Docs 5

This article was downloaded by: [National Institute of Education]
On: 01 November 2012, At: 23:37

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Curriculum Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcus20
Sorting citizens: Differentiated

citizenship education in Singapore
a
LI-CHING HO
a
Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic Group,
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,
1, Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616
Version of record first published: 21 May 2012.
To cite this article: LI-CHING HO (2012): Sorting citizens: Differentiated citizenship education in
Singapore, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44:3, 403-428
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.675359
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
J. CURRICULUM STUDIES, 2012, VOL. 44, NO. 3, 403–428
Sorting citizens: Differentiated citizenship education

in Singapore
LI-CHING HO
Using Singapore as a case study, this paper examines how the discourses of democratic
elitism and meritocracy help allocate different citizen roles to students and define the nat-
ure of the social studies citizenship education programmes for different educational
Downloaded by [National Institute of Education] at 23:37 01 November 2012
tracks. While the Singapore education system is not unique in its stratification of students
into distinct educational tracks with diverse educational outcomes, it is one of the very
few countries with explicitly differentiated formal national citizenship curricula for stu-
dents from different educational tracks. Students are formally allocated different citizen-
ship roles and responsibilities according to the hierarchy defined by the state. Three
distinct roles can be identified: (1) elite cosmopolitan leaders; (2) globally-oriented but
locally-rooted mid-level executives and workers; and (3) local ‘heartlander’ followers. To
cater to these different citizen roles, the three programmes encompass significantly differ-
ent curricular goals, content, modes of assessment, civic skills, and values. The findings
indicate that only the elite students have access to citizenship education that promotes
democratic enlightenment and political engagement. The social studies curriculum for
students in the vocational track, in contrast, focuses almost exclusively on imparting a
pre-determined body of knowledge and set of values deemed necessary for academically
low-achieving students.
Keywords: citizenship education; achievement gap; access to education;

democratic education
Introduction
One of the primary goals of education is the promotion of equality and

democratic values (Kamens 1988). This is because education is seen as a
necessary pre-condition for the survival of democratic society (Kahne and
Middaugh 2008b) and civil freedom (Marshall 1998). Schools are places
where ‘people from numerous private worlds and social positions come
together in face-to-face contact around matters that are central to the
problems of actually living together on common ground’ (Parker 2003:
160). Therefore, education matters because schools provide young citi-
zens with one of their first sustained experiences of participation in the
public area (Parker 2003).
Despite disagreements about the nature of citizenship, the extent of
citizenship participation, and the necessary conditions for citizenship par-
ticipation (Sears and Hughes 2005), few have questioned the assumption
that all young citizens should have equal access to the values, knowledge,
Li-Ching Ho is an assistant professor of social studies education in the Humanities and

Social Studies Education Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616; e-mail: liching.ho@nie.
edu.sg. Her interests centre on democratic and multicultural citizenship education.
Journal of Curriculum Studies ISSN 0022-0272 print/ISSN 1366-5839 online Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandfonline.com
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.675359
404 L.-C. HO
and skills necessary for being citizens. Numerous studies in countries

such as Israel and the US, however, have highlighted disparities in the
enacted citizenship education curriculum for students from different
backgrounds (Levinson 2007, Rubin 2007, Torney-Purta et al. 2007,
Kahne and Middaugh 2008a), and many experience differing levels of
access to civic learning opportunities (Niemi and Smith 2001, Ichilov
2002, Hahn 2003).
Studies have shown that a citizen’s political knowledge and participa-
tion is closely linked to the level of educational attainment (Niemi and
Junn 1998, Galston 2001). It is important, therefore, to consider how the
citizenship education curriculum is chartered for different groups of stu-
dents. This is because the socialization and allocative effects of education
help transform social roles and define the meaning of citizenship for
young students (Meyer 1977) by providing students with cultural capital,
legitimizing and assigning different roles in society, and controlling access
to knowledge and skills (Bowles and Gintis 1976, Apple 2004). The mod-
ern educational system, therefore, is instrumental in creating, defining,
and allocating new roles and statuses for both elites and ‘ordinary’ mem-
bers of societies (Meyer 1977, Ichilov 2002).
In this paper, I explore the nature of the curriculum content of social
studies, a required interdisciplinary subject focusing on citizenship educa-
tion, offered by all Singapore schools. While the Singapore education sys-
tem is not unique in its stratification of students into distinct educational
tracks with diverse educational outcomes, it is one of the very few coun-
tries with explicitly differentiated formal national citizenship curricula for
students from different educational tracks. The social studies curricula for
students in the three main tracks––the elite Integrated Programme (IP),
the mainstream Express and Normal Academic tracks (E/NA), and the
vocational Normal Technical (NT) track––differ significantly in terms of
their curricular goals, content, skills, and values.
The formal curriculum is particularly important in the Singapore con-
text, because of the highly centralized and standardized educational sys-
tem. Apple and Christian-Smith (1991) argue that curricula materials and
textbooks not only signify how reality is constructed but also contribute
to the creation of what ‘society has recognized as legitimate and truthful’
(p. 4). With rare exceptions, all Singapore students attend state schools
and all the schools are subject to the Ministry of Education’s (MOE)
guidelines and rules. The MOE maintains control through the production
of school textbooks and curriculum materials, development of the curricu-
lum, administration of national examinations, teacher employment, and
school funding. Curricular MOE officials remain the primary arbiters in
the determination of the value of curriculum content, knowledge, and
skills. Selected teachers and academics may be invited to provide input in
the curriculum development process, but the public and the teaching
profession as a whole have very little influence.
Despite largely representing the preferences of a small elite group,
these official curricular documents, nevertheless, help legitimize particular
conceptions of society and socialize young citizens into accepting
these positions through the provision of skills, knowledge, and civic
DIFFERENTIATED CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE 405
competencies. This has important implications for teaching because ‘the

school subject enters schools and classrooms as the result of selection,
organization, and transformation of content for social, cultural, educa-
tional, curricular, and pedagogical purposes’ (Deng 2009: 16). Studies
conducted in Singapore schools suggest that Singapore students’ under-
standings of their citizen roles and responsibilities closely parallel the dif-
ferent goals of the social studies curriculum for the educational track that
they are assigned to (Ho 2010, Ho et al. 2011a). The study conducted by
Ho et al. (2011b), for instance, suggested that there were sharp disparities
in how students from different tracks conceptualized citizenship and
democracy. The authors also noted corresponding gaps in the students’
levels of civic knowledge and civic efficacy.
Using Singapore as a case study, I examine how the discourses of

democratic elitism and meritocracy help allocate different citizen roles to
students and define the nature of the citizenship education programme
for different educational tracks. Focusing primarily on the subject, social
studies, I then situate the development of citizenship education within the
social, political, and historical context of Singapore. Next I delineate the
scope of the study, conduct a comparative analysis of the social studies
curricula used for students from different tracks, and, finally, address the
significance and implications of differentiated citizenship education for
students.
Theoretical framework: Democratic elitism and

meritocracy
This paper is framed by two discourses that dominate public policy-mak-

ing and education in Singapore––democratic elitism and meritocracy. In
general, democratic political systems are premised on the principle of
political equality, equal rights of political participation, and the assump-
tion of intrinsic moral equality (Young 1989, Kymlicka and Norman
1994, Dahl 2000). Scholars, including Gutmann (1999) and Young
(2002), contend that it is important for all citizens to be accorded full
political equality. This should, according to them, go beyond voting and
formally equal participation rights, and incorporate modes of communica-
tion and systems of representation. In reality, however, ‘political
resources, knowledge, skills, and incentives are always and everywhere
distributed unequally’ (Dahl 2006: 51). This unequal distribution of polit-
ical knowledge, skills, and political resources such as money, information,
time, and social standing may affect the citizens’ ability to advance their
interests and goals. This is further exacerbated by other factors such as
the size of the political unit and the unequal amount of time available for
different citizens to influence political decisions.
Adherents of democratic elite theory suggest that policy decisions are
largely made by a small group of elite who allocate values for society.
Even democratic regimes, according to Dahl (1966: 297), will ‘inevitably
have leaders––that is to say, men of more authority and very likely more
power and influence than ordinary citizens’. Similarly, in Barber’s (2003)
406 L.-C. HO
conception of an ‘authoritative democracy’, citizens defer to the powerful

centralized elite who govern in order to maintain security and order. The
governing elite, however, are periodically accountable to the masses
through popular elections. Dye et al. (2012: 1–2) provide a succinct sum-
mary of the democratic elitist position:
Democracy is government by the people but the responsibility for the sur-
vival of democracy rests on the shoulders of elite. This is the irony of
democracy: Elites must govern wisely if government ‘by the people’ is to
survive. If the survival of the US system depended upon an active,
informed, and enlightened citizenry, then democracy in the United States
would have disappeared long ago, for the many are apathetic and ill-
informed about politics and public policy, and they exhibit a surprisingly
weak commitment to democratic values … Fortunately for these values and
for US democracy, the American masses do not lead, they follow. They
respond to the attitudes, proposals, and behaviour of elites.
To ensure the effectiveness and stability of the governing elite, citizen par-
ticipation needs to be constrained and popular choice limited to groups of
competing elites (Nagle 1992). This is because popular participation is
perceived to be dangerous as the average citizen has a limited understand-
ing of public issues, is less politically involved, is less proactive, and more
ambivalent about democratic values (Nagle 1992, Stewart et al. 2008). In
contrast, elites are more politically active and involved, and, as a result,
are more exposed to, and have a better understanding of, civil liberties and
democratic values. This results in a greater commitment to key democratic
values including the freedoms of press, assembly, speech, and religion
(McClosky and Brill 1983, Nagle 1992). Others, however, challenge this
elitist understanding of democracy and assert that elites are not necessarily
more reliable guardians of democratic freedoms (Sniderman et al. 1991).
Using Canada as an example, these scholars showed that elites from differ-
ent political parties demonstrated varying attitudes towards civil liberties,
thus undermining the consensus claim in elite theory.
Elitism, meritocracy, and education
Education has a central role in the division and categorization of citizens

into elites and the masses. Scholars such as Bourdieu (1996), Bowles and
Gintis (1976), and Meyer (1977), for instance, suggest that schools and
curriculum define, construct, allocate, and legitimize different roles and
status groups in society. This is because schools control access to skills,
knowledge, and cultural capital, and thus have the capacity to transform
social roles. Education, according to Meyer (1977: 66), ‘validates both
elites and citizens’. Case studies of elite schools in countries such as Ire-
land and Israel, for instance, clearly illustrate the impact of this division
and segregation on young citizens (Ichilov 2002, Kennedy and Power
2008). This is because schools have the potential to shape students’ social
and economic opportunities and outlook (Cornbleth 2002) by explicitly
or implicitly endorsing and instilling societal expectations, rules, and
norms.
In order to validate the differentiated provision of education to stu-

dents, the governing elite of states such as Singapore have frequently cited
their belief in the principle of meritocracy and its corresponding values of
efficiency and justice. Advocates of this principle argue that those with
the greatest natural talent and motivation should be provided with more
educational resources. States, furthermore, frequently justify the use of
the principle of meritocracy based on the belief that merit-based selection
is non-discriminatory and allows for equality of access and opportunity.
This system also results in greater efficiency as it not only ensures that
the best people are selected but also enhances competition and motivation
(Tan 2008).
Critics of these policies, however, contend that these policies create a
hierarchical class system in schools that reinforces existing class and social
divisions within society (Walzer 1983). This could, in part, be due to the
fact that merit criteria and evaluation frequently include normative values
and cultural assumptions (Walzer 1983, Young 2002). The rules and pol-
icies of any institution, according to Young (2002: 211), ‘serve particular
ends, embody particular values and meanings, and have identifiable con-
sequences for the actions and situations of the persons within or related
to those institutions’. These problems are further exacerbated by the
effect of non-merit factors such as cultural capital, patterns of social and
economic organization, and other social advantages (McNamee and
Miller 2004).
Context: Elite democracy in Singapore
Formerly a British colony, Singapore’s political scene has been dominated

by one political party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), since its indepen-
dence in 1965. Singapore practices the Westminster style of government
with the Prime Minister as the head of the executive branch. The PAP
has been characterized as an ‘elite party’ with the most important deci-
sion-making powers resting in the hands of 1000 cadre members (Singh
2007). While the Cabinet has a central role in the political decision-mak-
ing process, the Prime Minister ‘performs the greatest single role in policy
adoption in the Singapore system’ (Ho 2000: 35).
Despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly,
civic and political participation is severely circumscribed by the hierarchi-
cal and elitist political system. Adopting a narrative of national vulnerabil-
ity, the ruling elite constantly reiterate the need for social cohesion,
harmony, and stability in order to ensure Singapore’s survival. The gov-
erning elite control the mainstream media, define the acceptable bound-
aries of political discourse, commonly known as ‘out-of-bounds markers’,
and play a critical role in defining and shaping the social compact
premised on shared prosperity and soft paternalism (Tan 2010).
In Singapore, political power is concentrated within a small, clearly
defined elite group consisting mostly of members of the ruling party, the
judiciary, military, civil service, leaders of large business organizations,
and academic institutions (Ho 2000). Frequent statements made by
408 L.-C. HO
political leaders about the ‘best people’ serving in the government rein-
force the perspective that the governing elite consist of the nation-state’s
most talented people and who are, therefore, deserving of power, rewards,
and respect. Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore, sug-
gested that the decisions that the elite make should not be questioned by
the narrow-minded and less well-informed masses:
If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those
who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not
have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their
interests. (Josey 1968: 82)
Similarly, in his speech, the former Goh Chok Tong (1991) stated that
the ‘government will not become populist … (because) we will end up

having to appease all sorts of majority and minority groups, and every
interest group’. Implicitly equating popular pressure with the short-term,
selfish, and unenlightened interests of the masses, he concluded that this
‘appeasement’ would ‘ruin’ Singapore. The government, he asserted, pro-
vided ‘strong leadership with a clear vision’ and ‘thinks in a much longer
time frame than the people, and has bigger concerns than the individual
interest of each voter’.
In order to legitimize the differentiation between the ruling elite and
the masses, the Singapore government has been a vocal proponent of the
principle of meritocracy. Contending that this principle promotes effi-
ciency, social mobility, and justice, the government has used this principle
to justify the implementation of social and economic policies that make a
clear distinction between the rights and roles of the talented and their less
capable fellow citizens. This distinction, defined largely by academic per-
formance, is clearly manifested in various government policies. In educa-
tion, for instance, the government introduced the deeply unpopular
Graduate Mother Scheme in 1984 that gave children of women with uni-
versity degrees priority entry into popular primary schools. This was pre-
mised on the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s (1984) belief in
eugenics and his concern that well-educated women were not producing
enough children. Concurrently, the government implemented sterilization
policies targeted at women with lower education qualifications and vari-
ous child-bearing disincentives for less-educated women (Yap 2002).
Other influential members of the government have also suggested that it
was in the interest of the ruling elite to promote the virtue of meritocracy
because of its redistributive benefits as it has helped ensure that the ‘fruits
and opportunities of development were shared between all classes, from
the top to the bottom’ (Mahbubani 2008), and its potential as a tool for
ensuring social consensus and cohesion (Wong 2000).
Tracking, elite education, and citizenship education in

Singapore
The education system in Singapore, like that of many countries, performs

a gatekeeping function to sort individuals according to their individual
merit (McNamee and Miller 2004). As Meyer (1977: 55) suggests, edu-
cation has ‘a network of rules creating public classifications of persons
and knowledge. It defines which individuals belong to these categories
and possess the appropriate knowledge. And it defines which persons have
access to valued positions in society’.
Based on their performance in the national Primary School Leaving
Examinations (PSLE), 13-year-old Singapore secondary students are
grouped into highly differentiated academic and vocational tracks. These
high-stakes examinations determine not only the students’ entry into
selective secondary schools but also their placement into a particular edu-
cation track (Singapore Ministry of Education 2009). The students are
ranked according to their national examination results and the best stu-
dents join the Integrated Programme (IP)––a 6-year continuous pro-

gramme offered by 11 elite secondary schools. This programme not only
provides an exemption from the national secondary school examinations
but allows them direct entry into the junior college programme. These
elite schools also have the freedom to design their own curricula (within
certain parameters) and, as a result, IP students have greater exposure to
a range of courses and topics, including philosophy and scientific
research.
The majority of secondary schools in Singapore offer the academically
demanding 4- or 5-year Express and Normal Academic (E/NA) tracks,
and the 4-year vocational Normal Technical (NT) track. Approximately
75% of each cohort is placed in the E/NA tracks (Singapore Ministry of
Education 2009b). Students will take classes in a range of science and
humanities subjects such as Physics, History, and Advanced Mathematics.
The programme culminates in a high-stakes Singapore-Cambridge
General Certificate in Education (GCE) Ordinary Level national exami-
nation that determines the students’ placement in the polytechnics or
junior colleges.
The Ministry of Education places the least academically able students,
13% of each cohort, in the NT track. The programme does not prepare
students for the national GCE Ordinary Level examinations and, at the
end of the 4-year programme, NT students will continue their vocational
training at the Institutes of Technical Education (ITE). Unlike their
counterparts from the IP, E/NA tracks, the NT students are limited to a
narrower and less academic range of subjects, including Food and
Nutrition, Computer Applications, and Elements of Office Administration
(Singapore Ministry of Education 2004).
The Singapore Ministry of Education has been unapologetic about
the policy of tracking of students into highly differentiated programmes
based on the principles of meritocracy and elitism. Citing examples from
Korea and China, the then Minister of Education Tharman Shanmuga-
ratnam defended academic tracking in Singapore schools:
It is a practical approach in helping every student to develop himself to the
best of his abilities ... By differentiating the curriculum for students of dif-
ferent abilities, it has allowed us to motivate all our students to sustain an
interest in learning, work hard to achieve realistic learning targets and get
410 L.-C. HO
recognized, get some form of merit, for their achievements. It has helped us
avoid the large drop-out rates that you see in many other countries or the
fact that large numbers of students are graduating from high schools with-
out basic competence in literacy and numeracy. (Tharman 2005)
Critiquing other education systems, the minister argued that the Sin-
gapore system was actually more meritocratic, equitable, and fair, stating,
‘We have avoided the pretence of inclusiveness in undifferentiated school
systems’ (Tharman 2005). Differentiation is seen as a social leveller and a
tool for social mobility because it provides ‘equal access based on merit’
(Tharman 2002). He pointed out that, despite the public rhetoric about
egalitarianism in countries like the UK and the US, the school system in
these countries are, in reality, highly differentiated due to the disparity

between the state and the private sectors. This de facto differentiation is,
according to Tharman (2002), a ‘system of social elitism’. Other ministers
have also argued that Singapore needs to ‘invest in our brightest who are
talented creators, inventors and problem solvers’ in order to develop a
pool of elite leaders who will guide and shape the future of Singapore and
that ‘we should accept the inherent differences in our children’s abilities’
(Ng 2008).
Differentiated citizenship education and social studies
Social studies is the subject most closely associated with citizenship edu-
cation in Singapore schools. Required for all secondary school students,
social studies is an integrated subject that includes elements of history,
geography, economics, and political science. The breadth and depth of
curricula topics, however, vary according to academic tracks. The social
studies curricula for students from the Integrated Programme (IP),
Express/Normal Academic (E/NA) and vocational Normal Technical
(NT) tracks reflect the disparate National Education goals for students in
the three tracks and differ in terms of content, skills, and values.
The Ministry of Education maintains very tight control over the social
studies curricula for students from the NT and E/NA tracks by mandating
the national curricula frameworks, writing and publishing all the text-
books and workbooks, and developing the required assessments (Singa-
pore Ministry of Education 2005, 2010). The teachers of these tracks
have relatively few opportunities to deviate from the prescribed curricu-
lum, texts, and assessments. The elite IP teachers, in contrast, have the
freedom to develop their own social studies curriculum. The IP students
are not required to use the same national textbooks and are also
exempted from the national examination, thus allowing students to
explore the different topics in greater depth. Table 1 summarizes the
main differences between the social studies curricula for the three tracks.
The IP social studies programmes are much more academically
demanding and rigorous compared to the E/NA and NT social studies
programmes. To promote critical thinking, for example, IP students are
required to complete independent research or social action projects as
part of their programme because they are exempted from the national
Table 1. Differences in the social studies curricula for the three tracks.
Curriculum Textbooks and Curriculum

Tracks time Assessment workbooks type
Normal 1 hour per No national Published by the National
Technical week examinations; Ministry of Education curriculum
project work,
informal assessments
Express/ 1.5–2 hours National GCE ‘O’ Published by the National
Normal per week Level examinations Ministry of Education curriculum
Academic
Integrated 1.5–2.5 No national None, the teachers Developed
Programme hours per examinations; assign different by the
week Independent articles and readings school

research and social to students based on
action projects, the topic
essays
secondary school examinations. This offers them the opportunity to con-

duct in-depth independent investigations into social or policy issues––an
option that is not available to students from other tracks. This is because
students from the E/NA tracks are required to complete an intensive 2- or
3-year course at the upper secondary level that culminates in a high stakes
national examination. As a result, E/NA teachers and students are
required to spend more time preparing for these examinations compared
to the other programmes. Students from the vocational NT track, in con-
trast, are only required to attend social studies classes for 2 years at the
lower secondary level. The NT programme is allocated less curricular
time, and anecdotal evidence suggests that this subject has a very low sta-
tus in most secondary schools due largely to the fact that it does not cul-
minate in a major national examination.
The three programmes differ greatly in terms of content. Table 2 lists
the thematic units for all three curricula. There are superficial similarities
across all three curricula, particularly in terms of the general themes. For
instance, all three curricula incorporate themes that focus on governance,
managing ethnic and religious diversity, and international relations (Sin-
gapore Ministry of Education 2005, 2010, Tekong Secondary School
2011, Ubin Secondary School 2010). These themes are, however, posi-
tioned very differently. A comparison of the units focused on governance
reveals a sharp disparity in the curricular value outcomes (see Table 2).
The E/NA and NT curricula emphasize values such as responsibility and
integrity, while the IP curriculum focuses on values such as advocacy,
political, and civic consciousness.
The curricular differences described above can largely be attributed to
the government’s National Education citizenship education framework
due to the fact that this is explicitly used as a guiding framework for all
the social studies programmes (Sim and Ho 2010). National Education
(NE), the government’s overarching framework for citizenship education,
allocates distinct roles and responsibilities to citizens with different levels
of educational qualifications. Consequently, graduates from the different
Table 2. Themes and values in the Social Studies curriculum.
Tracks Themes Values (Theme: Governance)

412
Normal
Technical • Journey to nationhood: Road to independence • Integrity
• Growth of Singapore: Managing population changes, providing jobs, housing, • Responsibility

and education for our people.
• Governing Singapore: What makes a good government, the principles of good • Confidence in the nation
governance
• Living in peace and harmony: Living in multi-racial Singapore and defending

our nation
• Managing out environment
• Looking ahead: Staying competitive in the 21st century

Express/
Normal • Singapore as a nation in the world: Challenges faced by new nations • Self-reliance
Academic
• Understanding governance: The policy process––formulation and implementa- • Resourcefulness
tion
• Conflict and harmony in multi-ethnic societies: The causes and impact of ethnic • Adaptability
and religious conflict
• Managing international relations: The importance of deterrence and diplomacy • Responsibility

and safeguarding national interests
• Sustaining economic development in a globalized world • Accountability
• Facing challenges and change: A case study of the rise and fall of Venice • Integrity
L.-C. HO
• Prudence
(Continued)
Integrated
Programme • The evolution of culture and society: Navigating conflicting identities and sense • Awareness and appreciation that individual inter-
of belonging ests can be at variance with the common good.
• Democracy and governance: Types of government and the rights and responsi- • Community before self
bilities of citizens; the social contract; the development of civil society
• Parliamentary democracy: Features and drawbacks of representative democracy • Advocacy is the moral responsibility of a leader
• Managing a multicultural society: Comparative analysis of two case studies • Political and civic consciousness
• Diplomacy and deterrence: National interests and national power
• Globalization and its consequences; Examining the global capitalist system

DIFFERENTIATED CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE
413
414 L.-C. HO
educational tracks and presumably with different levels of merit can

expect to play different roles in Singapore society (Singapore Ministry of
Education 1997). In general, the less academically inclined vocational stu-
dents from the Institutes of Technical Education (ITE) should be taught
to support and maintain the existing social order, whereas the students in
the middle tier attending the different polytechnics have to focus on being
responsible and diligent. The top students attending the pre-university
programme in junior colleges, in contrast, have to be prepared for their
future leadership roles. The extracts from the Ministry of Education’s
official press release during the launch of National Education in 1997
clearly outline these differentiated citizen roles:
The focus at the ITE would be in enabling students to understand that they
would be helping themselves, their families and Singapore by working hard,
continually upgrading themselves and helping to ensure a stable social
order. They must feel that every citizen has a valued place in Singapore,
and want to play their part in defending Singapore.
[For polytechnic students], the strategy will be to convince them that the
country’s continued survival and prosperity will depend on the quality of
their efforts, and that they will reap the benefits of Singapore’s success if
they play their part. They must believe that there is opportunity for all
based on ability and effort.
[For junior college students], NE must instil in them a sense that they
can shape their own future in Singapore and, even more importantly, a
realization [sic] that upon many of them will lie the responsibility of
playing key roles in shaping the Singapore of the future in the years to
come. They must be able to reason for themselves why Singapore is, all
things considered, the best home. (Singapore Ministry of Education
1997)
In sum, citizenship education in Singapore, as exemplified by the social
studies curricula, reflect the explicit differentiation in citizen responsibili-
ties and roles allocated to young citizens based on their academic achieve-
ments. The elite students studying in junior colleges and other elite
schools are tasked with leadership roles, and the least talented students in
the vocational tracks are allocated the role of being good followers so as
to ensure social stability.
Method and data sources
This paper focuses on the Singapore education system as a case study. ‘A

case study’, Creswell (1998: 61) states, ‘is an exploration of a “bounded
system” or a case (or multiple cases) over time through detailed, in-depth
data collection involving multiple sources of information rich in context’.
A case study framework also allows for the examination of contemporary
events based on a range of data sources (Yin 1989). Within the Singapore
case, I compare the formal citizenship education programmes imple-
mented in Singapore schools for students from three educational tracks:
the Normal Technical (NT) track, the Express and Normal Academic (E/
NA) track, and the Integrated Programme (IP).
In this study, I focus on two levels of curriculum making––the insti-

tutional and the programmatic (Doyle 1992a, b). At the institutional
level, I examine the influences on citizenship education curricular policy
decision-making and show how these decisions are largely determined by
the ideological beliefs of the dominant group of political elite in Singa-
pore. At the programmatic level, I analyse how these discourses are then
translated into national citizenship education curricular frameworks and
materials for use in the classroom. While citizenship education in Singa-
pore schools includes both formal and informal school curriculum such
as community involvement projects, civics and moral education, and
extra-curricular activities, I focus my analysis on the subject, social stud-
ies, as this is a required subject for all secondary students and is a cor-
nerstone of the citizenship education programme in Singapore (Sim and

Ho 2010).
The paper is based on school and government documents in the
public domain, including the different secondary social studies syllabi
developed by the Ministry of Education and two of the schools offering
the Integrated Programme, published ministerial committee reports,
ministerial speeches, and textbooks. In particular, I compared the curric-
ulum content, values, and skills outlined in the NT Lower Secondary
social studies syllabus, the GCE Ordinary Level social studies syllabus
for the students in the E/NA track, and the social studies syllabi devel-
oped by two elite IP schools. The two IP schools, identified by their
pseudonyms, Tekong Secondary School and Ubin Secondary School,
were among the first schools in Singapore to offer the Integrated Pro-
gramme and were selected because of their excellent academic track
records and acknowledged status as curriculum leaders and innovators
in Singapore.
In the next section, I highlight three important recurring themes that
best exemplify the differentiated citizenship curricula for students from
the different educational tracks. The three themes are: (1) democratic citi-
zen roles, rights, and responsibilities; (2) active citizenry; and (3) con-
tested representations of society.
Democratic citizen roles, rights, and responsibilities:

Who rules?
Democratic principles are not explicitly incorporated in the E/NA and

NT curricula or textbooks. In contrast, this forms a significant part of the
social studies curricula for the students from Ubin and Tekong who
spend nearly one school term (10 weeks) examining and evaluating the
structure of democratic political systems.
The national social studies curricula for both the E/NA and NT stu-
dents focus primarily on describing how the Singapore government has
addressed national issues such as social cohesion and economic
development. Both curricula emphasize the Singapore public policy-
making process and explain how policies related to public housing, the
economy, defence, and others are developed and implemented. The
416 L.-C. HO
E/NA curriculum, for instance, utilizes population and public healthcare

policy case studies to teach students about: (1) the significance of govern-
ment structure; (2) the importance of principles of governance in policy
formulation and implementation; and (3) the role of communication
channels in policy-making (Singapore Ministry of Education 2010: 10).
Students from both tracks are not taught about the importance of civic
and political participation in a democracy, the rights of citizens, the role
of grassroots organizations, or how the individual citizen can influence the
policy decision-making process. The curricula, however, emphasize values
such as national interests, self-reliance, responsibility, integrity, and pru-
dence (Singapore Ministry of Education 2010).
In contrast to the E/NA and NT social studies curricula, the IP
course accords equal emphasis to citizen rights and responsibilities.

Uniquely, the IP programmes offer students an opportunity to conduct
an in-depth examination of democratic processes such as checks and bal-
ances, the social contract between the government and the people, and
the distribution of power within society. The curriculum also addresses
complex issues such as the definition of the common good and the
trade-off between rights and social order. There is a strong emphasis on
critical reasoning and students are required to read and discuss classic
texts such as Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience. The Ubin teachers, for
instance, allow their students the opportunity to define the relationship
between the government and the governed. Instead of prescribing what
students should learn and delineating the state’s conception of the good
life, the IP social studies courses introduce a wide range of conflicting
perspectives and case studies in order to encourage students to clarify
their understanding of citizenship and their roles as citizens. Both
Tekong and Ubin students also learn about the importance of checks
and balances, and the separation of powers in democratic systems so as
to maintain transparency and democratic accountability. Notably, this
critical lens is also turned towards the democratic process and students
are required to explore the strengths and limitations of democratic
systems.
Interestingly, despite these critical perspectives and the emphasis on
individual rights in the IP curricula, the elite students are also reminded
of the need to place ‘community before self’ and to ‘appreciate the need
for accommodation and compromise in a heterogeneous society’ (Ubin
Secondary School 2010: 2–3). This closely parallels the E/NA curricu-
lum’s emphasis on values such as ‘compromise and mutual accommoda-
tion’, harmony, common space, and social cohesion (Singapore Ministry
of Education 2010: 11). Similarly, the NT curriculum highlights the
importance of ‘social bonding’, ‘racial harmony’, and interdependence
(Singapore Ministry of Education 2005: 13). Notably, these values mir-
ror the national Shared Values highlighted by the Singapore government
in 1991. These values include ‘nation before community and society
above self’ and ‘consensus not conflict’ (Parliament of Singapore 1991).
This shared emphasis on communitarian values reflects the influence of
the Singapore government on school curricula, even for the elite
schools.
Active Citizenry: ‘Doing democratic things’
Democratic citizens need ‘to know democratic things and to do demo-

cratic things’ (Parker 2008: 67). Schools in democracies must instil
knowledge about democracy and provide young citizens with opportuni-
ties to practice democracy (Banks et al. 2005). The two IP programmes
share a belief in the importance of social inquiry and social action. Freed
from the constraints of the secondary school national examinations, IP
students have the opportunity to identify social cleavages caused by gov-
ernment policies, analyse the societal problems, and critically evaluate
potential solutions. For instance, students are encouraged to question the
impact of governing principles such as meritocracy on different sectors of
society, issues that remain unexamined in the E/NA and NT curricula.

Students from Ubin Secondary also conduct research into fairly contro-
versial topics such as welfare provision for single mothers, the rights of
convicted criminals, and the impact of the Internal Security Act.
In response to the question, ‘What is my role in the community?’ the
curriculum for IP students focuses on social action––something that is
missing from the mainstream curricula. One of the explicit goals of the IP
curricula is to promote social advocacy and civic action. Students also
learn about the history of civil society in Singapore in order to compare it
to civil society in other contexts. Civic participation is defined differently
in IP schools and students are not just limited to being personally respon-
sible citizens (Westheimer and Kahne 2004) but are encouraged to take
political action.
The national curricular framework for E/NA students aims to help
students ‘recognize the value of participating as ethical, active and
informed citizens in a democratic society within a global community’
(Singapore Ministry of Education 2010: 4). The NT curriculum, in con-
trast, does not aim to develop ‘active citizens’, but focuses on developing
‘informed citizens’ (Singapore Ministry of Education 2005: 1). The NT
social studies programme also emphasizes the importance of students
demonstrating ‘a sense of pride, loyalty and commitment to Singapore’
(p. 2), values that are not explicitly articulated in the other curricula. The
NT curriculum, furthermore, places much less emphasis on critical and
creative thinking skills, whereas the E/NA curriculum aims to ‘imbue stu-
dents with the skills of critical inquiry, investigation and reflection’ (Sin-
gapore Ministry of Education 2010: 4).
In reality, however, studies have shown that both groups of students
do not have the opportunity to inquire into and investigate important
public issues because of the lack of curricular time and opportunity (Ho
2010, Ho et al. 2011a). While both the IP and E/NA curricula have as
one of their pedagogical goals the development of ‘active citizens’, it is
clear that ‘active citizenry’ is defined differently for students from the two
tracks. For the elite students, active citizenship includes political partici-
pation, critical evaluation of issues and tensions in society, social advo-
cacy, and working for social justice in order to eliminate inequalities.
These options are, however, not provided for the non-elite students.
Notably, even though students in the E/NA track are reminded that
418 L.-C. HO
‘leadership is key’ (Singapore Ministry of Education 2007: 33), students

are not encouraged to think of themselves as future leaders of the country.
No mention is made of how students and citizens like themselves can
effect change in society or be social advocates. In both the E/NA and NT
curricula, the Singapore government and its leaders are presented as the
dominant actors in the policy decision-making process and the main arbi-
ter of societal values and priorities. Unsurprisingly, given the political
leaders’ belief in elite democracy, the curricula underscore the importance
of ‘good leadership’ (Singapore Ministry of Education 2007: 33). The cit-
izen is relegated to providing ‘constructive feedback’ on government poli-
cies, although, as the textbook points out, ‘some of the feedback may be
impractical, and thus cannot be accepted’ (p. 31).
Contested representations of society: Whose knowledge is

of most worth?
The social studies curricula for both the E/NA and NT tracks do not pay
much attention to developing engaged citizens and focus almost entirely
on the transmission of knowledge about the structures and processes of
government. Complex political, economic, and social issues are presented
in a simplistic manner and studies have shown that students, particularly
in the E/NA track, have few opportunities to engage in genuine inquiry
and deliberation of meaningful problems (Ho 2009, 2010, Sim and Ho
2010). For instance, the controversy over the introduction of the Gradu-
ate Mother Scheme that gave priority for school admissions to children
whose mothers were graduates is described in the following manner in the
Secondary Three E/NA textbook:
PM Lee felt that female graduates should have more children so that there
would be a higher chance of the new generation workforce being more edu-
cated … The Graduate Mothers Scheme sparked off debate and unhappi-
ness among the people. Not all government policies are able to win the
support of the people … the scheme was withdrawn after 1 year of imple-
mentation in 1985. (Singapore Ministry of Education 2007: 48–49)
By not questioning the controversial premise of the Graduate Mothers
Scheme and not addressing relevant issues such as discrimination, justice,
eugenics, and the role of the public in policy-making, E/NA students are
left with the impression that this scheme was withdrawn because the peo-
ple were not supportive. The possibility that this was an unjust and con-
ceptually flawed policy is not addressed. This topic, however, is
conspicuously absent from the NT curriculum. NT students are simply
required to learn about the different policies instituted by the Singapore
government for the good of the people and are not required to critically
evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of these policies.
In contrast to the sanitized and partisan portrayal of governance and
public policy-making in the E/NA and NT curricula, the IP students,
through their study of the problems of society, are taught to critically
evaluate different political systems, including that of the existing political
regime in Singapore, to prepare them for their roles as future leaders. The
Ubin curriculum, for example, reminds the students of their moral
responsibilities as future leaders and suggests that social political partici-
pation and social advocacy are key components of all democratic systems.
The IP programmes also provide students with an opportunity to explore
multiple models of civil society and governance. Students, for instance,
are taught about different approaches to managing diversity in different
countries through a comparative analysis of multicultural policies in Sin-
gapore and Malaysia (Ubin Secondary School 2010).
In other thematic units, the students from the E/NA track are
required to explore numerous domestic and international political, eco-
nomic, and social issues in order to help them acquire both global and
national perspectives (Ho 2009). The curriculum also incorporates inter-

national case studies such as the conflict in Sri Lanka, the British welfare
system, and the Iraq–Kuwait conflict. By selecting these negative case
studies and explicitly using them to reinforce the national narrative focus-
ing on Singapore’s vulnerabilities and to support the existing government
policies, the E/NA curriculum does not allow students the opportunity to
critically evaluate existing government policies and the performance of
Singapore’s political leaders. Instead, students are reminded that, as good
citizens, they are supposed to be supportive of these policies and offer
‘constructive feedback’ if necessary. Even if they disagreed with the gov-
ernment’s priorities, they will have to appreciate that the specially selected
and groomed Singapore leaders ‘do what is right rather than what is pop-
ular’ (Singapore Ministry of Education 2007: 33).
The NT curriculum, in contrast, focuses primarily on domestic issues
such as housing and education––issues that are considered pertinent to
their future technicians, mechanics, or blue collar workers. For example,
the curriculum states that NT students need to ‘understand the need and
importance of technical education’ (Singapore Ministry of Education
2005: 11). This perhaps is an attempt to get these students to be compli-
ant and unquestioningly accept the status quo in the name of national
survival, despite the fact that they have been assigned them to the aca-
demic track with the lowest social status and worst job prospects. Nota-
bly, this message regarding the importance of technical education is
absent from the other curricula. Like the E/NA curriculum, the NT cur-
riculum does not teach students about citizen rights and democratic pro-
cesses, but places a great deal of emphasis on the ‘principles of good
governance’, defined by the state as including the ideals of meritocracy,
incorruptibility, being forward-looking, pragmatism, and fairness (Singa-
pore Ministry of Education 2005).
Discussion: Implications for the roles of citizens
The hierarchical and elitist nature of the Singapore political system

ensures that citizens play a far less significant role in policy-making. As
Ho (2000: 190) points out, in the eyes of the Singapore elite, ‘politics is
only about leadership’. This view has consistently been promoted by all
420 L.-C. HO
three past and present Prime Ministers. In 1966, for example, Lee Kuan
Yew (1966), the first Prime Minister, urged school principals ‘to rear a
generation that has all the qualities needed to lead and give the people
the inspiration, the drive to make it succeed ... On them, depends the
pace of progress’. Using a military analogy to emphasize the pyramidal
structure of Singapore society, he stated:
In any army, in one battalion, you have 60–70 officers, 100–200 sergeants
and corporals, and the others, about 500, are privates. It must be. This is
life. ... And I am as much interested in the bottom as I am in the top of this
pyramid. But we must accept the fact that this is life.
This perspective was echoed by Singapore’s third Prime Minister, Lee
Hsien Loong (2005), in his speech to the National University of Singa-

pore nearly 40 years later. Using the UK and the US as examples, he
pointed out that ‘Every society will have an elite. Even if it aims to
become a classless society where all men are equal, some men will turn
out to be more equal than others’. The main issue, to him, was not the
presence of an elite group occupying key positions of power and influence
in Singapore, and setting the direction of the country, but the elites’
adaptability, sense of mission, and social responsibility. The elite, he
argued, bore a heavier responsibility than other Singaporeans and, there-
fore, Singapore’s future depended on ‘our renewing and enlarging this
elite group, and ensuring that the group continues to see itself as being
responsible for the whole society’.
Reinforcing the view that different groups of Singapore citizens have
different status, obligations, and values, Goh Chok Tong (1999), the sec-
ond Prime Minister, articulated his belief that two categories of Singapore
citizens exist: ‘cosmopolitans’ and ‘heartlanders’. Cosmopolitans, accord-
ing to Goh, have an international outlook, are bilingual, highly educated,
internationally mobile, and ‘are indispensable in generating wealth for
Singapore’. ‘Heartlanders’, on the other hand, do not have internationally
marketable skills, speak the local dialect ‘Singlish’, and are less well-edu-
cated. The role of the ‘heartlander’ is to maintain Singapore’s core values
and social stability, but the cosmopolitans’ role is to drive Singapore’s
growth because ‘without them, Singapore cannot run as an efficient, high
performance society’.
This belief in democratic elitism and meritocracy, as outlined by the
Prime Ministers and other political elite, has shaped the social studies
curricula for the different academic and vocational tracks. Students are
explicitly allocated different citizenship roles and responsibilities according
to the hierarchy defined by the state. Three distinct roles can be
identified: (1) elite cosmopolitan leaders; (2) globally-oriented but locally-
rooted mid-level executives and workers; and (3) local ‘heartlander’
followers. To cater to these different citizen roles, the three programmes
encompass significantly different curricular goals, content, mode of assess-
ment, civic skills, and values.
At the apex of the educational hierarchy, the IP social studies curricu-
lum is designed to develop elite cosmopolitan leaders. As future leaders,
they are expected to be able to critically analyse and interpret social issues
in order to influence and change society. As Kennedy and Power (2008:

14) suggest, these communication and analytical skills and attitudes of
social and personal responsibility are ‘all skills and attitudes strongly asso-
ciated with leadership positions’. In Singapore, as in Ireland, elite schools
provide greater access to the development of these skills and attitudes in
order to prepare ‘the next generation of elites for their future roles as
key-players at the pinnacle of ... society’ (p. 14). The E/NA social studies
curriculum, in contrast, is supposed to nurture the core group of globally-
oriented but locally-rooted mid-level executives and workers. Conse-
quently, these students are introduced to numerous important concepts
and understandings, such as governance and globalization, but are not
provided with the freedom and skills to explore, question, and inquire
into controversial public issues. At the lowest rung of the hierarchy, the
NT curriculum, with its low status and its narrow focus on domestic pub-
lic policy issues, is designed to educate compliant and passive local ‘heart-
lander’ followers.
Using Parker’s (2003) influential concept, enlightened political
engagement, as a framework to analyse the social studies curricula for the
three academic tracks, it is clear that only the elite students from the IP
track have access to education that promotes democratic enlightenment
and political engagement. Political engagement includes participating in
discussions of public issues, voting, and civic action, whereas democratic
enlightenment includes moral-cognitive knowledge, skills, values, and
principles such as political literacy as well as support for democratic val-
ues (Parker 2003).
Premised on the notion of democratic elitism and meritocracy, the
social studies curricular differentiation reinforces the perception that soci-
etal change, if necessary, will be initiated by the meritorious elite and not
the masses. The IP students, therefore, are the only group who are explic-
itly taught democratic principles and have the opportunity to be engaged
in in-depth discussions of issues such as discrimination and prejudice.
Both the E/NA and NT courses, on the other hand, do not focus on
issues of social justice and value conflicts. While the curricula for both the
E/NA and NT students are didactic and prescriptive, the NT curricula
offers its students even less opportunity to explore and examine public
issues, focusing instead on imparting a pre-determined body of knowledge
and set of values deemed necessary for academically low-achieving voca-
tional students. As mentioned in an earlier section, one of the aims of citi-
zenship education for students in the vocational track is to ensure that
they maintain and support the existing social order. Thus, it is seen to be
unnecessary and possibly even dangerous for the non-elites to be taught
how to discern and recognize patterns of injustice in society.
Should citizenship education be differentiated?
Finally, I turn to the normative question: Should citizenship education be

differentiated? In the current Singapore system, access to citizenship
knowledge and skills is determined largely by academic achievement
422 L.-C. HO
because of the ruling party’s belief in democratic elitism and the alloca-
tion of educational resources by merit. Is it justifiable for a country to
allocate different citizen roles to students based on merit and educate
them accordingly?
The Singapore government has adopted numerous utilitarian and
instrumental arguments in support of these education policies. First, Sin-
gapore’s political leaders have suggested that Singapore has limited
human and physical resources and, therefore, in order to maximize the
efficient allocation of resources, students should be sorted into different
ability groups. This educational stratification, according to former Educa-
tion Minister Tharman (2002), also helps to spur education innovation,
make citizenship education relevant for the future, and maximize elite stu-
dents’ contributions to society. Second, Singapore’s leaders believe that:

(1) elites exist in every society; (2) access to this elite stratum should be
limited to the best and brightest through meritocratic selection; and (3)
elite leadership is absolutely crucial for the survival of the nation-state
(Goh 1999, Lee 2005). Thus, it is essential to have a special citizenship
education curriculum for elite students to help them prepare them for
future leadership roles. A less explicitly stated third reason is the convic-
tion that the masses are not to be trusted to make rational choices. As for-
mer Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew stated,
We are leaders. We know the consequences … Do you honestly believe that
the chap who can’t pass primary six knows the consequence of his choice
when he answers a question viscerally, on language, culture and religion?
But we knew the consequences. We would starve, we would have race riots.
We would disintegrate. (Han et al. 1998: 134)
Thus, the citizenship education curriculum for low-achieving NT students
should focus on ensuring that these students support the status quo and
recognize their positions in society. Fourth, segregating elite students into
IP schools such as Tekong Boys’ school and Ubin Girls’ High and provid-
ing them with different social studies curricula will in fact contribute to
reducing social inequality as they cater to the different needs of the stu-
dents. For instance, the then Education Minister Tharman (2002) stated,
‘(this system) will actually offer us more opportunities to guard against
social elitism than our existing school system does ... (as the IP schools
will) spend a lot more time on developing leadership and commitment to
the community’.
There are, however, numerous issues with regard to the use of the
principle of meritocracy to determine the level of access to citizenship
education. While Singapore’s political leaders regularly reassure Singapo-
reans that the differentiated and meritocratic education system means that
‘everyone with the determination and ability can benefit’, (Tharman
2002), this rhetoric ignores the problem of the inherent subjectivity of
merit evaluation and the selection of merit criteria. In fact, as McNamee
and Miller (2004) point out in their book, The Myth of Meritocracy, a true
meritocracy cannot exist because the assessment of merit cannot be
absolutely objective. This problem is further exacerbated by what
Papastephanou (2005: 503) describes as ‘constitutive factors of existential
dissimilarity that condition performance and success at what society cher-

ishes’. These constitutive factors include the relative position of one’s
social origin, family, language, culture, and worldview. The Singapore
state, however, ascribes an individual’s success or failure solely to his or
her abilities and level of motivation, and ignores the contingent nature of
merit. This not only serves to absolve the state from any responsibility in
perpetuating social inequality, but also legitimizes the unequal treatment
accorded to its citizens in areas such as education.
Second, instead of helping to reduce social inequality, as suggested by
Singapore’s leaders, the system of meritocracy to determine students’
access to citizenship knowledge, values, and skills may instead be contrib-
uting to greater social stratification. Bourdieu (1996: 75), for example,
observed that the preparatory classes for the grandes ecoles in France
‘assemble adolescents with many similar social and academic properties
and isolate them in a separate space. This selective confinement produces
a very homogenous group whose homogeneity is further increased
through the mutual socialization brought about by continued prolonged
contact’. Likewise, Fenwick (2011) observed that schooling in Australia
perpetuates and reinforces social and economic disadvantage, particularly
for indigenous young people.
The determination of what counts as merit may also, as Sen (1999)
suggests, be biased towards the preferences and the interests of powerful
groups. As Kennedy and Power (2008: 20) note, use of the discourse of
meritocracy ‘helps to present a public facade of equality ... (and facilitate)
the continuation of class-based advantage through elite schooling’. While
the Singapore Ministry of Education does not publicly release statistics
related to the socio-economic status of students in the different tracks,
occasional reports reveal a very interesting picture with regard to the de
facto segregation of students by class. During a visit to one of the best IP
schools, Dunman High, the former Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, noted
that there was a significant difference in the proportion of students from
elite schools with parents who were graduates compared to students from
non-elite schools. For instance, more than half of the students attending
elite IP schools like Anglo-Chinese School (Independent) and Raffles
Institution have parents with university degrees. In contrast, only 13% of
students attending non-elite schools like Chai Chee Secondary have par-
ents who are graduates (Chang 2011). This data supports Ichilov’s (2002:
4) assertion that ‘school and track assignments … separate students on
the basis of their abilities, career aspirations, and sociocultural back-
grounds … (and) symbolize students’ present status as well as future pros-
pects’.
Third, the Singapore state tends to attribute the merit of a person’s
actions to the person and possibly of groups of people. This personifica-
tion of merit is problematic as a ‘talented’ person might still be consid-
ered meritorious ‘even if he or she were not to use the “talents” to
perform acts with good consequences or laudable propriety’ (Sen 1999:
9). Thus, the assumption that academically high-achieving students will
necessarily be more productive, valuable, and influential future citizens is
flawed.
424 L.-C. HO
While it is difficult to rationalize the model of differentiated citizen-

ship education enacted by the Singapore state on the grounds of equity
and justice, is it morally justifiable for states to adopt a more intervention-
ist and transformative approach to citizenship education? Scholars, for
example, have argued that the adoption of the principle of egalitarian edu-
cational formalism (Papastephanou 2005) that results in the provision of
equal educational opportunities for all may, in fact, continue to reproduce
existing social inequalities. Thus, is it the moral responsibility of the state
to allocate more resources to citizenship education programmes for stu-
dents who are educationally disadvantaged or under-privileged? Should
programmes that cater to the academic elite be specially designed to
incorporate critical knowledge that will raise the students’ awareness of
their own privileged positions and inculcate values such as care and com-
passion given that these elite students may be in future positions of
power? As Parker (2003: 156) notes, ‘one could argue that those who
most need democratic enlightenment, especially a highly developed sense
of justice, are those who occupy the boardrooms, legislatures, (and) court
chambers’. Thus, citizenship education programmes can be differentiated
by providing different strategies for different groups of students. Strategies
that could be particularly relevant for members of privileged classes
include an understanding of epistemic privilege and humility (Parker
2003), whereas the disadvantaged students could be provided with the
relevant knowledge and skills that could empower them to work towards
a more just society.
To conclude, the case study of citizenship education in Singapore,
while unique in its explicit and unequivocal allocation of separate citizen
roles and provision of highly differentiated citizenship education curricula
for students from different academic tracks, nevertheless serves as a useful
illustration of the problematic policy of differentiated citizenship educa-
tion. In fact, many studies have pointed out that de facto segregation and
differentiation, premised on similar albeit less explicitly articulated merito-
cratic and elitist beliefs, occurs in many educational systems around the
world, including the US, Israel, and Ireland (Ichilov 2002, Kahne and
Middaugh 2008a, Kennedy and Power 2008). Scholars, for instance, have
noted that a clear civic achievement gap exists between students from dif-
ferent ethnic and economic backgrounds as enrolment in government and
civics classes vary considerably across type of schools and location (Levin-
son 2007). However, this division of present and future citizens into sig-
nificantly unequal categories with a corresponding distinction in terms of
citizen involvement, obligations, and rights undermines the fundamental
premise of a democratic state (Tilly 2007). Schools are morally obliged to
provide young citizens with an education that allows them to fully realize
their political status as citizens (Gutmann 1999) and all children, whether
powerful or powerless, ‘require a high quality education for freedom, jus-
tice, and equality’ (Parker 2003: 156). States, therefore, should ensure
that all students, regardless of their backgrounds, abilities, and levels of
motivation, should be given equitable access to civic learning opportuni-
ties and to learn how to define for themselves their roles as democratic
citizens.
References
Apple, M. W. (2004) Ideology and curriculum (New York: RoutledgeFalmer).

Apple, M. W. and Christian-Smith, L. K. (1991) The politics of the textbook. In M. W.
Apple and L. K. Christian-Smith (eds), The politics of the textbook (New York: Routl-
edge), 1–21.
Banks, J. A., Banks, C. A. M., Cortes, C. E., Hahn, C., Merryfield, M. M., Moodley, K.
A., Murphy-Shigematsu, S., Osler, A., Park, C. and Parker, W. (2005) Democracy
and diversity: principles and concepts for educating citizens in a global age (Seattle: Cen-
ter for Multicultural Education, University of Washington).
Barber, B. R. (2003) Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new age (Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press).
Bourdieu, P. (1996) The state nobility: elite schools in the field of power (Cambridge: Polity
Press).
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in capitalist America: educational reform and the
contradictions of economic life (New York: Basic Books).
Chang, R. (2011) Parents’ background the edge for students at top schools: MM. Available online at:
http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/inthenews/ministermentor/2011/January
/Parents_backgroun_the_edge_for_students_at_top_schools_MM.html,accessed 18 Oc
tober 2011.
Cornbleth, C. (2002) Images of America: What youth do know about the United States.
American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 519–552.
Creswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions
(Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications).
Dahl, R. A. (1966) Further reflections on ‘The elitist theory of democracy’. The American
Political Science Review, 60(2), 296–305.
Dahl, R. A. (2000) On democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Dahl, R. A. (2006) On political equality (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Deng, Z. (2009) The formation of a school subject and the nature of curriculum content: an
analysis of liberal studies in Hong Kong. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(5), 585–604.
Doyle, W. (1992a) Curriculum and pedagogy. In P.W. Jackson (ed.), Handbook of
Research on Curriculum (New York: Macmillan), 486–516.
Doyle, W. (1992b) Constructing curriculum in the classroom. In F.K. Oser, A. Dick and
J. Patry (eds), Effective and responsible teaching: The new syntheses (San Francisco: Jos-
sey-Bass Publishers), 66–79.
Dye, T. R., Ziegler, H. and Schubert, L. (2012) The irony of democracy: an uncommon
introduction to American politics (Boston: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning).
Fenwick, L. (2011) Curriculum reform and reproducing inequality in upper-secondary
education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 1–20.
Galston, W. A. (2001) Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education.
Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217–234.
Goh, C. T. (1991) Keynote address by Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong at the opening of
the seminar on ‘The role of community leaders in the next lap’. Available online at: stars.
nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/gct19911027.pdf, accessed 18 October 2011.
Goh, C. T. (1999) Strengthening the Singapore heartbeat: speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok
Tong in Parliament on Wednesday, 13 October 1999. Available online at: http://stars.
nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/gct19991013i.pdf, accessed 5 April 2010.
Gutmann, A. (1999) Democratic Education (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)).
Hahn, C. L. (2003) Democratic values and citizen action: a view from US ninth graders.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 633–642.
Han, F. K., Fernandez, W. and Tan, S. (1998) Lee Kuan Yew: the man and his ideas (Sin-
gapore: The Straits Times Press).
Ho, K. L. (2000) The politics of policy-making in Singapore (Singapore: Oxford University
Press).
Ho, L. C. (2009) Global multicultural citizenship education: a Singapore experience. The
Social Studies, 100(6), 285–293.
Ho, L. C. (2010) ‘Don’t worry, I’m not going to report you’: Education for citizenship in
Singapore. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38(2), 217–247.
426 L.-C. HO
Ho, L. C., Alviar-Martin, T., Sim, J. B.-Y. and Yap, P. S. (2011a) Civic disparities:
exploring students’ perceptions of citizenship within Singapore’s academic tracks.
Theory and Research in Social Education, 39(1), 298–316.
Ho, L. C., Sim, J. B.-Y. and Alviar-Martin, T. (2011b) Students’ perceptions of democ-
racy, rights and governance in two Singapore schools. Education Citizenship and
Social Justice, 6(3), 265–276.
Ichilov, O. (2002) Differentiated civics curriculum and patterns of citizenship education:
vocational and academic programs in Israel. In D. Scott and H. Lawson (eds), Citizen-
ship, education, and the curriculum (Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group), 88–107.
Josey, A. (1968) Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Donald Moore Press).
Kahne, J. and Middaugh, E. (2008a) Democracy for some: the civic opportunity gap in high
school. Available online at: http://www.civicsurvey.org/CERG_Publications.html,
accessed 8 February 2010.
Kahne, J. and Middaugh, E. (2008b) High quality civic education: what is it and who gets
it?. Social Education, 72(1), 34–39.

Kamens, D. H. (1988) Education and democracy: a comparative institutional analysis.
Sociology of Education, 61(2), 114–127.
Kennedy, M. and Power, M.J. (2008) ‘The smokescreen of meritocracy’: elite education
in Ireland and the reproduction of class privilege. Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, 8(2), 223–248.
Kymlicka, W. and Norman, W. (1994) Return of the citizen: a survey of recent work on
citizenship theory. Ethics, 104, 257–289.
Lee, H. L. (2005) Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the NUS Society Lecture 19
Mar 2005. Available online at: http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/public/, accessed 19 Octo-
ber 2011.
Lee, K. Y. (1966) Transcript of speech by the Prime Minister at a meeting with principals of
schools at the Victoria Theatre on 29th August, 1966. Available online at: stars.nhb.gov.
sg/stars/public/index.html, accessed 19 October 2011.
Lee, K. Y. (1984) Talent for the future: Speech by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Available
online at: stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/public/index.html, accessed 19 October 2011.
Levinson, M. (2007) The civic achievement gap. Available online at: http://www.civicsurvey.
org/CERG_Publications.html, accessed 8 February 2010.
Mahbubani, K. (2008) Wising up to seven pillars of wisdom. Available online at: http://app.
mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,10795, accessed 3 March 2009.
Marshall, T. H. (1998) Citizenship and social class. In G. Shafir (ed.), The citizenship
debates: A reader (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), 93–112.
McClosky, H. and Brill, A. (1983) Dimensions of tolerance. what Americans believe about civil
liberties (New York: Russell Sage Foundation).
McNamee, S. J. and Miller, R. K. (2004) The meritocracy myth (Lanham: Rowman & Lit-
tlefield Publishing Group).
Meyer, J. W. (1977) The effects of education as an institution. American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 83(1), 55–77.
Nagle, J. (1992) Recruitment of elites. In M. Hawkesworth and M. Kogan (eds), Encyclo-
pedia of government and politics (London: Routledge), 486–503.
Ng, E. H. (2008) Speech by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education and Second Minister for
Defence, at the opening ceremony of the 10th Asia-Pacific conference on giftedness. Avail-
able online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2008/07/14/speech-by-dr-ng-
eng-hen-at-the-4.php, accessed 18 October 2011.
Niemi, R. G. and Junn, J. (1998) Civic education: what makes students learn (New Haven:
Yale University Press).
Niemi, R. G. and Smith, J. (2001) Enrolments in high school government classes: are we
short-changing both citizenship and political science training?. Political Science and
Politics, 34(2), 281–287.
Papastephanou, M. (2005) Rawls’ theory of justice and citizenship education. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 39(3), 499–518.
Parker, W. C. (2003) Teaching democracy: unity and diversity in public life (New York:
Teachers College Press).
Parker, W. C. (2008) Knowing and doing in democratic citizenship education. In L. S.

Levstik and C. A. Tyson (eds), Handbook of research in social studies education (New
York: Routledge), 65–80.
Parliament of Singapore (1991) Shared Values White Paper. Cmd. 1 of 1991.
Rubin, B. C. (2007) ‘There’s still not justice’: youth civic identity development amid dis-
tinct school and community contexts. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 449–481.
Sears, A. and Hughes, A. S. (2005) Learning from each other: toward a democratic
approach to international collaboration in civic education. International Journal of
Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1(1), 16–31.
Sen, A. (1999) Merit and justice. In K. Arrow, S. Bowles and S. Durlauf (eds), Meritoc-
racy and economic inequality (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 5–16.
Sim, J. B.-Y. and Ho, L. C. (2010) Transmitting social and national values through edu-
cation in Singapore: tensions in a globalized era. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey and N.
Clement (eds), International research handbook on values education and student wellbe-
ing (Netherlands: Springer), 897–917.

Singapore Ministry of Education (1997). Press release: Launch of National Education 16
May 1997. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/1997/
pr01797_print.htm, accessed 20 February 2010.
Singapore Ministry of Education (2004) Review of the Normal (Technical) course. Available
online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2004/pr20040929a_print.htm, accessed
18 October 2011.
Singapore Ministry of Education (2005) Social Studies Syllabus (Lower Secondary Normal
(Technical)). Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/cpdd/doc/SocialStudies_LS
%20NT.pdf, accessed 5 December 2006.
Singapore Ministry of Education (2007) Upper secondary social studies 3 (Singapore: EPB
Pan Pacific).
Singapore Ministry of Education (2009a). Education Statistics Digest 2009. Available
online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-statistics-digest/files/esd-2009.
pdf, accessed 30 May 2010.
Singapore Ministry of Education (2009b) Report of the Primary Education Review and
Implementation Committee (Singapore: Ministry of Education).
Singapore Ministry of Education (2010) Combined Humanities Ordinary Level Social Studies
Syllabus (Syllabus 2192). Available online at: http://www.seab.gov.sg/SEAB/oLevel/
syllabus/school/2010_GCE_O.html, accessed 3 January 2010.
Singh, B. (2007) Politics and governance in Singapore: an introduction (Singapore: McGraw
Hill).
Sniderman, P. M., Fletcher, J. F., Russell, P. H., Tetlock, P. E. and Gaines, B. E. (1991)
The fallacy of democratic elitism: elite competition and commitment to civil liber-
ties. British Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 349–370.
Stewart, J. J., Hedge, D. M. and Lester, J. P. (2008) Public policy: an evolutionary approach
(Boston: Thomson Wadsworth).
Tan, E. K. B. (2010) The evolving social compact and the transformation of Singapore:
Going beyond quid pro quo in governance. In T. Chong (ed.), Management of suc-
cess: Singapore revisited (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing), 80–99.
Tan, K. P. (2008) Meritocracy and elitism in a global city: ideological shifts in Singapore.
International Political Science Review, 29(7), 7–27.
Tekong Secondary School (2011) Social Studies 2011/12. Singapore.
Tharman, S. (2002) Speech by Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry & Education
Tharman Shanmugaratnam at the Parliamentary Debate on Junior College/Upper Second-
ary education on 27 November 2002. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/
media/speeches/2002/sp05122002.htm, accessed 19 October 2011.
Tharman, S. (2005) Parliamentary replies. Available online at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/
media/parliamentary-replies/2005/pq09032005.htm, accessed 18 October 2011.
Tilly, C. (2007) Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Thoreau, H.D. (2005) Walden and civil disobedience (New York, NY: Barnes & Noble).
Torney-Purta, J., Barber, C. H. and Wilkenfeld, B. (2007) Latino adolescents’ civic devel-
opment in the United States: Research results from the IEA Civic Education Study.
Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 36, 111–125.
428 L.-C. HO
Ubin Secondary School (2010) Social Studies Curriculum Map. Singapore.

Walzer, M. (1983) Spheres of justice. a defense of pluralism and equality (New York: Basic
Books).
Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2004) What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for
democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.
Wong, A. (2000) Address by Dr Aline Wong, Senior Minister of State for Education at the
opening ceremony of the primary Social Studies symposium 2000. Available online at:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2000/sp13032000a_print.htm, accessed 18
November 2009.
Yap, M. T. (2002) Fertility and population policy: the Singapore experience. Journal of
Population and Social Security, 1, 643–658.
Yin, R. K. (1989) Case study research: design and methods (Newbury Park: Sage Publica-
tions).
Young, I. M. (1989) Polity and group difference. a critique of the idea of universal citi-
zenship. Ethics, 99(2), 250–274.

Young, I. M. (2002) Inclusion and democracy (New York: Oxford University Press).

Docs 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Docs 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [National Institute of Education]

On: 01 November 2012, At: 23:37

Journal of Curriculum Studies

Sorting citizens: Differentiated

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.675359

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Sorting citizens: Differentiated citizenship education

Keywords: citizenship education; achievement gap; access to education;

One of the primary goals of education is the promotion of equality and

Li-Ching Ho is an assistant professor of social studies education in the Humanities and

and skills necessary for being citizens. Numerous studies in countries

competencies. This has important implications for teaching because ‘the

Using Singapore as a case study, I examine how the discourses of

Theoretical framework: Democratic elitism and

This paper is framed by two discourses that dominate public policy-mak-

conception of an ‘authoritative democracy’, citizens defer to the powerful

Elitism, meritocracy, and education

Education has a central role in the division and categorization of citizens

In order to validate the differentiated provision of education to stu-

Context: Elite democracy in Singapore

Formerly a British colony, Singapore’s political scene has been dominated

the ‘government will not become populist … (because) we will end up

Tracking, elite education, and citizenship education in

The education system in Singapore, like that of many countries, performs

dents join the Integrated Programme (IP)––a 6-year continuous pro-

these countries are, in reality, highly differentiated due to the disparity

Differentiated citizenship education and social studies

Curriculum Textbooks and Curriculum

week Independent articles and readings school

secondary school examinations. This offers them the opportunity to con-

Table 2. Themes and values in the Social Studies curriculum.

Tracks Themes Values (Theme: Governance)

• Growth of Singapore: Managing population changes, providing jobs, housing, • Responsibility

• Living in peace and harmony: Living in multi-racial Singapore and defending

• Managing out environment

• Looking ahead: Staying competitive in the 21st century

• Managing international relations: The importance of deterrence and diplomacy • Responsibility

• Sustaining economic development in a globalized world • Accountability

• Diplomacy and deterrence: National interests and national power

• Globalization and its consequences; Examining the global capitalist system

educational tracks and presumably with different levels of merit can

Method and data sources

This paper focuses on the Singapore education system as a case study. ‘A

In this study, I focus on two levels of curriculum making––the insti-

nerstone of the citizenship education programme in Singapore (Sim and

Democratic citizen roles, rights, and responsibilities:

Democratic principles are not explicitly incorporated in the E/NA and

E/NA curriculum, for instance, utilizes population and public healthcare

course accords equal emphasis to citizen rights and responsibilities.

Active Citizenry: ‘Doing democratic things’

Democratic citizens need ‘to know democratic things and to do demo-

society, issues that remain unexamined in the E/NA and NT curricula.

‘leadership is key’ (Singapore Ministry of Education 2007: 33), students

Contested representations of society: Whose knowledge is

national perspectives (Ho 2009). The curriculum also incorporates inter-

Discussion: Implications for the roles of citizens

The hierarchical and elitist nature of the Singapore political system

Hsien Loong (2005), in his speech to the National University of Singa-

in order to influence and change society. As Kennedy and Power (2008:

Should citizenship education be differentiated?

Finally, I turn to the normative question: Should citizenship education be