In today’s Straits Times, January 25, in its headline report, “Social Studies to get a boost in schools”, is a clear evidence that the political education of students will be given added impetus. It is said to be consistent with the 2007 report of the Committee on National Education. A Ministry of Education (MOE) spokesman is reported to have said that the aim of social studies is to mould students into “well-informed, thinking and concerned citizens.”

In the same edition of the same newspaper, there is also full copy of the text of Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo’s Fullerton-SJI Leadership lecture.

It is strange that despite it being clear for most “well-informed, thinking and concerned citizens” that political education is already taught in schools, the government in Singapore is trying to pretend that there is still a debate as to whether political education should be “introduced” to schools. Is this an attempt to pull wool over the public’s eyes?

An anonymous (they usually are when they don’t know whether they will get their heads bitten off or otherwise) school principal who was privy to the discussions about this new development was quoted as saying that students would be taught why group representation constituencies were introduced. For those, not in the know about Singapore politics, this policy has been the subject of intense criticism from the opposition. So make a guess whose view will be given a lot of airing in this new syllabus? Will it be objective or “objective according to a certain view”? The fact that the word “mould” is used is scary as implies “clones”.

The MOE should take a leaf from what Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo said in his recent Fullerton-SJI Leadership lecture. Yeo said:

“The fact is hierarchies are breaking down, dissolving into messy networks and this affects everything. It affects the relationships of teachers with students, of parents and children, employers and employees, ministers and ordinary citizens. With the revolution in information technology, everyone has choices they never had before.

You ask a kid anything now, you give him a textbook, he will Google, he will check, he will find alternative views and teachers are often put on the defensive. Well you can try and shout down the student, say “Shush, quiet,” but can you win the respect of the students? Or is it not wiser to say, “Look, what does Google say? What does Wiki say?…let’s have a discussion.”

He also said:

“In this day and age, clone armies are weak armies. Mindless supporters are worthless.”

Compare this last statement from George Yeo with MOE‘s attempt to “mould” students!

I am actually amazed by what George Yeo has said in the light of the current debate over the need to teach “political education” in Singapore schools.

Is the MOE’s new initiative an outdated reflection of the thinking in the MOE. The recommendations of the Committee on National Education was in 2007. At least two years have passed by and the intent to teach more political education seems to run counter to what MOE George Yeo wants to do. George Yeo seems to suggest an openness while knowing MOE there will be a textbook with an official view of things. They seem to run counter to each other. The bureaucrats in MOE should take stock of George Yeo’s speech before they proceed further on their new social studies syllabus.

I am also amazed at George Yeo’s speech as it seems to run counter to what the Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, who was pushing for “introducing” political education. Are there two camps in the People’s Action Party’s (PAP), the governing party in Singapore, leadership now? Though George Yeo did not rule out teaching politics but I suspect what he has in mind about teaching people will be very different from what the Law Minister meant, and what MOE will do.

Reading Foreign Minister George Yeo’s speech, I cannot help but feel that he makes a lot more sense than the people in MOE especially. The bureaucrats in MOE tend to try to satisfy the whims of their immediate masters. My fear is that the new social studies syllabus is going to reflect more the perceived need of these bureaucrats to appease their political masters and they usually become ultra-conservative in doing so.

Recently there was a suggestion from the political leaders to introduce political education to Singapore schools. Law Minister K. Shanmugam proposed that schools teach comparative political systems in the hope improving the Government’s effectiveness in reaching out to younger Singaporeans. The goal is that Singaporeans be better informed about their political choices.

I will not discuss what others have already pointed out or alluded to by others like the issue of “objectiveness” in such an undertaking (see for example here and here). Nor will I discuss whether it is a new thing to introduce political education in schools in Singapore. It has been done for years. I will instead suggest an alternative to political education in schools.

What is most needed for citizens of Singapore to be “better informed about their political choices” is to teach them to think. Yes, I know we have the grand “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TSLN) slogan dished out by the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore which runs most of the schools in Singapore. Yes, I know the MOE has also rolled out thinking skills programs in the past and invited thinking skills gurus from all over. But ask any parent or student or teacher in Singapore, and they will tell you teaching thinking skills is not at the forefront of education in Singapore despite all all the hype and international conferences on thinking organized by MOE. It is still Trivial Pursuit-style written examinations that is central to the education system currently.

I am calling for a renewed effort to teach thinking seriously in schools. I am calling for the thinking agenda to be at the forefront of all educational endeavor in Singapore schools. I am calling for the teaching of thinking to be done not just because there are “thinking skills questions” in the high-stakes examination papers. I am calling for a change in the assessment of learning in Singapore schools to reflect this emphasis on thinking.

You can only get people who can make informed choices only when you have produced students who can think and reason. It is only when students are seriously taught to be inculcated with good habits of mind that they will become good decision makers. It is when they can display curiosity, and an investigative mind.  It is when they can do systems analysis. It is when students can check assumptions, do deductive and inductive reasoning, classify, compare, analyze for errors and analyze for multiple perspectives that they can be making good decisions about their lives, including decisions about politics.

This are the skills that Singapore students need to be able to do well. These are the skills that will help them not only make better informed political decisions but also in other spheres of their lives. Teaching political education is a only a half-baked solution and invites cynicism about its very existence.