Singapore Best Education System Ranked 79 in Adult Literacy
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
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.
I hope UN is reputable enough for you.
Singapore 92.5%
Hong Kong 94.6%
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
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.
The Wiki statistics were copied over from the UN Development Reports, anyway I have posted the link to the UNDP for your perusal.
I suppose we can trust the UN?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
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.
My mistake 262 500 should be of illiterates from ur flawed stat by wiki. 7.5% of 3.5mil. Im not going to quote it again cos it is not accurate.
Please share with me how u got ur figures?
Lets see the group, (taken from literacy stats 2000 given by u X population stat of age group 2008 thus not accurate)
45 - 54 yo without qualification approx = 62 480
55 - 65 yo without qualification based on 49.7% approx = 177 000
cant u see that the total without education from 45 - 65 is larger than the group from 24 - 44?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I hope UN is reputable enough for you.
Singapore 92.5%
Hong Kong 94.6%
Friend, the UN list was quoted from sources between 1995 to 2005 with no specific year for the figures for a lot of countries. While the HK stat was taken in 2003*outdated, which year was Singapore taken? So how to trust?Data refer to national literacy estimates from censuses or surveys conducted between 1995 and 2005, unless otherwise specified. Due to differences in methodology and timeliness of underlying data, comparisons across countries and over time should be made with caution. For more details, see http://www.uis.unesco.org/.
Looking at official figures both in 2007 for the 2 country, it shows that Singapore has a higher literacy rate.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Your first link to Emory didn't provide any conclusive evidence that the British promoted education more fervently in Hong Kong than in Singapore.
which quote?
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
My mistake 262 500 should be of illiterates from ur flawed stat by wiki. 7.5% of 3.5mil. Im not going to quote it again cos it is not accurate.
Lets see the group,
45 - 54 yo without qualification approx = 62 480
55 - 65 yo without qualification based on 49.7% approx = 177 000
cant u see that the total without education from 45 - 65 is larger than the group from 24 - 44?
It's not the mistake of Wiki, it's your failure to understand which year the report was based and the population size (does it include citizens, permanent residents or non-residents). Do you know any of these?
So you using 49.7% (2000 statistics) on which year's population size? My guess is you applied a year 2000 statistics on a year 2007 population size. You sure you had formal education in Singapore?
About the larger percentage of illiterates from 45-65 y.o., I thought I already explained that a large majority of these are from the early Chinese immigrant generation.
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.
It's also not right to include the 45-49 y.o. as pre self governance era, because if they are 49 y.o. they would be 9 y.o. (school going age) when P4P won self governance (1959).
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
It's not the mistake of Wiki, it's your failure to understand which year the report was based and the population size (does it include citizens, permanent residents or non-residents). Do you know any of these?
So you using 49.7% (2000 statistics) on which year's population size? My guess is you applied a year 2000 statistics on a year 2007 population size. You sure you had formal education in Singapore?
I have admitted the short coming of my result in my post by 3.23am therefore had ask how u got ur result because the best of my calculation are not accurate.Please read carefully why the quotes from wiki are flawed in the above post.
It seems like all ur insults to people have a way of going back to u.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Friend, the UN list was quoted from sources between 1995 to 2005 with no specific year for the figures for a lot of countries. While the HK stat was taken in 2003*outdated, which year was Singapore taken? So how to trust?Looking at official figures both in 2007 for the 2 country, it shows that Singapore has a higher literacy rate.
Well, first of all not all country provides current data as to your whims and fancy, it cost time and money to produce statistical studies.Singapore's drastic increase in literacy rate these past few years could also be due to the increase in foreign talents, not a result of P4P's education system.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
I have admitted the short coming of my result in my post by 3.23am therefore had ask how u got ur result because the best of my calculation are not accurate.Please read carefully why the quotes from wiki are flawed in the above post.
It seems like all ur insults to people have a way of going back to u.
You are making a tomfoolery of yourself by not understanding the data from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is flawed, it's your understanding of Wikipedia that is flawed.
I don't feel the least insulted by your misunderstanding, it should be you feeling embarassed and insulted.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Well, first of all not all country provides current data as to your whims and fancy, it cost time and money to produce statistical studies.Singapore's drastic increase in literacy rate these past few years could also be due to the increase in foreign talents, not a result of P4P's education system.
LOL u are amazing.
At first u try to blame the PAP for the seemingly disappointed literacy rate of Singapore.After an antagonizing session with you, i manage to fish out information that by the official statistic of the 2 country in 2007, Singapore has a higher literacy rate than Hong Kong and definitely a higher rate than what is on wiki.
U claim that the information on wiki is from UN but i rebuted ur finding citing remarks within the UN side showing that the figures have alot of room for inaccuracy.
Then now u wanna argue that the increase in literacy rate is by foreign talent.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
which quote?
It's for you to quote, since you provided the link to your claims. I did a quick scan of the article and no such evidence surfaced.Originally posted by foxtrout8:
"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."
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
You are making a tomfoolery of yourself by not understanding the data from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is flawed, it's your understanding of Wikipedia that is flawed.I don't feel the least insulted by your misunderstanding, it should be you feeling embarassed and insulted.
Comeon dude, the figures from wikipedia are from a UN side that is inaccurate. U dont understand, i explain again.The Hong Kong stats from that UN site was dated 2003 while the Singapore stats from that UN side was undated, citation within the site claim that the figures are taken from records 1995 to 2006.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
LOL u are amazing.
At first u try to blame the PAP for the seemingly disappointed literacy rate of Singapore.After an antagonizing session with you, i manage to fish out information that by the official statistic of the 2 country in 2007, Singapore has a higher literacy rate than Hong Kong and definitely a higher rate than what is on wiki.
U claim that the information on wiki is from UN but i rebuted ur finding citing remarks within the UN side showing that the figures have alot of room for inaccuracy.
Then now u wanna argue that the increase in literacy rate is by foreign talent.
What information did you fish out? Your link is defective.First of all you can't expect every country to produce statistical studies every year for your benefit, that's why they took the closest available data. But I believe the data is consistent throught, it is applied consistently without bias.
Don't you know that by increasing the population with a literate foreign talents, the percentage of literates will also increase. Don't tell me you don't know about the recent increases in population size. Are you that ill informed or just not statistically literate?
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Comeon dude, the figures from wikipedia are from a UN side that is inaccurate. U dont understand, i explain again.The Hong Kong stats from that UN site was dated 2003 while the Singapore stats from that UN side was undated, citation within the site claim that the figures are taken from records 1995 to 2006.
I ended my post abruptly, I forgot to add in the earlier post.The idiotic calculation you made was by applying a Singapore Statistics for year 2000 on the population size of year 2007. Applying 49.7% on 2007 population size, I suppose it's the same to you.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
It's for you to quote, since you provided the link to your claims. I did a quick scan of the article and no such evidence surfaced.
Look at my quote just below the sentence u quoted.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?
It is not my point to demostrate that the British had an active effort to help Hongkong but i want to highlight that they did little to help Singapore despite (for what reason im leaving it open) hongkong was successful.
If i meant that the british had an active effort i would have said it considering i have a previous quote to suggest that but i refuse to do so saying that it may not be accurate cause she lack reference.
"''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.""
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
What information did you fish out? Your link is defective.First of all you can't expect every country to produce statistical studies every year for your benefit, that's why they took the closest available data. But I believe the data is consistent throught, it is applied consistently without bias.
Don't you know that by increasing the population with a literate foreign talents, the percentage of literates will also increase. Don't tell me you don't know about the recent increases in population size. Are you that ill informed or just not statistically literate?
http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=65042007 Hong Kong Stats.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=65042007 Hong Kong Stats.
<!-- End of Page Title --><!-- Content -->
Look at it objectively and logically.
Hong Kong in 2001 did a census, they had a population of 6.7 million, by end of 2007, they had a population size of 6.9 million with an annual population growth rate of 0.8%.
http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistics_by_subject/index.jsp
Singapore had a population size of 4.1 million in 2001, it increased to 4.6 million in 2007. An annual growth rate of 4.3%, which is 5 times that of Hong Kong. In mature economies the population growth is stable and on the decrease. The only way that Singapore could achieve 4.3% population growth is through the import of highly qualified foreign talents which distorts the actual literate population.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hist/popn.html
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Look at my quote just below the sentence u quoted.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?
It is not my point to demostrate that the British had an active effort to help Hongkong but i want to highlight that they did little to help Singapore despite (for what reason im leaving it open) hongkong was successful.
If i meant that the british had an active effort i would have said it considering i have a previous quote to suggest that but i refuse to do so saying that it may not be accurate cause she lack reference.
From your original statement:Originally posted by foxtrout8:
"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."
Isn't it implicit in your statement that Hong Kong's success is due to effort from the British in promoting education there.
e.g. Anthony was successful in his exams, Mr. Tan did very little to help Barry in his exams.
From this example (similar to yours) it clearly shows that it's implicit that Mr. Tan help Anthony more than Barry, because it's in the same sentence.
Then you post a totally non-relevant article from Emory to support a claim, to which I have yet to figure out.
-
long story short, the world thinks that Singaporeans are a bunch of illiterate hicks
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Look at it objectively and logically.
Hong Kong in 2001 did a census, they had a population of 6.7 million, by end of 2007, they had a population size of 6.9 million with an annual population growth rate of 0.8%.
http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistics_by_subject/index.jsp
Singapore had a population size of 4.1 million in 2001, it increased to 4.6 million in 2007. An annual growth rate of 4.3%, which is 5 times that of Hong Kong. In mature economies the population growth is stable and on the decrease. The only way that Singapore could achieve 4.3% population growth is through the import of highly qualified foreign talents which distorts the actual literate population.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hist/popn.html
Literacy rate of Singapore only take account those of local residents and not foreigners.
See line 21 in page 2.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/sib2008.pdf
Our local resident population is onli 3.6mil, rounded off from 3.585mil. While HongKong's usual residents is 6.71mil.
Taking 2007 stats from
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/sib2008.pdf and
http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/population.pdf
Growth rate of Singapore is 1.6% while HongKong growth rate was 1.0%.
The local birthrate of Singapore is 10.0 per 1000 while the HongKong birthrates is 10.1 per 1000 people.
The local death rate of Singapore is 4.5 per 1000 while hongkong is 5.6 per 1000 people.
Considering that our birth rate is pretty similar with a difference of 0.1% and our death rate is lower by 1%, our growth rate by local residents birth alone would be similar (onli higher by a minute amount) than Hongkong's growth rate of 1.0% (for easy comparison, we ignore HK migration rate which is a natural pull. HK's is a modern city without attractive immigration policies. Anything more than HK's 1.0% while birth rate and death rate are nearly similar can be considered growth due to the extra pull factor by delibrately making immigration attractive.)
Taking that our actual growth rate by birthrate and death rate is slightly above 1.0%, that means growth rate by migration to local residence status take account of onli slightly below 0.6% of that 1.6% growth. And of course, foreign talents whom are foreigners are out of the figures.
Ur account on the rates are pretty inflated. While migration may play a role in the increase in literacy rate, it is not at such behemoth scale as u are trying to depict.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
From your original statement:Isn't it implicit in your statement that Hong Kong's success is due to effort from the British in promoting education there.
e.g. Anthony was successful in his exams, Mr. Tan did very little to help Barry in his exams.
From this example (similar to yours) it clearly shows that it's implicit that Mr. Tan help Anthony more than Barry, because it's in the same sentence.
Then you post a totally non-relevant article from Emory to support a claim, to which I have yet to figure out.
Sorrry for the misunderstanding. Using back the example, the reason for anthony success was never my aim to discuss.
My point is simple. Mr Tan did very little to help Barry in his exams
The reason for anthony success was never my aim to discuss because even if to assume that Mr Tan helped anthony, we shouldnt expect the same result from Barry because of the very fact that Mr Tan did little to help Barry.
To put the it another way.
Even if to assume Mr Tan didnt help anthony but anthony was still successful. We shouldnt also rely on Mr Tan to make Barry successful because of the fact that he didnt help Barry and on another point that Anthony's success wasnt from Mr Tan.
-
Singapore Iiteracy rate of 2007 is 96% of the population above 15 yo. A far cry from the unreliable 92.5% quoted from UN in which took from source citation dating between 1995 to 2005 unless stated otherwise within the table.
The ranking on that list is not valid and thus there is no point in using it as a tool to discredit the education system in Singapore.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Literacy rate of Singapore only take account those of local residents and not foreigners.
See line 21 in page 2.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/sib2008.pdf
Our local resident population is onli 3.6mil, rounded off from 3.585mil. While HongKong's usual residents is 6.71mil.
Taking 2007 stats from
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/sib2008.pdf and
http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/population.pdf
Growth rate of Singapore is 1.6% while HongKong growth rate was 1.0%.
The local birthrate of Singapore is 10.0 per 1000 while the HongKong birthrates is 10.1 per 1000 people.
The local death rate of Singapore is 4.5 per 1000 while hongkong is 5.6 per 1000 people.
Considering that our birth rate is pretty similar with a difference of 0.1% and our death rate is lower by 1%, our growth rate by local residents birth alone would be similar (onli higher by a minute amount) than Hongkong's growth rate of 1.0% (for easy comparison, we ignore HK migration rate which is a natural pull. HK's is a modern city without attractive immigration policies. Anything more than HK's 1.0% while birth rate and death rate are nearly similar can be considered growth due to the extra pull factor by delibrately making immigration attractive.)
Taking that our actual growth rate by birthrate and death rate is slightly above 1.0%, that means growth rate by migration to local residence status take account of onli slightly below 0.6% of that 1.6% growth. And of course, foreign talents whom are foreigners are out of the figures.
Ur account on the rates are pretty inflated. While migration may play a role in the increase in literacy rate, it is not at such behemoth scale as u are trying to depict.
It was my error to have used total population in the literacy rate, I have enclosed calculations for approximate immigrants to Singapore adapted from the Department of Statistics. The figure is approximately 206,950 for 5 years (year 2001 to year 2006). What percentage composition does it play in our 2006 population? It's about 5.74% (206,950 / 3,608,500), this percentage exceeds the 3.5% increase in adult literacy rate from 2000 to 2007.So my claim still holds, the increase in adult literacy rate is a result of mass influx of immigrants and not due to the good work of MOE. I can't deny that they were good in some way, but the 3.5% increase in adult literacy is just not due to their work.
** At the time of doing up the spreadsheet, I wasn't aware that they also provided actual figures for crude birth rates and crude death rates, I only discovered the actual figures after I finished posting, I am too lazy to make all the necessary adjustments, both births and deaths are under declared in my calculations, I assume that they will cancel each other out.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/yos/statsT-demography.pdf
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
Singapore Iiteracy rate of 2007 is 96% of the population above 15 yo. A far cry from the unreliable 92.5% quoted from UN in which took from source citation dating between 1995 to 2005 unless stated otherwise within the table.
The ranking on that list is not valid and thus there is no point in using it as a tool to discredit the education system in Singapore.
As shown above, the dramatic increase in adult literacy rate is a result of P4P's policy of increasing the local immigrant population, not a result of MOE's education policy within those 6 years.I am not discrediting the education system in Singapore, I am only giving credit when credit is due and credit is not due here because the increase in adult literacy is a consequence of mass immigration.
Their policy of importing foreign immigrants is not a rarity, they have done so many a times in our sports sector. Have we not seen the import of foreign badminton players, table tennis players, soccer players and swimmers to boost the overall standard of the Singapore citizen team.
-
Originally posted by foxtrout8:
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!
Nobody's blaming the high adult illiteracy rate amongst the pre-1960 generation, I am merely suggesting that you shouldn't blame the high illiteracy rate on the British colonial government because these were immigrant generations. I think you look more self incriminating with your smiley after your request that we blame the older generation. A clear sign that MOE's education system failed to impart good social values consistent with respect for the elderly.
Evidence to suggest that the British colonial government was not directly involved in the education of the pre-self governance generation, because these pre-1960s immigrants were here to seek work due to poverty in home country. The total population in 1947 was 938,100 and for 1957 it was 1,445,900, an increase of about 54% in population.
