The Quest for Global
Competitiveness: Quality
Assurance and Entrepreneurial
Universities in Singapore
Ka-Ho Mok
Vice President (Research and Development) and
Director, Centre for Greater China Studies
Chair Professor, Department of Asian and Policy Studies
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
Changjiang 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 power
3
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
From Quantity to Quality

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
From Quantity to Quality

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 preand 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
From Quantity to Quality

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
From Quantity to Quality


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
From Quantity to Quality

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
Higher Education Reform

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 cocurricular activities and school-based project work.
21
Higher Education Reform

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 broadbased cross-disciplinary university education. More
innovative ways of teaching and assessment have
been introduced with a focus on creative and critical
thinking.
22
Higher Education Reform

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
Higher Education Reform

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
Higher Education Reform

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
Higher Education Reform

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
27
Ng, 2008; Knight, 2004; Mok, 2007).
Quest for Education Hub

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
Quest for Education Hub

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
Quest for Education Hub

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
Quest for Education Hub

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
Quest for Education Hub

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
Quest for Education Hub

In 2003, a further and more integrated step was taken
by the government to promote Singapore as a premier
education hub. Singapore Education, a multigovernment 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
Quest for Education Hub

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
Quest for Education Hub

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
Quest for Education Hub

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
Quest for Education Hub




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
Quest for Education Hub


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 hightech 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
Schemes
Supporting measures
For Start-up
Biomedical Sciences As part of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2015
Accelerator (BSA)
plan, the government has approved the establishment of Sector
Specific Accelerators (SSA) to identify, invest and grow startups 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
46
Pte Ltd.
Business Angel
Scheme (BAS)
In encouraging experienced angel investing,
SPRING SEEDS Capital works closely with preapproved private business angel investors to coinvest and nurture growth-oriented, innovative
start-ups. Similar to the Startup Enterprise
Development Scheme (“SEEDS”), this is an
equity-based co-financing option for Singaporebased 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.
47
Technology
Enterprise
Commercializatio
n 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.
48
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.
49
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-foreignentrepreneurs.aspx.
50
Recent R&D Performances of
Top 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
Academic discipline
of academics
humanities
social sciences
natural sciences
formal sciences
Applied Sciences
Professions
total
Numb percent
er
age
History, Languages, Literature, Performing
Arts, Visual Arts, Philosophy, Religion
Anthropology, Archaeology, Area Studies,
Cultural and Ethnic Studies, Economics,
Gender and Sexuality Studies, Geography,
Political Science, Psychology, Sociology
17
8%
18
9%
Space Sciences, Earth Sciences, Life Sciences,
34
Medicine, Biology, Chemistry, Physics
16%
Computer Sciences, Logic, Mathematics,
15
Statistics, System Science
Military sciences, Environmental Studies and
33
Forestry, Healthcare Science
Architecture and Design, Library and Museum
Studies, Divinity, Law, Agriculture,
Engineering, Education, Business, Journalism, 91
Media Studies and Communication, Public
Administration
208
7%
16%
44%
59
100%
Findings

(1) When being asked
about their views about
whether universityenterprise 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.
Agree (194)
I don't know (2)
Disagree (12)
1%
6%
93%
60

(2) Do you agree that
"university-enterprise
co-operations in South
Korea, Singapore and
Taiwan are more
successful than Hong
Kong"?
Agree (70)
Disagree (96)
I don't know (42)
20%
34%
46%
61

(3) Do you agree
“university-enterprise
cooperation will cause
conflict of interest”?
Agree (80)
Disagree (119)
I don't know (9)
4%
38%
58%
62

(4) Do you agree that “Fund operation in universityenterprise cooperation should be monitored by the
government”?
Agree (100)
Disagree (103)
I don't know (5)
2%
48%
50%
63

Do you agree that "the government should give more
fund support to university-enterprise cooperation?"
Agree (173)
Disagree (32)
I don't know (3)
1%
15%
84%
64

Do you agree that “if the government gives fund
support to university-enterprise cooperation, it will
interfere academic freedom”?
Agree (61)
Disagree (142)
I don't know (5)
2%
29%
69%
65

Do you agree that “the academic learning time of
students will be sacrificed when they do their
internships in enterprises”?
Agree (30)
Disagree (175)
I don't know (3)
1%
14%
85%
66

Do you agree that “university-enterprise cooperation
will help increase employment rate”?
Agree (188)
Disagree (18)
I don't know (2)
1%
9%
90%
67

Do you agree that "university-enterprise cooperation
will enhance the quality of graduates"?
Agree (185)
Disagree (20)
I don't know (3)
1%
10%
89%
68

Do you agree that “universities-enterprise cooperation
would bring benefits to both sides”?
Agree (198)
Disagree (8)
4%
I don't know (2)
1%
95%
69
Do you agree that “university-enterprise cooperation
can improve the image of the enterprise”?
Agree (185)
Disagree (21)
I don't know (2)
1%
10%
89%
70
Do you agree that “university-enterprise cooperation
can improve the ranking of the university”?
Agree (134)
Disagree (64)
I don't know (10)
5%
31%
64%
71
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”?
Agree (176)
Disagree (28)
I don't know (4)
2%
13%
85%
72
Do you agree that “university-enterprise cooperation
can reduce their operational risks”?
Agree (120)
Disagree (73)
I don't know (15)
7%
35%
58%
73
Do you agree that “goal difference is the main obstacle
to university-enterprise cooperation”?
Agree (145)
Disagree (55)
I don't know (8)
4%
26%
70%
74
Do you agree that “the publication of research papers of
university will release the commercial secret of its
partner enterprise”?
Agree (71)
Disagree (127)
I don't know (10)
5%
34%
61%
75
Do you agree that “universities incline to conduct lowrisk research and development projects would weaken
enterprises’ desire to cooperate with universities”?
Agree (100)
Disagree (97)
I don't know (11)
5%
48%
47%
76
Do you agree that "the benefit of universityentrepreneur cooperation cannot be estimated" is a main
obstacle in university-enterprise cooperation?
Agree (105)
Disagree (91)
I don't know (12)
6%
50%
44%
77
Do you agree that “universities should follow up
graduates’ employment status and adopt appropriate
strategy to nurture students”?
Agree (189)
Disagree (17)
I don't know (2)
1%
8%
91%
78
Do you agree that “to strengthen and improve
university-entrepreneur cooperation can led to win-win
situation”?
Agree (193)
Disagree (13)
I don't know (2)
1%
12%
87%
79
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
Descargar

投影片 1