Title Lifelong learning through the SkillsFuture movement in Singapore:

Challenges and prospects

Author(s) Charlene Tan
Source International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36(3), 278-291
Published by Taylor & Francis (Routledge)

Copyright © 2017 Taylor & Francis

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International

Journal of Lifelong Education on 07/10/2016, available online:
[Link]

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and

formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please
refer to the published source.

Citation: Tan, C. (2017). Lifelong learning through the SkillsFuture movement in Singapore:
Challenges and prospects. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36(3),
278-291. [Link]
 PROOF

Tan, C. (2016). Lifelong learning through the SkillsFuture movement in Singapore:

Challenges and prospects. International Journal of Lifelong Education.
DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2016.1241833, 1-14.

Lifelong Learning through the SkillsFuture Movement in Singapore:

Challenges and Prospects
Abstract
This article examines the promotion of lifelong learning in Singapore through a new national
initiative known as the SkillsFuture movement. It is argued that the attainment of lifelong
learning is confronted with three key challenges, the first being the socio-cultural preference
for academic rather than vocational education in Singapore. Secondly, there is an absence of
a strong local lifelong learning culture that underscores the habits of mind needed for lifelong
learning. The final challenge is the dominant ideology of pragmatism that potentially
conflicts with the goal of the SkillsFuture movement for individuals to enjoy learning and
pursue their passion. The article further recommends a reconceptualisation of the notion of
lifelong learning in Singapore by supplementing the skills growth model with the individual
development and social learning models. The Singapore example illustrates the difficulties
and prospects of advocating lifelong learning due to historical and social-cultural conditions
and practices.

Keywords: challenges, lifelong learning, prospects, Singapore, skills

Introduction
Although the concept of lifelong learning (hereinafter LLL) is not new, it is increasingly
prized in our modern world that values human capital and talent development. Many
governments and international organisations have introduced systems, initiatives and
programmes in their quest to produce lifelong learners who are equipped to face the
challenges in a globalised world (e.g. Edwards & Usher, 2001; Commission of the European
Communities, 2001; Medel-Añonuevo, Ohsako, & Mauch, 2001; Singh, 2002; World Bank,
2003; Unesco, 2004; European Commission, 2015). A case in point is the €7 billion Lifelong
Learning Programme (LLP) under the auspices of the European Commission that aims to
enable people, at any stage of their life, to participate in education, training and stimulating
learning experiences across Europe (European Commission, 2015). Beyond the Western
world, countries in Asia such as Bangledesh, China, Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, the
Philippines, and Malaysia have also put in place legislation and other measures to support
adult and lifelong learning (Singh, 2002; Manzoor, 2014).
Although there is a growing body of literature on LLL in Asian societies (e.g. see
Kumar, 2004; Leong, 2008; Wang, 2008; Han, 2008; Preece, 2009; Tam. 2012; Ng, 2013,
Lee & Morris, 2016), the majority of the extant literature focuses on the European or
Northern contexts (Preece, 2009). There is relatively limited research on the diverse
interpretations of LLL in Asian contexts, and the tensions, potentials and outcomes that arise
from the interplay between the policy intent of LLL on the one hand, and local political and

1  
 
socio-cultural institutions, conditions, factors and actors on the other. This state of affairs is
unfortunate as the concept of learning throughout one’s life is not a ‘Western’ concept.
Medel-Añonuevo, Ohsako and Mauch (2001) rightly note that “African, Asian and Arabic
cultures have all emphasised vertical articulation, or the need for people to learn continuously
from childhood to adulthood, as individuals and societies change” (p. 4; for a discussion of
LLL from a Confucian perspective, see Zhang, 2008). While it is difficult to generalise the
similarities and differences between the Asian and Western concepts of LLL, given that much
diversity exists even within ‘Asian’ and ‘Western’ countries, a notable convergence across
these countries is the adoption of a neoliberal paradigm for LLL (Marshall, 1995; Lambeir,
2005; Olssen, 2006; Lee & Morris, 2016). Within a neoliberal discourse of LLL, knowledge
has been replaced by skills and learning with an accent on process (Marshall, 1996).
Using Singapore as an illustrative case study, this article critically discusses the
promotion of LLL in the nation-state through a new national initiative known as the
SkillsFuture movement. By examining the aims and contents of the movement, the essay
highlights the key challenges and prospects facing Singapore in its attempt to nurture lifelong
learners. The article begins by introducing the concept of LLL, followed by a discussion of
the propagation of LLL in Singapore through the SkillsFuture movement. The last part of the
article spotlights on the main difficulties and recommendations for Singapore to achieve LLL.

Lifelong Learning (LLL)

This section seeks to provide a brief overview rather than a detailed literature review of the
concept of LLL. Readers are encouraged to peruse the existing corpus of works on the
genesis, evolution, interpretations and application of LLL (for a good review of the literature
on LLL, see Aspin & Chapman, 2000; Medel-Añonuevo, Ohsako, & Mauch, 2001; Green,
2006; Schuetze, 2006; Preece, 2009). In simple terms, LLL refers to “learning that is pursued
throughout life: learning that is flexible, diverse and available at different times and in
different places” (Lifelong Learning Council Queensland Inc, 2015, p. 1). In his literature
review, Schuetze (2006) notes that the term ‘lifelong learning’ has changed from a
predominantly idealistic and elusive social justice reform model to a more utilitarian, human
capital based model. The goal of LLL is to improve ones’ “knowledge, skills and competence,
within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective” through all learning
activity undertaken throughout life (Commission of the European Communities, 2001, p. 9).
It is instructive that the European Commission goes beyond the employability/adaptability
priority of LLL to encompass the desired outcomes of personal fulfilment, active citizenship
and social inclusion (ibid.). A lifelong learner is an active and creative explorer of the world,
a reflexive agent, a self-actualising agent, and an integrator of learning (Medel-Añonuevo,
Ohsako & Mauch, 2001). LLL takes place not only within formal education (typically
structured learning that leads to certification and provided by an education or training
institution) but also non-formal and informal education as well. Non-formal learning refers to
learning that is structured in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support,
but is not provided by an education or training institution and typically does not lead to
certification (Commission of the European Communities, 2001). Informal learning, although
similar to non-formal learning by not leading to certification, is unstructured and results from
daily life activities related to work, family or leisure (ibid.).
Despite the popularity and ubiquity of LLL as a global signifier, there is no consistent
discourse on LLL (Mocker & Spear, 1982; Aspin & Chapman, 2000; Edwards & Usher, 2001;
Coffield, 2000; Ng, 2013). Among the many conceptions of LLL are three models that are

2  
 
most relevant to LLL in Singapore: the skills growth model, the personal developmental
model, and the social learning model (Rees & Bartlett, 1999, cited in Coffield, 1999; for
other models of and agendas for LLL, see Green, 2006; Schuetze, 2006). The skills growth
model is linked to the human capital thesis that sees a correlation between upskilling and
economic prosperity. Preece (2009) explains that this model is concerned with producing a
more accredited, multi-skilled and nimble labour force in order to further economic progress.
The personal developmental model, in contrast to the skills growth model, goes beyond
material concerns and technical skills to include individual self-fulfilment in all spheres of
life. Finally, the social learning model underlines the role of institutions of trust and
cooperation as the means to bring about not just economic progress but also social equity.
Combining the three models of LLL identified by Rees and Bartlett (1999) is the ‘triadic’
nature of LLL that integrates the aims of economic progress and development, personal
development and fulfilment, as well as social inclusiveness and democratic understanding
and activity (Aspin & Chapman, 2000; also see Chapman & Aspin, 1998). Also offering a
holistic model of LLL are Power and Maclean (2011) who view LLL as “a basic human right
for individual development and empowerment; a means to better employment prospects and
higher income; a strategy for poverty alleviation or closing income gaps; an enabler for social
benefits such as higher productivity and social capital; and the ‘master key’ for the
achievement of national vision” (cited in Ng, 2013, p. 321). Against a backdrop of the
varying conceptions of LLL, the next section examines the promotion of LLL in Singapore
through a new and comprehensive initiative.

The SkillsFuture Movement

The state agenda for LLL is not a recent development in Singapore. For example, the
Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund (LLEF) was introduced in Singapore more than a
decade ago to facilitate “the acquisition of skills and expertise by persons, and the
development and upgrading of skills and expertise of persons, to enhance their employability”
(Attorney-General’s Chambers, 2001, as cited in Ng, 2013, p. 322, also see Kumar, 2004;
Lee & Morris, 2016). But what is new about the current furtherance of LLL in Singapore is
the scope and extent of investment given by the state. Unlike past endeavours that largely
aimed to train workers through ad-hoc programmes that are run on a relatively small budget,
the SkillsFuture movement is an ambitious and nation-wide initiative that is open to all
Singaporeans. That LLL is a central objective of the Singapore government is seen in the
national budget allocated: it has been announced that the spending on continuing education
and training will increase from about $600m per year over the last five years, to an average of
over $1 billion per year from now to 2020 (Shanmugaratnam, 2015a).
The essence of the SkillsFuture movement, as denoted by the name, is about
developing the skills relevant to the future. The aims of the SkillsFuture movement are spelt
out and reiterated by a number of policymakers in their speeches. The Deputy Prime Minister,
in a recent Budget speech, hails LLL as “our next phase of development” and “critical to our
future” (Shanmugaratnam, 2015a). The aim of the SkillsFuture movement is as follows:

It will develop the skills and mastery needed to take our economy to the next level.
More fundamentally, it aims to empower each Singaporean to chart their own journey
in life, and gain fulfilment at work and even in their senior years (ibid.).

3  
 
The ‘skills’ in question refers to “the ability to apply knowledge in real-world situations that
keep changing, develop deeper know-how through practice, collaborate well with others and
look for opportunities in the face of challenges (Ministry of Manpower, 2015). The Acting
Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) outlines three big ideas for SkillsFuture:
‘mastery’, ‘meritocracy’, and ‘you’ (Ong, 2016). First, mastery refers to the desire to go
beyond paper qualification to achieve a level of expertise so deep that “we can innovate,
venture into new terriroty, dream and invent” (ibid.). Complementing ‘mastery’ is
‘meritocracy’ where a diversity of achievements across all fields – from managers and Chief
Operating Officers to artisans and craftsmen – are celebrated. Finally ‘you’ exhorts
individuals to “pursue their interests, aspirations and passions” and achieve “self-discovery”
(ibid.). An ideal lifelong learner, it follows, is one who “celebrates and values learning for the
joy and sense of fulfilment that it brings, one where learning is an intrinsic part of daily life,
and deeply entrenched in the social fabric” (Ong, 2015).
The advancement of LLL through the SkillsFuture movement is primarily driven by
economic considerations. The Acting Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)
states that the movement was conceived “to respond to a changing world with changing
demands for skills and knowledge” (Ong, 2015). Besides meeting the challenges of
globalisation, the government is also concerned with the growing number of graduates who
may lack the requisite skills to be employed and remain employable. Over the decades, the
number of degree holders in Singapore has increased sharply: almost half of the residents in
Singapore (52%) aged aged 25-34 had university degrees in 2014, as compared to only 7.2%
in 1990 (Yeo, 2015). Although the overall proportion of underemployed graduates has
remained low at around 2 per cent, the underemployment rates for the arts (9.3 per cent) and
community, social and personal services (other than those categorised as health and social
services) are relatively high (6.4 per cent) (Yng, 2015). Alerting Singaporeans to the problem
of underemployment in Britain, the United States and China, the Prime Minister of Singapore
cautions: “Singapore must avoid leading people up the wrong path, misleading them that if
you spend three years of your life doing this, at the end you will have a happy outcome”
(cited in Davie, 2012).
A spread of programmes and initiatives has been planned under the SkillsFuture
movement for all Singaporeans, including students, employees, employers, training providers
and adult educators. Collectively, the programmes and initiatives aspire to achieve the
following four thrusts (Government of Singapore, 2015):
• Help individuals make well-informed choices in education, training and careers;
• Develop an integrated high-quality system of education and training that responds to
constantly evolving needs;
• Promote employer recognition and career development based on skills and mastery;
and
• Foster a culture that supports and celebrates LLL.
First, to achieve the goal of helping students make well-informed choices in education,
training and careers, all students will receive education and career guidance to assist them in
knowing the various options and making informed choices about their future
(Shanmugaratnam, 2015a). To this end, a professional core of Education and Career
Counsellors with prior industry experience and knowledge will be developed for the public
schools and Institutes of Higher Learning. The Institutes of Higher Learning, in the Singapore
context, comprise the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), polytechnics and five publicly-
funded universities (Ministry of Education, 2015a). Students in the ITE and the polytechnics
will receive a total of 40-60 hours of curriculum where they are equipped with the requisite
4  
 
skills for the workplace. Secondly, to develop an integrated high-quality system of education
and training that responds to constantly evolving needs, students will be involved in deeper
and more structured internship programmes that include international exposure, especially in
Institutes of Higher Learning (Shanmugaratnam, 2015a). The target is to introduce enhanced
internships in two-thirds of polytechnic courses and half of ITE courses over the next two
years. In particular, extensive overseas programmes, hitherto available only to university
students, will be open to students in the ITE and polytechnics via the Young Talent
Programme (YTP). This means that students in the ITE and polytechnics will have the
opportunities to be involved in international immersion programmes such as internships and
work-study programmes that will increase their job prospects.
As for the third thrust of achieving employer recognition and career development
based on skills and mastery, a new programme known as ‘SkillsFuture Earn and Learn
Programme’ has been introduced (Shanmugaratnam, 2015a). Tailored for fresh graduates
from the polytechnics and ITE, this programme matches the graduates with suitable
employers so that the former will receive structured on-the-job training and mentorship, as
well as study for an industry recognised qualification. The objective is for one-third of the
polytechnic and ITE graduates to be involved in this programme. Finally, as part of the effort
to foster a culture that endorses LLL, a ‘SkillsFuture Credit’ initiative has been implemented
from January 2016. The Acting Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills)
explains that the SkillsFuture Credit is “not meant to be just a monetary grant, but is also a
clear signal that each of us is empowered and needs to take charge of our own skills” (cited in
Ang, 2015). This initiative gives all Singaporeans aged 25 and above an opening credit of
S$500 that can be used to pay for a wide range of approved skills-related courses. It has been
announced that as many as 10,000 courses, ranging from financial literacy to photography,
cooking and learning of a foreign language, will be offered by more than 500 providers such
as the Nanyang Technological University and Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (ibid.).
Besides the above-mentioned core initiatives and programmes, the SkillsFuture
movement also provides a variety of courses, platforms and resources for employees (early
career and mid-career onwards), employers, training providers and adult educators. Examples
are the ‘Individual Learning Portfolio’ (ILP) which is an online portal for Singaporeans to
plan their education and training into their working life, and the P-Max which is a ‘Place-and-
Train’ programme to match job-seeking Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) to
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) (for details, see Government of Singapore, 2015).

Key Challenges
A number of challenges exist that vitiate the successful promotion of LLL through the
SkillsFuture movement in Singapore. This article shall focus on three main challenges for
reason of space. The first challenge is the socio-cultural preference for academic rather than
vocational education. For the SkillsFuture initiative to succeed in Singapore, the country
needs a paradigm shift in re-looking the overriding concern with paper qualification and
seeing learning as merely a product. The Prime Minister of Singapore states:

Do not go on a paper chase for qualifications or degrees, especially if they are not
relevant because pathways and opportunities to upgrade and to get better
qualifications will remain open throughout your career. It is never the last chance.
You always have the possibility to advance, to improve yourself, to take another step
5  
 
 as long as you are working, as long as your mind remains fresh and active and you
dare to go (Lee, 2015).

Rather than merely focussing on paper qualification, Singaporeans are urged to acquire deep
competencies throughout their careers by learning on the job and pursuing higher skills
qualifications (ibid.). Reiterating the Prime Minister’s message is the Deputy Prime Minister
who calls on Singaporeans to “change the culture in education” by being “less obsessed by
the grades they get and how finely we can differentiate one child from the other, and focus
more on giving them diverse experiences” (Shanmugaratnam, 2015b). In tandem with the
national purpose to shift from paper chase to skills mastery, the SkillsFuture movement states
on its website, “Skills mastery is more than having the right paper qualifications and being
good at what you do currently; it is a mindset of continually striving towards greater
excellence through knowledge, application and experience” (Government of Singapore,
2015). The SkillsFuture Secretariat, in a letter published in a local newspaper, further reminds
Singaporeans not to judge a person based solely on academic qualification but to “look
beyond early qualifications and recognise that a whole set of skills matters in how well we do
and what we contribute” (Ministry of Manpower, 2015). LLL, in order to succeed in
Singapore, also requires Singaporeans to go beyond seeing learning solely as an outcome to
viewing it as a process as well. A lifelong learner is one who is prepared to continuously
(re)learn as part of “an ongoing permanent addition of competences and skills adapted
continuously to real external needs” (Olssen, 2006, p. 22).
However, the reality is that the priority of many Singaporeans is on paper
qualification, particularly a university degree. This point was acknowledged by the Prime
Minister himself: “Every parent wants his or her child to do as well as possible, go to
university. And many ITE (Institute of Technical Education) students hope to go on to the
poly and most poly students aspire to get a degree” (cited in Davie, 2012). Consequently,
many Singaporeans have been conditioned to measure the worth of learning based on its
tangible outcome. A researcher observes that Singapore’s fixation with academic
qualification “has left some parents and students sceptical about the SkillsFuture scheme” as
they “typically take the view that a degree is essential to career progression, and point to how
a university graduate may earn twice as much in starting pay than those from the ITEs and
polytechnics” (cited in ibid.). Aggravating the obsession with academic education/paper
qualification in Singapore is a concomitant negative view of vocational education/skills
acquisition. Such a perception has a historical basis: since Singapore’s independence in 1965,
only the academically able students, based on their performance in terminal exams, are
admitted into elite schools and universities, leaving the vocational institutions to take in low-
performing students. The rationale presumably is that the best and brightest will ‘use their
brains’ to become leaders and thinkers whereas the weaker students will ‘use their hands’ to
acquire the basic technical skills to earn a living. Consequently, vocational education, as well
as ‘skills’, is not the preferred route for the population at large. In the eyes of most
Singaporeans, ‘mastery’ is likely to mean content mastery of exam subjects while
‘meritocracy’ is narrowly defined as the opportunity to excel academically and obtain a place
in a prestigious educational institution.
This pejorative view of vocational education is not unique to Singapore. Researchers
have noted that vocational education has traditionally been subordinated to general academic
studies in the Anglophone countries. Lewis (1991) claims that “whether in the developed or
developing world … vocational education has been conceived as being unworthy of the elite,
and more suited to the oppressed or unprivileged classes (p. 97, cited in Hager & Hyland,

6  
 
2003, p. 272). Such a perception, as noted by Hager and Hyland (2003), is premised on the
dichotomies inspired by the ancient Greeks: “body vs. mind, hand vs. hand, manual vs.
mental, skills vs. knowledge, applied vs. pure, knowing how vs. knowing that, practice vs.
theory, particular vs. general, and training vs. education” (p. 272). Winch and Gingell (2004)
concur that vocational education is regarded as inferior due to the exaltation of factual and
theoretical over practical education and experience. In the case of Singapore and other East
Asian societies, the low status of vocational education stems not so much from the Greek
heritage but primarily from the Confucian culture that exalts textual transmission and
academic achievement (Tan, 2015, 2016). The aspiration of every parent in ancient China is
for one’s child to be a scholar who has aced the civil service exam rather than a craftsman
who is unschooled. Xiong (2011), commenting on the cultural challenge in developing the
higher vocational education in China, concludes that vocationalism that values skills and
skilled workers is oppositional to the Confucian tradition that favours theoretical knowledge.
The second and related challenge for the successful promotion of LLL in Singapore is
a lack of a strong LLL culture that underscores not just skills but also the habits of mind
needed for LLL. Notwithstanding the heavy state investment in terms of infrastructure,
systems, programmes and resources, what is just as important, if not more important than the
‘hardware’ is the ‘heartware’ or habits of mind. Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of multi-
national companies (MNCs) have observed that Singapore employees generally are weak in
attributes such as the drive to succeed and the willingness to try new things (Han, 2015). A
director of corporate strategy of a training company asserts that “Singaporeans lack one key
mindset, which is the appreciation of the need to learn-unlearn-relearn” (ibid.). Questioning
that assumption that training itself is sufficient, La Belle (1982) contends that the acquisition
of skills may not be the most important variable in occupational stratification as employers
are just as interested in the cultural and socio-economic attributes of potential employees. A
2014 survey conducted with 150 Chief Financial Officers from Singapore by Human
Resource consulting firm Robert Half shows that the most important factor to raise
productivity of employees is “motivating employees” (54%), “improving training and
development of employees” (40%) and “better adoption of technology” (25%) (Yeo, 2015).
Responding to the survey findings, a director of corporate strategy of a training company
draws our attention to the development of habits of mind such as creativity, adaptability,
curiosity, the ability to handle diversity, cross-cultural collaboration etc. (Han, 2015).
A LLL culture is critical, given that historical, institutional and cultural contexts
mediate and shape human behaviours (e.g. Wertsch, 1998, 2007; Wertsch & Rupert, 1993;
Engeström, 1987, Engeström & Engeström, & Kerosuo, 2003; Daniels, 2010; Daniels et al.,
2010). Daniels (2010), drawing upon Engeström’s works, points out that broad institutional
and societal frameworks and immediate social actions of individuals are mutually constitutive.
La Belle (1982) highlights a tendency by programme planners to neglect socio-economic and
ethnic dependency relationships that are integral to the smooth execution of programmes. In
other words, these programme planners overlook the fact that individuals and institutions
may not be united in working toward shared goals, that a community's economic and political
resources and expertise are not always available to support job-training, and that relevant job
opportunities may not be offered to employees so that they could meaningfully apply what
they have learned (ibid.). In the case of Singapore, the ‘SkillsFuture Earn and Learn
Programme’ was modelled after the apprenticeship programme in Germany and Switzerland
– countries that have a long tradition of valuing skills mastery. Such a culture, where the
people take pride in mastery of skills and are respected for their competence rather than mere
paper qualification, is currently weak in Singapore. The function of culture in influencing the
outcome of LLL is noted by the Deputy Prime Minister who comments that firms in

7  
 
Germany, Japan and Sweden are at the frontier because of the people’s deep mastery of skills
(Shanmugaratnam, 2015b). He adds that the “culture we must aspire towards” is “taking
pride in mastery and getting respect from customers and the public because you’re the master
of what you’re doing (ibid.).
Related to the first two challenges is the final challenge that stems from the dominant
ideology of pragmatism. Singaporeans as well as their leaders have been characterised as
“pragmatic”, “rational” and “instrumental” (Chua, 1997; Kumar, 2004; Tan, 2012; Bhaskaran
et al., 2012; Lee & Morris, 2016). The ideology of pragmatism exhibits the following
essential traits: “opposition to idealism, Utopianism and totalising approaches; its adaptive
and mimicking nature; its focus on finding the technical means for achieving results that
often lie beyond public reflection and criticism; and its disregard for intangible and
unquantifiable values” (Tan, 2012, p. 71; also see Hill & Lian 1995; Gopinathan 2007; Tan,
2005, 2008; Koh, 2007; Tan, 2012). Scholars have maintained that “soft, qualitative evidence,
principled arguments and concerns about the intangible” are eschewed in any public policy
enquiry or debate (Tan, 2012, p. 81), and “‘concrete’ evidence of a statistical type” and
“quantitative measures” are privileged (Chua, 1997, p. 70, cited in Tan, 2012, p. 81). Situated
within a pragmatist climate, it is unsurprising that the SkillsFuture movement is arguably
predicated on a skills growth model. As mentioned, this model associates LLL with the
human capital thesis, training, skills upgrading and mastery, productivity and economic
progress. That LLL is valued primarily for its employability and utilitarian value is alluded to
in the statement that the SkillsFuture movement “will develop the skills and mastery needed
to take our economy to the next level” (Shanmugaratnam, 2015a). The former Education
Minister reinforces the economic imperative of LLL when he states that the SkillsFuture
movement aspires to help Singaporeans to “stay on the top of change and excel at what you
do, so that you can own a better future” (cited in Saad, 2015).
However, the prevailing ideology of pragmatism for Singapore potentially conflicts
with the goal and direction of the SkillsFuture movement. The SkillsFuture initiative, as part
of the government’s aim to champion LLL, encourages Singaporeans to go beyond the
tangible and quantifiable to find joy in learning and to pursue their passions and interests. As
mentioned earlier, two big ideas for SkillsFuture are ‘meritocracy’ and ‘you’ (Ong, 2016).
The former refers to an acceptance in a diversity of achievements across all fields whereas
the latter spurs individuals on to pursue their interests, aspirations and passions in a journey
of self-discovery. It has also been noted earlier that the ideal lifelong learner is one who
values learning not just for its extrinisc and tangible rewards but also for its intrinsic worth; in
the words of the Acting Education Minister (Higher Education and Skills), such as person
“celebrates and values learning for the joy and sense of fulfilment that it brings” (Ong, 2015).
But the social acceptance of the above two big ideas in Singapore requires, among other
conditions, a re-definition of success that transcends economic, concrete and quantifiable
considerations. It involves, for example, judging a person not based on one’s paper
qualification (or the lack of), job title, social status, earning power and utilitarian contribution
to Singapore’s economy. It necessitates a social recognition of the importance of living out
one’s aspirations and dreams even if they do not cumulate in measurable economic outcomes
that benefit oneself and the nation. However the above mindset and lifestyle do not sit well
with the ideology of pragmatism, with “its disregard for intangible and unquantifiable values”
(Tan, 2012, p. 71). It should be added that the above critique of the ideology of pragmatism
does not mean that this ideology is no longer relevant to Singapore. To be sure, a pragmatic
ideology has been instrumental in bringing economic success, political stability and social
cohesion to Singapore. Rather, the argument here is that this ideology that stresses realism,
tangibles and quantifiable outcomes needs to be supplemented by a new ideology that

8  
 
welcomes idealism, intengaibles and unquantifiable values. Otherwise, pragmatism may
become a stumbling block to the SkillsFuture movement by perpetuating narrow definitions
of meritocracy (merit derived from academic achievement) and success (encapsulated in the
5Cs: cash, car, credit card, condominium and country club membership).

Prospects
To address the above-mentioned challenges, it is recommended that the notion of LLL in
Singapore be reconceptualised to balance the dominant skills growth model with the
individual development and social learning models. The creation and sustainence of a LLL
culture in Singapore require an integrated approach to LLL capabilities that involves not just
training opportunities on craft mastery and other capabilities required to practise a vocation,
but also a change in mindset towards education, skills, vocational training, and definitions of
‘mastery’, ‘meritocracy’, ‘success’ and ‘the good life’. The learning, internalisation and
practice of habits of mind for LLL such as open-mindedness, innovation and risk-taking
should take place not only in a work context at a specific time, but in all social settings
throughout one’s life. A triadic nature of LLL is recommended that harmonises economic
progress and development, personal development and fulfilment, and social inclusiveness and
democratic understanding and activity (Aspin & Chapman, 2000). As part of the goal to
move away from a skills-centric notion of LLL, more courses under the SkillsFuture Credit,
for example, can be expanded to include learning experiences that are salutary for personal
growth, such as values clarification, emotional intelligence and talent development. After all,
these experiences are part and parcel of the “diverse experiences” mentioned by the Deputy
Prime Minister as crucial for an innovative and creative society in Singapore; these diverse
experiences, according to him, could take place in the sports field, in the dance hall, in debate,
in outdoor adventure, and even during daydreaming (Shanmugaratnam, 2015b). It is
noteworthy that researchers such as Jenkins and colleagues (2012) have foregrounded “the
non-economic benefits of adult learning, including any intergenerational transfers of
knowledge and ‘love of learning’” as well as “a range of different definitions of lifelong
learning in addition to learning which leads to qualifications” (p. 1).
It is also essential, for a LLL culture to take root in Singapore, to consider the
interaction between societal frameworks and the agency exercised by social actors. Noting
that the learning society is a global society of engagement, Olssen (2006) avers that the
learner is “engaged in a process of action for change as part of a dialogic encounter rather
than as a consequence of individual choice” (p. 225). It is imperative, therefore, to place a
premium on building trust and cooperation which are values emphasised in the social
learning model. Medel-Añonuevo, Ohsako and Mauch (2001) observe that “[w]hile learning
takes place at the individual level with the interplay of cognitive, emotional and physical
elements, the learning process is very much shaped by the environment in which the learner
finds himself/herself” (p. 20). In the same vein, La Belle (1982) posits that individuals are
more likely to internalise and practise what they have learnt when the learning is infused into
the lived experiences of the individuals. Evidently, societal discourses, affordances and
constraints are embedded within the everyday activity of the individual and thus in their
decision making. A practical strategy to capitalise on and bring together instituional, social
and individual resources is the establishment of ‘informal learning networks’ where
individuals could learn collaboratively by drawing upon the community’s values, capital and
wisdom. The government, on its part, could provide the necessary financial, logistical and
manpower support through the SkillsFuture movement. An example is for community or
religious leaders to organise events where Singaporeans could congregate to showcase, learn

9  
 
about and share each other’s talents, interests and mastery of skills. Through such communal
interactions, exposure and experiences, a culture, built upon a spirit of collegiality, trust and
love of learning, could be established and fortified in the long run. This outcome is in tandem
with the aim of the SkillsFuture movement to foster “a culture of lifelong learning” that
involves “an entire community to build this mindset”, in the words of the Acting Education
Minister (Higher Education and Skills) (Ong, 2015).

Conclusion
This article has argued that the attainment of LLL via the SkillsFuture movement in
Singapore is fraught with endemic challenges that stem from prevailing socio-cultural values
and practices. It is argued that the attainment of LLL is hindered by the socio-cultural
preference for academic rather than vocational education in Singapore. There is also a lack of
a conductive cultural environment that underscores the habits of mind needed for LLL.
Finally, the dominant ideology of pragmatism potentially conflicts with the goal of the
SkillsFuture movement for individuals to enjoy learning and pursue their passion.
Responding to these challenges, the article has recommended an expansion of the existing
conception of LLL from a predominantly skills-growth orientation towards individual
development and social learning.
Globalisation, with its accent on human capital and (re)creation of knowledge, has
increased the value of skills mastery and vocational education and supported the skills-centric
focus of LLL. But the emphasis on the skills growth model for LLL is a double-edged sword:
it has also resulted, as evident in the case of Singapore, a conception of LLL that is
predominantly confined to economic and vocationalist considerations at the expense of
personal development and social learning. An economy-driven interpretation of LLL is not
unique to Singapore and is in fact prevalent in other countries. Pointing out that economic
competitiveness is the main driver for the vision for LLL, Preece (2009) informs us that the
skills growth model of LLL is the most influential model in industry-focused countries in the
world. But this economic and vocationalist conception of LLL has been criticised for being
too narrow and functionalist. As noted by Medel-Añonuevo, Ohsako and Mauch (2001),
“The predominantly economic interpretation of lifelong learning in the last ten years,
however, has become problematic for many educators and practitioners who have come
forward with such terms as “Lifelong (L)Earning” and “Learning to Earn” as their succinct
criticism of the way the term is being promoted” (p. 1). Such an understanding of LLL may
marginalise the non-economic dimensions and benefits of LLL that are essential for the
individual and collective well being of human beings. Furthermore, it neglects the existence
of local socio-cultural factors that vitiate the implementation of LLL. The Singapore example
adds to the existing literature on the difficulties and prospects arising from the mediating
effects of prevailing social-cultural ideologies, presuppositions and practices.

10  
 
References
Ang, C. W. (November, 21, 2015). Directory of SkillsFuture courses online. The Straits
Times, Home B6.
Aspin, D. N., & Chapman, J. D. (2000). Lifelong learning: Concepts and conceptions.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 2-19.
Attorney-General’s Chambers (2001). Lifelong Endowment Fund Act (Chapter 162A).
Singapore: Author.
Bhaskaran, M., Ho, S. C., Low, D., Tan, K. S., Vadaketh, S., & Yeoh, L. K. (2012).
Singapore perspectives 2012: Background paper-Inequality and the need for a new
social compact. Singapore: Institute for Policy Studies. [Online]. Retrieved June 4,
2015, from [Link]
Chapman, J. D., & Aspin, D. N. (1998). The School, the Community and Lifelong Learning.
London: Cassell.
Chua, B. H. (1995). Communitarian ideology and democracy in Singapore. London:
Routledge.
Chua B. H. (1997). Political legitimacy and housing: Stakeholding in Singapore. London:
Routledge.
Coffield, F. (1999). Breaking the consensus: Lifelong learning as social control. British
Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 479-498.
Coffield, F., (Ed.). (2000). Differing Visions of a Learning Society, Vol 2. Bristol: The Policy
Press.
Commission of the European Communities (2001). Making a European Area of Lifelong
Learning a Reality. Brussels: Author.
Daniels, H. (2010). Implicit or invisible mediation in the development of interagency work.
In H. Daniels, A., Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher & S. R. Ludvigsen (Eds.).
Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp.
105-125). Oxon: Routledge.
Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (Eds.). (2010).
Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. Oxon:
Routledge.
Davie, S. (2012, Aug 27). 16,000 places yearly by 2020 at six institutions offering full-time
courses. The Straits Times. Retrieved from [Link]
of-each-cohort-to-get-shot-at-local-universities (accessed 13 Nov 2015).
Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2001). Lifelong Learning: The Postmodern Condition of
Education? Adult Education Quarterly August, 51(4), 273-287.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. & Engeström, R. & Kerosuo, H. (2003) The discursive construction of
collaborative care. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 286–315.
European Commission (2015). Lifelong Learning Programme. Retrieved from
[Link] (accessed 20 Nov 2015).
Gopinathan, S. (2007). Globalisation, the Singapore developmental state and education policy:
A thesis revisited. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 53–70.

11  
 
Government of Singapore (2015). About SkillsFuture. Retrieved from
[Link] (accessed 13 Nov 2015).
Green, A. (2006) Models of Lifelong Learning and the ‘knowledge society’. Compare: A
Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36(3), 307-325.
Hager, P., & Hyland, T. (2003). Vocational education and training. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers,
R. Smith & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education
(pp. 271-287). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Han, J. (2015, May 13). The future of SkillsFuture -- How can we make it a success?
Singapore Business Review, Retrieved from [Link]
education/commentary/future-skillsfuture-how-can-we-make-it-success (accessed 13
Nov 2015).
Han, S. (2008). The lifelong learning ecosystem in Korea: Evolution of learning capitalism?
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(5), 517-524.
Hill, M., & Lian, K. F. (1995). The politics of nation building and citizenship in Singapore.
London and New York: Routledge.
Jenkins, A., Vignoles, A., Wolf, A. & Galindo-Rueda, F. (2012). The Determinants and
Effects of Lifelong Learning. London: Centre for the Economics of Education London
School of Economics and Political Science.
Koh, A. (2007). Living with globalisation tactically: The metapragmatics of globalisation in
Singapore. SOJOURN: Joumal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 22(2), 179–201.
Kumar, P. (2004). Lifelong learning in Singapore: Where are we now? International Journal
of Lifelong Education, 23(6), 559–568.
La Belle, T. J. (1982). Formal, nonformal and informal education: A holistic perspective on
lifelong Learning. International Review of Education, 28(2), 159-175.
Lambeir, B. (2005). Education as liberation: the politics and techniques of lifelong learning.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(3), 349–356.
Lee, H. L. (2015). Believing in Singapore, Pioneering Our Future. Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong's National Day Rally 2014 (Speech in English). Retrieved from
[Link]
2014-speech-english (accessed 20 Nov 2015).
Lee, M., & Morris, M. (2016). Lifelong learning, income inequality and social mobility in
Singapore, International Journal of Lifelong Education,
DOI:10.1080/02601370.2016.1165747, 1-27.
Leong, A. M. W. (2008). Lifelong learning and development of continuing education among
higher education institutions in Macau. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
27(5), 543-549.
Lewis, T. (1991). Difficulties attending the new vocationalism in the USA. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 25(1), 95-108.
Lifelong Learning Council Queensland Inc (2015). What is Lifelong Learning? Retrieved
from [Link] (accessed 23 Nov 2015).

12  
 
Manzoor, A. (2014). Lifelong learning in a learning society: Are community learning centres
the vehicle? International Development Policy. Retrieved from
[Link] (accessed 27 Apr 2016).
Marshall, J. O. (1995). Foucault and neo-liberalism: Biopower and busno-power. In A.
Neiman (Ed.), Philosophy Of Education 1995, Proceedings of the Philosophy of
Education Society (pp. 320–329). IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Marshall, J. D. (1996). Education in the mode of education: some philosophical
considerations. In Philosophy of Education 1996, Proceedings of the Philosophy of
Education Society (pp. 266–276). IL: Philosophy of Education Society.
Medel-Añonuevo, C., Ohsako, T., & Mauch, W. (2001). Revisiting lifelong learning for the
21st Century. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.
Ministry of Education (2015a). Post-Secondary education. Retrieved from
[Link] (accessed 13 Nov 2015).
Ministry of Education (2015b). SkillsFuture council begins work: Driving national effort to
develop skills for the future. Retrieved from
[Link]
(accessed 13 Nov 2015).
Ministry of Manpower (2015). SkillsFuture is for every S’porean. Retrieved from
[Link]
sporean (accessed 20 Nov 2015).
Mocker, Donald W., Spear, George E. (1982). Lifelong learning: Formal, nonformal,
informal, and self-directed. Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and
Vocational Education.
Ng, P. T. (2013). An examination of lifelong learning policy rhetoric and practice in
Singapore. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(3), 318-33.
Olssen, M. (2006). Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: Lifelong learning,
flexibility and knowledge capitalism. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
25(3), 213-230.
Ong, Y. K. (2015). Opening Address By Mr Ong Ye Kung, Acting Minister For Education
(Higher Education and Skills) At The Lifelong Learning Festival 2015 On Saturday, 7
November 2015, 9.30am At Lifelong Learning Institute, 11 Eunos Road 8, Singapore
408601. Retrieved from [Link]
by-mr-ong-ye-kung-ag-minister-for-education-at-the-lifelong-learning-festival-
[Link] (accessed 13 Nov 2015).
Ong, Y. K. (2016, Apr 21). What SkillsFuture is about. The Straits Times, p. A30.
Power, C., & Maclean, R. (2011). Lifelong Learning for Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable
Development. Background Concept Paper for the International Symposium of
Lifelong Learning for Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Development: Developing
a Research Agenda for Asia-Pacific. Hong Kong Institute of Education, 12-13
January. Retrieved from [Link]
isll/Download%20Files/Lifelong%20Learning%20Symposium%20-
%20Background%20Concept %[Link] (accessed 31 December 2011)

13  
 
Preece, J. (2009). Lifelong learning and development: A Southern perspective. London:
Continuum.
Rees, T., & Bartlett, W. (1999). Models of guidance services in the learning society: The case
of the Netherlands. In F. Coffield (Ed.), Why’s the Beer up North Always Stronger?
Studies of Lifelong Learning in Europe (pp. 21-30). Bristol: Policy Press.
Saad, I. (2015, Aug 22). SkillsFuture to help Singaporeans stay on top of change: Heng Swee
Keat. Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved from
[Link]
(accessed 13 Nov 2015).
Schuetze, H. G. (2006). International concepts and agendas of lifelong learning. Compare: A
Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36(3), 289-306.
Shanmugaratnam, T. (2015a). Budget speech 2015 - section C: Developing our people.
Retrieved from [Link]
(accessed 13 Nov 2015).
Shanmugaratnam, T. (2015b, Nov 21). Ensuring progress in a world of troubles. The Straits
Times, Opinion A52.
Singh, M. (2002). Institutionalising lifelong learning: Creating conducive environments for
adult learning in the Asian context. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.
Tam, M. (2012). Lifelong learning for elders in Hong Kong: Policy and practice.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(2), 157-170.
Tan, C. (2005). Driven by pragmatism: Issues and challenges in an ability-driven education.
In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Shaping Singapore's future: Thinking schools, learning
nation (pp. 5 - 21). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Tan, C. (2008). Globalisation, the Singapore state and educational reforms: Towards
performativity. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 2(2), 111-120.
Tan, C. (2015). Education policy borrowing and cultural scripts for teaching in China.
Comparative Education, 51(2), 196-211.
Tan, C. (2016). Educational policy borrowing in China: Looking West or looking East?
Oxon: Routledge.
Tan, K. P. (2012). The ideology of pragmatism: Neo-liberal globalisation and political
authoritarianism in Singapore. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42(1), 67–92.
Unesco (2004). Lifelong Learning in Asia and the Pacific Region. Bangkok: Author.
Wang, C.-Y. (2008). Enhancing the interactive relationship between lifelong learning and
social changes to carry out a learning society in Taiwan. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 27(5), 535-542.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The
Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178-192). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Wertsch, J. V., & Rupert, L. J. (1993). The authority of cultural tools in a sociocultural
approach to mediated agency. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3-4), 227-239.
Winch, C,. & Gingell, J. (2004). Philosophy & Educational Policy: A Critical Introduction.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.

14  
 
World Bank. (2003). Lifelong learning in the global knowledge economy: Challenges for
developing countries. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from
[Link]
Global-Knowledge-Economy/lifelonglearning_GKE.pdf (accessed 20 Nov 2015).
Xiong, J. (2011). Understanding higher vocational education in China: Vocationalism vs
Confucianism. Frontiers of Education in China, 6(4): 495–520.
Yeo, A. (2015). Building trust in the SkillsFuture scheme. IPS Commons. Retrieved from
[Link] (accessed 20
Nov 2015).
Yng, N. J. (May, 23). As graduate numbers grow, a hard truth: Not all degrees are equal.
Today. Retrieved from [Link]
numbers-grow/[Link] (accessed 27 Apr 2016).
Zhang, W. (2008). Conceptions of lifelong learning in Confucian culture: Their impact on
adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(5), 551-557.

15