Social Cohesion Through Education: A Case Study of Singapore’s National Education System

Abstract

Managing social diversity and fostering social cohesion have historically been vital to the nation-building processes in decolonized states. While the significance of education in addressing social diversity is well recognized, there is a limited research base on how education fosters social cohesion. This case study examines how Singapore utilized its education system as a tool to manage social diversity and to promote social cohesion. Thematic analysis of interviews conducted with educators, policymakers, and practitioners revealed several educational factors that supported the development of social cohesion. The primary data was supplemented by an analysis of relevant policies and education reform documents. Education was consistently prioritized as a strategic goal, supported by a clear political vision and robust leadership. The policy of multilingualism, multiculturalism, and meritocracy shaped its education system. A ‘realist-pragmatist’ philosophy shaped educational reforms, with a dual focus on securing economic stability and fostering social integration. Consequently, bilingual policies, technical and vocational education (TVET), and citizenship education emerged as central tools for advancing social cohesion. With limited natural resources, visionary leadership recognized education as the nation’s most valuable resource for progress. Singapore’s educational strategy exemplifies that deliberate, well-formulated policies can effectively integrate diverse populations and foster social unity. The educational reform experiences in Singapore provide valuable insights for multiethnic societies worldwide, emphasizing the importance of visionary leadership, pragmatic policy development, and viewing education as a strategic investment rather than merely an expenditure in nation-building.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Context

Social diversity has historically presented challenges to social cohesion and the nation-building process, particularly in newly independent states emerging from colonial rule (Hippler, 2005). Many societies often fear that social diversity could lead to unintended consequences of social conflicts. (Alexiu & Sorde, 2011; Laurence, 2011). While ethnic diversity may have an adverse impact on social cohesion (Laurence, 2011), religious diversity often leads to confrontation and conflict (Bourouh, 2007). As a result, managing social diversity has become a key focus of nation-state policies, especially since the post-World War II period. However, the advent of globalization intensified further the project of building cohesive societies, as it simultaneously facilitates interaction between disparate social groups while potentially reinforcing social divisions and conflicts (Green et al., 2006). Global forces have challenged the traditional proximity between nation and state (Abinales et al., 2005), rendering the promotion and maintenance of social cohesion an ever-more critical contemporary challenge (Green et al., 2006; Mok & Ku, 2010). Nation-states have employed various policy strategies to address diversity issues, ranging from explicit assimilation to multicultural approaches (Garcia, 2010). However, there is a growing consensus regarding the vital role of education in mitigating the negative consequences of diversity and fostering social cohesion among diverse social groups (Green et al., 2006). As Gradstein and Justman (2002, p. 1194) maintain, “education has played an important role in efforts to forge new national identities in the multiethnic developing countries that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century.”

1.2. Research Problem and Significance

Although the role of education in nation-building and social cohesion is generally acknowledged, there is a limited empirical research base on how specific countries have successfully utilized education to address deep-rooted diversity. Numerous countries that have experienced decolonization have struggled with social integration, despite having established educational systems (Zajda, 2009). Exploring how educational reforms foster social cohesion in multicultural contexts is crucial for both theoretical understanding and informed policy development. Singapore, renowned for its social diversity, presents a compelling case for in-depth examination (Gopinathan, 1980; Ramesh, 2004). Since its independence in 1965, the nation has mainly depended on its strategic geographic position and human capital (Mutalib, 2002; Sung, 2006). Its demographic composition includes four principal ethnic groups: Chinese (74%), Malays (13.5%), Indians (9%), and others (3.4%) (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2024). The recognized official languages are English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil (Britannica, 2025). The population adheres to various faiths, including Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, and secular beliefs (Eng, 2008). Despite these differences, Singapore has achieved impressive social unity and maintained strong economic growth. Examining the role of the education system in achieving this success can offer valuable insights and lessons for others addressing issues related to social integration and nation-building.

1.3. Research Question and Objectives

This study examined how Singapore addressed the challenges of social diversity through its education system and built social cohesion. Specifically, this study aimed to

• Examine how Singapore evolved into a diverse society historically, and the nature of nation-building in the context of colonial legacies.
• Investigate the state’s early educational responses to post-independence socioeconomic challenges and the educational policy principles adopted.
• Analyze the state’s educational responses to emerging challenges of globalization.
• Identify the role of education in managing social diversity and building social cohesion, and derive potential lessons from Singapore’s educational experiences.

This study contributes to the existing body of scholarship on social cohesion, nation-building, and citizenship education. The study aims to explore how education can address social diversity, promote cohesion, and support nation-building (Schweitzer, 2006; Siddique, 2001). Additionally, the study also investigates the role of education within globalized contexts, exploring the interrelationship between globalization, educational policy, and social cohesion, with a particular emphasis on the Asian setting (Bray & Lee, 2001; Gopinathan, 2007). By providing detailed insights from Singapore’s case study, offering analytical implications for other diverse social environments, the conclusions drawn from the study can extend comparative education research on diversity management (Green et al., 2009; Mok & Ku, 2010).

2. Literature Review

2.1. Social Diversity and Social Cohesion

The notion of social cohesion exhibits significant variability across disciplinary and contextual applications. Siddique (2001) offers an abstract description, characterizing social cohesion as “the glue that bonds the society together, promoting harmony, a sense of community, and a degree of commitment to promoting the common good” (p. 2). Green et al. (2009) conceptualize cohesion through both individual behavioral attributes and collective social characteristics of the people. These include shared values and objectives, a sense of collective identity and belonging, tolerance and respect, institutional and interpersonal trust, civic cooperation, active engagement, and compliance with legal frameworks. On a broader structural level, cohesion refers to “a state of affairs concerning both the vertical and horizontal interactions among the members of society as characterized by a set of attitudes and norms that includes trust, a sense of belonging and willingness to participate and help” (Mok & Ku, 2010, p. 5).

Scholars recognize a complex and frequently debated relationship between diversity and social cohesion. While some researchers argue that ethnic diversity diminishes social capital and communal unity (Laurence, 2011), a counter-argument posits that effective management of diversity can, in fact, enhance social bonds (López Peláez et al., 2021). For instance, the dynamics of daily social networks, particularly inter-ethnic friendships, are instrumental in fostering and maintaining national sentiment, even within highly diverse societies (Gál, 2024). Some scholars view social diversity as a complex social phenomenon, arguing that ethnic diversity, linguistic pluralism, and multiple identities can undermine national unity and social cohesion (Green et al., 2009). Societies, however, address these issues through various policy approaches, ranging from explicit assimilation strategies to different types of multiculturalism (Garcia, 2010). Recent scholarly work on inclusive education underscores that respecting diversity while cultivating shared values necessitates innovative pedagogical methods (Taulaulelei & Green, 2022).

2.2. Education and Nation-Building

Throughout history, education has been crucial for constructing nations. Green (1997) emphasizes that “the major impetus for the creation of national education systems lay in the need to provide the state with trained administrators, engineers and military personnel, to spread the dominant cultures and inculcate popular ideologies of nationhood, to forge the political and cultural unity of the burgeoning nation states” (p. 35). This instrumental power of education is further elaborated by Hill and Fee (1995), who maintain that “education is a potent instrument of nation-building partly because it straddles the symbolic and instrumental dimensions and partly because education has the potential to transform one generation into sharing a common destiny” (p. 4). Nation-building primarily involves creating a unifying ideology, fostering social cohesion, and building a strong state infrastructure (Hippler, 2005). Education directly addresses these elements as school systems effectively disseminate and integrate ideologies, foster environments that allow diverse groups to interact and cultivate a shared understanding, and facilitate the development of the human capital necessary for state operation.

Education can play a vital role in nation-building. Citizenship education initiatives can help develop a unified national identity by embracing diversity and multiple identities (Schulz et al., 2018). Research demonstrates how education has been intentionally used for nation-building while remaining adaptable to shifting global demands in multicultural settings, such as in Singapore (Low, 2023). However, the role of education is not entirely encouraging. Bush and Saltarelli (2000) note that education can promote social cohesion but also drive social division. Without careful and strategic implementation, educational systems risk unintentionally reinforcing inequalities, deepening ethnic divides, or fostering exclusive nationalist beliefs. An examination of meritocratic systems reveals that, despite their claims to provide equal opportunities, they often perpetuate social stratification (Anderson, 2015).

2.3. Globalization and Education Policy

Globalization has changed the traditional relationship between education, the nation-state, and society. According to Kiely (2007), globalization is “the flows (people, capital, goods), networks (information, production), institutions (UN, WTO, etc.), and challenges (environment, terrorism, poverty), that (supposedly) transcend territory, particularly the nation-state” (p. 77). These macro-level shifts prompt critical questions regarding educational governance: “How far can national states control their education systems in a world of global markets and supra-national political organization? How distinctively will national education systems remain against pressures for international convergence?” (Green, 1997, pp. 2–3). Despite early predictions of worldwide convergence, current evidence suggests that national education systems largely retain their unique characteristics, reflecting specific domestic priorities while also adapting to global demands (Gopinathan, 2007). Singapore serves as a clear case in point, given that “globalization processes do create a need for modern states to alter their governance modes and to institute reforms in the public sector to better manage uncertainty and risk” (Gopinathan, 2007, p. 54).

The widespread adoption of 21st-century competencies frameworks across different nations reflects the effort to balance the development of national identity with preparation for global citizenship (OECD, 2018). Policy studies indicate that effective education systems in the global era require highly coordinated policies that align global demands with local realities. Specific research on Asian education systems reveals that these countries have successfully maintained social cohesion while developing globally competitive human capital, as seen in Singapore (Lee et al., 2023). The primary challenge is striking a balance between cultural identity and social cohesion in diverse communities, while fostering openness, innovation, and international collaboration.

2.4. Conceptual Framework

The present study employs multiple theoretical frameworks to achieve the research objectives. It adopts Hippler’s (2005) tripartite framework, which consists of ideology, social integration, and state capacity as essential elements of nation-building. It also employs Green et al.’s (2009) taxonomy, which distinguishes between liberal, republican, and social democratic discourses of cohesion, recognizing that Singapore’s approach likely incorporates components from various traditions. Additionally, the study applies Tan’s (2011) realist-pragmatist framework from education policy analysis, as it provides explanatory power for Singapore’s educational reforms by framing them as systemic responses to socioeconomic challenges, grounded in realism and pragmatism. These frameworks view education as operating across multiple systemic levels: macro (national policy), meso (institutional implementation), and micro (classroom activities). The frameworks also consider both pragmatic aspects, such as skills and economic impact, as well as symbolic aspects, including identity formation and value sharing. This approach enables Singapore’s experience to be explained within broader global patterns of educational development in diverse societies, while also accounting for the specific, context-related factors that influence policy choices and outcomes. Figure 1 summarizes the conceptual framework of this study.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design: Case Study Approach

This study employed a case study methodology to explore Singapore’s national education system for managing social diversity through educational policies. The case study approach facilitates the examination of a social phenomenon within a defined context (Yin, 2018). It provides a thorough analysis of complex social interactions, helping to understand how educational policies are developed, implemented, and perceived by different stakeholders (Silverman, 2010). By examining Singapore’s education system, the study aimed to develop theoretical insights and gather practical lessons for other multicultural contexts (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

3.2. Participant Selection and Sampling

Participants were selected using a purposive sampling strategy to ensure representation across three major stakeholders of educational policy formulation and implementation categories: (1) academic scholars and educationalists, (2) educational policymakers, and (3) policy practitioners (school administrators). This methodology was employed to capture a multi-perspective understanding of the initiation and implementation of educational policy. Interviews were conducted with ten study participants. Academic scholars and educationalists from top tertiary institutions, recognized for their expertise in Singapore’s education policy and practice, provided insightful commentary on educational developments and social impacts. The policymaking group included former ministers and senior officials from the Department of Education. The study’s final participants were educational practitioners like principals, vice principals, and administrators from various institutions, who had dual experience as both practitioners and scholars, transitioning from school roles to academic positions. Efforts were made to achieve and maintain diversity across the participant pool in terms of ethnicity, religious background, and professional affiliation, thereby ensuring an adequate representation of Singapore’s pluralistic social composition within the sample.

3.3. Data Collection Methods

Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews. Interviews allow participants to foreground themes they deem most pertinent (Silverman, 2010). To ensure that the data collection directly addressed the research question of how Singapore addresses social diversity challenges through education, the five interview domains were deductively derived from the study’s four research objectives.

There is a logical progression within these domains: Domain 1 (conceptualization of diversity) addresses objective 1, which pertains to the historical context of diversity. Domain 2 (policy responses) directly collects data for objectives 2 and 3 regarding educational responses to independence and globalization. Domains 3, 4, and 5 (efficacy, implementation, and future challenges) facilitate the evaluation required by objective 4 to derive lessons on social cohesion. Consequently, the six themes presented in the findings, ranging from Colonial Legacies to Globalization, emerged from this structured inquiry, mapping the “problem” (Colonial Legacies), the “intervention” (Reforms, Multilingualism, Meritocracy, Leadership), and the “evolution” (Globalization) of the Singaporean case.

The interview protocols for data collection were structured to address five main domains: (1) participants’ conceptualization of Singapore’s social diversity, (2) their evaluation of educational policy responses, (3) their assessment of policy efficacy, (4) their observations concerning policy implementation dynamics, and (5) their outlook on potential future challenges and transferable lessons. All interviews were conducted in English, recorded with the participants’ consent, and transcribed verbatim. Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 min. To supplement the data, documents related to education policy, official reports on educational reform, curriculum materials, and the scholarly literature about Singapore’s education system were also examined. The examined documents comprised Ministry of Education policy papers, major parliamentary speeches on education, reports from the Education Reform Committee, and published research on Singapore’s educational development.

3.4. Data Analysis Approach

Interview data were analyzed using the thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Interview transcripts were coded inductively to isolate recurring patterns and overarching themes. The initial phase comprised descriptive coding, maintaining the participants’ original terminology. Descriptive coding was followed by analytical coding to establish conceptual connections between codes and facilitate the development of higher-order themes. The data analysis process was inherently iterative, allowing for adjustments and refinements in subsequent interviews, thereby enabling a deeper exploration of critical issues. Data saturation was determined when subsequent interviews ceased to generate new substantive themes. Selected quotations were extracted to provide empirical illustration of the themes and substantiate the interpretations. These quotations were selected based on their representativeness, rhetorical clarity, and ability to encapsulate central insights, and they are presented throughout Section 4 to enhance the study’s empirical foundation. Names of the study participants in the paper are fictional, not real.

4. Findings

The analysis revealed six major themes explaining how Singapore has addressed social diversity through education. Each theme is elaborated upon below, accompanied by supporting evidence from interviews and documents.

4.1. Colonial Legacies and Social Diversity

4.1.1. Emergence of a Plural Society

Singapore’s social diversity predates the nation’s independence, having originated from large-scale migration patterns induced by British colonial administration. As Professor Kumar explained, the society’s complexity extended beyond simple multiracial or multiethnic descriptors:

Singapore was a plural society because, in the Singaporean case, the multiracial and the multiethnic designations did not fully capture the extent of vertical divisions; Chinese were largely Buddhist or Taoist, they ate pork, they were largely business oriented; Indians were largely Hindu, they ate pork but no beef, their religious practices were considered to be different and economic specialization was different; the Malays ate beef but no pork and they were largely Muslims. In a sense, when one looks at Singapore, especially in terms of occupation, religion, and culture, it was a plural society.

This observation clearly demonstrates that ethnic groups were compartmentalized not merely by language and religion, but also by distinct economic specialization and cultural norms. Such fragmentation established vertical cleavages that demonstrably inhibited widespread social interaction and the formation of a shared identity. The diversity was driven by two historical forces: Singapore’s strategic trading position and calculated British colonial policies. Professor Kumar further detailed these historical forces in the following terms:

The crucial historical fact was migration between the 1860s and the turn of the century, largely of Chinese economic migrants. Indians were brought by the British Raj, particularly to work in civil services and railroad services. The Chinese were more interested in business rather than civil services. Malays were largely associated with fishing and farming, and the colonial power held the view that Malays were the owners of the land and that their cultural practices should not be disturbed. Neither had they provided much education because they were here to extract profits as much as possible. Colonial policies thus facilitated migration while reinforcing ethnic divisions through differentiated treatment and limited investment in integrated education.

4.1.2. Colonial Education and Social Division

Educational provision during the colonial era reflected and exacerbated social divisions. The system was severely fragmented along linguistic lines, characterized by: “English language education in the Christian Mission schools, Chinese language education in community-based and private schools, Tamil education in estate-run schools and Malay education in government-supported schools” (Green, 1997, p. 147). Professor Kumar underscored the resulting divisive consequences:

At the turn of the Second World War, the education system reflected the social, ethnic, and cultural divisions of society; Chinese students attended Chinese-medium schools, and Indians largely attended English-medium schools. Thus, in general, schools were not designed to form a unified society… There was a degree of hostility, especially between the Chinese-educated and English-educated. The English-educated were supported by the colonial powers, creating a sense of separateness that fueled hostility. Consequently, the school and education system became a vehicle for hostility, social division and misunderstanding.

This colonial inheritance presented a challenge to post-independence nation-building. The newly established state inherited not only deeply diverse populations but also educational infrastructures that had systematically precluded social integration.

4.2. Post-Independence Educational Reforms

4.2.1. Addressing the Challenge of a Nation Without a State

Following independence in 1965, Singaporean leadership confronted a socio-political vacuum, facing what Hill and Fee (1995) characterized as “the infrastructure of the state without an accompanying nation” (p. 3). The population was fragmented, lacking a shared identity, a lingua franca, or a unified historical narrative. This deficit necessitated immediate state intervention. As Mr. Rehman, one former policymaker, elucidated,

The early leaders recognized the need to establish a unified national identity. For this purpose, the state took measures to instill in the people a sense that they should identify themselves as Singaporeans rather than as Chinese, Malays, Indians, and others.

Consequently, education became the primary, and arguably the most powerful, vehicle for nation-building. Professor Lee explained this strategic choice:

One can see the history of civic and citizenship education, and these were the mechanisms for building, in successive generations, a sense of what it means to be Singaporean. The state realized that when a child goes home, the home is often very ethnically centered. The parents or grandparents came from China; their schooling was conducted there, and their socialization also took place in China. They cannot be the role models for Singapore’s citizenship. School has to be the centre of citizenship education. Then, schools had to become an instrument for nation-building, citizenship education, and social cohesion, in addition to being an academic institution.

This recognition that familial and communal environments reinforced ethnic identities, placing the onus of cultivating a national identity squarely upon the schools, critically informed the initial educational reform priorities.

4.2.2. Foundational Principles: Multiculturalism, Multilingualism, and Meritocracy

Following independence, educational reforms centered on three main principles: multiculturalism, multilingualism, and meritocracy. These aimed to tackle the complex issues of managing diversity and fostering social cohesion. Multiculturalism acknowledged the persistent presence of ethnic diversity within the nation, opposing assimilationist approaches. Instead of striving to establish a melting pot, Singapore adopted a model of communities within a community, where diverse ethnic identities coexist within a cohesive national framework. Multilingualism addressed the linguistic challenge through the implementation of a bilingual education system. Accordingly, every student is expected to achieve proficiency in English in addition to their mother tongue. Mr. Rehman articulated the state’s rationale in the following words:

The bilingual policy was designed to maintain ethnic cultural heritage while building a common language for communication across groups and with the global economy. It was a pragmatic decision recognizing that language is both an identity marker and a practical tool.

Meritocracy was emphasized to guarantee equal opportunities for social advancement irrespective of ethnic background. Professor Polly observed that the state’s approach viewed education strategically:

In Singapore, education is viewed as an investment rather than an expense. The state viewed education as a vehicle for nation-building, producing a competent, adaptive, and productive workforce while promoting social cohesion among the various ethnic groups.

These foundational principles were operationalized through several key policy actions, including such as integration of formerly separate vernacular schools into a singular, unified national system, the introduction of a centralized curriculum and the development of locally produced textbooks, the formal establishment of bilingual education (English plus the designated mother tongue), the creation of distinct technical and vocational pathways predicated on assessed student ability rather than ethnicity, the institution of standardized national examinations (e.g., the Primary School Leaving Examination), and the systematic development and implementation of citizenship education programs.

4.3. Multilingualism and Language Policy

The bilingual policy arguably represents the most profound and contested educational reform undertaken by the state. Prior to its full implementation, the pre-1956 linguistic divisions mirrored and exacerbated social cleavages. Wong (2023) recommended both the preservation of linguistic diversity and the simultaneous cultivation of national unity, an objective that the bilingual framework sought to reconcile.

4.3.1. English as Lingua Franca

The decision to use English as a common language was mainly driven by practical reasons. As Professor Lee noted,

The choice of English as the first language was motivated by practical considerations, as it is and has been the language of commerce, science, technology, and international intercourse. Emotionally, the choice might have been Chinese given the majority population, but that would have created tremendous resentment among minority groups and limited Singapore’s global engagement. English was ethnically neutral, the language of no local group and therefore not privileging any ethnic community.

This choice was strategically neutral in the domestic context, serving to neither privilege any single ethnic community nor exclude it, while providing crucial access to global knowledge, economic opportunities, and the international networks vital for a resource-scarce nation. Professor Kumar discussed this strategic dimension:

At a historically important time, Singapore had an elite leadership that was up to the challenges. The state has been very strong in meeting the needs of the survival period, where the political elite leadership had to make some fundamental decisions… English became not just the language of education but the language of administration, commerce, and social mobility.

4.3.2. Mother Tongue Education

Along with learning English, students are encouraged to study their native languages, such as Chinese (Mandarin), Malay, or Tamil. This policy aims to preserve cultural heritage, foster intergenerational dialogue, and strengthen ethnic identity within a multicultural setting. However, there is a disconnect between the policy’s stated goals and its implementation. The assigned mother tongue is determined by the student’s official racial classification (Chinese, Malay, Indian), not the language they speak at home. For example, a Chinese Singaporean whose family speaks Hokkien still has to study Mandarin. This suggests that the policy actively constructs and standardizes ethnic identities rather than merely reflecting existing linguistic practices or diversity. Professor Lee articulated this in the following words:

The bilingual policy is more complex than it appears. It’s not really about maintaining home languages, but about standardizing ethnic languages, Mandarin for all Chinese, regardless of dialect, and Tamil for Indians, regardless of their actual linguistic background. It serves nation-building by creating standardized ethnic categories.

4.4. Meritocracy and Equal Opportunity

Meritocracy, advancement based on ability and effort rather than ethnic background, family connections, or wealth, constitutes a third pillar of Singapore’s education policy. The participants in the study characterized meritocracy as both a guiding principle and a practical approach that influences educational opportunities. Beyond educational policy, meritocracy functioned as a national ideology. Professor Catherine explained:

Meritocracy is more than an educational principle in Singapore. It’s a social compact. The state promises that if you work hard and perform well, you will succeed regardless of your ethnic background. This was crucial in a multiethnic society where ethnic preferences could have torn the nation apart.

The meritocratic promise provided legitimacy to the developmental state model. By offering tangible opportunities for social mobility through educational achievement, the state showed its ability to serve all ethnic communities fairly. The national examination system implemented meritocracy by establishing standardized measures of ability. Streaming based on examination performance directed students into different educational pathways (academic, technical, vocational), theoretically matching abilities with appropriate educational programs.

Participants acknowledged both achievements and limitations of meritocratic policies. On the positive side, Singapore has achieved high social mobility compared to many developed nations. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds can access quality education and advancement opportunities through academic excellence. However, critical perspectives emerged. Professor Said noted:

Meritocracy has become a double-edged sword. While it initially opened opportunities, it now risks becoming a system that perpetuates inequality. Students from privileged families have access to better enrichment opportunities, tuition, and exam preparation. Although the system appears meritocratic, advantages tend to accumulate.

The study participants also highlighted tensions between the policies of meritocracy and multiculturalism. While the policy of meritocracy considers students as individuals irrespective of ethnicity, multiculturalism acknowledges group identities and cultural disparities. Achieving a balance between individual accomplishment and group representation requires ongoing negotiation. Despite several reservations, however, the study participants predominantly supported meritocracy as the more favourable approach compared to ethnic-based allocation systems. As Ms Jasmine, a school principal, stated:

Meritocracy isn’t perfect, but the alternatives are worse. Ethnic quotas would create resentment and undermine the idea that we succeed together as Singaporeans. The challenge is to make meritocracy truly equal by addressing the factors that prevent some students from realizing their full potential.

4.5. Visionary Leadership and Pragmatism

The success of educational reforms was consistently attributed to visionary political leadership and a pragmatic policy approach. Participants emphasized that leaders recognized the strategic importance of education and committed substantial resources accordingly.

4.5.1. Leadership Vision and Political Will

Singapore’s founding leaders, particularly Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, are credited with recognizing that education was the only asset in a resource-poor nation. As one former policymaker, Mr. Amin recalled:

The leadership understood from day one that Singapore had nothing except its people and its location. Investing in education was an essential requirement; it was a matter of existential significance. That clarity drove policy decisions and resource allocation.

Furthermore, political will manifested in multiple ways: sustained funding for education despite budget constraints, policy continuity across leadership transitions, a willingness to make difficult decisions (such as choosing English over Chinese as the primary language), and a long-term perspective that prioritized future development over immediate popularity. Professor Kumar emphasized leadership’s role in policy coherence:

The political leadership was crucial in shaping the first set of policies addressing economic, social, and political challenges. So the state has been very strong in order to meet the needs of the survival period, where the political elite leadership had to take some fundamental decisions to fix the issues of economic stability, and to have enough resources.

This strong state model, characterized by centralized decision-making, enables swift policy implementation and adjustments in response to changing conditions.

4.5.2. Realist-Pragmatist Philosophy

In line with the existing literature, the study participants believed that educational reforms were guided by the philosophy of realist-pragmatism (Tan, 2011). Realism grounds policy in empirical assessment of actual conditions rather than ideological preferences. Pragmatism evaluates policies by practical outcomes rather than abstract principles. This philosophy is reflected in several policy features, including economic alignment, continuous reform (as seen in initiatives such as Thinking Schools, Learning Nation, and the 21st-century competencies), evidence-based policymaking, and incremental policy implementation. Professor Lee illustrated pragmatism’s influence in the following words:

Singapore’s approach is ‘what works’. Leaders study global examples, adapt promising practices to the local context, implement carefully, monitor results, and adjust as needed. There’s no ideology preventing borrowing from different systems, selective adoption based on evidence of effectiveness.

This pragmatism enabled Singapore to integrate multiple approaches to address the diversity-related issues. These approaches encompassed blending market principles with state coordination, balancing academic excellence with inclusive access, integrating standardization with flexibility, and combining national identity with a global outlook. Recent research on Singapore’s education system confirms the ongoing influence of pragmatic adaptation and documents how policies continue to evolve in response to new challenges, including technological disruption, changing workforce demands, and the need for innovation, creativity, and academic achievement (Tan & Gopinathan, 2021).

4.6. Globalization and 21st Century Competencies

While early reforms focused on nation-building and economic survival, later developments responded to the challenges and opportunities presented by globalization. Participants described how education policy evolved to balance national identity with global citizenship, social cohesion with international competitiveness.

4.6.1. The Thinking Schools, Learning Nation Vision

The Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN) vision, launched in 1997, marked a significant shift in educational paradigms and policy. The vision of “TSLN has four thrusts: Emphasis on Critical and Creative Thinking, the Use of Information Technology in Education, National Education (Citizenship Education), and Administrative Excellence” (Gopinathan, 2001, p. 30). This vision recognized that globalization required more than technical skills and academic knowledge. Professor Said explained the rationale:

The world was changing rapidly. Singapore couldn’t compete on cost; other nations had cheaper labor. We needed to compete on innovation, creativity, and knowledge creation. That required a different kind of education, one that develops thinking skills and dispositions for continuous learning.

Some of the TSLN initiatives included ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ (reducing content coverage to deepen understanding), enhanced IT integration in teaching and learning, greater school autonomy and differentiation, an emphasis on holistic education beyond academic achievement, and the development of frameworks for 21st-century competencies.

4.6.2. National Identity Versus Global Citizenship

One of the challenges the study participants pointed out was maintaining social cohesion and national identity while preparing students to be globally oriented citizens. National Education programs, started in 1997, promote national identity by examining Singapore’s history, challenges, and values. Ms. Jasmine, a school principal, stated that the education system aims to strike a balance between fostering a sense of national identity and developing global citizenship.

We need students who are rooted in Singapore, understand our history and challenges, and feel connected to the nation. But they also need to be globally aware, able to work across cultures, and comfortable in international contexts. It’s not either-or but both.

This balancing act reflects broader tensions in globalized nation-states. Recent research on citizenship education reveals similar challenges across nations that attempt to develop both national belonging and cosmopolitan perspectives (Banks, 2017). Participants noted that Singapore’s multicultural composition facilitates global orientation. Managing internal diversity develops competencies transferable to international contexts, highlighted by Professor Kumar:

In a way, Singapore’s diversity is a global advantage. Our students grow up navigating multiple cultures, languages, and perspectives. That prepares them well for the multicultural global environment. The skills for managing diversity at home can be applied to managing diversity internationally.

4.6.3. Continuing Adaptation

One of the policy reorientations and adaptations in Singapore involved developing comprehensive frameworks for 21st-century competencies, including civic literacy, global awareness, cross-cultural skills, critical and inventive thinking, and communication and collaboration. These frameworks guide curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment reforms across the system. Professor Kumar emphasized the ongoing evolution in the following words:

Education policy in Singapore is never static. There’s continuous review, refinement, and adjustment. What worked in the 1960s won’t work now. What works now may not work in 2030. The commitment is to continue learning, improving, and adapting to new realities while maintaining the core values of social cohesion and equal opportunity.

This dedication to ongoing improvement, rooted in empirical evidence and adaptable to evolving circumstances, has become a crucial element in the sustained effectiveness of policies throughout Singapore’s history of educational reform.

5. Discussion

The study findings reveal multiple mechanisms that helped foster social cohesion in Singapore’s diverse society. Interpreted through the conceptual framework outlined, these findings demonstrate how the state utilized “state capacity” and “ideology” (Hippler, 2005) to achieve “social integration” through a “realist-pragmatist” (Tan, 2011) policy approach. As illustrated in

Table 1. Matrix of educational integration strategies in Singapore.

Dimension	Key Policy Mechanism	Theoretical Connection
Structural Integration	Unified National Schools: Replacing separate vernacular schools with a single national system to facilitate inter-ethnic interaction.	State Capacity (Hippler): The state’s ability to centralize infrastructure to physically bring diverse groups together.
Symbolic Integration	Bilingual Policy & National Narratives: Establishing English as a neutral lingua franca while maintaining “Mother Tongues” for cultural identity.	Ideology (Hippler)/Republican Discourse (Green et al.): Creating a shared national identity while respecting distinct cultural roots.
Instrumental Integration	Meritocracy & Economic Alignment: Education serves as an investment in economic survival and social mobility, based on ability rather than ethnicity.	Realist-Pragmatist (Tan): Prioritizing economic survival and practical outcomes over abstract ideology to legitimize the state.
Normative Integration	Citizenship Education (National Education): Inculcating shared values (e.g., tolerance, harmony) and national loyalty through the curriculum.	Social Integration (Hippler): The deliberate socialization of citizens into a cohesive “imagined community.”

, the educational system operationalizes this integration across four distinct dimensions: structural, symbolic, instrumental, and normative integration.

These mechanisms operate simultaneously at different levels and through various social integration processes, including structural, symbolic, instrumental and normative integration (Ortiga, 2015). Structural integration occurs through unified educational institutions, which replaced separate vernacular schools. Integrating students from varied ethnic backgrounds into mainstream schools facilitates the creation of opportunities for inter-ethnic interaction, the formation of friendships, and the development of shared experiences (Mickelson & Nkomo, 2012). Studies show that everyday networks, particularly inter-ethnic friendships formed in school, are crucial for national cohesion (Smith et al., 2016). Symbolic integration operates through curriculum content, national narratives, and citizenship education. By teaching shared history (selectively constructed), common values, and national identity, education creates symbolic resources for unity (Nachayeva, 2025). However, critical analysis reveals tensions between the policy of multiculturalism and actual practice.

The implementation of standardized mother tongues through the bilingual policy demonstrates how policies shape identity categories rather than merely reflecting natural differences (Jaramillo-López et al., 2025). Instrumental integration operates through education’s role in fostering economic mobility and expanding opportunities (Molina, 2021). Connecting academic success with socioeconomic development through meritocratic ideals, education offers universal pathways accessible to everyone, regardless of ethnicity. This promotes shared investment in the education system and reduces the perception that opportunities are based on ethnicity (Wolhuter et al., 2012). This reflects the “realist-pragmatist” framework, in which the state legitimizes its nation-building project by delivering tangible economic benefits. Normative integration occurs through the socialization of individuals into shared values, civic attitudes, and social norms. Schools play a crucial role in cultivating essential qualities such as tolerance, respect for diversity, civic responsibility, and national identity. Schooling practices demonstrate democratic participation, adherence to a rule-based order, and a collective identity (Print, 2013). These approaches underscore the pivotal role of education in nation-building and fostering social cohesion (Green, 1997; Hippler, 2005). Nonetheless, creating social cohesion requires more than multicultural or merit-based policies; it demands institutional structures, teaching methods, and resource allocation aligned with integration goals.

A significant finding is the coherence across multiple policy domains. Various policies, including those focused on bilingualism, meritocracy, multiculturalism, technical education, and citizenship education, were interconnected parts of a comprehensive educational strategy (Power, 2015). Several factors, including centralized governance, a long-term vision, evidence-based refinement, and a commitment of resources, contributed to achieving this coherence across the policies. Additionally, the centralized governance enabled coordination across policy areas. Compared to federal systems, where education is fragmented across jurisdictions, Singapore’s centralization supports policy coherence, sustaining long-term vision and policy direction across leadership changes (Dimmock & Goh, 2011). While specific initiatives evolve, core principles have remained stable throughout Singapore’s developmental trajectory. The People’s Action Party’s continuous governance since independence provided policy continuity rarely seen in democratic systems with alternating governments. While evidence-based refinement allowed for adaptation without abandoning core principles, policies are monitored, evaluated, and adjusted according to their outcomes (Alesch et al., 2012). This pragmatic approach helps prevent ideological rigidity while maintaining strategic direction. Resource commitment confirms the seriousness of the educational reform agenda (Sakellariou, 2003), and its policy coherence distinguishes it from others (OECD, 2018).

The case of national education in Singapore demonstrates how aligning realistic and pragmatic educational policies can produce synergistic effects. However, coherence has its limitations. Some study participants observed that top-down coordination may hinder innovation and obscure issues related to implementation. While systemic coherence projects an image of unity, it may sometimes mask fragmentation or contradictions at the implementation level. Challenges in policy implementation often stem from conflicting priorities, like balancing curriculum coverage with deep learning, standardized testing with differentiated instruction, and meritocracy with inclusive education (Chan, 2010). For instance, while meritocracy is framed as a fair equalizer at the policy level, implementation gaps reveal that it can unintentionally perpetuate social stratification when access to enrichment resources differs across groups. Similarly, while the bilingual policy projects systemic coherence, in practice, it may mask identity homogenization by categorizing diverse dialect groups (e.g., Hokkien, Teochew) into a single “Chinese” racial-linguistic category. These tensions suggest that, although policy coherence exists at the system level, incoherence can still occur during implementation and in practical application.

Despite confirming the pivotal role of education in managing social diversity and building social cohesion, participants identified several challenges and internal contradictions in Singapore’s education system. Accordingly, while meritocracy reduces ethnic discrimination, it may perpetuate socioeconomic stratification in the long run, as the evidence shows a growing inequality in educational outcomes based on family background (Anderson, 2015). Some have noted how the education system increasingly reproduces advantage rather than disrupting it, as many multicultural societies struggle with tensions between meritocracy and equality (Luo et al., 2022). Bilingual policy and standardized curriculum may suppress linguistic and cultural diversity in favor of constructed ethnic categories. Hokkien, Teochew, and Cantonese speakers become Chinese when studying Mandarin, revealing how multiculturalism policies can paradoxically limit diversity by imposing simplified categories. Despite reforms emphasizing equity and inclusion, high-stakes examinations continue to impact students’ learning experiences in multicultural settings, narrowing their learning and potentially undermining broader educational objectives. The “teach less, learn more” slogan addresses this issue, but its implementation may remain challenging when examinations determine students’ futures.

Finally, preparing global citizens while maintaining national identity creates ongoing pressure for building a cohesive society. Given that international education has become a norm, some fear the erosion of national identity, solidarity with the nation-state and social cohesion. Finding an appropriate balance remains contested. While the system offers opportunities for academic high achievers, students in lower streams may experience diminished expectations and opportunities. Representing students as having deficits contradicts the principles of inclusive education (Anderson, 2015). These issues demonstrate that, although Singapore’s policies have promoted social cohesion, every educational system possesses shortcomings. Ongoing reflection and policy revision are essential for addressing emerging challenges and inherent contradictions. The sustained endeavor to foster unified societies, in conjunction with global concerns such as geopolitical conflicts, climate change, and intercultural disparities, prompts reflection on the overall efficacy of modern education worldwide.

6. Implications

The findings carry important implications for both theory and practice. In a world that is becoming increasingly globalized, education remains a vital component of citizenship education. The example of Singapore demonstrates that education can foster a sense of national identity and social unity, even as societies become increasingly interconnected. Building cohesive communities relies on shared identity and a sense of belonging. While policy development is essential, effective implementation is key to realizing educational goals. Factors such as resource availability, political support, and institutional capacity significantly influence how education fosters social cohesion in diverse contexts. Education policies should prioritize practical strategies for managing social diversity rather than striving for perfect, all-encompassing solutions.

Successful diversity management through education requires consistent policies across various areas, including curriculum, language policy, assessment, teacher training, resource distribution, and institutional frameworks. Leadership commitment and political will are crucial for maintaining long-term educational reforms. Without steady support from political leaders, policies tend to become scattered or weakened over time. Making policy adjustments based on evidence and results allows for policies to adapt while keeping their core values. Therefore, education systems should be built to foster ongoing policy learning and improvement. Education presented as rhetoric without enough resources cannot reach its goals; therefore, investment in education must be both significant and ongoing. Building social cohesion through education is a long-term objective that requires sustained effort over many years.

While Singapore’s educational policies reflect its unique context, several fundamental principles can also be applied in other settings. Addressing both practical and symbolic aspects is essential. Language policies that effectively balance communication and cultural preservation strike a balance between unity and diversity in multicultural environments. Merit-based opportunities can help decrease ethnic tensions and enhance fairness, while strong leadership and long-term educational investments lay the groundwork for lasting progress. Although these principles are simple to replicate, implementing policies necessitates meticulous adaptation to local contexts. Singapore’s compact size, insular geography, economic achievements, political stability, and governance framework establish distinctive conditions that may not be comparable to those of other societies. Larger, less affluent, and politically disputed regions encounter different challenges and opportunities.

7. Conclusions

This qualitative study examined how Singapore’s responded to colonial legacies that entrenched social divisions along ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines through education. The education system historically reinforced these divisions rather than bridging them, which impeded social cohesion. Singapore implemented educational reforms aimed at nation-building. The multilingualism policy encouraged bilingual education, providing a shared language while preserving cultural identities. The meritocracy principle aimed to ensure equal opportunities based on ability and effort, regardless of ethnicity. Strong leadership and pragmatic policies fostered a long-term commitment to treating education as a strategic asset. Responses to globalization aimed to develop a national identity while equipping students with 21st-century skills for international engagement and collaboration. The Singaporean case demonstrates that education can promote social cohesion in diverse societies when policies are consistent, effectively implemented, politically backed, and sustained over time.

Singapore’s success stems from multiple mechanisms: structural integration through shared institutions, symbolic integration via a common curriculum and national narratives, instrumental integration by offering merit-based opportunities, and normative integration through the fostering of civic values. Nonetheless, the study also highlights ongoing challenges, including the tension between meritocracy and equality, potential cultural homogenization, and the importance of striking a balance between global and national priorities. These point to the fact that building social cohesion through education is a continuous process that demands ongoing attention and adaptation to emerging global and local issues for peaceful social coexistence.

Singapore’s educational experience offers several lessons. It shows that education needs a clear, long-term strategy, as piecemeal reforms and short-term efforts cannot lead to lasting change. Creating language policies that promote inter-ethnic communication and protect cultural heritage helps maintain a balance between unity and diversity. Educational reforms that bring diverse groups together rather than separating them prove valuable in fostering cohesion. Merit-based opportunity allocation can reduce ethnic grievances and promote fairness, while visionary leadership and long-term commitment to educational investment provide the foundation for sustained progress.

8. Future Research Directions

The study findings suggest multiple directions for future research. Implementation studies examining how policies are enacted in classrooms would complement this policy-level analysis. Ethnographic and observational research could provide a deeper understanding of implementation processes and outcomes. Comparative studies on diversity management in different Asian contexts can reveal both similarities and differences in methods results. Critical analyses that explore which interests are prioritized by specific diversity strategies could further deepen our understanding of power dynamics. Globalization studies that investigate how 21st-century competencies and global citizenship education impact national identity and social cohesion would address emerging challenges. Policy learning research examining how nations learn from each other’s experiences could improve transferability.

9. Study Limitations

Several limitations must be acknowledged. Primarily, this study’s scope is limited to policy development and stakeholder perceptions, excluding direct analysis of classroom implementation or student results. The actual effectiveness of these policies at the instructional level and their long-term impact on student identities and social behaviors necessitate future research efforts. The limited access to current government officials may impose a constraint on insights into contemporary, evolving policy thinking. Moreover, this study does not incorporate the perspectives of students and parents. A third constraint arises from the retrospective nature of the data collection, conducted in 2012, which captures perspectives on policies that have often spanned multiple decades. While the data is archival, this temporal context is acceptable for a historical policy analysis as it captures the critical transition period following the ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ reforms and the consolidation of the Singaporean identity prior to recent 21st-century disruptions. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted as a longitudinal assessment of foundational policy principles rather than a snapshot of current administrative adjustments. Consequently, participants’ memories of earlier policy periods are likely to be influenced by subsequent social and political changes, as well as personal life experiences.

Analytically, the specific focus on Singapore necessarily restricts direct statistical generalizability to other national contexts; nevertheless, the study’s analytical insights and theoretical implications should extend beyond the specific case, offering relevant lessons for diverse societies globally. Ultimately, the researcher’s role as an international scholar conducting research in Singapore may shape certain analytical viewpoints. This positionality implies a “double-edged” interpretative lens: while being an outsider allows for critical distance to question normative assumptions that locals might take for granted, it also risks missing the implicit cultural subtleties and “lived” vernacular nuances that local residents instinctively understand. The incorporation of reflexivity and member checking procedures was intended to mitigate this potential limitation.