Creating systems for lifelong learning in asia

85

Today, Lifelong learning is going far beyond theprovision of second-chance education and training foradults. Rather, it significantly re-shapes the traditionalfoundation of school-oriented national education systemin Asia as well as other countries.

The proclaimed idea and ideology not only criticizesthe conventional rituals of institutionalization in publicschooling, but also attempts to ‘border-cross’ theboundaries of educational realms in the whole learningecosystem (Han, 2001). In addition, the recognition ofprior experiential learning, open and distance learning,collaborative arrangements of teaching-learning processhave been accelerated by virtue of technological advances(Cooper, 1996), and the newly emerging modes oflearning, non-traditional knowledge delivery modes, andaccreditation system stimulate more flexible andmodularized ways of national education systems to replacethe traditional mode of schooling. In short, lifelong learning

has turned out to be a meaningful token for buildingalternative approaches for the new era education systemsin general.

The most important factor to be considered in thiscontext is the fact that lifelong learning is a globalphenomenon. The term ‘global’ does not only mean thatthe world is becoming interlinked in which the power oflocal initiatives in defining the shape of national educationsystems is severely decreasing, but also that capitalismitself is globalized to the point in which a learningeconomy becomes the most important instrument as aparticular mode of its production and reproduction.‘Lifelong learning’ as a system, in this context, stands atthe very center of these turbulent changes. The structuraltransition from capital-based economy to knowledge-basedeconomy has strongly encouraged the active role oflifelong learning on the global level.

OECD Education Ministers, at their meeting in January1996, identified the goal of lifelong learning for all as ameans of anticipating and responding to on-going changes,promoting economic efficiency, and enhancing socialcohesion. In discussing strategies for achieving this goal,the Ministers recognised that the task extends beyondrestructuring formal education systems.

Creating Systems for Lifelong Learning in Asia

Soonghee HanSeoul National University

Korea

This paper investigates the formation and establishment of lifelong learning support systems in six Asian countries,including Korea, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong(SAR), Thailand, and the Philippines. The countries included in thisresearch are quite diverse and unique in their basic characteristics. Despite the divergent values, systems, and social roles,since the 1990s, the basic ideas and trends have been toward a somewhat integrated model in which each componentof the system was geared to function for serving the global knowledge economy. In this paper, the process of recentlifelong learning system development in the selected six Asian countries was traced in two ways: global aspects and localpeculiarity. I argued in this paper that the cases in Asia mostly follows the ‘global trends’, especially with the ‘businessmind’ of global capitalism. I also suggest that Asian experiences can provide several distinctive characteristics rarelyobserved elsewhere: new role in mitigating diploma-disease, building centralized supporting system between central andlocal governments, the impact of colonial legacy, unbalance between HRD and humane-orientations, and preservation ofthe emphasis of adult basic education.

Soonghee Han, Professor, Department of Education, SeoulNational University. Correspondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to Soonghee Han, Department ofEducation, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Shinlim-dong,Kwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-742, Korea. Electronic mail may besent via internet to [email protected].

Asia Pacific Education Review2001, Vol. 2, No. 2, 85-95.

Copyright 2001 by The Institute of Asia Pacific Education Development

86 Soonghee Han

On-going structural changes affecting all OECD economies andsocieties have increased the importance of up-to-date skills andcompetences. The growing share of economic output in services isknowledge- and information-intensive, as is an increasing proportion ofmanufacturing and primary production. This places a premium on thecontinual upgrading of the skills and competences of work forces inmember countries, that is, developing coherent strategies for lifelong

learning (OECD, 1996).

Without any doubt, in searching for “developing coherentstrategies for lifelong learning” as stated in the OECDdocument, the mode of national lifelong learning systemsheavily reflects the needs of the global economy. Despite thediversity in educational as well as political, economic andcultural areas, Asian countries have shown strikingly similarsaspects in their shaping national lifelong learning systems,which is one aspect that this paper will address.

This paper investigates the formation and establishmentof lifelong learning support systems in six Asian countries,including Korea, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong(SAR),Thailand, and the Philippines. The countries included in thisresearch are quite diverse and unique in their basiccharacteristics. Traditionally, these countries were categorizedin unique ways: Hong Kong and Singapore were not onlyheavily influenced by British colonial experiences, but also aresmall city-countries, in which Chinese values and culturalheritage predominates the operation of the countries. Japanand Korea share not only cultural and social commonalitiesbut also similar paths in constructing their national publiceducation system. The Philippines and Thailand in ethnic andlinguistic diversity are rapidly shifting their economic structuretoward manufacturing and the information sectors.

Even though the initial origins of their lifelonglearning systems were based on divergent values, systems,and social roles, since the 1990s, the basic ideas and trendshave been toward a somewhat integrated model in which eachcomponent of the system was geared to function for servingthe global knowledge economy. This paper attempts to revealthe existence of a so-called “global invisible hand” working toshape the mode and structure of national lifelong learningsystems in this region.

��

Ideological Contestation

The idea and ideology of lifelong learning is notpre-defined but rather self-growing and dispersed, whichgradually is shaped in the history of educational

evolution. One of the key issues embedded in the bodyof growing ideas reflects the internal contradictions andconfrontations between the humanistic tradition1 inlifelong education and business mind as its pragmaticdissendent, mostly driven by international economicorganizations, like the OECD, World Bank, or IMF. Thechallenge is more or so to be conditioned by thedeployment of newly emerging post-industrial globalcapitalism with support of knowledge-based economy,which at the macro level tries to fully leverage lifelonglearning for maximizing the value of knowledge workersas well as for minimizing the discontent of theunemployed who are continuously expelled out of thelabor market. (Holford et al., 1998).

In Faure’s Report, a UNESCO document thatasserted “lifelong education” as an official slogan of anUNESCO project, the concept of a ‘learning society’ wasborn from a fundamental notion of education reformbased upon European liberalism, which was eventuallyexpanded in the Delors Report(1996). Meanwhile, theOECD promulgated the idea of lifelong learning beingembarked on market-oriented HRD concept with thebanner of knowledge worker’s self-directed learningmotivation (Cooper, 1996). A worker's lifelong careerdevelopment was gradually emphasized with his or herown expenses (OECD, 1996), and the investment inhuman learning turned out to be the instrument of therealization of global capitalism. In this sense, we cansay that, in many Asian countries, lifelong educationwears a strange costume: a jacket of humanistic ideasand pants of market-driven HRD representation, in whichthe tradition of critical pedagogy in lifelong education istotally unseen from the ‘contested terrain’.

Recently, with regard to education and labor policies,lifelong learning is of direct relevance to LaborMinisters in three respects. First, the absence of effectivelifelong learning opportunities, or lack of access to them,contributes to unemployment and low earnings. Second,the lifelong learning perspective adds a longer-term,preventive dimension to labour market programmes.Third, labour market policies have an important role toplay as a part of cost-effective lifelong learningstrategies.

In preparation of the labor skills, strangely enough,the process of privatization in the system makes theresponsibilities to fall on the shoulders of the workers,while the bandwagon of lifelong learning was initiatedand driven by international agencies, states, and

Creating Systems for Lifelong Learning in Asia 87

corporate employers(Roth, 2001). Lifelong learningembarked on market-oriented HRD concept with thebanner of knowledge workers self-directed learningmotivation (Cooper, 1996), turned out to be rather theobligation of learners themselves, instead of theproviders or employers for the beneficiary of the earnedoutcome that the learning produced became recognizedto be the learners themselves. As Gene Roth(2001)prescribed,

Traditionally career development has been a collaborative, sharedresponsibility between the employee and the employer. Recentlymore of the burden of career development has fallen on theshoulders of the worker. In the United States, workers are facingincreasing amounts of uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.Workers no longer expect to be hired early in their lives and remainwith the same employer until they retire. The global economy hasforced workers in the United States to take responsibility for theircareer plans. These recent developments have caused workers todevelop new ways of thinking about their careers.

As like the “Enclosure Movement” which hadexpelled tenant farmers to the labor market with nopreparation for their work skills in the early industrialstage England, the knowledge economy kicked theindustrial manual workers out into the mysterious“knowledge market”. National lifelong learning systemswere meant to be a minimum effort of the governmentsthat try to set the re-training infrastructure for out-placedworkers2, while as Baptiste(2001) comments, it is stillnot sure or proven by any research that lifelong learningopportunities guarantee job rehabilitation on the newknowledge market. He indicates,

the OECD found the earlier version too general, too quantitative,and based on too simplistic theories of education and theeconomy (p. 188).

The Impact of the Global Economy in the Early 1990s

During the past few decades, developing countries,including Asia have experienced a tremendous commitmentto development in education. The impressive commitmentof resources and effort is reflected in outstanding growthin school enrolment. However, in the late 1980s and early1990s, the continents like Asia, Africa, and Latin Americahave experienced adverse economic conditions. For mostcountries in these continents, this period of austerity andstructural adjustment has caused a slow-down in educational

expansion, and has sometimes led to a reverse trend.Diminishing national and regional resources have alsocontributed to a decline in the quality of educationalopportunities by forcing a reallocation to more short-termneeds. This is evidence and an apparent trend directlyinfluenced by the global economy. Structural adjustmentprograms imposed by the World Bank and IMF drasticallyforced developing countries to draw resources away frompublic expenditure, especially from education (Atchoarena& Hite, 2001, p. 201).

As seen in Table 1, the years 1997-1998 were anightmare for most Asian countries. In these fiscal years,most Asian countries included in this paper suffered fromnegative economic growth rate. Although not so severecompared with other countries, Singapore and thePhilippines also experienced a drastic slow down in GDPgrowth. While Western Europe and especially NorthAmerica enjoyed unprecedented economic prosperity,Asian economies in general were bombarded in financialas well as industrial areas. Education and other socialwelfare domains were the first group of victims of theseevents.

It is ironic that the emphasis on lifelong learning wasboosted at this very moment. The key phenomenon washigh an unemployment rate and its subsequent need foreconomic structural adjustment. The transition fromindustrial to information or knowledge economy becamean urgent issue. The financial crisis led the InternationalMonetary Fund and World Bank to intervene into thenational policies not only in economic but also socialdimensions, especially of education policies.

Two severe issues were placed on the decision-makingtable: The drastic increase of uncontrollable structuralunemployment and the urgent need to make structuraladjustment in national economy. One needed nation-widere-training plans for excluded labor to re-enter the labor

Table 1. GNP Growth Rates of Selected Asian Countries

Country 1970 1980 1990 1996 1997 1998

Japan 10.76 2.66 5.05 5.32 1.61 -2.66

Korea, Rep. 7.20 -3.92 9.53 6.70 4.81 -6.64

Hong Kong 9.51 10.37 3.40 4.49 5.26 -5.13

Singapore 12.64 6.33 8.85 8.40 9.02 1.49

Thailand 9.62 5.34 11.22 5.02 -1.10 -7.69

Philippines 2.75 4.63 3.79 7.24 5.30 0.07

Data source: World Bank, Social Development Index, 2000

88 Soonghee Han

market. The other needed to change the focus of apreviously labor-intensive manufacturing sector towardknowledge-intensive service sector. The two major issuesboth urgently required nation-wide lifelong learningbuilding and promotion strategies.

��

Although most countries in this research had similarneeds, the initial situations were quite uneven and diverse.Focusing on economic and labor issues related with theemergence and promotion of lifelong learning, I would liketo use several key indecies based on economy andlabor.

The World Economic Forum, known as the provider ofthe Davos Forum, produced the WEF Global CurrentCompetitiveness Index Ranking 20013.

In this rank, Singapore and Japan maintain thecutting-edge technologies and human resources as wellas institutional infrastructures to make the top classcompetitiveness possible. Interestingly, the two countrieshave well-structured smart lifelong learning systemsdeveloped in a considerable time period. While Singaporewas maintaining a totally government-driven comprehensiverecurrent training system, from VITB, ITE, and now morecomprehensive project, known as school of lifelong learning,Japan has an enterprise-driven decentralized recurrenteducation system for a long time, that are now supportedfrom a strong legal basis of the Lifelong the LearningPromotion Law.

Thailand and the Philippines, as their CCI rankingare located lower the in this comparison, do not havespecific national lifelong learning systems. Rather, inboth countries, centralized non-formal educationnetworks are working for local adult educationactivities. Meanwhile, Korea, in the middle ranks, has

just begun a lifelong learning system since 2000 underthe auspice of Ministry of Education and HumanResource Development. Hong Kong does not have anycomprehensive lifelong learning promotion system, butpartial projects and policies are conducted by privateas well as government sectors.

The second important indicator is the HumanDevelopment Index. UNDP(United Nations DevelopmentProgram) releases the Human Development Index annually.The indicator is constructed basically by human lifeexpectancy, adult literacy and schooling gross enrolmentratios and GDP per capita. According to the data, theoverall HDI value and education index in detail(which iscalculated on the basis of adult literacy and combinedprimary, secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio) ofAsian countries can be listed as follows.

Among the countries included in this research, Japan,Hong Kong, Singapore, and Korea are listed in the highHDI countries (the HDI scores more than .80), whileThailand and the Philippines are following. Shown inthis data, Korea and Japan have the highest educationindex among the four countries, which means moreresponsibilities of lifelong learning are taken by theformal school system (later I will discuss that lifelonglearning in these cases are closely related with curingthe diploma-disease) and adult and continuing educationwas recognized as a compensatory role in thesecountries. Hong Kong and Singapore are both smallcity-states and the policies on education should begrouped in a different category. As seen in the CCIdata, HDI data also demonstrates that Thailand and thePhilippines are still included in a separate group.

In table 4, Thailand and the Philippines rely moreon the agricultural sector, although shifting fast towardsindustry and service sectors. Among the other four

Table 2. Corrent Competitiveness Index Ranking

Country Ranking

SingaporeJapanHong Kong (SAR)KoreaThailandPhilippines

101518283854

Data source: Davos Forum, Current Competitiveness IndexRanking 2001

Table 3. Human Development Index

CountryWorld

RankingHDI Value

EducationIndex

High Human Development CountriesJapanHong KongSingaporeKorea

9242627

0.9280.8800.8760.875

0.930.830.870.95

Medium Human Development Countries

ThailandPhilippines

6670

0.7570.749

0.840.91

Data source : UNDP, 2001


countries, Hong Kong and Singapore are dominantlyfocusing on expanding service sector(both percentage perGDP are higher than any other countries), while Japanand Korea walk a similar path in their economicstructure, especially Korea, having a more relativetriangular balance.

Based upon the selected indicators, Thailand and thePhilippines are demonstrated as a separate group. Whileother countries are most difficult to cut-off into separatecategories, at least in the sense of economic factors, HongKong and Singapore can be categorized into a groupregarding their land/ population size, and economicstructure. Therefore, this research tries to categorize the sixcountries into three groups: The first group comprises Koreaand Japan, secondly for Hong Kong and Singapore, and thelast one for Thailand and the Philippines. The research willdemonstrate that the six countries reveal global similaritiesin making their national lifelong learning systems, while thethree different paths are observed according to the attributesof the categorical groupings.

�� !�� !��" �� # ��

In this section, I will contrast the global aspects andlocal peculiarities in shaping and promoting lifelong learningsystems in the selected countries in consideration withprovisional categories.

Global Aspects

Firstly, As Tuijnman(2001) noted4, adult education in

the global context has gained considerable ground interms of its newly found prominence in nationaleducation policy making, in which the characteristics ofthe global knowledge economy heavily influence theshaping of lifelong learning systems compared with theinfluence of the national attributes.

The promotion of lifelong learning in the selectedAsian countries was proclaimed in the form of laws orgovernment declarations, which implied major educationalsystem changes. In terms of legislation, only Korea andJapan had explicit laws on lifelong learning. Othercountries like Hong Kong and Singapore, raise nationalstrategic banners like “Manpower 21 (Singapore)”,“Education Blueprint” (Hong Kong) as policy bandwagons.Meanwhile, Thailand and the Philippines are still heavilyreliant upon restricted local networks of non-formaleducation systems. However, the last two countries alsobegan fundamental reformation in adapting lifelonglearning systems into the body of legislation. Thailandbegan to reform the education law and its administrativestructure by The New Education Law, passed in 1999and planed to be implemented from 2002. In thePhilippines, the Bureau of Non-formal Education ismainly working for the implementation of theConstitution’s spirit of lifelong learning.

Secondly, the meaning and role of adult education ischanging significantly in the global context. Apparentshifts from active labor market policies to “activelifelong learning policies” is observed. Also, adulteducation provision increasingly is seen not asconsumption but as a strategic investment, where stronglabor market orientation in adult education is experienced(Tuijnman, 2001). With this, the ministries of labor andthe ministries of adult education are trying to converge witheach other. In order to merge the process of‘developing’(HRD) and ‘managing’(HRM) the labor forces,many developed countries have already merged educationministries and labor ministries (at least the function ofrecurrent education for out-placed labor forces), inUnited Kingdom, Australia, Canada, etc.

In Asia, the advent of lifelong learning needs hasfundamentally changed the governing bodies foreducation and its relationship with labor relatedministries in the Japan, Singapore, and Hong Kong (seeTable 5). The urgent need for efficient and effectivehuman resource development and its managementstimulated the ministry of education to cooperate withthe ministry of Labor (or Trade and Industry). Upon the

Table 4. Compositions of Agricultural, Industrial andService Sectors, Value Added, per GDP in 1999

1990 agriculture industry service

JapanKorea, Rep.Hong KongSingaporeThailandPhilippines

2.05.60.10

13.020.0

35.041.414.330.040.032.0

63.053.085.670.047.048.0*

Data source: CIA, World Factbook, 2001* The data of Philippines are based on 1998.

90 Soonghee Han

command of the Lifelong Learning Promotion Law, theJapanese Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sciencebegan to work with the Ministry of Trade and Industry.Singapore and Hong Kong have already establishedpartnerships between the Ministry of Education andMinistry of Manpower(in Singapore), and the EducationDepartment and Labor Department(in Hong Kong).Korea, although not allied with the Ministry of labor,the Ministry of Education itself was transformed into theMinistry of Education and Human Resource Developmentto cope with new demands.

Thirdly, people talk about adult learning rather thanadult education, in which greater understanding of theneed to broaden the focus from formal education to alsoencompass non-formal and informal modes of learning.The change reflects a peculiar trend that theresponsibilities of learning have been shifted from theproviders to the learners. While the states invent nationallifelong learning systems in the realm of legislation,controlling bodies, and related policies, more emphasison the role of employers and individuals in decisionmaking and financing is increasing. In this context,private providers began to play key roles in most Asiancountries that used to be a part of the public sector. Astrong platform for market-oriented approaches is settled.

A new trend is the emergence of commercialbusiness sectors that enter into the realm of adulteducation, which has long been dominated by thegovernment or civil sector. Private education institutionswhich in many cases apply distance-learning as a majormeans of knowledge delivery appear and acquire aslightly dominant position in Hong Kong, Korea,Singapore, and Japan. No clear evidence is found inThailand and the Philippines, though the trend cannot befully unaffected in those countries.

Fourthly, definitely job-related career orientation ofadult learning has become even more dominant in mostAsian countries, at the expense of liberal adulteducation. As some scholars asserted, less accent todayon what used to be called ‘liberal’ or ‘free’ adulteducation i.e. learning for democracy, culture, quality oflife and general welfare(Holford et al, 1998). In Japan,the contrasting two related laws (Social Education Lawand Lifelong Learning Promotion Law) are in paralleland clearly the pendulum is now swinging from socialeducation(liberal and community-oriented) to lifelonglearning(manpower development and job-related). Theconceptual and functional conflict of the nature oflifelong learning in Japan is located in between theconflict between community-oriented education tradition

Table 5. Governing System of Lifelong Learning in Selected Countries

Japan Korea Hong Kong Singapore Thailand Philippines

GovernmentBureau Structure

Ministry ofEducation,Culture, andScience +Ministry ofTrade andIndustry

Ministry ofEducationand HumanResourcesDevelopment

Education andManpowerBureau(EducationDepartment +LaborDepartment)

Ministry ofEducation +Ministry ofManpower

Ministry ofEducation,Religion& Culture

Department ofEducation,Culture &Sports

Specific BureauLifelongLearning Bureau

HRD Bureau

EducationBureau(AdultEducation Unit)+ VTC

Training andDevelopmentDivision

Department ofNonformalEducation

Bureau ofNonformalEducation

Legal Structure

LifelongLearningPromotion Law

LifelongEducationLaw

"EducationBlueprint forthe21st Century +Investing inourhuman capital"

"Manpower21"

8th NationalEducationDevelopmentPlan,1997-2001

EFA-PPA1991-2000 +NonformalAlternativeLearningSystem(1993)

Strategoc Agenciesfor LocalImplementation

LLC /Kominkan

LLC /Credit BankSystems

Polytechnic,OpenUniversity

ITE,CommunityClub

NonformalEducation Center

LocalNon-FormalEducationCenters


and HRD-oriented education. In Korea also, adulteducation for humanity is making room for lifelong jobtraining. In Thailand, New Education Law slowlyde-emphasizes the role of the traditional non-formaleducation, which is supposed to be slowly integratedinto education in general heading to the function forcutting-edge manpower training from 2002.

Fifthly, in terms of the contents and process in theglobal trend of adult education, general acceptance offoundation skills are corresponding to completed uppersecondary education as a common basic educationplatform for both youth and adults. Also, interlinkedwith skilled and knowledge workers developmentprograms in HRD, lifelong learning is emphasizing morethe role of post-secondary education. In most countries,HRD is relying on the active participation ofuniversities, which drastically increase the number oftertiary education enrolments. With regard to this,knowledge assessment and skills validation have becomemore important issues but the reference standards forvalidation still remain most strongly tied to thequalifications provided by the formal system especiallywith post-secondary degrees.

This is the case in the selected countries, too. Koreaand Japan have already accomplished mass education atcollege level. In Hong Kong and Singapore, the numbersof university and polytechnic enrollments have rapidlyincreased. In Hong Kong, polytechnics and open learninguniversities play key roles in promoting lifelong learningpolicies. ITE and PSB in Singapore also are targetingthe population who are trying to get post-secondarydiploma in vocational areas, and open the door ofupward social stratification from ITE to university viapolytechnics.

Even the Korean Lifelong Learning Law consists ofmostly how to get a higher education degree throughnon-traditional universities (Credit Bank System,Corporate Universities, Cyber Universities, etc.). Thenon-traditional higher education system including openuniversities, corporate universities, and others are takingcharge of the remaining needs for higher education.Except for Singapore, higher education degrees areendowed through distance learning methods. In Japan,private companies run their own corporate universities.Despite this trend, Thailand and the Philippines do nothave any evidence for interlinking post-secondaryeducation institutions with lifelong learning projects.The two countries mostly apply lifelong learning

concepts to adult basic education and primary levels ofskill development based on local community non-formaleducation centers.

Asian Uniqueness

Besides the global commonalities, Asian countries havetheir own uniqueness in making lifelong learning systems.

The first issue is the identity of lifelong learning inrelation with formal schooling and ‘diploma-disease’. AsAlberici(1998) noted paradoxically, the future of lifelongeducation lies in a fundamental renewal of the role andfunction of the ‘formal’ educational system. The thematicissues of Adult educators in Korea were how to empowerlifelong learning to play the role of ‘encroaching’ theexclusive barriers of the school system and to include bothunder the total umbrella concept under lifelong education.Eventually it is expected to challenge the vicious‘diploma-disease’ in these countries(Han, 2000). Indeed, thephilosophy of lifelong learning attempted to face up to apreviously reified and culturally commodifiedschool-dominating learning ecology, in which learning wouldbe supposed to network, connect, and link to otherexperiences of learning.

The role of higher education in Korea and Japan hasbeen mainly focused on “initial education” and theproportion of adult learners in higher education wasextremely small. In regard to this, with or withoutintention, the Korean Lifelong Learning Law functions forthe provision of compensatory tertiary educationinstitutions. In particular, the Credit Bank Systemconverts and accumulates most possible experiences oflearning, vocational qualifications, and accreditedclassroom experiences into academic credits for highereducation qualifications. Under this system, learningexperience is abstracted into academically exchangeableunits of values.

In Japan also, the official goals of a foundation forthe system are to overcome the side effects of the socalled ‘diploma oriented’ society and to provide learningopportunities that can match the growing demand forleisure-oriented learning activities(Okamoto, 2001). In theprocess of developing a conceptual framework forlifelong learning and realizing that concept throughpolicy and legislation, centralization of responsibilitieshas increased, the powers of the Ministry of Educationhave expanded, and the private sector has been

92 Soonghee Han

introduced. Namely, Japan has attempted to solvenational problems by increasing control for personallearning and introducing the private sector.

Secondly, centralization of adult education policiesand systems are found in most of the selected countries.While adult education in most countries is decentralizedin the global context, recent trends reveal that acentralized systemic supporting structure has beenundergoing in Asia. As recent economic recessions in Asiaconstrained companies to expand more training to theiremployees, governments of these countries activelyparticipated to build a central promotion system for lifelonglearning. In this new system, the local level (prefectural orprovincial) councils are structured to be linked to theMinistry of Education's central council, and a "top down"management system is being formed. Under this newsystem, local bodies are losing the local autonomy orself-governance in local adult education policies.

In Japan, the newly established Lifelong LearningCenters are more centralized in its controlling systemcomparing with Kominkan, which has been mostlylocally managed.5 The Korean government recentlyattempted to build a centralized lifelong learning centernetwork according to the new Lifelong Education Law.Thailand and Singapore have a long established centralizedadult education system, in different modes. Communityclub or community centers of Singapore are allocatedaccording to the division of electoral districts, so that theymostly work with political units. In the Philippines,provincial or district branches of community educationcenters are being structured along the line of centralgoverning bodies.

Thirdly, a colonial legacy, in part, pre-sets theconditions in making the national systems in lifelonglearning. Singapore and Hong Kong, where the chancesfor regular schooling and higher education were strictlyconfined for the legacy of British colonialism and hadto find alternative ways to fill out the necessaryshortage for knowledge-intensive industries. It was notuntil the year 1988 when the Hong Kong governmentchanged the basic policy of higher education, fromwhich the previously elite-oriented universities andpolytechnics embraced more of the mass population into therealm of higher education opportunities. Hong Kong is nowstruggling to find ways for meeting the demand for tertiaryeducation opportunities without reshaping the existingstrict hierarchy of the university system.

Fourthly, unlike most western countries whose

lifelong learning systems are well-balanced betweenhuman resources development and leisure-(or community)oriented education, most Asian countries are facing anurgent need to increase the emphasis onvocation-oriented adult education solely for survival fromdrastic economic shocks. None of the selected countriesare free from these demands, but the typical cases canbe found in Hong Kong and Singapore. Comparing withits function for social inclusion, continuing education inHong Kong is developed mainly for vocational educationand employees retraining. As stated in the policy addressof the year 2000,

To gain a clearer picture of Hong Kong's future manpowerneeds and identify potential gaps between supply and demand,the Education and Manpower Bureau, in collaboration with theGovernment Economist and relevant bureau and departments, areconducting an assessment of our future manpower requirementsby broad industries, occupations and educational levels in thenext five years(2000 Policy Address, Briefing on "Investing InOur Human Capital)

Fifthly, in the case of Thailand and the Philippines avery unique way of making new lifelong learning systemon top of the traditional non-formal education provisionis shown. Lifelong learning in Thailand and thePhilippines have kept the form of previous non-formaleducation, which mostly focused on adult basic literacy,post-literacy, and self-help education for the communityeconomy. However, drastic changes in the globaleconomy and the direct influence of the Asian financialcrisis of 1997 on the Thai economy changed manyaspects.

For example, Thailand’s National Education Act of1999 made possible the major reforms on lifelonglearning, which focused on the integration of formal,non-formal, and informal education, not only in conceptsbut also, legal systems, provisions, and opportunities forlearning. As a result, the Department of Non-formalEducation was erased from the Ministry of Educationorganization chart, and the role was dispersed into theother functional divisions.

Also, in the Philippines, from the adult educationpioneering efforts in the pre-war years to the creation ofthe Bureau of Continuing Education in 1982, and to thepresent Bureau of Nonformal Education, continuing/nonformal education thrusts in the country have, fromtime to time, changed depending on contemporary needs(Romulo, 1989). The seven areas of concern in 1982 were


functional literacy and continuing education, which coverslivelihood skills development, socio-cultural development,citizenship education, sports and physical fitness, leadershipand value development. (Romulo, 1989).

In Thailand and the Philippines, continuing educationhas meant to be community-based and integratesfunctional literacy and basic lifelong learning skillsadapted to the local context. The blueprint of new formsof lifelong learning systems are unclear at this moment,considering the diverse burden and diversity.

��

Building a lifelong learning system is not “adding”adult and continuing education on top of the existingschool system, but rather a fundamental process ofstructural adjustment of the whole national educationsystem from the perspective of systems approach.

In this paper, the process of recent lifelong learningsystem building in six selected Asian countries wastraced in two trails: global aspects and local peculiarity.I argued in this paper that the cases in Asia mostlycome along with the ‘global trends’, especially with thebusiness mind of global capitalism. I also challenged theidea that Asian experiences can provide severaldistinctive characteristics rarely observed elsewhere: newrole in mitigating diploma-disease, building centralizedsupporting system between central and localgovernments, the impact of colonial legacy, unbalancebetween HRD and humane-orientations, and preservationof the emphasis of adult basic education, etc.

Before concluding, I believe it is appropriate to raisea fundamental question: “Is really the making oflifelong learning system contributed for coping witheconomic rehabilitation, especially for preparing workersin direct ways?” Surely the system revealed to givesignal effect for expanding education market beyondschool and universities. However, what I suspect is whoare the real beneficiaries. Are they the misplacedworkers or the companies who might get a chance of a‘free ride’ on this bandwagon?

$��

Alberici, A. (1998). Towards the learning society.

Holford, et al. (eds.) International perspective onlifelong learning, London: Kogan Page.

Atchoarena, D. & Hite, S. (2001). Lifelong learningpolicies in low development contexts: An Africanperspective. In D. Aspin, J. Cahpman, M. Hatton andY. Sawano (eds.), International handbook of lifelonglearning. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Baptiste, I. (2001). Educating lone worlves: Pedagogicalimplications of human capital theory. Adult EducationQuarterly, 51(3).

Coombs, P. (1982). World educational crisis. New York:Oxford University Press.

Cooper, C. (1996). Guidance and cohenrence in flexiblelearning. In P. Raggatt, R. Edwards and N. Small(eds.), The learning society. London and New York:The Open University.

DECS Bureau of Nonformal Education(1993). Nonformaleducation vision and mission at the threshold of the21st century, 6. Manila: DECS.

Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Paris:UNESCO.

Gelphi, E. (1985). Lifelong education and internationalrelation. London: Croom Helm.

Han, S. (2000). Korean lifelong learning: A contestedterrain. Korean Lifelong Education Journal, 6(1).

Han, S. (2001). Lifelong learning and learning ecology.Seoul: Hakjisa.

Holford, J., Jarvis, P., & Griffin, C. (eds.) (1998).International perspective on lifelong learning. London:Kogan Page.

Hong Kong government (2001). Investing in our humancapital.

Korsgaard, O. (1997). The worlds of the hand and ofthe mind. In S. Walters (Ed.), Globalization, adulteducation & training. London and New York: ZEDbooks.

Lengrand, P. (1979). Prospects of lifelong education. InA. J. Cropley (Ed.), Lifelong education: Astocktaking. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute forEducation.

Lengrand, P. (1986). Areas of learning basic to lifelongeducation. New York: Pergamon Press.

OECD (1996). Lifelong learning for all: Meeting of theeducation committee at Ministerial level 16-17.January, 1996. Paris: OECD.

Okamoto, K. (1994). Lifelong learning movement in Japan:Strategies, practices and challenges. Tokyo, Mimeo.

Okamoto, K. (2001). Lifelong learning and the

94 Soonghee Han

leisure-oriented society: The development andchallenges in the Far East. Aspin, D. et al. (eds.),International handbook of lifelong learning. London:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

ONEC (1999). Education in Thiland 1999. Bangkok:Office of the National Commission Office of thePrime Minister Kingdom of Thiland.

OPM (1999). National Education Act of B.E.2542(1999). Bangkok: Office of the NationalEducation Commission. Office of the Prime Minister,Kingdom of Thailand.

Romulo(1989). Nonformal education thrusts. In Sutaria,Guerrero, and Casta(ed.), Philippine Education Visionand Perspectives, pp. 248-252.

Roth, J. (2001). Contemporary issues in humanresource development: Implications for educationaladministration. Paper presented at the KoreanSociety for Educational Administration, Seoul,Korea, Oct 5-6, 2001.

Trievellato, P. (1996). Japan as a learning society. Anoverall view by a european sociologist. In Coffied,Frank(Ed), A national strategy for lifelong learning.Papers presented at a conference titled “Researchon lifelong learning: Implications for policy andpractice.” Newcastle, England, November 25-27,1996.

Tuijnman, A. (2001). Recent development in meetingspecific adult learning needs: Internationalperspectives. Paper presented at the OECD-KRIVETInternational conference on adult learning policies,Seoul, Korea, December, 5-7, 2001.

Wain, K. (1993). Lifelong education and adulteducation - the state of the theory. InternationalJournal of Lifelong Education, 12(2), pp. 85-99.

http://stednet.sei.dost.gov.ph/http://www.decs.gov.phhttp://www.deped.gov.ph/lmis/phil-lmis.htmhttp://www.fapenet.org/bnfe/propro.htmhttp://www.info.gov.hk/emb/eng/manpower/index.htmlhttp://www.unesco.org/education/

��

1. The origin of the idea was emerged with the radicalvision of P. Lengrand or E. Gelphi, the early thinkers of

UNESCO, mainly in normative and philosophical ways.Recently, however, “business mind” of OECD or otherinternational economic and financial agencies comes moreclosely to our daily lives in the process of itsinstitutionalization. The dialectic between the original‘idea’ and its distorted ‘representation’ dominates globally.Asia is not an exception in this issue(Han, 2000).

2. Law Song Seng and Low Sock Hwee(2000) listed 10strategies that can be used for principles of constructinglifelong learning system nationwide: 1 Active TripartitePartnership; 2 Appraisal and Evaluation; 3 Accessibility;4 Affordability; 5 Andragogically Trained Teachers; 6Application to Work; 7 Attractive Incentives; 8Accreditation; 9 Avenues for Progression; 10 AppealPromotion.

3. According to WEF, “The Current CompetitivenessIndex (CCI) aims to identify the factors that underpinhigh current productivity and hence current economicperformance, measured by the level of GDP per person.It reflects microeconomic fundamentals, with onesub-index that focuses on company sophistication andanother, on the quality of business environment. Thesefactors explain why some countries can sustain a higherlevel of prosperity than others one sub-index that focuseson company sophistication and another, on the quality ofbusiness environment. These factors explain why somecountries can sustain a higher level of prosperity thanothers (http://www.weforum.org).” The benefit for usingthis indicator is that the competitiveness in theknowledge-based economy carefully reflects the value ofknowledge creation and therefore human values thatwork in the framework.

4. The following issues on global aspects of lifelonglearning is borrowed from Albert Tuijnmans recent paper“Recent Development in Meeting Specific Adult LearningNeeds: International Perspectives” presented at theOECD-KRIVET International Conference on AdultLearning Policies (Seoul, 5-7 December, 2001).

5. In Japan, comparing to the former Social Education Lawthat emphasized fundamental autonomy of the localgovernment, the Lifelong Learning Promotion Lawpermitted more power of control to the centralgovernment. Also, the first paragraph of Article 5 ofLifelong Learning Promotion Law describes prefecturesas responsible for preparing the groundwork that willprovide opportunities for private sector participation,noting that they may apply for approval for any givenproject from the Ministry of Education or from theMinistry of International Trade and Industry. It is also


clearly stated that private sector organizationsparticipating in lifelong learning activities will receivefavourable treatment with regard to financing andtaxation.

Received October 10, 2001

Revision received October 31, 2001Accepted November 9, 2001

Documents

Creating systems for lifelong learning in asia