Schools in Singapore

Schools in Singapore


No. This is not a rant about how flawed Singapore's education system is (although it'll make a lengthy albeit biased post). Rather, I've noticed how S'pore government has made schools (exclude those independent ones) a microcosm of S'pore. Let me first explain that I don't have to prove every single aspect is the same but rather only the typical features. However, before I move on to prove my case, I do not intend to criticise, defame any person, union, government throughout the course of this one-sided discussion. And as a mere 17 year old, the way I view things might be narrow and biased, having not been exposed nor having fully comprehended the many things in life. But I maintain my right to expressing my opinions just as anyone can rebut them.

Firstly, let's look at the most obvious similarity: students(school) and residents(S'pore). The student body and residents of Singapore are pretty much the same:

Both are trying to loosen the iron-fisted approach of the authorities by rebelling and wanting to be in control of ourselves. Students want more freedom in expressing themselves and want to bend/break the rules set. One very good example is the modification of school uniform. Schools have laxed on rules regarding uniforms due to the students pushing the boundaries. Similarly, the Singapore population has for ages been appealing for greater freedom of speech and more opposition. This has seen the government giving more leeway towards citizens also.

The influx of foreign talent is also seen at both levels. It is becoming quite often to read of foreign students entering schools and topping the cohort as much as foreigners 'stealing' the jobs of locals. This apparent similarity is put forth even starker when we see students entering schools for exchange programmes which are akin to tourists.

Lastly, student volunteers and workers are of similar attributes. One might argue volunteers and workers are already different in one being paid and having power and the other doing it willingly. A clarification: what I mean by volunteers are actually class leaders, co-curricular activity participants and such(Note: student leadership bodies are not included). So effectively I'm talking about forced volunteerism, a paradox nonetheless. To make an attempt to clarify further, I would include the non-teaching staff in this category also as they effectively have no power but are forced to provide services. Both these groups are regulated and watched by a group which are above them in authority but below the government. Effectively, an individual rebellion will never work but a collective and concerted effort would cripple the whole system as both systems are reliant on these parties to function.

Therefore, I have already proven to you the first stage of microcosm. Next is the formation of a student leadership body(e.g. prefectorial board, student council) versus unions (e.g. NTUC, Teacher's Union etc). Before I draw the comparisons, I have to admit I’m not really sure of the achievements of the unions and most of my comments are purely drawn from people more world-wise than me who are in these unions.

Both student leadership bodies and unions possess a very useful trait for the teaching staff and government respectively, namely control. What do I mean by control? Very simple, students leaders are effective controllers of students and unions possess the ability to control union workers at their whim and fancy. An example would be prefects exerting authority to curb any unruly behaviour just like the union on an unhappy worker. On the other hand, this control can also be to garner or mobilise support in opposition of unhappiness. Having already established that students are a microcosm of S'pore residents, I have proven to you that student leadership bodies are a microcosm of unions as they effectively serve the same purpose.

To further supplement my point, let us compare both the bodies and unions in serving students and workers respectively. The student leadership body rarely is able to make decisions on its own, not to mention promise certain facilities, rights etc. Similarly, unions are unable to be decision-makers. Both are expected to serve interests yet we see they are crippled and unable to make any real change or improvements to those they are supposed to serve. To put this into perspective, let me give you the two corresponding scenarios:

1) If the student body wants an increase in the number of computers in the school, the student leadership body is unable to guarantee success and is only able to fight for it. More often than not, it will not be a success.

2) If workers demand a pay revision, unions are unable to give it to them but only fight for it. Ultimately, it is not within their control to make the change wanted but rather they can only fight for it.

The congruency of these two scenarios already proves the validity of my point on the bodies and unions unable to be decision-makers. Therefore, I have also justified the claim of student leadership bodies being a microcosm of unions.

The last point of comparison is, as you would have guessed it, the teaching staff and the government.

In Singapore, we have a procedural democracy where significant authority remains with the government whilst the people are pretty much reduced to bystanders in policy-making, being unable to stage rallies, protests etc. Schools similarly have a dictatorial feel, with students being unable to speak out and argue for their own case. This restricted freedom tallies in both cases and serves as a good point of reference.

Also, both take a paternalistic approach, believing in making decisions for the benefit of the people even if they are unwelcome. For example, schools’ belief in excelling academically churns out mandatory learning journeys which are, more often than not, not beneficial. Students detest going on such trips but are compelled to if not they face disciplinary actions. Let me draw a parallel with S’pore government’s policy of restriction of freedom of speech. Restricting our freedom to speech curbs the chance of inflaming any racial tensions which might result to riots again. Yet, they fail to recognise that freedom of speech is imperative for an open society which many Singaporeans want. Also, by promoting S’pore so often as a multi-racial, multi-cultural society, isn’t it a direct contradiction if a simple remark may lead to the disintegration of society? Therefore, we see the paternalistic approach is apparent in both government and teaching staff.

In both the cases of the teaching staff and government, we see the approaches taken and the manoeuvrability for freedom are starkly congruent. Even the compositions of both are echoed with a leader and sub-leaders!

What I have shown and proven you is S’pore government making schools the microcosm of Singapore. The parallels drawn have justified categorically my claim. There are even more likewise matters/policies, for example Edusave and CPF. The list of evidence is endless and perhaps we should ponder why things are as such. Is it the government’s way of preparing students for the real world in Singapore?