232
facilitator of international collaborations and partnerships. The state-centred
approach of higher education development is obviously found in Singapore.
Globalization, on the other hand, has never weakened the role of the state in
Singapore’s higher education, but it is sophistically manipulated by the government
to reorient its influence and control over higher education institutions. The develop-
mental state and globalization factors are intertwined and continue to have profound
impacts on the development of higher education in Singapore.
Main Research Themes in Singapore Higher Education
Reviewing major themes of higher education studies in Singapore, it is most appro-
priate to begin with the relationship between higher education and the state in
Singapore, which is a developmental state which consistently plays a significant
role in boosting economic growth, facilitating export-led industrialization, regulat-
ing market competition, propelling social progress and strengthening racial har-
mony since its independence in 1965 (Castells 1992 ; Johnson 1982 ; White and
Wade 1988 ). For Singapore, education is perceived as a key driver of strengthening
human capital in order to maintain the competitive edge of the Singapore economy
in a highly competitive global market. Likewise, from the Singapore government’s
perspective, heavy investment in the higher education system is deemed necessary
for it has contributed well to economic growth (Gopinathan and Lee 2011 ). The
higher education system has a definite role to play to achieve national development
priorities so that it has to be placed under direct policy guidance from the state’s
administration rather than leave a free hand to academics to govern higher education
institutions themselves (Selavaratnam 1994 ).
Centralized Decentralization
For the sake of national interests, the state retains its control over higher education
institutions and universities in Singapore (Lee 2003 ). In the 1960s, shortly after
Singapore’s independence, there were signs, such as the appointment of a cabinet
minister as the University of Singapore’s Vice-Chancellor and the prohibition of
forming trade unions of academic staff, showing a departure of Singapore’s higher
education system from a British model and tradition, which modelled along classical
principles of university autonomy and academic freedom into one in which govern-
ment influence and control became the norm (Goh and Tan 2008 ; Gopinathan 1989 ;
Khoo 2005 ; Mukherjee and Wong 2011 ). The state intervention in higher education
can also be demonstrated in the case of closing down the private Chinese- medium
Nanyang University in 1980, when it was merged with the English-medium University
of Singapore into the National University of Singapore, for it could not survive with-
out enrolling sufficient quality students and recruiting sufficient quality academics.
That university was discontinued for it lacked economic viability in Singapore where
M.H. Lee