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(jiǎng)嗎？
某人大膽地作出不受人歡迎的預(yù)測(cè),十年后他的預(yù)測(cè)竟成為事實(shí)——這種事情不是時(shí)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(shuō),一位出生河南的美國(guó)華裔剛受頒諾貝爾物理獎(jiǎng),成為有史以來(lái)榮獲諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的第六名華人。我當(dāng)時(shí)并不感到驚奇。直到這個(gè)星期,公教中學(xué)的老校友林延齡醫(yī)生（新加坡全國(guó)心臟中心主任）到北京來(lái)找我,并帶來(lái)了關(guān)于崔琦教授的報(bào)章和雜志剪報(bào),我才開(kāi)始明白崔教授赴美國(guó)之前的少年形成時(shí)期是在香港度過(guò)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(zhǎng)而詳細(xì)的專訪——《對(duì)聲望的看法需要改變》。當(dāng)時(shí)我大膽地預(yù)測(cè)：“不難想象在公元2000年之前,香港會(huì)培育出一名土生土長(zhǎng)的諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人,而新加坡多半不會(huì)。新加坡很可能是亞洲新興工業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體當(dāng)中,后培育出一名諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人的國(guó)家?！本拍旰?我這個(gè)漸漸被人淡忘的預(yù)測(cè)似乎實(shí)現(xiàn)了！
崔教授并不是在香港出生,他12歲才到香港,當(dāng)時(shí)他是一個(gè)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)遺孤。但從10月19日《亞洲周刊》的報(bào)道可以看得出,他的成功和他就讀香港華校培正中學(xué)時(shí)所受的中學(xué)教育,有著很大的關(guān)系。在某種層面上,這達(dá)到了我當(dāng)初預(yù)測(cè)諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人“出”自香港的準(zhǔn)則。至少香港能夠說(shuō),它對(duì)崔教授的影響比中國(guó)大陸或臺(tái)灣來(lái)得大。我頓時(shí)想到以下的問(wèn)題。
第一,除非一名新加坡人趕緊在1999年的諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)名單上出現(xiàn),不然我那“預(yù)言”的后半部將會(huì)在公元2000年之前實(shí)現(xiàn)。回顧10年,現(xiàn)實(shí)朝我所預(yù)測(cè)的這方面發(fā)展并非偶然。過(guò)去五名華人諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人：楊振寧與李振道（1957年）、丁肇中（1976年）、李遠(yuǎn)哲（1986年）和朱棣文（1997年）,不是在中國(guó)大陸出生,就是在美國(guó)或臺(tái)灣受教育,朱棣文更從未在亞洲念過(guò)書(shū)。同臺(tái)灣和中國(guó)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(xué)視為人類努力的高層次。成千成萬(wàn)的華裔（包括出生于美國(guó)的華裔）均在美國(guó)、加拿大、英國(guó)、歐洲、和澳洲的大學(xué)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(gè)崔教授,并不稀奇。
回到我們新加坡共和國(guó)。雖然科學(xué)和科技的運(yùn)用和采納在我國(guó)非常廣泛,但科學(xué)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(jìn)研究與發(fā)展。我于80年代投入這一方面的工作,目前已開(kāi)始有了一些成績(jī)。我國(guó)對(duì)資訊科技掌握得很好,每樣?xùn)|西都完美并有效率地操作,我國(guó)是一個(gè)通過(guò)科技來(lái)提高國(guó)人生活水平的好例子。但我還是關(guān)心到我們國(guó)民的自發(fā)性。新加坡人一般上都不渴望也不熱愛(ài)科學(xué)和科技。其實(shí)在1989年的時(shí)候,我原想把奧林匹克金牌也算在預(yù)測(cè)內(nèi)。就算我真把奧運(yùn)金牌算在內(nèi),預(yù)測(cè)也照樣會(huì)實(shí)現(xiàn)。香港不是于1996年在風(fēng)帆項(xiàng)目中贏得首面奧運(yùn)金牌嗎？新加坡連機(jī)會(huì)都沒(méi)有。
得諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)、贏奧運(yùn)金牌,雖和一個(gè)國(guó)家的人民、政治體系、金錢上的回報(bào)有密切的關(guān)系,但得獎(jiǎng)贏金牌終是個(gè)人的努力。其中99%的得獎(jiǎng)人和金牌得主都對(duì)他們所從事的行業(yè)有著無(wú)比的熱愛(ài),并用盡了畢生的心血、汗水和眼淚來(lái)達(dá)到目標(biāo)。如果某人對(duì)其研究工作沒(méi)有信心、不感興趣的話,那任何稅務(wù)回扣、資金支援、企業(yè)贊助或政府鼓勵(lì)也不能造就出一個(gè)諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人。（或許有些運(yùn)動(dòng)家在奧運(yùn)會(huì)上報(bào)喜是基于金錢上的回報(bào),但他們也得熱愛(ài)他們的運(yùn)動(dòng)項(xiàng)目,還要作出不少的犧牲。）
有人說(shuō)要引進(jìn)外國(guó)人才補(bǔ)充我國(guó)的科技和運(yùn)動(dòng)領(lǐng)域,我對(duì)此非常贊成。我曾協(xié)助引進(jìn)外國(guó)人才到我國(guó)來(lái),從事專門性及長(zhǎng)期性的工作,早期從香港和臺(tái)灣,后自中國(guó)大陸。然而,外來(lái)人才只能起催化作用,逐漸擴(kuò)大本地人才的數(shù)量。外來(lái)人才一旦移民或被本地毫無(wú)挑戰(zhàn)性的環(huán)境潛移默化的話,我們豈不是前功盡棄？當(dāng)年美國(guó)引進(jìn)足壇巨星如比利（Pele）和喬治。貝斯特（George Best）,但足球在美國(guó)并未因此而有所作為。二十年后,當(dāng)美國(guó)擁有自己的年輕足球健將時(shí),美國(guó)才能夠昂然踢入1998年法國(guó)世界杯競(jìng)賽。中國(guó)國(guó)家足球隊(duì)并未因近引進(jìn)一些外援而一雪前恥。新加坡成功地引進(jìn)大量的外國(guó)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(gè)利于研究、發(fā)展和創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境。不然,再多的外來(lái)人才也徒勞無(wú)功。
第二,我們不能再允許國(guó)人接受我們一貫的借口——“我們只有300萬(wàn)人口?！毕愀塾?00萬(wàn)人口,就已經(jīng)有一面奧運(yùn)金牌、一個(gè)諾貝爾獎(jiǎng),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(duì)伍克羅地亞？這個(gè)國(guó)家的人口也是300萬(wàn)！除非我們努力增進(jìn)年輕新加坡人對(duì)科研的熱忱,并鼓勵(lì)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(jiǎng)無(wú)緣。中國(guó)大陸這15年來(lái)已經(jīng)把成千上萬(wàn)的頂尖科學(xué)家派遣到國(guó)外。今時(shí)今日,我不惜大膽地于1998年再次作一個(gè)預(yù)測(cè)：“到了公元2009年,將會(huì)有一名在中國(guó)大陸土生土長(zhǎng)的諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人,而新加坡大多不會(huì)有。”說(shuō)我不愛(ài)國(guó)也好,說(shuō)我悲觀也罷,但這悲哀的事實(shí)是無(wú)法改變的。我們只能為自己辯護(hù)說(shuō),務(wù)實(shí)的新加坡人不屑贏什么諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)。（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(zhēng)取世界好的航空公司、好的機(jī)場(chǎng)和大的港口等榮譽(yù)。我們的學(xué)生近也在國(guó)際數(shù)學(xué)和科學(xué)測(cè)驗(yàn)中揚(yáng)威,震驚了全世界。新加坡國(guó)內(nèi)的資訊科技網(wǎng)絡(luò),已是全球發(fā)達(dá)的,而利于科技創(chuàng)新的許多基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施都已具備。因此,我國(guó)在爭(zhēng)取奧運(yùn)金牌的當(dāng)兒,為何不去爭(zhēng)取諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)呢？
第三,崔教授身為華校生,于1958年赴美國(guó)念學(xué)士學(xué)位時(shí),英語(yǔ)說(shuō)得不怎么好。英語(yǔ)作為科學(xué)、科技和商業(yè)的國(guó)際語(yǔ)言,其重要性是眾所周知的。新加坡人從小就受英語(yǔ)教育,我們因此占很大的優(yōu)勢(shì)。
然而,在《亞洲周刊》的那篇報(bào)道,其中對(duì)培正中學(xué)中文教學(xué)如何培育出不少頂尖科學(xué)家及目前的這位諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人,作出了特別分析（《培正中學(xué)證明中文教學(xué)成功》）。文中特別提到,培正中學(xué)以中文教文科,工科則用英文教科書(shū),以中文（多半是粵語(yǔ)）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(xué)）的教學(xué)法。
換句話說(shuō),科學(xué)和科技傳播（如網(wǎng)際網(wǎng)絡(luò)）雖然以英語(yǔ)作為媒介,但若以母語(yǔ)接受啟蒙教育,往后同樣能夠在各科技領(lǐng)域上有所作為。今日英語(yǔ)作為全球科技和商業(yè)主要語(yǔ)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(xué)、心理學(xué)等主要學(xué)科都以德文為主。另一方面,以象形文字為基礎(chǔ)的中文有其獨(dú)特性,而研究也顯示學(xué)習(xí)中文能夠訓(xùn)練腦部的左右兩邊,從而增強(qiáng)邏輯思考和智力！新加坡有朝一日若出一名諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人的話,不難想象這名得獎(jiǎng)人的母校將會(huì)是華僑中學(xué)、公教中學(xué)、圣尼各拉女校、前南洋大學(xué)等。當(dāng)然,我們也不能排除萊佛士書(shū)院、英華中學(xué)、圣約瑟書(shū)院、維多利亞中學(xué)、國(guó)家初級(jí)學(xué)院等英校培育出一個(gè)諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)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(shí)了楊振寧、李振道和丁肇中這三位諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)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(guò)的時(shí)刻,我將永遠(yuǎn)珍惜。他們不但絕頂聰明,而且非常有人情味、很謙虛、有時(shí)還很幽默呢。我尤其記得當(dāng)我的火車抵達(dá)紐約州斯托尼布魯克（Stony Brook）大學(xué)城時(shí),楊教授站在火車站月臺(tái)的側(cè)影。他是我從少年時(shí)期就崇拜的偶像,盡管我當(dāng)時(shí)要求他別去接我,他還是去了。另一個(gè)有趣的故事是在1993年,當(dāng)麻省理工學(xué)院的丁肇中教授來(lái)到新加坡參加物理會(huì)議的時(shí)候,有一名年輕的記者問(wèn)了一個(gè)極“老套”
的問(wèn)題,即他的諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)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(yǔ)氣答曰：“當(dāng)然是天分！”
多數(shù)先進(jìn)和發(fā)展中國(guó)家都渴望能夠培育出一個(gè)諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人為國(guó)爭(zhēng)光。以我們所擁有的有利條件,不難培育出這樣一個(gè)人。但政府和人民得團(tuán)結(jié)一致朝向這個(gè)目標(biāo)。如果我那預(yù)測(cè)不成事實(shí)的話,那我將是第一個(gè)歡呼的人！我1989年也提過(guò),培養(yǎng)科學(xué)家、音樂(lè)家和藝術(shù)家雖不會(huì)即刻得到經(jīng)濟(jì)回報(bào),但這卻是國(guó)家高度發(fā)展的跡象。畢竟人不能單靠面包生活！
外來(lái)人才只能起催化作用,逐漸擴(kuò)大本地人才的數(shù)量。外來(lái)人才一旦移民或被本地毫無(wú)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(jìn)大量的外國(guó)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(gè)利于研究、發(fā)展和創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境。不然,再多的外來(lái)人才也徒勞無(wú)功。
新加坡有朝一日若出一名諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人的話,不難想象這名得獎(jiǎng)人的母校將會(huì)是華僑中學(xué)、公教中學(xué)、圣尼各拉女校、前南洋大學(xué)等。當(dāng)然,我們也不能排除萊佛士書(shū)院、英華中學(xué)、圣約瑟書(shū)院、維多利亞中學(xué)、國(guó)家初級(jí)學(xué)院等英校培育出一個(gè)諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)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(guó)念完大學(xué)后,于1979年回返新加坡。他在政府部門服務(wù)了十二年半,其中包括經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展局、科學(xué)理事會(huì)（NSTB的前身）及外交部。他于80年代活躍于促進(jìn)研究與發(fā)展和管理新加坡科學(xué)園。目前葉博士是美國(guó)一家諮詢訓(xùn)練公司的專業(yè)顧問(wèn)。這份稿是他以個(gè)人身分為《聯(lián)合早報(bào)》而寫(xiě)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(jiǎng)嗎？
某人大膽地作出不受人歡迎的預(yù)測(cè),十年后他的預(yù)測(cè)竟成為事實(shí)——這種事情不是時(shí)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(shuō),一位出生河南的美國(guó)華裔剛受頒諾貝爾物理獎(jiǎng),成為有史以來(lái)榮獲諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)的第六名華人。我當(dāng)時(shí)并不感到驚奇。直到這個(gè)星期,公教中學(xué)的老校友林延齡醫(yī)生（新加坡全國(guó)心臟中心主任）到北京來(lái)找我,并帶來(lái)了關(guān)于崔琦教授的報(bào)章和雜志剪報(bào),我才開(kāi)始明白崔教授赴美國(guó)之前的少年形成時(shí)期是在香港度過(guò)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(zhǎng)而詳細(xì)的專訪——《對(duì)聲望的看法需要改變》。當(dāng)時(shí)我大膽地預(yù)測(cè)：“不難想象在公元2000年之前,香港會(huì)培育出一名土生土長(zhǎng)的諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人,而新加坡多半不會(huì)。新加坡很可能是亞洲新興工業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體當(dāng)中,后培育出一名諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人的國(guó)家?！本拍旰?我這個(gè)漸漸被人淡忘的預(yù)測(cè)似乎實(shí)現(xiàn)了！
崔教授并不是在香港出生,他12歲才到香港,當(dāng)時(shí)他是一個(gè)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)遺孤。但從10月19日《亞洲周刊》的報(bào)道可以看得出,他的成功和他就讀香港華校培正中學(xué)時(shí)所受的中學(xué)教育,有著很大的關(guān)系。在某種層面上,這達(dá)到了我當(dāng)初預(yù)測(cè)諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人“出”自香港的準(zhǔn)則。至少香港能夠說(shuō),它對(duì)崔教授的影響比中國(guó)大陸或臺(tái)灣來(lái)得大。我頓時(shí)想到以下的問(wèn)題。
第一,除非一名新加坡人趕緊在1999年的諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)名單上出現(xiàn),不然我那“預(yù)言”的后半部將會(huì)在公元2000年之前實(shí)現(xiàn)。回顧10年,現(xiàn)實(shí)朝我所預(yù)測(cè)的這方面發(fā)展并非偶然。過(guò)去五名華人諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人：楊振寧與李振道（1957年）、丁肇中（1976年）、李遠(yuǎn)哲（1986年）和朱棣文（1997年）,不是在中國(guó)大陸出生,就是在美國(guó)或臺(tái)灣受教育,朱棣文更從未在亞洲念過(guò)書(shū)。同臺(tái)灣和中國(guó)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(xué)視為人類努力的高層次。成千成萬(wàn)的華裔（包括出生于美國(guó)的華裔）均在美國(guó)、加拿大、英國(guó)、歐洲、和澳洲的大學(xué)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(gè)崔教授,并不稀奇。
回到我們新加坡共和國(guó)。雖然科學(xué)和科技的運(yùn)用和采納在我國(guó)非常廣泛,但科學(xué)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(jìn)研究與發(fā)展。我于80年代投入這一方面的工作,目前已開(kāi)始有了一些成績(jī)。我國(guó)對(duì)資訊科技掌握得很好,每樣?xùn)|西都完美并有效率地操作,我國(guó)是一個(gè)通過(guò)科技來(lái)提高國(guó)人生活水平的好例子。但我還是關(guān)心到我們國(guó)民的自發(fā)性。新加坡人一般上都不渴望也不熱愛(ài)科學(xué)和科技。其實(shí)在1989年的時(shí)候,我原想把奧林匹克金牌也算在預(yù)測(cè)內(nèi)。就算我真把奧運(yùn)金牌算在內(nèi),預(yù)測(cè)也照樣會(huì)實(shí)現(xiàn)。香港不是于1996年在風(fēng)帆項(xiàng)目中贏得首面奧運(yùn)金牌嗎？新加坡連機(jī)會(huì)都沒(méi)有。
得諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)、贏奧運(yùn)金牌,雖和一個(gè)國(guó)家的人民、政治體系、金錢上的回報(bào)有密切的關(guān)系,但得獎(jiǎng)贏金牌終是個(gè)人的努力。其中99%的得獎(jiǎng)人和金牌得主都對(duì)他們所從事的行業(yè)有著無(wú)比的熱愛(ài),并用盡了畢生的心血、汗水和眼淚來(lái)達(dá)到目標(biāo)。如果某人對(duì)其研究工作沒(méi)有信心、不感興趣的話,那任何稅務(wù)回扣、資金支援、企業(yè)贊助或政府鼓勵(lì)也不能造就出一個(gè)諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人。（或許有些運(yùn)動(dòng)家在奧運(yùn)會(huì)上報(bào)喜是基于金錢上的回報(bào),但他們也得熱愛(ài)他們的運(yùn)動(dòng)項(xiàng)目,還要作出不少的犧牲。）
有人說(shuō)要引進(jìn)外國(guó)人才補(bǔ)充我國(guó)的科技和運(yùn)動(dòng)領(lǐng)域,我對(duì)此非常贊成。我曾協(xié)助引進(jìn)外國(guó)人才到我國(guó)來(lái),從事專門性及長(zhǎng)期性的工作,早期從香港和臺(tái)灣,后自中國(guó)大陸。然而,外來(lái)人才只能起催化作用,逐漸擴(kuò)大本地人才的數(shù)量。外來(lái)人才一旦移民或被本地毫無(wú)挑戰(zhàn)性的環(huán)境潛移默化的話,我們豈不是前功盡棄？當(dāng)年美國(guó)引進(jìn)足壇巨星如比利（Pele）和喬治。貝斯特（George Best）,但足球在美國(guó)并未因此而有所作為。二十年后,當(dāng)美國(guó)擁有自己的年輕足球健將時(shí),美國(guó)才能夠昂然踢入1998年法國(guó)世界杯競(jìng)賽。中國(guó)國(guó)家足球隊(duì)并未因近引進(jìn)一些外援而一雪前恥。新加坡成功地引進(jìn)大量的外國(guó)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(gè)利于研究、發(fā)展和創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境。不然,再多的外來(lái)人才也徒勞無(wú)功。
第二,我們不能再允許國(guó)人接受我們一貫的借口——“我們只有300萬(wàn)人口?！毕愀塾?00萬(wàn)人口,就已經(jīng)有一面奧運(yùn)金牌、一個(gè)諾貝爾獎(jiǎng),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(duì)伍克羅地亞？這個(gè)國(guó)家的人口也是300萬(wàn)！除非我們努力增進(jìn)年輕新加坡人對(duì)科研的熱忱,并鼓勵(lì)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(jiǎng)無(wú)緣。中國(guó)大陸這15年來(lái)已經(jīng)把成千上萬(wàn)的頂尖科學(xué)家派遣到國(guó)外。今時(shí)今日,我不惜大膽地于1998年再次作一個(gè)預(yù)測(cè)：“到了公元2009年,將會(huì)有一名在中國(guó)大陸土生土長(zhǎng)的諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人,而新加坡大多不會(huì)有。”說(shuō)我不愛(ài)國(guó)也好,說(shuō)我悲觀也罷,但這悲哀的事實(shí)是無(wú)法改變的。我們只能為自己辯護(hù)說(shuō),務(wù)實(shí)的新加坡人不屑贏什么諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)。（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(zhēng)取世界好的航空公司、好的機(jī)場(chǎng)和大的港口等榮譽(yù)。我們的學(xué)生近也在國(guó)際數(shù)學(xué)和科學(xué)測(cè)驗(yàn)中揚(yáng)威,震驚了全世界。新加坡國(guó)內(nèi)的資訊科技網(wǎng)絡(luò),已是全球發(fā)達(dá)的,而利于科技創(chuàng)新的許多基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施都已具備。因此,我國(guó)在爭(zhēng)取奧運(yùn)金牌的當(dāng)兒,為何不去爭(zhēng)取諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)呢？
第三,崔教授身為華校生,于1958年赴美國(guó)念學(xué)士學(xué)位時(shí),英語(yǔ)說(shuō)得不怎么好。英語(yǔ)作為科學(xué)、科技和商業(yè)的國(guó)際語(yǔ)言,其重要性是眾所周知的。新加坡人從小就受英語(yǔ)教育,我們因此占很大的優(yōu)勢(shì)。
然而,在《亞洲周刊》的那篇報(bào)道,其中對(duì)培正中學(xué)中文教學(xué)如何培育出不少頂尖科學(xué)家及目前的這位諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人,作出了特別分析（《培正中學(xué)證明中文教學(xué)成功》）。文中特別提到,培正中學(xué)以中文教文科,工科則用英文教科書(shū),以中文（多半是粵語(yǔ)）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(xué)）的教學(xué)法。
換句話說(shuō),科學(xué)和科技傳播（如網(wǎng)際網(wǎng)絡(luò)）雖然以英語(yǔ)作為媒介,但若以母語(yǔ)接受啟蒙教育,往后同樣能夠在各科技領(lǐng)域上有所作為。今日英語(yǔ)作為全球科技和商業(yè)主要語(yǔ)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(xué)、心理學(xué)等主要學(xué)科都以德文為主。另一方面,以象形文字為基礎(chǔ)的中文有其獨(dú)特性,而研究也顯示學(xué)習(xí)中文能夠訓(xùn)練腦部的左右兩邊,從而增強(qiáng)邏輯思考和智力！新加坡有朝一日若出一名諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人的話,不難想象這名得獎(jiǎng)人的母校將會(huì)是華僑中學(xué)、公教中學(xué)、圣尼各拉女校、前南洋大學(xué)等。當(dāng)然,我們也不能排除萊佛士書(shū)院、英華中學(xué)、圣約瑟書(shū)院、維多利亞中學(xué)、國(guó)家初級(jí)學(xué)院等英校培育出一個(gè)諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)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(shí)了楊振寧、李振道和丁肇中這三位諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)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(guò)的時(shí)刻,我將永遠(yuǎn)珍惜。他們不但絕頂聰明,而且非常有人情味、很謙虛、有時(shí)還很幽默呢。我尤其記得當(dāng)我的火車抵達(dá)紐約州斯托尼布魯克（Stony Brook）大學(xué)城時(shí),楊教授站在火車站月臺(tái)的側(cè)影。他是我從少年時(shí)期就崇拜的偶像,盡管我當(dāng)時(shí)要求他別去接我,他還是去了。另一個(gè)有趣的故事是在1993年,當(dāng)麻省理工學(xué)院的丁肇中教授來(lái)到新加坡參加物理會(huì)議的時(shí)候,有一名年輕的記者問(wèn)了一個(gè)極“老套”
的問(wèn)題,即他的諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)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(yǔ)氣答曰：“當(dāng)然是天分！”
多數(shù)先進(jìn)和發(fā)展中國(guó)家都渴望能夠培育出一個(gè)諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人為國(guó)爭(zhēng)光。以我們所擁有的有利條件,不難培育出這樣一個(gè)人。但政府和人民得團(tuán)結(jié)一致朝向這個(gè)目標(biāo)。如果我那預(yù)測(cè)不成事實(shí)的話,那我將是第一個(gè)歡呼的人！我1989年也提過(guò),培養(yǎng)科學(xué)家、音樂(lè)家和藝術(shù)家雖不會(huì)即刻得到經(jīng)濟(jì)回報(bào),但這卻是國(guó)家高度發(fā)展的跡象。畢竟人不能單靠面包生活！
外來(lái)人才只能起催化作用,逐漸擴(kuò)大本地人才的數(shù)量。外來(lái)人才一旦移民或被本地毫無(wú)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(jìn)大量的外國(guó)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(gè)利于研究、發(fā)展和創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境。不然,再多的外來(lái)人才也徒勞無(wú)功。
新加坡有朝一日若出一名諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)人的話,不難想象這名得獎(jiǎng)人的母校將會(huì)是華僑中學(xué)、公教中學(xué)、圣尼各拉女校、前南洋大學(xué)等。當(dāng)然,我們也不能排除萊佛士書(shū)院、英華中學(xué)、圣約瑟書(shū)院、維多利亞中學(xué)、國(guó)家初級(jí)學(xué)院等英校培育出一個(gè)諾貝爾得獎(jiǎng)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(guó)念完大學(xué)后,于1979年回返新加坡。他在政府部門服務(wù)了十二年半,其中包括經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展局、科學(xué)理事會(huì)（NSTB的前身）及外交部。他于80年代活躍于促進(jìn)研究與發(fā)展和管理新加坡科學(xué)園。目前葉博士是美國(guó)一家諮詢訓(xùn)練公司的專業(yè)顧問(wèn)。這份稿是他以個(gè)人身分為《聯(lián)合早報(bào)》而寫(xiě)的。