Reflections on Citizenship and Values Education in Singapore: Towards more openness and participation?

• In Event: Adopting socio-historical approaches towards understanding citizenship education in east Asia

Proposal

This paper discusses the various forms that citizenship education has taken since the introduction of the Thinking School, Learning Nation vision, highlighting the consistency of the key emphasis on maintaining the survival of the country that is based on economic competitiveness and social cohesion.

Drawing on the reflections of the authors and theoretical perspectives on education and developmental state formation (Chia, 2015), this paper suggests that to achieve this balance, Singapore will need a substantial shift from the existing ‘survival’ mindset to one that is more open to diversity and ambiguity.

Citizenship education has served as an important tool for state formation in Singapore since her independence in 1967 (Green, 1997 ). The ‘survival ideology’ based on the need for rapid industrialization and social cohesion via the principle of multiracialism became the chief strategies adopted by the government. The result was accelerated economic growth, which propelled Singapore to a status of one of the Four Little Asian Dragons. In contrast to the decade prior to its independence in 1965, there was social and political stability and order. Singapore did not merely survive. It thrived. Consequently, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) gained tremendous political mileage and legitimacy.

However, with globalization come new challenges that Singapore has to cope with. External and internal political, social and economic changes, partnered with mindset shifts of the younger generations of Singaporeans suggest that it is now imperative for Singapore to find new ways to achieve the balance between economic success and social cohesion.

Key to understanding the socio-economic forces behind Singapore’s education policies and curriculum is the role and relationship between education and state formation (Green, 1990, 1997 ). According to (Green, 1997 ), state formation

refer[s] to the historical process by which ‘states’ or ‘nation states’ are formed or reformed. In its broad sense ‘state formation’ encompasses the achievement and maintenance of national/state sovereignty; the construction of national public institutions and economic infrastructures; and also the popularization of the notions of citizenship, statehood and national identity which bind it together. (p. 31)

More specifically for Singapore, state formation refers to the evolution of the developmental state. Much of the ideological underpinning behind Singapore’s trajectory of economic development lay in the exposition of ‘Asian Values’, though that began to lose traction after the Asian financial crisis of 1997.

The Asian Values argument was advanced on cultural, economic and state sovereignty grounds. The cultural argument states that Asian cultures and traditions are inimical to Western liberalism. The economic argument posits that strong paternalistic government is needed for rapid economic development, and liberal democracy could impede economic growth (cf. Langlois 2001). Thus, the advocates of Asian values argue that liberal democracy is not applicable to Asia, and they stress ‘good governance’ and traditional ‘Asian values’ such as filial piety and obedience to rulers.
Finally, the state sovereignty argument contends that without a strong and authoritarian government to preserve national unity, centrifugal forces of religion, race and ethnicity would potentially tear the countries apart. The racial and religious riots in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore in the 1960s are cited as evidence to support this argument.

In the last twenty years, Singapore has undergone multiple curricular changes aimed at addressing the need for Singapore to survive and succeed in a vulnerable, fast-changing and uncertain ‘future’. This aim was apparent in the Government’s agenda and it undergirds the educational initiatives introduced to prepare Singaporeans for the twin challenge: To successfully transition to a knowledge-based society and to develop a strong sense of social cohesion and rootedness among Singaporeans (Lee, 1997b). As then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (Lee, 1997 b) emphasised, ‘Education …. must be a major part of the answer……it moulds the people who will determine the future of the nation.’

‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ (TSLN) was introduced in 1997, which later become the anchor vision that underpins Singapore education in the next twenty years. TSLN aims at equipping Singaporeans with the ability to think critically and independently in the face of challenges, to continually find better solutions and have a learning mind-set to contribute to a learning nation – a society which ‘upholds the fundamental values of equal opportunities and meritocracy’ (Lee, 1997b). The implementation the TSLN vision required a fundamental review in the educational system through means such as changes in curricula, examinations and assessment systems, teacher education programmes.

Consistent throughout the discussion about citizenship education in Singapore during the period after the introduction of TSLN is the view that Singapore’s goal of achieving performance legitimacy through economic growth is prominent. The reminder of Singapore’s innate vulnerability epitomizes crisis discourse of the ruling party, which is the vehicle by which it ensures its legitimacy. Is the privilege of economic competitiveness and social cohesion, over political openness and democracy the right formula for success for Singapore in the long run?

Looking forward, adopting a relationalist stance can help to strive towards harmonizing the different discourses to promote a broader range of interests and agendas (Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2016). Singapore has to reconsider how critical thinking and deliberation can play a part in contributing positively to societal improvement and how this can be reiterated through the curriculum. Additionally, Singapore needs to commit to promote critical thinking and deliberation as ‘a value indicative of an inclusive society’, and not for serving the dominant utilitarian agenda of neoliberalism (Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2016, p. 20). Citizenship education needs to provide opportunities for students to consider how societies can promote inclusion for all individuals. Applying this to the Singapore context will mean that the government first needs to commit to the democratic idea and then work with MOE and schools to embed democratic cultures in schools. The success of citizenship education in encouraging democratic participation will require a rather substantial shift from the existing ‘survival’ mindset to one that is more open to diversity and ambiguity.

Authors

• Yeow-Tong Chia, University of Sydney

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