The Government seems to be taking one step forward and two steps back on the issue of university education.
During last year’s National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced plans to set up a fourth university in Singapore, targeting 30 per cent of each cohort to enter publicly-funded universities.
However, based on the past week’s news, it appears the Government is now preparing the ground for a possible downgrading of these plans.
More education could mean less growth: Minister
On 11 June, TODAY reported that Singapore Polytechnic had just launched a scholarship programme to groom top students to be future ministers. The report hinted that university degrees may not even be necessary to reach the highest offices in the land. Polytechnic diplomas could suffice.
Later that day, in his first major speech since his appointment, Education Minister Ng Eng Hen told an Australian university alumni gathering that “more education does not necessarily mean more growth”. He cautioned against a “fixation” with numerical targets for undergraduate enrolment, and said that “expanding education thoughtlessly may actually weaken the link with growth”.
This was also reported on by TODAY on June 12th.
The minister then sounded another alarm that increasing university numbers may reduce the overall quality of education. He further warned that universities could drain teachers from secondary schools. (It is puzzling why the minister thinks future universities will be staffed by National Institute of Education graduates, rather than PhD holders.)
Most of Dr Ng’s postulations were quoted from the book, Does Education Matter?: Myths about Education and Economic Growth by Alison Wolf, a professor at King’s College London. The minister’s press secretary pointed this out in a reply to TODAY on 14 June, wherein she accused the paper of “inaccurate and misleading” reporting.
Having read the minister’s entire 18-page speech, I thought there was nothing inaccurate or misleading about the article ran by TODAY. The minister quoted extensively from that book, and spent the next five pages of his speech arguing that more university education may not lead to economic growth, and that our technical institutes (ITEs) and polytechnics are serving our needs wonderfully. It is not unreasonable to assume then that Prof Wolf’s theories lined up with Dr Ng’s own views and, by extension, those of the Government.
Foreign talent and the “flexible labour policy”
The Government has always been unapologetic about its utilitarian approach in moulding the education system to meet market needs. However, foreign employment figures over the past few years point to a failure of the education system in producing the skilled manpower that employers are demanding.
As of December 2006, there were about 83,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in Singapore[i]. The EP is a work pass for foreigners, usually degree holders, whose monthly salary ranges exceeds $2,500. These professionals are commonly referred to as “foreign talent”, who possess the skills and talents that our local graduates lack — or so we are told.
This means that Singapore is short of about 80,000 university graduates to support the economy. It doesn’t make sense for the Government to constantly lament about the shortage of local knowledge workers and import wave after wave of foreign talent, when it can solve this problem by providing more university places and financial support for Singaporeans to complete their higher education.
The Government has explained that it wants to maintain a “flexible labour policy”, which sees it issuing more work passes during boom years, and cutting back during economic downturns.
While that sounds good in theory, the reality on the ground may not be so straightforward. There is no guarantee that during lean years, employers will suddenly awaken to their patriotic duty to retrench only foreigners and retain Singaporeans.
In fact, the additional costs of employing Singaporeans — paying CPF, granting National Service and maternity leave — mean that the pragmatic choice for employers would be to fire the Singaporeans and keep the foreigners when profits are down.
One step forward, two steps back
The Government seems to be taking one step forward and two steps back on the issue of university education. Back in 2003, a committee helmed by Dr Ng himself rejected the idea of setting up a fourth university. Now even with the commitment from the Prime Minister to expand local university places, he seems to be tempering expectations.
The argument that having more universities will lower overall standards is a red herring. No one wants the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and Singapore Management University (SMU) to lower their standards and rankings. There is no reason to expect this to happen if a fourth or fifth university were to be set up. Why can’t each university be the “best in its class”? A culture of excellence is, after all, the Singaporean way.
Even if Singapore were to go into recession, Singaporeans will still be better off as unemployed graduates than as unemployed non-graduates. After all, if graduates can’t find jobs locally, they can more easily seek employment overseas. This is one of the key benefits of making Singaporeans “world ready”, as the Government aims to do.
Political cost of higher education
Why does the Government seem reluctant to drastically expand graduate numbers? Compared to other developed countries, Singapore‘s proportion of graduates is dismal. Only 23 per cent of each cohort in Singapore graduates from university. In Australia, 60 per cent hold degrees. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average is 36 per cent.
Perhaps the Government realises that having “too many” educated citizens may be politically inconvenient, especially if the economy does poorly and graduate unemployment numbers increase. With their stronger ability to articulate grievances, vocal graduates may require our highly-paid ministers to spend much more time thinking of the right way to “fix” them or “buy” them over.
Already, support in Singapore for a more pluralistic government is highest among the educated classes. A post-2006 election survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies found that most Workers’ Party supporters were from the upper-middle and above household income group. A higher proportion of respondents with university qualifications also felt there is a need to reform the election system.
The fourth university: yes but not quite?
We can expect that in the coming months, the Ministry of Education and its “nation-building” press will continue to wax lyrical about how wonderful our ITEs and polytechnics are, and how their graduates find jobs much faster than university graduates. They will sound more warnings about how more graduates could mean poorer overall quality — just like “those other countries”.
Finally, Singaporeans will be informed that the fourth university will be set up as promised, but it will be just a small liberal arts college with a cosy 200 or so students.
Meanwhile, thousands of Singaporeans, desperate for a university education, will continue to flock to overseas universities each year, in pursuit of that degree that they could have obtained at a much lower cost had there been more places in local universities.
More graduates needed for knowledge economy
A fundamental shift in mindsets with respect to university education is needed. Our knowledge economy needs many more graduates, and it will be better to fill the skilled positions with Singaporeans rather than importing more foreign talent.
——————–
Related articles:
· Increasing access to higher education imperative for Singapore
· Education is the best social welfare
————
@lim
>>”If you think being responsible for own education = not empathising with people who are materially less well off. That’s your choice.”
>>
Most of the heartland youths don’t have the financial means “to be responsible for their own education”. In contrast, you have loads of dollars to be “responsible for your own higher education”. Even if you don’t qualify for local universities, your dollar bills permit you to simply go overseas.
“Responsible” lim, please mind the income gap before you lecture. Have a nice day.
@lim
>>It is sad too (at least to me) when a person’s education can be a target of insults.
>>
You mean i insulted you? I am sorry if you think i did. But my opinion to your accusation that i have insulted you can be brilliantly expressed as follows:
“I can say the sky is blue but you can think it is an insult. If you can’t or choose not to understand what I say, that is your choice not my problem.”
Why do you provide answers to your own questions? Have a good day.
lim on June 18th, 2008 4.04 pm
“Some courses in SG unis are catered for o/s people rather than Singaporeans. A prime example is the much vaunted MPP. Don’t expect local unis to be pro-Singaporean or Singaporean-first.”
If the uni is not built up using public funds (singaporean one of course), no cares a hoot lah. But the moment the unis are being built up using public funds, then it should be Singaporean-first. To put it to the extreme, it should only be for Singaporeans only lah. Simple logic or maybe you are not so simple lah.
Why should Singaporeans in general be the ones contributing and see others enjoying the fruits lah. If it is private funds used to built private unis, even the enrolment is 100% foreigners / PR / mickey mouse , it is very fine lah.
Hi Singaporean first
Yes, I agree that SG unis should be Singaporean first which is why I highlighted this. Whilst I agree that courses like the MPP benefits from having foreigners, the number of places for locals is just too few and most are reserved for scholars. And then certain scholarships are reserved for foreigners.
The Government often scratches it head over why people choose to go overseas and this is a prime example.
I don’t have the numbers for courses in general but that is my impression, whether rightly or wrongly.
The point is that when people don’t get a choice, many will leave.
dear lim
>>Yes, I agree that SG unis should be Singaporean first which is why I highlighted this.
>>
Remember what you have said before this?
lim said on June 18th, 2008 4.04 pm:
“Don’t expect local unis to be pro-Singaporean or Singaporean-first.”
Enjoy the experience of self-contradiction. :)
lim on June 19th, 2008 3.03 pm
I appeciate your patience in trying to explain things. I have been brought up to be very pro Singapore (the old fashioned way lah) and that is why I always think that we should have policies that cater to our own Singaporeans first.
Now, certain policies just popped up just like that with our gahmen out of a sudden openly marketing (and giving us their million dollar reason on) the need for it.
Nowsaday, I even question whether my pro Singaporean view is being misplaced guaging from whatever crude feel that I have in the internet – with so called suspected counter insurgents parroting the views of our gahmen. Imagine people who openly support policies which sometimes need to have their pockets burned – who in the right mind (except those in the public sector) will do that.
dear lim
>>lol. What I wish and what I expect are 2 different things. Some people think what they like to think. Its a beautiful blue day today….
>>
Let’s see:
First you expounded that The responsibility for higher education rest with the individual not the government.
Then you said, “Yes, I agree that SG unis should be Singaporean first which is why I highlighted this.”
How on earth can you wish for a “Singaporean-First” policy in higher education when you feel that the responsibility for that lies in the individual and not the Government.?
Comments edited by moderator.
To sum up all your quarrel, Govt and private individuals are both responsible for their higher edu. Govt plays a part by subsidising our tuition fees, and by bringing in foreign students, govt trys to portray spore as an international education hub. You know PAP govt, want face. Everything want number 1, 1st world standard. Resulting our singaporeans students who obtain average results can not enter our local Uni. Actually more than 20% of the seats are given to foreigners according to Mr Leong’s article.
Hi Gary
Actually I do not have a quarrel with anyone. Just because one person here can’t understand my position, choose purposely to misconstrue my position at every opportunity and choose to engage in insults doesn’t mean anything to me. Nothing new.
My stand is that individuals are ultimately responsible for their higher education. I’d like the Gahmen to help as much as they can but I don’t see why I am required to rely on them. If some people cannot understand or accept that, that’s too bad. That’s my position. I don’t expect anyone to agree.
I don’t think there is a human right to higher education (nor do I think that the govt subsidising university tuition fees is a fundamental human right) either. I would like a big house, 6 figure salary too but I don’t expect the govt to give that to me. Some may think isn’t that the govt’s role? It would be nice but its not going to happen. That’s my understanding. I don’t expect anyone to agree either.
People are entitled to put forth alternative views to the above and I respect that.
Thanks & Best Regards
@lim
>>”My stand is that individuals are ultimately responsible for their higher education. I’d like the Gahmen to help as much as they can but I don’t see why I am required to rely on them.”
>>
Of course you don’t need to rely on public subsidies BECAUSE you are so rich that you don’t need a single cent from public funds for your education. But are we talking about you, the rich minority here? We are talking about the majority of heartland young Singaporeans. Without the amount of dollar bills which you can flash around, these less well-off youngsters’ only hope in having a university education lies only in getting a place in the three local universities. Who cares whether a rich kid like you needs to rely on government subsidies? lol
>>I would like a big house, 6 figure salary too but I don’t expect the govt to give that to me.
>>
Building a strawman out of desperation. We don’t want a big house or a 6 figure salary, which are basic necessities for the upper class people like you which we can never afford in our lifetime. What we heartland youths want is that we can get a fair chance in OUR OWN COUNTRY to get into one of the local universities so that we can, in Mr Philip Yeo’s words, earn our basic degrees in order to qualify us in “washing test tubes” Big house and 6 digit salary? No no, we aren’t so demanding and greedy. Is it too much to ask for earning a basic degree so that we can have the chance to be hired as “test-tube washers”?
btw, I took a loan for my education :-) Thanks for your insults.
@lim
Guess what? When you take a loan, YOU ARE TAKING A LOAN TO PAY FOR SUBSIDIZED UNIVERSITY TUITION FEES. Given that you now openly acknowledged that YOU ARE A BENEFICIARY OF PUBLIC SUBSIDIES, the principle of “responsibility for higher education rest with the individual not the government” so forcibly expounded by you earlier on is all but in tatters. By paying subsidized fees with a loan, aren’t YOU RELYING ON THE GOVT TOO?
@lim
“Uh no. I did not attend a local uni although I was offered a place. It took me a number of years to pay off the loan.”
Haha. You know what, then you OUGHT TO PAY THE FULL PRICE FOR THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE OFFERED A PLACE IN A LOCAL UNI BUT YOU CHOSE TO GO OVERSEAS.
By saying that you are taking a loan to go for overseas education, you are trying to tell us that you are not rich, or at least in the upper middle class range? If you are not at least coming from an above average household, you think a bank would be so foolish to give you a loan without collateral or credit-worthy guarantor? WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL?
You think any heartland kid where the household income could be only at 2000 dollars per month can ask the bank to give them a loan for foreign education without collateral or a credit-worthy guarantor? You must be living in your dreams.
That’s why i say you are out of touch. Obviously you are not a heartlander.
@lim
,b>Proposition 1: I’ve got a brain so I don’t need others to think for me.
Proposition 2: Some people can’t think for themselves
Conclusion: Some people don’t have a brain
Still cannot explain why this is not a insinuation of others as “brainless”. I think the REPEATED failure to tackle this IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT by lim settles the issue that these statements are degrading insults hurled at others who disagree with lim.
You have the right to think that any person who goes overseas for an education on a loan is out-of touch and not a heartlander (even if you have no idea when was that). That is your right.
Best Regards
@lim
Why no courage to put those sentences BACK TOGETHER AS THEY HAVE APPEARED IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM IN YOUR POST? Just what exactly are you afraid in putting them together back into the original context if that’s is not meant to be an insult?
@lim
“You have the right to think that any person who goes overseas for an education on a loan is out-of touch and not a heartlander (even if you have no idea when was that).”
The fact that you have the ability to get a loan for overseas education shows that you come from a well-off background. Some banks don’t even have “education loans” for overseas studies and one has to take personal loans charged with interest at prime rate + 1%. Since you are well to do enough to manage a loan, WHO ARE YOU TO PREACH TO THOSE who are financially less fortunate about “the responsibility for higher education rest with the individual not the government.”?
I will say out the three magic words again even if you may not like it:
OUT OF TOUCH
In the end, our G cannot run away from her role of taking money from the rich to help the poor.
Lim,
I do not come from a well-off family. I am using my parent’s retirement – money to fund my education. I have to give tuition to pay my daily expenses. I am not as fortunate as you. However, I am more fortunate then our fellow citizens who cannot afford an access to internet.
I felt that, in Singapore, our G is expecting me to give more than what the country can give to me. You cannot compare Singapore with America. Base on what I was told, people in America, who are willing to serve the army, are given the right to enjoy free university education. (Correct me if I am wrong) Which means please pay up if you don’t intend to serve the nation. This is perfectly fine as people can choose one benefit and forgo the other.
Since, it is an obligation for all Singaporeans to serve the country; Singaporeans should be given a higher chance or at least there must be good reasons on why he or she is unable to get enrolled in. Obviously, the reason should not be FT.
Lim, you would not want to experience what I am experiencing. I will just name a few. Firstly, I am bugged by SAF to go for reservice (for my some of my friends who fail IPPT: IPPT training) for being a private university studying as a full-time student. This means that SAF discriminates local students who take up private studies. Secondly, the library that the private school provides has very limited facilities or place for me to use. Very often, I have to smuggle myself into Ngee Ann Poly or NUS just for a place to read my material or to find other references. Most of the time when I am there, I am quite pissed off. Groups of foreigners are using the facilities (e.g. borrowing of reference books) which I am not allowed to enjoy and what the hell; I am a Singaporean who sacrifices for the nation. Thirdly, I need to travel and without bus concession, I have to pay lot more and so on…. Every time, I remind myself I need to put up with all these inconveniency for another two years and I will be out working and searching for a better place and I feels better.
Last time, I always told myself I must change myself to fit the environment. Since I cannot change the system and had enough with this nonsense, so, this time, I am adding one more line to it. If I find myself being short-changed, I may leave this place for good if an opportunity arises. Some how, action speaks louder than words right?
There was once, during our conversation, a taxi uncle asked me since I know something about economic, why I didn’t join the opposition. I did not reply. I would rather keep myself reasonability low profile and spend more time on other things and this applies to the online discussion. You might feel that I am very stingy. Isn’t this Singapore?
PS. I am sharing my experience and feeling.
“More education could mean less growth” How come education can be linked to growth? I suspect his ability of being a education minister. Is he tagging an economic price to every human who receives education?
Tiredman, you should sleep early and don’t listen to all this ministers talking. If like this, then ” less education could mean more growth” He is trying to do away the 4th Uni. Last week he mentioned ” 4000 spore students go Australia study, u know why, because the UNi places are taken by FT. Making sporeans have no choice, but to go overseas. Let us not listen too much to this new Edu Minister. He can twist his words. Remember what he said in GE 2006.
I think our ministers don’t know what they are talking about, maybe because they’re too old already.
The reason for expansion of education in Singapore is of progressive economic expansion. Singapore a small red dot trying to achieve what other big countries are capable of, and that is suicidal since we eventually will burst like a bubble. Instead of talking so much about economy, govt should focus on helping Singaporeans cope with rising inflation.
“Is he tagging an economic price to every human who receives education?”- Tiredman on June 20th, 2008 12.11 am
I’m of the opinion that the govt has been so obsessed with “economic value/ growth” since independence that other aspects can be sacrificed for the sake of it. While it may have served S’pore well in the past it should be re-looked at now before things become worse…
It’s actually not limited to education policies, this pragmatic mentality pervades most (if not all) of their policies…for better or worse.
“economic value/ growth” – the visible part which can be easily be measure in numbers & figures in which certain groups of people like to show off.
But it always comes with a heavy cost (negative externalities) which may not be easily / directly attributable to the originator of economic growth – e.g in the form of pollution / wastes / social indifference / apathy among one another. It could well be the wrong sets of people who are enjoying the fruits and yet another wrong set of people who are suffering.
Competition among many insignificant small players in order to survive for the saving / benefits of a few major influential few. Everything needs fine balancing orelse it will collapse or burst just like in any bubble.
Hi Tiredman, I empathise with your situation and I do not compare myself with you.
NS obligation difficulties is something that a lot of people can’t appreciate. Its not just the 2 years (in my case 2.5 yrs) but a huge chunk of adult life. The amount of time spent on RT (and now thankfully IPT) is significant when its over 10 years (previously 13) + extra time for some. Just because one happens to be less physically fit than others.
Try competing with women in the work force who don’t have RT, IPT and such NS commitments as a concern. Nowadays, one doesn’t even have a NS bonus anymore. Too bad if you spend 2 extra years.
In some ways, it has ironically gone from skewed against women to skewed against men rather than gender equality in Singapore.
Some people even get the impression that male citizens are treated just like security guards (not that it is a bad profession but hope you get my point).
Its not easy and speaking from experience, there won’t be adequate compensation. That is something I understand.
Gary Teoh,
I read with interest on your comment on June 19th. I have always puzzled by the everchanging education policy for Singaporean children and felt that it was uncalled for them to go through so much changes in primary school. More so, I am puzzled over the everchanging minister of education every now and then. With this everchanging philosophy in education, I have been confused for almost a decade.