中美貿(mào)易摩擦下，中國—東盟芯片業(yè)將何去何從

陳麗冰 譚紫芳

2019年5月，美國商務(wù)部工業(yè)與安全局（BIS）將華為等眾多中國企業(yè)和單位列入所謂管制“實體清單”，隨后谷歌、英特爾、高通和博通等公司暫停對中國提供技術(shù)服務(wù)和供貨。美國意欲通過截斷上游供應(yīng)鏈，控制芯片技術(shù)，向中國施壓。

為了應(yīng)對這場芯片危機(jī)，華為將“海思麒麟備胎芯片計劃”轉(zhuǎn)正，同時對外公布了鴻蒙操作系統(tǒng)計劃，力圖以技術(shù)打破芯片封鎖，保證國內(nèi)電子生產(chǎn)需求。然而這場“實體清單”風(fēng)波，不僅在中國企業(yè)間刮起波瀾，東盟各國作為承包芯片下游生產(chǎn)的集中地，也在這場危機(jī)中受到了不小的打擊。如何應(yīng)對芯片出口受阻，讓芯片業(yè)重?zé)ㄉ鷻C(jī)，成為了東盟國家必須直面的難題。

“這次低迷與以往不同”，芯片危機(jī)普遍存在

20世紀(jì)90年代，新加坡就開始從日韓承接包含芯片在內(nèi)的半導(dǎo)體產(chǎn)業(yè)，并將產(chǎn)品出口至世界各地。通過近30年的發(fā)展，芯片業(yè)已成為新加坡的支柱產(chǎn)業(yè)，占到其電子制造業(yè)的60%左右。但也正是因為新加坡對芯片出口有著極高的依賴，導(dǎo)致它如今陷入嚴(yán)峻的芯片危機(jī)之中。

官方數(shù)據(jù)顯示，2018年，新加坡芯片業(yè)占整體制造業(yè)產(chǎn)出比重的28%，占電子業(yè)產(chǎn)出比重的76%。

據(jù)估計，新加坡芯片制造商目前的產(chǎn)能利用率平均要比2018年同期水平低出10%～15%。

另外，近日公布的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，新加坡2019年6月出口降至6年新低，主要是因為電子產(chǎn)品出口銳減31.9%，創(chuàng)下當(dāng)?shù)卦撔袠I(yè)10年來最大降幅。

新加坡芯片工業(yè)協(xié)會（SSIA）執(zhí)行董事洪偉生表示：“我們已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)這次低迷與以往不同?！?/p>

該國芯片業(yè)出現(xiàn)這樣低迷的狀態(tài)，與美國頻繁向中國發(fā)難的行為有著直接聯(lián)系。美國芯片較少在本土生產(chǎn)，大部分是由美國設(shè)計并提供先進(jìn)技術(shù)，在世界各地的工廠制造、封測，最后出口給各國企業(yè)。中國就是其中極為重要的進(jìn)口國之一，每年進(jìn)口芯片占據(jù)全球市場份額的50%左右。

美國制定“實體清單”，導(dǎo)致中國市場芯片需求大幅減少。芯片銷售遇冷，使得下游芯片制造企業(yè)受創(chuàng)。在這樣的背景下，新加坡芯片業(yè)出現(xiàn)頹勢是必然的。

芯片制造業(yè)受創(chuàng)的情況并非只在新加坡發(fā)生。事實上，全球的芯片業(yè)都面臨著巨大的挑戰(zhàn)。總部位于新加坡的晶片測試和組裝公司聯(lián)合科技首席執(zhí)行官尼爾遜就表示，全球芯片行業(yè)都正在遭遇困難，但新加坡的問題因租金、薪資及公用事業(yè)等成本偏高而被放大。

市場份額正在重組，危機(jī)可控

荷蘭商業(yè)銀行分析師普拉卡什·薩克帕爾指出，最新的出口數(shù)據(jù)顯示，新加坡電子產(chǎn)品的市場份額正流向其他亞洲國家和地區(qū)，指其表現(xiàn)相對不及中國臺灣、韓國、馬來西亞、菲律賓和泰國。

芯片被譽(yù)為電子產(chǎn)品的“心臟”，承擔(dān)著運(yùn)算和存儲等核心功能，其重要性不言而喻。美國加征關(guān)稅以及制定“實體清單”等行為給整個芯片產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈帶來了沖擊，但是這種沖擊也是有限的，市場正在自發(fā)性調(diào)整自己的生產(chǎn)結(jié)構(gòu)，通過市場份額的重組，穩(wěn)定供需。

不少芯片企業(yè)，特別是代加工企業(yè)已經(jīng)在有計劃地逐步向東南亞某些地區(qū)增加投資。與此同時，中國企業(yè)進(jìn)口也開始調(diào)整結(jié)構(gòu)，加大對除了美國芯片之外的芯片產(chǎn)品的采購。根據(jù)東北財經(jīng)大學(xué)發(fā)布的《中國進(jìn)口路線圖2018》，2018年，中國80%以上的芯片來自于日韓、中國臺灣以及馬來西亞，進(jìn)口總額已經(jīng)高達(dá)1842.5億美元（約合1.29億元人民幣）。

IGSS Ventures創(chuàng)始人兼集團(tuán)首席執(zhí)行官Raj Kumar指出，不穩(wěn)定的全球銷售環(huán)境下，馬來西亞有可能在芯片行業(yè)中發(fā)揮比現(xiàn)在更大的作用。

相對其他東南亞國家，馬來西亞在全球芯片封測市場上一直有其獨特的地位，馬來西亞本身就存在著一些封測廠商，且許多國際大廠包括英特爾、英飛凌、日月光等皆在馬來西亞設(shè)有封測廠。

據(jù)中國海關(guān)統(tǒng)計，2018年中國從馬來西亞進(jìn)口的總額為4170.8億元人民幣，增長13.2%。馬來西亞對中國出口最多的商品為機(jī)電產(chǎn)品，約占出口總額的45%，其中，芯片出口所占比例極高。

隨著市場環(huán)境逐步調(diào)整，新加坡經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展局的林國強(qiáng)也表示，盡管芯片行業(yè)面臨挑戰(zhàn)，但新加坡在該行業(yè)仍具有競爭力并一直在吸引投資。

聯(lián)合科技的尼爾遜則表示，盡管芯片公司削減了開支，但他們?nèi)赃x擇在新加坡投資數(shù)百萬美元來為新客戶和項目提供設(shè)備，其中包括下一代的移動通信5G網(wǎng)絡(luò)?！拔也徽J(rèn)為這一切都很糟糕。隧道的盡頭則是光明?！?/p>

積極謀求“芯”出路，自主創(chuàng)新迎戰(zhàn)危機(jī)

要迎接隧道盡頭的光明，光靠市場的自發(fā)性調(diào)節(jié)是不夠的。一個企業(yè)甚至一個國家，尤其是如同新加坡一樣高度依賴芯片外貿(mào)的國家，不主動謀求“芯”出路，即使現(xiàn)在看到光明，未來依然有被陰霾籠罩的風(fēng)險。

新加坡副總理兼財政部長王瑞杰在接受媒體采訪時表示，要認(rèn)識到長遠(yuǎn)發(fā)展的重要性，科技發(fā)展帶來的機(jī)遇，就像汪洋中指引前路的燈光。

安永新加坡與文萊執(zhí)行合伙人羅錦偉認(rèn)為，要鞏固新加坡的經(jīng)濟(jì)樞紐地位，就要持續(xù)創(chuàng)新并應(yīng)用科技，同時培育具備精深技能的專才。

通過科技研發(fā)，從單純的芯片加工到芯片設(shè)計，從芯片產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈的下游轉(zhuǎn)移到芯片產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈上游，這是芯片企業(yè)謀求長久發(fā)展的必經(jīng)之路。

馬來西亞作為亞洲最重要的芯片出口市場之一，僅次于中國、日本、韓國和新加坡，而在投資方面，該國與其他芯片國家對比鮮明。馬來西亞主要有兩種芯片公司：專用代工廠——根據(jù)客戶要求制定芯片;集成器件制造商——制造和銷售自己的芯片。

馬來西亞在擴(kuò)大芯片代加工業(yè)務(wù)的同時，抓緊芯片技術(shù)開發(fā)和商業(yè)化，有效防止自己在世界貿(mào)易波瀾中處于過分被動的狀態(tài)，尤其是在晶圓制造方面，該國對跨國公司有著不小的吸引力。

美國制定“實體清單”，讓各國企業(yè)都紛紛意識到自主創(chuàng)新的重要性，掌握主動權(quán)，把握自己的命脈，才是迎戰(zhàn)危機(jī)的正確方式。也正是秉持著這種想法，中國企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)換思維，把挑戰(zhàn)視作進(jìn)步的契機(jī)，加快了“中國芯”的研發(fā)腳步。正如華為創(chuàng)始人任正非所說：“越先進(jìn)的產(chǎn)品越不存在死亡的可能”。如今，華為旗下的半導(dǎo)體子公司海思半導(dǎo)體，已經(jīng)實現(xiàn)大量芯片自產(chǎn)化。據(jù)美國國際數(shù)據(jù)公司統(tǒng)計，2019年4～6月華為在中國的智能手機(jī)供貨量創(chuàng)出歷史新高，全球份額也維持在第二位。

不論是順應(yīng)國際分工承包加工環(huán)節(jié)，還是以市場換技術(shù)，都是有道理且符合市場規(guī)律的，但是一個國家的芯片產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展絕不能止步于此，滋生惰性，讓自己處于被動的地位。國際貿(mào)易環(huán)境不穩(wěn)定因素層出不窮，任何人都不可能做到獨善其身，想要站穩(wěn)腳跟，必須轉(zhuǎn)化姿態(tài)，以一流的技術(shù)水平，用實力說話。

·聯(lián)系編輯：874847493@qq.com

Toward Entrepreneurship Education in Indonesia

By Dwitya Kirana Amry

The call to extend the term “entrepreneurship” within Indonesias 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 Indonesians 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. Its 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 universitys 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 students 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