Developing ‘Good’ and ‘Active’ Citizens in a globalised world – Comparing Citizenship Education in Singapore and Australia

• In Event: Publication mentoring workshop session
  In Special Session: Citizenship & Peace Education

Proposal

How has globalisation influenced the expectations of democratic citizens through the goals and experiences of citizenship education in democracies?

The investigations of citizenship in the context of globalisation inevitably involves the comparative study of the rights and duties of citizens across diverse societies, which often converge at two modern movements – nationalism and capitalism (Ampuja, 2015; Isnin & Turner, 2007). The tensions between ‘citizenship and the state’, and ‘nationalism and capitalism’ highlight the growing prominence of neoliberalism on influencing educational decisions, based on the premise of the competitive market and the focus on ‘real knowledge’ (Ampuja, 2015; Apple, 2011; Gandin & Apple, 2002; Isnin & Turner, 2007, p. 6; Zajda, 2015). This brings attention to the questions of what constitutes ‘real knowledge’ and what core facets of globalisation are privileged over the others in the process? What are the purposes of emphasising these facets and what are the possible consequences on a democratic society?

Using Singapore and Australia, two countries that purportedly champion democracy in the Asia-Pacific region as a platform for discussion, this article focuses on conceptualising the citizenship concepts that are promoted in the two education systems to identify the core facets of globalisation that are emphasised. Based on the five key ideas of citizenship education, this article examines the influence of societal contexts on the views about citizenship and democracy, and how they shape the approaches towards citizenship education.

The consideration of the nature of citizenship against the backdrop of globalization points democratic participation points towards five key ideas. The first, and fundamental essence of democratic participation lies in the dynamic nature of citizenship, one that requires citizens to be involved in social debates and reconstruction (Crick, 2007; Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Kincheloe, 2001; Staeheli, 2011; Westheimer, 2015). The second and third ideas emphasise participation in the civil, political and social spheres of the society and on multiple levels – local, regional, national and international levels (Dalton, 2008; Grossman, 2010; Hoskins, 2006; Kincheloe, 2001). The forth and fifth ideas see democratic citizenship as a collective endeavour for collective ends, requiring a rootedness in an egalitarian intention of social justice and democracy and a shared democratic culture involving obligations, rights and responsibilities, a sense of the common good and the ability and willingness to participate in its improvement (Crick, 2007; Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Giroux, 2005; McLaughlin, 1992; Print, 2013; UNESCO, 1998).

With Singapore’s Character and Citizenship education confining citizen’s political participation minimally within the formal political sphere, the conception of ‘good’ citizens aligns largely with apolitical expectations. Global citizenship education in Singapore can be summarized as ‘[thinking] global, but be rooted to Singapore’ (Spring, 2014, p. 26). On the other hand, effort to sustain Australia’s democracy is apparent in Australia’s Civics and Citizenship Education curriculum. A moral and ethical foundation, rooted in national values of democracy, equity and justice, an understanding of Australia’s system of government, history and culture and a willingness to participate in civic life were needed by young Australians to become active and informed citizens. Contrary to Singapore’s depoliticized approach, politics is extended into civic life in Australia.

The examination of the two countries’ contexts for citizenship education suggests that with globalization, it is crucial for countries to renew their commitment to ‘revitalize the language of civic education as part of a broader discourse of political agency and critical citizenship in a global world’ (Giroux, 2004, p. 36). This requires an inclusion of a broader of concept of global citizenship to encourage participation beyond national borders and extending the realm of politics beyond formal political structures to encourage collective citizenry participation in the improvements of the countries. As values are fundamental in citizenship education, they need to be accepted as the basis for democracy and be explicitly committed to supporting democracy. For without an explicit commitment to democracy in the education systems, citizenship education risk becoming the tool to reinforce the effects of neoliberalism by promoting individualism over solidarity, minimising citizens’ critical involvement in the society and weakening the democratic base. Discussions also concur with Howard and Patten (2006) that unless countries are explicitly committed to democratic citizenship, citizenship education will be shaped by the ‘dominant ideology’ of neoliberalism (p. 454).

Author

• Jia Ying Neoh, University of Sydney, Sydney School of Education and Social Work