Education, Culture and the Singapore Developmental State

World-Soul Lost and Regained?

Y. Chia

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781137374592
• eBook ISBN: 9781137374608
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Theory & Practice

This book explores the role of education in the formation of the Singapore developmental state. The book provides a historical study of citizenship education in Singapore, whereby a comparative study of history, civics and social studies curricula, and the politics and policies that underpin them are examined.

1

Education and the Developmental State: The Importance of Culture

Said the Premier: For a lifetime I have sought

only the common good and with bare hands wrought

a kingdom, whose vast wealth now stands testified

by pagodas, innumerable, sundried

as the blades of grass – a permanent fortune

locked from the barbarians of the warring dune

by the joining of walls. So long as we strive,

we shall enjoy our fruits; and he will survive

who works on diligently – for Work is Life.

God gave them the hands, I have given them tools;

and none starves in this kingdom except the fools.

Our magistrates are just and good law is praised.

Our governors are wise and the stores are raised.

Here are the foundations for millennial peace!

Is there more a people will desire than these?

from the poem “A Chinese Parable” by Gwee Li Sui¹

Singapore is regarded as an economic success story, with Manuel Castells, an eminent sociologist, calling it “the quintessential developmental state”.² Despite its impressive economic achievement, Singapore is engaged in an ongoing struggle to identify its core values. Indeed, forging a sense of national identity has been a preoccupation for the Singapore government over the past five decades. As part of this process, the national education system has been assigned a central role in socializing students into their roles as future citizens in the developmental state. This book examines the role of education in the formation of the Singapore developmental state, through a historical study of education for citizenship in Singapore (1955–2004), where I explore the interconnections between changes in history, civics and social studies curricula, and the politics of nation building.

Since Singapore acquired the right to self-government in 1959, and subsequently independence in 1965, various civic and citizenship education programmes have been put in place, only to be dismantled later and replaced with yet other programmes. What then are the civic and citizenship education programmes (and their aims) that have been introduced over the years over the past five decades? What is the nature of citizenship education in Singapore? Why are these programmes and curricula constantly “dismantled” and replaced with newer programmes? To what extent do “crises” (real or perceived) affect the politics and policy that underpin these curricular changes? And how important is the role of education policy via citizenship education in Singapore’s nation building? Undergirding all these questions is the core question of the relationship between education, in particular citizenship education, and the developmental state.

The study begins in 1955, as that was the year for the Report of the All-Party Commission on Chinese Education. One of the key recommendations of the report was the introduction of the teaching of civics in Singapore schools, which is identified in this study as the starting point for civics and citizenship education in Singapore. The book goes on to explore the relationship between politics and educational policy, and the subsequent impact on the history and citizenship education curriculum and textbooks. It must be noted that this is a historical study of education for citizenship in Singapore’s schools. Higher education (post-secondary education), adult education and the military are examples of other contexts of citizenship education which I will not be exploring here. A historical study of citizenship education in Singapore provides the perspectives to help better frame and elucidate the issues and questions on citizenship education in Singapore today. This will provide an interesting case study of forging national identity through education in a state that transformed itself from a weak to a strong and successful state in a short time span.

Singapore is a small island-city republic of about 718 square kilometres, with a total population of about 5 million people,³ of which 75 per cent is Chinese, with a 13 per cent Malay Muslim minority and a 9 per cent Indian (mostly Tamil) minority.⁴ It is surrounded by two Muslim states, Malaysia and Indonesia. Political leaders constantly remind Singaporeans of the fragility of ethnic relations. The state’s perception of fragility in Singapore’s social fabric, as well as a deep sense of vulnerability in Singapore’s economic and geo-political milieu, accounts for its pervasive role in citizenship education for nation building.⁵ That the same political party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), has been returned to power in successive elections with landslide victories demonstrates the pervasiveness of the hegemonic “survivalist” state discourse among the general public.⁶

Existing scholarship in East Asia in general, and Singapore and Hong Kong in particular, tend to treat history education and citizenship education separately.⁷ Most theses on history education and social studies in Singapore tended to focus on pedagogical aspects of history teaching and the perceptions of teachers and students regarding these two disciplines.⁸ Nonetheless, there were some undergraduate honours theses submitted to the National University of Singapore which sought to elucidate the use of history by Singapore leaders and the historiography of the history of Singapore.⁹ Like the literature on history education, many of the academic works which make reference to civics and citizenship education developments in schools are generally philosophical, theoretical or pedagogical in nature.¹⁰ In the case of Singapore, history education remains a key component of citizenship education in schools. A study of citizenship education in Singapore therefore needs to incorporate both history and citizenship education.

Both citizenship and citizenship education are contested concepts, and because of competing definitions, conceptualizations and contexts of what the term “citizenship” entails, citizenship education is often not easy to define.¹¹ Broadly speaking, citizenship education places strong emphasis on “civic education” which involves the students learning about the country’s political, legal and economic systems, their rights and responsibilities as citizens and how their government works.¹² Kennedy reiterates that this kind of civic knowledge “is interdisciplinary and integrated while the values must be firmly embedded in a vision that focuses on the good of all rather than the selfish demands of individuals”.¹³ Civics also teaches students about decision-making and leadership. In short, citizenship involves participation in and awareness of the benefits, privileges and responsibilities of community life. The process develops decision-making skills, values, attitudes and understanding to allow young citizens to actively participate in society.

Historically, national education systems played an important role in citizenship education, particularly in education for nation building,¹⁴ and in the rise of the nation state. In doing so, citizenship education “act[s] as a vehicle of social integration through the transmission of culture”¹⁵ – a socializing function and the maintenance of social order. Over the past few decades, citizenship education in the West has largely shifted its focus from the forging of national identity to an emphasis on the cultivation of democratic and civic values.

In contrast, citizenship education in East Asia stresses moral and communitarian values as well as national identity. An emphasis on education for the purpose of forging national identity is hardly surprising, given the relative youth of many Asian states, in particular, those that came into being following decolonization in the decades following the end of the Second World War. The East Asian conception of citizenship education has a long history, which is rooted in Confucian tradition. Education was valued highly throughout Chinese Imperial history, with the long tradition of imperial examinations

from the Han Dynasty, which were based on Confucian classics. It served two functions, “self cultivation and recruiting of ‘men of talent’ to administer the affairs of the state”.¹⁶ The focus was on cultivating one’s moral values as opposed to civic values of the West. Moral education thus has a long history in East Asian and Chinese intellectual tradition. In this context, Cummings argues that the West tends to emphasize education for democracy and civic values,¹⁷ while Asia emphasizes “ ‘good’ citizenship, moral education, and the range of values associated with these aspects of civics”.¹⁸ In other words, citizenship education in East Asia, of which Singapore is part of culturally, emphasizes the cultivation of moral values for nation building.

The developmental state and education

The theoretical starting point of this study is the relationship between education and state formation. According to Andy Green, state formation

refer[s] to the historical process by which “states” or “nation states” are formed or reformed. In its broad sense “state formation” encompasses the achievement and maintenance of national/state sovereignty; the construction of national public institutions and economic infrastructures; and also the popularization of the notions of citizenship, statehood and national identity which bind it together.¹⁹

More specifically for Singapore, state formation refers to the evolution of the developmental state, which derives its legitimacy from promoting and sustaining economic development. As the developmental state concept is central to the study, it is necessary to unpack and define what it is. To do so, we have to begin with the historical context of Japan and East Asia after the Second World War.

In the decades following the Second World War, East Asia emerged as the engine of economic growth in the world. The stellar economic performances of Japan, and the Four Asian Tigers, or newly industrialized economies (NIEs) of South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, astounded many economists and scholars who became interested in whether there was an East Asian model of development that could be exported to other developing nations. Many reasons were proffered by scholars to account for this spectacular economic growth, touted as an economic miracle. These include cultural reasons in the form of Confucianism and Asian values as well as other factors which can be broadly categorized as explanations derived from neoclassical economic theory, the Japanese-centred argument, as well as American hegemony and statist explanations.²⁰ The outlining of the various factors accounting for the success of the East Asian economies sets the context for understanding the developmental state, as well as the role and relationship of Confucianism and Asian values to the state.

Proponents of the cultural factor behind the rise of Japan and the NIEs assert that “both Japan and the newly industrialized countries of East Asia belong to the broad area of influence of Sinic civilization, and there can be no doubt that Confucianism has been a very powerful force in all of them”.²¹ This argument was first articulated by Edwin Reischauer in his seminal essay “The Sinic World in Perspective”.²² Building on Reischauer’s pioneering work, Berger and Hsiao go on to state that “Confucian ethics, as reflected in government leadership, competitive education, a disciplined workforce, principles of equality and self-reliance, and self cultivation, provides a necessary background and powerful motivating force for the rise of East Asia.”²³ This is echoed by Ezra Vogel, in his seminal work The Four Little Dragons: The Spread of Industrialization in East Asia, where he outlines four Confucian institutions and cultural practices responsible for the East Asia economic miracle – a meritocratic elite, a competitive entrance examination system, the importance of the group and the idea of self cultivation.²⁴

Similarly, Tu Wei-Ming argues that “the social and cultural capital that has sustained the economic dynamism of Japan and the Four Mini-Dragons has been at least commensurate with Confucian ethics, if not thoroughly Confucian in nature”.²⁵ One key Confucian trait he notes is “the centrality of the family in East Asia, not only as a basic social unit but as a metaphor for political culture”. While Tu acknowledges the considera...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Education and the Developmental State: The Importance of Culture
• 2. Education, the Colonial State and the Crisis of Merdeka
• 3. Crisis of National Survival: The Sudden Birth of a Republic and the Rise of the Developmental State
• 4. The Crisis of “Deculturalization” and the Invention of “Asian Values”
• 5. The Crises of Legitimacy and National Identity and the Intensification of Asian Values: From Religious Knowledge to “Shared Values”
• 6. The Crisis of Historical Amnesia and the “National Education” Response
• 7. The Crisis of National Security and Social Cohesion: National Education Institutionalized in Curriculum
• 8. Final Thoughts on the “World-Soul” of Singapore: Education, Culture and the Making of the Developmental State
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index