, Ned Lamont has the support of [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), even he was constantly painted as a “unpatriotic” and not “trustworthy” individual by [Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/?ref=bernardleong.com). - ****Lack of Grassroots and Activists:** This is the problem of the opposition parties in Singapore. Without a strong grassroots movement, there is no way that they can win an election. After all, the grassroots activities provide the most direct and simple way to bring voters to the polls. - ****Political bloggers prefer to be anonymous:** We don’t have Markos Moulitsas or the team of bloggers in Huffington Post who are not anonymous and stand up to the establishment. With all the Internet and Sedition Acts, it is virtually impossible for bloggers of such genre exist. Of course you can, call yourself “anonymous” or pick a nice pseudonym. - ****Spring up innovative approaches in the election campaign:** Ned Lamont knew how to play the media game, but in Singapore, it is impossible to play the media game. Yes, the Singaporean net-roots person can upload videos to youtube and google video. At the end of the day, counting the unique visitors for downloads, you would realize that it is only about 0.2% (the highest download for the election was about 100K and I use the population of 4.3M as my denominator and I agree that it’s a very rough and dirty estimate). Of course, at the end of the day, it is an interesting phenomenon to see how the net-roots activists in US have created an interesting case study of how bloggers have assisted in a political election. Did they really help to bring down Lieberman? I take the skeptical hat and conclude that it is more than the bloggers that make the difference. ### Thriving without Intervention: Entrepreneurship in Perspective URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/thriving-without-intervention-entrepreneurship-in-perspective/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:09:55.000Z KTM’s recent post \[1\] on [emigration](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/08/emigration-in-perspective.html?ref=bernardleong.com) have provoked many interesting responses. While Hui Chieh, [Lzydata](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/08/just-what-does-it-mean-to-say-that.html?ref=bernardleong.com) and [The Void Deck](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/08/listening-to-us-and-peaceful-street.html?ref=bernardleong.com) have offered their perspectives on whether the Singapore government are “listening” to the common people, a few comments (see appendix) centered on the issue of entrepreneurship in Singapore. The aim of this article is to examine some of the comments made by people about the government on the issues of entrepreneurship and put things in perspective. This article also hopes to debunk the myth that the development of entrepreneurship in Singapore is heavily dependent on the government. On the contrary, entrepreneurship can thrive in Singapore with or without government intervention and ****[molly-coddling](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/commentary/2006/05/30/entrepreneurial-popular-delusions-the-molly-coddling-of-crowds/?ref=bernardleong.com)**. We set out to show that the onus is on the Singaporeans rather than the government which is crucial to the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. An entrepreneur is one who either creates a new invention/business idea/product/service that changes the way how market works, or one who redefines the market by carving a market niche where it is not replicable. In return for that success, he contributes back to society not necessarily with money but with other possible resources that could benefit people in kind. There are two aspects that encompasses the Singapore entrepreneurial ecosystem. The first is the ****hardware**. Relatively compare to the rest of the world, Singapore is the [2nd easiest place](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/contributors-corner/2006/08/01/singapore-easiest-place-business/?ref=bernardleong.com) to do business \[2\]. For most businesses, Singapore offers a good infrastructure, low taxes, and wages control that is beneficial to the employer than the employee. Even with the dominance of the government-linked companies, Singapore follows a free market economy. The second is the ****software**, i.e. we need to encourage people to take up entrepreneurship. The Singapore culture is one that is intolerant of failure and advocates risk adversity. What has happened is that most people enter into entrepreneurship with too much expectation and lack of passion and fervour. [**Meritocracy is a double edged sword**](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/commentary/2006/03/16/meritocracy-as-a-double-edged-sword-to-entrepreneurship/?ref=bernardleong.com) in Singapore. While meritocracy creates an egalitarian system for anyone who works hard to succeed, most Singaporeans have compromised quality with speed and efficiency and this kind of attitude is also illustrated in the [**lack of innovation and service culture**](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/commentary/2006/05/14/a-common-thread-in-singaporeans-innovation-outsourcing-service-culture/?ref=bernardleong.com) from Singaporeans. The Singaporean does not care whether quality is important, all he/she wants is to get the thing done without thinking and bring the dough back home. Here is a common list of comments offered by Singaporean entrepreneurs to the government on small medium business enterprises. - ****“The government should give more cash assistance to the small-medium enterprises”:**What is the rationale of injecting capital into your company using taxpayers money? The most common reasons given are regional expansion and scaling up the company operations. Not all business enterprises have the capability to scale up because scalability and sustainability are very dependent on the industry. When the government does not give the money to the small-medium enterprise, it is not because they are not helping the SME.It could be that the SME is not suitable for revenue injection. As a matter of fact, some companies are asking for cash without thinking of growth for their company. While I agree that there are very few genuine companies that require capital injection, I don’t back the other ninety percent SME owners screaming for cash when they don’t need it and they don’t know how to use it. Most enterprises fail because of the team and failure to manage cashflow.The government can offer services and assistance such as legal and accounting aid to these companies to develop their capabilities. In this way, these companies can learn to develop their enterprise further and also inject new vigour to the industry. That comes to my next point. - ****“The government should award contracts to the local companies and not the foreign companies” or “Our market is too small, so why bother?” :**If we live in a free market economy, the contracts should be awarded to the best company. It does not help that Singaporeans are brand conscious and will rather place their bet on paying more for the same product from a foreign company than a local company. Is there a way to get around the problem? As a matter of fact, there is. However, not many entrepreneurs are willing to test it.I am currently advising a company which is selling a piece of technology that can help to increase the speed of biology computation. The technology are built and prototyped in Singapore, but they have no local customers at all. As a matter of fact, our local research institutions have the capability to purchase it from them. Instead, they rely on the big vendors. The entrepreneur I worked with, did not whine about the situation. Instead, he sought out other markets. He bootstrapped for two years because the demand from the market has only appeared recently. Now, the technology is sold to Malaysia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and also US including MIT. These people pay them upfront compare to our local institutions that is taking a hell lot of time to decide whether to buy something. The reason why I talk about this story is that most successful companies don’t really rely on the local market. The government is also a customer, and hence like any other company, they also can choose which products they wanted to buy. Being local-company friendly might create a sense of protectionism and deter foreign direct investments from coming to Singapore, as there is no incentive to put money in Singapore because of its legal and pro-business infrastructure. Some Singaporean biotech companies (Cygenics and Rockeby) have problems raising funds even from the government, but they took an interesting strategy to take the company to be listed in the Australia stock exchange, and surprisingly, it helped them to scale up very quickly. Fundraising is an issue with Singapore for entrepreneurs, but there are other avenues of circumventing the cashflow problem. One approach is to use the bootstrapping strategy that is responsible for the success of many big companies like Dell and Microsoft. Of course, we often hear of the personalities but we never look at their strategies in how to grow their organizations into big multi-national corporations. The reality is that the Singapore market is small, but an entrepreneur is supposed to find his own way to create the market and not wait for the government to create the market. - ****“Teaching entrepreneurship is a waste of time”:** Actually, there are many schools of thought. I will leave this discussion to another time. Here is a simple way to tell most people. To teach entrepreneurship, it is important that the academic is also a practioner, rather than the observer. It is also important that you cannot make entrepreneurs, and most sensible educators do not want to generate entrepreneurs. Their aim is to instill certain aspects like financial, marketing and management knowledge to give the students a greater scope in developing their career. Ultimately, it is important not to be molly-coddled by the government into becoming an entrepreneur. For more discussion on some common misconceptions to entrepreneurship, I urge the reader to look at this [reference](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/commentary/2006/05/30/entrepreneurial-popular-delusions-the-molly-coddling-of-crowds/?ref=bernardleong.com). Entrepreneurship can thrive with and without government intervention (see \[3\] for an interesting view that Silicon Valley is no big deal either). The problem lies with the software, i.e. the people. Think about it, if you look at China, US, Taiwan and India, there is no government intervention to develop an entrepreneurial ecosystem. The people there have the fire in the belly to succeed. That is why foreigners are taking our jobs because they want it more than we do. For these countries, the entrepreneurs are just praying hard that the government is off their backs. Singaporeans live in a comfort zone where there is no hunger to pursue your passion or create something that you can change the world. They settle for the social contract laid out by the government. Perhaps, that’s why we don’t have fortune 500 companies. It’s not because of the government but we should look into ourselves and ask whether we can do it without the government. ****References:** \[1\] KwayTeowMan, [Emigration in Perspective](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/08/emigration-in-perspective.html?ref=bernardleong.com), Singapore Angle. \[2\] World Bank, [Doing Business 2006](http://www.doingbusiness.org/documents/DoingBusines2006%5Ffullreport.pdf?ref=bernardleong.com). \[3\] Guy Kawasaki, [How to Kick Silicon Valley’s ass](http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/06/how%5Fto%5Fkick%5Fsil.html?ref=bernardleong.com). ### The Government should let the hotel open a bak chor mee stall URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/the-government-should-let-the-hotel-open-a-bak-chor-mee-stall/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:09:30.000Z ****Demarcating the Boundaries of Mainstream & Citizen Journalism** We live in a brave new world. With the advances of internet technologies, citizen journalism has been touted to be an alternative challenge to the mainstream media. Recent events such as the Singapore Elections 2006 and the Mr Brown affair have created ripples that can tilt the balance on the Singapore government’s control of the internet. In this article, we analyze the issues that are discussed in the political roundtable organized by Straits Times (ST) last Tuesday. The discussion centered around three themes; one, mainstream media vs online (or new) media and two, regulation and control of both media by the government and three, freedom of speech and expression in the new media. ****Author’s Disclaimer:** By the time you read this blog entry, four days have already passed since the political roundtable (consisting of Ms Penny Low, Dr Gan Su-lin and myself) in Straits Times. The [article](http://commentarysingapore.blogspot.com/2000/01/blogs-msm.html?ref=bernardleong.com) is published today \[0\]. Based on a gentleman’s agreement between the ST journalists (Chua Mui Hoong & Li Xueying) and Singapore Angle, we have to adjourn the publication of this article till today (22 July 2006). The other contributors in Singapore Angle have already been informed privately (and on Tuesday) on how the whole event transpired. What you will hear, are my perspectives and opinions towards the issues discussed in this roundtable. **The opinions here expressed are strictly my own, and do not represent the organizations (including blogs) which I work for.* Before I continue my thoughts about the roundtable discussion, my definition of citizen journalism follows from an earlier [article](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/06/aggregators-blogs-and-credibility-abc.html?ref=bernardleong.com) I wrote on the trends in the blogosphere. The rise of citizen journalism came about because of the emergence of new technologies. With the recent transition into the web 2.0 phenomenon, the internet has become a better marketplace of ideas and creativity because the new technologies are geared towards integrating online communities and enabling the common man with tools to generate new media content that can easily propagated across the world in a short time. For the context of this article, both the terms “online media” and “citizen journalism” are synonymous. In Singapore, citizen journalism (or online media) takes on a different role. It is filling up the space which is left open by the traditional media which has always taken a pro-government position. It has been touted to be a possible disruptive technology that possess the potential to subsume the mainstream media. The constant discussion on political issues has turned citizen journalism in Singapore into a force that is constantly challenging the OB markers set forth by the government. The government has decided after the elections that they will take a “lighter touch” in engaging the internet and not create the [“blogger registration act”](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/06/what-if-there-is-blogger-registration.html?ref=bernardleong.com). However, the recent Mr Brown incident \[1,2,3\] has changed the view that the government is not really serious about adopting a softer stance towards online media. (Please refer to the appendix below for my position on Mr Brown incident) That set forth the background for the panellists to discuss the future of mainstream media and online media. Technically, the whole discussion can be broken into three questions: 1. Should we hold online or new media (blogging, podcasting and videocasting) to the same standards set forth by the Singapore government as mainstream media? Afterall, a citizen journalist can get away with seditious and defammatory remarks by remaining anonymous, but a mainstream journalist cannot. 2. Can the cyberspace be controlled or regulated with new legislation or to be explicit, how do we deal with potential abuses arising from the internet? 3. Where do we go from here? Should the government continue their two-prong approach to both online and mainstream media? With these questions in mind, we proceed to review the different points raised in the roundtable and elaborate more on my position over the issues discussed. ****Should the internet be regulated like the mainstream media?** Let us relook at the government’s position on the Mr Brown affair. For the comments below, I shall sum up their statements and call it the ****MICA doctrine**. > **“It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government. If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government’s standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics.”* > ****– K Bhavani** \[2\] > **“I said that we will look at how we can help have a lighter touch in regulating the internet during the elections. Mr brown’s comment was not posted in his blog. If he had posted the same comment on his blog, we’ll treat it as part of the internet chatter and we would have just let it be! But he didn’t post it – he wrote it and publish it in a mainstream newspaper! That’s the difference!* > > **….. And that’s always been my position, or the position of this Government – that the mainstream newspaper must report accurately, objectively and responsibly. And that they must adopt this model that they are part of this nation-building effort, rather than go out and purvey views that would mislead people, confuse people, which will in fact undermine our national strategy!”* > ***– Dr Lee Boon Yang* \[5 \]* The MICA doctrine is specifically targetted at the following point. If a blogger moves out of the internet and become a mainstream journalist, he is not allowed to write articles that performs two specific positions: (i) taking a partisan stand and (ii) champion issues. However, if the article is published in the internet, the government will let it pass and consider it as “internet chatter”. The Bhavani quote is important because it relates to what the boundaries and restriction that seperates a mainstream one from an citizen journalist. We will come back to the problems posed by the MICA doctrine near the end of the article. Let us return to the one of the main questions discussed on the round table. Su-lin posed this question during the roundtable and took the conservative position in order to encourage a proper discussion over the issue. Her assertion is that the internet media should be regulated with the same legislation like the mainstream media. If the internet is exploited by an individual or a group of people to propagate an opinion like a journalist, why should we hold double standards by not conferring a ST journalist with the same kind of freedom that a blogger enjoy? Think about it, why should [STOMP](http://www.stomp.com.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) be regulated like the way ST do, while the rest of us in Singapore Angle, Singabloodypore, Yawning Bread can have the freedom of expression on our positions. In essence, she has inverted the age old issue that we should have more freedom of speech, into we should regulate more because the people in ST is suffering a lack of freedom as compare to the citizen journalists. One thing I do end up agreeing with her in the course of the roundtable, is that anyone who publishes or publicizes his or her viewpoint, be it online or offline, is propagating or promoting his/her point of view. Throughout the roundtable, I chose to answer the question at the end. My conclusion is that the ****new media should not be regulated in the same way like the mainstream media, and the advancement of my position is that the establishment should lower the standards on the mainstream media**. Let me take you through my train of thought and you can decide whether my position is tenable or not. In simple words, my challenge to ST is to let STOMP run similarly to like the Singapore blogosphere \[6\]. - ****Which is more influential, the mainstream or the new media?** Of course, based on Tarn How’s earlier report \[8\], most people in Singapore relies on mainstream media for information, compare to the new media. Actually, one interesting statistic is that most bloggers have to read Today and Straits Times first before blogging. If you notice, most blogs in Singapore are passive, i.e. they usually provide the alternative viewpoint or criticisms set forth by the content in the mainstream media. Consequently, the citizen journalists will quote the mainstream media and publish their rebuttals and disagreement on the interpretation of the news. Very rarely, citizen journalism takes premptive action to publish news before the mainstream media except for the bullying girls case and the Tammy video. - ****Will Singapore end up adopting internet policies from China?**: If Singapore wants to be an information hub, it is almost impossible for the government to control both the speed and transmission of information. For every method to suppress information, the netizens will find an alternative method to spread information to the masses. If you want examples, think about all the uploaded videocasts and podcasts during the Singapore Elections 2006 and how quickly the videos of opposition rally are uploaded into the youtube and Google video.It is often claimed by some bloggers that Singapore might eventually end up adopting policies what China is currently doing with Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. I want to dismantle this claim by arguing that It is not in the economic interests of Singapore to do so. China can maintain the control of the internet based on its economy. China possess both natural resources and a large market, hence it is an attractor of foreign investments. Most companies, for example, Google and Microsoft, wants access and penetrate their products into this huge market. In doing so, these companies are willing to compromise at the expense of internet freedom. On the contrary, Singapore does not have any natural resources (only human capital) and a small marketplace. In order to ensure its continual survival, Singapore will be forced to move along with the forces of globalisation as an information gateway in Asia. If they suppress the internet like China, there will be no incentives for companies to set up shop in Singapore. - ****Freedom of speech and expression**: The blogosphere has offered a real alternative to the mainstream media because it allows the freedom of speech and expression. The ability to remain anonymous and post your opinions on issues gives Singaporeans a new avenue to express their thoughts. There exists the possibility that we will eventually mature into a truly democratic country in the future.**If we want to encourage creativity and growth in Singapore, having laws to tighten control over online media will do the exact opposite. It will be akin to suicide. It’s a matter of space, I guess, because once you tighten this space that people have, you will be restricting their freedom to express what they truly want to say \[9\].* - ****It’s not the information, but the process of assimilating information**: The internet generation, particularly our youth, are susceptible to the innundation of information. There are two issues which arise from this problem: first, plagiarism and second, interpretation. The first concern came about due to the rise of plagiarism in students in copying off content from internet to submit their work. It ties with the second point that our youth are mature enough to discern whether the content on the net is true or false. In my opinion, it is important to subject the youth to the information and guide them to draw their own interpretation rather than to molly-coddle them to believe otherwise. This is in line with the argument I spoke earlier that we need to create a marketplace of ideas so that the readers can review the arguments from both sides of the house and decide their position on the issue. - ****Engage and educate rather than legislate and control:** As we have observed in the growth of blogosphere, most bloggers look to “thought leaders” for credible content. If we truly live in an ideal society (in the virtual world), social online communities will start to self-regulate and moderate against people who will put up offensive and seditious remarks. The real crux of the issue is that the internet is fragile. If the internet goes out of control and even the online social communities and thought leaders cannot deal with it, the government will definitely enter into the picture with the legislation. ****Problems with the MICA doctrine** There are problems of interpretation in the MICA doctrine and some of the points have been discussed (see \[3, 4, 7\]): - If a journalist writes an article that praises the establishment, does that mean that the journalist has taken a position that is contrary to the MICA doctrine? Let’s reverse the position. Suppose, a journalist writes an article about a particular policy and praises one of the opposition parties for their contributions to the policy, does it equal to the earlier case? If so, perhaps, all ST journalists are allowed to praise and not allowed to criticise. - If we can only champion issues and take a partisan position in the internet, we can twist the argument and start an online newspaper instead of a printed newspaper. Only in that setting, you are allowed to champion issues and take a stand, because it is classified as “internet chatter”. So, here is the way to illustrate the contradiction in the government’s position using a thought experiment. I shall term it the “Chua Mui Hoong (CMH)” paradox. She is an established political journalist in the Straits Times. Imagine that Chua Mui Hoong starts a personal blog and writes a blog entry with content that is promoting the opposition’s point of view. Does she violate the MICA doctrine because the journalist is not supposed **“to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government”?* Or instead, will she be let off because the government has declared they will not restrict anything online because any blog entry is constituted as “internet chatter”? If that is the case, the citizen journalists in the blogosphere are enjoying a kind of freedom that our poor ST journalists don’t have. That is the paradox that the establishment needs to grapple. The logic presented in this thought experiment will inevitably lead to a position of [perverse incentive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse%5Fincentive?ref=bernardleong.com): if the journalist do not want to be locked in both contrary positions, the only way for him or her to get around is to be anonymous or take a pseudonym in her blogger persona. ****Conclusion** Where do we go from here? We must continue to engage the establishment on issues from the blogosphere. I like to end this article with a metaphorical answer brought forth by Xueying, “Did the government really shut down a bak chor mee stall?” My answer is that the government has not really shut down the bak chor mee stall. They just allow bak chor mee stalls to only be set up in hawker centers and food courts, and not let high class hotels (our mainstream media) to do that. Perhaps, they should give the high class hotel the licence to have a bak chor mee stall too. ****An afterword will be added within the next two days** ****Acknowledgements** BL thanks the participants (Ms Penny Low, MP and Dr Gan Su-Lin) and moderators (Li Xueying and Chua Mui Hoong) of the ST roundtable for an interesting and enlightening discussion. He credits Gwen (from SG Entrepreneurs), Hui Chieh, Legal Janitor and Grey for critical and helpful comments pertaining to the discussion of this topic. ****References:** \[0\] Li Xueying, **Did the Govt really shut down a bak chor mee stall?*, The Straits Times, Insight S10, 22 July 2006\. The full article can be found in [Mr Wang’s](http://commentarysingapore.blogspot.com/2000/01/blogs-msm.html?ref=bernardleong.com) blog. \[1\] Mr Brown [Singaporeans are fed, up with Progress](http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/today%5Fsporeans%5F.html?ref=bernardleong.com), 30 June 2006, Today. \[2\] K Bhavani, [Distorting the truth, mr brown?](http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/letter%5Ffrom%5Fmic.html?ref=bernardleong.com), Today, 3 July 2006, Today. \[3\] A good collection of opinions and commentaries are compiled in [Govt Gets Touchy](http://tomorrow.sg/archives/2006/07/03/govt%5Fgets%5Ftouchy.html?ref=bernardleong.com), Tomorrow.sg. I highly recommend articles by [Mr Wang](http://commentarysingapore.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Yawning Bread](http://www.yawningbread.org/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Kway Teow Man](http://kwayteowman.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Molly Meek](http://mollymeek.livejournal.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Xenoboy](http://xenoboysg.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Kway Teow Man](http://kwayteowman.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com). \[4\] Ringisei, [On the rectification of mrbrown](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/07/on-rectification-of-mrbrown.html?ref=bernardleong.com) and the Void Deck, [Let’s Negotiate, So Say We All ](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/07/lets-negotiate-so-say-we-all.html?ref=bernardleong.com), Soon Sze Meng, [Is it legitimate to explicitly limit our journalists and newspapers as to what they cannot do?](http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/07/is-it-legitimate-to-explicitly-limit%5F04.html?ref=bernardleong.com) and Wayne Soon, [Innovative vs Democratic Outcomes](http://waynesoon.blogspot.com/2006/07/innovative-versus-democratic-outcomes.html?ref=bernardleong.com). \[5\] Lee Boon Yang, [Unjustified comments on govt policies will undermine confidence in govt: minister](http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/218745/1/.html?ref=bernardleong.com), ChannelNewsAsia, 12 July 2006. \[6\] Cherian George, [Is STOMP Citizen Journalism?](http://singaporemedia.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-stomp-citizen-journalism.html?ref=bernardleong.com). \[7\] Tan Tarn How, [The Management of Dissent](http://tantarnhow.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) \[8\] Tan Tarn How, “Citizen Journalism and the 2006 Elections”, Session IV, IPS Post-Election Forum, dated 2 June 2006. \[9\] The same paragraph is quoted in the ST article today. To give credit to ST, they asked me to clarify a statement I made during the interview. I was given the opportunity to redraft that statement and they quoted the whole statement accurately without any changes. ****Appendix: My position on Mr Brown’s affair** I want to state my personal position on the Mr Brown’s affair. Before I convince Hui Chieh to start the new Singapore Angle, I belong to the group of “apolitical” specialist bloggers , in comparison to [Mr Wang](http://commentarysingapore.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Yawning Bread](http://www.yawningbread.org/?ref=bernardleong.com), bloggers from [Singapore Angle](http://www.singaporeangle.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [The Void Deck](http://www.thevoiddeck.org/?ref=bernardleong.com) and [Singabloodypore](http://singabloodypore.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com) in the Singapore blogosphere, because of my work in [SG Entrepreneurs](http://www.sgentrepreneurs.com/?ref=bernardleong.com). Here is my overall view to the whole Mr Brown event and the response from MICA: 1. Mr Brown’s article “Singaporeans are fed, up with progress” \[1\] is not a blog article. It was first published in Today and not in the blogosphere. The only association is that he is a popular blogger. My view is that the his Today article is a mainstream media newspaper article. It cannot constitute as a blog article, and hence if the blogosphere was attacked because of the article, the inference is not correct, because we should dissociate the article from the person. 2. On the MICA response, I believe that the government has every right to respond to the points brought up by Mr Brown. However, there are two things which I felt that Bhavani’s reply was uncalled for. The first was the fact that she accused Mr Brown of hiding behind anonymity. For the longest time, ten years ago (when I was an undergraduate in NUS), I have also read Mr Brown’s earlier “National Education” series. Everyone knows that Mr Brown is Lee Kin Mun. Second, with all due respect to MICA, Ms Bhavani has hit below the belt by bringing up the fact that Mr Brown is the parent of an autistic child. If the MICA response has been focussed on the issues, I would have no problem because if the blogosphere upholds the freedom to express your opinion, we must let the other side of the house to give their side of the story. That is the platform for civil and rational discourse in a democratic society. 3. While I agree that the MICA’s response was routine of the government, I disagree with the characterization that the bloggers should retreat with the view that it is the same like the past events, for example, Catherine Lim (1992). I agreed with Ringisei’s earlier article \[4\] and I added one more thing to the equation. My general view is that Singaporeans are too sensitive to criticism, whether it is the government or the people. If we agree that our government behaves like a nanny, my sense is that the Singaporeans share similar behaviour being conditioned by the government. If being challenged on a viewpoint or criticised, most Singaporeans will dig a hole and hide there, instead of standing up on what they believe in. If you truly believe your position, you need to stand on your own ground and defend it based on firm principles and intellectual honesty. 4. It is important to note that the decision to suspend Mr Brown is announced by Today. As we cannot ascertain the truth in whether Today is “coerced” into censoring Mr Brown or they self-censored themselves, they remained to make the biggest losses in this whole affair. ### Can Singapore support Basic & Social Sciences? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/can-singapore-support-basic-social-sciences/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:09:10.000Z The Singapore government has poured S$13.75B into research and development. Of that sum of money, S$5B will go to the new Research Enterprise and Innovation Council (REIC), chaired by Dr Tony Tan. The rest will be channelled to the Agency of Science, Technology and Research to fund the current ongoing projects in the physical and biomedical sciences. It has appeared that the new REIC has decided to recreate the wheel to fund applied sciences rather than basic sciences. This article provides some perspective on both basic and social sciences in Singapore and suggests a model for funding such academic enterprise. How do we foster a Singaporean culture respecting the achievements in sciences and arts? That is the question that we want to address in this section. We used the concept of academic enterprise, which defines specifically for the whole of higher education and research. Since there is a plethora of fields of study in the world of academia, I will like to focus on two marginalized groups: natural sciences (physics, biology and chemistry) and social sciences (economics, sociology and history). Science and technology dominate the whole of the 20th century and will continue to play an important role in the 21st century. From the invention of a light bulb by Edison to the launch of the first commercial viable spaceflight (SpaceShipOne), new technologies will provide the next thrust in taking the stable financial infrastructure to the next step. These technologies will create an emerging market and subsequently substituted by another emerging technology that will either replace it or compatible with that. However, unlike the manufacturing and industrial revolution that took place between 1960-1990, it is difficult to predict the evolution of scientific progress. Scientific research, as most academics would agree, is 99% frustration and 1% ecstasy. Discovery of a new idea or innovating a exist technology to become a better product are essential to the scientific enterprise. There has been a strong focus in research and development particularly in the life sciences during the past five years with the emergence of the Agency of Science, Technology and Research (A-STAR) \[1\]. Most of the research institutes are focussed on the following areas: materials sciences, data storage, communications, cell and molecular biology particularly in stem cells and cancer research. With a strong and stable funding in these institutes, Singapore has attracted global talent from all over the world. The fruits of the work by A-STAR will surface in the next couple of years, most likely in the form of being a respected life sciences centre in the world with strong publication records and new technological innovations. For example, in Genome Institute of Singapore, the research has already produced publications in Nature Genetics and Cell (which are first tier high impact science journals) and solicited a big grant from the Encode project. For a five years old research institute, it is considered a feat that we can be proud of. Of course we need to do more. On the other hand, the two major universities, National University of Singapore \[2\] and Nanyang Technological University \[2\] will be granted greater autonomy in their management and strategic directions. Setting this as a background, we provide additional insight that can complement with the resources allocated to the current development. To facilitate my argument, it is essential to separate sciences into two categories: basic (or theoretical) and applied sciences. To close the gap for the current development, the research institutions need a paradigm change on their view of basic sciences and humanities. Basic sciences revolve around areas that are esoteric, for example high-energy physics, quantum computation and evolutionary biology. Most of the time, it is difficult to gauge the potential applications of new ideas generated by basic sciences to technology. The realization of the technology from these theoretical results usually take a longer period of time, for example, the transistor is developed in 1960s from the ideas of quantum theory rooted in the 1920s. Since it is hard to set a deadline to a breakthrough for such ideas, it is therefore not practical to fund this kind of research from the government’s perspective. Analogous to theoretical sciences, economics, literature, history and sociology suffer from the same problem at times. On another hand, there has been an increasing trend on using theoretical concepts from physical sciences to apply to social sciences, particularly psychology, economics and sociology. Since the trend of research has become increasingly multi-disciplinary (for e.g. neurobiology uses areas like cognitive computer science, psychology and biology), it is therefore necessary to change the evaluation of academics’ performance based on how much they produce in their primary area of research. It is becoming easier for physicists and mathematicians to work in economics, finance and biology because they transfer a different skill set and infuse new energy for the development of the social sciences. Given these constraints and thoughts, it is right to ask why Singapore has not seen a Nobel Prize winner (or equivalently Fields Medal, Pulitzer Prize). To cross-examine this question, we review how Japan came to become a hotbed in innovation with at least five homegrown Nobel Prize winners (see ref \[3\]). In the 1930s, Klein Nishina went to Copahagen Institute to study under Niels Bohr, a leading physicist in quantum theory. He returned to Japan between 1931-1933, delivering a series of lectures on quantum theory, which inspired two physicists Yukawa and Tomanaga. These two physicists eventually won the Nobel prizes in physics for developing theoretical models on quantum theory of the nucleus and electrons respectively. In that era, Japan started its militarization and theoretical sciences are not respected. A lot of effort was spent on developing the technologies, and during the period of time, Yukawa and Tomanaga developed the theory while working on radar sciences for the Japanese military. Through a letter to Oppenheimer in the United States after the war, their work became recognized and subsequently they were credited with the Nobel Prize. They become role models for young Japanese scientists to go for theoretical sciences first and then to engineering sciences. That triggered a culture of innovation and creativity in the Japanese society. Singapore’s evolution was totally from the opposite angle taking the focus on applied technologies but there are possible implementations to develop towards a nation of creativity with the basic sciences and the humanities. We put forward a couple of recommendations to encourage academic enterprise based on our existing resources 1. ****Establishing research funds for basic sciences and humanities thru private sector and charity foundations.** Working with the various charity foundations and Singapore International Foundation, we suggest setting up a research fund through private sector funding for basic sciences and humanities similar to the charity foundations in the United States. It is difficult to fund basic sciences and humanities research through government because of tangible target evaluation. To solve that problem, we can adopt the model used by charitable foundations in the US and UK, for e.g. William and Melinda Gates Foundation and Royal Society, to fund such research. Alternatively, we can get private foundations to set up professor chairs to attract talent from these fields of study. This might be how the Universities and research institutes in Singapore can attract prominent Singaporean scientists working in these esoteric areas overseas to come back to Singapore. 2. ****Encourage multi-disciplinary research in the Universities and also in research institutes.** It is essential to change the view that if you are a biologist, you should do only biological research. Academic freedom will be encouraged if a scientist from one area is provided a fair evaluation by contributing in another field of research. We recommend evaluation of tenure track or performance of professors based on whether they have contributed in other fields of knowledge. 3. ****Encouraging young Singaporeans to aspire for greater heights such as Nobel Prize or Booker Prize.** Perhaps, it is interesting to encourage young Singaporeans to dream for higher heights. Passion and competitiveness are the cornerstones for the Singapore identity in taking Singapore into the next stage as suggested by the Remaking Singapore committee. The current education system is already making changes to allow more individual thinking and also changing society’s view on failure. With these recommendations, I will leave you to decide whether Singapore can support basic and social sciences. ****References:** \[1\] Agency of Science, Technology and Research, http://www.a-star.edu.sg/ \[2\] National University of Singapore, http://www.nus.edu.sg and Nanyang Technological University, http://www.ntu.edu.sg \[3\] S. S. Schweber, “QED and the men who made it”, Princeton University Press, 1994. ### What if there is a Blogger Registration Act? URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/what-if-there-is-a-blogger-registration-act/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:03:26.000Z Recently, a [Civil War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel%5Fcivil%5Fwar?ref=bernardleong.com) is happening in the universe of [Marvel comic books](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel%5FComics?ref=bernardleong.com). In this major crossover event, it is no longer about super heroes fighting against an ultimate villain, but among themselves. The series centers around a newly enacted Super-human Registration Act. The act when passed into law, would require **all persons in the United States with superhuman abilities who wish to use those abilities to fight crime to register with the federal government and receive proper training as law enforcement officials* \[1\]. The Act divided the super heroes into two camps, with Iron Man taking the side that all the super heroes should reveal their secret identities and Captain America champions the privacy and rights of the superheroes to keep their identity secret. In a thought experiment approach, I examine the implications of having a Blogger Registration Act in Singapore. Let me start with a hypothetical scenario. Suppose, a particular criminal offence triggered by a blogger’s insuination to violence is distilled into the real world, the government has decided to take control after letting things run its natural course. They decide that all the bloggers are required to register themselves under a Blogger Registration Act. In this act, the blogger is required to register his real name and his background with the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA). If you have been blogging under an anonymous identity, will you register under such an act? There are two schools of thought: the first belongs to the group who thinks that they should have the right to be anonymous and say whatever they like and the second who decide that they should reveal their identities to MICA. Both cases are equally justified in deciding whether to register for the bloggers registration act. What follows, is that the government decides to enact the law and force the opposition to register. If the opposition refuses, they will take them by “force” and deny them their rights. I would really love to ask for a vote among all the bloggers in the Singapore blogosphere which side they would be on. It would show their diversity of opinions on the issue. Of course, the above scenario is an exaggeration of what the theme of the article is about. So, what is the real theme behind this article? The theme of this article is about the [right to privacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right%5Fto%5Fprivacy?ref=bernardleong.com). In \[2\], > Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of information about themselves. Privacy is sometimes related to anonymity although it is often most highly valued by people who are publicly known. Privacy can be seen as an aspect of security–one in which trade-offs between the interests of one group and another can become particularly clear. Perhaps, it is not known to many that since Singapore follows the British legislative system, Singaporeans do not possess an explicit right to privacy \[3\]. Consequently, we have several laws that resulted from not having the right to privacy. For example, we have Computer Misuse Act (Chapter 50A) \[4\], Electronic Transcations Act \[5\], Sedition Act \[6\]. In all these legislation, Singapore has taken the approach that they reserve the right to convict someone if they committed an offence related to these acts. The right to privacy is not a clear cut black and white issue. There is no right and wrong because both sides of the house have valid arguments for and against the issue. There are two perspectives to the issue, from the view of the government and the other from the individual. The government might be forced to take action if the individual has committed a crime. If the individual hides under the veil of anonymity, the government might require any one of the above acts to acquire the information to find the culprit. Here is the dilemma, do we sacrifice the right to privacy for the individual in order to justify the ends of nabbing the criminal? Hence it is not easy for any policy or law-maker to enact a legislation that can satisfies both sides. Ultimately, our government has taken the “ends justify the means” approach. In a free society, you don’t need a reason to allow something to be legal. You require a reason to make something illegal. Oftentimes, we hear anonymous bloggers champion the right to privacy. Granted their point, the counter question to them, is that how do we stop people writing defammatory and seditious remarks under an anonymous identity? During the enactment of the Patriot Act in the US, I had a debate with my European friends in the UK. I devised a paradox to justify the need to break the right to privacy. Here is the paradox. Suppose, a criminal has hidden a nuclear bomb in the city and he is the only person who knows where the location of the bomb is. The police has only a few hours before the nuclear bomb detonates and kills millions of people. As the policeman, you stumbled upon a clue that a person named X could be that criminal and interestingly, you have the unfortunate problem that you are not exactly sure whether person X is really the culprit, but only circumstantial evidence showed that he could be. You need to get the information from the phone company about this person. The phone company refuses. What would be your course of action? I profess not to have the right answer when I tossed the paradox across the table, but I offer a solution based on Bayesian inference. What is the probability of this person being a criminal, given the likelihood that he would commit the crime and the evidence that is pointing towards him? If that probability is high, I argue that it is justified to break the right to privacy to acquire the information we need. Of course, such theoretical thought experiments are problematic in many ways, and subject to objections from other thinkers. I would leave the reader to decide whether we should have the right to privacy and fight for that right or let the government decide how much that right is for us. Of course, the other is open this article to debate and get a better sense what our view to the right of privacy means to us. Originally published in Singapore Angle (defunct) ****Author’s Note:** *The opinions here expressed are strictly his own, and do not represent the organizations he works for.* ****References:** \[1\] Wikipedia on [Civil War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel%5Fcivil%5Fwar?ref=bernardleong.com), Marvel Comics, 2006. \[2\] Wikipedia on [Right to Privacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right%5Fto%5Fprivacy?ref=bernardleong.com) \[3\] Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, 16 September 1963. \[4\] [Computer Misuse Act (Chapter 50A)](http://agcvldb4.agc.gov.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) \[5\] [Electronic Transactions Act (Act 25 of 1998)](http://agcvldb4.agc.gov.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) \[6\] [Sedition Act (Chapter 290)](http://agcvldb4.agc.gov.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) ### Aggregators, Blogs and Credibility: The "ABC" for Citizen Journalism URL: https://www.bernardleong.com/aggregators-blogs-and-credibility-the-abc-for-citizen-journalism/ Last updated: 2026-06-08T01:02:45.000Z In the recent IPS post-elections forum, the impact of the internet on the 2006 general elections has been discussed. One metric which the study did not manage to address is the issue of the bloggers’ credibility on this new form of citizen journalism. In this article, I review the emergence of group blogs (aggregators & congregators) and explain how they can be important in closing the credibility gap in blogs, and indicate directions for future research in this area. There is a supposed conflict between the real and virtual world. This conflict is often characterized by the pundits from the traditional media as the challenge posed by the beast of “the new media”. That beast is the World Wide Web (or internet), so named by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, and its latest iteration, [Web 2.0](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web%5F2.0?ref=bernardleong.com) (exemplified by the phenomena of YouTube, Podcasting, Google, Blogging, Flickr, etc.). Much of Web 2.0 centers on the new paradigm of content management and transfer. For the purpose of making this discussion simple, I will focus on [blogging](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogging?ref=bernardleong.com). There are two dimensions that made blogging very different from previous forms of content publication. The first concerns freedom of speech and the second concerns the credibility of the bloggers. They are intrinsically related. The internet has created a new landscape that promotes the democratization of thought and the revolution wrought by Web 2.0 can be seen in terms of the proliferation of **content*, which has in turn empowered users to create a new kind of identity. This new sort of identity partakes of qualities that, until not too long ago, only the few and powerful–particularly those in control of mass media (where the large corporations have undue influence)–can have. ****Is Credibility that important in Citizen Journalism?** To avoid unnecessary complications, I will draw upon the definition of [citizen journalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%5Fjournalism?ref=bernardleong.com) offered in Tan Tarn How, “Citizen Journalism and the 2006 Elections” \[1\]. According to Tan: > Citizen journalism is defined as the - Independent online publications with amateurs doing original reporting. - Citizens contributing photos, video and news to the mainstream news outlets. - When blogger adds personal commentary that relies on original research.” For present purposes, the definition needs to be expanded to include commentaries and opinions of established professionals or experts in various fields. For example, if an economist, Prof X, writes a short commentary in his blog (rather than a more traditional form of publication) on the price gouging of oil companies, this qualifies as a piece of citizen journalism under my expanded definition. The establishment viewed the freedom of speech available in the internet as a threat. Rules and regulations are continuously reviewed and created even today \[2\]. To deal with the growing menace of “poison pens” in the internet, new laws are established–or old ones applied–lto cope with bloggers making “seditious” and defamatory comments. The establishment presents the internet as an unsafe place, and promotes the notion that the content by bloggers is not credible. The central reason they cite for notion that bloggers are credible is that these writers hide behind the mask of anonymity. The anonymity issue is the crux of the credibility debate in citizen journalism. It is a double-edged sword. The real problem with the establishment is that they cannot accept anonymous comments that may damage their reputation in their own backyards. I don’t believe that the problem is common to politics but can also be found in the academic and the business world. But the association of anonymity with the lack of credibility is a non-sequitur. If someone writes a trashy article, his credibility will be lowered as compared to someone who writes an articulate and well reasoned article–whether or not either writer is anonymous. Think about it this way: are you willing to trust someone who spouts vulgarities over every paragraph on his or her piece or someone who writes professionally or with social etiquette? The establishment forgets that there is a mechanism of self-correction involved in the very nature of the internet. ****Aggregators and Congregation of Bloggers** In Singapore, a few blogs (SG Entrepreneurs, Singabloodypore, Tomorrow.SG and the new Singapore Angle) has already taken steps to aggregate individual blogs to form common interest groups. This is related to the notion of self-organizing of social groups in economics. There are three reasons for the trend. The first is blogging fatigue. Most blogs typically start with an individual who wants to voice his or her opinion on various subjects. But as time goes by, the blogger may suffer from writers’ block. Congregation of bloggers into group blogs allow for less felt need to come up with something to say everyday–with enough writers in the group, there will be something by someone every day. Secondly, bloggers often find themselves writing on topics that intersect with those that interest other bloggers. This sometimes leads to the formation of groups with common interests \[3\]. For example, Singabloodypore is now a authored by a group of bloggers writing primarily political commentaries. On the other hand, SG Entrepreneurs has a more apolitical focus on business, venture capital and entrepreneurship education, while Tomorrow.SG is created with the purpose of showcasing the diversity of blogs in the Singapore Blogosphere. Finally, the last reason, I believe, is that the building of social networks goes hand in hand with an increase in the credibility of the individual bloggers. (I do not dispute that there might be individual bloggers who are already perceived as credible on their own.) On this issue, theories of social networks from the social sciences may perhaps help to illuminate the issue of bloggers’ credibility and to provide a framework within which the impact of citizen journalism can be studied. My sense is that what we have before us is analogous to the processes underlying the use of “impact factor” to assess the credibility of an academic’s publication. One can formulate two models for group blogs. - ****The Aggregator Model**: An aggregator blog is one which accumulates different blog entries and helps to divert the reader to the blog of his or her interest. In this way, the reader only needs to access one site to survey all the blog articles. A simple example is the Google News, which aggregates news from around the world, sorts them under different categories and also by the date, time and place where the article is published. In this model, there are two distinct types. The first example is Tomorrow.SG, where there is a group of human editors who decide what kind of articles get published. In general, there is a peer review system associated with that model. However, the editors may not be professional in that regard and could be biased towards a certain kind of content. In that type of blogs, one can do tracebacks, which can also become a problem if spamming enters into the situation. A second type would be exemplified by Google News, where the aggregation is done by non-human algorithm.The second example is the Digg model, where an individual submits a blog and the blog only gets published if there are enough votes above a certain threshold (say, a minimum of hundred votes). The Digg model resembles the publishing process in economics, where the economist needs to put a working paper in the web for his peers to review. In the process, he obtains feedback and criticisms and makes corrections to the paper till everyone agrees that it is in a publishable state. That process usually takes a long time (2-3 years) for the publication to be formally submitted. - ****The Congregation Model:** A congregation blog is similar to the aggregator except that it brings together **bloggers* (rather than **content* directly) of similar interests. For example, Singabloodypore and SG Entrepreneurs follow this model, by bringing together individual bloggers to share their stories or crosspost their articles to capture a wider audience. In this model, credibility can go both ways: either, if a blogger X writes well compare to his peers, the overall credibility of the blog may increase, or if his fellow blogger Y writes radical and emotive articles which are contrary to the logical discourse of the blog, the credibility of the blog will be dragged down overall. It remains a challenge to study such blogs. Looking at the above models, the congregation model appears promising in any projected study into the issue of blogger credibility. Here are a couple of suggestions or directions that one can look into. - Study the opinion of the audience towards the individual contributions towards the blog. Perhaps, one can establish a rating system by distinguishing between the layman and the expert and their views on the same blog. - Does the common interest blog serve the community? What is its impact upon the community in general? One can develop case studies to consider the development of social networks in the internet. - Develop a impact factor index for blogs, in the way scientific journals are rated in academic institutions. However, this might take away the fun factor of writing a blog. My intuition is that there will be an increasing degree of consolidation among blogs, just as we see with the consolidation of content via Wikipedia, Google Video and Flickr. ****Blogs as a credible source about the Real World** Can blogs be a credible source to knowledge and information about the real world? I believe that it’s possible and I have offered some suggestions above. Let me briefly make three points. The first is that the congregation of credible blog content can be turned into more traditional forms of publications that are scrutinized by established professionals and academics \[4\]. The second concerns education. As people are ever more inundated by an increasing volume of information, it becomes all the more important that our young are taught to carefully discern what they read. Finally, my hope is that the new media of blogging will help to raise awareness about issues and help to construct an acceptable social identity for those who want to engage in social and political debate. ****Acknowledgements:** The author thanks the following bloggers: [Bjorn Lee](http://bjornlee.wordpress.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), Brian Ling a.k.a [Design Translator](http://www.designsojourn.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Cobalt Paladin](http://cobaltpaladin.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Euan Semple](http://theobvious.typepad.com/blog/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Heavenly-Sword](http://heavenly-sword.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), Hui Chieh,[ Justin Lee](http://justinlee.name/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Kway Teow Man](http://kwayteowman.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Legal Janitor](http://shianux.jiyuuu.org/?ref=bernardleong.com), Alex Au a.k.a [Yawning Bread](http://www.yawningbread.org/?ref=bernardleong.com) and several unnamed bloggers for critical comments and interesting discussions that led to the writing of this article. He also thanks Tan Tarn How for an initial discussion and thoughts during the IPS Post Election Forum that led to the writing of this article. He also thanks the editor for suggestions and comments that improve the original article to its present form. ****References:** \[1\] Tan Tarn How, “Citizen Journalism and the 2006 Elections”, Session IV, IPS Post-Election Forum, dated 2 June 2006. \[2\] The AcidFlask incident, the PSC scholar making racist remarks and recent lawsuits using the Seditions Act are examples of cases where the blogosphere engages the real world. \[3\] SG Entrepreneurs, [Singabloodypore](http://singabloodypore.blogspot.com/?ref=bernardleong.com), [Tomorrow.SG](http://tomorrow.sg/?ref=bernardleong.com) are examples of group blogs with very different focus. \[4\] An example of a blog article translated to a proper article in the journal is by the author, entitled [“Finding the Golden Path: Can Singapore be a Silicon Valley?”](http://sgentrepreneurs.com/commentary/2006/03/29/finding-the-golden-path-can-singapore-be-a-silicon-valley/?ref=bernardleong.com). The article is first written as a blog entry and through recommendation by experts in the area, sent for publication in Innovation Magazine, July 2006. Originally published in Singapore Angle (defunct now).