BACKGROUND
It was in late June 2020 that Singapore was thrust into election fever, with the ruling People’s Action Party calling for a general election in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.
Prior to this, I had been mulling over the level of political literacy among our young citizens. For me, I define ‘young’ as people age 12 to 25 years. Coincidentally, on 3 July 2020, it was reported that Hwa Chong Institution discouraged its students from commenting on the election or politics (see Annex A). On a side note, this missive is highly ironic, given Hwa Chong’s history of student activism in pre-independence Singapore.
I decided to devote some time to do my own (admittedly non-exhaustive) investigation into the current state of Civics and Citizenship Education (CCE) or Social Studies (SS) in Singapore schools. Later in this document, there are mentions of ‘Civics and Moral Education’, ‘National Education’, and ‘Civics Education’. For ease of discussion, these will be taken to mean the same thing as CCE or SS.
These questions led my inquiry:
1. At which stage/s of the Singapore education journey do our young citizens learn about politics and governance?
2. How is political literacy taught in other countries?
3. What are the ‘gaps’ (if any) in what is taught in CCE/SS?
In the course of my research, I tried to be open to relevant tangents that broaden my perspective and I have these general observations:
1. In Singapore, CCE and SS have overlaps in content, but this is also the case in many countries.
2. There are some interesting gaps in Singapore’s CCE and SS - these ‘gaps’ are based on my own interpretation of the syllabi I looked at, and in no way do I consider them ‘lapses’ or ‘omissions’.
3. There is a broad spectrum of how CCE is taught in other countries (in this case Australia, Malaysia and the US); which is to be expected. In Australia and the US there seems to be more information or research done by independent, non-governmental and even state-funded organisations on the effectiveness of CCE.
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS A STUDENT
My secondary school education took place in the 1980s. At the time, CCE existed in the form of ‘Moral Education’ and as the title implies, it largely focused on character development. I studied in St Patrick’s School and was a member of the Student Council. By the time I entered upper secondary level, I had been elected Chairman of the Student Council, which brought with it the role of Prime Minister in the school Parliament. The Head Prefect was automatically the President. To my knowledge, it was the only school in Singapore at the time that had a school parliament which sat for about a week during the June school holiday.
The ‘Members of Parliament’ were students whose classes voted for them; no campaigning was done. During Parliament, we debated the school Constitution and debated on motions to amend, review or promulgate school regulations covering school uniforms, roles and responsibilities of the Prefects and other school matters that affected student life. At the end of Parliament, the rules and regulations would be delivered to the school Vice-Principal for approval or veto. In this way, I gained a rudimentary knowledge of governance, but the Council teacher-in-charge did not play any role in expanding my knowledge or facilitating my experience in the Student Council.
In junior college, I ran for the Student Council and was very active in contributing to student life in the campus, possibly to the detriment of my scholastic achievement. Frankly, running for the Student Council was largely a popularity contest, although it did expose me to the excitement and challenge of campaigning. As it turned out, the Student Council functioned much like a Town Council and we councillors were preoccupied with ‘municipal’ duties like planning major school events and refilling drink vending machines. Between performing these duties and our studies, we never got an opportunity to get ‘political’. As with my secondary school experience, the Student Council teacher-advisors didn’t really broaden our political horizons.
In short, back in school I never really learned how Singapore is governed. I was unfamiliar with the main organs of state or even with the first few articles of our Constitution.
CHARACTER AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE
According to the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) syllabus for Character and Citizenship Education (Primary): “The goal of CCE is to inculcate values and build competencies in our students to develop them to be good individuals and useful citizens.”
Because there is some content overlap between CCE and SS it is also worthwhile to look at the broad aims of SS, which is “…the preparation of students to be citizens of tomorrow by helping them to better understand the interconnectedness of Singapore and the world they live in, and appreciate the complexities of the human experience.”
This view is commonly held just about everywhere CCE or SS is taught. In his text The Making of a ‘Good Citizen’ in Malaysia: Does History Education Play a Role? author Anuar Ahmad says:
In many countries, including Malaysia, citizenship education is directly taught to pupils through history education. The history curriculum was not developed independently, but was instead integrated with citizenship education. By doing so, it was hoped that history and citizenship education would create 'good citizens' among pupils in the future.
[He quotes] Gooch (1965): “…first, we must teach our young citizens to realise the value and the nature of their heritage. As he said, we are not born into an empty world. When we begin to think, we do not scrawl our thoughts on a blank page. Secondly, we must teach our children to understand the world into which they were born, the stage on which they are called to play their part, a stage filled with scenery and crowded with other actors. It is a very difficult task, though nothing so difficult as helping children to realise the nature and the value of their heritage. This is because, although the past is a living past, so much of it remains a more or less subconscious influence that an effort is required to realize how real and vital it is. Thirdly, we must inspire them with the desire to take their share of responsibility in the life of this energetic, complicated, marvellous world.”
On the MOE website, I was able to download the syllabi for CCE for primary through to pre-university levels. In my general reading into CCE or SS, I discovered that there can be overlap in content with other subjects like History, Geography and even Math and Science. I found the most overlap with History. It was a challenge to go through the syllabi and arrive at some coherent picture. However, for the purposes of brevity, I chose to search for content dealing specifically with topics of governance and politics, using keywords like ‘constitution’, ‘branches of government’, ‘town councils’ and the like.
I found that the ‘earliest’ opportunity students learn about government or politics is at the lower secondary level. However it was not in the CCE or SS syllabi, but in the History syllabus instead:
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
In the above figure concepts like ‘citizenship’ are mentioned, but I suspect that discussion about this and other concepts highlighted above take a backseat to the learning of History in the narrative sense.
It is only when students get into the upper secondary levels that there is content specifically about government:
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Interestingly, the SS syllabus for students in Secondary 1 to 4 Normal (Technical) is not the same as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Instead, the main topics are:
1. Appreciating multiculturalism
2. Understanding migration
3. Resolving conflict
4. Protecting the environment
5. Managing financial resources
6. Caring for society
So students in the Express and Normal (Academic) courses learn about governance, while those in the Normal (Technical) courses don’t. Shouldn’t basic citizenship be taught to all students, especially if they are in the same age group? Have assumptions been made when deciding upon the different content taught to these two categories of students? I will not go into the possible reasons for this here.
From the content delivery point of view, the Singapore University of Social Studies offers a three-day programme (course fee $2,000!) titled Nurturing Young People as Active Citizens – Reimagining Policies, Programmes and Practice. Here’s the course synopsis:
This course examines how social, political, and economic factors influence conceptions of active citizenship in policies, programmes and practice using a broad range of theoretical concepts. With that understanding, the course proposes an exploration of young people's experiences with citizenship in their everyday lives in order to understand their enactment of active citizenship in their personal and private lives.
The course is aimed at “educators, youth workers, programme & policy planners, and early career researchers in youth studies and/or citizenship studies/education.”
CCE IN OTHER COUNTRIES
As mentioned earlier, this is not meant to be an exhaustive review of CCE in Singapore. But it is necessary to at least have a look at other CCE syllabi so as to have some sense of the approach Singapore takes in designing and delivering CCE in schools. I have decided to look at Australia, the USA and Malaysia.
AUSTRALIA
Education Services Australia is a “national not-for-profit company owned by the state, territory and Australian Government education ministers” and aims to help develop the Australian education sector in the areas of technology, processes, professional development and curriculum development, amongst others.
The following Figs. 5-7 show a sampling of the CCE content taught at various school levels:
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Another resource I found online is The Australian Curriculum. It is a government-funded body that “sets the expectations for what all young Australians should be taught, regardless of where they live in Australia or their background.”
For Australian students in Years 7 to 9 (roughly equivalent to Singapore’s Secondary 1 to 5), the Civics and Citizenship curriculum aims to “ensure students develop knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the values, principles, institutions and practices of Australia’s system of democratic government and law, and the role of the citizen in Australian government and society”, among other aims.
Fig. 8 describes content taught at various educational levels i.e. Years 7 to 9:
Fig. 8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In the USA, the promotion of a republic and its values has been an important concern for policy-makers – to impact people´s political perceptions, to encourage political participation, and to foster the principles enshrined in the Constitution (e.g. liberty, freedom of speech, civil rights).
There does not appear to be a federal curriculum covering Civics Education, although the individual states are mandated to include Civics Education in their curriculum. The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) reviewed state civic education requirements in the United States for 2012. The findings include:
· All 50 states have social studies standards which include civics and government.
· 40 states require at least one course in government/civics.
· 21 states require a state-mandated social studies test which is a decrease from 2001 (34 states).
· 8 states require students to take a state-mandated government/civics test.
· 9 states require a social studies test as a requirement for high school graduation.
Fig. 9 shows a sample of topics covered in Civics Education in the Howard County Public School System website, in the state of Maryland:
Fig. 9 What your child will learn in High School: American Government
MALAYSIA
I confess I had some difficulty looking through the Malaysian Ministry of Education website, given that the content is in Bahasa Malaysia. As far as I could tell, there were no documents or syallbi available for public download from the website.
A Google search threw up a few Malaysian news articles about Civics Education (CE), like this one:
Fig. 10
From the article, I infer that Civics Education was introduced as a subject on its own in June 2018. The implication is that CE was sprinkled amongst the other academic subjects such as History.
Malaysian Education Minister Maszlee Malik was quoted as saying civics education is aimed at teaching citizens to know their rights, responsibilities and moral values so that they could contribute to the well-being of the community and country.
“Our children will learn integrity, trust, diligence and discipline, hate corruption, power abuse and bullying, the importance of appreciating the less able group and having mutual respect for our differences, unity and love for the country,” he said.
Looking elsewhere, I came across this a doctoral thesis that provided a background of Civics Education in Malaysia as well as a critical review. The thesis (available for download here) is titled Civics and Citizenship Education in Malaysia: The Voice of Micro Policy Enactors by Haniza (2004).
I won’t go further into how CCE, SS or CE is implemented in Malaysia. Haniza’s thesis provided interesting food for thought in the area of content delivery e.g. the impact of educators’ understanding (or lack thereof) in the successful implementation of CCE/SS/CE programmes:
Besides the complexity of implementing a policy, it is also essential to get a notion of how policy implementers (teachers) understand the concept of citizenship. This is fundamentally important, as teachers’ understandings would affect the way the citizenship education is taught (Faulks, 2006). Sim and Print (2009a) in their study of Singaporean citizenship teachers stressed that in “exploring the application of education policy involving citizenship, it is important to ask about teachers’ personal understanding of citizenship and how it fits into a tightly controlled, nationally oriented education policy (p 386)”. Similar to Singapore, Malaysia also practiced a tight control education system where most of the policies were made from top to bottom. Due to this, the way teachers understand citizenship is important, as this is likely to affect the way they either support, reject, or teach the subject.
In another article Element (sic) of Citizenship in Education System (sic) in Malaysia, the authors opine that:
In the Malaysian context, the concept element of citizenship has been applied at a barely minimum level which is not in depth within various syllabuses (sic) such as the subjects of History, Moral Education, Islamic Education, Economy and PSK. The real concept of citizenship is being confused…because the element (sic) of citizenship are being consolidated and combined in various subjects.
This concludes my inquiry into how other countries implement CCE and in the following section, I look at some critiques of CCE/SS in Singapore.
VIEWS ON SINGAPORE’S CHARACTER AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION CURRICULUM
I started thinking about the CCE learning journey for our young citizens just prior to the onset of the 2020 General Elections. As a part-time lecturer teaching a critical thinking module to first-year polytechnic students, it struck me that, at this age, they were not terribly interested in matters relating to governance in Singapore, let alone globally. Frankly, when I was their age, neither was I, although I did experience some form of National Education when I did my National Service in the army.
A cursory Google search for CCE in Singapore lists the top results; most of them from government or government-linked organisations:
Fig. 11
The search result is perhaps unsurprising, given Singapore’s small size and a political climate that is not generally conducive to discourse at odds with mainsteam or ‘official’ narratives.
The Ministry of Education published Our Home, Your Say which was a summary of the findings of a Review Committee on the National Education (NE) curriculum (download here). The publication listed responses to NE from students as well as educators:
Our students shared that they:
· Were sceptical of NE, but took well to experiences that were highly engaging and relevant. Were empowered by greater voice and choice (e.g. for lessons, Values in Action programmes).
· Found learning experiences meaningful and impactful when the purpose was clear and relevant to their life and learning in school.
· Defined meaningful volunteer work by genuine impact and interactions with beneficiaries. Appreciated effective teachers who were able to use engaging strategies and resources, and facilitate deep analysis of issues.
· Valued open conversations on issues impacting their everyday lives such as race and religion.
Our educators reflected that:
· NE is important and there are strong structures and programmes in place.
· There is a need to sensitise students to current affairs and develop in students an understanding of their identity and conviction as citizens.
· The perpetuation of a “top-down” Singapore story had led to NE being perceived as “propaganda”.
· There was a perceived lack of space for educators and students to explore perspectives of events and issues.
· Teachers’ skills need to be deepened and a school culture supportive of NE efforts has to be nurtured.
· NE experiences should be planned in a more progressive manner across the different levels, and be pervasive across the curriculum.
· The role of the community in NE can be enlarged.
Interestingly, the responses (from the students’ point of view) don’t seem to match the findings in another survey of students found in the online article Change the Way We Conduct Citizenship Education by Clarence Ong. Naturally, this is just a broad observation and ignores survey methodology. The website on which the article appears (IPS Commons) comes under the umbrella of the Institute of Policy Studies. These were the findings of a survey done to find out students’ thoughts about CCE:
A year ago, we surveyed 100 students from secondary schools, polytechnics and junior colleges on the CCE programme and found the following:
· 75% felt the programmes were necessary but require improvements
· 79% attributed their lack of civic participation to time constraints
· 41% faced difficulty understanding the rationale behind their involvement, as a result of little facilitation of introspection
· 47% felt the programmes were not in line with their personal passions
The article then offers some suggestions to improve the teaching of CCE.
I also found this scholarly article (download here) that did provide a very comprehensive overview (if not a critique) of CCE in Singapore, written by Jasmine Sim and Murray Print, titled Citizenship Education and Social Studies in Singapore: A National Agenda. It is not a secret that Singapore, like many other countries, sees CCE as a means to align citizens to a prescribed worldview and/or a set of common values. There is nothing necessarily sinister in this. The authors say that developing states rely on education as a way to “transform a generation into sharing a common destiny”:
Strong political leadership, together with centralisation of authority over formal education and curriculum development, are elements of a single-minded effort to build and mould a nation and to ensure that curricula objectives and content are congruent with national goals. This relationship is captured in the mission statement of the MOE, which sees the task of education is to mould the future of the nation by moulding the people who will determine its future. Within the formal educational system, co-ordinated and sustained effort is made to transmit relevant knowledge, desirable values as well as to shape attitudes and behaviours.
In the two decades following Singapore’s independence, individual liberties were deemed of secondary importance to national economic development:
(In the 1970s when Singapore was undergoing rapid industrialisation) Three elements were highlighted - personal behaviour, social responsibility and loyalty to the country, all transmitted through an accepting, non-challenging educational system. Both the Goh and Ong Reports were noted for an absence of the skills of critical thought and of procedural values generally considered crucial to citizenship education in a democracy (Han, 1997). Indeed, learning about and understanding democratic principles and processes were all but ignored in favour of dutiful obedience to the state,…
In 1992, Civics and Moral Education (CME) was introduced. It was interesting to learn that:
The aim of CME was to develop commitment to nation-building…issues related to citizenship were examined in the upper secondary level. Topics included the Constitution of Singapore, and the fundamental liberties that it guarantees; the necessity and importance of the law; and participation in government, specifically in the electoral process.
The article mentions that CME was not encouraging students to be critical thinkers, even if there was a desire to help them grow into active and participatory citizens:
However, CME was not concerned about helping children acquire and develop skills to think independently about social and political issues. Han (1997) questioned its adequacy in terms of political education. In this context, she argued that the individual’s ability to think critically about issues affecting the country, and independently to make decisions concerning these, are important if they are to be citizens in the full sense of the term.
There is the implication that CME, as it was taught then, failed to spark the interest of students:
Two newspaper surveys in 1996, confirmed by a later MOE survey, revealed younger Singaporeans’ lack of knowledge and interest in their country’s recent history and nation-building issues. The government saw this as a critical issue, potentially jeopardizing the nation as young people appeared to take peace and prosperity for granted. An adequate historical knowledge was essential, it was argued, so that young people would be committed to such ideals as meritocracy, multiracialism and Singaporean way of life.
The authors go on to say: “A more critical interpretation would suggest that National Education in general and therefore social studies in particular, are more about attempts by governing elites to maintain power in increasingly challenged contexts (by forces such as globalisation), than a genuine concern for better educating young people.”
At this point, I learned that education also has its ‘yin’ and ‘yang’:
Engle and Ochoa (1988) argued that two dimensions, socialisation and countersocialisation, are central to the education of citizens in any democracy. Socialisation is an inescapable dimension of citizenship education. It is the process by which the society inducts young children into its customs, values and behaviours as a way of continuing existing traditions and practices... But socialisation, Engle and Ochoa argue, must be balanced by countersocialisation, which emphasises independent thinking and responsible social criticism. This a process of expanding the individual’s ability to be a rational, thoughtful, and independent citizen by promoting active and vigorous reasoning, including a reappraisal of what has been learned through socialisation. In this way countersocialisation develops the salient citizenship qualities of reasoning and independent thinking.
My modest re-interpretation of this is that culture must have its ‘counterculture’; there must be a dynamic tension in the battle of ideas – only through critical thinking and constructive debate will ideas in both these realms be destroyed or strengthened. The article reminds us what SS seeks to achieve:
An acknowledged objective of social studies is developing the rational, thoughtful and independent thinking citizen, through an emphasis on thinking skills, such as making judgements, evaluating evidence, recognizing values and detecting bias, as well as drawing conclusions based on a reasoned consideration of evidence and arguments…Therefore, social studies, in emphasizing the development of thinking in students, is an important countersocialising factor given the conservative tradition of citizenship education in Singapore. Reasoning and independent thinking are hallmarks of countersocialisation, so in Engle and Ochoa’s (1988) terms social studies in Singapore may be seen as a move to balance socialisation.
This is all well and good, but the last sentence of the above quote may sit uncomfortably with those who value conformity and unquestioning adherence to the pre-determined narrative.
The authors ask a tentative question:
Does it mean a greater willingness to engage citizens in the political process? This is a possibility given that the political leadership in recent years has been more open to engaging and consulting citizens in the ‘Singapore 21’ and ‘Remaking Singapore’ initiatives in 1997 and 2002 respectively. Moreover, Singapore is at a crossroads, characterized by “...greater social class differences; the emergence of new lifestyles reflecting greater affluence and individualizing tendencies; greater freedom and creative cultural expressions and unbottled desire for control in personal sphere and more say in the decision-making processes in the collective arena through multiple modes and nodes of representation....(and) the desire for greater political democratisation and freedom from state intervention.” (Chua, 1995, p. 184).
However, remember this article was published in 2005 and it seems that political developments over the years don’t quite support the above view. For example, the ruling party won a supermajority in the 2015 General Elections, giving it carte blanche to further entrench its power and dominance by amending the Constitution and enacting ‘fake news’ laws to silence opposing voices.
The article concludes on a neutral tone with the rather obvious observation that CCE/SS has evolved in significant ways. In this article, the authors asked questions back in 2005, some of which can perhaps be answered now in 2020:
…a growing political tension has created a dilemma for the Singaporean government. Should it direct policies, including education, to maintain stability and order to achieve economic prosperity as in the past? Or should it encourage a more creative, problem solving approach through educational policy, in the context of a highly global society, to achieve economic growth? One approach continues a highly successful past, the other surrenders some control to an unpredictable future… In social studies, developing thinking in students will raise their consciousness as citizens, which can be converted into a basis for negotiation with the political leadership.
CONCLUSION
So where has my inquiry taken me? I don’t think I can come to any justifiable conclusions, because my research is by no means exhaustive. These are just my observations:
· CCE/SS syllabi seem to diverge after a certain point in a student’s academic journey. For example, the functions of government and ways citizens can participate in government are taught in the Secondary Express and Normal (Academic) streams, but not for Secondary Normal (Technical). Shouldn’t the same knowledge be imparted to ALL students?
· Social Studies as a subject appears to be leftist in its aims.
· Singapore’s political narrative has had some four decades to entrench itself and as long as there is a dominant power that drowns out alternative or even fringe voices, CCE/SS will never see its full potential in helping our young grow into active citizens.
In the article A Look at Civics Education in the United States, what the writers say is applicable to Singapore:
Without an understanding of the structure of government, our rights and responsibilities, and the different methods of public engagement, civic literacy and voter apathy will continue to plague American democracy. Educators and schools have a unique opportunity and responsibility to ensure that young people become engaged and knowledgeable citizens… When civics education is taught effectively, it can equip students with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to become informed and engaged citizens. Educators must also remember that civics is not synonymous with history.
But is this of real concern to those whose job is the education of our young citizens?
In response to Hwa Chong Institution’s instruction to its students to refrain from public engagement surrounding the General Elections 2020, Kirsten Han wrote: “What does it do to our society when young Singaporeans are openly warned away from politics as if it's something dangerous to be afraid of?”
Are we concerned enough with the consequences of a politically apathetic citizenry? This is the opening statement of a study done by the Center for American Progress:
Civic knowledge and public engagement is at an all-time low. A 2016 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that only 26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government, which was a significant decline from previous years. Not surprisingly, public trust in government is at only 18 percent and voter participation has reached its lowest point since 1996. Without an understanding of the structure of government, rights and responsibilities and methods of public engagement, civic literacy and voter apathy will continue to plague American democracy. Educators and schools have a unique opportunity and responsibility to ensure that young people become engaged and knowledgeable citizens.
Furthermore, civic literature has found that “engaging young children in civic activities from an early age is a positive predictor of their participation in later civic life” Bers, Marina Umaschi. (2008).
Fortunately, there are rays of hope and reason to be optimistic. With hitherto unprecedented access to information it is increasingly difficult for any one party or organisation to control the narrative. There is this student-led organisation I discovered online called CAPE or Community for Advocacy and Political Education, whose mission statement is:
We are an independent, non-partisan community of students that examines local and global affairs relating to civil society, and provide avenues for Singaporeans to contribute constructively to our civic life. We are also focused on raising civic consciousness and building capacity for political literacy in order to make civil participation more accessible.
Someone called Han Xuemei has also set up an online discussion group on Facebook for youth 21-30 years old (are they really ‘youth’ though?) to talk about elections-related matters, covering questions about the elections, voting concerns and dilemmas etc.
What can I do? In my interactions with young Singaporeans, I will strive to make use of small teachable moments to plant a seed of curiosity about being a politically literate and civically active citizen of Singapore.
FURTHER READING
· Teaching Kids How Government Works - https://wethepeople.scholastic.com/grade-4-6.html
· US Government For Kids- https://www.ducksters.com/history/us_government.php
· The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmad A. (2004). The Making of a ‘Good Citizen’ in Malaysia: Does History Education Play a Role?. In Lee W.O. et al. (Eds). Citizenship Education in Asia and the Pacific. CERC Studies in Comparative Education, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht.
Bennett, L.W. ed. (2008). Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. The MIT Press. p. 139–160.
Godsay, S., Henderson et al. (2012). State Civic Education Requirements. Center For Information And Research On Civic Learning And Engagement (CIRCLE).
Haniza, M. (2014). Civics and Citizenship Education in Malaysia: The Voice of Micro Policy Enactors. Cardiff University.
Shapiro, S. & Brown, C. (2018). The State of Civics Education. Center for American Progress.
Sim, J. & Print, M. (2005). Citizenship Education and Social Studies in Singapore: A National Agenda. International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education Vol.1 No.1.
Sitti Hasnah Bandu et al. (2017) Element of Citizenship in Education System in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3.
Ministry of Education (2012). Character and Citizenship Education Syllabus – Primary. Student Development Curriculum Division.
Ministry of Education (2016). Social Studies Syllabus – Upper Secondary Express Course and Normal (Academic) Course. Curriculum Planning and Development Division.
Ministry of Education (2016). Social Studies Syllabus – Secondary One to Four Normal (Technical) Course.
Ministry of Education. (2018). Our Home, Your Say. Ministry of Education, Singapore.
https://www.esa.edu.au/about/about-us
https://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/cce/
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_education_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Bers,_Marina_Umaschi_2008_pp.139-1
https://www.hcpss.org/academics/
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/08/13/education-minister-civics-education-to-be-introduced-in-integrated-holistic/1780227
https://ipscommons.sg/change-the-way-we-conduct-citizenship-education/
ANNEX A
HWA CHONG INSTITUTION’S INSTRUCTION TO STUDENTS
Source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10223462835866951&set=a.1244952851834&type=3&theater
ANNEX B
A RESPONSE TO HWA CHONG INSTITUTION FROM SIM YAN YING
This email sent by Hwa Chong to their students has been circulating on online platforms the past two days and rightly so, because it is time for this sort of fear-mongering tactics to be exposed, questioned, and evaluated. Feeling really disappointed by this email particularly as an alumna of Hwa Chong. It is a massive misstep by the school. I don’t need to belabour the points that many have already made, but I do want to emphasize three things:
Even if I give Hwa Chong the benefit of doubt and concede that their intention is to protect their students from the backlash as a result of publicly posting things they will regret, what the school should’ve done is to teach students how to have open and informed political conversations online, with compassion and thoughtful intentionality, instead of sending an email that basically says “don’t post anything political, if not you might get into trouble”. That’s a dangerous sentiment that further feeds into the culture of fear and consequently apathy.
Secondly, it seems to me that the administration in Hwa Chong needs a more complex and nuanced understanding of how social media can be utilized, instead writing off online platforms as places that don’t allow for complex and nuanced conversations to happen. Frankly this is surprising to me because I have learnt so much from the information sharing on Facebook, Instagram, and even TikTok the past month - about politics, social justice, and value systems both in the American and also Singaporean context. It’s 2020; where do you expect these conversations to happen otherwise? GP essays? College seminars where not all of us are able to attend? Echo chambers with just our group of close friends? I've reconnected with acquaintances that I haven't spoken to in years on Facebook and Instagram, and we've had complex and nuanced discussions about current events. I think we all know that social media provides an invaluable opportunity for us to share knowledge, learn from others, and engage with different perspectives – it’s all about how we use it.
And lastly I’m getting the sense that the school administration is conflating political comments with discriminatory remarks. Online shitstorms generally happen when people post racist, homophobic, sexist, classist, and other kinds of discriminatory things - and those should rightly be called out (and discussed, particularly for situations that aren't so black-and-white) because they are causing harm to people in marginalised communities. But simply sharing opinions about political parties, their manifestos, their campaigning tactics, and what their strengths and weaknesses are rarely lands anyone in an online firestorm. I feel that a lot of us in Singapore have come to buy the idea that political idea = incendiary and so we keep our mouths shut, but we need to let go of that false equation.
(Also, does anyone know if Hwa Chong has retracted their statement or sent a follow-up email to clarify their points? Because if not, we need to put pressure on the school beyond merely sharing these thoughts on social media.)
I am disappointed in Hwa Chong for perpetuating the fear of speaking out, but it is also too easy to just point fingers at one school and say that they are the problem. This is a manifestation of a deeper issue in the Singapore education system which has for decades rewarded conformism and obedience and punished those who dare to speak up and question existing rules and policies. And it doesn’t just end when you graduate. For a sizeable population who enter the civil service, they are once again reminded to keep their mouths shut about their political beliefs. A friend can’t join the SG Opposition Facebook group I added her into because she said that “the public service sent all of us an advisory that we can't be seen to be partisan, and I don't want to get snitched.”
I know there may be legitimate reasons why civil servants should be politically neutral, but it also makes me think about how messed up the system is if making political statements on your personal platform means risking your job for some. And this is a problem because silence means perpetuating the fucked-up status quo – of capitalism, racial inequality, xenophobia, the widening wealth gap, climate-change apathy, among a whole host of other issues. And scaring people into silence using overt and covert forms of censorship is so obviously a tool that the Singapore government wields to retain their power. There is a long history of it.
As much as I wish for everyone to be willing and able to engage in social and political discussions, I can’t demand that people in those positions be vocal because I am not in that situation and they have much more to lose than I do. But I have been thinking about one thing: Why are so many people back home not speaking up even though they can, particularly during this moment? Not about the migrant workers situation in Singapore, not about Black Lives Matter, not about the upcoming elections. They're generally people like myself – straight, Chinese, upper-middle class, privileged, went to a SAP school or an “elite” institution. And I wonder if it’s apathy, a lack of empathy, a fear of speaking out, or self-preservation because when you are in a privileged position, it is more comfortable and convenient to just stay silent, because the status quo benefits you.
As I scroll through Instagram stories I see two kinds - those who are sharing information about social justice and politics (whether in abundance or occasionally), and I see those who are only posting daily snapshots of food, friends, workouts, baby videos. As if everything is still normal. Nothing is normal right now. There is a revolution that is happening across the world and the option to sit out, to hold on to “old normal” is a strong indicator of racial and/or socioeconomic privilege. I’d even go as far to say that at this point, silence is violence because what the movement towards justice and equality needs right now is solidarity and strength in numbers. We need to show up.
I am also aware that a revolution has different lanes and there may be people reading this who’ve said nothing on social media but have been silently doing the groundwork – volunteering, donating, writing emails to government officials, etc without feeling the need to post about it. I see you and I respect you. I am sharing my thoughts here to encourage those who have been lulled into apathy either from fear perpetuated by the school and government authorities, and those who have been cushioned by their privilege, to step up and take action because it is our responsibility as citizens of Singapore and the world. The general elections are coming up. Engage even if the ideas are challenging, even if the conversations are uncomfortable. Vote responsibly; don’t destroy your vote. Share knowledge and information on social media. Donate to political groups and non-profit organizations whose work and values you believe in. Sign petitions. Speak out against injustice. Write to MPs to hold them accountable for actions that are harmful and irresponsible.
Personally for me, I know that I need to do much more as well. The past few months have been a humbling wake-up call – I am learning from the people who have been doing much, much more than me and they’ve been in this fight for months, years, decades. I am already late to the game and I am reckoning with the things that I should have done but didn’t, and more importantly what I can and should do moving forward, in a way that is tangible and sustainable in the long-term. Because it is a long fight, and we must keep going, and we must hold on to the hope of a better world out there—one that takes care of the vulnerable populations in our society and one that is led by justice, compassion and equality.
Source:
https://www.facebook.com/yyanyying/posts/10223462938549518?__tn__=K-R
ANNEX C
GE2020: HWA CHONG DEFENDS ADVICE TO STUDENTS TO NOT DISCUSS ELECTION ON SOCIAL MEDIA
"It is the school's position that social media is not a suitable platform for students to be discussing their views on national issues, especially during an election period," said the spokesman.
"Students' posts could be screen-captured, taken out of context and circulated further, even if the original posts were published in their private accounts. Such digital footprints could remain even if the posts were removed.
"Therefore, the advice we have given our students serves to remind them of the importance of exercising care and sensitivity on all social media platforms, even on their own private accounts, given the public nature of social media."
The school recognises its responsibility to "educate students on national issues so that they grow to become informed citizens". Its Student National Education Council conducts regular student-led dialogues and other activities and seeks to enhance civic-mindedness and understanding of national issues, it said.
The student-run Community for Advocacy and Political Education (Cape) at Yale-NUS College, which aims to promote political literacy among citizens, has also voiced its concern.
The group told ST: "We urge HCI to recognise the ubiquity and inevitability of social media in political and civic discourse.
"Asking youths to pull out entirely from online discussions on matters of concern to them is not a viable nor sustainable solution, but one which only robs students of the ability to develop the care and sensitivity the school wishes them to have."
Source:
https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/singapore-ge2020-hwa-chong-defends-advice-students-not-discuss-election-social-media?fbclid=IwAR0ti4dtvT7tmzS5W4qoEyae5xUaco5oRwjRnj5SijkErSNX5u9z1ab02Vc
Ministry of Education (2016). Social Studies Syllabus – Secondary One to Four Normal (Technical) Course. p. 5.
https://www.suss.edu.sg/courses/short-course/detail/cet245?fbrefresh=637290296276710977&fbclid=IwAR0jssq-oIMiuR-hpAIWs8nJJTwFQK2vNmS7PgJW2EqDre6G03XoKOBoeAQ
Sitti Hasnah Bandu et al. (2017) Element of Citizenship in Education System in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3.
https://ipscommons.sg/change-the-way-we-conduct-citizenship-education/
https://cape.commons.yale-nus.edu.sg/
