It is not often that one dares to stick his neck out to make an unpopular prediction, and then be proven right almost ten years later. Here is my own story.
Recently, while I was on a business trip to Shanghai, I was briefly informed that a Chinese-American scientist born in Henan had just won the Physics Nobel Prize, only the sixth ethnic Chinese to do so. That did not surprise me until Professor Lim Yean Leng （Director of Singapore's prestigious National Heart Centre）, my old friend from Catholic High School, came to visit me in Beijing this week and showed me the newspaper clippings and magazine articles on Professor Cui Qi. Then it dawned on me that Prof Cui had spent his formative teenage days in Hong Kong before going to the United States！ This reminded me of the rather long and detailed interview, “A Need To Change Ideas About Prestige”, which appeared in the September 1989 issue of Singapore Business. In it I boldly said, “It is not inconceivable that Hong Kong will have a Nobel Prize winner, born and raised in Hongkong, before the year 2000, and it is likely that Singapore won't. Singapore will probably be the last Newly Industrialised Economy in Asia to have a Nobel Prize winner”。 Well, nine years later, this almost forgotten prediction of mine is ringing true！
Sure, Prof Cui was not born in Hong Kong but went there as a war orphan at the age of 12, but from the description in the October 19 issue of Yazhou Zhoukan, it is quite obvious that his success had much to do with his high school education spent at the famed Chinese School in Hong Kong, Pui Ching Middle School. In that sense it satisfied my original criterion for determining where the Nobel Laureate was “from”。 At least, Hong Kong can claim to have influenced Prof Cui more than Mainland China or Taiwan. Now, the following questions and issues immediately come to my mind：
Firstly, unless a Singaporean quickly appears on the 1999 Nobel Laureate list, the second part of my “prediction”would come true before the year 2000. Looking back the past ten years, it was not by chance that this development happened in my favor. The past five ethnic Chinese Nobel Prize winners： Yang and Li （1957）, Ting （1976）, Lee （1986）
and Chu （1997） were either born in Mainland China or educated in the US or Taiwan, and in the case of Chu, never even studied in Asia. Hong Kong, like Taiwan and Mainland China, has retained what I had called in the 1989 article, the “Mandarin scholar mentality”, which emphasises excellence in intellectual pursuits as the highest form of human endeavour. Tens of thousands of ethnic Chinese, including some American-born ones, are in American, Canadian, British, European and Australian universities and research institutes doing high level research and development （R & D） in hard sciences and engineering. They exist not only in quantity but also represent the best quality. Thus, it is not surprising that Hong Kong finally lays claim to Prof Cui's achievement.
Back to our Republic of Singapore. While the application and adoption of science and technology are very widespread, the evolution and invention of the same are poorly lacking. Our government is sparing no efforts in policies and funding to promote R & D. I myself was fortunate enough to be heavily involved in this area in the 1980s, and results are beginning to show. The country is very IT-conscious, and everything works perfectly and efficiently. We are a shining example of what successful adoption of technology can do for the standard of living in a nation. But I am still very concerned about the human motivation part of the whole equation. As a people, Singaporeans do not crave for and love science and technology. Actually back in 1989, I had wanted to include the Olympic gold medal in my prediction, and it would have also come true as Hong Kong won its first gold in 1996 in windsurfing and Singapore never came close.
In both instances （the Nobel Prize or the Olympic gold）, much could be made about the role of the country's population, political system and monetary reward for excellence in this area. But ultimately, the Nobel Prize and an Olympic gold is the work of ONE individual, and 99 per cent of these winners are people with supreme love for their pursuits, and had dedicated a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears towards achieving that goal. No amount of tax incentives, financial grant, corporate sponsorship or even government encouragement ever produced one Nobel Prize winner if he or she did not believe in and love his or her scientific work. （Certain sportsmen might have achieved Olympic success due to monetary incentives, but they still had to love their sports event and make many sacrifices）。
There is also this talk of importing talent to supplement Singapore's technological fields and sports. I am all for it as I myself have been allied with the early efforts of attracting talents from Hong Kong, Taiwan and later Mainland China to Singapore to work on special tasks as well as to fill permanent positions. However, foreign transplants can only act as a catalyst to propel eventual evolvement of a wide-base local talent pool, or all will be lost when the talents re-emigrate or get absorbed into the local unchallenging environment. The superstar soccer transplants into the US, with none other than the likes of Pele and George Best, did little for the sports in the US then. Only 20 years later when young local talents emerged did the US achieve an entry into the World Cup competition in France 1998. China's recent import of foreign soccer talent similarly did not help the shameful record of its international team. Singapore is succeeding in transplanting significant amount of foreign talent in technological fields, but now emphasis must be placed on translating their presence into a permanent change in local psychology and environment for R & D and innovation, or their presence will also be in vain.
Second issue： the oft-quoted excuse that in Singapore, “we only have three million people”, cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. Hong Kong has six million and has already laid claim to one Olympic gold and one Nobel Prize, so Singapore should have at least one half of that！ And remember World Cup 1998 semi-finalist Croatia？ It also has a population of three million！ The fact is that unless we do something about increasing the awareness of and love for scientific pursuits among young Singaporeans, and encourage them to dedicate themselves to such careers, this sad record of zero Nobel Prize will last another 20 to 30 years. Now that Mainland China has sent tens of thousands of their best scientists overseas in the past 15 years, it is not difficult for me to stick my neck out once more, in 1998, to make the following prediction： ''By the year 2009, there will be a Nobel Prize winner born and raised in Mainland China, and it is likely that Singapore won't （again）“。 Call me unpatriotic, call me pessimistic, but it will not change this sad truth. The only defence we can give is that we pragmatic Singaporeans do not really care about winning a Nobel Prize. （The same excuse that I gave in 1989.）
Singapore has never allowed its small population base to stop it from achieving the targets of having the best airline, the best airport and the largest port in the world. Also, we recently surprised the world by having our teenaged students top certain international examinations in both mathematics and science. We are already the most IT-pervasive country in the world and many infrastructural aspects of technology creation and innovation are already in place, so there is no reason why we should not and cannot aim for a Nobel Prize, just as we are now openly looking at a possible Olympic gold.
The third issue is the interesting fact associated with Prof Cui： that he went to a Chinese language school and arrived in the US for his Bachelor's degree in 1958 speaking very little English. Much have been said about the importance of English as an international language of science, technology and commerce, and Singaporeans have this gigantic advantage of being educated in this very important language from young. However, in the Yazhou Zhoukan article, there was a special analysis （“Pui Ching Middle School Proves The Worth Of Chinese Language Education”） on the role of the special influence of Chinese teaching at Pui Ching which produced many top-notch scientists and now a Nobel Laureate. It was especially noted that at Pui Ching, the humanities were taught in Chinese while technical subjects used English language textbooks with instructions given in Chinese （probably Cantonese）。 This was what we experienced in some Chinese language high schools （such as Catholic High） in Singapore in the 1960s-70s, I believe.
In other words, science and technological propagation （as in the case of the Internet） may have to be done in English, excellence in many technological fields are equally possible when one receives his foundation education in one's non-English mother tongue. It is an accident of history and politics that English is now the pre-eminent language of technology and commerce in the world. For example, before World War II, German was the most important language in physics, mathematics, pyschology and other disciplines. On the other hand, the pictogram-based Chinese language is unique and there are studies that show the study of Chinese trains both the left and right sides of the brain and enhances logical reasoning and intelligence！ So in the happy event that Singapre gets its first Nobel Prize winner, it may not be surprising that the person's alma mater is Chinese High, Catholic High, Hwa Chong Junior College, St Nicholas Girls', the former Nanyang University, etc. Of course, we are not excluding the possibility of having the accolades go to Raffles Institution, Anglo-Chinese School, St Joseph's Institution, Victoria School, National Junior College and other English-language schools, which have produced some of our best brains in Singapore！
I had the great honour of befriending the first three ethnic Chinese Nobel Prize winners： Yang, Li and Ting. The experience have been none other than a humbling one and my hours spent with these exceptional individuals will stand among the most cherished in my own insignificant life. They are not only brilliant individuals, but also exceptionally human, humble and sometimes even downright humorous. I especially remember Prof Yang's silhouette on the platform of the small train station of his university town of Stony Brook （New York State） as my train arrived. He had gone there despite my plea that he should not come to receive me, an awe-stricken admirer of his since my own teenage days. Then there was this humorous incident involving Professor Samuel Ting of CERN/MIT when he was in Singapore to attend a physics conference in 1993. When asked by a young and inexperienced reporter the “cliche” question of whether it was hard work or talent which brought him his Nobel Prize, he gave the following unexpected answer with a straight face and plenty of hidden wry humour： “Talent of course！”。
To have a native-born Nobel Laureate is what most developing and developed countries crave for as an unparalleled honour. There is no reason why Singapore cannot produce at least one such person in our highly conducive environment. However, the government and population must unite together to work towards this goal. I am the first to rejoice if my latest terrible prediction can be proven untrue！ As I noted in 1989, nurturing scientists, musicians and artists may not have immediate economic benefits in store, but it is a sign of advanced development of a nation. After all, man does not live by bread alone！
About the writer
Dr Vincent Yap, a Singaporean living and working in Beijing since 1994, received his university education in the United States. He returned to Singapore in 1979 and spent twelve and a half years in government service at the EDB, Science Council （predecessor of the NSTB） and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was intimately involved in the promotion of research and development and the administration of the Singapore Science Park in the 1980s. He is presently a professional consultant in an American project management company. He contributed this article to Lianhe Zaobao in his personal capacity.
新加坡有希望得諾貝爾獎嗎？
某人大膽地作出不受人歡迎的預測,十年后他的預測竟成為事實——這種事情不是時常發(fā)生的。以下是我的故事。
近我到上海公干,有人通知我說,一位出生河南的美國華裔剛受頒諾貝爾物理獎,成為有史以來榮獲諾貝爾獎項的第六名華人。我當時并不感到驚奇。直到這個星期,公教中學的老校友林延齡醫(yī)生（新加坡全國心臟中心主任）到北京來找我,并帶來了關(guān)于崔琦教授的報章和雜志剪報,我才開始明白崔教授赴美國之前的少年形成時期是在香港度過的！這使我想起1989年9月份“Singapore Business”《新加坡商業(yè)》月刊里的一篇冗長而詳細的專訪——《對聲望的看法需要改變》。當時我大膽地預測：“不難想象在公元2000年之前,香港會培育出一名土生土長的諾貝爾得獎人,而新加坡多半不會。新加坡很可能是亞洲新興工業(yè)經(jīng)濟體當中,后培育出一名諾貝爾得獎人的國家?！本拍旰?我這個漸漸被人淡忘的預測似乎實現(xiàn)了！
崔教授并不是在香港出生,他12歲才到香港,當時他是一個戰(zhàn)爭遺孤。但從10月19日《亞洲周刊》的報道可以看得出,他的成功和他就讀香港華校培正中學時所受的中學教育,有著很大的關(guān)系。在某種層面上,這達到了我當初預測諾貝爾得獎人“出”自香港的準則。至少香港能夠說,它對崔教授的影響比中國大陸或臺灣來得大。我頓時想到以下的問題。
第一,除非一名新加坡人趕緊在1999年的諾貝爾得獎名單上出現(xiàn),不然我那“預言”的后半部將會在公元2000年之前實現(xiàn)。回顧10年,現(xiàn)實朝我所預測的這方面發(fā)展并非偶然。過去五名華人諾貝爾得獎人：楊振寧與李振道（1957年）、丁肇中（1976年）、李遠哲（1986年）和朱棣文（1997年）,不是在中國大陸出生,就是在美國或臺灣受教育,朱棣文更從未在亞洲念過書。同臺灣和中國大陸一般,香港保留了我在1989年那篇專訪中所提到的“傳統(tǒng)科舉文人思想”,把求學視為人類努力的高層次。成千成萬的華裔（包括出生于美國的華裔）均在美國、加拿大、英國、歐洲、和澳洲的大學及研究院從事高層次科工研究與發(fā)展。他們不但人多,而且還是頂尖的人才。因此,香港終能夠造就出一個崔教授,并不稀奇。
回到我們新加坡共和國。雖然科學和科技的運用和采納在我國非常廣泛,但科學和科技上的發(fā)展和發(fā)明卻非常貧乏。我們的政府正不遺余力地在政策和資金上促進研究與發(fā)展。我于80年代投入這一方面的工作,目前已開始有了一些成績。我國對資訊科技掌握得很好,每樣東西都完美并有效率地操作,我國是一個通過科技來提高國人生活水平的好例子。但我還是關(guān)心到我們國民的自發(fā)性。新加坡人一般上都不渴望也不熱愛科學和科技。其實在1989年的時候,我原想把奧林匹克金牌也算在預測內(nèi)。就算我真把奧運金牌算在內(nèi),預測也照樣會實現(xiàn)。香港不是于1996年在風帆項目中贏得首面奧運金牌嗎？新加坡連機會都沒有。
得諾貝爾獎、贏奧運金牌,雖和一個國家的人民、政治體系、金錢上的回報有密切的關(guān)系,但得獎贏金牌終是個人的努力。其中99%的得獎人和金牌得主都對他們所從事的行業(yè)有著無比的熱愛,并用盡了畢生的心血、汗水和眼淚來達到目標。如果某人對其研究工作沒有信心、不感興趣的話,那任何稅務回扣、資金支援、企業(yè)贊助或政府鼓勵也不能造就出一個諾貝爾得獎人。（或許有些運動家在奧運會上報喜是基于金錢上的回報,但他們也得熱愛他們的運動項目,還要作出不少的犧牲。）
有人說要引進外國人才補充我國的科技和運動領域,我對此非常贊成。我曾協(xié)助引進外國人才到我國來,從事專門性及長期性的工作,早期從香港和臺灣,后自中國大陸。然而,外來人才只能起催化作用,逐漸擴大本地人才的數(shù)量。外來人才一旦移民或被本地毫無挑戰(zhàn)性的環(huán)境潛移默化的話,我們豈不是前功盡棄？當年美國引進足壇巨星如比利（Pele）和喬治。貝斯特（George Best）,但足球在美國并未因此而有所作為。二十年后,當美國擁有自己的年輕足球健將時,美國才能夠昂然踢入1998年法國世界杯競賽。中國國家足球隊并未因近引進一些外援而一雪前恥。新加坡成功地引進大量的外國科技人才,但我們現(xiàn)在必須利用他們的存在,改變本地人的心態(tài),促成一個利于研究、發(fā)展和創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境。不然,再多的外來人才也徒勞無功。
第二,我們不能再允許國人接受我們一貫的借口——“我們只有300萬人口。”香港有600萬人口,就已經(jīng)有一面奧運金牌、一個諾貝爾獎,那新加坡總該有香港的一半吧。還記得1998年世界杯半決賽隊伍克羅地亞？這個國家的人口也是300萬！除非我們努力增進年輕新加坡人對科研的熱忱,并鼓勵他們從事這門行業(yè),要不然新加坡在這20到30年內(nèi)恐怕跟諾貝爾獎無緣。中國大陸這15年來已經(jīng)把成千上萬的頂尖科學家派遣到國外。今時今日,我不惜大膽地于1998年再次作一個預測：“到了公元2009年,將會有一名在中國大陸土生土長的諾貝爾得獎人,而新加坡大多不會有。”說我不愛國也好,說我悲觀也罷,但這悲哀的事實是無法改變的。我們只能為自己辯護說,務實的新加坡人不屑贏什么諾貝爾獎。（我在1989年也給了同樣的借口。）
畢竟新加坡從未因人口的局限,而不去爭取世界好的航空公司、好的機場和大的港口等榮譽。我們的學生近也在國際數(shù)學和科學測驗中揚威,震驚了全世界。新加坡國內(nèi)的資訊科技網(wǎng)絡,已是全球發(fā)達的,而利于科技創(chuàng)新的許多基礎設施都已具備。因此,我國在爭取奧運金牌的當兒,為何不去爭取諾貝爾獎呢？
第三,崔教授身為華校生,于1958年赴美國念學士學位時,英語說得不怎么好。英語作為科學、科技和商業(yè)的國際語言,其重要性是眾所周知的。新加坡人從小就受英語教育,我們因此占很大的優(yōu)勢。
然而,在《亞洲周刊》的那篇報道,其中對培正中學中文教學如何培育出不少頂尖科學家及目前的這位諾貝爾得獎人,作出了特別分析（《培正中學證明中文教學成功》）。文中特別提到,培正中學以中文教文科,工科則用英文教科書,以中文（多半是粵語）授課。我相信這正是60和70年代,新加坡某些華校（如公教中學）的教學法。
換句話說,科學和科技傳播（如網(wǎng)際網(wǎng)絡）雖然以英語作為媒介,但若以母語接受啟蒙教育,往后同樣能夠在各科技領域上有所作為。今日英語作為全球科技和商業(yè)主要語言,純粹是基于歷史和政治的因素。譬如,第二次世界大戰(zhàn)之前,物理、數(shù)學、心理學等主要學科都以德文為主。另一方面,以象形文字為基礎的中文有其獨特性,而研究也顯示學習中文能夠訓練腦部的左右兩邊,從而增強邏輯思考和智力！新加坡有朝一日若出一名諾貝爾得獎人的話,不難想象這名得獎人的母校將會是華僑中學、公教中學、圣尼各拉女校、前南洋大學等。當然,我們也不能排除萊佛士書院、英華中學、圣約瑟書院、維多利亞中學、國家初級學院等英校培育出一個諾貝爾得獎人的可能性,畢竟這些英校培育了新加坡一些頂尖的人才！
我很榮幸結(jié)識了楊振寧、李振道和丁肇中這三位諾貝爾得獎人。
和這三位杰出的人物接觸,顯得我自己多么微不足道,與他們度過的時刻,我將永遠珍惜。他們不但絕頂聰明,而且非常有人情味、很謙虛、有時還很幽默呢。我尤其記得當我的火車抵達紐約州斯托尼布魯克（Stony Brook）大學城時,楊教授站在火車站月臺的側(cè)影。他是我從少年時期就崇拜的偶像,盡管我當時要求他別去接我,他還是去了。另一個有趣的故事是在1993年,當麻省理工學院的丁肇中教授來到新加坡參加物理會議的時候,有一名年輕的記者問了一個極“老套”
的問題,即他的諾貝爾獎是努力還是天分的結(jié)果。丁教授一本正經(jīng),以微帶幽默的語氣答曰：“當然是天分！”
多數(shù)先進和發(fā)展中國家都渴望能夠培育出一個諾貝爾得獎人為國爭光。以我們所擁有的有利條件,不難培育出這樣一個人。但政府和人民得團結(jié)一致朝向這個目標。如果我那預測不成事實的話,那我將是第一個歡呼的人！我1989年也提過,培養(yǎng)科學家、音樂家和藝術(shù)家雖不會即刻得到經(jīng)濟回報,但這卻是國家高度發(fā)展的跡象。畢竟人不能單靠面包生活！
外來人才只能起催化作用,逐漸擴大本地人才的數(shù)量。外來人才一旦移民或被本地毫無挑戰(zhàn)性的環(huán)境潛移默化的話,我們豈不是前功盡棄？
新加坡成功地引進大量的外國科技人才,但我們現(xiàn)在必須利用他們的存在,改變本地人的心態(tài),促成一個利于研究、發(fā)展和創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境。不然,再多的外來人才也徒勞無功。
新加坡有朝一日若出一名諾貝爾得獎人的話,不難想象這名得獎人的母校將會是華僑中學、公教中學、圣尼各拉女校、前南洋大學等。當然,我們也不能排除萊佛士書院、英華中學、圣約瑟書院、維多利亞中學、國家初級學院等英校培育出一個諾貝爾得獎人的可能性,畢竟這些英校培育了新加坡一些頂尖的人才！
關(guān)于作者
葉傅升博士,新加坡人。自1994年旅居北京,并在那里工作。他在美國念完大學后,于1979年回返新加坡。他在政府部門服務了十二年半,其中包括經(jīng)濟發(fā)展局、科學理事會（NSTB的前身）及外交部。他于80年代活躍于促進研究與發(fā)展和管理新加坡科學園。目前葉博士是美國一家諮詢訓練公司的專業(yè)顧問。這份稿是他以個人身分為《聯(lián)合早報》而寫的。
Recently, while I was on a business trip to Shanghai, I was briefly informed that a Chinese-American scientist born in Henan had just won the Physics Nobel Prize, only the sixth ethnic Chinese to do so. That did not surprise me until Professor Lim Yean Leng （Director of Singapore's prestigious National Heart Centre）, my old friend from Catholic High School, came to visit me in Beijing this week and showed me the newspaper clippings and magazine articles on Professor Cui Qi. Then it dawned on me that Prof Cui had spent his formative teenage days in Hong Kong before going to the United States！ This reminded me of the rather long and detailed interview, “A Need To Change Ideas About Prestige”, which appeared in the September 1989 issue of Singapore Business. In it I boldly said, “It is not inconceivable that Hong Kong will have a Nobel Prize winner, born and raised in Hongkong, before the year 2000, and it is likely that Singapore won't. Singapore will probably be the last Newly Industrialised Economy in Asia to have a Nobel Prize winner”。 Well, nine years later, this almost forgotten prediction of mine is ringing true！
Sure, Prof Cui was not born in Hong Kong but went there as a war orphan at the age of 12, but from the description in the October 19 issue of Yazhou Zhoukan, it is quite obvious that his success had much to do with his high school education spent at the famed Chinese School in Hong Kong, Pui Ching Middle School. In that sense it satisfied my original criterion for determining where the Nobel Laureate was “from”。 At least, Hong Kong can claim to have influenced Prof Cui more than Mainland China or Taiwan. Now, the following questions and issues immediately come to my mind：
Firstly, unless a Singaporean quickly appears on the 1999 Nobel Laureate list, the second part of my “prediction”would come true before the year 2000. Looking back the past ten years, it was not by chance that this development happened in my favor. The past five ethnic Chinese Nobel Prize winners： Yang and Li （1957）, Ting （1976）, Lee （1986）
and Chu （1997） were either born in Mainland China or educated in the US or Taiwan, and in the case of Chu, never even studied in Asia. Hong Kong, like Taiwan and Mainland China, has retained what I had called in the 1989 article, the “Mandarin scholar mentality”, which emphasises excellence in intellectual pursuits as the highest form of human endeavour. Tens of thousands of ethnic Chinese, including some American-born ones, are in American, Canadian, British, European and Australian universities and research institutes doing high level research and development （R & D） in hard sciences and engineering. They exist not only in quantity but also represent the best quality. Thus, it is not surprising that Hong Kong finally lays claim to Prof Cui's achievement.
Back to our Republic of Singapore. While the application and adoption of science and technology are very widespread, the evolution and invention of the same are poorly lacking. Our government is sparing no efforts in policies and funding to promote R & D. I myself was fortunate enough to be heavily involved in this area in the 1980s, and results are beginning to show. The country is very IT-conscious, and everything works perfectly and efficiently. We are a shining example of what successful adoption of technology can do for the standard of living in a nation. But I am still very concerned about the human motivation part of the whole equation. As a people, Singaporeans do not crave for and love science and technology. Actually back in 1989, I had wanted to include the Olympic gold medal in my prediction, and it would have also come true as Hong Kong won its first gold in 1996 in windsurfing and Singapore never came close.
In both instances （the Nobel Prize or the Olympic gold）, much could be made about the role of the country's population, political system and monetary reward for excellence in this area. But ultimately, the Nobel Prize and an Olympic gold is the work of ONE individual, and 99 per cent of these winners are people with supreme love for their pursuits, and had dedicated a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears towards achieving that goal. No amount of tax incentives, financial grant, corporate sponsorship or even government encouragement ever produced one Nobel Prize winner if he or she did not believe in and love his or her scientific work. （Certain sportsmen might have achieved Olympic success due to monetary incentives, but they still had to love their sports event and make many sacrifices）。
There is also this talk of importing talent to supplement Singapore's technological fields and sports. I am all for it as I myself have been allied with the early efforts of attracting talents from Hong Kong, Taiwan and later Mainland China to Singapore to work on special tasks as well as to fill permanent positions. However, foreign transplants can only act as a catalyst to propel eventual evolvement of a wide-base local talent pool, or all will be lost when the talents re-emigrate or get absorbed into the local unchallenging environment. The superstar soccer transplants into the US, with none other than the likes of Pele and George Best, did little for the sports in the US then. Only 20 years later when young local talents emerged did the US achieve an entry into the World Cup competition in France 1998. China's recent import of foreign soccer talent similarly did not help the shameful record of its international team. Singapore is succeeding in transplanting significant amount of foreign talent in technological fields, but now emphasis must be placed on translating their presence into a permanent change in local psychology and environment for R & D and innovation, or their presence will also be in vain.
Second issue： the oft-quoted excuse that in Singapore, “we only have three million people”, cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. Hong Kong has six million and has already laid claim to one Olympic gold and one Nobel Prize, so Singapore should have at least one half of that！ And remember World Cup 1998 semi-finalist Croatia？ It also has a population of three million！ The fact is that unless we do something about increasing the awareness of and love for scientific pursuits among young Singaporeans, and encourage them to dedicate themselves to such careers, this sad record of zero Nobel Prize will last another 20 to 30 years. Now that Mainland China has sent tens of thousands of their best scientists overseas in the past 15 years, it is not difficult for me to stick my neck out once more, in 1998, to make the following prediction： ''By the year 2009, there will be a Nobel Prize winner born and raised in Mainland China, and it is likely that Singapore won't （again）“。 Call me unpatriotic, call me pessimistic, but it will not change this sad truth. The only defence we can give is that we pragmatic Singaporeans do not really care about winning a Nobel Prize. （The same excuse that I gave in 1989.）
Singapore has never allowed its small population base to stop it from achieving the targets of having the best airline, the best airport and the largest port in the world. Also, we recently surprised the world by having our teenaged students top certain international examinations in both mathematics and science. We are already the most IT-pervasive country in the world and many infrastructural aspects of technology creation and innovation are already in place, so there is no reason why we should not and cannot aim for a Nobel Prize, just as we are now openly looking at a possible Olympic gold.
The third issue is the interesting fact associated with Prof Cui： that he went to a Chinese language school and arrived in the US for his Bachelor's degree in 1958 speaking very little English. Much have been said about the importance of English as an international language of science, technology and commerce, and Singaporeans have this gigantic advantage of being educated in this very important language from young. However, in the Yazhou Zhoukan article, there was a special analysis （“Pui Ching Middle School Proves The Worth Of Chinese Language Education”） on the role of the special influence of Chinese teaching at Pui Ching which produced many top-notch scientists and now a Nobel Laureate. It was especially noted that at Pui Ching, the humanities were taught in Chinese while technical subjects used English language textbooks with instructions given in Chinese （probably Cantonese）。 This was what we experienced in some Chinese language high schools （such as Catholic High） in Singapore in the 1960s-70s, I believe.
In other words, science and technological propagation （as in the case of the Internet） may have to be done in English, excellence in many technological fields are equally possible when one receives his foundation education in one's non-English mother tongue. It is an accident of history and politics that English is now the pre-eminent language of technology and commerce in the world. For example, before World War II, German was the most important language in physics, mathematics, pyschology and other disciplines. On the other hand, the pictogram-based Chinese language is unique and there are studies that show the study of Chinese trains both the left and right sides of the brain and enhances logical reasoning and intelligence！ So in the happy event that Singapre gets its first Nobel Prize winner, it may not be surprising that the person's alma mater is Chinese High, Catholic High, Hwa Chong Junior College, St Nicholas Girls', the former Nanyang University, etc. Of course, we are not excluding the possibility of having the accolades go to Raffles Institution, Anglo-Chinese School, St Joseph's Institution, Victoria School, National Junior College and other English-language schools, which have produced some of our best brains in Singapore！
I had the great honour of befriending the first three ethnic Chinese Nobel Prize winners： Yang, Li and Ting. The experience have been none other than a humbling one and my hours spent with these exceptional individuals will stand among the most cherished in my own insignificant life. They are not only brilliant individuals, but also exceptionally human, humble and sometimes even downright humorous. I especially remember Prof Yang's silhouette on the platform of the small train station of his university town of Stony Brook （New York State） as my train arrived. He had gone there despite my plea that he should not come to receive me, an awe-stricken admirer of his since my own teenage days. Then there was this humorous incident involving Professor Samuel Ting of CERN/MIT when he was in Singapore to attend a physics conference in 1993. When asked by a young and inexperienced reporter the “cliche” question of whether it was hard work or talent which brought him his Nobel Prize, he gave the following unexpected answer with a straight face and plenty of hidden wry humour： “Talent of course！”。
To have a native-born Nobel Laureate is what most developing and developed countries crave for as an unparalleled honour. There is no reason why Singapore cannot produce at least one such person in our highly conducive environment. However, the government and population must unite together to work towards this goal. I am the first to rejoice if my latest terrible prediction can be proven untrue！ As I noted in 1989, nurturing scientists, musicians and artists may not have immediate economic benefits in store, but it is a sign of advanced development of a nation. After all, man does not live by bread alone！
About the writer
Dr Vincent Yap, a Singaporean living and working in Beijing since 1994, received his university education in the United States. He returned to Singapore in 1979 and spent twelve and a half years in government service at the EDB, Science Council （predecessor of the NSTB） and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was intimately involved in the promotion of research and development and the administration of the Singapore Science Park in the 1980s. He is presently a professional consultant in an American project management company. He contributed this article to Lianhe Zaobao in his personal capacity.
新加坡有希望得諾貝爾獎嗎？
某人大膽地作出不受人歡迎的預測,十年后他的預測竟成為事實——這種事情不是時常發(fā)生的。以下是我的故事。
近我到上海公干,有人通知我說,一位出生河南的美國華裔剛受頒諾貝爾物理獎,成為有史以來榮獲諾貝爾獎項的第六名華人。我當時并不感到驚奇。直到這個星期,公教中學的老校友林延齡醫(yī)生（新加坡全國心臟中心主任）到北京來找我,并帶來了關(guān)于崔琦教授的報章和雜志剪報,我才開始明白崔教授赴美國之前的少年形成時期是在香港度過的！這使我想起1989年9月份“Singapore Business”《新加坡商業(yè)》月刊里的一篇冗長而詳細的專訪——《對聲望的看法需要改變》。當時我大膽地預測：“不難想象在公元2000年之前,香港會培育出一名土生土長的諾貝爾得獎人,而新加坡多半不會。新加坡很可能是亞洲新興工業(yè)經(jīng)濟體當中,后培育出一名諾貝爾得獎人的國家?！本拍旰?我這個漸漸被人淡忘的預測似乎實現(xiàn)了！
崔教授并不是在香港出生,他12歲才到香港,當時他是一個戰(zhàn)爭遺孤。但從10月19日《亞洲周刊》的報道可以看得出,他的成功和他就讀香港華校培正中學時所受的中學教育,有著很大的關(guān)系。在某種層面上,這達到了我當初預測諾貝爾得獎人“出”自香港的準則。至少香港能夠說,它對崔教授的影響比中國大陸或臺灣來得大。我頓時想到以下的問題。
第一,除非一名新加坡人趕緊在1999年的諾貝爾得獎名單上出現(xiàn),不然我那“預言”的后半部將會在公元2000年之前實現(xiàn)。回顧10年,現(xiàn)實朝我所預測的這方面發(fā)展并非偶然。過去五名華人諾貝爾得獎人：楊振寧與李振道（1957年）、丁肇中（1976年）、李遠哲（1986年）和朱棣文（1997年）,不是在中國大陸出生,就是在美國或臺灣受教育,朱棣文更從未在亞洲念過書。同臺灣和中國大陸一般,香港保留了我在1989年那篇專訪中所提到的“傳統(tǒng)科舉文人思想”,把求學視為人類努力的高層次。成千成萬的華裔（包括出生于美國的華裔）均在美國、加拿大、英國、歐洲、和澳洲的大學及研究院從事高層次科工研究與發(fā)展。他們不但人多,而且還是頂尖的人才。因此,香港終能夠造就出一個崔教授,并不稀奇。
回到我們新加坡共和國。雖然科學和科技的運用和采納在我國非常廣泛,但科學和科技上的發(fā)展和發(fā)明卻非常貧乏。我們的政府正不遺余力地在政策和資金上促進研究與發(fā)展。我于80年代投入這一方面的工作,目前已開始有了一些成績。我國對資訊科技掌握得很好,每樣東西都完美并有效率地操作,我國是一個通過科技來提高國人生活水平的好例子。但我還是關(guān)心到我們國民的自發(fā)性。新加坡人一般上都不渴望也不熱愛科學和科技。其實在1989年的時候,我原想把奧林匹克金牌也算在預測內(nèi)。就算我真把奧運金牌算在內(nèi),預測也照樣會實現(xiàn)。香港不是于1996年在風帆項目中贏得首面奧運金牌嗎？新加坡連機會都沒有。
得諾貝爾獎、贏奧運金牌,雖和一個國家的人民、政治體系、金錢上的回報有密切的關(guān)系,但得獎贏金牌終是個人的努力。其中99%的得獎人和金牌得主都對他們所從事的行業(yè)有著無比的熱愛,并用盡了畢生的心血、汗水和眼淚來達到目標。如果某人對其研究工作沒有信心、不感興趣的話,那任何稅務回扣、資金支援、企業(yè)贊助或政府鼓勵也不能造就出一個諾貝爾得獎人。（或許有些運動家在奧運會上報喜是基于金錢上的回報,但他們也得熱愛他們的運動項目,還要作出不少的犧牲。）
有人說要引進外國人才補充我國的科技和運動領域,我對此非常贊成。我曾協(xié)助引進外國人才到我國來,從事專門性及長期性的工作,早期從香港和臺灣,后自中國大陸。然而,外來人才只能起催化作用,逐漸擴大本地人才的數(shù)量。外來人才一旦移民或被本地毫無挑戰(zhàn)性的環(huán)境潛移默化的話,我們豈不是前功盡棄？當年美國引進足壇巨星如比利（Pele）和喬治。貝斯特（George Best）,但足球在美國并未因此而有所作為。二十年后,當美國擁有自己的年輕足球健將時,美國才能夠昂然踢入1998年法國世界杯競賽。中國國家足球隊并未因近引進一些外援而一雪前恥。新加坡成功地引進大量的外國科技人才,但我們現(xiàn)在必須利用他們的存在,改變本地人的心態(tài),促成一個利于研究、發(fā)展和創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境。不然,再多的外來人才也徒勞無功。
第二,我們不能再允許國人接受我們一貫的借口——“我們只有300萬人口。”香港有600萬人口,就已經(jīng)有一面奧運金牌、一個諾貝爾獎,那新加坡總該有香港的一半吧。還記得1998年世界杯半決賽隊伍克羅地亞？這個國家的人口也是300萬！除非我們努力增進年輕新加坡人對科研的熱忱,并鼓勵他們從事這門行業(yè),要不然新加坡在這20到30年內(nèi)恐怕跟諾貝爾獎無緣。中國大陸這15年來已經(jīng)把成千上萬的頂尖科學家派遣到國外。今時今日,我不惜大膽地于1998年再次作一個預測：“到了公元2009年,將會有一名在中國大陸土生土長的諾貝爾得獎人,而新加坡大多不會有。”說我不愛國也好,說我悲觀也罷,但這悲哀的事實是無法改變的。我們只能為自己辯護說,務實的新加坡人不屑贏什么諾貝爾獎。（我在1989年也給了同樣的借口。）
畢竟新加坡從未因人口的局限,而不去爭取世界好的航空公司、好的機場和大的港口等榮譽。我們的學生近也在國際數(shù)學和科學測驗中揚威,震驚了全世界。新加坡國內(nèi)的資訊科技網(wǎng)絡,已是全球發(fā)達的,而利于科技創(chuàng)新的許多基礎設施都已具備。因此,我國在爭取奧運金牌的當兒,為何不去爭取諾貝爾獎呢？
第三,崔教授身為華校生,于1958年赴美國念學士學位時,英語說得不怎么好。英語作為科學、科技和商業(yè)的國際語言,其重要性是眾所周知的。新加坡人從小就受英語教育,我們因此占很大的優(yōu)勢。
然而,在《亞洲周刊》的那篇報道,其中對培正中學中文教學如何培育出不少頂尖科學家及目前的這位諾貝爾得獎人,作出了特別分析（《培正中學證明中文教學成功》）。文中特別提到,培正中學以中文教文科,工科則用英文教科書,以中文（多半是粵語）授課。我相信這正是60和70年代,新加坡某些華校（如公教中學）的教學法。
換句話說,科學和科技傳播（如網(wǎng)際網(wǎng)絡）雖然以英語作為媒介,但若以母語接受啟蒙教育,往后同樣能夠在各科技領域上有所作為。今日英語作為全球科技和商業(yè)主要語言,純粹是基于歷史和政治的因素。譬如,第二次世界大戰(zhàn)之前,物理、數(shù)學、心理學等主要學科都以德文為主。另一方面,以象形文字為基礎的中文有其獨特性,而研究也顯示學習中文能夠訓練腦部的左右兩邊,從而增強邏輯思考和智力！新加坡有朝一日若出一名諾貝爾得獎人的話,不難想象這名得獎人的母校將會是華僑中學、公教中學、圣尼各拉女校、前南洋大學等。當然,我們也不能排除萊佛士書院、英華中學、圣約瑟書院、維多利亞中學、國家初級學院等英校培育出一個諾貝爾得獎人的可能性,畢竟這些英校培育了新加坡一些頂尖的人才！
我很榮幸結(jié)識了楊振寧、李振道和丁肇中這三位諾貝爾得獎人。
和這三位杰出的人物接觸,顯得我自己多么微不足道,與他們度過的時刻,我將永遠珍惜。他們不但絕頂聰明,而且非常有人情味、很謙虛、有時還很幽默呢。我尤其記得當我的火車抵達紐約州斯托尼布魯克（Stony Brook）大學城時,楊教授站在火車站月臺的側(cè)影。他是我從少年時期就崇拜的偶像,盡管我當時要求他別去接我,他還是去了。另一個有趣的故事是在1993年,當麻省理工學院的丁肇中教授來到新加坡參加物理會議的時候,有一名年輕的記者問了一個極“老套”
的問題,即他的諾貝爾獎是努力還是天分的結(jié)果。丁教授一本正經(jīng),以微帶幽默的語氣答曰：“當然是天分！”
多數(shù)先進和發(fā)展中國家都渴望能夠培育出一個諾貝爾得獎人為國爭光。以我們所擁有的有利條件,不難培育出這樣一個人。但政府和人民得團結(jié)一致朝向這個目標。如果我那預測不成事實的話,那我將是第一個歡呼的人！我1989年也提過,培養(yǎng)科學家、音樂家和藝術(shù)家雖不會即刻得到經(jīng)濟回報,但這卻是國家高度發(fā)展的跡象。畢竟人不能單靠面包生活！
外來人才只能起催化作用,逐漸擴大本地人才的數(shù)量。外來人才一旦移民或被本地毫無挑戰(zhàn)性的環(huán)境潛移默化的話,我們豈不是前功盡棄？
新加坡成功地引進大量的外國科技人才,但我們現(xiàn)在必須利用他們的存在,改變本地人的心態(tài),促成一個利于研究、發(fā)展和創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境。不然,再多的外來人才也徒勞無功。
新加坡有朝一日若出一名諾貝爾得獎人的話,不難想象這名得獎人的母校將會是華僑中學、公教中學、圣尼各拉女校、前南洋大學等。當然,我們也不能排除萊佛士書院、英華中學、圣約瑟書院、維多利亞中學、國家初級學院等英校培育出一個諾貝爾得獎人的可能性,畢竟這些英校培育了新加坡一些頂尖的人才！
關(guān)于作者
葉傅升博士,新加坡人。自1994年旅居北京,并在那里工作。他在美國念完大學后,于1979年回返新加坡。他在政府部門服務了十二年半,其中包括經(jīng)濟發(fā)展局、科學理事會（NSTB的前身）及外交部。他于80年代活躍于促進研究與發(fā)展和管理新加坡科學園。目前葉博士是美國一家諮詢訓練公司的專業(yè)顧問。這份稿是他以個人身分為《聯(lián)合早報》而寫的。