To turn Taiwan into a high-tech island, the government has launched a number of plans targeting the software industry, information science and technology, and national information infrastructure. But are there enough funds and personnel for their implementation? Two experts give their views.
When the ROC Constitution was amended earlier this year, the National Assembly eliminated the long-standing provision that required the government to allocate 15 percent of the national budget to promote education, science, and culture. The change came barely a year after the Commission on Educational Reform ( CER), appointed by the Cabinet, submitted its comprehensive assessment of Taiwan's educational system. At the time, many members of the commission, chaired by Nobel Prize winner and Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲), complained that the government was insufficiently committed to educational excellence. At the same time, private-sector leaders, including executives of high-tech companies, pointed out that the government plan to turn Taiwan into a "sci-tech island" was being blunted by the shortage of well-educated, creative people in the work force.
In late September of this year, the China Times invited Lee Yuan-tseh and Morris Chang(張忠謀), chairman of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., to discuss the status of high-tech education in Taiwan. The discussion was chaired by Huang Chao-sung (黃肇松), president of the newspaper. Excerpts follow.
Huang Chao-sung: Taiwan is devoted to expanding its high-tech industries in hopes of becoming a "sci-tech island." Is the present educational system strong enough for us to reach this goal?
Morris Chang: Taiwan's pool of well-trained talent has contributed greatly to the development of our high-tech industry. Take my company, for example. Two-thirds of my staff are college or university graduates, with nearly 800 people holding MA or Ph.D. degrees. This is not exceptional in high-tech companies. Nevertheless, Taiwan's high-tech sector, strictly speaking, is no more than a technological manufacturing industry; it is technology-intense, but it still lags behind in the application of technology to products. The same is true for the island's most representative high-tech products: semicon ductors and personal computers.
Still, "techno-manufacturing" should be valued highly in that it has created a handsome fortune for Taiwan, and will possibly do so for another ten to fifteen years. But it's not difficult for others to compete with us in this field. For example, several Southeast Asian countries, as well as mainland China, are quickening their pace in order to catch up. Taiwan must move fast to develop greater expertise and take the lead in the most advanced industries.
The topic of forging Taiwan into a sci-tech island has been a hot issue recently, but this requires more than science-based industrial parks and tax incentives. We must be able to nurture creative personnel and keep them in Taiwan. For decades, the high-tech industry in the United States has been a huge magnet for the best talent from around the world.
People here have thought that most of the high-tech talent from Taiwan chose to work in the US because of the much higher incomes there. But today, although companies in Taiwan provide pay and work conditions closer to their American counterparts, the United States is still attracting our technical personnel. Why? Because of the higher quality of American life--materially, culturally, and in terms of security.
Lee Yuan-tseh: I agree with Dr. Chang's assessment. Taiwan must upgrade its R&D capacity. For a long time, most domestic businesses have been applying foreign technologies to production, but without local R&D capacity. Problems will multiply when an imbalance arises between the introduction of foreign technologies and those that are locally developed. We will experience difficulty in adopting foreign technologies and, furthermore, be stuck in the mire of backwardness.
The general mood of society and the quality of life are of great importance. For instance, in the years before the Soviet Union broke up, American values such as freedom, democracy, and equality appealed strongly to people in Eastern Europe and the USSR, causing a brain drain from there to the United States. Likewise, if Taiwan wants to advance its technological development, it is imperative to cultivate competitive social and work conditions.
Moreover, Taiwan doesn't promote the integration of basic research with practical technological applications. Many members of Academia Sinica are concerned about this issue, so we are preparing to establish a new Center of Applied Technology and Engineering. The goal is not to do what has already been done by others, but to see exactly what sorts of technology can be applied here in the future. In order to foster a critical mass of brain power, it would be best to locate our Center near National Tsing Hua University and National Chiao Tung University to take advantage of their technical personnel. In addition, the Center's research directions should not be too diverse or they won't get anywhere. The best way is for Academia Sinica, universities, and the Industrial Technology Research Institute ( ITRI) to coordinate their research in order to avoid redundancy.
How can we best nurture a domestic environment in which learning becomes universally accessible? It is worrying that residents of advanced nations spend more time in school than we do. For instance, those receiving university education account for 50 percent of the US population, 40 percent for New Zealand and Australia, and more than 30 percent for Japan and South Korea. The figure in Taiwan is only 20 percent.
Although many newly established universities have increased our capacity for expanding manpower resources, they have not divided up their work very well. The result? The more universities we have, the smaller amount of resources each gets. It's already becoming difficult to support the many well-established graduate schools that produce the personnel desper ately needed by the business sector. Take National Tsing Hua University, for example. It used to receive annual government funding of US$83.3 million, but the amount has been cut to $56.7 million. Higher education is expanding in quantity rather than quality.
Huang: It seems that Taiwan's next stage of development may fail because of insufficient technical manpower. How bad is our situation, and what should the government do?
Chang: The situation is pretty serious, and I agree with Dr. Lee that the problem lies not in the quantity, but in quality. Our university graduates tend to seek advanced study abroad, indicating that our schooling system is not able to educate enough people who can think independently and creatively.
To help solve this problem, the government has continued to invest substantially in education, but private resources are another possible source of funds. It is common for US schools, for example, to undertake development programs using donations from alumni. If this were done here, more of the government budget could be allocated for improving general education, while private resources could be used to expand post-graduate education. Unfortunately, making private donations does not seem very popular in Taiwan.
Huang: Does our present educational system from primary to senior high school prepare students adequately for further study in science and technology? The report by the Commission on Education Reform ( CER) seems to indicate a lack of success.
Lee: The purpose of the report was to diagnose present educational flaws, because many inappropriate attitudes and procedures, such as rote memorization for exams, are detrimental to our students. This is not education, but narrow training, and of course cannot cultivate creative talent. Our recommendations are aimed at fostering independent personalities and abilities. Instead of killing our children's enthusiasm for learning with fossilized examinations, our primary and high school education should nurture the younger generation's interests and curiosity.
The many approaches proposed in the report are in fact closely tied to our goal of making the educational system a supportive force in developing our high-tech industry. For example, we advocated smaller classes and schools. We once had a primary school in Taipei county with more than 10,000 students--I think it was a world record. Big classes and schools are unlikely to respond well to individual learning needs, nor can they bring out students' full potential.
The report also called for simplifying our present curriculum, which is the world's most overloaded. The heavy curriculum keeps teachers and students under constant pressure--they are always attempting to catch up with the schedule. Under such circumstances, there is no way to thoroughly understand the content of courses, let alone to cultivate the students' ability to think and be creative. At the same time, children are denied the opportunity to appreciate literature, music, and other aesthetic pursuits. This is one reason why our society has failed to upgrade its spiritual life. A simplified curriculum would have multifaceted significance: it would give students space for other forms of development and improve their comprehension of course content.
Recently, the constitutional provision for minimum government expenditure on education has been hotly debated. As a matter of fact, due to inadequate government funding over the past three or four decades, our educational system has failed to cultivate enough qualified teachers. Furthermore, because of overcrowded schools and classrooms, as well as insufficient educational hardware, educators are unable to monitor each student's progress. Instead, they are forced to give up on those children who fall behind their peers.
As early as primary school, many students--perhaps excellent by other standards--repeatedly face the "you are no good" message conveyed by examination results. When they begin junior high, where the classes are divided into above-average and below-average sections, these students may be assigned to the so-called shepherd classes [because they are considered to have only enough potential to become shepherds]. The school system is responsible for such tragic results. It is good that Minister of Education Wu Jin has been promoting changes to this system. Although the recommendations in the CER report have not yet been fully carried out, many people, particularly teachers and activists in civic organizations, are calling for action. This is a very good sign.
Huang: Besides eliminating the constitutional provision that required a minimum level of funding for education, the government has also cut back on funding for higher education. What will be the impact of these changes on Taiwan's high-tech industry?
Chang: While it would be better to have constitutional guarantees on the size of our educational budget, I have to say that the main problem lies not in the quantity of the funding. In fact, the government has invested heavily on R&D, but the money has not always targeted the best projects--it has not been used where it is needed most. Take local research institutions, for instance. Many of their research projects are either repetitions of work already done abroad, or too general to have specific utilization.
When I headed the Industrial Technology Research Institute, I witnessed a lack of careful planning before many research projects took shape. It might be better for government agencies, such as the National Science Council ( NSC) and the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), to allocate more research resources to the business sector so it can develop technology specifi cally for its needs.
I foresee no problems that will challenge the survival of our local high-tech industry within the next decade. But after that, I'm not so sure to what extent it will progress. And will we be able to take a leading role? To do so will require huge investment and highly sophisticated manpower. For that to happen, the business sector will need government assistance.
But ROC government grants must be well considered, clearly targeted, and fit projected demands. It may be best to limit the number of research projects in each field, such as one or two each in semiconductors, information science, and bio-engineering. Such projects should be carefully structured by experts, with an eye on potential market value. Then the government and businesses can collaborate. R&D investment is not just for the future, but for a well-planned and workable future.
Lee: It was unwise to eliminate the constitutional requirement concerning government budgeting of education, science, and culture. The government pointed out that only Brazil and the ROC had such a constitutional provision. True, there is not a word in, say, the US constitution concerning educational budgets, but that is because education is considered a local issue. Educational affairs, including budgets, are regulated by state governments. But in a small, centralized state such as we are, problems will arise without such constitutional guarantees. Although President Lee, Vice President Lien, and Premier Siew have all promised that the educational budget won't be cut, this means our society is returning to being ruled by men rather than by law. Besides, with changes in government personnel, who can be certain such promises will be kept?
The Cabinet has set the goal of an annual growth of 15 percent in the science and technology budget. That is, by the year 2001, expenditures of this sort should total 2.5 percent of GNP. But what about educational and cultural funding? Over the past forty years, the government has invested far too little in education. For a long time, it only amounted to 3 or 4 percent of the national budget. If the government is serious about reforming education, there must be a special budget earmarked for educational development.
Moreover, current public investment in R&D is not adequate because of problems with government efficiency. For in stance, the NSC has a record for approving research projects very slowly. Oftentimes, the first four months of the fiscal year have already passed before the academic sector actually receives funding--and all the money must be spent by the end of that fiscal year. Fortunately, the NSC is speeding up, but those managing even larger R&D budgets, such as the state-run corporations, are not moving fast enough. Academia Sinica would like to see provisions adopted that would allow it to hold over up to 10 percent of its budget, if necessary, for the following fiscal year. We need greater flexibility in the way we spend funds, as this would help us cope better with the fast-changing environment of scientific research.
Huang: Taiwan's standard of living, education, quality of life, and public safety are all said to influence the development of our high-tech industry, and also influence our ability to attract high-tech personnel to the island. Is this true?
Chang: I can use my own company as a case in point. We've started nurturing a corporate culture that presents a great contrast to the adverse practices widely found in our society, such as being greedy, shortsighted, money-driven, and lacking a sense of mission. We are trying to be a model by stressing high professional morality and focusing on honesty and sincerity. We do not get involved in corruption, kickbacks, or slandering other companies. Moral character and abilities, certainly not personal connections, are the highest considerations when we decide whether to hire a new employee.
A nation must establish good social values and cultural characteristics, and this is indeed closely related to our concern about upgrading national competitiveness. Traditionally, a learned Chinese gentleman with high moral values would not visit a dangerous state, neither would he settle down in a chaotic territory. I think members of the modern elite share the same attitude.
Speaking of public safety, many laws are only effective among good people; those who abide by the law usually sacrifice their interests and are taken advantage of by others. Unless this situation improves, people won't be happy spiritually here, even if they enjoy a material life comparable to what can be found in the United States.
Yet it is not just a question of public safety. Experts in the field of high technology pursue intellectual depth, but people in Taiwan don't put much value on this. People here who want to gain professional proficiency attract no attention.
Adapted with permission from the China Times,
September 26, 1997.