Introduction

Democratic citizenship education has been widely recognised in literature to ideally empower students to actively participate in democratic deliberation on public issues and to take meaningful public action.Footnote 1 However, what it means to be 'democratic' is complex and contentious, and the democratic ideal varies for different people. Criticism has long been directed at Singapore's education system for its perceived shortcomings in adequately preparing students for active engagement in democracy. Notably, concerns have been raised regarding the insufficient understanding of the notion of democracy among Singaporean students, their tendency to accept hierarchy and defer to authority without critical assessment, and their superficial grasp of citizenship concepts (Sim & Krishnasamy, 2016). Specifically, the social studies curriculum and the overall school environment in Singapore have been noted to play limited roles in supporting students' involvement with democracy. This was largely attributed to the limited explicit commitment to democracy in Singapore's education system (Neoh & Saifulloh, 2020). Instead, it was noted that Singapore education has a prevailing inclination toward a generally uncritical adherence to shared national values and a commitment to the nation as a means of responding to the challenges posed by increasing diversity and globalization.

Considering the understandings of the state of democratic education in Singapore, one might anticipate a predominantly democratically inactive citizenry. Contrary to this expectation, the period leading up to Singapore's 14th Parliamentary general election in May 2020 witnessed a noteworthy surge in active and critical civic engagement, notably spearheaded by younger politicians and citizens. The heightened involvement in public deliberation and action was especially prominent within the youth demographic, challenging the understanding of a democratic deficit in Singapore. While we do not suggest that this is a direct impact of Singapore education, this observation has prompted us to take an interest in re-examining and reframing the current understanding of the state of democratic education in Singapore.

Indeed, by 2012, Kenneth Paul Tan has already noted that the political rhetoric based on pragmatism, publicly articulated as ‘do what works’, that served to link the notion of “Singapore’s impressive success” with the ability to attract global capital utilized by Singapore’s dominant People’s Action Party (PAP) to support the dynamics of political hegemony has started to show signs of being challenged. He noted:

But in an evolving, diversifying and globalizing society (in large part an outcome of Singapore’s deepening participation in neo-liberal globalization), this maneuvering [of political hegemony] has also engendered a number of mismatched expectations and a greater sensitivity to the inherent ideological contradictions and socio-economic inequalities that may erode this relatively stable state-capital partnership.

(Tan, 2012, p. 69)

Recognizing the signs of attitudinal change towards the historical dominance of Singapore’s illiberal democracy and the emerging shifts in Singapore’s social and political environments, this paper seeks to contribute to emerging discussions that broaden the focus on the formal citizenship education curriculum in Singapore by exploring the latent potential for democratic engagement within the overall Singapore curriculum. We suggest the potential for implicit and embedded democratic values to be fostered through initiatives like "Thinking School, Learning Nation" and the 21st-century competencies framework. This can inadvertently cultivate critical thinking and participation to address social issues, even in illiberal democratic contexts. We acknowledge the existence of a diversity of practices and learning environments which will influence the extent to which ‘democracy’ is supported.

By highlighting and illustrating the links between the competencies championed by curricular initiatives in Singapore education, and those identified to be crucial for contemporary democratic participation in academic discussions about global citizenship and global citizenship education, we hope to offer a nuanced understanding of citizenship education beyond its traditional link with liberal democracy. We are interested to identify and describe the potential opportunities that education in illiberal democracies, like the Singapore curriculum, can offer towards the aspiration of global democracy. In this way, our paper contributes to ongoing debates about democracy's relevance in illiberal contexts, enriching our understanding of alternative pathways to civic engagement and possible shared futures for democratic citizenship.

Global citizenship education (GCE) for democracy: a series of dilemmas

In recent decades, citizenship and citizenship education have gained prominence amidst an intensifying sense of global interconnectedness and interdependence. To reflect this evolving context, academic discourse on citizenship has expanded beyond the traditional confines of nation-states, embracing the notion of global citizenship. Specifically, the importance of safeguarding the integrity of democracy through education has been commonly highlighted by scholars in the field of global citizenship, and global citizenship education (GCE) (Barton & Ho, 2021; Giroux & Bosio, 2021; Kennedy, 2019).

Defining global citizenship and GCE is a complex challenge. What GCE should teach is fundamentally contested and is shaped by a diverse array of factors, including the influences of historical, political, ideological, and societal contexts on what the democratic ideal is, and even whether democracy should be held as an ideal. As Torres (2017) notes, theories of global citizenship and GCE draw upon various knowledge fields, including political sociology of education and political philosophy. Each discipline approaches global citizenship through distinct theoretical lens, leading to varying interpretations of the core concept of ‘citizenship’. This presents a dilemma for conceptualising GCE for democracy: While this diversity of perspectives enriches our understanding of global citizenship and can foster inclusivity, it simultaneously contributes to the ambiguity surrounding the conceptualisation of global citizenship and GCE and questions the relevance of a universal democratic ideal.

A contributing factor to the complexity of conceptualizing GCE for democracy is an 'East-West' tension, exemplified in the case of Singapore. East-West distinctions are consistently drawn to attribute Singapore’s economic, social and political success since her independence in 1965 to the framework of basic Confucianism ethics and tight-knit Asian family structures (Gopinathan, 1996). Chia (2015) noted that the Singapore government employs the bilingual system strategically to emphasize the significance of Asian values and cultures. Mother tongue languages are employed to impart moral and civic values, fostering loyalty, and cultivating a sense of belonging to Singapore. In contrast, English language assumes a utilitarian role by facilitating economic engagement with the global community. Singaporean leaders hold the belief that Asian cultures and traditions are incompatible with Western liberalism and liberal democracy. They consider a democracy founded on Western liberal principles as an impediment to ongoing economic progress of Singapore, a line of argument commonly utilized by neo-liberal thinkers and governments (Biesta, 2011; Harvey, 2005). Instead, by emphasizing a ‘survival’ ideology aimed at depoliticizing public engagement, including participation in public debates and taking public actions that may be at odds with government policies, there exists a belief that political debates and opposition could destabilize and divert attention from more urgent national matters, such as economic growth and national unity (Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2016; Gopinathan, 1996). As a result, there is an implicit endeavor in the overall political climate to discourage citizens from actively engaging in critical debates on social issues. While juxtaposing Asian-Western values can promote greater interest in and awareness of different cultural and ethical outlooks, invoking an idealized Asian set of values has also been utilized a legitimating tactic of authoritarian Asian regimes (Tan & Vickers, 2024). As (Tan, 2012) asserts, such dismissing approaches diminishes the social, cultural and political potential to “imagine alternative realities and better world, and to formulate strategies of transitioning from the status quo to these better realities and worlds” (p. 74).

Amidst this complex backdrop involving the dilemma about GCE, a growing body of literature on GCE in the last ten years have started to highlight the value of paying attention to the collective global concern surrounding the pressing need to prepare young citizens for life in an increasingly diverse, dynamic, and volatile world. The context of discussions on citizenship and citizenship education no longer confines itself to national issues and interests, but underscores interconnectedness and interdependence. Various scholars, including Biesta (2022), Giroux and Bosio (2021), and Kennedy (2019), have voiced shared apprehensions regarding the ascent of right-wing populist governments and the erosion of democratic values across diverse societal, social, and political contexts. This context is commonly attributed to the pervasive influence of neoliberalism on education systems. Succinctly differentiates the classical liberal conception of the individual as “having an autonomous human nature” versus the neoliberal conception of the individual who is “an enterprising and competitive entrepreneur” (Biesta, 2011). Consequently, there is an "ongoing attack on democracy" (Giroux & Bosio, 2021, p. 3), manifested in the narrowing of public participation, the stifling of diverse perspectives, and the instrumentalization of education for narrowly defined goals (Alviar-Martin & Baildon, 2016; Biesta, 2022; Giroux & Bosio, 2021). There is growing consensus that democracy, in its various forms, is under threat and requires active defence (Biesta, 2022; Giroux & Bosio, 2021; Kennedy, 2019). This perspective positions democracy as a central tenet of GCE.

The link between education and democracy is common in academic discussions about the purposes of education (Biesta, 2011; Dewey, 2009/1916; Giroux & Bosio, 2021). Increasingly, one trend can be discerned - When there is no direct reference to democracy, the purpose of global citizenship education is framed around balancing ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusivity’. Specifically, it revolves around how education can support young people to take up the broader challenge to consider the fundamental question on ‘how to live together’ (Jackson, 2019), particularly with people who are “not like us” (Biesta, 2006, p. 135). We wish to highlight that the very pursuit of continually seeking a healthy balance between diversity and inclusivity is central to democracy and democratic participation. This is because democracy is fundamentally related to plurality and difference, involves questioning and challenging status quo, political engagement and collective decision making, and underpinned by values of justice, equality and freedom (Biesta, 2011; Crick, 2013; Giroux & Bosio, 2021; Veugelers, 2019). In academic discussions on citizenship, we observed that there is an almost unanimous support for a democratic form of citizenship. At the core of democracy, is the idea of ‘dynamism’ – a “reflective engagement” where citizens “learn from, in, and through” it (Biesta, 2011, p. 3). In their engagement with the pursuit for diversity and inclusion, people enact citizenship from the position of “individuals-in-context” and “individuals-in-relationship” (Biesta, 2011, p. 6)

While not always drawing explicit links with democracy, many governments, policymakers, academics and educators worldwide are increasingly underscoring GCE with the importance of reimagining inclusivity within a framework of expanding diversity that transcends social and political orientations (Banks, 2020; Barton & Ho, 2021). The pursuit for greater inclusivity is a multifaceted process, encompassing a wide range of aspects dependent on specific contexts and ideologies. These include prioritising cultural diversity as the hallmark of globalization to advocate for a global citizenship rooted in democratic multiculturalism (Torres, 2017) and emphasis on strong participatory and deliberative elements that engage citizens at various levels (Barton & Ho, 2021; Zyngier, 2020). In the context of globalization, an increasing contention asserts that exclusively domestic perspectives on democratic education fall short in addressing the complexities arising from global diversity across human relations and societies (Culp, 2019; Jackson, 2019). Hence, the competing demands between local and global contexts necessitate a re-examination of the purposes of democratic participation and the concept of democracy itself. In some parts of the world, democracy is also intertwined with concepts of human rights (McGregor, 2023; Osler, Egan, Hanna, Shanks, & Stokke, 2023; UNESCO, n.d) and social justice, which is often associated with addressing inequalities, and the idea of "cosmopolitan democracy" (Torres, 2017).

The discussion in this section has illustrated democracy and consequently, GCE for democracy, as complex concepts. They embrace a spectrum of conceptualizations and frequently encounter challenges to its legitimacy. Kennedy (2004) asserts, "(global) citizenship education cannot exist in isolation, independent of cultural norms, political priorities, societal expectations, national economic development aspirations, geopolitical contexts and historical antecedents" (p. 17). The central dilemma surrounding the practical implementation of GCE for democracy lies in the ongoing debates about the value of a universal/common/shared core of set of values, knowledge, and insights across diverse societies, and whether such a core poses a threat to unique societal values, such as the so-called ‘Asian values’.

"Democracy", as a societal, political, and personal ideal, serves the dual roles of an enabler and a limiter of GCE. Depending on how democracy is practiced, it can build a foundation for cultivating critical thinking, active participation, and global engagement. It can also run the risk of reinforcing prevailing power structures and marginalizing diverse voices. This represents another dilemma confronting democracies in the present day. Responding to this dilemma, we posit disentangling the ‘liberal’, which is often associated with western values, from ‘democracy’ as a possible way out of this conundrum.

Global citizenship education for democracy: disentangling the liberal from democracy

There is an implicit assumption in liberal democratic societies, especially in the Anglosphere, that liberal democratic education and citizenship education are one and the same. Literature on citizenship education in the Anglosphere emphasizes liberal democratic citizenship, and a key aspect of the citizenship education curriculum focuses on developing understandings of the structures of government in liberal democracies. The primary disagreement in the scholarship lies in the substance and nature of liberal democratic citizenship. For example, do democratic citizenship require personally responsible citizens who obey the laws within existing systems, as reflected in Westheimer’s (2015) typology of citizens, deliberative and justice oriented citizens who engage in discussions and deliberations of controversial issues and takes public action and advocacy (Barton & Ho, 2021; Giroux & Bosio, 2021), or neoliberal ‘active’ citizens who are enterprising, competitive and take responsibility of them ‘selves’ (Harvey, 2005)? The conflation of liberalism with democracy presents a significant risk of overlooking alternative conceptions and practices of democratic systems, as well as the potential for coherence among them. Worse, it may fail to recognize that alternative conceptions of democracy can also foster and support critical and active citizen participation and engagement, albeit through different democratic processes and structures.

Additionally, the practice of GCE remains a topic of contention, with many governments framing it as ‘individualistic’, viewing GCE primarily as a tool to prepare young individuals for participation in democratic processes. Biesta (2011) characterizes this approach as 'citizenship-as-outcome,' aligning with neoliberal ideologies that assign blame to individuals for societal issues while neglecting the significant influence of social, political, and historical contexts on ‘learning citizenship’ (p. 13). Instead, Biesta advocates for a 'citizenship-as-practice' perspective, shifting the focus from merely 'teaching citizenship' to recognizing the diverse ways in which young people engage with and learn about democracy through their everyday experiences and interactions (p. 17). While Biesta remains skeptical about the potential of ‘teaching’ citizenship, his stance underscores the importance of understanding the dynamic connections between contexts, relationships, and young people—a perspective shared by numerous scholars in the field (e.g Banks, 2020; Jackson, 2019).

In essence, GCE in liberal democracies underscores democratic processes, characterized by active participation and engagement with the contexts and others in civil societies. Often related to the concept of ‘active citizenship’, GCE in liberal democracies commonly focuses on developing competencies associated with engagement with local and global communities, organisations and groups. GCE is dynamic and always open to debate and reconstruction (Banks, 2015; Westheimer, 2015). Consequently, a form of GCE that facilitates engagement with ‘others who are not like them’ (Biesta, 2015), critical deliberations on social issues, motivated by the aspiration to balance the elements of social and cultural diversity with the pursuit of inclusivity, and accepts the inherent dynamism in the citizenship concept itself are encouraged.

A synthesis of various ideas presented in the literature on GCE over the past decade suggests that a potential collective response to the diverse conceptualizations and notions associated with democratic (global) citizenship can be encapsulated by Barton and Ho’s (2021) notion of critical harmony. Critical harmony bears resemblance to the concept of peace outlined in UNESCO's recommendation on education for peace, human rights, and sustainable development (UNESCO, 2023). Sim and Chow (2019) offer further insight into the synergy between ‘harmony’ and ‘criticality’ by highlighting a fundamental difference in the perception of the ‘self’ between the ‘Western liberal self’ and the ‘Confucian relational self’. In the former, the ‘self’ is viewed as an “inherent individual, one who is autonomous, free, and self-responsible”. In contrast, in the latter, it is seen as “a relational self” characterized by “intimate continuity between family and the community” (p. 467). Amidst debates concerning the (in)compatibility of Asian and Western values, it is crucial to emphasize that the emphasis on ‘relations’ within the Confucian relational self, along with the pursuit of harmonizing contradictions and oppositions without necessitating homogeneity, aligns with the concept of critical harmony (Bell, 2004; Kim, 2011; Sim & Chow, 2019). It encapsulates the contemporary conception of GCE, which prioritizes active participation and engagement with contexts and others (relationships).

Another reason why the conflation of liberalism with democracy is not helpful in advancing inclusivity amidst diversity is that it reinforces a perceived cultural superiority rooted in a “Western” Anglo-Saxon context. Instead of meaningfully navigating diversity to pursue harmony/peace, it lands itself along the line of argument, as articulated by Singaporean leaders, regarding the incompatibility of Asian and Western cultures. Indeed, the conflation of 'liberalism' with 'democracy' presupposes that other cultural traditions are incompatible with democratic principles. This assertion posits liberal democracy as the universally accepted and the only legitimate form of democracy. Yet, the historical trajectory of liberal democracies also reveals exclusionary practices, wherein democratic rights were confined to acknowledged citizens, with limited rights extended to others. Examining the histories of Anglo-Saxon White Settler societies further underscores the exclusionary nature of liberal democracies, particularly in the systematic marginalization of indigenous populations and Asian diasporic communities from political participation until relatively recent decades. It becomes imperative, therefore, to unravel and disentangle the intertwined concepts of democracy and citizenship from their "Western" underpinnings.

This call for disentanglement is not a dismissal of democracy. Rather, it aims to shift the focus away from the unreflective association of democracy with liberal ideals. By disentangling liberalism from the broader democratic framework, we gain the capacity to identify and appreciate the potential of diverse conceptions of democracy and democratic practices in contributing to critical harmony/peace amidst diversity, widely acknowledged as a goal of global democracy and GCE. Practising critical harmony necessitates accepting that the contestation of views is not problematic but is a critical contribution to the goal of harmony. However, it is important to note that gaps between theory and practice exist. Like Tan and Vickers (2024), Sim and Chow (2019) similarly identified nepotistic tendencies deployed by some governments that identify with Confucian/Asian traditions, to maintain social order by emphasising conformity at the expense of nurturing rational and independent citizens.

Drawing on this, we suggest that of importance here, is not so much about the differences in the different manifestations of civic engagement, but how ‘harmony/peace is utilised to navigate diversity. Is harmony/peace utilised to subvert diversity of views to preserve peace, uniformity of views or overlook occurrences of injustices and inequities? Or is harmony/peace utilised to encourage deliberation of diversity of views, collaboration and inclusivity? (Barton & Ho, 2021). In the case of Singapore where there is explicit resistance towards liberal democracy, we posit that an examination of the purpose of harmony and peace within the framework of critical harmony can shed light on the potential of democracy in an illiberal democratic society like Singapore.

The Singapore context

Singapore's unexpected separation from Malaysia on August 9, 1965 thrust it into immediate independence and sovereignty. At that juncture, Singapore found itself highly vulnerable socially, politically, and economically due to its deeply divided and pluralistic society, comprising individuals of diverse ethnicities, religions, and languages. The fledgling nation grappled with challenges such as the communist insurgency, diminutive size, position amidst larger neighbours, and the absence of natural resources (Chia, 2015). Nevertheless, Singapore was resolute to thrive in diversity to evolve into a multi-racial nation fostering unity irrespective of race, language, religion, or culture.

The government's primary focus was survival, which evolved into a national ideology. A succession of crises (Chia, 2015; Mauzy & Milne, 2002; Sim & Print, 2005) were navigated through a paradoxical blend of the two factors that lead to Singapore's separation from Malaysia: equal treatment for all races to foster social cohesion and the pursuit of economic progress. Grounded in the national ideology of survival, Singapore's education system operates as both an “integrative mechanism” and an “engine of economic growth” (Gopinathan & Sharpe, 2004, p. 122).

A pivotal impetus for Singapore's economic and educational progress post-1965 lies in the government's perception of the nation’s vulnerability. Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew encapsulated this sentiment in a speech, asserting that “a consciousness of innate vulnerability has promoted a culture of competitiveness through which Singapore has excelled” (Lee, 1996, p. 14). The acknowledgment of vulnerability permeates public discourse, influencing Singapore's approach to both foreign and domestic affairs, with a deep-seated aversion to instability (Singh, 1992).

Contemporary Singapore is a simultaneously small postcolonial multicultural nation-state and cosmopolitan global city. Politically, although Singapore broadly identifies with democracy, evident in the national pledge that draws allegiance to “building a democratic society based on justice and equality”, and displaying all the formal features of a liberal democracy inherited from nearly 150 years of British colonial rule, Singapore has been widely associated as an “illiberal democracy” (Sim & Krishnasamy, 2016, p. 37), an “authoritarian state” (Tan, 2008), a civic republican (Sim & Print, 2009) and a communitarian democracy (Chua, 1995). Singapore political leaders identify Singapore as a ‘democracy’ with a framework of neo-Confucian ideology for socio-economic and political organisation’ (Gopinathan, 2007, p. 59). This ideology emphasises ‘good governance’ and traditional ‘Asian values’ such as filial piety and obedience to rulers, which are central tenets of communitarian democracy (Chua, 1995). This notion of communitarian democracy bears some semblance to the civic republican understanding of democratic citizenship. Andrew Peterson (2011) sums up the key principles of civic republicanism as,

First, that citizens possess and should recognize certain civic obligations; second, that citizens must develop an awareness of the common good, which exists over and above their private self-interests; third, that citizens must possess and act in accordance with civic virtue; and fourth, that civic engagement in democracy should incorporate a deliberative aspect.

(pp. 3-4)

While civic republicanism does not emphasize the role of the family, both civic republicanism and communitarianism stress obligations. Communitarianism extends this focus by emphasizing the collective and obedience to authority (Chua, 1995; Watson, 1999). Nonetheless, the emphasis on obligations and common good are also not disparate from the key tenets of liberal democracy and critical harmony/peace.

A lack of explicit reference to ‘democracy’ challenges the effectiveness of Singapore's citizenship education in preparing students for active ‘democratic’ participation. Several studies have revealed a lack of democratic understanding among students and the inadequacy of democratic citizenship education in schools (Chia, 2016; Neoh & Saifulloh, 2020; Sim & Krishnasamy 2016).

Sim and Chow (2019), however, found a diversity of attitudes and understandings of citizenship, and citizenship education among Singapore teachers. Singapore teachers regard the pursuit of harmonious relationships within families and communities as a core part of citizenship. Their conceptions of ‘harmony’ largely discouraged conformity and encouraged difference and opposition through their goals to support the development and negotiation of multiple perspectives. Yet, their practice of ‘harmony within contexts of diversity ranged from a progressive view that calls for “preserving opposing perspectives in a non-sanitised manner” to a conservative view to affirm the importance of preserving multiple perspectives “for the purpose of gearing [the students] towards the one MoE (The Ministry of Education, Singapore) is driving at”, in order to protect the preserved ‘fragility’ of the nation and potential for divide within the community (p. 473). While the former presents opportunities for democratic participation underpinned by critical harmony, the latter diminishes this prospective. The study is an example of the impact of the Singapore government’s prevalent attempt to depoliticize citizenship education to work towards a conservative society-oriented goal of maintaining social harmony and cohesion (Sim & Tham, 2023). This has resulted in a largely apolitical positioning of the citizenship concept and has influenced teacher perceptions and practices of citizenship education (Ho, 2017; Neoh, 2017; Sim & Chow, 2019).

While we seek to challenge the incompatibility of Singapore’s illiberal democracy with liberal democracy, we recognize the disparities between conceptual discussions and the actual practice citizenship education. Simultaneously, we recognize that the educational responsibility for citizenship learning is not and cannot be confined to schools and teachers but extends to society at large (Biesta, 2011). We look to some evidence suggesting that the broader contemporary Singapore context has started to de-stabilize this general trend of ‘uncritical harmony’. For example, in 2008, C. Tan has already found that the Singapore government’s pursuit of educational performativity to respond to the challenges of globalization has contributed to a ‘devolved environment’, whereby there “is indeed a strengthening of democracy as Singapore schools have a greater power than before in shaping the local education landscape” (p.115). However, she also noted that the primary motivator to decentralization in Singapore is not to promote democracy but is a pragmatic consideration to improve efficiency and effectiveness of governance to facilitate reform and meet economic challenges. Consequently, there “may not necessarily be greater democracy in the school itself” (p. 115). Similarly, in 2012, Kenneth Paul Tan observed Singaporean’s growing sense of dissent towards government policies such as those relating to migration and employment of foreign talents and workers, further revealing the emerging signs of de-stablization.

Held during the COVID-19 pandemic in July 2020, the 14th General Elections marked a turning point with leadership transitions in both the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) and the main opposition party, the Workers' Party (WP). While the PAP retained power, their share of the popular vote dropped by 8.7% to 61.24%. The WP not only retained their seats but gained four new seats, giving them a total of 10 seats in Parliament. Various reasons were put forward to explain the election outcome, including the WP’s effective social media campaign and the PAP's backfiring negative campaign tactics (Barr, 2020; George and Low, 2020, Ooi, 2020; Weiss, 2020; Welsh, 2020). The ‘youth peak’ in the voting population, particularly those aged 25-35 was highlighted (Chan, 2020). This demographic likely played a crucial role in the WP's victory in Sengkang, where a majority of residents are under 40. Young voters are moving beyond ‘bread and butter’ issues, seeking a "more inclusive and diverse political system" (George & Low, 2020).

While we do not have enough evidence in this paper to draw a direct correlation between the changing Singapore contexts and the surge in active political participation among young politicians and citizens, we suggest that this provides a key impetus to re-examine the Singapore curriculum to identify the latent potential that supports greater democratic participation. Instead of focusing on the lack of democratic citizenship education, this paper seeks to uncover the implicit and embedded democratic notions in the Singapore curriculum. By doing so, we aim to unveil the hidden and concealed democratic citizenship curriculum of the past two decades, enriching and broadening our understanding of democratic citizenship education in the Thinking School Learning Nation (TSLN) vision and 21CC.

What we have established in this section, is the recognition that while Singapore identifies as democratic country, democratic citizenship, as related to liberal democratic traditions, is resisted by the Singapore government, and is deemed to threaten societal and political stability and impede economic progress. As a result, the overall social and political climate is predominately one that values ‘harmony’ over ‘criticality’. Referencing the notion of critical harmony, Singapore can be likened to valuing ‘uncritical harmony’. On the other hand, we highlighted how as a strategic response to the challenges of globalization, the Singapore government started adopting neo-liberal policies, including greater de-centralisation of educational administration, and a sharp focus on developing creative and critical thinking skills, albeit for the purpose of advancing economic progress. While the aim was not to champion democracy, we explained how these processes have inevitably provided more opportunities for individuals to engage in decision-making processes, aligning with democratic processes.

Thinking schools learning nation (TSLN) and national education (NE) (1997 – present): uncovering democratic citizenship?

By the 1990s, the Singapore government has firmly acknowledged the transformative impact of globalization on the global economy and the paradigm shift towards a knowledge-driven landscape that venerates innovation and creativity. In a strategic response, the government orchestrated comprehensive modifications to both the economic framework and the educational system to bolster the nation’s competitive edge. Major educational reforms were initiated, underscoring a commitment to foster the development of problem-solving skills, encourage innovation, and nurture creative aptitude. These reforms were materialized through three pivotal policy initiatives in 1997: the visionary Thinking Schools Learning Nation (TSLN), the Masterplan for Information Technology in Education, and National Education (NE). An economic motivation is evident, explicitly underscoring Singapore's dedication to align her educational landscape with the demands of a dynamic, knowledge-centric global economy.

Among the three policy initiatives, TSLN became the anchor vision that guided Singapore's education for the next two decades. It aimed to create a culture of critical and creative thinking in schools through changes in curricula, examination systems, and teacher education programs (Goh, 1997; Tan, 1998). Central to the TSLN vision is the aim to support Singaporeans to think critically and independently, continually seek innovative solutions, and embrace a lifelong learning mindset (Lee, 1997). While TSLN aims to cultivate creative and critical thinking, NE is conceived as a comprehensive citizenship education framework, a de facto citizenship education program and a cornerstone of nation-building efforts for Singapore education. It transcends curricular subjects. NE is subsumed under the purview of TSLN. The then Prime Minister assured that the Ministry of Education would "strengthen National Education, through formal lessons and experiences outside the classrooms to draw stronger connections between the students and their desire to contribute to something larger than themselves" (Goh, 1997). This aligns NE with the civic republican idea of the consideration of the common good (Peterson, 2011), and shifts the focus beyond oneself to the broader society (Barton & Ho, 2021).

While then Deputy Prime Minister Mr. Lee Hsien Loong did not explicitly mention civic engagement in his speech at the launch of NE is May 1997, there was a subtle hint at the potential of opportunities to develop greater civic engagement:

I am not proposing that students should form mini-political parties in schools, or demonstrate on the streets... But students and their teachers must be alive to events around them, so that when they later become adults and exercise their duty as citizens to decide the future of the country, they will decide wisely.

(Lee, 1997)

The place of ‘criticality’, in the notion of critical harmony, was not explicit within the NE framework. Instead, NE's objective focused on the ‘harmony’ aspect, explicitly articulated as fostering “national cohesion, the instinct for survival and confidence in the future" to safeguard Singapore's continued success and well-being (Lee, 1997). This was to be achieved by cultivating a strong sense of Singaporean identity, promoting an understanding of Singapore's recent history, and raising awareness about Singapore's major challenges and vulnerabilities, aligning with the ‘survival’ national ideology. NE was undoubtedly a "citizenship education initiative [by the state] aimed at socializing the young into a set of desired attitudes and values" (Tan, 1998, p. 29), including patriotism, loyalty, and a strong commitment to national defense. Values commonly associated with liberal democratic citizenship education, such as social justice and democratic civic engagement, were noticeably absent in NE (Chia, 2015). Although civic engagement was included in NE through the Community Involvement Program (CIP), it was limited to volunteerism, and political engagement was circumscribed. Nonetheless, CIP goes beyond the ‘personally responsible’ vision of citizens to that of ‘participatory’ citizens (Westheimer 2015), encouraging participation in the society.

As we will discuss later, NE’s goal to instil core values continued into the 21st century framework (21CC) and the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) that were introduced in 2015. Six core values (respect, resilience, responsibility, integrity, care and harmony) were identified as the foundation of the curriculum. Like NE, there was minimal explanation about how the set of values were prioritised among the suite of other common social values, and lacks articulation of the philosophical basis of the programme (Sim & Tham, 2023). There is also a tendency for the Singapore government to demarcate roles among subjects, which inevitably impacted coherence across policy initiatives, subjects and pedagogical approaches, as seen through TSLN, NE, CCE and Social studies (Neoh, 2017; Sim & Tham, 2023).

In trying to identify the latent potential for democratic education, we first agree with the existing academic scholarship on the apparent lack of explicit democratic citizenship education in the Singapore NE programme and curriculum (Chia, 2015; Sim & Krishnasamy, 2016), stemming from the lack of explicit commitment to clear philosophical bases and/or democratic values (Neoh, 2021; Sim & Tham, 2023). However, we bring attention to the repeated attention to notion of the ‘common good’ and the need to be responsive to what happens in the broader society in TSLN and NE. We suggest that the focus on the common good is a starting point, with the potential to further develop and encourage criticality through greater levels of civic and political engagement that works towards the vision of critical harmony.

Civics and moral education and social studies from 1999 to c. 2010s

CME and Social studies were two subjects that were identified to be most directly related to citizenship development in Singapore education. NE is embedded in the aims of the various revised versions of Civics and Moral Education (CME) and Social Studies syllabuses that were implemented in the few years following its launch.

The key knowledge objectives of the revised Secondary CME syllabus suggest civic republican notions of democracy and citizenship, with the skills objectives drawing reference to “demonstrate[ing] actions that reflect active and responsible citizenry, for example, participation in the Community Involvement Programme” (CPDD, 2000, p. 4). In the attitudinal objectives of the revised primary CME syllabus (1999), students were exhorted to:

  • have respect for people from different racial groups and their cultures

  • show civic consciousness and an awareness of their behaviours as responsible citizens

  • demonstrate a willingness to serve the community and society

  • show a sense of belonging to and love for Singapore as their homeland

(CPDD, 1999)

In Social Studies, we draw on Han’s (2007) detailed analysis of the social studies syllabuses during the period around 2000, while she found clear intentions to reinforce the NE messages, there was elements of electoral democracy at the upper primary levels. This is similar to educational practices in liberal democracies, such as Australia. However, she asserted that “a rather passive conception of citizenship” was the likely outcome, given a generally uncritical approach taken in the syllabus, presenting content such as the electoral practice of voting for a particular group of candidates, which is peculiar to Singapore, as the “accepted and unquestioned norm” (p. 390). The impact was, in consensus with other scholars’ work on citizenship education in Singapore, was that “children [were] being socialized into accepting a view…regarded by the political leaders as being necessary for the country’s survival…..as well as a rather passive conception of citizenship” (p. 390).

While the aims of the Social Studies curriculum, like CME, reflected Singapore’s priority on nation building and state formation, democratic potential, particularly from the civic republican tradition, can be inferred. Specifically, “civic consciousness”, “responsible citizens” and “service to the community and society” align with the ‘civic obligations’, ‘awareness of the common good’ and ‘civic virtues’ of civic republicanism (Peterson, 2011). However, what is missing again, is the lack of explicit reference to the ‘critical’ element of critical harmony (Barton & Ho, 2021) and deliberation in civic engagement (Peterson, 2011). Yet, it can also reflect the potential to foreground critical harmony, with the attention to the common good of the community and society as starting points. Here, we highlight the emphasis on ‘critical thinking’ as a key goal in the Social Studies syllabus and suggests that it presents an opportunity to support student democratic participation, which we will discuss in greater detail below.

Upper Secondary Social Studies was introduced as a mandatory and examinable subject in all secondary schools in 2001. Social Studies is a compulsory component of the new Combined Humanities subject, comprising “a compulsory Social Studies component and an elective component of Geography, History or Literature” (UCLES, 2001, p. 15). Although democracy was not explicitly mentioned in the aims of Combined Humanities and Upper Secondary Social Studies, critical thinking and independent inquiry which are competencies crucial to democracy, were key objectives in Social Studies. The Upper Secondary Social Studies also emphasizes empathy and responsible participation in its aims, which align to a civic republican notion of democratic citizenship.

With the clear emphasis on developing critical thinking as part of the TSLN vision, the introduction of the combined humanities syllabus (and history) witnessed a fundamental change in the assessment format. A common assessment framework was devised for teaching History from secondary one to four, as well as Upper Secondary Social Studies and History, with the three major objectives – “knowledge”, “constructive explanations”, and “interpreting and evaluating source material”. While the first and second of the three aims were not new, the third objective of “interpreting and evaluating source material” was a major change to the assessment. Students were required to:

  • Comprehend and extract relevant information

  • Draw inferences

  • Analyse and evaluate evidence

  • Compare and contrast different views

  • Distinguish between fact, opinion and judgement

  • Recognise values and detect bias

  • Draw conclusions based on a reasoned consideration of evidence and arguments

(CPDD, 2000, UCLES 2000)

This change in the assessment format was most evidently manifested in the introduction of a new “Levels of Response Marking System” (LORMS), which was a radical departure from the conventional marking scheme which awarded marks based on correct responses. It was intended for marking questions with conceptual and skills focus. The marking scheme for each question consists of several levels of conceptual understanding or skill. These levels were used to examine candidates’ responses, and were assessed in a hierarchy.

The MOE claimed that LORMS would enable teachers to better evaluate students on “open ended questions”, as it purportedly assesses “what students can understand and do as well as what they know” (CPDD, 2000, p. 2). This arguably allowed for a greater democratization of assessment from the previous marking scheme which did not allow for diversity of responses. It was clear that the rationale behind the introduction of LORMS was to inculcate critical thinking skills – a key tenet of TSLN, which opens democratic spaces and potentialities.

In examining the potential of TSLN and NE in opening democratic spaces and potential, we also acknowledge the challenges associated with both implementing and teaching critical thinking in schools. In light of Aaron Koh's critique (2002) that the execution of critical thinking can become overly formulaic, it is essential to acknowledge that its inclusion signifies a departure from traditional didactic forms of pedagogy. Despite ongoing debates about its effectiveness and efficacy, the potential and promise of critical thinking in laying the foundations, and creating avenues for democratic discourse and learning should also be acknowledged.

The 21st century competencies framework (21CC) (2011-present): greater democratic spaces?

Like the motivation of TSLN and NE, Singapore’s latest education reform is guided by the introduction of the 21st century competencies (21CC) framework in 2015. This has been instigated by both internal and external transformations. Internally, Singapore continues to undergo shifts in population composition due to immigration and changing demographics. Externally, there is continued recognition of the need to respond to evolving social, political, and economic contexts driven by globalization and technological advancements. There is mounting pressure to foster a stronger sense of national identity as a response to increasing diversity. Education continues to be pivotal in preparing students for the challenges of the 21st century, acknowledging that globalization and immigration present new challenges and demand education to be responsive to these evolving needs (SDCD, 2014). Consequently, education continues to serve the dual purposes of economic competitiveness and social cohesion. The Singapore government continues to make concerted efforts to engage the broader community to foster a sense of social cohesion.

This section discusses the potential for greater democratic spaces through the introduction of the 21CC framework. While there is continued avoidance to explicitly relate Singapore education with democratic education and education for democracy, the competencies that closely align with key tenets of global citizenship education (GCE) for democracy are embedded within the 21CC framework and subjects like Social Studies. We suggest that this represents a significant, albeit implicit, effort towards a form of GCE for democracy that is undergirded by notions of critical harmony and critical pedagogy.

As a framework to guide the development and implementation of holistic education through the Singapore’s national curriculum, the 21CC framework identified four student outcomes: Confident person, self-directed learner, concerned citizen and active contributor. Three key areas, represented by concentric rings, are identified to contribute to their development.

At the centre is a set of six core values identified as fundamental to 21CC framework, as values are identified as the “core of one’s character” as they shape one’s beliefs, attitudes and actions, and are acknowledged as the foundation of Singapore’s shared societal and national values (MOE Singapore, 2020a). The values are respect, responsibility, resilience, integrity, care and harmony.

The second ring encompasses social-emotional competencies, identified as “necessary for children to develop healthy identities, recognize and manage their emotions, develop a sense of responsibility, care and concern for others, relate to others and develop positive relationships, handle challenges, make responsible decisions, and act for the good of self, others and society” (MOE Singapore, 2020a). The Social-Emotional Competencies include self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision-making, social awareness and relationship management.

The third ring includes emerging 21st century competencies that build on the core values to develop sound character foundation. It aims to “enable students to thrive in and beyond school while living, learning and working in rapidly changing, highly digitalized, and interconnected environments” (MOE Singapore, 2020a). They include critical, adaptive and inventive thinking, communication, collaboration and information skills, and civic, global and cross-cultural literacy.

In 2023, the 21CC framework was enhanced to "keep pace with an era marked by rapid advancements in technology and global developments” (MOE Singapore, 2023). Greater emphasis is placed on the third ring: emerging 21st century competencies, particularly adaptive and inventive thinking, communication, and civic literacy. The commitment to developing civic literacy with connections to adaptive and inventive thinking and communication shows a degree of alignment with tenets of critical harmony, particularly to support potential deliberation in view of diversity of of views, collaboration and inclusivity (Barton & Ho, 2021). Interestingly, within the full set of competencies presented in the third ring, critical thinking, global and cross-cultural literacy were not explicitly mentioned in the announcement of the enhancement of the 21CC framework. We make the speculation of whether it can be attributed to a matter of semantics, where key tenets of each of the three 21st century competencies were identified to represent the full set, or whether it is intended to downplay notions of ‘criticality’ and ‘global’ to downplay possibility of ‘dissent’ and focus on the ‘national’.

In Singapore, commonalities is commonly emphasized amid diversity by emphasizing the significance of the shared core values to foster social responsibility among citizens. (MOE Singapore, 2012). The Minister of Education underscored the necessity for a sense of shared values and respect among citizens to foster an appreciation and celebration of Singapore,s diversity. This, he emphasized, is crucial for maintaining cohesiveness and harmony (MOE Singapore, 2012). Furthermore, he articulated the importance of instilling citizenship values, envisioning individuals who are ready to step forward and, if necessary, risk their lives for the nation. Building strong common values and fostering emotional attachment to Singapore, he asserted, would enable citizens to collectively thrive as one people, one nation.

With the introduction of the enhanced framework, there are no explicit changes made to the emphasis on commonalities amidst diversity. However, the explicit commitment to pedagogical strategies such as inquiry, dialogue, connections with life outside school, and the strengthening of partnerships to enhance collaboration within the enhanced 21CC framework closely aligns with academic discussions on the role of education for democracy, such as that of critical harmony (Barton & Ho, 2021) and critical pedagogy (Giroux & Bosio, 2021). For example, it can support the development of active and informed democratic participation in societal issues, through notions of active participation through communication, dialogue, critical decision-making, achieved through the cultivation of critical and inventive thinking skills. From this perspective, while the concept of ‘democracy’ is not explicitly mentioned in the Singapore education policy and curriculum documents, the values and competencies aspired by the 21CC framework offer the potential to empower young Singaporeans to actively engage in democratic participation.

Similarly, the social studies curriculum from 2012 continues to support the development of the key tenets of GCE for democracy, with the purpose of the subject stated as:

This subject helps students to grow in knowledge, develop skills and learn values through examining issues that are of concern to our society and the world in which we live

(MOE Singapore, 2020b, p. 5)

The purpose is undergirded by the aim to prepare students to be “effective citizens” who can “understand the interconnectedness of Singapore and the world they live in, and appreciate the complexities of the human experience” (p. 5).

The subject Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) is positioned to be responsible for developing “citizenship dispositions” that encompasses the core values (centre of the 21Cc framework) and social-emotional well-being (second ring of the 21CC framework) (MOE Singapore, 2012; 2021, p. 4). The lack of connection and coherence with the role of Social Studies has been raised and discussed to be problematic in supporting a more holistic approach to GCE, particularly for democracy (Neoh, 2017). This is largely because by compartmentalizing different subjects for different purposes (e.g. CCE for development of values and social-emotional competencies and Social Studies for examination of social issues), it can limit the opportunities for students to go as far as to deliberate on the applicability of the shared core values on their purpose of supporting inclusivity amidst diversity, which a central tenet of contemporary global citizenship and GCE.

However, with the heightened involvement in public deliberation and action was especially prominent within the youth demographic in the period leading up to Singapore’s 14th Parliamentary general election in May 2020, it is possible to suggest that the efforts put into the development of critical thinking skills and competencies for deliberation through subjects like Social Studies and very possibly, in other learning areas in individual school curricula as guided by the 21CC framework, has potentially planted to seeds of GCE for democracy through the complement of ‘critical’ and ‘harmony’. At the same time, we also acknowledge that other factors may be at play, such as the exposure to democratic ideas through young people’s consumption of global media outside the classroom.

Conclusion

This article has challenged the prevailing discourse on democratic citizenship education in Singapore by moving beyond the conventional critique of explicit democratic deficits. Rather than focusing solely on the democratic shortcomings, we have illuminated the latent potential for democratic engagement within broader educational initiatives such as “Thinking School, Learning Nation” and the 21st-century competencies framework. Despite their ostensibly neo-liberal economic focus, these initiatives inadvertently foster critical thinking skills, thereby nurturing an affective disposition toward civic participation.

Nevertheless, the success of this engagement is contingent not only on skill acquisition but also on the cultivation of a genuine desire to participate. Exploring the affective dimension, encompassing values and motivations, becomes imperative. Addressing questions about the factors influencing citizens' use of critical thinking skills for public engagement within the context of an illiberal democracy and understanding how evolving social and political landscapes shape this dynamic are crucial.

These inquiries bear significant implications for the future of democratic citizenship education, not only in Singapore but globally. By unraveling the intricate interplay between skill development, affective factors, and contextual influences, we move beyond simplistic binaries, paving the way for strategies to cultivate engaged and critical citizens within diverse and evolving political realities.

The Singapore case, defying easy categorization, offers a nuanced perspective on the intricate relationship between communitarian illiberal democracy and citizen participation. Through an exploration of its distinctive educational landscape, this paper contributes to broader discussions about the relevance and potential of democracy in illiberal contexts. By emphasizing the multifaceted nature of democratic citizenship education, encompassing competencies, values, motivations, and contextual dynamics, our analysis enriches our understanding and opens avenues for further research and development in the field.