MDDI 演講稿 · 2017-08-22
維文部長就智慧國話題接受彭博社面對面採訪實錄
要點
- • 維文談「智慧國」三層目標：①人的生活質量；②企業效能；③機會的分佈。第三層最根本——若數字革命讓中產崗位流失或工資停滯，社會就麻煩了。
- • 類比上一輪工業革命：當年鍍金時代有 Carnegie、Rockefeller；今天數字寡頭是 Gates、Brin、Page、Bezos、Zuckerberg。真正挑戰是「讓技術商品化」——孕育新的中產。
- • 新加坡做法：①5 年 190 億新元 R&D；②基礎設施（光纖到戶、寬頻與移動連線力爭世界第一）；③數字平臺（電子支付、安全數字身份、PKI、國家感測器平臺）；④以「政府採購」（GovTech 24 億新元中 60%+ 給本地 SME）替代「補助專制」（grantocracy）。
- • 數字身份是關鍵缺失項：FAST + PayNow 把轉賬費降為 0；下一步「數字 ID」——讓買車、買房等可以「無紙、無現金、無在場」地數字化完成。
- • 「政府的工作是開啟平臺、讓創新與競爭發生」。「不要責怪貿易、不要打貿易戰、不要試圖把過時崗位『岸內化』——投資基礎設施、投資人民、跟上數字革命。」
完整譯文（繁體中文）
MDDI 英文原文譯文 · 翻譯日期: 2026-05-03
本文已從早期版本的網站遷移過來——格式可能有不一致之處。
點選此處觀看 Bloomberg.com 上的影片
[彭博後續與維文部長的離線訪談實錄如下。]
彭博：能介紹下「智慧國」嗎？未來 1 到 2 年裡有沒有想看到的近期目標？因為眼下有一種緊迫感。
部長：我們可以從三個層面看「智慧國」。第一層是「人的生活質量」；第二層是「企業效能」；第三層是「社會中機會的分佈」。
第一層——便利、安全、可獲取性。事實上——若你做對了——技術會「退到背景中」。比如想想 iPad——孩子能用、長者能用——它是直覺的——這是「設計」。這是一層。
下一層——企業效能。我們的公司是否在產出——具有競爭力且相關——的新產品與新服務？是否更高效？是否能擴張？這其實關乎「資源利用與配置」——以及「企業競爭力」。
但第三、也是更根本的一層——是「機會」。當一個社會未能跟上數字革命時——一個早期訊號——是「中產崗位流失或中產工資停滯」。新的價值創造方式湧現——也有新的「分配價值之果」的方式。你必須徹底重塑工具、提升技能。你也必須確保——「沒有人被甩下」。我之前說過——「年齡太小或太大都不影響學新東西」——這就是為什麼我們投資教育、投資 SkillsFuture。我們對「行業轉型地圖」（Industry Transformation Maps）念念不忘——它是「未來經濟理事會」（由王瑞傑部長主席）的一部分。因為只有當你真正提升了社會的技能——才能把人與正在被創造的新崗位匹配起來。每一次工業革命之初——往往伴隨「不平等加劇」的「鍍金時代」（Gilded Age）。如果你回想上一次工業革命——出現在腦海的名字——Carnegie Mellon、Rockefeller——他們代表鋼鐵、銀行、石油。今天——伴隨「數字寡頭」——你想到的名字是 Gates、Brin、Page、Bezos、Zuckerberg。他們是數字寡頭——因為這是數字革命的早期階段。
真正的挑戰——是把技術「商品化」——讓新的中產興起——使用並享受這項技術的果實——這才是真正的挑戰所在。
彭博：那新加坡如何走到那一步？
部長：對新加坡而言——我們在多個層面同時做。第一——R&D。這就是為什麼我們劃撥 190 億新元——用於未來 5 年的研發。第二——硬體。對我們而言——這一塊差不多完成了——光纖已經到家——若你仔細看「光網路終端」（ONT）——會發現我們其實已經有「兩根光纖」。我們的目標是——在寬頻與移動連線上做世界最佳——這部分幾乎是「容易的」。我們目前在做的另一些事——是數字平臺——電子支付、含生物識別與 PKI（公鑰基礎設施）以支援加密的「安全數字身份」。
我們也在推出「國家感測器平臺」。我之前提過——感測器很便宜——但「融合資料、產生相關且可執行的洞察」——才是挑戰所在。我們希望把這些平臺對私營部門開放——「開放資料、開放平臺、開放 API」。這樣私營部門——能借助這些共享平臺與共享資料——產出新的產品與服務。
最後——我們將以「採購服務」而不是「發補助」的方式——「餵養」私營部門。
舉個例子——GovTech 用於全政府 ICT 招標的 24 億新元預算——60% 以上流向數字領域的本地 SME。這是「從需求側餵養」的例子——「自己吃自家狗糧」——把機會給到自己的初創與企業。我們看到——私營部門能在這些平臺之上——使用共享資料——創造新產品與服務——而政府按定義——要麼不做這些事、要麼做不了像私營部門那樣快、那樣高效。
我們通過「採購他們的產品與服務」來「餵養」他們。這是「需求驅動」的模式。我不相信「補助專制」（grantocracy）。
彭博：你提到了那些「數字寡頭」、還報了那些名字。但如果真的被少數人控制——你怎樣才能幫中產升到那一層？我們是希望造出自己的 Zuckerberg、Bezos——還是利用他們已經造出來的、並幫中產成為其中一部分？
部長：讓我回到「創造一個新數字中產」的想法——通過把工具與技術「商品化、民主化」。再用上一輪工業革命的例子——是「二戰後的《GI 法案》」——讓美國戰爭退伍軍人接受了大眾級大學教育——給了他們教育、培訓與工具去抓住上一波工業革命。這就是為什麼美國中產有了「黃金時代」（Golden Age）——而不是「鍍金時代」（Gilded Age）。「黃金時代」的標誌——是中產興起、工資上升——使用當代的技術。
我們應當瞄準的——是「在數字時代重演這一幕」。所以我衡量成功的指標——是中產。我們在創造新崗位嗎？我們的人民有裝備來抓住這些新崗位嗎？這才是真正的成功指標——不是我們造出多少「數字寡頭」。當然——新加坡有有活力的初創圈——有 6 到 12 個獨角獸（估值 10 億）——若把門檻放低到 5 億到 10 億——我們大概能數出十幾乃至上百個這樣的公司。
擁有這些當然不錯——但這不是「足夠」的成功指標。它「也許」是必要的——否則就完全不在場。但真正重要的——是中產的工作與中產的工資。這是政治的「重心」。
再回到國際層面——「不要責怪貿易、不要發動貿易戰、不要試圖把過時崗位『岸內化』。投資基礎設施、投資人民——跟上數字革命。」
彭博：這就是為什麼你們採用開放平臺——並把支出的一大塊投到 SME 上——因為這是「民主化」與「構建中產」的一部分。
部長：是的——這是「機會」。所以我那「三層分析」很重要。第一是人的福祉、第二是企業效能。但更根本的——是「機會」。當價值鏈已被徹底顛覆——價值的創造方式煥然一新時——政治問題——就是「數字經濟果實的分配」。我相信——政治體系的使命——是把生產工具民主化——並促進這場革命之果更公平的共享。
彭博：所以基本上——你們要看中產如何能從中受益？
部長：是的。關於「我們不能去無現金，因為有些人會覺得不便」——這種紛擾——答案不是「放慢」，而是「加倍下注、跑得更快」。
在這樣做的同時——確保「沒有人被落下」。你跟我說沒智慧手機？我送你一部都比拖慢這場革命便宜。你說目前的公共交通支付不便？我同意你——目前做法的確荒唐。我們要加快這場革命——把它做得如此便利、無痛、透明、無縫——以致反對意見自行消失。這才是我們要做的。所以——你不能慢下來。你必須加速。這基本就是總理那次演講的內容——「加倍下注、加速前進」。
彭博：所以你們會比如把信用卡交易費降下來嗎？
部長：那不是政府要做的。
彭博：不是——但你們可以監管它。
部長：讓我這樣說——我們「逼」銀行造出了 FAST（快速安全轉賬）——又「逼」他們造出了 PayNow。這意味著什麼？意味著今天——我不需要你的銀行賬號——只要你的電話號碼——我就能轉錢。手續費是多少？零。如果我是信用卡公司或電子錢包公司——我會注意這件事。為什麼政府要創造或推動「把交易成本幾乎降為零」的平臺？因為真正的價值——回到經濟中的「價值創造」——不是把每筆交易抽 3% 或 6% 的佣金——而是「潤滑交易」——讓真實的產品與服務以「具競爭力且相關」的方式被產出。這是我們想做的。
如果今天我能免費轉給你——為什麼我要用信用卡付你錢？但若我能在「個人層面」做到——那「小販、零售商、企業」呢？他們是不是也該被允許搭上這個共同基礎設施？
重點是——一旦你創造了這一平臺、並把它開放——我推動的另一件事——是把 API 也開放。請注意王瑞傑部長最近的講話。我們以前在「銀行與非銀行」之間畫了非常明確的界線——但我認為這條線必須降下來——因為技術變了。未來的金融科技提供者——會是銀行、電信、零售商，還是共享經濟公司？答案是——「你不確定」。政府的工作——是開啟平臺、允許創新與競爭發生。讓最終勝者勝出。希望——尤其對欠發達國家——這能真正做到「讓生產者（農民、手工藝人、服務提供者）——以最低交易成本——接入全球市場」。讓全球金融——以「高效、便宜、即時、安全」的方式跨境流動。這就是這些平臺真正允許的。所以重點是——我們正經歷一段大醞釀期——你不應「先驗地」決定哪個物種會成功。
未來成功的公司——可能還沒被髮明。但我們必須把選項保持開放——這樣我們才在場上。所以——這就是哲學。超越「便利」——甚至超越「企業競爭力」（雖然這也重要）——在更深層——是機會、價值創造與分配。
彭博：你願意把「進入門檻」降下來——這是巨大的進步——也是心態的改變。
部長：但我們必須這樣做——因為我開始就說——你看連通性、AI、機器人、基因組學——這是一場革命——它改變我們生活、工作、玩樂、流動、組織、溝通的方式。無論你喜不喜歡——一場革命就在發生。因此——這是值得冒的風險——必須做出投資。如果你目光短淺——你才會去做「責怪貿易」之類的事。
陸路交通管理局（LTA）說 2020 年實現無現金——但說真的——我覺得這件事得更快。為什麼不能？我們如今在「個人層面」已經能即時自由交易——下一步顯然是「零售」。問題是——為什麼要等 3 年？答案是——還少一塊——「數字身份」。即便是幾百塊的交易也能搞。
但我會數字化地買你的車、買你的房嗎？能不能做到「無紙、無現金、無在場」？要做到這一點——缺的就是「數字身份」。如果我們的方案成功——我現在還不準備宣佈細節——我相信我們會有一個非常有意思且前沿的「數字身份」體系——以「生物識別 + PKI」結合的方式實現安全——人人都能用。
彭博：這是政府數字身份嗎？
部長：是的——我們創造平臺——但顯然關鍵是「開放」——讓私營部門能搭上來。想想中國發生的事——比如 Ali Pay——他們試圖用「數字聲譽」搭出一個「偽數字身份」。如果我能給你一個「真正的身份」——由政府做真實驗證、有真實數字簽名、並能用真實加密做安全交易——那會怎樣？我們已經有「身份證」（IC）——你做任何嚴肅交易都需要。但 IC 已是上世紀的東西。即便想想 IC 這件事——更大的問題是——今天我問你——你隨身攜帶最多的、比錢包更不離身的——是哪一件物品？
你的手機。
彭博：在中國——事情一夜之間就發生了。
部長：在中國發生——悖論性地——是因為傳統銀行與金融系統沒那麼便利與可及。數字系統——「跳過」（leapfrog）了那些沒滿足人們需求的舊系統。
在新加坡——我們面對的是相反的問題——我們的金融體系運作良好——監管者也在狀態。但我們也可能因此被「困住」——因為我們「太擅長一個本地最優解」。我們準備要再上一層——因為我們的監管者「懂」——我們準備承擔風險——並準備打破做事情的舊方式。
維文·巴拉克裡什南醫生——「智慧國」倡議主管部長
英文原文
MDDI 官網原始記錄 · 抓取日期: 2026-05-02
This article has been migrated from an earlier version of the site and may display formatting inconsistencies.
Click here to view video from Bloomberg.com
[The transcript of Bloomberg's subsequent offline interview with Minister Vivian Balakrishnan continues below.]
Bloomberg: Can you tell us about Smart Nation? Are there immediate targets over the next 1 to 2 years that you want to see, because there’s a certain urgency to it now?
Minister: We could look at the Smart Nation at three levels. First level is human quality of life; second is enterprise efficacy; third, the distribution of opportunities in society.
The first level – convenience, security, accessibility. In fact, if you do that right, technology recedes into the background. I mean, you think of the iPad, kids can use it, seniors can use it, and it’s intuitive. That’s about design. So that’s one level.
The next level is enterprise efficacy. Are our companies generating new products; new services that are competitive, which are relevant; are they more efficient, are they capable of scaling up? So it’s really about resource utilization and allocation. And enterprise competitiveness.
But the third and more fundamental level is opportunities. One of the early signs that a society is in trouble, not coping with the digital revolution, is when you get loss of middle class jobs or stagnation of middle class wages. There are new ways of generating value, new ways of distributing the fruits of that value created. You need to completely retool and reskill your society. And you got to do it in a way that makes sure that no one is left behind, I made the point that no one is too young or too old to learn new things, and that’s why our investment on education, on SkillsFuture. We are obsessed with Industry Transformation Maps, which is part of Future Economy Council chaired by Minister Heng Swee Keat. Because if you can really up-skill your society, you can match your people with the new jobs that are being created. At the beginning of every industrial revolution, there is often a gilded age with increased inequality. So if you think about the last industrial revolution, the names that come to mind – Carnegie Mellon, Rockefeller – they represent steel, banking and oil. Today, with digital oligarchs, the names you think of are Gates, Brin, Page, Bezos, Zuckerberg. They are the digital oligarchs, because this is the early phase of the digital revolution.
The real challenge is to commoditise the technology so that the new middle class can arise. Using and enjoying the fruits of this technology, that’s really what this challenge should be.
Bloomberg: So how will Singapore get there?
Minister: For Singapore, we’re doing it at several levels. Number 1, R&D. And that’s why for instance, we’ve set aside $19 billion for the next 5 years for research and development. Number 2, hardware. And for us, that’s almost done because we’ve got fibre in every home, if you look carefully at the Optical Network Terminator – we’ve actually got two fibres. We’re aiming to be the best in the world for our broadband and mobile connectivity. That’s almost the easy part. The other things which we’re working on now are digital platforms – e-payments, secure digital ID, with biometric features and PKI (public key infrastructure) to allow encryption.
We are also rolling out the national sensors platform. I mentioned that sensors are cheap, but the ability to fuse the data, to generate relevant and actionable insights – that’s where the challenge is. We want to open these platforms to the private sector. Open data, open platforms and open APIs. So the private sector can generate new products and services using these shared platforms and shared data.
Finally, we’re going to feed the private sector, not by giving grants, but by buying services.
To give you an example, GovTech’s budget of 2.4 billion dollars for whole-of-government ICT tenders – more than 60% of that goes to local SMEs in the digital space. So it’s an example of feeding through the demand side of the equation, “eating your own dog food”, giving opportunities to your own start-ups and enterprises. We see a crucial role for the private sector to ride on the platforms, to use shared data and to create new products and services which Governments by definition, will not be doing or will not be able to do as quickly and efficiently as the private sector.
And we would feed them by buying their products and services. It’s a demand driven model. I don’t believe in a grantocracy.
Bloomberg: You talked about the digital oligarchs, and you know, you cited those names…but how can you help the middle class raise to that level if it’s really controlled by a handful of people? Are we looking to create our own Zuckerberg or Bezos, or are you looking to tap on what they’ve created and help the middle class be part of that?
Minister: I come back to my point about creating a new digital middle class, where we’ve commoditised, democratised the tools and the technology. Again if we use the example of the last industrial revolution, it was the GI Bill after the Second World War, which led to mass college education for American war veterans, which gave them the education, training and tools to take advantage of the last industrial revolution. And that’s why there was a Golden Age for the middle class of America; not a Gilded Age. A Golden Age is when you have a rising middle class with rising wages, using the technologies of the day.
What we should be aiming for is to repeat that for the digital age. So my index of success is the middle class. Are we creating new jobs? And are our people equipped to take those new jobs? That’s the real index of success – it’s not how many more digital oligarchs we create. I mean, yes, of course it’s great that in Singapore we’ve got a vibrant start up scene, it’s great that we’ve got between half a dozen to one dozen unicorns, which means a valuation of 1 billion, and then if you take a lower figure from say, $500 million to $1 billion, I think you’ve probably got 10s or maybe even a 100 of such companies.
So it’s fine that we’ve got all that, but that’s not a sufficient index of success. That’s probably essential to have, because otherwise you’re obviously not in the game at all. But really, it’s about middle class jobs, middle class wages. That’s the political centre of gravity.
And to bring you back to the international level: don’t blame trade, don’t start trade wars, and don’t just try to onshore obsolete job. Invest in infrastructure, invest in your people. Get on with the digital revolution.
Bloomberg: Which is why you’re having open platforms and you’re actually investing a large chunk of the spending on SMEs, because that’s part of the democratisation and creating this middle class.
Minister: Yes, it’s about opportunity. So that’s why that three-level analysis is important. One is human well-being and second is enterprise efficacy. But really the more fundamental thing is opportunity. Now that value chains are completely disrupted, new ways in which value is created and the political problem is the distribution of the fruits of this digital economy. And actually the mission of political systems, I believe, is to democratise the tools of production and to promote a more equitable sharing of the fruits of this revolution.
Bloomberg: So basically you’re going to look at how the middle class can benefit from this?
Minister: Yes. This kerfuffle about how we can’t go cashless because some people might find it inconvenient? The answer is not to go more slowly. The answer in fact, is to double down and go faster.
And while you’re doing that, make sure that no one is left behind. You tell me you don’t have a smartphone? It’s cheaper for me to give you a smart phone than hold back that revolution. You tell me the current payment for public transport is inconvenient? I agree with you. It’s crazy, the way we currently do it. We need to speed up revolution and make it so convenient, so painless, so transparent, so seamless, that the objections disappear. That’s what we need to do, so the thing is, you can’t slow down. You need to speed up. And that’s basically what the PM’s speech was about. Doubling down and speeding up.
Bloomberg: So are you going to bring down, say, transaction fees for credit cards?
Minister: Well, that’s not for Government to do.
Bloomberg: No, but you could regulate it.
Minister: Let me put it this way – We forced the banks to create FAST (Fast and Secure Transfers) and then we forced them to create PayNow. What does this mean? This means today, I don’t need your bank account number. With your phone number I can transfer money. And what’s the transaction fee? Zero. If I was a credit card company or the e-wallet companies, I would be paying attention to this. Why is the Government creating or forcing such platforms which bring transaction costs down to virtually zero? Because the real value comes back to value creation in the economy. It’s not just collecting commission of 3% or 6% on transactions, but on lubricating transactions so that real products and services are generated in a competitive and relevant way. That’s what we’re trying to do.
If today I can transfer to you for free, why should I use a credit card to pay you? But now if I can do it at an individual level, what about hawkers, retailers and enterprises? Should they also be allowed to ride on this common infrastructure?
And the point is, once you’ve created this platform, and you open the platform, the other thing which I’m pushing for is to open up the APIs. And you should notice the recent speech that Minister Heng Swee Keat made. Hitherto we’ve tried to draw a very firm line between banks and non-banks, but I think that line needs to come down, because the technology has changed. So should the fintech provider of the future be a bank, a telco, a retailer or a sharing company? And the answer is, you’re not sure. Government’s job is to open up the platforms, allow innovation and competition to occur. And may the winner succeed. And hopefully, what that really does, if you think especially about less developed countries, you want the producer, whether it’s the farmer, handicraft-maker, the provider of service, to be able to access the global market. You want him or her to be able to collect money or pay money at lowest possible transaction cost. You want global finance, cross border to occur efficiently, cheaply, instantly and securely. That’s what all these platforms actually allow. So the point is, we are living through a period of great ferment, you mustn’t take a priori decision as to which species will succeed.
It’s possible that the company that will succeed may not yet have been invented. But we need to keep options open, then we’re in the game. So that’s really the philosophy. Go beyond just the convenience, go beyond even enterprise competitiveness - although that’s important. At the deeper level - is opportunities, value creation and distribution.
Bloomberg: And the fact that you’re willing to bring down all the barriers of entry is a huge step and change in mind set.
Minister: But we have to do it because again I started off by saying look, you’ve got connectivity, you’ve got AI, you’ve got robotics, you’ve got genomics. This is a revolution. It’s changing the way we live, work, play, mobilise, organise, communicate. Whether you like it or not, there’s a revolution going on. Hence, a risk worth taking, and investments must be made. If you’re short sighted, that’s when you start doing things like blame trade.
Well LTA said go cashless by 2020, but actually, between you and me, I think it needs to be faster than that. Why shouldn’t we? We can now transact freely at individual level instantly. The obvious next step is to move it to retail. The question is, why do we need to wait three years for it? The answer is, there is one missing piece- that’s digital ID. I don’t mind if it’s a few hundred dollars and send to you.
But will I buy a car from you, will I buy a house from you digitally? And can I do that as a paperless, cashless and presence-less transaction? To do that, the missing ingredient is digital ID. If we succeed in our plans – I’m not ready to announce details – I think we’ll have a very interesting and cutting edge digital ID system, which is secure using a combination of biometrics and everyone will have access to PKI infrastructure.
Bloomberg: Is this a Government digital ID?
Minister: Yes, we are creating the platform but obviously the key thing is to open it so the private sector can ride on it. You think of what’s happening in China, with Ali Pay, they are trying to create a pseudo digital ID with a digital reputation. What if I can actually give you a real ID with real verification by government and with real digital signatures and with real encryption to allow secure transactions? We already have ICs (Identity Cards), which you need for any serious transaction. But ICs are so last century. Even if you think about ICs, the larger question is when I ask you today, what is the one item which you always carry with you even more than your wallet?
Your handphone.
Bloomberg: In China, things just happen overnight.
Minister: It happened in China, paradoxically, because the conventional banking and financial system was less convenient and accessible. The digital system leapfrogs over the older systems which were not meeting people’s needs.
In Singapore, we have the opposite problem. Our financial system actually works and the regulators are on top of their game. But we can be trapped because we’re too good at a local optimum. We are prepared to go one up because we have regulators that get it, and we are prepared to take risks and we’re prepared to break the old ways of doing things.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Minister-in-Charge of the Smart Nation Initiative