National Education and Active Citizenship : Implications for Citizenship and Citizenship Education in Singapore

Asia Pacific Journal of Education ISSN: 0218-8791 (Print) 1742-6855 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20 National Education and Active Citizenship : Implications for Citizenship and Citizenship Education in Singapore Christine Han To cite this article: Christine Han (2000) National Education and Active Citizenship : Implications for Citizenship and Citizenship Education in Singapore, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20:1, 63-72, DOI: 10.1080/0218879000200106 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0218879000200106 Published online: 05 Jul 2006. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 575 View related articles Citing articles: 13 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalinformation?journalcode=cape20 Download by: [Nanyang Technological University] Date: 06 August 2016, At: 23:05

Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2000, pp. 63-72 National Education and 'Active Citizenship': Implications for Citizenship and Citizenship Education in Singapore Christine Han Abstract Citizenship and values education in one form or other has existed in Singapore since it acquired self-government in 1959. Much has been written about the different forms that this education has taken over the years. In recent years, there have been efforts at describing and analyzing aspects of National Education, which was introduced in 1997. At the same time, a number of books and papers have been written examining the concept of citizenship in Singapore, which cover the period between the late 1980s to the mid 1990s. In the last five years leading to the millennium, there have been two major sets of changes in Singapore that have had implications for the conception of citizenship and for citizenship education. The first is to do with the introduction of National Education; the second, with the notion of active citizenship. This article describes these recent changes, and discuss their implications for the concept of citizenship and for citizenship education in Singapore. Introduction Citizenship and values education in one form or another has taken place in Singapore since the country acquired self-government in 1959. Much has been written about the different forms that this education has taken over the years (e.g. see Chew, 1988; Eng et al., 1982; Eng, 1989; Gopinathan, 1974, 1988 & 1991; Tan, 1994). More recently, there have been efforts at describing and analyzing citizenship within National Education (e.g. see Chew, 1998; Tan, 1998). At the same time, concepts of citizenship in Singapore have been analyzed (see, for example, Hill and Lian, 1995; and Han, 1997) from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s. In the five years leading to the millennium, there have been two major sets of changes in Singapore that have had implications for the conception of citizenship and citizenship education in Singapore. The first is to do with the introduction of National Education; the second with the notion of active citizenship. This article describes these changes and explicates their implications for the conception of citizenship and citizenship education in Singapore.

64 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION (2000, VOL. 20, NO. 1) National Education Some of the most extensive changes to citizenship and values education in Singapore in recent years have been those related to National Education. Introduced in 1997 by the Ministry of Education, the purpose of National Education is to develop national cohesion, the instinct for survival and confidence in the future, by doing the following: Fostering a sense of identify, pride and selfrespect in being Singaporeans; Relating the Singapore story: how Singapore succeeded against odds to become a nation; Understanding Singapore's unique challenges, constraints and vulnerabilities, which make us different from other countries; Instilling the core values of our way of life and the will to prevail, all of which ensure our continued success and well-being. (Ministry of Education, 1999b) The Ministry of Education also suggests six messages to be conveyed by National Education: 'Singapore is our homeland; this is where we belong'. Singapore's heritage and way of life must be preserved. Racial and religious harmony must be preserved. Despite the many races, religions, languages and cultures, Singaporeans must pursue one destiny. Meritocracy and incorruptibility must be upheld. This means equal opportunities for all, according to ability and effort. No one owes Singapore a living. She must find her own way to survive and prosper. Singaporeans themselves must defend Singapore. No one else is responsible for the country's security and well being. Singaporeans must have confidence in our future. United, determined and well prepared, Singaporeans shall build a bright future for themselves. (Ministry of Education, 1999a) National Education in the Ministry of Education documents is conceived as a cross-curricular initiative, supplementing the Civics and Moral Education syllabus, already in place in schools. To ensure effective integration, the syllabus and textbooks for Civics and Moral Education will be revised to incorporate the National Education messages. Apart from extra-curricular activities, schools are expected to introduce 'core activities' designed to bring across these messages to their students. These activities include the commemoration of key historical events, such as Total Defence Day (which marks the fall of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942), Racial Harmony Day (which marks the day in 1964 when racial riots broke out in Singapore), and National Day (which celebrates Singapore's independence). In addition, children will be encouraged to perform community service. Trips will also be arranged for them to visit key public installations and economic facilities, to engender in them 'a sense of pride in Singapore and a confidence in the future' (Ministry of Education, 1999b). Explaining the need for National Education, political leaders have pointed to a gap in the knowledge of school children with regard to Singapore's history. Referring to surveys conducted by the local New Paper and by the Ministry of Education, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong noted that schoolchildren did not know about Singapore's post-independence history. This, he acknowledged, was because this period in Singapore's history had not been taught in schools: it had been thought that such knowledge was still 'fresh' and too 'raw' (Goh, 1996). The problem of this 'knowledge gap' is currently being remedied through Ministry of Education changes to the school curriculum. Social Studies, presently taught at the upper primary level, will be extended to include the lower primary levels. Through this new implementation, children will hopefully develop 'an understanding of the basic facts of Singapore society and the interdependence of people of different races and occupations' (Ministry of Education, 1999b). There are also plans to extend

National Education and 'Active Citizenship': Implications for Citizenship and Citizenship Education in Singapore 65 Social Studies to the upper secondary level as well, so that students have 'a clear grasp of issues central to Singapore's survival and success' (Ministry of Education, 1999b). At the same time, the secondary History syllabus will be revised to include the period after independence, up to 1971. Apart from the need to remedy students' 'knowledge gap', much of the thrust of the National Education initiative is of an affective nature. The approach taken is very much one of socializing children into a particular set of values and views. Besides being taught certain facts about Singapore, such as constraints with regard to its small size, or its multi-ethnic makeup, children are encouraged towards a sense of loyalty to, and pride and confidence in, the country. They are also taught the values which are regarded as fundamental to Singapore's success and survival, such as the notion of equal opportunity and meritocracy. In addition, the Education Ministry's National Education initiative wishes students to develop a 'will to prevail', particularly when the country faces difficult times. At junior college level, an additional need is to teach students to think independently and rationally, and to reach informed conclusions about national issues (Lee, 1997). Indeed, the Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education, 1999b) specifies the different outcomes that teachers should seek to achieve in students at different levels. Primary school children should be inculcated with correct values and attitudes; they should develop a sense of pride in Singapore, as well as a sense of bonding with children of different races and abilities. Secondary school children should 'develop instincts based on what they know as well as how they feel', which means that they need to acquire knowledge of how Singapore has arrived where it has, its constraints and vulnerabilities, as well as its challenges for the future (Ministry of Education, 1999b). It could be said that this approach takes into consideration the emotional and intellectual development of children. However, another reason might have to be found for the differences in the treatment of students from Institutes of Technical Education (ITE), the polytechnics, junior colleges and universities. For ITE students, the Ministry of Education recommendation is that the focus should be on enabling them to 'understand that they would be helping themselves, their families and Singapore by working hard, continually upgrading themselves and helping to ensure a stable social order'. For Polytechnic students, the strategy is to convince them that 'the country's continued economic survival and prosperity will depend on the quality of their efforts'. For junior college students and the top 10-15% of polytechnic students, the aim is to instil them with the belief that they can shape their own future in Singapore and the realization that they will play key roles in shaping the Singapore of the future. Thus, these students should learn about Singapore's past and present and the scenarios for the future, so that they can make enlightened comments and proposals about what would be good for Singapore. As for university students, who are potential future leaders, they must be instilled with a desire to serve the community. They must also be educated so that they are not 'ignorant or naive about the way countries, societies and humankind behave', and will hence be able to meet expectations responsibly (see Ministry of Education, 1999b). It seems to be assumed that students of different academic abilities will perform different social and political roles in society. This would explain the recommendation that they are to be regarded differently where National Education is concerned. Among other things, there appears to be a policy to encourage a relatively small elite, comprising the academically most able, to think independently about national issues and to arrive at their own conclusions about these issues. This approach is consistent with the more general aims of education, as stated in the 'Desired Outcomes of Education' document, that whereas primary school children should be able to think for and express themselves, and secondary school students should be able to possess a broad-based foundation for further education, junior college students should be able to think independently and

66 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION (2000, VOL. 20, NO. 1) creatively (Ministry of Education, 1998). Such an approach is also consistent with the view of political leaders that only a small percentage of society could handle a 'free-for-all' marketplace of ideas (e.g. Sim, 1995). Active Citizenship The Singapore 21 report and subsequent debates in Parliament and elsewhere raised the notion of active citizenship in Singapore. Released in April 1999, Singapore 21 is a vision of the Singapore of the 21 st century. It was put together by a committee, chaired by a minister, on the basis of consultations and discussions with six thousand Singaporeans from all walks of life conducted over a period of a year. Five main key ideas were identified from these consultations and discussions, which would act as the 'compass' for gearing Singapore's society into the next century. These key ideas are as follows: Every Singaporean matters; Strong families: our foundation and our future; Opportunities for all; The Singapore heartbeat; Active citizens: making a difference to Singapore. (Ng, 1999a) Of the five ideas, the last two have the most direct implications in terms of citizenship education in Singapore. The fourth idea, the Singapore heartbeat, refers to the need to develop individuals who feel a sense of belonging to the country, while the fifth, active citizens, refers to the notion that Singaporeans should 'contribute to the community' (Ng, 1999a,b). The Education Minister and the chairman of the Singapore 21 committee, Teo Chee Hean, gave failure scores of 3 out of 10 and 2 out to 10 respectively to the performance of Singaporeans in the Singapore heartbeat and active citizenship. Commenting on the latter, Teo observed that many Singaporeans did not contribute to the community. However, he acknowledged that there were reasons for this, one of which was the fact that some Singaporeans were 'uncertain if their contributions would be taken seriously and valued' (Ng, 1999a). Speaking as chairman of the committee, he added: One of the things that struck me was that Singaporeans do care about the future of the country. They do want to have a role in shaping the future of the country and also the immediate community around them. We should help them to find avenues to contribute in areas that they are interested in, find fulfilment and, at the same time, develop a sense of ownership over the community's direction. (Ng, 1999b) Teo also noted that the government was 'always open to good ideas' and that ways should be sought on how an active and co-operative partnership appropriate to the Singapore context can be developed (Ng, 1999b). Reporting on a survey conducted by the Singapore 21 committee, the Active Citizenship subject committee noted, among other things, that the majority of respondents felt the government should consult the public before making decisions. The younger, more educated and, particularly, the English-educated Singaporeans were more likely to be more vocal if they saw the government making decisions they considered unreasonable. Respondents also felt that consultation was important to improve the formulation of public policy. In contrast to this, however, was the perception that their views were not given adequate consideration by the government and government officials. This perception was expressed as the 'black-book' and 'black-hole' syndromes: the former connotes fear among respondents that their views and feedback would be taken against them by the public sector; the latter is a sceptical interpretation of the lack of follow-up action on public feedback (Lim et al., 1999). The Active Citizens subject committee noted that a better educated and informed citizenry meant an increased demand for a more active role in the discussion of public issues and the formulation of national policies. At the same time, it noted the need to 'embrace the diversity of ideas and views' in Singapore's heterogeneous society'

National Education and 'Active Citizenship': Implications for Citizenship and Citizenship Education in Singapore 67 (Lim etai, 1999). The committee then went on to make the following recommendations, among others: Ministries and government departments should be more open and receptive to ideas and views from members of the public; There was a need for society to be more tolerant towards a diversity of ideas and views, and that discussions should be focused on issues rather than on personalities; Out-of-bounds (OB) markers should be established to guide the discussion of issues, so that members of the public need not worry about 'possible reprisals'; OB markers should also be limited to racial and religious issues which affect social harmony, and to issues which threaten national security; There should also be an increase in the number of active civic groups led by members of the public. (Lim etal., 1999) Singaporeans who take an active interest in social and political issues are likely to welcome these recommendations together with the Singapore 21 committee chairman's acknowledgement of the need to find avenues for greater participation and influence in the political arena. Also important was the recognition that a reason for the political apathy of some Singaporeans was that they felt their views were not valued, and that the cause of this had to be addressed. The willingness of a government-linked committee to acknowledge the concerns of Singaporeans about participating in political issues and to incorporate their aspirations into its report, can be seen as a step towards advancing more openness, an aim of the Goh government. On the other hand,, in the parliamentary debate that followed the release of the Singapore 21 report, words of caution came from two of the most senior politicians in Singapore. In his speech, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong emphasized that Singapore was not yet a nation in the sense of being a political entity, in which its people possessed a distinctive culture and shared historical experience. He warned that communal strife could still tear the country apart (The Straits Times, 1999c). While Goh supported Singapore 21, he cautioned against 'unrealistic expectations and quick results' (The Straits Times, 1999a). Perhaps he was concerned about the high expectations that might have been engendered by the report, for example, in terms of greater openness in national politics, as well as in the level of political participation and influence by Singaporeans in the political arena. This might explain the need he felt to inject 'a strong dose of realism' into the discussion and hence to reiterate the fact that the harmony currently enjoyed in Singapore could be fragile. Goh suggested that racial riots could be triggered by chauvinistic leaders, and through outside instigation or the inept handling of sensitive issues, and he asked whether Singaporeans of different ethnic origins would be prepared to lay their lives down for the sake of the county. Taking a similar position, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew made the point that it would take 'just one mishap' for Singapore to break apart along racial lines (Zuraidah, 1999). Underlying the view that racial strife could still be brought about with relative ease appears to be a belief that there were Singaporeans who lacked the intellectual and political maturity to be able to rationally discuss issues that are considered sensitive. With regard to the notion that every Singaporean counts, Lee Kuan Yew's view was: Yes, every Singaporean counts. That's important. But when the final decision is made, as with every committee and as with every Cabinet, some people's judgements count more than others. And no Prime Minister will stay long in his job if he doesn't understand that. You have to go by the person, having read all the details, whose judgement you think is sound. (The Straits Times, 1999b) Lee also commented on the request to establish the 'OB' or 'out of bounds' markers for discussion of national issues:

68 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION (2000, VOL. 20, NO. 1) If your intention is to improve Singapore, you don't worry about OB markers....it is when your intention is to twist the minister's tail, to show that you are smart (that you should be worried about these). That's risking it. (The Straits Times, 1999c) He did recognize, however, that 'face' is important in society like Singapore, and gave the assurance that 'When you twist my tail, I will only tweak your ear' (The Straits Times, 1999c). Such views of decision making and the mode of participation have interesting implications for the role of the citizenry in participating in and influencing the political process. These will be discussed in the next section. How active are citizens in Singapore? The notion of active citizenship in the Singapore 21 report, and the subsequent comments on it by political leaders, can be said to have contributed to the ongoing development of the conception of citizenship in Singapore. The statements and comments signify greater acceptance among political leaders that citizens especially the more highly educated desire to be more active in terms of their participation in the political process, and to be allowed to do so. Equally important is the recognition that such participation would contribute to the ownership felt by Singaporeans towards the solutions found to such issues. This move can be seen as a reiteration of Goh's call in 1997 for Singaporeans to feel a sense of ownership towards the country and to 'participate actively in making Singapore a better place, through community work, in charities and by contributing ideas' (Goh, 1997, cited in Lim et al., 1999). Hence, there is acknowledgement that participation in the political process is an important aspect of developing a sense of ownership over one's country, as well as over the decisions made in matters of national importance. However, there is a degree of caution as to how much participation should be allowed, and who should be encouraged to a higher level of participation. It would appear, for instance, that it is the academically able among the population who are to be encouraged to participate more actively in the political process, and that they should be educated accordingly. There is, hence, the question as to how much ownership of national policies will be possible and, it might be added, for which segments of the population. If it is the academically able and better educated who are allowed greater participation, then the less educated will be less likely to have a sense of ownership with regard to the country and national policies. Another question concerns the extent to which citizens are allowed to influence the views and decisions of the political leaders. Political leaders have pointed to the logistical problems involved in public consultation. For instance, Teo Chee Hean notes that the consultation process in drawing up the Singapore 21 vision took a whole year and involved six thousand members of the public, a number which made up only a small percentage in a population of three million (see Government of Singapore, 1999). Lee Kuan Yew is more concerned about the exigency of the decision making process. Indeed, with the inevitable diversity of views, there is the practical problem of accurately assessing the views of the public and deciding how many votes constitute sufficient strength for the political decision process. There is also the question as to how responsible political leaders should handle views which they believe are flawed. For example, the 'Every Singapore Matters' subject committee report noted the high level of stress felt by Singaporeans, and their attendant yearning 'for the chance to sit back, take his or her foot off the pedal, and simply relax' (Ahmad et al., 1999). The report further noted, however, that the respondents recognized that Singapore, in having limited resources, was likely to face stiff competition from other countries and hence had to retain the drive to maintain the standard of living (Ahmad et al, 1999). This view happens to be in accordance to the government's position. However, if at some point, Singaporeans did feel

National Education and 'Active Citizenship': Implications for Citizenship and Citizenship Education in Singapore 69 that there was too much stress and they would prefer lower stress levels even if it meant fewer material comforts, would the government allow itself to be influenced by this view? If it disagreed and retained its current position, there is the possibility that Singaporeans might be unable to wholeheartedly support the proposed vision of the good life and the policies supporting this. Apart from the issues related to political participation, 'active citizenship' in Singapore is more closely related to 'voluntarism' than to 'active citizenship'. A typical use of 'active citizenship' in the latter sense can be found in the Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship (1998) in Britain, which states that 'active citizens' are those who are 'willing, able and equipped to have an influence in public life and with the critical capacities to weigh evidence before speaking and acting' (Citizenship Advisory Group, 1998: 7). Political philosophers sometimes see the active citizen in more radical terms. Thomas Janoski, for example, describes the active citizen as follows: The active citizen participates in the activities of the polity, (and) has concern for the people in the group... However, the active citizen is often engaged in conflict with established elites and most often approaches problems from the grassroots level. The active citizen often belongs to a political party, social movement, or some other active association to be active in proselytising an ideological change....(this) person believes that much can be done altruistically (i.e. for 'the people' or 'the country). (Janoski, 1998: 96-97.) In Singapore, the notion of citizens actively engaged in conflict with the establishment is unlikely to be acceptable. Active citizenship in the sense meant by Britain's Advisory Group on Citizenship might perhaps be more acceptable if this were restricted to the better educated among the population. It is pertinent to note, however, that Singapore's political leaders are not so much interested in following the practices used in other countries as in developing a form of participation that they feel is appropriate to the local context. Speaking in the context of active citizenship, the chairman of the Singapore 21 committee Teo Chee Hean says: I think we should look at our own context in Singapore and see how we can build an active and co-operative partnership with people in the private and public sector, rather than to borrow ideas from societies with a different context from our own. (Ng, 1999b) The idea is right that Singapore should develop a form of political participation that is appropriate, as wholesale borrowing of foreign ideas is inappropriate. However, the question then arises as to how understanding is to be achieved of the evolving cultures and values in Singapore. There is also the question as to how far policies and practices will be allowed to be formulated in accordance with the extant cultures and values in Singapore, and with the aspirations of the population. The fact that the political leaders feel the need to inject some 'realism' into the debate on the Singapore 21 report suggests that they perceive a gap between the popular desire with regard to political participation, and what they consider to be desirable for the country, which constitutes an attempt to rein in the expectations of the former for the sake of the latter. Whatever the case may be, the use of 'active citizenship' that has been put forward in Singapore is different from the way it is sometimes used elsewhere, in which the expectation is that citizens without exception are encouraged to seek to influence the political process if they should so desire, and the approach to citizenship education is that all should be prepared for this form of participation. Also, as mentioned, the notion of active citizenship in Singapore bears a degree of resemblance to voluntarism. In discussing the recommendations of the Singapore 21 report, Lee Kuan Yew regretted the fact that, unlike the United States of America, 'grassroots volunteerism', in which people organised themselves to help each other, was not part of Singapore's culture (The Straits Times, 1999c). Teo Chee Hean was of the view that, while every Singaporean could provide feedback on issues and express their views on these, such feedback

70 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION (2000, VOL. 20, NO. 1) and views need not be to do with 'weighty national issues': As any MP will know, constituents regularly provide feedback and suggestions on municipal issues - should a bush be moved because it obstructs the view of drivers and pedestrians, can the timing of the traffic lights at a junction be adjusted' (Government of Singapore, 1999b). Asked about civic groups, he made reference, among other things, to voluntary welfare organizations (Ng, 1999b). Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to compare the notion of active citizenship in Singapore and that proposed by the Conservative government in Britain in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it can be noted here that there are similarities between the two. Like Singapore's political leaders, Conservative ministers also suggested that active citizens should participate in voluntary welfare or community work, e.g. setting up organizations such as housing associations and neighbourhood watch schemes, raising money for charity, and serving in local government or as school governors (Heater, 1990: 299; Hurd, 1988: 14; Patten, 1988: 23). Hence, in the Conservative notion of active citizenship, citizens' contribution to the community through voluntary work is emphasized. It could be said that participation and influence in local affairs could make a difference in the sense of empowerment as an individual, and outcomes from such participation could have direct impact on one's life. This form of participation can therefore be deemed an important aspect of citizenship, and voluntary work can also be an avenue for and expression of one's solidarity with one's fellow citizens. Having said that, however, the point should be made that an essential aspect of political participation is that at the level of national politics. If the notion of participation is reduced to that associated with the local community and to voluntary work, then citizens might deem this as disempowerment. Singaporeans who note that there were very few, if any, references to voluntary welfare groups in the Active Citizens subject committee report might wonder if the subsequent glosses on the report put more emphasis on voluntarism that had been the intention of the report. The more cynical might perceive this as an attempt to steer Singaporeans away from an attempt to influence the political process at a national level, and to concentrate their involvement in more mundane and parochial affairs. Whatever the case may be, the notion of active citizenship, as used in Singapore, is among the more passive among the various uses of the term, particularly with respect to the degree to which the citizen is encouraged to participate in the political process at a national level. It could be said, therefore, that the contributions of the senior political leaders to the debate on the Singapore 21 report were of a clearly 'cautionary' nature, reminding Singaporeans of the 'realities' that have ruled, and should continue to rule, the discussion and direction of national issues since self-government. It was also noted that, while there are admittedly logistical problems with regard to discerning the views of Singaporeans and determining how far these represent popular opinion, some attempt has to be made. However, even if this were done, the dilemma still remains as to whether, and to what extent, political leaders should be influenced by views they disagree with on matters of national importance. If they did not allow this to happen, then people might feel that their vision of the good life, and what they value, were not taken account of, and problems of alienation could emerge. Whatever the case may be, it could be said that the recent debate does indicate a cautious opening up with regard to the participation of Singaporeans in the political process. However, it is also clear that this opening up will be of a very gradual nature, and will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Implications for citizenship education The introduction of National Education by the Ministry of Education has already resulted in changes being made to the curriculum in schools,

National Education and 'Active Citizenship': Implications for Citizenship and Citizenship Education in Singapore 71 particularly in the subjects relevant to citizenship education. The other implications for citizenship education of the National Education initiative and of active citizenship will also be discussed in this section. It has been noted that plans are underway to extend Social Studies to levels at which this is not currently being offered, so that pupils will acquire an understanding of the 'basic facts' of Singapore society, and of the 'issues central to Singapore's survival and success' (Ministry of Education, 1999b). At the same time, the History syllabus will also be expanded to include the years immediately after independence. At the very least, this would mean that future citizens would have some knowledge of Singapore's postindependence history. However, given the emphasis of National Education on inculcating in children a particular set of values and viewpoint, some parents might be concerned as to whether the account of history that is presented is one that is inclined to reflect the view of one party in the events. They might also be interested to know the degree to which children of appropriate intellectual development would be given access to different interpretations of events, and allowed to make up their own mind on controversial issues. In this regard, the larger point can been made that the approach in National Education in general is that of socializing children into a particular set of values and views. Again, there is the question about how much emphasis is being placed on helping children to be able rationally to think about important social and political - and possibly controversial - issues, and to arrive at their own reasoned conclusion about these. Where emphasis is given to this aspect of citizenship education, it would appear that the primary target group is the more academically able schoolchildren. However, if all Singaporeans have the right to vote, then surely they should all be given the preparation that would help them think independently about social and political issues. As pointed out, there is the concern that some Singaporeans may not have the political maturity to discuss 'sensitive' social and political issues, and may easily fall prey to chauvinistic instigators or unscrupulous manipulators. If this is true, then there is all the more reason to ensure that future citizens should be able to think rationally, as well as to think for themselves (see Han, 1997). The picture of the citizen that emerges from the content and policies of National Education belongs more to that associated with the 'traditional' view of citizenship education. This is one in which knowledge of the country's history is taught to the individual, who is also encouraged to develop loyalty and patriotism with regard to the country. While there is nothing wrong about encouraging young Singaporeans to learn to love their country, the question is whether this approach would be sufficient to develop thinking citizens who are able to think rationally and independently about national issues, and act effectively in the social and political arenas. It could be argued that the academically less able might not be able to understand 'difficult' social and political concepts and issues. Even if that were so, it is still important and necessary to prepare them to the farthest extent of their ability for their role as adult citizens, whatever form their political involvement might take. Hence, apart from encouraging the imbibing of such values as respect for others and tolerance of differences, a gradual move has to be made towards a greater emphasis on political literacy as a goal of citizenship education. This means developing individuals who are aware of political disputes and can act effectively and appropriately (Crick & Porter, 1978: 37-38). Conclusion In recent years, there have been two major sets of changes related to the introduction of National Education and the notion of active citizenship that have had implications for the conception of citizenship and citizenship education in Singapore. The conception of citizenship that emerges from the pronouncements associated with National Education and the Singapore 21 report is that of a rather passive form of 'active citizenship'.

72 ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION (2000, VOL 20, NO. 1) Nonetheless, it is more 'active' compared with the notion of citizenship in the past, as can be seen from the acknowledgement of the need to allow and encourage Singaporeans to contribute in matters of national importance. The changes related to the introduction of National Education have meant that young Singaporeans will now be better informed about their country's post-independence history, However, there is the question as to how adequately they are being equipped to think rationally and in an informed way about social References and political issues, to reach their own reasoned, independent conclusions and, even to act effectively, if the need arises, to influence the political process. If Singaporeans are increasingly being encouraged to participate in the political process and it would seem that educated Singaporeans interested in social and political matters are so encouraged then more needs to be done in this regard. It was also argued that all Singaporeans should be prepared to the farthest extent of their ability for their participation as citizens, whatever form this might take. Ahmad Mohamed Magad and team (1999) Singapore 21 Subject Committee Report: Every Singaporean Matters, http:// www.gov.sg/singapore21/evervsing.doc. Chew, J.O.A. (1988) Moral Education in a Singapore School. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Monash University. Citizenship Advisory Group (1998) Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools: Final report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship. London, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Crick, B. & Porter, A. (1978) Political Education and Political Literacy: The report and papers of, and the evidence submitted to, the Working Party of the Harvard Society's 'Programme for Political Education'. London, Longman. Eng, S.P. & team (1982) Report on the Moral Education Programmes: "Good Citizen" and "Being and Becoming", Occasional Paper No. 12. Singapore, Institute of Education. (1989) Moral Education in Singapore: Dilemmas and Dimensions. Paper presented at the CCU-ICP International Conference on Moral Values and Moral Reasoning in Chinese Societies. Taipei, Taiwan, 25-27 May. Goh, C.T. (1996) 'Prepare our children for the new century: teach them well'. Speech by Mr Goh Chok Tong at the Teachers' Day Rally, the Harbour Pavilion, World Trade Centre, 8 Sep 96, http://www.gov.sg/mita/speech/speeches/v20n5001.htm Gopinathan, S. (1974) Towards a National System of Education in Singapore 1945-1973. Singapore, Oxford University Press. (1988) Being and Becoming: Education for Values in Singapore. In W. Cummings, S. Gopinathan, & Y. Tomoda (Eds.), The Revival of Values Education in Asia and the West. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 131-145. (1991) Education. In E. Chew & E. Lee (Eds.) A History of Singapore. Singapore, Singapore University Press, 168-287. (1999) Closing statement by Radm Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence at Parliament on 6 May 1999, Singapore: Ministry of Information and the Arts, http://www4.gov.sg/sprinter/ archives/99060503.html Han, C. (1997) Education for citizenship in a plural society: with special reference to Singapore. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oxford. Heater, D. (1990) Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education. London, Longman. Hill, M. & Lian, K.F. (1995) The Politics of Nation Building and Citizenship in Singapore. London, Routledge.