A ‘good’ neoliberal citizen: A policy analysis of conceptions of young Singaporean citizens

Abstract

Globalisation has driven the pursuit of more active citizenship forms. Many governments see educational policies as critical to preparing young citizens with the necessary skills, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours to thrive in a changing global context. However, what active citizenship education is and means varies across countries. Little is known about how active citizenship is conceptualised in educational policies in Singapore and the kinds of citizens these policies and programmes aim to nurture. This article draws on an analysis of 20 Singapore policy texts, such as political speeches, press releases, and curriculum documents, to examine the kind of Singaporean citizens the Singapore government seeks to nurture. We argue that globalisation provides a critical context for local conceptualisations of citizenship, but the active Singapore citizen is not an individualistic nor a universal neoliberal citizen subject. In line with Asian conceptions of citizenship, which posit that ‘good’ people make good citizens, active citizenship in Singapore has a prevailing focus on ‘good’ character and an active citizen who prioritises the well-being of the collective, yet caught in a paradoxical pursuit of a neoliberal citizen.

Keywords

Youth citizenship globalisation neo-liberalism Singapore

Introduction

Calls for more active youth engagement in democratic and citizenship practices are nothing new (Kennelly and Llewellyn, 2011). These calls have been circulating for almost a century, in line with John Dewey’s notion of experiential democratic education (Dewey, 1944). However, in the 1980s and 1990s, many Western democracies became especially concerned with the fading of citizenship values and practices (Benn, 2000) and the perceived political apathy of young citizens (Wood and Black, 2018). They responded to the twin challenges of globalisation and the crisis in youth civic and political engagement with citizenship education (Gopinathan and Chiong, 2018). Singapore, an Asian semi-democracy, was no exception to these global trends.

Policymakers, teachers, and scholars differ in how they imbue the concepts of active citizenship with political ideologies (Veugelers, 2021). Even though all young Singaporeans undergo citizenship education, little is known about how active citizenship is conceptualised in the country’s educational policies and programmes. This paper contributes to the limited literature on conceptions of active citizenship in Asian states in general and Singapore in particular. We concur with Saha (2000) that ‘until it is clear what types of active citizenship are deemed desirable and under what conditions, the production of educational programs and curricula materials will be of uncertain value, and the achievement of desirable citizenship objectives will be problematic’ (p: 16).

National studies of citizenship have identified that liberal democracies such as the United Kingdom and Australia are interested in nurturing active citizens who can engage in political processes, preserve democratic values, and protect human rights (Kennedy, 2019). However, Asian conceptions of citizenship focus on ‘good’ citizenship, where it is often argued that ‘good’ people make good citizens (Kennedy, 2019). Understanding how Singapore policymakers conceptualise active citizenship within the Asian tendency to focus on character and values can help us examine active citizenship as a ‘travelling theory’, which migrates and takes on new meanings in different contexts (Said, 1983). It may also support the development of more transformative non-formal and informal citizenship education programs that seek to develop a more activist kind of citizen in Singapore.

This paper examines the notions of active citizenship in Singapore policy documents to uncover the ideological parameters associated with policy efforts to engage youth as ‘active citizens’ in Singapore’s semi-democracy. Drawing on Sim et al., (2017) typology of citizenship, this paper highlights the ‘submerged ideological effects of a particular constitution of citizenship “action” that is currently promoted within citizenship curricula, one that implicitly side-lines and marginalises other, often more relevant, modes of engagement’ (Kennelly and Llewellyn, 2011: p: 900). Similar to Kennelly and Llewellyn’s (2011) exploration of discursive constructions of active citizenship within the Canadian civics curriculum document, this study also uncovered evidence of neoliberal influences on civics education for young people. However, we argue that the active (neoliberal) citizen constructed in Singapore’s educational policies and programmes is character-driven, in line with the Asian tendency to focus on morality and values.

Globalisation, neoliberalism, and the rise of active citizenship

Some of the most important global educational discourses that have contributed to the convergence of educational practices and policies worldwide are neoliberalism, the notion of a knowledge economy, and education as an investment for human capital (Spring, 2008). Indeed, globalisation is often associated with a neoliberal worldview that promotes the benefits of free trade across countries in the global market (Kennedy, 2019). As a global educational discourse, neoliberalism has circulated widely worldwide through international organisations such as the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Neoliberalism and globalisation have become so intertwined that some scholars see globalisation as marking the global triumph of neoliberal capitalism (Zajda, 2022).

Neoliberalism began as a series of political decisions designed to shrink the welfare state and increase trade between nations (Brown, 2005). It is perhaps no surprise that ‘citizenshipification’ occurred during this period of neoliberal capitalism when the desire for small and self-restrained governments led to an emphasis on active citizens, ‘responsibilisation’, and personal self-regulation (Ong, 2006; Rose, 1999; Veugelers, 2021). The fact that there is no single, universally held notion of citizenship meant that active citizenship operates as an empty signifier, and what it entails could differ significantly (Lawson, 2001).

Consequently, active citizenship has become many national governments’ panacea to problems of globalisation and the nanny state (Hvinden and Johansson, 2007). The global economy has contributed to the mass migration of workers, increased multicultural populations, and concerns about the impact on social cohesion. As cultural and economic globalisation increasingly drive unease about vanishing values and norms, and anxiety about declining social trust and civic participation, many governments have turned to citizenship education to inculcate the appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitudes that would strengthen their citizenry’s identification with the nation-state and address perceived threats to social cohesion (Jansen et al., 2006). Hoekstra (2019) noted that Dutch integration policies saw active citizenship as a solution to failed integration, low social cohesion, and poor security in migrant-concentrated neighbourhoods. Harber (1992) saw active citizenship in the 1980s as ‘about motivating young people to be active in taking on the worthy and necessary tasks left undone by the welfare state’ (p. 17). Lawson (2001) speculated that active citizenship lowered public expectations of the state and reduced the risk of social unrest arising from the dominance of a culture of rights. Hvinden and Johansson (2007) contended that active citizenship replaced the language of rights with social responsibility and encouraged ordinary citizens to work alongside public agencies to address contemporary social problems.

Liberal and civic republican conceptions of (active) citizenship

Just as citizenship is a contested concept with no single understanding, the meaning of active citizenship also varies according to social, political, and cultural contexts and reflects different historical legacies (Hvinden and Johansson, 2007). Conceptions of citizenship have traditionally drawn from two main orientations: liberal and civic republican. In the liberal tradition, citizenship is a legal status that entitles each individual to the same formal rights as other fellow citizens. The liberal conception of citizenship is best encapsulated in British sociologist TH Marshall’s (1950) well-known definition of citizenship as ‘a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed’ (pp: 28–29). The Marshallian conception of citizenship includes the civil, political, and social triad of rights. Civil rights include individual rights to freedom of speech, faith, and liberty of the person, the right to own property, and the right to justice. Political rights focus on participation in politics. Social rights emphasise rights to economic welfare and security, share a social heritage in full, and live the life of a civilised being according to the standards prevailing in society. Overall, the emphasis of the liberal tradition is on independent and self-interested individuals, their equal rights, and the rule of law that assures these rights (Jochum et al., 2005).

Whereas the liberal tradition emphasises individual liberty and limited obligations to the state held in place by a set of rights, the civic republican tradition stresses citizens’ duties to the nation-state and their active political participation (Heater, 1999). Most scholars see the liberal conception of citizens as passive, which leaves little room for citizens’ active involvement in the public sphere (Turner, 1997). Liberal citizenship draws a sharp line between public and private spheres and sees participation in public affairs as a matter of personal choice (Johansson and Hvinden, 2007). Liberal citizens are citizens by virtue of their legal status and may be no different from subjects living under absolute authority (Saha, 2000). Indeed, within the liberal tradition, the channels of active citizenship focus mainly on paying taxes, providing military services, and partaking in procreation (Stewart, 1995; Turner, 2009).

In contrast to the passive liberal subject, the civic republican citizen is an active political agent who shapes and changes society. The civic republican tradition understands citizenship as an overarching civic identity shaped by a shared public culture and produced by a sense of belonging to a particular nation-state (Hvinden and Johansson, 2007). Republican citizenship is understood in terms of abstract rights and obligations. Underpinned by the idea that a citizen is made, not born (Hvinden and Johansson, 2007), civic republicans understand citizenship as a kind of practice – one that is associated with political socialisation and the development of civic virtues through ‘the direct participation of citizens in the public realm and in deliberation and decision-making related to common affairs’ (Hvinden and Johansson, 2007: p. 38). Thus, civic republican citizenship is a ‘thicker’ and more active version of citizenship (Turner, 1990).

Although active citizenship has strong normative connotations and is usually understood as positive, virtuous, and desirable, civic republican citizenship romanticises participation and fails to recognise its exclusionary tendencies, especially with regard to marginalised groups such as women and children (Hvinden and Johansson, 2007). It pre-draws the boundaries for participation and the activities that count towards active citizenship and is perhaps why young people were deemed politically apathetic. Active citizenship is most frequently equated with formal participation in democratic institutions, such as voting or membership in political parties (Kennelly and Llewellyn, 2011). However, such a narrow conception of citizenry participation tends to marginalise the varied everyday ways young people are increasingly engaging within the democratic sphere, such as volunteerism and online activism. Kennelly and Llewellyn (2011) remind us that ‘young people’s forms of “active citizenship” may look nothing like that which is promoted in curricular documents’ (p: 900). Lister (2007) noted that care work in the private sphere is often disregarded in active citizenship because the activity is neither political participation nor takes place in the public sphere. Hoekstra (2019) observed that local interventions in Western Europe often constructed residents in diverse and deprived urban neighbourhoods as passive and disengaged, even though the residents were attached to and engaged with their neighbourhood because their activities were not state-sanctioned.

Additionally, active citizenship can sometimes be compliant citizenship (Saha, 2000) and may legitimise non-democracies and discourage activists from expressing political dissent. Geha and Horst (2019) demonstrated this by analysing active citizenship programmes in the Arab region. Indeed, education for active citizenship often encourages civic participation based on conformity rather than dissent and leaves out activist types of activities, such as those that are ‘of a protest nature’ (Saha, 2000: p. 12) and lie outside the formal channels of the political decision-making process (Geha and Horst, 2019). Governmentality scholars contend that the institution of modern schooling constitutes the state’s governance apparatus and provides an important channel for the state to convey its ideals about political action (Rose et al., 2006). Similarly, citizenship education is not neutral nor apolitical. The education system, including the citizenship curriculum, often mirrors the power structure of society and presents a particular perspective on social structure and how it operates (Saha, 2000). The notion of active citizenship as compliant citizenship highlights this tension in citizenship education: on the one hand, the government is concerned with issues of legitimacy and social order and keen to strengthen the status quo; on the other hand, citizenship education is seen as a means of subverting present social arrangements and changing the way citizens understand and work with state institutions (Lawson, 2002).

Citizenship education in Singapore

Singapore is a small, multi-ethnic nation-state with remarkable economic success within three decades of independence, rising meteorically from a Third World ex-colony to a First World economy and a global city (Gopinathan and Chiong, 2018). The government subscribes to the philosophy that citizens prefer ‘the right to a better life over political ideology’ (Sim, 2011: p. 222) and has consistently prioritised a neoliberal agenda to ensure Singapore’s continued economic success (Tan, 2017). It believes that limits to democracy are necessary for the country’s survival and that citizens can and should sacrifice their socio-political freedoms in exchange for economic prosperity (Sim and Krishnasamy, 2016). Consequently, Singapore is a semi-democracy where citizens’ participation in civil society is constrained and state-controlled. Political participation is primarily limited to voting, volunteerism, and voicing opinions through official channels (Han, 2015; Sim et al., 2017). Singapore’s economic success is built upon a strong state but weak civil society, characterised by passive, responsible, and rule-following citizens (Gopinathan and Sharpe, 2004).

The Singapore government primarily uses education as an instrument in nation-building (Gopinathan and Chiong, 2018). In line with this, citizenship education has evolved in response to changing national priorities and the demands of globalisation (Deng et al., 2013; Han, 2000; Lee, 2015). In Singapore, social cohesion and economic growth have been the backbone of social and education policies (Gopinathan, 2015). However, in the late 1990s, economic reforms, increasing immigration, the government’s concern about young people’s civic deficit and apathy, and challenges in integrating new citizens into Singapore’s society became major drivers for changing priorities in Singapore’s citizenship education (Gopinathan and Mardiana, 2013; Tan, 2013). Citizenship education policies began to emphasise citizenship forms that focused not only on nurturing a sense of belonging but also on a moral obligation to actively contribute to the building of the nation’s social and economic future (Gopinathan and Mardiana, 2013; Nelson and Kerr, 2006).

Thus, in keeping with global trends, nurturing young Singaporeans to be ‘concerned citizens’ and ‘active contributors’ emerged as a key priority (Ministry of Education, 2014a, Ministry of Education, 2014, Ministry of Education, 2016). Policies and programmes for citizenship education in Singapore paradoxically highlight this ideal: a global orientation is mixed with a nation-centric conception of citizenship education (Gopinathan and Chiong, 2018; Thian, 2019). This paper explores how tensions between the global orientation needed for economic success and local concerns about social cohesion play out in the way citizenship is defined in educational policies in Singapore and the kind of active citizens these policies and programmes aim to nurture.

Analytical framework

Several analytical frameworks offer typologies for categorising different types of active citizens. McLaughlin (1992), for example, conceived citizenship education as a continuum, ranging from the minimal interpretation, where citizenship is narrowly seen in ‘formal, legal and juridical terms’ (p. 236), to the maximal interpretation, where citizenship is more broadly inclusive of different societal groups and interests. Another popular typology of active citizenship developed by Westheimer and Kahne (2004) from a multi-year study of school-based democratic citizenship programme in North America categorises active citizens into three kinds: personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented. Personally responsible citizens act responsibly in their community through individual acts of volunteerism and participation, while participatory citizens lead and organise the community within the established systems and structures. In contrast, justice-oriented citizens are more critical in their participation and seek to contest existing systems and structures that reproduce patterns of injustice. Although education for active citizenship involves young people in shaping their society, few programmes facilitate social movements or systemic change (Westheimer and Kahne, 2004). Rather, programmes tend to prioritise volunteerism and personal acts of compassion and kindness while avoiding discussion around politics and policies.

For this study, we draw on the typology of active citizens by Sim et al. (2017), developed specifically for and from the Singapore context. Although the typology of active citizens that Westheimer and Kahne (2004) developed is ‘research-based, policy-related and professionally useful’ (Davies, 2017: p. 81), we find it insufficiently culturally nuanced for the Asian-Singaporean context. Rather, we draw on a more updated and culturally and contextually appropriate conceptual framework that Sim et al. (2017) developed for this policy analysis. Their research-based typology of citizenship is based on an in-depth literature review of conceptions of citizenship in the Asia-Pacific region, which was then mapped against interview data from 14 Singapore social studies teachers. The three types of citizenship in their framework are thus more contextually relevant to this policy analysis of Singapore's conceptions of citizenship:

• character-driven citizenship refers to citizens of good character and high morals;

• social-participatory citizenship refers to active participation in the social life of the community, and

• critically reflexive citizenship refers to deep political awareness, a strong belief in fairness and justness, and a critical examination of the self, the systematic structures, and relational aspects of the society, and the relationship between the self and the society. (pp. 96–97)

Although the conceptual frames of Westheimer and Kahne (2004) and Sim et al. (2017) have much in common, there are significant differences in emphases between the two frameworks. First, the notion of character-driven citizenship in Sim et al.’s framework has a more explicit focus on moral values, which aligns with Singapore’s longstanding focus on using moral education for citizenship education (Han, 2015), compared to the notion of personally responsible citizenship (Westheimer and Kahne, 2004). Second, the notion of social-participatory citizenship in Sim et al.’s framework has a broader conception of social participation as that is concerned with ‘doing’ and ‘making a difference’, compared to the strong emphasis on leadership in Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) notion of participatory citizenship. Finally, the notion of critically reflexive citizenship in Sim et al.’s framework focuses more on the relational aspects of citizenship and society, which aligns with the existing scholarly characterisation of citizenship education in Singapore (Sim and Chow, 2019), compared to the stronger emphasis on systemic changes in Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) notion of justice-oriented citizenship.

Methodology

To investigate the conception of the Singaporean citizen that the Singapore government aims to nurture, a total of 18 sources with a focus on citizenship and citizenship education were selected, comprising political speeches, press releases, and curriculum documents from the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth. Additionally, two speeches by the Singapore Prime Minister highlighting the government’s desire to promote more active forms of citizenship within the same period were included. It is important to note four points about the text selection: first, the reliance on sources from official ministry web portals comes from this being the only means for the public to gain access to policy texts such as political speeches, press releases, and curriculum documents. Second, most sources are political speeches because, in Singapore, a political speech is often read as if it was a policy document, and policies are often spoken into existence (Sim, 2013). Third, the text selection started from 2011 because that year marked a significant policy reform towards more active forms of citizenship in Singapore (Gopinathan and Mardiana, 2013). In Singapore, policies are usually announced during the MOE’s annual workplan seminar and subsequently uploaded onto MOE’s website. However, from 2016 onwards, MOE stopped publishing these policy speeches publicly and made them confidential internally within MOE only. In Singapore, there is no Right to Information Act, and we have no access to these policy speeches, so we restricted the analysis to 2016.¹ MOE revised the Character and Citizenship education (CCE) and implemented the revised curriculum across primary, secondary, and pre-university levels from 2021 onwards. These documents were initially selected but were omitted after initial analysis as the focus on neoliberal outcomes persisted in these documents, no different from those before. In keeping our analysis triangulated with MOE workplan seminar speeches, limited our analysis till 2016. Finally, the search involved purposeful sampling of sources that explicitly referenced ‘citizenship’ and ‘citizenship education’. Sources containing no reference to citizenship or citizenship education were omitted. Table 1 presents a summary of the selected texts.

Table 1.

Summary of sources of analysis.

S/No	Source type	Description	Year
1	Speech	Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally Speech	2011
2	Speech	Opening address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education (MOE) Work Plan Seminar	2011
3	Speech	Opening address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the 1st NIE-MOE Character and Citizenship Education Conference	2011
4	Speech	Keynote speech by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, ‘Education for Competitiveness and Growth’, at the Singapore Conference in Washington, DC, US, 8 Feb 2012	2012
5	Speech	1st reply by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, ‘Student-Centric, Values-Driven Education: Nurturing an Inclusive and Stronger Singapore’, at the Financial Year 2012 Committee of Supply Debate	2012
6	Speech	Keynote address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar	2012
7	Press release	‘New Syllabus and Textbook Titles for Character and Citizenship Education’	2012
8	Speech	1st reply by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, ‘Hope – Opportunities for All’, at the Financial Year 2013 Committee of Supply Debate	2013
9	Speech	Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally Speech	2013
10	Speech	Keynote address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar	2013
11	Press release	‘Updated Leaps 2.0 to Better Support Students’ Holistic Development’	2014
12	Curricula document	‘A Holistic Education for Secondary School Students – LEAPS 2.0’	2014
13	Curricula document	Character and Citizenship Education (Primary) Syllabus	2014
14	Curricula document	Character and Citizenship Education (Secondary) Syllabus	2014
15	Speech	Speech by Mr Lawrence Wong, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, ‘Promoting the Spirit of Giving, Boosting Youth Volunteerism and Strengthening Social Harmony’, at the 2014 Committee of Supply debate	2014
16	Speech	Address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the 7th Teachers’ Conference 2014	2014
17	Speech	Keynote address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar	2014
18	Speech	Keynote address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar	2015
19	Curricula document	Social Studies Syllabus for Upper Secondary, Express & Normal (Academic)	2016
20	Curricula document	Character and Citizenship Education (Pre-University) Syllabus	2016

The analysis process adhered to Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Using Sim et al.’s (2017) typology as an analytic framework, we used a deductive, thematic approach to analyse the kinds of citizens espoused in the policies. The policy documents were first coded against Sim et al.’s (2017) typology – character-driven, social-participatory, and critically reflexive citizens. After an iterative review and analysis process, these data were collated into possible themes, and a thematic map of analysis was created (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Examples of themes within the code of citizenship include ‘care and harmony’ and ‘identity, belonging, and rootedness’.

What kind of Singapore citizen?

This section presents the thematic analysis of the data sources against the ‘typology of citizenship’ by Sim et al. (2017), revealing an over-riding emphasis on a character-driven citizenship – a ‘good’ citizen – yet caught in a paradoxical pursuit of a neoliberal citizen.

Character-driven citizenship

The government deemed it important to nurture citizens of good character with the moral resolve to withstand an uncertain future in preparation for threats and challenges (Ministry of Education, 2011b). Consequently, character-driven citizenship featured in almost all the speeches and curriculum documents analysed and manifested in three forms – the caring citizen, the loyal citizen, and the resilient citizen.

There is compelling evidence across the policy texts that harmony and care were considered important attributes of the ideal Singaporean citizen. These two values were often used together to suggest that they complemented each other. The Minister for Education’s speech envisioned the caring citizen as contributing to a cohesive and harmonious society: ‘we want them [our children] to have the values and character to do well in life, to live in harmony, and to care for one another’ (Ministry of Education, 2012a). The pursuit of a caring citizen in Singapore society was portrayed as crucial on two levels: familial and societal. This is consistent in a context where the family was seen as the ‘basic unit of the Singapore society’ (Ministry of Education, 2014b: p. 31). At the same time, the caring citizen was also expected to embody an attitude of ‘nation before community, and society above self’ (Ministry of Education, 2014b: pp. 31–32).

The conception of a caring citizen in the citizenship education curriculum was linked to relational aspects of citizenship, for example, ‘to develop care and concern for others’ (Ministry of Education, 2014a, Ministry of Education, 2014, p. 3), and social and emotional competencies, such as ‘social awareness’ and ‘relationship management’. These competencies sought to develop relational, caring citizens who were ‘socially aware’, ‘interact well with others’, and could ‘nurture positive relationships’ (Ministry of Education, 2014a, Ministry of Education, 2014, p. 3). The CCE programme provided classroom-based lessons on how to be a caring person, while the Values-in-Action programme provided opportunities for students to practise care. For instance, at the primary level, students learnt about ‘taking care of family members’ (Ministry of Education, 2014a: p. 19); at the secondary level, they learnt about ‘caring for the environment and animals’ (Ministry of Education, 2014b: p. 23).

Besides a desire for a caring citizen, a desire for a loyal citizen featured prominently across the texts. Young Singaporeans were expected to ‘grow up loyal citizens, with a strong sense of belonging to Singapore and a strong sense of national identity, committed to the well-being, defence and security of Singapore’ (Ministry of Education, 2011a). A sense of commitment and loyalty to Singapore and fellow Singaporeans were presented in these texts as important to take Singapore forward (Ministry of Education, 2013a). The notion of a loyal citizen was inextricably linked to concepts such as care, national identity. and rootedness to Singapore. For example, Singaporean children were expected ‘to care for each other, to forge a community united by a common national identity’ (Ministry of Education, 2012a). Citizenship education was instrumental in nurturing ‘concerned citizens’ (Ministry of Education, 2014b: p. 4) rooted to Singapore (Ministry of Education, 2011a). This was an important feature of Singapore’s paradoxical orientation towards citizenship, understood as preparing young Singaporeans for the future workforce in a global economy while balancing the global orientation with a strong emphasis on national interests and identity (Gopinathan and Chiong, 2018).

Nurturing a resilient citizen was another key feature of character-driven citizenship, particularly in the face of individual, community, or national challenges and uncertainty and vulnerability in a changing society (Ministry of Education, 2011a). As a young nation with a small economy, developing ‘informed, rugged and resilient citizens who can stay united to overcome crisis and adversities’ (Ministry of Education, 2011b) was seen as a necessary response to combat the effects of globalisation (Ministry of Education, 2012b). Particularly evident in speeches and curricular documents were a constant fear of threats to survival and a sense of vulnerability and an uncertain future in the face of socio-economic constraints and global challenges. The CCE curriculum highlighted young Singaporeans’ roles and responsibilities in Singapore amid threatening societal changes brought about by ‘globalisation and technological advancements’ (Ministry of Education, 2014b: p. 1). Similarly, National Education, ‘a cornerstone of the CCE curriculum’, constantly reiterated Singapore’s vulnerabilities and constraints (Ministry of Education, 2011b). The anxiety about nurturing resilient citizens was so intense that Singaporeans were expected ‘to step forward to risk their lives’ in times of crisis and difficulties (Ministry of Education, 2011b). There was a perceived need to equip Singaporeans with ‘both values and competencies’ to face threats that ‘will test our resolve, our cohesiveness, and our sense of belonging in an uncertain world’ (Ministry of Education, 2011b).

Social-participatory citizenship

While there was an overwhelming focus on citizens of good character and high morals (i.e. character-driven citizenship) across the policies, there was also a notable focus on active participation in the community’s social life (i.e. social-participatory citizenship). The Singapore Prime Minister emphasised social-participatory citizenship when he rallied young Singaporeans to be ‘active citizens’ and ‘change the community for the better’ (Prime Minister's Office, 2011). Social-participatory citizenship primarily manifested in various forms of volunteerism and community service projects promoted within the citizenship education curriculum. In Singapore, community involvement was an integral part of citizenship education, crucial to building a ‘spirit of volunteerism so that students become active contributors and concerned citizens, with empathy for fellow Singaporeans’ (Ministry of Education, 2012a). Social-participatory citizenship was so important that a Youth Corps Singapore programme was offered in post-formal education to provide opportunities for young Singaporeans to ‘contribute in a sustained and meaningful way’ (Ministry of Culture‚ Community and Youth, 2014). Nurturing students with ‘empathy for others, a regard for the common good, and a shared sense of responsibility for Singapore’s well-being and future’ through social participation was thus another common feature across the policy texts (Ministry of Education, 2013a).

Social-participatory citizenship was closely connected to character-driven citizenship, through which citizens ‘show care and concern for others, and [are] willing to contribute actively to improve the lives of others’ (Ministry of Education, 2011a). Here, values met actions through participation. The Values-in-Action programme was an important conduit for achieving the goal of social-participatory citizenship. Through the programme, the Ministry sought to nurture ‘socially responsible citizens who contribute meaningfully to the community’ (Ministry of Education, 2014c) and encouraged young people to ‘take ownership and have meaningful experiences in serving the community’ (Ministry of Education, 2012a). This goal aligned with an intended character-building outcome of CCE, that young Singaporeans learnt to ‘care for others and contribute actively to the progress of the community and nation’ (Ministry of Education, 2014b: p. 5).

Although Values-in-Action was presented as an opportunity for the ‘inculcation of values through community involvement’, it also indicated a desire for more critically reflexive citizenship. Values-in-Action required ‘students to identify and understand community issues, initiate action among their peers to make a difference and improve the lives of others’ (Ministry of Education, 2014d). Students undertook personal and group thinking to ‘reflect on the values they have put into practice and how they can continue to contribute meaningfully’ (Ministry of Education, 2012a). These features of the Values-in-Action programme, such as the needs analysis and the action-reflection cycle, could encourage students to critically examine their relationships with the community, especially less privileged members of society, and consider questions of fairness and justice, thus providing opportunities for conscientisation (Freire, 1972).

Together, Values-in-Action and Youth Corps Singapore signalled an important policy shift towards more social-participatory citizenship to augment the long-standing Singaporean government focus on character-driven citizenship.

Critically reflexive citizenship

Policy texts referenced critically reflexive citizenship less than character-driven and social-participatory citizenship. Only five references across the twenty policy texts strongly related to this notion of citizenship. Chronologically, the first reference occurred in the Minister for Education’s 2011 speech announcing the new CCE curriculum. He stated that ‘pupils must have the ability to reflect on and respond to community, national and global issues, and to make informed and responsible decisions’ (Ministry of Education, 2011a). The second reference could be found in an intended outcome of the CCE curriculum – for young Singaporeans to be globally aware, that is, to ‘evaluate and analyse global patterns and their impact on Singapore’ (Ministry of Education, 2014b: p. 4). A third but rather thin interpretation of critically reflexive citizenship was in the social studies curriculum, which emphasised developing ‘critical and reflective thinking, and tak[ing] multiple perspectives to inquire into real-world issues that concerned students’ lives’ (Ministry of Education, 2016b). The fourth reference was the Values-in-Action programme, where students in primary and secondary schools were encouraged ‘to choose community issues that they are concerned about, understand the issues better, and then decide how they can make a difference in a sustained way’ (Ministry of Education, 2012a). It suggested that younger children might take responsibility for their own spaces in class and at home. In contrast, older students could ‘initiate collective action among their peers to improve the lives of others in school and the community’ (Ministry of Education, 2012a). The final reference was from a speech where the Minister for Education described how students could adopt multiple perspectives and respond with appropriate decisions for their Values in Action projects based on real-life situations and consequences:

In one school […] teachers planned lessons to enable students to put their Values in Action (VIA) in real-life situations. Students progress through different levels in situations involving the school, the larger community, the nation, and the world. Secondary 4 and 5 students mentor younger students. Because these were real situations with real people and real consequences, students learnt how to see from different perspectives and make responsible decisions (Ministry of Education, 2012b).

These examples alluded to critically reflexive citizenship requiring students to be politically aware, critical, and reflective about their relationship with the local and global society. These desired outcomes implied that students were driven by beliefs in fairness and justice to take action for the community.

Despite these promising indicators of critically reflexive citizenship, it was compromised by how citizenship education was imagined. First, some texts revealed that citizenship education in Singapore was prescriptive and didactic, with a preference for pre-prepared, well-structured, and textbook-based curricula. Second, efforts to assess CCE devalued it to a minimal form of active citizenship. For example, outcomes in Values-in-Action were measured in terms of the number of projects students initiated or participated in (Ministry of Education, 2014c) rather than young people’s development of criticality through those experiences or their critique of society and politics. In 2012, a ‘Character Award’ was introduced ‘to recognise students who exhibit exemplary values, such as resilience and tenacity, integrity, care and respect, as well as civic responsibility’ (Ministry of Education, 2012a). However, the ‘exemplar’ citizen being recognised through the award was purely character-driven, made clear by the correspondence between the award’s language. No consideration was given to more critical forms of citizenship.

In summary, the analysis revealed an overriding emphasis on character-driven citizenship, with a preference for citizens of good character and high morals and social-participatory citizenship. Critically reflexive citizenship, that is, the ability to critique social and political structures in society, was least desired.

Neoliberal citizenship

A common theme that cuts across the three types of citizens was neoliberal citizenship, which suggested that forming the ‘good’ active Singapore citizen was fundamentally a neoliberal project. A neoliberal worldview favoured ‘self-regulating’ (p. 20) citizens who were free from government restraints, took responsibility for their welfare, and worked independently to contribute to personal and national economic productivity (Hvinden and Johansson, 2007). Within this worldview, character-driven and social-participatory citizenship were driven by the neoliberal intention of increasing economic prosperity through responsibility sharing between citizens and the state (Lister, 2007) and developing ‘complex skills needed for individual success in a global economy’ (Mitchell, 2003, p. 399). In line with neoliberal citizenship, the Singapore government’s pursuit of character-driven active citizenship and social-participatory citizenship featured a wider concern about ensuring the continuity of Singapore’s economic success in the twenty-first-century global marketplace by preparing young people to become capable citizen-workers of the future. There were multiple references to the idea that building ‘strong values and the right competencies’, including ‘the resilience to succeed […] critical and inventive thinking, civic literacy, and information and communication skills’ (Ministry of Education, 2012a) would ensure ‘the success of Singapore’ (Ministry of Education, 2011b) in a global economy characterised as ‘VUCA, which stands for volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity’ (Ministry of Education, 2013b).

Singapore’s economic success in the past few decades had been attributed to ‘building skills, knowledge and values’; hence, it was seen as crucial to ‘be on the right side building new competencies that are anchored on strong values and character’ (Ministry of Education, 2011b). The government believed that ‘education must be adapted to our local context, but it must also have an eye firmly on the global driving forces and the future we expect’ (Ministry of Education, 2012b). Therefore, it was concerned with equipping young Singaporeans ‘to be adaptable and willing to learn […] to have the confidence to deal with problems that have no clear-cut solutions […] to be able to work effectively with others, across races and nationalities, and to communicate clearly’ (Ministry of Education, 2013b). The overarching future-oriented citizenship framework, the Framework for 21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes (Ministry of Education, 2012b, 2014b), was developed to serve this purpose and sought to equip the Singaporean citizen-workers of the future with the necessary skills and competencies to meet local and global economic needs (Lee (2015).

However, the active Singapore citizen was not a universal neoliberal citizen subject. In line with Asian conceptions of citizenship, which posited that ‘good’ people made good citizens (Kennedy, 2019), active citizenship in Singapore was intertwined with character education and had different meanings from those of neoliberal, Western democratic states. In neoliberal, Western democratic states, the active citizen was taught to maintain ‘endless self-scrutiny, an individualised focus on one’s personal development over and above the well-being of the collective, and the capacity to continually renegotiate one’s skills and identity in light of the demands of global capitalism’ (Kennelly, 2009: p. 133). But in Singapore, Citizenship and Character Education (CCE) was a package that taught young Singaporeans to locate their pursuit of personal economic productivity within the larger collective: ‘nation before community, and society above self’ (Ministry of Education, 2014b: pp. 31–32). It sought to develop the young Singapore citizen into a ‘whole person’ with an ‘enduring core of competencies, values and character’ (Ministry of Education, 2012a). Given that ‘values are not just taught; they are often caught’ (Ministry of Education, 2011b), parents and community partners were invited to partake in providing experiences that ‘build character and enable students to develop the feelings for and to act on their values’ (Ministry of Education, 2011b), ‘reinforcing the lessons learnt in school and inculcating life skills’ and providing opportunities for ‘students to take part in meaningful activities in the community’ (Ministry of Education, 2012c).

In other words, having the resilience to continually renegotiate one’s skills and identity in light of the uncertainty and vulnerability of global capitalism was insufficient; the active Singapore citizen also needed to be caring and loyal so that even as s/he was being prepared for the future workforce in a global economy, s/he identified strongly with the nation (Gopinathan and Chiong, 2018).

Conclusion

This paper contributes to the limited literature on conceptions of active citizenship in Asian states in general and Singapore in particular. In the contemporary neoliberal era, ideas associated with neoliberalism, such as responsibility, competence, and self-regulation, have come to represent a common way of seeing citizenship education and overshadowed the potential of citizenship education to bring into being ‘activist citizens’ (Isin, 2008, p. 38). Like the Canadian curriculum (Kennelly and Llewellyn, 2011), active citizenship in Singapore imagines young people as law-abiding citizen-workers of the future who comply with the demands of the state and community and avoid disruptive and inappropriate participation in civic dissent. The ‘good’ active Singapore citizen ‘follows scripts and participates in scenes that are already created’ (Isin, 2008, p. 38), such as volunteerism and community service, rather than breaking with prevailing practices to claim their rights. While socially useful, active citizenship, as volunteerism and service learning, does not develop the ‘ability to engage in action for social change, the establishment of active solidarity, and the extension of rights’ (Ross et al., 2007, p. 300). Neither does it enable students to analyse social conditions nor understand the reasons for social inequality. Kennelly and Llewellyn (2011) term this form of active citizenship ‘educating for active compliance’ (p. 897). If Isin (2008) is correct that ‘the emerging figure of the activist citizen making claims to justice is the defining figure of contemporary global politics’ (p. 384), citizenship education will need to be more transformative than it currently is to support students to act in ways that disrupt and contest the status quo (Banks, 2017).

Although the findings show that policy conceptions of the Singapore active citizen bore similarities with neoliberal citizenship elsewhere, the evidence suggested that it morphed and took on cultural meanings in line with the local context – a ‘good’ neoliberal citizen. In contrast with the active Canadian citizen, the active (neoliberal) citizen constructed in Singapore’s educational policies and programmes was character-driven: a caring citizen who would contribute to a cohesive and harmonious society; a loyal citizen with a strong sense of identity, belonging, and rootedness to Singapore; and a resilient citizen who could face uncertainty and vulnerability in a changing society. In other words, while governments worldwide might seemingly be defining their citizenship education agendas in similar ways to global competitiveness and discourse of the market and draw on the same travelling discourse of active citizenship to achieve their neoliberal ends, citizenship education is also strongly embedded in national cultures. Re-contextualisation and local transformation of concepts such as citizenship are simultaneously taking place, remodelling citizenship education based on national histories, traditions, and social relations.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Siva Gopal Thaiyalan

Liyun Wendy Choo

Siva Gopal Thaiyalan is a Senior Lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences. Siva Gopal is a career educator who was first a teacher, then Head of Departement for Physical Education and Co-Curriuclar activities and subsequently a Senior Curriculum Specialist for Character and Citizenship Education at the Ministry of Education in Singapore. His research interest lies in the nexus of young politics, citizenship education and visual methodology.

Liyun Wendy Choo is a Professional Teaching Fellow at the Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland. She is especially interested in understanding the relationship between youth citizenship and identities in conflict-affected contexts.

References

Banks

(2017) Failed citizenship and transformative civic education. Educational Researcher 46(7): 366–377.

Benn

(2000) The genesis of active citizenship in the learning society. Studies in the Education of Adults 32(2): 241–256. DOI: 10.1080/02660830.2000.11661433

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brown

(2005) Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.

Davies

(2017) Book review: what kind of citizen? Educating our children for the common good, New York and London, Teachers College Press. Journal of Social Science Education 16(1): 81. DOI: 10.4119/UNIBI/jsse-v16-i1-1599

Deng

Gopinathan

Lee

CK-E

(2013) Globalization and the Singapore Curriculum: From Policy to Classroom. Berlin, Germany: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-4451-57-4_2

Dewey

(1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York, NY, USA: The Free Press.

Freire

(1972) Education: domestication or liberation? Prospects 2(2): 173–181.

Geha

Horst

(2019) Exporting ‘active citizenship’: foreign support for citizenship education in the Arab world. Citizenship Studies 23(5): 486–501. DOI: 10.1080/13621025.2019.1604629

10.

Gopinathan

(2015) Singapore Chronicles: Education. Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies & Straits Times Press.

11.

Gopinathan

Chiong

(2018) Being rooted, living global: citizenship and education in the Singapore city-state. In: Peterson

Stahl

Soong

(eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Citizenship and Education. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 1–18. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-67905-1_18-1

12.

Gopinathan

Mardiana

(2013) Globalization, the state and curriculum reform. In: Deng

Gopinathan

Lee

CK-E

(eds). Globalization and the Singapore Curriculum: From Policy to Classroom. Singapore: Springer, 15–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4451-57-4_2

13.

Gopinathan

Sharpe

(2004) New bearings for citizenship education in Singapore. In: Lee

Grossman

Kennedy

, et al. (eds). Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and Issues. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 119–133. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-7935-1

14.

Han

(2000) National education and ‘active citizenship’: implications for citizenship and citizenship education in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 20(1): 63–72. DOI: 10.1080/0218879000200106

15.

Han

(2015) Educating for active citizenship: youth organisations and alternative forms of citizenship education in Hong Kong and Singapore. In: Vickers

Kumar

(eds), Constructing Modern Asian Citizenship. England, UK: Routledge, pp. 240–262.

16.

Harber

(1992) Democratic Learning and Learning Democracy: Education for Active Citizenship:[special Report]. UK: Education Now.

17.

Heater

(1999) What Is Citizenship? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

18.

Hoekstra

(2019) Creating active citizens? Emotional geographies of citizenship in a diverse and deprived neighbourhood. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 37(3): 480–497. DOI: 10.1177/2399654418789408

19.

Hvinden

Johansson

(2007) What do we mean by active citizenship? Citizenship in Nordic Welfare States: Dynamics of Choice, Duties and Participation in a Changing Europe. England, UK: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203933527

20.

Isin

(2008) Theorizing acts of citizenship. In EF Isin. In: Nielsen

(ed). Acts of citizenship. London, UK: Zed Books, 15–43.

21.

Jansen

Chioncel

Dekkers

(2006) Social cohesion and integration: learning active citizenship. British Journal of Sociology of Education 27(2): 189–205. DOI: 10.1080/01425690600556305

22.

Jochum

Pratten

Wilding

(2005) Civil Renewal and Active Citizenship. https://www.ncvo.org.uk/images/documents/policy_and_research/participation/civil_renewal_active_citizenship.pdf

23.

Kennedy

(2019) Civic and Citizenship Education in Volatile Times: Preparing Students for Citizenship in the 21st Century. Berlin, Germany: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-6386-3

24.

Kennelly

(2009) Good citizen/bad activist: The cultural role of the state in youth activism. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 31(2–3): 127–149. DOI: 10.1080/10714410902827135

25.

Kennelly

Llewellyn

(2011) Educating for active compliance: discursive constructions in citizenship education. Citizenship Studies 15(6-7): 897–914. DOI: 10.1080/13621025.2011.600103

26.

Lawson

(2001) Active citizenship in schools and the community. Curriculum Journal 12(2): 163–178. DOI: 10.1080/09585170110050828

27.

Lee

(2015) Future-oriented citizenship: a possible citizenship model starting from the case of Singapore. Citizenship Teaching & Learning 10(1): 95–108. DOI: 10.1386/ctl.10.1.95_1

28.

Lister

(2007) Why citizenship: where, when and how children? Theoretical Inquiries in Law 8(2): 693–718.

29.

Marshall

(1950) Citizenship and Social Class, and Other Essays. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

30.

McLaughlin

(1992) Citizenship, diversity and education: a philosophical perspective. Journal of Moral Education 21(3): 235–250. DOI: 10.1080/0305724920210307

31.

Ministry of Culture‚ Community and Youth (2014) Promoting the spirit of giving, boosting youth volunteerism and strengthening social harmony. Available at: https://www.mccy.gov.sg/en/news/speeches/2014/Mar/COS2014_AgMinSpeech2.aspx (24 July 2016).

32.

Ministry of Education (2011a) Opening address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the 1st NIE-MOE Character and Citizenship Education Conference https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/opening-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--at-the-1st-nie-moe-character-and-citizenship-education-conference-on-tuesday--8-november-2011--900am-at-nanyang-technological-university-auditorium

33.

Ministry of Education (2011b) Opening address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education (MOE) Work Plan Seminar 2011 https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/opening-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--at-the-ministry-of-education-moe-work-plan-seminar--on-thursday--22-september-2011-at-1000-am-at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre

34.

Ministry of Education (2012a) FY 2012 committee of supply debate: 1st Reply by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education on Student-Centric, Values-Driven Education: Nurturing an Inclusive and Stronger Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/fy-2012-committee-of-supply-debate--1st-reply-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education-on-student-centric--values-driven-education--nurturing-an-inclusive-and-stronger-singapore

35.

Ministry of Education (2012b) Prepared remarks for Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, on “Education for Competitiveness And Growth” at the Singapore Conference in Washington D.C., USA, 8 February 2012. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/prepared-remarks-for-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--on-and8220education-for-competitiveness-and-growthand8221-at-the-singapore-conference-in-washington-dc--usa--on-wednesday--8-february-2012#sthash.jYlfd9bO.dpuf

36.

Ministry of Education . (2012c). Prepared remarks for Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, on “Education for Competitiveness and Growth” at the Singapore Conference in Washington D.C., USA, 8 February 2012. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/prepared-remarks-for-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--on-and8220education-for-competitiveness-and-growthand8221-at-the-singapore-conference-in-washington-dc--usa--on-wednesday--8-february-2012#sthash.jYlfd9bO.dpuf

37.

Ministry of Education (2013a) FY 2013 committee of supply debate: 1st Reply by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education: Hope – Opportunities for All. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/fy-2013-committee-of-supply-debate--1st-reply-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--hope---opportunities-for-all

38.

Ministry of Education (2013b) Keynote Address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar 2013 https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--at-the-ministry-of-education-work-plan-seminar-2013--on-wednesday--25-september-2013-at-915am-at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre#sthash.MI53HVPZ.dpuf

39.

Ministry of Education (2014a) Character and Citizenship Education (Primary) Syllabus. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Available at: https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/character-citizenship-education/files/2014-character-citizenship-education-eng.pdf

40.

Ministry of Education (2014b) Character and Citizenship Education (Secondary) Syllabus. https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/character-citizenship-education/files/2014-character-citizenship-education-secondary.pdf

41.

Ministry of Education (2014c) A Holistic Education for Secondary School Students: LEAPS 2.0. https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/programmes/co-curricular-activities/leaps-2.pdf

42.

Ministry of Education (2014d) Updated LEAPS 2.0 to better support students' holistic development https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/updated-leaps-20-to-better-support-students--holistic-development

43.

Ministry of Education (2016a) Character and Citizenship Education (Pre-university) Syllabus. https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/character-citizenship-education/files/2016-character-and-citizenship-education-(jc)-syllabus20293533f22f6eceb9b0ff0000fcc945.pdf

44.

Ministry of Education (2016b) Social studies syllabus: upper secondary: express & normal https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/humanities/files/2016-social-studies-(upper-secondary-express-normal-(academic)-syllabus.pdf

45.

Mitchell

(2003) Educating the national citizens in neoliberal times: from the multicultural self to the strategic cosmopolitan. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28(4): 387–403.

46.

Nelson

Kerr

(2006) Active citizenship in INCA countries: definitions, policies, practices and outcomes. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/active-citizenship-in-inca-countries-definitions-policies-practices-and-outcomes/

47.

Ong

(2006) Mutations in citizenship. Theory, Culture and Society 23(3): 499–505. DOI: 10.1177/0263276406064831

48.

Prime Minister’s Office (2011) Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally 2011 Speech. http://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/prime-minister-lee-hsien-loongs-national-day-rally-2011-speech-english

49.

Rose

(1999) Powers of freedom: reframing political thought Powers of Freedom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

50.

Rose

O'Malley

Valverde

(2006) Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2(1): 83–104. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900

51.

Saha

(2000) Education and active citizenship: prospects and issues. Educational Practice and Theory 22(1): 9–20. DOI: 10.7459/ept/22.1.02

52.

Said

(1983) The World, the Text, and the Critic. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

53.

Sim

JB-Y

(2011) ‘Simple ideological “dupes” of national governments’? teacher agency and citizenship education in Singapore. In: Kennedy

Lee

Grossman

(eds), Citizenship Pedagogies in Asia and the Pacific. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 221–242. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-0744-3_11

54.

Sim

JB-Y

(2013) National education: framing the citizenship curriculum for Singapore schools. In: Deng

Gopinathan

Lee

CK-E

(eds), Globalization and the Singapore Curriculum from Policy to Classroom. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 67–83. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-4451-57-4_2

55.

Sim

JB-Y

Chow

(2019) Confucian thinking in Singapore’s citizenship education. Journal of Moral Education 48(4). DOI: 10.1080/03057240.2018.1556155

56.

Sim

JB-Y

Krishnasamy

(2016) Building a democratic society: exploring Singapore students understandings of democracy. Asian Education and Development Studies 5(1): 37–58. DOI: 10.1108/AEDS-07-2015-0033

57.

Sim

JB-Y

Chua

Krishnasamy

(2017) “Riding the citizenship wagon”: citizenship conceptions of social studies teachers in Singapore. Teaching and Teacher Education 63: 92–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.002

58.

Spring

(2008) Research on globalization and education. Review of Educational Research 78(2): 330–363. DOI: 10.3102/0034654308317846

59.

Stewart

(1995) Two conceptions of citizenship. British Journal of Sociology 46(1): 63–78. DOI: 10.2307/591623

60.

Tan

(2013) Aims of schooling for the twenty-first century: the desired outcomes of education. In: Deng

Gopinathan

Lee

CK-E

(eds), Globalization and the Singapore Curriculum from Policy to Classroom. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 33–47. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-4451-57-4_2

61.

Tan

(2017) Governing Global-City Singapore: Legacies and Futures after Lee Kuan Yew. England, UK: Routledge.

62.

Thian

(2019) How to be Singaporean: becoming global national citizens and the national dimension in cosmopolitan openness. Globalisation, Societies and Education 17(4). DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2019.1573659

63.

Turner

(1990) Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology 24(2): 189–217.

64.

Turner

(1997) Citizenship studies: a general theory. Citizenship Studies 1(1): 5–18.

65.

Turner

(2009) T.H. Marshall, social rights and English national identity. Citizenship Studies 13(1): 65–73. DOI: 10.1080/13621020802586750

66.

Veugelers

(2021) How globalisation influences perspectives on citizenship education: from the social and political to the cultural and moral. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 51(8): 1174–1189. DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2020.1716307

67.

Westheimer

Kahne

(2004) What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal 41(2): 237–269. DOI: 10.3102/00028312041002237

68.

Wood

Black

(2018) Globalisation, cosmopolitanism and diaspora: what are the implications for understanding citizenship? International Studies in Sociology of Education 27(2-3): 184–199. DOI: 10.1080/09620214.2017.1415161

69.

Zajda

(2022) Globalisation, Ideology, and Human Rights. Berlin, Germany: Springer Nature(pp. 1–9). DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-90590-3_11