8810
The perils and pleasures of ‘human capital’ approaches to adult education: the case of Singapore
Roger Boshier, University of British Columbia
Abstract
‘Contextual pragmatism’ and paternalism shape the character of adult education in Singapore which must now help a docile populace become more creative.
Introduction
In Singapore few institutions have received as much sustained attention as education which is seen as a crucial instrument in the pursuit of economic development, social stability and national identity. Education, national service, family planning and the inspired but paternalistic influence of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew have penetrated every aspect of Singaporean society in the recent decades. Unlike situations where education is being ‘retrenched’ or ‘cut’, Singaporeans ascribe considerable significance to it. Even cautious commentators claim that Singapore’s future socio-cultural and linguistic composition, its political orientation, class structure and economic strength will largely be determined by the quality of its education system. Adults, as well as children, are expected to be educated.
Singaporeans are adroit if sometimes ruthless exponents of a human capital approach to education and the government believes an ‘educated’ is a ‘productive’ workforce. Engineers are appointed to head crucial institutions, such as the Vocational and Industrial Training Board, and a dominant metaphor speaks of ‘social engineering’[1]. All political structures, including trade unions, people’s associations, voluntary associations and the armed forces are used to reinforce a Singaporean identity and foster economic development. About 2.6 million people live on this small island and there are scant natural resources. Fresh water comes across the causeway from Malaysia. Because of the lack of natural resources and the omnipresent nature of its Moslem neighbours, the government embarked on ‘human resource development’ in an attempt to become the ‘Switzerland’ of Asia. In some respects Singapore is the ‘learning society’ advocated by Faure[2] but, in other respects, it involves idiosyncratic concepts and processes. The Singaporean approach to education involves a radical, Asian, and some say, paternalistic application of human capital theory. Ironically, its very success now threatens the future.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the context for adult education in Singapore, and show how ‘Asian values’ interact with the ‘psychological legs’ (docility and paternalism) that buttress a remarkable and, in some respects, successful application of human capital theory.
Context
Singapore was founded as a British colony in 1819 and, largely because of its strategic location on the straits of Malacca, grew rapidly and attained considerable wealth and significance. By the turn of the century it was the fulcrum on which British interests in East Asia turned. It had a population with a well developed work ethic, an efficient administration and, even in the early days, a focus on human resource development. British rule ended with the election of Lee’s People’s Action Party in 1959.
The contemporary context for education largely stems from Singapore’s demography, geopolitical position and ideology[3]. Of the approximately 2.6 million people in Singapore the largest group are Chinese and considerable energy has been expended to disabuse visitors and Malay neighbours of the notion that Singapore is a ‘Third China’. Like Canada, Singapore is a multilingual country and the emphasis on English is more a recognition of geopolitical realities than a deference to former colonial masters. Because of its strategic location and dependence on tourists, Singapore is also seen by some to be vulnerable to undesirable western influences and became famous in the 1960s for demanding haircuts for hirsute visitors. Today these influences are combated through relentless programs of mass education, national service and school-based curricula designed to build a Singaporean identity. This is a straight-laced society and when David Bowie performed in the national stadium he was hard-pressed to arouse any kind of enthusiasm or reaction. A ‘politics of survival’ mentality prevails and the rationale for this stems from the fact Singapore is surrounded by populous Moslem countries. The periodic creation of ‘crisis’ and the notion of ‘total defence fuels feelings of vulnerability.
Singapore is a modern, clean and aesthetically appealing city-state just a few degrees from the equator. The Lee government manifests an unparalleled sense of purposiveness and efficiency. According to Gopinathan[4], ‘the single-minded drive to achieve, to go one better, the passion with which the principle of cost effectiveness is pursued are abundantly clear both in national life and education’. Controversial decisions, often involving the banning, censorship or restriction in circulation of foreign publications, or matters relating to priorities associated with family planning, or the allocation of public housing, or the imprisonment without trial of Catholic social workers - alleged Marxists prone to use terms like ‘conscientisation’[5] - are often defended on the grounds that the alternatives constituted a soft option. Thus it is not surprising that perseverance, performance and discipline are highly desirable values and, as a result, the education system is competitive and ‘exam-oriented’. Formal education is highly valued and failure or the inability to secure one of the few places at the National University can incur a stigma and, for some unfortunates, a reason for suicide.
Schooling
PAP leaders used vigour, ingenuity and immense political compromise to shuck off the British and yet the intensely competitive education system retains its ‘colonial’ structure and ethos. It is designed to lessen the effects of inter-ethnic diversity and provide common experiences that will promote a Singaporean identity and build skills, knowledge and values that contribute to national development. After three years of infant education, learners confront the first of the controversial barriers used to ‘stream’ people. At around eight years of age children are streamed into a ‘normal bilingual’, ‘extended bilingual’ or ‘monolingual’ course. Exams are administered to these children and, although lateral transfers are supposed to be possible later in life, this initial streaming has a major and long-term impact on a person’s career with the ‘N’ stream heading to university and the ‘M’ stream to ‘vocational’ (or trades) training. For assessment purposes the Ministry of Education maintains a bank of test items used to stream children. At secondary school the top ten percent of those who passed the primary school leaving exam are enrolled in a ‘special course’ and will sit their ‘O’ level exams after four years. They are effectively bilingual and work in two languages. The ‘express’ course is for those who have ‘done well’[6] and take one language at a ‘first’ level, and another at a ‘second’. The ‘normal’ course is for ‘slower’ pupils and they sit for ‘N’ levels after four years. Pupils in the special, express and fifth year normal courses sit for ‘O’ levels at age t6 or 17 and, if successful; may proceed to a junior college, a pre-university centre, a Polytechnic or courses run by a Vocational and Industrial Training Board. Those who have only attained an ‘N’ level may proceed to the VITB for vocational training. The system is very competitive and, in other socio-cultural settings, authorities would not be comfortable with the loss of face (an important aversive reinforcer) or erosion of self esteem associated with it. The influential Goh Report[7] noted that out of every 1,000 pupils who enter primary school only 94 get into a tertiary institution. According to Chua[8] only eight percent of each cohort survive the examinations and enter university.
The insistence on bilingualism in schools is controversial because, for about 85 percent of pupils, the two school languages are not those used at home. In an exam-oriented system that depends on language, educational ‘success’ is greatly affected. There is significant opposition to streaming at ‘primary three’ but the government insistence on this can be understood when considered in the context of its persistent obsession with genetics and socio-biology. Protests about streaming are seen as protests ‘in principle’[9] which is antithetical to ‘contextual pragmatism’ which, it is claimed, ‘works’. Streaming is alleged to work because it reflects ‘natural intelligence’. Significantly, the study of psychology is not encouraged in Singapore and yet important population, education and other policies are based on it. For example, senior leaders appear to believe that most variance in intelligence is genetically determined and thus early streaming just reflects ‘nature’. As Chua noted, instead of channelling resources to help the disadvantaged, resources are used to enrich those in relatively privileged positions. ‘Instead of attempting some distributive social justice, ‘meritocratic’ inequality is unapologetically accepted as a consequence of ‘nature’’. This process is used to identify the ‘no more than five percent’ that will lead the nation.
Adult and continuing education
‘Continuing education’ has become the umbrella term that encompasses a broad spectrum of ‘training’ and ‘adult education’ activities. A considerable amount of education for adults occurs in non-formal settings such as business and industry, professional associations, statutory boards, the armed forces, hospitals, community organisations and the Extramural Department of the National University. There is a Singapore Polytechnic, largely involved with the training of technologists, the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, which offers diplomas in engineering, business and computer studies, and the Nanyang Technological Institute which offers practice-oriented engineering courses. The annual intake at the National University is around 4,500. Of the approximately 14,500 students enrolled there, about 1,000 are in postgraduate courses[10]. Teachers are trained at an Institute of Education. There is a Singapore Association for Continuing Education which attempts to bring a sense of unity to this diverse field, provides training for its members and exerts considerable influence on the Asian South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education.
An innovative part of the field is the Skills Development Fund derived from a payroll tax and used to subsidise ‘approved’ (i.e. vocationally-oriented) training. But the most outstanding feature of adult education are mass campaigns used to educate, persuade and cajole the populace about spitting, litter, pests, lungs, family planning, drugs, road safety, speaking Mandarin, cancer, leprosy, smoking, courtesy and productivity[11]. Singaporeans have grown nonchalant about campaigns but visitors are struck by their integrated nature. Some of the graphics, such as those used in the recent anti-smoking campaign, are imaginative and entertaining. Campaigns goals are enforced and various father figures hector the populace about undesirable habits.
Contextual pragmatism
When the state manages education, it is inevitably guided by an ideology or philosophy. Some Singaporeans claim their brand of pragmatism does not involve any ideology or philosophy but even this claim is evidence for the existence of ‘contextual pragmatism’ which, combined with paternalism and Chinese tradition, greatly shapes the character of adult education in Singapore.
Chua claims it is necessary to distinguish the ‘operant’ from the ‘utopian’ elements in the pragmatism of Lee’s People’s Action Party. The ‘operants’ concern the elements politicians use to justify day-to-day decisions; the ‘utopian’ elements are the long term goals they seek. In the ‘final’ analysis the PAP wants a democratic society with all the attributes normally associated with it, such as a political culture where people have the freedom to express opinions, and the collective good is balanced with the needs of individuals. Clearly there must be some internal consistency between the utopian and operant elements but Chua claims that, in Singapore, ‘policies ... rationalised on practical grounds turn out to be undemocratic in serious ways’. All elements of life are harnessed to the pursuit of economic growth and ‘instrumental rationality”, the operant arm of contextual pragmatism, has become the dominant ideology. Even the opening of a station on the mass transit system is used to lecture the populace about identity.
Social discipline
The need for a ‘disciplined’ labour force has created a docility that operates in many spheres of social and political life. The ‘first generation’ of PAP leaders see themselves as the custodians of the future and, as such, exert discipline. Although a ‘new generation’ of leaders is being groomed to replace the founding fathers the personality of Lee Kuan Yew is a colossus that straddles the modern history of Singapore[12].
Lee can be genial or autocratic and has little patience with outsiders who pontificate about him or Singapore. He studied law at Cambridge University and has been on a lifelong struggle against the forces of entropy - chaos, slackness, irrationality and death[13]. A dominant and pervasive psychoanalytic metaphor portrays him as ‘father’ who creates and reinforces uncertainty to keep the ‘children’ in line. In general, the children hold the father in a mixture of fear, respect and admiration. Lee metes out strong punishment for ‘disobedience’ and, despite his outstanding achievements, often appears unwilling to trust the children to abide by his wishes. Lee’s treatment of Devan Nair, his former President and friend[14] and his threat to rethink the ‘one man, one vote’ system when the children had the temerity to vote in two opposition members, the way he silenced opposition gadfly, J. Jeyaretnam[15], and his irritation with even the most modest and responsible critics, when coupled with decades of ‘contextual pragmatism’ and a security apparatus that permits arrests without trial, is all echoed in pedagogical practices that, for decades, have reinforced conformity and docility. It has also created a social fabric curiously vulnerable to the predation of religious activists and fundamentalists[16]. Education, even classroom practice, is both shaped by and helps create the socio-political fabric of Singapore.
Lee’s omnipresence, the pervasive paternalism, coupled with the intense competitiveness of the education system and the traditional Chinese respect for the teacher whose authority is rarely challenged, does not create a receptive climate for the adoption of ‘participatory’ or ‘andragogical’ principles of adult education. Ironically, it is the Chinese metaphor of the ‘stuffed duck’ that best summarises the situation although, for some years, the Singapore Institute of Management and the Continuing Education Association have welcomed the use of participatory techniques in their training courses. Despite these exceptions, the BEST (Basic Education for Skills Training) program designed to upgrade workers skills, is largely a teacher-centred process of ‘adult schooling’ and it is one of the flagships in Singapore’s attempt to restructure their economy.
In recent years, some commentators have wondered if a docile populace will be able to take the next steps in economic restructuring. Socio-biology, telecommunications, computers and related ‘high-tech’ fields require imagination, diversity, playfulness and the free exchange of ideas. Thus Lim[17] wrote of the need for a ‘creative’ society, a 1986 report on the economy said future ‘manpower development strategies’ should ‘encourage the development of more creative and flexible skills through broad-based education’, and a plethora of consultants, including Edward De Bono, have been brought in to teach lateral thinking and creativity. But it is difficult to ‘engineer’ creativity particularly when it flies in the face of an entrenched social history.
Singapore represents one of the more spectacular examples of human capital theory used for ‘development’. But the uniqueness of Lee’s experiment, and the frequent recourse to stern lectures, coupled with a faltering birth rate among graduate women, has created a vulnerability which poses a powerful challenge to contextual pragmatism and paternalism. Ironically, the biggest challenge to Lee’s authority, and the overwhelming dominance of the PAP, stems from the success of their education policy. As educational levels increase, so does the impatience with fatherly advice, and the ability to discern real from imagined crises. The post-1959 accomplishments are fundamentally different from the tasks that lie ahead. But in all available futures, adult and continuing education occupy centre stage although props and directions are bound to change as Singaporeans confront the challenge posed by the need for creativity.
[1] Wilson, H.E. (1978). Social engineering in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
[2] Faure, E. Learning to be. Paris: UNESCO, 19