论文部分内容阅读
2019年5月，美国商务部工业与安全局（BIS）将华为等众多中国企业和单位列入所谓管制“实体清单”，随后谷歌、英特尔、高通和博通等公司暂停对中国提供技术服务和供货。美国意欲通过截断上游供应链，控制芯片技术，向中国施压。
为了应对这场芯片危机，华为将“海思麒麟备胎芯片计划”转正，同时对外公布了鸿蒙操作系统计划，力图以技术打破芯片封锁，保证国内电子生产需求。然而这场“实体清单”风波，不仅在中国企业间刮起波澜，东盟各国作为承包芯片下游生产的集中地，也在这场危机中受到了不小的打击。如何应对芯片出口受阻，让芯片业重焕生机，成为了东盟国家必须直面的难题。
“这次低迷与以往不同”，芯片危机普遍存在
20世纪90年代，新加坡就开始从日韩承接包含芯片在内的半导体产业，并将产品出口至世界各地。通过近30年的发展，芯片业已成为新加坡的支柱产业，占到其电子制造业的60%左右。但也正是因为新加坡对芯片出口有着极高的依赖，导致它如今陷入严峻的芯片危机之中。
官方数据显示，2018年，新加坡芯片业占整体制造业产出比重的28%，占电子业產出比重的76%。
据估计，新加坡芯片制造商目前的产能利用率平均要比2018年同期水平低出10%～15%。
另外，近日公布的数据显示，新加坡2019年6月出口降至6年新低，主要是因为电子产品出口锐减31.9%，创下当地该行业10年来最大降幅。
新加坡芯片工业协会（SSIA）执行董事洪伟生表示：“我们已经发现这次低迷与以往不同。”
该国芯片业出现这样低迷的状态，与美国频繁向中国发难的行为有着直接联系。美国芯片较少在本土生产，大部分是由美国设计并提供先进技术，在世界各地的工厂制造、封测，最后出口给各国企业。中国就是其中极为重要的进口国之一，每年进口芯片占据全球市场份额的50%左右。
美国制定“实体清单”，导致中国市场芯片需求大幅减少。芯片销售遇冷，使得下游芯片制造企业受创。在这样的背景下，新加坡芯片业出现颓势是必然的。
芯片制造业受创的情况并非只在新加坡发生。事实上，全球的芯片业都面临着巨大的挑战。总部位于新加坡的晶片测试和组装公司联合科技首席执行官尼尔逊就表示，全球芯片行业都正在遭遇困难，但新加坡的问题因租金、薪资及公用事业等成本偏高而被放大。
市场份额正在重组，危机可控
荷兰商业银行分析师普拉卡什·萨克帕尔指出，最新的出口数据显示，新加坡电子产品的市场份额正流向其他亚洲国家和地区，指其表现相对不及中国台湾、韩国、马来西亚、菲律宾和泰国。
芯片被誉为电子产品的“心脏”，承担着运算和存储等核心功能，其重要性不言而喻。美国加征关税以及制定“实体清单”等行为给整个芯片产业链带来了冲击，但是这种冲击也是有限的，市场正在自发性调整自己的生产结构，通过市场份额的重组，稳定供需。
不少芯片企业，特别是代加工企业已经在有计划地逐步向东南亚某些地区增加投资。与此同时，中国企业进口也开始调整结构，加大对除了美国芯片之外的芯片产品的采购。根据东北财经大学发布的《中国进口路线图2018》，2018年，中国80%以上的芯片来自于日韩、中国台湾以及马来西亚，进口总额已经高达1842.5亿美元（约合1.29亿元人民币）。
IGSS Ventures创始人兼集团首席执行官Raj Kumar指出，不稳定的全球销售环境下，马来西亚有可能在芯片行业中发挥比现在更大的作用。
相对其他东南亚国家，马来西亚在全球芯片封测市场上一直有其独特的地位，马来西亚本身就存在着一些封测厂商，且许多国际大厂包括英特尔、英飞凌、日月光等皆在马来西亚设有封测厂。
据中国海关统计，2018年中国从马来西亚进口的总额为4170.8亿元人民币，增长13.2%。马来西亚对中国出口最多的商品为机电产品，约占出口总额的45%，其中，芯片出口所占比例极高。
随着市场环境逐步调整，新加坡经济发展局的林国强也表示，尽管芯片行业面临挑战，但新加坡在该行业仍具有竞争力并一直在吸引投资。
联合科技的尼尔逊则表示，尽管芯片公司削减了开支，但他们仍选择在新加坡投资数百万美元来为新客户和项目提供设备，其中包括下一代的移动通信5G网络。“我不认为这一切都很糟糕。隧道的尽头则是光明。”
积极谋求“芯”出路，自主创新迎战危机
要迎接隧道尽头的光明，光靠市场的自发性调节是不够的。一个企业甚至一个国家，尤其是如同新加坡一样高度依赖芯片外贸的国家，不主动谋求“芯”出路，即使现在看到光明，未来依然有被阴霾笼罩的风险。
新加坡副总理兼财政部长王瑞杰在接受媒体采访时表示，要认识到长远发展的重要性，科技发展带来的机遇，就像汪洋中指引前路的灯光。
安永新加坡与文莱执行合伙人罗锦伟认为，要巩固新加坡的经济枢纽地位，就要持续创新并应用科技，同时培育具备精深技能的专才。
通过科技研发，从单纯的芯片加工到芯片设计，从芯片产业链的下游转移到芯片产业链上游，这是芯片企业谋求长久发展的必经之路。
马来西亚作为亚洲最重要的芯片出口市场之一，仅次于中国、日本、韩国和新加坡，而在投资方面，该国与其他芯片国家对比鲜明。马来西亚主要有两种芯片公司：专用代工厂——根据客户要求制定芯片;集成器件制造商——制造和销售自己的芯片。
马来西亚在扩大芯片代加工业务的同时，抓紧芯片技术开发和商业化，有效防止自己在世界贸易波澜中处于过分被动的状态，尤其是在晶圆制造方面，该国对跨国公司有着不小的吸引力。
美国制定“实体清单”，让各国企业都纷纷意识到自主创新的重要性，掌握主动权，把握自己的命脉，才是迎战危机的正确方式。也正是秉持着这种想法，中国企业转换思维，把挑战视作进步的契机，加快了“中国芯”的研发脚步。正如华为创始人任正非所说：“越先进的产品越不存在死亡的可能”。如今，华为旗下的半导体子公司海思半导体，已经实现大量芯片自产化。据美国国际数据公司统计，2019年4～6月华为在中国的智能手机供货量创出历史新高，全球份额也维持在第二位。 不論是顺应国际分工承包加工环节，还是以市场换技术，都是有道理且符合市场规律的，但是一个国家的芯片产业发展绝不能止步于此，滋生惰性，让自己处于被动的地位。国际贸易环境不稳定因素层出不穷，任何人都不可能做到独善其身，想要站稳脚跟，必须转化姿态，以一流的技术水平，用实力说话。
·联系编辑：[email protected]
Toward Entrepreneurship Education in Indonesia
By Dwitya Kirana Amry
The call to extend the term “entrepreneurship” within Indonesia’s context is urgently needed.
As the government is pushing the agenda to equip youth with entrepreneurship skills to tackle unemployment， many universities in Indonesia are starting to implement entrepreneurship education programs for their students. So what kind of entrepreneurship education is delivered to our youth in university？
Based on the Indonesia Millennial Report 2019， 63.9 million people in Indonesia are aged 20 to 35. These are the ages of recent graduates， job seekers and people early in their careers. Youth unemployment in Indonesia based on the data from the International Labor Organization in 2016 was 17.8%. These numbers are alarming， particularly in light of the “demographic bonus” expected by 2030. Therefore， the government is relying on entrepreneurship initiatives as a silver bullet to tackle these issues.
These initiatives include stimulation programs by the Research， Technology and Higher Education Ministry such as the Indonesian Student Entrepreneurship Program that can supplement entrepreneurship training， if any. The programs are business plan workshops and competitions. However， the effectiveness is questionable as the readiness in terms of competencies and capabilities of universities to deliver these initiatives still varies highly.
Furthermore， the national system of entrepreneurship is still absent， including the definition， regulation and practical aspects. This has resulted in Indonesian’s adopting a narrow understanding of entrepreneurship， limited to venture creation， micro， small， medium enterprises， self-employment and trade.
Meanwhile， in the United Kingdom， the Quality Assurance Agency （QAA）， a body that governs higher education practices， has published a guidebook to inform entrepreneurship education delivery in higher education institutions. First published in 2012 and then updated in 2018， it gives clear guidance on what entrepreneurship education entails and how higher education should embrace it.
The QAA uses the term enterprise in conjunction with entrepreneurship and defines it broadly to combine creativity， originality， initiative， idea generation， design thinking， adaptability and reflexivity with problem identification， problem-solving， innovation， expression， communication and practical action. Entrepreneurship education is then defined as the application of enterprise behaviors， attributes and competencies into the creation of cultural， social or economic value. This can， but does not exclusively， lead to venture creation.
However， based on a recent research done in a private university in Indonesia， entrepreneurship education is delivered exclusively to training in business planning geared to venture creation. The expected result is students that have been equipped with entrepreneurship training will start their own business soon after they graduate. This then results in sociology majors setting up food stalls selling fried chicken， and engineering students selling T-shirts.
Young graduates starting their business with limited experience， lack of funding and minimum support will resort to micro-businesses with no guarantee of growth and scaling up. It’s not a bad thing but on a macro and long-term level， this could be alarming. If this continues， Indonesia might be stuck in the middle-income trap， and slowly deteriorating to economic downfall.
Consumerism is favored instead of production. Products will have a shorter market life span and businesses will fail faster because of high competition driven by recycling ideas based on trends and not disruptive innovation.
Due to the failure to scale up， microbusinesses will not be able to afford to employ people and thus the intended outcome of entrepreneurship as a solution to unemployment remains farfetched. Entrepreneurship will only result in economic and social development only if it is driven by innovation. Innovation should be fostered and facilitated in universities.
The role of universities is now questioned; why do these students need to pay so much money， some travel a long way from home， study a scientific discipline for three to four years and yet graduate to find themselves reluctantly pushed into self-employment trading goods and services that might be undervalued？ Where is the creation of new knowledge？ What about the university’s role in facilitating disruptive innovation？ Where does university research spill over to？
Higher education is still considered a privilege in Indonesia — only 9% of youths hold a university degree. Therefore this small number of graduates should be placed strategically within the national development agenda， especially if Indonesia is targeted to become a top four economy in the world by 2045.
However， many government initiatives in entrepreneurship assume that Indonesians youth are reluctant to become entrepreneurs. A recent research by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor in 2015 and a case study I made at a private university in Jakarta concluded Indonesian youths are actually highly aware and have a positive attitude to entrepreneurship. What is needed now is pointing them in the right direction. Thus， universities along with the government should then ask — what kind of entrepreneurs do they want in this country？ As we are gearing to a knowledge-based economy， universities should take the lead in forming innovative entrepreneurship ecosystems. Entrepreneurship related to students and university graduates should result from the knowledge spillover from university research informed by real-world problems from industry， which will create innovative solutions or even new forms of industry through market disruption. Universities should not be limited to pushing their graduates to become entrepreneurs driven only by necessity and motivated by profit.
The triple helix of universities， government and industry must act fast to drive entrepreneurship initiatives to become innovation-driven， instead of necessity-driven. Universities should take entrepreneurship education programs more seriously， and more importantly strategically place entrepreneurship as the motor of their overall curriculum.
This means entrepreneurship education should focus more on equipping youth with thinking skills such as creativity， problem solving， critical-thinking and opportunity recognition along with transferable skills such as leadership， teamwork， change management， communication and negotiation. These are the foundation of any successful entrepreneurial journey — and universities have the most power to supply these into student’s capabilities. Therefore， entrepreneurship education in Indonesia needs to equip students with entrepreneurial skills to foster innovation.
Only with this concept， entrepreneurship education can holistically drive a knowledge-based economy for a better Indonesia.
· Source： The Jakarta Post
为了应对这场芯片危机，华为将“海思麒麟备胎芯片计划”转正，同时对外公布了鸿蒙操作系统计划，力图以技术打破芯片封锁，保证国内电子生产需求。然而这场“实体清单”风波，不仅在中国企业间刮起波澜，东盟各国作为承包芯片下游生产的集中地，也在这场危机中受到了不小的打击。如何应对芯片出口受阻，让芯片业重焕生机，成为了东盟国家必须直面的难题。
“这次低迷与以往不同”，芯片危机普遍存在
20世纪90年代，新加坡就开始从日韩承接包含芯片在内的半导体产业，并将产品出口至世界各地。通过近30年的发展，芯片业已成为新加坡的支柱产业，占到其电子制造业的60%左右。但也正是因为新加坡对芯片出口有着极高的依赖，导致它如今陷入严峻的芯片危机之中。
官方数据显示，2018年，新加坡芯片业占整体制造业产出比重的28%，占电子业產出比重的76%。
据估计，新加坡芯片制造商目前的产能利用率平均要比2018年同期水平低出10%～15%。
另外，近日公布的数据显示，新加坡2019年6月出口降至6年新低，主要是因为电子产品出口锐减31.9%，创下当地该行业10年来最大降幅。
新加坡芯片工业协会（SSIA）执行董事洪伟生表示：“我们已经发现这次低迷与以往不同。”
该国芯片业出现这样低迷的状态，与美国频繁向中国发难的行为有着直接联系。美国芯片较少在本土生产，大部分是由美国设计并提供先进技术，在世界各地的工厂制造、封测，最后出口给各国企业。中国就是其中极为重要的进口国之一，每年进口芯片占据全球市场份额的50%左右。
美国制定“实体清单”，导致中国市场芯片需求大幅减少。芯片销售遇冷，使得下游芯片制造企业受创。在这样的背景下，新加坡芯片业出现颓势是必然的。
芯片制造业受创的情况并非只在新加坡发生。事实上，全球的芯片业都面临着巨大的挑战。总部位于新加坡的晶片测试和组装公司联合科技首席执行官尼尔逊就表示，全球芯片行业都正在遭遇困难，但新加坡的问题因租金、薪资及公用事业等成本偏高而被放大。
市场份额正在重组，危机可控
荷兰商业银行分析师普拉卡什·萨克帕尔指出，最新的出口数据显示，新加坡电子产品的市场份额正流向其他亚洲国家和地区，指其表现相对不及中国台湾、韩国、马来西亚、菲律宾和泰国。
芯片被誉为电子产品的“心脏”，承担着运算和存储等核心功能，其重要性不言而喻。美国加征关税以及制定“实体清单”等行为给整个芯片产业链带来了冲击，但是这种冲击也是有限的，市场正在自发性调整自己的生产结构，通过市场份额的重组，稳定供需。
不少芯片企业，特别是代加工企业已经在有计划地逐步向东南亚某些地区增加投资。与此同时，中国企业进口也开始调整结构，加大对除了美国芯片之外的芯片产品的采购。根据东北财经大学发布的《中国进口路线图2018》，2018年，中国80%以上的芯片来自于日韩、中国台湾以及马来西亚，进口总额已经高达1842.5亿美元（约合1.29亿元人民币）。
IGSS Ventures创始人兼集团首席执行官Raj Kumar指出，不稳定的全球销售环境下，马来西亚有可能在芯片行业中发挥比现在更大的作用。
相对其他东南亚国家，马来西亚在全球芯片封测市场上一直有其独特的地位，马来西亚本身就存在着一些封测厂商，且许多国际大厂包括英特尔、英飞凌、日月光等皆在马来西亚设有封测厂。
据中国海关统计，2018年中国从马来西亚进口的总额为4170.8亿元人民币，增长13.2%。马来西亚对中国出口最多的商品为机电产品，约占出口总额的45%，其中，芯片出口所占比例极高。
随着市场环境逐步调整，新加坡经济发展局的林国强也表示，尽管芯片行业面临挑战，但新加坡在该行业仍具有竞争力并一直在吸引投资。
联合科技的尼尔逊则表示，尽管芯片公司削减了开支，但他们仍选择在新加坡投资数百万美元来为新客户和项目提供设备，其中包括下一代的移动通信5G网络。“我不认为这一切都很糟糕。隧道的尽头则是光明。”
积极谋求“芯”出路，自主创新迎战危机
要迎接隧道尽头的光明，光靠市场的自发性调节是不够的。一个企业甚至一个国家，尤其是如同新加坡一样高度依赖芯片外贸的国家，不主动谋求“芯”出路，即使现在看到光明，未来依然有被阴霾笼罩的风险。
新加坡副总理兼财政部长王瑞杰在接受媒体采访时表示，要认识到长远发展的重要性，科技发展带来的机遇，就像汪洋中指引前路的灯光。
安永新加坡与文莱执行合伙人罗锦伟认为，要巩固新加坡的经济枢纽地位，就要持续创新并应用科技，同时培育具备精深技能的专才。
通过科技研发，从单纯的芯片加工到芯片设计，从芯片产业链的下游转移到芯片产业链上游，这是芯片企业谋求长久发展的必经之路。
马来西亚作为亚洲最重要的芯片出口市场之一，仅次于中国、日本、韩国和新加坡，而在投资方面，该国与其他芯片国家对比鲜明。马来西亚主要有两种芯片公司：专用代工厂——根据客户要求制定芯片;集成器件制造商——制造和销售自己的芯片。
马来西亚在扩大芯片代加工业务的同时，抓紧芯片技术开发和商业化，有效防止自己在世界贸易波澜中处于过分被动的状态，尤其是在晶圆制造方面，该国对跨国公司有着不小的吸引力。
美国制定“实体清单”，让各国企业都纷纷意识到自主创新的重要性，掌握主动权，把握自己的命脉，才是迎战危机的正确方式。也正是秉持着这种想法，中国企业转换思维，把挑战视作进步的契机，加快了“中国芯”的研发脚步。正如华为创始人任正非所说：“越先进的产品越不存在死亡的可能”。如今，华为旗下的半导体子公司海思半导体，已经实现大量芯片自产化。据美国国际数据公司统计，2019年4～6月华为在中国的智能手机供货量创出历史新高，全球份额也维持在第二位。 不論是顺应国际分工承包加工环节，还是以市场换技术，都是有道理且符合市场规律的，但是一个国家的芯片产业发展绝不能止步于此，滋生惰性，让自己处于被动的地位。国际贸易环境不稳定因素层出不穷，任何人都不可能做到独善其身，想要站稳脚跟，必须转化姿态，以一流的技术水平，用实力说话。
·联系编辑：[email protected]
Toward Entrepreneurship Education in Indonesia
By Dwitya Kirana Amry
The call to extend the term “entrepreneurship” within Indonesia’s context is urgently needed.
As the government is pushing the agenda to equip youth with entrepreneurship skills to tackle unemployment， many universities in Indonesia are starting to implement entrepreneurship education programs for their students. So what kind of entrepreneurship education is delivered to our youth in university？
Based on the Indonesia Millennial Report 2019， 63.9 million people in Indonesia are aged 20 to 35. These are the ages of recent graduates， job seekers and people early in their careers. Youth unemployment in Indonesia based on the data from the International Labor Organization in 2016 was 17.8%. These numbers are alarming， particularly in light of the “demographic bonus” expected by 2030. Therefore， the government is relying on entrepreneurship initiatives as a silver bullet to tackle these issues.
These initiatives include stimulation programs by the Research， Technology and Higher Education Ministry such as the Indonesian Student Entrepreneurship Program that can supplement entrepreneurship training， if any. The programs are business plan workshops and competitions. However， the effectiveness is questionable as the readiness in terms of competencies and capabilities of universities to deliver these initiatives still varies highly.
Furthermore， the national system of entrepreneurship is still absent， including the definition， regulation and practical aspects. This has resulted in Indonesian’s adopting a narrow understanding of entrepreneurship， limited to venture creation， micro， small， medium enterprises， self-employment and trade.
Meanwhile， in the United Kingdom， the Quality Assurance Agency （QAA）， a body that governs higher education practices， has published a guidebook to inform entrepreneurship education delivery in higher education institutions. First published in 2012 and then updated in 2018， it gives clear guidance on what entrepreneurship education entails and how higher education should embrace it.
The QAA uses the term enterprise in conjunction with entrepreneurship and defines it broadly to combine creativity， originality， initiative， idea generation， design thinking， adaptability and reflexivity with problem identification， problem-solving， innovation， expression， communication and practical action. Entrepreneurship education is then defined as the application of enterprise behaviors， attributes and competencies into the creation of cultural， social or economic value. This can， but does not exclusively， lead to venture creation.
However， based on a recent research done in a private university in Indonesia， entrepreneurship education is delivered exclusively to training in business planning geared to venture creation. The expected result is students that have been equipped with entrepreneurship training will start their own business soon after they graduate. This then results in sociology majors setting up food stalls selling fried chicken， and engineering students selling T-shirts.
Young graduates starting their business with limited experience， lack of funding and minimum support will resort to micro-businesses with no guarantee of growth and scaling up. It’s not a bad thing but on a macro and long-term level， this could be alarming. If this continues， Indonesia might be stuck in the middle-income trap， and slowly deteriorating to economic downfall.
Consumerism is favored instead of production. Products will have a shorter market life span and businesses will fail faster because of high competition driven by recycling ideas based on trends and not disruptive innovation.
Due to the failure to scale up， microbusinesses will not be able to afford to employ people and thus the intended outcome of entrepreneurship as a solution to unemployment remains farfetched. Entrepreneurship will only result in economic and social development only if it is driven by innovation. Innovation should be fostered and facilitated in universities.
The role of universities is now questioned; why do these students need to pay so much money， some travel a long way from home， study a scientific discipline for three to four years and yet graduate to find themselves reluctantly pushed into self-employment trading goods and services that might be undervalued？ Where is the creation of new knowledge？ What about the university’s role in facilitating disruptive innovation？ Where does university research spill over to？
Higher education is still considered a privilege in Indonesia — only 9% of youths hold a university degree. Therefore this small number of graduates should be placed strategically within the national development agenda， especially if Indonesia is targeted to become a top four economy in the world by 2045.
However， many government initiatives in entrepreneurship assume that Indonesians youth are reluctant to become entrepreneurs. A recent research by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor in 2015 and a case study I made at a private university in Jakarta concluded Indonesian youths are actually highly aware and have a positive attitude to entrepreneurship. What is needed now is pointing them in the right direction. Thus， universities along with the government should then ask — what kind of entrepreneurs do they want in this country？ As we are gearing to a knowledge-based economy， universities should take the lead in forming innovative entrepreneurship ecosystems. Entrepreneurship related to students and university graduates should result from the knowledge spillover from university research informed by real-world problems from industry， which will create innovative solutions or even new forms of industry through market disruption. Universities should not be limited to pushing their graduates to become entrepreneurs driven only by necessity and motivated by profit.
The triple helix of universities， government and industry must act fast to drive entrepreneurship initiatives to become innovation-driven， instead of necessity-driven. Universities should take entrepreneurship education programs more seriously， and more importantly strategically place entrepreneurship as the motor of their overall curriculum.
This means entrepreneurship education should focus more on equipping youth with thinking skills such as creativity， problem solving， critical-thinking and opportunity recognition along with transferable skills such as leadership， teamwork， change management， communication and negotiation. These are the foundation of any successful entrepreneurial journey — and universities have the most power to supply these into student’s capabilities. Therefore， entrepreneurship education in Indonesia needs to equip students with entrepreneurial skills to foster innovation.
Only with this concept， entrepreneurship education can holistically drive a knowledge-based economy for a better Indonesia.
· Source： The Jakarta Post