It is now well recognised that much of what we will become in adult life is determined by our experiences by ages 5 or 6, and last week, in discussing the effects of inequality and poverty, I suggested that this time span should be extended backwards to include what occurred in the womb. I intend to continue considering the myriad effects of inequality, but a Stabroek News editorial PISA and ‘maths mastery’ (SN:13/12/2017) mentioning that Singapore occupies the top spot in the 2018 International Student Assessment (PISA) caught my attention as being worthy of a side bar.
In 1966, the year Guyana became independent, it had a per capita income of US$344 and Singapore had one of US$567, but in 2018, the numbers were US$4,635 and US$64,582 respectively. According to an HSBC report, as a nation Singapore spends double the global average – some US$70,939 a year – on its children’s education (https://www.todayonline.com /singapore/singaporeans-spend-twice-global-average-childrens-local-education-hsbc) while Guyanese spend about US$1,000. In brief, this achievement holds lessons for Guyana, for when that country exited the ethnic cauldron of the Malaysian Federation in 1965, the per capita income of Malaysia was about US$325 – similar to Guyana’s – and like Guyana although by way of a complicated shared governance arrangement Malaysia has been able to ameliorate ethnic conflict, its per capita income of US$11,239 is still far below that of Singapore. Singapore left the Federation and became a state dominated by one ethnic group. Today it consists of 6 million people: 74.3%, Chinese, 13% Malays and 9% Indians. This context significantly affects national policy formulation, acceptance and implementation but this important aspect of Singapore’s success is not widely understood.
