"Lee Kuan Yew (1966), the patriarch of Singapore, once said:
The two factors in the formative influences of a young man or a young woman's life are the home and the school. We cannot do very much about the home, but we can do something about the school. (n.p.)
... In its broadest sense, social studies education aims to prepare students for active participation in society. One of the key traditions in social studies, long argued by many (Barr et al., 1977, Ross, 2001; Ochoa-Becker, 2007) is the preparation of good citizens. In Singapore, social studies seeks to develop in young people confidence and the motivation to ‘adopt a more participative role in shaping Singapore's destiny in the 21st century' (MOE, 2001, p. 3). In what follows, I examine how social studies develops students for their role as citizens. Specifically, I address the nature of social studies, the conception of citizenship, and ask if students are respected as ‘citizens' or are treated as ‘subjects' (Wringe, 1992; Faulks, 2000; Pike, 2007).
Most conceptions of citizenship contain a few key elements, including the notion of participation in public life, the idea that a citizen is one who both governs and is governed, a sense of identity, an acceptance of societal values, and rights and responsibilities. The exact nature of each of these components, however, will vary depending on the political system of which they form part. This gives rise to very different understandings of what citizenship entails. Consequently, beliefs about participation will also differ (Turner, 1993; Faulks, 20005 Heater, 20043 Osler & Starkey, 20055 Halstead & Pike, 2006). For example, Kennedy (2007) argues that what is meant in Singapore by participation is not the same in England. While both governments encourage participation and involvement on the part of citizens, in Singapore this does not run to fully-fledged oppositional politics.
Unlike subjects, Whose status implies hierarchy and domination, citizens formally enjoy legitimate and equal membership of a society (Marshall, 1950; van Gunsteren, 1994; Faulks, 2000). This status acknowledges the individual's contribution to the community, and grants him/her autonomy through the rights he/she possesses, to express his/her agency. To be a citizen in this sense is to be able to take an active part in controlling one's own destiny (Wringe, 1992; Faulks, 2000)...
Discussions about citizenship usually focus on three approaches: the liberal individualist, communitarian and civic republican...
The underlying cause for NE is that the Singaporean nation-building project is at a crossroads. The government recognises that globalisation and the changing economy ‘will strain the loyalties and attachments of young Singaporeans' (Gopinathan, 2007, p. 61). The developmental state model in which the state was a key economic player succeeded brilliantly, and arguably this became the source of the govemment's political legitimacy. With globalisation, the government realises it cannot guarantee sustained prosperity. Simultaneously, local demography has evolved with a growing young, affluent, mobile and educated middle class with diverse needs and aspirations, who want greater freedom and individual choice. Political leaders are concerned that young people might be pulled into allegiances that challenge the hold of the nation-state. They worry that many ‘will pack their bags and take flight when our country runs into a little storm' (Goh, 2001)...
As a conduit of NE, social studies is carefully planned by the MoE, with clearly delineated objectives to culturally reproduce the ruling party's View of the good society. The MOE creates the national curriculum framework, produces the detailed syllabus, and authors the social studies textbooks used by all students. According to the syllabus (MoE, 2001, p. 3), the subject focuses on ‘issues pertaining to the historical, economic and social development of Singapore', and addresses ‘regional and international issues which can or may affect the development of Singapore'...
The desired outcome of social studies is for pupils to be ‘more informed about Singapore's achievements and limitations and have confidence in her future' (MoE, 2001 , p. 3)... In an earlier study conducted (Baildon & Sim, 2009), it was found that the local ideological and political contexts constrain the range of teaching and learning possibilities available to teachers and students...
The social studies curriculum utilises national myths to promote ‘a deep sense of shared destiny and national identity' (MOE, 2008, p. 3). For example, the syllabus highlights certain key traumatic episodes such as the racial riots of the 1950s and 1960s between the Chinese and the Malays. Stories of national achievement, such as the rapid development of the Singapore economy under the PAP government, are constantly given prominence.
These values and beliefs often go unquestioned, as they are portrayed as commonsensical in a nation perceived to be profoundly vulnerable. Citizens are frequently told there is no room for dissent, or it can ‘plunge the country into civil strife' (Bell, 2006, p. 55) and risks oblivion. This narrative is constructed to socialise students into ideological consensus. It fosters allegiance to a specific way of life, and a particular View of good citizenship as a tightly organised and highly disciplined citizenry, all pulling in the same direction with a sense of public spiritedness and self-sacrifice in the national interest, adopting the moral attitude of putting the national community above oneself (Chua, 1995). This raises complex questions that will be discussed in the next section.
Notably, the Singapore government initiated NE and social studies in the absence of any real crisis by which the citizenry is often tested and nations are built. The timing of the launch of NE and social studies coincided with an intense worldwide interest in citizenship in response to globalisation. A critical reading suggests that NE and social studies are attempts by the political leaders to maintain power in contexts in which that power is increasingly challenged by globalisation...
Individual rights are barely mentioned, they form what Eisner (2002) describes as the ‘null curriculum'. This raises the question of whether the intent of social studies is to develop citizens, whose possession of rights implies agency (Faulks, 2000), or to train ‘serviceable subject[s]' (Wringe, 1992, p. 31). Reference to the individual is made only in the context of the nation, evident in the themes (see Table 1) that are nation-centred, and from which citizenship is understood. Citizenship is seen in service to the nation. The discourse emphasises responsibilities and duties, loyalty and patriotism, submission of individual interests to the common good, and contributions citizens can make to the country. The value ‘commitment', for example, is emphasised in four out of the six themes. The committed citizen, it is believed, will not flinch from performing his/her duties nor endanger the unity of the nation.
This view is supported by Hill and Lian (1995) who highlight that since the early years of independence, the government has appealed to the individual's sense of civic duty by referring to the ‘crises' in which Singapore found itself, reminding citizens of the role they should play in ensuring the country's survival. Indeed, the ideas of vulnerability and survival structure the reasoning and rationalisation of social studies, with the themes and guiding questions revolving around challenges and crises. In what follows, I argue that the conception of citizenship is fraught with assumptions and contradictions, and I draw upon the notion of common good to illustrate this...
A feature of the civic republican tradition is an emphasis on the pursuit of the common good (Oldfield, 1990). In social studies, the common good is narrowly defined in terms of national interests...
In ‘Understanding Governance', the British welfare system was used as a contrasting example to reinforce the message that the welfare state is financially burdensome, saps the will to be self-reliant, and threatens the nation's economy, and it is believed, survival of the nation. National interests are not to be questioned.
According to then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, knowledge of our national interests must become ‘part of the cultural DNA which makes us Singaporeans' (Lee, 1997, n.p.), and we ‘must systematically transmit these instincts and attitudes to succeeding cohorts' (Goh, 1996, n.p.). The social studies curriculum is prescriptive, directing students on how to think about national issues. The belief is that education should achieve national goals, with the government defining the role and purposes to ensure the goals and values are maintained.
However, the common good involves values, and values are contested (Williams, 1995). In multiracial Singapore, different people will have different ideas about what constitutes ‘the good life'. This becomes problematic...
The social studies textbook also states, ‘Singapore practices representative democracy. This means that the leaders in the government are chosen by the people in an election' (MOE, 2007, p. 26). Political participation is narrowly understood as voting. As written, ‘the people have the power and responsibility to choose the right leaders for Singapore. How else can the people be involved in decision-making other than choosing the right leaders?' (p. 26). However, electoral participation is arguably problematic. The PAP government has developed a tight system of political control that allows few opportunities for dissent to maintain the social order (Ho, 2000). Power is overwhelmingly in the hands of the PAP, opposition parties are inconsequential, and civil society is weak. Lee Hsien Loong reiterated the irrelevance of opposition, claiming that without opposition distractions, the government can focus on long-term issues and act in time to tackle challenges ahead (Chua, 1995).
The ideal citizen participates by supporting and co-operating with the government. The theme ‘Conflict in Multi-Ethnic Societies' reinforces this with photographs of Singaporeans participating in government-led activities. According to Lee Hsien Loong (1985, pp. 40—41), the people should have faith that ‘the government has the welfare of the people at heart, and can be entrusted with the solution of the most far reaching problems of the people'. He attributes the success of Singapore to the ‘strong ties between the leaders and the led'. Similarly, the social studies textbooks give many examples of how the government takes care of the people, such as organizing activities to enhance interracial understanding, programmes for senior citizens, and providing affordable healthcare.
The Singapore government is concerned about the kinds of participation appropriate for citizens. Political participation by which civic republican thought places the greatest emphasis on is problematic in Singapore. In the 2003 review of the social studies syllabus, the topic on Switzerland was removed. The official reason was to reduce the content of an otherwise heavy curriculum. The real concern, I argue, is that students have been introduced to the idea of direct democracy and its processes such as the referendum, initiative and power sharing. These forms of participation are deemed inappropriate for Singaporeans. Similarly, political leaders also believe there should be limits placed on the kinds of topic that can be discussed, and the manner in which this should be conducted. These have been attributed to the delicate balance in race relations that may be disrupted with insensitive handling of ethnic or religious issues. Such limits are necessary to ensure social and political stability on which economic success and, it is believed, survival, depend. The examples of Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland emphasise this message.
The social studies textbook also explains the ‘need to create communication channels' (MOE, 2007, p. 26). The government is seen to be open to engaging citizens in national issues. Examples show efforts at engaging a range of Singaporeans to discuss issues in the Singapore 21 and Remaking Singapore initiatives in 1997 and 2002. The Feedback Unit was set up in 1985 as part of a more consultative government. Citizens are encouraged to voice their opinions in the national newspaper. While these channels allow citizens to give feedback and suggestions, they are attempts by the government to ‘direct' dissent and dissatisfaction through institutions that either the state controlled or had the potential to depoliticise policy debate (Chua, 1995). For example, the Feedback Unit, headed by PAP members of parliament, was created as a result of the PAP's frustration at winning a smaller share of the popular vote than expected at the 1984 General Election. Consequently, ‘feedback' is designed not so much to replace a top-down mode of rule, but to manage dissenting voices.
Opportunities for participation are limited, and views are frequently expressed from the standpoint of petitioner, rather than a position of agency. Participation is encouraged without allowing it to have policy and political consequences. There is an underlying ambiguity in what is implied by national interests, for this is often subjected to the regime that rules the country. There is no basis to assume that national interests always reflect the interests of the citizenry...
The social studies curriculum tends to regard the government rather than the people as both the apex and the centre. While the themes in the syllabus are nation—centred, the narrative in the textbooks emphasises the achievements of the PAP government. The relationship between the people and the government is one of imposing a decision on the people by a "‘father knows best" leadership, hence it is authoritarian in nature' (Chua, 1995, p. 204). The people are like subjects, whose loyalties are shown in their support of government initiatives, and are reciprocated by protection and provision.
While citizenship is addressed in the curriculum, it is fraught with contradictions. Citizen participation is gestural, circumscribed by the discourse and practices of existing ideological framework (Cornwall, 2005). For the government, participation is the practising of consensual politics, the mobilisation of support for administrative and policy reforms, and in providing feedback so that it can fine-tune policy initiatives (Ho, 2000). This trivialises citizen participation, reinforcing the government's control of its citizens (Wringe, 1992; Faulks, 2000). Hence, social studies is about the attempts by the government to maintain power in increasingly challenged contexts rather than a concern for better educating young people as citizens...
As we saw, this led to a push for uncritical, and often universal acceptance of ideas in social studies. The content selected for the textbooks narrows and limits possible understandings through the promotion Of single, unassailable views, which serves to socialise students into accepting and reproducing the status quo. This is ironic because the syllabus states that the aim of social studies is to develop ‘well-informed, responsible citizens with a sense of national identity and a global perspective', who are able to ‘envisage possible and preferred. futures and evaluate alternatives' (MOE, 2008, pp. 3—4)."
What do you do if some aims of social studies (e.g. "develop thinking and process skills") conflict with others (e.g. 'have confidence in [Singapore's] future')?
