Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 18:5 (2019) ► pp.739–759

Creating the conditions for human division and structural inequality

The foundation of Singapore’s education policy

ORCID logo | University of Queensland, Australia
While Singapore’s education system claims to implement meritocratic ideals, official statistics indicate that Malay students in Singapore have been underperforming when compared to other ethnic groups (MOE 2012). This statistical representation raises the possibility of a politically induced, systemic inequality as a point of investigation. To investigate this seeming contradiction between the rhetoric and practice of equal educational opportunity, this paper proposes a philosophical and analytical synthesis for examining the 1979 policy report that provides the fundamental basis for Singapore’s streaming education system. In examining this policy development, the analysis draws upon a combination of Foucault’s archaeological method and Critical Discourse Analysis as a way of understanding conditions that made possible the continuous re-construction of new but unequal representation of learners. The findings suggest that complex relations between capability identification, justice, and ethics set the conditions for the appearance and transformation of subject positions necessary to legitimise unequal structural access.
Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, education policy, Foucault, data-led methodology, meritocracy, inequality, justice, ethics
Article outline
  • 1.An overview of the problem
  • 2.The 1979 Ministry of Education Report (Goh Report)
  • 3.Archaeological method: How power is constituted through knowledge and ‘truth’
  • 4.Designing a multidisciplinary CDA
  • 5.Analysis: The construction of learner identities in the 1979 Goh Report
    • 5.1Theme 1: Capability identification as social change
      • 5.1.1The ‘failures’
      • 5.1.2The persistent identity of failures
    • 5.2Theme 2: Inequality as justice
      • 5.2.1Egalitarian-excellence educational philosophies
    • 5.3Theme 3: Ethics: or philosophy of desirability
  • 6.The affordances of constructed identities in policy discourse
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18070.tal
References (43)
References
Barr, Michael D. and Zlatko Skrbiš. 2008. Constructing Singapore: elitism, ethnicity and the nation-building project. Copenhagen: NIAS.Google Scholar
Bohm, David. 1994. Thought as a system. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. On anarchism. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Language and power (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Feder, Ellen K. 2011. “Power/knowledge.” In Michel Foucault: key concepts, edited by Dianna Taylor, 55–68. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman, Philip Graham, Jay Lemke, and Ruth Wodak. 2004. “Introduction.” Critical Discourse Studies 1 (1): 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge; and The discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
. 1982. “The subject and power.” Critical Inquiry 8 (4): 777–795. [URL]
. 1984. Foucault. Available online at: [URL]
. 1991. “Politics and the study of discourse.” In The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality: with two lectures and an interview with Michel Foucault, edited by Graham Burchell, Collin Gordon, and Peter Miller, 53–72. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 2002. Archaeology of knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
General information. n.d.. Accessed July 15, 2014. [URL]
Gopinathan, Saravanan. 1996. “Globalisation, the State and education policy in Singapore.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 16 (1): 74–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, Linda J. 2011. “The product of text and ‘Other’ statements: Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (6): 663–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Mary and Kathy Pitt. 2011. “Changing policy discourses: Constructing literacy inequalities.” International Journal of Educational Development 31 (6): 596–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michal. 2016. “Recontextualisations of neoliberalism and the increasingly conceptual nature of discourse: Challenges for critical discourse studies.” Discourse and Society 27 (3): 308–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michal and Ruth Wodak. 2011. “Political strategies and language policies: The ‘rise and fall’ of the EU Lisbon strategy and its implications for the union’s multilingualism policy.” Language Policy 10 (2): 115–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marshall, James D. 1996. Michel Foucault: Personal autonomy and education. London: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mckee, Kim. 2009. “Post-Foucauldian governmentality: What does it offer critical social policy analysis?” Critical Social Policy 29 (3): 465–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Medina, José and David Wood. 2005. “General Introduction.” In Truth: Engagements across philosophical traditions, edited by Medina, José and David Wood, 1–6. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Education. 1979. Report on the Ministry of Education 1978, prepared by Goh Keng Swee and the Education Study Team. Singapore: Singapore National Printers.Google Scholar
. 1997. Performance by ethnic group. Accessed July 15, 2013. [URL]
. 2012. Press Release: Performance by ethnic group in national examinations 2002–2011. Accessed July 15, 2013. [URL]
Normal course curriculum. n.d. Accessed July 15, 2013. [URL]
Ng, Eng Hen. 2008. Educating the next generation. Speech by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence, at the 4th Anniversary Public Lecture at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, 14 August. Accessed May 15, 2018. [URL]
Ong, Ye Kung. 2018. MOE FY2018 Committee of Supply Debate Response by Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) on 5 March 2018. Accessed Jan 15, 2019. [URL]
. 2018. Opening address by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Education, at the Schools Work Plan Seminar on 28 September 2018. Accessed Jan 15, 2019. [URL]
Peters, S.J. (2007). “‘Education for all?’ A historical analysis of international inclusive education policy and individuals with disabilities”. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 18(2): 98–108.Google Scholar
Rahim, Lily Zubaidah. 1998. The Singapore dilemma: The political and educational marginality of the Malay community. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rouse, Joseph. 2005. “Power/knowledge.” In The Cambridge companion to Foucault (2nd ed.), edited by Gary Gutting, 95–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Secondary education. n.d. Available online at: [URL]
Soon, Teck Wong. 1988. Singapore’s New Education System. Education reform for national development. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Talib, Nadira. 2016. “Inequality as meritocracy: A critical discourse analysis of the metaphors of flexibility, diversity, and choice, and the value of truth in Singapore’s education policies, 1979 to 2012.” PhD diss., The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Talib, Nadira and Richard Fitzgerald. 2015. “Inequality as meritocracy. The use of the metaphor of diversity and the value of inequality within Singapore’s meritocratic education system.” Critical Discourse Studies 12 (4): 445–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Micro-meso-macro movements; A multi-level critical discourse analysis framework to examine metaphors and the value of truth in policy texts.” Critical Discourse Studies 13 (5): 531–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Putting philosophy back to work in critical discourse analysis.” Critical Discourse Studies 15 (2): 123–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tan, Kenneth Paul. 2008. “Meritocracy and elitism in a Global City: Ideological shifts in Singapore.” International Political Science Review 29 (1): 7–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Sandra. 2004. “Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: using critical discourse analysis.” Journal of Education Policy 19 (4): 433–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trew, Tony. 1979. “ ‘What the papers say’: linguistic variation and ideological difference.” In Language and control, edited by Roger Fowler, Bob Hodge, Gunther Kress, and Tony Trew, 117–156. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 1993. “Principles of critical discourse analysis.” Discourse and Society 4 (2): 249–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walshaw, Margaret. 2007. Working with Foucault in education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, Aline. 2000. Keynote address by Dr Aline Wong, Senior Minister of State for Education, Ministry of Education, Singapore, at the International Baccalaureate (IB) Asia-Pacific 16th annual regional conference on curriculum, assessment and cultural equity to be held on Friday, 24 November 2000, at 9.15 am at the Raffles City Convention Centre: Education in a multicultural setting–The Singapore experience. Accessed Jan 15, 2019. [URL]
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Talib, Nadira & Richard Fitzgerald
2022. The art of illusion as government policy. Analysing political economies of surrealism. Critical Discourse Studies 19:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Talib, Nadira
2021. How is structural inequality made fair in a meritocratic education system?. Journal of Language and Politics 20:3 ► pp. 383 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.