Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Social studies

Monday, January 25, 2010

Social studies - a compulsory subject

The Ministry of Education is making social studies into a compulsory subject. This is helpful in getting our young to be more social responsible and less self-centered (or selfish).

I suggest that a more important step is to reduce the competition in the school to go for the top places and win scholarships. This competition is unhealthy and brings negative consequences. My views are elaborated here.

I believe that a better approach is to educate our young to be literate, numerate, have social skills and character. We can find the leaders after they start work and solve real life problems. This view is shared by many people in this survey.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...: Is this Social Studies subject similar to what Secondary School students are taking for their GCE O'level examinations currently?

Because the current subject is heavily biased towards the PAP government. Sure, it educates our students on good citizenship and what is good leadership. But the Textbook makes good governance and PAP synonymous, and provides a PAP-bias view on Singapore history [yes, there's a few topics on Singapore inside].; January 25, 2010 10:03 AM
Tan Kin Lian said...: I hope that the syllabus will focus on the neutral, non-political subjects.; January 25, 2010 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: I think it is very important to give teachers the leeway to present alternative views on government policies. This way we would be moulding thinking students, who will then be thinking adults.

The syllabus should include mistakes of past policies, as well as points brought up by the oppositions. This way students can judge for themselves, what makes a good government. If not it would be view as simply another PAP propaganda.

Incidentally, a `bad' policy today could be something good in the future. A case in mind is the 3/4 tank rule for Singapore cars going to JB. It was a ridiculous policy. But now, with Malaysia government trying to reduce the subsidy on petrol, and cracking down on smuggling across the border, our dignity as Singaporeans is upheld.

The crackdown centres mainly at the Malaysian-Thai border,especially Bukit Kayu Hitam. It is because the 20-litre limit for foreign cars hardly affect Singapore cars. We do not have cars with illegally modified petrol tanks etc. Those with modified petrol indicators were arrested and charged by our own law enforcement.

I know many Singapore motorists will not agree with me on this policy. So be it.; January 25, 2010 11:51 AM
Anonymous said...: REX comments as follows,

I read in the papers today that in the new syllabus, they will have a topic on why GRC's are necessary in Singapore. So much for neutrality.

REx; January 25, 2010 11:57 AM
Anonymous said...: ST stated that topics like why GRCs are needed will be taught?

isn't that the political education shanmugam was saying earlier?; January 25, 2010 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I hope this subject will not be made gradable --- compulsory to pass, yes, but not to see if I can get yet another A1 score. Otherwise it will just become another meaningless mugging by students with 10-yr Series to get better score to beat their classmates (competitors).

Just make it either Pass or Fail, and set the passing mark to be 70% in order to maintain standard.

Also important to make part of it involve social work and volunteerism, not just sitting in air-con classroom going thru motion.; January 25, 2010 1:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Unlike Maths or Science subjects, it is not easy for Social studies, just like mainstream media, to be neutral and non political.

Only the Internet can, and in all ways too.; January 25, 2010 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: REX comments again

Speaking about the syllabus, did i tell you this one.
In the primary 3 social studies textbook, there is an exercise which students are posed the question "Name 3 great qualities about Lee Kuan Yew". There was also another comprehension passage excerpt about his life, and similar questions were posed as part of routine exercise.

I wonder with CSJ's daughter is in primary school yet. for the sake of getting good marks, it is advisable for her to just follow the syllabus and do the right thing for the right marks.

rex; January 25, 2010 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Singapore's education system suffers from the same problem as Singapore's Official newspaper.

A focus on the facts with no leeway allowed on the interpretation of the facts.

Let's use an example like the GRCs.

If we are really interested in developing thinking citizens, then the discussion should be slanted as;

Are GRCs really necessary in Singapore?
What is the intent of GRCs?
Have the GRCs achieved their objectives?
Are these objectives still relevant today?
Is there a better way to achieve these objectives?
Do other countries face similar problems?
How do these countries manage their problems?

Despite all our internal propaganda about being a multi-racial society, countries like USA have a lot more racial diversity than we do. The challenges that we face is not so Uniquely Singapore.; January 25, 2010 2:18 PM
C H Yak said...: What ever topics, education means the lessons must teach both sides of the topics. If it is one-sided, it is not education, but propaganda.

It should make the student think about the topics and not tell them any answers. Just like in General Paper.

E.g. for GRC, the students should discuss the pros and cons of the GRC system. Not why Singapore has changed to this system, the justifications by the ruling party or GOVT.; January 25, 2010 2:35 PM
hongjun said...: Is this to be imposed on Pri or Sec schools?

Which level to which level?

Where is the source?; January 25, 2010 5:56 PM
hongjun said...: Read this
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3AQpbhnMc58gsJ%3Aconference.nie.edu.sg%2Fpaper%2FConverted%2520Pdf%2Fab00086.pdf+singapore+social+studies+compulsory&hl=en&sig=AHIEtbQpTynygOdlcjETmcJt_KdWVovxCQ&pli=1; January 25, 2010 6:05 PM
sgcynic said...: Political indoctrination at a young age? Will I lose my A even if I can present a cogent argument against the GRC? Or do I have to answer in the affirmative because it has been "tried and tested"?; January 25, 2010 6:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Rex comments as follows,

In my opinion, the government is wasting taxpayers money to start a unit in the ministry to design the syllabus, and then after that force the students to buy these "textbooks".

I long for the old days when history was called history, geograhphy was called geography. It took me a long time to know what this subject "social studies" in the primary school context means. It cover a bit of local history mixed with all sorts of other strange information.

Back in the 60's when i studied, we had a nice history textbook with sections on World War 1, World War2, Malayan history, china history, india histroy, good enough for the young mind to have a start in understanding the World and some general ideas of government.

I cannot accept teaching a primary school children a lesson "name three great qualities of Lee Kuan Yew". This is cheapskate, poliical indoctrination. The textbook publisher perhaps got approval from the ministry for including such materail. It's still a business you know, you have to be pro-active.

REX; January 25, 2010 9:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Social studies is easy.I took triple humanities which consists of Geography,history and Social studies.I often get staights As for there subjects and i study only one year for all the three subject for o lvl.I hate triple science,it is much more difficult.Triple humanities is easy like a free gift from heaven.; February 05, 2010 4:34 PM