Singapore's Response to the Global War for Talent
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2011) 262–268 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Educational Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev Singapore’s response to the global war for talent: Politics and education Pak Tee Ng * National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1, Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Republic of Singapore ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: This paper describes and analyses how Singapore engages in the global war for talent. The paper Talent discusses how Singapore demonstrates a Foucauldian perspective of ‘governmentality’ in trying to Globalisation mould citizens into a way of thinking that is geared suitably to an engagement in a global talent war. It Singapore Meritocracy first examines the social, political and economic thinking of the government in responding to the talent Education policy war. It then analyses more deeply the initiatives in the education system to support the national strategy in competing globally for talent. It also discusses the challenges ahead for Singapore in this talent war. ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction respond to the challenges of developing local talents, retaining them and simultaneously assimilating foreign talents. 1.1. Purpose of paper 1.2. The global war for talent This paper describes and analyses how Singapore engages in a global war for talent. Against a backdrop of a global talent war, it The rhetoric of a global war for talent and the emergence of a discusses how Singapore demonstrates a Foucauldian perspective new type of global meritocracy (e.g. Brown and Hesketh, 2004; of ‘governmentality’ in trying to mould citizens into a way of Brown and Tannock, 2009; Florida, 2005) have mobilised many thinking that is geared suitably to an engagement in this war. It governments to change social and economic policies in order to first examines the social, political and economic thinking of the attract and retain talent. Such policies include changes to the government in responding to the talent war. It then analyses more education system in order to both develop local talent as well as to deeply the initiatives in the education system to support the attract foreign talent. The idea of a ‘global war for talent’ enters into national strategy in competing globally for talent. It also discusses the political discourse of many nations in recent history, partially the challenges ahead for Singapore in the global war for talent. due to the rise of the idea of the knowledge age and the knowledge The sources of information used in this paper are key worker (Drucker, 1998, 2000; Reich, 1991). The common government speeches, press statements, and commentaries about assumption behind the relationship between education and the Singapore’s governance, social dynamics and education system knowledge economy is that of a human capital model in which published in scholarly books and academic journals. The argu- ‘learning’ and ‘earning’ are positively correlated (Becker, 1993). ments and conclusions in this paper are formulated through a The more skills and credentials one has, the more one can critical analysis of these sources of information, using a contribute to the productive economy and the higher one’s income Foucauldian perspective. The author believes that this paper adds as a reflection of that contribution (Becker, 2006). There are those value to the global research community because through such a who are critical of human capital theories (e.g. Berg, 1970; Collins, case study, researchers could draw insights into how a country 1979). But the fact remains that many nations do exhibit could respond to global war for talent. In particular, the case study behaviours of amassing talents for their own economic and of Singapore presents the sensitive social and political dynamics of developmental needs (Brown and Tannock, 2009). attracting foreign talents into a country, especially when a portion But the war is not about the average knowledge worker. It is of the local population feels that they are deprived of economic about the talented knowledge worker. Florida (2005, p. 26) opines benefits by the foreigners. The paper is also important to the local that the world has entered ‘‘the creative age because the key factor education community because it presents subtle issues that local propelling us forward is the rise of creativity as the prime mover of educators will have to grapple with as globalisation affects the our economy’’. It is the ‘creative talent’ that really enhances education system. In particular, local educators will have to economic competitiveness. In the same tone, Cohen (2001, xvi) opines that ‘‘the talent of top performers has become the critical difference between those companies that grow and innovate, and * Tel.: +65 67903252; fax: +65 68969151. those that falter or merely survive’’. In fact, there are suggestions E-mail address: [email protected]. that the majority of the productive performance of a company 0738-0593/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.05.009 P.T. Ng / International Journal of Educational Development 31 (2011) 262–268 263 comes from the contribution of a minority of talented top citizens into a way of thinking that is geared suitably to an performers (Michaels et al., 2001). Therefore, in many countries, engagement in a global talent war. It first examines the social, comprehensive primary and secondary schooling have been political and economic thinking of the government in responding abandoned as middle and upper class families seek to position to the talent war. It then analyses more deeply the initiatives in the their children in the most desirable and prestigious schools and education system to support the national strategy in competing programmes, so that they could one day become well sought after globally for talent. It also discusses the challenges ahead for global talent (Ball, 2003; Brown, 2000; Tomlinson, 2007). Singapore in this talent war. For nation-states, competing in the global war for talent entails making what are sometimes radical changes in immigration, 2. Singapore’s social, political and economic responses education, economic and social policy in order to attract and retain talented people, reinforcing the hegemonic development model of The global war for talent is part of the wider globalisation the competition state (Abella, 2006; Lavenex, 2007; Schaar, 2006). phenomenon. While globalisation appears to be a macro discourse, Rich nations have shown an increasing propensity to procure it could only be discussed effectively with reference to the local skilled labour that has been developed and paid for by other, often context (Beck, 2002). Therefore, the response of Singapore to the much poorer countries (Kapur and McHale, 2005; Florida, 2005). global war for talent is situated in its local social, economic and Rich countries are increasingly recruiting skilled immigrants to political calculations. The ruling People Action Party (PAP) take on the jobs that the citizens are rejecting. But, with the government has been described as pragmatic (Neo and Chen, liberalisation of global high skill labour markets, high skill jobs in 2007), elitist (Barr, 2006), authoritarian (Rodan, 2004) and rich nations that citizens want are also no longer their exclusive controlling (Trocki, 2006). What works is what counts. Therefore, preserve, but may increasingly be filled by immigrants from the Singapore government’s response to globalisation has been overseas. Even high skill work could be relocated in low wage described as the ‘‘metapragmatics of globalisation’’ (Koh, 2007). In destinations in poorer nations, leading not to a ‘high skill, high fact, instead of being overwhelmed by the tides of globalisation, wage’ future but a ‘high skill, low wage’ future instead (Brown the Singapore government believes that it can anticipate and turn et al., 2006). globalisation to its advantage (Bellows, 1995). It demonstrates a This global war for talent therefore promotes a global Foucauldian perspective of ‘governmentality’, where the term meritocracy that drives escalating levels of inequality throughout ‘governmentality’ is not narrowly confined to the jurisdiction of a the world, both globally and locally within countries and regions. territory, but the management of ‘‘...men in their relation to those The world is currently experiencing a form of global meritocracy other things that are customs, habits, ways of acting and thinking, because talent is no longer restricted by space in a flattened world and so on...’’ (Foucault, 2000, p. 209). In other words, the art of (Friedman, 2005). Those defined as the ‘best’ are disproportion- government is about managing people’s thinking and conduct, ately rewarded as the war for talent devalues everything other which ‘‘takes precedence over all other aspects of government than ‘top’ performance (Brown and Hesketh, 2004). The idea of ‘flat because once people are mould into a way of behaving and earth’ does not equate ‘level playing field’. The global war for talent thinking it would be easy to marshal resources for the ideological promotes inequality, rather than reduces it. UNESCO (2000) purposes of the state’’ (Koh, 2007, p. 183). This section now reported that developed nations accounted for 16% of the world’s explores the social, political and economic thinking of the population, but 79% of public education expenditure. According to Singapore government in responding to the talent war. Docquier and Marfouk (2005, pp. 167–8), global high skilled One of the clearest political discourses that demonstrated how migration increased at a rate of two and a half times faster than low Singapore was affected by a global talent war was the 1997 skilled migration between 1990 and 2000. By 2000, the college- National Day Rally speech, given by Goh Chok Tong, who was then educated made up 34.6% of immigrants to OECD countries, up from Prime Minister. He said: 29.8% in 1990, and far out of proportion to the 11.3% of the world’s overall labour force that they represented.