jys tan& wong2010
DESCRIPTION
jysTRANSCRIPT
89
Journal of Youth Studies July 2010 Vol. 13 No. 2 (Serial No. 26) 2010 The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups
Moral Education for Young People in Singapore:
Philosophy, Policy and Prospects
Charlene TAN
Yew-Leong WONG
Moral education in Singapore is underpinned by a communitarian ideology that emphasises the
centrality of the community and the importance of social harmony. We explain how this communitarian
philosophy is promoted through the subjects “Civics and Moral Education” (in primary and secondary
schools) and “Civics” (in pre-university institutions), and show that this emphasis has inadvertently
resulted in a neglect of the personal moral development of young people in Singapore. We maintain
that more needs to be done to encourage young people to critically reflect on, construct, internalise
and apply their own moral values both in and beyond the classroom. In the final section of the
article, we explore the prospects for doing this in a way that is consistent with a communitarian
outlook.
Keywords: moral education; communitarianism; personal moral development
Associate Professor, Policy and Leadership Studies Academic Group, National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Teaching Fellow, Policy and Leadership Studies Academic Group, National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Charlene TAN, Policy and Leadership Studies Academic
Group, National Institute of Education, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore; email: [email protected]
Singapore is a highly cosmopolitan city-
state, with a diverse population. Foreigners
(including both permanent residents and non-
residents) from Europe, the Americas, Africa,
Oceania and the other parts of Asia form about
36% of Singapore’s population of 4.9-million
90
people. Of the residents (Singapore citizens and
permanent residents), 72.4% are Chinese, 13.4%
are Malay, 9.2% are Indians and 3.2% are
Eurasians, Arabs or members of other ethnic
minorities. Cutting across these different ethnic
groupings and nationalities are a variety of
cultural and religious practices. No single
demographic group is truly homogenous.
Singapore is also one of the most densely
populated countries in the world (7,022 persons
per square k i lometre) . (See Singapore
Department of Statistics, 2009.)
With this amount of diversity co-existing in
such close quarters, social harmony becomes
extremely vital in maintaining social and political
stability and ensuring generally uninterrupted
economic growth and prosperity in the country.
The presence of social harmony in turn depends
on the ability of Singaporeans to consistently
make morally appropriate decisions in an
environment where they are constantly exposed
to myriad influences and an overwhelming
amount of information from other parts of the
world. Acutely aware of this, the Singapore
government makes the teaching of moral values
a key feature of the school curriculum. Moral
education is explicitly taught in Singapore
schools through the compulsory subjects “Civics
and Moral Education” (CME) at the primary and
secondary levels and “Civics” at the pre-
university level. This article critically discusses
the philosophy, policy and prospects of moral
education for young people in Singapore.
But what is moral education? What should
we teach in moral education? How should we
teach it? The answers to these questions will
provide us with a basis for evaluating Singapore’s
moral education.
What is Moral Education?
It seems plain that the subject-matter of
moral education is morality: it seeks to nurture
in young people a set of beliefs and values about
right and wrong, good and bad, justice and
injustice, fairness and unfairness, etc. But what
specific beliefs and values are we supposed to
nurture in our young people? It is important that
we get this right, because our moral beliefs and
values guide the way we live our lives—they
determine the standards of acceptability and
admiration in action, thought and emotional
response.
Many people today are uncomfortable with
the idea of a universal standard of morality.
Motivating this discomfort is the pluralistic notion
that our particular way of doing things may not
be the only way that is right. (This is an
acknowledgement of the possibility that there
may be other value systems that are just as valid
as ours, not the relativist view that all value
systems are equally valid.) Nevertheless, there
seems to be a core set of moral beliefs and
values that are shared by almost all human
beings. For example, very few would challenge
the claim that acts of murder, theft, rape, slavery,
genoc ide , to r tu re or sys temat ic rac ia l
discrimination are wrong and should therefore
be prohibited. Most people would also agree that
freedom is worth pursuing and protecting, and
that respect, responsibility, resilience, honesty
and integrity are worth cultivating. This gives us
an initial list of specific moral beliefs and values
to include in the curriculum for moral education.
However, a moral education that seeks to
nurture in young people just this core set of moral
beliefs and values is inadequate. Such a moral
91
education will leave young people in a state of
confus ion when conf ronted wi th mora l
controversies, moral dilemmas and novel moral
situations. Simply acquiring a set of moral beliefs
and values will not tell us what we ought to do in
situations where the morality of the options is
unclear or complex, where some of the values
we subscribe to conflict with one another, or
where we are not even sure what all the relevant
moral questions are. A good moral education
must not only nurture in young people a core set
of moral beliefs and values, but also teach them
how to apply these beliefs and values in critical
and creative ways to solve the real moral
problems that they encounter. In short, a good
moral education should teach morality as well
as moral reasoning ski l ls. (For detai led
arguments for this view, see Law, 2009; Lipman,
2003.) With this in mind, let us now turn to moral
education in Singapore.
Philosophy of Moral Education in
Singapore
M o r a l e d u c a t i o n i n S i n g a p o r e i s
underpinned by a communitarian ideology.
Communitarianism may be characterised by the
following three claims (see Bell, 2009):
1. Standards of morality are located in the
cultural factors of particular societies, in the
interpretive framework particular societies
use to understand and navigate the world.
(This is not the relativist view that the morality
of an act depends on whether that act is
regarded as good or bad by particular
societies or cultures, but rather the view that
the morality of an act depends on how the
act is interpreted or described by particular
societies or cultures. See Bell, 2009).
2. The self is essentially a social entity; the
notion of the self as something that is
separate from the social roles one plays is
meaningless.
3. The well-being of the community takes
precedence over the interests of the
individual.
A number of writers have pointed out that
an Asian version of communitarianism exists in
East and Southeast Asian countries, like China,
South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore
(e.g. Bell, 2006, 2009; Chua, 1995, 2005;
Kennedy, 2004; Lee, Grossman, Kennedy &
Fairbrother, 2004; Tan, 2008a). East and
Southeast Asian communitarianism emphasises
the centrality of the community in the formation
of the individual’s values, behaviour and identity.
The concept of community is premised on the
principle of social harmony, which features
prominently in East and Southeast Asian
societies and is reflected in citizenship education
across these parts of the world (see Chew, 1998;
Cummings, 2001; Thomas, 2002; Lee et al.,
2004; Ahmad, 2004; Roh, 2004). In his research
on values education in the Pacific Basin,
Cummings (2001) found that the concerns
common to East and Southeast As ian
educational leaders are also collectivist in nature;
he gave the following examples: “providing a
guide for behaviour in daily life,” “encouraging
civic-consciousness,” “fostering an appreciation
for the heritage and strengthening national
identity,” and “fostering family values.” It is
therefore not uncommon to find East and
Southeast Asian leaders exhorting their fellow
92
citizens to sacrifice a personal right or a civil or
political liberty so as to fulfil their duties and
responsibi l i t ies towards their family and
community in cases of conflict between personal
interests and social or national interests (Bell,
2006, 2009; Kennedy, 2004; Tan, 2008a). In
return, East and Southeast Asian governments
generally see themselves as having an obligation
to provide the social and economic conditions
that facilitate the fulfilment of these duties and
responsibilities (Bell, 2009). Thus, in China,
Japan and Singapore, it is mandatory by law for
children to provide financial support for their
elderly parents; in Korea and Hong Kong, the
state provides tax and housing benefits to make
it easier for children to care for their elderly
parents at home.
In Singapore, communitarianism further
takes on a paternalistic flavour. It is therefore no
surprise that the Singapore government has
prescribed the specific “Asian values” that
undergird the communitarian ideology. These
values were introduced officially in 1991 as a
national ideology under the heading “Our Shared
Values” (MOE, 2006a, pp. 10-11):
Our Shared Values:
l Nation before community and society before
self
l Family as the basic unit of society
l Community support and respect for the
individual
l Consensus, not conflict
l Racial and religious harmony
The communitarian values stated here bear
semblance to Confucian teachings, with its
accent on the nation, community, society and
family, coupled with the key values of consensus
and harmony. Chua (1995) commented that the
Singapore government privileges Confucianism
as a good foundation for propagating Asian
values among the younger generation. The
Confucian influence can be further seen in the
values listed under the heading “Singapore
Family Values” in MOE (2006a, p. 9): love, care
and concern, mutual respect, filial responsibility,
commitment, and communication. The reference
to filial responsibility points unequivocally to the
Confucian teaching of filial piety.
Bes ides “Our Shared Va lues” and
“Singapore Family Values,” communitarianism in
Singapore is also promoted through “Singapore
21 Vision”:
l Every Singaporean matters
l Opportunities for all
l Strong families: our foundation and our future
l The Singapore heartbeat
l Active citizens: making a difference to society
The “Singapore 21 Vision” was launched in
1997 by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. It
aims to “strengthen the “heartware” of Singapore
in the 21st century—the intangibles of society
like social cohesion, political stability and the
col lect ive wi l l , va lues and at t i tudes of
Singaporeans” (Singapore 21 Report, http://
www.singapore21.org.sg/menu_s21report.html).
The final platform for the Singapore Ministry
of Education to transmit communitarian values
is citizenship education, known locally as
“National Education.” These are i ts key
93
messages:
l Singapore is our homeland; this is where we
belong.
l We must preserve racial and religious
harmony.
l We m u s t u p h o l d m e r i t o c r a c y a n d
incorruptibility.
l No one owes Singapore a living.
l We must ourselves defend Singapore.
l We have confidence in our future.
Since 1997, National Education (NE) has
been implemented in all Singapore schools. NE
aims to develop in all Singaporeans national
cohesion, the instinct for survival and confidence
in the future. It is infused into the formal
curriculum through subjects such as Civics and
Moral Education (CME), Social Studies and
History, and through sports and enrichment
programmes. Again, we see here the strong
presence of Confucian values in the emphasis
on strong families as the foundation of society
and the key to social cohesion, racial and
religious harmony and nation-building.
The emphasis on ci t izenship in the
communitarian philosophy of East and Southeast
Asian countries explains why moral education in
these regions tends to combine and conflate
citizenship and morality (see the essays in
Grossman, Lee & Kennedy, 2008). Such is the
case in Singapore. In the next section, we
analyse the syllabi for CME for secondary
students (aged 13-16) and Civics for pre-
university students (aged 17-19) to see how
communitarianism is promoted in these subjects.
It should be noted that we are not suggesting
here that moral values are transmitted only
through these two subjects. In fact, moral beliefs
and values are inculcated in Singapore schools
both directly and indirectly through the school
ethos and various academic and non-academic
programmes. We have chosen to focus on these
two subjects because we are interested in the
manner in which the state ideology is translated
into moral education policy through the official
syllabi.
M o r a l E d u c a t i o n P o l i c y i n
Singapore Schools
Civics and Moral Education (CME)
for Secondary Students
CME aims to nurture a person of good
character, one who is caring and acts responsibly
towards the self, family, community, nation and
world (MOE, 2006b). The syllabus adopts
Lickona’s (1992) framework of moral knowing,
mora l fee l ing and mora l ac t ion in the
development of a morally upright individual.
Moral knowing refers to the students’ knowledge
of what is right and their ability to “define good
values, formulate sound moral principles and
explain what constitutes good character and right
conduct” (MOE, 2006b, p. 5). Moral knowing thus
concerns the cognitive aspect of morality. Moral
feeling refers to the affective aspect of morality.
It involves a conviction and motivation to uphold
and apply good values while considering the
consequences of our actions and the feelings of
others. Moral action refers to doing the right thing
that proceeds from moral knowing and moral
feeling. The syllabus emphasises the need for
students to develop such skil ls as moral
94
reasoning, critical thinking, responsible decision
making, prob lem-so lv ing and e ffec t ive
communication, and be given “many and varied
opportunities to put good values into practice”
(MOE, 2006b, p.5).
The designers of CME identify six core
values as the foundation for good character:
respect, responsibility, integrity, care, resilience
and harmony (see Table 1 for their official
definitions). That the CME syllabus is designed
to support communitarian values is evident in its
statement that these six values “complement and
reinforce Our Shared Values, the Singapore
Family Values, the Singapore 21 Vision and the
National Education messages” (MOE, 2006b, p.
7). The syllabus document suggests a number
of approaches that schools may adopt when
teaching CME:
l The Cultural Transmission Approach, which
seeks to impart desirable social and cultural
values.
l The Consideration Approach (Perspective-
Taking), which aims to develop an empathic
and caring personality.
l The Modified Values Clarification Approach
(Responsible Decision Making), which hopes
to help students clarify their values through
examining their personal feelings and
behaviour patterns.
l The Cognitive Development Approach (Moral
Reasoning), which is based on Kohlberg’s
theory about students’ progress from a self-
centred perspective to a higher stage of moral
development.
l The Narrative Approach (Story-Telling), which
helps students to clarify their values through
the process of story-telling and reflection.
l The Action Learning Approach, in which
students are encouraged to engage in
projects in the school and in the community.
Civics for Pre-University Students
The Civics syllabus for pre-university
students aligns itself to the CME syllabus for
primary and secondary students. Identifying
“Making a Difference” as its central theme, the
Civics syllabus aims to nurture students “to play
an active role in helping to improve the quality of
civic life in the community and to take the lead in
serv ice to others” (MOE, 2006a, p. 1) .
Specifically, students should learn about the
importance of active citizenship through service
to others, the necessity for everyone to take an
interest in the needs of the community and the
belief that everyone can play a role in effecting
positive changes in society in their own way
(MOE, 2006a, p. 1). Four main ideas come under
the theme of “Making a Difference” (MOE, 2006a,
p.2):
l Our Growth and Development: Taking a
proactive approach to becoming a leader in
service.
l Our Families and Communities: Leaders
serve to meet the needs of the people and
the community.
l People Who Inspire Change: Everyone can
play a part by leading in service.
l Singapore Our Future: Everyone can lead in
making Singapore unique.
The Civics syllabus recommends an
inquiry-based teaching approach, with specific
discussion questions designed to enable
students to learn more about the community they
95
live in, reflect on the meaning of service in
leadership and recognise their roles in the
community they live in, and to enable teachers
to provoke thinking and discussion among
students (MOE, 2006a, p. 4). The syllabus adds
that process-based approaches are also useful
in helping students reflect on, inquire into and
internalise the values of good leadership. The
syllabus includes a practical component that
involves students in service-learning projects that
aim to meet the real needs of the community.
A Critique of Moral Education in
Singapore
Three comments can be made about moral
education in Singapore schools. First, the
overarching objective of moral education in
Singapore is the inculcation of communitarian
values for the purpose of nation-building. The
communitarian thrust in the CME syllabus is
clearly seen in the number of topics devoted to
the community (26) as compared to the number
of topics devoted to the self (11) (see Table 1).
The slant towards communitarian values is
even more apparent at the pre-university level,
where the words “moral education” have been
dropped from the name of the subject. Although
the nurturing of moral beliefs and values is still
going on at the pre-university level, the emphasis
is on exhorting students to translate those beliefs
and values into action by serving the needs of
the community and nation, and to lead others in
performing such services. Clearly, the primary
purpose of moral education in Singapore is
citizenship training; students are inculcated with
national values for the purpose of economic and
political socialisation (Chew, 1998; Tan & Chew,
2004).
Second, although a number of teaching
approaches have been suggested in the CME
and Civics syllabi, and schools have the
autonomy to select the approaches that best
meet their needs, it appears that the Cultural
Transmission Approach is privileged as it lends
itself most naturally to the communitarian
ideology. This approach “emphasises the
inculcation of desirable values which are upheld
by our society and are also significant in our
cultural heritage” (MOE, 2006b, p. 8). The
desirable values referred to here are those stated
under the headings “Our Shared Values,”
“Singapore Family Values,” “Singapore 21
Vision,” and “National Education” (see above).
Although the CME and Civics syllabi claim that
moral knowing requires the students to “define
good values, formulate sound moral principles
and explain what constitutes good character and
right conduct” (MOE, 2006b, p. 5), these values,
principles and definitions of good character and
right conduct have already been decided for the
students. The students are not invited to think
through and construct their own understandings
of what is right, sound and good. While this
sidesteps the worry that the students may end
up with moral beliefs and values that are wrong
or inconsistent with communitarian views, it does
mean that students do not have a chance to
develop the habits and skills of moral reasoning,
critical thinking, responsible decision making and
problem-solving when they are taught these
communitarian values and principles in the early
stages of their moral education. Therefore,
students may find it difficult to engage in higher-
order thinking when asked to consider moral
96
Value Topics that focus on self Topics that focus on others
(friends, family, community,
nation and world)
Respect
Definition: A person
demonstrates respect when he
believes in his own self-worth
and the intrinsic worth of all
people.
• Respect for self (lower
secondary)
• Standing up to peer
pressure
• Respect for self (upper
secondary)
• Respecting others
• Respecting our homeland
• Respect for the beliefs
and traditions of others
• Respect for the law and
fundamental liberties
• Respect for life and nature
Responsibility
Definition: A person who is
responsible recognises that he
has a duty to himself, his
family, community, nation and
the world, and fulfils his
responsibilities with love and
commitment.
• Responsibility to myself
• Responsible decision
making
• Preparing for my future
financial needs
• Family roles and duties
• Being a team player
• Being responsible
members of the
community
• Dating, marriage and
parenting
• Being an active citizen
• Practising responsibility in
dealing with ethical issues
in the life sciences
Integrity
Definition: A person of integrity
upholds ethical principles and
has the moral courage to stand
up for what is right.
• Being a person of integrity
• Practising integrity in all
spheres in our lives (lower
secondary)
• Practising integrity in all
spheres in our lives (upper
secondary)
97
Value Topics that focus on self Topics that focus on others
(friends, family, community,
nation and world)
Care
Definition: A person who is
caring acts with kindness and
compassion. He contributes to
the betterment of the
community and the world.
• Caring for my family
• Caring for my friends
• Caring for the schools
• Caring for the community
• Caring for the nation
• Being a caring member of
the global community
Resilience
Definition: A person who is
resilient has emotional
strength and perseveres in the
face of challenges. He
manifests courage, optimism,
adaptability and
resourcefulness.
• Being resilient in the face
of challenges
• Resilience in the family
• Being a resilient citizen
• Being a resilient nation
Harmony
Definition: A person who
values harmony maintains
good relationships and
promotes social togetherness.
He appreciates the unity and
diversity of a multicultural
society.
• Inner harmony
• Being happy—my values
and attitudes
• Family harmony
• Relating to others
• Harmony in the
community
• Living in harmony with our
environment
• Promoting peace and
stability in the nation and
the world
Total number of topics 11 26
98
controversies, moral dilemmas and new moral
situations: either they lack confidence in
performing these higher-order thinking skills, or
they have become so pessimistic about the
prospect of alternative views being given a fair
hearing that they do not bother to participate even
if they could perform these skills. If one wonders
why young people in Singapore have become
increasingly apathetic towards social and political
issues, one needs look no further for a reason.
Third, there is an underlying tension
between the Cognitive Development Approach
recommended in the moral education syllabi and
t h e d o m i n a n t o f f i c i a l d i s c o u r s e o f
communitarianism in Singapore. The Cognitive
Development Approach is based on Kohlberg’s
theory of moral development for students to
progress from a self-centred perspective to a
higher stage of moral development. According
to Kohlberg, children proceed from unquestioned
obedience (Stage 1) to “what’s-in-it-for-me
fairness” (Stage 2), interpersonal conformity
(Stage 3), responsibility to “the system” (Stage
4) and finally principled conscience (Stage 5) as
young adults. Based on this framework, the
Singapore moral education syllabi, with its focus
on communitarian ideology, appear to stop at
Stage 4, with no progression to Stage 5. A person
at Stage 4 believes that one should fulfil his or
her responsibilities to the social or value system
the person feels a part of, keep the system from
falling apart and maintain self-respect as
someone who meets his or her obligations
(Lickona, 1994). But Lickona, echoing Kohlberg,
argues that teenagers should be encouraged to
proceed to Stage 5 by showing the greatest
possible respect for the rights and dignity of every
individual and supporting a system that protects
human rights; their conscience should oblige
them to act in accordance with the principle of
respect for all human beings. Lickona (1994)
elaborates:
Stage 5 also has a strong social conscience,
based on the moral principle of respect for
individual persons. That principle enables
Stage 5 thinkers to mentally “stand outside”
their social system and ask, “Are things as
good as they ought to be? Is justice being
served? Are individual human rights being
fully protected? Is there the greatest good
for the greatest number? And as I go about
my personal life, do I show respect for the
rights and dignity of all the individuals I deal
with?” (p. 15)
If Kohlberg is right, then what Singapore
students need is to progress from considering
the good of community and preserving the rules
of society to authentic moral motivation and
reasoning, guided by abstract moral ideals rather
than mere societal rules (Tan, 2008b). Tan and
Chew (2004) first put forward this suggestion
when they analysed the previous incarnation of
the CME syllabus for primary and secondary
levels. They observed then that while children
are encouraged to progress from self-regarding
motives to a greater awareness of communal
interests, the syllabus makes no attempt to move
the students onto the level characterised by
authentic moral motivation. The revision of the
CME syllabus in 2006 did not address this
problem. Commenting more than a decade ago
that moral values are seen mainly as instruments
for forging national unity and maintaining national
identity in Singapore, Tan (1994) advocated that
students should possess “the intrinsic reverence
for the moral life” and appreciate the “intrinsic
99
categorical force of morality” based on a
metaphysical and religious world-view (p. 66).
Gopinathan (1980) averred that moral education
in Singapore lacked “the humanizing effect of
moral education for the individual, its integral
place in a conception of education as a liberating
and self-fulfilling process” (p. 178). Although the
comment was made twenty years ago, it still rings
true today.
We should clarify that our main concern
here is not that moral education in Singapore is
largely focused on nurturing communitarian
values and attitudes in our young people. After
all, it is hard to object to the inclusion of the values
of respect, responsibil i ty, integrity, care,
resilience and harmony among the core set of
moral values that human beings generally
subscribe to. It is also hard to argue against the
importance of communal interests. Even
societies that have championed individualism
and liberalism are experiencing a shift towards
placing greater emphasis on communal interests
(see Bell, 2009; Law, 2007). At least one of the
a u t h o r s o f t h i s p a p e r b e l i e v e s t h a t
communitarianism may in fact be the most
suitable moral, social and political framework for
a country like Singapore, given its demographic,
geographic and economic characteristics.
Rather, our chief concern is with the way
communitarian values and attitudes are taught
in schools. Earlier, we discussed the features of
a good moral education: it should teach morality
as well as moral reasoning skills. Moral education
in Singapore achieves the former reasonably
well, but, in our view, falls short with the latter.
The question is whether it is in fact possible to
accommodate the teaching of moral reasoning
skills, leading to independent moral development
and authentic moral motivation and self-
actualisation, within a communitarian framework.
We discuss this question briefly in the final
section of this paper.
Personal Moral Development in
a Communitarian System: Prospects
The Singapore government is a paternalistic
one. It adopts the stance that it knows what is in
the best interest of the people it governs better
than the people themselves do, which gives the
government the moral authority to make
decisions on the people’s behalf, even when the
decisions are contrary to the people’s wishes.
However, it would be wrong to think that there is
no personal freedom in the Singaporean society.
While the Singapore government expects itself
to be obeyed, it has also created forums for
citizens to question and provide feedback on
various social issues, and sometimes the
suggest ions rece ived do get adopted.
Discussions of a more political nature are
tolerated when they take place on the fringes,
but are tightly controlled in mainstream press.
Direct public challenges to government policies,
however, often result in severe repercussions for
the challenger. Whether intended or not, these
actions send to the community at large the
message that politics is a dangerous game for
those who have not been specially chosen by
the leaders of the ruling party, and so one should
stick to one’s own private affairs. Meanwhile,
schools are reminded to discourage students
from adopting views and attitudes that are
inconsistent with those stated in the moral
education syllabi and those publicly endorsed by
the government.
100
The re l uc tance o f t he S ingapo re
government to allow open debate on issues with
deep social and political ramifications, and the
swiftness with which it censures those whom it
deems to have crossed the line have created a
people who is generally apathetic towards
important social and political issues. The
predominant attitude among the population is that
the government will take care of these issues,
that it neither needs nor wants our opinions on
t h e m . S o , i r o n i c a l l y , t h e v e r s i o n o f
communitarianism practiced in Singapore and
transmitted through moral education lessons in
schools has resulted in a general detachment
from the community at large.
Our view is that communitarian goals do not
always conflict with individual rights and freedom;
in some instances, they can co-exist and
complement each other. In the case of
Singapore, if the objective is to engender greater
attachment to the community at large and
encourage greater participation in service to
communal needs, then providing a framework
within which citizens can genuinely engage one
another and the government in public debate
about social and political issues without fear of
retaliation and without the suspicion that all the
talk will ultimately make no difference (because
the decision has already been made by the
government) is an important first step. (Bell, 2009
expresses a similar view.)
The provision of this framework can begin
in schools via moral education lessons. Of
course, it makes sense for schools to nudge
students towards a core set of moral beliefs and
values that constitutes the norms of the society.
A society must have shared values to be
functional. There are plausible arguments in
favour of communitarianism and against systems
that allow for a great deal of personal freedom
(see Bell, 2006, 2009; Blackburn, 2001; Sandel,
2009). But there is no principled reason why
s t u d e n t s c a n n o t b e i n d u c t e d i n t o a
communitarian moral system through a moral
education that invites students to examine and
debate about competing moral values and
systems (see Law, 2007). In fact, a moral
education that requires students to actively
consider the arguments for and against the
adoption of certain moral beliefs or values before
constructing their own moral system is more likely
to produce students who understand in a deep
way why the beliefs and values they have
adopted are good and true, and therefore
become more committed and resil ient in
upholding them in practice.
A crucial caveat to note here is that a moral
education that encourages students to participate
in critical moral reasoning is not one that permits
them to adopt any belief or value they like. Critical
reasoning is governed by rules, so a piece of
reasoning is either good or bad. Any moral choice
that a student makes must be supported by good
reasoning. It is extremely difficult to construct a
good argument in support of a wrong belief or
value (like “It is good to rob little old ladies” or
hypocrisy). The advantage of a moral education
that requires students to think critically about
morality lies in its potential to genuinely convince
students to adopt the right beliefs and values.
How then do we facilitate critical moral
reasoning in a moral education classroom? Law
(2007) and Lipman (2003) offer some excellent
suggestions. Stories involving children debating
with one another about complex moral issues
(e.g. Lipman, 1983) provide good entry points
101
to bring younger students into moral discussions.
Thought experiments involving moral scenarios
are also powerful tools to engage students in
moral reasoning. Finally, social innovation
projects that require students to tackle and solve
a real social problem, such as those conducted
by the Riverside School in India (http://www.
schoolriverside.com/), provide an excellent
platform for students to acquire a deep
understanding of real social issues, construct
moral beliefs and values related to these issues,
use their critical and creative thinking skills to
solve real-world problems, and develop a
genuine concern for the needs of the community.
Conclusion
What we are recommending here—
nurturing moral beliefs and values in young
people through a critical cognitive engagement
with moral issues—requires, in the case of
Singapore, a shift in the mindset of moral
education teachers and government leaders. The
obstacle, as we have pointed out, is not
communitarianism, but the reluctance on the part
of the government to allow genuine public debate
on issues that have significant social and political
ramifications. We are convinced that a moral
education of the form recommended here will
engender a greater commitment to communal
values and interests among young people.
References
Ahmad, A. (2004). The making of a “good citizen” in
Malaysia: Does history education play a role? In W.
O. Lee, D. L. Grossman, K. J. Kennedy & G. P.
Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and
the Pacific: Concepts and issues (pp. 195-211). Hong
Kong: Comparative Education research Centre, The
University of Hong Kong.
Bell, D. (2006). Beyond liberal democracy: Political
thinking for an East Asian context. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Bell, D. (2009). Communitarianism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.),
The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring
2009 edition). Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://
plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/
communitarianism/
Blackburn, S. (2001). Being good: A short introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chew, J. O. A. (1998). Civics and moral education in
Singapore: Lessons for citizenship education?
Journal of Moral Education, 27(4), 505-524.
Chua, B. H. (1995). Communitarian ideology and
democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge.
Chua, B. H. (2005). The cost of membership in ascribed
community. In W. Kymlicka & B. He (Eds.),
Multiculturalism in Asia (pp. 170-195). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cummings, W. K. (2001). The future of values
education in the Pacific Basin. In W. K. Cummings,
M. T. Tatto & J. Hawkins (Eds.), Values education
for dynamic societies: Individualism or collectivism?
(pp. 277-290). Hong Kong: Comparative Education
research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Gopinathan, S. (1980). Moral education in a plural
society: a Singapore case study. International
Review of Education 26(2), 171-185.
Grossman, D. L., Lee, W. O. & Kennedy, K. J. (Eds.).
(2008). Citizenship curriculum in Asia and the Pacific.
Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research
Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Kennedy, K. J. (2004). Searching for citizenship values
in an uncertain global environment. In W. O. Lee, D.
102
L. Grossman, K. J. Kennedy & G. P. Fairbrother
(Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific:
Concepts and issues (pp. 9-24). Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre, The
University of Hong Kong.
Law, S. (2007). The war for children’s minds. London:
Routledge.
Lee, W. O., Grossman, D. L., Kennedy, K. J. &
Fairbrother, G. P. (Eds.). (2004). Citizenship
education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and
issues . Hong Kong: Comparative Education
Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Lickona, T. (1992). Educating for character: How our
schools can teach respect and responsibility. New
York: Bantam Books.
Lickona, T. (1994). Raising good children. New York:
Bantam Books.
Lipman, M. (1983). Lisa (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Institute
for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children,
Montclair State College.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education. (2006a). Revised pre-university
civics syllabus. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (2006b). Civics and moral
education syllabus: Secondary 2007. Singapore:
Ministry of Education.
Roh, Y. R. (2004). Values education in the global
information age in South Korea and Singapore. In
W. O. Lee, D. L. Grossman, K. J. Kenney & G. P.
Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and
the Pacific: Concepts and issues (pp. 257-274). Hong
Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The
University of Hong Kong.
Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to
do? New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Singapore Department of Statistics. (2009). Population
trends 2009. Retrieved April 30, 2010 from www.
singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/population2009.pdf.
Singapore: Singapore Department of Statistics,
Ministry of Trade and Industry.
Tan, C. (2005). Driven by pragmatism: issues and
challenges in an ability-driven education. In Tan, J.
& Ng, P. T. (Eds.), Shaping Singapore’s future:
Thinking schools, learning nation (pp. 5-21).
Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Tan, C. (2008a). Creating “good cit izens” and
maintaining religious harmony in Singapore. British
Journal of Religious Education, 30(2), 133-142.
Tan, C. (2008b). From moral values to citizenship
education: the teaching of religion in Singapore
schools. In Lai, A. E. (Ed.), Religious diversity in
Singapore (pp. 321-341). Singapore: ISEAS & IPS.
Tan, T. W. (1994). Moral education in Singapore: a
critical appraisal. Journal of Moral Education, 23(1),
61-73.
Tan, T. W. & Chew, L. C. (2004). Moral and citizenship
education as statecraft in Singapore: a curriculum
critique. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 597-606.
Thomas, E. (2002). Values and citizenship: Cross-
cultural challenges for school and society in the Asian
Pacific Rim. In M. Schweisfurth, L. Davies & C.
Harber (Eds.), Learning democracy and citizenship:
International experiences (pp. 241-254). Oxford:
Symposium Books.