Singapore’s Science + China’s Scale: Why APAC Biotech Winners Must Think Cross-border Early

By Ritika Khetawat
Founder, MissionBridge | Ex–Goldman Sachs, Ex–Morgan Stanley

Singapore has built one of Asia’s strongest scientific foundations in biotechnology. World-class research institutions, globally trained scientists, and sustained government investment have created a discovery engine that rivals top global hubs. Yet in my work advising biotech founders, one question keeps resurfacing: why do so few promising science-led ventures translate into globally competitive, investable companies?

The answer, more often than not, comes down to execution.

I’ve worked across investment banking, corporate development, and deeptech fundraising, raising over US$2 billion across Southeast Asia and India. Today, through MissionBridge, I work closely with biotech and deeptech founders navigating fundraising, M&A, and cross-border growth. What I see consistently is this: great science is necessary, but speed, strategy, and execution discipline are what ultimately determine success.

Great Science Isn’t Enough — Execution Speed Is the Real Differentiator

Singapore’s biotech ecosystem excels at discovery. The science is strong, the infrastructure is mature, and the talent base is deep. Where friction emerges is in translating discovery into clinic-ready assets and then moving efficiently through clinical development.

Execution discipline matters because failures compound risk on three fronts at once. While milestones slip, fixed overheads continue to burn runway. At the same time, global competitors continue to advance. As timelines stretch, fundraising becomes harder. In biotech—where capital intensity is unavoidable—execution quality is more than an operational metric; it is a visible signal of credibility to investors.

Founders who succeed are those who design execution pathways early, not as downstream decisions. Speed, in this context, is strategy.

China Has Become a Global Biotech Execution Engine

Over the past 15 to 20 years, China’s biotech ecosystem has evolved dramatically in terms of clinical scale, data quality, and global credibility. Today, China accounts for roughly 29% of all new global clinical trials and close to 40% of global oncology trials.

What’s more telling is how global pharma is responding. Deals such as Pfizer’s US$1.25 billion upfront payment to 3SBio or BMS’s US$800 million upfront deal with SystImmune reflect growing confidence in data generated largely in China.

For Singapore biotech founders, this matters deeply. China has become a proven execution partner that can compress timelines, strengthen data packages, and support globally competitive outcomes. It is no longer just a manufacturing or outsourcing hub — it is part of the global innovation supply chain.

Designing for Long Timelines in a Capital-Constrained Reality

Biotech is fundamentally shaped by time. Taking a therapeutic from bench to bedside typically takes 10 to 15 years. Compare that with five to seven years for medical devices, or one to two years for many technology products. Founders must therefore raise capital for many years before seeing meaningful revenue.

Because of this, it’s critical to be clear early on about where and when value is created. Taking a single asset all the way to commercialisation is extraordinarily capital-intensive, and only a small subset of companies make it through every stage.

In capital-constrained ecosystems, I often encourage founders to design for earlier value inflection points — for example, targeting a pharma exit at the preclinical or early clinical stage within three to five years, supported by strong IP and differentiated data.

Another effective model is building a platform company, advancing one lead asset while selectively out-licensing others to generate non-dilutive capital. Both approaches help founders stay resilient through long development cycles and funding winters.

Cross-Border Execution Requires IP Discipline and Timeline Realism

Intellectual property is usually the first concern boards raise when discussing China — and rightly so. In most biotech deals, however, 70–80% of long-term value resides in high-reimbursement markets such as the US and Europe. China is typically not the end-market. It is an execution partner.

This makes a strong IP position in the US and Europe essential. Once that foundation is in place, engaging China becomes a strategic execution decision rather than a risk-heavy leap.

Founders also need to be realistic about execution lead times. While China offers 2-3x recruitment rates vs global hubs once trials are live, reaching the first patient milestone can still take seven to ten months due to regulatory processes, human genetic resource approvals, and site initiation requirements. If this latency isn’t planned for upfront, companies often find themselves under pressure later — especially during fundraising.

Equally important is investigator engagement. Companies that treat principal investigators as strategic partners, rather than delegating everything to CROs, consistently achieve better execution and data quality.

Final Thoughts: In Biotech, Time Is the Real Currency

Singapore does not lack scientific excellence. What it often lacks, however, is an execution mindset calibrated for global competition.

In biotech, time is the most expensive variable on the balance sheet. Every missed execution milestone compounds capital risk, weakens negotiating leverage, and narrows strategic options. Founders who treat execution as a downstream concern often pay for it later — through dilution, stalled momentum, or missed windows of opportunity.

The strongest biotech leaders design for speed as deliberately as they design for science. They plan value inflection points early, think globally from day one, and recognize that cross-border execution is not a leap of faith, but a discipline that can be engineered.

Markets like China are not simply destinations for future commercialization; they are execution engines that, when integrated thoughtfully, can compress timelines and strengthen data packages

The difference between hesitation and confident global execution is not risk tolerance — it is risk design. IP protection, regulatory complexity, and cultural differences are real, but they can be planned for upfront. Founders who do this early preserve flexibility when capital is tight and timelines are unforgiving.

Execution is not a downstream function. It is a strategic choice. And in a world where capital is disciplined, and competition is global, the companies that win will be those that understand this earliest — and build for it intentionally.

Read the Chinese article here.

Related posts:

From 41 to 111 Startups — She’s Asking Why Southeast Asia’s Femtech Boom Still Isn’t Enough High-Speed Assets, Broken Pipes: The Hidden Cost of Outdated Systems Why a Global Impact Leader Believes Southeast Asia Could Produce the Next Social Unicorns The $1.2 Billion Knowledge Gap: Why Education Is The Key To Unlocking SEA’s Femtech Market