4 Contents 目录 Preface 前言 V vii Part I. Public Seminar on "The Tan Kah Kee Spirit of Today' 陈嘉庚基金廿周年纪念庆典公开研讨会 " 今日陈嘉庚精神 " 1. Introduction Welcome Address Professor Hew Choy Sin Opening Address Building An Innovative Society Mr Tharman Sh anmugaratn am Lecture Series "The Tan Kah Kee Spirit of Today" Introductory Remarks Professor Shih Choon Fong Entrepreneurship Passport to Wealth Mr Teo Ming Kian Who Should Pay for Universities? Professor Wang Gungwu 27 45
6 PREFACE The Tan Kah Kee Foundation was established in 1982 in memory of the renowned philanthropist and educationist. The mission of the Foundation is to continue the charity works that he had done in his life, his dedication to education and to foster the Tan Kah Kee spirit in entrepreneurship. Through the years, the Foundation has been actively engaged in the promotion of education and culture by organizing major events that include the Tan Kah Kee Postgraduate Scholarship Award, Tan Kah Kee Young Inventors Award and the Tan Kah Kee Forum. In commemoration of its 20th anniversary, the Foundation held a series of activities in September The one-day public seminar on "Entrepreneurship and Education - The Tan Kah Kee Spirit of Today 7 ' and the public lecture by Prof Lee Yuan Tseh on "Science and Education", co-organized with the Tan Kah Kee International Society, were among the academic highlights. A notable panel of speakers, comprising a Senior Minister of State, a prominent civil servant, eminent scholars and an outstanding entrepreneur, delivered enlightening speeches pertaining to entrepreneurship and education at the seminar. During the public lecture, Prof Lee Yuan Tseh, Nobel Laureate and President of Academia Sinica, presented a stimulating and inspiring paper on how the development of science and technology has affected the quality of life and he emphasized on the importance of education as the fundamental element for the development of society.
7 As both the seminar and the public lecture featured such distinguished and excellent speakers, the organizing committee decided to collect and collate the papers and publish them as a proceedings, so that more readers will be able to share the essence of their speeches and understand the true meaning of the Tan Kah Kee Spirit of Today. On behalf of the organizing committee and the editorial board, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to Professor Wang Gungwu for his unstinting efforts in bringing about this publication. Not only was he a guest speaker at the seminar, but he has also contributed tremendously with his editorial advice towards the compilation of this proceedings. We would also like to thank the editorial staff of WSPC, particularly Miss Chung Poh Leng and Miss Juliet Lee. Last but not least, we would like to thank all the speakers for their participation and kind assistance in providing us with their manuscripts and for sub-editing the text. Without their help, the publication of this book would not have been possible. Phua Kok Khoo Hew Choy Sin Ong Choon Nam
10 PART I 陈嘉庚基金廿周年纪念庆典公开研讨会 6 th September 2002 (Frida Mandarin Singapore 2002 年 9 月 6 日 ( 星期五 ) 新加坡文华酒店 联合主办者 Organised by 陈嘉庚国际学会 Tan Kah Kee International Society
12 By Professor Hew Choy Sin About The Speaker Professor Hew Choy Sin is a Professorial Fellow at the Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science at the National Universiiy of Singapore. He is a renowned world expert in orchid research. He received his B.Sc in 1960 from Nanyang University, Singapore. Later, he furthured his studies at Queen's University in Canada, and received his M.Sc and PhD in 1965 and 1967 respectively. He became a Fellow OF Linnean Society, London in For his valuable contribution in placing Singapore on the forefront of global orchid research and improving the technology and know-how for the Singapore Orchid industry, Professor Hew was awarded the 1977 National Science Award by the National Science and Technology Board of Singapore. He is also the Chairman of the Organising Committee for the Tan Koh Kee Foundation 20th Anniversary Public Seminar.
14 This Public Seminar is one of the many activities held in conjunction with the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Tan Kah Kee Foundation. The Tan Kah Kee Foundation was first established in 1982 and it has evolved to become a Foundation known for its contributions in promoting educational excellence. The Foundation supports three major programs - Tan Kah Kee Postgraduate Scholarship, Tan Kah Kee Young Inventors Award and the Tan Kah Kee Forum. The Tan Kah Kee Postgraduate Scholarship has supported more than 190 Singaporeans and permanent residents of different ethnic groups, to pursue higher degrees in various disciplines both locally and overseas. Many Tan Kah Kee scholars are now actively contributing to the development of our nation after completing their graduate degrees. The Tan Kah Kee Young Inventors Award, launched in 1986, was first proposed by Prof C. N. Yang, a Nobel Laureate for Physics, and advisor to the Tan Kah Kee Foundation. It is to encourage our young Singaporeans to think creatively, and more importantly, to challenge them to turn their ideas into working prototypes. This award is now a national award with A*Star and DSTA as joint organizers. The Tan Kah Kee Forum was initiated to increase public awareness of technological and social changes developing around the world. Today's seminar is entitled "Education and Entrepreneurship -The Tan Kah Kee Spirit of Today". Some young Singaporeans may wonder, "Who is Tan Kah Kee?" How relevant is his spirit in today's environment, where we are constantly challenged to create innovative strategies required to re-make Singapore?"
15 Allow me to give you a little historical background on Mr. Tan Kah Kee. He was born in 1874 in Chi Mei village in the Fujian Province (China) and came to Singapore at a young age of 17. He lived in Singapore for 60 years before returning to Chi Mei. He started as an apprentice working in his father's business in 1890, and became a millionaire by 1910, not a small achievement for an immigrant during an era when there were major socio-political upheavals in Southeast Asia. In his 60 years in Singapore, Mr. Tan Kah Kee became a very well-known philanthropist and a successful entrepreneur who made very significant contributions to the social and economic development in China and Singapore. He was recognized as a man of integrity, a man with vision and a man who believes strongly in social commitment. Even though he is often regarded as an overseas Chinese from China, he left a legacy that forms a key part of Singapore's history. In conjunction with today's seminar theme, let me explain briefly on the two areas in which he made significant contributions to Singapore; namely in promoting education and instilling a sense of entrepreneurial spirit. He strongly believed that education is key to a nation's success. Not only did he start schools and universities in China, he also co-founded at least six Chinese schools in Singapore. Among them are Tao Nan Primary School, Ai Tong Primary School, Nan Chiao Girls School and Singapore Chinese High School. He also donated generously to English speaking schools such as Anglo- Chinese School and Raffles Institution, showing that he is a man
16 with a vision far ahead of his time and among his contemporaries. He is considered by many to be a pioneer in many aspects of education. For instance, he was the first to promote the teaching of Mandarin and not dialects in Chinese schools; he was the first to encourage girls to attend schools as well as to promote English to be taught in Chinese Schools. Besides his contributions in promoting education, Tan Kah Kee truly exemplified the spirit of entrepreneurship, reflected by his phenomenal success as a shrewd businessman. His success is attributed to his acute business sense, farsightedness, and most importantly, his entrepreneurial spirit. Following the failure of his father's business, Tan Kah Kee was forced to venture out on his own. He started growing pineapples and soon became known as the "Pineapple King". His pineapple industries were seen as the forerunners of an indigenous industrial revolution in South East Asia, and it demonstrated that industrialisation in the region was possible, given the appropriate commercial impetus to do so. When rubber trees were introduced into Singapore and Malaya, he quickly ventured into growing rubber plants. He had the vision of going into rubber manufacturing and wanted to have his own supply of raw rubber. It was a risky business to venture into, as growing rubber trees was a very new concept and the demand for rubber products then was uncertain. However, his calculated risk resulted in great dividends. There was a huge demand for rubber with the outbreak of the 1 st World War and Tan Kah Kee became very rich, thus earning him the tribute as the Henry Ford of Malaya in the 1920s.
17 Mr. Tan Kah Kee, therefore, exemplifies an entrepreneurial spirit and dedication in promoting education for a better society, a commitment that js all very relevant in today's society. For today's seminar, we are pleased to have very eminent speakers from Australia, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, to share with us their views from different perspectives, on how the spirit of Tan Kah Kee is relevant in today's world. On behalf of the organising committee, I would like to express our sincere thanks to our distinguished speakers and hope that all of you will enjoy the presentation. Last but not least, I would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation and thanks to Mr. Tharman, the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry & Education for taking time off to grace this occasion. Thank you for your attention. Allow me to say very briefly in Mandarin.
18 1 By Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam About The Speaker Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam is the Guest-of- Honour for the Tan Kah Kee Foundation 20th Anniversary Public Seminar. He is also the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry & Education, Singapore. He obtained his undergraduate and masters degrees in Economics from the London School of Economics ond Cambridge University respectively. He obtained a further degree in Master of Public Administration at Harvard University in USA, where he received the Littauer Fellow. Upon returning to Singapore, he began his career in the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS] in 1982, where he became Director of its Economics Department. In 1995, he ioined the Singapore Administrative Service, ond first served in the Ministry of Education (MOE). He returned to MAS in 1997 and became Deputy Managing Director and later Managing Director before entering politics.
20 Introduction It is my pleasure to be here this morning at the Tan Kah Kee Foundation's 20th Anniversary Public Seminar. I congratulate the Foundation for its efforts over these past 20 years to promote education and culture. You carry on the philanthropic work that Mr. Tan Kah Kee ( ) began more than a century ago. Through your efforts, you have kept his legacy very much alive. The subject of today's Public Seminar, "Entrepreneurship and Education", brings together two major preoccupations in Tan Kah Kee's extraordinary life. The history of how he grew his business and created wealth is a story of seizing opportunities, acquiring detailed knowledge of each area he ventured into and, above all, of having great confidence and faith in himself - from the time he came to Singapore at age 17 as an apprentice in his father's rice business, set up a business on his own after that business failed, expanded into pineapple canning and planting, and then in 1906, became one of the early Singapore pioneers in the rubber plantations and in manufacturing, going on to build a diversified industrial empire employing 32,000 people at its peak in 1925, giving him his reputation as the "Henry Ford of Malaya". Tan Kah Kee's tireless commitment to education, in order to lift up the community, is equally inspiring. In Singapore, he founded - through the Hokkien Huay Kuan that he led - five primary and secondary schools' and donated generously to many others. He ' Two secondary schools: Chinese High School and Nan Chiau High School; three primary schools: Tao Nan School, Ai Tong School and Chongfu Primary School.
21 established several schools in his home village of Jimei (Chip Bee) in Fujian (China) - the first of these in 1894, at the age of 21. In 1921, he founded Xiamen (Amoy) University, the first university in China to be set up by an overseas Chinese. Besides making a great personal donation, Mr. Tan Kah Kee travelled across Southeast Asia, from Myanmar (then Burma) to the Indonesian Archipelago, from port to port, persuading wealthy overseas Chinese to contribute to setting up the university. He records with disappointment in his memoirs how several of these wealthy gentlemen - even those who did not have sons to carry on the family business - were unwilling to help, offering all manner of excuses. His eventual success in setting up the university was itself a feat of social entrepreneurship. We cannot recreate the unsettled circumstances that motivated the pioneers like Mr. Tan Kah Kee to set out and create wealth in virgin economies and new industries, and to uplift their communities. But the spirit of Mr. Tan Kah Kee, a willingness to venture into areas that are new and untested, and a desire to contribute to something much larger than oneself, remains relevant to all of us today, and to future generations of Singaporeans. Sustaining Innovation We have entered the knowledge-based economy. Economic growth among the higher income Asian countries, like Singapore, will increasingly be driven by the ability to innovate rather than the ability to absorb and adapt advances made elsewhere and to
22 make products more efficiently. In other words, economic growth will be innovation-driven rather than efficiency-driven. The countries that will succeed will be those that build and sustain vibrant innovation systems - the institutions, networks and cultures that support continuous innovation. There will always be an element of serendipity in successful innovation, reflecting the flux and unpredictability of the markets. However, nations that build strong innovation systems will increase the chances of developing ideas that achieve commercial success. They will also make it onto the fast lanes of the international flow of research and talent. We have to do what it takes to develop a vibrant system of innovation, and stay in the global, knowledge-based competition. There are at least three dimensions to this. First, we need skills, knowledge and creativity of a high order. Innovative economies depend on well-educated manpower and advanced research capabilities. Without these, we will not be able to create new and differentiated products, develop new business models or manage complex international supply chains. Second, markets have to be allowed to work. Intellectual property protection, competitive domestic markets and openness to new entrants enhance innovation. New ideas with commercial potential must also have access to risk capital. There must be an adequate supply of venture capital, and banks have to develop the skills and risk management systems needed to lend young companies with little collateral.
23 Third, an innovative economy needs a culture that respects and encourages entrepreneurship. High levels of knowledge and management skills alone will not produce the technological and organisational innovations that lead to economic gains without entrepreneurs, and a spirit of entrepreneurship that extends across society. Without entrepreneurship, value will not be created from knowledge. Why We Have Lacked an Enterpreneurial Culture Of these three dimensions needed for an innovative economy - skills and research capabilities, competitive markets governed by rule of law, and an entrepreneurial culture, our biggest shortfall in Singapore is in entrepreneurship. In the well known Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001 Executive Report, Singapore was ranked 27th out of the 29 countries studied, in terms of the overall level of entrepreneurial activity. By common observation, Singaporeans are averse to taking risks. This is especially so among the more academically successful ones. This is, however, not surprising. The success of our past economic strategies, beginning with the jumpstarting of the economy in the 1960s, with policies to attract MNCs and set up GLCs, to the upgrading of capabilities in the 1990s and development of new clusters of international firms in manufacturing and services, has given successive generations of graduates a wealth of opportunities to pursue well-paid, stable careers in government, the MNCs and other large corporations, and the supporting professions.
24 Some of our most successful local companies came about because of spin-offs from the MNCs, as local engineers launched their own shops after gaining experience with the MNCs. But a strilung feature of the business landscape is the large number of entrepreneurs who got to where they are without a high level of formal education. A disproportionate number never made it to university, and some of our most successful entrepreneurs did not go beyond a formal school education. Many say they went into business because they did not have the attractive career options that a university education would have given, and because they had little to lose if they failed. However, the success of past economic strategies in generating good, well-paying jobs is not the only reason why well educated Singaporeans have not taken naturally to business. Another reason is the traditions and institutions we inherited. The attitudes of successive generations of parents, and what they wish for their children, have been shaped by the combination of two legacies - the education system we inherited from the British, and a long-standing East Asian tradition that placed scholarly pursuits above all other endeavours. It was a potent combination, that placed high regard on academic success as a goal in its own right, and gave little respect to alternative routes to success in life. The British system of education was geared to producing an intellectual elite that would form their governing class - Westminster, Whitehall and professional jobs in the city. All that mattered to the British was your "0"s and "A7's, and most important of all which school and university you went to. It was an academic bias, shaped
25 by the needs of the Empire, and by an encrusted social order. They looked down on the commercial, technical and entrepreneurial routes to success. Their educational structure and ethos reflected this academic bias, even as pressure built up from the 1960s to open up more places for a tertiary education. They converted their polytechnics into universities, shifted from the technical to the academic, and introduced new academic degrees in subjects like sports studies to allow more people to make it to university. What mattered was getting people into university. Even business schools, a longstanding feature of top North American universities, were introduced to the Oxbridge universities only in the 1990s. The British have been trying to develop a more positive social attitude towards entrepreneurship, but old attitudes have been difficult to shake off. Well after the Thatcherite revolution, a Blair government poll found a majority of the British public having a weak regard for entrepreneurs. People who go into business were variously described as "sharpies", "exploiters" and "freebooters". We have made many changes to the education system since we inherited it from the British. In particular, we have given special emphasis and focus to technical and engineering education, through our schools, ITEs, the polytechnics and universities. The education system recognises different abilities and talents, and encourages different routes to success. However, some old social attitudes about the paths to education and success have been slow to change.
26 These attitudes are deeply rooted in the East Asian tradition of reverence for scholarship. Across East Asian cultures, parents aspire for their children to go as far as possible up the educational hierarchy, with a university degree being the pinnacle of achievement. Even in China today, despite the monetary rewards from private enterprise vastly exceeding the pay of government officials, I am told that every parent's first wish is for their child to succeed scholastically and get a government job. Competition to get into a good provincial university is intense. Getting into Beida or Qinghua, or if unsuccessful, then Shanghai Jiaotong or Fudan, is the ultimate dream. Not all of this traditional East Asian culture of reverence for scholarship runs counter to entrepreneurship. Scholars have observed that the traditional values like perseverance and diligence also serve well in entrepreneurship. However, the East Asian tradition has not placed emphasis on other values that are critical to entrepreneurship, such as individual initiative, creativity and innovation. East Asian scholarship has traditionally placed emphasis on the accumulation of knowledge and rigorous analysis of problems, rather than experimentation and exploration beyond the curriculum, and beyond what is already known. There is some simplification in these generalisations, and they hold true much less now than even a decade ago. But they do explain why East Asian universities have collectively lagged behind those in the West, and especially their counterparts in the US. Educationists across East Asia are studying how to reform their systems, for this reason.
27 2. 8 ill- & 8% The Coming Cross-Cultural Tide A new generation of Asian entrepreneurs is however emerging in the knowledge-based industries, with characteristics quite different from the old. They are highly educated, often having done undergraduate or graduate work in the US before returning home. Numerous companies are being set up by Chinese returnees in the high technology districts in China, such as Beijing's Zhong Guan Cun Science Park and Shanghai's Zhanmiang Hi-Tech Park. The same has been happening in Bangalore, Hyderabad and other emerging knowledge hubs in India. The returning generation brings along with it a familiarity with US entrepreneurial practices, and technological expertise. Many have experienced working in US labs or start-ups. They carry with them some of the American spirit of seeing failure as a pathway to success, and even American social habits. But they are quite evidently Asian at the core - the cultural DNA has not changed. They want their children to grow up in Asia, and they want to contribute to their own societies. It will take a few generations for this new breed of entrepreneurs to shape a new East Asian business culture. But they are providing the seeds of a new cross-cultural model of entrepreneurship in Asia. The changes are taking place within East Asian societies, even among the majority who never went abroad. Within China, recent studies have noted a reshaping of values across recent generations. The generation aged below 40, who grew up mostly in the period of social reform that began in 1977, is distinctly more individualistic than previous generations. While they are
28 not forsaking Confucian values, they are less collectivistic and more likely to take risks in the pursuit of profits. Entrepreneurship in Singapore Singapore too is changing. More of our university graduates are now venturing into business, either on their own or with groups of friends. Their numbers are not large, but they are growing. They are providing new role models for the young, and the trend feeds on itself. In time, we will see more of our young venture out on their own. It will take shape in a new economic culture. Some recent examples: Richard Lai, ex-scholar (postgraduate studies at MIT in the US); former co-head of Bain & Company's Financial Services Practice in Asia. He set up dollardex, a financial products and services portal that has won several awards and nominations. Anil K Ratty, an NUS graduate with a PhD in Biochemistry, a former research affiliate at the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology and former Regional Director of the Biotech Business Unit of the Defense Medical Research Institute. He founded Chakra Biotech, which uses transgenic animal models for drug discovery.2 -- In 1998, he patented a genetically-modified mouse that shows symptoms of mental disorder such as schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease and hyperactivity. The "chakragati mouse" which can mimic human disease symptoms, will reduce costs and shorten testing times for developing new drugs. Dr Ratty plans to grab a bite of the world-wide pharmaceutical market by offering screening services to companies that need tests for drug discoveries conducted at the molecular level.
29 Rosemary Tan, who has a PhD in molecular immunology from NUS, former Chief Scientific OfficerDirector at Amdon Consulting Pte Ltd.; founder and CEO of Genecet Biotechnologies, a life sciences educational kit provider, selling bioscience-related products to academic institutions to complement academic curricula and as stand-alone project work.3 Dr Choon How Lau, formerly with National Semiconductor, who with Dr Zheng Zheng, formerly a researcher at A*STAR's Institute of Microelectronics (IME), founded Intelligent Micro Devices, a fabless design and application company that provides value-added intelligent module sensors and total solutions to customers in the integrated circuit industry. Although around for less than a year, they have obtained major customers like Matsushita Electrical Works Ltd and SUNX Ltd in Japan. Entrepreneurship: What We Can Do in Education Most people would agree that the basic ingredients of entrepreneurship lie in personality traits, such as a desire to achieve and make a difference, and the tenacity to persevere in the face of failure. These are habits of mind, either intrinsic or ingrained by experience and circumstance. Very little of this can be taught in any formal fashion. But what we do know is that entrepreneurship can be brought to the surface and nurtured by The company was set up in Oct It estimates that it has sold over 3000 kits as of August It has already gone regional, having sold kits to schools in Hong Kong and India.
30 the environment, just as it can be thwarted. A favourable environment makes it much less likely for entrepreneurial talent to stay latent. Our approach to grooming an entrepreneurial spirit in our young is reflected in two dimensions of the school experience. First, through the school and JC curriculum, we are seeking to develop students who can think, explore and experiment, independently and creatively. We have infused critical thinking skills across the curriculum and in revised assessment methods. To give students an additional platform to develop thinking skills, project work has been introduced in the schools. We are shifting the focus away from content learning towards the imparting of skills that will support lifelong self-learning. Such skills are key to the innovation economy. Second, the non-academic curriculum plays a critical role in nurturing the skills and habits required for success in the business world: being a good team player, being willing to take a risk, and showing determination and resolve in the face of setbacks. Some of the specific skills required for entrepreneurship can be taught, even if we cannot make entrepreneurs through education. These skills include market opportunity analysis, hedging risks, raising funds, networking, and negotiating with investors. Educational institutions, particularly tertiary institutions, can play a significant role in nurturing these skills and giving students the exposure and opportunity to practice them. Our universities have already initiated Education and Training programmes for Entrepreneurship, imparting basic skills and familiarity with the entrepreneurial processes. A number of our schools have also set up Enterprise Clubs, giving
31 students the experience of running minimarkets and other business activities. Not many students will actually go on to become entrepreneurs. Even in the US, less than 15% of adults are involved in owning businesses. Neither can we identify and groom future entrepreneurs in schools. But we can try and ensure that innovative talents are not stifled, and give room for everyone to develop a spirit of experimentation and a willingness to take initiative and try new approaches in whatever they do. Everyone should be groomed to be part of an innovative society, and have a bit of the entrepreneurial spirit in them. Creating an entrepreneurial spirit is not about creating individualists, and not just about economic growth. For Tan Kah Kee, and many other pioneers like him, entrepreneurship was a profoundly social undertaking. It was not just about creating wealth, but about improving society and leaving behind a worthwhile contribution for future generations. It is this true spirit of entrepreneurship - a desire to contribute to something much larger than ourselves - that we have to recreate in our next phase of development as a society. In closing, let me congratulate the Tan Kah Kee Foundation once more for the good work that it has done in the past 20 years in promoting education and culture in Singapore, and for keeping alive the rich legacy of Mr. Tan Kah Kee. Thank you.
32 -The Tan Kah of Today I By Professor Shih Choon Fong About The Chairman Professor Shih Choon Fong is President and Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Singapore (NUS). Professor Shih received his M.S. and PhD from the Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University. After a year as a Research Fellow at Harvard, he spent seven years with the Corporate Research Lab at the General Electric Company where he led the Fracture Research Group. In 1981, he ioined Brown University and was promoted to Professor in Ten years later, Professor Shih returned to Singapore as the founding Director of the Institute of Materials Research and Engineering (IMRE) and founding President, Materials Research Society of Singapore. In 1998 to 1999, Professor Shih chaired the Committee on University Admission System, a national-level committee tasked to develop broader admissions criteria for Singapore's public universities. In June 2002, he was elected Chairman OF the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU), a consortium of 35 leading research universities along the Pacific Rim.
34 Let me begin by welcoming all of you to the seminar this morning. It is my pleasure to chair this morning session. We have heard about the rich legacy of Mr. Tan Kah Kee. He was an entrepreneur in every sense of the word. I think, from Mr. Tan Kah Kee's life, we have a better insight into the making of an entrepreneur. And from this morning's description of his life, I think we can understand that an entrepreneur's spirit is about creating value, that relentless resourceful spirit towards creating value. And value not just in the economic sense, but at the societal level as well. So, we are indeed very privileged this morning to have several speakers who will dwell upon the subject of entrepreneurship in several aspects. Our first speaker, Mr. Teo Ming Kian (I will give you a little bit of his background later) will speak on the "Passport to Wealth - I hope I got it right... Yes, the "Passport to Wealth - on how to be a millionaire. I am sure you will get some insights from this. That is one aspect of Tan Kah Kee's life: creating wealth. The other aspect of Tan Kah Kee's life was being a social entrepreneur. He gave a lot of his wealth to universities. And therefore, it is appropriate that we have a most distinguished academic to speak on the subject, "Who Should Pay for Universities?". Being a university president, I understand this issue very well, especially in times of economic difficulties. We will hear from Prof Wang Gungwu. Before I introduced the two speakers, I have an announcement to make. Prof Y.T. Lee, originally scheduled here to speak on the subject, "Science and Education in a Globalized World", will not be able to make his address this morning. First of all, there is a change of his
35 flight schedule to Singapore due to a typhoon, and there's a more critical reason: he is the chairman of the Rescue Operation Committee, formed because of the typhoon in Taiwan. It shows that academics can contribute beyond the academic arena to the social arena, as well as a disaster arena. So, he will not be here this morning, but he will be joining us on Sunday, and he will be giving a lecture at Suntec City, I believe, on a similar topic.
36 &,Pi41 # r- -Passport to Wealth I By Mr Teo Ming Kian About The Speaker Mr Teo Ming Kian is the Chairman of Economic Development Board, Singapore. He was a Columbia Plan scholar, receiving his degree in engineering from Monash Universiiy, and a Masters degree from MIT. He had a very diverse career in the government. He started work in the Ministry of Defence in 1975, and worked at the Ministry of Communication and the National Science and Technology Board, also called NSTB in short. He became the Executive Chairman of the Economic Development Board in February He is also the chairman of Singapore Technology Board. In addition, he holds many positions as directors of many companies, such as PSA Corporation, TIF, T21 holdings and so forth.
38 Those who think that I am about to give some quick tips to get rich would be sorely disappointed. I am a poor civil servant, neither an entrepreneur nor wealthy. But as a civil servant involved in policy formulation trying to evolve a more entrepreneurial economy that will enrich our people and our nation, I thought this platform to commemorate a great entrepreneur Mr. Tan Kah Kee would be an appropriate opportunity to share with you some thoughts in this area - the issue of creating wealth for our nation through entrepreneurship. First, why does this term entrepreneurship keep cropping up lately when we had not referred to it in the past 40 years or so? Prime Minister spoke about it at length in his last two National Day Rallies. Senior Minister used it as a theme at the Ho Rih Hwa Leadership Lecture this year. Many other Ministers had raised it on many occasions. The Economic Review Committee has a sub-committee devoted to looking into this subject. Our economy had not done too badly without too much emphasis on entrepreneurship and had grown from about US$500 GDP per capita to about US$21,000, a 42-fold increase in 40 years. In effect, Singapore has been transformed from a slum to a modern city state within this short period of time. So why this attention to shift people's mindset towards greater entrepreneurialism? The answer lies in the huge changes we are witnessing in the world today. They are driven very much by the irresistible force of rapid technological advances and the shrinking of the world, or what people call globalisation. These changes manifest themselves
39 in the accelerating introduction of new products, new businesses, new ways of doing things, and intensifying competition. Representing this drastic change is the Internet. It is not just a tool where we can or ICQ each other to keep in touch across oceans, as if we are next door. It is a cultural phenomenon. Until the Internet bust, "Embrace the Net" was the rallying cry, Internet time was how people lived by and no company could get by without having "dotcom" added to its name. Notwithstanding the bust, it is a discontinuity in more ways than we care to recognize. It has brought about a new sense of space and time, a radical lifestyle, new ways of doing business, affecting industries and impacting almost everyone. Radical changes in society are not new. Throughout history, we have seen how lives have been changed dramatically with the discovery of other forms of disruptive technologies. Take the invention of electricity, the steam engine, automotives, and the telephone. And it seems, leveraging on the new fads is not new either. In the early days of the automotive industry, there were many automotive companies. Having the word "Motors" in a company's name was just as compelling as having "dotcom" in the recent past. And like dotcoms, they disappeared just as fast. Although buzz-words and company names may come and go, the disruptive technologies have changed our lives forever. It affected our daily living, it relegated companies not able to adapt and respond to these changes to oblivion. Many great companies, the likes of Digital Equipment Corporation, International
40 Harvester, Pan Am, McDonnell Douglas, People Express, household names not too long ago, disappeared. They affected not just companies, but nations. The wealth of people and the standard of living would inevitably be affected as a result. What is new is the pace of change. The technology advances will accelerate. Knowledge is exploding. More people have access to information. There were approximately 40 million Internet users in late This grew to around 320 million in late 2000 and is expected to exceed 700 million by The cost of information transfer declined drastically. A data transfer costing US$150,000 in 1970 cost US$O. 12 in This will lead to more knowledge and information being generated and transmitted. Knowledge and innovation await those who are able to take full advantage of them. None of the disruptive technologies that had changed the world would have seen the light of day if not for some enterprising and entrepreneurial people. But it does not mean that those who are able to leverage on knowledge and innovation can find it safe doing nothing, for someone else will be there to seize the opportunity that could put them out of business. What this means is that more and more, the competitive edge of companies and nations will be developed and sharpened by people with innovation and knowledge, people able to identify opportunities for those innovation and knowledge, people who are prepared to take the risk of seizing and turning those opportunities into businesses, manage the risk and help them grow and thrive. In short, we required entrepreneurial and enterprising people.
41 Can Singapore shift to this entrepreneurial mindset? Will there be enough entrepreneurs in Singapore to generate the wealth and thence contribute to the success of Singapore going forward? But who really is an entrepreneur? Mr. Jean-Baptiste Say, the French economist who coined the word around 1800, described an entrepreneur as one who "shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and yield". More precise definitions have been attempted over time to better understand this wealth creation process. The Centre for Entrepreneurship at Babson College in Massachusetts defined it as "a way of thinking and acting that is opportunity-obsessed, holistic in approach and leadership-balanced. It is identifying an opportunity and executing on that opportunity for the purpose of wealth creation in the private, public and global sectors". Can we develop enough entrepreneurs, people who aspire to be employers when, for a long time, our system has been training our people mainly to be good employees? Can we in fact train entrepreneurs? Are entrepreneurs born or made? Whatever the answer - and it is controversial - culture and environment has a big part to play in whether a society is more entrepreneurial or not. But what is clear is the direct linkage of a high level of entrepreneurial activity to economic progress and wealth. Silicon Valley is a clear example of this. Whether they are Chinese, Indian, European or Japanese, many of those who are landed there were able to manifest their entrepreneurial spirit, seeking out opportunities, taking risk and managing the risks to increase
42 the chance of success. This they could not or did not do in their own homeland. The lure of the opportunity to be wealthy was simply too great to resist. No wonder San Francisco is called "Old Gold Mountain" in Chinese. Schumpeter, the Austrian economist who propounded the idea of "creative destruction" associated with industry cycles, saw the entrepreneurs' role as ferment in this process of creative destruction, allowing the economy to renew itself and make advances. In fact, Schumpeter stated that after land, labour and capital, entrepreneurship is the fourth factor of production. A famous study done at Royal DutchIShell showed that the average life expectancy of a multinational corporation - Fortune 500 or its equivalent - is between 40 and 50 years. A full one-third of the companies listed in the 1970 Fortune 500, for instance, had vanished by acquired, merged, or broken to pieces. Since 1980, Fortune 500 companies have lost more than five million jobs but more than 34 million new jobs have been created by new enterprises, generating wealth not only for themselves but for their society. In Singapore, over the last few years, we have been building up an environment conducive to develop entrepreneurship. I think there are four essential ingredients for such an environment. One, an open and meritocratic climate that provides equal opportunity for anyone and rewards them according to their performance, irrespective of their race, educational achievements or social status, and regardless of activities they find opportunities in. Whether a medical profession or garbage collection, the society must not have prejudged biases on which vocation warrants more
43 merit. The open society readily welcomes and attracts those who are able and keen to exploit whatever opportunities for maximum advantage. In Singapore, we are a cosmopolitan society, welcoming all talents, local or foreign to seek opportunities here, though there are some who complained that we might be too efficient and comfortable that this could blunt the competitive edge of individuals. Two, availability of risk capital. In the earlier days, risk capital came almost entirely from families and friends. Venture capital now enables businesses to start even if one does not have rich relatives. The US National Venture Capital Association in a recent study reported that venture capital invested over the last three decades created 7.6 million jobs and more than $1.3 trillion in revenue as at the end of It has been responsible for the emergence of well-known companies like Apple, Intel and Microsoft. Singapore is now building up the venture capital industry and has $1 3.7 billion of venture capital managed out of Singapore by some 115 venture capital firms last year. Three, a pro-enterprise mindset. While a place could be rich in intellectual capital, these ideas and intellectual property would not be cornrnercialised if the society does not have a pro-enterprise mindset. To be pro-enterprise is to reward risk handsomely and not punish failure harshly. That would lead to what many have attributed to Silicon Valley - the sense of self-confidence that says that anything is possible and that one should just go for it. Envy is rare if one becomes rich as anyone can play in the game and become rich. Stanford spawned companies like HP, Cisco
44 Systems and Yahoo!. According to a 1994 Bank of Boston report, MIT professors and graduates generated over 4000 enterprises that employed over one million people worldwide with an output equivalent to US$116 billion of GDP. No one begrudges the professors and researchers getting rich from publicly funded research that would otherwise have sat fallow on the shelves. Also, not all start-ups would be successful. A pro-enterprise mindset would accept failure, and those who failed would be given chances to start afresh - by venture capitalists, banks and society at large. Four, an appetite to try out new ideas, products and services. People are usually more comfortable with products or services or companies with a proven track record. But market environments not sophisticated enough to try out new products and services from totally new companies would ultimately be relegated to one producing only followers. No new products and services or new companies with global ambition would emerge without a home testing-ground to build up their track record. The US is a sophisticated marketplace with users willing to experiment with the new and the untested. Singapore has begun to build up this environment conducive for entrepreneurship to develop. But will there be enough candidates to take up the challenge? Entrepreneurs are driven by the pursuit of wealth, not just being rich materially, but accruing other kinds of wealth that entrepreneurship can bring. Doing business is not about making money. It is also about changing the world, making a difference, about helping others, and improving society. I think there are six broad reasons that inspire people to be entrepreneurial.
45 Entrepreneurs Change the Course of History First, the best entrepreneurs do more than make a mark in their own field. They can really change the whole course of history. One of the foremost examples we have in Singapore is Mr. Tan Kah Kee himself. Born in 1874 in Fujian, China, he moved to Singapore to join his father in his rice business here in 1890 at the age of 17, the same age as many of you in the audience today. Unlike you, though, he did not have the chance to sit down and think about his future in an air-conditioned auditorium like this. Like many other entrepreneurs, Mr. Tan Kah Kee was forced to become independent early in life and to learn to become street-smart quickly to have a chance to survive. When his father's business failed, he had to strike out on his own. He took the risk of going into the business of pineapple-canning and later, ricemilling. When these ventures did not quite take off either, he did not give up. He persevered and moved on to rubber plantations and manufacturing, which turned out to be the business that would boom and make him one of the most successful Chinese overseas businessmen in Southeast Asia at that time. He even came to be called the "Henry Ford of Malaya". It was the enterprise of men like Mr. Tan Kah Kee that build the economic foundations of this part of the world. It is true to say that without them, the Singapore we know today would have developed differently. Of course, the conditions in the early 20th century were quite different from today. There were few local companies then, and so, you might say that it was easier to be a big fish in a small
46 pond. It was also possible to make the most of untapped market potential in new areas of business which no one else had yet gone into in any big way. In today's Singapore, the market is more developed, and it could be argued that there are fewer opportunities to be the first to do something - what we refer to today as "first mover advantage". But that is the essence of entrepreneurship, to be the first to identify opportunities and with imagination and creativity, build up something new. Local businesses such as BreadTalk and Osim have caused a stir in the domestic market here with their innovative products and focused marketing. They are expanding into the region and even beyond. Now, attractive pastries and comfortable massage chairs may not fundamentally change the world. But we never know. These entrepreneurs may use their initial success to grow their business in such a way that they change the course of our economic development. This is what we are aiming for at the Economic Development Board - to nurture an environment conducive for Singapore-based companies to grow and become what we call "global champions" or world leaders in their industries. If we can keep the spirit of curiosity, discovery and invention alive, we have a chance of achieving this sometime in the not too distant future. The Joy of Creativity and Discovery Second, the best entrepreneurs can draw from a secret source of energy that the rest of us can only stand by and wonder at - they bask in the joy of creativity and discovery. Unlike those of us whose jobs are more defined and structured, people who run businesses are
47 always looking for new opportunities, trying out new things to see if they can develop commercially and be marketed. Their minds and imaginations are always active. They are always sniffing out the next deal, thinlung of how to expand their existing business or start a new one. Our own entrepreneurs like Mr. Sim Wong Hoo of Creative Technology succeeded because they developed a personal passion with the drive to find new ways to make a living from it. As a child, he found piano lessons too structured, so he taught himself to play and later picked up playing the harmonica as well. When he was in the polytechnic, he even directed a harmonica troupe that played on the streets. This passion for music is what he built on later, to develop innovative products like the Soundblaster and Nomad Jukebox that we all have heard so much about. Many other new Creative products that Sim himself personally enjoys are being developed. Entrepreneurs can express themselves freely and profit from what they believe in. Some observers have said that, to nurture a more entrepreneurial culture, Singapore should encourage people to become more eccentric, like the British, with their peculiar interests ranging from the most abstract philosophy to shocking punk, from the spoof movie spy Austin Powers to fashion trendsetting footballer David Beckham. What they meant is that we should not judge people who have a different way of seeing the world or of living their lives. What they are really getting at is not weirdness for its own sake, but to support the development of natural curiosity, to ask why things should be the way they are, and whether there is another way to organise them? So if you have an interesting hobby, like performing simple experiments
48 at home in engineering or biology, or if you have a talent for drawing, or writing or doing fancy things on the computer, keep at it. It might one day help you develop a business that will enable you to make a business out of something you invent or discover. And then, we will have another Creative Technology and another potential global champion. The Satisfaction of Achievement Third, entrepreneurs are driven by the satisfaction of achievement. As many of the entrepreneurs in Singapore have confessed, in recent interviews with the media, they believe that what sets them apart from others is passion. And passion - a strong, innate desire to achieve - is sustained best by finding regular satisfaction. The more successful entrepreneurs keep on doing well if they can draw upon this kind of positive feeling, which is unlike any other in its power of self-motivation. In the most successful companies that top entrepreneurs set up, their personal job satisfaction is so infectious that the feeling is shared by their employees. One example is Bill Gates, the famous founder of Microsoft and a billionaire many times over. At Microsoft, one of the prime motivations for staff is that they know the software they develop will be used by the whole world. To quote one of Bill Gates' employees: "You felt you were at the center of the universe. That was the motivation... it was an invigorating feeling to be working for Microsoft." Studies in human resource management have shown that money and status are not everything in keeping workers happy in their jobs. What counts even more is job satisfaction. Surveys also regularly
49 show that the most successful companies are often also the ones where the staff feel that the company cares for them, respects them as individuals, and gives them space to create new things and do the things they enjoy. And this point of job satisfaction is really one of the secrets of successful entrepreneurs. It gives you a feeling of inner riches that no money can buy. Helping Others do Well Fourth, the best entrepreneurs are not selfish. They always derive joy from helping others do well in life. Mr. Tan Kah Kee helped nurture other well-known entrepreneurs and community leaders in Singapore, such as Mr. Lee Kong Chian and Mr. Tan Lark Sye. Like Mr. Tan Kah Kee, they did well in business but are best-remembered for what they did to help others. Mr. Lee Kong Chian, who later became the first Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore, set up the Lee Foundation in 1952, which till today continues to fund many worthy causes to help people improve themselves so that they can serve society better. Mr. Tan Kah Kee also served the society in many other ways, including as a spokesman for the Chinese community and by contributing to sustaining the war relief funds during World War 11. This idea of entrepreneurs is quite different from the outmoded and unfair view that businessmen are driven only by profit and bottomline. This is the "greed is good philosophy featured in movies such as Wall Street, about a ruthless businessman who has to come to terms with his moral choices. Instead, entrepreneurs
50 like Mr. Tan Kah Kee show us that the money they make brings great benefit to their countries. This is one of the mindset changes that we are trying to bring about in Singapore at this time. We need more people with the drive and business acumen to create and sustain new enterprises, get rich and give back generously to society. Creating Jobs for Fellow Citizens Fifth, entrepreneurs do a service to society in another way, by creating jobs for their fellow citizens. They are leaders in the way they can spot opportunity and marshal and direct resources. But for their businesses to succeed, they need good workers who can play their respective role in the value chain. As Mr. Tan Kah Kee developed his rubber business into the 1920s, he had done so well that he came to preside over a huge business empire, which extended into most East and Southeast Asian cities, employing over 10,000 people. It spanned areas as diverse as rubber plantation and manufacturing, shipping, import and export brokerage, real estate and rice trading. Bill Gates' Microsoft employs over 50,000 people in 78 countries. Today, at this stage of Singapore's economic development, we want to focus on developing enterprise and innovation because we see them as boosters to the twin growth engines of manufacturing and internationally traded services. We need regular injections of entrepreneurial spirit to find new business products and services which can generate new value in the market, and so, create good jobs for all Singaporeans. From the perspective of the entrepreneur, creating jobs, in turn, contributes to further generation of wealth in the growth cycle of businesses.
51 Giving Generously to Society Sixth, philanthropy. In the US, entrepreneur Mr. John D. Rockefeller is well-known for spending the last phase of his life - from the mid-1890s until his death in focused on helping to improved society. Among other acts of generosity he gave US$75 million over two decades to found the University of Chicago, which today has a campus of its Graduate School of Business here in Singapore. Our own Mr. Tan Kah Kee believed in giving to society by building up the foundation for education. He funded an endowment which led to the setting up of Xiamen University in China in In Singapore, he inspired the setting up of five primary and secondary schools, including the Chinese High School. He also donated to other schools, including Anglo- Chinese School. Singapore is at the cross-roads in more ways than we can acknowledge. It is not simply a question of which path we choose in developing our industry policies - more manufacturing or more services, more global or more regional - but a much larger issue of whether and how we could change a mindset we are familiar with, being comfortable by just following the trends, even being highly efficient in doing so, to become more entrepreneurial and more daring to take the risk as the trend-setter, whether as a business owner or serving in larger corporations. I see ourselves having no lack of such a spirit of entrepreneurialism. After all, most of us are but only second- or thirdgeneration immigrants and the entrepreneurial blood should still
52 be flowing inside us. The development of Singapore is itself an example of entrepreneurial undertaking. One of my friends, a wellknown venture capitalist likened Senior Minister to an entrepreneur, seeing the opportunity in Singapore, taking the risk in investing in it with his all and developing it into what it is today. I have no doubt that as we move forward, that entrepreneurship will be the passport to our wealth. Thank you.
54 r \ k HO SHOULD PAY for Universities? ( By Professor Wang Gungwu About The Speaker Professor Wang Gungwu is currently the Director of East Asian Institute in the National University of Singapore. Professor Wong received his BA (Hons) and MA in History at University of Malaya, and his PhD in History from the University of London. He then taught at the University of Malaya and at the Australian National University. He became Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong from 1986 to Prof Wang returned to Singapore and became the chairman of lnstitute of the East Asian Political Economy, which was subsequently reconstituted as the East Asian Institute. Professor Wang is also a Faculty Professor in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences in NUS and a member of mony boards, such as the NUS council, lnstitute of Southeast Asian Studies and Institute of Policy Studies. He is also the president of Tan Kah Kee International Socieb and holds fellowships of many academic societies and communities. His research interest encompasses Chinese History, the Chinese Overseas, Nationalism and Migration.
56 Prof Shih This morning, you have heard from our first speaker about creating wealth, and also about sharing wealth, but whom do you share wealth with? I think this is a vexing issue, thinking about whom you are going to share wealth with. Well, I think Mr. Tan Kah Kee had shown the way, as he created the Tan Kah Kee Foundation and he gave generously to education. And this morning, we have a very distinguished scholar who has enjoyed a rich career. Rich, not necessary in an economic sense, but rich in an intellectual, professional and social sense. It is indeed my great pleasure to invite Prof Wang Gungwu to share with us his views on the subject "Who Should Pay for Universities?'
57 Prof Wang Gungwu I am very honoured to be here today. My only regret is that Mr. Teo escaped without a question and answer session (I would have asked him some questions), and that Professor Lee Yuan Zhe is unable to be with us because his subject on "Science and Education" is probably the most central issue still in education in the world today. And I do regret his not being here because when I first thought about my subject, I knew that Mr. Teo and Professor Lee would have spoken ahead of me and I was going to build on what they had to say. I didn't actually know what Mr. Teo was going to say, but I thought I would have guessed what Professor Lee might have said, so I would have had a chance to do that. This morning, we have heard a lot about entrepreneurship and what entrepreneurs can or cannot do for society and in particular for education. I wanted, of course, to speak about education and I chose my subject very much with Mr. Tan Kah Kee in mind. "Who Should Pay for Universities?'is of course very much a question in many people' s minds today, not only here but in almost every country in the world. This is a subject of major concern. So let me begin by saying that my first knowledge of Mr. Tan Kah Kee - I never had the honour of meeting him - was through a number of my father's friends who were graduates of Xiamen University. And through my father, I met them, and I heard stories about how Xiamen University had started, the kinds of problems it faced, and how the students coped with a university
58 that was essentially struggling for funds, especially through the first 15 years of its life. Despite Mr. Tan Kah Kee's generosity, universities, even in those days, were really too expensive for any one person or any one group of private philanthropists to support. Indeed, this was the point that came across to me when I heard these graduates of Xiamen University talk about the tremendous potential of the university which never quite made it because it was constantly short of funds. So I remember that very vividly. Later on, of course, I went to different universities. I actually started my university education in China, at the National Central University in Nanjing, before the Communists came. I started in 1947 and was there for about a year and a half before the People's Liberation Army arrived at the Northern shore of the Yangtze River. At this point, I returned to join my parents in Malaya. At the National Central University, I was privileged to be one of its students. There were actually very few of us. It was not a large university, but at that time it was the largest university in China, although it had only 4,000 students. And when you consider the size of the population in China, where the largest university had only 4,000 students, you can imagine what an elitist kind of university it was. And in fact, all the universities in China were like that - smaller than Central University. You can see that universities never could cope with the demand for higher education in the country. And indeed you can understand why, because when I was there, that university was totally funded by the central government, totally dependent on the government.
59 The university was established in Nanjing. When the Japanese invaded in 1937, the university was moved to Chongqing. I joined the university after it returned from Chongqing to Nanjing in I was the first of the freshmen admitted into the reestablished campus of Central University in Nanjing. But what I remember was that the university was fully funded by the central government. This contrasted with what I remembered, listening to the graduates of Xiamen University, of a university that was privately funded until 1936 when it finally could not support itself any longer. That was when Mr. Tan Kah Kee invited the government to take it over, effectively giving the university to the government. Thereafter, the Xiamen University was supported by the government. That was a big shift in the situation of Xiada. Of course I didn't know all the details about university funding then. I have studied a bit more about that subject since. But what I thought was extremely interesting is that when I went to a university which was fully funded, everything was paid for. I had a scholarship. Fees were paid for. We stayed in hostels. In fact it was fully residential. All 4,000 students were residing inside the campus and I don't think any one of us paid anything for our studies. We were given some spending money. I forget the amount of money now, but if you remember 1947, the inflation in China was so bad that there was no point in counting the money. It used to be in bundles. So I can't remember what it was but it was enough for us to live on. We were given one set of clothes for summer and one for the winter. The hostels were pretty bare but adequate, although it was freezing cold in the winter in Nanjing.
61 policy in China now, of the government paying for everything for the universities, but that policy was a very long tradition there. And here we have Mr. Tan Kah Kee taking the initiative to fund a university. Why did he need to do that? Reading the history of that period, it is quite clear that there were too few universities in China. From about 1900, the imperial govemment of the Qing dynasty first began to take up the idea of a modem university. That was in Beijing, Jingshi Daxuetang, and then there were a couple of others in Nanjing, Tianjin and then some of the provinces. And that was in response to the fact that there were private colleges being set up by the missionaries. Most of them were American missionaries but a few French and German missionaries also set up private colleges. These started as secondary schools, leading to college education, which essentially prepared the students to go on to university education in the United States, France or Germany. And the imperial government gave permission for these colleges to exist, particularly in the treaty ports, like in Shanghai and in Guangzhou and then eventually in Beijing as well. But this was how it began with missionary colleges. And the Chinese government was aware that they were private institutions essentially paid for by the missions in the United States or by Catholic missions in France and some Lutheran missions from Germany. These were the earliest ones. And the imperial government, following the Kang Youwei's Hundred Days Reform, finally realized that there was a need for a modem higher education that the Chinese govemment had never supported in the past.
62 Indeed, I went further back into history. The Chinese imperial government had never supported higher education. I was actually quite surprised to discover this, that throughout the history of China, education was always more or less a private affair. This puzzled me because we always say that the Chinese people are fond of education. We believe that education is important. We believe that education should be respected and we are always taught to be respectful towards scholars, and yet there has never been educational institutions supported by the imperial government. That is one of the reasons why only those who could afford it employed private tutors to teach their children and to set up private classes, eventually to prepare them for examinations, first the local examination, then the provincial examination and ultimately the imperial examination. All these were done basically with private funds. Maybe a community might provide support, but never the central government. Only after the Imperial examination, at the highest level, of what might be called in-service bureaucratic training, will there be institutions like the Hanlin Imperial Academy and so on. The best of the Jinshi (a successful candidate in the highest Imperial Examination) were then recruited into the Hanlin Imperial Academy to provide tuition for the emperor's children and provide various other highly specialised training for the people who were ultimately going to be the highest officials of the land. The highest mandarins received special training. But that was not really higher education. That was preparation for higher government service rather than higher education as we understand it.
63 I was quite amazed that this was so. I had some idea but I didn't realize that there was never any money spent by the imperial government on education despite the fact that the Chinese believe that education is so important. I couldn't find anything really specific to explain this. From reading various memorials and memoirs by the mandarins themselves, we eventually build up a picture that education was so important because it was considered as a way of getting into higher office, and when a person got into a higher office, he was so well rewarded as a Mandarin that the government regarded this as a kind of investment that an individual, his family and his community should be making themselves. There was no question of the imperial government paying for anything. Indeed, the essence of a modern society, as compared with a traditional society in which the state did very little, is that the modem state has taken on many responsibilities for society. This is a completely new thing. In fact if you look back, all the traditional states were rather like that. I looked at some of the European examples. Who paid for universities in Europe? Well, you find a few private donors, some lungs, princes and aristocrats, but very often the church paid for higher education. Sometimes, the professionals did: the medical professions supported medical education; the legal professions encouraged the study of law. Professional education provided funding for a kind of apprenticeship for people to become doctors and lawyers, and of course seminaries funded by the church prepared people to be priests. None of the money came from the government, and there
64 was never in fact such a thing as a state responsibility for education. For example, some of the famous colleges such as Oxford and Cambridge were supported by some kings or aristocrats and private donations, out of their own money for their own special reasons and not out of state coffers. But of course eventually the colleges did become public institutions in the 19th century. But it was as late as the 19th century before public funds went to these universities. In continental Europe, the idea that the state should pay for universities came a little bit earlier than in England, out of a particular social and cultural revolution. This has also occurred in England but not to the same extent. Consider also the consequences of the Reformation against the church, the breakup of the Catholic church, and the competition among the churches. Eventually, following the French Revolution, the state took over the control on higher education. The separation of Church and State was a major factor and it ended by having the state take over issues like higher education, because the state didn't want the church to have anything to do with it. The state wanted to create out of the Enlightenment Project of the late 18th century institutions which the state could sponsor, support and perhaps also to control and shape. The motives are of course very varied but essentially that resulted in most aspects of higher education being taken over from the Church. And because the state took over, there was an increasing support for science, for technology, and for a research-based university. All these meant that the state took an increasing interest in what a university could produce. In a sense, it stemmed from an awareness of the need for human capital and that the state should do something
65 to ensure that the human capital coming out of universities would be useful to both the state and society. That was really a fairly recent thing. So the idea for the state to be responsible for higher education, even in Europe, was very recent. And it took nearly a hundred years before it spread all over Asia. I was struck by where it began. In Asia, India had colonial universities like those of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. They were not entirely supported by the state, because the British empire in India did not believe that the state should pay for education entirely, but only by subsidies. The first Asian universities completely supported by the state, as far as I know, were those in Japan. Tokyo University and later Kyoto University and others, and from then onwards the state paid for these universities. The reason for that was that the Japanese learnt the German universities which were state based in each of the various states in Germany before it was a united Germany were actually financed by the states. It became a very competitive thing among states to recognize that the universities would produce the kind of people to make the state more prosperous or better known and better established, and have better quality of officials to serve the states. All these were taken into account in Germany. And the Japanese were so impressed that they took them as their model. At the same time, they continued with their own tradition and allowed private institutions to provide higher education as well. In England, state-funding for universities was just beginning. The kind of municipal responsibility for universities, such as London University, began in the early 19th century but it was
66 still not fully funded by the state. There was always help from important segments of the population, like medical schools funded with the support of the medical professions, and the funding of the Courts with the legal professions basically supporting the training of future lawyers. All that was, in other words, a mixture of state concern, public concern and private concern, a cooperative enterprise in higher education. Because of the French Revolution, this competitive approach to enable each state to produce better universities, better graduates, and eventually better human capital to serve their states became more recognized. In Asia, it was Japan that started it, and it is no accident that Japan's rapid development occurred in the late 19th and early 20th century. This was because they were quick to appreciate that the state had to play a role in producing the kind of people needed by the state or society in order to modernize quickly, to industrialize quickly, and to catch up with the western world. That was not an accident. Incidentally, I might add that Japanese universities were not the first universities in Asia. The first European type university was actually built in the Philippines by the Spanish. But that was church-based. If you look at one of the earliest universities, the University of Santa Thomas in Manila, it was the Dominican order which built that and there were other orders which also had small colleges. These Catholic church-based institutions were not modem universities, but more like the medieval universities of Europe. The first really modem university in Asia was in Tokyo and that was completely funded by the state. The two universities of Tokyo and Kyoto, of course, remain two of
67 the best universities in the whole of Asia. And they still are, as far as I know, funded by the state with external help at different stages for specific courses and degrees. That's the background to university funding, to the time when Mr. Tan Kah Kee started to build the Xiamen University. He had been to China several times, and found that there were very few universities in China. There was none in Fujian at the time. There was a missionary college in Fuzhou, and there were a couple of other private missionary colleges about to be established. Some of them were meant for teacher training, which was very useful, but there were no fully fledged universities in the whole province of Fujian. And as for other provinces, there were one or two provincially funded colleges, and some new missionary based colleges here and there in the major cities. And Mr. Tan Kah Kee wrote about this, to say that he was very shocked and ashamed of the fact that in Fujian province, a big province like that with million people at that time, did not have a university. It was in that context that he saw that the only way to have a university in Fujian was to establish one himself. Of course he didn't start with a university. He started with schools and was innovative in a wide range of ways. He was building the schools gradually and the climax of all his projects was the university, and he devoted the rest of his life to supporting that university as much as he could. It was until 1936 when he had lost most of his fortune and was clear that all his friends and relatives who tried to help really could not continue any further that he gave up. As you all know, the great world depression came after
68 1929. It affected almost all the people in Southeast Asia, and all their fortunes were much diminished. Throughout that period, Prof Shih I am sure is interested in this, the man who was the vice chancellor was from Singapore. He was Dr. Lim Boon Keng. He made great sacrifices. He had given up his medical career, his business interests in Singapore, to do what his friend Mr. Tan Kah Kee asked him to do, which is to be the head of Xiamen University. And he struggled with that for 16 years, in fact, right to the end, trying to raise funds, trying to do a number of things he thought a university ought to do, but finding it extremely difficult without adequate funding. I remember reading up on some of the Xiamen University accounts of what happened, and about Dr. Lim Boon Keng's efforts. He travelled with Mr. Tan Kah Kee and went round trying to raise funds throughout Southeast Asia, especially among the Hokkien population. But they were not as successful as they had hoped and Mr. Tan Kah Kee was a little disappointed. But Dr. Lim Boon Keng worked very hard and it was tough going, because that was entirely a private university and there was no public funding at all. I remember Mr. Tan Kah Kee saying somewhere that he wanted to make sure that the fees would be very low so that the ordinary people could afford to go to university, and he made many efforts to raise scholarships to enable the poorer students who couldn' t afford the fees to also go to university. The reality was, right down to the Second World War, the bulk of the universities, except those in Europe, were not fully funded by any state.
69 4 El iff- & 2, 4 As I mentioned earlier, the United States was different. We do want to know more about America's story because Singapore and many other universities today, including those in the United Kingdom, in Australia and elsewhere, are looking at the American model. The history of what it was like in the United States involves a very long story. I will keep it short. From the very early days, they had two strands. The earliest colleges were private colleges, mostly funded by churches, with a few exceptions, most of which with very little public funding. The public institution came after the Revolution, after the independence of the United States. In other words, during the colonial period, there was very little public funding for higher education. After the revolution, during the 19th century, the idea that the state should take on more responsibility and help people get into higher education came to be accepted because it was considered a good thing for the country and the state. Once it started, every state that could afford it or do it would parcel out lands for landgrant colleges to be built. All kinds of subsidies were made to these colleges and eventually, state universities sprang up in every state in the country. But again that tradition was different. Private colleges and state colleges co-existed all the way. What was unique about the American example was that through that co-existence, the two were never treated differently by the government. They were both respected. One was more supported by public funds, the other less so, although eventually, even the private universities
70 called on public funds more and more as the cost of higher education rose. Nevertheless, the two are parallel and, as we all know, some of the best universities in the United States are private universities. And the state universities include some good ones, although the majority of them perform a service for the community but don't aspire to reach that kind of excellence that some of the private universities have done. This is the broad picture and, in that context, I think we need to ask this question again and again. At each point of time, "who should pay for universities" was answered differently. I think we need to bear that in mind when we ask ourselves this question today. Some of the things that the minister himself has said today are relevant here. The minister explained what a modem university should do today when facing the globalized knowledge economy, the new issues that arise for governments, and of course for the universities that produce the talents to support their countries. We have here many other factors to take into account. The one that struck me most was that maybe a city state like Singapore is different from other countries. It has few natural resources, except human resources. I became familiar with a similar problem during my ten years in Hong Kong, because Hong Kong was just like Singapore, an island with no natural resources except human resources, so when I went to the University of Hong Kong, this was my first concern. It has always been a concern there insofar as the university is producing human wealth for Hong Kong, that is the capacity to develop, to serve, and create wealth for Hong Kong, and
71 also the capacity to provide the kind of social cohesion that Hong Kong needed. Graduates from the universities have been the uppermost in the minds of the Hong Kong authorities. Singapore is in a similar situation. Without natural resources, depending entirely on the human skills, talents and creativity that we can generate, higher education then becomes a matter of tremendous concern. If that is the case (I believe it is, but if we all acknowledge that that is the case), then it is a matter of major investment for the government of Singapore. This is something that a city state like Singapore depends on, the human resources that you can stimulate, make creative and productive. Therefore it is obvious that the state must be fully concerned with how its universities develop. How should we compare this with the example of the United States? I have said earlier that the U.S. experience was unique. The U.S. had developed its own dual basis for higher education. No other country had quite that unique balance between public and private higher education and that has proven to be a very successful model. And we should look at it carefully. But the more I tried to compare a country - Singapore - that has no other resources except its brain power, with a country like the United States which has such rich natural resources that almost every gradute they could produce could immediately make use of the great natural resources in the country, the more I was taken aback by the difference between them. So it struck me quite hard that maybe the U.S. is not the best model for Singapore. The conditions are so different. Of course, there
72 can be many lessons that we can learn about how the institutions have developed in the U.S. but the basic conditions are clearly different from those in Singapore. I have also spent about 18 years in Australia. I was at the Australian National University from , before I went to the University of Hong Kong. During that time, I saw a major decision made by the government in power when the Labour Party came into government under Mr. Gough Whitlam. One of the first decisions he made was to make all the universities free. All students could go to universities without having to pay tuition fees. That is one of the reasons why large numbers of students from Southeast Asia, not least from Singapore and Malaysia, turned to Australia to study. It was an extraordinary decision. The only examples that Mr. Whitlam could have looked at during that time were the socialist countries. The Soviet Union, China and the Communist countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere had university systems that were free. The state paid for that, because that complemented the whole political system. But when Mr. Whitlam did that, it was a remarkable step. The consequences, of course, were unpredicted. Mr. Whitlam thought that if he made all education free and the state paid for higher education, right across the board, then even the poorest student in the country would have a chance to have a university education. And he thought that, in this way, everybody will be inspired to go to university. After about 15 years or so, there was a review done about this policy and the results of the review showed that the world is not like that at all. Mr Whitlam was just plain wrong. What happened was
73 that the rich and the middle class got a free education for their children while the poor, for a variety of reasons, still didn't get to university. At least, very few of them did. My family was a beneficiary because my three children went to university free of tuition fees. Actually I could afford it but I was not asked to pay. Was that right? It would have been all right, of course, if the country can afford it and go on doing it indefinitely. But it was totally wrong because the government could not afford it. As time went on, the burden of providing a free education for universities became too heavy even for a relatively prosperous government such as the Australian government. Before long, the universities were asked to take in full fees from overseas students, so the next thing we knew was that all Singaporean and Malaysian students and students from elsewhere have to pay full fees to get to Australian universities. They are, I understand, still cheaper than those in the United Kingdom. Anyway they now have to pay full fees. For the local students, the government couldn't reintroduce fees. That was politically difficult. Even to this day the struggle is still going on between the government and staff and students of the universities about this whole question of fees. Of course, they are collecting some fees now and they are using all kinds of devices to get over this problem created by Mr. Whitlam about 30 years ago. But the universities were then forced to take in more and more overseas students who can pay full fees; otherwise, the universities couldn't function because the government was giving them less and less money.
74 The other tendency is to push the universities to privatise more of their activities. To get such outside help across the board, the universities are running into great difficulties. I have just come back this morning from Australia. I was giving a lecture last night at the University of Melbourne, so I had a chance to talk to my Melbourne colleagues and they were telling me how hard it was. I was struck by the very fact that the University of Melbourne actually was brave enough to set up its own private university, parallel to the University of Melbourne. Now I don't know how it is going to work, but I think the Vice Chancellor is going to face difficulties. I think you can imagine what thay are. The university felt it had to do this, partly because it was not able to take fees from Australian students and could only take full fees from overseas students, so it thought that one solution was to set up a private university where both overseas and Australian students can pay full fees. The other result, which is equally painful but totally understandable, is that the government is now prepared to accept the idea that there are different classes of universities. Now this is a very difficult thing for people to agree on. In America, there are many different classes of universities but they evolved gradually over time and they evolved through trial and error, public opinion, adaptation, acceptance of the quality of the education provided and the quality of the staff and research and other criteria, but it has taken a long period of time before people could distinguish between the very good universities, the ordinary ones, and the weak ones. They sorted themselves out over a long period of time. But if all the universities are state funded, as they are in Australia, with only two or three
75 small private universities, and the state cannot afford to maintain them at the same high standard, what do you do? The state starts to discriminate, and find ways to give more money to some universities because they are good and to give less money to those universities because they can't prove that they are good. This is beginning to happen, a kind of the rich-get-richer-thepoor-get-poorer principle. At least that is what my colleagues are complaining about. Well, this may be the only solution because the state cannot afford to pay for all the 39 universities in Australia in the same way. Similar things are happening in the UK as well. About 15 years ago in Britain, they changed all the polytechnics to universities. Overnight, 50 universities double to become a hundred and now they have more than a hundred. They now have the same problems. The government cannot afford to support them equally, so again the pressures are on, various kinds of pressures, to go out for fees, get private students, get donations, get contracts, and get the businessmen to come in. At the same time, discrimination has become necessary, rewarding the rich and impoverishing the poor, as it were. I am not saying they had embarked on this process deliberately. They cannot help it. Once you reach the point when the state cannot afford to pay for everything, that is bound to happen. From what I have said, you can see that there is a great problem ahead of us, a kind of contradiction. On one hand, when a country is small, a city state like Singapore, or a small place like Hong Kong, when there are no other natural resources, I
76 think it is very rational and totally justified for the state to pay for all higher education because that is your major resource. But for larger countries, well developed in other ways, to take on the burden of all higher education and then finding that they can't afford it, it would seem to me that that would have a destructive impact on the quality of education in those countries. It is already beginning to show in Australia. You can already feel it in the United Kingdom. There isn't quite the same quality control that these universities used to be famous for, because the government cannot afford it anymore. So that's the contradiction. It is quite right for the government to take on the responsibility but quite wrong to take it on without being able to afford it and thus creating social, economic and political problems for the government as well. So given that background, and I really have oversimplified the issues in many ways, I want to draw two short conclusions from it. I still believe that there are situations when the government must pay for higher education. It is of course in the hands of the government anyway, and this is not only true for Singapore but for all countries as well. A government has the responsibility of knowing what its best interests are. And if it is in the country's best interests to support and bring out the best in the people, in the human resources it has, then it is its duty to make sure that these resources are fully supported and are given the kind of nourishment to enable the human resources to flourish. That seems to be very rational and obvious. But if there are other resources, if there are other conditions, then it seems to me that for the state to take on, without discrimination, all forms of higher education, this may well lead to
77 impoverishment of all higher education. And the moment the state does that, it seems to me you are really in for big trouble, not only political trouble but in the end, you are really destroying the quality control capacity that academics, students, and parents in the society can work out for themselves. You are actually talung that away from them because the state promises but cannot deliver. And I think that is the worst of two worlds. Is there any other way? I do believe that the American way has shown us something we can learn from. But I don't think every country can imitate what the U.S. does. I certainly don't think that it applies to Singapore. This is my personal view, Vice Chancellor, because it is a totally different kind of state. However, as a general model as to who should pay for university, then I think the kind of balance achieved in the U.S. has a great deal of merit. It accepts the fact that there are differences in the natural ability of people in any society and with 280 million people in the U.S., it is very clear that only a certain percentage of those people have the capacity to be inventive, productive, creative and all the things that we need for a knowledge-based economy. And for them, you have got to invest in them and provide the very best opportunity to enable them to bring out their talents fully. That is quite clear; otherwise, you are not being rational. You have to find a way of determining who these people are, and once you know who they are, you must give them absolute support all the way to enable them to do their best. And for the rest, you provide a general education and then if they want more, like professional skills and other extra skills, then they should be expected to contribute to that.
78 Another logical argument is that if you gain those skills, those qualifications, they actually enable you to earn more in society. Then paying for that becomes your own investment in your own future careers. In a vast, very flexible, fluid and open system like the U.S., the selection process is very complex. But even someone not exceptionally creative in fields the country considers important would have opportunities to prove themselves. The U.S. has a good balance of the state system and the private university system. Both provide active processes for bringing out the best people, sorting out who would be the most creative and productive for the country. And the process is elaborate, very painful for some people, but in the end, the chances to get the right people into the right slots to do the right things are very much better. But only a society that has an open system, and is reasonably affluent to afford it, can do that. It is an expensive system and not every country can afford it. I notice that both the Australians in the Commonwealth system, of which we are a part, and the UK are taking into account what is happening in the U.S. But as the minister suggested earlier this morning, it' s very difficult to change from the European Continental system where the state paid for everything, to this kind of more fluid, flexible system that the U.S. - not consciously, but unconsciously and organically - has evolved. Now that change is not easy and it will take some time. But the fact that they are considering it is a good sign. It is a recognition that certainly one principle - that the state should pay for all higher education for all the people who want it - cannot be
79 followed any longer. No state that I know of can afford it if it wants to give quality university education to its students. No country, not even the U.S., I would say, can afford it if they want to give it to everybody who wants higher education. If you accept that as a given, then I think we are at least facing a very realistic proposition. Let us look at the question again: who should pay? I have suggested that in a small city state, the state should be able to pay. They can afford to pay. It doesn't mean that it has to pay. If the state wants the society to share in that investment, to contribute to that investment, so be it. If that is what everybody accepts, then fine, provided that everybody agrees that what they want is the lund of quality education that will produce the best human resources to serve that state. And in a small city state like Singapore, that kind of agreement and consensus is, I think, possible. In the larger countries, and you can't think of one larger than that of China, I don't know how it is going to work out. I am fascinated to see that the Chinese has accepted the idea that universities must go out and find funds of their own. They have accepted the idea of a few private universities being established, but from what I know up to now anyway, it is experimental, and many of them are getting the formula wrong. I don't know if it will work, but at least the Chinese now recognize the principle that no state can afford to provide really good education for everyone who wants higher education. It is simply not possible, and the Chinese painfully acknowledge that and are now trying to do something about it. I don't know how they will change
80 around and readjust themselves to the kind of mixed university system that will provide really good quality education. If it is turning just to private enterprise, I personally don't think it will work. While I was describing the mixed systems, you notice that I did not say that the private universities should depend on private enterprise. No. The private universities in the U.S. actually depend for a broad support from their own alumni. For the really high quality research that is done in these universities, they are actually getting funds from the state. With high quality brainpower in their universities, they can win the kind of contracts that the government is willing to pay for good research. So private doesn't mean 100% private. Public doesn't mean 100% public. That's the way the U.S. has evolved over the last 200 years. And it is an extraordinary story and it is far too complicated for any other country to try to imitate. That is one of the things I am concerned about, that we should not assume easily that America has been very successful and all we need to do is to do exactly what the Americans do. I don't think it works like that. You have to look at your own society, the conditions in your own country, and what it really needs, what it can do, what it can afford to do, and what its priorities are. And, in a small state, the priorities are very different from the priorities of a large state. With the vast resources that the U.S. has, they can do almost anything. They can ask their scholars to reach out in almost any direction they like because they can afford it. Obviously, a state like Singapore, or a territory with an even bigger population like that of Hong Kong, cannot afford to do that. Different kinds of priorities would have to
81 be exercised and for those priorities, they cannot be determined by private enterprise or society alone. The state must provide a leading role in at least seeking that kind of consensus from its experts and, together, work out what that state and society really need in order to, not just survive, but to thrive and prosper. And I think Singapore is getting it about right. It is to some extent consulting the people about what kinds of business and skills are needed. There are certain very direct problems facing Singapore today, and in terms of trying to reshape the new Singapore, obviously the state has to provide some leadership in that sphere. But, of course, it expects some inputs from private sectors, private enterprise, and society in general. That is quite natural. But, to me, the question of depending a lot on private enterprise to support higher education is simply not realistic because these priorities need not have any business inputs or results at the end of it all. We just don't know. You have to take a gamble, you need to put in a lot of investment, and you have to take your chances. And to that extent, the state has no choice but to take the lead and the risks and, if they get it wrong, take the responsibility. That's the way it has to be. Therefore, when we look at any of the institutions around us including our own, "who should pay for university?'should not be determined by any specific model but by taking on the experiences of other models and then looking at yourself: what does Singapore really want? What does it need? What can it do? What can't it do? This kind of realistic assessment of what is possible within Singapore has to be done, between the state and
82 all those in the society deeply concerned with this issue. And this kind of collaboration and sharing of ideas will, I think, lead to the kind of solution that Singapore will eventually find. In short, there is no simple answer to my question: who should pay for the university? I am sorry I can't give you a formula. In fact, you know very well that there is no such fomula. It is something that can be worked out, between the universities, the government departments concerned with higher education and the private enterprise and the rest of society concerned for higher education and the products of higher education. There should be much more consultation and discussion about the ultimate goals of what higher education could best do for Singapore. Thank you very much. Prof Shih So true to his reputation, as a distinguished scholar and historian, Prof Wang Gungwu has provided us with an insight and passion account of the development of higher education in several continents, in Europe, in China, in Japan, in the U.S., Australia, some of mistakes, some of their successes. I think that Prof Wang has, in the course of his lecture, also shared with us the opportunities and the problems facing higher education. So I am sure that this has given us a lot of food for thought and that you are stimulated. Now, on behalf of the organiser, I also want to thank the other speakers, Senior Minister of State Mr. Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Mr. Teo Ming Kian, and others who have spoken this morning.
214 8.15am 8.50am 9.00am-9.20am Registration Opening Ceremony Welcome Address by Prof Hew Choy Sin (Chairman, Organising Committee) Opening Address by Guest-of-Honour, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry & Education) Morning Session Chairman: Prof Shih Choon Fong (President, National University of Singapore) 9.20am-10.15am "Entrepreneurship Passport to Wealth" Mr Teo Ming Kian (Chairman, Ecomomic Development Board) 10.15am-10.45am 10.45am-12.05pm Tea Break "Who Should Pay for Universities?" Prof Wang Gungwu (Director, East Asian Institute) 12.05pm-12.15pm 12.15pm-1.30pm Closing remarks by Chairman Lunch Break
217 今日陈嘉庚精神一陈嘉庚基金廿周年纪念庆典研讨会文集 THE TAN KAH KEE SPIRIT OF TODAY Tan Kah Kee Foundation 20 th Anniversa 主编潘国驹丘才新王俊南 Editor-in-Chief Phua Kok Khoo Hew Choy Ong Sin Choon Nam 封面设计何美娇 Cover Design Ho Bee Keow 出版者 Publisher 发行 Distributor 联络 /Contact 印刷 /Printer 初版 /Printed 国际书号 /ISBN 定价 /Price 陈嘉庚基金 Tan Kah Kee Foundation 陈嘉庚国际学会 Tan Kah Kee International Society 八方文化企业公司 Global Publishing Co. Inc. ( 世界科技出版公司之附属机构 ) 5 Toh Tuck Link Singapore 支线 432/433 chpub(s)wspc,com,sg World Scientific Printers (S) Pte. Ltd 年 4 月 (pbk) S$12 版权所有 /Copyright Tan Kah Kee Foundation Tan Kah Kee International Society
218 圍,... 八方文化企业公司为世界科技出版公司之附属公司, 专职出版中文书籍与中英文双语书籍 出版方向为介绍世界各地著名华人学者的言论和作品, 以及推介具有代表性 地域性的评论及文学著作 我们希望为促进东西方文化交流 增进东西方国家之间的相互了解, 作出积极贡献 世 II 科技出 公 g 总部及海外分公司 总部 ( 新加! )' World Scientific Publishing Co.Pte. Ltd 5 Toh Tuck Link SINGAPORE KB 1060 Main Street, Suite 202 River Edge, NJ07661, USA 英国 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden London, WC2H 9HE, ENGLAND 番港 九龙吧來邮箱?2482 香港 台湾, 北市新生南路三段 88 号 5 楼之 6. 台湾 上. 海 上海 ^ 国际大 JI ' 黄浦路 99 号 2003 室邮 ^ 國 I #10 Royal Pork, 34 Park Road Tasker Town, Bangalore , INDIA
I II III The Study of Factors to the Failure or Success of Applying to Holding International Sport Games Abstract For years, holding international sport games has been Taiwan s goal and we are on the way
Your Field Guide to More Effective Global Video Conferencing As a global expert in video conferencing, and a geographically dispersed company that uses video conferencing in virtually every aspect of its
201 1945 8 1945 202 The Sending Back of The Japanese People in Taiwan in The Beginning Years After the World War II Abstract Su-ying Ou* In August 1945, Japan lost the war and had to retreat from Taiwan.
I II III IV The theories of leadership seldom explain the difference of male leaders and female leaders. Instead of the assumption that the leaders leading traits and leading styles of two sexes are the
10384 200015128 UDC Exploration on Design of CIB s Human Resources System in the New Stage (MBA) 2004 2004 2 3 2004 3 2 0 0 4 2 WTO Abstract Abstract With the rapid development of the high and new technique
Continuing Education Mandarin Program Our high quality and systematic Mandarin Programs in our beautiful city of Richmond In this Issue: June 8 th, 2013 School Info....1-2 Student Articles.. 3-23 Mandarin
63 20 4 8 193 64 Culture and Education as Sponsored by the Board of Trustees for AIFBG Hsiu-huan Chou * Abstract The Board of Trustees for the Administration of the Indemnity Funds remitted by the British
Research Center For Taiwan Economic Development (RCTED) 2003 8 1 2 Study of Operational Strategies on Biotechnology Pharmaceutical Products Industry in Taiwan -- Case Study on Sinphar Pharmaceutical Company
Doreen Virtue, Ph.D. Charles Virtue C o n t e n t s...7... 15 1. Acceptance... 17 2. Allow Love... 19 3. Apologize... 21 4. Archangel Metatron... 23 5. Archangel Michael... 25 6. Ask for a Sign... 27 7.
Abstract Nowadays, more and more countries begin with the development of creative industries as a strategy to revive the economy. It not only strengthens the link between economic development and local
1 2 The Abolishment of Family Clans and Family Names Around the May-4 th Campaign Abstract Hsi-mei Hung * The Chinese society is traditionally based on paternity and is thus formed on the long-tested social
ABSTRACT ABSTRACT As we know the Sinology has a long history. As earily as 19 th century some works have already been done in this field. And among this the studies of lineages and folk beliefs in Southeast
CCMP 91-RD-202 ( ) The Research of Academic Recognition of Chiniese Medicine in Mainland China The research of Higher Education of Chinese Medicine in Mainland 25 29 29 724 Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
20 90 1998 2001 1 Abstract Under the environment of drastic competitive market, risk and uncertainty that the enterprise faces are greater and greater, the profit ability of enterprise assets rises and
-- Managing Traditional Temples A Case Study of Representative Temples in CHIA-YI i Abstract This research used the methodology of field study historical comparative research, and qualitative interview
The Study on the New Pension Scheme for Civil Servants Evidence from Kaohsiung County I II 1. III Thesis Abstract Title of Thesis The Study on the New Pension Scheme for Civil Servants: Evidence from Kaohsiung
RReadingWritingArithmetic People with goals succeed because they know where they are going 2 Prepare our students for life Promote their thinking and broaden their horizons Owing to the infl ux of digital
A Survey on the Relationship between Favorable Local Conditions and Field, as well as the Artistic Decoration of Street Taking Hai An Road of Tainan City for Example Abstract It has been several decades
Chinese Travel Agencies & The Internet Age: An Analysis of the Adoption of Internet Tourism in Chengdu, China Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in