In a throwback to the “Nation-building” age — has it ever ended? — the Straits Times headline of Wednesday, 9 November 2011 spoke of new ways to teach students morals/values/ethics, using the three terms interchangeably. Science, maths and English language teachers will be roped in to do the job, announced the Ministry of Education. A new Character and Citizenship Education branch has been set up at the ministry to oversee the effort, adding more catchwords to the already hazy concept.
Like so much spoken and written about morals/values/ethics/character/citizenship, much space was given over to “how we shall do this better”, with next to no debate about what exactly we mean by morals/values/ethics/character/citizenship. People who get on a soapbox about these things tend to assume that everybody else shares the same understanding of the matter. They also tend to assume that most of the time, the “right” morals/values/ethics and character/citizenship behaviour can be prescribed. That being the case, it’s just a matter of mechanics as to how we can get young people to imbibe them. And that was exactly the sense I got from the news report — an entire conference devoted to the mechanics.
The issue is far more fundamental than that. Not only is there little consensus about that string-of-five-worthy-words, but to aim for students to imbibe a prescribed set of five worthy words runs completely counter to the other hallowed aim of today’s education system: critical thinking. Just as critical thinking in history means you cannot expect students to emerge with the same, desired view of historical events, so critical thinking generally is antithetical to the hope that they will emerge with a desired set of attitudes and behaviour expected for the string of five worthy words.
Moreover, adults themselves do not agree on or practice the string of five worthy words. It should hardly be surprising that we have made little headway in the past — the news report said that schools currently allocate four to five periods a week to civic and moral education “but they end up as remedial lessons for examinable subjects.”
* * * * *
In this second section, I will discuss three broad examples to illustrate what I mean about the ambiguity and internal contradictions that can arise when we start to explore the subject. The problem is that people who are terribly fond of those five worthy words are usually the same ones who are uncomfortable with ambiguity and fluidity. You will also see how one word in the string may contradict another word in it — that’s what I mean by internal contradiction.
Theft, honest possession and the common domain
In my first example, let’s take the simple concept of theft and honest possession. Sounds simple, no? But to make the issue relevant to young digital natives, we should also be talking about things like video and software piracy. The problem is: Are the adults themselves innocent of that?
The concept of respect for private property is linked to the concept of respect for common property. So we say we need to teach our kids how, when they use something in the common domain, they must still avoid damaging or dirtying it. This suggests the obligation to leave a bus seat as clean when we alight as the seat was when we boarded (once again — are adults really innocent?). Simple enough too. But then, what about the environment on a larger scale: Deforestation? Extinction of wildlife? Pollution? Climate change?
What should we do when businesses engage in the above? What are our responsibilities?
Even more acute a question: What should we do when our own government, by its policies, practice the the above?
Another angle related to respect for the common domain is to not make private claims on it. Doing do impinges upon other people’s use and enjoyment of that common domain. Sounds simple right? Ah, but what if we take a photo of a streetscene and someone who happens to be in the picture objects. “You cannot take a picture with my face in it!” she says. What are the ethics involved?
If you insist that she is right, does that not subjugate our use (and other picture-takers’ use) of the common domain to all manner of private vetoes? If you insist that she is wrong, does that not impinge on her liberty to use the common domain to her pleasure?
What then of government ministry security guards who rush out to intimidate you each time you try to take a picture of a government building? (Yes, they do that all the time, if you hadn’t known.) If you believe in a liberal interpretation of common domain, then you will have to take the view that the government is wrong. Fair enough, but does the last word in the string-of-five-worthy-words (“citizenship”) include the encouragement to dissent? If not, what does the Ministry of Education mean by “citizenship”?
When ethical behaviour conflicts with legal obligation
A friend of mine posed an interesting question the other day. My variant of his hypothetical example is this: It revolves a legal obligation to inform the Ministry of Health when we come to know that someone is carrying a notifiable infectious disease such as HIV, based on Section 6(3) of the Infectious Diseases Act, which says:
Any person who is aware or who suspects that any other person is suffering or has died from or is a carrier of an infectious disease shall notify the Director within the prescribed time and in such form or manner as the Director may require.
Let’s say you, as a lay person, learned casually that so-and-so is HIV-positive, except that you have learned it in confidence and you know that he wants to keep it confidential. There may be serious consequences (e.g. he might lose his job) if his status is disclosed in an uncontrolled fashion. We are taught to respect the privacy and confidentiality of others whenever so requested as good ethical behaviour. Yet the law obliges us to act in unethical ways. What does good character mean in such a situation? What does good citizenship mean — to obey or disobey the law?
Responsibility to others who have been irresponsible to us
Should adult children be made to support an aged parent when through their growing-up years, that parent had been abusive and neglectful? I suspect many will say No. And some of them would point out that the parent had first failed in his responsibility to the child.
By that analogy and on a larger scale, should anyone of us fell obliged to be loyal and dutiful to Singapore if Singapore has treated us badly? Why should any gay man be expected to be loyal to Singapore when the state has deliberately criminalised his essential identity and stoked social prejudice and discrimination against him? What does citizenship mean? What does loyalty mean? What the responsibilities of the state and government to its citizens (rather than the other way around)?
* * * * *
The above difficulties limn the possibilities and impossibilities of morals/values/ethics education. That said, it is not a hopeless mission. There is a lot of scope for taking students through the process — which must include the cultivation of awareness and interpersonal empathy, fortified by critical thinking skills — but it must come with no expectations of outcomes. We cannot expect the attitudes and behaviour that result from the process to fit any prescribed template. The next generation, through their own discovery may end up with very different attitudes about issues like the common domain, privacy and family. And if they successfully applied critical thinking, I am pretty sure that they will end up quite far from the endpoint that the government conceives of when it speaks of citizenship.
But then, would teachers permit such exploration? Have these adults themselves ever explored?
I suspect most of them would be far more concerned to ensure desired outcomes per the government’s wishes than encourage an open-ended process. In other words, indoctrination would be the safer route to take. They are, after all, civil servants who depend on the favour of the government to keep their jobs. I find no reason to be optimistic that anything will change anytime soon.