The global educational landscape has recently witnessed a significant pushback against incorporating political education within its curriculum. This resistance is not uniform but manifests uniquely across different societies, often reflecting broader cultural and ideological divides. In the United States, this pushback has become particularly pronounced concerning sexuality education — an issue that sits at the heart of the nation’s political and moral debates. Critics, advocating for an ostensibly neutral learning environment, argue for removing political discussions from educational settings. Ironically, this stance often coexists with tolerance towards, if not an outright endorsement of, other forms of indoctrination (e.g. religious education). This highlights a complex contradiction in societal values regarding what is deemed appropriate for the classroom.
This paradox raises profound questions about the role of education in shaping young minds, especially within the framework of a liberal democracy that values individual freedom and diversity of thought. The crux of the debate does not centre on whether education should influence students (as it undeniably does). Instead, it centres on how education should do so and which values it ought to promote. As we navigate this contentious terrain, it becomes imperative to recognise the need for the underlying principles that guide educational content and pedagogy to foster critical thinking, inclusivity, and respect for democratic ideals. This discussion is not merely academic but strikes at the heart of how future generations will conceive of their rights, responsibilities, and the diverse society in which they live.
Case Study: Singapore’s CCE — Discord or Discourse?
Singapore, like many other nations, has an established civic education curriculum – one that pre-dates its independence from British colonial rule. Evolving through various iterations, it now takes the form of Character and Citizenship Education (CCE). It was born of a limitation of previous modes of civic education in developing values through active engagement and critical thinking (as opposed to mere knowledge acquisition). In application, trained CCE educators in schools are given materials directly from the Ministry of Education (MOE), which are to be utilized in class. Still, educators are given some leeway as to the conduct of specific lessons while keeping within the bounds of the MOE’s overall direction.
Recently though, there has been controversy surrounding the CCE’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Criticism of the curriculum, which emerged primarily from parents whose children underwent the lessons, also arose from the further public when CEE presentation slides were leaked. Accusations towards the curriculum ranged from ignorance to intellectual dishonesty: the slides, ignoring the long history of the conflict, only included events following the October 7th attacks. Parents also raised concerns about why they were not consulted prior to the discussion of such a sensitive topic and given the opt-out option, which would be the case with other sensitive matters such as sex education. Some critics even stated that such sensitive real-time issues should be omitted in favour of local, historical matters.
Education Minister Chan Chun Sing provided the ministry’s response through an interview. He provided an interpretation of the CCE as a lesson not on history or current affairs, but rather on helping students process emotions, safeguarding Singapore’s multiracial harmony, learning to verify information responsibly, and appreciating a diversity of views while conducting respectful conversations.
While perhaps this does accomplish the Citizenship Education portion of the CCE through an emphasis on maintaining harmony, does it do enough to develop the Character portion of its aims? Conversely, are parents’ pushes to steer CCE away from controversial, real-world issues, or even ignore civic education wholesale, the way forward for CCE? Through this article, I will evaluate the necessity of a civic education. I will conclude by forwarding some improvements that could be made to the CCE to develop conscious, well-rounded critical thinkers in the next generation.
The Necessity of Civic Education
The essence of civic education extends far beyond mere academic instruction; it is a foundational pillar supporting the robust structure of democracy itself. By equipping individuals with a general understanding of the geopolitical world that we live in, civic education fosters a deep-rooted appreciation for the core principles of a democratic society. This knowledge empowers citizens, enhancing their confidence to actively engage in the political arena. Recent surveys have revealed a reluctance among the general public to participate in political processes. This could be due to a perceived lack of understanding, mistakenly relegating political involvement to a realm reserved for politicians, or simply political apathy. This misconception starkly contradicts the democratic ethos, which champions the common man’s role as the primary driver of governance. Furthermore, civic knowledge is instrumental in enabling individuals to discern their personal interests and the interests of different groups, thereby facilitating informed decision-making. Galston (2001), following decades of civic education neglect, highlighted the above points, arguing that a classroom-based civic education can significantly raise political knowledge and shape stronger, democratically minded citizens.
Civic Education in the context of Singapore
This has deep implications for Singapore, a politically reserved country, albeit with established democratic processes and principles. The political apathy of Singaporean youth demonstrated by a survey by the Institute of Policy Studies underscores a paradox: there exists a notable disconnect between young Singaporeans’ engagement with social issues and their understanding of politics, despite both spheres often addressing the same concerns. Despite Singaporean youths’ political disengagement, their rhetoric in open-ended responses to the same survey implied genuine care for political matters; however, many simultaneously expressed feeling inadequately educated to participate meaningfully in political discourse, which they instead viewed as a realm reserved for politicians. This perception starkly contrasts with the foundational principles of democracy, which advocate for civic engagement as a pivotal mechanism enabling the common man to influence governance. Herein lies the critical role of CCE — to bridge this knowledge gap and foster a more informed, participatory citizenry.
Furthermore, the importance of civic education in Singapore is magnified by the nation’s unique approach to maintaining social harmony. With restrictive laws on freedom of speech and public assembly, political and controversial discussions are often relegated to private, small-group conversations. This dynamic limits public discourse on contentious issues, with the underlying societal preference for harmony over open disagreement. On top of that, the inherent human desire for community and consensus, coupled with limited platforms for open dialogue, creates an environment rife for the creation of echo chambers. In such an environment, few avenues for formal discussions of controversial topics exist, and thbese are largely limited to formal civic society, official political platforms, online platforms, and schools. However, the first three avenues present their own challenges, from accessibility and political agendas to misinformation and echo chambers. This further highlights the significance of schools as controlled, safe environments for facilitating these essential conversations, accessible to most, if not all, of the Singaporean population.
Contrarily, scepticism towards CCE in Singapore stems from concerns over political manipulation and the potential for indoctrination within a highly centralized public education system, albeit a highly effective one. Civic education can, and has been, exploited for political ends, undermining the objectivity and neutrality expected of educational institutions. Additionally, there is a prevailing modern perspective that education’s primary role is to enhance one’s value in a productive economy, suggesting that political education, which does not directly contribute to economic production, is irrelevant to formal education. This viewpoint is supported by parents and educators who advocate for an apolitical approach to education, focusing on hard skills and academic achievement. According to this argument, investing in civic education diverts valuable resources from more productive educational endeavours.
In navigating these divergent perspectives, the discourse on CCE in Singapore confronts fundamental questions about the objectives of education.
Back to the Israel-Palestine CCE debate
Drawing back to the catalysing event, here is my take on the issue:
While I generally align with parents’ apprehensions about potential misrepresentation within the curriculum, it is crucial to challenge the notion that such topics should be excluded from educational discourse. The evolution of the CCE framework was designed to remedy the limitations observed in Singapore’s previous civic education models. By emphasising character development, social-emotional competencies, and global awareness, the revamped CCE curriculum aims to prepare students for the complexities of the contemporary world. Engaging in discussions on pressing societal issues and encouraging reflective thinking among students are not just ancillary benefits but the very essence of what modern civic education seeks to achieve. Thus, rather than shying away from controversial topics, the focus should be on delivering these discussions in a balanced and thoughtful manner.
So how can we improve it?
Improving Comprehensive Civics Education in Singapore necessitates a multifaceted approach that integrates input from various stakeholders to enrich the curriculum and make it more effective in fostering informed, civic-minded citizens. One critical area for enhancement is the involvement of parents and the broader community in the curriculum. By providing materials for review and inviting feedback, educators can foster a more inclusive environment that respects and incorporates diverse perspectives. This engagement not only enhances the relevance and acceptance of the curriculum but also encourages a shared responsibility for civic education between schools and families. Although it remains near-impossible to integrate every piece of feedback, it would allow policy-makers to understand broad societal concerns and address them, thereby pre-empting backlash.
On top of that, the development of CCE materials should involve collaboration with academics and experts in various fields, rather than being solely the purview of the MOE or solely in consultation with government entities (such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in this case) that may have ulterior political interests. Such a collaborative approach ensures that the curriculum is grounded in thorough research and reflects diverse perspectives, enhancing its credibility and educational value. Furthermore, this strategy can help address criticisms regarding content representation and agenda framing by ensuring a more nuanced and comprehensive coverage of complex issues.
Increasing the emphasis on the character development aspect of CCE is also essential. As demonstrated by teaching on the Israel-Palestine case, it appears that this character development ends simply at fostering empathy and respect for diverse perspectives. While this is fundamental to character-building, it cannot end there: conscious direction must be given to foster critical thinking about events and to urge students to pursue and process information independently. Empathy is only the start in the long, reflective process of forming strong, personal values — one which CCE must facilitate.
Finally, the curriculum must navigate the delicate balance between preserving social harmony and critically examining diverse perspectives. This is the most essential, but also the most difficult, aspect in need of reform. While it is crucial to appreciate different viewpoints, it is also important to recognize that not all perspectives warrant equal consideration, especially when discussing issues of moral significance. Historical evidence supports this. For example, when examining the apartheid era in South Africa, it becomes necessary to reject the legitimacy of perspectives that supported racial hierarchy and segregation. However, this does not preclude the critical analysis of these viewpoints to understand their origins, influence, and impact. Such an approach allows students to grasp the complexity of events and the importance of ethical judgment, without giving undue credence to morally indefensible positions.
The challenge lies in presenting such topics in a way that fosters critical reflection without crossing into indoctrination. Through bipartisan collaboration in curriculum development and adherence to the principles of inclusivity, professional educator development, and academic consultation, CCE can achieve a more balanced and effective approach. This strategy, while potentially controversial, is essential for cultivating a well-informed, critically thoughtful, and empathetic citizenry capable of contributing meaningfully to Singapore’s democratic society and the global community.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the role of education in shaping the foundations of democracy and facilitating civil discourse cannot be overstated. It plays a crucial part in striking a delicate balance between preserving national harmony and identity, as well as fostering a globally aware populace. As Singapore navigates the complexities of both local and global issues, the CCE program is a pivotal element in ensuring that its citizens are not only politically aware but also active, informed participants in the democratic process. This awareness is instrumental in leading to more robust democratic outcomes, where decisions are made based on a thoughtful consideration of broader implications, instead of simply being based on immediate needsignoring the long history of the conflict.
The essence of education lies in its ability to teach individuals how to think critically and engage constructively with the world around them, not simply gain knowledge and professional skills — it is no wonder that advanced university degrees are often termed Masters or Doctors of Philosophy. What drives home the importance of CCE is the conclusion reached in a prominent paper by Cindy Kam and Carl Palmer:
Education has long been considered a potential cure — the ‘‘universal solvent’’ (Converse 1972, 324) that might alleviate [political] participatory inequalities. However, if the effects of higher education are in fact only minimal, and preadult predispositions and experiences in the home and in primary and secondary schools actually play a role in spurring participation, then those who seek to remedy inequalities in participation must look to these agents of socialization for remedies.
Leaving the development of such crucial skills to chance is a disservice to the potential of the nation’s youth. As Singapore continues to evolve, the CCE program must adapt and innovate to meet the challenges of an increasingly interconnected and complex global landscape.
By Ayush Das
Cover Image: Students of Nan Hua High School, Singapore, in the school hall / Mailer Diablo (distributed via CC BY-SA 3.0)
