According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Singapore’s education system has been ranked consistently at or near the top of most major world education ranking systems. We are among the top three countries in terms of good education system (2014 Global Index of Cognitive Skills and Educational Attainment), among the world’s best school performing systems (McKinsey & Company), and our students are among the top performers in Mathematics and Science for more than a decade (Trends in International Math and Science Study, TIMMS). Since 1965, when independence was thrust upon us, the State has made it their mission to uplift the economy and its peoples’ lives via education. This article will chart the growth of Singapore’s education system since 1965 by highlighting its key milestones based on the three phases of education and its impact on the Malay community, discuss issues and challenges faced by two Malay-Muslim self-help groups; MENDAKI and Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) in their quest to uplift the academic achievements of the community, and lastly, the challenges facing the Malay community in the new education landscape of the 21st century.
Singapore’s school education system is currently ranked third in terms of cognitive skills and educational attainment index based on a report by The Learning Curve published by education firm Pearson. OECD PISA in 2014 ranked Singapore together with South Korea as being the highest in terms of creative problem solving and our students are highly regarded for their ability as quick learners, being highly inquisitive and having the aptitude to solve unstructured problems in an unfamiliar context. There are many factors contributing to the success of our education system. Firstly, the State’s dogged pursuit of an education system that is able to provide human resources to fuel the economy, secondly, seeing education as a leveler and a determinant of success, and lastly, education as an investment in the future of Singapore. The investment has now borne fruit and we will now look at the phases of this development and how it has impacted the Malay community.
There are three phases of education in Singapore. They are namely, the survival-driven education phase, the efficiency-driven education phase, and the ability-driven education phase.
The survival-driven education phase lasted from 1965-1978. During this phase, the aim of education was just to ‘survive’ the initial years of independence. Thus, emphasis was placed on producing trained workers for Singapore’s early industrialization stage of economic development. In this phase, a uniform curriculum was introduced and standardised testing was carried out at all national schools. Bilingualism, together with post-secondary technical and vocational education, was introduced in 1966 to prepare students for the workforce by utilising their linguistic and technical skills.
During this phase, the Malay community had to grapple with the increased importance of the English language, which had overtaken Malay as the language of education and administration. All subjects were taught in English except for the Mother Tongue language subjects. The lack of English language ability disadvantaged the Malays greatly and it impacted their academic performance. There was a lack of concerted effort by the Malay community to address this situation. There were pockets of initiatives organised by small groups representing university undergraduates and welfare organisations but no community-wide movement to solve the problem.
The next phase was called the ‘efficiency’ phase as the system had to be fine-tuned to produce more skilled workers who are effectively bilingual. A study done in 1978 called the Goh Report found the earlier bilingual system to be inefficient and had failed to produce workers who are effectively bilingual. There was a revamp of the education system with the introduction of streaming where students were first assessed based on their ability for languages and mathematics. They are then streamed into different courses at the primary and secondary levels.
In this phase, the Malay community and its leaders sensed the need to have an affirmative action plan for the educational development of the Malays. With support from the government, Mendaki was set up in 1982. This was followed by the setting up of AMP in 1991. Both institutions have education as their core focus; the uplifting of the community via education as their mission.
This phase started from 1997 onwards with the introduction of the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision. Under this vision, various initiatives were rolled out to ensure that students are well-prepared for the knowledge-based economy. Among these initiatives were the National Education and Our Shared Values, the ICT Masterplan (all in 1997), Teach Less, Learn More (2005), Curriculum 2015 (2008), and 21CC (2009).
In this phase, Mendaki and AMP faced the challenge of not only uplifting the Malay community via education, but also to ensure that the community is ready for the 21st century. One-size-fits-all programmes have to give way to more tailored programmes targeting certain groups that need help or assistance. Emphasis should not just be on the product of education, but also the process of it.
Mendaki was set up in 1982 and its main focus was to empower the Malay community through excellence in education. More than 30 years later, Mendaki transformed itself into an icon of success among Singapore’s self-help group institution. From conducting weekend tuition for primary, secondary and pre-university students, it now provides life-long educational training and opportunities with the setting up of Mendaki Sense in 2004. Among its challenges were ensuring the fair distribution of resources to benefit the most needy within the community and to ensure that its programmes are well-run and effective.
AMP was set up in 1991 as a result of the 1st National Convention of Singapore Muslim Professionals, which was held a year earlier. Its ideals were simple, “face the facts, brainstorm for ideas, converge into actionable strategies and work in unison for the betterment of the Singapore Malay/Muslim community.” Twenty-five years on, AMP too has transformed itself not as an anti-thesis to Mendaki, but as an equal partner in delivering ideas and services to the Muslim community. Among its challenges were to ensure that the Malay community produced more graduates and professionals within each family.
Tomlinson (2001) in her book on Differentiated Instructions (DI) indicates that differentiated is not differentiating. In that sense, the approach taken by Mendaki and AMP is one that is differentiated. Both institutions complement each other by coming up with customised programmes to benefit the Malay community.
Mendaki’s programmes cater mainly to the lower 30 percent of the community, helping them to integrate into the knowledge-based economy, whereas AMP targets the upper 30 percent and projects for greater achievement at the professional level. Even though there are programmes that may seem identical, they are not necessarily so as the approach in running them is different. This differentiated approach has served the community well, so far.
There are three main challenges facing the community, namely issues relating to competency, meritocracy and bi-literacy.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has outlined 21st Century Competencies (21CC) in 2009 in preparing our students for the 21st century. There are four traits to be achieved, that of a self-directed learner, an active contributor, a concerned citizen, as well as a confident person. These competencies cannot be learnt by mere rote learning or via tuition schemes. It requires an overhaul of some programmes by Mendaki and AMP. Thus far, there have been initiatives rolled out but there should be more that specifically target the four-mentioned traits.
There have been grumblings about the meritocratic ideal and a need to relook its working definition. Rather than a meritocracy of knowledge, the government is now saying that we need to have a meritocracy of skills. But this over-emphasis on skills at an early age, as some educational experts are saying, is misplaced, as the skills that are required may not yet exist when they are in school. There needs to be some radical thinking by Mendaki and AMP on this issue. Should we adopt a wait-and-see approach or should we embark on our own community initiative?
Then there is the issue of bi-literacy. Lee Kuan Yew once said that a bilingual person has “binocular vision, then you see the world in 3-D”. This is definitely true especially so in a globalised world. The need to have different perspectives and yet, to still be grounded on values and our own culture cannot be emphasized enough. At the moment, Mendaki and AMP are concentrating on core issues of education such as content or subject matters. Not much has been done to look at the cultural and economic capital that the Malay language and culture can bring to the community. With the eminent challenges ahead, going back to basics and rediscovering our strength and nuances may just be the tonic to reinvigorate and revitalise the community to face the challenges of the 21st century. This is even more vital in a student-centred, values-driven education phase that we are going through now.
As the Malay saying goes “sekali air bah, sekali pantai berubah”, the changing educational landscape and the 21st century challenges deem it necessary for the Malay community in general and the self-help groups in particular to relook some of its programmes and initiatives. Mendaki and AMP have to remain relevant and serve the community well. Mendaki has to remain true to its ideals of empowering the disadvantaged through excellence in education, whereas AMP has to “face the facts, brainstorm for ideas, converge into actionable strategies and work in unison for the betterment of the Singapore Malay/Muslim community.” May we succeed in this endeavour together as “bersatu kita teguh, bercerai kita roboh.”
Dr Mohamed Aidil Subhan Mohamed Sulor is currently a lecturer at the National Institute of Education (Singapore). His area of interest is language policy and planning, curriculum and pedagogy, and learning styles and assessment.