The Science and Technology Advisory Group Must Do Its Job

The Science and Technology Advisory Group Must Do Its Job
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 13, 2009

The Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory Group was established 30 years ago. Last week the group held its annual meeting. It made a point of screening a documentary short commemorating the Godfather of Taiwan's Technology, Li Kuo-ting. Thinking back, we cherish the memory of this incomparably courageous visionary, who laid the foundation for Taiwan's information and communications industry. On the other hand, we bemoan the fact that the future of Taiwan's industries remains in question. As we examine the political landscape, no one emerges as a worthy helmsman to guide the future development of emerging industries and science and technology.

The public naturally understands that Taiwan's political environment is not what it once was. Chief executives are no longer the authoritative figures they once were. The legislature would not tolerate such dictatorial strongmen. If Li Kuo-ting were alive today, he would probably be harangued by the the Legislative Yuan and the media to the point of humiliation. Even if he was spared, he would not be able to summon the wind and rain the way he did. That said, the changed political climate is no excuse for inaction and incompetence. Nor can it be used to rationalize absurd and mistaken arrangements and practices. Compare the accomplishments of the current Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory Group meeting with the accomplishments of Li Kuo-ting back then. Clearly there is room for improvement.

The theme of the current Science and Technology Advisory Group Conference is Taiwan's six emerging industries. The Executive Yuan is asking its science and technology consultants to discuss, one by one, the industrial policies it is promoting. One wonders what Li Kuo-ting would think of such an arrangement if he were alive today. The Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory has about 20 members, including 10 from abroad. Among them are internationally renowned scientists and Nobel Prize winners. National consultants include the presidents of Academia Sinica, National Taiwan University, National Tsing Hua University, the Vice-Chancellor of National Cheng Kung University, and other elders of academia. Their research has been impressive, but most of them have no business experience. They may be familiar with upstream technology R&D, but are unlikely to understand the downstream realm of industrial production. Isn't inviting these elders from academia to discuss Taiwan's industrial policy irrelevant?

Some members of the Executive Yuan Science and Technology Advisory Group may understand certain industry practices. But what is asking ten foreign scientists to offer advice for Chinese cultural and creative industries, but an embarrassing imposition? The cultural and creative industries involve many issue that have nothing to do with science or technology, but rather wisdom from the humanities. Why should we hand these issues over to a group of technology experts for discussion? Many foreign IT consultants may never have purchased a butterfly orchid, or eaten a grouper. How can they contribute anything to a discussion on quality agriculture? They might ad lib by saying that "scientific research must not be divorced from industry." But of how much significance would this be in a meeting dedicated to the in-depth examination of difficult, substantive, industry-related issues?

What worries us the most is not the waste of three days of valuable time for these scientists. But to promote industrial reform in such a heavy-handed manner, really makes makes us break out in a cold sweat. To promote an unprecedented new industry or previously unsuccessful industry requires clear vision and a development strategy. Such a strategy is the result of examining the overall situation, studying industry feasibility, making critical breakthroughs, and creating new markets. To use the vernacular of the popular media, industrial strategy requires key breakthroughs in Blue Ocean Strategy. What is not required is minor tweaks to various revenue producing items within the framework of the existing Red Ocean Strategy. Unfortunately the information provided by the Science and Technology Advisory Group shows that although they are working very hard, they have no clear strategic direction.

Six months ago, the Executive Yuan was apparently under pressure from President Ma. It hastily promoted a new solution every week or two for Taiwan's six emerging industries. At the time outsiders were concerned that some programs were merely administrative staffers wracking their brains competing in an essay contest. Sure enough, the information provided by various sectors to the Science and Technology Advisory Group was almost identical to the programs promoted by the Executive Yuan six months ago. As we can see, the organizer's implementation of the programs over the past six months has been slow. The authorities responsible are unclear on their strategic direction, and are having difficulty making any progress to speak of. They must consider better means of implementation, rather than discussing old programs that have led nowhere.

Politicians make no bones about labelling someone a hero on the basis of his success or failure. Li Kuo-ting is widely respected by the public because he "created " Taiwan's ICT industry. It was not because he presided over so many conferences, made the front page so many times, or spent so many dollars on advertising. Li Kuo-ting planned the financing for Taiwan's Science Parks. But he did not meddle in cultural creative industries he was unfamiliar with, such as the cultivation of butterfly orchids or groupers, That was why he was successful. The achievements of the Science and Technology Advisory Group back then are legendary the world over. Credit is always given to the Science and Technology Advisory Group. But take one look at last week's science and technology advisors meeting, and one can't help longing for the "Good Old Days."

請科技顧問組認真做份內的事
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.11.13 03:46 am

今年是行政院科技顧問組成立三十周年；該會上周在舉辦一年一度的科技顧問會議時，特地播放了一段紀念台灣科技教父李國鼎先生的短片。撫今追昔，我們一則緬懷昔日教父開創台灣資通產業基礎的前瞻視野與無比魄力，另一方面也要感傷今日台灣的產業前景不明；放眼政壇，已沒有任何人堪稱是新興產業與未來科技發展的掌舵者。

國人當然了解，台灣的政治生態今非昔比，行政首長不再有一言九鼎的威望人物，國會殿堂也容不下乾綱獨斷的強人。李國鼎先生如果處於今日，恐怕也會被立法院與媒體整得灰頭土臉，就算不致鎩羽而歸，也絕不可能有呼風喚雨的威勢。但是，政治形勢的改變終究不是無為無能的藉口，更不能用來合理化荒謬錯誤的安排與做法。如果拿這一次行政院科顧會議的內容與李國鼎先生當年的事蹟做對比，則有待改進的空間就格外清楚了。

這一次科技顧問會議的主題是台灣的六大新興產業，把行政院所推的產業政策端出來請科技顧問逐一討論。李國鼎先生如果在世，對於這樣的議程安排真不知道有何感想。行政院科技顧問約有二十人，其中有十位來自國外，都是國際知名的科學家，也有諾貝爾獎得主。國內顧問則包括中研院院長、台大、清大、成大校長等學界大老。他們的學術研究成績斐然，但是絕大多數都沒有企業經驗。他們或許熟悉科技研發的上游運作，卻不太可能了解中下游的產業世界。請這些學界大老對台灣的產業政策開會討論，是不是有些文不對題？

縱使部分行政院科技顧問也懂得他們那一行的若干產業實務，但是叫十位外國科學家對華人的文化創意產業發表高見，這不是強人所難是什麼？文化創意產業所涉面向有諸多既非科學、亦非技術，而屬人文智慧，為什麼要交給一群科技專家去討論呢？國外科技顧問可能有許多位沒有買過蝴蝶蘭、也沒有吃過石斑魚，他們又要如何對精緻農業案發表意見呢？就算能應景地說些「科研不能與產業脫節」的場面話，卻對產業推動的實質問題難做深入評論，開這個會又有多少意義？

令我們最擔心的，不是開三天會浪費了多少科學家的寶貴時間，而是以這種粗率方式推動產業改革，真的教國人捏把冷汗！推動一個前所未有或先前不成功的新產業，最需要的就是釐清視野、擬定策略。這樣的策略擬定，來自於盱衡全局、審酌利基、重點突破、開創新局的能力。用坊間出版品的通俗語言來說，產業策略必須要是具有重點突破的藍海策略，而不是在現行框架下，把各個現存營收項目都努力上修些微的紅海策略。令人遺憾的是，科顧會議中各主管部會所準備的資料，或許已呈現出他們的賣命付出，卻幾乎沒有清楚的策略方向。

半年前，行政院似乎是在馬總統的指示壓力下，才匆匆忙忙以每一周或兩周推一件的方式提出六大產業行動方案。當時，外界就擔心部分方案只是行政人員絞盡腦汁的作文比賽。果不其然，這次科顧會議多項產業所呈現的資料，有些根本與六個月前行政院的推動方案相差無幾，可見過去半年主辦單位推動執行的進度緩慢。當主管機關因為策略方向不明而難有進度可言時，就應該要努力構思更好的執行方式，而不是把一事無成的舊方案沒頭沒腦地提到一個不相干會議上去討論。

政治人物的功勳評價，誠然是以成敗論英雄。李國鼎先生之所以廣受國人崇敬，是因為他「做成」了台灣的ＩＣＴ產業，而不在於他主持開了幾次會、上了幾次媒體版面、花了多少錢買置入性廣告。李國鼎規劃科學園區與財政金融，但不曾旁涉他不熟悉的文化建設與石斑、蘭花，如此才能事竟功圓。當年的科顧組認真地做科技的事，不求聞達於天下，但做成之後功勞總是科顧組的。看看上周召開的科顧會議，真令人有「今不如昔」的感慨。