Transnational Governances in Higher Education: New Universities, Rhetorics, and Networks in Postwar Singapore

Abstract

At the close of World War II, Japan’s ouster from Malaya led to the resumption of British control and a new outlook toward political independence. Higher education would play a central role in this complex transition, where the forces of decolonization and nation-building converged with drives toward both interethnic competition and multiethnic cooperation. These tensions stimulated a multiplicity of new rhetorics and new networks for universities and university students. This paper uses the framework of governance to uncover the contrasting rhetorics and networks produced by postwar Singapore’s new universities. By examining their structures and mechanisms of governance, the paper demonstrates how the sudden catapulting of university education to a crucial socio-political position redefined the intersections between education, language, culture, and nation. In doing so, it reveals that these redefinitions forecasted contemporary discourse and mechanisms in higher education.

Notes

¹By 1948, the structure and name had been changed to “Federation of Malaya.”

²For a full treatment of the unifying goals of the new university, see Stockwell (2008).

³British academic advisors had suggested locating the new university at an intermediate spot so that students from both Singapore and the Malay urban centers could easily access it, in order to further the goal of uniting the two (Maxwell, 1980). This proved unworkable and the university was set up in Singapore where the colleges had been.

⁴The Chinese regarded various educational policies made throughout the 1950s, aiming to standardize and systemize the school system, as desinicizing in tone and intent. For example, with the passing of the 1957 Education Ordinance, all four streams of schools were recognized and all primary schools were free, but for the secondary level government gave aid only to Malay- and English-media schools, and all exams were taken in one of the two languages. Singapore was supposed to have educational autonomy, so it could maintain the “equality” of four streams. However, pressures towards integration with Malaya proper, and the realities of advancing to higher employment or education needing English, were felt (VanderKroef, pp. 98, 100). However, the trend towards integration with Malaya proper, and the reality that employment and educational advancement required English, exerted pressure for change. See Purcell (1953), Van Der Kroef (1964), Clutterbuck (1984), Tan (1997), Wilson (1978), and Liu and Wong (2004).

⁵Regarding Nanyang University’s founding and development, see T.H. Wong, “State formation, hegemony, and Nanyang University in Singapore, 1953 to 1965, Jiaoyu yu shehui yanjiu [Studies in Education and Society], 2000 (12), 59–85; and J.M. Van Der Kroef, “Nanyang University and the dilemmas of overseas Chinese education,” The China Quarterly, 20 (1964), 96–127.

⁶Previous generations of Chinese in Southeast Asia generally returned to China for higher education, but the advent of the communist regime there made this an unpalatable option for many, even though China continued to try to entice students there with attractive scholarships.

⁷UM’s tie to UL was not as close as for some. Wartime imperial policy had determined that most colonial post-secondary institutions should first pass through a stage as “university colleges,” during which they would develop under supervision, and with frequent reference to UL structures and standards, before becoming full-fledged universities. The British advisors sent to evaluate the Malayan case had, however, decided to skip that step and establish the University of Malaya right away. See Report of the Commission on Higher Education in the Colonies (1945), Report of the Commission on University Education in Malaya (1948), and Carr-Saunders (1961).

⁸The course title was later changed to “Chinese Culture and Southeast Asia.”

⁹For discussion on the relationship between language, education, and imperialism, see Carnoy (1974), Chou (2012), Sweeting and Vickers (2007), Tan (1997), Watson (1993), and Whitehead (1995).

¹⁰See Lee and Tan (1996), Lim (2013), Wong (2002), and The University of Singapore Calendar.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Grace Ai-Ling Chou

Dr. Grace Ai-Ling Chou is an Associate Professor of History at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. While she specializes in Modern Chinese Intellectual History, her teaching areas include Hong Kong, China, Asia, and East-West relations. Her book Confucianism, Colonialism, and Cold War: Chinese Cultural Education at Hong Kong’s New Asia College, 1949-63 examines the contemporary New Confucian movement in Hong Kong, Chinese cultural preservation in political and intellectual diaspora, and Hong Kong higher education under British colonialism. Her most recent work compares higher education development in different Asian areas of the post-war British Empire.