Singapore Best Education System Ranked 79 in Adult Literacy
-
Well, your guesstimate of the pre-independence generation making up the bulk of illiterates is wrong. Singapore Statistics has provided figures for the components of the highest educational attainment with age group. The post-independence generation illiterates (ages 35-44) makes up about 9.7% of the total population of Singapore in the year 2000. While those (post-independence generation) with primary school qualification make up 27.1% of the total population in the year 2000.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/higheredu.html
Please look at the table again.
Look at the the year 1990. In 1990 about 50% of the people whose age is 45-54 (that means these group of people are of age 55 to 64 in 2000) are without education.
Lets consider that that the pre independence generation would be above the age of 56 (considering them 5 years and above after 1957). We see that just between the age of 55 to 64, half of them are without education. Looking at how the figure for people without education rise up as age increase, the figure will be higher for those that are 64 years old and above.
It clearly shows that the pre-independence group of people are significantly higher in terms of no education (49.7% for those 55 to 64 years old as compare to 19.8 for those 45-54 ) and thus brought forward my theory that they the pre independence people (56 years old and above) may form the bulk of the illiterates.
Not only that, those figures shows that the proportion of educated individual increase as the age group lowers. It means that more of the population had at least basic education after independence. Since the figures are of percentage, it has nothing to do to population growth and whatsoever.
Why the percentage of educated individual in the population group grew exponentially after independence? Isnt it because the post independence govt place much more importance than the pre independence govt in the establishment of education?
An elder's view on this matter about the lack of british support for education during colonial days.
A blog entry by the late Dr Lee Kum Tatt:
Education Policy in Singapore during the colonial era
'''There was no education policy for development in Singapore and Malaya during my grandparents’, parents’ and my own early days. British policies during the colonial period in Singapore and Malaya were meant primarily to serve British interest. The demand for education was not widespread because of the cost which the poor could not afford. Parents prefer that their children work to supplement household income or do household chores, especially the girls. Still the supply did not meet the demand for more education. Under these conditions voluntarism had been an integral feature of British colonial education policy. The colonial government only set up a few primary and secondary schools for those who could afford or some, like my parents, who were prepared to make personal sacrifices for their children’s education.'''http://leekumtatt.blogspot.com/2007/09/education-in-singapore.html
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Yes the British administration is different from the MOE's style; therefore doesn't this prove that the British Education system is far superior to MOE education system. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are quite similar, Singapore adopted MOE system whereas Hong Kong stayed they course with the British system till 1997. Hong Kong ended up with higher adult literacy rate than Singapore.U misinterpreted my point again.
What i meant was that the british administration in Singapore is different if u want to compare it with the british administration in Hong Kong. There is no common ground to compare.
Singapore and Hong Kong are like cousins. We were under the same colonial surname (sharing the same grandparents) but taken care by different parents in our different family.
I have a article here by Ting Wong Hong. She unfortunately did not put up references but the article is nevertheless good enough for a read.
"''In Singapore, the British were forced to follow an oppressive approach. This is because Singapore is a multi-ethnic society, and pressures from the Malays, another powerful group in the local setting who had a rivalry relation with the Chinese, hindered the British from being concessionary in Chinese school policy. In sharp contrast, in Hong Kong—a mono-ethnic Chinese society—the colonial regime, not under compulsion from other ethnic group, was more accommodating when dealing with Chinese schools.""
www.historyofeducation.org.uk/Wong.doc
It shows that she too believe that the administration of the 2 island is different.
Considering that 2 different governors were place in the 2 lands supported by 2 different group of staffs, the administration of Singapore is different from that of Hong kong.
-
deleted
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
It clearly shows that the curiculum alone cant do much impact without strengtening social values. In my opinion moral education is running up a steep slope in Singapore due to the erosion of social values.And if our syllabus is flawed due to the occurence of kids scolding their parents, then the british civic education system that u pointed out must be flawed too, they have their own share of problems which sure include petty things like ignoring their grandparents.
just a link to demostrate the above point
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/759276.stm
I like to ask which society doesnt have it's fair share of maid beating, rape, lack of filial piety and even treason? So i think it's wrong for u to conveniently label the syllabus just because we have some of the unfortunate occurence.
Curriculum can't make impact unless social values are strengtened? In case you still can't grasp the idea, a school child's main source of influence are his school mates. They don't have many other sources of external influence. Almost 50% (8-9 hours) of their waking hours are spent in schools. How else do you suggest you change social values, other than to start them when they are young. It's harder to change values in adults because their values are already etched into their mind.
Your points only seek to discredit the UK system, if their system has flaws, that doesn't mean our system of education surpassed them. The link you posted is also a moot point, there are people two sides in the argument, hardly conclusive. There must be distinction in your comparison between morality between the general population and morality between specific criminals. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Please look at the table again.
Look at the the year 1990. In 1990 about 50% of the people whose age is 45-54 (that means these group of people are of age 55 to 64 in 2000) are without education.
Lets consider that that the pre independence generation would be above the age of 56 (considering them 5 years and above after 1957). We see that just between the age of 55 to 64, half of them are without education. Looking at how the figure for people without education rise up as age increase, the figure will be higher for those that are 64 years old and above.
It clearly shows that the pre-independence group of people are significantly higher in terms of no education (49.7% for those 55 to 64 years old as compare to 19.8 for those 45-54 ) and thus brought forward my theory that they the pre independence people (56 years old and above) may form the bulk of the illiterates.
Not only that, those figures shows that the proportion of educated individual increase as the age group lowers. It means that more of the population had at least basic education after independence. Since the figures are of percentage, it has nothing to do to population growth and whatsoever.
Why the percentage of educated individual in the population group grew exponentially after independence? Isnt it because the post independence govt place much more importance than the pre independence govt in the establishment of education?
An elder's view on this matter about the lack of british support for education during colonial days.
A blog entry by the late Dr Lee Kum Tatt:
Education Policy in Singapore during the colonial era
'''There was no education policy for development in Singapore and Malaya during my grandparents’, parents’ and my own early days. British policies during the colonial period in Singapore and Malaya were meant primarily to serve British interest. The demand for education was not widespread because of the cost which the poor could not afford. Parents prefer that their children work to supplement household income or do household chores, especially the girls. Still the supply did not meet the demand for more education. Under these conditions voluntarism had been an integral feature of British colonial education policy. The colonial government only set up a few primary and secondary schools for those who could afford or some, like my parents, who were prepared to make personal sacrifices for their children’s education.'''http://leekumtatt.blogspot.com/2007/09/education-in-singapore.html
You lack analytical skills in your understanding of the statistics. I also notice you have a knack for posting irrelevant articles that makes no supportive claim to your arguments.
In year 2000, the percentage of adults with no qualification after P4P gain power. Singapore gained self government under the P4P government in 1959, they have the right to enforce policies except military (which was still under the jurisdiction of the UK government).
The figures below are the perentages of age groups with no qualification after P4P gain parliamentary power and self governnance.
25-34 y.o.-----4.3%
35-44 y.o.-----9.7%
45-49 y.o.-----9.9% (In 1960, those born in 1950 will be 10 y.o. primary 3-4) {approx}
Shocking isn't it, MOE's system resulted in 10% of the population in 2 age groups without qualification. Maybe it's the result of teachers and principals, convincing the students to quit because they can't make the grades and might cause school averages to drop.
More interestingly, why is there a 4.3% of 25-34 y.o. without basic education.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
U misinterpreted my point again.
What i meant was that the british administration in Singapore is different if u want to compare it with the british administration in Hong Kong. There is no common ground to compare.
Singapore and Hong Kong are like cousins. We were under the same colonial surname (sharing the same grandparents) but taken care by different parents in our different family.
I have a article here by Ting Wong Hong. She unfortunately did not put up references but the article is nevertheless good enough for a read.
"''In Singapore, the British were forced to follow an oppressive approach. This is because Singapore is a multi-ethnic society, and pressures from the Malays, another powerful group in the local setting who had a rivalry relation with the Chinese, hindered the British from being concessionary in Chinese school policy. In sharp contrast, in Hong Kong—a mono-ethnic Chinese society—the colonial regime, not under compulsion from other ethnic group, was more accommodating when dealing with Chinese schools.""
www.historyofeducation.org.uk/Wong.doc
It shows that she too believe that the administration of the 2 island is different.
Considering that 2 different governors were place in the 2 lands supported by 2 different group of staffs, the administration of Singapore is different from that of Hong kong.
Two system might be different, but it doesn't mean no comparison can be made; we are comparing the product (resultant) of the 2 system. Although a Mazda RX-8 and a Porsche 911 Carrera run on different types of engine, but we can make comparisons in handling, top speed, fuel consumption and century dash. I don't know the kind of education system you go through that forbids comparision between 2 different system.Gosh! With your kind of logic, we probably can't compare lots of other things. We probably can't compare GDP per capita between Switzerland and Singapore, because both have different system of governance. We probably can't compare the different level of creativity between Japanese students and Singapore students, because they have different education system. What's the point of all those Maths Olympiad? Don't they know that we can't compare the knowledge of these students in the many different system.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
You lack analytical skills in your understanding of the statistics.
In year 2000, the percentage of adults with no qualification after P4P gain power. Singapore gained self government under the P4P government in 1959, they have the right to enforce policies except military (which was still under the jurisdiction of the UK government).
The figures below are the perentages of age groups with no qualification after P4P gain parliamentary power and self governnance.
25-34 y.o.-----4.3%
35-44 y.o.-----9.7%
45-49 y.o.-----9.9% (In 1960, those born in 1950 will be 10 y.o. primary 3-4) {approx}
Shocking isn't it, MOE's system resulted in 10% of the population in 2 age groups without qualification.
Ur analytical skills marred by biasness is truely laughable.
The table had shown the very significant. 49.7% for those 55 to 64 years old are without education (and mind u that this generation of people belong to the days of our colonial government). MOE came in 1957 and did a brilliant job reducing the amount to just 10% as evident in the population of those 45-49.
Their ability to reduce the number of people without education from 50% to 10% in 8 years time (considering those 49 years old were 5 years old at that time from 1957 - the birth of MOE) is shockingly remarkable.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Gosh! With your kind of logic, we probably can't compare lots of other things. We probably can't compare GDP per capita between Switzerland and Singapore, because both have different system of governance. We probably can't compare the different level of creativity between Japanese students and Singapore students, because they have different education system. What's the point of all those Maths Olympiad? Don't they know that we can't compare the knowledge of these students in the many different system.
U can compare the systems of course but it depends on what are u comparing and what are u expecting.Ur comparison has flaws because u made alot of assumptions.
U assumed that the british administration in Singapore and that of Hongkong is similar and thus the british system must be successful in Singapore as it is in Hongkong.
The very fact that the British administration is different shows that u cant take the result of hong kong and place a hypothetical result to Singapore.
I have shown u proof that despite the success of hongkong education system, the British had did little to promote education in Singapore. For that very fact, i have shown that it is stupid to compare the 2 systems that is different.
Since they did little to promote education in Singapore why are u looking so highly of the british administation in Singapore just because u compare to hongkong and hongkong is incidentally successful? Can u compare the british resolution to defend britain to their resolution to defend Singapore?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Your points only seek to discredit the UK system, if their system has flaws, that doesn't mean our system of education surpassed them. The link you posted is also a moot point, there are people two sides in the argument, hardly conclusive. There must be distinction in your comparison between morality between the general population and morality between specific criminals.
Stop misreading my words. I didnt say that our system surpass them neither did i discredit the UK System.All i meant with so much proof is that the British Colonial Administration did little to promote education during their time. If they will to continue with their administration of similar policies in Singapore, our educated population may be lesser than what MOE can produce.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Ur analytical marred by biasness is truely laughable.
The table had shown the very significant. 49.7% for those 55 to 64 years old are without education (and mind u that this generation of people belong to the days of our colonial government). MOE came in 1957 and did a brilliant job reducing the amount to just 10% as evident in the population of those 45-49.
Their ability to reduce the number of people without education from 50% to 10% in 8 years time (considering those 49 years old were 5 years old at that time from 1957 - the birth of MOE) is shockingly remarkable.
Bias? Please explain yourself.
49.7% of the 55-64 y.o.? You conclude yourself from your own study? 49.7% in 1990 doesn't equate to 49.7% in 2000. It's also natural for the size of the educated to increase due to economic prosperity, it would be a sad day for Singaporeans if our uneducated are still in the 49.7% range of the 1940s to 1950s. In the early years, people use bullock carts to transport goods, I wonder if they still do it these days.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
U can compare the systems of course but it depends on what are u comparing and what are u expecting.To say that the british administration in Singapore and that of Hongkong is similar and thus the british system must be successful in Singapore as it is in Hongkong is wrong. To do so, u assumed that the administration is similar in Singapore as it is in Hongkong, the very fact that the British administration is different shows that u cant take the result of hong kong and place a hypothetical result to Singapore.
I have shown u proof that despite the success of hongkong education system, the British had did little to promote education in Singapore. For that very fact, i have shown that it is stupid to compare the 2 systems that is different.
Since they did little to promote education in Singapore why are u looking so highly of the british administation in Singapore just because u compare to hongkong and hongkong is incidentally successful? Can u compare the british resolution to defend britain to their resolution to defend Singapore?
We are comparing results from education system, not comparing systems. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Stop misreading my words. I didnt say that our system surpass them neither did i discredit the UK System.All i meant with so much proof is that the British Colonial Administration did little to promote education during their time. If they will to continue with their administration of similar policies in Singapore, our educated population may be lesser than what MOE can produce.
Huh?And if our syllabus is flawed due to the occurence of kids scolding their parents, then the british civic education system that u pointed out must be flawed too, they have their own share of problems which sure include petty things like ignoring their grandparents.
just a link to demostrate the above point
British Colonial Administration did little to promote education in Singapore as compared to another country? In the 1950s, the British Colonial Administration had their minds on other subversive activities promulgated by Lee and his allies. I think they have dire things to worry about than to promote education.
The other pre 1950s (55-64 y.o.) that you mentioned are probably the illiterate immigrants from China, those that were made citizens other than by birth in Singapore.
This exclusion of immigrants and those not educated in English meant that, in the late 1940s, about one-half of Singapore's adult population was disenfranchised.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Bias? Please explain yourself.
49.7% of the 55-64 y.o.? You conclude yourself from your own study? 49.7% in 1990 doesn't equate to 49.7% in 2000. It's also natural for the size of the educated to increase due to economic prosperity, it would be a sad day for Singaporeans if our uneducated are still in the 49.7% range of the 1940s to 1950s. In the early years, people use bullock carts to transport goods, I wonder if they still do it these days.
Ur disability to read the chart is truely amazing.
Look at the chart again.
without education
12.2% those 25 - 24 yo in 1990
transformed to
9.7% those (same group of 25 - 24 yo in 1990) but 35 to 44 in 2000
23.9% those 35 to 44 in 1990
transformed to
19.8% those (same group of 35 to 44 in 1990) 45 to 54 in 2000
As u can see, the difference within the same group of people over time had changed about 4%. Go compare with other figures within the same chart, the largest difference within the same group over time is just 6%. Considering that there are bound to be some discrepancies in collection of data, a change of 4% of the same group of people shows that there are little change in education in that group.
From examining the above pattern of change, 49.7% in 1990 does equate to 49.7% for the same group of people in 2000 with probably a small change in %.
Even if we will to consider a small change of a high inflated limit of 10% that means from 50% we reduce to 40%. To reduce the amount of uneducated people from 40% to 20% by the MOE to a 2 groups of people (45-54 compare to 55-64) 10 years apart is remarkable.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
We are comparing results from education system, not comparing systems.
Exactly !U said that Singapore may be better off without independence but whats the point of comparing the education system when the british political system is seemingly unwilling to enforce the education system in Singapore?
Whats the point of boasting about UK military supremacy when they are unwilling to send reinforcement to Singapore during ww2? Useless to talk about education system when u disregard the political system.
While im not trying to prove that the Singapore education system is better, i know for sure the political effort to promote education in Singapore by PAP is stronger than our colonial leaders.
-
An interesting finding for all on some mistakes.
It seems like the british colonial leaders started their major education policy reform only after world war 2 in 1946 with a 10 year education programme. Considering that Singapore gain full internal independence in 1959, the drop in 50% to 30% is not entirely the work of MOE as believed by me. Got to give the british some credit in their policy reform in 1946 but some credit to MOE too as the age of the median portion in the group of 45-54 yo in 1959 (2 years from MOE birth) is 9 years old.
As MOE under PAP started after 1959, i wont give all credit to the PAP leadership also.
But if we look further into the chart, a drop from 19.8 % those without education in the 45-54 yo group to 9.7% in 35-44 yo group and the drop from 9.7% to 4.3% subsequent for the next 10 year is probably the work of MOE under PAP entirely.
The initial 60% drop of 50% to 30% of the population by the combined effort of the british and the local independent government is good. Remarkable it is but it is a startup figure in which large changes after a vacuum are expected. The subsequent 50% drop from 19.8 % to 9.7% in the next ten years followed up a consistent 50% drop from 9.7% to 4.3% in the next ten years after is remarkable for a single government.
-
Why the bulk of illiterates in Singapore could be from the generation under the british rule?
According to wiki, 7.5% of our population are illiterates. That translate to 225000 people.
According to our statistics, there are 305500 pple above 65 years old.
Considering that sources available out there suggested that education policy was extremely poor to the extend of 'minimal'. 305500 people alive today lived their youth during the time with minimal emphasis on education.
If we will to say that a good proportion of that 305500 people are illiterates, they will form the bulk of the 225000 illiterates in our country today. I have no proof on that, but it is a possibility after looking at the above findings.
It is strange to blame the PAP government for the amount of illiterates despite extensive effort to improve education in Singapore while keeping a blind eye to the lack of british support before 1946.
Throughout the nineteenth century, the British colonial authorities’ involvement in educational
provision was minimal. Apart from providing free primary education for a few years in
the Malay language for a small number of ethnic Malays, the authorities accepted no
responsibility for providing English-medium, Chinese-medium or Tamil-medium education
at the primary or secondary levels.....
The system of education in the ® rst four decades of the twentieth century continued to
be characterised by `the absence of a single, clearly enunciated, guiding policy’ (Wilson,
1978, p. 29). No attempts were made to articulate a common set of goals towards which all
schools should strive.
http://webdrive.service.emory.edu/users/talviar/HKSingColonialTransition.pdf
Education Policy in Singapore during the colonial era
'''There was no education policy for development in Singapore and Malaya during my grandparents’, parents’ and my own early days. British policies during the colonial period in Singapore and Malaya were meant primarily to serve British interest. The demand for education was not widespread because of the cost which the poor could not afford. Parents prefer that their children work to supplement household income or do household chores, especially the girls. Still the supply did not meet the demand for more education. Under these conditions voluntarism had been an integral feature of British colonial education policy. The colonial government only set up a few primary and secondary schools for those who could afford or some, like my parents, who were prepared to make personal sacrifices for their children’s education.'''http://leekumtatt.blogspot.com/2007/09/education-in-singapore.html
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Ur disability to read the chart is truely amazing.
Look at the chart again.
without education
12.2% those 25 - 24 yo in 1990
transformed to
9.7% those (same group of 25 - 24 yo in 1990) but 35 to 44 in 2000
23.9% those 35 to 44 in 1990
transformed to
19.8% those (same group of 35 to 44 in 1990) 45 to 54 in 2000
As u can see, the difference within the same group of people over time had changed about 4%. Go compare with other figures within the same chart, the largest difference within the same group over time is just 6%. Considering that there are bound to be some discrepancies in collection of data, a change of 4% of the same group of people shows that there are little change in education in that group.
From examining the above pattern of change, 49.7% in 1990 does equate to 49.7% for the same group of people in 2000 with probably a small change in %.
Even if we will to consider a small change of a high inflated limit of 10% that means from 50% we reduce to 40%. To reduce the amount of uneducated people from 40% to 20% by the MOE to a 2 groups of people (45-54 compare to 55-64) 10 years apart is remarkable.
4%?
12.2% - 9.7% = 2.5%
23.9% - 19.8% = 4.1%
You sure you passed PSLE maths?
So in 1990, 49.7% will equate to 49.7% in year 2000 within the same group?
What statistical methods did you used to infer that?
Like I told you before, those pre 1950s (49.7%) majority are the immigrant generations from China & India, looking for work in Singapore, not those of citizens by birth.
This exclusion of immigrants and those not educated in English meant that, in the late 1940s, about one-half of Singapore's adult population was disenfranchised.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Exactly !U said that Singapore may be better off without independence but whats the point of comparing the education system when the british political system is seemingly unwilling to enforce the education system in Singapore?
Whats the point of boasting about UK military supremacy when they are unwilling to send reinforcement to Singapore during ww2? Useless to talk about education system when u disregard the political system.
While im not trying to prove that the Singapore education system is better, i know for sure the political effort to promote education in Singapore by PAP is stronger than our colonial leaders.
Any proof that the "British political system is seemingly unwilling to enforce the education system in Singapore"?
Are you that ill informed, the British during World War 2 had to contend with the invading forces from Germany, it's not as if they are sitting idly by watching their British colony being invaded by the Japanese. So now you want to compare political systems? What's your logic for bringing in political system? Care to elaborate.
Any proof for the last statement? You did a study on both education system then and now?
-
Btw according to Hongkong official statistics, their literacy rate is 94.5%. Calculated from the fact that 5.5% of the population has no education or pre primary schooling education.
http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=6504
According to our statistics, our literacy rate is 95.7%.
I dont know where does wikipedia got their stats but it seems like based on official statistics, our literacy rate is higher for those 15 years and above in 2007.
Very simply put. This topic is stupid and pointless cos
- There is a difference between the official stats and wiki stats.
- Wiki stats are without reference.
Therefore there is no basis to compare and rank our system or unless the TS wanna go dig our official stats from different countries then rank them or get a list of ranking from a reputable source.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
4%?
12.2% - 9.7% = 2.5%
23.9% - 19.8% = 4.1%
You sure you passed PSLE maths?
So in 1990, 49.7% will equate to 49.7% in year 2000 within the same group?
What statistical methods did you used to infer that?
Like I told you before, those pre 1950s (49.7%) majority are the immigrant generations from China & India, looking for work in Singapore, not those of citizens by birth.
Cant u see I took 4% cos it is the larger difference?(taking the smaller difference will prove even more of my point!) Rounding it off from 4.1 as much as u rounded 9.9 to 10 in ur above post. U failed ur maths?What statistical methods i used to infer that? Please look at my above post very carefully.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Any proof that the "British political system is seemingly unwilling to enforce the education system in Singapore"?
U are blind. -
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
An interesting finding for all on some mistakes.
It seems like the british colonial leaders started their major education policy reform only after world war 2 in 1946 with a 10 year education programme. Considering that Singapore gain full internal independence in 1959, the drop in 50% to 30% is not entirely the work of MOE as believed by me. Got to give the british some credit in their policy reform in 1946 but some credit to MOE too as the age of the median portion in the group of 45-54 yo in 1959 (2 years from MOE birth) is 9 years old.
As MOE under PAP started after 1959, i wont give all credit to the PAP leadership also.
But if we look further into the chart, a drop from 19.8 % those without education in the 45-54 yo group to 9.7% in 35-44 yo group and the drop from 9.7% to 4.3% subsequent for the next 10 year is probably the work of MOE under PAP entirely.
The initial 60% drop of 50% to 30% of the population by the combined effort of the british and the local independent government is good. Remarkable it is but it is a startup figure in which large changes after a vacuum are expected. The subsequent 50% drop from 19.8 % to 9.7% in the next ten years followed up a consistent 50% drop from 9.7% to 4.3% in the next ten years after is remarkable for a single government.
Fancy taking an illiterate immigrant generation from China (49.7%), comparing it to the latter generations, then later attributing the success of the education system as that of P4Ps.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Fancy taking an illiterate immigrant generation from China (49.7%), comparing it to the latter generations, then later attributing the success of the education system as that of P4Ps.
If it is true that the bulk of the illiterates are from the immigration generation, it still prove my point that u shouldnt blame the literacy rate on PAP.Go blame it on past immigration then!
-
Maurizio this thread is over dude.
Face it ur stats has errors, fancy blind quoting Wikipedia *ur lecturer never tell u anything about the credibility of wikipedia?. Ur accusation based on those stats are wrong dude.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Why the bulk of illiterates in Singapore could be from the generation under the british rule?
According to wiki, 7.5% of our population are illiterates. That translate to 225000 people.
According to our statistics, there are 305500 pple above 65 years old.
Considering that sources available out there suggested that education policy was extremely poor to the extend of 'minimal'. 305500 people alive today lived their youth during the time with minimal emphasis on education.
If we will to say that a good proportion of that 305500 people are illiterates, they will form the bulk of the 225000 illiterates in our country today. I have no proof on that, but it is a possibility after looking at the above findings.
It is strange to blame the PAP government for the amount of illiterates despite extensive effort to improve education in Singapore while keeping a blind eye to the lack of british support before 1946.
http://webdrive.service.emory.edu/users/talviar/HKSingColonialTransition.pdf
Where did you get your figure of 225,000?
So the BULK our 1950s immigrant generation are illiterate?
But if you look back at the statistical tables year 2000, it shows 4.3% of 25-34 y.o. and 9.7% of 35-44 y.o. without qualification.
25-34 y.o. without qualification = 4.3% = 24,013
35-44 y.o. without qualification = 9.7% = 61,703
So using 225,000 (your calculation), this figure already represents 38% of illiterates.
Your first link to Emory didn't provide any conclusive evidence that the British promoted education more fervently in Hong Kong than in Singapore.
Your second link was more interesting, you post the blog of this old man in his 70s 0r 80s, saying ''There was no education policy for development in Singapore and Malaya during my grandparents’, parents’ and my own early days." It's currently 2008, less 75 years and less 22 for his parents and another 22 for his grandparents. It might be the same British colony, but is it the same century?
In those days in the 1930s, I doubt there was any affirmative education system. In those days, I heard from my parents, education was free, you just have to get your butt to school. If you have a primary school education in those days, you should be quite proud of your achievements.
You should also differentiate from the author's definition of "educational policy" and access to free public education.