法学视域下的社会治理问题

当下中国正在发生着由＂社会管理＂向＂社会治理＂的深刻转型。社会治理问题关乎国家秩序与社会发展,对于法治国家的建成具有重大而根本的意义。社会治理所蕴含的治理方式多样化与治理主体多元化,决定了国家获致良好秩序的根本途径必然是法治,因此社会治理问题研究的法学切入也就具有了充分必然性。国内法学界在2012至2013年度对＂社会治理＂及其转型前形式＂社会管理＂问题的研究主要集中在四个方面：治理方式、重点领域、规范形态和主体要素。对社会治理问题法学研究进行及时的学术梳理与总结,当能为社会治理实践法治化进程的推进提供智识贡献和理论支撑。     

新加坡双语教育与华人语言习惯和态度的变迁

新加坡双语教育制度的变迁改变了华人语言习惯和语言态度,在家庭、学校和社会环境中英语的使用已经占据绝对优势。从语言态度而言,70%的华人认为英语＂最有用＂、＂地位最高＂,认为华语＂最有用＂、＂地位最高＂的人约占14%。由此可见,新加坡华人语言习惯和语言态度的变迁在很大程度上受到双语教育的影响。     

朱子学在新加坡的传播与影响

朱子学在新加坡的早期传播,主要是华侨通过创办华文学校、华文报刊和成立华侨社团来进行。新加坡独立后,朱子学受到官方的高度重视。政府大力在学校推行儒家伦理道德教育,并开展以儒家伦理道德为主要内容的社会教化活动,从而提高了新加坡人的文明程度。在现代化建设中,新加坡发掘朱子学中的深层文化内涵,分离出现代性的思想资源,推动了经济的发展,形成了＂东亚新加坡发展模式＂。     

大学治理改革的“内卷化”及其规避

由于缺乏强有力的外部制约与激励的制度安排,也没有形成制度创新的内生机制,当前我国大学治理改革陷入了＂内卷化＂的困境。这主要表现为大学治理改革基本上是对原有治理结构的复制、延伸和精致化,结果导致当前大学的压力越来越大,但效率并不高。规避大学治理改革的＂内卷化＂需要从三方面着手：一是国家推动现代大学制度的强制性创设;二是形塑＂国家、大学与社会＂动态均衡的治理结构,构建国家、大学与社会之间的制度化合作治理机制;三是培育现代大学文化,为深化大学治理结构改革提供内源性的支撑。     

供求关系视角下的非传统性全球问题治理研究

全球治理的需求与供给问题是当今国际社会重大的现实问题。在需求层面,非传统性全球问题某种程度上具有的＂公共性和负外部性＂特征及国际社会高度相互依赖的特质呼吁非传统性全球问题治理的兴起。在供给层面,这些特征又决定了非传统性全球问题治理公共物品供给的内在机理,即超越传统＂主权国家＂概念图式下的治理,全球系统中的各行为体均试图加强紧密联系,逐步形成共同认知,为全球问题治理提供公共物品——建立共同的安全、繁荣与包容,以回应全球性问题带来的挑战及其治理挑战。     

新加坡腐败治理机制建构逻辑及启示

新加坡是久负盛名的"廉洁之邦",其腐败治理绩效闻名于世。严法威慑、高薪养廉、财产申报、同体监督与异体监督互构协同等是新加坡腐败治理机制的特色与优势。新加坡也是一党执政的国家,与我国同处于亚洲儒家文化圈;中新两国的历史文化背景也有诸多相似之处。因此,新加坡腐败治理机制值得我国深入研究与借鉴。     

新加坡教育治理体系探析

新加坡通过不断的教育改革为其成为高度国际化国家奠定了坚实的基础,其教育治理的内容和理念值得关注.新加坡教育治理总体特征是政府强势主导、社会积极配合、民众有效参与.精英教育是其总体内核,效率优先是制度运行的重要特色,逐层竞争制是教育的外在表现形式,其实质是英式现代教育与中国考试传统的有机融合.新加坡主张因材施教,重视职业技能人才的培养.新加坡通过各种类型政府奖学金等方式构建涵盖初等、中等和高等教育的国民教育资助体系,并将有限的教育资源倾斜于精英教育,包括对国际学生的培养.由于教育类型与层次的交互性差,该治理体系易导致阶层固化、缺乏活力.     

“名校办民校”的治理：矛盾与策略

始于1997年的＂名校办民校＂的治理长期挣扎于供给与需求、效益与公平、资本＂寻利性＂与教育公益性以及地方局部利益与国家整体利益的矛盾之中。这些矛盾使得治理工作举步维艰,其根本原因在于政府、＂名校＂、新兴阶层以及投资者等各利益相关者的利益纠缠不清。因此,＂名校办民校＂的治理必须由各个利益相关者共同努力,即政府要完善监管体制、＂名校＂要谨守教育伦理、社会要形成正确导向。     

美国、日本和新加坡反腐败机制对我国的启示

作为一种全球性的社会现象,腐败被国际社会称为＂全球性灰色瘟疫＂。如何预防控制职务犯罪,不断健全完善反腐败机制,成为各国共同关注的问题。美国、日本和新加坡是社会清廉程度较高的代表国家,其有效的反腐败机制在预防控制职务犯罪工作中发挥了重要作用。我们在立足我国国情的基础上,从立法、设立机构和完善措施几个方面向它们借鉴经验,取其精华,努力实现＂把权力关进制度的笼子里＂的目标,形成＂不敢腐、不能腐、不易腐＂的防腐机制。     

老子的社会治理思想及其对学校管理的启示

以老子为主要代表的道家学派之＂无为＂的社会治理方式既是一种哲学思想,又是一种政治智慧,其根本在于实现社会教化：一方面,＂无为＂之道要求为政之人循自然之道教化万民,维持其自然之性,保持社会的多样性;另一方面,＂无为＂之所以＂无不为＂,乃是为政之人以其表率作用实现教化。老子的社会治理思想启发学校管理者在工作中要避免＂追求显绩＂的急功近利心态,具有＂兼容并包＂的呵护个性雅量,具备＂辅助万物＂的顺应自然智慧,练就＂以己为教＂的化民成俗境界。     

Lifelong learning through the SkillsFuture movement in Singapore: challenges and prospects

This article examines the promotion of lifelong learning (LLL) in Singapore through a new national initiative known as the SkillsFuture movement. It is argued that the attainment of LLL is confronted with three key challenges, the first being the sociocultural preference for academic rather than vocational education in Singapore. Secondly, there is an absence of a strong local culture that underscores the habits of mind needed for LLL. 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 LLL 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 LLL due to historical and socialcultural conditions and practices.     

Slippage and/or symbolism: gender,policy and educational governance in Scotland and Sweden

This article provides an overview and analysis of the relationship between gender, educational policy, and governance in Scotland and Sweden and the two countries’ response to European Union and global legislative and policy change. In Scotland, gender is mainly invisible in recent policies on inclusion, achievement beyond academic attainment, and the idealisation of the child. Gender is thus marginalised within a range of factors contributing to social in/equality. In Sweden, in contrast, gender has higher visibility in policy and governance as both an indicator of democracy and a means of preserving social democratic consensus and prosperity. However, recently its privileged position has come under attack. We draw on social capital, gender, and policy theory to analyse the range of influences on gender and educational governance in the two countries including that of the social capital of organised feminism.     

Curricular and instructional influences on early literacy attainment: evidence from Beijing,Hong Kong and Singapore

This study considered curricular and instructional influences on early Chinese literacy attainment in Beijing, Hong Kong and Singapore. The participants included 198 pre‐school children, their teachers and parents. Children were administered the Pre‐school and Primary Chinese Literacy Scale at the age of either two or three years, and again one year later. Teachers were asked to report on their beliefs and practices related to literacy education, and classroom observations were conducted to determine the extent to which directives issued by the Beijing, Hong Kong and Singapore governments were implemented. Investigation showed that there were marked differences across the societies in curriculum guidelines and approaches to literacy teaching. Results indicated that by the age of four, pre‐schoolers in Hong Kong and Singapore had significantly better Chinese literacy attainment than those in Beijing. Although age was the best predictor of attainment, location, teachers’ qualifications and classroom experience also significantly contributed to children’s literacy attainment.     

课程政策与教学实践对幼儿中文识字能力发展的影响——来自北京、香港和新加坡三地的研究

本研究追踪比较北京﹑香港和新加坡三地课程政策与教学实践对幼儿中文识字能力发展的影响。研究对象是三地198名儿童及其教师。研究者采用《学前及初小中文识字量表》对两组被试儿童(2岁﹑3岁组)进行了测试﹐一年后再复测。被试教师则填写《学校识字环境指数》问卷。研究者还到被调查的幼儿园进行现场课室观察。研究结果发现:(1)三地的学前中文识字课程政策及具体教学实践都有显着差异。(2)到4岁时﹐香港和新加坡幼儿在中文识字方面表现显著优于北京幼儿。(3)除年龄因素以外,不同的课程政策、教师年资及课堂教学经验等因素是预测幼儿一年后中文识字能力发展的最好指标。     

Putting literacy attainment data in context: examining the past in search of the present

This article examines the construction and design of literacy attainment data in the English school system in two different historical periods: the 1860s and the 1950s. These periods represent contrasting moments in the history of education in the UK when school structures and the governance of education varied, as did the design and interpretation of literacy attainment data, their relationship to pedagogy and the curriculum, and the administrative purposes for which they were deployed. By paying attention to the relationship between the form the data took and their mobilisation in administrative, professional and public discourse, this article will challenge current assumptions about the primacy of numerical data and the certainty accorded the information they encode. Studying the role numerical data played in shaping education in the past reveals tension points between data, discourse and social contexts that highlight the peculiarities of contemporary uses of literacy attainment data and their current role in bringing policy and pedagogy into the same space.     

When state centralism meets neo-liberalism: managing university governance change in Singapore and Malaysia

With strong intention to enhance the global competitiveness of their university systems, both the Singapore and Malaysia governments have introduced reforms along the lines of ideas and practices embedded in neo-liberalism. In the last decade or so, we have witnessed reforms being introduced to the higher education sectors in these Asian states, particularly when corporatization and incorporation strategies are adopted to transform national/public universities. With particular reference to how academics evaluate the impact of the reforms on their academic life, this article reports and analyses findings generated from campus visits and field interviews conducted in Singapore and Malaysia from 2007 to 2009. Although the senior management of corporatized/incorporated universities in these Asian states has been given more discretion to decide how to operate their universities, most of the front line academics that we interviewed have not experienced major differences in university governance after the reforms took place. Instead of feeling ‘emancipated’ and ‘empowered’, many academics feel more pressures and control from the university administration and government ministries. Despite the fact that both the Singapore and Malaysia governments have tried to embrace the ideas and practices of ‘neo-liberalism’ to transform university governance, academics still see the state’s reluctance in withdrawing from steering/controlling higher education development. Such observations clearly reflect the ‘clash’ of two major governance philosophies, namely, ‘state centralism’ and ‘neo-liberalism’. In short, this article critically examines how far the proposed university governance reforms by adopting the corporatization/incorporation strategies have actually transformed university management and academic life style in Singapore and Malaysia.     

新加坡人民行动党执政的战略思维

新加坡经济社会的跨越发展归因于人民行动党执政的战略思维。人民行动党以战略思维的客观性和价值性为规范和导引,实现了经济转型实证化和人民评价价值化的匹配和统一;人民行动党以战略思维的关联性和创造性为方法和理论根据,在消除儒学与自由主义的畛域的同时使二者成功联姻,开创了"软威权主义"的治国先河;人民行动党以战略判断和决策思维作为基本思维程序,保证了执政判断与决策的科学性,确保了人民行动党的执政地位。     

基于Citespace的大城市社会治理知识图谱分析

十九大提出创新社会治理、提升国家治理能力,打造共享共商的社会治理格局。本文利用Cite Space软件,对CNKI数据库收录的2007-2017年的237篇期刊论文分析,绘制社会治理创新领域的知识图谱,通过图谱分析表明当前大城市社会治理研究集中于社会治理模式、基层社会治理、社会治理体制创新、治理能力现代化等方面。     

“Countability not answerability?” Accountability in Hong Kong and Singapore universities

Singapore and Hong Kong are vying to be the principal educational hub for the Asia-Pacific region and have begun to compete with Australia, Britain, Canada and the USA in providing cross-border education. Although these four Anglo-American countries still dominate cross-border education, Singapore and Hong Kong hope to make inroads into this export market and compete on the global stage. To create “world-class” universities, Singapore and Hong Kong have introduced quality assurance mechanisms, diversified funding sources, and restructured their university governance systems. This article compares the accountability measures introduced into Hong Kong and Singapore universities, and the responses of academics and administrators to these measures. The results indicate that both countries introduced greater autonomy as they augmented accountability for their universities, and the term “decentralised centralism” describes the kind of government control exerted in these Asian universities in the twenty-first century.     

Globalization or Glocalization? Higher Education Reforms in Singapore

Globalization and the evolution of the knowledge‐based economy have caused dramatic changes to the character and functions of higher education in most countries around the world. However, the impacts of globalization on universities are not uniform though business‐like practices have been adopted to cope with competition in the global marketplace. The pressure for restructuring and reforming higher education is mainly derived from growing expectations and demands of different stakeholders in society. In recent years, widespread concerns over widened access, funding, accountability, quality, and managerial efficiency are perceived as the prominent global trends related to university education. Because of the divergent political, social, economic, cultural and historical backgrounds, national/local governments may adopt similar strategies in response to pressures generated from globalization. Nonetheless, through a close scrutiny of the ways that national policies are made, we may find that governments around the globe, particularly in East Asia, have tried to make use of the globalization discourse to address/justify the local policy/political agendas. This paper aims to examine the latest higher education reform initiatives proposed by the Singapore Government, with particular reference to reflect upon how the Singapore Government reforms its university systems in the context of globalization. It is argued that the latest comprehensive review of public university governance and funding brings about a changing role of the government in the regulation, finance and provision of higher education in Singapore and eventually alters the state‐university relationship.