Better, worse or different? A critique of `Using language policies to highlight and contrast the values that shape multicultural societies: Examples from Singapore and Australia' by Beatrice Boufoy-Bastick (1997).

This paper examines the argument of a previous article published in this journal by Boufoy-Bastick (1997). In that article, Boufoy-Bastick made some comparisons between the language policies of Australia's and Singapore's education systems. The author claimed that Australia's language policies are more egalitarian and promote multiculturalism, whereas Singapore's policies produce only superficial harmony and are, in fact, discriminatory. The present article questions these claims on the grounds that they are either untrue, contradictory or lacking in evidence to substantiate such serious allegations about the educational and social policies of one of Australia's closest neighbours in Asia.

Introduction

In a recent article published in this journal, Boufoy-Bastick (1997) used the language policies of Singapore and Australia to compare the values that are taught to students in these two multicultural societies. Boufoy-Bastick argued that there is a basic conflict between the espoused `meritocratic' education system of Singapore and its entrenched ethnic and gender discrimination in the schools and the military. The author compared Singapore's policies with the Australian `egalitarian education ideology ... [whereby] the main thrust of education has been to give everyone, irrespective of race, class or gender, an equal opportunity--that is, a "fair go"' (p. 70). We believe that both countries espouse educational policies that affirm equality of educational opportunity for all and that Boufoy-Bastick's article is biased against the educational and social policies of Singapore.

The thesis of the critique is that Boufoy-Bastick applied different critical standards to the discussion of Signapore's education system from those she applied to Australia's system. She appeared to be much more critical of the Singapore education system and, indeed, of Singaporean social policies, than she was in her discussion of Australia's multicultural policies and its education system. It is significant that the article's topic concerns language policies in the two countries, because Boufoy-Bastick used emotive language in her article. One paragraph illustrates this point.

   Singapore and Australia both support their multiculturalism by mandating
   the teaching of their ethnic languages and by instituting English as the
   common language. However Singapore's minutely prescribed social control
   restrains the growth of a common culture and permits adherence to only
   limited approved aspects of one's ethnicity. Singapore's multiculturalism
   is, hence, more of an unintegrated permitted multi-ethnicity. The benefits
   to Singapore of maintaining the imperialist English as the first language
   are threefold: It promotes (a) racial harmony, (b) a sense of national
   identity, and (c) economic expansion. (p. 61)

This paragraph is quoted in full because it contains the type of language which is designed to persuade readers that Singapore's social policies on multiracialism compare unfavourably with Australian multiculturalism. And yet it encapsulates in a single paragraph many of the flaws that are repeated throughout the article. The first sentence, for instance, is untrue in that Australia does not mandate the teaching of ethnic languages. Educational policymakers encourage the study of community languages, but there are not enough teachers trained and proficient in the various ethnic languages for these languages to be compulsory. To say that Australia has a policy to achieve bilingualism (pp. 60, 61) is a distortion of the truth. Secondly, the use of emotive terms such as `minutely prescribed social control', `unintegrated permitted multi-ethnicity' and `imperialist English', without citing references to substantiate these claims, is unacceptable in an academic journal article where evidence is normally expected to be drawn upon to justify such statements.

To claim that English is an `imperialist' language is ideological and has at least two meanings. First, it might refer to the colonialist emphasis on teaching English. Prior to Singapore receiving self-government from Britain in 1959, it was British colonial educational policy to subsidise English language schools and at the same time permit separate ethnic schools for Chinese, Malay and Indian children (Kwong, Peck, & Chin, 1997, p. 6). It was this policy which sustained ethnic divisions and led to hostility between groups who had been educated in different languages. In fact, there have been several language policy changes in Singapore since independence in 1965 (Gopinathan, 1994), but English has remained the language of instruction in Singapore's schools, polytechnics and universities. Secondly, the English language may be considered imperialist by Boufoy-Bastik in the sense that it supports a globalised, business-led imperialism (see Connell, 1997). Singapore recognised the fact that English is the international language of business in 1959 with the beginning of self-government, and has used pragmatically the phenomenon of globalisation to provide jobs and a higher standard of living for its people (Sharpe & Gopinathan, 1997).

Singapore has had an independent education-cultural policy since self-government in 1959, making bilingual education compulsory in 1965. As the former Education Minister and present Deputy Prime Minister, Tony Tan (1986) stated:

   Our policy of bilingualism that each child should learn English and his
   mother tongue I regard as a fundamental feature of our education system ...
   Children must learn English so that they will have a window to the
   knowledge, technology and expertise of the modern world. They must know
   their mother tongues to enable them to know what makes us what we are.
   (cited in Kwong, Peck, & Chin, 1997, p. 11)

There is national consensus in Singapore that English should be the lingua franca of business and education, while mother-tongue languages maintain the cultures of its three main groups: Chinese 77 per cent, Malays 14 per cent and Indians 7 per cent (Gopinathan, 1997).

The article contains other errors of omission, as well as errors of commission. For example, Boufoy-Bastick maintained that, in contrast to Singapore, Australian students' tertiary `course selection has been primarily dictated by personal inclinations and not directly by subsequent employment opportunities' (p. 70), ignoring the consistent research finding that Australian tertiary students are primarily motivated by employment opportunities when they select their faculties and courses (Beswick, 1987; Philp, Debus, Veidamanis, & Connell, 1964; Poole, 1987). Why is it that certain universities and faculties have higher entry cut-off points at the end-of-high-school examinations than others? The short answer is that student demand pushes the cut-off mark higher for certain courses. Although the correlation between cut-off mark and status of the professional course is not perfect, it is clearly positive. It is misleading of Boufoy-Bastick to suggest that students are not directly motivated in their choice of tertiary courses by their future employment opportunities. Although she might argue that it is not Australian government policy to direct students into certain courses, nevertheless students themselves are choosing those courses which they believe will maximise their chances of a well-paid career. Student choice is even more restricted in the wake of university cut-backs in science and arts faculities in the past few years.

Three important deficiences

Our major criticism of Boufoy-Bastick's article is that it is biased against the education and social policies of Singapore. It makes many statements that are either untrue, contradictory or unsubstantiated. The following are examples of each of these deficiencies:

Untrue statements

In contrasting the education systems of Singapore and Australia, Boufoy-Bastick states:

   Singaporean elitist education creates a hierarchically organised society
   where all members are assigned a specific role and status--a place for
   everyone, and everyone in their place ... On the other hand, Australian
   egalitarian education creates a more fluid levelling society and fosters
   greater tolerance and understanding of diversity. (p. 72)

In Singapore, as a result of educational development and investment, there has been much greater social mobility over the last three decades than occurred before self-government (Chiew, 1991). Furthermore, the claim that education reforms society has been questioned by many authorities, including Connell (1995) and Young (1989), who consider that education both reflects and reforms societal values. In any case, the statement about Singapore is inconsistent with other statement in the article, such as the following: `Marginson (1993b) maintains that society determines educational provisions principally in terms of economic outcomes. This is more so in Singapore than in Australia' (p. 69). Another example of an untrue statement was discussed on the first page of our critique. Close reading of the Boufoy-Bastick articles reveals other examples of this flaw, one of which is mentioned below.

Contradictory statements

A second example of a contradictory statement occurs when Boufoy-Bastick (1997) states that `the Chinese-run government has instigated meritocratic selection procedures which protect it against having high-ranking Malays in the military' (p. 61). By definition, `meritocratic selection procedures' require selection on merit rather than on ethnicity. The author must be implying that the selection procedures in the Singapore military are not meritocratic, but involve discriminatory practices in order to exclude Malays from being promoted to high-ranking positions. This is clearly a contradictory statement. There is no evidence cited in the article to substantiate such a claim. More seriously, Boufoy-Bastick is again using unture statements in calling the Singapore government `Chinese-run'. There have always been non-Chinese members of the Singapore parliament and cabinet. It is to be expected that a country where 77 per cent of the population are of Chinese ethnic background is represented by a majority of Chinese parliamentarians and ministers. This does not mean that the Singapore government is Chinese-run.

There is no doubt that Singapore's meritocratic policies have tended to favour the Chinese population, whose children regularly outperform their Malay and Indian peers (Gopinathan, 1997b). Merit selection may favour some groups over others for various reasons, including the advantages of family background and parental pressure for educational achievement. The Singapore government is aware of this trend and works through ethnic support groups to encourage all children to achieve to their potential in school, since education is widely accepted as the pathway to better jobs in the labour market (Tan, Gopinathan, & Ho, 1997).

A third example of contradictory statements occurs under the sub-heading `State-controlled individuals'. Singapore is depicted as a society where there is a `lack of compassion associated with valuing the individual' (p. 72). Later in the same paragraph is a proverb, `Confucianism honours deceit' (p. 72), which appears to contradict the leading sentence of that paragraph. At the beginning of the next paragraph, it is asserted that `pity has no place in a society where each one strives to be first and surpass others' (p. 72). These contradictory statements make it difficult for the reader to follow the argument with respect to Singapore society, let alone make comparisons between one society and another.

Unsubstantiated statements

There are numerous examples of unsubstantiated statements in this article, the above-mentioned statement being one example. Another example is the claim that `the resulting linguistic unity ... now makes a considerable contribution to Singapore's superficial harmony and to fostering some Singaporean identity' (p. 61). Such a major claim requires substantiation with research-based references. Where is the evidence that harmony in Singapore is superficial? The race riots which caused much soul-searching occurred more than 30 years ago, in 1964, before Singapore gained its full independence from Britain. In a third example of an unsubstantiated statement, the author states:

   Sponsoring the educational potential of these high achieving students is
   thought to be worthwhile in terms of future economic gains. This selection
   is thus made consistent with the acceptance that the country's financial
   resources are to be disbursed discerningly and not dissipated wastefully on
   low-achieving students. (p.65)

Again this important claim cries out for evidence that the educational provision for high-achieving and low-achieving students is unequal. In fact, when Singapore created streams for weaker students in the early 1980s, special curriculum materials were developed which increased per pupil costs (Yip, Eng, & Yap, 1997).

Another problem with the argument in this article concerns the tendency at several points to argue by way of example in support of an alleged difference between Singapore and Australia. For instance, Boufoy-Bastick claims that Australia is more community oriented than Singapore:

   In illustration, an Australian family that recently lost their home in a
   fire near where I lived were inundated with gifts of furniture, household
   items, alternative accommodation, etc.--all spontaneously organised for
   them by other individuals in the community who could share their pain. (p.
   73)

The problem of argument by analogy is well known to philosophers in that it is invalid to argue from the particular to the general case. We could just as easily relate an example of community orientation in Singapore where an old lady, who had been duped by a conman, received several offers of assistance, including a week's wages from a local taxi driver (Straits Times, 24 September, 1997). These examples prove nothing about the general level of community orientation in either society.

An alternative view

For an alternative view of the role of language in the education system of Singapore, we refer the reader to Gopinathan (1997b). In a 1996 speech delivered at a joint conference of the Singapore Educational Research Association and the Australian Association for Research in Education, Gopinathan maintained that `given the divisions that existed in postwar Singapore, it was inevitable that the school would be chosen as the vehicle for social reconstruction and cohesion' (p. 5). He agreed with Boufoy-Bastick's thesis that English was chosen for the utilitarian reason of its power as `a major economic resource, a source of capital, technology and markets' (p. 4). The Singapore government made English a compulsory school subject from the beginning of primary school in 1965. It became the language of instruction in schools, even though it is a foreign language to most of the population. At the same time, the long-serving Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, recognised the important role of the indigenous languages of Mandarin, Malay and Tamil for teaching children about their `core values'. Gopinathan (1997b) concluded:

   Since 1965 every pupil has had to master two languages and language results
   are crucial for admission to the two universities. In general, Singaporeans
   have managed to cope with bilingualism well. Singapore, in accepting
   English, avoided the strident linguistic nationalism of other ex-colonial
   states, and acknowledged the need to be linked up to the global economic
   grid and be useful to others. (p. 4)

Gopinathan argued that the government had some success in its drive to inculcate core values through the teaching of indigenous languages, as well as in history and civics, to the three main ethnic groups of Chinese, Malay and Indian children. Nevertheless some problems remain, aggravated by the new globalisation trends and Singapore's own regionalisation drive. Despite 30 years of trying to inculcate the values of nationhood, community, family and individual achievement, Gopinathan stated that the Singapore government is still concerned about the `strength of attachment to Singapore that many younger citizens possess' (1997b, p. 7). He predicted further changes in school curricula to rectify this situation. A new curricular initiative, National Education, in which the history and unique cultural values of Singapore are taught in a separate school subject in the primary and secondary schools, was launched early in 1997.

Although there is consensus on many of the points made by both Gopinathon and Boufoy-Bastick about the role of language policy in teaching foreign languages, there is a difference in their belief in equality of educational opportunity in Singapore. Boufoy-Bastick claimed that the best students, as assessed by achievement tests in English and their ethnic language, are given preferential treatment in their choice of studying a third language and are expected to perform at a high level in examinations in this subject. She alleged that Chinese students are favoured over Malay and Indian students in Japanese language courses, because it is assumed that `these students will find little difficulty in exhibiting competent reading and writing skills in Japanese and get high examination results' (p. 66). Furthermore it was stated that `priority is given to furthering the education of males because it is expected that the males will take the leading positions in government, education, business and finance' (p. 66). Boufoy-Bastick claimed that boys are favoured over girls for places in these language courses in high school because of discriminatory values which conflict with the general government policy of meritocratic selection in education. This is yet another example of a serious claim which is lacking in supportive evidence.

Gopinathan is more optimistic than Boufoy-Bastick about the effects of this language policy on the future of Singapore as a multicultural society. Boufoy Bastick (1997) argued that Singapore possesses only `superficial racial harmony' (p. 61), implying that it is not a genuinely multicultural society. She compares Singapore unfavourably with Australia's experience in fostering multiculturalism, an assessment which has been questioned in the past year or so by the debate over Australia's immigration policies and treatment of its indigenous people. Although popular support for Pauline Hanson's views amounted at the height of her popularity to no more than 12% of the Australian people and as low as 4% in late 1997 (Sydney Morning Herald, 17 November 1997), there is a widespread perception in Asia that Australia is no longer as harmonious in its race relations as it was several years ago.

Conclusion

Any comparison between Singapore and Australia needs to go beyond superficial similarities and differences in their espoused multicultural policies. Singapore's geographic, social and cultural situation is very different from that of Australia. Although its former Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, criticised Australia for not maximising its bounty of natural resources, Australia's infrastructure costs are much higher, to service its population which is spread over vast distances when compared with Singapore's relatively small population of 3 million living on a small island of some 600 square kilometres, less than the size of Sydney. The state of Singapore, on the other hand, was born in crisis, following its expulsion from Malaysia in 1965. The composition of the population and inter-ethnic relations under British colonial rule posed many difficulties for the new government. Each country has developed educational policies to suit its geopolitical position in the world. Language policy is one part of those policies. Boufoy-Bastick's assertion that language policy in Singapore has served its economic goals well, but failed its social goals of producing a racially harmonious population requires considerably more evidence than she provided in her article. It is simplistic, as Gopinathan (1997b) points out, to maintain that language policy alone produces certain values in the children who study these languages. The whole school curriculum, including the values taught in the `hidden curriculum', as well as in the explicit curriculum, needs to be examined for such effects. A more balanced treatment of Singapore's education system would have explored how the system reflects and influences national economic, social and cultural policies, rather than arguing that language policies alone have produced a superficially meritocratic society, together with underlying ethnic and gender discrimination,

In conclusion, Boufoy-Bastick (1997) claims that Singapore's education system is discriminatory, in contrast with Australia's `egalitarian' system. Such a serious claim requires a more balanced, consistent and substantiated argument than the one presented in her article. There are so many deficiencies of fact, of logic, and of scholarly standards of substantiation that her claim must be challenged. Many of the statements about Singapore and Australia may turn out to be true, but they remain hypotheses, at best, or stereotypes, at worst, until they are supported by evidence. The historical basis of multiculturalism in the two countries is so different as to render the claim that the educational system of one is discriminatory and the other egalitarian a misleading one.

Keywords

academic standards      comparative education    language planning
bilingual education     equal education           multiculturalism

References

Beswick, D. (1987). Trends in higher education. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.). Australian education. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Boufoy-Bastick, B. (1997). Using language policies to highlight and contrast the values that shape multicultural societies: Examples from Singapore and Australia. Australian Journal of Education, 41 (1), 59--76.

Chiew, S. K. (1991). Social mobility in Singapore. In S. R. Quah, S. K. Chiew, Y. C. Ko, & S. M. Lee (Eds.), Social class in Singapore. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Poverty and education. Haward Educational Review, 64 (2), 126-149.

Connell, R. W. (1997). Schools, markets, justice: Education in a fractured world. Forum of Education, 52 (1), 1-13.

Gopinathan, S. (1994). Language policy changes 1979-1992: Politics and pedagogy. In S. Gopinathan, A. Parker, W. K. Ho, & V. Saravan (Eds.), Language, society and education in Singapore: Issues and trends. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Gopinathan, S. (1997a). Education and development in Singapore. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore, Singapore: Prentice Hall. Gopinathan, S. (1997b). Educational development in Singapore: Connecting the national, regional and the global. Australian Educational Researcher, 24 (1), 1-12.

Kwong, J. Y. S., Peck, E. S., & Chin, J. Y. Y. (1997). 25 years of educational reform. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Philp, H., Debus, R. L., Veidemanis, V., & Connell, W. F. (1964). The university and its community. Sydney: Novak.

Poole, M. E. (1987). Youth in transition. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Australian education. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Sharpe, L. & Gopinathan, S. (1997). Effective island, effective schools: Repair and restructuring in the Singapore school system. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Yip, J. S. K., Eng, S. P., & Yap, J. Y. C. (1997). 25 years of educational reform. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Young, R. E. (1989). A critical theory of education: Habermas and our children's future. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ian D. Smith is an Associate Professor and S. Gopinathan is Professor and Dean in the School of Education, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 469 Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 259756.