Higher Education in Singapore: The Policy State and Governance

  • Jason Eng Thye TanEmail author
Part of the Higher Education in Asia: Quality, Excellence and Governance book series (HEAQEG)


Singapore has drawn international attention as an example of a paternalistic, authoritarian state that has consistently maintained a highly interventionist stance in social and economic policies over the past six decades. This stance also extends to the governance of higher education (HE) (Tan in Shaping Singapore’s future: thinking schools, learning nation. Pearson Prentice Hall, Singapore, pp 82–94, 2004). This chapter will begin by setting out the nature of state governance in Singapore so that the reader will better understand the context of policy developments in HE. It will then analyse major government reforms over the past two decades allowing universities greater autonomy. It argues, however, that such reforms represent not a total relinquishing of the reins of control, but rather a decentralization and marketization under a “state supervision model” (Mok and Tan in Globalization and marketization in education: a comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Singapore. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2004). The case of the Singapore Institute of Management University (UNISIM) is offered as an interesting example of how a hitherto private institution can be incorporated into the state framework of publicly funded autonomous universities. The chapter also examines the unsuccessful top-down “global schoolhouse” policy initiative to illustrate the practical limits of the active state interventionist stance in education policymaking.


  1. Barr, M. (2014). The ruling elite of Singapore: Networks of power and influence. London: I. B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  2. Barr, M. D., & Skrbis, Z. (2008). Constructing Singapore: Elitism, ethnicity and the nation-building project. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cheong, H. K. (2013). Singapore’s SIM University. In I. Jung, T. M. Wong, & T. Belawati (Eds.), Quality assurance in distance education and e-learning: Challenges and solutions from Asia (pp. 3–24). New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  5. Curtis, L. (2014, November 4). “Foreigners are taking our jobs” complain Singaporeans. Retrieved from
  6. Davie, S. (2014, October 2). Singapore may rue fall in foreign student numbers. The Straits Times, p. A24.Google Scholar
  7. Davie, S. (2016, October 13). UNISIM set to be sixth autonomous university. The Straits Times, p. A1.Google Scholar
  8. Knight, J. (2014). Three generations of crossborder higher education: New developments, issues and challenges. In B. Streitwieser (Ed.), Internationalisation of higher education and global mobility (pp. 43–58). Oxford: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  9. Lim, H. K. (2012, October 17). Minister Lim Hng Kiang’s written reply to Parliament questions on EDB’s global schoolhouse initiative. Retrieved from
  10. Ministry of Education. (2000). Fostering autonomy and accountability in universities. Singapore: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  11. Ministry of Education. (2005). Autonomous universities: Towards peaks of excellence. Singapore: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  12. Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2002). Panel recommends “global schoolhouse” concept for Singapore to capture bigger slice of US$2.2 trillion world education market. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
  13. Ministry of Trade and Industry. (2003). New challenges, fresh goals: Towards a dynamic global city. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
  14. Mok, K., & Tan, J. (2004). Globalization and marketization in education: A comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Singapore. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  15. Osada, J. (2015, October 15). Man jailed for $2.2 m fake degree scam. The Straits Times, p. A8.Google Scholar
  16. Quah, J. (2010). Public administration Singapore style. Singapore: Talisman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tan, A. (2011, August 21). Singapore: New “cap” on foreign students. Retrieved from
  18. Tan, J. (1993). Independent schools in Singapore: Implications for social and educational inequalities. International Journal of Educational Development, 13, 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tan, J. (1998). The marketisation of education in Singapore: Policies and implications. International Review of Education, 44, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tan, J. (2004). Singapore: Small nation, big plans. In P. G. Altbach & T. Umakoshi (Eds.), Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges (pp. 175–197). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Tan, J. (2005). Reforming the university admission system in Singapore: Lessons for Hong Kong. In L. S. Ho, P. Morris, & Y. Chung (Eds.), Education reform and the quest for excellence: The Hong Kong story (pp. 63–79). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tan, J. (2006). Limited decentralization in the Singapore education system. In C. Bjork (Ed.), Educational decentralization: Asian experiences and conceptual contributions (pp. 59–70). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tan, J. (2008). National education. In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Shaping Singapore’s future: Thinking schools, learning nation (pp. 82–94). Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Teng, A. (2014, November 25). S’pore drops 12 places in ranking of cities for varsity students. The Straits Times, p. B2.Google Scholar
  25. Teng, A. (2016, October 22). New measures set to spark exit of more private schools. The Straits Times, p. A11.Google Scholar
  26. Ziguras, C., & McBurnie, G. (2015). Governing cross-border higher education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations