Thursday, 9 February 2012

Every Singaporean really does count

UPDATED: MOS Wong posted a clarification on his FB page. It addresses the insensitivity of the comments reported by TODAY, although surely the original comment -- presumably accurately reported, since there was no suggestion of a misquote -- still should not have been made in the way it was made. I am not sure that there is any context in which that comment is acceptable. In any case, the FB post is simply an expansion of the same fundamental philosophy that I criticise below. Let's not forget that it is always harder for people to start work and then go back to school (either part-time or full-time), even though life-long learning is now accepted as a necessity.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Singapore has the second freest economy in the world (after Hong Kong). But there is one aspect of Singapore that has always felt to me like a command economy: the way the Government tries to calibrate supply and demand in higher education.

On 8 February, the TODAY newspaper reported that further education was hotly-discussed when Minister of State for Education Mr Lawrence Wong conducted a dialogue with around 100 ITE students. Some ITE students asked about the possibility of increasing the number of polytechnic places available to them after graduating from ITE.

This is what TODAY reported:

“Mr Wong said he understood their aspirations but not everyone would be able to pursue a diploma at a polytechnic immediately after obtaining their Higher NITEC.

This was due to limited places at local polytechnics and employers' demand for ITE graduates. "If everyone can move up, we will not have enough ITE graduates out there in the workforce," he said.

"At the end, it's the number of places we can provide … I don't think we'll be able to satisfy everyone, frankly," he said.”

MOS Wong also warned against a situation of too many degree- and diploma-holders seeking jobs, citing the example of the Singapore embassy in Paris, who had received only applications from degree-holders for a receptionist job. He also went on to explain that ITE was a foundation for polytechnic education, and hence ITE graduates would not be allowed to apply for polytechnic courses unrelated to their areas of study.

As Mr Brown put it on Facebook:

“Translation: “If we allow everyone to be well-educated, who will be the serfs?””

This is the sort of misguided social engineering that leaves a bad taste in many Singaporeans’ mouths. It stems from a fundamentally-misconceived view of higher education as being a means to the end of creating people to fill the jobs out there. And mind you, the sort of logic has been applied in the past, to limit the number of polytechnic graduates who are allowed to pursue undergraduate courses in our universities.

Never mind that the Government has a poor record at central planning with higher education to guide Singaporeans towards, or to deter or exclude Singaporeans from, this or that sector. Witness the shortage of lawyers in recent years. Witness also the angst of biotechnology graduates today, who were induced to enter that course of study by the heavy promotion by the Government, only to find that a basic biotechnology degree was, to paraphrase Mr Philip Yeo, only good enough for washing test-tubes.

Never mind that nowadays, most people view education as being at least as much about self-actualisation. Viewing higher education solely in terms of an assembly line for workers is nothing less than anachronistic.

Never mind that education is almost universally recognized as one of the key drivers of social mobility, and this message tells ITE graduates that they need to look for another way – besides education -- to do better in life.

Never mind that deliberately limiting the number of places available to ITE graduates, effectively imposes an artificial restriction on how far ITE graduates can go in their education. Don’t we pride ourselves in meritocracy? Where is the meritocracy in not allowing those ITE graduates who are good enough for polytechnics, to enter them?

Never mind that an education is meant to equip one for life, while the jobs out there today will not be the jobs available in 10 years’ time. Without giving ITE graduates who want to do so, the opportunity to equip themselves with skills going beyond today’s jobs, the Government may be deliberately disadvantaging ITE graduates for years into the future, if not for life.

Never mind that even if ITE graduates are not allowed to enter polytechnics, many will still pursue part-time private courses at their own expense.

Never mind that a diploma-holder who is good will succeed, while a diploma-holder who is not good will not succeed. And that is regardless of whether or not that diploma-holder entered the polytechnic after graduating from ITE, JC or secondary school.

Never mind that the Paris embassy example cited by MOS Wong is not at all analogous. France is experiencing economic troubles including very high unemployment, which is the more likely reason why degree-holders are applying for the receptionist job. Correlation does not mean causation, and the fact that degree-holders are applying for the receptionist job does not prove that there are too many degree-holders in France.

Never mind that polytechnic courses are varied enough that there will be some, if not many, courses that ITE, JCs and secondary schools do not prepare students for. In which case, why restrict only ITE graduates, but not JC or secondary school graduates, from applying for such courses?

Sorry Mr Wong. It’s not just ITE students who disagree with you. I would hazard that most Singaporeans would also be disappointed with these comments. In our hearts, we want all Singaporeans to have equal opportunities, and to support those Singaporeans in going as far as they can. There actually are Singaporeans who truly believe that every Singaporean really does count.

9 comments:

seochecruz said...

There actually are Singaporeans who truly believe that every Singaporean really does count. - I love the people in singapore, and i believe that this statement are true

Singapore Backpackers

sglee said...

mmm... a different perspective from a 42-yo... though what'd been said isnt music to the ears... would it sound better to have a society where all are degree holders expecting to be paid graduate rates but not doing graduate jobs?

imagine the level of dissatisfaction within such a society...many underemployed (as it is) if not unemployed, and all costs very inflationary since all roles (jobs filled by all workers are graduates) are paid graduate rates...

Until we can reconcile within ourselves that further education is to satisfy personal thirst for knowledge and not treat it as a visa to jobs and self-righteous expectation of a graduate's pay.. I'm personally not for this blind hot pursuit of private education..

Individual expectations must be set right cos money, whether public or private own funds will be spent, and the bottomline is can each individual stomachs no returns for sich investment???

the current scenario in many industries is not short of skill sets but short of CHEAP skill sets, hence the imports of foreign talents which in many cases aren't talents at all....but letting them through the first gateways to potential better future pay while our own folks get displaced...

therefore failing to call a spade spade, we're dodging issues, miscommunicating and not finding proper solutions, hence revisiting them from time to time, generating even more mutual suspicions and dissatisfaction..

one thing to note is whichever certificate you're holding, be it ite, diploma, degree etc...it's not the end of the world... many graduates aren't even practicing what they've studied!!

life is quite dynamic, different situations generate different stimuli to motivate individuals and produce amazingly different results, contrary to expectations... good or bad.. 行行出状元, there's a role for everyone - these are 2 critical concepts everyone should grasp fully and chart their paths accordingly.. those who have tried the full education system paths will be able to appreciate the misalignment and expectations more deeply...

jaylen watkins said...

Very inspiring post. thanks for this.

Best tests

Siew Kum Hong said...

@sglee: There's a lot of truth in what you say. My point ultimately is that people should just be left to choose for themselves and figure it out for themselves -- instead of having the govt try to direct people. That way, we will end up with a more natural and organic equilibrium.

yjsoon said...

Thanks for writing this. For your readers, this MOE parliamentary reply might provide a sense of what goes into planning for higher education progression: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies/2011/11/places-for-programmes-in-publicly-funded-universities.php, especially para 1:

"Each year, MOE works closely with the Ministry of Manpower, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and other economic agencies under the aegis of the National Manpower Council (NMC) to plan the total number and distribution of publicly-funded degree places across broad discipline clusters."

DEN said...

This is really sounding like the novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley written in the 1930s... Every being, an Apha, Beta or a lowly Epsilon- is determined by the State

Serendib said...

IMHO the govt observed the phenomenon of highly-educated, English speaking graduates in developing countries (with low wages) like India, Sri Lanka, Philippines and very close to home, Malaysia. These graduates, especially with technical/professional higher qualifications, made a bee-line for higher-pay and a better life in developed countries. Sg's economic development though depended (and still does) on the availability of skilled but cheap labour. So even in the 1970s the govt throttled the number of university/polytechnic graduates in favour of more skilled labour. The case is the same today where the university graduate numbers are kept lower than they should be - plus the subjects are managed in order to attract big foreign investment.

admin said...

Lawrence Wong's remarks are not taken out of context. This policy is firmly entrenched in Singapore's education system. Read wikileaks on what a MOE officer had said:

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/02/07SINGAPORE394.html

calibration singapore said...


Hi there, awesome site. I thought the topics you posted on were very interesting. I tried

to add your RSS to my feed reader and it a few. take a look at it, hopefully I can add you

and follow...


Calibration Singapore