![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper compares public–private partnerships (PPPs) in education in post-war Singapore and Hong Kong. After the Second World War the Singapore government shied away from PPPs, while the state in Hong Kong collaborated extensively with the non-state sector in education. Singapore was a small city-state flanked by two Muslim nations, and its post-war regime faced challenges from the Malayan Communist Party. These pressures curbed the state’s involvement with missionary and Chinese bodies in education. Hong Kong, however, was a mono-racial society without any anti-Chinese neighbours, and its authorities were seldom challenged by a militant antagonist. Thus, its government was freer to involve non-state agents in education. This study reveals that PPPs are viable only when suitable non-state partners exist and when the state does not believe that such undertakings would expose the school system to an antagonist. It also urges scholars in future to explore the socio-political preconditions for PPPs.
Notes
An earlier version of this article has been presented at the Annual Conference of History of Education Society at Glasgow, Scotland on November 26, 2011. The research project for this article is funded by the National Science Council of Taiwan (project number 101-2410-H-001-044-MY2).
1 Felipe Barrera-Osorio, ‘The Concession Schools of Bogota, Colombia’, in School Choice International: Exploring Public–Private Partnerships, ed. Rajashri Chakrabarti and Paul E. Peterson (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009), 193–218; Eric Bettinger, ‘School Vouchers in Colombia’, in School Choice International, 193–218; Norman LaRocque, ‘The Practice of Public–Private Partnerships’, in School Choice International, 71–87; Stephen Machin and Joan Wilson, ‘Public and Private Schooling Initiatives in England,’ in School Choice International, 219–40; Joe Nathan, Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity for American Education (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1996).
2 Rajashri Chakrabarti and Paul E. Peterson, ‘Perspectives in Public–Private Partnerships in Education,’ in School Choice International, 3–12.
3 Felipe Barrera-Osorio, ‘The Concession Schools of Bogota, Colombia’; Eric Bettinger, ‘School Vouchers in Colombia’; Geeta G. Kingdon, ‘School-Sector Effects on Student Achievement in India’, in School Choice International, 91–110; Joe Nathan, ‘Early Lessons of the Charter School Movement’, Educational Leadership 54 (1996): 16–20; Harry Anthony Patrinos, Felipe Barrera-Osorio and Juliana Guaqueta, The Role and Impact of Public–Private Partnerships in Education (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009); Ludger Wößmann, ‘Public–Private Partnerships and Student Achievement: A Cross-Country Analysis’, in School Choice International, 13–45.
4 Felipe Barrera-Osorio, Juliana Guaqueta and Harry Anthony Patrinos, ‘The Role and Impact of Public–Private Partnerships in Education’, in Public–Private Partnerships in Education: New Actors and Modes of Governance in a Globalizing World, ed. Susan L. Robertson, Karen Mundy, Antoni Verger and Francine Menashy (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2012), 208–9; Maria Ron-Balsera and Akanksha A. Marphatia, ‘Do Public–Private Partnerships Fulfil the Right to Education? An Examination of the Role of Non-State Actors in Advancing Equity, Equality, and Justice’, in Public–Private Partnerships in Education, 217–42; Salvatore Saporito, ‘Private Choices, Public Consequen: 181–203; Amy Stuart Wells, ‘Charter School Reform in California: Does it Meet Expectation?’, Phi Delta Kappan 80 (1998): 305–12.
5 Karen Mundy and Francine Menashy, ‘The Role of International Finance Corporation in the Promotion of Public–Private Partnerships for Educational Development’, in Public–Private Partnerships in Education, 81–103; Prachi Srivastava and Su-Ann Oh, ‘Private Foundations, Philanthropy and Partnership in Education and Development: Mapping the Terrain’, in Public–Private Partnerships in Education; and Antoni Verger and Susan Robertson, ‘The GATS Game-Changer: International Trade Regulation and the Constitution of a Global Education Market Place’, in Public–Private Partnerships in Education, 104–27.
6 This refers also to people who harboured leftist views, but might not be members of the Communist party).
7 Yeo Kim Wah, Political Development in Singapore, 1945–55 (Singapore: University of Singapore Press, 1973).
8 Ting-Hong Wong, Hegemonies Compared: State Formation and Chinese School Politics in Postwar Singapore and Hong Kong (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2002), 49–50.
9 Philip Loh Fook Seng, Seeds of Separatism: Educational Policy in Malaya, 1874–1949 (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1975).
10 ‘Report of the Committee appointed by the His Excellency the Governor and High Commissioner to Consider the Working of the System of Education Grants-in-Aid introduced in 1920 in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay State, 1922’. Reprinted in Official Reports on Education: Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, 1870–1939, ed. Francis H. K. Wong and Gwee Yee Hean (Singapore: Pan Pacific Book, 1980), 83.
11 For instance, in 1921 cost per capita in government schools averaged S$96.47, while in aided schools it was S$60.58. Ibid., 85.
12 Saravanan Gopinathan, Toward a National System of Education in Singapore, 1945–73 (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1974).
13 Ibid., 4–5. In 1932 only 10 out of a total of 215 registered Chinese schools were subsidised; and each student of these aided vernacular institutions received only S$7.46 annually – much lower than the average of S$57.21 per pupil in government and English grant schools in the same year. Harold E. Wilson, Social Engineering in Singapore: Educational Policies and Social Change, 1819–1972 (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1978), 4.
14 Cheah Boon Kheng, Red Star Over Malaya: Resistance and Social Conflict During and After the Japanese Occupation, 1941–1946, 2nd ed. (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1983).
15 Vineeta Sinha, ‘Theorising “Talk” about “Religious Pluralism” and “Religious Harmony” in Singapore’, Journal of Contemporary Religion 20, no. 1 (2005): 25–40.
16 Chan Heng Chee, Singapore: The Politics of Survival, 1965–1967 (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1971).
17 Lee Ting Hui, The Open United Front: The Communist Struggle in Singapore, 1954–1966 (Singapore: South Seas Society, 1996).
18 Wong, Hegemonies Compared, 111.
19 Straits Budget, January 11, 1951.
20 Annual Report of the Department of Education, 1954 (Singapore: Government Printer, 1955), 11, 15.
21 Annual Report of the Department of Education, 1949 (Singapore: Government Printer, 1950), 26; School Building Expansion in Singapore and the Training of Primary Teacher Training Staffs (Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1957), 7.
22 Wong, Hegemonies Compared, 130–2.
23 Annual Report of the Department of Education, 1946 (Singapore: Government Printer, 1947), 1; Straits Budget, April 17, 1947; Sin Chew Jit Poh, October 9, 1945.
24 Nan Chiau Jit Poh, February 21, 1948.
25 Wong, Hegemonies Compared, 131.
26 Nan Chaiu Jit Poh, January 31, 1949.
27 This proposal, however, was declined by the schools concerned, which regarded the scheme as a conspiracy to control them. Sin Chew Jit Poh, February 3 and 15, 1949; Straits Budget, March 3, 1949.
28 Sin Chew Jit Poh, May 12, 1951.
29 Annual Report of the Department of Education, 1948 (Singapore: Government Printer, 1949), 82; Annual Report of the Department of Education, 1952, (Singapore: Government Printer, 1953), 20.
30 Annual Report of the Department of Education, 1952, 34.
31 Annual Report of the Department of Education, 1953 (Singapore: Government Printer, 1954), 40.
32 Wong, Hegemonies Compared, 132–3.
33 Ibid., 133–4.
34 ‘Chinese Schools – Bilingual Education and Increased Aid’, Proceedings of the Second Legislative Council, 3rd Session, Colony of Singapore, no. 81 of 1953, C43–47 and C 542.
35 Sin Chew Jit Poh, March 4 and 7, 1954.
36 Sin Chew Jit Poh, March 23, 1954.
37 Lee, The Open United Front, 47-52.
38 Straits Budget, October 14, 1954.
39 Wong, Hegemonies Compared, 139–41.
40 Education Triennial Survey, 1955–1957 (Singapore: Government Printer, 1958), 32 and 99.
41 A Review of the Grant-in-Aid System (Singapore: Planning and Review Branch, Ministry of Education, 1977), 74.
42 Education Triennial Survey, 1955–1957, 29.
43 A Review of the Grant-in-Aid System, 1 and 69–70.
44 G. B. Balakrishnan, ‘Educational Legislation in Singapore, 1948–1961’, Southeast Asian Journal of Educational Studies 15, no. 1/2 (December 1978): 19–30.
45 A Review of the Grant-in-Aid System, 20 and 74.
46 Annual Report of the Ministry of Education, 1961, State of Singapore (Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1962), 2; A Review of the Grant-in-Aid System, 29–30 and 89–91.
47 Annual Report of the Ministry of Education, 1961, 21; Annual Report of the Ministry of Education, 1965, Republic of Singapore (Singapore: Ministry of Education, 1966), 37.
48 Straits Times, December 2, 1966 and February 27, 1967.
49 Straits Times, May 13, 1968.
50 The new rule, nevertheless, still allowed children whose parents and siblings were alumni or current students of the schools to enjoy priority in registration for enrolment. Straits Times, July 27, 1971.
51 Straits Times, July 9 and 17, 1973.
52 Straits Times, July 21, 1975.
53 Straits Times, August 19 and 29 and October 14, 1975; March 23, 1976.
54 Straits Times, August 31, 1972.
55 Straits Times, March 18, 1974.
56 Straits Times, January 30, 1977.
57 A Review of the Grant-in-Aid System, 74.
58 Straits Times, March 6, 1972.
59 Straits Times, September 7, 1977.
60 Tung-Choy Cheng, ‘The Education of Overseas Chinese: A Comparative Study of Hong Kong, Singapore, and East Indies’ (Master’s thesis, University of London, 1949); Anthony Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, Pre-1841 to 1941: Fact and Opinion (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1990), 203; The Grant Code, 1914 (Hong Kong: Government Printers, 1914); The Grant Code, 1924 (Hong Kong: Government Printers, 1924).
61 Report of the Director of Education for the Year 1937 (Hong Kong: Government Printers, 1938), 28.
62 Anthony Sweeting, A Phoenix Transformed: The Reconstruction of Education in Post-War Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1993), 8; Cheng, ‘The Education of Overseas Chinese’, 1949, 276–78 and 286.
63 Report of the Director of Education for the Year 1937, 26.
64 Ibid., 9, 20– 21, and 26.
65 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Report, 1946–47 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1947), 16; Hong Kong Education Department Annual Report, 1947–48 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1948), 4–5 and 12.
66 Sweeting, A Phoenix Transformed, 159–60.
67 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Report, 1949–50 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1950), 31.
68 ‘Report on Unschooled School-Age Children’, September 1950, HKRS: 147, D&S: 2/2 (i).
69 N. G. Fisher, A Report on Government Expenditure on Education in Hong Kong, 1950 (Hong Kong: Noronha, 1951), 13 and 41.
70 In 1951 each pupil of a grant school received a HK$416 state subsidy, while the cost per capita in government schools averaged HK$422. In the same year, each student in subsidised day schools was given only HK$70 by the state. Ibid., 13–14.
71 Ibid., 16 and 39–41.
72 Ibid., 15.
73 Anthony Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941 to 2001: Visions and Revisions (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2004), 163.
74 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Report, 1952–53 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1953), 37.
75 ‘Primary School Expansion Programme’, Memorandum, signed by Douglas Crozier, the Director of Education, discussed by the Board of Education at its meeting of December 10, 1954, reprinted in Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941 to 2001, 204–6.
76 Wah Kiu Yat Pao, October 8, 1959.
77 Wah Kiu Yat Pao, September 30, 1961.
78 Report of Education Commission, 1963 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1963), 26–7.
79 Figures derived from Table I and Table II of Fisher, A Report, 42.
80 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Report, 1962–63 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1963), 29.
81 Regardless of increases in governmental intervention afterwards, the school-operating bodies still had complete control over 65% of vacancies at the primary one level. Ting-Hong Wong, ‘Education Provision and School Knowledge Control in Hong Kong: State and Civil Society, 1945–1978’ (MA thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1992), 34. Concerning subsidised secondary schools, though most of their first grade incoming pupils entered on the basis of a state-conducted examination, the schools were allowed to preserve a considerable number of discretionary places. Report of the Working Party Set Up to Review the Secondary School Places Allocation System (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1982), 4–5.
82 Education Policy (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1965), 2–3.
83 Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941 to 2001, 39.
84 Besides, the 557 private day schools in the Colony were attended by 169,040 students. Hong Kong Education Department, Annual Summary, 1971–72 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1972), 40.
85 ‘A List of School-Running Organizations in Hong Kong’, (in Chinese) Modern Educational Bulletin 17 (March, 1991): 17–18. Although the inventory was about voluntary schools in the early 1990s, it still reflects the situation in the 1950s and 1960s because most primary subsidised institutions were inaugurated then.
86 John Kang Tan, ‘Church, State, and Education: Catholic Education in Hong Kong during Political Transition’, Comparative Education 33, no. 2 (June 1997): 215 and 219.
87 Siu-Kai Lau, Society and Politics in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1984), 130–40.
88 Lachlan Crawford, ‘The Development of Secondary Education in Hong Kong’, History of Education 24, no. 1 (1995): 115–16.
89 Figures derived from Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1961–62 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1962), 27.
90 Amendments to Subsidized Code to Provide for Secondary Schools, memorandum discussed at Board of Education meeting, December 21, 1956, HKRS: 41, D&S: 1/3878; and Progress Report for Quarter Ending June 30, 1957, HKRS: 41, D&S: 1/1742 (2).
91 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1961–62, 27.
92 In Hong Kong a private school was deemed ‘non-profit-making’ if the educational authorities were convinced that all profits generated by the school were invested to improve its quality of educational services.
93 Wah Kiu Yat Pao, July 8 and October 9, 1960; Report of Education Commission, 1963, 31–2; and ‘Memo: Methods of Implementation of Recommendation 33’, June 1, 1962, HKRS 457, D&S 3/88.
94 Education Policy, 1965, 5–6.
95 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1965–66 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1966), 3.
96 1969 Xianggang nianjian [Annual Chronicle of Hong Kong, 1969] (Hong Kong: Wah Kiu Yat Pao, 1969), Section 2, 101.
97 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1969/70 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1970), 29; HKRS 457, D&S 3/88.
98 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1970–71 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1971), 9.
99 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1974/75 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1975), 2–3.
100 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1975/76 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1976), 3.
101 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1969/70, 29; Hong Kong Director of Education, Annual Summary, 1977–78 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1978), 42.
102 HKRS 457, D&S 3/88.
103 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1974/75, 3.
104 Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1972/73 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1973), 9; Hong Kong Education Department Annual Summary, 1977/78, 5.