JC1 GP RESOURCE PACKAGE • FEBRUARY 2022

General Paper

INSIDE

The three learning outcomes of GP • Case Studies •

Resources for your GP journey • Expectations • Your tutors •
Platforms to extend your learning
 Welcome to GP!
Students of General Paper (GP) have the opportunity to grow in the
three areas below.

The three learning outcomes involve:

1. demonstrating knowledge and understanding of issues by exploring various

perspectives on a range of issues and examining the context from which
perspectives are shaped, ultimately developing a critical awareness of
continuity and change in the human experience
2. demonstrating skills and processes of analysis and evaluation
3. demonstrating effective communication and proficient use of language in
argumentation through reading, listening, viewing, writing, speaking and
representing 2
 Human
Experie
nce
Issue
Perspe
ctive
Contex
t

General An
Ev al
al ys
Paper ua is
ti
o
n

Arg
u
Rea ment
din s
view g ;
ing listen
Wr ing
itin ;
rep g; s
res pea
ent king
ing ;

This Resource Package will

support you as you set off on
your GP journey.

Resources are provided for all

three learning outcomes.
3
 Let us begin by exploring how we can understand the human experience through issues,
perspectives and context. Consider how the following two case studies are unpacked and
understood.

Case Study 1
The
Cross island line
controversy
The Cross Island Line (CRL) is Singapore's 8th MRT
line, stretching from Changi to Jurong. It was the most
ambitious part of a plan to almost double Singapore's
rail network by 2030, and to place eight out of 10
households within a 10-minute walk of a train station.

However, the alignment of the Cross Island Line

through the Central Catchment Nature Reserve
(CCNR) was the subject of much public debate, with
nature groups and members of the public voicing their
concerns about such an arrangement. Due to
Singapore’s size, constructing such a massive railway
would mean that the route has a high chance of
cutting through nature reserves, which in this case is
the CCNR. A direct alignment would see the 4km line
tunnelling underneath the Nature Reserve, while a
skirting alignment would see the 11km line diverted
around the reserve via Lornie and Upper Thomson.

2
possible alignment options
DI RE CT AL IG NM EN T
OP TIO N SK IR TIN G AL IG NM EN T
er
4km tunnel in total, with 2km deep und
the CCNR and the remainder outside
the OP TIO N
Tunnels skirting around (an
CCNR d away from) the
level CCNR
No physical structures on the surface
A 9km tunnel route length
within the CCNR under roads as
well as residential and comm
Travelling time: approximately 5 minutes ercial buildings
Travelling time: approximate
(from Bright Hill to the next station) ly 11 minutes
(from Bright Hill to the same
next station) 4
 Whose perspectives shape the issue?
What implications might ensue if any decision were made on the alignment of the
Cross Island Line ?
How do the perspectives differ?
Note the color
What is a PERSPECTIVE? of the speech
bubbles!
A perspective is a particular attitude towards or way of DIRECT ALIGNMENT
SKIRTING ALIGNMENT
regarding something; a point of view.

Anything like that coming up will definitely be noisy and dirty and… not very pleasant. I would rather they disturb
the animals. Even with measures such as noise barriers it would still be pretty unsightly and dusty. Not only would
residents be affected, the business of merchants nearby would be hit as well. The area would resemble a
perpetual worksite, since residents have already been living with noise and dust from construction of the Upper
Thomson station nearby for the last five or so years.”
Click here for
source link!

I. Affected Residents & Businesses

CON TEX T
The individual/familial need for a space where one can experience peace and privacy, a sense of comfort and
satisfaction, and safety and security is essential for a healthy standard of living. A conducive space for living and
commerce is highly sought after by residents and merchants alike.

“We are totally not for the Cross Island Line to go through the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. The MRT line
passing underneath the nature reserve could damage fragile ecosystems and harm wildlife! It is a remnant
fragment of an ancient rainforest with its incredible biodiversity. That’s something so priceless and invaluable that
you can’t put a price on it. You cannot just introduce millions of species back into the ecosystem… MRT lines can be built
anytime, anywhere, but these natural phenomena are irreplaceable. These things take millions of years to evolve — all
the species that come with it, the biodiversity." - Mr Andrew Tay, executive-committee member at Cicada Tree Eco-
Place, a non-governmental organisation that promotes conservation and natural heritage

Click here for

source link!

II. Nature Groups/Enthusiasts

CON TEX T
The Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR) is home to the largest nature reserve in Singapore and is a
valuable asset to Singapore’s biodiversity scene. Acting as a large green lung, it spans over 2,000 hectares of
forest cover and is home to some of the richest forests in terms of biodiversity. It houses the Singapore Zoo,
Night Safari and the River Safari.

5
 “The direct option will benefit Singaporeans in reducing commutes by about six minutes compared with the
skirting option. The public will also pay lower fares as the route is shorter, and the construction cost to taxpayers is
reduced by about S$2 billion. In the longer term, it is a more environmentally friendly option as the direct
alignment has a lower energy consumption. We have agonised over the alignment because the Central
Catchment Nature Reserve is a special part of Singapore. At the same time, the Cross Island Line is a critical
transport infrastructure that will vastly improve the quality of life for commuters who need to cross the island
regularly. It will interchange with almost all the other MRT lines and hence raise the network resilience.”

III. Government

CON TEX T
Singapore’s goal is to become a first-world economy and a world-class home. Efficiency and pragmatism
are key tenets in decisions made when it comes to areas of urban development, transport and overall
economic progress.

Is there room for compromise?

You are encouraged to extend your understanding of the issue by
doing independent research on how a compromise was found
between the conflicting interests of stakeholders. You may also
reflect on whether you found the compromise satisfactory, and
your reasons for that view.
Click here!

The Issue

your societ y, how well are the demands for

In
om y an d the en vironm en t balanced?
the econ
when unpacking issues, we need to ask:
What is an ISSUE?
Who are the parties involved, and what are their
An issue is an important 01
interests/concerns? How do these interests/concerns clash?
topic or problem for debate
or discussion. Issues are
02 What shapes/influences these interests/concerns?
shaped by the tension
that arises from differing
What can be done to resolve this conflict? Can a consensus be
perspectives and the
03
6
found? Who has more power to achieve a favourable outcome
implications that result.
for themselves?
 Case Study 2
SINGLISH:
National Treasure or a Detriment?

What is Singlish?

Singlish is an informal, colloquial
form of English that is used in
Singapore. Linguists refer to it as
Singapore Colloquial English or
Singapore English. Singlish has its
own unique grammatical
structures as well as a distinctive
pronunciation. The intonation and
sentence structure of Singlish are
influenced by the main Chinese
dialects spoken in Singapore such
as Hokkien, Cantonese and
Teochew, while the influence of
the Malay and Indian languages
are also noted in the use of certain
lexical Singlish terms – for
example, agak agak, which means
“estimate” in Malay, and kaypoh,
which is Hokkien for “busybody”.
Due to its departure from standard rules of the
English language, Singlish has been labelled as
“ungrammatical”, “poor”, “bad” or “broken”
English. The use of Singlish has been the subject
of much debate since the 1970s, when it first
became an observable phenomenon. The
government actively discourages the use of
Singlish among the population, citing the need
for Singaporeans to be able to communicate
effectively with the wider English-speaking
population in the world.
While standard English is taught in schools and
is designated as the country’s main working
language, Singlish continues to be used in
everyday interactions within some, if not most,
segments of the population. Some linguists and
academics, prefer to view Singlish as a variety
of English that has evolved out of Singapore’s
unique multi-ethnic social milieu.
Click here!

Whose perspectives shape the issue?

What implications might ensue if any
decision were made on the use of Singlish?
How do the perspectives differ?

Again, note the color of the speech bubbles!

7
FOR AGAINST
“English is important because it is the language of commerce, science and technology. Singlish is
not English. It is English corrupted by Singaporeans and has become a Singapore dialect. Singlish
is broken, ungrammatical English sprinkled with words and phrases from local dialects and Malay
which English speakers outside Singapore have difficulties in understanding. English has its own
structure, form, grammar, pronunciation and idioms. If we don't stick to the rules of common
usage or if we mix English with other languages, then it is no longer English as it is understood
throughout the world. Problems in communication will arise.”

1 GOH CHOK TONG

(THEN PRIME MINISTER),
Government 1999

CONTEXT
For most of Singapore’s colonial history, English was a minority language that was mastered by a small elite
and its use was limited to official purposes such as in government offices and the law courts. However,
soon after Singapore’s independence from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, the government began actively
promoting the use of English as it was seen as key to the nation’s economic survival. Because Singapore
possessed no natural resources, proficiency in English was considered necessary for attracting foreign
investments and facilitating access to scientific and technological know-how. In the global context,
English is the lingua franca in developed countries such as the US, UK, Canada and Australia. It is also the
main language in the 54 member countries of the Commonwealth. Even in non-English speaking developed
countries (e.g. France, Germany and Italy), English is widely used in political, business and academic
circles. English is perceived as enabling Singaporeans to break out of our small geographical confines and
reach out to the rest of the world.
Click here for

source link!

“It is important to
speak and write
standard English
so that we can The popular television series Phua Chu Kang was
understand the singled out among other plays and popular local
world and the television and movie productions such as Army Daze,
world can Money No Enough! and I Not stupid wherein Singlish
understand us. featured strongly, for its liberal use of Singlish and
Singlish is a suggested that the Phua Chu Kang character should
handicap we must improve his English by attending the Basic Education
not wish on
for Skills Training classes that teach adults primary-
Singaporeans”.
school English and mathematics. In response, the
Television Corporation of Singapore (now MediaCorp
Pte Ltd) announced that it would be toning down the
use of Singlish in its programmes, and that Phua Chu
LEE KUAN YEW
(THEN SENIOR MINISTER),
1999
Kang would be speaking better English.
8
 “Singlish is uniquely “us” – it is shaped by our culture, history and people and is something no
other country can accurately recreate. It's a linguistic representation of the harmony in Singapore.
Our rojak (eclectic mix) language beautifully represents the integration of races, religions and
cultures that helped shape Singapore into what it is today. Whenever I travel overseas, it’s easy to
spot another Singaporean: from our eagerness to join queues, to our selfie addictions, and of
course, our Singlish. Nothing beats the feeling of familiarity when I hear someone speaking
Singlish. Simply put, Singlish isn’t swee (perfect), but it’s part of our national identity. Can don’t be
so quick to censor it?”
Click here for
source link!

2
Supporters of Singlish

CONTEXT
The population of Singapore today is more than 75% Chinese, about 15% Malay, about 8% ‘Indian’ (mainly
Tamil), and roughly 2% other origins, but about half of the population now speak English (or Singlish) at home.
Singlish is the neutral language between members of different ethnic groups. It is undeniably a central
expression of Singaporean culture, vibrant, loaded with references from the cultural backgrounds of
Singaporeans. And it is still thought of by many Singaporeans as ‘bad English’ even as they use it themselves.
Click here for
source link!
“We have taken the
language, and it is ours. What is CONTEXT?
We put our special words
into it. Our spirit, our style, Context is the circumstances that
our idiosyncrasies.”
form the setting for an event,
statement, or idea, and in terms of
which it can be fully understood.

SINGAPORE’S PIONEER IN ENGLISH LITERATURE,

PROFESSOR EDWIN THUMBOO

“It's the glue that helps Singaporeans

connect easily with one another. It’s a bit
of a secret language. It’s a mark of
friendship, and automatically, you
become closer.”
ASSOC PROF TAN YING YING
DIVISION OF LINGUISTICS AND MULTILINGUAL
STUDIES DEPARTMENT
9
J U S T C O D E - S W IT C H L A !
“Proponents tend to be able to code-switch between Singlish and standard English dexterously
under the right context and situation. They advocate the liberal use of Singlish to build bonds and
communicate efficiently among Singaporeans, and at the same time encourage foreigners to
learn Singlish vocabulary and grammar as part of assimilation into the local culture.

However, code-switching, whether between Singlish and English or Mandarin, remains a challenge
for many who struggle to communicate whether in presentations, business writing, e-mails or
formal conversations where it is necessary to be efficient, precise and accurate.
Click here for
source link!

“Singlish as a product of imperfect learning and spoken only by the uneducated and
uncouth.” - linguists John Platt and Heidi Weber, both of whom were non-Singaporeans
based in Singapore in the 1960s and 1970s

3
Linguistic Purists

CONTEXT
Linguistic purists oppose foreign influence in the English language. Often presented as a conservative
measure, Linguistic purists adopt the practice of defining or recognizing one variety of a language as being
purer or of intrinsically higher quality than other varieties. They insist that only traditional English is correct
and acceptable.

What are some recent perspectives on the Singlish debate?

You are encouraged to extend your understanding

of the issue by doing independent
research on the recent perspectives on the Singlish debate. Do also consider how the
current context has shaped these perspectives!

Click here!

Consider today's Context!

The world today is an increasingly competitive and interdependent global

climate, with the forces of globalisation seeing increased movement of
people in and out of geographical borders and blurring national
boundaries. The lure of economic opportunities beyond local borders and
the challenge of cultivating a sense of belonging to one’s country and
culture are important considerations for both national leaders and
citizens. 10
 The Issue

essential is Singlish to the Singapore

How
identity?

"Singlish became an identity thing for us,

something that we created ourselves and
gave us a sense of rootedness even if
nobody else could understand it except us.
Unfortunately, if we want to become a
global economy, we have to give this up,
and in a way, give up a bit of our identity.”
"The tensions and the debates around
Singlish do not necessarily seek resolution;
rather, they themselves have become
embedded in Singaporean identity and
the imagining of the nation.

- Wendy Bokhorst-Heng, 2005
- Jaime Ee, 1999

Click here for

source link!

11
 “In a world deluged by irrelevant information, clarity is power”
- Yuval Noah Harari, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

In the above illustrations of how the concepts of Perspective, Issue and Context
intersect, we see that perspectives are shaped by beliefs and values. What we believe
and value are in turn shaped by larger social structures and institutions such as the
larger communities we are a part of.

We are all individuals living within a larger social context and that context shapes our
perspectives and expectations. As individuals, we have the freedom and agency to
question if our beliefs and values are sound based on credible, compelling evidence
and justification, and by extension, society’s, so that we can choose the particular
beliefs and values we wish to subscribe to. As a result, the beliefs and values we
choose to adopt have the potential to disrupt or dismantle existing societal structures,
like traditions and collective histories, and such choices often give rise to conflicting
perspectives on important topics and implications that might ensue. These differing
perspectives hence shape the issues that are discussed and debated by people in
society.

The outcomes of these debates may result in change or

continuity and these always subject the existing social structures
to active and continuous interpretation and reinterpretation by
individuals and communities. Every iteration of this change
becomes woven into the prevailing continuous narrative of
society and our collective and individual human experience.

As GP students and members of society, your role is to gain

clarity about the important issues of the day and what the key
questions are — What is happening right now? What are today’s
greatest challenges and choices? What should we pay attention
to? What should we teach the children of tomorrow?

In order to do that, you need to acquire critical thinking, reading

and writing skills so as to be empowered with the ability to
develop self-awareness, critically examine the significance of
issues, learn more about the human experience, make informed
and responsible decisions and express yourself effectively so as
to successfully navigate whatever the future may bring.

12
 PERSPECTIVES ON THE
human or
con
d itio
n o
f

experience
te
sta y
The all

hu
m an,
esp
eci

ng
bei
ng
bei
d as
a rde c o
r
reg ati
em
pr obl
William Shakespeare, PLAYWRIGHT inh
er ent
ly

"All the world's a stage, d.

we
And all the men and women merely players; fla

They have their exits and their entrances;

And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.”
barack obama, 44th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
“That's what the leadership was teaching me, day by day: that the self-interest I was supposed
to be looking for extended well beyond the immediacy of issues, that beneath the small talk
and sketchy biographies and received opinions, people carried with them some central
explanation of themselves. Stories full of terror and wonder, studded with events that still
haunted or inspired them. Sacred stories. ”
Karl Marx, widely considered the father of communism
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave,
patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and
oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden,
now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at
large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."
YUVAL NOAH HARARI, HISTORIAN
“In itself, the universe is only a meaningless hodgepodge of atoms. Nothing is inherently
beautiful, sacred, or sexy; human feelings make it so. It is only human feelings that make a red
apple seductive and a piece of turd disgusting. Take away human feelings, and you are left with a
bunch of molecules.”
anthony stephan, business consultant
"We don’t wake up in the morning as “customers.” We don’t pour that delightful first cup of life-
giving coffee and think, “I am the end user of this coffee.” So why does the business world insist
on grouping—and trying to understand—people as customers when, before anything else, we
are human? We are messy, inconsistent, and, perhaps most of all, emotional—and it’s time for
businesses to acknowledge, respect, and account for this."

Ruth bader ginsberg, 2nd female justice of the us supreme court

“My mother told me to be a lady. And for her, that meant be your own person, be independent."

e diverse, s,
f thesperspective
The Buddha
w hich o
hing ith you?
"All existence is suffering."
n clas
ofte resonate w

Jesus
And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?
13
 How is General Paper Learned?
Resources to Kickstart your GP Journey
The following segment of the Resource Package is organised according to
1. Resources to support Knowledge and Understanding
2. Resources to support the development of Skills and Processes
3. Resources to support Use of Language for Communication

1. Resources to support Knowledge & Understanding

Understanding the Modern worLd context

A look at the numbers by Steven Pinker (18m 23s) - Click here for video

Is the world getting better or worse? Was 2017 really the "worst year ever," as some would have us
believe? In his analysis of recent data on homicide, war, poverty, pollution and more, psychologist
Steven Pinker finds that we're doing better now in every one of them when compared with 30 years
ago. But progress isn't inevitable, and it doesn't mean everything gets better for everyone all the
time, Pinker says. Instead, progress is problem-solving, and we should look at things like climate
change and nuclear war as problems to be solved, not apocalypses in waiting. "We will never have a
perfect world, and it would be dangerous to seek one," he says. "But there's no limit to the
betterments we can attain if we continue to apply knowledge to enhance human flourishing."

The World Ahead 2022: five stories to watch out for by The Economist
(17m 23s) Click here for video

What will be the biggest stories of 2022? As the pandemic continues to wreak havoc across the
globe, President Xi will cement his power as leader of China, tech giants will coax more of us into
virtual worlds and the space race reaches new heights.

The world after coronavirus by Yuval Noah Harari [article] Click here for article
This storm will pass. But the choices we make now could change our lives for years to come

The pandemic and young people – their hopes, dreams and fears by DW Documentary
(28m 25s) Click here for video

The film follows Alena, Karl and Friederike as they go about their daily lives. It tells of their hopes,
dreams and fears - and shows what keeps them going despite the challenges.

Understanding the Singapore context

Why is Singapore So Rich And Developed - A History of Singapore

(7m 45s) Click here for video

History of Singapore explores the pre-colonial myths of Singapore, how Singapore was founded by
Stamford Raffles, and how Lee Kuan Yew turned a 3rd world country into the world's richest nation
in a single generation.
14
The following five articles give insight into the context of Singapore society by
exploring beliefs and values about
1. size and geography,
2. politics and governance,
3. relationship between the state and civil society
4. education and equality
5. art and the economy
SMALL? BE
EXTRAORDINARY
BY BILAHARI KAUSIKAN - EXCERPTS
(SINGAPORE IS NOT AN ISLAND: VIEWS ON
SINGAPORE FOREIGN POLICY, 2017)
What does “sovereignty” mean to a small country like
Singapore? We are one of the few countries that did not
seek independence, but had independence unexpectedly
thrust upon us. I have been told that the late Mr Lee Kuan
Yew once said, “Small island states are a political joke”.
… such as the United States (US), China, India, Indonesia, Brazil
The concept of sovereignty is constantly evolving. Rather
than try to define the elephant, I propose to take its
existence for granted and instead consider what sovereignty
means to Singapore by deconstructing a single sentence:
“Singapore is a small state located in Southeast Asia”.
This seems straightforward, but is it really? What do we
mean by “small”? We are, of course, a physically small
country. A moderately athletic person could, without too
much difficulty, walk across it in a day. But as a trading
center, as a logistics hub, as a port and airport, and as a
financial centre, we are far from “small”. In trade, connectivity
and finance, among others, we loom quite large
internationally, far larger than our physical size may lead one
to expect.
… states. The international relevance of many members of
Trade requires connectivity, logistics and finance. Of course,
we today perform these functions at a far higher level of
sophistication and complexity than in the past. However,
the point is that they are essentially similar functions and we
have performed them as a British colony, as part of Malaysia,
and only in the past 50 years – which is but a blink of an
eyelid in the sweep of history – as a sovereign and
independent country.
There is, therefore, no reason to assume that sovereignty and
independence are necessary conditions for us to perform
such functions. We could conceivably do so even if our
independence and sovereignty comes, by some blunder of
policy, accident of politics or malicious whim of the gods, to
be severely compromised.
Size Matters
Size – physical size – matters and small states are intrinsically
irrelevant to the workings of the international system. It is
impossible to conceive of a world without large countries
or Russia, or even without medium-sized states such as
Australia, Japan, France or Germany.
But the world will probably get along fine without
Singapore as a sovereign and independent country. After all,
it has only had to put up with us for 50 years. For small states,
relevance is not something to be taken for granted. The
creation and maintenance of relevance must be the
overarching strategic objective of small states.
The majority of states are small. More than two decades ago,
Singapore established the Forum of Small States (FOSS) at
the United Nations (UN) – “small” being somewhat arbitrarily
defined as having a population of 10 million or less. It now
has 105 members out of a total UN membership of 193
FOSS is defined primarily by their vote in the UN. A vote in
the UN is only that; not to be sneezed at, but still only one
vote. Singapore is exceptional as a small country in that our
international identity and relevance is something more than
only our UN vote. We have options beyond our single UN
vote and that is why we were able to establish FOSS in the
first place.
How do we create relevance? There is no magic formula.
What makes us relevant vis-à-vis country A may be irrelevant
vis-à-vis country B, and, in any case, may become relevant to
both A and B as well as C in a week or a month, or a year or a
decade? What is relevant will eventually become irrelevant
and must therefore be continually refreshed.
15
The world is constantly changing and since the world will
not change to suit our convenience, we will have to
constantly adapt to it. Since the future is unknowable,
adaptation requires nimbleness or thought and action; and
thought and action based on a clinical – some say cold-
blooded – understanding of the world as it is and not as we
think it ought to be. Even if we hope to change the world,
we must first understand it as it is, because hope, however
fervent, is never enough.
The bedrock of relevance is success. I have always told our
foreign service officers that if Singapore’s foreign policy has
been successful it is not because of their good looks, natural
charm or the genius of their intellect; the most brilliant idea
of a small country can be safely disregarded if inconvenient,
whereas the most stupid idea of a large country must be
taken seriously. In fact, the more stupid the idea, the more
seriously it must be taken because of the harm a large
country can do. If we succeed, it is only because Singapore
as a country is successful. Singapore’s success invests our
ideas and actions with credibility.
Success must be defined, first of all, in economic terms. Will
a barren rock ever be taken seriously? I know that it has
become fashionable in certain circles to claim that
economic success is not everything and that there are other
worthy goals in life. I do not disagree as far as individuals are
concerned. If any of our compatriots chooses to drop out of
the rat race and devote his or her life to art or music or
religion or even to just lepak in one corner, I respect their
choice and wish them well.
However, the country as a whole does not have this luxury. A
world of sovereign states is in fact a rat race, and often a
vicious one, in which the weak go to the wall. There can be
no opting out for a sovereign state. To be crass about it, small
countries will always have fewer options than large
countries, but rich small countries have more options than
poor small countries and tilts the scales in our favour.
This is crucial because a small state cannot be only ordinarily
successful. If we were no different from our neighbourhood,
why should anyone want to deal with us rather than our
larger neighbours, which, moreover, are well endowed with
natural resources? To be relevant, we have to be
extraordinary. Being extraordinary is a strategic imperative.
Location Matters
And that brings us to the second part of the sentence with
which I began. Singapore is not just a small country, but a
small country in Southeast Asia; not the South Pacific or
South America or Europe or, thankfully, the Middle East. This
seems obvious, but I think is nevertheless insufficiently
appreciated, even by those who know better.
Southeast Asia is not a natural region, by which I mean a
region that can be defined by something intrinsic to itself, as,
for example, Europe can be defined as the heir to
Christendom and the Roman Empire. The main
characteristic of Southeast Asia is diversity, which is another
way of saying there is nothing intrinsic to it.
There are obvious differences in political form and levels of
economic development. But the most important diversities
of Southeast Asia are visceral: diversities of race, language
and religion. These are the roots of political tensions within
and between the countries of Southeast Asia.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was
intended, among other things, to mitigate these diversities
to ensure a modicum of order and civility in inter-state
relationships in a region where this was not to be taken for
granted. ASEAN has been reasonably successful. But ASEAN
can never entirely erase these primordial diversities because
race, language and religion are the essence of core identities.
What makes Singapore, Singapore?
Of course, none of this is intended to imply that we cannot
work with our neighbours or any other country; obviously
we must, obviously we can and obviously we do and indeed,
I dare say, we do so quite well. But these complexities are
never going to go away and we ignore or deny them only as
a peril of compromising our autonomy, that is to say, our
sovereignty.
I believe that matters are going to get even more
complicated because the external environment and our
domestic environment are both changing, and external and
internal complexities will act and react with each other in
ways that cannot now be predicted.
More Critical Thinking Needed
Shared assumptions come naturally, almost unconsciously,
to countries with long histories. But with only 50 years of
shared history, I am not entirely confident that this is the
case in Singapore. There is something of an intellectual
vacuum that is being largely filled by nonsense.
We need to be better at educating ourselves about our own
history. We do not, in our opinion, do a good enough job and
the recent debates about our own political history are,
unfortunately, notable only for their utter vacuity.
What passes for critical thinking about our history is too
often simply crying white if the establishment should say
black. And social media exacerbates the situation by
conflating information with opinion and treating both as
entertainment.
As our domestic political environment becomes more
complex with not only traditional political parties but also
civil society organisations and advocacy groups contending
in the policy space, opportunities for external influence will
multiply.
Since the beginning of recorded history, states have always
tried to influence each other, sometimes by covert means,
but also legitimately and openly through diplomacy. The
lines are not always clear and likely to get even more blurred.
The enthusiasm of some, mainly Western, diplomats to
whip the heathen along the path of righteousness have
already occasionally led them to cross the boundaries of
legitimate diplomatic activity.
16
 More fundamentally, market forces are creating economic
spaces that transcend national boundaries, most notably
between China and Southeast Asia. This is to be welcomed
on economic grounds but it will have political and strategic
consequences. It is redefining Westphalian notions of “state”
and interstate relations, and is stressing ASEAN as powerful
centrifugal forces pull members in different directions.

As the only Chinese-majority country in Southeast Asia, it

could pose special challenges for Singapore. Already,
Chinese diplomats and officials too often refer to Singapore
as a “Chinese country”. We, politely, but firmly, tell them that
they are mistaken. And we will continue to do so. But the
implications are worth pondering.

Bilahari Kausikan is Chairman of the Middle East Institute at NUS and Senior Fellow at the SMU School
of Social Sciences. He was the former Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs, having served as
ambassador to the Russian Federation and Finland, as well as Singapore’s Permanent Representative
to the United Nations from 1995 to 1998, with concurrent accreditation as High Commissioner to
Canada and Ambassador to Mexico. After his retirement, he was Ambassador-at-Large and Policy
Advisor at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Understanding questions:
What does “sovereignty” mean?
What is the overarching strategic objective of small states?
What is the definition of a “small state” where the Forum of Small States is concerned?
Kausikan states in the conclusion that “As the only Chinese-majority country in Southeast Asia, it
could pose special challenges for Singapore.” What are these challenges and how do they affect
Singapore?

Extension and Application Questions:

Singapore is situated in a region called the Nusantara. It would greatly enhance your understanding of
Singapore’s history by reading up the history of the region through the following links:

Click to access!

The Malay and Indonesian World Nusantara: History of a Concept

17
 PEOPLE WANT GOOD
GOVERNMENT
BY LEE KUAN YEW - EXCERPTS
(SPEECH BY MR LEE KUAN YEW AT THE CREATE 21
ASAHI FORUM ON 20 NOVEMBER 1992, TOKYO)
All peoples of all countries need good government. A
country must first have economic development, then
democracy may follow. With a few exceptions, democracy
has not brought good government to new developing
countries. Democracy has not led to development because
the governments did not establish stability and discipline
necessary for development. What is good government? This
depends on the values of a people. What Asians value may
not be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners
value the freedoms and liberties of the individual.
As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are
for a government which is honest, effective and efficient in
protecting its people and allowing opportunities for all to
advance themselves in a stable and orderly society where
they can live a good life and raise their children to do better
than themselves. In other words:
1. people are well cared for, their food, housing,
employment, health;
2. there is order and justice under the rule of law, and not
the capricious, arbitrariness of individual rulers. There is
no discrimination between peoples, regardless of race,
language, religion. No great extremes of wealth;
3. as much personal freedom as possible but without
infringing on the freedom of others;
4. growth in the economy and progress in society;
5. good and ever improving education;
6. high moral standards of rulers and of the people;
7. good physical infrastructure, facilities for recreation,
music, culture and the arts; spiritual and religious
freedoms, and a full intellectual life.
Very few democratically elected governments in the Third
World uphold these values. But it is what their people want.
When Asians visit US many are puzzled and disturbed by
conditions there:
1. law and order out of control, with riots, drugs, guns,
muggings, rape and crimes;
2. poverty in the midst of great wealth;
3. excessive rights of the individual at the expense of the
community as a whole; criminals regularly escape
punishment because the law which presumes
innocence over-protects their human rights.
The United States cannot tackle its drug problem by solving
the problem within its country. So it has to try to solve the
problem by attacking the drug problem in the drug
producing countries. It has invaded Panama to capture
Noriega. It has secretly kidnapped the Mexican doctor for
having tortured and killed a US drug enforcement agent.
The United States courts have held these actions as legal.
But if put to the International Court at the Hague there can
be little doubt that they were clear violations of international
law, whether or not they were in accordance with the US
law.
It is Asian values that have enabled Singapore to contain its
drug problem. To protect the community we have passed
laws which entitle police, drug enforcement or immigration
officers to have the urine of any person who behaves in a
suspicious way tested for drugs. If the result is positive,
treatment is compulsory.
Such a law in the United States will be unconstitutional,
because it will be an invasion of privacy of the individual. Any
urine test would lead to a suit for damages for battery and
assault and an invasion of privacy. Only members of the US
armed forces can be required to have urine tests. That is
because they are presumed to have consented when they
enlisted. So in the US the community’s interests have been
sacrificed because of the human rights of drug traffickers
and drug consumers. Drug-related crimes flourish. Schools
are infected. There is high delinquency and violence
amongst students, a high dropout rate, poor discipline and
teaching, producing students who make poor workers. So a
vicious cycle has set in.
Democracy and Human Rights Presumed to Lead to Good
Government
Whilst democracy and human rights are worthwhile ideas,
we should be clear that the real objective is good
government. That should be the test for ODA. Is this a good
government that deserves ODA? Is it honest and effective?
Does it look after its people? Is there an orderly, stable society
where people are being educated and trained to lead a
productive life?
18
You may well ask: How do people get a good government in
a developing country? I believe we can learn a valuable
lesson from the property and educational qualifications the
UK and the US had in their early stages of democracy. This
can work well in the towns where most people are
educated. Moreover it will encourage people to get
educated. In the rural areas, the educated are fewer. So
more traditional methods of representation, like the village
headman or chief, can be the basis of representation. Such
an approach can be criticised as elitist, but the chances of
getting a good government is better.
In its initial stages pressures can be partially successful. For
example, Zambia’s President Kaunda had to reverse his
policy of one-party government, to allow multi-party
elections. He was in desperate need of aid. He lost the
elections. Whether the newly elected President can do
better with unpromising social and administrative
structures is doubtful.
In Kenya, President Moi has had similar pressures. He too has
promised free multi-party elections. Can a change of leader
in a more or less free election change the country’s
direction? Nigeria has had 4 elected and 6 Military
Governments since 1960. No election has yet produced a
good government.
I have reservations whether multi-party elections will lead to
the outcome African peoples want, namely good
government. Whether that good government is
democratically elected or otherwise is of secondary
importance to African peoples.
A special difficulty in Africa is the lack of a sense of
nationhood transcending the tribe. An African’s highest
loyalty is to his tribe. African nations are enormous
conglomerations of thousands of totally different tribes,
speaking different languages with different cultures, put
together as one colony by European colonial powers.
Next, for good government, the leaders, whether elected or
otherwise, must have a sense of being trustees with the
people. The traditional chiefs were autocratic, even
dictatorial. But they had a sense of responsibility for their
tribe. Unfortunately, the loyalties of presidents and ministers
of new African countries are primarily to the people of their
own tribe.
In no new African country is there a culture of tolerance for
dissenting views amongst the people. Disagreements time
and again have broken out along tribal, not economic
interest lines.
Human Rights : progress likely if approach more realistic
On the whole, I think it is more difficult to achieve a working
democracy than to make some progress in human rights.
Greater respect for human rights is a worthwhile objective.
The only practical way forward is the step-by-step
incremental approach. Standards of what is civilised
behaviour varies with the history, and culture of a people,
and of the level of deterrence or punishment people in a
society are accustomed to.
Our common humanity requires us to persuade all peoples
and their governments to move towards more humane,
open, responsible and accountable government.
Governments should treat their own people, including
prisoners, in a humane way. Helmut Schmidt wrote in Die
Zeit on 29 May 1992, after a visit to China, on the Yellow
Emperor: “It seems that the formative force of the Confucian
cultural heritage with its tendencies towards vertical
meritocracy and hierarchy according to age, with its
willingness to learn and to be thrifty, and with the tendency
to family and group cohesiveness does not need Europe’s
and North America’s religious ethics, which are based on a
totally different spiritual concept, in order to achieve equal
economic performance. Perhaps the West must admit to
itself that people living in other continents and other cultural
groups with firmly rooted traditions can be thoroughly
happy even without the democratic structures which we
Euro-Americans consider indispensable. Therefore we
should not ask China to profess democracy, but we should
insist on respect of the person, personal dignity and rights.”
And one cannot ignore the history, culture and background
of a society. Societies have developed separately for
thousands of years at different speeds and in different ways.
Their ideals and their norms are different. American or
European Standards of the late 20th century cannot be
universal.
Attitudes are changing. Worldwide satellite television makes
it increasingly difficult for any government to hide its
cruelties to its own people. By international convention what
a government does with its own people is an internal matter
and does not concern foreign governments. This convention
is difficult to uphold when people worldwide see and
condemn the cruelties and want something done to stop
them. On the other hand, Western governments often use
public opinion as an excuse to interfere with another
government’s actions. But are Western governments
prepared to help financially to ease the severe economic
difficulties which are often the cause of upheavals and their
suppression by force? Only if they are, do they have a moral
right to interfere and to be listened to. Eventually the
international community will find a balance between non-
interference in a country’s internal affairs, and the moral
right to press for more civilised standards of behaviour by all
governments. However, I doubt if there will ever be a
common universal standard of what is acceptable
behaviour.
In the next 20 to 30 years, few societies will be isolated. All
will be ever more open to outside contacts, though trade,
tourism, investments, TV and radio. These contacts will
influence their behaviour, because their values, perceptions
and attitudes will change. There will be no convergence to a
common world standard. But we can expect more
acceptable standards where bizarre, cruel, oppressive
practices will become shameful and unacceptable.
We cannot force faster change, unless the advanced
countries are prepared to intervene actively. If a target
delinquent government collapses and the country breaks
down, are the donor countries prepared to move in and put
the country together again? In other words, recolonise and
create the preconditions for democracy?
19
 Some questionable assumptions
There are some flaws in the assumptions made for
democracy. It is assumed that all men and women are
equal or should be equal. Hence, one-man, one-vote. But is
equality realistic? If it is not, to insist on equality must lead to
regression. Let me put it to the test in some theoretical
situations. If we had a world government for this small
interdependent world, will one-man one-vote lead to
progress or regression? All can immediately see that the
developed and educated peoples of the world will be
swamped by the undeveloped and the uneducated, and
that no progress will be possible. Indeed if the UK and the
US had given universal suffrage to their peoples in the 19th
century, then economic and social progress might well have
been less rapid.
For reasons of equality, it is one-nation-one-vote in the
UNGA. But UNGA resolutions do not carry the force of
sanctions. Only the UNSC has that power. There, although a
majority of 8 out of 15 members is sufficient, any one of the
five permanent members can veto it. Who are the 5? They
were arbitrarily determined at the end of the last war.
Herman Khan, the late futurologist, once said, only half in
jest, that it could have been, in the UNSC, one-missile-one-
vote, and in the UNGA one-dollar-one-vote. I am not sure
whether this is acceptable to the world. But it is more
workable than one-man-one-vote in world government or
even one-nation-one-vote in the UNGA. It will be more in
accord with reality.
The weakness of democracy is that the assumption that all
men are equal and capable of equal contribution to the
common good is flawed.
This is a dilemma. Do we insist on ideals when they do not fit
into practical realities of the world as we know it? Or do we
compromise and adjust to realities?
On balance, if I were Japanese, I would like my Government
to assess countries on the substance of good government,
rather than the forms of democracy. Of course good
government includes humane and civilised standards of
behaviour.

Lee Kuan Yew was a Singaporean politician and lawyer who served as the founding Prime Minister of Singapore
from 1959 to 1990. As one of the founding members of the People's Action Party, Lee is recognised as the nation's
founding father, credited with rapidly transitioning the country from a "developing third world country into a
developed first world country within a single generation" under his leadership. He was a Member of Parliament,
representing Tanjong Pagar (a ward within Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru GRC), for 60 years until his death in 2015 at
the age of 91.

Understanding Questions:
1. What are some assumptions identified by Lee Kuan Yew in his speech about democracy?
2. What is the weakness cited by Lee Kuan Yew about democracy?
3. What did the quote attributed to Helmut Schmidt in his speech highlight about the differences between
Western and Eastern attitudes?

Making Connections:
1. Living in the 21st century and with the benefit of hindsight, do you think democracy is the best form of
government for Singapore?
2. Do you think Lee’s arguments about prioritising efficient governance still hold true today? Compare his
arguments with those raised by Kenneth Paul Tan in ‘Civic Education and Deliberate Democracy in Singapore’
later in this section and his discussion of the need for a deliberative democracy rather than a paternalistic one.
3. How is Singapore’s democracy different from Western democracy such as the United States and the United
Kingdom?

Application and Extension Questions

“As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient
in protecting its people and allowing opportunities for all to advance…”

Explain the distinction between effectiveness and efficiency; can the quest for efficient government sometimes get
in the way of effectiveness? Can you think of cases when this might have happened in Singapore in recent years?
20
 CIVIC EDUCATION AND
DELIBERATE DEMOCRACY
IN SINGAPORE
BY KENNETH PAUL TAN - EXCERPTS
(CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE STATE IN SINGAPORE, 2017)

Singapore's hegemonic dominant-party system has been credited for the country's successful development into one of the wealthiest
global cities today. The system, described as meritocratic, has focused on creating and sustaining administrative capacity, enabling the
Government to act expertly, strategically and effectively to bring tangible benefits to an increasingly affluent people. As problems
become more complicated and citizens become more sophisticated with higher expectations of their government, this elite,
technocratic and paternalistic model of governance that has worked well in the past will need to adapt in time.

One part of this necessary adaptation would be to focus on developing and sustaining capacities for citizenship, so that governmental
effective­ness may be augmented by broader participation in collective decision making; fairer representation of a more variegated
population; and enhanced accountability through responsible checks on governmental stagnation and excess of power. This chapter
argues that the habit and practice of deliberative democracy, an important missing piece of the puzzle, will need to be cultivated
through a reconsideration of the role of civic education and its redesign in Singapore. The chapter offers some broad
recommendations for that, with some examples from my own teaching practice.

What do citizens do?

At the heart of any effective attempt to promote civic education in Singapore must be a consideration of the citizen's role in
governance. And citizens in a modern representative democracy typically do at least three types of things. First, they periodically vote
for leaders whom they trust will faithfully, benevolently and competently represent their wants, needs and interests. Second, citizens
deliberate with one another and with the State in the public sphere, often through participatory mechanisms and the mass media,
both face-to-face and increasingly online. Third, citizens take action individually or in organised groups to pursue causes that benefit
themselves and others.

In Singapore today, voting and many instances of public deliberation and activism are organised, funded and approved by the State or
the State as a dominant partner with civil society, though some deliberation and activism actually happens independently of the State
and sometimes in contradiction to it.

This state-heavy approach to citizenship practices has been the result of accelerated development over a relatively short post-
Independence history. From 1819 to 1959, the colonial administration's laissez-faire approach had generally been complemented by an
active "civil society" that provided leadership, energy and resources to meet the social needs, including the education, health and
safety of a largely immigrant society. After political independence, the People's Action Party (PAP) in Government took full control of
national development and nation building, repressing those parts of civil society that were antagonistic towards its rule and by
centralising and professionalising the delivery of major social services such as health and education rendering most of civil society
irrelevant or, in some cases even, undesirable. The elite and technocratic developmental State, insulated from political pressures from
society and the domestic economy, successfully produced a high-income economy with double-digit growth rates in the 1970s and
1980s. As the beneficiaries of this rapid trajectory from "third world to first world" conditions, most ordinary Singaporeans had little
incentive to challenge the Government in political or civil society, or to volunteer to make up for any governmental deficiencies, and
thus evolved into economic producers and politically apathetic consumers instead of active citizens of a relatively young post-colonial
nation-state (Tan, 2012).

Since the late 1980s, Singapore has become more deeply embedded in global networks and flows. The global city faces challenges
that are not necessarily new, but qualitatively different. These include more frequent crises; rising inequality; deeper social, cultural and
ideological divisions; rising cost of living; crowdedness; and infrastructural strains. Citizen dissatisfaction has translated into a gradual
erosion of the Government's performance legitimacy that had solidly been the basis of its authority and authoritarian rule since the
1960s (Tan, 2012).

21
There are now more reasons for citizens to take their concerns and views into the collective decision-making process. They have over
the past few decades become more highly educated, experienced, articulate and globally connected; and so - according to a
Maslovian perspective at least - desire more recognition in society, but are also capable of providing high-quality input into the policy
process. Carol Soon and Walter Woon, in their respective chapters in this volume, discuss the role of the Internet in opening up more
spaces for expression and deliberation. In these spaces, particularly in blogs and social media sites, one can witness well-considered
arguments and feedback contributed not only by public intellectuals, but also by intelligent and articulate members of the public. This
is, in part, a story about democratisation and political liberalisation that accompany economic development and growth, a currently
unfashionable story no doubt, but one that needs to be more carefully studied rather than discarded completely (Diamond, 2012).

This chapter will focus on one part of this story, which features deliberative democracy, what it needs to thrive, and how students can
be pre­pared for it through the education system.

What does deliberative democracy need in order to thrive?

For deliberative democracy to thrive, there needs firstly to be safe spaces for citizens to speak publicly without fear. This means that
citizens should not feel restricted from expressing themselves authentically as a result of fearing harm from other citizens. However,
this right to speak should be balanced by a reciprocal responsibility to ensure that what and how they speak do not impose limits on
the right of others to speak and be heard. The Government's role, at the very least, is to expand the space of public expression by
protecting citizens from one another. However, its protective actions should not themselves turn into threats against particular
citizens. Clearly, this liberal conception is an intricate balance that needs to be maintained by a well-designed and broadly understood
schedule of rights and freedoms. These should help secure the autonomy and protection of citizens to have an equal right to speak
and be heard in these spaces.

Second, deliberative democracy needs to be inclusive, so as to be representative and fair. The voices of all who are potentially affected
by the decisions of the public need to be at least admissible, regardless of their claims, interests, and styles. All evidence to support any
claims should also be admissible. Inclusiveness also brings diversity in public deliberation. Within Singapore's multicultural,
cosmopolitan, and global city circumstances, such diversity is entirely appropriate, so that public deliberation can take into account
and accommodate differences in cultural, ethnic, racial, religious, language, class, gender, sexual and generational terms. A secular
public sphere, therefore, should not mean a space where such differences are excluded so that a generalised and neutralised public
good may be discovered or pursued. On the contrary, it needs to manage, by treating fairly, the different worldviews and value systems,
admitting both mainstream as well as unpopular views. It needs to pay attention to minorities in particular, giving the disadvantaged
both recognition as well as resources for meaningful participation. Such resources could include the provision of translators and
facilitators to help them understand and be understood better. Neither the silent majority nor the vocal minority should be denigrated
in this space.

Third, in order to accommodate fundamental differences, deliberative democracy needs to be grounded in mutually acceptable
reasonability. One might, following philosophers like Habermas (Giddens, 1985), think of this in terms of a universal public reason to
validate all claims that are admitted. For instance, claims should be expressed in ways that are understandable by all participants. They
should be verifiable through the use of logic and evidence. They should be meaningful or made meaningful within the norms of the
participating communities. Also, they should be truthful, in that the intentions and motivations of participants can be subject to
review. However, we might also think of reasonability in terms of moral reasoning within shared folk epistemologies, or ways of
knowing, that encompass the worldviews of different constituent communities. Such understandings of the world, shared in
common by different communities, should themselves be open to discussion and negotiation (R. B. Talisse, in Hanson and Howe, 2011,
p. 4). Whichever way it is conceived and practised, public reason should serve as the boundary of deliberative democracy.

Fourth, deliberative democracy can become so much more effective when properly structured and facilitated. The method and
machinery of structuring and facilitation - all part of the "rules of the game" - should themselves be agreed upon broadly by all
participants for each occasion, drawing upon a growing repository of what kinds of methods and approaches work well for each kind
of participants and purposes. Through well-designed formats as well as facilitative leadership and devices, deliberation can be made
more inclusive, organised, systematic, rigorous and purposeful. This is true both for face-to-face discussions as well as inter­actions in
social media. Otherwise, public discussions can become unwieldy, aimless, disengaged or dominated by the loudest voices.

Fifth, deliberative democracy is at its best when it is developmental in its approach, rather than aggregative. Aggregative approaches
tend simply to be about counting votes that are believed to represent fixed, distinct, mutually exclusive and unchangeable views, and
acting according to the demands of the majority. This may be viewed in terms of the difference between an outcome-driven
(aggregative) and a process-driven (developmental) approach, but that distinction alone would be inadequate since both should be
concerned as much with the legitimacy of the process as well as the need to come to a result at some point in the process.

22
The key difference lies in open-mindedness, respect and adaptability. In developmental approaches, participants should at least begin
by taking it in good faith that others in the dialogue are also seeking good outcomes for all. Thus, there should be mutual recognition
of one another's moral status in the deliberation. Even though they may come into a deliberation very sure about what they know and
want, participants should nevertheless be willing to listen to the reasons of others and enjoy the freedom to change their mind and
revise their own position as a result of deliberation (Hanson and Howe, 2011). In this way, participants can find a balance between
individual and general or impersonal interests, so as to pragmatically develop some commonalities and a better framework of public
reason.

Sixth, since citizens are at the heart of a thriving deliberative democracy, they need to possess certain attributes, skills and knowledge.
For instance, they need to be able to speak courageously and with confidence. They need to be tolerant of and open-minded about
other participants' viewpoints as well as their own, which is possible with mutual respect, empathy and generalised trust. They need to
have relevant knowledge and the capacity to understand the arguments and issues. They need to be equipped with logical,
interpretive, and critical thinking skills. They need to be able to express themselves effectively and communicate convincingly. They
need the creativity to imagine what it is like for others and to reframe the terms of disagreement if there seems to be no way out.
Overall, they need to have democratic character. Such habits and dispositions are usually acquired through inculcation. And effective
civic education may be one way of achieving this.

How can the education system prepare citizens for deliberative democracy?

Colby, Beaumont, Ehrlich, and Comgold (2010) argue, "Higher education can - and should - do more to prepare college students for
responsible democratic participation" (p. 276). There are broader studies of civic education efforts that show evidence of positive
outcomes (for example, McDevitt and Kiousis, 2004). Kubow (1998) urges "Those preparing to be teachers (as well as political leaders,
national commissioners, community members, parents, and students at various levels of their educational devel­opment) ... to think
about what skills, values, and attributes are required for democratic existence now and in the future and how citizenship education
can best be fostered in the formal educational setting" (p. 4).

Civic education is certainly not new in Singapore. The education system in post-colonial Singapore - notably technical, vocational and
scientific in its emphasis - focused on turning out productive industrial workers and obedient national subjects. Up to the present day,
civic education has extended beyond the classroom - with the cooperation of the mainstream mass media - taking the form of social
campaigns aimed at prohibiting anti-social behaviours such as spitting, littering and smoking, and promoting pro-social behaviours
like flushing after using public toilets and being courteous and kind. Many of these social campaigns have been accompanied by
punitive measures that have earned Singapore the light-hearted description among tourists as a "fine city". It is perhaps unwise to
equate civic education with, or limit it to, incentive and disincentive structures designed to condition acceptable and desirable
behaviour in society.

By the late 1970s, the Government became sensitive to the way that an industrialised citizenry, conditioned to be motivated
predominantly by economic and materialist incentives, may not so easily internalise moral and civic values. The transition from
transactional modes of leadership to transformational ones (Burns, 1978) led to the implementation of several "moralistic" policies. For
instance, the longstanding bilingual education policy, in which English identified as the language of modernisation and globalisation
is compulsorily studied as first language and used as the dominant medium of instruction, positions the "mother-tongue" as a second
language, but the primary language through which civic and moral education could be conveyed most authentically. Such policies
are based on moralistic and sometimes simplistic judgements about civilisational values and how the desirable ones can be imparted
through language education and other racially (mis)informed streams to segment the educational programme. In the early 1980s, the
Government introduced Religious Knowledge as a compulsory subject in secondary schools, featuring Bible Knowledge, Buddhist
Studies, Islamic Religious Knowledge, Hindu Studies, Sikh Studies, and Confucian Ethics as options. The assumption then was that
Singapore needed to anchor its civic and moral life to something deeper than an ongoing project of economic development and
nation building. Thus, language and religion were deemed the most effective sites of civic and moral education. In 1990, however,
Religious Knowledge ceased to be a compulsory subject in the curriculum. Students could study Religious Knowledge as an O-level
subject, but classes would be held outside of school hours. Confucian Ethics, favoured by the authoritarian Government for its
promotion of respect for hierarchy and learned authority, had proved not to be as popular a choice as the Government had expected.
Furthermore, in 1987, the Internal Security Department released a report that described a disturbing "rise of religious fervour"
(Maintenance of Religious Harmony, 1989). In place of Religious Knowledge was a refreshed curriculum for Civics and Moral Education.

To forge common values that diverse communities in Singapore might accept as core to their Asian identities in the face of
globalisation, the Government unveiled a set of five "Shared Values" in 1991 (Tan, 2001):
1. Nation before community and society above self: Putting the interests of society ahead of the individual.
2. Family as the basic unit of society: The family is identified as the most stable fundamental building block of the nation.
3. Community support and respect for the individual: Recognises that the individual has rights, which should be respected and not
encroached upon. Encourages the community to support and have compassion for the disadvantaged individual who may have
been left behind by the free market system.
4. Consensus not conflict: Resolving issues through consensus and not conflict stresses the importance of compromise and national
unity.
5. Racial and religious harmony: Recognises the need for different com­munities to live harmoniously with one another in order for all
to prosper.

23
These Shared Values - along with the national flag, anthem, Pledge, and annual National Day Parades and Rally speeches - are parts of
what might be thought of as Singapore's "civil religion" (Tan, 2010). Demerath defines civil religion as "any society's most common
religious denominator which consecrates its sense of nationhood and pivots around a set of tenets and rituals forged in the fires of a
shared history" (Demerath, 2003, p. 353). Hughey (1983) notes how every relatively stable society possesses a set of shared beliefs and
symbols expressing its highest values and reminding its members of what they hold in common amidst the numerous conflicts in
everyday life. Commemorated and reaffirmed through periodic collective rites, these shared values help to foster order, stability and
integration. In trying to stem the tide of perceived negative influences that accompany a much desired hyper-modernisation and
globalisation, Singapore's shared values fail to realistically reflect the realities of ordinary life in Singapore, which consists of long hours
of work; a thoroughly consumerist form of leisure; a technologically-mediated sense of the social; and constant exhortation from the
Government to be competitive, productive, self-reliant and obsessed with economic growth. Aside from the problem of having to
bridge too wide a gap between contradictory national messages, the shared values are rather too sloganistic and detached from the
everyday realities of this competitive and individualistic urban society to be properly internalised as a meaningful expression of its
highest values. Anecdotally, whenever I have asked my Singaporean students whether they remembered what Singapore's shared
values were, most could not list them and many did not even know of their existence.

In the late 1990s, the Government started to employ the image of "active citizens" in its public communications. By this time, global-
city Singapore had become increasingly embedded in the networks and flows of the global economy and was becoming one of the
most open economies in the world. As a nation-state, it had to grapple even harder, in these circumstances, with the question of
national identity, values and belonging. In 1997, the Government formally introduced National Education (NE), announcing (without
giving many details) its concern that students had been found ignorant of issues of national importance and did not appreciate the
challenges that Singapore had to overcome and will continue to face as a vulnerable nation. NE involved the infusion of the whole
curriculum with Singapore-specific historical knowledge and national values. Also in 1997, the Government launched the Community
Involvement Programme, which required students to clock in at least six hours per year of community service. Although the irony and
inauthenticity of making volunteerism compulsory was not missed, the hope was to gradually normalise volunteerism as a way of life,
starting with students. Today, the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre maintains an online resource, through its SG Cares
programme, to match students with meaningful service opportunities (www.sgcares.org). In 2000, the Government offered funding
for overseas community service through its Youth Expedition Project. Cognisant that people are turning to online spaces for
information and communication, the Government's "lead agency for engaging and connecting with citizens'' known as REACH
(Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home) launched its Junior REACH Ambassadors programme in 2008 with the aim of
cultivating active citizenship among youth who are expected to "spearhead feedback activities in their schools to encourage youth
engagement and cultivate a feedback culture among their peers".

Once part of the developmental State's broader educational approach to mould productive industrial workers and socialise obedient
national subjects for economic growth and social stability, Singapore's broader civic education efforts have transformed over time in
order to help produce creative workers and autonomous, active and responsible citizens who are more suited to the complicated
realities of the global city, with its more diverse society and fluidly plural cultures. Singapore's formal civic education has been
increasing in depth and sophistication in recent years. In part, this is due to a more holistic educational approach conceptualised by
the Ministry of Education (MOE) (2010) to enhance the learning of 21st century competencies:

1. Core values.
2. Social and emotional competencies: Self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship management, responsible
decision making.
3. 21st century skills: Information and communication skills; civic literacy, global awareness and cross-cultural skills; critical and
inventive thinking.
4. Desired outcomes: Confident person, self-directed learner, active contributor, concerned citizen.

Nevertheless, to achieve learning outcomes that lead to a thriving deliberative democracy, more needs to be done and done
differently with respect to curriculum and pedagogy.

Deliberative democracy in the classroom

Beyond-the-classroom experiences should also include actively participating in social media spaces, such as blogs, forums and social
networking sites. These experiences can be brought back into the classroom, shared and critically reflected upon. Technology-
enhanced learning is a prominent feature of Singapore's education system and provides both the context as well as the content for
the training and exercise of critical skills in the engagement with information and communications technology.

MOE has developed a detailed framework on cyberspace and its usage by primary and secondary school children, deployed as an
instructional matrix for school teachers. Principles such as "cyber-wellness" and "community involvement" are conveyed to students
both as preventative measures and as civic and moral instruction for acceptable modes of behaviour in online media. This framework
also lays down concrete measures for parent-teacher interaction as a supervisory structure to ensure that the proliferation of social
media does not undermine the educational authority of the parent in the household and the teachers in the school. The extensive
supervisory reach of this teaching framework reflects the State's position on media regulation and the web's impact on the "health" of
school children, especially with regard to the monitoring of sexual and politically contentious content.

24
Together with the formal curriculum, pedagogical approaches and co-curriculum, all these real-world experiences have the potential
to help achieve the knowledge and understanding; skills and techniques; and attitudes, motivations and values as learning outcomes
that are conducive to meaningful participation in Singapore's deliberative democracy.

Problems

None of the recommendations discussed is new to the education system in Singapore. However, the practice needs to be more
systematic and strategic. Yet, this approach of designing and critically reflecting on civic educational experiences to produce
graduates with the attributes that are appropriate for a thriving deliberative democracy in Singapore is not without problems.

First, this approach may engender an elite form of citizenship, whose entry requirements are so high as to effectively restrict the space
of deliberative democracy to those who "deserve" to be there by virtue of their academic mastery of the skills required for it. Thus,
public deliberation can become a space where the establishment and anti-establishment argue eloquently with each other, both of
whom are elite and unrepresentative of those on whose behalf they purport to speak. Ironically, when deliberative skills are formalised
in academic terms, even though they may initially promote empathy and inclusiveness, they may also come to represent elite values
and capacities that may exclude those who are deemed to be lacking in "civility" because they did not go to the right schools with the
best programmes. Also, among those who did, several may not have been academically proficient enough to master these skills.
Those who do "qualify" may come to view their own participation in aristocratic ways, discounting the concerns of ordinary citizens as
uninformed, selfish or even dangerous. The strong legacy of an elitist meritocracy and paternalism, the continuing dominance of a
strong developmental State in the midst of a strengthening political opposition and civil society, all contribute to the exclusionary
tendencies of public deliberation. We often hear the lament of the elite about the unreasonable, ungrateful, offensive and dangerously
populist masses whose mere existence should deter the development of a more expansive democracy. Ho Khai Leong, for example,
has argued that it is unreasonable to expect to find "super-citizens" of this kind and concluded that such a demand for high standards
is really the Government's excuse to discount inconvenient views, comments and questions, which results in a depoliticisation of
Singaporeans (Ho, 2003, pp. 360-361).

Second, what do you do with those who refuse or are simply unable to participate in this form of deliberative democracy? Forcing
them to tolerate what goes against the essence of their values and beliefs and to conform to a framework of public reason that is alien
to their thinking may be little more than coercion. Similarly, non-participation may be the result of resistance to hegemonic control of
public deliberation. Those who reject these public deliberations, and the civic educational programmes that prepare citizens for them,
may view such things as the means by which those in power try to contain inconvenient alternatives and delegitimise oppositional
forces. The challenge will be for deliberative democracy to acquire wider legitimacy by taking these alternative and oppositional views
into account and perhaps develop its own capacity for deeper self-critique.
Third, this approach requires a high degree of will and capacity to achieve success. Are educators and educational leaders adequately
pre­pared for this sort of approach? What would it take to be an effective teacher in a civic education classroom? In the context of
teacher preparation in the US, Kubow (1998) argues that citizenship education needs to be prioritised, well-resourced, and made
explicit for successful implementation. Teachers should see themselves as "teacher citizens" to serve as good role models.

Fourth, can the deep authoritarian legacy in Singapore be overcome for the pedagogies and deliberations to work? Are the cultural
stereotypes - such as apathy, materialism, and inexpressiveness - that these efforts are said to work against, surmountable? In a
neoliberal climate where schools are ranked and universities compete fiercely in global rankings, will educational institutions really
give the necessary priority to civic education over more instrumental and prestige-gaining educational and research goals that make
them more competitive? Murthy (2010) cautions against the threat of neoliberal political discourse and educational policy that -
responding to competitiveness, global rankings, and dominance of research over educational mission - turns out economic workers
rather than democratic citizens. The problem is exacerbated in the absence of a clear conception of citizenship, their membership,
rights, and participation.

Conclusion

These are some of the challenges that we must consider carefully if we want our civic education to prepare all our students to be
effective citizens who can practice their full agency within a deliberative democracy, which is safe, inclusive, reasonable, well designed
and developmental. If effective citizens in such a democracy are expected to be able to speak courageously; communicate well; be
empathetic, open-minded, knowledgeable, logical and creative; and possess critical thinking skills, then the education system and its
civic education components will need to improve in depth, reach, and sophistication, both in terms of what students learn and how
they learn it. It needs to be transformative, richly experiential, and self critically sensitive to the elitist and exclusionary tendencies of
such an enterprise.

25
Kenneth Paul Tan is a Professor at Hong Kong Baptist University, where he teaches courses at the Academy of Film
and the Department of Government and International Studies, and conducts interdisciplinary research at the
School of Communication, Global Communication and Power Research Cluster, and Smart Society Lab. Previously,
he was the Vice Dean of and taught at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
and also taught concurrently at the NUS Political Science Department (where he was Assistant Head) and the
University Scholars Programme.

Understanding Questions:
1. Identify the three things that citizens in a modern representative democracy do?
2. What is a deliberative democracy?
3. What problems are identified where a deliberative democracy is concerned?
4. Tan discusses several conditions deliberative democracy needs to thrive. How do the fifth and sixth conditions
suggest what are the conditions under which a society can productively carry out difficult discussions?
(A link can be made to the A level 2013 P1 question: ‘How far, in your society, should unpopular views be open to
discussion?’)

Making Connections:
1. Do you think that Singapore has moved away from a specific civil discourse to embrace more diverse views? Can
you cite evidence of this?
2. How has technology changed the way views are aired? How does this alter how democracy is practiced in
Singapore?
3. Do you think that the education system in Singapore has moved beyond just “productive industrial workers and
obedient national subjects”? How have we accomplished this? Use your own experience to help articulate this
change/lack of change.
4. Are there policies (e.g. housing, welfare, savings, education) that are aimed at realising the 5 Shared Values? Can
you explain how this illustrates how shared B &V and systems & structures are mutually reinforcing?

26
 AIM FOR 4G LEADERS:
EQUALISE VOCATIONAL,
ACADEMIC PATHWAYS
BY GILLIAN KOH
(THE STRAITS TIMES, 15 MAY 2018)
The egalitarian ideal of being a fair and just society remains
strong in Singapore. Indeed, this was a central theme in
President Halimah Yacob’s address in Parliament on
Monday, when she said the Government would tackle
inequality “vigorously”.
After all, the country’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan
Yew set up as an article of faith that the fruits of Singapore’s
success must be distributed equitably to reinforce citizens’
conviction that the country’s political system serves all of
them, not just a privileged minority.
Through the years, his People’s Action Party government has
used redistributive policies to support Singaporeans’
livelihoods beyond just the income they earn. While the first
generation of leaders said that the best form of welfare was
a job, the basics of life were heavily subsidised across the
board – including homes, healthcare and education.
The second generation of leaders led by Mr Goh Chok Tong,
who, like the current President, is a poster-child of
Singaporean meritocracy, introduced many social and
educational policies such as the Edusave scheme, to level up
those from disadvantaged backgrounds. While streaming
by academic grades was reinforced in the educational
system, a high-quality vocational pathway via the Institute of
Technical Education and polytechnics ensured fewer young
Singaporeans would drop out from formal schooling.
The third generation of leaders led by Mr Lee Hsien Loong
has re-tuned the streaming regime to customise even more
educational pathways for different learning abilities and
interests, with bridges slung from one track to another. They
started to propagate the idea of “continuous meritocracy” so
that careers can be founded on ongoing performance
instead of just achievement in high-stakes examinations
and academic credentials received early in life.
Education in Singapore has always been a great leveller of
social and economic status, giving bright and hard-working
children from poor families a way out of poverty. But schools
are at risk of becoming part of the unequal system.
The Institute of Policy Studies 2017 Social Capital Survey, for
example, found that self-declared alumni of elite schools
mixed mainly among themselves, not with students from
mainstream schools. Similarly, there was a lack of social
mixing among those living in private and public housing.
This division is, arguably, a reflection of socio-economic
status – an increasing proportion of those who made it to the
elite secondary schools from the 1980s onwards will have
had relatively affluent parents who could invest in enriching
their educational journey, while disadvantaged children
might not afford the opportunity cost of staying in school
rather than working to supplement the family’s income.
There is an opportunity here for 4G leaders to re-orientate
the education system away from a divide between an
academic “elite” and the masses. One bold way forward is to
adopt the Swiss system, which creates diverse, permeable
pathways in education and skilling.
The Swiss have an even deeper egalitarian bias that
appreciates the diversity of skills and talent such that
theoretical and academic education is not considered
superior to applied and practice-oriented education.
Two-thirds of young people in Switzerland take practice-
oriented vocational education and training programmes,
which are completed with modules of apprenticeship in
companies. As they move up the corporate ladder, the Swiss
recognise that many captains of industry have never been
held back by the lack of academic-oriented university
degrees.
Switzerland commits to the idea of “permeability” of the
education system in its Constitution. There is vertical
permeability, where the system ensures that those taking
vocational training at the secondary level can join up to
professional training at the tertiary level. In terms of
horizontal permeability, smooth transitions are designed for
learners to move between the technical, applied sciences
universities and the academic ones.
27
 The switching is sometimes effected by taking a conversion
examination or requiring that the learner have relevant
practical work experience.
Industry and the education system are tightly bound in a
synergistic fashion, where the former sees the training-as-
education system as an investment in the skilled labour it
needs. In a peer-reviewed 2014 study, scholars Uschi Backes-
Gellner and Regula Geel found that vocational graduates
have a higher average wage and equal unemployment risk
as academic graduates at the start of their careers, although
that wage advantage levels off after the academic graduates
get more job experience under their belts.
The bigger goal is for Singaporeans to feel they are operating
optimally at every stage of their lives and are rewarded for it
without “losing out” if they switch between school and job;
and between academic and applied and practice-oriented
education.
So, for example, young Singaporeans with coding skills who
may be recruited even before they receive their diplomas or
degrees can chase their dreams because they are assured
they can head back to formal state-supported education
that recognises work experience and skill mastery for entry
later on. This will help those who have to hit the workforce
early to supplement family finances too.

While we have diverse educational institutions in Singapore, Senior Singaporeans who would like to pursue a second
we lack a paradigm that considers each pathway as being career and need a new professional or academic tertiary
of different but equal standing. Instead, the academic is degree can do so even if their earlier qualifications were not
privileged above the vocational. in the “relevant field”.

A change in paradigm will mean that a vocational pathway
is not viewed as being for people of lower ability, but of
different passion, forms of intelligence and learning styles.
Likewise, with the academic pathway.
A permeable system means that one can change track in
the state-subsidised education system because of the “inter-
operability” of entry criteria. We would not have flimsy rope
bridges that now allow a few exceptional cases of students
to cross from the vocational to the academic pathway, but
robust steel crossings which can be switched in different
directions.
With the world looking for workers with employment-
relevant skills, the premium on vocational and professional
training will also level out the premium that academic
graduates now enjoy. Our educational paradigms should
anticipate and institutionalise this shift and make this
important sector more inclusive through the different but
equal principle for the two tracks.
The 4G leaders can reshape Singapore’s social and
educational landscape, if they can craft a consensus around
such a vision of an egalitarian, progressive Singapore.

Dr Gillian Koh is Deputy Director (Research) at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and Senior Research Fellow in the Governance
and Economy Department. Her research interests are in the areas of party and electoral politics, the development of civil
society, state-society relations, state governance and citizen engagement in Singapore. Dr Koh gained her PhD in Sociological
Studies from the University of Sheffield (UK) in 1995 where she also obtained her Master of Arts in Third World Studies in 1989
with both degrees focused on research on Singapore as a developmental state. She is also an alumna of the National University
of Singapore (1988).

Understanding Questions:
1. How did the different generation of PAP leaders support the belief that the country’s political system served all of them, not
just a privileged minority?
2. What were some of the findings from the Institute of Policy Studies 2017 Social Capital Survey?
3. Why did the author suggest adopting the Swiss system?

Making Connections:
1. Why do you think Singapore values academics so much?
2. How do you think the job landscape reinforces the value of the academic over the vocational?
3. How does your own education (being in a junior college, coming from a SAP school, coming from the Integrated
Programme, taking the ‘O’ Levels, being part of the Humanities Scholars Programme, etc.) reinforce/detract from making
education more egalitarian?

Application and Extension Question:

Visit the Open House of a polytechnic or an Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and find out more about their programmes.
How do their diplomas and certificates enable greater employability and flexibility to transition to higher education? Compare
their experiences with yours. In what way is the junior college route distinct from the other education routes in pursuing higher
education or finding employment?
28
 INDUSTRIALISING
CREATIVITY AND
INNOVATION BY TERENCE LEE - EXCERPTS
(RENAISSANCE SINGAPORE? ECONOMY, CULTURE AND POLITICS,
2007)
Introduction: ‘Opening-up’ Singapore
On 9 March 2004, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB)
launched its ‘Uniquely Singaporean’ branding to market
Singapore as a premier tourism destination, with the
primary aim of achieving a target of 7.6 million visitor arrivals
for 2004. Comprising a range of media advertisements for
different global markets, this new branding strategy was
developed in the wake of the city-state’s ‘recovery’ from its
economically crippling encounter with the severe acute
respiratory syndrome (SARS) viral epidemic during the first
half of 2003. The strategy also coincided with the wider
circulation of a broad ‘new’ rhetoric that speaks of a ‘more
open’ and ‘creative’ Singapore, designed to (re)package the
city-state as a vibrant place where local and foreign talents
can, according to a contemporary catchphrase in Singapore,
‘live, work, and play’. In an STB advertisement placed in an
Australian newspaper, the image of a socially and culturally
revitalised Singapore is evident as the nation is presented as
a ‘cool’ and ‘funky’ city of excitement and thrills.
The pragmatics of creativity
The Singapore government’s swift adoption of the creative
industries ‘phenomenon’ demonstrates its pragmatism in
latching onto a sector that looks set to become a key
economic deliverable.
The new emphasis of creativity in Singapore tends to
approach the so-called creative sectors not so much from
cultural or artistic viewpoints. Rather, the approach is
overwhelmingly and unashamedly economic. Although the
term ‘creative industries’ clearly suggests a consideration of
the commercial in policy-making, Singapore’s uptake of the
concept is an extraordinary case study in that it privileges
economic returns over all else.
Since creativity is predominantly associated with the
evocation of new ideas, solutions, or products that have not
previously been explored, the primary of economics in
conceptualizing the creative industries is highly
problematic. The island-state’s virtual absence of natural
resources has turned it into a trading port with an overt
dependency on imported goods for consumption. This has
in part led to the favouring of cultural and creative products
from foreign sources (usually the West) over local ones. After
all, it is economically more viable to import such products
than to produce them ‘in-house’ for only 4 million people.
The corollary is that an economic rationale leads to
decreased creativity, with local or indigenous cultural
workers robbed of their physical and metaphysical creative
spaces to explore and nurture their crafts. The building of
the S$600-million mammoth Esplanade – Theatres on the
Bay, opened amidst a multi-million dollar extravaganza in
October 2002, was regarded by local arts practitioners and
critics as a dual ‘economic-cum-tourism’ strategy to attract
world-class acts to perform in Singapore. Only such ‘surefire
successes’, as measured by box-office takings, would be able
to afford the space. Local artists were thus deemed
unimportant, or at least secondary, when compared to their
foreign counterparts. Yet, a city that professes to be creative
would only be truly so if it developed local art forms, instead
of building empty shells through which global acts transit.
While the state currently attempts to nurture its creative
industries, its inherent bias towards foreign art forms – the
result of its pragmatic focus on immediate economic
returns – makes the notion of creativity as the harnessing of
new ideas, solutions or products untenable in Singapore. As
Singaporean cultural theorist C.J.W.-L.Wee puts it, the highly
publicised and commercialised Esplanade is nothing more
than a ‘statist attempt to create a commercial Cult of the
Beautiful’ for the Singaporean ‘community’ comprising
mainly visitors and expatriate business executives (and a few
locals) desiring ‘high culture’ while residing, often
temporarily, in Singapore.
29
 The economic pragmatism that has been drilled into the
Singaporean psyche hinders the development of creativity
by setting extrinsic and overwhelmingly economic
inducements as motivations, rather than encouraging a
more humanistic approach to the sector. A creative society
can only be nurtured if people are intrinsically motivated. In
a country where ‘economic growth is the anchor without
which all issues become irrelevant’, the meanings behind
nurturing a creative, enlightened, and appreciative society
have been rendered secondary to sustaining economic
deliverables. While it is true that the broad creative industries
can benefit the economic gross domestic product (GDP) by
uncovering ‘new economic value’, the ‘capacity to unleash
social and cultural vibrancy can be easily shackled by an
uncompromising focus on the commercial. The authorities,
as well as the people, must lean towards a more liberal
interpretation of ‘pragmatism’ – one that allows political
openness, social plurality, and cultural diversity to flourish,
before creativity and innovation can begin to emerge.

Terence Lee is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, National University of
Singapore. He specializes in the study of civil-military relations, military organizations and international
security. A/P Lee was previously Assistant Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies,
Nanyang Technological University of Singapore and Postdoctoral Fellow in National Security Studies at
Harvard University’s John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies. He earned his Ph.D. and M.A degrees in
Political Science from the University of Washington, Seattle. A/P Lee also holds a M.Sc. in Strategic Studies
from the Nanyang Technological University (Singapore) and a Bachelor of Arts (Distinction) degree in
Political Science and Southeast Asian Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Understanding Questions:
1. In using the slogan ‘Uniquely Singaporean’ to market Singapore, what is the intended effect?
2. What was the Esplanade supposed to attract and what implications would it have for local artistes?
3. Explain what the author means by the Cult of the Beautiful?

30
2. Resources to support the development of Skills and Processes

ISSUES
We differ greatly in what we think, say (claim), and do (act) about a range of
things, such as: what is important; what is effective; who is responsible; what the
world is and should be like, and how we should act. Issues are shaped by the
tensions caused by these differing perspectives. These tensions can be
understood from their points of contention. Issues and their implications are
often what we see on the surface. They are observable events, actions and
attitudes as a result of tensions.
so what?

why?
PERSPECTIVES
Issues arise because we have differing perspectives about what to think, say, or
do. Perspectives stem from our beliefs and values which are a set of
assumptions, largely invisible to us, that greatly influence how we see the world.
the CLAIMS that people make

Our beliefs and values simultaneously shape and are shaped by social norms
Asking 'so-what' leads us to

get to the root issues driving

'Chasing the whys' helps us
and prevailing narratives. Social norms are common standards of acceptable
behaviour, while narratives are a way of making sense of events.
The stakeholders and communities, as laid out in the Social World-Stakeholder

the conflict
Model, hold diverse narratives and norms which are in turn shaped by their
unique contexts.

CONTEXT
How we perceive the world stems from our contexts — who we are, what we
believe and value, as well as the social institutions and systems that govern how
we live our lives.
It is important to understand how context influences the social norms and
narratives that in turn form our perspectives and the assumptions we make. We
so what?

can gain insight into context by applying the SPERM framework. The framework
why?

prompts us to consider the Social, Political, Economic, Environmental, Racial,

Religious and Moral contexts of a person, community, or nation. We can also
consider how Science and technology, Media, and other modern drivers of
change are deeply influencing our lives today.

Human Experience
Perspective
Issue
Context 31
SOCIAL WORLD – STAKEHOLDER
MODEL

rsal
ive
Un i p les ri nc
, p
o rality
i . e. M
lobal and
G nditi
ons
s)
t ics, co s, IGO
teris MNC
rac .g.
cha lde rs (e
ho

stake
o n a l
Regi nd
ns a
o itio
nd
ris t ics , c
MNCs,
aracte s (e .g.
ch o lde r
e h )
stak IGOs
l
Loesc’ a
m m uniti s,
o ic
C
c terist d al
ch a r a
ions a
n
rso n
co n d i
e
t
h older
s Pe resentativet,y,
a k ep ri
st
SMEs) non-r tional, mino stake
(e .g . excep l voice andprise)
na er
perso Micro-ent
(e.g.

32
HOW DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PERSPECTIVES/CONTEXTS
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CAUSE OR RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE?

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNO-LOGICAL

S STUDY OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD
AND ITS APPLICATION

SOCIOCULTURAL

COMMUNITY IDENTITIES
S

P POLITICAL
POWERS AT PLAY

PSYCHOLOGICAL
INDIVIDUAL'S MENTAL &
EMOTIONAL STATES
P

E ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC RESOURCES

ETHICAL
SOCIETAL STANDARDS OF RIGHT &
WRONG

ENVIRONMENTAL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAN &
E
NATURE

R RACIAL
RACIAL IDENTITIES

RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS OF FAITH &
WORSHIP
R
M MEDIA

MASS COMMUNICATION M
PLATFORMS

33
WHICH OF THESE ARE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE?
HOW ARE THE PERSPECTIVES/CONTEXTS INTER-RELATED?
HOW DOES THE INTERPLAY OF PERSPECTIVES/CONTEXTS HELP US UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE?
 WH-QUESTIONS
Use this to investigate events--historical/current

WHat
happened? (Immediate factors.)
happened before? (Historical context.
Precedents?)
related events are there? (Connections.)

WHy
did it happen?
(Motivations/drivers)

so WHat
is the significance? Why should there be
concern?
are the broader implications?

WHat's next?
What actions can/should be
taken?
What reactions were there?
(awareness of discourse)

34
UNDERSTANDING THE POINTS OF CONTENTION

Points of contention (POCs) are the basis upon which arguments are raised – they are the cause of
disagreement between people, and the things that people argue about in any issue. To understand
the POCs better, you can use the

WANDER
framework

IMPORTANCE /
VALUE
ORTH
In general, things that matter to
To argue that something is us help us with our
important or has value is to survival/material needs, and
argue that it is significant – it
is a value judgement of the emotional and mental needs.
superior worth or influence of They also accord with our beliefs,
something. values, and identity.

RELEVANCE DESIRABILITY NECESSITY

To argue that something is To argue that something is To argue that something is

relevant is to argue that it still
has a place – it still has a
function or a role to play in
relation to the context.
desirable is to argue that it is
something to be wished for as
being an ideal condition or
circumstance – it should be or
ought to be so.
necessary is to argue that it is
indispensable – it is
something that is essential in
a particular context (situation,
time, etc.).

ADEQUACY
DEQUACY

To argue that there is enough

What is enough? or just the right amount of
Whether there is ‘enough’ of something is to argue that
something varies with its there is an appropriate amount
for its purpose and context
purpose and context. For
instance, whether there is
‘enough’ water depends on
whether we wish to drink it
or use it to put out a fire.
35
 ORMATIVITY
What should we do?
Many factors must be considered in deciding what we
‘should’ do. But a key consideration in this category is
whether the thoughts, claims, or actions are in accordance
with our beliefs, values and identity, and therefore the
prevailing norms and narratives of the time. Others might
argue that utilitarian considerations – what brings the
greatest good for the greatest number – are a sufficient
basis.

To argue that something is justifiable is to argue that it is right or reasonable by a

JUSTIFICATION set of standards or principles – the explanation or reason for it constitutes its
vindication.

ESCRIPTION OF REALITY PERCEPTION OF REALITY

What is the current situation like? To argue that reality is

Given our widely differing contexts and
perspectives, we all have different views of
what the world is like – how it works and how
well it is working, as well as what actually is
happening. Deriving a reasonably accurate
sense of what is happening requires a keen
grasp of contexts and perspectives, as well as
facts and figures.
perceived in a certain way is
to argue that it is the way
something is regarded,
understood and interpreted,
which may or may not truly
represent reality – as far as
reality can be largely agreed
upon.

FFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS

How should we do it?

To argue that
If we can actually agree that something something is effective
should be done, we would then have to is to argue the degree
ask which method is preferable. Factors
to which it is successful
such as cost, cost-effectiveness, how
well the solution works, whether the
in producing a desired
solution is sustainable, or whether it can result or success – it
be done in the first place (feasibility / has achieved its
viability) are factors to consider. intended outcome.

To argue that something is sustainable is to argue that it has the ability to

SUSTAINABILITY

36
work or continue to exist – usually in the foreseeable future
 ESPONSIBILLITY

Who should do it?

We might all agree that something should be done, and on how to

do it. But who takes charge? A corollary to that: who is to blame?
Perhaps someone is being paid to do it – it is their job or role. We
could also ask if they have the ability to do it and acknowledge
their limitations. For leaders, we could ask if there is broad
agreement for them to do so (legitimacy). Finally, questions of
normativity are also relevant – i.e. is a person morally or socially
obliged to act?

ACCOUNTABILITY CULPABILITY

To argue that someone is To argue that someone is culpable is to

accountable is to argue that
he or she is expected to take
responsibility for certain
actions or consequences
within a particular context.
argue that he or she is to be held legally or
morally liable for the commission or
omission of an act that has consequences
that are deemed wrong in a certain
context.

37
3. Resources to
support Use of CRITICAL READING
Language for In this age where information is increasing exponentially
and multiple viewpoints abound, it is essential to possess a
Communication questioning mind to navigate and make sense of
information, ideas and issues. Readers need to be able to
think critically about what is presented, evaluate different
sources of information for accuracy and credibility and
assess the cogency of an author’s argument.

Critical reading is fundamental to the pursuit of knowledge.

What follows are the thought processes in critical reading
and the routine and systematic questioning that guide the
evaluation of the author's purpose and use of evidence. This
routine also promotes thinking about the implications and
consequences of ideas presented in the text.

Thought Processes in Critical Reading & Critical Reading Routine

38
CRITICAL WRITING
Writing is a way of thinking - it is a means to generate and develop ideas.
Critical writing draws together critical thinking and writing skills in order to
present a persuasive case to the intended audience. Critical writing
requires one to
organise and develop ideas to communicate a stance
use language to persuade, express ideas effectively, and present an
informed and insightful personal response; and
review and revise ideas and language to enhance relevance and clarity.

Critical writing is not simply about criticising and writing about an issue
with a negative tone. A critical writing routine that reflects the thought
processes and metacognitive awareness in the writing process is shown
below.

Thought Processes in Critical Writing

39
Critical Writing is complex and requires a high level of skill. The
continuums below highlight how writers may progress in their
attitudes towards knowledge and their critical writing in GP

40
 C+R+A+E ARGUMENT
4 essential components for
an argument to take flight:
An ar
Claim, Reason, Assumption & Evidence. gum e
a set nt
o f s t a is

These 4 components must be present for an argument to be te m e

that o n ts
considered ne us
ano th e s
logically sound and sufficiently convincing. e r t h a t o c o n v in c
p a r t ic t thei e
Of course, there are other components u la r i r pos
ssue it io n
(e.g. qualification) that can be woven into an argument to is r e a on
strengthen it and make it more compelling, but these 4 must be sonab a
le.
developed adequately before any further components are
included.

The idea that you are asserting or proposing

Claim
that you want your reader to accept, to believe in.

The justification that expresses

Reason WHY your reader should accept and believe your claim.
It should contain a clear evaluation criterion.

The logical link that connects the Reason to the Claim.

The assumption often serves to
justify the suitability of the evaluation criterion used.

You can achieve this by answering these questions:

Assumption So what if [insert reason]?
Why [insert claim] if [insert reason]?
Why [insert claim] simply because [insert reason]?

*Note that the Assumption is rarely foregrounded in the essay, but subtly alluded to.
This is a difficult skill to master, but an important one nonetheless.

This is empirical data, facts, concrete examples or information that substantiate the
Evidence
Reason and Assumption.

41
 PEEL vs CRAE
A framework meant to help students organise A model of argument used as a tool for both
the ideas in a written paragraph analyzing and constructing arguments.

It directs you to the ideas that are central to

Useful for supporting and opposing arguments, your argument (i.e. the Reason and
but not so much when you’re rebutting. Assumption) and makes your argument more
focused.

A paragraph can be effective even if it doesn’t follow the PEEL structure.

It is therefore more important to know what exactly an argument is,
as that affords more flexibility in terms of how it is presented and how it can be
refuted/rebutted — the Assumption, for instance, does not have to be presented before
the Evidence.

Compare the examples on the next page. They are by no means perfect
but they effectively present the 4 non-negotiable components in argumentation (CRAE).

42
 Claim Smoking in public places should be banned

because it puts innocent* non-smokers -- who choose not to harm their own
Reason health -- at risk of breathing in smoke from cigarettes; these could include
children, pregnant women and people who have respiratory ailments

This should not be allowed to happen as it is completely unfair for innocent

Assumption
parties to be harmed by the actions of others

This harm is in fact not insignificant -- recent studies have shown that almost
Evidence 80% of those who ingest second-hand smoke from public smokers run a higher
risk of contracting respiratory problems than smokers themselves

Given that it is the duty of the government to address societal injustices, they
Link
ought to ban smoking in public spaces.

Claim Smoking in public places should be banned

because it puts innocent* non-smokers -- who choose not to harm their own
Reason health -- at risk of breathing in smoke from cigarettes; these could include
children, pregnant women and people who have respiratory ailments

Recent studies have shown that almost 80% of those who ingest second-hand
Evidence smoke from public smokers run a higher risk of contracting respiratory problems
than smokers themselves

This should not be allowed to happen as it is completely unfair for innocent

Assumption
parties to be harmed by the actions of others

It is therefore the duty of the government to address this injustice and ban
Link
smoking in public spaces.

* evaluation criterion: whether or not innocent people are harmed 43

 h ie ve
to a c
How e?
lan c
ba Before
it is im
thinkin
portan
g abou
t how b
alance
t to firs can be
By prov t under woven
iding b stand t into an
alance, h e purpo essay,
alterna the wri se that
tive pe ter dem it serve
and tha rspecti onstrat s.
t the po ves hav e s that
sition b e been
eing he conside
and no ld is on red,
t biase e that i
Done ri d or on s inform
ght, a b e-sided ed
alanced
.
than on essay w
e that c ould ac
ontains tually b
after a only ar e more
ll, inclu g u m e nts fro compel
provide ding al m
s the w ternati a single ling
riter an ve persp p e rspecti
By pree opport ectives ve;
m p ting ch u n it y to cons in an e
writers allenge ider an ss a y
are als s to on d refut
o able t e’s own e them
o defen argume .
weakn d what n t
esses i others m ,
n their ight co
argume nsider
nts.

Undermines the opposing argument by defeating its Reason, Warrant or their

Rebuttal
supporting evidence.

Making concession by introducing conditions, caveats or exceptions

to your argument
Qualification

* refer to Page 51 on hedging language

Qualifying your argument and proposing solutions that can alleviate the
Mitigation
outcomes

44
 Compo
Introdu nents of a
ters
Parame ssion by
Set the
of discu
scope
key term
s. ction P n
de fining
standin
g of
aragra
ph
un der
so, an monstra
ted.
In doing be de
e should
the issu

Contex
Shed li t
ght on
the cen
Thesis ng
briefly
e la b
tral iss
ue &
ce /po sition, alo differin
g/confl
o rate on
the
e’s stan both that ha icting p
State on r ea sons for ve give ers pective
e n rise t s
with th alternati
ve o said i
in g & ssue.
support nts.
If appli
cable, b

argume implica riefly d

tions if iscuss
things the
remain
quo. status

* If a ho
it must ok is us
be to se ed,
rve the
setting pu rposes
the con of
text.

Crystallisation

Highlight key values or themes presented

in the argument
Identify the overarching trends, patterns
and/or connections that cut across your
argument

Extension

Restatement Discuss the implications of the arguments

raised
Reiterate the thesis & Propose a course of action to be taken
summarise the arguments

Suggested Ways to Conclude45

46
ADAPTED FROM ROBERT WILKS, GP POWER, (SINGAPORE: CANNON INTERNATIONAL, 2011),
HTTP://WWW.UEFAP.COM/WRITING/FEATURE/HEDGE.HTM AND QUALIFIERS - THE WRITING CENTER AT UNC-CHAPEL HILL.

Language of Argumentation
GRAMMAR FOCUS 1: CONNECTORS / CONNECTIVES / LINKERS
Some students’ essays read badly because they lack FLUENCY: their sentences and
paragraphs do not connect to form a continuous and coherent whole. Use a variety of
appropriate connectors / connectives / linkers: words that link ideas by forming a
bridge both within and between sentences. Connectors / connectives / linkers are not
new to you. Try the following exercise to consolidate your understanding of connectors
/ connectives / linkers and their respective functions. An extensive list of connectors /
connectives / linkers can also be found in the following page. They’ll certainly help to
create a smoother flow in your essays.

Different connectors / connectives / linkers are used for different purposes. Some are used to
signal to the reader that a conclusion is about to be made. Others may indicate that an illustration
is about to be given, whilst others may signify that a previous statement is about to be qualified.
Note that some connectors / connectives / linkers can be placed in more than one category.
Consider the following examples.

47
Note that some connectors / connectives / linkers have MORE THAN ONE FUNCTION. Also, note
that while some connectors / connectives / linkers have similar functions, there are SUBTLE
DIFFERENCES IN THEIR MEANINGS, e.g. “moreover” and “furthermore”. Be sure to use the right
connector / connective / linker that best conveys your INTENDED MEANING.

Finally, note that the following is a non-exhaustive list. Add on more connectors / connectives /
linkers as you come across them in your readings!

48
GRAMMAR FOCUS 2: ADVERBS / ADVERBIAL PHRASES

Apart from connectors / connectives / linkers, another useful way of achieving fluency is to use a
variety of APPROPRIATE ADVERBS and ADVERBIAL PHRASES to ENHANCE MEANING AND ADD
EMPHASIS. Adverbs and adverbials clarify your intended meaning, qualify your statements and
signpost your argument(s). The following adverbs are useful for writing a stand in response to
essay questions.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of some commonly used adverbs and adverbial phrases that can be
used at the beginning of and within sentences. Look up their meanings and be clear on the
context(s) in which they can be used. Feel free to add on to the list if you come across more in your
readings!

49
50
GRAMMAR FOCUS 3: HEDGING AND MODALS

“Hedging” occurs when we reduce the strength of a generalization – a kind of

appropriate modesty in making academic claims. Rather than saying "The world is
round," we might say something like "A lot of evidence suggests that the world might
be better described as round rather than flat." It is not that the writer thinks that the
world is not round but that the proper style is to present all generalizations in
contingent wording. Look at the following quotation from a sociology textbook: the
writer hedges his generalization first with the adverb “perhaps” and then with the use
of the modal “might”.

Sociology Textbook Example

Perhaps most of us think that we are born with full-fledged emotions. Researchers
have found, however, that our emotions develop in an orderly sequence (Kagan 1984;
Lewis 1992). We are born with what we might call "emotional reflexes."

51
52
53
GRAMMAR FOCUS 4: COMMON GRAMMAR ERRORS

EXERCISE:
The following section contains some language errors and the nature of their
errors. In the appropriate column, indicate the appropriate marking notation to
denote the type of error.

54
55
CONSOLIDATE: Recall your experiences with language and writing in
secondary school. What common language errors did you make? Write down
their notations and/or the nature of the errors. How are you going to make
a conscious effort to avoid making these errors? What are some strategies
you’d like to employ?

The next five sections outline a non-exhaustive list of vocabulary you could use in
crafting your arguments, as well as common errors in language. Please ensure that
the vocabulary you choose to use is suitable and apt to accurately and precisely
convey your meaning.
56
VOCABULARY FOCUS 1: DESCRIBING ISSUES

57
58
VOCABULARY FOCUS 2: REFERRING TO DISCUSSIONS

59
60
VOCABULARY FOCUS 3: INDICATING AGREEMENT
Agreement can be indicated in degrees. Which of the following phrases show
complete agreement? Which ones show less-than-complete agreement?

61
VOCABULARY FOCUS 4: INDICATING ONE’S OWN VIEWS / MEANING

62
VOCABULARY FOCUS 5: INDICATING DISAGREEMENT / OPPOSITION

63
64
Your tutors will hold you to the
highest standards of conduct,
and this includes, but is not
limited to punctual
attendance for lectures and
tutorials, and maintaining a GP
Journal (digital or hard copy),
which you will populate with
your notes of learning. You will
listen attentively and think
about what your lecturer or
tutor is explaining and not
engage in private
conversations. You will also
contribute willingly without
fear of making mistakes and
with a view to sharpening your
own and others’ ideas.

Lastly, you must strive to make

your understanding and
questions for clarification
visible through active note-
taking. You must take
ownership of your learning and
respect those who wish to
share knowledge and skills
with you. One cannot expect
to be respected without first
giving respect to others in
one’s community.

EXPECTATIONS
65
YOUR
We are a teaching team that takes great
pride in our work with students, and like
you, we’re growing as readers, thinkers and
TUTORS writers every single day when we wrestle
with complicated ideas and the best ways
(FOR to communicate our points of view. What
we will not tolerate is a lack of effort: every

SEMESTER 1) one of you has the potential to grow and

contribute good ideas in the classroom, and
hopefully, later on, in your community and
the world. Work hard with your tutors — talk
to them to articulate what you’re struggling
with, and remain open to their advice and
constructive criticism. You are in the safe
hands of:

Ms Stephanie Hua,
stephanie.hua@ejc.edu.sg
Ms Mak Heon,
heon.mak@ejc.edu.sg
Ms Karol Ann Tan,
karol.ann.tan@ejc.edu.sg
Mr Joshua Ng,
joshua.ng@ejc.edu.sg 
Mr Darren Chong,
darren.chong@ejc.edu.sg
Ms Eleanor Wong,
eleanor.wong@ejc.edu.sg
Mrs Joey Tan,
joey.leow@ejc.edu.sg
Ms Vivien Yeo,
vivien.yeo@ejc.edu.sg
Ms Kajal Khaira,
kajal.kaur.khaira@ejc.edu.sg
Ms Geraldine Wong,
geraldine.wong@ejc.edu.sg
Ms Rachel Teo,
rachel.teo.zl@ejc.edu.sg
Mr Benjamin Chew,
benjamin.chew@ejc.edu.sg
Ms Priya,
priyahdharshini@ejc.edu.sg
66
 HOW WILL YOU BE
SUPPORTED IN YOUR GP
JOURNEY?

GP Teaching and Resources for Platforms for

Learning self-directed extension
learning learning

Lectures Resource Package - Praxis – Learning

Weekly readings for Journeys; Talks by

independent exploration External Speakers;
Tutorials and skills resource External


Competitions/Seminars
Online learning portfolio

(created by students ST-MOE Reading

during HBL)
Programme

Navigate – Compilation
Language Support
of sample essays and
Programme (LSP)
Application Question

responses

Stretch Programme
Rehearse package –

Past-year papers for Pre-University Seminar

self-directed practice (for interested students
(released before Promos) who clear the selection

criteria)
GP Microsite

[click to access]

THE END 67