面對全球化趨勢和知型經濟體系的發展，東亞地區政府紛紛進行教育制度的檢討及改革。基礎、高等與持續教育，皆受到改革浪潮的影響。大學教育被視為具策略性的社會投資，其在當代社會的主要誤不局限於創造新知識，並培養高質素的人力資源，有利於持續社會和經濟發展。雖然各地方正處於全球經濟一體化的時代，但由於個別地方的本土政治、社會、經濟、文化及歷史背景不相同，它們對解決教育問題的方案和制定、推行改革政策方面，無可避免地出現差異。本文旨在回顧近年新加孝政府推行大學教育改革的政策，並剖析當地大學教育如何受到「市場化」趨勢的影響，而政府及大學又怎樣回應教育改革的社會需要。新加坡政府透過多項措施，推行大學教育改革，例如檢討大學課程設計及內容、改革大學入學的甄選制度、給予阮校更大財和 行自主權、推動大學制定策略發展計劃、鼓勵大學發展校內教學與研究之質素評鑑機制、協助植地大學與海外世界級高等學府組今合作聯盟關係，甚至開設私立大學引入內部市場競爭。新加坡貫徹「小而強政府」的管治原則，配合市場力量來實踐公營部門，包括大學教育的改革，以求保持「國家力量」，達到「經濟、效益、效率」的改革目標。

Facing the fads of globalization and knowledge-based economy, the education systems in the East Asian region have recently been reviewed and reformed. Perceived as a strategic social investment, the functions of and reformed. Perceived as a strategic social investment, the functions of higher education should not be confined to innovate and apply knowledge but enhance the quality of manpower and motivate sustainable social and economic development. Even in the age of globalization, local responses to educational problems and reform strategies and policies have never been uniform because of divergences between political, social, economic, cultural and historical contexts in different countries. Reviewing the main policy changes for higher education reform adopted by the Singapore Government in recent years, this paper aims to examine the impacts of marketaiztion on the higher education system and the ways that the government and the universities are responding to social demands for reform. Major reform policy initiatives are sevenfold: first, to restructure the curriculum design; second, to revamp the admission system; third, to devolve more financial and managerial power to university administration; fourth, to promote the practices of strategic planning for the universities; fifth, to encourage the development of quality assurance mechanisms on teaching and research sixth, to build up alignments between the local universities with world-class higher education institutions overseas; and finally, to establish a private university in order to stimulate competitions among the universities in a government-made internal or quasi-market. It is argued that Singapore follows suit the principle of small but strong government without losing its capacity for governance. In the context of plumbic sector reform, university education is not immune to the impacts of market forces and marketization so as to achieve the ultimate goals of “economy, effectiveness and efficiency.”