On 18 March of this year his article Singapore’s Lessons for an Unequal America appeared in The New York Times. According to him, “there were many things Singapore did to become one of Asia’s economic ‘tigers’, and curbing inequalities was one of them.”

“By understanding that children cannot choose their parents — and that all children should have the right to develop their innate capacities — it created a more dynamic society,” observed Mr Sitglitz.

Mr Stiglitz feels that a measure of the social justice of a society is the treatment of its children. “Many a conservative or libertarian in the United States asserts that poor adults are responsible for their own plight — having brought their situation on themselves by not working as hard as they could. (That assumes, of course, that there are jobs to be had — an increasingly dubious assumption.) But the well-being of children is manifestly not a matter for which children can be blamed (or praised). Only 7.3 per cent of children in Sweden are poor, in contrast to the United States, where a startling 23.1 per cent are in poverty. Not only is this a basic violation of social justice, but it does not bode well for the future: these children have diminished prospects for contributing to their country’s future,” wrote Mr Stiglitz.

Mr Stiglitz noted that the Singapore government understands that the success of the nation requires a heavy investment in education, and that this education needs to be accessible not only to the wealthy but to every single child. His observations weren’t wrong. Singapore’s policy of not letting any child’s background get in the way of his or her education has rewritten the destinies of a great many Singaporeans, who, although they may have been born poor, went on to live the Singapore Dream by becoming Members of Parliament, CEOs, CFOs, Principals and successful businessmen as a result of receiving government scholarships and bursaries.

The founding father of modern Singapore, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, was very aware of this, “In Singapore, a trishaw rider’s child and a billionaire’s child had the same opportunities to enter school. Whoever performed better would have better chances of being promoted to the next level. The way our society rewards individuals is based on his contributions and not his family background. Only in this way would the system be equitable.” This is the central tenet of our country’s meritocratic system.

It is true that Singapore has top schools where the brightest minds gather. However, we do not have exclusive schools where the offspring of the richest congregate. The absence of exclusive schools is a feature that is similar to the absence of slums in Singapore — a fact of which Singaporeans are rightly proud.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew understood that children’s intelligences and family backgrounds cannot be equal. However, as the leader of a nation, he needed to make education equally available to all children. This is one of the main reasons Mr Stiglitz feels Singapore was able to curb inequality.

But despite Singapore’s success in this area, it now faces a huge and growing disparity in incomes. Reducing the gap between the rich and the poor will go a long way towards easing people’s grievances and building “a better Singapore”. This is a knotty problem and it needs to be quickly addressed by the country’s leaders, particularly in view of the results of the General Election in 2011 and the PAP’s defeat in the two by-elections that have been held since.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam said, in his 2013 Budget Speech, “We need to sustain social mobility. Meritocracy alone will not assure us of this. We therefore want to do more, starting from early in our children’s lives, to give the best leg up to those who start with a disadvantage. We cannot change the fact that children have different family backgrounds that bring very different advantages and disadvantages. But we want to find every way, at the pre-school and primary school levels, to help our children from poorer or less stable families to develop confidence and the self-belief that gives them aspirations of their own, and to help them catch up when they fall behind. And we will provide pathways to develop every skill and ability, so that every child can discover his strengths as he grows up, and can do well.”

Children born into wealthy families can depend on their parents’ far-sightedness and “vigilance”, and are able to find many avenues by which to improve themselves. Children born into disadvantaged families, on the other hand, are helpless as they struggle to build a solid foundation, befriend those who are a bad influence on them and eventually fall by the wayside because of their parents’ “lack of time” and “ignorance”. This phenomenon is characteristic of many countries, including developed ones.

Children are young, unknowing and unable to ensure their own well-being. If the government fails to intervene in a timely manner these children will naturally blame their lot on “fate” for giving them such parents and such backgrounds, factors which have effectively denied them the starting point from which they can become citizens of worth. This is unfair to the children, and is by no means responsible policy-making.

The government has therefore decided to step in to help children from poorer families and those with special needs overcome their unfortunate circumstances. Although Singapore is not a welfare state these “educational welfare” measures to increase social mobility and enable children at an early age to escape the poverty cycle will have long-lasting and far-reaching effects, and are not mere “candy giving” to placate an empty stomach.

It is in Laozi’s Daodejing that one can find the famous proverb, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” It means that it is better to teach someone to do something than to do it for him. A fish might tide over a momentary hunger, but it is not sustaining over a long period. If we want to be fed forever, we need to learn how to fish.

The Singapore government fully understands this concept. And in the past 50 years, it has been actively committed to education, i.e. teaching its citizens how to fish, rather than just doling fish out. Unfortunately, after decades of rapid economic growth, the gap between the rich and the poor is now widening despite our social mobility, and what started out as a minor misgiving has developed into a real social concern. The Ministry of Education (MOE) has come to realise that on top of teaching its students how to fish, it has to consider why certain people don’t seem to fish well. Since students cannot choose their parents or the kind of family they are born into it is surely justifiable for the government to intervene and help them as early as possible. Besides guaranteeing that all students have a “fair” chance of receiving an education the government also needs to ensure that that there is a sufficient measure of educational welfare available to disadvantaged parents so that their children can compete fairly and make the most of their opportunities.

For the Financial Year 2013, the budget allocated to MOE is $11.6 billion, the highest amount to date. In addition to the bursaries and scholarships it has been giving out for the past five decades so that no child is prevented from going to school because of a lack of funds, it will go to the root of the problem and provide, amongst other things, quality pre-school education for children from disadvantaged families. It will also extend help for weaker students up to the secondary level by giving them access to the Learning Support Programmes that were previously only available to those in Primary 1 and 2. And it will increase the budget for the Opportunity Fund which allows needy students both to benefit from immersion programmes and to make necessary educational purchases. These measures which have been put in place to make sure that, as far as possible, every child can succeed and that no child is left behind will be further explored in this issue’s EduNation on Education.

It is because the Singapore government has decided to make more resources available to prevent some of our children from losing out at the start of their educational journey that the focus on international schools in this third issue becomes even more thought-provoking.

In this issue we have interviewed the Principals (or Heads) of nine international schools in Singapore. They spoke freely about their school’s philosophy, curriculum, teachers, students, activities and fees, and about how they have set up scholarships to attract students from undeveloped countries and humble backgrounds in order to inject diversity into the student population. The nine institutions comprise the three local international schools: Hwa Chong International School, St Joseph’s Institution International High School, and Anglo-Chinese School (International), and six more that follow foreign systems: the Singapore American School, ISS International School, St Joseph’s Institution International Elementary School, the United World College of South East Asia, EtonHouse International School and Dulwich College (Singapore), which starts classes in August next year.

Walking into the spacious and colourful compounds of the nine schools, seeing the carefree and lively expressions on the faces of the students, having the global-minded Principals talk about education, and hearing their views which transcend national boundaries has made me look forward to the kind of people who have been educated in such an environment. They will surely approach the world with such vision and breadth of mind.

In order to attract global talent to invest and work in Singapore, the government has, over the years, invited some of the best international schools to establish themselves here to provide the best possible education for the children of these expatriates. Isn’t this well-intentioned move one of the best possible ways to assist our strategies for economic development?

The availability of international schools for a resource-rich country like China and a little red dot like Singapore means very different things. Opportunities are abundant in China, and even if there were no such schools foreigners would still go there in large numbers to make money, despite the lack of such amenities. But if there were no reputable international schools in Singapore, which has no natural resources, then this would be a huge disincentive for the sort of global talent that we want to attract. Furthermore, in other countries, the expatriate parents who send their children to international schools tend to be already in situ, but for us these schools constitute an important part of the infrastructure to attract global talent to Singapore.

EduNation quickly discovered that our nine featured schools are truly international in both make-up and standards, and as a result I sincerely hope that the teachers and students in our local system can interact more with all 34 of such schools in Singapore, and that through mutual communication and observation they can learn from each other and improve together. If the government has specially set up the Twinning Programme Fund to encourage our students to go overseas for cultural immersion and to expand their horizons, surely we shouldn’t miss such opportunities when there are international schools right here on our doorstep.

For contributions in our third issue, we have two columns from researchers from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Dr Juliana Chan and Dr Alice Lo. Dr Juliana Chan is also the founder of the website, Asian Scientist Magazine, and from her experience as a scholar she writes about how “failure is part of the job description”, whilst Dr Alice Lo talks about ranking. Also, theatre practitioner Ms Kuo Jian Hong reflects on her father Mr Kuo Pao Kun’s play, Lao Jiu, and the necessity for us to pursue our dreams.

Professor Phua Kok Khoo, Chairman of WS Education, is public-spirited and a strong advocate for the promoting of culture, serving on many boards of such organisations. This issue includes an excerpt from his interview with Xinhua in his capacity as the President of the Singapore- China Friendship Association. In it Professor Phua shares his thoughts on “developing educational initiatives and research possibilities to realise the Chinese Dream”.

Professor Da Hsuan Feng, Senior Vice President for Global Strategy, Planning and Evaluation at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan has kindly provided us with an article based on a speech he gave on the development of the University of Macau which, after an injection of US$2 billion (S$ 2.472 billion) and some far-sighted strategic decisions, is now vying for a position alongside the world’s best. This article can be found in Special Report.

Dr James Li, the founder of GreatMinds School, and an educator who conducts research in primary education, contributes a column for our new section, In the Classroom. In this issue’s Science Classroom he looks at the primary school curriculum and points out some misconceptions that have come to his attention and deserve our notice.

Our consultant and senior English copyeditor, Mr Christopher Burge, has written a companion piece for the English Classroom, but was doubtful that it could be translated into Chinese.

Our translation consultant, Dr Lim Heng Kow, agreed. “The essence of this short, excellent article can only be appreciated in the original. The typical English ‘double’ or even ‘triple’ meanings and subtleties are found throughout. Thus the ‘beauty’ and the ‘difficulty’ of the language are both present, rendering it almost impossible to translate,” he said.

So even though EduNation is a bilingual magazine we are unable to present this particular article in Chinese, and we seek our readers’ understanding.

Singaporean entrepreneur, social activist and philanthropist Mr Toh Soon Huat came from a family of humble means but is now a successful businessman. He is the first interviewee in our new section Entrepreneurs. How he overcame life’s struggles to become the CEO of a listed company, and subsequently devoted his life to social welfare is of great educational significance. Going forward, we will interview more of such people to learn about how they surmounted life’s challenges to achieve the Singapore Dream. Their stories can, we hope, serve as a source of inspiration and motivation for our young readers.

EduNation is a bilingual bi-monthly education magazine, and the language medium used by our interviewees and our contributors will be the first language in our layout while the corresponding translations will follow. This typesetting arrangement is to respect the interviewee and author, and I hope that our readers can understand and respect this decision.

As the very first bilingual magazine on education in the region, EduNation is in need of your support. If you have any feedback or comments, please feel free to email us at contactus@edunationsg.com.

月前，斯蒂格利茨在《纽约时报》发表了一篇名为

《新加坡给不平等美国的启示》（Singapore’s lessons for an unequal US）的文章。他说，很多原因使新加坡成为亚洲“经济虎”，能抑制社会不平等是其中之一。

“新加坡政府深明孩子无法选择父母，（在无法改变家庭教育的情况下）为了要让每个孩子拥有发展内在潜力的权利，建立了一个（社会流动力强的）有活力的动态社会。”

斯蒂格利茨认为衡量一个社会的“公正性”，就看他们怎样对待孩子。他说：“美国不少保守派或自由派人士认为穷人在工作上不够勤奋，应该要为自己的困境负责。这些人以为穷人都有工作，这个假设是越来越让人质疑。但是孩子的福利明显地不应该受到家境影响。瑞典只有7.3%的孩子生在穷困家庭，美国却有23.1%的孩子生活在穷困线上，他们将来无法对国家作出更大的贡献。这不只在基本上违反了社会的公正性，还同时昭示了国家黯淡的前景。”

斯蒂格利茨注意到新加坡政府理解国家成功之道在大力投资教育，而最好的教育不应只给有钱子弟，还要推广到每一个孩子。他的观察没有错。新加坡“绝不让一名孩子因为家境困难而被剥夺受教育的机会”的理念，建立了“任人唯贤”的制度，撰写了无数出身贫寒，因着奖学金、助学金的支持，后来成为部长、司长、局长、校长、企业家的“新加坡故事”。

新加坡建国总理李光耀说过：“在新加坡，一名三轮车车夫的儿子和一名千万富翁的儿子同样享有完全公平的教育机会。谁的成绩好，谁的表现好，谁就有更好的升学机会。我们社会所给的报酬，完全是根据一个人对社会所做出的贡献来决定，跟他的出身无关。我们认为只有这样，社会才会越来越公平。”这是新加坡社会“任人唯贤”、“唯才是用”制度的理念。

新加坡的确只有名校，汇集全国最优秀的头脑；却没有贵族学校，汇集全国富翁之子。新加坡教育系统里没有贵族学校正如新加坡没有贫民窟那样，是新加坡人引以为傲之事。

李光耀理解到人的资质优劣，家庭背景的贫富是无法“平等”，但是身为国家领导人必须不分贫富，为孩子提供“公平”受教育的机会。这是斯蒂格利茨笔下，新加坡抑制社会不平等的原因之一。

然而，素以“抑制社会不平等”著称的新加坡，也面对了人民收入悬殊的挑战。怎样缩小社会贫富差距的鸿沟，减少民怨，建设“更美好的新加坡”，已是2011大选及过去两场补选，执政党失利后，国家领导人必须急切解决的棘手问题。

新加坡副总理兼财政部长尚达曼在2013年的财政预算声明说：“任人唯贤的制度已不足以确保社会的流动性。我们无法改变因为家庭背景有别，孩子的资质有差异的事实。我们必须从小开始给来自贫困家庭、质差的孩子加一把力，要想尽一切办法，在学前和小学阶段，帮助贫困家庭、质差的孩子建立自信心、确立志向，在落后跟不上时，扶助他们。我们会提供多种渠道，培养孩子的技能，挖掘内在的潜力，让他们长大后能出人头地。”

出身好家庭子弟能靠睿智父母的“警觉”，寻求种种办法来为自己加把劲；贫困、质差子弟则因父母的“无暇”或“无知”，无助无援下丧失了从小打好基础的机会，从此掉队、误交损友、沉沦。这是不少国家，甚至是发达国家的现象。

年少无知的孩子，无法“自己保重”，倘若政府不能及时插手相助，让孩子把不能选择父母，不能出身在一个好家庭，不能从小打好基础，日后当不了人上人，归罪于自己“命”不好的话，这对孩子是不公平的，那决非一个负责任的政府所为。

新加坡政府于是决定介入，从小扶助贫困、质差、有特别需要的孩子，以补他们没有出身好家庭的不足。新加坡虽然不是一个福利国家，但是这种加强社会流动力，从小协助穷人脱贫的“教育福利”措施，却是长年累月，意义深远的，绝非仅仅“派糖”这么简单、这么短线。

中国老子《道德经》有一句话说：“授人以鱼，不如授之以渔。”说的是传授知识给人，不如传授学习知识的方法给人。一条鱼能解一时之饥，却不能解长久之饥，如果想永远有鱼吃，就要学会钓鱼的方法。

新加坡政府固然明白“授人以鱼，不如授之以渔”的道理，过去50年，一向积极致力教育工作“授之以渔”，而不愿当一个“授人以鱼”的福利国家。可惜，经过几十年经济蓬勃发展后，社会尽管有着流动的机制，人民贫富差距越来越大已是事实。民怨此起彼伏，成为社会隐忧。教育部开始明白除了教“钓鱼的方法”，还要思考“为什么有些人钓不好鱼？”，“既然不能选择父母，贫困的环境无法避免，是否政府可以从小来帮忙？”新加坡政府除了为孩子提供“公平”受教育的机会，还要进行“教育福利”，介入“家庭教育”，从小给他们的父母一臂之力，帮助每个孩子成功。

2013财政年度，政府拨款116亿元给教育部，是历年来最多。要做的事除了沿袭过去50年大力颁发奖助学金，“绝不让一名孩子因为家境困难而被剥夺受教育的机会”之外，再从根本起，从小给贫困家庭的孩子提供高素质的幼儿教育，协助质差学生的“辅助班”，从小一小二扩展到中学去。增加支持贫困学生到海外浸濡、开拓视野的进取基金等等。这个“确保人人成功，不让一个孩子掉队”的教育措施会在本期《新学关心教育》详谈。

新加坡政府决定投入更多资源，不让弱势孩子输在起跑线上，让以国际学校为主题的《新学》第三期，更引人深思。

这一期，我们访问了新加坡九所国际学校的校长，请他们畅谈办校的理念、课程、师资、学生、活动、学费，还有他们怎样为了使学生多元化，设立奖学金吸引来自世界非发达国、非富裕家庭的学生加入等等。这九校是属于新加坡教育部系统的英华国际学校、华中国际学校、圣若瑟国际学校中学部；外国教育系统的新加坡美国学校、伊顿国际小学、新加坡ISS国际学校、圣若瑟国际学校小学部、东南亚联合世界学院，还有一所明年8月才开学的德威英国国际学校。

走进这九所宽敞而缤纷七彩的国际学校校园，看到孩子们轻松活泼的笑脸，听着九位有着环球视野的校长，侃侃谈教育，他们思维无边无际的辽阔感，让我憧憬着能在这样氛围下学习、成长的孩子，日后长大是怀抱着何等样的胸襟和眼光走向世界？

新加坡政府为了吸引国际精英到新加坡投资、工作，把世界最优秀的国际学校请到新加坡来，给他们的孩子最好的教育，用心良苦，难道不能说是最棒的辅助经济发展的策略吗？

经营国际学校，对地大物博的中国及对没有半点天然资源的小红点新加坡有不同意义。地大物博的中国，机会处处，即便当地没有国际学校，为了赚钱，外国人才也要迁就。对于毫无资源的新加坡来说，没有拔尖的国际学校作为吸引环球精英举家过来工作的优厚条件，那就表示竞争力少了一块，吸引力大大降低了。国际学校在其他国家仅是为培育外国人才子弟的学校，但是在新加坡，却是吸引国际精英前来加入的重要基础设施。

国际就是国际，这九所国际学校都有它的国际水平。我衷心希望新加坡学校的师生能多和这34所国际学校的师生来往，通过沟通观摩，互相学习达到互相提升。如果说，政府设立“海外姐妹校基金Twinning Programme Fund”，鼓励师生多到国外友校浸濡，扩大视野，那近在眼前，坐落在新加坡的国际学校，更不应该错过。

本期外稿，我们有两位新加坡科技研究局研究员的来稿，她们是曾shu.tif评博士和罗健蕊博士。曾shu.tif评也是亚洲科学网站的创办人，她从学者的经验中，发现“失败是工作的职务之一”。罗健蕊谈排名，戏剧工作者郭践红从父亲郭宝kun.tif的创作剧《老九》谈梦想的承担等等，都有深切的意义。

本刊董事主席潘国驹教授热心公益，致力推动文化事业，身兼多个文化团体领导人。本期转载了他以新加坡中国友好协会会长的身份接受中国新华社专访谈“大力发展文化教育科研能实现‘中国梦’”的特别报道。

台湾国立清华大学负责全球策略、策划及评估的副校长冯达旋教授交来一篇他谈澳门大学以20亿美元（新币24亿7200万元）发展的演讲稿，让人对21世纪澳门不可思议的转变充满憧憬。此文也附在特别报道栏目里。

李宏珉博士是博思书院的创办人，致力小学教育的研究。本期开始，他为我们开辟《新学课堂》的新栏目，在“科学教室”探讨新加坡小学科学课程里值得关注的错误概念。

我们的顾问兼高级英文审稿员贝齐（Chris Burge）老师，也为《新学课堂》的“英文教室”撰写了《Agreeing is Sometimes the Hardest Thing to Do》。作为一篇要出现在一本双语教育杂志上的文章，他却告诉我们：“不必翻译也无可翻译。”

本刊翻译顾问林廷高博士同意贝齐老师“不必翻译也无可翻译”的建议。他说：“这是一篇只可心领不可传译的精辟短文。作者巧用语带双关的词句，营造模棱两可的意境，突显英文文法上兼顾数目、时态、人称统一协调的困难。作者文题《Agreeing is Sometimes the Hardest Thing to Do》就是别出心裁的组句，还有那首重复应用‘one’的民谣，画龙点睛地道出英文的‘扰人’之处，其潜在之美也尽在其中。但这短文一旦翻译为华文，失‘真’在所难免，原文之美，恐怕也难以保存。”

本刊作为一本双语杂志，却出现一篇不能以双语呈现的文章，敬请读者谅解。

新加坡企业家、社会活动家兼慈善家卓顺发出身贫寒，却成就大事业。他成为本刊新栏目《奋斗一生》的第一位受访者。他如何克服生命起步中的重重困难，建立辉煌事业成为上市公司总裁后，又毅然放下，投身社会公益的人生经历，极具教育意义。接下去，本刊将访问更多类似的成功人士，把他们奋斗一生的“新加坡故事”记录下来，鼓舞年轻人向上向善。

《新学》是一本双语教育双月刊，华英文先后，我们以受访者的语言和作者文章的语文来决定。受访者以英语受访，文章就以英文先排，翻译的华文排后。来稿是华文，翻译的英文就排后。希望这个尊重受访者和作者的排版原则，能获得读者的谅解。

这本区域第一本双语教育杂志需要各位关注教育的新加坡和国际朋友的大力支持。读后有任何回馈，欢迎电邮 contactus@edunationsg.com 赐教。