ka-ho mok vice president (research and development) and

The Quest for Global Competitiveness: Quality

Assurance and Entrepreneurial Universities in Singapore

Ka-Ho MokVice President (Research and Development) and

Director, Centre for Greater China StudiesChair Professor, Department of Asian and Policy Studies

The Hong Kong Institute of EducationChangjiang Chair Professor, Zhejiang University, China

1

OUTLINE

The Objectives of Singapore’s Education Background Education Reforms in Singapore (Quality Assurance in Higher Education) Background of University-Enterprise

Cooperation in Singapore Academic Reflections toward U-E

Cooperation Discussion and Conclusion

2

The Singapore’s Education Objectives

A child to bring out his greatest potential so that he will grow up into a good man and useful citizen” (Lee, 1979, p. iii)

Education for Nation Building Education serving economic development Education serving social and cultural development Education for maintaining and enhancing Singapore’s

global competitiveness Education as tool for Globalizing Singapore and

assertion of Singapore’s soft power3

The Changing Point (1965)

The year 1965 marked the most important turning point in the history of Singapore as a complete political independent country.

The new political, economic and social conditions required that national policies be re-assessed. This was also the case with education.

4

The Consequences of Education Reforms

(1960s-1970s)

For a large part of the 1970s, education managed to provide a workforce to meet the manpower needs of a burgeoning industrial economy. However, as the economy matured, the types of skills required were changing. In addition, there was high attrition when the education system became too rigid and inflexible and thus inefficient. The bilingual requirement, as understood then, was also seen to be making an excessive demand on the students. Reform of the system was therefore inevitable.

5

Report on the Ministry of Education (1979)

The 1979 Report recommended a method of streaming pupils based on academic ability, principally ability in languages and mathematics. On the basis of a series of tests, examinations and teachers’ reports, pupils were to be streamed into different courses of study to cater better to their needs and pace of learning. This type of academic tracking or streaming was adopted at both the primary and secondary levels, marking a major structural innovation to the system, which was then called the New Education System.

6

Report on the Ministry of Education (1979)

This New Education System comprised the provision of streaming and changes to the school curriculum including the provision of an additional year in school for those in the weakest stream. Notable changes in the curriculum included greater emphasis on language education in primary schools, the provision of moral education as a subject in both primary and secondary schools, and the introduction in 1982 of religious knowledge as a compulsory subject in the upper secondary curriculum.

7

Other Developments in the 1980s

There are two other developments, namely, the establishment of the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) in 1980 and the Schools Council in 1981 were very significant during this period. CDIS was designed to produce teaching materials for schools, including textbooks, multi-media materials and educational television programs. The Schools Council itself involved principals in the decision-making process at the Ministry level. The establishment of the Schools Council was also seen as the first step towards giving school principals greater autonomy and wider responsibility with regards to decision-making.

8

Recession in 1985

Since “in the modern world, education and economic performance are indivisible” (Tan, 1992), the recession in 1985 has deeply influenced the education system in Singapore.

The negative economic growth in 1985 reminded the government of the vulnerability of Singapore’s economy to both internal and external factors.

9

Recession in 1985

The Minister for Education thus announced in 1986 principles or guidelines for Education Ministry as:

Education policy must keep pace with the economy and society.

The basics, i.e. languages, science, mathematics, and the humanities, will be stressed to encourage logical thinking and life-long learning.

Creativity in schools must be boosted through a ‘bottom-up’ approach whereby initiatives must come from principals and teachers instead of from the Ministry (Tan, 1986).

10

Working towards Excellent in Education(1985–1995)

The guideline has marked a new era in Singapore’s education: the effort to establish excellent education system. The Ministry of Education then organized a study tour made by 12 senior school principals to the USA and the UK to identify factors which would make for a good and effective school. The report prepared by this group of principals, entitled Towards Excellence in Schools (1987), was seen as a “breakthrough” in fostering educational innovation at the school level, and marking “a new phase in the development of education in Singapore” (Tan, 1986).

11

Working towards Excellent in Education(1985–1995)

To support the move towards greater excellence in the school system, teacher education was also upgraded with the formation in July 1991 of the National Institute of Education (NIE), by merging the former Institute of Education and the College of Physical Education.

12

Globalization and Economic Crisis

The 1990s saw globalization processes accelerating, aided by the widespread use of the. In the later part of the decade, East Asian economies also experienced, as noted earlier, a sharp recession—beginning in 1997, with differentiated rates of recovery as the decade ended. These two developments, among others, accelerated the questioning of the resilience of the existing education systems in the context of new demands for economic competitiveness.

13

From Quantity to Quality

Under this context, the Singapore government has conducted another education reform emphasizing “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TSLN), which provided direction to the transformation in the education system since 1997. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, then Prime Minister, explained that it was a vision for a total learning environment, including students, teachers, parents, workers, companies, community organizations and the government (Goh 1997).

14


To be more specific, thinking Schools is a vision of a school system that can develop creative thinking skills, lifelong learning passion and nationalistic commitment in the young. Learning Nation is a vision of learning as a national culture, where creativity and innovation flourishes at every level of the society .

15


Realizing the importance of advanced technology, The Singapore government issued the Master plan for Information Technology in Education in the same year, attempting to incorporate information technology in teaching and learning so that the quality of education could be improved. The government has been generous in its pledges of support both for physical infrastructure and for pre- and in-service training. Whole-school networking is to be installed in all schools: the target is one computer to be available for every two students and one notebook for every two teachers. 16


To further improve the national competitiveness, in 2004, Prime Minister Lee called teachers to “teach less” so that students might “learn more”. In 2005, the Ministry of Education clarified this philosophical statement to mean transforming learning from quantity to quality—“more quality and less quantity” in education. This is in line with the national vision of ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’. This policy initiative, which began in 2004, is set to change the fundamental nature of education in Singapore.

17


Just as Minister Tharman (2005) said that: Our basic approach, as we go forward, is to go for more

quality and less quantity. We will focus on the quality of learning, quality of CCA and community engagements and the quality of the whole school experience that the student goes through. We will seek to cut back on quantity, careful and calculated cuts, so as to provide more “whitespace” in the curriculum, space which gives schools and teachers the room to introduce their own programs, to inject more quality into teaching, to reflect more, to have more time for preparing lessons and to give students themselves the room to exercise initiative and to shape their own learning.

18


Aims “to touch the hearts and engage the minds of our learners. It reaches into the core of education—why we teach, what we teach and how we teach”, Tharman (2005) claimed “less dependence on rote learning, repetitive tests and a ‘one size fits all’ type of instruction, and more on engaged learning, discovery through experiences, differentiated teaching, the learning of life-long skills, and the building of character through innovative and effective teaching approaches and strategies.” Moreover, more opportunities will be created for “holistic learning so that students can go beyond narrowly defined academic excellence to develop the attributes, mindsets, character and values for future success”.

19

Higher Education Reform

The education reforms were also conducted in higher education area. There have been three major stages of higher education reforms in recent years:

The first stage was started by setting up an International Academic Advisory Panel (IAAP), comprising prominent scholars from international higher education institutions or community leaders from big corporations, to help the universities develop into world-class institutions in terms of teaching and research (MOE, Singapore, 2001).

20


Taking the recommendations made by the IAAP seriously, the government started to review its university admissions system by adopting a more flexible admissions policy (MOE, Singapore, 1999). Moving beyond recruiting students almost based solely on their academic scores, both the public universities announced in 1999 that they would henceforth pay attention to students’ non-academic performance and recognize their achievements in co-curricular activities and school-based project work.

21


In order to prepare and equip students for globalization challenges, the Singapore government has reviewed the curriculum design of university education and emphasis is now placed on a broad-based cross-disciplinary university education. More innovative ways of teaching and assessment have been introduced with a focus on creative and critical thinking.

22


Meanwhile, the role of universities in knowledge creation has been strengthened through postgraduate and research education in the universities. Universities constitute a significant resource of new ideas and inventions with the potential for commercial applications by enhancing their research capabilities and engaging in more multi-disciplinary research.

23


The second stage of higher education reforms saw the establishment of Singapore’s third university in August 2000. The privately owned Singapore Management University (SMU) was formed in collaboration with the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. The foundation of the SMU was a landmark in Singapore’s higher education history. By introducing different governance and funding style, the government intends to make its higher education sector more vibrant and dynamic. It also intends to inject a certain degree of “internal competition” to the university sector (Lee and Gopinathan, 2001).

24


The third stage of higher education reforms is closely related to University Governance and Funding Review in 2000 embarked by the MOE, Singapore. The purpose of such a review was to ensure that systems and structures in relation to talent management, organizational processes and resource allocation within the universities were properly linked up to their mission and objectives of development in the long run. Overseas study trips to Hong Kong, Canada, the UK and the USA were conducted in September 1999 to identify good practices in overseas universities (MOE, Singapore, 2000).

25


The review committee released its recommendations on public university governance and funding in July 2000, In exchange for greater autonomy, the NUS and the NTU were urged to be more responsive in making timely decisions and adjustments in order to achieve excellence. At the same time, the universities had to put in place systems and structures of talent management, organizational processes and resource allocation to achieve highest value for money and rates of return from public investment in university education.

26

Quest for Education Hub

During this period, repositioning itself in the globalizing world, together with the ambition to assert the “soft power”, Singapore government has openly declared its intention and plans for regional education hub projects. When discussing education hubs, we should realize the diverse meanings of “education hubs” since some may interpret such hubs as “knowledge or innovation hubs” (Olds, 2007; Wong, Ho, and Singh, 2007), others may refer to the “education industry” (Lai and Maclean, 2011) or “a way to internationalize higher education” (Chan and Ng, 2008; Knight, 2004; Mok, 2007). 27


However, the pressing need for transforming into the knowledge-based economy has exceeded the capacity of Singapore to quickly expand their public institutions to offer sufficient opportunities for higher education to their population. One major strategy adopted by some Asian governments to enhance the global competitiveness of their higher education is to bring in overseas campuses to offer different forms of international education programs, attracting students in the region and beyond.

28


However, as far as the quest for a regional hub of education is concerned, policies of quality enhancement and corporatization of public universities alone may be far from sufficient. More opportunities for higher education, both in terms of the number and variety, have to be provided to Singaporeans as well as foreign learners from the region.

29


The outcomes of Singapore government’s active measures were obvious: by 2003, Singapore’s public universities and polytechnics could only enroll around 40,000 and 56,000 students respectively; on the other hand, 119,000 students were enrolled by around 170 private tertiary providers, of which 140 offered programs in collaboration with foreign institutions and enrolled 75% of the total student population in this section. The importance of transnational education provision in Singapore has therefore become obvious.

30


Meanwhile, in order to tap into the lucrative education market more aggressively, the Singapore government launched its Global Schoolhouse initiative in 2002. In fact, ever since 1998, the government, through efforts taken by its Economic Development Board (EDB) instead of its Ministry of Education, has strategically invited “world-class” and “reputable” universities from abroad to set up their Asian campuses in the city-state.

31


As a result, Singapore is today home to 16 leading foreign tertiary institutions and 44 pre- tertiary schools offering international curricula (EDB, Singapore Government, 2009), ranging from business, management arts, media, hospitality to information technology, biomedical sciences and engineering.

32


In 2003, a further and more integrated step was taken by the government to promote Singapore as a premier education hub. Singapore Education, a multi-government agency initiative, is led by the EDB and supported by the Tourism Board, SPRING Singapore, International Enterprise (IE) Singapore and the Ministry of Education.

33


According to the official website of Singapore Education (Singapore Education, 2006), EDB is responsible for attracting “internationally renowned educational institutions to set up campuses in Singapore”, whereas the Tourism Board is tasked with overseas promotion and marketing of Singapore education, and IE Singapore is in charge of helping quality local education institutions to develop their businesses and set up campuses overseas.

34


Another significant strategy adopted by the government in promoting transnational higher education is the joint-degree program arranged between the local universities and their overseas partners. Local Singapore universities are actively collaborating with peer universities across the world in a diversified spectrum of academic programs, bringing together rich resources in such fields. Students are granted the freedom to study at both campuses and receive supervision and teaching from the faculties of both universities..

35


And finally, as part of its policy to support transnational higher education, the Singapore government also offers a comprehensive package of financial aid to international students through several public channels. The tuition fees for them are only 10% above the local rate, and they can apply for whatever financial assistance schemes open to local students, including scholarships provided by the “Singapore Scholarship” and tuition grants conditional on the agreement of working for a Singapore-registered company for at least three years upon graduation. Moreover, there are numerous bursaries provided by individual tertiary institutions, and student loans are also available at favorable interest rates. 36


In short, the most recent achievements of Singapore’s quest for education hub are as follows:

In 2007, there were an estimated 86,000 international students from 120 countries studying in Singapore.

Over 1,200 private HEIs and 44 pre-tertiary schools offer international curricula in Singapore.

RafflesEducationCorp,thelargestprivateeducationgroupinAsia,hasestablished its international headquarters in Singapore. About 61,000 students are studying in its 28 colleges around the Asia-Pacific region.

37


Public universities have also played a role in its quest to be a regional hub of education. The three autonomous universities enroll 20% international students who mainly come from ASEAN, China and India. Most of them were enrolled in Engineering and Science courses.

As of 2008, the education sector (all levels) contributed about 2% of Singapore’s GDP and is forecasted to reach 5% by 2015.

38

Background of U-E cooperation

Singapore’s strategic responses to social and economic changes Promotion of innovation

Recent R & D performances of top universities in Singapore

39

Promotion of innovation In 1989, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) Master

Plan; In 1995, Entrepreneurial mindset introduced in civil services

through the Public Service for the 21st Century; In 2000,S$ 10 million fund set up by the Enterprise

Challenge (a branch under the Prime Minister’s Office) to sponsor innovative projects which may improve the provision of public service;

In 2001, the Second Master Plan to call for urgency to inspire entrepreneurship again;

a shift of developmental focus from a large manufacturing base for MNSs to a dynamic innovation hub to support high-tech manufacturing and R & D.

40

Promotion of innovation

In the 1990s, a governmental increase on R & D development targeting primarily long-term strategic (Koh, 2006);

In 1991, the first five-year National S & T Plan (1991-1995),

S$2 billion from government to develop key resources in technology, manpower and skills to meet the needs of industry,

New research institutes developed by National Science and Technology Board (NSTB)

41

The second S & T plan (1996-2000)

“an innovative and enterprising society that embraces science and technology to develop a thriving knowledge economy and good quality of life” and a shift of development al strategy to domestic capacities in applied and basic scientific researches;

new policy initiatives promoting technology entrepreneurship;

Drafting National Innovation Framework for Action (NIFA); Financial assistances and tax incentive programmes

among the SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises);

42

The third S & T National Plan: (2001– 2005)

Emphasizing the crucial role of research institutions and universities

S$ 7 billion budget channeling to technology development and R & D experiments, 30 % used to encourage corporate labs to set up research centers

Broad-based manpower development, including fellowship training programs and postgraduate scholarships

43

The fourth S &T Plan: 2006-2010

strengthening the support to SMEs, promote technology transfer and intellectual property management, and to create incentives that could attract international talents to Singapore

44

The private sector as the main driver of R & D activities but government still as the influential strategic planner;

The new science parks being located adjacent to several universities: the National University of Singapore, the Institute of Technical Education, the Singapore Polytechnic, and the National University Hospital;

45

46

Table1 SPRING Singapore’s Innovation and Entrepreneurship Supporting Schemes

Schemes Supporting measuresFor Start-up Biomedical Sciences Accelerator (BSA)

As part of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2015 plan, the government has approved the establishment of Sector Specific Accelerators (SSA) to identify, invest and grow start-ups in strategic but nascent sectors, starting with the Biomedical Science Sector. Nascent sectors are characterized by few local enterprises; limited pool of domain experts; and absence of early stage investors. While these sectors received significant Research and Development funds, there are insufficient enterprises to commercialize the intellectual property resulting from the R&D; hence the economic benefits could not be realised. The SSA approach was deemed an effective way to address the identified issues. S$40 million has been set aside to pilot the SSA initiative via the Biomedical Science Accelerator (BSA) with an initial focus on the Medical Technology (MedTech) subsector. Two BSA Operators have been appointed. SPRING SEEDS Capital (SSC), the manager of the BSA Programme, will co-invest in the start-ups identified by the BSA Operators on a 1:1 basis. The two BSA Operators are Clearbridge BSA Pte Ltd and Singapore Medtech Accelerator Pte Ltd.

47

Business Angel Scheme (BAS)

In encouraging experienced angel investing, SPRING SEEDS Capital works closely with pre-approved private business angel investors to co-invest and nurture growth-oriented, innovative start-ups. Similar to the Startup Enterprise Development Scheme (“SEEDS”), this is an equity-based co-financing option for Singapore-based early-stage companies.

SPRING Startup Enterprise Development Scheme (SPRING SEEDS)

It is an equity-based co-financing option for Singapore-based start-ups with innovative products and/or processes with intellectual content and strong growth potential across international markets.

48

Technology Enterprise Commercialization Scheme (TECS)

To catalyze the formation and growth of such start-ups based on strong technology Intellectual Property and a scalable business model. The TECS is a competitive grant in which proposals are ranked based on the evaluation of both technical and commercial merits by a team of reviewers, and the best are funded.

Work Pass for Foreign Entrepreneur (EntrePass)

The EntrePass is for non-Singaporean entrepreneurs who are ready to start and operate a business in Singapore.

49

For Start-up Partners

Angel Investors Tax Deduction Scheme (AITD)

The Angel Investors Tax Deduction Scheme is a tax incentive which aims to stimulate business angel investments into Singapore-based start-ups and encourage more angel investors to add value to these start-ups.

The scheme applies to an approved angel investor who commits a minimum of Sing dollars $100,000 of qualifying investment in a qualifying start-up. An approved angel can enjoy a tax deduction, equal to 50 percent of his investment amount, at the end of a two-year holding period. The tax deduction will be subject to a cap of Sing dollars $250,000 in each Year of Assessment (YA), and will be offset against total taxable income.

50

Incubator Development Programme (IDP)

The $30 million Incubator Development Programme (IDP) provides Incubators and Venture Accelerators a grant to enhance capability development programmes for innovative startups. IDP provides up to 70 percent grant support to incubators and venture accelerators in areas such as, programmes to nurture start-ups, mentoring start-ups, and operating expenses.

Young Entrepreneurs Scheme for Schools (YES! Schools)

YES! Schools provides schools with grants of up to S$100,000 to put in place a comprehensive structured entrepreneurship learning programme for their students.

Source: SPRING Singapore, Entrepreneurship. http://www.spring.gov.sg/Entrepreneurship/FS/Pages/work-pass-for-foreign-entrepreneurs.aspx.

Recent R&D Performances ofTop Universities in Singapore

National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, and The Singapore Management University

51

National University of Singapore

A university-level cluster called the NUS Enterprise (ETP) with seven pillars, namely,

NUS Overseas Colleges,

NUS Industry Liaison Office,

NUS Entrepreneurship Centre,

NUS Extension (which provides continuing education to adults),

NUS Press,

NUS Technology Holdings, and

a partnering venture capital fund

52

Nanyang Technological University

In 2000, Nanyang Innovation & Enterprise Office In 2001, NTU collaborated with Singapore’s

Economic Development Board to set up the Nanyang Technopreneurship Center

NTU Ventures Pte. Limited, the commercial arm of NTU

entrepreneurial education:

53

Entrepreneurial Education

In 2002, the Masters of Science in Technopreneurship & Innovation Program

“PhD Entrepreneur-in-Training (PET)” program to cultivate post-doctoral students with a market sense

The Kauffman Global Scholars Program

54

The Singapore Management University

In 2005, UOB-SMU Entrepreneurship Alliance (USEA) Centre with the United Overseas Bank Limited (UOB)

In 2009, the Institute of Innovation & Entrepreneurship (IIE) with a so-called “SMU Plus Strategy”

entrepreneurship education: in 2009, an entrepreneurship major was introduced

In 2008, SAS Enterprise Intelligence Laboratory

55

The Singapore Management University

In 2012, a new postgraduate degree program, the Master of Innovation

56

Academic reflection towards U-E cooperation

Questionnaire Survey: Academics and their affiliated institutions

Results

57

Questionnaire survey

208 Academics from six universities

National University of Singapore (NUS),

Nanyang Technological University (NTU),

Singapore Management University (SMU),

SIM University,

Singapore University of Technology, Design (SUTD),

Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT); and five local Polytechnics

Singapore Polytechnic, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Temasek Polytechnic, Nanyang Polytechnic, Republic Polytechnic

58

59

Academic discipline of academics

Number

percentage

humanitiesHistory, Languages, Literature, Performing Arts, Visual Arts, Philosophy, Religion

17 8%

social sciences

Anthropology, Archaeology, Area Studies, Cultural and Ethnic Studies, Economics, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Geography, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology

18 9%

natural sciences Space Sciences, Earth Sciences, Life Sciences, Medicine, Biology, Chemistry, Physics

34 16%

formal sciencesComputer Sciences, Logic, Mathematics, Statistics, System Science

15 7%

Applied Sciences Military sciences, Environmental Studies and Forestry, Healthcare Science

33 16%

Professions

Architecture and Design, Library and Museum Studies, Divinity, Law, Agriculture, Engineering, Education, Business, Journalism, Media Studies and Communication, Public Administration

91 44%

total 　 208 100%

Findings

(1) When being asked about their views about whether university-enterprise cooperation should be strengthened, 93 percent of the respondents showed their support, with 6 percent showing their disagreement and 1 percent do not know respectively.

60

93%

6%

1%

Agree (194) Disagree (12)I don't know (2)

(2) Do you agree that "university-enterprise co-operations in South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan are more successful than Hong Kong"?

61

34%

46%

20%

Agree (70) Disagree (96) I don't know (42)

(3) Do you agree “university-enterprise cooperation will cause conflict of interest”?

62

38%

58%

4%

Agree (80)Disagree (119)I don't know (9)

(4) Do you agree that “Fund operation in university-enterprise cooperation should be monitored by the government”?

63

48%

50%

2%


Do you agree that "the government should give more fund support to university-enterprise cooperation?"

64

84%

15% 1%


Do you agree that “if the government gives fund support to university-enterprise cooperation, it will interfere academic freedom”?

65

29%

69%

2%


Do you agree that “the academic learning time of students will be sacrificed when they do their internships in enterprises”?

66

14%

85%

1%


Do you agree that “university-enterprise cooperation will help increase employment rate”?

67

90%

9% 1%


Do you agree that "university-enterprise cooperation will enhance the quality of graduates"?

68

89%

10% 1%


Do you agree that “universities-enterprise cooperation would bring benefits to both sides”?

69

95%

4%1%


Do you agree that “university-enterprise cooperation can improve the image of the enterprise”?

70

89%

10% 1%


Do you agree that “university-enterprise cooperation can improve the ranking of the university”?

71

64%

31%

5%


Do you agree that “if university and enterprise do research and development together, not only the scale and scope of the research project can be enlarged, they can also share to bear the risk of the research project”?

72

85%

13%

2%


Do you agree that “university-enterprise cooperation can reduce their operational risks”?

73

58%

35%

7%


Do you agree that “goal difference is the main obstacle to university-enterprise cooperation”?

74

70%

26%

4%


Do you agree that “the publication of research papers of university will release the commercial secret of its partner enterprise”?

75

34%

61%

5%


Do you agree that “universities incline to conduct low-risk research and development projects would weaken enterprises’ desire to cooperate with universities”?

76

48%

47%

5%


Do you agree that "the benefit of university-entrepreneur cooperation cannot be estimated" is a main obstacle in university-enterprise cooperation?

77

50%

44%

6%


Do you agree that “universities should follow up graduates’ employment status and adopt appropriate strategy to nurture students”?

78

91%

8%1%


Do you agree that “to strengthen and improve university-entrepreneur cooperation can led to win-win situation”?

79

87%

12% 1%


Discussions and Conclusions

Decisive and strategic role of the state in making education changes

Quality assurance internally and externally driven

Positioning Singapore as a major Global Player in education

Singapore’s Visionary Project and Soft Power extension

80

Thank You

The author wants to thank the Research Grant Council of the HKSAR Government for providing funding support to conduct the fieldwork and survey in Singapore. Part of the findings reported in the presentation is generated from the funded project HKIEd GRF 750210 “Fostering Entrepreneurship and Innovation: A Comparative Study of Changing Roles of universities in East Asia”.

81

ka-ho mok vice president (research and development) and

Documents