Governance and Citizenship in Asia

Toshifumi Hirata Editor

Citizenship
Education in
the ASEAN
Community
Governance and Citizenship in Asia

Series Editors
Kerry J. Kennedy, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Sonny Shiu Hing Lo, School of Professional and Continuing Education, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Aims and Scope

This series explores how citizenship is shaped by social, political, cultural and
historical contexts and how it may be moulded to serve the nation state in the age
of globalization. In these publications we see how governance relates to all aspects
of civic life, including politics, public policy, administration, civil society and the
economy, as well as the core values of society.
Titles cover themes including public trust and trust building, the role of civil
society, citizens’ rights and obligations, citizenship identities including those
related to gender, class and ethnicities. Authors explore how young people are
shaped by democratic and traditional value systems and the importance of
citizenship challenges in the Asia Pacific region.
Research collaborations in this interdisciplinary series probe questions such as:
What are the links between ‘good governance’ and new forms of citizenship?
What is the role of citizenship education as a tool in state formation and the
development of active citizenship cultures? How do we explain the distinctive
features of governance and citizenship in Asian societies?
Through these publications we see that citizenship is an integral part of ‘good
governance’ and that such governance ultimately enriches citizenship. Scholarly
investigation and academic dialogue in this series describe the interdependence
and mutuality of governance and citizenship.
Please contact Melody Zhang (e-mail: [email protected]) for
submitting book proposals for this series.
Toshifumi Hirata
Editor

Citizenship Education
in the ASEAN Community
Editor
Toshifumi Hirata
Faculty of
Education Oita
University
Oita City, Japan

ISSN 2365-6255 ISSN 2365-6263 (electronic)

Governance and Citizenship in Asia
ISBN 978-981-19-3691-3 ISBN 978-981-19-3692-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other
physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer
software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Preface

This publication was made possible with the support and cooperation of numerous
collaborators and research partners, educators from countries in the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the editors of this series at Springer.
Despite the unexpected influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors
invested extraordinary time and effort into writing this book while teaching and
conducting research in an unfamiliar online environment. We express our
gratitude to them.
Sadly, our Thai collaborator, Associate Professor Sumontip Boonsombuti, passed
away suddenly during the research period. This is her last publication. All
members of the research team would like to express their sincerest condolences.
We pray that the soul rests in peace.
This book was edited and published based on the research results of a report funded
by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research: KAKENHI, International Comparative Study on Citizenship Education
in the ASEAN Countries and Education for ASEANness 2010–2013, Project No.
22252007. We are deeply grateful to JSPS for making this publication possible.
The report was published in Japanese as ASEAN Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kyouiku
(Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community; Hirata, 2017, Tokyo:
Toshindo). This book reconsiders a conceptual and theoretical framework for
citizenship educa- tion by rearranging the essence of reports from the ten ASEAN
countries in the Japanese report.
Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to those who helped with the
English-language editing: the native English speakers at our colleagues’ institutions,
Editage (editage.com), CRL Co., Ltd. (corp-crl.com), Enago (enago.jp), and
DeepL (deepl.com). We thank them for their assistance in preparing this
manuscript.

Oita City, Japan Toshifumi Hirata

v
Contents

Part I The ASEAN Community and Citizenship Education

1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship
Education.........................................................................................................3
Toshifumi Hirata
2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education
in the ASEAN Community...........................................................................17
Toshifumi Hirata and Minoru Morishita

Part II Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Countries

3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness
of ASEANness...............................................................................................43
Akiko Kamogawa, Sallimah M. Salleh, and Rosmawijah Jawawi
4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional
ASEAN Citizenship Education in Post-Conflict Contexts........................67
Saori Hagai
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member
of the ASEAN Community...........................................................................85
Yuki Nakata, Andi Suwirta, and Mina Hattori
6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR: Developing Increased
Awareness for ASEAN Toward Globalization.........................................107
Miki Inui and Souphany Heuangkeo
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys
on the Development of Students’ Citizenship Abilities
and ASEAN Awareness..............................................................................135
Masahiro Teshima and Kumaraguru Ramayah

vii
viii Contents

8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global

Citizens.........................................................................................................157
Toshifumi Hirata and Minoru Morishita
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education
for ASEANness...........................................................................................175
Hirofumi Nagahama, Arthur S. Abulencia, and Jerick C. Ferrer
10 Citizenship Education in Singapore: Implementation
of Character and Citizenship Education and Revised National
Education.....................................................................................................203
Mitsuhiro Ikeda
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence
of Traditional Citizenship to the Next Step..............................................215
Sunate Kampeeraparb, Koro Suzuki, Chantana Chanbanchong,
Sumlee Thongthew, Sumontip Boonsombuti,
and Waraiporn Sangnapaboworn
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness.............237
Masao Ishimura

Part III Citizenship Education Paradigm for Surviving the 21st

Century in the ASEAN Community
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN
Community..................................................................................................263
Minoru Morishita, Toshifumi Hirata, and Masahiro Teshima
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community: Summary
and Recommendations...............................................................................295
Toshifumi Hirata, Minoru Morishita, Masahiro
Teshima, and Kumaraguru Ramayah
 Part I
The ASEAN Community and Citizenship
Education
Chapter 1
The ASEAN Community and the Study
on Citizenship Education

Toshifumi Hirata

Abstract The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established in

1967. The ASEAN Community was established in 2015 and has been successful
to date. This book had several goals: (1) discussing the fundamental issues of
citizen- ship education in the ASEAN community, namely, ASEAN identity,
ASEANness, and the citizenship characteristics required in the twenty-first
century; (2) summa- rizing citizenship education in the ten ASEAN countries,
including the latest reform trends, students’ citizenship consciousness, and
citizenship goals to be achieved over the next ten years; and (3) conducting a
comparative analysis of the ten countries and providing a summary and
recommendations for citizenship education in the ASEAN countries in the twenty-
first century. The book’s main theme is citizenship education in the ASEAN
Community. This chapter provides an overview of the ASEAN Community,
previous studies, the book’s structure, the study’s background, history, purpose,
research methods, characteristics, significance, target audience, and limitations, as
well as the investigation results concerning the ten ASEAN countries.

·
Keywords ASEAN Community ASEANness ·
Citizenship characteristics
Citizenship education ·

1.1 The ASEAN Community

In 1961, Thailand, the Philippines, and the Federation of Malaya established the
Association of Southeast Asia (ASA). In 1967, Indonesia, Singapore, and the three
ASA countries signed the ASEAN Declaration (or Bangkok Declaration),
pledging to promote economic, social, and cultural progress through mutual aid
and coopera- tion to ensure peace and accelerate development. The ASEAN–Japan
Centre noted that the Vietnam War and fears about the spread of communism
encouraged further regional cooperation. While the ASA remained dormant due to
political disputes between member nations, a fresh movement emerged to form
the new regional

T. Hirata (B)
Faculty of Education, Oita University, Oita City 870-1192,
Japan e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 3
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_1
4 T. Hirata

body (ASEAN–Japan Center, 2021). Thus, The Association of Southeast Asian

Nations (ASEAN) was established on August 8, 1967, with Indonesia, Malaysia,
the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand as the initial five members, followed by
Brunei (1984), Vietnam (1995), Laos and Myanmar (1997), and Cambodia (1999).
According to the Bangkok Declaration, ASEAN embraced the following purposes:
1. To accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in
the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality and partnership in
order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful community
of South-East Asian Nations;
2. To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and
the rule of law in the relationship among countries of the region and
adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter;
3. To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of common
interest in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific, and administrative
fields;
4. To provide assistance to each other in the form of training and research
facilities in the educational, professional, technical, and administrative
spheres;
5. To collaborate more effectively for the greater utilization of their agriculture
and industries, the expansion of their trade, including the study of the
problems of international commodity trade, the improvement of their
transportation and communication facilities and the raising of the living
standards of their peoples;
6. To promote South-East Asian studies;
7. To maintain close and beneficial cooperation with existing international and
regional organizations with similar aims and purposes, and explore all
avenues for even closer cooperation among themselves. (ASEAN, 1967, pp.
2–3)
Of particular interest here is Paragraph 4 and 6 relating to citizenship education, the
central theme of this book. Moreover, the other paragraphs mention other citizenship
characteristics, such as peace, justice, and the rule of law.
At the second informal meeting in 1997, the ASEAN heads of state and govern-
ment affirmed their intent to establish a community for regional cooperation, adopting
ASEAN Vision 2020 (ASEAN, 1997a, 1997b). The Vision aimed to establish a
peaceful and stable Southeast Asia by 2020 with the following objectives:
ASEAN shall have, by the year 2020, established a peaceful and stable Southeast Asia where
each nation is at peace with itself and where the causes for conflict have been eliminated,
through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law and through the strengthening of
national and regional resilience. (ASEAN, 1997b)

At the 9th ASEAN Summit held in 2003, the attendees proposed and agreed to
establish the ASEAN Community by 2020 (ASEAN, 2003a). They also adopted
the Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II), which proposed estab-
lishing an ASEAN Community to consolidate regional peace, stability, and pros-
perity (ASEAN, 2003b). The 11th ASEAN Summit held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
on December 12, 2005, officially confirmed that the proposed integration would
proceed (ASEAN, 2005a). The ASEAN community later adopted the summit’s
1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education 5

theme: “One Vision, One Identity, One Community.” At the 12th ASEAN Summit
held on January 13, 2007, the chairperson announced that the ASEAN Community
would be established by 2015 (ASEAN, 2007a).
The ASEAN Charter was signed at the 13th ASEAN Summit (Singapore,
November 20, ASEAN, 2007b) and entered into force on December 15, 2008
(ASEAN, 2009a). It declared that the ASEAN would develop as a regional
commu- nity, united under the motto “One Vision, One Identity, One Community”
(ASEAN, 2007c, Article 36). This was followed by the Cha-am Hua Hin
Declaration on the Roadmap for an ASEAN Community (2009–2015) in 2009
(ASEAN, 2009b). Following the Bali Declaration on the ASEAN Community in a
Global Commu- nity of Nations (2011), Phnom Penh Agenda for ASEAN
Community Building (2012), and Nay Pyi Taw Declaration on Realization of the
ASEAN Community by 2015 (2014), the Kuala Lumpur Declaration (ASEAN,
2015a) was released on November 21, 2015, at the 27th ASEAN Summit (ASEAN,
2015b). This declaration called for the creation of a rule-based, people-oriented, and
people-centered ASEAN Community under a strong common identity to maintain a
peaceful and stable region. Recalling the spirit of the 1967 Bangkok Declaration
that created an organization to bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to the people
of Southeast Asian countries, this declaration proclaimed the establishment of the
ASEAN Community. The ASEAN Community was officially established on
December 31, 2015.
In summary, it took 18 years to establish the ASEAN Community after the
initial proposal in 1997 to do so by 2015. The 37th ASEAN Summit was held on
November 12, 2020 (ASEAN, 2020a), five years after the establishment of the
ASEAN Commu- nity in 2015. The ASEAN motto was reaffirmed by ASEAN
member countries as follows:
ASEAN has progressed in achieving regional integration. With the ASEAN Charter as its
foundation, ASEAN is supported by three strong pillars of political and security, economy
and socio-cultural communities. ASEAN has striven to build a community that is united;
inclusive; resilient; sustainable; highly integrated and cohesive; competitive, innovative
and dynamic; with enhanced connectivity and sectoral cooperation; and integrated with the
global economy; engages and benefits all its peoples of ASEAN by 2025. ASEAN remains
strongly committed to realizing a rules-based, people-oriented, people-centered ASEAN of
“One Vision, One Identity, One Community.” (ASEAN, 2020b)

The Council of Ministers of Education was established at the 11th ASEAN

Summit, held in December 2005 (ASEAN, 2005a, 2005b). Its first Council was
held in March 2006 (ASEAN, 2006); this will be discussed further in Chap. 2.
At the meeting, the Ministers of Education advocated fostering ASEAN aware-
ness through identity education as a region and strengthening student and teacher
awareness as ASEAN citizens through ASEAN studies. The Council of Ministers
of Education played an essential role during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Joint
Statement of the 11th ASEAN Education Ministers’ Meeting was held online in
the Philippines on November 20, 2020, to prevent the spread of infection. The
ministers pledged to strengthen the existing partnership, further promote existing
educational cooperation and exchange, commit to reopening schools as soon as
possible, and provide the best remote education in situations where face-to-face
classes are not
6 T. Hirata

possible. Concerning post-pandemic education in the ASEAN region, they stated

the following:
We concur that education is key to the region’s post-pandemic recovery. To this end, we
support the implementation of the ASEAN Comprehensive Recovery Framework, which
was adopted by the 37th ASEAN Summit. We commit to advance the Recovery
Framework’s initiatives to promote digital skills and literacy, 21st century skills and ICT-
enabled teaching and learning, with a view to build resilient education systems that are able to
withstand future threats and disruptions. (ASEAN, 2020c)

They determined that education in the ASEAN Community should be unified after
the COVID-19 pandemic for ASEAN countries to develop “One Vision, One Identity,
One Community” and promulgate the skills and information and communications
technology (ICT)-based teaching and learning that would better prepare the region
for future challenges and disruptions.
The ASEAN Community adopted the motto “One Vision, One Identity, One
Community” (ASEAN, 2005a). Its aim is to promote regional peacebuilding,
economic liberalization, and regional economic cooperation in social and human
development (ASEAN, 2015a, 2015c). The ASEAN Community consists of three
pillars: the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC), The ASEAN
Economic Community (AEC), and The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC)
(ASEAN, 2021).

1.2 The Study on Citizenship Education

1.2.1 Study Background and History

This book builds on a comparative study of citizenship in Japan and Thailand, funded
by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (KAKENHI, JSPS), conducted between 2002 and 2007. Two
studies were conducted: “An Empirical Comparative Study on Fostering Citizenship in
Japan and Thailand” (2002–2004) and “An Empirical Comparative Study on the
Curriculum Development of Citizenship in Japan and Thailand” (2005–2007).
These studies led to the publication of Shiminsei Kyouiku no Kenkyuu-Nihon to
Thai no Hikaku (Study on Citizenship Education: Comparative Study between
Japan and Thailand) (Hirata, 2007), a book comprising a series of papers on
citizenship education. The major result of this research was the development of a
learning model for citizenship education in Japan and Thailand.
These studies have inspired research clarifying citizenship education at the
regional level in ASEAN countries, including Thailand. One such study was the
“International Comparative Study on Citizenship Education in ASEAN Coun-
tries and Education for ASEANness” (KAKENHI, Basic Research A, Project No.
22252007, JSPS) was conducted between 2010 and 2013. This project had three
1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education 7

goals: (1) to clarify the current status, challenges, and prospects of citizenship educa-
tion in the ten ASEAN countries; (2) to examine ASEANness education; and (3)
to make recommendations on citizenship and ASEANness education in the ten
ASEAN countries. The study was unique in that it focused on the ASEAN region
rather than on a single country. Its most distinctive feature was that it predicted the
future of citi- zenship education by surveying citizenship awareness among
ASEAN students and education experts, using the Delphi method to identify the
citizenship characteristics that students should acquire over the next ten years. The
study results were published with a publication grant from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (JSPS) 2017.
Although the research project started in 2010, the publication of this book required
some time during various challenges, such as the publication of the Japanese
edition of 2017 and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.2.2 Contribution of Previous Studies and Regional Studies

Existing research on citizenship education can be divided into three categories:

theoretical research, such as the methodology and concepts of citizenship educa-
tion (Kennedy, 2019; Lee et al., 2004), curriculum and educational method
research (Grossman et al., 2008), and educational practice research (Ikeno, 2011;
Kennedy et al., 2010). There have also been international comparative studies and
research on citizenship education conducted by international organizations (e.g.,
Schulz et al., 2010). Ninomiya (2007) and Minei (2007) focused on various
countries’ systems from the perspective of comparative education. Ikeno (2011)
examined citizenship education in Japan from the perspective of social studies
education.
However, previous research has not covered all the ASEAN countries.
Therefore, this book presents the results of a regional study of all ten, focusing on
citizenship education in the ASEAN Community. Although the studies on
citizenship education mentioned above focused on ASEAN countries, their
regional frameworks consid- ered only East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific
Rim. Thus, while they examined Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore,
and Thailand, they excluded other ASEAN member countries. Other studies have
focused on European integration and citizenship education in East Asia (Roland-
Lévy & Ross, 2006; Nihon Shakaika Kyouiku Gakkai, 2008). Thompson and
Thianthai’s (2008) comparative study of the attitudes and awareness of university
students in ten ASEAN countries presented many implications for research on
citizenship education.
The present study was unique in that it considered the ASEAN Community as a
single region; it also examined citizenship education in Brunei, where information
was scarce, and Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam (CLMV countries, the
least developed countries) and those with significant economic disparities
compared to the other member countries. Its examination of citizenship education
in coun- tries that have not been investigated previously revealed additional
information that contributed significantly to the body of literature on the ASEAN
region.
8 T. Hirata

1.2.3 Purpose of This Book

This book follows the objectives of the aforementioned Japanese version (Hirata,
2017), which was established by KAKENHI research. The specific objectives
were as follows: (1) discuss the fundamental issues of citizenship education in the
ASEAN community, namely ASEAN identity, ASEANness, and other key
concepts and citi- zenship characteristics required in the twenty-first century; (2)
summarize citizenship education in the ten ASEAN countries, including the latest
reform trends in citizen- ship education, students’ citizenship awareness, and
citizenship goals to be achieved over the next 10 years; and (3) provide a
comparative study of the ten ASEAN countries and a summary and
recommendations of citizenship education in ASEAN countries in the twenty-first
century.

1.2.4 Structure of the Book

This book is based on the aforementioned Japanese version of Citizenship Education

in the ASEAN Community (Hirata, 2017), although it is partly a translation of the
Japanese book into English and compacts the reports from the ten countries and
comparative studies (Chaps. 3–13) while maintaining the essence of the Japanese
version. It also provides a comparative analysis of students and the Delphi expert
survey and the latest trends in citizenship education. Chapters 1, 2, and 14 were
written specifically for this book.
This book is organized into three parts corresponding to the objectives. Part I
provides a basic understanding of the ASEAN Community and provides an
overview of the basic framework of citizenship education. Part II analyzes the results
of a survey on citizenship education in ASEAN countries. Part III provides a cross-
sectional comparison of the findings from each country and provides an overall
summary and recommendations.
In Part I, Chap. 1 focuses on the ASEAN community and the study on citizen-
ship education. Chapter 2 focuses on the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of
citizenship education.
In Part II, Chaps. 3–12 provide an overview of country-specific research and a
survey analysis of citizenship education. The structure of each country report can
be summarized as follows: (1) introduction, (2) new trends in citizenship
education, (3) analysis of a survey on citizenship awareness among students, (4)
analysis of a Delphi survey of experts (citizenship education professionals); (5)
comparative analysis of the student survey and Delphi survey results; and (6)
conclusions, including a summary and recommendations.
In Part III, Chap. 13 compares and discusses the results of the analyses presented in
Chaps. 3–12. Chapter 14 presents an overall conclusion from the following
perspec- tives: (1) social conditions in ASEAN countries; (2) relevant laws,
curricula, and textbooks related to citizenship education; (3) comparison of the
current status of
1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education 9

citizenship education in various countries; (4) citizenship goals for the next 10 years;
(5) summary and recommendations; and (6) research topics.

1.2.5 Research Methods

This study used a mixed-methods approach. First, we collected and analyzed data and
information regarding laws, regulations, policies, curricula, and textbooks related
to citizenship education in each country. We also conducted interviews with
researchers and the heads of government departments in charge of citizenship
education.
Second, we collected information about citizenship awareness using a question-
naire on citizenship among primary and secondary school students and analyzed
the data.
Third, we conducted a Delphi survey with experts, including teachers involved
in citizenship education, such as social studies teachers, citizenship education
researchers, primary and secondary school principals, educational supervisors in
educational administrative agencies, and parent–teacher association (PTA)
officers. We later used The Delphi survey method, which was repeated with the
same infor- mants to investigate citizenship goals for the next ten years. We could
not obtain permission to conduct the Delphi survey in Myanmar and obtain
student and Delphi surveys from Singapore. Therefore, we focused on analyzing
points (1), (2), (5), and
(6) of the above structure for Singapore and (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) for Myanmar.
The Delphi method is a structured communication technique developed by the US
War Department’s Project Rand (now RAND Corporation) as a systematic,
interac- tive forecasting tool that relies on expert input. The Delphi method gathers
input from many different experts and allows participants to comment on others’
anonymized responses. We sent questionnaires to many experts in the field, then
collected the results and summarized the various respondents’ opinions,
reexamining them until
the opinions converged.
We administered two questionnaires to various experts over two years. We
distributed the second survey to the same respondents as the first survey, asking
the respondents to complete the survey after looking at the results of the first survey.
This process enabled us to conduct an in-depth investigation that elucidated the
status, issues, and prospects of citizenship education and the current and
recommended citizenship education for the ten countries.

1.2.6 Characteristics, Significance, and Importance of

This Study

This book presents a comparative study of all ten ASEAN member countries
within the framework of the ASEAN region, unlike previous studies (e.g.,
Grossman et al.,
10 T. Hirata

2008) that examined citizenship education in specific ASEAN countries. This

book is the first comparative study of ASEANness education for building the
ASEAN Community. Furthermore, the book offers predictions about citizenship
education over the next ten years based on the Delphi survey data.
The study’s results provide a research perspective and framework for compar-
ison with other regions, significantly advancing comparative education. Although
national-level comparative education research is common, regional research can
fill many knowledge gaps, and provides valuable information that enables more in-
depth comparative education research. This study fills the knowledge gaps related
to citi- zenship education in the ASEAN Community. Kennedy (2019), who
advocated civic education along the same lines as the team’s vision of civic
education, argued that the development of civic and citizenship education (CCE)
in a volatile future will help young people become wise, engaged, and tolerant
citizens.
Knowing more about how young people learn will assist with the development of CCE
programs that will have an impact in supporting young people to become knowledgeable,
participative and tolerant citizens in what can only be a volatile future. (Kennedy, 2019,
p. 78)

1.2.7 Target Audience for This Book

This book should be of interest to three groups of readers: (1) the heads and
profes- sional staff of relevant government and curriculum-development
departments who are in charge of developing their respective countries’ policies,
plans, and curricula for citizenship education; (2) researchers and professors engaged
in curriculum devel- opment and educational research on citizenship education at
institutions of higher education; and (3) schoolteachers responsible for citizenship
education and under- graduate and graduate students in the teacher training
departments of institutions of higher education.
In particular, we hope that students and graduate students who are receiving
teacher training at teacher training institutions (undergraduate and graduate
schools) and in-service teachers will actually attempt to develop a curriculum. We
hope that this research will be useful in fostering the ability to develop a citizenship
education. The interrelationship among these three groups could form the Plan–
Do–Check–
Action (PDCA) cycle (please refer to Chap. 14, for a diagram of this relationship).
However, the discussion of the framework and methodology of citizenship educa-
tion and curriculum development could help both those involved in ASEAN and
those conducting citizenship education research in other regions. This study sets
the level and phase as the coordinate axes and develops a table of characteristics
(see Chap. 2). The framework and the table of citizenship characteristics herein
are tentative; however, as the characteristics of citizenship continue to evolve, new
char- acteristics will likely be added. One characteristic is one unit of the study,
with each unit created by selecting learning subjects and developing a learning
unit plan. The curriculum was developed as a unit of study for one characteristic.
One characteristic
1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education 11

depends on the school level; in elementary school, for instance, a unit of study
could be planned for about 15 h of study time. The list of characteristics proposed
here is suggestive, universal, and effective not only for the ASEAN Community
but also for researchers, students, graduate students, and schoolteachers interested
and involved in citizenship education in general.

1.2.8 Chapter Summaries

The following paragraphs provide brief overviews of the book’s content.

Chapter 1—This chapter considers and discusses the ASEAN Community,
provides the study’s background and history, reviews previous studies, and
describes the study’s purpose, structure, research methods, significance, audience,
limitations, and results.
Chapter 2—This chapter discusses the key ideas of this study. The study’s key
concepts have been previously discussed (Hirata, 2007, 2016a, 2016b, 2017); this
chapter reaffirms the key concepts critical to the rest of the book, focusing on the
fundamental issues and theoretical and methodological frameworks of citizenship
education. This chapter examines key terms, such as ASEAN identity,
ASEANness, ASEAN studies, the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (ASEAN, 2012),
and the basic citizenship education framework required in the twenty-first century.
Chapter 3 (Brunei)—In the Malay Islamic Monarchy (MIB), citizenship
educa- tion is a specific subject for developing citizenship. Brunei views the
purpose of citizenship education as developing “good citizens,” who are people
with good moral values who respect diversity, freedom, and human rights. The
MIB aims to strengthen citizens’ sense of values and responsibility toward
themselves and their families, communities, religions, and nations. This has
important implications for nation-building and identity formation.
Chapter 4 (Cambodia)—Cambodia education has no single subject dedicated to
citizenship education; instead, citizenship education through related subjects such as
morality, civics, history, and geography. Cambodia’s citizenship education
nurtures citizens to become empowered and actively involved in society under the
influence of postmodern values in nascent civil society. However, education is a
difficult task because it involves value transformation; young Cambodians are
absorbed by the digital world of social media, allowing them to imagine the
ASEAN without being bound by national borders. They recognize themselves as
ASEAN citizens. Our study found a higher than anticipated percentage of
respondents who were aware of their ASEAN identity.
Chapter 5 (Indonesia)—Indonesia provides citizenship education under the 2013
curriculum as Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan (Pancasila and
Citizen- ship Education). The curriculum’s main objective is to help students
become good citizens, understand their rights and duties as citizens, obey the laws,
develop demo- cratic attitudes, support national unity and integration, and respect
diversity, freedom,
12 T. Hirata

and human rights. Citizenship education expands and refines the content of ASEAN-
ness education in the curriculum. One challenge is that Indonesian teachers need
to cooperate and share their ideas and experiences with teachers in other ASEAN
countries.
Chapter 6 (Lao PDR)—Laos trains human resources to respond to
globalization while providing education in the direction of socialism. It is
currently improving its citizenship education curriculum with the cooperation of
the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and Australian Agency for
International Development (AusAID). Laos views the purpose of citizenship
education as globalizing people for ASEAN integration. However, globalization
appears to be insufficient. No specific subject for citizenship education has been
introduced; however, much of it is covered by “World Around Us,” a fusion of
science and social studies.
Chapter 7 (Malaysia)—In Malaysia, a multi-ethnic and multicultural country,
national unity policy has been a significant issue since its independence. Civics
and citizenship education (CCE), which was introduced in primary and secondary
schools in 2005, defined citizens as “nationals” and citizenship as the “duties and
rights as citizens,” with the ultimate goal of becoming a member of the Malaysian
nation. In 2019, the Ministry of Education introduced a new approach to citizenship
education: civic education. The challenge is not only to develop citizenship
knowledge but also citizenship activities—individuals performing as citizens at
the family, school, community, national, and ASEAN levels.
Chapter 8 (Myanmar)—The new curriculum framework for 2015 set the goal of
developing good global citizens. Myanmar provides citizenship education through
a social studies course called Moral and Civic Education, which teaches students
to act analytically and ethically, respect human rights while observing the duties
and responsibilities of citizens, and behave as productive Myanmar citizens and
citizens of the world. However, the country needs to address three challenges: (1)
realization of the new curriculum, (2) improvements in teachers’ abilities, and (3)
maintenance of educational facilities.
Chapter 9 (Philippines)—The government is working to improve the quality
of education by promoting various educational reforms, such as school manage-
ment, based on each school and cooperation between public and private schools
through the introduction in 2012 of the K–12 Program reforming basic education.
K–12 is considered a response to the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). Citi-
zenship education aims to develop socially responsible and law-abiding citizens of
the Philippines by including the study of the Constitution in the curriculum of all
educational institutions. With the establishment of the ASEAN Economic
Commu- nity, the country’s future school education will focus on helping students
acquire the identities of ASEAN citizens and good citizens in the local community
and nation. Chapter 10 (Singapore)—In 2014, Singapore introduced the Character
and Citi- zenship Education (CCE) into primary and secondary schools to teach
values and build student competencies, allowing them to become good individuals
and useful citizens in a rapidly changing and globalizing society. CCE was
initially intended to help students develop an interest in the world they live in and
develop empathy and
1 The ASEAN Community and the Study on Citizenship Education 13

tolerance in relationships with others by understanding the values that shape

Singa- porean society. Students learn about respect, responsibility, resilience,
integration, care, and harmony—qualities considered the basis for good character
and useful citizenship. The 2020 curriculum plan included three new courses:
enhanced CCE, knowing Asia, and strengthening digital literacy.
Chapter 11 (Thailand)—Thailand conducts education under the National Educa-
tion Act of 1999 and the 2008 Curriculum. The 2008 curriculum emphasizes
key competencies, such as communication, intellectual skills, problem-solving,
life skills, and technology skills. The curriculum provides citizenship education
through social studies, religion, and culture. This education promotes peaceful
coexistence in Thai society and the world community, good citizenship, religious faith,
appreciation of resources and the environment, patriotism, and Thai pride.
Thailand views good citizens as those who fulfill their duties and responsibilities
as citizens and coexist peacefully with the world, with Thai tradition and culture at
the core.
Chapter 12 (Vietnam)—In Vietnam, citizenship education falls under the Educa-
tion Act of 2019. The purpose of citizenship education is to form civic qualifica-
tions and competence. Vietnam considers citizenship education in the social
context of Vietnamese society. There has been a shift from teacher-centered,
achievement- oriented, and test-oriented education to learner-centered and process-
oriented educa- tion. In other words, there is a legal requirement to think and act
instead of acquiring citizenship through examinations. Textbooks were prepared for
the Common Across Education Program, which started in 2018, and moral
education was provided once a week in elementary schools.
Chapter 13—This chapter provides an analysis of the student surveys on citi-
zenship and the Delphi survey for experts conducted in ten ASEAN countries. The
student surveys revealed that students valued history, tradition, and culture at the
national level, had problems engaging in actual actions, were enthusiastic about
religious beliefs and practices, and had national awareness and pride. There were
some knowledge inadequacies, suggesting that ASEAN countries should address
the challenges when promoting ASEANness education.
Chapter 14—The final chapter summarizes the study and discusses the overall
conclusions about citizenship education in the ten ASEAN countries. It
summarizes each country’s social situation, state of education, laws, policies,
curricula, textbooks related to citizenship education, ASEANness education and
ASEAN studies, and the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (2012). It also offers the
study participants’ citizen- ship goals for the next ten years and summarizes the
recommendations, challenges, and prospects related to citizenship education. The
Delphi survey revealed that citi- zenship education in ASEAN could be considered
from the perspectives of diversity and commonality; the challenge is striking a
balance between the two.
1.2.9 Study Limitations

First, although this study examined all ten ASEAN countries, data from Myanmar
and Singapore were insufficient. We obtained only a minimum amount of data from
the two countries, such as policy documents and materials, which we examined to
the maximum possible extent. We hope to conduct a complete survey in the future.
Second, the theoretical and analytical considerations of citizenship are insuffi-
cient. In future research, we will need to consider the concept from various academic
fields beyond pedagogy, such as political science, philosophy, and sociology.
Sadly, the comprehensive approach was beyond the scope of the present study. In
addition, the theoretical and methodological considerations of ASEAN itself were
insufficient.
The present study was broad, rather than in-depth.
Third, we did not have sufficient time to allow us to conduct various types of
analyses, such as comparative and cross analyses by school stage, age, or student
attributes (e.g., age, gender, experience) in our Delphi survey. The study’s Delphi
survey sample size was also insufficient; in particular, we were unable to collect
the statistically required number of samples for the five job categories.
Chapter 2
The Conceptual Framework
of Citizenship Education in the ASEAN
Community

Toshifumi Hirata and Minoru Morishita

Abstract This chapter examines the conceptual framework of citizenship educa-

tion in the ASEAN community. This chapter contains six sections: (1) the basic
concept of citizenship education, which discusses the meanings of the terms
citizen and citizenship; civic, national, and citizenship education; the necessity of
citizen- ship education; and global citizenship; (2) key concepts of citizenship
education in the ASEAN Community, including ASEAN identity and
ASEANness education;
(3) ASEANness education curriculum, including ASEAN Studies and the ASEAN
Curriculum Sourcebook (2012); (4) a citizenship education framework for
surviving in the twenty-first century; (5) the characteristics of citizenship required in
the twenty- first century, revised from the previous list and containing
characteristics such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT),
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Social Networking Service (SNS), and
virus infections; and (6) a review of a student survey and Delphi expert survey on
attitudes toward citizenship.

Keywords ASEAN awareness ·ASEAN curriculum sourcebook ASEAN

identity ·ASEANness education ·ASEAN studies ·Delphi expert survey Global
citizenship · Student survey ·

2.1 Basic Concepts of Citizenship Education

This chapter reviews and revisits the book’s central theme of citizenship
education, including its fundamentals, key concepts, basic framework, and new
citizenship characteristics. As described in Chap. 1, the research project began as a
comparative study of citizenship education in Japan and Thailand conducted from
2002 to 2007 and funded by a KAKENHI JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research. In a series

T. Hirata (B)
Faculty of Education, Oita University, Oita City 870-1192,
Japan e-mail: [email protected]
M. Morishita
Faculty of Marine Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2-1-6,
Etchujima, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8533,
Japan e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 17
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_2
18 T. Hirata and M.
Morishita
of studies, project members reviewed and shared the methodologies of citizenship
education. This chapter reconfirms such fundamental topics as the concept, definition,
and theoretical framework of citizenship education by referring to previous works.

2.1.1 Meanings of Citizen and Citizenship

Kojien (Shinmura, 2018), Japan’s most authoritative dictionary, defines citizens as

follows: (1) a resident of a city, a member of a city; (2) a citizen who is in a posi-
tion to participate in national politics; a public citizen; a person who participates
autonomously and voluntarily in the formation of public space. Kojien defines
civil society as follows:
Civil society is a society in which privileges, status-based domination, and subordination
are abolished, and in which life is conducted through discussion and agreement by free
and equal individuals, unregulated by state power. Fundamental human rights and
freedom of conscience are guaranteed. It is said to be a concept born from the Age of
Enlightenment. (Shinmura, 2018, P. 1340, Authors’ translation)

Put simply, citizens are members of the public who are legally recognized subjects
or nationals of a country (native or naturalized).
The concept of citizens as participants in national (or local) events and politics
was developed during the Enlightenment, based on the rational and critical spirit.
During the Enlightenment (seventeenth to eighteenth centuries), philosophers such as
Locke and Montesquieu criticized the traditional and feudal society that had pervaded
England, Germany, France, and other countries since the Middle Ages. They consid-
ered citizens to be free and equal individuals who were not regulated by state
power and who could participate in national politics. Since some scholars argue
that the concept of citizenship dates back to the city-states of ancient Greece, it
clearly has a long history. The concept of civil society—individuals and organizations
not attached to the government—shifted dramatically following the Puritan
Revolution (1642) in England and the French Revolution (1789) in France to
mean a society established by free and equal individuals.
In the dictionary sense, in Japanese, the three terms citizen (shimin), nation
(kokumin), and citizen (kohmin) could be considered synonymous. Citizens have
two meanings: national and civic. This means that the term citizen can mean both
(or either) a member of a nation or a member of civil society. The two terms are
not contradictory, but are synonymous. For example, the objectives of social
studies in the Japanese curriculum use the term kohmin in the phrase “the
characteristics of a citizen,” and the ultimate goal is to acquire these characteristics.
Since 1968, the term kohmin has had two meanings in Japanese courses: “citizens
who are members of the state” and “citizens who are members of civil society.”
The former social studies curriculum for elementary school students in Japan
stated the following:
The term “civic characteristics” (kouminteki shishitsu) refers to those characteristics that
are necessary to act as citizens and nationals of a peaceful and democratic nation and
society
2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 19

living in an international society. Therefore, civic characteristics are considered to be atti-

tudes and abilities such as having awareness as a shaper of a peaceful and democratic
nation and society, respecting others’ personalities, trying to fulfill social obligations and
responsi- bilities, thinking from multiple perspectives in various aspects of social life, and
making fair judgments. These civic characteristics are also considered to be the basis for
the character- istics and abilities to live independently in an international society with a
sense of Japanese identity and to participate in the formation of a better society, such as
aiming to realize a sustainable society. (MEXT, 2008a, p. 12, Authors’ translation)

Japan’s 2017 curriculum for social studies in elementary and junior high
schools (MEXT, 2017a, b) and the 2018 high school curriculum for geography,
history, and civics (MEXT, 2018a, b) reorganized the characteristics and abilities to
be cultivated into three pillars: the expressed goal of civic characteristics changed
to the civic char- acteristics and abilities necessary to effectively form peaceful,
democratic nations and societies to live independently in the global society
(MEXT, 2017a, p. 20).
Scholars continue to debate the best definition of citizens. Although modern
society has become globally connected and seems virtually borderless, national
borders exist, and each country has its own political and economic systems. For
our study, we defined citizens as persons who are members of civil society, who
can live in a rapidly changing society, and who can address problems such as
human rights, peace, environment, and development peacefully and
democratically. In this age of rapid globalization, citizens must be able to make
decisions on a global level and solve problems on a global scale. Such citizens are
considered global citizens. Citizenship refers to “the characteristics that citizens
possess, such as knowledge about society, skills and attitudes that enable them to
actively participate in society to realize a peaceful and democratic society, and
characteristics that enable them to understand other cultures, live together, and
make decisions and take action on their own” (Hirata, 2007, pp. 9–10). Cogan, a
leading authority on citizenship education, defined citizen as “a constituent
member of society” and citizenship and citizenship education as follows:
A citizen was defined as ‘a constituent member of society.’ Citizenship, on the other hand,
was said to be ‘a set of characteristics of being a citizen.’ And finally, citizenship
education, the underlying focal point of the study, was defined as ‘the contribution of
education to the development of those characteristics of being a citizen.’ (Cogan &
Derricott, 1998, p. 14)

2.1.2 Civic, National, and Citizenship Education

Cogan et al. (2002) argued that civic education is an indirect and direct part of all
educational school activities and subjects, particularly literature, history, music,
and social studies. They defined civic education as follows:
For the purpose of this book, we have chosen to define civic education, in the broadest
terms possible, that is, as the formation through the process of schooling of the
knowledge, skills, values, and dispositions of citizens. (Cogan et al., 2002, p. 4)
20 T. Hirata and M.
Morishita
Civic education nurtures people who are members of the nation-state. An
exam- ination of the relationship between citizens, nationals, and civics indicates
that the concept of national education is similar to or almost equal to the concept
of civic education. National education emphasizes the nation, keeping it in the
foreground.
In contrast to civic education and national education, citizenship education
addresses the issue of individual quality. It teaches characteristics that citizens
should acquire, including how and by what process, and helps students make
decisions and take action. This type of education helps form a civil society and
guarantees basic human rights and freedom of conscience. Citizen education enables
the realization of a civil society in which free and equal individuals engage in
discussion and agreement without regulation by the state.
Thus, citizenship education has a somewhat different nuance and meaning from
national and civic education. Citizenship education focuses on individual rights
and responsibilities rather than on the nation. In the modern world, international
influ- ences permeate politics, economics, society, and culture. People, goods,
money, and information move around the world beyond national borders. The
state has become only a system. “Under these circumstances, in order to create a
better international society in the twenty-first century and to survive strongly in the
severe global society, it is important to create a new educational framework”
(Hirata, 2007, p. 15).

2.1.3 The Necessity of Citizenship Education

Research on citizenship education became popular in the 1990s. According to Cogan

and Derricott (1998), globalization has created many challenges, including economic
imbalances that disproportionately harm the poor. Advances in electronic commu-
nications and transportation technologies have accelerated the globalization. Envi-
ronmental degradation is also accelerating. With such rapid advances, ethical
quan- daries in diverse fields, from genetics to immigration to healthcare. These
issues are the subject of citizenship education. Cogan and Derricott (1998) and
Cogan et al. (2002) argued that civic education should likewise include
globalization and plural- istic culturalism in its policy and practice, given that the
number of people moving across borders has made nearly every country multiethnic.
Giddens (2000) identified three challenges: globalization, technological advancement,
and impact on daily life, such as changes in traditions and lifestyles. Kennedy
(2019) argued that education was essential in “supporting young people to become
knowledgeable, participative, and tolerant citizens in what can only be volatile
times in the future” (p. 64).

2.1.4 Global Citizenship

Kennedy (2019) examined the idea of neoliberal civic and citizenship education
(CCE) and noted two possible lines of thought:
2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 21

Yet the main interest here is the implications of this neo-liberal view of the world for
CCE. There are two possible lines of development worth exploring. The first line is the
attempt by neo-liberals to dismantle all vestiges of the state’s responsibility for its citizens by
developing what might be called the idea of ‘the self-regulating citizen.’ The second line is
almost the opposite, focused on developing the idea of ‘the global citizen’ who has links
and concerns across borders for his/her fellow citizens in area such as human rights, political
participation, equality and social justice. (Kennedy, 2019, pp. 19–20)

This book considers the characteristics of global citizenship—specifically, democ-

racy, human rights, political participation, equality, and social justice—essential
characteristics of these two lines and argues in favor of a curriculum for
citizenship education based on a chart of these characteristics (Table 2.1).
Kennedy (2019) also argued for the development of citizens who are active and
equipped with appropriate knowledge, understanding, values, and attitudes—charac-
teristics that this book also considers essential components of citizenship.
Kennedy (2019) provided insights on future CCE, calling for learning
environments in schools and the community. In his framework for future CCE, the
debate on how future citizens can support democracy and its values in challenging
times has just begun.
As democratic deconsolidation proceeds, future citizens need not only understand democracy
but also learn how to protect it, how to interrogate issues that seem to undermine it and
how to continue building societies that are fair, tolerant and just, while recognizing that all
values do not support democracy. A framework for these new demands on democratic
citizens has been suggested to prepare citizens for a very different future. The framework
that has been discussed here is the beginning of a necessary conversation about the way
future citizens can support democracy and its values in challenging times. (Kennedy,
2019, pp. 61–62)

2.2 Key Concepts of Citizenship Education in the

ASEAN Community: ASEAN Identity and
ASEANness Education

2.2.1 ASEAN Identity

This concept was introduced at the First Meeting of Education Ministers, held in
March of 2006. In the conference’s statement, the education ministers expressed
their vision to promote the regional identity of the ASEAN Community and unite
and strengthen the ASEAN Community, as follows:
6. Recognizing that ASEAN identity is made up of the different socio-cultural identities
of the ASEAN Member Countries, the Ministers at the 1st ASED agreed that
ASEAN can draw lessons and opportunities from the experiences of the Member
Countries in managing cultural and racial diversity. The Ministers reaffirmed that
education plays an important role in the promotion of regional identity and the
ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. The Ministers emphasized the critical role that
education has to play in fostering greater inter-cultural, inter-religious and inter-racial
understanding within and between societies in the region.
Table 2.1 Characteristics of citizenship

22
Phase level Knowledge and understanding Skills and abilities Values and attitudes
Local • Local history • To participate in local politics • To love the community
• Local wisdom • To solve community problems • To believe in the middle path (a Buddhist concept) and the
• Local tradition and culture • To cooperate with one another sufficiency economy
• Local situation • To make decisions in the • To believe the teachings of one’s religion
• Coexistence in the local local community • To believe traditions
community • To uphold • To be proud of being a local inhabitant
• Sustainable development social • To have a peaceful life in the local community
• Lifestyle in the local commitments • To uphold democracy in the local community
community • To coexist with other cultures • To have a local identity
• To behave in accordance with local traditions and cultures
• To be proud of the local community
• To have concern for development
• To esteem life
• To engage in volunteer works
• To volunteer and help one another
• To commit to social activities
• To esteem human rights
(continued)

Morishita
T. Hirata and M.
Table 2.1 (continued)

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education …

Phase level Knowledge and understanding Skills and abilities Values and attitudes
National • National history • To participate in • To behave in accordance with national traditions and cultures
• Tradition and culture national politics • To love the nation
• Culture diversity • To solve national problems • To be proud to be a citizen
• Law • To cooperate with one another • To have a peaceful life
• Middle path and • To make national decisions • To uphold democracy
sufficiency economy • To uphold • To be moral
• System of politics and social • To have a national identity
administration commitments • To believe in the middle path and a sufficient economy
• Social problems • To coexist with other cultures • To be concerned for the environment and development
• Coexistence and living • To try new things
together • To esteem human rights
• Sustainable development • To engage in volunteer works
• To volunteer and help one another
• To commit to social activities
(continued)

23
Table 2.1 (continued)

24
Phase level Knowledge and understanding Skills and abilities Values and attitudes
Regional • Democracy • To preserve democracy • To have an ASEAN identity (norms, values, beliefs)
• Human rights • To preserve human rights • To have ASEAN awareness (sense of belonging and awareness
• Peace • To realize and maintain peace of mutual understanding of culture, history, and civilization)
• Understanding different • To understand other cultures • To exhibit democratic attitudes
cultures • To cooperate with one another • To esteem human rights
• Mutual cooperation • To be proficient in • To be peace-oriented
• Foreign and ASEAN multiple languages • To be aware of other cultures and customs
languages • To solve environmental • To maintain mutual cooperation among regions
• Environmental problems problems • To be aware of environmental problems in the regions
• Improvement of quality of life • To improve quality of life • To improve the quality of life
• Sustainable development • To develop sustainably • To have an attitude, awareness, and interest toward
• Human power development • To develop human power sustainable development
concerning ICT, science, • To realize social welfare • To have an attitude, awareness, and interest toward human
and technology • To preserve social justice power development
• Social welfare (solutions and rights • To have an attitude, awareness, and interest toward social welfare
for poverty, unfavorable • To sustain the environment • To have an attitude, awareness, and interest toward social justice
influences of globalization, • To commit to social activities and rights
food safety, sickness, drug • To coexist • To exhibit attitudes toward sustainability of the environment
abuse, disaster preparation) • To make regional decisions • To have a social commitment
• Social justice and rights • To coexist
• Environmental sustainability
• Coexistence

Morishita
T. Hirata and M.
(continued)
Table 2.1 (continued)

2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education …

Phase level Knowledge and understanding Skills and abilities Values and attitudes
Global • Social justice and equity • To solve global problems • To live democratically
• Interdependence • To participate in • To have a positive attitude toward IT, science, and technology
• Culture diversity global politics • To be concerned with the global economy
• Sustainable development • To cooperate with one another • To have an identity, self-esteem, and self-reliance
• Environment • To attain peaceful resolutions • To exhibit empathy
• World history • To think critically • To respect diversity and culture
• Coexistence and living and globally • To commit to social justice and equity
together • To argue effectively • To conserve and show concern for the natural environment
• Understand different cultures • To challenge injustice and sustainable development
in an international society and inequality • To manage resources
• Globalization • To improve the quality of life • To try new things
• Follow protocols • To achieve foreign language • To be aware of and address global issues
• Science and technology proficiency (communication) • To uphold international cooperation
• AI • To live peacefully in a • To understand other cultures
• IoT global society • To love the international society
• SDGs • To coexist with other cultures • To follow protocols
• SNS • To embrace the • To be proud of being a member of the global society
• Viral infections and information society • To maintain peace in the global society
pandemics • To understand other cultures • To uphold democracy in the global society
inside and outside the country • To have an identity as a global citizen
• To make global decisions • To have a social commitment
• To commit to social activities • To esteem human rights
• To respond to AI • To respond to AI
• To respond to IoT • To respond to IoT
• To achieve SDGs • To achieve SDGs
• To manage SNS • To manage SNS
• To fight disease and • To fight disease and health threats
health threats
(continued)

25
Table 2.1 (continued)

26
Phase level Knowledge and understanding Skills and abilities Values and attitudes
Universal • Cultural diversity • To learn and reason • To be responsible
• Human rights • To judge • To live happily
• Peace • To express self and opinions • To exhibit self-control
• Environment • To work with others • To respect the law
• Development • To protect human rights • To uphold moral principles, ethics, and social rules
• Democracy • To make decisions • To be honest and truthful
• To be peace-oriented
• To be trustworthy
• To be punctual
• To be friendly and helpful
• To be self-actualized
• To be grateful
• To be frugal
• To think democratically
• To search for truth
• To seek and provide evidence
• To acknowledge rights and fulfill duties
• To make decisions and act
• To respect human rights
• To have the spirit of volunteerism
• To be tolerant
• To make efforts to achieve goals

Morishita
T. Hirata and M.
• To have self-restraint
• To be strong-willed
Adapted from Hirata (2007, 2013, 2016a, b, 2017)
2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 27

8. To realize the vision of a cohesive and outward-looking ASEAN Community, the

ASEAN Education Ministers agreed on the following initiatives:
b. Strengthen activities that bring ASEAN students and teachers together through
more ASEAN studies to engender the ASEAN consciousness; and through
more people-to-people interactions to strengthen the bonds and foster the
ASEAN identity. (ASEAN, 2006)
Thus, teachers and students should develop a sense of ASEAN identity through
ASEAN studies (see Sect. 3.1). Interactions between people strengthen their
bonds. Furthermore, the ASEAN Charter (ASEAN, 2007) enacted in 2007, which
came into effect in 2008, defined ASEAN identity as “inspired by and united
under One Vision, One Identity and One Caring and Sharing Community.” One of
the stated purposes was to “promote an ASEAN identity by fostering greater
awareness of the diverse culture and heritage of the region” (ASEAN, 2007,
Article 1, Paragraph 14). In addition, “ASEAN shall promote its common ASEAN
identity and a sense of belonging among its people in order to achieve its shared
destiny, goals, and values” (Article 35, ASEAN Identity). Furthermore, the ASEAN
Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint of 2009 stipulated that building ASEAN
identity requires the following:
(1) promotion of ASEAN awareness and sense of community, (2) preservation and
promotion of ASEAN cultural heritage, (3) promotion of cultural creativity and
industry, and (4) engagement with the community (ASEAN, 2009). ASEAN identity
was also discussed in a statement at the 37th ASEAN Summit in 2020:
Promoting ASEAN Identity

29. We underscored the importance of promoting and fostering ASEAN awareness and
ASEAN Identity. We therefore encouraged the enhanced display of the ASEAN
Flag in public buildings of ASEAN Member States, in accordance with ASEAN
Member States’ domestic laws and regulations and the use of the ASEAN Anthem
at ASEAN official functions. We noted the amendment of the Guidelines of the Use of
the ASEAN Anthem, with a view to further encouraging the use of the Anthem in
ASEAN official functions.
30. We adopted the Narrative of ASEAN Identity which articulates a set of inherited and
constructed values that would contribute to deepening a sense of regional belonging
as part of our ASEAN Community building efforts. We encouraged greater cross-
sectoral and cross-pillar coordination to mainstream ASEAN Identity in the work
of ASEAN. (ASEAN, 2020a)

The ASEAN Community was established in 2015. In 2020, they established an

official ASEAN flag and anthem to promote ASEAN awareness and identity
further. According to “The Narrative of ASEAN Identity” (ASEAN, 2020b), there
are two types of ASEAN identity: constructed and inherited. Constructed values are
universal and include respect, peace, security, democracy, freedom, and human rights.
Inherited values include local traditions, customs, and beliefs handed down from
the past. For ASEAN to be united as a community, these universal and diverse
values must be unified. The challenge is to create a diverse society into “One
Vision, One Identity, One Community.” In addition, the narrative describes the
type of citizenship that should be provided:
28 T. Hirata and M.
Morishita
ASEAN Identity shall strengthen and seal the bond of ASEAN people by strengthening
the ASEAN Community.

ASEAN community is an imagined community. It is defined as the ultimate goal of

ASEAN Community building process; a community that is bound by the values that drive
the people of ASEAN to achieve advanced citizenship and enlightenment;a community that
has a regional perspective, which manages to have a balance between national and regional
interests. (ASEAN, 2020b)

The Narrative pointed out that the relationship between ASEAN identity and
the ASEAN Community was bound by values that would lead ASEAN people to a
high level of citizenship and a critical balance between countries and regions.

2.2.2 ASEANness Education

The ASEAN education ministers were the first to use the term ASEANness (Kampeer-
aparb & Suzuki, 2016), notably at an informal retreat in Bangkok of ASEAN
educa- tion ministers on August 19, 2005. A statement released at that time
indicated that ASEAN countries faced numerous new education challenges, while
ongoing joint initiatives gained momentum. To build a stronger ASEAN
Community through education, the ministers agreed to plan a course of
interregional cooperation in education.
We agreed to focus on ongoing efforts in education development to contribute to a solid
ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community and promote ASEANness among our citizens,
particu- larly the youth. We agree that ways to achieve the aims should include
developing strength in cultural diversity, while promoting multi-cultural and multi-
religious understanding to enhance peace and stability. They should also focus on
building a learning society for a knowledge economy, and working towards realizing
“Education for all” in ASEAN, so as to narrow development gaps. (ASEAN, 2005)

Education in the ASEAN Community was intended to foster common ASEAN-

ness values. The ministers hoped that ASEAN citizens, particularly youth, would
embrace the term ASEANness. They saw this as a way to achieve educational
goals to develop strong cultural diversity and respect for other cultures and reli-
gions to enhance peace and stability in the ASEAN. They called for a focus on
building a learning society for the knowledge economy and realizing education for
all in ASEAN. The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) has positioned
ASEANness as a key concept.
The main objective of this research project is to clarify the meaning of
ASEAN- ness. The official starting point for understanding ASEANness was the
ASEAN Charter signed in Singapore on November 20, 2007 (ASEAN, 2007). In this
Charter, Article 1, Paragraph 10, stipulated the goal “To develop human resources
through closer cooperation in education and life-long learning, and in science and
tech- nology, for the empowerment of the peoples of ASEAN and for the
strengthening of the ASEAN Community;” Paragraph 14 stipulated the goal “To
promote an ASEAN
2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 29

identity through the fostering of greater awareness of the diverse culture and heritage
of the region.” Furthermore, Article 35 stated that “ASEAN shall promote its common
ASEAN identity and a sense of belonging among its peoples in order to achieve its
shared destiny, goals, and values.” Therefore, we argue the following:
ASEANness education should be education that develops human resources through
formal education and life-long learning, leveraging science and technology to empower
the people of ASEAN, strengthen the ASEAN Community, promote ASEAN identity by
fostering awareness of the region’s diverse culture and heritage, and promote the region’s
common ASEAN identity and people’s sense of belonging to achieve their shared destiny,
goals, and values. (Authors, 2021)

2.3 ASEANness Education Curriculum

2.3.1 ASEAN Studies

This education is considered common for youth in member countries to acquire

ASEANness as ASEAN citizens. The content of this education was presented at
the first Education Ministers’ Meeting held on March 23, 2006. The following are
its educational objectives, contents, and methods:
8. To realize the vision of a cohesive and outward-looking ASEAN Community, the
ASEAN Education Ministers agreed on the following initiatives:
a. Strengthen educational resources available to each member country in the area
of ASEAN studies. This can be done through the use of ICT in developing and
updating information among the ASEAN countries. The ASEAN Secretariat
will work with the Member Countries and the SEAMEO Secretariat to compile
source books on ASEAN, which will serve as useful resource materials for
schools in ASEAN.
b. Strengthen activities that bring ASEAN students and teachers together through
more ASEAN studies to engender the ASEAN consciousness; and through
more people-to-people interactions to strengthen the bonds and foster the
ASEAN identity. (ASEAN, 2006)
The main aim was to provide educational resources that would be commonly
available to all ASEAN countries, facilitated by the full use of ICT. They wanted
ASEAN countries to strengthen their bonds and develop ASEAN identity through
the sense of fellowship and interaction, making the most of ICT and source materials
prepared for each ASEAN country.
As mentioned in Chap. 1, at the 27th ASEAN Summit held on November 21, 2015,
2015 Kuala Lumpur Declaration on the Establishment of the ASEAN Community
was adopted, and the ASEAN Community was inaugurated on December 31. At
the same time, the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on ASEAN 2025: Forging Ahead
Together and ASEAN Community Vision 2025 were adopted, and three blueprints
(ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) Blueprint 2025, ASEAN Economic
Commu- nity (AEC) Blueprint 2025, and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community
(ASCC) Blueprint 2025) (ASEAN, 2015a, b, c).
30 T. Hirata and M.
Morishita
In other words, the APSC Blueprint advocates the inclusion of ASEAN studies
in the curriculum in order to raise awareness of a human-centered, rule-based,
people- centered, people-oriented community. The development of curricula in
ASEAN studies that enable students to enjoy human rights, fundamental
freedoms, social justice, and sharing a common identity is encouraged.
The latest preparation and implementation status of ASEAN studies in the ten
countries are detailed in Table 14.2 in Chap. 14.

2.3.2 The ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook

In 2012, the ASEAN Secretariat commissioned United States Agency for Inter-
national Development (USAID) to develop a curriculum that was published as a
curriculum source book—“a teaching resource for primary and secondary schools
to foster an outward-looking, stable, peaceful, and prosperous ASEAN
Community” (ASEAN, 2012). This source book defines education as follows:
Education is a key way for ASEAN’s citizenry to become aware of the many connections
that bind them, and to endow them with the skills they need to effectively build a better
future across the region. For this purpose, ASEAN calls on Member States to come
together to ensure that their young citizens in the classrooms learn about the
interconnectedness among cultures, peoples, economies, governments, and ecosystems,
and how these are linked to their own lives. It further urges member states to build
students’21st century knowledge and skills, such as problem-solving, critical thinking,
innovation, cross-cultural communication, collaboration, and media as well as IT literacy.
(ASEAN, 2012, pp. 1–2)

Kampeeraparb and Suzuki (2016) called this “a tool and teacher-friendly

manual to be used for incorporating ASEAN themes into classes in all subject
areas at the primary and secondary levels” (p. 121). The sourcebook established five
themes with seven subject areas.
Themes:

1. Knowing ASEAN;
2. Valuing identity and diversity;
3. Connecting global and local;
4. Promoting equity and justice;
5. Working together for a sustainable future.

Each of these themes had the following seven subject areas:

1. History and social studies;
2. Science and mathematics;
3. Civic and moral education;
4. Languages and literature;
5. The arts;
2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 31

6. Health and physical education;

7. Technology education. (ASEAN, 2012)

For each subject area, the book suggested learning activities and outcomes,
thematic pathways, and essential questions about people, places, materials, and ideas.
In addition, USAID prepared worksheets and other teaching materials, such as a
sample lesson plan and handouts (ASEAN Country Cards) for each subject area.
ASEAN member countries were supposed to develop local ASEANness educa-
tional curricula based on this sourcebook and implement educational practices.
For example, Chanbanchong (2013) developed a curriculum for upper elementary
school students in Thailand. Chapter 14 outlines the current status of curriculum
development in the ASEAN countries.

2.4 Surviving the 21st Century: An

Educational Framework for Citizenship
Education

It is no longer possible to solve global problems, such as peace, human rights,

envi- ronmental issues, and developmental issues, without an international
perspective, an awareness of the urgent need for solutions, and the need for
education that will be required. This requires consideration of the development of
global citizens:
The 20th century was an era of national education, and the 21st century was an era of
global citizenship education. First, global identity will replace national identity as the central
theme of education. Not only will the ideals change, but the methods of education will also
change dramatically. Second, while national education was focused on imparting
knowledge with the aim of fostering the leaders of modern industry, and teaching how to
reach the correct answer efficiently in education with the right answer, global citizenship
education is an education of attitudes, an education that cultivates an attitude to continue
thinking in search of the best solution where there is no right answer. Third, it aims to
cultivate a positive self- image in each individual and a mind that enjoys heterogeneity.
Fourth, global citizenship education is more likely to involve teachers learning together with
children and creating new cultural practices for the global age than knowledge-transfer or
teacher-oriented classes, and it involves classroom reform. (Minoura, 1997, p. 38,
Authors’ translation)

This kind of global citizenship education is not about national but global
citizenship:
Global citizenship fosters an attitude of continuous thinking in search of the best answer
where there is no right answer. This means that each person should have a positive self-
image, cultivate a mind that enjoys heterogeneity, and teachers and children should learn
together to create new cultural practices for the global age. In other words, education in
the 21st century is to form human beings with the ability to confront global issues, grasp
and analyze difficult problems, make decisions, and take action. (Hirata, 2007, p. 19)

The dramatic changes since the late twentieth century have necessitated a reassess-
ment of education: the ICT revolution, the climate crisis, the Internet, advancing
informatization, declining birthrates, aging populations, and the diversification of
32 T. Hirata and M.
Morishita
values, among others. Education in the twenty-first century should focus on nurturing
people and inculcating knowledge, abilities, and attitudes to make decisions and
solve problems. This study analyzed and examined the type of education required
to survive in the twenty-first century, focusing on citizenship education, and
established the following educational framework:
An education that fosters human beings who have the “knowledge and understanding,”
“skills and abilities,” and “values and attitudes” to respect other cultures, live together
with them and continue to think about issues that must be considered on a global scale,
such as human rights, peace, environment, and development, from a global perspective,
and make decisions and act on a local, national, regional, global, and universal level.
(Hirata, 2017, p. 10)
This type of education seeks to foster empathy and people’s ability to
understand others and see them as equals. People need to embrace all cultures’
diversity, unique- ness, and universality and live harmoniously with other social
groups. The ultimate goal of education is to teach people to think independently,
make informed deci- sions and sound judgments, and take action at the local,
national, regional, global, and universal levels. The most important part of
education is fostering the ability to make decisions and act on them.

2.5 Citizenship Characteristics Required in the

21st Century

2.5.1 Framework of Citizenship Characteristics:

“Knowledge and Understanding,” “Skills and
Abilities,” and “Values and Attitudes”

In the study between Japan and Thailand that started from 2002, we extracted,
analyzed, and established the characteristics of citizenship that are dealt with in
previous research and educational policies and curricula on citizenship education
in Japan and Thailand (the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (ONEC,
1999), Core Curriculum of Basic Education 2008 (OBEC, 2008) in Thailand, the
1989 Guidelines for the Course of Study for Elementary and Junior High Schools
and the 1989 Guidelines for the Course of Study for High Schools in Japan)
(MEXT, 1989a, b, c). In addition, Hicks (2001) considered three aspects as key
elements of global citizenship: knowledge and understanding, skills, values and
attitudes. Refer- ring to Hicks’ method of establishing citizenship characteristics,
the research team also classified citizenship characteristics into three phases:
knowledge and under- standing, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes.
Furthermore, we classified the characteristics of these phases into local, national,
global, and universal levels. The completed table of characteristics was reported in
2007 (see Table 2.1 and Hirata, 2007).
In the research on citizenship education in the ASEAN community that began
in 2010 (2010–2013), we used the 2008 Course of Study for Elementary and Junior
High
2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 33

Fig. 2.1 Framework of citizenship characteristics. Source Original translated from the table in
the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company

Schools and the 2009 Course of Study for High Schools as references for previous
characteristics (MEXT, 2008a, b, 2009). In particular, since this is a regional study
of ASEAN, “regional” was added to the level to create the final 2017 version of
the table of characteristics (Hirata, 2017).
Based on the above, we developed the following framework for citizenship
char- acteristics (Fig. 2.1): As a result, the characteristics that have not been used
so far and cannot be avoided in the future were added to the list. The new table is
Table
2.1. This is a tentative version, and there is still room for further development.

2.5.2 Civic Characteristics

Table 2.1 shows a revised version of Hirata’s (2007, 2013, 2016a, b, 2017) table
of characteristics. This study updated the previous list of characteristics with new
characteristics relevant to citizenship at the global level, such as AI, IoT, SDGs, SNS,
and viral infections and pandemics. The vertical axis of the table represents the
local, national, regional, global, and universal levels, and the horizontal axis
represents the three categories of knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities,
and values and attitudes. The matrix shows the characteristics identified in
previous studies with concentrations of certain characteristics. The table illustrates
the countries’ charac- teristics by separating the information into columns. In other
words, it demonstrates whether the country is local, national, or global.
Citizenship education differs according to the stance, circumstances, and social and
cultural background of each country, society, and region. This table provides a
perspective for constructing the most appropriate and well-balanced citizenship education
for each country, society, and region. The table also shows where the
country/society/region is at the moment. In addition, we can see which level, which
elements, and which characteristics need to be improved or emphasized, and we can
suggest ideal patterns. (Hirata, 2007, pp. 21–22)

This study examined the specific goals and contents of citizenship education
and discussed the required characteristics of citizenship, including goals, content,
significance, importance, and benefits. Each characteristic constitutes one unit or
about 15 h of study in elementary school and about five hours in secondary school
in the proposed citizenship education curriculum. These characteristics are not
eternal,
34 T. Hirata and M.
Morishita
universal, or fixed; they change and evolve. These are provisional characteristics
(Hirata, 2007, 2013, 2016a, b, 2017).

2.6 Student Survey and Delphi Survey (Tables 2.2 and 2.3)

2.6.1 Student Survey (Table 2.2)

We conducted the student questionnaire in the second year of our research project
(2011–2012) in nine of the ten ASEAN countries; we could not secure permis-
sion from the Ministry of Education in time to include Singapore. Most coun-
tries distributed the survey primarily in metropolitan areas; however, some coun-
tries included rural schools. Approximately 600 students from each country were
sampled: approximately 200 students from the upper elementary school grades,
200 from the upper junior high school grades, and 200 from the upper high school
grades (Table 2.2). The surveys were conducted either in the presence of one of the
primary researchers or a local co-researcher, and we collected the data on the spot.
The survey results were tabulated using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows,
Version 27.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp).

2.6.2 Delphi Survey (Table 2.3) and Results

We also conducted a Delphi survey with education experts, including school

princi- pals, social studies teachers (or teachers in charge of subjects and courses
related to citizenship education), university educators in charge of citizenship
education (e.g., social studies, civics, character, moral, and pedagogy education),
people of authority involved in educational administration (e.g., supervisors and
inspectors), and PTA officers (e.g., heads, presidents, and representatives). Our
target number of respon- dents was 100 per country; however, the number of
actual respondents varied by country. We surveyed eight countries.
We selected the characteristics to use in the Delphi survey from the character-
istics listed in Table 2.1. We based our selection process on a discussion between
Japanese and Thai researchers during the 2002–2007 research on citizenship
educa- tion in Japan and Thailand. We adopted the characteristics used at that time
for this research on citizenship education in ASEAN: 12 characteristics for
knowledge and understanding, 14 for skills and abilities, and 13 for values and
attitudes.
Characteristics related to “Knowledge and understanding” (12 characteristics).
(1) Environment (2) Coexistence and living together (3) Different cultures (4)
Social justice and equity (5) Democracy (6) Sustainable development (7) Interde-
pendence (8) Foreign language (9) Social welfare (10) Human rights (11) ASEAN
history and culture (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries.
 2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education …
Table 2.2 Student questionnaire
Country Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam
Year 2011 2012 2111 2011 2011 2011–2012 2011 – 2011 2011–2012
Number of samples (respondents) 600 566 637 628 699 195 473 – 592 602
Source Authors, 2021

35
 36
Table 2.3 Delphi survey First
Country Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam
survey
Year of survey 2012 2013 2012 2012 2012 – 2012 – 2013 2013
Number of samples (respondents) 374 160 177 299 99 – 146 – 268 100
Second survey (respondents from the first survey ;answered while looking at the results of the first survey)
Year of survey 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 – 2013 – 2013 2013
Number of respondents (respondents) 99 89 173 299 66 – 51 – 268 90
Response rate (%) 26.5 55.6 97.7 100 66.7 – 34.9 – 100 90
Source Authors, 2021

Morishita
T. Hirata and M.
2 The Conceptual Framework of Citizenship Education … 37

Characteristics related to “Skills and abilities” (14 characteristics).

(1) To express opinions on social problems (2) To have self-discipline and self-
control (3) To solve problems (4) To make decisions (5) To respond to ICT (6) To
make a peaceful resolution (7) To think critically (8) To improve quality of life (9) To
cooperate with each other (10) To develop sustainably (11) To contribute to
society
(12) To use foreign language (13) To behave in accordance with common rules
and values among ASEAN countries (14) To solve common social problems of
ASEAN countries with other people.
Characteristics related to “Values and attitudes” (13 characteristics).
(1) To face wrong things and injustice (2) To preserve natural resources,
protect the environment, and have an interest in its development (3) To have self-
dependence
(4) To respect cultural diversity (5) To place importance on the law (6) To
promote international cooperation (7) To pay attention to global issues (8) To respect
tradition and culture (9) To have morality and pride as a nation (10) To respect
democracy (11) To respect human rights (12) To think in a scientific way and
catch up with the new science and technology (13) To have morality and pride as
a member of ASEAN.
The Delphi survey technique follows a particular calculation method. There-
fore, we entrusted the Institute for Future Engineering (IFENG) using the tabu-
lation method; the results of each chapter were analyzed using weighted average
(WA) values. The Delphi method involves multiple surveys conducted with the same
subjects; the respondents answered all the surveys (except the first) after
reviewing other respondents’ anonymized answers to the previous survey(s).
Thus, in our second survey, the same respondents answered the same survey
questions while reviewing others’ answers to our first survey. This is referred to as
the future predic- tion survey. Our survey, conducted between 2012 and 2013,
concerned citizenship over the next ten years. Delphi survey results were
considered reliable if there were at least 50 respondents. Therefore, although only
51 respondents participated in the second survey in the Philippines, these results
could be considered reliable.
In this survey, we used the weighted average (WA) value calculated based on a
formula. Of the five questions, Q2 indicates the significance of the characteristics.
Q2 WA (C). The higher the WA value, the more important it is. Q3 represents the
degree of achievement of the characteristics. Q3 WA (A). The higher the WA value,
the higher the current achievement level. Q4 refers to the characteristics that
should be achieved 10 years later. Q4, WA (B). The higher the WA value, the
higher the expectation 10 years from now.
Q4 (B)–Q3(A) = (D) indicates the gap between the current level of achievement
and the level of achievement 10 years from now.
If the (D) WA value was a positive number, the characteristic indicated that the
expectation 10 years from now was higher than the current level of achievement,
while a negative number indicated that the characteristic was not expected to be
attained in 10 years beyond the current level of achievement.
The larger the value, the greater the gap between the current level of
achievement and the expected level 10 years from now, indicating that this was a
characteristic that required some kind of action, such as curriculum development
or development of teaching materials. We focus on the value of (D).
 Even if the value in (B) was large and the expectation level in 10 years was
considered very high, if the level of achievement was high at present (A), the need
to take measures was considered to be low.
The purpose of (C) was to check the importance of quality as a reference. If the
importance was low, there was no need to develop teaching materials.
We also set Q5, which indicates the grade level at which the characteristics that
should be acquired in 10 years should be taught, and the results of this question could
be used to determine the annual distribution.
 Part II
Citizenship Education in the ASEAN
Countries
Chapter 3
Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising
Awareness of ASEANness

Akiko Kamogawa, Sallimah M. Salleh, and Rosmawijah Jawawi

Abstract The purpose of the research was to elucidate the current situation,
issues, and prospects of citizenship education in Brunei as part of the ten ASEAN
coun- tries’ research. Government policies, curriculum and books on citizenship
educa- tion were analysed, focusing on Melayu Islam Beraja (“Malay Islamic
Monarchy”: MIB). A survey for primary school pupils and secondary school
students to eluci- date their knowledge and understanding about citizenship
education and ASEAN was conducted. This paper reports on the findings of a
survey of Brunei children and youth on citizenship education, focusing mainly on
their awareness about ASEAN. This paper also reports on a forecasting survey, the
Delphi Survey for Brunei Darus- salam. The Delphi Survey was mounted to
foresee the future situation. In Brunei Darussalam, the Delphi Survey was
distributed twice, the first round in 2012 and the second round in 2013. The Delphi
Survey was participated by primary and secondary school teachers, headmasters and
principals, university lecturers and parents. During the second round of the Delphi
Survey, the participants responded to the Delphi survey’s same items in the first
round based on the assessment results obtained from the first round survey. This
study concludes with a recommendation towards a model of citizenship education,
promoting awareness of ASEANness in Brunei Darussalam.

Keywords Awareness of ASEANness ·Bruneian students Brunei Delphi

survey · Citizenship education · Melayu Islam Beraja (“Malay Islamic Monarchy”)

A. Kamogawa (B)
Graduate Faculty of Interdisciplinary Research Faculty of Education, University of
Yamanashi, 4-4-37 Takeda, Kofu 400-8510, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
S. M. Salleh ·R. Jawawi
Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education, Universiti Brunei Darussalam,
Jalan Tungku-Link, Gadong, BE 1410, Brunei
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
R. Jawawi
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 43
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_3
44 A. Kamogawa et al.

3.1 Introduction

Around 100 years after the commencement of public education in Brunei’s Sultanate
(Brunei Darussalam, hereafter, Brunei), in 1912, the nation is amid education reform.
The National Education System for the 21st Century (Sistem Pendidikan Negara
Abad Ke-21 or SPN 21) was launched in January 2009 as a new educational
system that aligns education with the national vision Wawasan Brunei 2035. The key
learning areas specified in the SPN21 curriculum are Islamic Religious Education,
Nationhood Education, Languages, Mathematics, Science, Physical and Health
Education, Social Sciences and Humanities, Technology, and Arts and Culture.
The learning area specified for citizenship education is the Malay Islamic
Monarchy (Melayu Islam Beraja or MIB) which has the following learning outcomes:
inculcate a sense of self-worth in line with the MIB concept as the national philos-
ophy; love for their religion, race, monarch and nation; uphold and practice the values
of Islam, culture and tradition; and develop positive-thinking, caring and
responsible society.
Before introducing the SPN21 curriculum, citizenship was taught in civic
educa- tion, history, and geography. After its introduction, the curricula on history and
geog- raphy integrated into social science and the national philosophy teaching,
and MIB became more structured. Currently, MIB and social science are the core
subjects in the domain of citizenship education in Brunei. This study focuses on
MIB as a core subject which focuses on citizenship qualities, tracing its development
and describing its characteristics.
This research obtained a profile on citizenship education in Brunei. The study
mainly focused on and analysed the national philosophy, MIB, in the new SPN21
curriculum. This research investigated Bruneian students’ knowledge and under-
standing of the concept of citizenship and ASEAN. The other purpose of the study
was to elucidate Bruneian education experts’ perceptions about the citizenship
char- acteristics they achieved at present and those they expected to be a decade
later. Finally, based on the present situation surrounding Brunei’s citizenship
education, the report presents the issues and prospects concerning citizenship
education intended to raise awareness of ASEANness.
According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, Brunei Darussalam
joined ASEAN on 7 January 1984, soon after the resumption of her full
independence in January 1984, after the five original Member Countries, namely,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. His Majesty the Sultan and
Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam together with other ASEAN leaders signed
the ASEAN Charter on 20 November 2007 in Singapore. Brunei Darussalam was
the second Member State after Singapore to ratify the Charter on 31 January 2008.
Brunei Darussalam will hold the ASEAN summit as the chair in 2021.
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 45
ASEANness
3.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education:
Policy, Curriculum Focusing on MIB

3.2.1 Melayu Islam Beraja (“Malay Islamic

Monarchy”: MIB)

MIB education was first introduced as civic education in 1986 in primary schools.
However, in 1991, civic education was renamed MIB education. In 1992, MIB
became a compulsory subject in both primary and secondary schools in Brunei.
MIB is the national concept of Brunei Darussalam, which has been implemented nationwide
through different modalities including education, media, dress code, a system of ruling,
and the Syariah law. The values of MIB have shaped the morality of the people in Brunei
Darussalam, which contributed to the stability and the harmony of this country.
(UNESCO, 2012, p. 7)

The Education system of Brunei Darussalam is based on the Malay Islamic

Monarchy concept (MOE, 1985). When first introduced in 1986, the civic
education system aimed to instil knowledge to students about their roles and
responsibilities towards themselves, family, community, and nation with the
identity of Brunei.
Since the 2003 Education Act, the Brunei Ministry of Education has aimed,
through MIB lessons, to harmonize the teaching of societal values at the local
level with the teaching of universal values that allow response to globalization
issues such as the developments in science & technology and ICT (MOE, 2013, p.
6; Sugimoto, 2000). Under the SPN21 curriculum, MIB became a compulsory
subject from the first year of primary school to secondary school, introduced in the
fourth year of primary school in 2009, the fifth in 2010, and the sixth in 2011.
Currently, MIB is offered from the first year until the eleventh year (MOE, 2013).
One period a week is allocated to MIB in Year 1 to Year 3 of primary school and
two periods in Year 4 to Year 6, and the medium of instruction is the Malay
language (MOE, 2010a, pp. 23–24).
Education regarding Islam and nationhood (Pendidikan kenegaraan) is conducted
in MIB classes. MIB as nationhood education is intended to improve students’
humanity, values, and ethics and to impart a love for their religion, fellow-citizens,
monarch, nation and a sense of responsibility. Other aims include contributing
posi- tively to the community’s advancement and preservation of nature (MOE,
2010a, pp. 13–14).
Furthermore, MIB education fosters students’ basic knowledge, attitudes,
values, and skills to make them fully functioning members of society essential to
economic and intellectual development (MOE, 2010b). The anticipated learning
outcomes of the MIB curriculum include students having a sense of self-worth and
a love for religion, race, monarch, and nation, and students upholding and
practicing Islamic values, culture, and traditions and contributing to the
development of a positive- thinking, caring, and responsible society (MOE, 2009).
46 A. Kamogawa et al.

3.2.2 Citizenship Qualities in the MIB Curriculum,

Basic Competencies, and Textbooks

The content of the syllabus in Civic education in primary schools is divided into
two sections, which are Lower Primary level (Year 1–Year 3) and Upper Primary
level (Year 4–Year 6). The Lower Primary level consisted of four main themes:
Family life, Good values and practices that should be possessed, Our school and
Negara Brunei Darussalam. Simultaneously, the Upper Primary level consisted of
3 main themes: Society, Negara Brunei Darussalam and Customs. However, the
themes had evolved and developed into broader themes since introduction of the
national education system in 1991. There are five themes comprised in MIB
education: Self-Responsibility, Responsibility Towards Family, Responsibility
Towards Neigh- bours and Community, Responsibility Towards School and
Responsibility Towards Country.
The five themes mentioned are integrated into both Primary and Secondary
schools. However, for lower primary schools (Year 1–Year 3), the themes are sub-
divided into three categories: Self-Responsibility and Responsibility towards
Family, Responsibility towards Peers, Neighbours and Community, and
Responsibility towards Nation and the Environment.
The following are the aims of MIB education (MOE, 2010b) in terms of:

(i) knowledge and understanding, students will be able to (a) Understand and
be aware of their roles and responsibilities in the family, neighbours,
community, nation and the environment; (b) Understand and appreciate the
importance of preserving cultural heritage and language in addition to
widening it through practical activities; (c) Realize, recognize, appreciate
and practice the noble values following the philosophy of MIB, (d)
Describe the values that need each other in the MIB concept either through
economic, social and political activities; and (e) List down and explain the
positive and negative effects in each of their commission and their impact
on themselves, family, community and country.
(ii) Application of skill, students will be able to (a) Combine and apply their
prior knowledge of the MIB in a real situation for achieving the noble
identity; (b) Appreciate and practice noble spirit, be grateful and loving
own country to perpetuate social blend, safety and welfare state; (c)
Connect and contribute positively towards culture, community, citizenship
and religious aspects that leads to national philosophy; (d) Practice the moral
values in the life of students to achieve harmony of neighbouring life, society
and the country; and (e) Collect, collate, analyse and submit data in the
form of MIB in the form of quantitative and qualitative.
(iii) Application of thinking, students will be able to (a) Use a variety of skills
and thinking strategies to address social issues as appropriate to the philos-
ophy of the MIB; (b) Distinguish the good and bad of each commission
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 47
ASEANness
committed by them towards themself, community and country; (c) Eval-
uate each commission done by using critical thinking about its appropriate-
ness, challenges and obstacles; (d) Able to demonstrate an understanding of
the syllabus through communication and their behaviour; and (e) Solve the
problem quickly, accurately and regularly to the support of the relevant
facts.
(iv) Application of moral values, students will be able to (a) Cultivate the moral
values and admirable in themselves in upholding the philosophy of Malay
Islamic Monarchy and achieve unity and harmony of community life; (b)
Cultivate moral values such as respect, honesty, compassion etc. and self-
improving through MIB education; (c) Demonstrate the competence in the
application, appreciation and application of the values of MIB; (d) Nourish
and enhance mutual understanding and cooperation by being responsible
and caring in whatever job entrusted to them, and (e) Strengthen the faith,
believe in themself, be moderate, dynamic, versatile, durable and strong to
face all challenges.

3.2.3 The Curriculum Content of MIB

In conclusion, MIB education as citizenship education is aimed to develop the

basic knowledge, attitudes, values and skills that they must have to become fully
functional members of societies which are pre-requisites for economic and intellectual
develop- ment (MOE, 2010b). This approach to citizenship education in Brunei
Darussalam is in line with global citizenship/civics education. Citizenship
education aims to teach human beings to understand and cultivate esteem for
different cultures; gain knowl- edge and understanding, skills and abilities, and
values and attitudes to coexist; continues to think about the global issues such as
peace, human rights, environ- ment, and development; as well as make decisions
and behave at the local, national, regional, global, and universal levels (Hirata,
2007).
In line with this definition, the standards and basic competencies of the MIB
curriculum in primary and lower secondary school syllabuses are grouped into
citi- zenship qualities that are universal, global, regional, national, or local, and
then analysed. This analysis clarified that 45% of the primary school curriculum
has a universal focus, 35% a local focus, 23% a national focus, 3% a regional
focus, and about 1% a local focus. Meanwhile, 42.5% of the lower secondary school
curriculum has a national focus, 30% universal, 25% local, and 2.5% global. The
regional content appears to be missing in the lower secondary curriculum. In other
words, it is proper to state that, in Brunei, a very slight global and regional
approach within the stan- dards and basic competencies of the citizenship
education curriculum is delivered through MIB (Kamogawa, 2013; Kamogawa et
al., 2017; Salleh & Jawawi, 2012).
48 A. Kamogawa et al.

3.3 Analysis of Citizenship Education Survey to

School Children

3.3.1 Methods

One of the research purposes was to elucidate the current situation, issues and
prospects of citizenship education in the ten ASEAN countries. Government poli-
cies, curriculum and books on citizenship education were analysed; and a survey
of primary school pupils and secondary school students was conducted to eluci-
date their perceptions and knowledge about citizenship education. A questionnaire
survey on Brunei’s citizenship education was conducted with 600 students in Brunei,
who were selected for convenience sampling. The respondents consisted of 47.5%
male and 50.6% female aged from 12 years old (33.3%) who are upper primary
students, 15 years old who are secondary students (34.3%) and 18 years old who
are upper secondary students (32.5%). There were two sections in the
questionnaire on citizenship: questions on citizenship and knowledge questions on
ASEAN countries. The section presents the percentages of Bruneian student’s
responses to the Ques- tionnaire Survey of students. Three hundred primary
school students and three
hundred secondary school students responded to the survey.

3.3.2 Results: Responses from Brunei Students

The first two items of the questionnaire sought students’ responses regarding the
importance of studying each region’s history and tradition/culture. The Bruneian
students considered it is either important or very important to study of the history of (i)
their village/town (48.4% important, 22.7% very important), (ii) their country (24.5%
important; 71.6% very important), ASEAN countries (51.1% important; 31.4%
very important), (iii) the world (33.7%important, 51.4% very important). Whilst they
also responded that it is either important or very important to study of
tradition/culture of (i) their village/town (53.7% important, 30.9% very important),
(ii) country (27.6 important, 68.0% very important), (iii) ASEAN countries
(47.8% important, 16.6% very important) and the world (41.4% important, 20.5%
very important).
The third item of the questionnaire sought student responses to the question, “Have
you seen or heard about the following words?” The results show that a majority of
Brunei students have very often seen or heard the following words: International
society (61.7% yes, 18.6% very often), social justice/fairness (52.4 yes, 15.1%
very often), peace (32.3% yes, 63.1% very often), interdependent relationship (42.4%
yes, 38.1% very often), sustainable development, (42.2% yes, 18.9% very often),
environ- ment (22.2% yes, 75.5% very often), human rights (37.4% yes, 23.3%
very often),
development (38.9% yes, 47.9% very often), intercultural understanding (44.5%
yes, 18.2% very often), and democracy (38.4% yes). However, most Brunei
students have not at all (47.6%), not much (21.2%) seen or heard the word
coexistence.
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 49
ASEANness
The fourth item of the questionnaire consists of four sub-questions, which
sought students’ responses to questions concerning social problems (e.g. politics,
envi- ronment, human rights, and conflicts). For the first sub-question, “Have you
ever researched or learned about social problems yourself?”, a majority of Brunei
students have not at all (35.1%)/not much (29.3%) researched or learned about social
problems themselves. Only 32.2% responded “yes”. In response to the second sub-
question, “Have you had your own opinions on social problems?”, a majority of
Brunei students said “yes” (46.3%) or “very often” (14.4%) had their opinions on
social problems. For the third sub-question, “Have you ever expressed your
opinions on social prob- lems to the public?”, a majority of Brunei students have
not at all (51.2%) or not much (25.8%) ever expressed their opinions on social
problems to the public. In response to the fourth sub-question, “Have you ever
taken any action in an attempt to social problems?”, a majority of Brunei students
have not at all (62.9%) or not much (25.9%) ever taken any action in an attempt to
social problems.
The fifth item elicits answers to the question, “Can you speak frankly whether
something is right or wrong to the following people?” A majority of Brunei
students can speak frankly whether something is right or wrong to friends
(67.6%), parents (84.2%), school teachers (61.2%), adults or older people
(48.9%), and religious leaders (63.2%). However, about half of Brunei students
(50.7%). do not know that they can speak frankly whether something is right or
wrong to the politicians.
The next item of the questionnaire asked students about the importance of learning
English and English proficiency. The results show that most Brunei students (75.5%)
say that learning English is not important at all. However, most Brunei students
(47.5% yes, 32% very well) say that they can speak English with foreigners very
well. They also (48.6% yes, 34.5% very well) said that they can write a letter or email
in English. Most Brunei students said that they could very well read newspapers,
magazines or websites in English (39.7% yes, 51.15% very well) and listen to or
watch news or programs on the radio or TV in English (39.7% yes, 49.4% very
well).
The next two items of the questionnaire asked about students’ perceptions of their
future and commitment. To these questions, a majority of Brunei students
indicated that in the future, they can very well decide on their own when they need
to do something (53.2% yes, 22.2% very well) and they very well reach for a
mentally and physically healthier life much more than now, (62.2% yes, 27.1%
very well), they can understand their own and foreign cultures (64.7% yes, 19.9%
very well), they can live with people with different cultures or ethnic backgrounds,
(46.3% yes, 20.5% very well) and they can very well stand up against injustice,
inequality or discrimination (53.0% yes, 30.7% very well). They can work very
well with other people to solve problems in their village/town or country/ASEAN
countries and the world (42.7% yes, 11.8% very well), they can very well catch up
with the information communication technology society (53.2% yes, 23.6 very
well), and they can very well contribute to the world peace (48.1% yes, 14.6%
very well).
The ninth item of the questionnaire sought students’ responses to the question,
“How much do you observe and practice the teaching of your religion/beliefs in your
daily life?”. A majority of Brunei students have regularly (25.3%) or have
observed
50 A. Kamogawa et al.

(54.8%) and practiced teaching their religion/beliefs in their daily lives. In the next
item of the questionnaire, the tenth question, “Do you have morality and pride as a
nation?”. Most Brunei students (85.1%) responded with very high morality and pride
as a nation, and another 13.5% of Brunei students have much morality and pride
as a nation.
For the eleventh item of the questionnaire, students were asked to indicate the
importance of various aspects. Their response was as follows: About 36% of Bruneian
students indicate that the most important is peace in their village/town, and about
18% indicated that the most important is that they love their country and preserve
its tradition/culture. Bruneian students considered that the most important is that
there is peace in ASEAN countries (25.0%), and also, peace in the world (50.9%).
For the twelfth item of the questionnaire, student’s responses to the question
“What is necessary for today’s society?” was that more than half of Bruneian students
(57.6%) indicated that care for others’ feelings and to live in peace and happiness
with them is most necessary in today’s society.
In Part 2 of the questionnaire, pupils and students were asked about their
knowl- edge of ASEAN. The proceeding paragraphs showed the percentages of
Bruneian students’ responses to the respective items. A majority of Bruneian
students can identify and locate on the map the names of the ASEAN countries:
Brunei (95.2%), Indonesia (87.7%), Malaysia (89.5%), Philippines (72.7%),
Singapore (85.2%). While only a small percentage of Bruneian students can locate
on the map Cambodia (30.4%), Laos (30%), Myanmar (29.6) and Vietnam
(29.4%). Only 55% of Brunei students correctly chose that the ASEAN flag
represents a stable, peaceful, united and dynamic ASEAN. When asked about the
year ASEAN was founded, only 16.4% of Bruneian students could correctly
choose the year 1967 when ASEAN was founded. When asked about the
establishment of an ASEAN Community, most Brunei students (68.1%) did not
know when the ASEAN Community was expected to be established. Only
about six percent of Bruneian students indicated the correct year, 2015 when
ASEAN Community would be established. However, a majority of Brunei
students (95.9%) indicate that among all ASEAN countries, the highest
percentage that they know of a country is their own country, i.e. Brunei. For the
other ASEAN countries, Brunei students indicate that they know Cambodia
(8.3%),
Indonesia (63.7%), Laos (9.7%), Malaysia (75.7%), Myanmar (10.6%), Philippines
(34.8%), Singapore (65.9%), Thailand (33.3%) and Vietnam (13.3%).
A majority of Brunei students learned about ASEAN from Television (62.6%),
Newspapers (50.7%) and the Internet (57.3%). Only 36.3% of Brunei students
indi- cate that they learned about ASEAN in schools. Most Brunei students
(84.9%) agree that they want to know about other ASEAN countries. Most Brunei
students (95.4%) agree that Brunei’s membership in ASEAN is beneficial to their
country. More than half of them (64.2%) agree that their country’s membership in
ASEAN is beneficial to them personally. Slightly more than half of Brunei
students agree (54%) that they are citizens of ASEAN, feel attached to ASEAN
and are proud to be a citizen of ASEAN. A majority of Brunei students (61%)
indicate that they have a common identity (i.e. a sense of belonging to ASEAN, a
way of thinking) with the people of other ASEAN countries.
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 51
ASEANness
3.3.3 Conclusion

Citizenship education in Brunei is introduced in the curriculum as MIB or Malay

Islamic Monarchy. The main objective of Brunei’s citizenship education is to help
students become good citizens with Bruneian identity, have good moral values,
and respect for diversity, freedom, and human rights. The citizenship curriculum in
Brunei aims to strengthen values and responsibilities towards self, family,
community, reli- gion and nation. However, findings have shown that Brunei’s
citizenship education has become essential for nation and identity building but not yet
included for ASEAN- ness identity. Therefore, to develop ASEANness education
in the Brunei education context, there is a need for MIB education to incorporate
the content about ASEAN countries. The new inclusion means that MIB education
content extends beyond responsibility towards community and nation and expands
towards ASEAN (region) countries.

3.4 Analysis of Delphi Survey: Citizenship

Education of Ten Years Later

3.4.1 Methods

The Delphi Survey, a forecasting survey method, was mounted to foresee the
future situation. In Brunei Darussalam, the Delphi Survey was conducted twice,
the first round in 2012 and the second round in 2013. The Delphi Survey was
participated by primary and secondary school teachers, headmasters and
principals, university lecturers and parents. During the second round of the Delphi
Survey, the participants responded to the same items of the Delphi survey in the
first round based on an assessment of the results obtained from the first round
survey.

3.4.2 Results and Discussions on Delphi Survey of

Education Expert

Table 3.1 shows the expert participants’ demography who responded to the Delphi
Survey Round 1 and Round 2. The Table shows that almost the same percentage
of male and female respondents were in Round 1 (male = 27.7%, female
= 69.2%)
and in Round 2 (male
= 27.7%, female = 70.3%). The total number of respondents has
decreased from Round 1 (N=386) to Round 2 (N =101). The same proportion of
age categories is also shown for the Round 1 and Round 2 data. For example, most
of the expert participants are in their thirties (Round 1, n = 36.5%, Round 2, n =
52 A. Kamogawa et al.

Table 3.1 Demography of respondents during round 1 and round 2 of Delphi survey
Round 1 (N = 386) Round 2 (N = 101)
Variable Selection n % n %
Sex Male 107 27.7 28 27.7
Female 267 69.2 71 70.3
Age 20s 38 9.8 8 7.9
30s 141 36.5 45 44.6
40s 129 33.4 31 30.7
50s 64 16.6 15 14.9
60s 2 0.5 1 1.0
70 s and more 1 0.3 0 0
Occupation Primary school teacher 141 36.5 36 35.6
Lower secondary 22 5.7 13 12.9
school teacher
Upper secondary 50 13.0 14 13.9
school teacher
Higher Education 28 7.3 17 16.8
Institution
Civil servent 70 18.1 11 10.9
Other 59 15.3 7 6.9
Characteristics of Mainly education 300 77.7 81 80.2
occupation activities
Mainly research 7 1.8 4 4.0
activities
Other 56 14.5 5 5.0

44.6%), followed by the expert participants who are in their forties (Round 1, n =
33.4%, Round 2, n =30.7%).
3–2 also shows that about the same percentage of the expert participants are
primary school teachers during the first round Delphi Survey (36.5%) and second
round Delphi Survey (35.6%). Secondary school teachers represented almost the
same percentage during the first round Delphi Survey (13%) and the second round
Delphi Survey (13.9%). The percentage of expert participants from lower
secondary schools increased from 5.7% in the first round Delphi Survey to 12.9%
during the second round Delphi Survey. The increasing pattern is also seen in the
higher educa- tion expert participants from 7.3% in the first round Delphi Survey
to 16.8% in the second round of the Delphi Survey. Table 3.1 shows most of the
expert participants are involved mainly in education activities, as observed in
77.7% in Round one and 80.2% in Round two of the Delphi Survey.
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 53
ASEANness
3.4.3 Statistical Analyses

The data obtained from the expert participants’ responses to the Round 1 and
Round 2 Delphi surveys were subjected to statistical analyses using SPSS.
Descriptive data using percentages described the responses of expert participants
to each of the five questions for the respective characteristics under the three
sections (knowledge and understanding; skills and abilities; and values and
attitudes). Table 3.2 shows the responses provided by expert participants about
which characteristics they thought that they had achieved at present and which
characteristics they thought should be achieved ten years later. R1 represents the
percentage of responses in the First Round Survey, and R2 represents the percentage
of responses in the Second Round Survey.

3.4.4 Gap Analysis for Top Priority of Educational

Agenda for Citizenship Education in Brunei

Table 3.3 shows the weighted average of education experts’ evaluation of the
degree of present achievement and their perceptions of future achievement (in ten
years’ time) focusing on twelve issues pertaining to Knowledge and
understanding.
From column A in Table 3.3, it can be seen that at present, most of the topics
have been achieved, for example, environment (3.33), coexistence and living
together (3.33), social welfare (3.17), different cultures (3.09), social justice and
equity (3.03),
interdependence (3.02) and sustainable development (2.98).
Topics that have low achievements are democracy (2.79), ASEAN history
and culture (2.88), Common social problems of ASEAN countries (2.67) and
foreign language (2.67). However, referring to Column B, all the topics’ perceived
achievements in ten years’ time are larger.
Referring to Column D, for all the twelve issues, the gap between the present
and future achievements are all positive, indicating that in the education experts’
opinions that the twelve issues can be achieved in ten years’ time. The large gap
difference infers that the following topics require more attention in curriculum
development and education material. The topics are foreign language (0.75); common
social problems of ASEAN countries (0.66); sustainable development (0.64);
interdependence (0.62); democracy (0.61); human rights (0.54); ASEAN history
and culture (0.50); social justice and equity; and social welfare (0.49); different
cultures (0.48); environment (0.47); and coexistence and living together (0.36).
Nevertheless, referring to Column C, with respect to the significance of the
twelve topics, the large weighted average infers greater significance and indicates
more education resources. The topics are Environment (3.54); coexistence and
living together (3.47); social justice and equity; and sustainable development
(3.12); different cultures; and human rights (3.11); social welfare (3.10);
interdependence (3.05); ASEAN history and culture (3.02); Common social
problems of ASEAN countries (2.88); Democracy (2.86); and foreign language
(2.78).
54 A. Kamogawa et al.

Table 3.2 Percentage of expert participants’ responses to level and area of knowledge and under-
standing; skills and abilities; and values and attitudes at present and ten years later during round
1 (R1) and round 2 (R2)
Level/area Topics At present 10 years later
R1 R2 (%) R1 R2 (%)
↓↓ ↓↓
Local level Knowledge and (1) About the local 92 91 8 9
understanding history, local wisdom,
local tradition, culture
and so on, at the local
level
Skills and (2) About the political 65 61 35 39
abilities participation in the local
community, mutual
cooperation in the local
community, problem
solving and so on, at the
local level
Values and (3) To love the local 95 89 5 11
attitudes community, behave in
accordance with the
middle path and act
according to the
tradition and culture, at
the local level
National level Knowledge and (4) About the national 79 79 21 21
understanding history, tradition,
culture, law, social
problems, sustainable
development, and so on,
at the national level
Skills and (5) About the political 49 46 51 54
abilities participation, mutual
cooperation, problem
solving, and so on, at
the national level
Values and (6) To behave 86 87 14 13
attitudes according to the
national tradition and
culture, have a
national identity as a
nation, love for the
nation, and so on, at the
national level
(continued)
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 55
ASEANness
Table 3.2 (continued)
Level/area Topics At present 10 years later
R1 R2 (%) R1 R2 (%)
↓↓ ↓↓
Regional level Knowledge and (7) About the history, 63 56 37 44
understanding tradition and culture,
social problems,
development, human
rights, peace, and
democracy, and so on,
in the ASEAN region
Skills and (8) Ability to esteem 45 43 55 57
abilities democracy and human
rights, to solve problem
of environment, do
sustainable
development, maintain
the peace, use foreign
language, understand
the different cultures, to
commit the social
issues, and coexist, and
so on, in the ASEAN
region
Values and (9) ASEAN identity, 64 58 36 42
attitudes ASEAN awareness,
respect for human
rights, democratic
attitude, and so on, in
the ASEAN region
Global level Knowledge and (10) About the world 43 41 57 59
understanding history, social justice,
environment,
sustainable
development,
understanding of
different cultures,
mutual interdependence,
and so on, at the global
level
Skills and (11) About the political 33 38 67 63
abilities participation, peaceful
solution, understanding
of the different cultures
at the international
level, and so on, at the
global
level
(continued)
56 A. Kamogawa et al.

Table 3.2 (continued)

Level/area Topics At present 10 years later
R1 R2 (%) R1 R2 (%)
↓↓ ↓↓
Values and (12) Awareness on the 48 43 52 57
attitudes international
cooperation, identity as
global citizen, and
global issues, and so on,
at the global level
Universal level Knowledge and (13) About the cultural 52 64 48 36
understanding diversity, human rights,
peace, development,
environment,
democracy, and so on
Skills and (14) About theoretical 40 43 60 58
abilities thinking and judging,
respecting the human
rights, decision making,
and so on
Values and (15) Respect for 60 71 40 29
attitudes responsibility, happy
life, pursuit of truth,
legal solution, and
contribution to human
beings, and so on

In conclusion, the topics for knowledge and understanding that are of high
priority for the educational agenda on Citizenship education in Brunei are foreign
language, common social problems of ASEAN countries, sustainable development
and democracy.
Table 3.4 shows the weighted average of education experts’ evaluation of the
degree of present achievement and their perceptions of future achievement (in ten
years’ time) focusing on thirteen issues about skills and abilities.
From column A in Table 3.4, it can be seen that at present, most of the topics
on skills and abilities have been achieved except for “to make decisions” (2.41),
“to solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (2.58),
“to use foreign language” (2.76), and “to behave in accordance with common rules
and values among ASEAN countries” (2.76) which are indicated by the low
weighted average.
Topics that have high achievements at present are “To cooperate with each other”
(3.52), “to have self-discipline and self-control” (3.46), “to solve problems”
(3.44), “to respond to ICT” (3.39), “to improve quality of life” (3.33), “to think
critically” (3.15), “to express opinions on social problems” (3.12), “to make a
peaceful resolu- tion” (2.99), and “to develop sustainably” (2.92). However,
referring to Column B,
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 57
ASEANness
Table 3.3 Comparison of weighted average of questions on knowledge and understanding
Questions Q3: The Q4: The Q2: The The gap
Topics degree of characteristics significance of between
achievement that should be this present
of this achieved characteristics and future
characteristics 10 years later (C) “(B)–(A)”
at present (B) (D)
(A)
Knowledge (1) Environment 3.33 3.79 3.54 (1) 0.47 (10)
and (2) Coexistence 3.33 3.69 3.47 (2) 0.36 (11)
understanding and living
together
(3) Different 3.09 3.57 3.11 (4) 0.48 (9)
cultures
(4) Social justice 3.03 3.52 3.12 (3) 0.49 (8)
and equity
(5) Democracy 2.79 3.41 2.86 (9) 0.61(5)
(6) Sustainable 2.98 3.62 3.12 (3) 0.64 (3)
development
(7) 3.02 3.64 3.05 (6) 0.62 (4)
Interdependence
(8) Foreign 2.67 3.42 2.78 (10) 0.75(1)
language
(9) Social 3.17 3.65 3.10 (5) 0.49 (8)
welfare
(10) Human 3.02 3.56 3.11 (4) 0.54 (6)
rights
(11) ASEAN 2.88 3.38 3.02 (7) 0.50 (7)
history and
culture
(12) Common 2.67 3.33 2.88 (8) 0.66 (2)
social problems
of ASEAN
countries

the perceived achievements in ten years’ time for all the topics on skills and
abilities are large.
Referring to Column D, for all the fourteen issues, the gap between the present and
future achievements are all positive indicating that in the education experts’ opinions
that the fourteen issues can be achieved in ten years’ time. The large gap
difference infers that the following topics require more attention in curriculum
development and education material. The topics are “to make decisions” (0.68), “to
solve common social problems of ASEAN countries” (0.67), “to use foreign
language” (0.65), and “to make a peaceful resolution” (0.60). The gap is relatively
smaller for “to respond to ICT” (0.59), “to improve quality of life” (0.58), “to
develop sustainably” (0.58),
58 A. Kamogawa et al.

Table 3.4 Comparison of weighted average of questions on skills and abilities

Question Q3: The degree Q4: The Q2: The The gap
Topics of achievement characteristics significance of between
of this that should be this present and
characteristics achieved 10 characteristics future
at present years later (C) “(B)–(A)”
(A) (B) (D)
Skills and (1) To express 3.12 3.80 3.31 (8) 0.68 (2)
abilities opinions on
social
problems
(2) To have 3.46 3.88 3.55 (3) 0.43 (11)
self-discipline
and self-
control
(3) To solve 3.44 3.82 3.44 (5) 0.39 (12)
problems
(4) To make 2.41 3.88 3.47 (4) 1.47 (1)
decisions
(5) To respond 3.39 3.98 3.39 (6) 0.59 (7)
to ICT
(6) To make 2.99 3.59 3.13 (10) 0.60 (6)
a peaceful
resolution
(7) To think 3.15 3.64 3.32 (7) 0.50 (10)
critically
(8) To improve 3.33 3.91 3.59 (2) 0.58 (8)
quality of life
(9) To 3.52 4.17 3.68 (1) 0.64 (5)
cooperate with
each other
(10) To develop 2.92 3.50 3.01 (11) 0.58 (8)
sustainably
(11) To 2.99 3.57 3.17 (9) 0.58 (8)
contribute to
society
(12) To use 2.76 3.41 2.75 (14) 0.65 (4)
foreign
language
(13) To behave 2.76 3.31 2.83 (12) 0.56 (6)
in accordance
with common
rules and
values among
ASEAN
countries
(continued)
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 59
ASEANness
Table 3.4 (continued)
Question Q3: The degree Q4: The Q2: The The gap
Topics of achievement characteristics significance of between
of this that should be this present and
characteristics achieved 10 characteristics future
at present years later (C) “(B)–(A)”
(A) (B) (D)
(14) To solve 2.58 3.25 2.79 (13) 0.67 (3)
common social
problems of
ASEAN
countries with
other people

“to contribute to society” (0.58), “to behave in accordance with common rules and
values among ASEAN countries” (0.56), and “to think critically” (0.50).
Nevertheless, referring to Column C, concerning the significance of the
fourteen topics on skills and abilities, the large weighted average infers greater
significance, indicating more education resources. The topics are: “to cooperate
with each other” (3.68), “to improve quality of life” (3.59), “to have self-discipline
and self-control” (3.55), “to make decisions” (3.47), “to solve problems” (3.44),
“to respond to ICT” (3.39), “to think critically” (3.32), “to express opinions on
social problems” (3.31), “to contribute to society” (3.17), “to make a peaceful
resolution” (3.13), “to develop sustainably” (3.01), “to behave in accordance with
common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (2.83), “to solve common
social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (2.79), and “to use
foreign language” (2.75).
In conclusion, the topics for skills and abilities that are of high priority for the
educational agenda on Citizenship education in Brunei are curriculum that
develops decision making, expressing opinions on social problems, solving
common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people, about foreign
language usage, and to cooperate with each other.
Table 3.5 shows the weighted average of education experts’ evaluation of the
degree of present achievement and their perceptions of future achievement (in ten
years’ time), focusing on thirteen issues pertaining to values and attitudes.
From column A in Table 3.5, it can be seen that at present, most of the topics
on values and attitudes have been achieved: “to have morality and pride as a
nation” (3.30), “to respect tradition and culture” (3.24), “to have self-dependence”
(3.15), “to respect human rights” (3.12), “to place importance on the law” (3.09), “to
respect cultural diversity” (3.08), “to preserve natural resources, protect the
environment and have an interest in its development” (3.07), “to think in a
scientific way and catch up with the new sciences and technology” (3.04), and “to
pay attention to global issues” (3.00). Topics that have low achievements at present
are “to face wrong matters, injustice” (2.92), “to respect democracy” (2.90), “to
have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (2.88), and “to promote
international cooperation” (2.68).
60 A. Kamogawa et al.

Table 3.5 Comparison of weighted average of questions on values and attitudes

Questions Q3: The degree Q4: The Q2: The The gap
Topics of achievement characteristics significance of between
of this that should be this present and
characteristics achieved 10 characteristics future
at present years later (C) “(B)–(A)”
(A) (B) (D)
Values (1) To face 2.92 3.58 3.09 (8) 0.66 (2)
and wrong things and
attitudes injustice
(2) To preserve 3.07 3.71 3.34 (4) 0.64 (3)
natural
resources,
protect
the environment
and have an
interest in its
development
(3) To have 3.15 3.74 3.41 (2) 0.59 (6)
self-dependence
(4) To respect 3.08 3.72 3.24 (6) 0.64 (3)
cultural diversity
(5) To place 3.09 3.72 3.36 (3) 0.63 (4)
importance on
the law
(6) To promote 2.68 3.52 3.00 (11) 0.84 (1)
international
cooperation
(7) To pay 3.00 3.56 3.19 (6) 0.56 (7)
attention to
global issues
(8) To respect 3.24 3.71 3.33 (5) 0.47 (10)
tradition and
culture
(9) To have 3.30 3.86 3.48 (1) 0.56 (7)
morality and
pride as a nation
(10) To respect 2.90 3.45 3.02 (10) 0.54 (8)
democracy
(11) To respect 3.12 3.59 3.33 (5) 0.48 (9)
human rights
(12) To think ina 3.04 3.58 3.14 (7) 0.54 (8)
scientific way
and catch up
with the new
science and
technology
(continued)
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 61
ASEANness
Table 3.5 (continued)
Questions Q3: The degree Q4: The Q2: The The gap
Topics of achievement characteristics significance of between
of this that should be this present and
characteristics achieved 10 characteristics future
at present years later (C) “(B)–(A)”
(A) (B) (D)
(13) To have 2.88 3.49 3.04 (9) 0.60 (5)
morality and
pride as a
member of
ASEAN

However, referring to Column B, the perceived achievements in ten years’ time

for all the topics on values and attitudes are large.
Referring to Column D, the gap between the present and future achievements is all
positive for all the thirteen issues, indicating that in the education experts’
opinions, the fourteen issues can be achieved in ten years’ time. The large gap
difference infers that the following topics require more attention in curriculum
development and education material. The topics are: “to promote international
cooperation” (0.84), “to face wrong things and injustice” (0.66), “to preserve
natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development”
(0.64), “to respect cultural diversity” (0.64), “to place importance on the law”
(0.63), “to have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (0.60), “to pay
attention to global issues” (0.56), “to have morality and pride as a nation” (0.56),
“to respect democracy” (0.54), “to respect human rights” (0.48), and “to respect
tradition and culture” (0.47).
Nevertheless, referring to Column C, with respect to the significance of the thirteen
topics on values and attitudes, the large weighted average infers greater significance,
indicating more education resources. The topics are: “to have morality and pride
as a nation” (3.48), “to have self-dependence” (3.14), “to place importance on the
law” (3.36), “to preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an
interest in its development” (3.34), “to respect tradition and culture” (3.33), “to
respect human rights” (3.33), “to pay attention to global issues” (3.19), “to think in
a scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology” (3.14), “to
have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (3.04), “to respect democracy”
(3.02), and “to promote international cooperation” (3.00).
In conclusion, the topics for values and attitudes that are of high priority for the
educational agenda on Citizenship education in Brunei are developing a
curriculum that promotes international cooperation, has morality and pride as a
member of ASEAN, and supports international cooperation.
62 A. Kamogawa et al.

3.5 Comparative Analysis of Delphi Survey and

Citizenship Education Survey Administered School
Children

Brunei students’ responses to the Citizenship Education Survey showed the

current situation regarding their knowledge and understanding of ASEAN. Some
students showed that they were knowledgeable about ASEAN (such as
countries’ names on the map, what the ASEAN flag represents, ASEAN’s
founding year, knowledge about establishing the ASEAN communities, and
knowledge about the ASEAN coun- tries). Only some students understand the
importance of learning about ASEAN’s history, tradition, customs, and world.
Some students knew terms such as inter- national society, social justice/fairness,
peace, interdependence, and human right, although only a few students understood
the terms democracy and coexistence. However, the current issues not addressed in
the curriculum reflected students’ lack of understanding about taking action against
social problems and expressing their opin- ions in public. Although students
indicated learning English and English proficiency are unnecessary, most of them
could speak, write letters and email, read newspapers and watch television in
English.
The Brunei experts community (comprising primary and secondary school
teachers, headmasters, principals, university lecturers, and parents) reflected on their
current achievements in the knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and
values and attitudes regarding various aspects of ASEAN citizenship.
They could express specific achievements in knowledge and understanding of
the environment, coexistence, social welfare, different cultures, social justice and
equity, interdependence, and sustainable development. However, similar to the
students, only some experts knew about democracy, ASEAN history and culture,
common social problems in ASEAN countries, and foreign languages. They also
learned skills and abilities in cooperating, self-discipline and self-control, problem
solving, responding to ICT, improving quality of life, critical thinking, expressing
opin- ions on social problems, peaceful resolution and sustainable development.
However, similar to the students, only some experts acquired the skills and
abilities needed to solve ASEAN countries’ common social problems with other
people, use a foreign language, and comply with ASEAN countries’ common values.
The experts’ commu- nity has learned values and attitudes relating to the following
aspects: morality and pride as a nation, respecting the culture and trading, self-
dependence, respecting human rights, prioritizing the law, respecting cultural
diversity, preserving natural resources, protecting the environment and
development, thinking scientifically to catch up with new science and technology,
and paying attention to global issues. However, only some experts have achieved
values and attitudes relating to facing the wrong matters, injustice, respecting
democracy, morality and pride as a member of ASEAN, and promoting
international cooperation.
From these results, it can be seen that Brunei’s citizenship education needs to
address the common issues identified from students’ inadequate knowledge and
experts opinions on the low achievement of specific knowledge and understanding
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 63
ASEANness
(such as ASEAN history and culture, common social problems in ASEAN coun-
tries, and foreign language). Another issue is students’ not learning about democ-
racy, coexistence, and contribution as members of ASEAN. The experts have
similar issues that require attention—not attaining the skills and abilities to address
ASEAN countries’ common social problems and not learning a foreign language.
Lastly, achieving morality and pride as an ASEAN member and contributing to
international cooperation also requires consideration.
Both Brunei students and experts expressed a positive prospect for the future.
Most of the students responded positively with regard to their potential and
commit- ment to decision making, having mentally and physically healthier lives,
under- standing their own culture and foreign cultures, and living and working
with people of different ethnic backgrounds. The experts optimistically indicated
future achieve- ments in improving the knowledge and understanding of foreign
languages, common social problems of ASEAN countries, sustainable
development, and democracy. They are confident in prioritizing learning the skills
and abilities in decision making, expressing opinions on social problems, solving
common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people, and cooperating.
They are optimistic about the future achievement in values and attitudes that
promote international cooperation, morality and pride as an ASEAN member, and
support international cooperation.

3.6 Summary and Recommendation: Towards a

Model of Citizenship Education Promoting
Awareness
of ASEANness

3.6.1 Summary

In summary, the students’ survey revealed that Brunei’s citizenship education focuses
more on knowledge and understanding of nation and identity building; however,
not yet enough on the knowledge and understanding of ASEANness identity. The
textbook content analyses show there are much local and national content and
little regional and global content.
The Delphi Survey of Brunei Education experts showed the following top
priority education agenda for Citizenship Education in Brunei: (1) knowledge and
understanding of foreign language, common social problems in ASEAN countries,
sustainable development and democracy. (2) skills and abilities in decision
making, expressing opinions on social problems, solving social problems of
ASEAN coun- tries with other people, foreign language usage, and cooperating.
(3) values and attitudes on promoting international cooperation, morality, and
pride as an ASEAN member and support international cooperation.
Although Bruneian students do have knowledge and understanding of social prob-
lems, they have no experience dealing with social problems. This finding is also
typical of students in various other ASEAN countries. However, in Brunei, where
64 A. Kamogawa et al.

teaching the ability to respond to real problems is an educational target, development

can be expected from the students merely having relevant knowledge and under-
standing instead of being taught values and attitudes. One of the Bruneian
students’ characteristics in terms of values and attitudes is that they consider
world peace, in particular, more important. Furthermore, they appear more
concerned with the environment and development problems at the village, town,
ASEAN region, and global level than their own country’s environment and
development issues. However, this contrasts with the inclusion of a strong message
regarding Brunei’s background in new textbooks based on the SPN21 curriculum.
Moving ahead, we would look for content that encourages students to consider the
nature of the environment and development in Brunei in a global context.
Nevertheless, some students showed low interest, knowledge and
understanding of ASEAN. In particular, they knew a little about the countries that are
geographically distant from Brunei. There remains some hope towards achieving a
common identity to underpin the construction of an ASEAN Community. Given
the less content on ASEAN in MIB and social science subjects that teach citizenship
qualities, students’ low interest, knowledge and understanding regarding ASEAN
countries’ awareness appears inevitable.

3.6.2 Reccomendation

Therefore, based on these findings, the study recommends developing ASEAN-

ness education in Brunei Citizenship education content, including knowledge and
understanding about ASEAN countries and the international context. MIB education
content extends beyond responsibility towards community and nation and is more
comprehensive towards ASEAN (region) countries.
The proposed new curriculum’s standards and basic competencies should
signifi- cantly impact students’ knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities,
and posi- tive values and attitudes of ASEANness. However, there is also a great deal
of national content in MIB textbooks, making it possible to surmise that the
content covered impacts students’ knowledge and understanding of Brunei
Citizenship education.
In summary, the above result of the Delphi survey shows that generally, the
experts in Brunei should be able to design and implement a curriculum on
citizenship that include aspects of knowledge and understanding, skills and
abilities, and values and attitudes at local, national, regional, global and universal
levels. Similarly, the inclusion of a greater volume of regional and international
content in textbooks and making it compulsory is likely to boost the teaching of
balanced citizenship qualities. One of Brunei’s citizenship education lessons’ new
challenges is that teachers require students to discuss and critically understand the
events in a global society. We recommend incorporating the 21st Century
Learning Design (21CLD) into the teaching and learning of citizenship education
through a professional development
model (Jawawi et al., 2019).
3 Citizenship Education in Brunei: Raising Awareness of 65
ASEANness
Acknowledgements This paper received support in the form of a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (22252007; 25780510; 19K02525). We would like to thank Editage
(www.editage.com) for English language editing.
Chapter 4
Citizenship Education in Cambodia:
National and Regional ASEAN
Citizenship Education in Post-
Conflict Contexts

Saori Hagai

Abstract When considering the emergence of citizenship education in the context

of a post-conflict country, the peculiar consequences of the conflict era must be
taken account of. The lasting consequences of genocide and the horrific atrocities
committed by Pol Pot’s Communist Party of Kampuchea are thus an important piece
of the pedagogical puzzle. The inhumane treatment by Pol Pot, for example, preceded
an era beginning in 1993 ratified when the constitution paid keener attention to
counteractive principles of democracy and human rights. Therefore, democracy
and human rights education have become more strongly anchored in the curriculum.
This article aims to evaluate the contours of historical experiences, current
government educational policies, as well as the prospects for “citizenship education”,
particularly within the regional ASEAN notion of citizenship education, by
drawing on the case of Cambodia, where such emergent educational norms have
been uniquely inter- preted. By analyzing recent education policies and strategies,
and the results of two separate surveys (a Student Questionnaire and Delphi
Survey), this article addresses the following research questions: (1) In which
historical context has citizenship education emerged in Cambodia, and (2) How
has ASEAN integration impacted the inception of ASEAN citizenship education
in Cambodia, and to what extent has it been entrenched in the Cambodian
educational framework.

·
Keywords ASEAN citizenship education ASEAN common regional identity
Citizenship education in Cambodia · Democracy · Genocide · Human rights

4.1 Introduction

One of the distinctive features of Cambodia is the consistent cycle of peace and
turbulence which has marked the last 700 years. From the kingdom of Angkor to
the French protectorate, and onto the Khmer Rouge, Paris Peace Agreements and

S. Hagai (B)
Ritsumeikan International, Ritsumeikan University, 56-1 Tojiin Kitamachi, Kita-ku,
Kyoto 603-8577, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 67
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_4
68 S. Hagai

ASEAN integration, the country has constantly experienced political unrest and
turmoil. It has started only recently to devote dedicated effort to educational,
social, and economic rehabilitation and development. Particularly the genocide and
serious human rights violations committed by Pol Pot’s Communist Party of
Kampuchea (hereafter CPK) during 1975–1979 had a tremendous impact on every
sphere of the society, and still leave social confusion even today. Reflecting the
horrific atrocities during that time, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
(hereafter MoEYS) in recent years has played a leading role in disseminating the
value of citizenship education, in which the teaching of the concept of democracy
and human rights is deliberately underlined.
This article aims to explore the contours of the current situation, and prospects for
citizenship education, particularly a regional form of ASEAN citizenship
education, by drawing on the case of Cambodia, where these emergent educational
norms have been uniquely interpreted. By analyzing recent education policies and
strategies, and the results of two separate surveys (a Student Questionnaire and Delphi
Survey), this article addresses the following research questions:
(1) In which historical context has citizenship education has emerged in
Cambodia?
(2) How did ASEAN integration impact the inception of ASEAN citizenship
education in Cambodia? To what extent has it become entrenched in the
Cambodian educational framework?

4.2 Citizenship Education Discourses in Cambodia

4.2.1 Historical Background and Genesis of

Citizenship Education

When considering the emergence of citizenship education in the context of a post-

conflict country like in Cambodia, the peculiar consequences of the conflict era must
be taken account of. The lasting consequences of genocide and the horrific
atrocities committed by Pol Pot’s Communist Party of Kampuchea are thus an
important piece of the pedagogical puzzle. Between April 1975 and January 1979
approximately 1,700,000 people perished under the extreme communist regime. The
type of victim- ization was diverse, including imprisonment, interrogation, torture,
rape, and execu- tion. Multiple forms of severe human rights violations occurred,
including forced labor, starvation, and illness ultimately death due to medical
neglect. However, the inhumane treatment by Pol Pot preceded an era beginning
in 1993 when the consti- tution paid keener attention to counteractive principles of
democracy and human rights. A liberal multi-party democratic system, the
implementation of fair elections and protection of human rights, which adheres to
the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are assured in the
constitution.
4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ... 69

Not so long after the establishment of this more liberal, reconstructionist consti-
tution, citizenship education slowly but surely emerged as a norm in civil society
for cultivating respect for democracy and human rights. Based on a self-driven
desire to promote citizenship education, MoEYS in the early 2010s ultimately set
citizenship education as one of the top educational priorities, raising it up from its
formerly peripheral role in its national curriculum. This priority has led to its more
compre- hensive coverage in school textbooks for civics, history, geography, and
the local life skill program (Hagai & Ogisu, 2019, 23).

4.2.2 Citizenship Education Discourses in

Educational Policies

Despite the intrinsic motivation to inculcate the value of citizenship education,

some recent 5 year plans—Education Strategic Plan 2009–2013 (hereafter ESP)
and ESP 2014–2018—did not fully reflect the continuing public interest in
instilling citi- zenship in national education. The term citizenship did not appear in
either of the ESPs; instead, citizens were merely deemed as human capital in
national economic development as they were described as “people who can think
critically and make evidence-based decisions which will impact Cambodia’s short
and long-term future” (MoEYS, 2009, 11). In ESP 2019–2023, however, citizenship
education, re-emerges in line with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (hereafter SDG).
MoEYS approved the 2030 Roadmap of Cambodia’s SDG 4 in early 2019 with the
goal of ensuring inclu- sive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong
learning opportunities for all. To this end, MoEYS sets out major strategies in
which citizenship education is purposefully woven into the Cambodian
educational discourse.
They (Cambodian students) will be supported by professionally competent and qualified
teachers, as well as their family and community. When they graduate, they will be
equipped with both hard and soft skills, sound moral judgement, emotional intelligence
and a strong sense of national and global citizenship that enables them to contribute to and
actively participate in society. (MoEYS, 2019, 15–16)*parenthesis and emphasis added
by author

In ESP 2019–2023, academic management reform remains one of the educational

development procedures, in which “good” citizenship is integrated into not only
policy papers but also school curricula and textbooks.
(MoEYS) increases support for government policies, economics, and
technology to develop an education management reform sub-strategy to integrate
good citizenship into school curricula and textbooks to promote quality national and
global
citizenship. (MoEYS, 2019, 91)
1.1 (MoEYS) implements the National Curriculum Framework and develops
a detailed curriculum.
1.2 (MoEYS) develops a detailed curriculum and standards of good citizenship.
1.3 (MoEYS) integrates good citizenship education, consisting of good Cambodian
and good global citizenship, into school curricula and textbooks (MoEYS, 2019, 91).
70 S. Hagai

Through explicit incorporation in ESPs, citizenship education has gained renewed

legitimacy as an educational norm, but this inclusion appears not directly to have
arisen from intrinsic motivation but is rather a consequence of external pressure from
international development agencies. As previous studies have suggested, as an aid
recipient, Cambodia has been inevitably influenced by global educational trends of
development aid organizations and donor countries, while also strategically
adopting their terminology. In order to impress them, Cambodian educational
policies have variously taken up or appropriated global buzz words, such as
citizenship education into the education discourse.

4.2.3 Negotiating State-Society Relations

In terms that are increasingly anchored in global trends, particularly UNESCO’s

advocacy of Education for Sustainable Development (hereafter ESD), a fifth pillar
encouraging “learning to transform oneself and society” was added to the pre-existing
four pillars of learning conceptualized in the 1996 Delors Report (Learning: the
treasure within). In sum, ESD requires 1. acknowledging challenges for sustain-
able development (learning to know), 2. acting with determination (learning to
do), 3. communal responsibility (learning to live together), 4. personal
development (learning to be) and 5. community activism for social change
(learning to transform oneself and society).
The last pillar resonates with the current political and social tendencies in
Cambodia, with the energized youth movement associated with the 2013 election
often being considered symbolic of this. A great number of youths gathered for street
campaigning and expressed themselves on social media, particularly in support of
the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (hereafter CNRP). Participants even
included high school students who still lacked the right to vote. To the world, and
to the incumbent party, this indicated the salience of the rise in youth activism and
more generally, the reshaping of the political landscape as a consequence of
active, politically engaged citizenship.
The government’s reaction to this political energy was, unsurprisingly, ambiva-
lent. Together with CNRP, the youth political movement was deemed a political
risk by prime minister Hun Sen, who was marking 35 years in power, and whose
primary concern was to maintain the stability of his rule. To undercut this inertia,
Hun Sen dissolved CNRP before the 2018 election, cracked down on the opposi-
tion and youth campaigners, and reinforced the hegemonic rule of his Cambodian
People’s Party (hereafter CPP). The strategy targeted not only direct political
oppo- sition, but also took aim at the entire framework supporting political
engagement, including civil society groups, independent media organizations, and
individual polit- ical opponents, a tactic which allowed the CPP to nearly double
its previous total of seats in the Assembly (Morgenbesser, 2019, 159). Although,
as mentioned above, democracy and human rights had consistently been identified
as major educational goals in public education, this subsequent downplaying of
democracy when it had
4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ... 71

real-life repercussions only wrought contradiction and social disorder. As one

long- term commentator of Cambodia predicted this shift, civil society does not sit
easily in Cambodia due to “the presence of an autonomous elite, steep hierarchies,
and a massive gap between the ruler and the ruled” (Öjendal, 2014, 21).
The drive toward hegemonic authoritarianism, however, can be both counteracted
by and driven by citizenship education, if the latter is appropriated for promoting
banal nationalism. Another crucial element of the reconstruction agenda in Cambodia
has been to (re)cultivate patriotism that can serve to restore social capital through
shared civic pride and nationalistic belonging. This narrative of nation-rebuilding
in post holocaust Cambodia is still dominant but is now increasingly being
channeled to shore up the leader as a symbol of the nation (Norén-Nilsson, 2018).
Responding to this, MoEYS recognized that national education serves the function to
engender “a sense of national and civic pride, high moral and ethical standards and a
strong belief in young people’s responsibility for the country and its citizens”
(MoEYS, 2014, 12). These broader goals, while idealistic and pleasing to donors,
must nevertheless be depoliticized, as an increase in ethical and moral standards
might prompt recrim- inations about the role many in the ruling elite (including
the prime minister) played in the rise of Pol Pot. Achieving this balance in the
educational system, the Khmer Rouge tribunal, and political discourse in general,
has been a constant preoccupation of the CPP.
Undoubtedly, the social, cultural, and political devastation faced by the first
post- Khmer Rouge government in 1979 prompted efforts at rebuilding
community, trust, and solidarity. It was urgent for the government, the People’s
Republic of Kampuchea (hereafter PRK), to begin the process of nation-
rebuilding, which they did with the minimal resources available at the time by
drawing on the notion of collective suffering and fostering a post-survivorship
willingness to move forward. The goal was to do so without implicating the
political elite, a goal which is still largely maintained to this day. At the time, PRK
achieved this balance by, for instance, visualizing memorials of victims, including
photos and skulls of those who lost their lives at killing fields anonymously, with
no names and personal stories behind them. The dead were meant to serve as
proof of the Khmer Rouge massacres, but no evidence for rooting out perpetrators.
In this, the explicit goal was unifying around nation-building rather than revenge,
an approach that Hun Sen has openly and subtly pursued most notably in the
Khmer Rouge Tribunal (Emde, 2013, 30).

4.2.4 ASEAN Citizenship Education and ASEANness

“One Vision, One Identity, One Community” has been an adopted slogan, under
which ‘Education for ASEANness’ has played a role in cultivating shared values,
norms, beliefs, and aspirations in the maintenance of a regional community (Hagai &
Ogisu, 2019). In fact, there has been a regional project to instill awareness of
ASEAN identity into primary education curricula in 2003 (Jones, 2004, 142).
Although greater cultural awareness and pursuing some common values in the
spirit of “unity in
72 S. Hagai

diversity” have been keenly sought through such discourses, it suggests that it is
not only feasible to construct such a common regional identity, but also possible
to nurture consistent values among ASEAN citizens (Acharya, 2000, 2014, 2017,
2021; Jones, 2004; Jönsson, 2010). Metro and Brehm (2022) argues the
paradoxical nature of ASEAN regional identity by asking “is regional identity an
umbrella that includes all national identities in Southeast Asia, or does it include
only what all ASEAN nations share? Who has the power to define regional
identity, and what are the incentives for doing so?” (p.37).
(WE, the Heads of State or Government of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
recalls) The ASEAN Vision 2020, which charts a future direction for ASEAN as a concert
of Southeast Asian nations, outward-looking, living in peace, stability, and prosperity, bonded
together in partnership in a just, democratic, and harmonious environment, dynamic develop-
ment and ever-closer economic integration and in a community of caring societies, conscious
of its ties of history, aware of its shared cultural heritage and bound by a common
regional identity.
(ASEAN Secretariat, 2009, 1) *parenthesis and emphasis added by author

This minimalist approach apparently can make allowances for divergences that
inevitably arise from distinction by social class, education, religion, socio-
economic status, gender, and ethnicity. And while seeking commonality is likely
to remain an important dynamic of the regional political project, it is also useful to
explore the diversity with which ASEAN is encountered as a consequence of
divergent political views, norms, values, and social expectations.
The relationship between collective identity and community formation first
drew attention in the Cold War context, where the formation of identity was
shaped by the compatibility of major values, basic political ideology, mutual
sympathy and “we-feeling” trust among security-communities (Deutsch et al.,
1957:36). Given the curve trajectory of identity and community formation,
Acharya (2021) questions whether ASEAN’s 48 years of intensive interaction,
cooperation and mutual respect have cultivated a strong sense of common regional
identity, let alone brought about a community. ASEAN integration, rather, is more
commonly viewed as a conflicting arena, in which the boundaries are continuously
renegotiated between national sovereignty and regional integration, on the one
hand, and domestic evolution of nationalism, on the other hand.
Given the potential for conflict, one of the expectations for education was to
diffuse a shared sense of ASEAN regional education and identity. In order to
achieve such an identity, the concept of ASEAN citizenship has slowly but surely
emerged, particularly since 2009 when the Fourteenth ASEAN Summit was
concluded. Some researchers remain skeptical about any so-called the collective
ASEAN identity, arguing that the common identity illusion might exist only
among certain segments of the population in ASEAN but there is also an
acknowledgment that optimism remains high that ASEAN collective identity will
become entrenched across all parts of the populations (Narine, 2009; Nesadurai,
2009).
In line with this initiative, the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (ASEAN (Ed.),
2012) was prepared as part of a USAID Regional Development Mission Asia in
2012, to be used as a teaching resource for primary and secondary schools to
foster
 4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ... 73

an outward-looking, stable and peaceful and prosperous community. Teachers in

10 member states in ASEAN are encouraged to refer to it in their teaching about
ASEAN; this is however not legally binding therefore, the usage and impact of the
book vary from country to country.

4.3 Data Collection Methodology

The data and insights in this article were collected through mixed qualitative and
quantitative approaches. The original fieldwork was conducted by the author, together
with KHLOK Vichet Ratha (Deputy Director, General Secretariat of National
Council for Sustainable Development, Ministry of Environment) in 2012. The first
questionnaire for primary and secondary school students (hereafter the Student Ques-
tionnaire, or SQ) was implemented in early 2012 for 3 days at the National Insti-
tute of Education (NIE) in Phnom Penh, yielding 566 responses from informants
aged between 12–18 years-old. More precisely, the SQ gathered 185 responses
from elementary school, 155 responses from the lower secondary level and 226
responses from the upper secondary level. The SQ consisted of two sections. The
first section dealt with questions regarding ASEAN from three perspectives:
“Knowledge and understanding”, “Skills and abilities” and “Values and attitudes”.
The second part consisted of questions involving basic knowledge of other ASEAN
countries, knowl- edge of ASEAN, and perceptions of students on how they related
themselves to the concept of the ASEAN community.
In order to understand how Cambodian education experts (aged 20–70) viewed the
concept of the ASEAN community, a Delphi Survey (hereafter DS) was implemented
in several rounds (see Tables 4.1 and 4.2). The first round was implemented in
February 2013 in Banteay Meanchey Province by the author and SENG Sary (then
a lecturer at Meanchey University). The second round of the DS took place in the
same province in the summer of 2013. The DS required the same respondents to
answer over several rounds, which caused some informant attribution. Although
160 people participated in the first round, the second round could include only 89
of the original informants. The collected data has been analyzed using SPSS.

Table 4.1 Outline of the Delphi

Round 1 Round 2
Survey (DS) translated from the
table in the book of Hirata Date Feb 10–19, 2013 August 30-September
2017, permitted by Toshindo 5, 2013
Company Place Banteay Meanchey, Banteay Meanchey,
Cambodia Cambodia
Respondents 160 people 89 people

Source Author
74 S. Hagai

Table 4.2 Respondent’s information translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted
by Toshindo Company
Round 1 Round 2
(N = 160) (N = 89)
Occupation
Elementary, middle or high school principals 32 13
Elementary, middle or high school social studies teachers 31 20
University or college faculty members 30 13
Department of education officials 34 12
PTA heads, presidents, representatives 33 31
Sex
Female 57 (35.6%) 35 (39.3%)
Male 103 (64.4%) 53 (59.6%)
Unknown 0 1
Age
20s 22 19
30s 57 23
40s 56 25
50s 19 16
60s 3 3
70+ 2 2
Unknown 1 1
Source Author

4.4 Young Generation: Low Awareness yet

Favorable Attitudes Toward ASEAN

The SQ revealed how young students perceived the concept of Cambodia.

Although previous studies have argued that Cambodia was, as a consequence of
its low economic development, expected to have limited encounters with ASEAN,
the result of SQ provided a different narrative. Their positive self-image of being a
Cambodian, and a part of the ASEAN region, were consistent responses,
regardless of position and background. The results shown below indicate national
pride, the recognition of traditional culture and history education, and regional
membership at rates above 95%.
Have virtue and pride as a Cambodian 98.4% (Section 2, Q10).
History education in Cambodia is important 97.7% (Section 1, Q1).
Learning the traditional culture of Cambodia is important 96.6% (Section 1,
Q2). It is beneficial for Cambodia to be an ASEAN member 96.1% (Section 2,
Q8). Despite the decline in social capital and distrust emerging out of the
Khmer
Rouge period, the high solidarity and international openness of Cambodian people
4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ... 75

have long been observed, and to some extent cultivated by French colonial
authori- ties who shared in the appreciation of Cambodia’s magnificent cultural
base rooted in the Angkor era (Sam, 2003; Sasagawa, 2005; Cravath, 2007). This
view, for example, has been made tangible by the explicit inclusion of Khmer
classical dance education in the national educational discourse, particularly in the
context of nation (re)building. Education is thus understood to play an important
role in awakening national consciousness among the young Cambodians and to
encourage psycholog- ical attachment to their country. To an extent, however, this
inward-focused nation- alism has left only room for ASEAN as an abstract part of
Cambodian identity. This was evidenced in the SQ topographical results, in which
95.4% of the students chose the geographical location of Cambodia on a blank
map of ASEAN, whereas only 0.2–7.6% of the respondents correctly guessed
where other ASEAN countries were located. Neighboring countries such as
Thailand (1.8%), Laos (1.4%) and Vietnam (1.1%) were not an exception.
(Blank map question asking locations of each ASEAN country Section 2, Q1).
•
The correct answer rate of Cambodia’s location 95.4%
•
The correct answer rate of Malaysia 7.6%
•
The correct answer rate of Brunei 4.2%
•
The correct answer rate of Singapore 1.9%
•
The correct answer rate of Thai 1.8%
•
The correct answer rate of Indonesia 1.4%
•
The correct answer rate of Laos 1.4%
•
The correct answer rate of Myanmar 1.4%
•
The correct answer rate of Vietnam 1.1%
•
The correct answer rate of Philippines 0.2%
Here, one can suggest that unbalanced geographical recognition and vague
recall about tangible facts of ASEAN countries demonstrate not only inadequate
geography education, but also limited direct interest. Although ASEAN geography
knowl- edge was limited among respondents of the SQ, they were more familiar
with broader regional issues and concepts. For example, 35–45% recognized the
symbolic meaning of the ASEAN integration and knew the year of ASEAN
inception. While relatively better than geography, this also demonstrates a
superficial knowledge of ASEAN as an institution.
Philosophy that the ASEAN flag represents 44.1% (Section 2,
Q2) When ASEAN was first established 34.9% (Section 2, Q3)
When the ASEAN community was established 37.9% (Section 2, Q4).
On the other hand, the SQ revealed that Cambodian young people clearly
recog- nized the increasing demand of English proficiency in communicating
beyond their borders. They widely acknowledged that “learning English is important”
(96.6%) for communication. This, in turn, translated to average results in actual
abilities; “able to have a conversation with foreigners in English” (44.4%), “able to
communicate by letters and emails in English” (60.4%), “able to read English
magazines, newspapers, and websites” (45.6%), and “able to watch and listen to
English news and programs on TV and radios” (45.6%).
76 S. Hagai

Despite weaknesses in visualizing and interacting with ASEAN currently, Cambo-

dians young people’s prospects for ASEAN were very positive. Their desire to
know about ASEAN was surprisingly high, at 96.3%. Other distinctive features
derived from the SQ revealed positive view toward regional identity formation: 91%
identified themselves as ASEAN citizens and 86.7% claimed they had a sense of
belonging- ness to the ASEAN community. Further results in this trend can be
found just below. In sum, young Cambodians have a strong imagination of
ASEAN, even if it is not concretely tied to knowledge about and skills to interact
with ASEAN.
History education of ASEAN is important 80.5% (Section 1, Q1)
Traditional culture studies of ASEAN are important 72.3% (Section 1,
Q2) Want to know about ASEAN 96.3% (Section 2, Q7)
It is beneficial for oneself to be a member of ASEAN 84.2% (Section 2, Q9)
Recognize oneself as an ASEAN citizen 91% (Section 2, Q10)
Have an identity in common with ASEAN community 86.7% (Section 2, Q11).

4.5 Senior Generation: Passing on the Torch of

Regional Integration

As a research method for forecasting and visualizing the future, the DS targeted
infor- mants who are positioned to comment on the citizenship competencies they
would expect young Cambodians to achieve in the future. This cohort, therefore,
included education experts, such as school principals, social studies teachers,
university faculty members, Department of Education officials and members of
parent-teacher asso- ciations (PTA). Principally, the DS collected data on key
citizenship competencies (see Table 4.3) at the current time, as well as competencies
that would be essential in 10 years (see Table 4.4). In addition to listing the relative
score of these competen- cies, Table 4.3 also clusters the competencies into
“Knowledge and understanding”, “Skills and abilities” and “Values and attitudes”.
Table 4.4 additionally visualizes the difference in utility of each competence
between the present and future.
The results in Table 4.3 highlighted the top 5 competencies: environmental
consciousness, human rights, respect for human rights, morality and pride as a
nation, and self-dependence. These skills were re-examined based on the gap (relative
increase in the importance of a competency), which Table 4.4 ranks as the
weighted average of attainment levels of competencies in the present and those
expected in 10 years’ time. The larger the number in column D, the larger the gap,
meaning there is a growing demand for that competency to be obtained.
As seen in Table 4.4, many of the competencies to be strongly improved are
related to ASEAN interactions and integration: “ASEAN history and culture” (0.79),
“Common social problems of ASEAN countries” (0.79), “To solve common social
problems of ASEAN countries with other people” (0.71), “To behave in
accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (0.67), and
“To respond to ICT” (0.67). These competencies were, however, less prominent
in Table 4.3,
4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ... 77

Table 4.3 Competencies ranked according to importance Original translated from the table in the
book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company
Competency Importance
1 Environment 3.8
2 Human rights 3.75
3 To respect human rights 3.74
4 To have morality and pride as a nation 3.74
5 To have self-dependence 3.74
6 To respect tradition and culture 3.73
7 Social welfare 3.72
8 Democracy 3.71
9 To have self-discipline and self- control 3.71
10 To contribute to society 3.69
11 To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an 3.69
interest in its development
12 To improve quality of life 3.67
13 To use a foreign language 3.66
14 Social justice and equity 3.65
15 Foreign language 3.64
16 To make decisions 3.64
17 To cooperate with each other 3.64
18 To make a peaceful resolution 3.64
19 To place importance on the law 3.63
20 To respect democracy 3.63
21 To express opinions on social problems 3.58
22 To think critically 3.57
23 To solve problems 3.57
24 Sustainable development 3.56
25 Interdependence 3.56
26 Coexistence and living together 3.55
27 To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN 3.5
28 To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and 3.49
technology
29 To develop sustainably 3.46
30 To promote international cooperation 3.42
31 To respect cultural diversity 3.41
32 To behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN 3.4
countries
33 ASEAN history and culture 3.39
34 To pay attention to global issues 3.36
(continued)
78 S. Hagai

Table 4.3 (continued)

Competency Importance
35 To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people 3.33
36 Common social problems of ASEAN countries 3.28
37 Different cultures 3.27
38 To respond to ICT 3.26
39 To face wrong things and injustice 3.21
Source Author
Key
Roman Knowledge and understanding of ASEAN
Italic Skills and abilities regarding ASEAN
Bold Values and attitudes towards ASEAN

which suggests that their current relevance has not yet become urgent in
Cambodia. For example, from Table 4.3, elements relating to ASEAN ranked
among the lowest: “Common social problems of ASEAN countries” (36th place in
Table 4.3), “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other
people” (35th), “ASEAN history and culture” (33rd), “To behave in accordance with
common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (32nd), “To have morality and
pride as a member of ASEAN” (27th). This evolving future outlook suggests how
the importance of ASEAN is expected to transcend the experience of the current
generation, which has not yet been deeply impacted by ASEAN in their everyday
lives. However, it is clear that educational leaders believe young Cambodians need
to be well-prepared for an ASEAN future.
While advancing economic development, as experienced objectively by
expanding trade, investment, and flows of products, money, and services, is an
obvious driver of the importance of ASEAN, it is also driven by future competi-
tion in the region (Feuer & Hornidge, 2015; Feuer, 2016). Business opportunities
such as starting up a cross-border business for trade and investment are already a
common part of this imaginary. The senior generation regards young people as the
main actors to harness integration to lead economic development and hopes they
will acquire knowledge and cultural capacities to do so in the ASEAN context.
Due to the growing demand for an adaptable workforce with professional skills,
the government has also taken steps to reform and strengthen the education and
training system in the field of technical and vocational education and training,
TVET.1 In this way, Cambodia has cultivated human resources for transferring
labor among ASEAN countries. As suggested in Table 4.4, this reflects the
growing importance of acquiring tangible skills: “To respond to ICT” (0.67),
“Foreign language” (0.57), and “To use foreign language” (0.53). The National
Strategic Development Plan 2014–2018, which publicized the national economical
target to become a middle to high income country by 2030, and a developed country
by 2050, (Royal Government of Cambodia, 2014, 4), includes many of the same
priorities, which largely amount to the overlaying of expectations for ASEAN
integration onto the youth.
4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ... 79

Table 4.4 Predictions for the future: present–future gap Original translated from the table in the
book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company
Competency Gap years in the future Present Future
(present–future gap)
D=B−A A B
33* ASEAN history and culture 0.79 3.06 3.84
36 Common social problems of ASEAN 0.79 3.12 3.91
countries
35 To solve common social problems of 0.71 3.01 3.72
ASEAN countries with other people
32 To behave in accordance with 0.67 3.19 3.87
common rules and values among ASEAN
countries
38 To respond to ICT 0.67 3.19 3.86
14 Social justice and equity 0.65 3.49 4.14
39 To face wrong things and injustice 0.65 3.09 3.74
30 To promote international 0.61 3.28 3.9
cooperation
15 Foreign language 0.57 3.27 3.84
13 To use foreign language 0.53 3.08 3.61
16 To make decisions 0.53 3.7 4.24
8 Democracy 0.51 3.78 4.28
27 To have morality and pride as a 0.51 3.58 4.09
member of ASEAN
11 To preserve natural resources, 0.5 3.6 4.1
protect the environment, and have an
interest in its development
7 Social welfare 0.49 3.74 4.23
22 To think critically 0.48 3.59 4.07
24 Sustainable development 0.48 3.58 4.07
34 To pay attention to global issues 0.48 3.36 3.84
28 To think in a scientific way and 0.47 3.53 4
catch up with the new science and
technology
9 To have self-discipline and self-control 0.46 3.71 4.17
26 Coexistence and living together 0.46 3.67 4.13
12 To improve quality of life 0.44 3.69 4.13
19 To place importance on the law 0.44 3.74 4.18
37 Different cultures 0.44 3.44 3.88
1 Environment 0.43 3.66 4.09
2 Human rights 0.43 3.8 4.23
(continued)
80 S. Hagai

Table 4.4 (continued)

Competency Gap years in the future Present Future
(present–future gap)
D=B−A A B
31 To respect cultural diversity 0.43 3.64 4.07
21 To express opinions on social 0.4 3.56 3.97
problems
25 Interdependence 0.38 3.73 4.11
10 To contribute to society 0.36 3.78 4.13
23 To solve problems 0.36 3.65 4.01
5 To have self-dependence 0.35 3.91 4.26
20 To respect democracy 0.31 3.94 4.25
17 To cooperate with each other 0.3 3.87 4.17
29 To develop sustainably 0.3 3.69 3.99
18 To make a peaceful resolution 0.26 3.82 4.08
4 To have morality and pride as 0.23 4.07 4.3
a nation
6 To respect tradition and culture 0.23 4.06 4.29
3 To respect human rights 0.17 4.06 4.23
Source Author
Note A higher number in column D indicates a larger gap in attainment levels of competencies
between the present and 10 years in the future
*the numbers in the competency column indicate the importance of each item, which was previously
exhibited in Table 4.3
Key
Roman Knowledge and understanding of ASEAN
italic Skills and abilities regarding ASEAN
Bold Values and attitudes towards ASEAN

4.6 Discussion

4.6.1 Findings from SQ and DS

In this section, I would like to summarize two major findings of this study. The
first important finding is that even though young Cambodians have a strong
imagination of ASEAN, their knowledge and skills to interact with ASEAN are not
well equipped. These concerns have been particularly expressed through the result
of the DS in which the senior generation in Cambodia found competencies below
to be strongly improved for the near future: “ASEAN history and culture” (as
Knowledge and understanding), “Common social problems of ASEAN countries”
(as Knowledge and understanding), “To solve common social problems of
ASEAN countries with other people” (as Skills and abilities), “To behave in
accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (as Skills
and abilities), and “To respond
4 Citizenship Education in Cambodia: National and Regional ASEAN ... 81

to ICT” (as Skills and abilities). In sum, Cambodian educational leaders believe
that Cambodian youth should be responsible to achieve this knowledge and skills
to realize regional security, cross-cultural encounters, and economic expansion in
ASEAN.
The second crucial finding is that “Human rights” (as Knowledge and under-
standing) and “Respect for human rights” (as Values and attitudes) were registered
among one of the top competencies ratings listed in the DS. When considering the
social implication of citizenship education in the context of the post-conflict country,
the finding is not surprising at all. Reflecting upon the genocide during the Pol Pot
regime in the late 1970s, human rights are recognized as one of the critical driving
factors for civil society activism in Cambodia. Optimism however remains low
that democracy and social change will be entrenched across the county since the
current hegemonic regime has only wrought disappointments and contradictions.
With this in mind, one should pay special attention to “To have morality and pride as
a nation” (as Values and attitudes) listed in the DS as it could unintentionally or
intentionally promote the narrative of nation-building which is directed to
reinforce the banal patriotism.

4.6.2 Future Prospects—How Will ASEAN

Integration Impact on Cambodian Youth?

Aside from economic growth, young people can benefit from ASEAN integration
through enhanced educational opportunities and prospects for career self-
fulfillment across borders. With the education system being still very much a
work-in-progress in Cambodia (Feuer, 2016), study-abroad programs among ASEAN
higher education institutions, internships, seminars, and workshops are among the
formalized ways in which young Cambodians can aim for personal growth and
make a first step towards becoming global citizens in general.
While ASEAN integration has been primarily initiated in a top-down way by
ASEAN governments, in various forms it has also spread by the young generation,
through social media and other post-modern ways of cultivating global
imaginaries. Perhaps with the current COVID-19 contingency, young Cambodians
have been more equipped than ever to “imagine” (Anderson 1991) and unite with
other ASEAN youth, not to mention, global youth virtually regardless of borders.
Indeed, some studies have shown in 2015, the number of internet users in
Cambodia was 3 million (Phong & Solá, 2015: 22), 6 years later, however, it
noticeably increased to 8.86 million in 2021. Moreover, 12 million social media
users were found as of January 2021, which was equivalent to 71.3% of the total
population of the country.2 In this way, the young generation in Cambodia will
facilitate ASEAN integration by virtually sharing the “we-feeling” (Deutsch et al.,
1957) which is thought to be a necessary ingredient for imagining and creating a
community.
4.7 Conclusion

This article evaluated the contours of historical experiences, current government

educational policies as well as prospects for citizenship education and ASEAN
citi- zenship education in Cambodia. Given the lasting consequences of genocide
and the horrific atrocities committed by Pol Pot’s CPK during 1975–1979, together
with contemporary global trends of education imposed by development aid
agencies, citi- zenship education has been emerged as a norm in civil society for
cultivating respect for democracy and human rights in Cambodia. Based on the
originally self-driven and later globally pressured desire to promote citizenship
education, in recent years, MoEYS purposefully incorporated it into the national
education discourse. This article has however revealed that in his CCP regime, the
prime minister Hun Sen interpreted and appropriated citizenship education for
promoting banal nationalism or patriotism in order to strengthen his hegemonic
rule. In pursuing his hegemonic authoritarianism, citizenship education might
found to be a risk, or adverse to, the government. It may act to prioritize the form
of ASEAN citizenship education more than citizenship education in general due to
the controversial ASEAN principle of non-interference in member countries’
internal affairs.
This article found a partial success of ASEAN citizenship education entrenched
into the current social-economic context in Cambodia. The surveys adopted in this
research discovered that a strong imagination of ASEAN was cultivated among
Cambodian youth perhaps through social media and virtual communication, even
if it was not concretely tied to knowledge about and skills to interact with ASEAN.
The result of the survey provided a narrative so far that the Cambodian young
generation translated ASEAN citizenship to be a substantial tool for facilitating
economic devel- opment, cross-cultural understanding, language learning or self-
fulfillment through expanded educational opportunities.

Notes

1. One of the goals of national TVET policy 2017–2025 is to promote public–

private partnerships and mobilize resources from stakeholders to support
TVET. More information available at
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub lication/401746/adb-brief-090-
skills-development-fund-cambodia.pdf (5 June 2021).
2. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-cambodia(5 June 2021)
Chapter 5
Citizenship Education in Indonesia:
Aiming to Be a Member of the ASEAN
Community

Yuki Nakata, Andi Suwirta, and Mina Hattori

Abstract The main goal of citizenship education as taught in Indonesian schools

is that students become good citizens of Indonesia, understand their rights and
obli- gations as citizens, develop a law-abiding and democratic attitude, uphold
the unity and integrity of the country, and have respect for diversity, freedom, and
human rights. In this paper, the focus will be on three areas: (1) Analysis of the
contents of Citizenship Education in National Curriculum 2006 in Indonesia; (2)
Analysis of the findings of a questionnaire survey for students related to
citizenship education in Indonesia; and (3) Analysis of the findings of the second
round Delphi survey as it relates to citizenship education in Indonesia. This paper
suggests that the contents of ASEANness should be expanded and elaborated in the
Indonesian school curriculum. Another suggestion is that Citizenship Education
teachers and other character educa- tion teachers in Indonesia—as real executors of
the curriculum in schools—need to cooperate and share insights and experiences
with other teachers from Southeast Asian countries so that they, in educating
students as the younger generation and the hope for the future of the nation, will
be proud of their changes.

Keywords Awareness of ASEANness ·Citizenship education Elementary and

secondary schools · Nation and character building

Y. Nakata (B)
Asian Cultures Research Institute, Toyo University, 5-28-20 Haksan Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8606,
Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Suwirta
Faculty of Social Studies Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229,
Kota Bandung 40154, West Java,
Indonesia e-mail: [email protected]
M. Hattori
Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Nagoya University, Furo-cho,
Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8601,
Japan e-mail:
[email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 85
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_5
86 Y. Nakata et al.

5.1 Introduction

Citizenship Education was formally and systematically introduced at primary and

secondary school level in Indonesia in the early 1970s. Although earlier, there had
been a subject called Citizenship Education, 1 its form, content, direction, and purpose
remained unclear. The main purpose of citizenship education universally is to
develop good citizens. In the context of the Indonesian nation state, the concept of
good citizenship was implemented in Curriculum 1968 and Curriculum 1975. This
subject matter began to develop a clearer structure in its content and objectives.
In line with government policy, especially the Ministry of Education and
Culture, with the revision of the curriculum at the level of schooling, the name of
Citizenship Education also changed. In Curriculum 1975, for example, this subject
matter was named as PMP (Pendidikan Moral Pancasila or Moral Education of
Pancasila); in Curriculum 1984 and Curriculum 1994, the name was PPKn
(Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan or Pancasila and Citizenship
Education); in Curriculum 2004 and Curriculum 2006, it was named as PKn
(Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan or Citizenship Education); and lastly in
Curriculum 2013, it was renamed as PPKn, Pendidikan Pancasila dan
Kewarganegaraan or Pancasila and Citizenship Education (See, for example,
Winataputra, 2012, pp. 1–32; and Samsuri, 2013).
However, the main objective of the implementation of Citizenship Education at
the level of schooling in Indonesia, from its beginnings until now, can be
summarized as follows, “so that students become good citizens of Indonesia, to
understand their rights and obligations as citizens, law-abiding, democratic attitude,
uphold the unity and integrity, and respect for diversity, freedom, and human
rights.”2
The question now is how the profile of Citizenship Education in Indonesia
today relates to the issue of the integration of the ASEAN Community by 2015?
How do the contents of Curriculum 2006 and Curriculum 2013 characterize
Citizenship Educa- tion currently in primary, junior, and senior high school in
Indonesia? Finally, what are the challenges and opportunities for the development
of Citizenship Education in Indonesia in the future?
Based on the issues raised above, the research to be conducted on Citizenship
Education in Indonesia relate also to students’ (in primary, junior high, and senior
high school) and education stakeholders’ (lecturers, teachers, principals, school
supervisors, and school committees) knowledge, insight, and awareness of the nation
states in other ASEAN countries.
To learn about students’ historical consciousness, their perceptions, and opinions
about being good citizens, and their insights into the ASEAN countries, we used
“A Questionnaire Survey on Citizenship Education in Indonesia.”3 This included
two

1
Citizenship education as used in this paper includes civic education as a subject.
2
This is summarized from Dika Meirista, 2013.
3
Special thanks to Ms. Sri Redjeki ROSDIANTI (Teacher of Social Studies Education and Citizen-
ship Education at the SMP (Sekolah Menengah Pertama or Junior High School) Labschool UPI
in Bandung and the SMKN (Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Negeri or State Vocational High
School), 9 Bandung) for cooperating surveys at scholls in Bandung and attending the
International Seminar at Nagoya Universities on Febrary 2014.
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member … 87

main categories of questions, namely, (1) Questions on Citizenship; and (2) Questions
on ASEAN countries. A total of 637 students were asked to fill out the questionnaire.
These consisted of 225 students from primary, 211 students from junior high, and
201 students from senior high school in Jakarta and Bandung. The questionnaire was
conducted in September 2011.
Meanwhile, to gain opinions on Citizenship Education in Indonesia and Southeast
Asia from the stakeholders deemed as “experts,” a Delphi survey questionnaire
was used. This questionnaire aims to clarify issues such as what is required of
citizenship in the ASEAN region. The questionnaire was conducted twice (a first
stage and a second stage) with the same people. The respondents in this study are
the ones who are experts in the field of education (character and citizenship).
They consist of:
(1) principals, (2) civics, social studies, history, and religion teachers, (3) school
supervisors, (4) citizenships, social studies, history, and religion lecturers, and (5)
managers of school committees or associations of teachers and parents.
A total of 177 respondents were asked to complete the first round Delphi
survey questionnaire. They are from Central Java (Semarang) and West Java
(Bandung, Subang, and Karawang). The questionnaires were completed in
October and December 2012. Of the 177 respondents to the first round survey, 173
also responded to the second round survey.
The discussion of this study covers three themes, namely: (1) Analysis of Citi-
zenship Education in Curriculum 2006 and Curriculum 2013, (2) Analysis of the
findings of a questionnaire survey of students, and (3) Analysis of the findings of a
two-round forecasting survey (Delphi survey).

5.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education: Curriculum

After Socio-political Reforms

5.2.1 Citizenship Education in the Curriculum 2006 and 2013

The education curriculum in a nation state is always being changed for its
improve- ment and refinement. Thus, Curriculum 2006 is an improvement and
refinement of the previous curricula applicable, such as Curriculum 1968,
Curriculum 1975, Curriculum 1984, Curriculum 1994, and Curriculum 2004
(Hasan, 2004: 1–27).
After the collapse of the Suharto regime in 1998, Indonesia became more prone to
decentralization and democratization from a centralized system. Both the Curriculum
2006 and Curriculum 2013 reflect these major changes in Indonesian society.
Curriculum 2006 is often also referred to as KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
Pendidikan or School Based-Curriculum). Curriculum 2004, 2006, and 2013 were
created in an atmosphere of reform, where the parameters of freedom, democracy,
and regional autonomy had colored the lives of the people of Indonesia. The new
Curriculum 2013 itself is entering a stage of socialization. It has not been formally
88 Y. Nakata et al.

valid in all regions of Indonesia, and, in substance, the contents of Curriculum 2013
are not much different from Curriculum 2006.
Curriculum 2013, as it relates to Citizenship Education, is described as follows
(See, for example, Apandi, I. (2013)):
1. Mengubah nama mata pelajaran Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan (PKn) menjadi
Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan (PPKn).
2. Menempatkan mata pelajaran PPKn sebagai bagian utuh dari kelompok mata
pelajaran yang memiliki misi pengokohan kebangsaan.
3. Mengorganisasikan SK-KD (Standar Kompetensi—Kompetensi Dasar) dan
indikator PPKn secara nasional dengan memperkuat nilai dan moral
Pancasila; nilai dan norma UUD (Undang-Undang Dasar) 1945; nilai dan
semangat Bhin- neka Tunggal Ika; serta wawasan dan komitmen NKRI
(Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia).
4. Memantapkan pengembangan peserta didik dalam dimensi: pengetahuan kewar-
ganegaraan; sikap kewarganegaraan; keterampilan kewarganegaraan;
keteguhan kewarganegaraan; komitmen kewarganegaraan; dan kompetensi
kewargane- garaan.
5. Mengembangkan dan menerapkan berbagai model pembelajaran yang sesuai
dengan karakteristik PPKn yang berorientasi pada pengembangan karakter
peserta didik sebagai warganegara yang cerdas dan baik secara utuh.
6. Mengembangkan dan menerapkan berbagai model penilaian proses pembela-
jaran dan hasil belajar PPKn.
Translation:
1. Change the name of citizenship education subjects to Pancasila and
Citizenship Education.
2. Make Pancasila and Citizenship Education an integral part of a group of
subjects whose mission is to strengthen national awareness.
3. Organize the Standard Competency and Basic Competency and the indica-
tors Pancasila and Citizenship Education nationally by strengthening the
moral values and principles of Pancasila; the values and norms of the 1945
Consti- tution; the values and spirit of Unity in Diversity; as well as the
insights and commitments of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.
4. Confirm the development of learners in different dimensions: knowledge of
citizenship; the attitude of citizenship; citizenship skills; the persistence of
citizenship; commitment to citizenship; and citizenship competencies.
5. Develop and implement a variety of learning models that match the charac-
teristics of Pancasila and Citizenship Education, which is oriented toward the
character development of students as good citizens as a whole.
6. Develop and implement a variety of models for the learning assessment and
learning outcomes of Pancasila and Citizenship Education.
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member … 89

5.2.2 Contents of the Standard Competency of

Citizenship Education in the Curriculum 2006

After the decision to implement the curriculum 2013, it was not officially utilized
on a nationwide scale, and many schools returned to use the 2006 curriculum.
Since the 2006 curriculum was utilized at many schools where the questionnaire
survey and Delphi survey were conducted in this study, this section discusses the
contents of standard competency of Citizenship Education (Pendidikan
Kewarganegaraan) in National Curriculum 2006.
Tables 5.1 and 5.2 outlined the Standard Competency of Citizenship Education for
primary, junior high, and senior high school levels. Besides, these tables show
what each content of elementary, junior high, and high school are classified
“Universal”, “Regional,” “National” or “Local” level (Hirata, 2013, 114–115).

5.2.2.1 Primary School Level

According to Table 5.1 (Tardianto, 2006, 131–143, 366–374), Standard Competency

for the first to third grade of primary school level have mainly “Universal” level of
Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes. On
the other hand, Standard Competency for the fourth to sixth grade of elementary
school level have mainly “National” and “Local” level of Knowledge and
understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes.

5.2.2.2 Junior High School Level and High School Level

According to Table 5.2, the contents of the Standard Competency for the 1st to 3rd
grade at Junior High School level are mainly “National” level of Knowledge and
understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes. However, “Global” and
“Universal” level are also expected to be learned.
Keywords, such as Human Rights, Democracy, Openness, Transparency, and
Justice, and the role of the press and the mass media, have been considered as
significant in the socio-political context of Indonesia since 1999. They have been
repeated in the contents of Citizenship Education, Curriculum 2006. For example,
in the first grade of junior high school, students learn about “Human Rights” as a
stan- dard and basic competence. In second grade, students learn about the
implementation of democracy in their lives.
Furthermore, at high school level, first grade students learn about “Human Rights”
and the “Equality of the people of the Nation,” and second grade students learn
about “Democracy,” “Openness,” and “Justice.” Meanwhile, third grade students
learn about “the role of the press in democratic societies.”
90 Y. Nakata et al.

Table 5.1 Standard competency of citizenship education for primary school level4 Source Original
translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company
Grade Standard competency Category
1st 1. Applying the principles according to differences Universal
2. Learning to be orderly at home and school Universal
3. Applying children’s rights at home and school Universal
4. Applying children’s obligations at home and school Universal
2nd 1. Getting accustomed to doing gotong-royong (helping Universal
each other)
2. Showing an attitude of environmental respect Region
3. Showing a democratic attitude Region
4. Showing the values of Pancasila (the Five Basic Principles Universal, national
of the Republic of Indonesia)
3rd 1. Practicing the meaning of the Sumpah Pemuda (Youth National
Pledge)
2. Practicing the norms applied in society Universal
3. Having self-esteem as an individual Universal
4. Having pride as a people in Indonesia National
4th 1. Understanding the local government system of the Village Local
(Desa) and the Sub District (Kecamatan)
2. Understanding the government system of Prefecture, Local
City, and Province
3. Understanding the system of central government National
4. Showing an awareness toward globalization in a Global
local context
5th 1. Understanding the importance of the unity of the Republic National
of Indonesia
2. Understanding central and local laws and legislation National
3. Understanding the freedom to organize Local, national
4. Appreciating joint decision-making Global
6th 1. Appreciating the values of the formulation process of National
Pancasila as a principle of the nation
2. Understanding the system of Indonesian government National, local
3. Understanding the role of Indonesia among the Southeast Region
Asian countries
4. Understanding the role of Indonesian foreign policy in the National, global
era of globalization

Regarding the Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values
and attitudes of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, there
is not sufficient content on the subject of ASEAN countries. According to the
Stan- dard Competency, primary school sixth graders have to learn
“understanding the

4
Tardianto (2006), 137–143.
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member … 91

Table 5.2 Standard competency of citizenship education for junior high school (SMP/MTs) and
high school (SMA/MA) Level5
Standard competency of citizenship education for junior high school
First 1. Showing a positive attitude toward the norms applied National
to societies, races, and nations
2. Describing the meaning of the Declaration of Independence and National
the first Constitution
3. Showing a positive attitude toward the protection Global
and enforcement of human rights
4. Showing an independent attitude toward express one’s own Universal
opinions
Second 1. Showing behavior that follows the values of Pancasila (the Five National
Basic Principles of the Republic of Indonesia)6
2. Understanding the various constitutions adopted in Indonesia National
3. Showing obedience to the national laws and legislation National
4. Understanding the implementation of democracy in various Global, national
aspects of life
5. Understanding sovereignty of the people in the government National
system of Indonesia
Third 1. Showing how participation helps in the defense of the country National
2. Understanding the implementation of regional autonomy Local
3. Understanding the impact of globalization on people as members Global, national
of society, a race, and the nation
4. Showing one’s self goals according to one’s ability for the sake Global, national
of the nation (bangsa)
Standard competency of citizenship education for junior high school
First 1. Understanding the nature of the nation and the Republic of Global, national
Indonesia
2. Showing a positive attitude toward the legal system and the Global, national
national judicial system
3. Showing the participation in the advancement, promotion and Global, national
enforcement of human rights
4. Analyzing the relation between the foundation of the nation and National
the constitution
5. Appreciating the equality of the people in the nation in various National
aspects of their lives
6. Analyzing the political system in Indonesia National
(continued)

5
Tardianto (2006), 366–374 and Peraturan Mendiknas no. 22 tahun 2006 dan Lampiran 3
(SMA/MA).
6
Pancasila consists of five basic principles, namely: (1) belief in One God Almighty; (2) a humanity
that is just and civilized; (3) the unity of Indonesia; (4) democracy guided by the wisdom of
representative deliberation; and (5) social justice for all Indonesians. See, for further information,
Budimansyah and Bestari (2011).
92 Y. Nakata et al.

Table 5.2 (continued)

Standard competency of citizenship education for junior high school
Second 1. Analyzing the political culture in Indonesia Global, national
2. Analyzing the democratic culture of civil society Region, national
3. Showing the attitude to openness and justice as a member of the Region, national
races (berbangsa) and the nation
4. Analyzing international relations and international organizations Global, region
5. Analyzing international laws and the judicial system Global
Third 1. Showing a positive attitude to the Pancasila as an open ideology National
2. Evaluating various government systems National, global
3. Evaluating the role of the press in democratic societies National, region
4. Evaluating the impact of globalization National, global
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company

roles of Indonesia among the Southeast Asian countries.” Furthermore, high

school second graders have the opportunity to learn “analyzing International
Relations and International Organization,” and this includes the study of ASEAN
countries.
Even though these competencies are enough for students to understand the
polit- ical position of Indonesia in Southeast Asia and in international society, it
might be insufficient for understanding each ASEAN country or for having
feelings of solidarity with other ASEAN countries.

5.3 Analysis of the Results of Questionnaire

Survey to Students

The following are the findings of the Questionnaire Survey (September 2011) to
students.7

5.3.1 Students in Indonesia See or Hear Much More

the Words “Social Justice/Fairness,” “Human
Rights,” and “Democracy” Than “International
Society”

According to the answers to Question Part 1—Q3, students have seen or heard
more often the following words: “Social Justice/Fairness” (Often = 61.4%, Yes =
33.3%);

7
References of the questionnaire survey for the children are: (1) Tables of questionnaire survey
results of ASEAN countries at CESA 2012 (Questions Part1—Q3, Q6, Q7); and (2) Tables of
questionnaire survey results by grade (school) on Questions Part 1—Q11 and Part 2—Q1, Q2,
Q3, Q4, Q5, and Q6.
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member … 93

“Human Rights” (Often = 64.7%, Yes = 27.2%); and “Democracy” (Often71.3%,

Yes = 22.4%) in comparison to “International Society” (Often = 35.3%, Yes =
47.9%).
“Social Justice/Fairness,” “Human Rights,” and “Democracy” are some of the
significant keywords of the post-Soeharto regime (New Order era) since 1998 in
Indonesia. Furthermore, the Standard and Basic Competency of Citizenship
Educa- tion (Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan) in Curriculum 2006 also includes
these words for study, mainly at junior high school and high school levels.

5.3.2 Most of the Students Considered that Their English

Proficiency is Low, Even Though They Know English is
Important for Their Lives

Almost 50% of Indonesian students think their English proficiency is low. According
to the findings of Q7 (a question on English proficiency), around half of the
students feel they are not good at speaking English (Not very much = 69.9%, Not
at all = 10.7%); writing (Not very much = 41.9%, Not at all = 7.5%); browsing
(Not very much = 43.5%, Not at all = 11%); or watching and listening it (Not
very much = 42.5%, Not at all = 7.5%). However, the findings of Part 1—Q6
show that most students consider that their English abilities are important (Very
important = 74.4%, Important = 22.3%).

5.3.3 Students Consider Peace Among ASEAN

Countries to Be Important

The findings of the questionnaire—Part 1—Q11 (Question on your local society,

country, ASEAN countries, and the world)—indicate that Indonesian students’
recognition of peace among ASEAN countries is the highest (42.7%) among all
ASEAN students.

5.3.4 Indonesian Students Are not yet Interested in

Other ASEAN Countries

The findings of the Question Part 2—Q1 “Match the number on the map below
with names of ASEAN countries” show that more than 70% of Indonesian
students know the geographical locations of Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and the
Philippines. The breakdown of these data was as follows: only 50–60% of the
primary school
94 Y. Nakata et al.

students knew the geographical location of these countries. However, around 70–
80% of the junior high school students and senior high school students knew the
correct geographical location of these countries.
According to the results of the different school levels, 64.2% of senior high school
students understand where the geographical location of Thailand is. However, the
findings indicate that only around 20–40% of primary school and junior high
school students understand the geographical location of continental Southeast Asia,
namely Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. This is because in
textbooks for primary schools, the map of Southeast Asian countries does not
mention every state in this region (See, for example, Sriwilujeng, 2007, 69–90.).
The findings for Part 2—Q4 (When is an ASEAN Community expected to be
established?) show that only 22.1% of the students chose the correct answer. The
breakdown is as follows: 39.1% of primary school students, 7.1% of junior high
school students, and 18.9% of senior high school students chose the correct
answer. However, 59.2% of students chose the answer, “I don’t know.” This
means that Indonesian students have not yet become fully aware of the
establishment of the ASEAN Community.
The findings of the Part 2—Q5 (How much do you know about other ASEAN
countries?) indicate that students are unfamiliar with most of the continental
South- east Asian countries except for Thailand. Less than 35% of the students chose
“know” and “know quite a bit” about Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam.
On the other hand, students answered that they “know” and “know quite a bit”
about Malaysia, as follows: 57.6% (primary school students= 51.6%, junior high
school students =61.1%, and senior high school students=60.7%) of students
answered “know.” In addition, 15.7% (primary school students = 23.1%, junior
high school students=10%, and senior high school students=13.4%) of students
answered “know quite a bit.” In total, around 70% of students in Indonesia
indicated that they know about Malaysia.8
The findings on Singapore are as follows: 50.5% (primary school students =
41.3%, junior high school students = 55.5%, and senior high school students =
55.7%) of students answered “I know”; and 15.7% (primary school students =
22.20%, junior high school students = 10.9%, and senior high school students =
13.4%) of them answered “know quite a bit.” These findings clarify that around 60%
of students in Indonesia recognize that they know about Singapore.
One of the interesting findings is about students’ understanding of the Philippines.
Even though around 70% of the students correctly chose geographical location of the
Philippines on Part 2—Q1, only 33.1% of students (primary school students =
38.7%, junior high school students = 32.2%, and senior high school students =
27.9%) chose

8
One of the possible answers for this finding is that Malaysia has been labeled as the saudara
serumpun (brotherhood family) by most Indonesian people and Indonesia and Malaysia are
known as “One Race; two nation states.” It is also interesting to note here that the news and views
pertaining to Malaysia in the Indonesian mass media, including on the Internet, are very popular,
such as news and views about the cases of Indonesian workers in Malaysia, disputes in border
islands, claims of original heritage cultures, and so on. See, for further information, Suwirta and
Ahmad (2007) and Sunarti (2013, 77–88).
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member … 95

= 10.2%,
the answer “I know,” and only 5.8% of the students (primary school students
junior high school students=2.4%, and senior high school students = 4.5%) chose
the answer “know quite a bit.” on Question Part 2—Q5.
The findings for these questions indicate that even if students know of the
geographical location of other ASEAN countries, they may not have enough
knowledge and understanding about these countries.

5.3.5 Major Impacts of Media (Internet, TV, and Books)

and School on Students’ Understanding of
ASEAN Countries

The results of Part 2—Q6, “In what ways have you learned about ASEAN?
(Circle all that apply),” show that more than 70% of the Indonesian students chose
the following sources: books, television, the Internet, and school as the ways they
have learned about ASEAN.
Primary school students chose books (88.9%), Internet (83.1%), and school
(76.4%). However, junior high school and senior high school students stated that
they mostly learned about ASEAN from the Internet, as follows: junior high
school students chose the Internet (91%), books (87.7%), and school (82.5%).
Senior high school students also received most of their learning from the Internet
(87.1%), followed by books (85.6%), television (83.1%), and school (82.1%).

5.4 Analysis of the Results of Delphi Survey

5.4.1 Findings from Questions in Part 1

About 70–90% of the respondents answered that local level Knowledge and
under- standing, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes have achieved the
goals at present. National level Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and
Values and attitudes are as follows: 73% of the respondents answered that
Knowledge and understanding at national level was at the appropriate level, and
83% of respondents answered that Values and attitudes at national level had been
achieved. However, only 53% of the respondents considered that Skills and
abilities at national level had been achieved to an appropriate level.
Regarding universal level, around 60% of respondents answered that
Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes had
been achieved to appropriate levels at present. However, about half of the
respondents or more thought that there were problems in achieving the appropriate
level of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and
attitudes at a regional and global level at present. According to the respondents’
answers, only 40–50% of
 96 Y. Nakata et al.

them considered that the regional and global level of Knowledge and
understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes had been achieved at
the proper level.

5.4.2 Findings from Questions in Part 2–1

(Questions on Knowledge and Understanding)

More than 70% of the respondents answered that the following topics, (1)
Environ- ment, (2) Coexistence and living together, (3) Different cultures, (4)
Social justice and equity, (5) Democracy, (7) Interdependence, (9) Social welfare, and
(10) Human rights were dealt with in the class or in their research (Very
often/Often) (Q1). However, only around 30% of the respondents considered that
the following topics,
(8) Foreign language, (11) ASEAN history and culture, and (12) Common social
problems of ASEAN countries, were often dealt with in their education and research.
More than 90% of the respondents answered that all topics from (1) to (12) about
Knowledge and understanding would be “Completely achieved,” “Achieved to some
extent,” or “Achieved” to the appropriate level 10 years later (Q4). However, on
the current situation, around 20% of the respondents answered “Fully achieved,”
“Achieved to some extent” regarding (8) Foreign language, (11) ASEAN history and
culture, and (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries. In addition, more
than 40% of respondents answered “Not fully achieved” or “Not achieved at all” for
these (8), (11), and (12) (Q3).
Most of the respondents stated that topics from (1) to (10) about Knowledge
and understanding should be studied at elementary school (Q5). However, many
respondents considered that the following topics, (6) Sustainable development,
(11) ASEAN history and culture, and (12) Common social problems of ASEAN
countries, should be studied by the upper grades of elementary school or by older
children.
For instance, 23% of the respondents answered that (6) Sustainable
development should be studied at 17 years old or older; furthermore, 30% of the
respondents answered that (11) ASEAN History and culture should be studied at
11–12 years old, and 26% of the respondents answered that (12) Common social
problems of ASEAN countries should be studied at 11–12 years old.

5.4.3 Findings of the Questions in Part 2–2

(Questions on Skills and Abilities)

More than 70% of the respondents answered that the following topics, (1) To
express opinions on social problems, (2) To have self-discipline and self-control, (3)
To solve problems, (4) To make decisions, (5) To respond to ICT, (6) To make a
peaceful resolution, (7) To think critically, (8) To improve quality of life, (9) To
cooperate with each other and (11) To contribute to society, are dealt with in their
classes or their
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member … 97

research (Very often/Often) (Q1). However, around 60% of the respondents answered
that the following topics, (12) To use foreign language, (13) To behave in accordance
with common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and (14) To solve common
social problems of ASEAN countries with other people, are considered to be dealt
with inadequately or not dealt with in their classes or research.
Most of the respondents answered that all topics from (1) to (14) about Skills
and abilities will be “Fully achieved,” “Achieved to some extent,” or “Achieved”
to the appropriate level 10 years later (Q4). However, the respondents did not have
positive opinions on the current situation (Q3). For instance, less than 35% of the
respondents answered “Fully achieved” or “Achieved to some extent” regarding
(5) To respond to ICT, (6) To make a peaceful resolution, (10) To develop
sustainably, (11) To contribute to society, (12) To use foreign language, (13) To
behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and
(14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people.
Furthermore, 40% of the respondents answered, regarding (12) To use foreign
language, that it was “Not fully achieved.” In addition, 41% of the respondents, on
the topic (13) To behave in accordance with common rules and values among
ASEAN countries, answered “Not fully achieved.” Equally, 33% of the respondents
answered “Not fully achieved” for the topic (14) To solve common social
problems of ASEAN countries with other people.
Regarding the ages when students should study (Q5) for the topics (1) to (14),
50–60% of the respondents for each topic answered that those of “8 years old or
younger” should study the following topics: (2) To have self-discipline and self-
control and (9) To cooperate with each other. On the other hand, around 35–40%
of the respondents for each topic answered that “17 years old or older” should
study about (10) To develop sustainably, (13) To behave in accordance with common
rules and values among ASEAN countries, and (14) To solve common social problems
of ASEAN countries with other people.

5.4.4 Findings from the Questions in Part 2–3

(Questions on Values and Attitudes)

More than 60–90% of the respondents answered that the following topics: (1) To
face wrong things and injustice, (2) To preserve natural resources, protect the
environment and have an interest in its development, (4) To respect cultural diversity,
(5) To place importance on the law, (8) To respect tradition and culture, (9) To have
morality and pride as a nation, (10) To respect democracy, (11) To respect human
rights, (12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and
technology are dealt with in their class or research (Very often/Often) (Q1).
98 Y. Nakata et al.

Table 5.3 Analysis of the degree of achievement of the characteristics at present (Indonesia) Source
Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company Top three topics Lower three topics
Knowledge and understanding
(2) Coexistence and living together (12) Common social problems of ASEAN
(5) Democracy countries
(1) Environment and (3) Different cultures (8) Foreign language
(11) ASEAN history and culture
Skills and abilities
(1) To express opinions on social (14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN
problems countries with other people
(2) To have self-discipline and self-control (12) To use foreign language
(9) To cooperate with each other (13) To behave in accordance with common
rules and values among ASEAN countries

Values and attitudes

(3) To have self-dependence
(10) To respect democracy (7) To pay attention to global issues
(11) To respect human rights (6) To promote international cooperation
(4) To respect cultural diversity

However, only 8% (“Very often”)+ 35% “Often”) of the respondents dealt with
(3) To have self-dependence; moreover, 10% (“Very often”)+24% (“Often”) of the
respondents dealt with (6) To promote international cooperation in the class or their
research.
Most of the respondents considered that all the topics from (1) to (14) about Values
and attitudes are significant (Q2). Furthermore, more than 80% of the respondents
answered that all of these topics are “Fully achieved,” “Achieved to some extent”
or “Achieved” to the appropriate level 10 years later (Q4).
However, the respondents did not have positive opinions on all the topics as
they currently stand. For instance, less than 35% of the respondents answered
“Fully achieved” or “Achieved to some extent” to the following topics: (1) To face
with wrong things and injustice, (3) To have self-dependence, (6) To promote
international cooperation, (7) To pay attention to global issues, and (13) To have
morality and pride as a member of ASEAN.
Regarding the appropriate age for when students should study (Q5) topics (1)
to (13), mor than 50% of the respondents for each topic answered that students of
“8 years old or younger” should study the following issues: (2) To preserve natural
resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its development, (3) To
have self-dependence, and (11) To respect human rights.
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member … 99

5.4.5 Topics that Are Considered not Sufficiently

Covered at Present

The following Table 5.3 shows the top three and lower three topics of Knowledge
and understanding, Skills and abilities and Values and attitudes based on the
results of the Tables 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6, that are the results of comparison of weighted
averages of Questions on Knowledge and understanding (Table 5.4), Skills and
abilities (Table 5.5), and Values and attitudes (Table 5.6).
According to Table 5.3, the lower three topics of Knowledge and
understanding, Skills and abilities and Values and attitudes include topics about
foreign language and ASEAN countries. Furthermore, the lower topics of Values and
attitudes include global issues, namely (6) To promote international cooperation,
and (7) To pay attention to global issues.
According to the results of the Q5 of Delpfi survey, around 40% of respon-
dents considered Foreign languages as one of the topics of both Knowledge and
understanding ((8) Foreign language) and Skills and abilities((12) To use foreign
language) should be studied at 8 years old or younger. Besides, around 30% of
respondents considered both the knowledge and understanding of (11) ASEAN
history and culture, and (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries
should be studied at 11–12 years old, however around 30–40% of the respondents
consid- ered the following topics should be studied at 17 years old or older,
namely the topics of Skills and abilities (13) to behave in accordance with the
common rules and values among ASEAN countries, (14) To solve common social
problems of ASEAN countries with other people, and the topics of Values and
attitudes of (13) To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN.
Furthermore, around 70% of the respondents also considered topics about
global issues, namely topics about Values and attitudes of (6) To promote
international cooperation, and (7) To pay attention to global issues are should be
studied at 13 years old and older.
Tables 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 also show the results of the survey about “Q4: The char-
acteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B).” According to these tables,
what the respondents chose the top five topics are the followings: The top five
topics of Knowledge and understanding the respondents chose were (2)
Coexistence and living together, (1) Environment, (5) Democracy, (3) Different
cultures and (4) Social justice and equity. Besides, the top five topics of Skills and
abilities the respondents chose were (8) To improve quality of life, (7) To think
critically, (3) To solve problems
(2) To have self-discipline and self-control and (4) To make decisions. Furthermore,
the top five topics of Values and attitudes the respondents chose were (11) To respect
human rights, (10) To respect democracy, (4) To respect cultural diversity, (8) To
respect tradition and culture, and (12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with
the new science and technology.
From the above results, the findings of this study clarified that topics that are
classified as “Global” and “Universal” are mainly considered to be achieved 10 years
later rather than “regional”topics concerning ASEAN.
 100
Table 5.4 Comparison of weighted average of questions on knowledge and understanding (Indonesia) Source Original translated from the table in the book of
Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company
Questions topics Q3: The degree of Q4: The Q2: The The gap between
achievement of characteristics that significance of this present and future
this characteristics should be achieved characteristics (C) “(B) − (A)” (D)
at present (A) 10 years later (B)
Knowledge and (1) Environment 3.08 3.83 3.69 0.76
understanding (2) Coexistence and living together 3.31 3.91 3.76 0.60
(3) Different cultures 3.08 3.70 3.34 0.63
(4) Social justice and equity 3.02 3.70 3.61 0.68
(5) Democracy 3.20 3.75 3.60 0.55
(6) Sustainable development 3.04 3.65 3.52 0.61
(7) Interdependence 3.06 3.48 3.31 0.42
(8) Foreign language 2.63 3.44 3.24 0.81
(9) Social welfare 2.87 3.62 3.58 0.75
(10) Human rights 2.98 3.66 3.61 0.67
(11) ASEAN history and culture 2.68 3.45 3.11 0.77
(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries 2.62 3.38 3.07 0.76

Y. Nakata et al.
 5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member …
Table 5.5 Comparison of weighted average of questions on skills and abilities (Indonesia) Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017,
permitted by Toshindo Company
Questions topics Q3: The degree of Q4: The Q2: The The gap between
achievement of characteristics that significance of this present and future
this characteristics should be achieved characteristics (C) “(B) − (A)” (D)
at present (A) 10 years later (B)
Skills and abilities (1) To express opinions on social problems 3.32 3.78 3.43 0.46
(2) To have self-discipline and self- control 3.32 3.85 3.65 0.53
(3) To solve problems 3.23 3.86 3.58 0.63
(4) To make decisions 3.16 3.84 3.54 0.68
(5) To respond to ICT 3.03 3.79 3.48 0.75
(6) To make a peaceful resolution 3.01 3.68 3.39 0.66
(7) To think critically 3.22 3.87 3.58 0.65
(8) To improve quality of life 3.13 3.90 3.59 0.76
(9) To cooperate with each other 3.24 3.81 3.58 0.57
(10) To develop sustainably 2.97 3.65 3.24 0.68
(11) To contribute to society 3.02 3.70 3.30 0.68
(12) To use foreign language 2.73 3.56 3.20 0.83
(13) To behave in accordance with common rules 2.68 3.32 3.04 0.64
and values among ASEAN countries
(14) To solve common social problems of ASEAN 2.82 3.32 2.97 0.50
countries with other people

101
 102
Table 5.6 Comparison of weighted average of questions on values and attitudes (Indonesia) Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata
2017, permitted by Toshindo Company
Questions topics Q3: The degree of Q4: The Q2: The The gap between
achievement of this characteristics that significance of this present and future
characteristics at should be achieved characteristics (C) “(B) − (A)” (D)
present (A) 10 years later (B)
Values and (1) To face wrong things and injustice 2.95 3.63 3.24 0.69
attitudes (2) To preserve natural resources, protect the 3.13 3.74 3.53 0.61
environment, and have an interest in its
development
(3) To have self-dependence 2.91 3.51 2.83 0.60
(4) To respect cultural diversity 3.33 3.84 3.54 0.50
(5) To place importance on the law 3.18 3.79 3.51 0.61
(6) To promote international cooperation 2.80 3.46 3.13 0.66
(7) To pay attention to global issues 2.84 3.52 3.21 0.68
(8) To respect tradition and culture 3.27 3.80 3.55 0.53
(9) To have morality and pride as a nation 3.26 3.77 3.51 0.51
(10) To respect democracy 3.39 3.86 3.47 0.46
(11) To respect human rights 3.38 3.88 3.57 0.49
(12) To think in a scientific way and catch up with 3.26 3.80 3.50 0.54
the new science and technology
(13) To have morality and pride as a member of 3.14 3.57 3.11 0.43

Y. Nakata et al.
ASEAN
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member … 103

5.5 Comparative Analysis of Two Surveys

The results of the student questionnaire survey clarified two points in relation to
ASEAN. First, Indonesian students have insufficient knowledge about countries that
are members of ASEAN. Second, more than 70% of Indonesian students
responded that they have learned about ASEAN through school, books, television,
and the Internet.
On the other hand, the results of the Delphi survey showed that educational experts
recognize that students’ knowledge and understanding, abilities, and skills
regarding ASEAN member countries are limited and should be resolved.
The two surveys pointed out that students and educational experts are aware
that Indonesian students have insufficient knowledge of ASEAN. Most of the
students chose schools as one of the main sources of information about ASEAN,
even though the students’ knowledge of ASEAN is not sufficient. Therefore,
reinforcing the discussion of ASEAN in subjects, such as citizenship education
and social studies, in the classroom may improve the students’ ASEAN-related
knowledge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes.

5.6 Conclusion

Citizenship education in Indonesia is important as one of the subjects learned by

students in schools (from elementary through to secondary level). In fact, in the
tertiary education sector, a Department of Citizenship Education has been established
in 10 LPTKs (Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan or Institutions of
Teacher Education) in Indonesia since 1960. Accordingly, the subject matter of
citizenship education has been introduced formally and systematically in the
curriculum since the early 1970s (Curriculum 1975, 1984, 1994, 2004, 2006, and
2013).
The main objective of citizenship education in Indonesia is to help students
become good citizens, to understand their rights and obligations as citizens, to be law
abiding, have a democratic attitude, uphold the unity and integrity of the state, and
have respect for diversity, freedom, and human rights. In the current Curriculum 2013,
the aim of Citizenship Education is confirmed as developing learners’ knowledge
of citizenship, attitudes to citizenship, citizenship skills, persistence of citizenship,
commitment to citizenship, and general citizenship competencies.
Citizenship Education in Indonesia is related to the four pillars of nationhood.
It has been developed through having a Key Competency and Basic Competency,
and by strengthening the moral values and principles of Pancasila, the values and
norms of the 1945 Constitution, and the values and spirit of Unity in Diversity, as
well as the insights and commitments of the Unitary State of the Republic of
Indonesia.
However, the knowledge, attitudes, and abilities of character education in
Indonesia are not owned solely by the subject matter of citizenship education.
There
5 Citizenship Education in Indonesia: Aiming to Be a Member … 105

are some other subjects related to character education, including knowledge of South-
east Asian countries, such as Social Studies Education (Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan
Sosial), Religious Education (Pendidikan Agama), and Indonesian Language Educa-
tion (Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia) for primary and junior high school students;
and history education, geography education, economic education, and sociology
education for senior high school students.
Citizenship Education in Indonesia, since first introduced in the early 1970s,
has been oriented to nation and character building, so that it has become nation
centric and not region (ASEAN) centric yet. Accordingly, in order to enhance
education for ASEANness in the Indonesian context, we think that the content
related to Southeast Asian countries should be extended and elaborated on more in the
school curriculum. The teachers of citizenship education, including the teachers of
other subjects related to character education in Indonesia should join together in
sharing their knowledge and experience with teachers from the other Southeast
Asian countries about how to be proud and respectful of each other in being
members of the ASEAN Community.
Chapter 6
Citizenship Education in Lao PDR:
Developing Increased Awareness
for ASEAN Toward Globalization

Miki Inui and Souphany Heuangkeo

Abstract This chapter aims to investigate citizenship education in Laos. Specifi-

cally, it queries how the educational domain presumed to impart citizenship education
has thus far been transformed at the primary school level. It also probes potential
schemas for the direction and development of citizenship education in the future.
The chapter comprises three parts: (1) an introductory outline of curriculum revi-
sions after the establishment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Economic Community (AEC); (2) an examination of the characteristics and
contexts of the outcomes obtained from a questionnaire survey of young students
conducted in Laos on citizenship in ASEAN countries; and (3) the results of a
Delphi survey conducted to forecast the features required for citizenship education
in the future. The Delphi survey elucidated two points. First, the students evinced
a high level of knowledge and understanding of citizenship education. However,
they displayed low levels of skills and abilities. Second, students in Laos exhibited
a below-par awareness and comprehension of foreign languages and inadequate
cognizance of ASEAN. Their desire to achieve such learning after 10 years was
also minimal, indi- cating that they were not adequately aware of the ASEAN or
other countries. Thus, citizenship education in Laos confronts the challenge of
constructing an internally and externally balanced educational curriculum of
citizenship education in the future to cultivate superior international awareness in
students. More studies are mandated on teacher training to foster teachers capable
of achieving this goal.

Keywords Citizenship education · Curriculum · Delphi survey · Globalism · Lao

PDR

M. Inui (B)
School of Human Science and Environment, University of Hyogo, 1-1-12 Shinzike Honcho,
Himeji 670-0092, Hyogo, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Heuangkeo
Ministry of Public Works and Transport, Lanexang Avenue, P. O. BOX 10618, Vienatiane, Lao
PDR
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
107
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_6
108 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

6.1 Introduction

This chapter aims to investigate citizenship education in Laos. Specifically, it queries

how the educational domain presumed to impart citizenship education has thus far
been transformed at the primary school level. It also probes potential schemas for
the direction and development of citizenship education in the future.
The education system in Laos does not offer a dedicated subject related to citizen-
ship education; instead, topics relating to citizenship are incorporated into subjects
that fuse science and social studies such as moral education, geography, and the
world around us.
Efforts have been made since the establishment of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) Economic Community (AEC) in 2015 to promote
citizen- ship education to conform to the ideals of globalization. Additionally,
international aid has facilitated the updating of the education curriculum.
This chapter comprises three parts: (1) the introductory section outlines the
revi- sions effected to the curriculum after the ASEAN Economic Community
(AEC) was instituted, (2) the second section attempts to examine the characteristics
and contexts of the outcomes obtained from a questionnaire survey of young
students conducted in Laos on citizenship in ASEAN countries, and (3) the third
section reports the results of a Delphi survey conducted to forecast the features
required for citizenship education in the future.

6.2 New Trends of Citizenship Education

After the Establishment of AEC

Most Lao people could not comprehend the benefits of an ASEAN membership
when Laos became a member of this association in 1997. The citizens of Laos
were also not adequately informed via literature or mass media about the other
ASEAN members. Information on the ASEAN countries began to be incorporated
into primary and secondary school syllabi only when the AEC was ready to be estab-
lished. However, the Lao people must have learned about other ASEAN member
countries through domestic and international mass media, e.g., programs broadcast
on Thai television. There are two news programs related to ASEAN: Inside
ASEAN and ASEAN Today. Many local sectors have been focusing on improving
domestic development to achieve standards equivalent to those of other ASEAN
members ever since Laos became a member of the association. Local schools,
entrepreneurs, government departments, and ministries aware of the importance of
the ASEAN membership have highlighted the enhancement of domestic sectors
and internal resources in Laos so that country can advance and become more
competitive with other ASEAN countries.
Billboards announcing “Welcome to AEC” were installed in communities.
National flags and illustrations related to ASEAN members adorned private and
 6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 109

public schools and their surrounding areas. Demonstrations and exhibitions were
conducted as principal school activities to raise awareness about ASEAN: for
example, schools held fashion shows featuring the national costumes of the ten
ASEAN countries and hosted dancing, singing, and ASEAN-related Q&A
sessions. Information on AEC was increasingly broadcast on local media such as
radio, newspapers, and television. Such social phenomena manifested the Lao
people’s enthusiasm and pride in their nation’s membership of AEC.
The Lao government has focused increasingly on developing human resources
and augmenting the educational sector to upgrade and benchmark education to the
levels of other ASEAN members. If the Lao people could boost their knowledge
and skills, they could pursue careers in other AEC member nations. Besides
upgrading the educational curriculum and the co-curricular activities, the Lao
government has advanced plans to review and revise the syllabus of every school
grade with the help of international organizations such as the Japan International
Cooperation Agency and the Australian Agency for International Development
(AusAID) (Table 6.1).
It is apparent from a comparison of the old and new school curricula that the
former did incorporate some information about ASEAN. For instance, the general
backgrounds of ASEAN members, their geographical locations, and their national
flags, among other aspects, were observed in the general knowledge section of a fifth-
grade primary school textbook. The updated curricula will build on that foundational
knowledge and add information on traditional cultures, costumes, lifestyles, national
festivities, and important dates about the ASEAN nations. Extra in-school
activities and games related to ASEAN nations are also being inserted. Teaching
resources such as the ASEAN curriculum sourcebook (USAID, 2012) were not yet
utilized.
However, the interviewed students indicated that only a few schools
incorporate ASEAN studies and cited the National University of Laos (NUOL)-
attached insti- tutions as exemplars. For instance, on the instructions of the
president and the dean of the NUOL, an attached primary school named Public
Primary School teaches students about ASEAN countries in a class titled “World
Around Us” as an aspect of the integrated social studies and science curriculum.
Moreover, the secondary school associated with NUOL embeds ASEAN
studies within geography, history, and civic studies syllabi, often using
supplementary materials to impart the requisite information (Figs. 6.1, 6.2 and
6.3).

Table 6.1 The plan for the Grade To finish by year Grade To finish by year
review and revision of school
Primary 1 2018 Lower secondary 1 2023
syllabi by grade
Primary 2 2019 Lower secondary 2 2024
Primary 3 2020 Lower secondary 3 2025
Primary 4 2021 Lower secondary 4 2026
Primary 5 2022 Higher secondary 1 2027
Higher secondary 2 2028
Higher secondary 3 2029

Source Research Institute for Educational Science

110 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

Fig. 6.1 ASEAN flags drawn by a primary student. Source Taken at a primary school in Vientiane

Fig. 6.2 Text materials for ASEAN studies used at a lower secondary school. Source Thammavong
(2014), MOES and RIES (2012)
6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 111

Fig. 6.3 Text materials used

at a higher secondary school
for ASEAN studies. Source
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(2016)

6.3 Characteristics of Citizenship in the

Questionnaire for Young Students

This section discusses the questionnaire survey on citizenship education conducted in

2011 with young students. A total of 628 school students in Laos (195 elementary, 200
secondary, and 233 high school) took this survey. The questionnaire comprised
two parts: (1) questions on citizenship education and (2) questions on ASEAN
countries.

6.3.1 Questions on Citizenship (Part 1)

Interestingly, the survey responses revealed that young students in Laos consider it
important to study their history and culture but do not feel the same way about the
ASEAN countries and other nations worldwide. A major proportion of the
surveyed students registered the answer of “very important” to questions about the
importance of their history (77.9%) and traditional culture (83.0%). However, these
percentages dropped to 28.7 and 25.5%, respectively, in answer to similar queries
about ASEAN history and traditional culture. A considerable gap is thus indicated
in the way the responding students regard their country vis-à-vis other ASEAN
members. The ratio representing the importance placed by the students on the
study of the traditions
112 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

and cultures of nations and regions worldwide was also modest (35.7%), evincing
a general lack of interest in knowing about other countries and cultures.
Some questions queried the frequency of seeing and hearing certain words. In
response, most students selected environment (73.1%) and democracy (73.1%) as
words they were exposed to “very often.” Only a small number of students chose
terms such as international understanding (16.2%) and international society (8.5%)
as appearing “very often” to them. An analysis of the textbooks of the responding
students clarifies the paucity of global content apropos the world outside Laos.
Conversely, the textbooks encompass a large amount of universal content related
to morality: 58.3% of the surveyed students answered “very often” to questions
concerning the frequency of seeing and hearing the word “coexistence.” Even
though this ratio was low, it marked the highest percentage registered in nine
surveyed coun- tries. Thus, Lao students emphatically imbibe lessons about the
coexistence of people and about coexistence with people.
Also, 9.7 and 11.6% of the surveyed students, respectively, chose “completely”
to items stating “to make a decision alone when taking action” and “to face
injustice, inequality, and discrimination.” These items alluded to their behavior in
the future and the ratios were extremely low compared to the other eight countries.
These results were probably influenced by the fact that Laotians have a particularly
gentle nature. However, it must also be taken into account that teachers impart
information inscribed in textbooks to students in a one-sided manner and that the
extant curriculum is not easily connected to the lifestyles of contemporary
students.

6.3.2 Questions on ASEAN Countries (Part 2)

The results obtained from the first part of the questionnaire indicated that the respon-
dents were not very aware of the world outside Laos, but the participating students
achieved high accuracy rates for questions about ASEAN members. For example,
the accuracy rates for questions concerning “the meaning of the ASEAN flag,”
“the year of the founding of ASEAN,” and “the year that ASEAN is to be
integrated” were 65.3, 59.1, and 32.3%, respectively, and these ratios were the highest
among the nine surveyed countries. The results revealed that the students did not
really recognize the importance of learning about ASEAN and other countries of
the world, but they did remember what they had learned.
An analysis of their textbooks also disclosed the reasons for these results.
Elemen- tary education and teacher training courses encompass learning about
ASEAN coun- tries. In addition, reports relating to the ASEAN were frequently
broadcast in the media since the ASEAN summit was hosted in Vientiane in 2004,
and the outcomes of the survey probably reflected this awareness, demonstrating
that the people of Laos are becoming more conscious of expanding their
knowledge and keeping in pace with the other ASEAN members. However, the
results for questionnaire items that probed the geographical location of the other
ASEAN members disclosed that the students tended to know less about countries
such as Brunei, Singapore, and
6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 113

Malaysia that were further away from Indochina. Thus, the contents of their text-
books, including their study material for geography, should be comprehensively
examined. The investigation also indicated that Laos must participate in the move-
ment for the development of a common education program that is more aware of
the ASEAN Community.

6.4 Analysis of the Delphi Survey

6.4.1 Method

The survey attempted to identify the type of citizenship awareness expected from
students of ASEAN members. The first survey in Laos was conducted in
September 2012, and the second survey was administered in March 2013. The
subjects included 299 people, including principals, teachers of social studies, and
presidents of the Parents and Teachers Association (PTA). The collected data were
analyzed using SPSS.
The items of the surveys were broadly categorized into two parts: (1) those
identi- fying existing citizenship-related attributes and ascertaining the evaluation of
special- ists apropos the type of citizenship they expected to achieve in 10 years
and (2) those determining vital citizenship-related qualities in terms of knowledge
and under- standing, skills and abilities, values and attitudes, and the appropriate
ages at which these qualities of citizenship should be inculcated.

6.4.2 Backgrounds of the Respondents

Of the 299 respondents, 137 were men (45.8%) and 151 were women (50.5%).
The gender of 11 subjects remained unidentified. In terms of age, people in their
50s formed the largest group (32.1%), followed by subjects in their 40s (25.1%),
20s (9.7%), 60s (13.0%), and 70s (0.7%).
With respect to their occupations, 76 respondents (25.4%) were elementary school
teachers, 64 (21.4%) were teachers at institutions of higher education, and 62 (20.7%)
were civil servants. The number of secondary school teachers was 14 (4.7%). Almost
all respondents (72.9%) were involved in educational activities and 3.7% of them
were engaged in research. The results of the surveys will be briefly presented in
sections that follow.
114 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

6.4.3 Results: Part 1

The questions asked in Part 1 concerned the identification of presently imbibed

citizenship-related characteristics and attempted to ascertain the type of citizenship
that was expected to be achieved in 10 years according to the estimation of the
respondents.
Space constraints do not permit a detailed discussion of the obtained results;
nonetheless, it was elucidated that among the stated attributes comprising local,
national, regional, global, and universal, the local level was identified as the
highest for the existing citizenship characteristics of the people of Laos. However,
the other four characteristics that lagged behind the local arena were expected to
be higher 10 years later. The local citizenship-related attributes were classified as
knowl- edge and understanding, skills and abilities, and values and attitudes. The
results demonstrated very high levels of knowledge and understanding as well as
values and attitudes (75 and 80%, respectively). However, the level of achievement
for skills and abilities was found to be quite low (59%). It is widely acknowledged
that the standards of education in Laos are not as high as the benchmarks set by
the other ASEAN members. Practical pedagogies have not yet been established in
Laos for young students. The results indicate that students in Laos are good at
learning and understanding what they are taught in schools and in processing the
information they receive through the media. However, their skills and abilities must
be enhanced in preparation for the forthcoming ASEAN integration. Thus, the
results of this study’s analysis of the data obtained from the questionnaire survey
on citizenship educa- tion suggest that the education system in Laos must offer
theoretical knowledge to students in tandem with the awareness of how they can
translate their knowledge into practical abilities. Laos can foster people with skills
in various fields through its education system by overcoming these challenges.

6.4.4 Results: Part 2

6.4.4.1 Questions About Knowledge and Understanding

Table 6.2 displays that the surveyed respondents answered items on knowledge
and understanding that they frequently dealt with characteristics of citizenship-
related to the environment (64%), coexistence and living together (63%),
democracy (69%), interdependence (57%), social justice and equity (56%), and
human rights (56%).
Table 6.2 indicates low respondent ratios for topics such as ASEAN history and
culture (44%) and common social problems of ASEAN countries (48%); however,
more than 50% of the respondents acknowledged the importance of learning about
ASEAN history and culture. The results also show that the respondents recog-
nized the value of understanding different cultures (41%) and foreign languages
Table 6.2 The Knowledge and understanding of specific specialties and the significance of the identified

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

characteristics
Q1 Your specialty (you often deal with these Q2 The significance of these characteristics
characteristics in the class or in your
research)
N Very often (%) Often (%) Few (%) None (%) N Very important Important (%) Important a little Not important at
(%) (%) all (%)
(1) Environment 299 64 31 5 1 293 72 27 1 0
(2) Coexistence 289 63 33 3 1 291 63 30 6 0
and living
together
(3) Different 295 33 57 11 0 297 41 51 7 1
cultures
(4) Social justice 297 56 34 10 0 291 57 37 3 2
and equity
(5) Democracy 299 69 25 5 1 293 72 26 3 0
(6) Sustainable 295 44 40 14 2 296 55 40 4 1
development
(7) 294 57 33 10 0 292 63 32 5 0
Interdependence
(8) Foreign 296 24 38 33 5 289 51 43 6 0
language
(9) Social 299 42 38 18 2 291 52 43 3 1
welfare
(10) Human 299 56 36 8 1 297 55 41 3 1
rights
(11) ASEAN 294 44 38 14 4 289 51 46 2 1
history and
culture
(continued)

115
Table 6.2 (continued)

116
Q1 Your specialty (you often deal with these Q2 The significance of these characteristics
characteristics in the class or in your
research)
N Very often (%) Often (%) Few (%) None (%) N Very important Important (%) Important a little Not important at
(%) (%) all (%)
(12) Common 240 48 38 12 3 235 53 42 4 1
social problems
of ASEAN
countries
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 117

(51%); however, the respondents also admitted at 33 and 24%, respectively, that
these subjects are not taught very often.
As previously described in the section on the analysis of the textbooks, school
students in Laos are taught about the environment, coexistence, and democracy.
However, information on ASEAN members and inter-country cooperation is only
briefly introduced in fifth-grade elementary school classes. Young students in
Laos are accorded with scant opportunities to learn about countries outside Laos
and to be exposed to different cultures. A curriculum modification is required for
Laotians to prepare appropriately for prospective ASEAN integration programs.
The next section overviews the evaluation of responses to questions concerning
the current levels of achievement of citizenship education in relation to the items
presented in Table 6.3 and the extents of learning that should be achieved in 10 years.
Table 6.3 illuminates a keen desire in respondents to comprehensively inculcate
citizenship attributes related to the environment (47%) and democracy (48%) in
10 years. The outcomes also reveal that according to the respondents, citizen char-
acteristics pertaining to the understanding of different cultures (19%) and foreign
languages (17%) are currently extremely low. The respondents also did not
display much desire to attain increased knowledge about discrete cultures (38%)
or foreign languages (30%) in a decade. The lack of interest possibly stems from
the fact that the respondents felt it would be easier to achieve citizenship attributes
concerning the environment and democracy within a decade because these topics
are frequently taught in schools. However, the media in Laos are not very
inclined to broadcast extensive programs on foreign cultures, which appears to
influence low expectations of achieving citizen characteristics related to the
understanding of diverse cultures and foreign languages in 10 years. Moreover, the
residents of Laos seem to believe it would be impossible for learners to acquire
sufficient English proficiency in the future even though language education begins at
the secondary school level. The absence of exposure to other cultures and the lack
of adequate language education could repre- sent reasons for the low expectations
registered by respondents for achievements in these areas in 10 years. Hence, to
prepare for the forthcoming ASEAN integra- tion, the residents of Laos must
become highly aware of the features of citizenship required to understand other
cultures and languages and should aim to attain such
abilities and attributes.
Table 6.4 overviews the assessment of responses to questions probing the ages
at which students should study the specified citizenship characteristics. Many
respon- dents reported that the environment (30%), coexistence (29%), social
justice and equity (29%), different cultures (28%), and common social problems
of ASEAN countries (28%) should be taught at ages 9 and 10 years. Despite these
results, common social problems observed in ASEAN countries are rarely found
in text- books; it is thus urgently necessary to print information related to ASEAN
countries in textbooks and to create an environment in which students can learn
about these issues in preparation for the ASEAN integration.
The results of the analysis indicate that almost all respondents recognized the
importance of foreign languages, but this facet is lacking in both curricula and educa-
tional research. Also, a high 47% of the respondents agreed that foreign languages
Table 6.3 The degrees of current achievement and levels to be achieved in 10 years

118
Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later
N Completely (%) To some Achieved (%) Not efficiently Not at N Completely (%) To some Achieved (%) Not efficiently Not at
extent (%) achieved (%) all (%) extent (%) achieved (%) all (%)
(1) Environment 299 25 50 20 5 0 291 47 37 16 0 0
(2) Coexistence 295 30 43 24 3 0 291 38 45 16 1 0
and living
together
(3) Different 297 19 44 27 10 0 292 38 33 25 4 0
cultures
(4) Social justice 299 23 45 22 10 0 297 42 36 19 3 0
and equity
(5) Democracy 297 35 42 19 3 0 295 48 36 14 2 0
(6) Sustainable 296 23 43 20 13 1 293 37 36 25 2 0
development
(7) 297 29 38 27 6 0 295 38 38 23 1 0
Interdependence
(8) Foreign 298 17 38 21 22 1 292 30 40 26 4 0
language
(9) Social welfare 298 22 39 25 11 3 286 36 36 22 5 1
(10) Human 298 38 30 19 11 2 296 40 41 17 2 1
rights
(11) ASEAN 296 26 39 22 11 2 291 38 40 21 1 0
history and

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

culture
(continued)
Table 6.3 (continued)

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later
N Completely (%) To some Achieved (%) Not efficiently Not at N Completely (%) To some Achieved (%) Not efficiently Not at
extent (%) achieved (%) all (%) extent (%) achieved (%) all (%)
(12) Common 237 29 40 20 10 1 237 37 43 19 1 0
social problems
of ASEAN
countries
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

119
120 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

Table 6.4 The ages at which students should imbibe specific citizenship-related characteristics
Q5 The age when the students should study these characteristics
N 8 years old 9–10 11–12 13–14 15–16 17 years old
or younger years years old years old years old or older (%)
(%) old (%) (%) (%) (%)
(1) Environment 289 35 30 11 11 5 8
(2) Coexistence 289 38 29 18 3 5 7
and living
together
(3) Different 291 26 28 17 12 7 9
cultures
(4) Social justice 290 20 29 12 10 16 14
and equity
(5) Democracy 293 33 19 11 6 13 18
(6) Sustainable 287 16 27 10 11 8 27
development
(7) 290 33 23 14 9 10 11
Interdependence
(8) Foreign 286 47 23 10 4 7 9
language
(9) Social 288 22 22 13 7 14 23
welfare
(10) Human 291 29 20 12 10 13 16
rights
(11) ASEAN 286 16 24 19 12 14 14
history and
culture
(12) Common 235 14 28 21 11 14 12
social problems
of ASEAN
countries
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo
Company

should be taught to students aged 8 years old or younger, evidencing the

requirement of constructing an environment that introduces language education at
the elemen- tary education stage. Incidentally, after the surveys were conducted,
the teaching of English was introduced in the third grade of elementary schools in
2015.

6.4.4.2 Questions About Practical Abilities

Table 6.5 clarifies that, according to the respondents, curricula and educational
research often address issues pertaining to self-discipline and self-control (64%),
mutual cooperation (67%), decision-making (57%), improving quality of life (53%),
Table 6.5 Skills and abilities and its

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

significance
Q1 Your specialty (you often Q2 The significance of these characteristics Q3 The degree of achievement of these
deal with these characteristics characteristics at present
in the class or in your research)
N Very Often Few None N Very Important Important Not N Completely To Achieved Not Not
often (%) (%) (%) important (%) a little important (%) some (%) efficiently at
(%) (%) (%) at all (%) extent achieved all
(%) (%) (%)
(1) To express 295 42 50 8 0 288 64 35 1 0 294 23 39 32 5 1
opinions on
social
problems
(2) To have 293 64 33 3 0 281 68 30 3 0 293 27 46 24 3 1
self-discipline
and self-
control
(3) To solve 293 52 35 12 1 281 65 31 4 0 291 25 38 32 4 1
problems
(4) To make 288 57 39 4 1 280 54 42 4 0 287 22 44 28 5 1
decisions
(5) To 293 33 36 26 5 282 50 40 9 0 290 15 32 29 21 3
respond to
ICT
(6) To make 289 53 33 15 0 279 62 32 6 0 289 22 44 29 4 1
a peaceful
resolution
(continued)

121
Table 6.5 (continued)

122
Q1 Your specialty (you often Q2 The significance of these characteristics Q3 The degree of achievement of these
deal with these characteristics characteristics at present
in the class or in your research)
N Very Often Few None N Very Important Important Not N Completely To Achieved Not Not
often (%) (%) (%) important (%) a little important (%) some (%) efficiently at
(%) (%) (%) at all (%) extent achieved all
(%) (%) (%)
(7) To 292 28 47 23 1 286 38 53 9 0 293 17 37 31 11 4
think
critically
(8) To 295 53 39 7 1 284 63 35 2 0 292 26 43 24 5 2
improve
quality of life
(9) To 295 67 28 4 1 284 69 27 4 0 293 36 31 28 4 1
cooperate
with each
other
(10) To 294 40 45 14 2 283 60 36 3 1 293 28 38 24 7 3
develop
sustainably
(11) To 292 43 39 16 1 280 52 42 5 1 290 26 31 33 10 1
contribute to

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

society
(12) To use 292 31 33 31 5 280 61 34 5 0 291 18 29 33 16 3
foreign
language
(continued)
Table 6.5 (continued)

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

Q1 Your specialty (you often Q2 The significance of these characteristics Q3 The degree of achievement of these
deal with these characteristics characteristics at present
in the class or in your research)
N Very Often Few None N Very Important Important Not N Completely To Achieved Not Not
often (%) (%) (%) important (%) a little important (%) some (%) efficiently at
(%) (%) (%) at all (%) extent achieved all
(%) (%) (%)
(13) To 295 35 49 13 2 282 47 49 4 1 292 23 35 33 8 1
behave in
accordance
with common
rules and
values among
ASEAN
countries
(14) To solve 293 27 45 23 5 267 48 45 5 2 291 21 36 32 7 3
common
social
problems of
ASEAN
countries with
other people
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

123
124 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

achieving peaceful resolutions (53%), and problem-solving (52%). Almost all

respondents also thought it was valuable to share rules and values with ASEAN
countries, but reported that the topic is minimally reflected in-school classrooms at
27%. These results suggested that the respondents were aware of their
membership in the ASEAN Community.
In terms of practical abilities, the respondents believed that critical thinking and
ICT-related skills were currently extremely inadequate at 15 and 17%,
respectively. However, these characteristics were considered significant. The
questionnaire on citizenship education evinced that Laotians were not very adept
at expressing their own opinions. In addition, they do not yet have access to a
sufficient budget to improve ICT-related deficiencies. These reasons probably
explain why respondents desired so highly to improve critical thinking and ICT
education in the future.
Another table is omitted because of limitations of paper width. However, to
overview the results, respondents recognized the importance of using foreign
languages (very important, 51%), even though they were rarely taught in schools
(27%). ASEAN members must be able to use foreign languages to communicate. The
questionnaire administered to students also illuminated that they regarded learning
English as important and felt that mastering foreign languages would be pivotal to
ASEAN integration.
According to Table 6.6, the highest percentage of respondents registered
mutual cooperation (completely, 46%; to some extent, 35%) as an attribute to be
inculcated over a decade. The respondents also reported that this characteristic
should be taught to learners quite early at age 8 or younger (24%) or at ages 9 and
10 (21%).
Foreign language usage (35%) and self-discipline and self-control (27%) were
considered by respondents as characteristics of citizenship that should be
inculcated early at age eight or younger. Interestingly, responding to ICT was
considered a characteristic of citizenship that should be imbibed at ages 9 and 10.
However, the ages at which students should be imparted with the requisite skills
such as critical thinking, enhancing the quality of life, sustainable development, and
shared problem- solving of ASEAN-specific difficulties were weighted at age 17
and above. Issues related to critical thinking, quality of life, and sustainable
development were noted as required attributes for high school students; thus, the
awareness of an ASEAN Community appears to be growing in Laos.

6.4.4.3 Questions About Values and Attitudes

Detailed figures are omitted from this section; however, a high percentage of the
respondents were found to react positively to items about including lessons on values
and attitudes in the curricula. Essentially, more than 70% of the respondents answered
that they often dealt with citizenship characteristics related to morality and
national pride, respect for democracy, and deference for culture and tradition. The
analysis of textbooks revealed that moral education, respect for other people, and
respect for human rights were being taught in many classes, and the results of the
survey suggested that the inculcation of pride in Laos’ ASEAN membership has
already
Table 6.6 Citizenship characteristics that should be achieved in a decade and the ages at which students should study the specific

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

features
Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later Q5 The age when the students should study these characteristics
N Completely To some Achieved Not Not at N 8 years 9–10 11–12 13–14 15–16 17 years
(%) extent (%) efficiently all (%) old or years years years years old or
(%) achieved younger old (%) old (%) old (%) old (%) older (%)
(%) (%)
(1) To express 294 28 46 24 2 1 290 16 22 9 14 13 26
opinions on
social
problems
(2) To have 288 37 42 20 2 0 288 27 26 7 12 16 10
self-discipline
and self-
control
(3) To solve 289 35 38 25 1 0 287 19 24 12 12 11 22
problems
(4) To make 287 34 41 22 3 0 283 20 17 16 14 12 19
decisions
(5) To respond 291 34 39 19 8 0 290 18 27 14 13 12 15
to ICT
(6) To make 286 33 43 21 3 0 281 24 11 10 15 11 28
a peaceful
resolution
(7) To 292 34 37 24 5 0 288 11 14 12 17 15 31
think
critically
(8) To 292 33 47 18 2 0 289 13 15 11 16 11 34
improve
quality of life
(continued)

125
Table 6.6 (continued)

126
Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later Q5 The age when the students should study these characteristics
N Completely To some Achieved Not Not at N 8 years 9–10 11–12 13–14 15–16 17 years
(%) extent (%) efficiently all (%) old or years years years years old or
(%) achieved younger old (%) old (%) old (%) old (%) older (%)
(%) (%)
(9) To 292 46 35 17 1 0 289 24 21 13 13 14 15
cooperate with
each other
(10) To 291 32 42 23 2 0 288 14 12 15 14 11 34
develop
sustainably
(11) To 290 35 39 23 2 0 288 20 16 12 11 17 24
contribute to
society
(12) To use 291 29 42 26 1 1 289 35 21 13 11 11 8
foreign
language
(13) To 291 31 40 25 3 1 288 11 17 20 14 17 21
behave in
accordance
with common
rules and

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

values among
ASEAN
countries
(continued)
Table 6.6 (continued)

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later Q5 The age when the students should study these characteristics
N Completely To some Achieved Not Not at N 8 years 9–10 11–12 13–14 15–16 17 years
(%) extent (%) efficiently all (%) old or years years years years old or
(%) achieved younger old (%) old (%) old (%) old (%) older (%)
(%) (%)
(14) To solve 286 30 41 27 1 1 288 9 15 19 15 17 24
common social
problems of
ASEAN
countries with
other people
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

127
128 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

been initiated. The imparting of information on ASEAN members was considered

by respondents to be meaningful, who also asserted that attention should be paid
to possible changes in the education policy.
Table 6.7 outlines the results pertaining to citizenship characteristics that were
regarded as currently achieved and that should be attained in 10 years. These
outcomes indicated that the citizenship features of respect for democracy (39%),
respect for human rights (34%), and self-autonomy (31%) had already been achieved.
Respect for democracy (54%), morality, and pride in the ASEAN membership
were cited as citizenship attributes that should be comprehensively attained in 10
years. The respondents also indicated the desire for an increase in awareness about
ASEAN based on the expectation that the forthcoming integration could stimulate
students to learn more about ASEAN.
The questionnaire administered to students in 2011 was mentioned in the first
half of this chapter as divulging that young students in Laos do not know a lot
about ASEAN countries and globalization. Hence, the specialist respondents of the
Delphi survey expected students to take a greater interest in international
cooperation and other global issues.

6.4.5 Summary of the Delphi Survey

The results of the Delphi survey illuminated two aspects: first, the knowledge and
understanding of citizenship education are currently high, but practical abilities are
under par. One reason could be that classroom pedagogy in Laos is still limited to
unidirectional methods aiming to provide knowledge to students, and mainstream
teaching still predominantly depends on rote memory. In general, students are
good at memorizing study materials to obtain high scores in tests because high-
scoring students are evaluated highly at schools. However, citizenship education
focuses on the improvement of practical abilities; thus, the potential of developing
educational methods that are more young student-centered should be examined to
improve the skills of young students in Laos. Lectures are still the most common
method of imparting regular education in Laos, and students tend to listen
passively during classes. Active classroom learning requires the introduction of
workshops, group work, and other active learning methods. Given the finding of
low ICT-related abili- ties in students, the building of environments conducive to
ICT education and appro- priate teacher training is mandated for students to
receive the requisite level of ICT expertise.
Second, the students of Laos displayed a low level of knowledge and under-
standing of ASEAN countries and foreign languages. Their wish to achieve such
awareness and comprehension after 10 years is also low, indicating a general paucity
of cognizance about ASEAN and other countries. The teaching of English from
the third grade of elementary schools commenced in 2015 in Laos, and textbooks
were subsequently published (MOES, 2018); however, very few young adults can
speak
Table 6.7 The degrees of current achievement and achievements expected in 10 years

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later
at present
N Completely To Achieved Not Not at N Completely To Achieved Not Not at
(%) some (%) efficiently all (%) some (%) efficiently all
extent achieved (%) extent achieved (%)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(1) To face wrong 297 20 50 23 7 0 296 35 44 19 2 0
things and injustice
(2) To preserve 294 21 48 28 3 0 295 40 42 17 1 0
natural resources,
protect the environment,
and have an interest in
its development
(3) To have 291 32 36 26 5 0 287 44 34 19 1 1
self-dependence
(4) To respect 294 31 37 27 5 0 295 44 36 19 1 0
cultural diversity
(5) To place 295 30 43 23 4 0 293 43 34 20 2 1
importance on the law
(6) To promote 295 27 36 31 6 0 295 36 33 27 4 1
international cooperation
(continued)

129
Table 6.7 (continued)

130
Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later
at present
N Completely To Achieved Not Not at N Completely To Achieved Not Not at
(%) some (%) efficiently all (%) some (%) efficiently all
extent achieved (%) extent achieved (%)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(7) To pay attention 293 18 39 36 6 1 292 27 42 29 2 1
to global issues
(8) To respect 295 28 44 22 5 0 295 38 37 23 1 1
tradition and culture
(9) To have morality 291 29 44 24 3 0 294 40 35 23 2 0
and pride as a nation
(10) To respect 293 39 35 21 4 0 292 54 29 15 2 0
democracy
(11) To respect 295 34 36 24 5 1 287 43 35 20 3 0
human rights
(12) To think in a 295 17 42 30 10 0 293 32 42 20 5 0
scientific way and
catch up with the new
science and technology,
(continued)

M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

Table 6.7 (continued)

6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR …

Q3 The degree of achievement of these characteristics Q4 The characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later
at present
N Completely To Achieved Not Not at N Completely To Achieved Not Not at
(%) some (%) efficiently all (%) some (%) efficiently all
extent achieved (%) extent achieved (%)
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(13) To have morality 291 31 40 27 3 0 289 46 34 18 2 1
and pride as a member of
ASEAN
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata (2017), permitted by Toshindo Company

131
132 M. Inui and S. Heuangkeo

English, and the levels of their communicative abilities are also not high. The knowl-
edge and understanding of foreign countries will improve in students as they learn
to speak English with more proficiency. The evaluation and reform of the
currently imparted English curriculum and pedagogy are thus necessary. The
analysis of the questionnaire administered to students revealed their high levels of
knowledge and understanding of ASEAN members; the learning of foreign
languages, in addition to the enhancement of their already acquired knowledge of
ASEAN countries, could be another effective way of ameliorating their potential for
learning foreign languages. The teaching of languages such as Chinese and
Vietnamese that are spoken in neigh- boring countries in addition to English is also
likely to increase the interest of students in the English language and in other
countries. Laos could also create indigenous teaching materials by gaining
inspiration from teaching materials used in Thailand, a neighboring country with a
culture and language similar to that of Laos. Thai education pertaining to ASEAN
is more advanced than its Lao counterpart.
Curricular material and learning guides relating to ASEAN countries have been
published in recent years. Educators in Laos should take the best advantage of
such study material to cater to the high levels of awareness displayed by their
students and to increase their own recognition and morale.

6.5 A Comparison of the Student

Questionnaire and the Delphi Survey

The comparison of the student questionnaire and the Delphi survey indicated two
perspectives.
The first standpoint is globalization. The questionnaire results indicated that
Lao students obtain factual information about ASEAN integration. However, their
recog- nition of the contexts and specific geographies of the member nations is
weak. The Delphi survey also revealed that currently, classroom lectures do not
delve into inter- cultural studies or foreign languages. Moreover, although the
command over the English language was considered important, students evinced
par English abilities according to the Delphi survey. Thus, the curriculum must be
improved to conform to the realities of globalization.
The second viewpoint concerns human development. The student questionnaire
revealed that the Lao students were not good at expressing their opinions or at
criti- cally thinking through issues. The Delphi survey also disclosed that these skills
were not acquired but were considered important. Hence, positive changes in
education policy are mandated based on such research results.
6 Citizenship Education in Lao PDR … 133

6.6 Conclusion: The Future Challenges for

Citizenship Education

This study performed an analysis of school textbooks, a close examination of the

questionnaire administered to young students in 2011, and the outcomes of the
Delphi survey of specialists in relation to the area of education assumed to deal
with citizenship-related issues. A larger picture has emerged through the present
study about the type of people that are sought to be fostered through education.
The current Laos government has announced education that is inclined toward
socialism because it is concerned about excessive overseas influences. At the same
time, however, the government is confronted by circumstances that compel the culti-
vation of human resources capable of handling globalization. A future challenge
of governance relates to the conflicting aspects of globalizing the mindsets of
citizens and promoting socialist ideals. Globalization is unavoidable as Laos
prepares for ASEAN integration. The extant subjects dealing with citizenship
education (moral education and the world around us) have not corresponded
adequately to globaliza- tion. International content is now being initiated in these
subjects but to a limited extent.
Morris et al. (2002) assert that the two movements of globalization and multi-
culturalism offer indications of the desired citizenship characteristics and the roles
that should be discharged by citizenship education. Therefore, internationalism
and diversity will become significant keywords relating to citizenship education in
Asian countries.
The present study concludes that the construction of internally and externally
balanced educational curricula relating to citizenship education and the fostering
of high levels of international awareness in students represent the predominant
chal- lenges confronting citizenship education in Laos in the future. Thus, this
study recommends that these two issues are promptly addressed through a review
and reform of educational policies. In recent years, newspapers and the media
have increasingly begun to address ASEAN members; thus, children in Laos are
now accorded with more opportunities of receiving information relating to
ASEAN. In such circumstances, the international sense and awareness should be
enhanced both through efforts in education and through the aegis of the media and
political agencies. The current educational domain in Laos is mostly lacking in the
appropriate human resources and teaching methodologies that could contribute to
the amelioration of ICT-related skills and a global mindset. The achievement of these
goals will necessi- tate increased research initiatives in teacher training and will
mandate the cultivation of teachers capable of teaching foreign languages. To this
end, it will be expedient to utilize the powers of foreign assistance, ICT education,
and active learning to ensure the fostering of more adept and efficacious teachers.
Chapter 7
Citizenship Education in Malaysia:
Through Surveys on the
Development of Students’ Citizenship
Abilities
and ASEAN Awareness

Masahiro Teshima and Kumaraguru Ramayah

Abstract Since independence, the national integration policy is the biggest chal-
lenge for Malaysia which is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country. Hence,
“Civics”, “Local study” and “History” and the current “Civics and Citizenship Educa-
tion” subjects which contents target the core that is “citizen”= “nation” and “citizen-
ship =
responsibility and rights as the nation” aiming to finally produce “Becoming a
member of Malaysia”, through emphasizing the improvement of national conscious-
ness which targeted to nurture the citizenship related to “National” through
various occasion. The priority element for the image of citizen (nation) can be
considered as:
1. Appreciate the responsibility and moral value as the member (citizen) of each
community.
2. Understand and respect the characteristic of each ethnic’s custom.
3. Have the responsibility to the participation in politics and society, the rights
given and obligation as a Malaysian.
As stressing the “challenges and success towards globalization”, “sustainability
and development of Malaysia as the world recognition country”, etc., it is also
desired to go beyond “National” to achieve multi-layer citizenship in “Regional”,
“Global” and “Universal”. In a sense, the process of forming a Malaysian society
that seeks to “coexist” while recognizing diverse ethnic identities in a multi-ethnic
and multi- cultural complex society can be considered as a “Little ASEAN”.
Therefore, the experience of Malaysia in creating National Integration for a Nation
can be useful to be utilized by ASEAN to create a Regional Integration in the form
of “ASEANness” and “ASEAN citizenship. Therefore, Malaysia is seen as a
country which can take the leadership in ASEAN to create the curriculum of
“experiential and practical

M. Teshima (B)
Faculty of Education, Bunkyo University, 3337, Minami-Ogishima, Koshigaya-shi,
Saitama 343-8511, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Kumaraguru
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, UTM, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, FSSH,
Block 05, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Gove
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, rnanc
e and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_7
135
136 M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

learning approach” and “Active citizenship” by utilizing the common communication

language English and ICT education.

·
Keywords Active citizenship Civics and citizenship education Complex
nation · Little ASEAN · National integration

7.1 Introduction

Since the independence from British in 1957, Malaysia is welcoming the 63rd
anniversary of Independence Day in 2020 with a population of approximately
32.25 million.1 Malaysia is a complex racial country with multiple cultures and
races that consists of Islamic Malays who are known as the Bumiputra (Son of the
land) (about 66%), indigenous Chinese (about 25%), who are mainly Buddhist,
Taoism and Chris- tians followed by Indians (7%) who the majority are Hindu,
Islamic and Christian and others (1%). By the end of World War II, each race was
divided and ruled under the British colonial policy. Consequently, most of the
Malays lived in rural areas, the majority of Indians lived in rubber estates while the
Chinese lived in urban areas. This complex social structure was created from the
co-existence of communities with different cultures and social backgrounds,
within the same nation. It is neces- sary to consider the constitution of such
complex social and the resulting impact when discussing citizenship education in
Malaysia.
After the independence, Malays who were the majority were left behind in the
economy and modernization of education compared to the Chinese and Indian.
In the 1970s, the economic and social gap among the races was increasing. The
Malaysian government attempted to improve the economy and social status of the
Malays through the implementation of the Bumiputra policy which allocated
special priorities to the Malays. In conjunction with the policy, National
Integration Policy was preceded by making the Malay language as the lingua
franca of the Malaysian education system. As a developing independent country, it
was essential to impose the identity of Malaysian citizens on Malay, Chinese and
Indian communities who tend to have a strong sense of belonging among their
respective races. Therefore, “How is it to nurture the consciousness of citizenship,
above the race consciousness” was the indispensable task to consider for citizenship
education in Malaysia.

7.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education:

Overview and New Trend

7.2.1 Concept of Citizen and Citizenship in Malaysia

The “Citizenship” is stated in Malaysia’s Federal Constitution, from Article 14 to

Article 31 and divided into 3 separate Chapters with respect to “The Acquisition
of
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys … 137

Citizenship”, “The Revocation of Citizenship” and “Complement”.2 With

reference to the constitution, the interested party who wishes to be naturalized has to
fulfill some requirements, such as being born within Malaysia territory or spouse to
Malaysian, or, residing in Malaysia for a certain period, has the intention to reside
permanently in Malaysia, has a good personality, able to converse in basic Malay
language, etc. In other words, this regulation prescribes ata variety of people
possess citizenship and concurrently provides the proof and registration of
nationality. “Citizenship” is known as “Kewarganegaraan” in the Malay
language. The word is translated as “member of the country”, where warga means
member and negara means country. From this, citizenship is comprehended as the
privilege and obligation of the member of the country and nation who is attached to
it. Generally, a citizen is defined as a member who involve in politic; a nation is
defined as a member of the country who possess the nationality. However,
“Citizenship” or “Nationality” in Malaysia is identical and “citizen” and “nation”
is considered as a compatible synonym.

7.2.2 History of Citizenship Education

7.2.2.1 Change of Subject to Support Citizenship Education

After the independence from British in 1957, the citizenship education in Malaysia
was in the form of “Civics” which was made compulsory by the Education
Review Committee in Malaysia from primary standard 6 until secondary Form 5
in 1960. From 1983 onward, “Environment and Human (Alam dan Manusia)” was
introduced under the New Primary School Curriculum (KBSR) as the integration
subject that consists of science, history, geography and Health. Later in 1995,
“Environment and Human” was divided into “Science” and “Local Study (Kajian
Tempatan)”. From 1988, the “Local Study” was continued as a “History” subject
in secondary school. The current “Civics and Citizenship Education” was
introduced in 2005.
The content of “Civics”, “Local Study” and “History” that supported the
citizenship education, consists of various cultivates, such as:
1. To develop patriotism.
2. To have tolerance and consideration on religion, race, behavior and custom.
3. Self completion.
4. Attitude and ability to understand and solve social problems, and make a
contribution to the society.
These cultivate promote the participation and contribution towards the
Malaysian society as a member of this complex country by encouraging the public
awareness, establishing identity and suffrage that focus on understanding the
situation of the multi-cultural society.3
In order to foster a society that is patriotic and loyal to the country, pride as a
Malaysia nation, harmony and unity, promote democracy, progressive and
appreci- ation towards the grace of God, the “Local Study”4 in primary school
which is the succession subject of “Civics”, aimed to nurture the children who can
cooperate with
138 M. Teshima and R.
Kumaraguru
each other. The definite objective composed of 10 items becomes the learning content
as the elements of civics to develop consciousness as Malaysian. It begins with the
understanding of the characteristic of multi-cultural multi-ethnic in Malaysia. Subse-
quently, the role and responsibility of family and society members, the privilege as
a nation, as well as the mutual understanding of the culture and religion of each
ethnic, a sense of togetherness among ethnic, family and friends, school life and
public spirit.
Conversely, the New Secondary School Curriculum (KBSM) which was intro-
duced in 1988, aimed to provide an understanding of historical incidents and fostering
of patriotism and loyalty5. In the secondary school level, 5 topics were cited
integrally within the syllabus of the history subject:
1. Pride as Malaysian
2. Loyalty toward the country
3. Integration of nation
4. Discipline
5. Productivity.
However, the efforts of such citizenship education were indicated as a failure
due to the lack of teaching skills and knowledge among the instructors/teachers of
the subject. In addition, both the students and teachers placed high emphasis on
tests and examinations, which lead to the subject solely being taught by
memorizing the historical incidents instead of evaluating the development of
citizenship. Therefore, a clear definition about the value of citizenship that should
be delivered through history was completely missing.6

7.2.2.2 Introduction of New Civics and Citizenship Education

In August 2003, the ministry of education proclaimed the establishment of a new

subject that promote the importance of national unity and patriotism, due to the
increase of necessity for an independent subject that is equivalent to the previous
“Civics” subject.7 By the time, primary and secondary education in Malaysia
intro- duced Islamic Education (Pendidikan Islam) to Malay students; Moral
Education (Pendidikan Moral) to non-Malay (Chinese, Indian, etc.) students at the
same timetable period. However, due to the emphasis on “difference” in identity,
rather than the “common” in a public spirit, it was evident that nation awareness
which goes beyond the ethnic boundary was lacking. Thus, the ministry of
education intended to introduce a new subject for all ethnic to learn their
respective history and culture, as well as enhancing the public awareness. In
August 2004, “Civics and Citizenship Education (Pendidikan Sivik dan
Kewarganegaraan)” was introduced. From 2005 onward, the subject was
introduced to primary school Standard 4 to secondary school Form 1, with 2 periods
per week. The objective of the new subject was to develop an understanding on
the diversity between races, fostering patriotism and national integration among
the children. Pedagogical training for the subject was started by the ministry of
education as well.8
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys … 139

7.2.3 Overview of the Civics and Citizenship Education

7.2.3.1 Objectives and Goals

“Civics and Citizenship Education” became the new subject for primary school Stan-
dard 4 and secondary school Form 1 since 2005. As stated in the introduction,
“Citi- zenship” is translated as “kewarganegaraan” in Malay language. Therefore, it
is clear that this subject was targeted on education related to citizenship and unity
(regarding responsibility and rights). Furthermore, the title of the subject is
known as “ 公 民 教 育 (Citizenship Education)” in Chinese language adaptation
textbook. The word, “公民 (citizen)”, the same as in Malay language, it gives the
meaning of “nation” and “people who have the nationality” that is obliged to the
rights and responsibility defined by the constitution.
Regarding the objective of the subject which is similar to primary school and
secondary school, it is stated as:
As to produce the unity and patriotism citizen who can contribute to the development of Local
society, country and world, Civics and Citizenship Education intended to foster the aware-
ness of individual responsibility and rights, social responsibility, and national consciousness
among the children and students.

By adopting this objective, the 6 topics that are stated below are being learned
at primary schools. Each of the 6 topics is repeated with the same topic on each
school grade, and putting into a higher level of practice with respect to the school
grade.
1. To take care of myself
– My responsibility, Have confidence in myself, Dietary education, Health
management, etc.
2. Family life

– Home and family, Happy family, etc.

3. School and social life

– Rule and responsibility of school life, Appreciation towards teachers, etc.

4. Social and culture of Malaysia

– Understanding the culture (clothes, food culture, lifestyle, etc.) and

religion of the main ethnic, social manners, etc.
5. My homeland Malaysia

– Geography, history, politic, economy, state flags, nature, characteristics

National principle (Rukunegara), national anthem, national flag, a symbol
such as crescent moon that depicts Islamic religion, etc., promote
patriotism via songs, etc.
140 M. Teshima and R.
Kumaraguru
6. The future prospect of the country
– Create better culture together, effort towards success, improvement
through competition, cultivating the IT ability, future creation, etc.
Meanwhile, similar to primary school, 6 topics are established for secondary
school (From 1–5) as well. The learning content at secondary school is focused on
the relationship between an individual with the society, from self-accomplishment to
the challenge of globalization and consciousness towards success, which are based
on the primary school topics but with a broader and thorough scope.
1. Self-accomplishment
– Identity, Resolution of the conflict, Self-improvement, Setting a personal
goal, Humanity that leads to peace, etc.
2. Family relationship
– Happy family, Needs for marriage, Preparation of having a family that
constitutes the country, etc.
3. Life of the community
– Pride towards alma mater, Harmony with other person’s rights,
conservation of environment, Laws and regulations, etc.
4. Multi-cultural heritage of Malaysia
– Tales of each ethnic, Important religious leaders, contributions of diverse
cultures towards society, etc.
5. Sovereign state of Malaysia
– Democratic government, Parliamentary democracy system, self-
completion to sustain the country, etc.
6. Future challenges
– Sustaining peaceful living, challenges and success in globalization, contin-
uous development of Malaysia towards global recognition, etc.

Thus, as a member of the community (nation), the children learn the responsibility
and moral value of citizenship in conjunction with the expansion of concentric society
in the form of “Self→ Family→ School →Region →Country →World”. Likewise,
the characteristic of custom of each ethnic, respect and understanding of various
religion, mutual cooperation among ethnic, realization of the responsibility and rights
as a citizen to take part in politics and society, etc., has become the learning structure
in the syllabus.
Each topic in the textbook is divided into units. Each unit contains the learning
outcomes and numerous activities. The activities required children and students to
do self-exploration, presentation and writing reports, as to deepen the knowledge
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys … 141

stated in the outline. In order to obtain the cognition, skill and value as a citizen, chil-
dren and students are to accomplish 10 periods of hands-on learning activities. The
hands-on learning is known as the “Citizenship Project (Projek
Kewarganegaraan)” for primary school students and “Community Service
(Khidmat Masyarakat)” for secondary school students.
The instructor can decide the suitable project based on the environment,
progress and result of the students. The project is intended to cultivate the problem
solving ability in students through investigation and hands-on experience, e.g.
creating pamphlets about individual health management, campaigns on respecting the
culture, greening and cleaning the school, region and tourism spot, cleaning the
mosque or temple, study of the language and traditional custom of each ethnic, no-
smoking campaign, English advancement campaign, etc.
As the overview of the project illustrates, instead of obtaining knowledge in the
classroom, the project aimed to equip the students with the key competencies that are
needed to improve their quality as a citizen through practical learning and problem
solving.

7.2.3.2 Evaluation

Although there is a system for the evaluation of “Civics and Citizenship

Education”, teachers and instructors are requested to evaluate children and students
from various aspects regarding their knowledge, skills and values.
Therefore, the evaluation should not be judged only by using the examination
results; children and students should be evaluated based on a checklist relating to
the desirable attitude and manner, responsibility as well. This evaluation system is
the succession of the system implemented in the 1980s for science and Local study
after the revision of the curriculum, where the evaluation is completed by
examination results and reports of the citizenship projects.9

7.2.3.3 Analysis of the Content

Each unit’s title and content of the 6 topics from each school grade of the primary
school edition “Civics and Citizenship Education” was analyzed and classified
as “Local”, “National”, “Regional”, “Global” and “Universal”, based on Hirata’s
“Quality of citizenship” table (Table 7.1).
According to the table, the content of the “Civics and Citizenship Education” in
Malaysia corresponds more to “Universal”, “Local” and “National”, compared to
“Regional” and “Global”, as mentioned previously. This can be understood due to
the fact that Malaysia is a complex country.
For instance, “To respect the diversity of social and culture” which is stated in
the table of “Quality of Citizenship”, the intended value and attitude for the rela-
tionship between “cross-cultural understanding” (knowledge) and “co-existence and
co-prosperity with a different cultures” (ability and skill) is corresponding to the
learning content of “4 Social and culture of Malaysia” which emphasizes on the
142 M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

respect and understanding towards culture and custom that generated from ethnic
and religion, is confirmed by the learning content shown as in Table 7.1.
The features here presume to be the strong topic that weigh on the element of
national to foster the mutual understanding of the characteristics and value of each
ethnic’s culture and custom, co-existence and mutual respect among the nations.
However, due to the multinational society and culture, it is noticeable that the learning
content is exceeding the “National” frame, and spread in the “Regional” and
“Global” categories.
Moving to secondary school, learning contents corresponding to “Regional”
and “Global” are eventually increased in all the 6 topics mentioned earlier. As an
example, under topic 3, “Life of the community” contents such as “To respect
other people’s rights” and “Form of identity” and under topic 6 “Future challenges”
contents such as “Safety assurance in the (ASEAN) region”, “International
cooperation” and “Handle global issues” are included.
Thus, it is clear that from the description of the subject’s objective and chronology
of implementation, from the flow of the national integration policy, “Civics and
Citizenship Education” initially targeted providing the learning about the history
and culture of each other and to enhance the public consciousness thru a common
subject. Obviously, the contents related to “National” are strongly reflected. However,
it is inevitable to emphasize on “National” due to the characteristic of Malaysia as
a multinational country. The connection of mutual respect and understanding
among ethnic that starts with the individual, a member of a family, school and
local, a member of country, as well as a member of international society beginning
with ASEAN, depicts the objective of establishment of a multilevel identity. In
other words, in the environment, it is considerably easy to exceed the “National”
and transform into “Regional” and “Global”, even though emphasizes on
“National”.
According to the overview of the “Civics and Citizenship Education” that is
considered to be the core of citizenship education in Malaysia, it is possible to
make these summaries. Firstly, at the primary school level, the main objective is to
learn the basic key competencies as the “citizen” on each level, such as the
“Universal” which includes the general contents of taking good care of self and
family, responsibility, self-realization, and so on; “Local” which is related to the
Knowledge and under- standing concerning the individual, family, school and local
community; “National” which cultivates the knowledge, understanding and
attitude related to the country, through hands-on learning activities. Oppositely,
the content related to “Regional” and “Global” is less. Meanwhile, at the
secondary school level, through the practical learning activities, the quality as the
“citizen” is intended at each dimension from “Universal”, “Local” and “National”
to “Regional” and “Global”.

7.2.3.4 The Leaning Content of ASEAN Relationship

This section will provide an overview of learning content on ASEAN which is

consid- ered to be the representative of “Regional”. For example, content related
to ASEAN
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys … 143

is noticed in the “International relationship with Malaysia” within topic 6—Chal-

lenges for the future, found in the secondary school Form 2 textbook. On that
topic, students are requested to obtain the knowledge and perceptive of the
establishment of ASEAN, chronology, purpose and relationship between Malaysia and
other ASEAN members. However, the content regarding the basic knowledge of
ASEAN and other international organizations is lecture orientated, whereas the
practical activities to achieve the conscious and approach en route to ASEAN
integration, promote the ASEAN identity such as sharing the regional common
rules and viewpoint, sense of belonging towards ASEAN and ASEAN awareness
which alert about the mutual understanding culture, history and civilization, is barely
seen. Additionally, the estab- lishment of ASEAN economic community is being
taught in the geography subject in secondary school Form 4 and 5, but it is also
emphasizing on the theory only.

7.2.3.5 New Trend of Citizenship Education in Malaysia

In June 2019, the Ministry of Education of Malaysia announced a new approach of

teaching on citizenship education. In addition to the subject of “Civics and
Citizen- ship Education”, the Ministry of Education of Malaysia has set up a class
of civics education that integrates multiple subjects across the subject. Civics
education is conducted in schools in an integrated and holistic manner, including
both literacy and practical aspects of the subject. The implementation will take
place inside and outside the classroom involving schools, communities, the private
sector and the ministry.10
Civics education, which was introduced in June 2019, takes up one hour in the
fourth week of every month during the teaching of the Malay Language (Bahasa
Melayu), English, Islamic Education, Moral Education and History subjects as
well as during the assembly and co-curricular activities.
In the case of pre-schools, pupils will be taught civics education for 30 min, as
well as during the assembly and co-curricular activities.
A module for civics education has been created with an example of this theme,
a manual on school construction and noble practices, and a manual on civics education
practices in the curriculum to help teachers conduct civics education. Several
groups in the private sector are also moving forward to help promote the civics
values taught in schools, and these practices are being promoted outside schools.
Civics education aims to help citizens learn about their rights, responsibilities
and moral values and contribute to the well-being of their communities and
nations. Students will learn integrity, trust, diligence and discipline, hate
corruption, power abuse and bullying, the importance of appreciating the less able
group and having mutual respect for our differences, unity and love for the
country.
However, some schools do the practical civics education classes twice a month,
30 min each, while other schools switch to exam subject classes. In other words,
although the Ministry of Education of Malaysia is trying to move “Civics and Citizen-
ship Education” away from classroom-based knowledge-based lessons into practical
learning activities, the gap in awareness among schools seems to be still large.
144 M. Teshima and R.
Kumaraguru
7.3 Analysis of the Results of Questionnaire
Survey to Students

The result and analysis of the survey on children and students related to
citizenship education are described in Morishita’s study. The survey is carried out
between 16– 23, July 2011, in Putrajaya and Johor Bahru, among a total of 699
students comprising of 229 primary school Standard 6 students, 299 secondary
school Form 3 students,
165 Form 5 students and 6 from unknown institutions.
(1) Part 1—Questions related to citizenship
First, regarding “Importance of learning about the history at each level”, by
comparing the average of 4 selections, with “very important” counts as 4 points,
while “not important at all” counts as 1 point, the result obtained is “About the ethnic
history” 2.8 points, “About the Malaysia history” 3.6 points, “About the ASEAN
history” 3.1 points and “About the world history” 3.4 points. “About the Malaysia
history” obtained the highest score, followed by “About the world history”. This
shows the same pattern for the “Importance of culture” as well. History of ethnic and
ASEAN shows relatively low scores as well. In other words, the National
Integration Policy which aims to break the boundary among ethnics in Malaysia
emphasizes on “National” and “Global” is reflected in the result, that national
history and world history are more important than ASEAN history and ethnic
history.
In addition, on “Citizenship-related keyword”, the frequently heard keyword
such as “environment” 3.9 points, “peace” 3.8 points, “development” 3.7 points,
“Helping each other” 3.6 points, and 3.5 points for “Sustainable development”,
“Human rights”, “Cross-cultural understanding” and “Democracy”, achieve high
percentage. This trend may be a representation of the learning process which goes
in the order from “Local”, “National”, “Regional”, and “Global” to “Universal”.
However, “Living together” depicts a relatively low score of 2.8, although the
signif- icance of living together is being taught and needed in daily routine in
Malaysia as a multinational country. The reason for this result is that the concept
of “Living together” is not mentioned, the students might have answered without
putting too much thought into that matter.
In the survey on “Whether the Active citizenship is attached or not”, questions
such as investigating various social problems (2.5 points) and having opinions (3.0
points) things considered serious and who actually gives opinion (2.1 points) and
taking action in order to solve the problem (1.9 points) is relatively low, as the
ratio shows that majority answered “not too much” or “total not”. To be exact, the
result shows that, Active citizenship is not achieved, but is still progressing.
Furthermore, at the “Regional” and “Global” levels, the importance of English as the
communication tool for mutual understanding is considered to be important
(97.7%), with 55.3% feeling that it is “very important”, and 42.4% for
“important”.
For the question concerning “Which you think is important”, it shows that “World
peace” (56.5%) > “Conscious and pride as Malaysian” (35.1%) > “Protect the
tradition and culture of ASEAN region” (28.6) > “Local tradition and culture at
the place you live” (24.9), which is in the sequence of “Global” > “National” >
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys … 145

“Regional” > “Local”. However, for the selection of “The most important thing”,
items related to ASEAN obtained very little “most important” response, whereas
“Identity of ASEAN” received zero response. From the perspective of ASEAN
inte- gration, ASEAN awareness and ASEAN identity, it shows considerably
unreliable results.
(2) Part 2—Questions regarding various ASEAN countries
Firstly, in “Position of various ASEAN countries on the map” children and
students achieve relatively high correct answers for Singapore (91.7%), Brunei
(88.6%), Indonesia (88.2%), Thailand (84.8%) and the Philippines (60.5%), for
the country which are considered to be at the same or higher level of development
compared to Malaysia. However, more than half of the students were unable to
answer the ques- tions correctly for developing countries such as Myanmar
(46.4%), Laos (42.0%), Vietnam (41.4%) and Cambodia (38.1%), as the students
shows less consciousness towards these countries even they are part of the ASEAN.
Result also shows the same outcomes for the question concerning “Level of
knowledge towards each ASEAN country”.
Moreover, the correct ratio for the “Meaning of ASEAN flag” achieved 56.9%
for “Not sure” and 21.3% for “Do not know”. Furthermore, for “Year of ASEAN
established (1967)” only 18.1% obtained the correct answer and for “Targeted
year of unification for ASEAN (2015)” only 3.9% had the correct answer, which
sadly is the lowest among the 8 countries. In other words, the basic knowledge
about various ASEAN countries that should be learned in school is not truly
attached to the students. Besides, children and students believe that the knowledge
about the ASEAN community that they learned in school is someway deviated
from what is shown in mass media such as television, internet, news, etc.
Therefore, the response for “Want to know more about ASEAN” attained 86.0%
for “Highly agree” and “Agree” collectively. Awareness on the importance of the
regional connection in ASEAN is relatively high with 95.3% agreeing that it is
beneficial for Malaysia to be a member of ASEAN, and 90.8% believed that being
part of ASEAN is beneficial to them. Meanwhile, “Awareness, affection and pride
as the ASEAN citizen” achieve 86.8%, and “ASEAN identity” achieves 82.0%.
From the response, it is aware that the significance of the ASEAN correlation is
obscured; this suggested that the linking of knowledge about various ASEAN
countries that learned in school and the actual ASEAN correlation is poor due to the
influence teaching and method of learning that emphasize on examination and
knowledge.

7.4 Analysis of the Results of Delphi Survey:

Citizenship Education of 10 Years Later

The aim of the research was to clarify, what citizenship characteristics are required for
students in ASEAN countries. Findings of this paper were derived from Malaysian
experts on education, in the 1st Delphi survey where 99 experts responded on July
146 M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

2012, and in the 2nd survey where 66 experts responded on January 2013. Among
the respondents were social studies teachers, school administrators/inspectors, and
college and university lecturers. Data gathered were analyzed using SPSS
program. The objectives were to (a) elucidate the perception of Malaysian experts
on the citizenship characteristics they achieved at present and those expected to be
achieved 10 years later, (b) report important citizenship characteristics, all in the
domains of knowledge/understanding and the skill/ability, they dealt with in their
classes and research, as well as the appropriate age of students to start learning these
characteris- tics, (c) reveal the present achievement on their ASEAN literacy, and
characteristics
anticipated to be achieved 10 years later.
The following point has become clear from the results of these investigations:
Importance of each topic on “citizenship” and the level of achievement, Malaysian
education experts showed higher average scores overall for both the present and
10 years later, but the score for the topics of ASEANness awareness are relatively
low.
The same trend can also be seen in the Comparison of Weighted Average of
Questions on Knowledge and understanding (Table 7.2), on Skills and abilities (Table
7.3) and on Values and attitudes (Table 7.4). Frames that are shaded in Tables 7.2,
7.3 and 7.4 are the frames where the values of the upper (B), (C) and (D) or lower
(A) are shown than the average values in each table.
First, in Table 7.2 (Knowledge and understanding), compare the results of “Q3:
The degree of achievement of these characteristics at present (A)” and “Q4: The
characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)”.
“Achievement of current (A)” for Q3, the average is 3.42 points, for the item
“(12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries” the average is 2.91 and for
item “(11) ASEAN history and Culture” the average stands at 2.92.
On the other hand, “achievement of 10 years later (B)” for Q4, the average is
4.53 points, the highest average seen for both “(2) Co-existence and living
together” and “(3) Different cultures” at 4.71. The same trend is also visible in the
following Q4: “(1) Environment (4.68)”, “(4) Social justice and equity (4.65)”,
“(7) Interdependence
(4.59)”, “(6) Sustainable development (4.58)”, and “(5) Democracy (4.55)” which
are all above the average points.
In addition, for “Q2: The significance of this characteristic (C)” the average stands
at 3.43 which is substantially equal to the height of the degree of achievement in
the Q3 as “present” but lower than 4.53 in the Q4 “10 years later”.
From these results of “(B)-(A)” as “The gap between present and future (D)”
(mean 1.12), the topics related to ASEANness as “(12) Common social problems
of ASEAN countries”, it resulted in the largest 1.42, and “(11) ASEAN history
and Culture” is 1.41. In other words, it can be seen that the level of achievement
in the nurturing of the ASEANness in citizenship consciousness is still considered
relatively low at present.
Second, in Table 7.3 (Skills and abilities), compare the results of “Q3: The degree
of achievement of these characteristics at present (A)” and “Q4: The
characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)”. “Achievement of
current (A)” for Q3, the average is 3.37 points, for the item “(13) To behave in
accordance with common
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys … 147

rules and values among ASEAN countries” the average is 2.86 and for item “(12)
To use foreign language” the average stands at 2.92.
On the other hand, “achievement of 10 years later (B)” for Q4, the average is
4.33 points, the highest average seen for “(1) To express opinions on social
problems”, “(3) To solve problems”, and “(4) To make decisions” at 4.42.
The same trend is also visible in the following Q4: “(2) To have self-discipline
and self- control (4.38)”, “(5) To respond to ICT (4.35)”, “(6) To make a peaceful
resolution (4.35)”, “(10) To develop sustainably (4.35)”, and “(9) To cooperate with
each other (4.33)” which are all above the average points.
In addition, for “Q2: The significance of this characteristic (C)” the average stands
at 3.28 which is substantially equal to the height of the degree of achievement in
the Q3 as “present” but lower than 4.33 in the Q4 “10 years later”.
From these results of “(B)-(A)” as “The gap between present and future (D)”
(mean 0.96), the topics of related to ASEANness as “(13) To behave in
accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries”, it has
resulted in the largest point 1.32.
Third, in Table 7.4 (Values and attitudes), compare the results of “Q3: The degree
of achievement of these characteristics at present (A)” and “Q4: The
characteristics that should be achieved 10 years later (B)”. “Achievement of
current (A)” for Q3, the average is 3.19 points, for the item “(12) To think in a
scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology” the average is
2.79 and for item “(13) To have morality and a pride as a member of ASEAN” the
average stands at 2.74.
On the other hand, “achievement of 10 years later (B)” for Q4, the average is
4.28 points, the highest average seen for “(3) To have self-dependence” at 4.39,
“(6) To promote international cooperation” at 4.36. Then, “(2) To preserve natural
resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its development” and
“(4) To respect cultural diversity” are both at 4.33. Then “(1) To face wrong
things and injustice” and “(8) To respect tradition and culture”, at 4.30 which are
all above the average points.
In addition, for “Q2: The significance of this characteristic (C)” the average stands
at 3.29 which is substantially equal to the height of the degree of achievement in
the Q3 as “present” but lower than 4.28 in the Q4 “10 years later”.
From these results of “(B)-(A)” as “The gap between present and future (D)”
(mean 1.09), the topics of related to ASEANness as “(12) To think in a scientific
way and catch up with the new science and technology” is 1.41, and “(13) To have
morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” is 1.36.
A comparison of the results of “Knowledge and understanding (Table 7.2)”,
“Skills and abilities (Table 7.3)” and “Values and attitudes (Table 7.4)” reveals
almost the same tendency. This means, regarding Knowledge and understanding,
skills and abilities, Values and attitudes on the topic of ASEANness, the achieve-
ment at present is also thought to be relatively low, and there are relatively large
gaps between the present achievement and the expectations of 10 years later. This
result may suggest that the syllabuses require more improvement strategies such as
materials and curriculum development for the ASEANness studies.
148 M. Teshima and R. Kumaraguru

However, this result does not mean that Malaysia is not putting greater
emphasis on ASEAN. It is that when compared with other topics, such as the co-
existence between ethnic groups, environmental issues, understanding of different
cultures and fairness and social justice, the priority for ASEAN and ASEANness
are relatively lower.

7.5 Comparative Analysis of Two Surveys

In the case of Malaysia, from the Knowledge and understanding section;

“Common social problems of ASEAN countries”, “ASEAN history and culture”,
“Human rights”, in the Skills and abilities; “To behave in accordance with
common rules and values among ASEAN countries”, “To use foreign language”,
“To contribute to society”, and in the Values and attitudes section; “To think in a
scientific way and catch up with the new science and technology”, “To respond to
various items such as have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN”, these
topics are considered to be that which are the most important urgent issues.
As mentioned in the previous Section 4, from the 697 elementary and junior
high school Malaysian students’ questionnaires collected in 2011, we found that
the learning for the knowledge and awareness on “Regional” related to ASEAN is
weaker compared to topics such as “Global” and “Universal”. However, the
awareness of students is relatively high for the item, importance on themselves
and Malaysia’s relations with ASEAN.
In the context of content related to ASEAN, elements such as the establish-
ment year, history, aim and cooperation among ASEAN countries and Malaysia
are expected to be included in the related syllabus. But in reality, in the Malaysian
education system, only the acquisition of basic knowledge about ASEAN and
other member countries is emphasized.
Generally greater importance is given towards nation building and not much
learning activities included on ASEAN integration, “ASEAN identity” or mutual
understanding about the histories, cultures and civilizations of ASEAN countries.
The challenges for the Malaysian Education system will be the development
and enhancement of learning experience approaches and its practicality, such as
linking the skills and knowledge learned in school to the real world. Cultivating the
awareness of “Active citizenship” for example, actively interested in social
problems, thinking about them and being able to act by themselves on problem
solving are elements thought to be major challenges for the future of Malaysia. In
addition, the ASEAN member countries understanding each other more about the
society and culture of each country is essential towards ASEAN integration.
For this purpose, the use of international understanding education would also
be an effective means. For example, to perform a distance learning that connects
each classroom between Malaysia to Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar and
so on with the help of ICT (Information and Communication Technology),
learning dissimilarity and commonalities of culture and society of each other,
and discuss
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys … 149

common issues be, is not means impossible in modern society. The common language
of a time like this is going to be probably English.
Thus, in all ASEAN countries, including Malaysia, the development of
education curriculum in order to proceed more smoothly towards ASEAN
integration and training of teachers who can implement such lessons remain a
pressing issue exactly.

7.6 Conclusion: Recommendation of Model of Citizenship

Education and Achieve the Citizenship that Go
Beyond “National”

In a sense, the process of forming a Malaysian society that seeks to “coexist”

while recognizing diverse ethnic identities in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural
complex society can be considered as a “Little ASEAN”. Therefore, the
experience of Malaysia in creating “National integration” for the nation can be
useful to be utilized by ASEAN to create a “Regional integration” in the form of
“ASEANness” and “ASEAN citizenship”. Accordingly, Malaysia can be seen as a
country which can take the leadership in ASEAN to create the curriculum of
“experiential and practical learning approach” and “Active citizenship” by utilizing
the common communication language English and ICT education.
As mentioned repetitively, since the independence national integration policy is
the biggest challenge for Malaysia which is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country.
Hence, “Civics”, “Local study” and “History” and the current “Civics and Citizenship
Education” subjects contents target the core that is “citizen”= “nation” and “citizen-
ship =
responsibility and rights as the nation” aiming to finally produce “Becoming a
member of Malaysia”, through emphasizing the improvement of national conscious-
ness which targeted to nurture the citizenship related to “National” through the
various occasion. The priority element for the image of citizen (nation) can be
considered as:
1. Appreciate the responsibility and moral value as the member (citizen) of each
community.
2. Understand and respect the characteristic of each ethnic’s custom.
3. Have the responsibility to the participation in politics and society, the rights
given and obligation as a Malaysian.
As stressing the “challenges and success towards globalization”, “sustainability
and development of Malaysia as the world recognition country”, etc., it is also desired
to go beyond “National” to achieve multi-layer citizenship in “Regional”,
“Global” and “Universal”.
However, if the result of the questionnaire is studied collectively on how much
the level of “citizenship” which exceeds the “National” in actual is obtained, it
can be said that compared to the “Global” and “Universal” which has achieved
the target, knowledge and awareness regarding the ASEAN-related “Regional” is
150 M. Teshima and R.
Kumaraguru
apparently poor. From the perspective of ASEAN awareness and ASEAN identity
towards the integration of ASEAN, this result is not promising. Therefore, since
the significance of the relationship with ASEAN is important to Malaysia as a
whole and as an individual, teaching and learning should not only be restricted to
classroom learning; substantial experience and hands-on learning approaches that
correlate the knowledge attained from school with the actual community are
considered greatly necessary.
Furthermore, it can be stressed that the development of “Active citizenship” should
not only focus on the knowledge of “citizenship”. The capability and progressive
attitude on what an individual can perform towards the community as a “citizen”
at family, school, local area, national and ASEAN levels will be the main
challenge in the future.

Notes

1. Department of Statistics Malaysia Official Portal. (2020). The Sauce

of Malaysia’s Official Statistics, https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php,
Accessed March 18, 2020.
2. Abdul Aziz Bari, Farid Sufian Shuaib. (2004). Constitution of Malaysia Text
and Commentary Revised Edition, Prince Hall Sprintprint, pp. 43–63.
3. Ministry of Education. (1979). Report of the Cabinet Committee on the
imple- mentation of Education, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan
Pustaka, p. 13.
4. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (1994–1996). Kurikulum Bersepadu
Sekolah Rendah Kajian Tempatan Tahun 4–6, Pusat Perkembangan
Kurikulum, (Ministry Education Malaysia. (1994-1996). Primary School
Integrated Curriculum for Local Studies 4-6 years, Curriculum
Development Centre) p.4.
5. Ministry of Education. (1988). History for Lower Secondary School, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, p. 5.
6. Anuar Ahmad. (2004). The Making of a ‘Good Citizen’ in Malaysia: Does
History Education Play a Role? W. O. Lee, David L. Grossman, Kerry J.
Kennedy and Gregory P. Fairbrother. (Eds.). Citizenship Education in Asia
and the Pacific Concepts and Issues, Comparative Education Research Centre,
The University Hong Kong, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 207–209.
7. Nangoku Shinbun. (2003). 21 August, 2003.
8. New Straits Times/Nation. (2004). 18 August, 2004.
9. Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2007).
Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah, Sukatan Pelajaran, Pendidikan
Sivik dan Kewarganegaraan, (Curriculum Develop Centre, Ministry of Educa-
tion Malaysia. (2007). Middle School Integrated Curriculum, Syllabus,
Civic and citizenship Education), p. 10.
10. Education minister. (2019). Civics Education to be Introduced in Malaysia
Schools in Integrated, Holistic Manner, Malay Mail, 13 August, 2019,
https:// www.malaymail.com/ March 18, 2020.
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys … 151

Appendix

See Tables 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4.

Table 7.1 Primary year 4–6 “Civics and Citizenship Education” content and classification
Theme Year Unit Classification
1 Self value 4 U1 Self recognition Universal
U2 Self health management
5 U1 Life with rules Universal
U2 Importance of time management
6 U1 Child’s right and responsibility Universal
2 Family life 4 U3 Family recognition Local/Universal
5 U3 Responsibility at home Local/Universal
U4 Extension of family relationships
6 U2 Family’s belief and religious belief Local/Universal
3 School and society 4 U4 School community Local/Universal
life 5 U5 Knowing our neighbors Local/Universal
U6 Life of the community
6 U3 Responsibility towards environment Local/National/
U4 Preserving clean and comfortable environment Universal
U5 Role of local government organization
4 Malaysian society 4 U5 Recognition and understanding of Malaysian National
and culture cultural heritage (Regional/Global)
U6 Understanding of culture and etiquette of
Malaysia society
5 U7 Enjoy Malaysian cultural heritage National
U8 Etiquette in Malaysian society (Regional/Global)
6 U6 Recognition and understanding of rich Malaysia National
culture (Regional/Global)
U7 Responsibility in protecting Malaysian cultural
heritage
5 Our motherland 4 U7 Know about Malaysia National
Malaysia U8 Proud as a citizen (Regional)
5 U9 Our country’s politics and administrative system National
U10 Know and respect country leaders (Regional)
6 U8 Country’s proud historians National
U9 Responsibility of protecting Country’s (Regional)
independence
6 Future 4 U9 Creation of excellent future culture National
development of (Regional/Global)
country 5 U11 Individuality esteem and their features National
(Regional/Global)
6 U10 Active and healthy life National
(Regional/Global)
Created by Teshima and Kumaraguru based on: Year 4–6 Sekolah Kebangsaan Text Books, Pendidikan Sivik dan
Kewarganegaraan, Panel Penulis Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan
Pustaka, 2004
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo Company
152 M. Teshima and R.
Kumaraguru
Table 7.2 Comparison of weighted average of questions on knowledge and understanding
Q3: Q4: Q2:

Questions The degree of The The The gap

achievement characteristics significance of between

Topics of this that should be this present and

characteristics achieved 10 characteristics future

at present years later "(B)-(A)"

(A) (B) (C) (D)

(1) Environment 3.77 4.68 3.65 0.91

(2) CoeXistence and living

3.83 4.71 3.74 0.87
together

(3) Different cultures 3.77 4.71 3.71 0.93

(4) Social justice and equity 3.58 4.65 3.56 1.07

Knowledge and understanding

(5) Democracy 3.61 4.55 3.64 0.94

(6) Sustainable development 3.53 4.58 3.53 1.05

(7) Interdependence 3.42 4.59 3.44 1.17

(8) Foreign language 3.26 4.42 3.23 1.17

(9) Social welfare 3.33 4.45 3.29 1.12

(10) Human rights 3.08 4.41 3.33 1.33

(11) ASEAN history and culture 2.92 4.33 3.05 1.41

(12) Common social problems of

2.91 4.33 3.05 1.42
ASEAN countries
Sum 41.03 54.42 41.22 13.39
Average 3.42 4.53 3.43 1.12

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys … 153

Table 7.3 Comparison of weighted average of questions on skills and abilities

Q3: Q4: Q2:

Questions The degree of The The The gap

achievement of characteristics significance of between

Topics this that should be this present and

characteristics achieved 10 characteristics future

at present years later "(B)-(A)"

(A) (B) (C) (D)

(1) To eXpress opinions on social

3.71 4.42 3.41 0.71
problems
(2) To have self-discipline and self-
3.65 4.38 3.39 0.73
control

(3) To solve problems 3.65 4.42 3.47 0.78

(4) To make decisions 3.65 4.42 3.38 0.78

(5) To respond to ICT 3.62 4.35 3.33 0.73

(6) To make a peaceful resolution 3.48 4.35 3.35 0.87

(7) To think critically 3.39 4.29 3.36 0.89

Skills and
abilities

(8) To improve quality of life 3.37 4.32 3.33 0.95

(9) To cooperate with each other 3.32 4.33 3.41 1.02

(10) To develop sustainably 3.20 4.35 3.27 1.15

(11) To contribute to society 3.02 4.26 3.20 1.24

(12) To use foreign language 2.92 4.18 3.06 1.26

(13) To behave in accordance with
common rules and values among 2.86 4.18 2.98 1.32
ASEAN countries
(14) To solve common social
problems of ASEAN countries NA NA 2.92 NA
with other people
Sum 43.83 56.26 45.88 12.43
Average 3.37 4.33 3.28 0.96

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company
154 M. Teshima and R.
Kumaraguru
Table 7.4 Comparison of weighted average of questions on values and attitudes
Q3: Q4: Q2:

Questions The degree of The The The gap

achievement of characteristics significance of between

Topics this that should be this present and

characteristics achieved 10 characteristics future

at present years later "(B)-(A)"

(A) (B) (C) (D)

(1) To face wrong things and injustice 3.45 4.30 3.33 0.85

(2) To preserve natural resources,

protect the environment, and have an 3.41 4.33 3.42 0.92
interest in its development

(3) To have self-dependence 3.47 4.39 3.26 0.92

(4) To respect cultural diversity 3.47 4.33 3.32 0.86

(5) To place importance on the law 3.29 4.27 3.35 0.98

(6) To promote international

3.23 4.36 3.32 1.14
cooperation
Values and
attitudes

(7) To pay attention to global issues 3.26 4.30 3.29 1.04

(8) To respect tradition and culture 3.24 4.30 3.36 1.06

(9) To have morality and pride as a

3.08 4.23 3.33 1.15
nation

(10) To respect democracy 3.08 4.27 3.27 1.20

(11) To respect human rights 2.95 4.18 3.26 1.23

(12) To think in a scientific way and

catch up with the new science and 2.79 4.20 3.18 1.41
technology

(13) To have morality and pride as a

2.74 4.11 3.03 1.36
member of ASEAN
Sum 41.46 55.59 42.73 14.13
Average 3.19 4.28 3.29 1.09

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company
7 Citizenship Education in Malaysia: Through Surveys … 155

Chapter 8
Citizenship Education in Myanmar:
Developing Global Citizens

Toshifumi Hirata and Minoru Morishita

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to examine what kind of citizenship

Myanmar is trying to develop through its new educational reform, to clarify what
kind of citizenship students actually have, and to consider what kind of citizenship
education should be provided in the future. Currently, Myanmar is undergoing a
major educational reform; the National Education Law promulgated in 2015 and
the National Curriculum Framework enacted the same year have systematically
increased the duration of basic education from 11 to 12 years. The following
points are particularly noteworthy regarding the development of the new
curriculum. First, it aims to develop good citizens with critical thinking,
communication, and social skills. Second, it seeks to develop global citizens who
are aware of human diversity and capabilities and who have a basic understanding
of peace in their daily lives. From a questionnaire survey of students regarding
citizenship, the following issues were identified:
(1) In the area of “Knowledge and understanding,” there is a lack of
achievement in the subsets of “environment,” “peace,” “different cultures,”
“sustainable development,” and “interdependence.”
(2) In the area of “Skills and abilities,” there is a lack of achievement in “for-
eign language” (English) and “coexistence with different cultures and ethnic
groups,” which are characteristics unique to Myanmar.
(3) In the area of “Values and attitudes,” national morality and national pride
ranked low among ASEAN countries, particularly in the area of ASEAN-related
char- acteristics, and it became clear that a lack of knowledge and
understanding of ASEAN-related issues was a concern.
Accordingly, in the ongoing educational reform, it is necessary to develop
curricula and teaching materials related to these characteristics.

T. Hirata (B)
Faculty of Education, Oita University, Oita City 870-1192,
Japan e-mail: [email protected]
M. Morishita
Faculty of Marine Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2-1-6,
Etchujima, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8533,
Japan e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Gove
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, rnanc
e and
Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_8
157
158 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

·
Keywords Citizenship education Global citizen National curriculum
framework · Twenty-first-century skills

8.1 Introduction: The Present System of

Citizenship Education

In our study, we planned to conduct a survey on citizenship consciousness among

students and a Delphi survey among experts on social studies and citizenship
educa- tion (social studies teachers, school principals, educational supervisors,
university citizenship education professors, and PTA heads, presidents, or
representatives). We decided to collaborate with a Myanmar co-researcher and lecturer
at the University of Yangon, Sai Khaing Myo Tun (Ph.D.). With the cooperation of Dr.
Sai, we were able to conduct a survey on the consciousness of citizenship education
among school chil- dren, although the survey has not yet been fully implemented.
Unfortunately, we were unable to conduct a Delphi survey for intellectuals, primarily
because of the political situation. In this chapter, we will first examine the policies,
systems, educational content, and recent trends in educational reforms related to
citizenship education in Myanmar, a member of the ASEAN Community, based
on existing survey reports. Afterward, the results of a survey on student attitudes
toward citizenship education will be analyzed and discussed.

8.1.1 Historical Changes in Myanmar’s Education

Myanmar’s history as a country dates back to the fifth century AD, and it seems
that education has been valued there since ancient times. In Myanmar, a Buddhist
country like neighboring Thailand, there is a long history of temple education,
traditionally conducted in Buddhist temples where children learn reading, writing,
and arithmetic from monks. This indicates that both literacy and level of education
were quite high in those days.
Modern education was first implemented during British rule in the latter half of
the nineteenth century. The basic framework of the education system was estab-
lished then, and the education system that was implemented in India at that time
was introduced.
After the British colonial period (1886–1947) and the Japanese occupation (1942–
1945), the country regained its independence in 1948. First, the basic policy principle
of Burmese socialism was “not to worry about the poor, but to worry about the
unequal” (Kojima, 2014, p. 82). The prevailing idea was that “only by
exterminating the exploitation of people by people and establishing a socialist
economic system based on justice can we free ourselves from social evils and
reach a society that is healthy and prosperous in body and mind” (Kojima, 2014,
p. 83). The Burma Basic
8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens 159

Education Law of 1973 stipulates education under such an economic system. The
objectives of this education are as follows:
(1) To turn people into physical and mental workers, well equipped with basic
education, health, and moral qualities.
(2) To create a population with sufficient understanding, loyalty, and confidence
in the ideology of Burmese socialism to be qualified to build and defend a
socialist society.
(3) To lay the foundation for appropriate vocational education and training to be
expanded as appropriate stages are established and maintained in a socialist
society.
(4) To prioritize the science that contributes to increasing productivity and
making productivity more effective.
(5) To give priority to the study of art for the protection and development of culture,
art, and literature.
(6) To lay a solid educational foundation for the pursuit of university education.
(Kojima, 2014, p. 85)
Burmese socialism ended with the democratization movement in 1988, and the
country was temporarily ruled by an interim military government. The next major
educational reform in Myanmar under this regime took place in 1998. In that year,
a wide range of educational reforms were implemented, including the revision of
the primary education curriculum (Masuda, 2010).
In the course of these reforms, science was revived, a subject similar to
Japanese integrated learning was established, and geography and history were
reorganized into social studies. In the classroom, a child-centered approach was
adopted in which the children learned independently. A teacher training system
was also introduced, promoting the training of qualified teachers (Kojima, 2014,
pp. 91–100).
After the promulgation of the new constitution in 2008, Myanmar began to develop
a new curriculum for the transition to a 12-year system of basic education, and a
curriculum framework emphasizing the acquisition of “twenty-first century skills”
was approved in May 2015 (Tanaka, 2017, pp. 325–344; Wint Zaw Htet, 2020,
pp. 37–45). With the creation of the ASEAN Community at the end of 2015, a
major challenge was how to keep pace with other ASEAN countries, how to fulfill
responsibilities as member states, and how to build “education for ASEANness” (see
Chap. 2).

8.1.2 School System Structure

Since 2004, the basic education system in Myanmar has consisted of 5 years of
primary school education (grades 1–5, ages 5–9), 4 years of lower secondary
educa- tion (grades 6–9, ages 10–13), and 2 years of upper secondary education
(grades 10–11, ages 14–15). In total, the basic education program was 11 years
(Kojima, 2014, p. 91; Tanaka, 2017, p. 28). According to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of
160 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

Japan, the school enrollment rate in Myanmar as of 2017 was 86.4% for primary
schools, 63.5% for lower secondary schools, and 32.1% for upper secondary schools
(Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 2020). Compulsory education has been free
for 5 years at the primary level; lower secondary schools were also made free in
2014 (Tanaka, 2015, p. 243). The enrollment rate in higher education institutions
was 10.7% in 2007 (Mizuno, 2010, pp. 22–25).

8.1.3 Curriculum Structure and Social Studies Curriculum

In Myanmar, a curriculum based on child-centeredness was introduced in the 1998

education reform. The pro-democracy movement broke out in 1988, and although
Ne Win was deposed as head of state, the military eventually reentered politics
and ended the pro-democracy movement. The military government abandoned the
socialist economic system and revised the curriculum to be more child-centered.
As a result, the subjects of geography and history were combined, and a new
course, “social studies,” was introduced in the third and fourth grades of primary
school. The goals of the newly introduced social studies course were as follows:
(Grades 3 and 4)
– Promoting awareness and understanding of the natural features of the country and
the lives of its people
– Strengthening the spirit of patriotism and nationalism and the will to preserve
independence. (Kojima, 2014, pp. 112–113, Authors’ translation)
In other words, the ultimate goals converged on the strengthening of the “spirit
of patriotism” and the emphasis on the “spirit of nationalism.” As for the content
of social studies, the third grade consisted of 33 units, and the fourth grade
consisted of 55 units. These units consisted of four components: geography,
history, moral civics, and life skills (Kojima, 2014, p. 116).

8.1.4 Citizenship Education: Developing Citizens

For social studies, a teacher’s manual (fourth grade) was prepared. In the manual,
the following aims were stated for the cultivation of patriotism and nationalism:
– To understand the nature of the country and its lifestyle.
– To strengthen the spirit of patriotism and nationalism and the will to preserve
independence.
– To cultivate the morals of a good citizen who is well-behaved and loyal (obedient).
– To adapt to the environment and learn good basic habits. (Kojima, 2014, pp. 112–
113, 2015, p. 25)
8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens 161

According to Hirata, “in the Myanmar curriculum, we can find descriptions related
to citizenship education in social studies.” In other words, as shown in the
teacher’s manual, the section on the “morality of being a good citizen” is deeply
related to citizenship education. This appears to be the first time in the history of
education in Myanmar that the concept of “citizen” has appeared (Hirata, 2017, p.
160).

8.2 New Trends in Educational Reform and

Citizenship Education

A research report on the latest educational reforms in Myanmar education has recently
been published by Tanaka (2017) in Japan, entitled “Education in Myanmar.”
The data and information reported by Tanaka were valuable for our research. In
Myanmar, educational surveys by foreigners are extremely restricted, and we were
unable to obtain permission to conduct a survey for our project; however, Tanaka
obtained data that is normally difficult to obtain and analyze. Thus, his book provides
a valuable reference. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him.
Tanaka analyzes and discusses the four major reforms currently being
promoted in Myanmar: (1) school system, (2) educational administration, (3)
curriculum, and
(4) teacher training.
Tanaka also cites two recent educational reforms that require special atten-
tion: the promulgation of the National Education Law in 2015 and the passage of
the curriculum framework for basic education. These two reforms are invaluable
resources for our research.
Regarding the Basic Education Curriculum Framework, Tanaka (2017) highlights
the following:
The first major feature of this system is that it comprehensively covers a total of 13 years
of education from kindergarten education (KG) to grade 12 as the basic education
program. In addition, the country’s current school system of 5-4-2 (11 years) and the age
range from 5–15 years has been changed to KG+12 (KG-5-4-3), and the age range has
been expanded from 5–17 years. The second feature is the emphasis on the skills to be
acquired. The new curriculum framework mentions “21st century skills” and “five
strengths” and presents a model of competence that successfully integrates 21st century
skills into the five strengths. The third characteristic is the emphasis on fostering “good
citizenship.” Although “good citizen” is mentioned in one of the goals of the current
“Moral and Civics” curriculum, “good citizen” in this context emphasizes moral values in
the master–slave relationship, such as civility and loyalty. On the other hand, the “good
citizen” emphasized in the new curriculum frame is to develop citizens who can fulfill
their responsibilities and exercise their rights in a democratic society. (Tanaka, 2017, p.
326, Authors’ translation)

Another noteworthy aspect related to citizenship education is the particular

emphasis placed on the development of both “twenty-first century skills” and
“good citizens.” The former is defined as “the essential skills needed to succeed as
workers and citizens in twenty-first century society” (Tanaka, 2017, pp. 328–329).
The basic framework includes (1) core subjects and twenty-first-century themes;
(2) learning
162 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

and innovation skills; (3) information, media, and technology skills; and (4) life
and career skills (Tanaka, 2017, p. 329). In addition, the curriculum framework
defines the “five strengths targeted for learning in the twenty-first century” as the
ability to live in the globalized twenty-first century, encompassing a set of key
competencies that “citizens” should possess: (1) intellectual strength, (2) physical
strength, (3) moral and ethical strength, (4) social strength, and (5) economic
strength (Tanaka, 2017, p. 333).
A “good citizen” is defined as “a citizen who can fulfill his or her
responsibilities and exercise his or her rights in a democratic society” (Tanaka,
2017, p. 326).
The latest research report on the reform trend of social studies is that of Wint
Zaw Htet (2020). Wint Zaw Htet study, like Tanaka’s book, provides valuable
information for our research, for which we would like to thank the author. Wint
Zaw Htet discusses the 2015 Myanmar National Curriculum Framework, basic
education, and the goals of the new curriculum reform (Wint Zaw Htet, 2020, pp.
37–45). In particular, he points out that the major reform, as a systemic reform, is
that the basic education period has been extended from 11 to 12 years; that is, the
basic education period has been extended by 1 year.
Within this National Curriculum Framework, the objectives of citizenship
education are as follows. The students were able to do the following:
a. Become good citizens with well-developed five strengths, including critical thinking
skills, communication skills, and social skills,
b. Apply their civic and democratic skills in their daily lives and become good citizens
who abide by laws,
c. Become global citizens with awareness and appreciation of human diversity and
abil- ities to practice basic knowledge of peace in their daily lives. (Wint Zaw Htet,
2020, pp. 39–40)

It also stipulates the necessity of “global citizens who are aware of human diversity
and capabilities and who have basic knowledge of peace in daily life.” The
develop- ment of “good citizens” and “twenty-first century skills” are required as
principles related to citizenship in order to achieve these goals. Furthermore, Wint
Zaw Htet introduced the four goals of teaching social studies in the curriculum, as
follows:
– To understand the basics of the natural environment and the livelihoods of different
ethnic groups of Myanmar in order to utilize the knowledge in establishing more
developed and better life.
– To improve the reasoning skills regarding the relationship between the environment
and their livelihoods.
– To cultivate the Union spirit and nationalism by realizing the geographical and
historical basics of the country.
– To become good citizens who are capable of creating a peaceful society. (Wint Zaw Htet,
2020, pp. 41–42)

Of these, the fourth is closely related to citizenship education. In addition,

social studies are composed of five areas: Geography, History, Life skills, Moral
and Civics, and Local curriculum. Of these, citizenship education is provided in
Life
8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens 163

skills and Moral and Civics classes. Especially the objectives of Moral and Civic
Education are as follows:
– To utilize the right ethical behaviors by analyzing systematically.
– To be able to value human rights by following the duties and responsibilities of a
citizen.
– To pay attention and respect to the rules and disciplines.
– To behave well not only as a productive citizen of the country but also as a fruitful
person of the world. (Wint Zaw Htet, 2020, p. 43)
Hence, the goal is to act analytically and ethically, respect human rights while
upholding civic duties and responsibilities, and behave not only as productive citizens
but also as human beings in the world.
Finally, Wint Zaw Htet stated that in his own view there are three challenges:
(1) whether the objectives of the new curriculum are implemented, (2) whether
teachers can actually achieve the objectives and upgrade the teaching methods
necessary to reach the targets of the new curriculum, and (3) whether it is possible
to improve the facilities for the arts and physical education (Wint Zaw Htet, 2020,
p. 44).
As described above, Myanmar is currently undergoing significant educational
reform. We need to carefully examine how the educational reforms reported by
Tanaka (2017) and Wint Zaw Htet (2020) will develop in the future. Meanwhile,
we need to conduct a full-scale research survey in the field of citizenship education.
This will be a topic for future research.

8.3 Survey of Student Attitudes Toward Citizenship

In this study, a questionnaire survey was conducted among schoolchildren to

inquire about the current status of citizenship characteristics common in ASEAN
countries. As mentioned above, there were difficulties involved in conducting the
survey in Myanmar, and it was conducted as a study by Dr. Sai, our research
collaborator. However, it was not possible to conduct the survey by asking for
cooperation from schools as in other countries, so we had to follow the procedure of
talking to students on the streets around secondary schools in Yangon. The
Burmese translation of the questionnaire was drafted in Japan with the help of a
Myanmar student, and the draft was sent directly from Japan to the site in August
2011, where it was revised and finalized by Dr. Sai. He continued to seek a way to
conduct the survey, finally deciding on the method described above. He proceeded to
conduct and collect several surveys, intermittently, per day. Later, in September 2012,
we visited Dr. Sai in the field again to input the data for 138 copies of the
questionnaire that had been collected by that time. We added 57 more copies that
had been collected until February 2014, ulti- mately collecting a total of 195
questionnaires. Because we used a different method from those typically
employed by researchers utilizing a questionnaire survey, the survey took more
than two years to complete. In addition, all the questionnaires
164 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

distributed through soliciting participants on the street were collected, meaning

that the collection rate was 100%.
The following section is a discussion based on the results of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts, the first of which asked questions
about attributes. For details, please refer to Hirata (2017) and Morishita (2013).
The first part of the questionnaire was based on a table of citizenship characteristics
developed in this study, with five levels (local–national–regional–global–universal)
on one axis and three skill areas (knowledge and understanding, skills and
abilities, and values and attitudes) on the other axis. The second part of the
questionnaire asked about basic knowledge of ASEAN member countries and
ASEAN as an international orga- nization, the media used for acquiring such
knowledge, and identity as a member of ASEAN.

8.3.1 Respondents’ Attributes

The respondents’ demographics were as follows. In terms of gender, 47.7% of the

respondents were male, 50.8% were female, and 1.5% did not answer. In terms of
age, the majority of respondents were 14 years old (11.3%), 15 years old (43.6%),
and 16 years old (39%), which corresponds to the age range from the last year of
lower secondary education to upper secondary education. However, a very small
percentage of respondents were between the ages of 17 and 21 (3%). Because of
the survey methodology described above, we were unable to include respondents
in the final year of primary education in Myanmar, unlike in other ASEAN
countries. Looking at the results of the question on religious beliefs, the majority of
respondents (94.9%) were Buddhist, and a small number of respondents were
Christian, Hindu, or Muslim.

8.3.2 Citizenship from the Perspective of

“Knowledge and Understanding”

In part 1 of the questionnaire—Q1–Q3—we asked about the knowledge and

under- standing aspect of citizenship: Q1 asked about history learning, while Q2 asked
about tradition and cultural learning, and participants had to report what they
thought each learning’s importance was at each level: local, national, regional, and
global. In each case, the respondents were asked to answer on a=scale of 1to 4; 1 not
at all important,
2 =not very important, 3 =important, and 4 =very important.
The results for Q1 showed that history at the national level was the most impor-
tant. The mean values of the valid responses were, in order of importance, national
(3.5), global (3.3), regional (3.1), and local (2.8). Similarly, for Q2, the national
level was also thought to be the most important for cultural learning. The mean
values of
8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens 165

the valid responses, in order of importance, were, national (3.7), local (3.2),
regional (3.0), and global (2.9). From these, it can be seen that the national level is
charac- terized as the most important for both history and cultural learning. The
response trends were similar for both questions to those of other ASEAN
countries. From a national perspective, these results may be closely related to the
political system of the country.
In Q3, participants were asked if they had seen or heard of any of the 11
concepts that were important to citizenship. Respondents were asked to choose
from the following options:
= 1 not=at all, 2 not very=often, 3 yes, = and 4 often.
Consid- ering the mean of the valid responses, “democracy” (3.4), “environment”
(3.4), “peace” (3.3), and “development” (3.3) were most frequently recorded.
However, “different cultures” (2.6), “sustainable development” (2.7), and
“interdependence” (2.7) were ranked lower. Other items and their mean values were
“human rights” (3.1), “international society” (3.1), “coexistence and living
together” (3.0), and “social justice and equity” (2.9). In other ASEAN countries,
“environment” (3.7 or higher in all eight other countries) and “peace” (also 3.6 or
higher) were most frequently recorded. Likewise, Myanmar had a high score
among the 11 items, but a low score compared to other countries. Following the
above two items, “development,” “human rights,” and “democracy” were the most
frequently cited items in ASEAN countries, and the results were similar in Myanmar.
“Intercultural understanding,” “sustainable development,” and “interdependence,”
which were low in Myanmar, were also low in other countries, with similar
results.
“Human rights,” “democracy,” and “development” were all supported, but
these are all aspects of universal knowledge and understanding, and the fact that
they received high support can be understood as indicating a certain educational
effect.

8.3.3 Citizenship from the Perspective of

“Skills and Abilities”

From Q4 through Q8, we asked about the skills and abilities of citizenship.
In Q4, for social issues (issues related to politics, the environment, human
rights, conflicts, etc.), participants were asked to indicate the degree to which
they had
(1) conducted research or learned by themselves, (2) had their own opinions, (3)
expressed their opinions in public, and (4) performed any action to solve the issue.
The degree of their experience was indicated on a 4-point scale: 1 = not at all, 2
= not much, 3 = yes, 4 = very often. In terms of the average of valid responses,
the score for (2) “I have had my own opinion” was 2.4, which was higher than that
for the other items. Compared to other ASEAN countries, this score was higher
than that of Vietnam (2.1) and Cambodia (2.3). The other items were (1)
experience of learning (2.0), (3) experience of expressing opinions (2.0), and (4)
experience of taking action to solve problems (1.8), in descending order. These
items are also in the lower rankings among ASEAN countries. The results may be
understood as
166 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

expressing an aspect of CLMV countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and

Vietnam) as the least economically developed ASEAN countries.
In Q5, we asked, “Would you be able to express your opinion that right is right
and wrong is wrong to the following people?” For each item, the respondents were
asked to choose from the following options: =1 yes, 2=no, and 3 =do not know. In
terms of the percentage of respondents who answered “yes” to each item, the
results were: (1) 94.4% for friends, (2) 62.1% for parents, (3) 48.2% for teachers,
(4) 51.8% for adults, (5) 25.1% for politicians, and (6) 28.7% for religious leaders.
In ASEAN countries as a whole, there was a tendency for respondents to express
their opinions to friends and parents, but be less likely to share their opinions with
teachers and adults, and to increase the percentage of “don’t know” responses to
politicians and religious leaders. The same trend was observed in the case of
Myanmar. Looking at the results by item, the percentage of respondents who
could express their opinions to teachers was the fourth lowest (48.2%) after
Thailand (37.8%), Laos (38.5%), and Philippines (47.3%) with a large difference
from those in Cambodia (83.4%) and Indonesia (73.6%). The percentage of those
who could express their opinions to religious leaders was also low, behind
Thailand (17.1%), Vietnam (20.1%), and Laos (25.6%), with a large difference from
Malaysia (76.0%) and Brunei (63.2%). In the countries with the lowest percentage in
case of religious leaders, Buddhism was the predominant religion, while in the
countries with the highest percentage in case of religious leaders, Islam was the
predominant religion, indicating religious char- acteristics. This may be
significantly related to the fact that Myanmar is a Buddhist country.
In Q6, we asked about the importance of learning English as a tool for
expressing opinions internationally. Four options were provided: (1) very
important, (2) impor- tant, (3) not so important, and (4) not important at all. Of the
respondents, 86.2% answered that it was very important, which was higher than
that of Laos (78.2%)— the highest among ASEAN countries—indicating that the
importance of learning English is recognized by many Myanmar students. Why
the result of the impor- tance of learning English was much higher than in Laos,
which received the highest support, is an interesting research topic that requires
further investigation. There may be a close relationship with the self-evaluation of
English proficiency in Q7.
In Q7, we asked how they self-evaluated their English abilities by skill. The
respondents were asked to rate their self-assessment of their English ability in the
following specific situations: for conversational ability, “I can talk to people in
English”; for writing ability, “I can exchange letters and e-mails in English”; for
reading ability, “I can read English magazines, newspapers, and websites”; and for
listening ability, “I can listen to English news and programs on TV and radio.” For
listening comprehension, they were asked to answer on a scale of 1 to 4; 1 = not
at all, 2 =not very much, 3 = able, and 4 = fully able. Regarding the average of
valid responses, the scores were 1.8 for speaking, 1.9 for writing, 1.9 for reading,
and 1.9 for listening, all of which were below 2 points. In other ASEAN countries,
only Vietnam’s writing and reading comprehension scores were below 2 points,
suggesting that Myanmar students’ self-assessment of their English ability is low
among ASEAN countries as a whole. Based on the results of Q6 and Q7, it can
8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens 167

be stated that the current situation of Myanmar students is that they are aware that
English is important, but they lack confidence in their abilities.
In Q8, respondents were asked whether they would be able to acquire the
character- istics of citizenship and live in a way that is considered desirable in the
future. Specific questions were selected from our list of characteristics of
citizenship, namely: (1) being able to make decisions on their own without asking
others; (2) being able to lead a richer life, both physically and mentally; (3) being
able to understand their own culture and foreign cultures; (4) being able to live
together with people of different cultures and ethnicities; (5) being able to stand up
against injustice, inequality, and discrimination; (6) being able to cooperate with
others to solve various problems in a village, town, country, the ASEAN, and the
world; (7) being able to cope with ICT in society; and (8) being able to contribute
to world peace. Respondents were asked to answer = on a four-point
= scale, where 1=
= not at all, 2 not very much, 3 able, and 4
fully able. Looking at the mean values of the valid responses for
each item, (2) “more affluent life now” (3.2) and (1) “self-determination” (3.1)
ranked first and second, and these two items were the highest among the ASEAN
countries. However, two items, (4) “coexistence with different cultures and ethnic
groups” (2.5) and (6) “problem-solving” (2.5) were low, and low among ASEAN
countries. Since the overall trend in ASEAN countries was low in (6) “problem-
solving,” we can assume that the unique issue for Myanmar students is “living
together with different cultures and ethnic groups.”
The low score on “living together with different cultures and ethnic groups”
may have something to do with the unique ethnic composition and political
situation of Myanmar.

8.3.4 Citizenship in Terms of “Values and Attitudes”

In Q9, respondents were asked whether they followed and implemented the teach-
ings of their own religion/faith in their daily lives. As is evident from the demo-
graphics of the respondents, about 95% of Myanmar students follow Buddhism.
The options and percentages of respondents were as follows: (1) protect and
perform well (54.4%), (2) protect and perform (32.8%), (3) do not protect or
perform much (11.8%), (4) not at all/do not protect or practice (1.0%), and (5) do
not have a specific religion (0.0%). The total of (1) and (2) shows that 87.2% of the
respondents practiced religious faith on a daily basis, which is more than the 80%
reported by other ASEAN countries, except for Vietnam (51.4%) which is notably
less religious. Looking only at the percentage of respondents in (1) above, Myanmar
students are the most religious among the ASEAN countries, surpassing the
Philippines (44.8%) and Indonesia (40.3%), which are the topmost religious
ASEAN countries. Therefore, when forming values for citizenship education in
Myanmar, special consideration should be given to consistency with Buddhist
doctrines.
Religious practice is self-evident in Myanmar as a religious country. This
highly enthusiastic result may be natural for a devoutly Buddhist country.
168 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

In Q10, respondents were asked whether they had morals and pride as citizens
of their own country. The options and percentages of respondents were as follows:
(1) had a lot (68.2%), (2) had enough (29.7%), (3) did not have much (0.5%), and
(4) did not have any (1.0%). The total of (1) and (2) reached 97.9%, which means
that national morality and national pride as a whole are common in Myanmar.
However, it can be pointed out that the percentage of (1) alone is the third lowest after
Thailand (56.9%) and Indonesia (59.3%), while most other ASEAN countries
reported more than 80%.
The success in raising moral awareness and fostering national pride can be
inter- preted as a result of the functioning and penetration of the country’s
education policy.
In Q11, the following characteristics common to each level, from local to
global, were extracted from the citizenship characteristics, and respondents were
asked which of each was the most important. The characteristics of the questions
were as follows: (1) “love and preservation of traditions and culture,” (2) “pride as
a member,” (3) “maintenance of peace,” (4) “maintenance of democracy,” (5)
“having an interest in the environment and development problems,” (6) “having an
interest in human rights problems,” and (7) “having a sense of belongingness as a
member.” At the local level, (1) “local traditions and culture” (32.3%) and (3) “peace
in the village or town” (30.8%) were selected most often, which was the same as
the overall trend in ASEAN countries. At the national level, (10) “peace in the
country” (27.7%), (8) “patriotism and national traditions and culture” (26.2%),
and (11) “preservation of national democracy” (15.4%) were selected most
frequently, in that order. Compared to other ASEAN countries, only Myanmar and
Brunei had the highest percentage of respondents who selected (10) “peace in the
country,” while the response rate for (8) “patriotism and national traditions and
culture” was low, and for (11) “democracy in the country,” the response rate was
higher than that of Thailand (15.1%), which had the highest percentage. At the
regional (ASEAN) level, (17) “peace in the ASEAN region” (34.4%) received the
highest responses, along with Indonesia (42.7%) and the Philippines (30.2%). This
was followed by (15) “ASEAN tradition and culture” (21.5%) and (18)
“preservation of democracy in ASEAN” (15.4%), in that order. At the global level,
the most common responses were (24) “world peace” (44.1%), (22) “loving the
earth and acting according to global rules and customs” (21.0%), and
(23) “pride in being a global citizen” (11.8%), in that order. The highest
percentage of respondents selected (24) “world peace,” which follows the trend in
many other ASEAN countries. As described above, it is clear that “peace” is
considered most important at the national, regional (ASEAN), and global levels,
which are charac- teristic of Myanmar students. However, at the local level, many
students selected local cultures. Furthermore, in Q11, students were asked which
of the answers they selected from the four levels they thought were the most
important. The results indi- cated that (24) “world peace” (29.2%) was selected
most frequently. No other option exceeded 10%.
It is easy to understand why “peace” is considered to be of paramount
importance at the national, regional (ASEAN), and global levels when taking into
account past democratization movements and the current political situation.
8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens 169

In Q12, we listed 15 characteristics of citizenship at the universal level and

asked the respondents to select up to three of them deemed necessary in today’s
society. The percentages of respondents who selected each question were as
follows: (1) “having your own thoughts and beliefs” (49.2%), (2) “caring for the
other’s feelings and living in peace and happiness with them” (22.6%), (3) “being
patient and not selfish, having a strong will in achieving your goal or in what you
want to do” (23.1%), (4) “making decisions in a calm manner and having self-
control” (13.8%),
(5) “contributing to the public or mankind (i.e. volunteering, mutual aid)” (25.1%),
(6) “observing basic ethics and morality” (16.9%), (7) “having the courage to say
what is right” (44.6%), (8) “becoming involved in activities to improve society”
(8.2%), (9) “observing the law” (19.5%), (10) “cooperating with other nations to
solve problems” (8.2%), (11) “catching up with the new science and technology
and the world economy” (7.2%), (12) “understanding the differences among
cultures in the world and respecting these cultures” (6.2%), (13) “having an
interest in world problems (i.e. environment, poverty, conflict, peace,
discrimination, human rights, and development) and solving them” (17.9%), (14)
“making decisions and putting them into action” (11.3%), and (15) “having
respect toward human rights” (23.6%). The two most frequently selected items in
Myanmar were (1) and (7), with more than 40% of the respondents selecting them.
Item (7) was selected by more than 40% of the respondents in no other country,
making it a unique characteristic of Myanmar. Item (1) was also high in many
other ASEAN countries. Item (2), which was ranked first in five other ASEAN
countries, was ranked sixth in Myanmar, showing the same trend as that of Malaysia
and Brunei.
As to why there were more (1) and (7) than other countries, it is understandable
that this is due to the political situation.

8.3.5 “Knowledge and Understanding” of the ASEAN

In the second part of the questionnaire—Q1–Q5—we asked about knowledge

about ASEAN countries and basic knowledge about ASEAN itself.
In Q1, the task was to match the names of the ASEAN countries with their respec-
tive numbers, ranging from 1 to 15, on a white map representing Southeast Asia
and its surroundings. Five of the numbers were assigned to countries that were not
members of the ASEAN. In terms of the percentage of correct answers, 96.4% of
the students answered correctly for Myanmar, their home country. The
neighboring countries of Thailand (78.5%) and Laos (69.2%) also had high
percentages of correct answers. This was followed by Indonesia (63.6%), Singapore
(63.1%), and the Philip- pines (60.5%), where the percentage of correct answers
exceeded 60%. The lowest percentage of correct answers was found for Brunei
(47.2%). Compared to the other ASEAN countries, this was a good result,
followed by Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos, where the percentage of correct answers
was generally high.
In Q2, the students were asked to choose the meaning of the ASEAN flag from
among the five options. The correct answer rate for Myanmar students was 50.3%.
170 T. Hirata and M. Morishita

Among other ASEAN countries, the percentage was above 50% in many
countries, including Indonesia (71.6%), and Myanmar had the second lowest
percentage after Cambodia (41.1%), which had the fewest correct answers.
In Q3, the students were asked to choose the year of establishment of the
ASEAN from among the four options. The correct answer rate for Myanmar
students was 22.6%. The percentage of correct answers for Q3 tended to be lower
for ASEAN countries overall compared with that for Q2, and the same was true
for Myanmar. Specifically, 34.4% of the students answered, “I do not know.”
In Q4, the students were asked to choose the target year for ASEAN integration
from among the four options. The correct answer rate for Myanmar students was
27.7%. Compared to the other four ASEAN countries, where the percentage of correct
answers was in the single digits, the percentage of correct answers by Myanmar
students was relatively high, with only Cambodia (37.9%) and Laos (32.3%)
scoring higher.
In Q5, we asked the respondents how much they knew about the ten ASEAN
countries, including their own countries, using a four-point scale: 1 = not at all, 2
= not much, 3 = know, 4 = know a lot. In terms of the average of valid responses,
the scores were in the 2 or 1 range, except for Myanmar, where the score was 3.6.
For Brunei, Cambodia, and Vietnam, the score was 1.9, indicating a low level of
knowledge. Among the other ASEAN countries, Brunei, Cambodia, and Vietnam
were the only countries that received a score of 1. In these three countries, the
mean values of the responses to Myanmar were 1.7, 1.9, and 1.7, respectively. It is
evident that there is a lack of mutual understanding between Myanmar and these
three countries. It can be said that there is a challenge in learning about
neighboring
countries.
In Q6, respondents were asked to choose from 15 options regarding the media
and methods to find information about ASEAN, with no limit on the number of
responses. The choices were: (1) advertisements, (2) books, (3) TV, (4) radio, (5)
newspapers, (6)
the Internet, (7) movies, (8) music, (9) sports, (10) family, (11) friends, (12) school,
(13) travel, (14) work experience, and 15) other. The top responses from Myanmar
students were newspapers (65.6%), TV (61.5%), school (51.8%), and books (50.8%).
Although Myanmar shares the same tendency as other ASEAN countries to rank
newspapers, TV, and schools at the top, the Internet, which ranked high in
Indonesia (87.0%) and many other countries, was only 37.9% in Myanmar. This may
have been because the Internet was not yet widely available in the country.

8.3.6 Consciousness About ASEAN

In the second part of the questionnaire, Q7 through Q11, respondents were asked
about their attitudes toward ASEAN. In all cases, the responses were based on a
four-point scale: 1 = agree very much, 2 = agree, 3 = do not agree much, and 4 =
agree not at all. The following analysis was based on the average of valid
responses.
8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens 171

In Q7, the students were asked if they would like to know more about ASEAN
countries. The average value for Myanmar students was 1.7. This indicates that
they actively seek knowledge. This value lies in the middle of other ASEAN coun-
tries, which are distributed in the range of 1.4–1.9, indicating a desire for mutual
understanding across ASEAN.
In Q8, students were asked if they thought that being members of ASEAN was
beneficial to their country. The average value for Myanmar students was 1.7. It is
believed that they recognize the significance of the ASEAN in their countries.
Other ASEAN countries are distributed in the range of 1.3–1.9, and Myanmar is in
the middle of the range.
In Q9, the students were asked if they thought that being a member of the ASEAN
was beneficial to them. The mean value for the Myanmar students was 2.1. Although
this value itself can be considered high, the total percentage of students who chose
options 3 and 4 in Q9 was 28.7%, which is higher than that of 8.2% in Q8. This
indicates that the students do not feel that it is as beneficial for them as it is for
their country. Other ASEAN countries also showed a similar trend, with a larger
mean value in Q9 than in Q8.
In Q10, students were asked if they were aware of being an ASEAN citizen,
had an attachment to ASEAN, and felt proud to be an ASEAN citizen. The mean
value for Myanmar students was 1.9. Looking at the content of their responses,
52.3% were concentrated on option 2, indicating that they were neither actively in
favor nor against. In other ASEAN countries, the distribution was relatively wide,
ranging from 1.6 to 2.2; thus, Myanmar again falls in the middle of the range.
In Q11, the students were asked if they thought that they shared a common identity
with the people of ASEAN countries in order to achieve ASEAN’s goals. The
mean value for Myanmar students was 2.0. Similar to Q10, Q11 also shows a
certain amount of negative opinions, with 51.8% of responses concentrating on
option 2, and 22.1% opting for options 3 and 4. In other ASEAN countries, the
percentages were distributed between 1.9 and 2.3, and Myanmar was relatively
high.
Evaluating the results of the responses from Q7 to Q11, it can be said that
Myanmar follows the same trend as that of other ASEAN countries.
This may be due to a lack of teaching and learning. This indicates that there is a
need for curriculum content reform. In fact, as we analyzed the new reform trends
in the first half of this chapter, curriculum reform has taken place since this
survey. Therefore, further investigations are necessary and expected.
172 T. Hirata and M.
Morishita
8.4 Conclusion

8.4.1 Summary

Based on the analysis of the educational system and curriculum reform trends, it is
clear that the government is trying to develop good, global citizens for the twenty-
first century, including those who possess critical thinking, communication skills,
and social skills. The analysis of the results of the questionnaire survey of students
is summarized below.
In terms of “Knowledge and understanding,” a similar trend was observed in
other ASEAN countries. In other words, the national level was considered to be
the most important in terms of learning history and traditional culture. Regarding
the experience of seeing and hearing about the concept of citizenship,
“democracy,” “environment,” “peace,” and “development” were most frequently
selected. As for the challenges, the values of “environment” and “peace” were
lower than those of other ASEAN countries and, as in other countries, “different
cultures,” “sustainable development,” and “interdependence” were chosen more
frequently. There is a need for students to be provided with opportunities to learn
about concepts that they have little experience with.
In terms of “Skills and abilities,” the experience of researching and learning
about social issues and that of having and expressing one’s own opinions are both
ranked low among ASEAN countries, and it can be said that the development of
skills to improve society is an issue. In addition, although the importance of
English as an essential language for communication in the ASEAN Community and
global society is recognized, the self-evaluation of English proficiency is remarkably
low. Practical English learning is, therefore, important. Furthermore, in terms of
how they will live their lives in the future, Myanmar students seem to have
confidence in “a richer life than now” and “self-determination.” However,
“coexistence with different cultures and ethnic groups” is an issue that is unique to
Myanmar, perhaps because of the ethnic conflict in the country.
Regarding “Values and attitudes,” Buddhism is the religion followed by the
majority of the respondents, and they are the most enthusiastic among ASEAN
countries in practicing their religion. However, in terms of national morality and
national pride, they are at the bottom of the group among ASEAN countries,
which poses a challenge. Regarding values related to citizenship characteristics by
level, the most important characteristic is that “peace” is consistently considered
to be the most important from the local to the global level. Regarding universal
values, “having one’s own ideas and believing in oneself” and “being able to say
the right thing is the right thing” are considered important, and the latter is not
often selected in other ASEAN countries, indicating a different trend.
In terms of ASEAN “Knowledge and understanding,” there is evidently insuf-
ficient knowledge of Brunei, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Knowledge of the meaning
of the ASEAN flag and the year of its establishment is also an issue. As a source
of information, the Internet, which is widely used in other countries, is rarely used
8 Citizenship Education in Myanmar: Developing Global Citizens 173

in Myanmar. This issue requires improvement through information technology. In

terms of ASEAN consciousness, Myanmar ranked in the middle of ASEAN coun-
tries in terms of average values for many questions. It should be noted, however,
that there is a strong tendency for respondents to select “agree,” the second most
common answer, rather than “strongly agree,” the most positive answer. In any
case, finding opportunities to learn about ASEAN would be challenging.

8.4.2 Recommendations

In the Basic Education Curriculum Framework, the goal was to develop “good
citi- zens” and “global citizens,” which was addressed in the social studies
curriculum. Such citizenship entails the acquisition of critical thinking skills,
communication skills, social skills, obeying the law, having basic knowledge
about peace, and so on. It is also a kind of citizenship, referred to as “global
citizenship.” The twenty- first-century skills included being an analytical and
ethical citizen, observing duties and responsibilities, respecting human rights,
being a productive citizen, and being a human citizen of the world.
From the questionnaire survey, the following characteristics were identified as
issues to be addressed:
(1) The areas of “Knowledge and understanding,” including “environment,”
“peace,” “different cultures,” “sustainable development,” and “interdepen-
dence.”
(2) The areas of “Skills and abilities,” including “foreign language” (English)
and “coexistence with different cultures and ethnic groups,” as well as that
of “Values and attitudes,” such as national morality and national pride (the
lowest group in ASEAN).
(3) The area of “ASEAN relations,” including a lack of knowledge and under-
standing of ASEAN relations.
All these characteristics (issues in “Knowledge and understanding,” “Skills and
abilities,” and “Values and attitudes”) were almost identical to the citizenship
characteristics being targeted in the ongoing educational reform in Myanmar.
Therefore, in order to develop good citizens and global citizens under the new
curriculum, we must promote the development of curricula and teaching mate-
rials that support the characteristics identified as issues in the questionnaire
survey. Policy-makers should consider these characteristics in the national
education policy and basic education curriculum. In addition, undergraduate and
graduate students (including in-service teachers) should be trained to develop
curricula, units, and teaching materials related to these characteristics in lectures
and seminars.
Chapter 9
Citizenship Education in the Philippines:
Education for ASEANness

Hirofumi Nagahama, Arthur S. Abulencia, and Jerick C. Ferrer

Abstract K to 12 education reform is necessary to be on par with ASEAN

progress and the ASEAN Economic Community. It aims to create the next stage
of citizen- ship education in the Philippines. This study seeks to understand how the
Philippines promotes citizenship education under the process of ASEAN
integration, using the Delphi survey to conduct a multifaceted analysis of the
implications of the hidden influence of regular citizenship education. Education in
the Philippines has long integrated UNESCO’s values and concepts of human
rights and human dignity into the curriculum, especially into values education,
which will eventually characterize future generations’ citizenship education in the
Philippines. The results of the Delphi survey revealed how significantly aware
students are of the ASEAN region and its values compared to their teachers and
other experts. This will help create a multi- layered ASEAN identity through
education, reforming the Southeast Asian cultural sphere. The Delphi survey
revealed that Filipino teachers and officials predict that Filipino students need time
to accept ASEANness, to integrate it and become aware of their multiple or
multilayered identity. However, as students become aware of the significance of a
stronger connection with ASEAN countries, if the teachers and officials became
seriously involved in ASEAN integrity, their awareness of and obtaining an
ASEAN citizenship, ASEANness, may be realized in the near future.

·
Keywords ASEAN economic community Citizenship education Delphi
survey · K to 12 program · Values education

H. Nagahama (B)
Faculty of Law, Toin University of Yokohama, 1614 Kurogane-cho, Aoba-ku, Yokohama,
Kanagawa 225-0025, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
A. S. Abulencia
Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Philippine Normal University-Manila, Taft Avenue
cor. Ayala Boulevard, Manila 1000, Philippines
e-mail: [email protected]
J. C. Ferrer
Faculty of Education Sciences, Philippine Normal University-Manila, Taft Avenue cor.
Ayala Boulevard, Manila 1000, Philippines
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
175
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_9
176 H. Nagahama et al.

9.1 Introduction

How is the Philippines promoting school education in the context of the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) integration? This study aims to
clarify the influ- ence of the K to 12 educational system and the initiation of the
ASEAN community on citizenship education in the Philippines via a comparative
study of ASEAN-related education in the Philippines, focusing on the results of
previous research, specifi- cally, a Delphi survey of Filipino educators (Morishita,
2013, pp. 118–133). First, we consider the K to 12 program as a major educational
reform being promoted, then we analyze the attitude survey on citizenship among
pupils and students in ASEAN countries, conducted in the fiscal year 2011.
Subsequently, we analyze the Delphi survey. The Philippines had been attempting to
introduce a 12-year education system for some time, and later was successful in
finally transitioning the country’s educa- tional system to the K to 12 basic
education program. By clarifying the significance of the K to 12 reform, which has
now been officially implemented, we believe that a more multifaceted analysis of
the implications of citizenship education and the results of the Delphi survey will
be possible.

9.2 Citizenship Education and Educational

Reform in the Philippines

9.2.1 The Process and Significance of the

Introduction of the K to 12 Education System

Filipino citizenship education aims to cultivate ideal citizens who practice social
responsibility and compliance with the law through the promotion of social
respon- sibility. Article XIV in Section 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly
states, “(1) All educational institutions shall include the study of the Constitution
as part of the curricula. (2) They shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster
love of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the role of national
heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the rights and duties of
citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and
personal disci- pline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific
and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency” (Sison, 1999,
pp. 143–144).
This study presents an understanding of the Filipino concept of “citizenship”
reflects the understanding of “citizenship,” emphasizing respect for others, persis-
tence in education, education for cultural development, cultural heritage, freedom
of expression, constitutional content, common good, and concepts of the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Historically, the Philippines possessed a strong tradition of citizenship and
citizenship education, which was enhanced during the Commonwealth of 1935–
1946 (excluding during
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 177

Japanese occupation) under the U.S. territory. Following the People Power
Revolu- tion (EDSA) of 1986, values education, based on the UNESCO values,
was imple- mented as part of the Philippines’ basic education, as well as in the
curricula of teacher training institutions (Romero, 2002 & Tuga, 2016).
The Philippines currently employs the 6–4–2 basic education system (6 years
of primary education, 4 years in junior high, and 2 years in senior high school
educa- tion). Prior to this, from 1957 to 1973 the “2–2” plan was practiced, which
divided secondary education into the first two and second two years: The first two
years included common courses for all students, which were later divided into
vocational and preparatory courses in the next (third) grade. However, due to
weak financial bases and inadequate facilities, few schools were able to provide
substantial voca- tional education, and their educational offerings had little
relevance to the require- ments of national and regional industries. Moreover,
vocational education programs were not attractive to students: In 1967, 83% of the
graduates of the employment course went on to university, making the “2–2 Plan”
ineffectual. As such, this program was abolished in 1973 under the Marcos
administration (Cortes, 1983, p. 157; Ishida, 1995, p. 50). Examination of the
reasoning and background behind the 2012–2013 inauguration of the K to 12
education system provides a deeper understanding of why and how the concepts of
“citizenship” in the Philippines have emerged or changed (Camposano, 2019).
The Philippines government is currently working to improve the quality of educa-
tion through various educational reforms, including, the introduction of the K to
12 system, school-based management tailored to each school, and cooperation
between public and private schools. This commitment is anchored in the
Education for All (EFA) goals that aim to provide educational opportunities for
every Filipino child to support the development of the community and society.
Thus, the K to 12 Law or Republic Act No. 10533 (Enhanced Basic Education Act
of 2013) established a “universal kindergarten” and introduced Grades 11 and 12
to high school education in public and private schools. Prior to this Act, the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were eight international
development goals for the year 2015, were established following the Millennium
Summit of the United Nations in 2000. The Philippines’ EFA goals also contributed
to the global pursuit of these eight MDGs, especially MDG 2, which called for
universal primary education, and MDG 3, which aimed for gender equality in
education by 2015. Participation in this system of education was expected to
contribute to the development of the local community and society, and the pursuit
of EFA.
Following the end of the MDGs in 2015, another laudable project was initiated by
the United Nations encouraging all governments, civil society, and other key
partners to build on what was accomplished by the MDGs. The United Nations
launched the post-2015 development agenda, known as Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), which originated at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
+ Development, Rio 20, in 2012. Of the 17 SDGs put forward, the goal related to
education is No. 4 (Quality Education)—Ensure inclusive and equitable quality
education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. This goal served as
one of the bases of the
education reform program in the Philippines.
178 H. Nagahama et al.

With the dismal results of the Philippines in the 2018 Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA), the Department of Education (DepEd) renewed its
commitment to globalizing the quality of education. The assessment results of
PISA served as guiding inputs and insights for education experts, and DepEd’s
Sulong EduKalidad (“boost or push education quality”) campaign was launched,
which was DepEd’s rallying call for a national effort for education quality, guided
by a master- plan to install aggressive reform in four key areas: “(1) K to 12
curriculum review and updating; (2) Improvement of the learning environment; (3)
Teachers’ upskilling and reskilling through a transformed professional development
program; and (4) Engage- ment of stakeholders for support and collaboration”
(Department of Education, 2019,
p. 43). Sulong EduKalidad focuses on Filipino learners helping them achieve their
full potential and realize their dreams through quality basic education for all.

9.2.2 The Influence of the AEC on Creating

Citizenship in the Philippines

Another compelling motivation for creating the new concept of “citizenship” through
the K to 12 curricula is to be substantive to the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC),
which was established in 2015. Since the creation of ASEAN as a regional organi-
zation in 1967, its ten member states have envisioned a “single, competitive
market and productivity” through economic integration. The AEC creates a huge
economic market of 600 million people, accounting for at least 8% of the world’s
population, and allows more liberalized trade between ASEAN countries. The
removal of both tariff and non-tariff barriers, both in goods and services, among
member states is expected to promote deeper and stronger economic relations
among the countries in the region: Countries will gain better access to larger
resources in the region’s work- force, which will facilitate the exchange of
industrial practices and ideas between AEC member countries. Further, it has been
noted that establishing an ASEAN citizenship plays an important role in
developing the new regional mentality and identity.
In response to this international situation, the Philippines’ DepEd promotes the
quality of education through partnerships with other educational institutions, such
as the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and the Technical Education
and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). Efforts are underway to concretize
these partnerships. The introduction of the K to 12 program eliminates the over-
crowding and congestion of the basic education curriculum and integrates primary
and secondary education, allowing students more time and choices for learning. It
is expected that this would result in students fully mastering the various competen-
cies, which would lead to greater career opportunities, as the completion of high
school would result in a certificate of competence that can be employed or adapted
to employment.
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 179

Further, research has suggested that the K to 12 education system reform

contributes to national economic growth. During each additional year, this reform
increased wage income by 10% up to 2019. The longer the time spent on
education, the greater is the potential for employment acquired by the students;
thus, with the addition of one year of learning, the growth rate of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) for an average of 40 years will increase by approximately 0.37%,
while one year of schooling generally shows a return of 25–30%. In international
competitions, it is expected that Filipino students are more competitive and their
level of education is on par with global standards, resulting in international
professional recognition for Filipino workers in their respective fields (SEAMEO
INNOTECH, 2012, p. 6).

9.2.3 The K to 12 Program and Citizenship Education

In 2005, the DepEd formulated and implemented its major reform agenda known
as the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) with the primary aim of
institutionally, systematically, and nationally improving education outcomes. The
overall goals of BESRA are: (1) universal adult functional literacy; (2) universal
school participation and elimination of drop-outs and repetition in first three
grades;
(3) universal completion of the full cycle of basic education schooling with
satisfac- tory achievement levels by all at every grade or year; (4) total community
commit- ment to attainment of basic education competencies for all. BESRA has
considerably improved access and quality of education in the country though more is
yet to be done. Under the leadership of former president Benigno Aquino, the
national government spelled out its “10-Point Education Agenda.”
One point on the agenda was K to 12 reform, which is the addition of 2 years to
the basic education cycle (Table 9.1).

Table 9.1 10-Point

Education Agenda for K to 1. A 12-year basic education cycle
12 program 2. Universal Pre-schooling for all
3. Establish the Madaris Education as a sub-system in
the current education system
4. Re-introduce technical and vocational education in
public high schools
5. Every child a reader by Grade 1
6. Improve science and mathematics
7. Expand government assistance to private education
8. Use of mother-language instruction
9. Better textbooks
10. Build more schools in cooperation with LGUs
Source UNESCO, 2015, pp. 9–10
180 H. Nagahama et al.

Unlike in European countries, there is no specific subject dedicated to teaching

“citizenship” in the Philippine educational curriculum; however, changing interna-
tional climates, regional unity in the AEC, and domestic economic development
all demand that Philippine education adapts to prepare its students for further
social development and transformation. In all subjects, including the primary
subjects of Filipino, English, mathematics, and sciences, citizenship education
should be promoted; social studies (Araling Panlipunan) and values education
(Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao) play a significant role in strengthening the concept of
the new Filipino identity of living within today’s global society.
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO), a historic
organization founded in 1970, has become an important part of ASEAN’s unity
as a regional community. The SEAMEO center in the Philippines is one of 19
regional centers, and the organization itself is led by the ministers of education
of ASEAN nations, university presidents, and donors in associate member
countries that also provide international assistance, such as Australia, the United
Kingdom, and Japan. SEAMEO centers provide training and research programs in
various fields of education, science, and culture.
An important global education framework at the turn of the twenty-first century
was the P21’s Framework for 21st Century Learning. This was included by educa-
tion experts and policy-makers in the development of the K to 12 curriculum.
The following knowledge, skills, work habits, and character traits associated
with 21st-century skills were all reflected in the K to 12 curriculum: (1) crit-
ical thinking, problem-solving, reasoning, analysis, interpretation, and information
synthesis; (2) research skills and practices, interrogative questioning; (3)
creativity, artistry, curiosity, imagination, innovation, personal expression; (4)
perseverance, self-direction, planning, self-discipline, adaptability, and initiative;
(5) oral and written communication, public speaking and presenting, and listening;
(6) leader- ship, teamwork, collaboration, cooperation, and facility in using virtual
workspaces;
(7) information and communication technology (ICT) literacy, media and internet
literacy, data interpretation and analysis, computer programming; (8) civic,
ethical, and social-justice literacy; (9) economic and financial literacy,
entrepreneurialism;
(10) global awareness, multicultural literacy, humanitarianism; (11) scientific literacy
and reasoning, the scientific method; (12) environmental and conservation
literacy, ecosystems understanding; (13) health and wellness literacy, including
nutrition, diet, exercise, and public health and safety.
Cognizant of the challenges of the twenty-first century, which comprises an
interdependent, diverse, and rapidly changing global society, the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is decisively advancing the inclu-
sion of global competence education. “Global competence is a multidimensional
capacity. Globally competent individuals can examine local, global, and
intercultural issues, understand and appreciate different perspectives and world
views, interact successfully and respectfully with others, and take responsible action
toward sustain- ability and collective well-being” (OECD, 2018, p. 4). Global
competence has the following four dimensions: (1) examine issues of local,
global, and cultural signifi- cance; (2) understand and appreciate the perspectives
and world views of others; (3)
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 181

engage in open, appropriate, and effective interactions across cultures; and (4) take
action for collective well-being and sustainable development. The DepEd has empha-
sized global knowledge, skills, values, and competence in its curriculum, particularly
in assessment.
In terms of this new Filipino identity and citizenship, SEAMEO INNOTECH
expresses the Filipino capabilities and characteristics expected to develop from the
new K to 12 education program as follows. Filipino high school graduates are
envisioned to (a) Possess sufficient mastery of basic competencies (e.g., literacy,
numeracy, problem-solving, etc.) to develop themselves to the fullest; (b) Be emotion-
ally developed and competent enough to live a meaningful life; (c) Be socially aware,
pro-active, and involved in public and civic affairs and contribute to the
development of a progressive, just, and humane society; (d) Be adequately
prepared for the world of work, entrepreneurship, or higher education; (e) Be
legally employable; (f) Be globally competitive. Further, they are expected to (a)
Possess a healthy mind and body; (b) Have a solid moral and spiritual grounding;
(c) Appreciate and care for humanity, the world, and the environment; (d) Be
proud to be Filipino (SEAMEO INNOTECH, 2012, p. 8).
These ideas can be found integrated into value education, social studies, and
all other subjects. The target areas for Philippine values education (Edukasyon sa
Pagpapakatao) comprise the following themes: (1) Self and family responsibility,
(2) Treating others as fellow human beings (Pakikipag-kapwa), (3) Contribution to
national development and world unity, and (4) God-centeredness and preference
for goodness (pp. 40–41). To achieve these themes, 62 personal and social values
are taught. These educational goals and themes not only comprise those of the
Philip- pines’ EFA efforts but also demonstrate the position of Filipino nationals
and citi- zenship in the new AEC regional relations. In future school education, it
is expected that the same values education will be practiced considering the
solidarity with the ASEAN region. In the field of social studies (Araling Panlipunan),
the new curriculum includes learning about the self, the community, and the history
of the ASEAN region and encourages a deeper understanding of history, geography,
politics, economy, and national development in the Philippines, Asia, and the
world. During high school, students learn about current problems, challenges, and
suggested solutions, as well as critical thinking, logical reasoning, creativity, and
appreciation for the culture of one’s country. They also learn research skills,
communication skills, responsibility, productivity, environmental awareness, and
global vision; thus, it can be reasonably speculated that the Philippine K to 12
system will integrate the value of citizenship to encourage the younger Filipino
generation to respond to the challenges of the international community, especially
regarding the country’s rapid integration with ASEAN or new AEC countries.
Considering the above-mentioned changes in school education, the following section
will compare the recognition of citizenship and citi- zenship education in the
Philippines through the analysis of a Delphi survey on citizenship.
Through its primary educational agency—the DepEd—and partnerships with
other institutions such as the CHED and TESDA, the Philippines is striving to
materialize the goals of improving the quality of its national educational offering.
182 H. Nagahama et al.

9.3 The Citizenship Education Survey in the Philippines

9.3.1 Analysis of the Student Opinion Survey

The survey of Citizenship Education among students (473 students) was

conducted in 2011. The target age groups of 12, 15, and 18-year-olds were then in
the sixth year of primary school, the third year of secondary school, and the
second year of university in the Philippines, respectively. This was different from
other countries in ASEAN with a 12-year education system; this difference will be
eliminated by the K to 12 reform.
The items in the survey on students’ attitudes consisted of questions on Knowl-
edge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes. In terms of
Knowledge and understanding of citizenship, students were asked to choose from:
(1) not at all important, (2) not very important, (3) important, and (4) very impor-
tant for Q1–history study, Q2–tradition and culture study, and Q3–understanding
of the concept of citizenship. This level of importance is similar to that of other
ASEAN countries. In Q2–Traditions and Culture, students rated their own
traditions and culture (3.7), world traditions and culture (3.5), traditions and culture of
ASEAN countries (3.3), and traditions and culture of one’s own village or town
(3.2). The Philippines was characterized by more than 3 points in all categories,
suggesting that the students understand the importance of protecting and passing on
the traditions and culture.
As for the important concepts for citizenship in Q3, high importance was given
to the environment, peace, human rights, and democracy (3.7 each), followed by
devel- opment (3.6), social justice and equity (3.3), sustainable development and
progress (3.0), interdependence (2.9), and intercultural understanding (2.8), with
international society and coexistence (2.7) selected as the least important. These
results are similar to other ASEAN countries in that the environment, peace,
human rights, and democ- racy were rated as highly important. These have been
studied especially in values education and social studies subjects in the
Philippines; therefore, it is not surprising that they were selected more frequently.
It can be concluded that the students selected items that were more familiar to
them as important.
Citizenship from the viewpoint of Skills and abilities, in Q4–social problems
(problems related to politics, environment, human rights, conflicts, etc.), the students
were asked to select from (1) not at all, (2) not much, (3) yes, and (4) often. (3.1),
(3) Have you ever expressed your opinion (2.3), and (4) Have you ever taken
action to solve a social problem (2.4), with (2) being particularly high. Although
the tendency of selection was similar to that in other ASEAN countries, the high
frequency of the score of 2 may also indicate the emphasis of the social studies
subject in developing critical thinking and social awareness among the students
(DepEd, 2019).
In Q5, “Can you state your opinion about the right and wrong of the following
people?”, the students were asked to choose from (1) I can, (2) I can’t, and (3) I
don’t know. The results showed that they could state their opinion about the
following: friends (92.7%), parents (71.9%), school teachers (47.3%), adults and
older people
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 183

(51.1%), people who play politics (23.4%), and religious leaders (29.6%). Stating
their opinion about friends and parents was similar to that of other ASEAN countries.
However, given the fact that in other Muslim ASEAN countries the figures are
high in terms of expressing their opinions to religious leaders, it can be considered
that there is a difference in the way reverence for religion is expressed in the
Philippines. This may be because the influence of Catholic religious authority is
still maintained in Philippine society today.
In Q6, regarding the importance of learning English, the students were asked to
choose from (1) very important, (2) important, (3) not so important, and (4) not
important at all, and the percentage of respondents who chose (1) was the highest
in the Philippines at 76.8%. In addition, in Q7, which was the English proficiency
question, when asked to select from (1) not at all, (2) not very much, (3) able to,
and (4) able to adequately, the percentage of respondents who selected 1 was the
highest at 76.8%. Nevertheless, the number of respondents with the ability to
speak English as an official language in the Philippines was higher than that in
Malaysia and Brunei. This shows how well English as an official language has
taken root in the Philippines. It also reflects the fact that being able to understand
English is an essential skill required for all opportunities in the Philippine society,
including living, going to school, and finding a job.
In Q8, regarding future citizenship skills, the students were asked to choose
from the following four response options: (1) Can’t do anything at all, (2) Can’t
do much, (3) Can do, and (4) Can do enough. The scores were as follows: under-
stand my own and other cultures (3.0), live with other cultures and peoples (2.8),
fight injustice, inequality, and discrimination (2.7), work together to solve
problems and act (2.9), cope with the information society (3.0), and help for world
peace (3.3). While the scores were high, they were average compared to other ASEAN
countries. The highest scores were obtained on questions related to world peace.
This can be attributed to a sense of global citizenship that was formed in the
process of over- coming the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in the
Philippines, as well as the devout religious beliefs that are fundamental to the
country.
Regarding citizenship in terms of values and attitudes (Q9), the respondents
were asked whether they observed and practiced the teachings of their
religion/faith in their daily lives, and had to choose from five options: (1) I
observe and practice it enough, (2) I observe and practice it, (3) I do not observe
or practice it much, (4) I do not observe or practice it at all, and (5) I do not have a
specific religion/faith. The Philippines had the highest percentage of respondents
choosing option 1, at 44.8%. In terms of demographic attributes, 93.2% of the
pupils who responded to the survey were Christians (Catholics). In the multi-
religious Southeast Asian region, which comprises people who follow Islam,
Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., the Philippines is considered to have religious beliefs
different from other regions due to its long colonial rule. In addition, when asked
Q10, “Do you have morals and pride as a citizen?”, of the options of (1), (2), (3)
not much, and (4) not at all, options 1 and 2 accounted for over 90%. Again, the
results showed a high level of awareness of faith among Filipinos.
184 H. Nagahama et al.

Q11 inquired about the following citizenship qualities: (1) preservation of tradi-
tion and culture, (2) pride in being a member of the community, (3) peace, (4)
preservation of democracy, (5) concern for the environment and development
issues,
(6) concern for human rights issues, and (7) a sense of identity (belonging) from
four local to global levels: village/town, nation, ASEAN, and global (world). At all
levels, the students believed that preserving traditions and culture is important,
especially on the level of the nation (37.0%) and the world (35.7%), higher than in
villages and towns (23.2%) and ASEAN (25.2%). When asked about “peace,” the
results were higher for the world (37.7%), followed by ASEAN (30.2%), nation
(19.1%), and village/town (26.6%). Other high preferences were for peace
(26.6%) and envi- ronment and development issues (22.7%) in villages and towns,
peace in the nation (19.1%), peace in the ASEAN region (30.2%), global rules and
customs (35.7%), and environment and development issues (12.7%). This is
similar to other ASEAN countries, but the Philippines is unique in that the
respondents also recognized the importance of all other questions.
Q12 asked the students to select the qualities of citizenship from 15 options,
and the quality of “self-control and goal achievement” was the most frequently
chosen by Filipino students (39.3%), followed by “respect for human rights,” and
“solving global problems,” which were also selected by more than 25% of the
students.

9.3.2 Filipino Students’ Understanding of

ASEAN and Challenges

In the second part of the survey, the respondents were asked about their awareness
of ASEAN: Q1 “Location of ASEAN on the map,” Q2 “Meaning of the ASEAN
flag,” Q3 “Year of ASEAN’s establishment,” Q4 “Year of ASEAN’s integration,”
Q5 “Knowledge of ASEAN member countries,” and Q6 “Media means to obtain
information on ASEAN. The percentage of correct answers to the question “Do
you know the exact location of the other ASEAN countries on the map” was not
very high (except for the Philippines (98.6%) and Indonesia (50.0%), the
percentage of correct answers was in the 20–30% range). Additionally, the
percentages of correct answers for Q2–Meaning of the ASEAN flag (57.7%), Q3–
Year of establishment (12.5%), and Q4–Year of integration (9.1%) were not high.
The students’ knowledge of other ASEAN countries was also average. When asked
how much they knew about ASEAN countries (Q5), among the choices of (1) not at
all, (2) not much, (3) know, and (4) know enough, the scores were in the range of
2, except for knowledge of the Philippines (3.8). On the question about knowing
information about ASEAN (Q6), although media and means, books, TV,
newspapers, and the Internet were selected, more than 50% of the students
reported that they learned at school.
Regarding the awareness of ASEAN, the following scores were obtained: Q7 “I
want to know more about it” (1.6), Q8 “It is beneficial for my country” (1.7), Q9
“It is beneficial for me” (2.0), Q10 “I am aware, attached, and proud of being an
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 185

ASEAN citizen” (1.8), and Q11 “ASEAN identity” (1.9). ASEAN countries can
be mentioned as well, but not at a very high level. Q10 “Awareness of, attachment
to, and pride in being an ASEAN citizen” was the most frequently selected answer in
the Philippines after Laos (33.6%). For Q11, “Do you think you have a common
identity with people in ASEAN countries?”, “Very strong” was selected most often
(22.2%), followed by Laos. Thus, the results of the Philippine students suggest that
at this phase of their learning, their knowledge and understanding of other ASEAN
coun- tries is not sufficient. However, the fact that “ASEAN citizenship,
attachment, and pride” and “ASEAN citizenship identity” were chosen with high
frequency indicates that Filipino students are aware of their connection to ASEAN,
although additional knowledge (learning) is still required. With the establishment
of the AEC at the end of 2015, school education in the Philippines is expected to
focus on the importance of being a good citizen of the local community and
nation, as well as a responsible citizen of ASEAN. The historical and cultural
differences between the islands and continental Southeast Asia, as well as
relationships with countries that have various religions as their national identity,
are expected to add more diversity to the civic consciousness of the Christian
Philippines.

9.4 Delphi Survey to the Educational Experts

9.4.1 Method

The Delphi survey technique was used as the research method of this study. In the
first round of the survey, there were 214 respondents, including school
headmasters, social studies teachers, Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) officers,
and college and university lecturers. During the second round of the survey, 51
respondents from the first-round sample participated. Topics and items in the
questionnaires were devel- oped from the first-round items. The second-round
questionnaire comprised two parts. Part I focused on citizenship characteristics
concerning Knowledge and under- standing, Skills and abilities, and Values and
attitudes at the local, national, regional, global, and universal levels to be achieved,
currently, and 10 years later, by experts in education. Part II comprised questions
regarding the relationship between respon- dents’ specialty and citizenship
characteristics, characteristics that they perceived as important both currently and
in 10 years, and the student age range at which they perceived it appropriate to
study these characteristics.

9.4.2 Findings

In terms of basic data, there were a total of 51 respondents, comprising 18 females

(35.29%) and 28 males (54.90%). Most of the respondents (31.37%) were in their
186 H. Nagahama et al.

30 s, followed by those in their 40 s (27.45%). Only 6 respondents (11.76) were

60 years old or above. In terms of respondents’ occupation, 26 were school
teachers (50.98%) and 10 were lecturers of higher educational institutions
(19.61%).
Most respondents (84.31%) worked in the field of social studies, while 32.46%
responded that they were involved in other responsibilities (although these respon-
sibilities were not elaborated upon).

9.4.3 Part I: Characteristics Currently Achieved and

Those Expected to Be Achieved in 10 Years

Q: Among the characteristics, which characteristics do you think you have already
achieved, and which characteristics do you expect to have achieved in 10 years?
Knowledge and understanding of Domain Citizenship Characteristics
Most respondents perceived that they had achieved the specified characteristics
(knowledge and understanding of citizenship education) at the local (94%) and
national (84%) levels, followed by those at the universal, regional, and global
levels. The respondents further indicated that 10 years from now, they expect to
have achieved these characteristics at the global level (35%), followed by the
regional (31%), universal (24%), national (16%), and local levels (6%).
Skills and abilities Domain Citizenship Characteristics
Respondents indicated that, currently, they possessed citizenship characteristics in
the domain of skills and abilities at the local level (84%), followed by those at the
universal (72%) and national (65%) levels, but had achieved them least at the
global level (55%). Ten years later, most of them expected to achieve the
characteristics at the global level (45%), followed by those at the regional (37%),
national (35%), and universal (30%) levels, but the least expected to achieve those
at the local level.
Values and attitudes Domain Citizenship Characteristics In the areas of values
and attitudes, most respondents (92%) denoted that, currently, they had achieved
the characteristics at the local level, followed by those at the universal (84%),
national (82%), and regional and global (61% each) levels. As for characteristics
they expected to achieve 10 years later, most indicated that the regional and global
levels would be achieved (39% each), followed by the national (18%), universal
(16%), and local (8%) levels.
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 187

9.4.4 Part II–1: Questions on Knowledge and Understanding

Q1: Characteristics within each specialty

Data indicate that 31–64% of the respondents often used all the topics in their
work; however, particularly notable were foreign languages, democracy, and ASEAN
history and culture, which were used less often in the respondents’ specialties.
Conversely, the themes of the environment, different cultures, social justice and
equality, democracy, and human rights were very often used in their specialties.
Q2: Significance of these characteristics
Respondents believed that all the characteristics were extremely important, with
answers ranging from 39 to 76%. It was also significant that foreign languages (58%),
different cultures and interdependence (54% each), ASEAN history and culture
and the common social problems of ASEAN countries (52% each), and
coexistence and living together (50%) were considered important by the
respondents. Interestingly, a large number of respondents considered foreign
languages to be important, with only a few considering them less important. This
needs to be further investigated to understand the point of view of those educators
who consider learning foreign languages as inconsequential to imparting
citizenship education.
Q3: Present degree of achievement
Most respondents claimed that they had achieved all characteristics in this domain
except foreign languages, which had not been efficiently achieved (38%).
Evidently, environment (13%), democracy (16%), and human rights (13%) had been
completely achieved, as reported by the respondents.
Q4: Characteristics expected to be achieved in 10 years (Table 9.2)
((tabe2).The respondents reported that they expected to completely achieve all the
characteristics within 10 years, although the most significant expectations were
regarding social justice and equity (51%) and coexistence and living together
(48%). The character- istics that were expected to not at all be achieved in 10
years were knowledge and understanding of foreign languages, social welfare,
ASEAN history and culture, and the common social problems of ASEAN
countries.
Q5: Appropriate ages to study these characteristics
Respondents identified 9–11 years as the most appropriate age to study almost all
of the characteristics in the domain of knowledge and understanding, except for
ASEAN history and the culture and common social problems of ASEAN
countries. Meanwhile, they believed the appropriate age to learn a foreign language
was 17 years and older.
188 H. Nagahama et al.

Table 9.2 At the level of Knowledge and Understanding, which characteristics do you expect to
achieve 10 years from now?
Characteristics N/A completely Achievedto Achieved Not Not
Achieved some extent efficiently achieved
(%) (%) achieved at all
Environment K1 8 21 (48) 17 (4) 5
Coexistence and K2 8 15 (34) 21 (48) 7
living together
Different K3 8 15 (34) 20 (46) 6 2
cultures
Social justice K4 8 15 (34) 22 (51) 5 1
and equity
Democracy K5 10 18 (43) 16 (39) 6 1
Sustainable K6 9 16 (38) 19 (45) 6 1
development
Interdependence K7 9 13 (30) 20 (47) 8 1
Foreign language K8 8 7 (16) 18 (41) 16 (37%) 1 1
Social welfare K9 8 16 (37) 17 (39) 10 (23%)
Human rights K10 9 19 (45) 17 (40) 6
ASEAN history K11 8 12 (27) 20 (46) 9 (20%) 1 1
and culture
Common social K12 8 10 (23) 20 (46) 10 (23%) 2 1
problems of
ASEAN
countries
Source Abulencia, Ferrer, & Nagahama

9.4.5 Part II–2: Questions on Skills and Abilities

Q1: Characteristics within each specialty.

Respondents stated that they often used all characteristics in the domain of skills
and abilities in their classes and research studies, and the topic of cooperating with
each other was particularly identified as “very often” used; however, interestingly,
47% of the respondents claimed that they never used their abilities in foreign
languages.
Q2: Significance of these characteristics
All characteristics in this domain were denoted as very important by most of the
respondents (55– 82%)—in particular, that of “cooperating with each other,”
which was identified as very important by 82% of the respondents. Further, the
characteris- tics of “ability to use foreign languages,” “behaving in accordance
with the common rules and values of ASEAN countries,” and “solving common
social problems of ASEAN countries with other people,” were perceived as
important topics by only a
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 189

minority of the respondents; “ability to solve problems” and “to improve quality
of life” were both rated unimportant by at least one respondent.
Q3: Present degree of achievement
Most respondents (37–65%) reported that they had already achieved the character-
istics “to some extent” except “behaving in accordance with the common rules and
values of ASEAN countries” (38%) and “solving the common social problems of
ASEAN countries with other people” (40%), which were labeled by the majority
as only “achieved” and the “ability to use foreign language” (12%), which was
labeled as “not efficiently achieved.” One respondent claimed that they had not
achieved only the characteristic “to respond to ICT” at all.
Q4: Characteristics that are expected to be achieved in ten years (Table 9.3)
A total of 45–62% of the respondents expected to completely achieve all the char-
acteristics within 10 years. The characteristics “cooperating with each other” and
“having self-discipline and self-control” garnered the highest percentage of posi-
tive responses (62 and 60%, respectively); however, the following four character-
istics were described by the majority as likely to be achieved only to some extent:
“responding to ICT” (52%), “ability to use foreign languages” (47%), “behaving
in accordance with the common rules and values among ASEAN countries”
(48%), and “solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with other
people” (45%).
Q5: Appropriate ages to study these characteristics
There was no clear consensus among the respondents as to the appropriate age to
study the given characteristics. Most of the respondents classified six
characteristics (S3, S5, S6, S8, S10, S11) as being appropriate to study at the age
of 9–10 years, and four characteristics (S1, S6, S13, S12) as appropriate for those
aged 13–14 years. Meanwhile, the respondents believed that only two
characteristics (S2, S9) were appropriate to be studied at the age of 8 years.

9.4.6 Part II–3: Questions on Values and Attitudes

Q1: Characteristics within each specialty

Data indicate that 54–73% of the respondents often used the themes of all characteris-
tics in their work. Among these characteristics, 73% stated that they often used values
and attitudes related to “beliefs in scientific thinking and keeping abreast of new
science and technology,” followed by those connected to “belief in self-
dependence” (68%), and “respecting democracy” (63%). Further, respondents
revealed that they very often used characteristics related to “putting emphasis on
the law” (48%) and “respecting human rights” (43%). Interestingly, regarding the
value of “respecting
Table 9.3 At the level of Skills and Abilities, which characteristics do you expect to have achieved 10 years from

190
now?
Characteristics N/A Completely achieved Achieved to some extent Achieved Not efficiently achieved Not at all
To express S1 9 21/50% 15 5 1
opinions on social
problems
To have S2 9 25/60% 11 5 1
self-discipline and
self-control
To solve problems S3 9 24/57% 12 4 2
To make decisions S4 9 22/52 14 4 2
To respond to ICT S5 9 15 22/52% 5
To make a S6 9 19/45% 19 2 2
peaceful resolution
To think critically S7 9 20/48% 18 3 1
To improve quality S8 9 22/52% 14 6
of life
To cooperate with S9 10 26/62% 11 4 1
each other
To develop S10 9 20/49% 15 5 1
sustainably
To contribute to S11 19 20/48% 16 5 2
society
To use foreign S12 20 10 15/47% 4 2 1
language

H. Nagahama et al.
(continued)
Table 9.3 (continued)

9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness

Characteristics N/A Completely achieved Achieved to some extent Achieved Not efficiently achieved Not at all
To behave in S13 20 10 15/48% 5 1
accordance with
common rules and
values among
ASEAN countries
To solve common S14 12 14/45% 4 1
social problems
of ASEAN
countries with
other people
Source Abulencia, Ferrer, & Nagahama

191
192 H. Nagahama et al.

human rights,” almost all the respondents stated that they used it either very often
or often, while none used it infrequently.
Q2: Significance of these characteristics
All characteristics were perceived as very important by 55–76% of respondents, with
the most frequently rated as very important being “respecting human rights”
(76%), “respecting democracy” (71%), and “respecting cultural diversity” and
“putting emphasis on the law” (69% each).
Q3: Present degree of achievement
44–56% of respondents indicated that, currently, they had already achieved to
some extent all the characteristics in this domain. Among these characteristics,
56% claimed that they had achieved the characteristic of “belief in scientific
thinking and keeping abreast of new science and technology,” followed by 55%
for “belief in self-dependence.” Notably, 18% of the respondents believed that they
had completely achieved the characteristics of “thinking highly of morality and
national pride” and “respecting democracy.” The following three characteristics
were rated highly by the respondents as not efficiently achieved: “intolerance of
injustice (24%),” “thinking highly of natural resources, preservation of the
environment, and placing emphasis on its development (22%)”, and “belief in
scientific thinking and keeping abreast of new science and technology (20%).”
Q4: Characteristics that are expected to be achieved in 10 years (Table 9.4)
A total of 48–57% of the respondents stated that they expected to achieve all char-
acteristics in this domain to some extent in the next 10 years. Among these charac-
teristics, most respondents (57%) stated that the characteristics of “putting
emphasis on international cooperation” and “belief in morality and ASEAN pride”
were to be achieved at this level, while 37% reported that they expected to
completely achieve the characteristics of “thinking highly of morality and national
pride,” and “thinking highly of natural resources, preservation of the environment,
and placing emphasis on its development.”
Q5: Appropriate ages to study these characteristics
Most of the respondents classified five characteristics (V2, V3, V5, V10, V11) as
appropriate to be taught to 8-year olds, and three characteristics (V1, V4, V8, V9)
were classified as appropriate for 9–10-year olds. Only two characteristics (V6, V14)
were classified as appropriate for students aged 11–12 years, and only one (V7)
was believed to be appropriate for students aged 13–14 years. Only a few
respondents classified the characteristics as being appropriate for ages 15–16 and
17 and above.
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 193

Table 9.4 At the level of Values and Attitudes, which characteristics do you expect to have achieved
10 years from now?
Characteristics N/A Completely Achieved Achieved Not Not
achieved tosome efficiently at all
extent achieved
To face V1 18 16 11 1
wrong things
and
injustice
To preserve V2 23 15 8 1
natural resources,
protect
the environment,
and have an
interest in its
development
To have V3 21 18 8
self-dependence
To respect V4 23 13 11
cultural diversity
To place V5 24 13 10
importance on
the law
To promote V6 17 19 10 1
international
cooperation
To pay attention V7 22 15 10
to global issues
To respect V8 24 13 10
tradition and
culture
To have morality V9 27 11 9
and pride as a
nation
To respect V10 27 11 9
democracy
To respect V11 27 10 9
human rights
To think in a V12 20 15 10 1
scientific way
and catch up with
the new science
and technology
To have morality V13 26 11 9 1
and pride as a
member of
ASEAN
Source Abulencia, Ferrer, & Nagahama
194 H. Nagahama et al.

9.4.7 Analysis of the Delphi Survey: Citizenship

Education Now and 10 Years Later

The following are the conclusions drawn from the results of the study:
(1) Regarding the demographic profile of the respondents, the following was
observed:
Most of the respondents were aged 30–40 years, were teachers of secondary
education, and reported that teaching was their primary responsibility.
(2) Regarding the characteristics of different levels at present, the following
observations were made:
(a) At the local level, respondents claimed to have achieved: (1) knowledge and
understanding of local history, wisdom, traditions, culture, and so on; (2) skills
and abilities related to political participation in the local community,
coopera- tion in the local community, problem-solving, and so on; (3) values
and attitudes to love the local community and behave in accordance with the
middle path, tradition, and culture.
(b) At the national level, they had achieved: (1) knowledge and understanding
of various areas including national history, tradition, culture, law, social
problems, and sustainable development; (2) skills and abilities related to how
to behave according to national traditions and culture, have national identity
as a nation, and love for the nation,; (3) values and attitudes about how to
behave according to national traditions and culture, have national identity as
a nation, and love for the nation.
(c) At the regional level (ASEAN), they had achieved: (1) knowledge and
under- standing of history, tradition and culture, social problems, development,
human rights, peace, democracy; (2) the ability to value democracy and
human rights, solve environmental problems, undertake sustainable
development, maintain the peace, use foreign languages, understand
different cultures, commit to social issues, coexist; (3) ASEAN identity,
ASEAN awareness, respect for human rights, and democratic attitudes.
(d) At the global level, they had achieved: (1) knowledge and understanding
of world history, social justice, the environment, sustainable development,
different cultures, and mutual interdependence; (2) skills and abilities related
to political participation, peaceful solutions, the understanding of different
cultures at an international level; (3) values and attitudes about awareness of
international cooperation, their identities as global citizens, and global
issues.
(e) At the universal level, they had achieved: (1) knowledge and understanding
of cultural diversity, human rights, peace, development, the environment,
and democracy; (2) skills and abilities related to theoretical thinking and
judging, respecting human rights, and decision-making; (3) values and
attitudes with respect to responsibility, a happy life, the pursuit of truth,
legal solutions, and making contributions to fellow human beings.
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 195

Filipino educators who participated in the survey reported that they had already
achieved the above characteristics. The same respondents also considered the
same characteristics as goals that could be achieved ten years later.
(3) On Knowledge and understanding, the following observations were made:

(a) Within their specializations, participants emphasized that they very often dealt
with democracy, human rights, and the environment; often dealt with
coexis- tence/living together, different cultures, interdependence, sustainable
develop- ment, and social welfare; and seldom dealt with foreign languages,
ASEAN history and culture, and the common social problems of ASEAN
countries.
(b) With regard to the significance of these characteristics, participants believed
that the environment, democracy, social justice and equity, sustainable develop-
ment, social welfare, and human rights are very important;
interdependence, foreign languages, different cultures, coexistence/living
together, ASEAN history and culture, and the common social problems of
ASEAN countries are important; and foreign languages are a little
important.
(c) As to the degree of present achievement, the Filipino experts reported that
characteristics related to the environment, coexistence/living together,
different cultures, social justice and equity, democracy, sustainable
development, inter- dependence, social welfare, and human rights had
already been achieved to some extent, although the characteristic of foreign
language had not been efficiently achieved.
(d) Concerning the characteristics, they expected to have achieved in 10 years,
the Filipino experts believed that those related to the environment, human
rights, and democracy would be completely achieved. Knowledge of
different cultures, coexistence and living together, social justice and equity,
sustainable development interdependence, foreign languages, social welfare,
human rights, ASEAN history and culture, and the common social problems
of ASEAN countries were the characteristics that they expected would be
achieved to some extent.
(e) Regarding the appropriate ages to study the characteristics, the participants
indicated that topics related to the environment, coexistence and living
together, different cultures, democracy, sustainable development, foreign
languages, social welfare, and human rights could be taught to 8-year-old
pupils; those regarding the environment, different cultures, social justice and
equity, democ- racy, sustainable development, interdependence, social
welfare, and human rights could be taught to pupils aged 9–10 years;
students aged 11–12 years could be instructed in different cultures,
democracy, and interdependence; sustainable development, and ASEAN
history and culture, and the common social problems of ASEAN countries
could be taught to 13– 14-year-old students, and, finally, foreign languages
and the common social problems of ASEAN countries are appropriate topics
for students aged 17 years and above.

(4) On questions related to Skills and abilities, the following significant

observa- tions were made:
196 H. Nagahama et al.

(a) As to their specialization, the Filipino participants indicated that they very
often deal with expressing opinions on social problems, having self-
discipline and self-control, solving problems, making decisions, improving
quality of life, and cooperating with each other; often deal with the 14
characteristics; and, perhaps most interestingly, seldom deal with foreign
language usage behaving in accordance with the common rules and values of
ASEAN countries, and solving the common social problems of ASEAN
countries with other people.
(b) With regard to the significance of the characteristics, participants reported
that expressing opinions on social problems, having self-discipline and self-
control, solving problems, making decisions, responding to ICT, peaceful
resolutions, critical thinking, improving quality of life, cooperating with each
other, sustain- able development, and social commitment are very
important, while foreign language usage, behaving in accordance with the
common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and solving the common
social problems of ASEAN countries with other people were important.
(c) As to the present degree of achievement of these characteristics, participants
reported that expressing opinions on social problems, having self-discipline and
self-control, solving problems, making decisions, responding to ICT,
peaceful resolutions, critical thinking, improving quality of life, cooperating
with each other, sustainable development, and social commitment had been
achieved to some extent. The characteristics of foreign language usage,
behaving in accordance with the common rules and values among ASEAN
countries, and solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries
with other people had not been achieved to the same level. Interestingly,
and consistent with other responses, the ability to use foreign languages had
not been efficiently achieved.
(d) In terms of the characteristics that participants expected to have achieved in
10 years’ time, they noted that the following had been completely achieved:
expressing opinions on social problems, having self-discipline and self-control,
solving problems, making decisions, critical thinking, improving quality of
life, cooperating with each other, sustainable development, and social commit-
ment. Furthermore, in 10 years, expressing opinions on social problems,
skills concerning sustainable development, skills concerning social
commitment, the ability to use foreign languages, responding to ICT, ability
to make a peaceful resolution, thinking critically, behaving in accordance
with the common rules and values among ASEAN countries, and solving the
common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people were
expected to have been achieved to some extent.
(e) With regard to the appropriate age to study the characteristics, the expert
respondents said that having self-discipline and self-control, solving problems,
making decisions, responding to ICT, peaceful resolutions, critical thinking,
improving the quality of life, cooperating with each other, and sustainable
development are best taught to 8-year-old pupils. Meanwhile, the respondents
indicated that 9–10-year-olds could be taught the following characteristics:
expressing opinions on social problems, solving problems, responding to
ICT,
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 197

peaceful resolutions, critical thinking, improving quality of life, cooperating

with each other, sustainable development, and social commitment.
Expressing opinions on social problems, solving problems, making
decisions, responding to ICT, critical thinking, foreign language usage,
behaving in accordance with the common rules and values of ASEAN
countries, and solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with
other people were considered appro- priate for 11–12-year olds. Finally,
respondents believed that 13–14-year- old students could study the
following characteristics: expressing opinions on social problems, solving
problems, responding to ICT, peaceful resolutions, critical thinking,
behaving in accordance with the common rules and values among ASEAN
countries, and solving the common social problems of ASEAN countries with
other people.

(5) Regarding the category of Values and attitudes, the following highlights
were observed:

(a) Regarding their specialization, the Filipino participants very often dealt with
the following characteristics: preserving natural resources, protecting the envi-
ronment and having an interest in its development, respecting cultural diver-
sity, giving importance to the law, paying attention to global issues,
respecting tradition and culture, having morality and pride as a nation,
respecting democ- racy, and respecting human rights. All the characteristics
related to values and attitudes were reported by the respondents as often
dealt with in their teaching. Interestingly, they showed that intolerance to
wrong things and injus- tice, emphasis on international cooperation,
awareness of global issues, and belief in morality as a member of ASEAN
were seldom dealt with in their work.
(b) As to the significance of the characteristics, respondents emphasized that all
the characteristics were very important.
(c) Regarding their present degree of achievement of these characteristics, the
respondents reported that all had been achieved to some extent.
(d) Regarding the achievement of the characteristics 10 years from now, respon-
dents indicated that all characteristics would be completely achieved by that
time.
(e) In terms of the appropriate ages for teaching the defined characteristics, the
respondents suggested that preserving natural resources, protecting the envi-
ronment and having an interest in its development, self-dependence, giving
importance to the law, respecting tradition and culture, having morality and
pride as a nation, respecting democracy, and respecting human rights were
suitable topics for 8-year-old pupils. For pupils aged 9-10 years, the appro-
priate topics were considered to be intolerance of wrong things and injus-
tice, preserving natural resources, protecting the environment and having an
interest in its development, respecting cultural diversity, giving importance
to the law, respecting tradition and culture, having morality and pride as a
nation, respecting democracy, respecting human rights, thinking in a
scientific
198 H. Nagahama et al.

way, keeping abreast of new science and technology, and having morality
and pride as a member of ASEAN. For pupils aged 11–12 years, the most
suit- able topics were intolerance of wrong things and injustice, self-
dependence, respecting cultural diversity, giving importance to the law,
promoting interna- tional cooperation, paying attention to global issues,
respecting tradition and cullture, having morality and pride as a nation,
respecting democracy, thinking in a scientific way, keeping abreast of new
science and technology, and having morality and pride as a member of
ASEAN. Students aged 13–14 years were also considered to be of
appropriate age to learn about the following character- istics: intolerance of
wrong matters and injustice, self-dependence, respecting cultural diversity,
placing importance on the law, promoting international coop- eration, paying
attention to global issues, respecting tradition and cullture, and having
morality and pride as a member of ASEAN.

9.5 Comparison of the Students’ Citizenship

Survey and the Delphi Survey

From the students’ citizenship survey, discussed earlier in this article, it can be
understood that students have learned and mastered the value of ASEANness, which
is required for the new citizenship, but they do not yet have sufficient knowledge
of each member country of ASEAN. It is evident that while they are aware that
ASEANness is expected in the future, they are not learning sufficiently about it in
social studies and other subject areas in primary and secondary education. This not
only indicates a lack of learning, but also reflects the fact that experts (educators)
understand that there is a lot of content associated with qualities and values that
should be taught in higher grades, as shown in the Delphi survey. In other words,
it can be inferred from the experts’ opinions that the formation of an identity
rooted in the new citizenship of ASEANness is founded on the formation of an
identity as a Filipino and as a citizen of the world. However, the importance of
ASEAN has been included as a learning content in the K to 12 education reform,
and it is expected that the understanding of both awareness and knowledge of
ASEANness will be improved in the future, along with the deepening of learning
about the nature of diverse citizenship through value education. In addition,
although foreign language education is inadequate at present, the reasons behind the
lack of emphasis on learning foreign languages must be understood on the premise
that the Philippines is already a multilingual society, with many local languages,
the national language (Filipino), and English (the official language) being used as
everyday languages. If a foreign language assumed by both pupils and educators is a
third language other than English, it is not at all unnatural to think that it is
important to raise English to a higher level than that. The school education system in
the Philippines has been struggling for years to find an appropriate balance in
teaching the three above-mentioned languages. As a result, while English
proficiency in the Philippines has supplemented the national treasury by sending
people abroad to work, at the same time it has caused a brain
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 199

drain; therefore, the issue of foreign languages is considered rather delicate. However,
from the perspective of understanding ASEAN, learning foreign languages other than
English has some significance. This is because the acquisition of foreign
languages as expertise will be a challenge for the Philippines in the future, as can
be seen from the modest evaluation of educators in the Delphi survey.
Understandably, the result of the uncertainty of the pupils’ knowledge about
ASEAN is a problem on the part of the teaching staff. There may be a perception
that they are well prepared for learning after entering secondary education. However,
although educators teach many values and qualities, even at the secondary level,
the teaching of values and qualities that cultivate knowledge and understanding,
skills and abilities, values, and attitudes about ASEAN is not always at the same
level as that of other values and qualities. In addition to teaching the qualities
required in any society, such as democracy, human rights, peaceful resolution, and
compliance with laws and regulations, it is necessary to teach the students what
these qualities mean globally and, especially, in the ASEAN region. In fact,
although the students are not knowledgeable enough, they are politically and
economically interested in the kinds of relationships they can build with other
ASEAN countries in the future and how the Philippines can deal with the
international community. Under the tense situation of territorial disputes in the
South China Sea, which sometimes directly affect the interests of Southeast Asian
countries, the question of whether ASEAN can take a “unified stance” is a crucial
issue in determining how much the AEC will grow into a regional community.
The question of whether the AEC can demonstrate a unified stance as a regional
community is also a crucial issue for the future growth of the AEC. The educators
who participated in the Delphi survey also reaffirmed the geopo- litical necessity of
teaching the new regional identity of ASEANness through social science subjects.
It is also possible to foresee the possibility of the emergence of a sense of ASEAN
solidarity. Additionally, there is a growing possibility that, during active
exchanges with East Asia and other countries that differ from the Southeast Asian
diplomacy of the past, the groundwork for an awareness of ASEANness will be
laid.

9.6 Conclusion

In response to the development of AEC, “regional ASEAN solidarity” has been

proposed as a new value related to national identity in educational reform in the
Philippines. In the field of education, the promotion of the ASEAN Social and
Cultural Community (ASCC) aims to form a regional community identity,
ASEAN- ness, that is, a shared identity with ASEAN countries. It is based on the
following concepts: (i) the promotion of ASEAN awareness as ASEAN citizens,
especially among young people, (ii) strengthening ASEAN identity through
education, (iii) building ASEAN human resources in the field of education, and
(iv) the educa- tional effort of building inter-university networks, which have been
advocated at the ASEAN Education Ministers’ Meeting. This enhancement of
ASEANness has been
9 Citizenship Education in the Philippines: Education for ASEANness 201

extended to other projects in the field of education, and SEAMEO INNOTECH’s

involvement in education reform is evidence of this. What this current AEC has
established and understands is that it is a different regional community than the
European Union: The EU is not only an economical but also a political community
sharing democratic beliefs, based on which it implements a rule-of-law policy
with conditions that complement each other via certain common economic
policies.
In that sense, the AEC could be compared to the EU’s former incarnation, the
European Economic Community (EEC), which was not based on a strict ratifica-
tion of policy agreements and treaties. The current objective of the AEC is to form
a framework for a regional economic partnership aimed at accelerating economic
growth through trade liberalization and market integration within the region; thus,
the AEC can be seen as a current situation where many stakeholders are promoting
their own agendas, which may be an unavoidable process in the formation of a
new regional framework.
This current forming of an economic community is a tentative process aiming
to allow each state to expect clear benefits in what is predicted to be a new vehicle
of economic growth in Asia. It will be difficult but imperative for the people of
ASEAN countries to rapidly form a new identity, that of ASEANness. On the other
hand, as shown in the survey results, teaching citizenship in Asia as ASEANness is
considered more appropriate during secondary school due to its delicate character,
which touches upon students’ national and personal identities. As mentioned earlier,
ASEANness is becoming more significant than teachers and experts judge, and
students now realize that they must also be aware of ASEAN membership.
It is believed that through basic education, children in the Philippines will be
able to realize and make sense of the reality of ASEANness in their society and
create a new identity to expand their already multi-tiered characters, regarding which
consistency will be found soon. The country’s former president, Rodrigo R. Duterte,
who is noted for his extreme remarks and security policy, fully understands that a
nation can only be built by improving cooperation with ASEAN (AEC) and other
foreign countries, thus, improving economic cooperation and education.
Chapter 10
Citizenship Education in Singapore:
Implementation of Character
and Citizenship Education and Revised
National Education

Mitsuhiro Ikeda

Abstract In Singapore, as an immigrant state and multiethnic society, moral educa-

tion and citizenship education have always been a national issue. The government has
promoted various moral education programs to integrate ethnic groups and
develop human resources. Moral education from the early days to the 1990s had
mainly emphasized state-oriented, abstract ideas such as Confucian ethics, and Asian
values, and the norms of behavior as a good citizen. However, the Character and
Citizen- ship Education (CCE), which was introduced to primary and secondary
schools in 2014, has become more student-centered and has taken effective
approaches. In moral education, ASEAN topics had been used to emphasize the
need for Singa- pore’s national integration and its successful economic
development. In Singapore, as an English-speaking society, global citizenship had
been recognized as more important than ASEAN citizenship. However, a new
curriculum plan, announced by the Ministry of Education in 2020, would change
this trend. The plan consists of the following three areas: “Enhancing CCE,”
“Knowing Asia,” and “Strengthening Digital Literacy.” Under the new
curriculum, an enhanced humanities curriculum, including social studies,
geography, history, and economics, will be enhanced for a deeper understanding of
Asia, including ASEAN at the secondary and pre-university levels. It seems to be
developed and strengthened the complementary relationship between CCE, which
is responsible for the education of moral and cultural values, and humanities
subjects, which are designed to foster global awareness through the learning of
Asia’s growth. Since the author could not conduct a questionnaire survey to the
students and a Delphi survey on Singapore due to the tight school hours, this
chapter provides an overview of the history and current situation of moral
education and citizenship education in Singapore.

·
Keywords Character and citizenship education Civics and moral education ·
Global awareness · National education

M. Ikeda (B)
Faculty of Human and Social Services, Yamanashi Prefectural University, Iida 5-11-1, Kofu-
city 400-0035, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
203
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_10
204 M. Ikeda

10.1 Introduction: Overview of Educational System,

Curriculum, and so on or Background of
Citizenship Education

10.1.1 Historical and Social Background of Moral Education

In the British colony of Singapore in the late nineteenth century, the population
was deeply divided along ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines. Socially, racial
groups, such as the Chinese, Malays, Indians, and the British colonial government
separately established and managed each school to teach their cultures and
languages. Their schools also fostered the children’s loyalty to their communities
and homelands.
In 1965, Singapore separated from Malaysia and became a sovereign state. The
government immediately launched various educational policies to foster the national
identity as Singaporean among its people. However, these policies also aimed to
undermine the ethnocentric mindset of each ethnic group.
Through the public school system, the government and the Ministry of
Education have long endeavored to strengthen their national identity as
Singaporean. Moral education, especially in the early days, played an important
role in uniting people with different values and in advancing nation-building. From
the 1950s to the 1970s, the government introduced and implemented various moral
education programs and related activities in public schools to enhance national unity
and citizenship, including the following:
• 1959 The Ministry of Education published a syllabus to teach ethics in primary
and secondary schools. The syllabus aimed to inculcate ethical values such as
“politeness,” “honesty,” “perseverance,” and “kindness.” The objective was to
“lay the foundation for character development in young children so that they
would develop into self-respecting individuals and good citizens” (Ong et al.,
1979, p. 2).
• 1966 After Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965, a bilingual education
policy became compulsory in all secondary schools. Moreover, the Ministry of
Education launched various practical programs to equip children with aware-
ness as Singaporean citizens with a sense of social responsibility. For example,
a national flag raising ceremony, which practiced taking the national pledge
and singing the national anthem, was instituted in all schools. The Civics
Training Subject Committee was formed that year to develop a new civics
• syllabus.
1967 The Committee published the civics syllabus to replace ethics, which
aimed to foster Singaporean pupils with a love for their country and its people.
The syllabus for primary schools emphasized values such as “patriotism,”
“loyalty,” and “civic consciousness.” Civics for secondary schools was
composed using six broad themes: the individual, family, school, community,
nation, and the world. Civics, as a compulsory but non-examination subject,
was introduced to all Chinese- and English-medium schools by 1968.
10 Citizenship Education in Singapore … 205

• 1974 Education for Living (EFL), which combined civics with history and
geog- raphy, was introduced into primary schools. EFL contained both moral and
social education, with the aim of enabling pupils to obtain a better
understanding of the geographical environment and economic realities of the
country.

10.1.2 Two Ministry Reports in 1979 and the

Beginning of Religious Education in 1984

By the late 1970s, Singapore had succeeded in achieving spectacular economic

growth and rapid industrialization. However, the Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew,
and the People’s Action Party (PAP) leaders had developed fears that young
Singa- poreans would gradually lose their distinctive Asian values with their
increasing use of English and adoption of Western culture and values.
The year 1979 was a landmark year in which the Ministry of Education
published two prestigious reports, the Report on the Ministry of Education and
the Report on Moral Education. These reports intensely criticized the trend of
Westerniza- tion among young Singaporeans and the curriculum and practice of
existing moral education.
The first report, produced by the influential Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Goh Keng
Swee, mainly focused on the direction of reform toward effective bilingual education,
but another focus was the values debate. The report devoted a section to the topic
of moral education, and was convinced that much of the material in the EFL
textbooks was “irrelevant and useless. Subjects such as the use of community centers,
functions of government outpatient clinics are of little value in inculcating moral
beliefs in children” (Goh, 1979, p. 1–5). It also acknowledged that previous moral
education “may not be sufficient to provide the cultural ballast to withstand the
stress of living in a fast-changing society,” and strongly warned that “with the
large-scale movement to education in English, the risk of deculturization cannot be
ignored” (Goh, 1979,
p. 1–5). Therefore, Dr. Goh proposed that “One way to overcoming the dangers of
deculturization is to teach children the historical origins of their culture. Chinese
pupils could be taught in the Chinese language in secondary school early Chinese
history up to the setting up of the Confucian state in the Han dynasty; Indians,
the ancient history of India; and Malays, the early history of their peoples and the
Archipelago” (Goh, 1979, p. 1–5).
Prime Minister Lee agreed with his confidant’s views on moral education. Specif-
ically, he asserted the relation between building good citizenship and the ethics of
Confucianism. He suggested that “the greatest values in the teaching and learning
of Chinese is in the transmission of the norms of social or moral behavior. This
means principally Confucianist beliefs and ideas, of man, society, and the state” (Goh,
1979,
p. v).
Four months after the Goh report was published, Ong Teng Chong, the Minister
for Communication, and his Moral Education Committee submitted the Report on
Moral Education to Dr. Goh. The report pointed out that EFL for the primary level
206 M. Ikeda

and Civics for the secondary level were too broad and had little direct relevance to
moral education. The report noted that the “presentation in the civics textbooks is
generally dull and somewhat factual and dogmatic. There are too many ‘dos’ and
‘don’ts’ without adequate explanation and illustration of the “‘why’ and ‘how’”
(Ong et al., 1979, p. 5). Therefore, it called for these subjects to be scrapped and
replaced with a “Moral Education” program that covered both primary and
secondary levels under the charge of a single subject standing committee. For its
development, the Committee had studied moral education in Japan, Taiwan, and the
former USSR, and suggested that the Moral Education program focuses on three
main areas: personal behavior, social responsibility, and loyalty to the country.
Moreover, the report observed that many teachers in mission schools “have a
strong religious background, which lends support to their teaching of EFL and
Civics” (Ong et al., 1979, p. 7). Thus, the report acknowledged the important role
that religious studies played in promoting moral values among young
Singaporeans. Consequently, following the Goh and Ong reports of 1979, two
new citizen- ship education programs, the “Good Citizens” program for primary
schools and the “Being and Becoming” program for secondary schools, replaced
EFL and civics, respectively, in 1981. The “Good Citizens” program used a
didactic, teacher-centered approach. This approach was later found wanting in
transmitting values and in meeting the pupils’ needs. Conversely, the “Being and
Becoming” program encour- aged pupils to deliberate and reflect on value issues
and then debate and arrive at
their own judgments.
Another outcome from the Ong report was manifested in the introduction of
Reli- gious Knowledge in 1982. This was made a compulsory subject for upper
secondary level students, who were offered six options: Bible Knowledge,
Buddhist Studies, Islamic Religious Knowledge, Hindu Studies, Sikh Studies, and
Confucian Ethics. Even though Confucian Ethics was only one of six options in
the Religious Knowl- edge curriculum, the PAP leaders and mass media eagerly
praised and encouraged Confucianism. A group of Confucian scholars from the
United States and Taiwan were invited to Singapore by the government in 1982 for
three weeks of discussions, lectures, and consultations. They agreed with the
government’s view and efforts that the preponderance of the Chinese in Singapore
made it justifiable to introduce the teachings of Confucianism.
However, Singaporean society’s excessive preoccupation with Confucianism
made the non-Chinese in Singapore feel threatened that “Confucianism may be
used by the government to displace other religions. They are also concerned that
Chinese chauvinism may eventually dominate other groups” (Vasil, 1995, p. 73).
Moreover, in the late 1980s, Religious Knowledge explicitly recognized the
potential problem. The government was faced with a dramatic shift among the
young, especially the English-educated Chinese, toward the rapidly growing and
charismatic Christian churches. By the end of the decade, Religious Knowledge,
including Confucian Ethics, was abandoned when it was made a non-compulsory
option subject, as it was perceived as threatening ethnic harmony and heightening
religious fervor.
The “Being and Becoming” and “Good Citizens” program were unsuccessful
in achieving the government’s goals for citizenship education. In 1992, they were
10 Citizenship Education in Singapore … 207

replaced with the Civics and Moral Education (CME) program for primary and
secondary level students as a compulsory, non-examinable subject. The aim of
CME was to develop a commitment to nation-building. Disseminating messages
about the success story of the country and its fragile condition, CME emphasized
moral and political socialization. Students were taught the major difficulties faced by
Singapore since independence, as well as issues of national concern, such as
population growth, racial and religious harmony, economic growth, and national
security. Students were also encouraged to think about the ways that they could
support and contribute to national campaigns.

10.1.3 Discussion of “National Ideology” and the

“Shared Values” Project

On October 28, 1988, the First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong raised the
notion of a national ideology: a set of core Asian values. He stated that “Like
Japan and Korea, Singapore is a high-performance country because we share the
same cultural base as the successful East Asians, that is, Confucian ethics. We
have the same core values which made the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese
succeed. If we want to continue to prosper, we must not lose our core values such
as hard work, thrift, and sacrifice. The question is how to preserve them when daily
we are exposed to alien influences. My suggestion is: formalize our values in a
national ideology and then teach them in schools, workplaces, homes, as our way of
life” (Speeches, 1988.
p. 15). By quoting the success of Pancasila in Indonesia and Rukunegara in Malaysia
in giving people a strong sense of unity, he emphasized the importance of
Singapore building its own ideology based on Asian values for Singaporeans. In
other words, the government seemed to attempt to embrace the spirit of
Confucianism by using the concept of a national ideology as a set of core Asian
values so that it could be widely accepted by all ethnic and religious groups.
This attempt was incorporated in the opening of Parliament on January 9, 1989,
by President We Kim Wee. Early in the same year, the Institute of Policy Studies
was requested to conduct a study to identify national values. In June 1990, the
Institute published its report as a result of the study to facilitate public discussion
and debate on the issues.
The government’s White Paper on Shared Values was issued on January 6,
1991, and was reported in the media. It was debated in Parliament on January 14.
The White Paper proposed that the following should form the basis for developing
shared values among Singaporeans:
(1) Nation before community and society above self.
(2) Family as the basic unit of society.
(3) Regard and community support for the individual.
(4) Consensus instead of contention.
(5) Racial and religious harmony.
208 M. Ikeda

Following the government’s White Paper on Shared Values, the Ministry of

Community Development announced the Singapore Family Values in 1994. These
are.
(1) Love, care, and concern.
(2) Mutual respect.
(3) Filial responsibility.
(4) Commitment.
(5) Communication.
The CME syllabus for primary schools was published in 2000 and emphasized
these core values in the teaching of CME. The syllabus stated that “To enable us
to realize the goal and objectives of the Civics and Moral Education programs in
our primary school pupils, five broad themes are drawn up. These themes reflect
the structure of relationships that pupils will be inducted into, beginning first from
self, moving on to the family and school, and finally extending to the society and
the nation. Within the parameters of relationships extending from self to the
nation, pupils are equipped with knowledge, skills, and attitudes that reflect the
values and principles deemed important and good, and upheld by society, which
include our Shared Values, Singapore Family Values, and the Desired Outcomes
of Education” (CME syllabus, 2000, p. 3). The CME textbooks took up these
values and tried to make pupils believe in these values.

10.1.4 Introduction of “National Education”

and the “Desired Outcomes of Education”

At the Teachers’ Day Rally on September 8, 1996, Prime Minister Goh Chok
Tong announced a major initiative to strengthen National Education (NE) in
schools and establish a NE Committee to chart the plans for NE. The Committee
established 13 project teams and was designed to develop strategies and measures for
the implemen- tation of the NE program in schools. Following recommendations by
the Committee, in 1997, NE was introduced across multiple subjects, unlike the CME
had been imple- mented as a single subject that occupied one period per week. As
Key subjects of NE, especially Social Studies and CME for primary level, and
History, Geography, and CME for secondary level, were expected to foster
students’ sense of identity, pride, and self-respect as Singaporeans, both
effectively and creatively.
The objectives of NE were to develop students’ national identity by understanding
the history and uniqueness of Singapore through experiential and active learning.
The Learning Journey and the Community Involvement Program are well-known
NE initiatives. Many students were encouraged to attend some activities, such as,
visiting historical heritage and national institutions regularly as their Learning
Journey to conduct research, or undertaking six hours of community service in
elderly homes through the Community Involvement Program.
10 Citizenship Education in Singapore … 209

In August 1997, the prime minister launched the Singapore 21 Committee with
the aim of strengthening the “heartware” of the Republic in the twenty-first
century. In the face of the rapid changes and increasing uncertainty in the
modern world, the Committee discussed how to enhance mutual respect, trust, and
participation for citizens so that they might improve the ability to work together to
solve complex or uncertain problems. As a way forward, the Committee proposed
the notions of the “active citizen” and “active citizenship.” The “active citizen”
meant that all citizens should realize that they have a stake in the country and
should recognize Singapore as “the best home possible.” “Active citizenship”
involved a partnership with social, public, and private sectors in the process of
offering feedback and suggestions, and in being actively involved in the
community and charitable work.
In response to the NE initiatives and the Singapore 21 vision, the Ministry of
Education announced the Desired Outcomes of Education (DOE) as a set of devel-
opmental outcomes for each key stage of the education system. As
aforementioned, the CME syllabus also referred to the DOE concept in the
following table.
The DOE expressed that students should not only be “creative,” “innovative,”
and “enterprising” to be well adapted to the knowledge-based economy but also
have loyalty and a patriotic spirit to counter globalization. Throughout, the DOE
“have given greater emphasis to values-based and student-centric education, main-
taining social cohesion remains to be fundamental to a small multiracial nation state”
(Boon & Wong, 2019, p. 183).
Until the 1990s, Singapore’s moral education was dogma-like and state-
oriented by advocating conservative Asian values such as Confucianism.
However, it would seem that the concept of citizenship, which was announced to
Singaporean society just before the twenty-first century, has emphasized
competencies that actually contribute to economic growth and social cohesion via
the DOE.

10.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education:

Implementation of “Character and Citizenship
Education”
and Revived NE

A new subject, the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), was introduced to
primary and secondary schools in 2014 and Junior Colleges (JC) in 2016. The
CCE aims to “inculcate values and build competencies in students to develop them
to be good individuals and useful citizens” (CCE (primary) syllabus, 2014, p. 1) in
a fast- changing and globalized world. It develops students through their
understanding of the values that define Singaporean society, and inspires them to
show concern about the world they live in and demonstrate empathy in their
relationships with others.
The goal of CCE is to foster students with six core values (Respect, Responsibility,
Resilience, Integrity, Care, and Harmony) that are fundamental for a person of
good character and a useful citizen of Singapore. The core values are derived
from the
210 M. Ikeda

Shared Values, the Singapore Family Values, the Singapore 21 Vision, and the NE
messages.
The Learning Outcomes (LOs) of CCE (Table 10.1) indicate what moral values
students should learn and achieve at each stage. The syllabus states that “LOs 1 to
4 depict different aspects of character building that are interrelated and feature
social and emotional competencies. LOs 5 to 8 are guided by key tenets of 21st-
century citizenship and are arranged according to attributes of citizenship such as
identity, culture, and active, responsible engagement as a member of society” (CCE
(primary) syllabus, 2014, p. 5) (Table 10.2).
Students learn values through three overarching ideas (Identity, Relationships,
and Choices) in six domains, starting with one’s own self and extending to the
family, school, community, nation, and the world. Table 10.3 illustrates key
questions for guiding primary and secondary school students to understand the
habits, values, attitudes, competencies, and skills that they have in order to handle
diverse life experiences (CCE (primary) syllabus, 2014, p. 12).
As a theme related to “the world,” the CCE textbook of primary school introduces
the relief activities by the Singapore Red Cross Society and the Singapore Armed
Forces (SAF) for survivors of natural disasters in other countries. As a topic of

Table 10.1 The key stage outcomes of education. Source MOE (n.d.), The Desired Outcomes of
Education
At the end of primary school, At the end of secondary At the end of post-secondary
pupils should: school, students should: education, students should:
Be able to distinguish right Have moral integrity Have moral courage to
from wrong stand up for what is right
Know their strengths and areas Believe in their abilities Be resilient in the face
for growth and be able to adapt to of adversity
change
Be able to cooperate, share Be able to work in teams Be able to collaborate
and care for others and show empathy for others across cultures and be
socially responsible
Have a lively curiosity Be creative and have Be innovative and
about things an inquiring mind enterprising
Be able to think for and Be able to appreciate Be able to think critically
express themselves confidently diverse views and and communicate
communicate persuasively
effectively
Take pride in their work Take responsibility for their Be purposeful in pursuit of
own learning excellence
Have healthy habits and Enjoy physical activities Pursue a healthy lifestyle
an awareness of the arts and appreciate the arts and have an appreciation for
aesthetics
Know and love Singapore Believe in Singapore and Be proud to be Singaporean
understand what matters to and understand Singapore
Singapore in relation to the world
10 Citizenship Education in Singapore … 211

Table 10.2 Character and citizenship education learning outcomes. Source MOE (2014)
LO 1 Acquire self-awareness and apply self-management skills to achieve
personal well-being and effectiveness
LO 2 Act with integrity and make responsible decisions that uphold moral principles
LO 3 Acquire social awareness and apply interpersonal skills to build and maintain
positive relationships based on mutual respect
LO 4 Be resilient and have the ability to turn challenges into opportunities
LO 5 Take pride in our national identity, have a sense of belonging to Singapore and be
committed to nation-building
LO 6 Value Singapore’s socio-cultural diversity, and promote social cohesion and harmony
LO 7 Care for others and contribute actively to the progress of our community and nation
LO 8 Reflect on and respond to community, national and global issues, as an informed and
responsible citizen

Table 10.3 Domains and key questions. Source MOE (2014)

Domains Key questions
Identity Relationships Choices
Self Being who I am How am I similar How does the way How are the
and becoming who to others? I perceive and choices I make
I can be How am I different manage myself good for others and
from others? affect my me?
relationship with
others?
Family Strengthening Who am I in my How do I build How would my
family ties family? and maintain actions affect my
relationships in family and
my family? myself?
School Fostering healthy How am I a Who are my What do I want in
friendships and friend to others? friends? a friendship?
team spirit What are our roles How do we work How would we
when we work in a well together? use our strengths
team? to build a team?
Community Understanding our What is an How do we What are our roles
community and inclusive society understand and in building an
building an to us? relate to others in inclusive society?
inclusive society an inclusive
society?
Nation Developing a What makes us How do my How would we
sense of national Singaporeans? relationships with demonstrate our
identity and others contribute commitment to
nation-building to the well-being of
nation-building? Singapore?
World Being an active What does it mean How do we How would we
citizen in a to be an active interact with the use our strengths
globalized world citizen in a people in a and
globalized world? globalized world? abilities to meet
the needs of a
globalized world?
 212 M. Ikeda

Table 10.4 Curriculum timetable for CCE. Source MOE (2014, 2016)
Primary (P1– School-based
CCE lessons FTGP Total: 60 hours
3) CCE
(30 hours) (15 hours) per year
(15 hours)
Primary School-based
CCE lessons FTGP Total: 75 hours
(P4) CCE
(45 hours) (15 hours) (15 hours) per year
Primary School-based
CCE lessons FTGP SEd Total: 75 hours
(P5–6) CCE
(45 hours) (15 hours) (4) (11 hours) per year
Secondary Guidance School-based
CCE lessons Total: 60 hours
(S1–S5) modules CCE
(20 hours) (13 hours) (27 hours) per year
Customized Total: Over 80 hours
Pre-university CCE lessons Cohort-level CCE
CCE learning
(40 hours) (40 hours) in 2 years (for JC)
experience
/3 years (for CI)

ASEAN, the textbook addresses that the SAF tried to communicate with the
Indone- sian people to provide what was useful to them when the Sumatra tsunami
happened in Indonesia.
The CCE curriculum at the primary and secondary level comprises CCE
lessons, Form Teacher Guidance Period (FTGP), school-based CCE, and the CCE
Guid- ance module. At the pre-university level, namely JC and the centralized
institute, the components of CCE are CCE lessons, cohort-level CCE, and
customized CCE learning experiences (CCE (primary) syllabus, 2014, p. 7; CCE
(secondary) syllabus, 2014, p. 6; CCE (Pre-University) syllabus, 2016, p. 14)
(Table 10.4).
To learn about the myths, traditions, and cultural heritage of their own ethnic
groups, the CCE lessons at the primary levels are taught in the Mother Tongue
Language (MTL), namely Chinese, Malay, and Tamil. For the primary and secondary
students that use minority languages except for their MTL, the CCE lessons are taught
in English.
In the FTGP lessons, form teachers interact with students through discussion
and activities and teach Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), such as the lessons
on Cyber Wellness, the Education and Career Guidance and Protection from
Abuse. The school-based CCE is given the space and flexibility to customize and
deliver the lesson over 11 to 15 h per year. This could include activities that focus
on school values, such as school-wide commemoration and any assembly
programs. The CCE Guidance module, namely Sexuality Education (SEd),
addresses issues associated with child and adolescent development. Schools are
required to set aside four hours a year in Primary 5 and 6 to deliver SEd.
The CCE pedagogy is drawn from the constructivist theories. The teaching
approaches aim to facilitate the learning of skills and internalization of values through
action and reflection, as learners learn best when they are actively engaged. Teachers
can use their repertoire of process-based approaches to select relevant instructional
strategies such as role-play, dialoguing, cooperative learning, reflection, and group
work to engage students in learning CCE.
Since the start of 1997, NE faced many challenges in teaching. Over 10 years later
in 2007, the Minister of State for Education mentioned that while students
“enjoyed
10 Citizenship Education in Singapore … 213

NE in primary school, they became somewhat skeptical of NE at the secondary

school level and beyond. A good number found Social Studies, which they
equated most with NE, as burdensome, boring, or worse, relegated it to
‘propaganda’” (MOE, 2007). To refresh the situation, following a year-long
review that was concluded in 2017, the NE Review Committee revised the
purposes, curriculum, and methods to help children become more familiar with it.
They recommended that NE should be a more aspirational and empowering
process where students explore and examine their identity as citizens of society and
the world, and arrive at a common set of ideals and values. The review report
prescribed that NE should be rooted in the following citizenship dispositions: A
sense of belonging, a sense of reality, a sense of hope, and the will to act. Moreover,
the curriculum should be redesigned to allow students to exercise ownership of
their community, build stronger relationships with their peers in an increasingly
diverse society, and initiate ways to contribute to the nation in order to nurture a
commitment to take action.

10.3 Conclusion

10.3.1 Summary

In Singapore, as an immigrant state and multiethnic society, moral education and

citizenship education have always been a national concern. The government has
put in place various national initiatives such as “Civics,” “EFL,” “Being and
Becoming,” “Good Citizens,” “Confucian Ethics,” within the “Religious
Knowledge,” “CME,” “NE,” and the recent “CCE.”
Moral education from the early days to the 1990s had mainly emphasized state-
oriented, abstract ideas such as Confucian ethics, and Asian values, and the norms
of behavior as a good citizen. However, since the 2000s, citizenship education
has become more student-centered and has taken effective approaches that include
SEL and holistic education. To achieve these methods, the current CCE policy has
provided each school with sufficient space to customize their own unique
curricula. Each school has the autonomy to develop its own teaching and
learning mate- rials to meet the interests of students and the specific needs of their
neighborhood communities. This means that school leaders and teachers need to
further improve their creativity, flexibility, and communication skills in order to
develop the CCE curriculum in the twenty-first century.

10.3.2 Future Outlook

In March 2020, the Ministry of Education announced a curriculum reform plan

consisting of the following three areas: “Enhancing CCE,” “Knowing Asia,” and
214 M. Ikeda

“Strengthening Digital Literacy.” Under a new CCE curriculum, the Ministry of

Education will enhance mental health and cyber wellness education across the
primary and secondary levels. Moreover, they will emphasize the teaching of
moral and cultural values during CCE lessons via mother tongue languages in
primary schools, and the regular discussion of contemporary issues in secondary
schools. With a deeper focus on ASEAN, China, and India, an enhanced
humanities curriculum, including social studies, geography, history, and
economics, will highlight the impor- tance of the region at the secondary and pre-
university levels. It seems to be developed and strengthened that complementary
relationship between CCE, which is respon- sible for the education of moral and
cultural values, and humanities subjects designed to foster global awareness through
the learning of Asia’s growth.
Chapter 11
Citizenship Education in Thailand:
From the Persistence of Traditional
Citizenship to the Next Step

Sunate Kampeeraparb, Koro Suzuki, Chantana Chanbanchong,

Sumlee Thongthew, Sumontip Boonsombuti,
and Waraiporn Sangnapaboworn

Abstract This research provides a background on citizenship education in Thailand,

conducts an analysis of the national core curriculum, and presents the results of a
questionnaire survey administered to students and a Delphi survey administered to
Thai experts on education. Thai society changed dramatically after the surge of
globalization in the 1990s. The first national education law in history was enacted
in 1999. The purpose of the law was to establish a global standard for the Thai
nation and to foster Thai citizenry who can survive in the twenty-first century.
Citizenship education provided by the current Basic Education Core Curriculum
of 2008 is integrated into learning areas of Social Studies, Religion, and Culture as
well as in the Thai Language. Furthermore, citizenship education through Social
Studies, Religion,

S. Kampeeraparb (B)
Graduate School of International Development, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku,
Nagoya 464-8601, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Suzuki
The Community Center for the Advancement of Education and Research, University of
Kochi, 2-22 Eikokuji-cho, Kochi 780-8515, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
C. Chanbanchong
Faculty of Education, Naresuan University, Pitsanulok 65000,
Thailand e-mail: [email protected]
S. Thongthew
Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Phayathai Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330,
Thailand
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Boonsombuti (Deceased)
School of Educational Studies, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, Chaengwattana Road,
Bangpood, Pakkret, Nonthaburi 11120, Thailand
W. Sangnapaboworn
The Suk-Kaew Kaewdang Foundation, 39/3 Moo 2, Lam Phaya, Muang Yala, Yala 95160,
Thailand
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
215
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_11
216 S. Kampeeraparb et al.

and Culture is explicitly stated under the guidelines of Strand 2: Civics, Culture
and Living in Society. In 2011, a questionnaire survey on citizenship education
was conducted on students in grades 6, 9, and 12 in Bangkok, Thailand = (n 592).
The Delphi survey was conducted in 2013 with Thai experts on education = (n 268).
The aim of these surveys is to clarify what citizenship characteristics are required
for students in Thailand, what has been achieved at present and what should be
achieved a decade later—namely, more effort should be put into the Regional,
Global, and Universal levels while maintaining Thai-ness at the Local and National
levels. Many see that Thailand should be one actor in the ASEAN community; at
the same time, education to promote knowledge of ASEAN and cultivate
ASEANness should be encouraged. Therefore, in order to promote ASEAN
literacy, Thailand should foster the foundation of citizenship relevant to the Thai
context and integrate knowledge, understanding, and skills related to ASEAN into
the school curriculum in a step-by- step manner.

Keywords ASEAN literacy Basic · Education Core Curriculum of 2008

Citizenship education in Thailand · Thailand’s Delphi survey

11.1 Introduction

Unlike neighboring Southeast Asian countries, Thailand was never colonized by

Western powers, and therefore its education system was developed from within
(Watson, 1980). From the latter half of the nineteenth century to the beginning of
the twentieth century, modernization of national education was promoted and a
modern school education system was introduced. In 1921, a compulsory education
system was legally established and a national education system began to emerge.
After the 1960s, human resource development was promoted for the economic
development of the country. Primary education became widespread in the 1980s
followed by lower secondary education in the 1990s.
Since the 1990s, the wave of globalization has surged and Thai society has
changed dramatically (Office of the National Economic and Social Development
Board, 1996). Around 1996, educational policies to cope with globalization were
launched in rapid succession. However, in 1997, the country was faced with a life-
or-death economic situation triggered by the Asian financial crisis. This led to calls for
political, economic, social, cultural, and educational reforms in Thailand.
Following the enactment of the 16th Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand in
1997, the first national education law in history was enacted in 1999 (Constitution
of the Kingdom of Thailand, 1997, 1997). This law fundamentally reformed
education in Thailand by establishing a global standard and fostering Thai
citizenry who can survive in the twenty-first century. This educational reform is
the biggest reform since the modernization of education.
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence … 217

11.2 New Trend of Citizenship Education:

Policies and Curriculum

Based on the experience of the financial crisis, extant policies, and reports of
various committees, this educational reform aimed not only to drastically reform
education, but also to maintain competition in a global society while restructuring
Thailand’s social, political, economic, and cultural systems. The essence of the
reform would be “construction of a global standard for Thailand” (Department of
Curriculum and Instruction Development, 2002, 1). In the wake of the currency crisis,
the government was keenly aware of the need to train the Thai citizenry to survive in
the twenty-first- century global community.
Educational reform under the Education Law of 1999 covers a wide range of
issues, including administrative reform of education, legislation of educational
rights, reform of educational methods, reform of teachers, and the introduction of
a system to guarantee the quality of education (Office of the National Education
Commission, 1999). The Education Law of 1999 stipulated in Article 6 that
“education should aim to make Thais perfect human beings in all aspects of body,
mind, intelligence, knowledge and morals, to acquire ethics and culture for living,
and to be able to coexist happily with others.” Therefore, in Article 7, in the
learning process, the following goals are emphasized: “to correctly recognize the
monarchal democratic system; to maintain and promote rights, duties, freedom,
legal compliance, equality, and dignity as a human being; to take pride in being Thai;
to protect the interests of the public and the state; to promote religion, art, national
culture, sports, local wisdom, Thai wisdom, and universal knowledge; to protect
nature and the environment; to have the ability to work; to be self-reliant; to be
creative; and to be able to learn on an ongoing basis.”
In response to the ideals of the 1999 Education Law, the basic education
curriculum was announced in 2001 (Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Development, 2002). This curriculum required the organization of a 12-year inte-
grated curriculum, and led to the development of diverse school curricula that
could be entered into on a voluntary basis by each basic educational institution.
However, in actual educational institutions, due to the lack of relevant materials
and other factors, there was confusion among those involved in the field, and the
curriculum contents became too detailed, while the knowledge, abilities, and
desirable qualities of learners did not reach a satisfactory level (Suzuki et al.,
2004).
Thus, in 2008, while continuing the framework of the 2001 curriculum, a
revised curriculum emphasized key competencies, and the content-based curriculum
was transformed into a standards-based curriculum (Office of the Basic Educa-
tion Commission, 2008). The key competencies included communication, critical
thinking, problem-solving, life skills, and technology utilization.
In this way, a number of reforms have been carried out in accordance with the
Education Act of 1999, but at the same time, there have been challenges in terms
of curriculum reform. Although the reform resulted in each institution creating its
own curriculum, it was almost impossible for small schools to create their own
curriculum
218 S. Kampeeraparb et al.

due to the lack of teachers’ abilities. Curriculum reform, which continues to the
present day, has to examine and evaluate how these issues will be resolved and
how they will be addressed in the future.
In addition, in the midst of the drastic transformation of Thai society itself,
including the declining birthrate and aging population, various measures aimed at
reforming the social structure have been promoted. The “12th National Economic
and Social Development Plan” (2017–2021), which was launched in October
2016, pointed out the structural problems behind Thailand’s sluggish economic
growth compared to other ASEAN countries, and the need to improve labor
shortages and delays in technological innovation due to the declining birthrate and
aging population (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board,
2016). Following the “11th National Economic and Social Development Plan” and
following the “Suf- ficiency Economy Philosophy” proposed by His Majesty the
late King Bhumibol Adulyadej, ten strategies were developed to reduce income
inequality and poverty, and strengthen the economy and international
competitiveness. In addition, the “Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, 2017”
was promulgated and enforced on April 6, 2017 (Constitution of the Kingdom of
Thailand, 2017). To overcome these structural problems, the Constitution obliges
the state to “develop a national strategy to serve as a sustainable development
target” (Article 65). In fact, Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha has placed priority
on formulating economic growth policies based on the “National Strategy”
stipulated in the Constitution with visions of stability, prosperity, and
sustainability (Online Reporters, 2018).
Based on this Constitution, the interim government at the time drew up a “20-Year
National Strategy” (2018–2037) to be taken over by the next government. Under
this Strategy, Thailand is expected to achieve an average annual growth rate of
4.5% over the next 20 years, and to become a high-income country by 2036.
In 2016, “Thailand 4.0” was presented as the next economic and industrial reform
model to realize the “20-Year National Strategy” (Office of the National
Economic and Social Development Board, 2018). The implementation of
“Thailand 4.0” is legally secured by the provisions of the 2017 Constitution, and
is considered to be effective even if a change of government takes place. It is
ranked higher than the previous “five-year development plan” which was planned by
the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB). Accordingly, the
development of Thailand can be divided into the following three stages (The
Secretariat of the Prime Minister, 2017). Thailand 1.0 is a society based on
agriculture and refers to pre-industrial Thai- land. Thailand 2.0 refers to the period
after World War II when domestic enterprises were developed by light industries
such as medical products and food processing. Thailand 3.0 refers to the period from
the late 1980s to the present when the emphasis was placed on heavy industry and
exports using technology introduced by foreign companies. Thailand 4.0, which
Thailand is promoting, aims to shift to a value-added economy based on knowledge,
creation and innovation in areas such as knowledge- intensive industries, green
industries, renewable energy, medicine and transportation. In addition to the “middle-
income countries trap,” Thailand is now facing issues such as a declining birthrate,
an aging population, a shortage of skilled workers, and income inequality. In order
to solve these problems, the Thai government says that
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence … 219

it is necessary to add high value to existing low-value-added industries and

products thereby shifting the industrial structure.
The current “Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551 (2008)” consists of
eight learning areas and covers 12 years from primary to secondary education. In
addition to each learning area, there are Learner Development Activities.
Moreover, activities provided by schools, depending on their readiness and
priorities can be implemented as Additional Courses. The eight learning areas are
as follows.
1. Thai Language,
2. Mathematics,
3. Science,
4. Social Studies, Religion, and Culture,
5. Health and Physical Education,
6. Arts,
7. Occupations and Technology, and
8. Foreign Languages.
Citizenship education is included in Social Studies, Religion, and Culture,
which aims at promoting peaceful coexistence in Thai society and the world
community, good citizenship, faith in religious teachings, appreciation of resources
and the envi- ronment, and patriotism and pride in Thai-ness. Social Studies, Religion,
and Culture has five strands which are as follows.
Strand 1: Religion, Morality, and Ethics,
Strand 2: Civics, Culture, and Living in
Society, Strand 3: Economics,
Strand 4: History,
and Strand 5:
Geography.
Strand 2: Civics, Culture, and Living in Society, which is most relevant to
citizenship education, contains the following two standards.
Standard So2.1: Understanding and personal conduct in accord with duties
and responsibilities of good citizens; observance and preservation of Thai
tradition and culture; and enjoying peaceful coexistence in Thai society and the
world community.
Standard So2.2: Understanding of political and administrative systems of the
present society; adherence to, faith in, and upholding of the democratic form of
government under a constitutional monarchy.
As can be seen from the above standards, it depicts the image of a citizen who
can fulfill his duties and responsibilities as a citizen and achieve peaceful
coexistence with the world, with Thai tradition and culture at the core.
220 S. Kampeeraparb et al.

11.3 Background of Surveys on Citizenship

Education in Two Phases

Characteristics used in this study were defined as attributes that a human being
should acquire. In this study, in order to become a member who has acquired
characteristics that are desirable for the nation, it is important to acquire not only
“Knowledge and understanding,” and “Skills and abilities” but also “Values and atti-
tudes” to some extent. The characteristics of “Knowledge and understanding” include
the environment, co-existence and living together, different cultures, social justice
and equity, democracy, sustainable development, interdependence, foreign language,
social welfare, human rights, ASEAN history and culture, and common social
prob- lems of ASEAN countries. “Skills and abilities” includes the ability to
express opin- ions on social problems, have self-discipline and self-control, solve
problems, make decisions, respond to information and communications
technology (ICT), make a peaceful resolution, think critically, improve quality of
life, to cooperate with each other, to develop sustainably, contribute to society, use
foreign languages, behave in accordance with common rules and values among
ASEAN countries, and to solve common social problems of ASEAN countries
with other people. Finally, charac- teristics related to “Values and attitudes”
include attitudes to face wrong things and injustice, preserve natural resources,
protect the environment and have an interest in its development, have self-
dependence, respect cultural diversity, place impor- tance on the law, promote
international cooperation, pay attention to global issues, to respect tradition and
culture, have morality and pride as a nation, respect democracy, respect human rights,
think in a scientific way and catch up with new science and technology, and have
morality and pride as a member of ASEAN.
A team of Thai researchers led by Hirata (Chanbanchong et al., 2017) has
conducted an international comparative study on Thailand and nine other ASEAN
countries as part of the “Comparative Study on Education for ASEANness and
Citizenship Education in Ten ASEAN Countries.”
The study had two phases. In the first phase (2011), 592 Thai students were
surveyed after analyzing the government’s policies, plans, and curriculum on the
current state and challenges of citizenship education in Thailand. The Thai team
also conducted a survey on ASEAN literacy among Thai students and published
the results at the International Conference of the Comparative Education Society of
Asia (CESA) held at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand in 2012.
The second phase (2013) of the study aimed to clarify the current status of ASEAN
citizenship perceived by Thai education professionals (university professors,
school teachers, and school principals) and their expected characteristics in ten
years. This study focused on clarifying the perceptions of the characteristics of
citizenship—as seen by Thai experts. In addition, the importance of the characteristics
of citizenship, the characteristics involved in teaching and research, and the age
levels of students who should cultivate these characteristics were also analyzed.
Finally, the team aimed to predict the current level of achievement of ASEAN literacy
and the characteristics expected to be achieved in ten years.
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence … 221

The research methodology used in the first phase (2011) was to conduct a ques-
tionnaire survey for students in ten ASEAN member countries. Respondents were
Thai students in the final grade of primary education, lower secondary education, and
upper secondary education which matched with children of ages 12, 15, and 18 years
old. The questionnaire is composed of three parts, the first part questions the
citizen- ship of students, and the second and third parts questions the knowledge
and attitude concerning ASEAN. Part 1 sets five levels on one axis: Local–
National–Regional– Global–Universal, and three aspects on the axes: of
“Knowledge and understanding,” “Skills and abilities” and “Values and attitudes.”
Part 2 asks about the basic knowl- edge of ASEAN member countries, the
knowledge of ASEAN as an international organization, the media required to
acquire such knowledge, and the identity as a member of ASEAN. Part 3 is
dedicated to understanding the state of ASEAN Studies taught to Thai children.
The Delphi survey was used as a research methodology for the second phase
(2013). The questionnaire was distributed in 2013 to 290 people, and was targeted
at school principals, teachers in charge of social studies, and university professors.
Based on the characteristics of the Delphi survey, a questionnaire for the second
round was developed by reflecting the results of the first round. The total number
of respondents for the second-round survey was 268. The total number of
respondents in Brunei was 101, Cambodia 89, Indonesia 160, Laos 299, Malaysia 66,
Philippines 51, and Vietnam 92. The second-round questionnaire consists of three
parts. Part 1 consists of current achievements in “Knowledge and understanding,”
“Skills and abil- ities,” and “Values and attitudes” at the Local–National–Regional–
Global–Universal levels and expectations for achievement in ten years. Part 2
consists of questions on the importance of citizenship characteristics at the present
and ten years from now, and grade levels at which these characteristics should be
developed. Part 3 looks at the state of ASEAN literacy and considered training
methods used to develop profes- sional skills. The survey from Part 1 to Part 2 is a
joint survey with other ASEAN countries. For Part 3, a Thai survey team
developed a survey item and conducted the survey independently.

11.4 Analysis of Survey on Citizenship Education to

School Children

Survey of the first phase (2011) has 592 Thai students as respondents. Students of
ages 12 years old are 33.3%, those of 15 years old are 33.4%, and those of 18
years old are 33.3%. There are 38.3% male respondents and 59.5% female
respondents.
222 S. Kampeeraparb et al.

11.4.1 Citizenship from the Viewpoint of

“Knowledge and Understanding”

In Q1 through Q3, the questionnaire asked about “Knowledge and understanding”

of desirable characteristics of citizenship. Q1 asked about historical learning and
Q2 asked about the importance of traditional and cultural learning at the Local,
National, Regional and Global levels
= (1 = not important at all; 2 =
= not very important; 3 important; 4 very important).
Looking at the average results for Q1, “national history” scored 3.7 points,
indi- cating that the national-level history learning is seen as particularly
important. This was followed by “world history” with 3.5 points, with the lowest
being the “local history.” In other words, the order of importance is National >
Global > Regional > Local. The response trend in Q2 was similar, but the score
was higher for National
> Global, and lower for Local > Global. In this way, Thailand is characterized by
an emphasis on “Knowledge and understanding” at the National and Global levels.
Q3 asked students if they had seen or heard about 11 concepts important to citi-
zenship. Looking at the trends in the average value from the four-point evaluation,
items with 3.6 points or more included “democracy” (3.8), “environment” (3.7),
“peace” (3.6), and “development” (3.6). On the other hand, the relatively low
items were “international society” (2.6), “understanding of different cultures”
(3.0), and “sustainable development” (3.2). It is interesting that there are few
opportunities to see and hear about these concepts, which are regarded as
important terms in the field of international development led by developed
countries.

11.4.2 Citizenship from the Viewpoint of

“Skills and Abilities”

Part 1, Q4–Q8, asked about “Skills and abilities” of citizenship.

In Q4, respondents were asked to rate their level of experience on the following
four levels: (1) have experience in researching and studying social issues, (2) have
had their own opinions, (3) have expressed their own opinions, and (4) have acted
to solve social problems. The results indicated that (3) the experience of
expressing one’s opinion (2.2) and (4) the experience of taking action toward
problem-solving (2.4) tended to be seen as low importance.
In Q5, respondents were asked to choose whether they could express their opin-
ions with (1) friends, (2) parents, (3) school teachers, (4) adults and older people,
(5) politicians, and (6) religious leaders. Examining the percentage of those who
answered 1 = yes revealed that while they were able to express their opinions to their
friends (92.1%) and parents (72.6%), they were reluctant to express their opinions
to religious leaders (17.1%) and politicians (19.3%).
In Q6, the questionnaire asked about the importance of learning English, and
in Q7, about self-evaluation of English ability. While 67.4% were strongly aware
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence … 223

of the importance of learning English, self-assessment of English proficiency was

2.3 which was not necessarily high. Countries with high self-evaluation for
English proficiency are the Philippines (3.3), Brunei (3.3), and Malaysia (3.1), and
the gap between Thailand and other ASEAN countries is significant.
In Q8, the respondents were asked whether they would be able to acquire the
characteristics of citizenship in the future, and whether they would be able to lead
a desirable life and way of living. They were asked to answer using the following
scale: 1 =not at all, 2 =not much, 3 =yes, 4 =very often. In the case of Thailand,
the country is characterized by high confidence in its ability based on its future
citizenship, and all scores are 3 points or higher, except for (6) “Can you work
with other people to solve problems?” (2.9).

11.4.3 Citizenship from the Viewpoint of

“Values and Attitudes”

Part 1, Questions 9 to 12 asked about the “Values and attitudes” of citizenship.

In Q9, students were asked whether they followed and practiced their reli-
gion/belief teachings in their daily lives. Five options were presented: (1) yes,
regu- larly, (2) yes, (3) not much, (4) not at all, and (5) I do not believe in any
religion. With the exception of Vietnam, more than 80% of respondents in other
countries chose either option (1) or (2). In Thailand, the response rate for option
(2) (70.8%) was higher than that for option (1) (20.1%).
In Q10, the respondents were asked whether they have morality and pride as a
nation, and were asked to answer using four options: (1) yes, very much, (2) yes,
(3) not much, and (4) not at all. While more than 80% of the respondents in other
countries answered positively with option (1), the figure for Thailand is relatively
low at 56.9%.
Q11 asked which characteristic was the most important at each level, from
Local to Global levels. A total of 28 items were shown at four levels. At the Local
level, Thai students chose (5) preserve natural resources, protect the environment
and have an interest in its development (24.4%) and (1) respect tradition and
culture (23.7%). At the National level, many students chose (9) have morality and
pride as a nation (25.2%) and (8) respect national tradition and culture (21.8%). At
the Regional level,
(19) preserve natural resources, protect the environment and have an interest in its
development (20.5%) and (17) peace (16.8%) were selected as the most important.
At the Global level, many selected (26) preserving natural resources, protecting
the environment and having an interest in its development (24.4%) and (23)
having morality and pride as a member of the world (17.3%). The general trend is to
focus on respect for tradition and culture at the Local/National level, and on preserving
natural resources, protecting the environment and having an interest in its
development at the Local/Regional/Global levels.
224 S. Kampeeraparb et al.

Q12 asked about three characteristics that were considered important in the current
society. Thai students chose, first, (2) care of others’ feelings and living in peace
and happiness with them as the most important characteristic, second (3) be
patient and not selfish, have a strong will in achieving your goal or what you want
to do, and third, (9) observe the laws. The last item, (9) observe the laws, was not
chosen by any other ASEAN countries, and can therefore be considered a
particular aspect of Thai children’s “Values and attitudes.”

11.4.4 “Knowledge and Understanding” of ASEAN

Part 2, Q1–Q5, of the questionnaire asked about the knowledge of ASEAN

countries and the basic knowledge of ASEAN itself.
Q1 asked the question of matching the names of ASEAN countries with the
symbols on the map. The results showed that while the percentage of correct answers
to questions concerning their own country was high (99.0%), the percentage of
answers to questions concerning non-neighboring countries such as Brunei
(55.0%), the Philippines (60.3%), and Indonesia (65.4%) tended to be low.
In Q2, the meaning of the ASEAN flag was to be chosen from among five options.
Similarly, in Q3, the year of establishment of ASEAN was chosen from six
options, and in Q4, the target year of integration of ASEAN was chosen from six
options. As a result, the majority of the respondents (61.0%) answered correctly
about the meaning of the ASEAN flag, but the percentages of those who answered
correctly about the year of establishment of ASEAN (20.2%) and the year of
integration of ASEAN (22.2%) were low. There were large differences in the
percentage of correct answers among countries depending on whether or not the
national curriculum or textbooks included such content.
Q5 asked students how much they know about ten ASEAN countries, including
their own countries. 1 = not at all, 2 = not much, 3 = yes, 4 = very well. Except
for Thailand’s 3.6 points, the average score was concentrated in the two-point
range, but Brunei (2.0), Indonesia (2.2), and the Philippines (2.2) were also
relatively low (see Table 11.1).

11.4.5 Awareness of ASEAN

Part 2, Q7–Q11 asked the student respondents about their views on ASEAN. The
scale answers are 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = somewhat disagree, and 4 =
strongly disagree.
Q7 asked if they would like to know more about ASEAN countries. The average
value was 1.9, indicating a desire to know.
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence … 225

Table 11.1 Knowledge of ASEAN countries (Thailand vs. eight other ASEAN countries)
BN KH ID LA MY MM PH TH VN

Q1 Geographical knowledge of ASEAN countries (percentage of correct answers)

Brunei 95.2 4.2 75.7 57.8 88.6 47.2 38.0 55.0 65.6

Cambodia 30.4 95.4 30.9 94.9 38.1 52.3 22.5 80.2 80.2

Indonesia 87.7 1.4 97.0 65.0 88.2 63.6 50.0 65.4 69.4

Laos 30.0 1.4 38.3 97.1 42.0 69.2 22.3 82.7 83.1

Malaysia 89.5 7.6 80.1 67.8 93.5 59.5 35.2 82.9 65.8

Myanmar 29.6 1.4 29.2 92.0 46.4 96.4 22.3 80.8 62.6

Philippines 72.7 0.2 70.0 64.6 60.5 60.5 98.6 60.3 76.9

Singapore 85.2 1.9 29.2 57.0 91.7 63.1 28.4 67.7 66.9

Thailand 58.0 1.8 46.5 96.3 84.8 78.5 23.2 99.0 79.6

Vietnam 29.4 1.1 38.9 95.2 41.4 51.3 33.6 80.0 91.2

Q5 Knowledge about ASEAN countries (average score; full score is 4.0)

Brunei 3.8 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.7 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.7

Cambodia 1.6 3.6 2.1 2.7 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.2

Indonesia 2.7 2.1 3.8 2.5 2.9 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.0

Laos 1.6 2.2 2.1 3.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.2

Malaysia 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.6 3.5 2.4 2.6 2.3 1.8

Myanmar 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.3 3.6 2.0 2.5 1.7

Philippines 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.0 3.8 2.2 2.0

Singapore 2.7 2.3 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.3

Thailand 2.1 2.7 2.5 3.2 2.7 2.5 2.6 3.6 2.4

Vietnam 1.7 2.6 2.2 3.2 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.3 3.7

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company

Q8 asked whether they thought being a member of ASEAN is beneficial for

their country. The average value was 1.8, which showed benefits but was
relatively lower than those of Laos (1.3) and Brunei (1.5).
Q9 asked whether they thought being a member of ASEAN was beneficial to
themselves. Countries such as Vietnam (2.2), Cambodia (2.0), Indonesia (2.0), and
the Philippines (2.0) agreed, standing in the two-point range, while Thailand
agreed with a score of 1.9 points.
Q10 asked whether they were aware of their status as ASEAN citizens, whether
they were attached to ASEAN, and whether they were proud of their status as ASEAN
citizens. Thailand was again in higher agreement, scoring 1.9 points, compared
with Vietnam (2.2) and Indonesia (2.0).
Q11 asked if they thought that they had a common identity with the people
of ASEAN countries in order to achieve their goals. While many other countries
226 S. Kampeeraparb et al.

expressed a negative view on this question (2.0 points or more), the Philippines
and Thailand were more positive with 1.9 points.

11.5 Analysis of Delphi Survey: Current State

of Citizenship Education and That of Ten Years Later

The Delphi survey was conducted in 2013 with 290 respondents who were school
principals, teachers in charge of social studies, and university professors; 268
respondents were retained in the second round.

11.5.1 Basic Data

There were 166 female respondents or 61.94%, and 102 male respondents or 38.06%.
Most of the respondents (53.73%) were in the age range of 50 years old followed
by those in the age range of 40 years old (20.15%). There were only 9 respon-
dents (3.36%) in the age range of 60 years old and above. As for the respondents’
occupations, it was found that most of the respondents in this second-round ques-
tionnaire were school teachers, 150 respondents or 55.96% of all respondents.
There were 75 educational inspectors, or 28%. Among the 268 respondents, there
were 27 teachers of higher educational institutions (lecturers at the university
level) or 10.07%. Most of the respondents, 63.42%, reported being teachers or
lecturers in the field of social studies, while only 1.87% stated that they conducted
research on social studies topics. Eighty-seven respondents, or 32.46%, claimed
that they were involved in other responsibilities. However, it was not clear what
other responsibili- ties they referred to. It was possible that among such
responsibilities were curricula inspecting and evaluating.

11.5.2 Part 1: Characteristics Achieved at Present

and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later

In terms of “Knowledge and understanding,” Table 11.2 showed that most respon-
dents perceived they achieved the specified characteristics at the Local level
(91%) and at the National level (83%), followed by characteristics at the Regional,
Global, and Universal levels, respectively. However, most respondents indicated
that they expected to achieve characteristics at the Regional level (88%), followed
by those at the Global level (87%) and also at the Universal level (87%). It was
interesting to see that ten years from now they expected to put more emphasis on
characteristics at the Universal, Global, and Regional levels over the Local and
National levels.
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence … 227

Table 11.2 Characteristics achieved at present and expected to be achieved ten years later by
level
Knowledge and Skills and abilities Values and attitudes
understanding
Present (%) Ten yrs. Present (%) Ten yrs. Present (%) Ten yrs.
later (%) later (%) Later (%)
Local level 91 83 83 86 88 82
National 83 82 72 86 91 77
level
Regional 78 88 69 89 69 89
level
Global 66 87 58 86 59 85
level
Universal 65 87 68 85 68 85
level
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company

In terms of “Skills and abilities,” most respondents indicated that at present

they achieved citizenship characteristics in the domain of “Skills and abilities” at
the Local level (83%), followed by those at the National (72%) and Regional
(69%) levels, but these were least achieved at the Global level (58%). Ten years
later most of them expected to achieve characteristics at the Regional level (89%)
followed by the Global (86%), National (86%), and Local (86%) levels, but least
expected such achievement at the Universal level. It was surprisingly found that
there were shifts of emphasis on characteristics in this domain at all five levels,
from low to high achievement.
In terms of “Values and attitudes,” most respondents (91%), denoted that at present
they achieved characteristics at the National level followed by those (88%) at the
Local level. At the same time, they (59%) reported the least achievement at the
Global level. As for characteristics they expected to achieve ten years later, most
of them (89%) selected characteristics at the Regional level followed by those at
the Global and Universal levels. It was interesting to find that 77%, or the least
expectation, was characteristics at the National level. The expectation to achieve
characteristics in the domain of “Values and attitudes” seemed to be higher than
the characteristics the respondents achieved at present. Meanwhile, the
characteristics at the National level seemed to be the least expected ten years later.
228 S. Kampeeraparb et al.

11.5.3 Part 2-1: Characteristics of “Knowledge

and Understanding” Achieved at
Present
and Expected to Be Achieved Ten Years Later

Respondents pointed out that at present they had a low level of complete achieve-
ment in all characteristics in this domain, especially regarding the characteristics
of interdependence, followed by social justice and equity and democracy (see
Table 11.3). Respondents reported that they expected to achieve all characteristics ten
years later. Characteristics they expected to achieve at the degree of “completely
achieved” were the characteristic of the environment (49%), and coexistence
(43%), followed by foreign language (41%). The characteristics with a large
difference between the present and ten years later were environment (45 points),
coexistence (39 points), foreign language (38 points), and democracy (31 points).

Table 11.3 Characteristics of “Knowledge and understanding” achieved at present and expected
to be achieved ten years later
Characteristics Present Ten yrs. later Difference between
present and ten yrs.
later
Completely achieved Completely achieved Completely achieved
(%) (%)
Environment 4 49 45
Coexistence and living 4 43 39
together
Different cultures 2 29 27
Social justice and 5 30 25
equity
Democracy 5 36 31
Sustainable 3 27 24
development
Interdependence 6 34 28
Foreign language 3 41 38
Social welfare 3 26 23
Human rights 4 31 27
ASEAN history and 3 31 28
culture
Common social 3 31 28
problems of ASEAN
countries
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence … 229

11.5.4 Part 2-2: Characteristics “Skills and Abilities”

Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved
Ten Years Later

Among all characteristics, 10% of the respondents claimed that at present they had
achieved the characteristic of “to respond to ICT” at the level of completely achieved
(see Table 11.4). There were three characteristics with a large difference between

Table 11.4 Characteristics of “Skills and abilities” achieved at present and expected to be achieved
ten years later
Characteristics Present Ten yrs. later Difference between
present and ten yrs.
later
Completely achieved Completely achieved Completely achieved
(%) (%)
To express opinions 3 24 21
on social problems
To have self-discipline 3 26 23
and self-control
To solve problems 3 26 23
To make decisions 5 30 25
To respond to ICT 10 46 36
To make a 2 25 23
peaceful resolution
To think critically 2 24 22
To improve quality 3 27 24
of life
To cooperate with 3 33 30
each other
To develop sustainably 4 26 22
To contribute to society 5 39 34
To use foreign language 3 44 41
To behave in 1 31 30
accordance with
common rules and
values among ASEAN
countries
To solve common 1 25 24
social problems of
ASEAN countries with
other people
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company
230 S. Kampeeraparb et al.

the present and ten years later, which were “to use foreign language” (41 points),
“to respond to ICT” (36 points), and “to contribute to society” (34 points).

11.5.5 Part 2-3: Characteristics of “Values and Attitudes”

Achieved at Present and Expected to Be Achieved
Ten Years Later

Among characteristics of “Values and attitudes,” respondents claimed that at

present they achieved the characteristic of “morality and pride as a nation” (7%) and
“democ- racy” (7%) at the completely achieved level (see Table 11.5). Among
these charac- teristics, 37% of respondents reported that characteristics of
“morality and pride as a nation” and “preserve natural resources, protect the
environment and have an interest in its development” were to be achieved at the level
of completely achieved ten years later. The characteristics with a large difference
between the present and ten years later were “preserve natural resources, protect
the environment and have an interest in its development” (32 points), “self-
dependence” (30 points), and “morality and pride as a nation” (30 points).

11.5.6 Part 3: Questions on ASEAN Literacy Achieved

at Present and Expected to Be Achieved Ten
Years Later

It was surprisingly observed that from 67% up to 93% of respondents stated that
at present they already achieved all characteristics. Among these characteristics,
93% claimed they achieved the characteristic of “knowledge concerning the
holistic picture of each country, including its economic system, political system,
cultural system and so on,” followed by 88% with “Knowledge and understanding
of the role and position of Thailand and Thai citizenry in the development of the
ASEAN community,” and 82% with “skills and abilities to communicate with
each other through the official (English) language of each country.” It was also noted
that except for the characteristics of “knowledge concerning the holistic picture of
each country, including its economic system, political system, cultural system and
so on,” and “knowledge and understanding of the role and position of Thailand
and Thai citi- zenry in the development of the ASEAN community,” all other
characteristics were rated as being expected to be higher ten years later. The
characteristics with the largest difference between the present and ten years later
were “skills and abilities to communicate among each other through the official
(English) language of each country” (22 points) and “knowledge and
understanding of sustainable development for the benefit of ASEAN natural
environment” (19 points) (Table 11.6).
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence … 231

Table 11.5 Characteristics of “Values and attitudes” achieved at present and expected to be
achieved ten years later
Characteristics Present Ten yrs. later Difference between
present and ten yrs.
later
Completely achieved Completely achieved Completely achieved
(%) (%)
To face wrong 3 25 22
things and injustice
To preserve natural 5 37 32
resources, protect
the environment, and
have an interest in its
development
To have 3 33 30
self-dependence
To respect cultural 5 30 25
diversity
To place importance 4 31 27
on the law
To promote 4 23 19
international
cooperation
To pay attention 2 25 23
to global issues
To respect tradition 5 32 27
and culture
To have morality 7 37 30
and pride as a nation
To respect democracy 7 34 27
To respect 5 29 24
human rights
To think in a scientific 4 30 26
way and catch up
with the new science
and technology
To have morality 2 26 24
and pride as a
member of ASEAN
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company
232 S. Kampeeraparb et al.

Table 11.6 ASEAN literacy achieved at present and expected to be achieved ten years later
Characteristics Present (%) Ten yrs. Later (%) Difference between present
and ten yrs. later
Knowledge concerning the 93 89 −4
holistic picture of each
country, including its
economic system, political
system, cultural system,
and so on
Knowledge and 88 80 −8
understanding of the role and
position of Thailand and
Thai citizenry in the
development of the ASEAN
community
Skills and abilities to 82 94 12
communicate with each
other through the official
(English) language of each
country
Skills and abilities to 67 89 22
communicate with each
other through the official
(national) language of each
country
Knowledge and 76 93 17
understanding of the strength
of their counterparts in order
to set the standard for further
national development
Knowledge and 73 91 18
understanding of the
weaknesses of their
counterparts to render
necessary assistance
Knowledge and 72 90 18
understanding of
roles expected of
ASEAN members
Knowledge and 73 92 19
understanding of sustainable
development for the benefit
of ASEAN natural
environment
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence … 233

11.6 Comparative Analysis of the Two Surveys

In the first phase (2011) survey on citizenship education for school children, in terms
of “Knowledge and understanding,” history of one’s country and traditional and
cultural learning at the National level are particularly important. Among 11 concepts
important to citizenship, democracy, environment, peace, and development are
seen as important issues. In terms of “Skills and abilities,” students have
experience in researching and studying social issues and have had their own
opinions but cannot express their own opinions or act to solve social problems. In
order to express their opinions, they report being able to do so with their friends and
parents. As for English proficiency, compared to other ASEAN countries, Thai
students’ self-evaluation is not high. At the same time, their recognition of the
importance of learning English is low. In terms of “Values and attitudes,”
following and practicing their religion/belief is not especially prioritized. Sharing
the moral conduct and pride as a nation is also relatively low. In addition, many
realize the importance of love and preservation of tradition/culture at the Local and
National levels, and environment and development problems at Local, Regional,
and Global levels.
In the second phase (2013) Delphi survey to Thai education professionals (univer-
sity professors, school teachers, and school principals), in terms of “Knowledge
and understanding,” many expect to achieve environment, coexistence, and living
together and foreign language proficiency ten years later. With the realization of
the ASEAN community and the increase of mutual exchange and inter-
dependency, it seems that these qualities are expected of the Thai citizenry in the
future. In terms of “Skills and abilities,” at present skills to respond to ICT are
considered at the level of completely achieved and should remain in place ten
years later. In addition, many expect to achieve skills to use a foreign language
and skills to contribute to society. In terms of “Values and attitudes,” all
characteristics are considered highly important. Many expect to achieve the
characteristics of morality and national pride, national resources and preservation
of environment, and democracy ten years later. The observance of morality and
national pride, and democracy are two pillars of national integration that Thailand
has long emphasized and hopes to continue.
A comparative analysis of the two phases’ surveys can be summarized as
follows. In terms of “Knowledge and understanding,” on the issue of environment,
both student and Delphi survey respondents recognize its importance. However, in
the survey of students, many students emphasize democracy but in the Delphi
survey, the expectation of democracy is relatively low. In terms of “Skills and
abilities,” in the Delphi survey, many expect to achieve a foreign language but in
the student survey, students currently do not have high foreign language
proficiency. In terms of “Values and attitudes,” at the National level, many
students have chosen “having morality and pride as a nation” and “respect national
tradition and culture” which coincides with the results in the Delphi survey.
234 S. Kampeeraparb et al.

11.7 Summary and Recommendations:

Model of Citizenship Education

11.7.1 Summary

Previous sections focused on the background of the study, research methodology, and
research findings. In this section, the authors would like to consider some
concerns about citizenship education in Thailand with a few suggestions on the
pedagogical model for the Thai National Curriculum.
Referring to the overall research findings, there seems to be an increasing
aware- ness of citizenship characteristics in all three domains at the Regional,
Global, and even Universal levels beyond the Local and National levels in the next
ten years.
Coincidentally, the increasing awareness of citizenship characteristics at a
wider scope than at the Local and National levels seems to be highly supported by
the new National Curriculum in Thailand. Looking scrutinizingly at the newly
imposed citizenship characteristics in the ASEAN Education in Thailand, it is found
that char- acteristics in all three domains focus upon knowledge, skills, and attitudes
concerning ASEAN, and how to work cooperatively with each other in the ASEAN
community. In the “Knowledge” domain, students are to learn about the
emergence of ASEAN, ASEAN charters, ASEAN community, and Cooperation
among ASEAN members. In addition, in the “Skills” domain, students must be
able to communicate using at least two languages, use ICT efficiently, solve
problems through peaceful measures, and must be able to live happily with others.
Lastly, in the “Attitudes” domain, students must be able to express their “Thai-
ness” as well as “ASEANness,” recog- nize their responsibilities as ASEAN
citizens, respect cultural and individual differ- ences, appreciate critical thinking
and accept the “Sufficiency Economy Philosophy” as their way of life.

11.7.2 Recommendations

As an approach to the teaching of social studies, the “expanding communities”

concept can be applied in citizenship education. This concept identifies that an action
moves from smaller and more intimate communities to larger and more inclusive
communities when learners expand their activities geographically and culturally.
Similarly, according to the Hierarchy of ASEAN Literacy Model presented at CESA
2012 (Thongthew, 2012), local knowledge and understanding, including skills and
attitudes concerning citizenship education must be recognized in order to connect
meaningfully what one has learned about ASEAN with their own Thai context.
According to the Hierarchy of ASEAN Literacy Model, details of the three
domains of citizenship characteristics, at the Local level, are to be provided as the
first basic aspect of literacy, followed by the introduction of awareness and
understanding of the relationships between ASEAN’s aims and missions and the
well-being of Thai
11 Citizenship Education in Thailand: From the Persistence … 235

citizenry, and also of other people in the region. The third stage is to inculcate atti-
tudes of appreciation and concerns for the essence of ASEAN in students. The last
stage is to enhance the capacity for individual and collective actions and participation
in some selected ASEAN missions. The four stages are designed to build on top of
each other, from simple stage to more complicated ones.
Thus, it is rather a challenge for us, the curriculum specialists, in trying to balance
life and knowledge in the Thai context with more understanding and more active
learning so that the Thai citizenry can build up necessary citizenship
characteristics essential for participation in the larger world.
To make the so-called “challenge” more tangible, one approach is briefly provided
as the following. It is to combine learning about and learning from citizenship
in action, together. Such learning encourages both the observation and participa-
tion in all three domains of characteristics, resulting in a truly integrated learning
activity. Allowing students to learn citizenship education as a subject must also be
enhanced through active learning, working, thinking, solving social problems, and
even living in different contexts, with their friends from other ASEAN nations.
With such an approach, students have the opportunity to reflect upon their answers
and develop their own understanding of essential citizenship characteristics in their
own meaningful terms.
According to the guidelines of ASEAN Studies in schools (Office of the Basic
Education Commission, 2011), there are four teaching strategies to be used in the
process of ASEAN citizenship education. The four strategies are as follows.
Strategy 1: Occasional addition of ASEAN contents in various subject areas.
Teachers may occasionally add any ASEAN contents in any subject area and
learning activity.
Strategy 2: Integration among subject areas. Teachers may compile lesson
plans that integrate ASEAN contents in different subject areas with Social
Studies as a core.
Strategy 3: Arrangement of an additional subject. Teachers may create a new
subject regarding ASEAN to be responsive to local needs.
Strategy 4: Supplementary learning activities. Schools may arrange various
supplementary activities regarding ASEAN and the ASEAN community to
provide students with knowledge and awareness of being a member of commu-
nities such as ASEAN Camp, ASEAN Corner, ASEAN Day, and so on.
A commonly heard discussion among some concerned Thai experts in
education regards the “challenge” associated with living in the best two worlds—
one the locally derived world, intimately associated with most Thai citizenry, and
the larger world, in this case, the regional, global, and universal world. In order to
eliminate unnecessary tensions caused by differences in world views and ways of
life, we, the educators and curriculum specialists, must extend the scope of
citizenship education not only to assist our students to understand specific
characteristics, and be able to perform them well, but to also assist our students to
become active and fulfilled ASEAN members.
Chapter 12
Citizenship Education in
Vietnam: Cultivation of
ASEANness

Masao Ishimura

Abstract In this chapter, first, we review the current conditions of Vietnam’s educa-
tion policy in terms of the framework developed by ASEAN. Second, we
introduce the situation of ASEAN education in Vietnam. At least legally speaking,
the Viet- namese government has moved from having all students learn about
citizenship through exams from the government’s perspective to have them think
and act in their own context of citizenship. Analyzing the newly published
textbooks, the part related to civic education and education for ASEANness is
increasing. Third, we summarize the ASEAN education survey administrated to
students. It is clear that there is more consideration for the country and where one
lives, rather than for the region (ASEAN) knowledge. Fourth, we analyze the survey
of the experts with similar contents. The acquisition of Knowledge and
understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values and attitudes at the regional level is
not sufficient. The Vietnamese respondents do not regard ASEAN as important
and have not achieved it. This structure is similar at the global level. And, only
Vietnam has a tendency to have a negative gap between many of the answers
already achieved and what will be fulfilled over the next decade. This feature is
not found in other ASEAN countries. For the experts on Vietnam, many items
have already reached their “current” level and will not change or are regarded as
efficient. Finally, we propose issues for the future development of education for
ASEANness in Vietnam. It is to think of civic education within the framework of
Vietnam, a socialist country on the one hand and to take into account is Vietnam’s
“specialty” on the other. Based on the above assumptions, the proposals are made
from three angles; Knowledge and understanding, Skills and abilities, and Values
and attitudes.

·
Keywords Citizenship education Education ·
for ASEANness Socialist country ·
Socialization of education · Vietnamese-ASEANness

M. Ishimura (B)
International Cooperation Center for the Teacher Education and Training, Naruto University of
Education, 748 Nakajima, Takashima, Naruto, Tokushima 772-8502, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 Gove
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community, rnanc
e and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_12
237
238 M. Ishimura

12.1 Introduction

In this chapter, education for ASEANness is understood and analyzed in the

conflict axis shown in Fig. 12.1 below. In this axis education for ASEANness is
positioned as a symbolic issue in the direction of B.
A Strengthening regulations on the privatization of education, with an emphasis
on the Vietnamese framework (unique culture, socialism). B Promoting the
privatization of education, with a focus on a global/Asian framework and emphasis
on the market economy. Fig. 12.1 Relationship of concepts around ASEAN.
For example, Article 6, Paragraph 2, of the 2009 Education Law stipulates that
educational programs should “achieve the full quality of education that meets the
demands necessary for going on the international stage”. This point is considered
to strengthen the direction of B. Also, article 8, Paragraph 2 of the 2019 Act clearly
states that “Educational programs must ensure … the demands of international
integration”. Additionally, Article 109, Paragraph 2 of the 2009 Education Act
revised the simple rule of the old law such that “international education
cooperation is regulated by the government”. The 2009 Act declares that “The
State encourages and creates condi- tions for Vietnamese schools and other
educational institutions to cooperate with foreign organizations, individuals, and
overseas Vietnamese in teaching, learning and scientific research”. These policies
are in line with the direction of B.
In this regard, Section 108, Paragraph 2 of the 2019 Education Act affirms that,
“Educational cooperation with Vietnam must ensure the honor for the national
cultural identity”. This policy stresses securing the national cultural identity while
maintaining a focus on the A direction.
First, we review the current conditions of Vietnam’s education policy in terms
of the framework developed by the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN). Second, we introduce the situation of ASEAN education in Vietnam.
Third, we summarize the ASEAN education survey administrated to students. Fourth,
we analyze an expert survey with similar contents. Finally, we propose issues for
the future development of ASEAN education in Vietnam.

A B

Strengthening regulations on the

Promoting the privatization of
privatization of education, with
education, with a focus on a
an emphasis on the Vietnamese
global/Asian framework and
framework (unique culture,
emphasis on the market economy
socialism)

Fig. 12.1 The structure of Vietnamese education: Citizenship education. Source Author, 2022
 12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of 239
ASEANness
In writing this chapter, I obtained the cooperation of the following Vietnamese
researchers. Section 12.2: Dr. Trinh Quoc Lap and Dr. Huynh Thi Thuy Diem
(Can Tho University), Sect. 12.3: Dr. Vo Thi Hoang Ai (Vietnam National
University Ho Chi Minh) and Sect. 12.4: Dr. GIAN TU TRUNG (Institute for
Research of Educational Development).

12.2 New Trends in Citizenship Education:

Policy, Curriculum, and so on

The issue of socialization is an important one. Above all, the relationship with foreign
countries over “socialization” is a notable problem. At the 11th Congress of the
Communist Party held in January 2011, emphasis was placed on democracy and a
partial revision was made to the Communist Party Code (1991). Aiming for a “fair
and civilized society”, it also called for reinforcing relations with ASEAN countries.
Vietnam’s education system is governed by the Education Law of 2019. Article 2
specifies the purpose of education. With regard to civic and international education,
the text lays down the following: The goals of education are to shape and culti-
vate one’s dignity, civic qualifications and competence; to nurture one’s patriotism,
national spirit, loyalty to the ideology of national independence and socialism; to
develop potentials to foster talents, satisfying the demands building and defending
the Fatherland and international integration. Furthermore, in analyzing civic educa-
tion, the specialization of education has been underscored since the passage of the
2005 Education Law, and is considered in the context of socialization in Vietnamese
society as a whole.
The “socialization” of such education is grounded in the link between the
contents of school education and actual society, especially the significance of educa-
tion that leads to employment (i.e., useful education). To this end, it will shift
from teacher-centered, results-based, and test-based education to learner-centered,
process-oriented education. This follows from the viewpoint of citizenship educa-
tion; at least legally speaking, the Vietnamese government has moved from having all
students learn about citizenship through exams from the government’s perspective
to having them think and act in their own context of citizenship.
Next, we look at the state of ASEANess education. Vietnam’s curriculum,
which is the basis for the country’s textbooks, is the “Common Across Education
Program”
, , ij
, , ij ij

(CHUONG TRÌNH GIÁO DU. C PHÔ THÔNG CHUONG TRÌNH TÔNG THÊ).
The current program was promulgated in 2018, and will be implemented in elemen-
tary schools from G1 in 2020–21, junior high school from G6 in 2021–22, and
high school from G10 in 2022–23. The program will be executed on a grade-by-
grade basis for each school type. As of the 2020 school year, the Ministry of
Educa- tion and Training has recently published 32 textbooks for G1 only divided
into 5 volumes/sets. Each series consists of the following subjects; Vietnamese,
mathe- matics, ethics; nature and society; physical education; art, experiential
activities, and
240 M. Ishimura

English. The contents of new textbooks to be issued in the future will likely be
more suitable for citizenship education and education for ASEANness. However,
since the details of those textbooks’ content have not yet been clarified, in this
chapter, to examine textbooks collected by 2019 are tried.
Students complete elementary over a five-year period (grades 1–5) and courses in
morality (Dao Duc) are offered for one hour per week. On the international scale, third
graders are taught how to interact with foreigners, and fifth graders are taught
about international relations. In the fifth-grade textbook for the history and geography,
there is an explanation of “East See” (the South China Sea) and the surrounding
region under the title “Our Sea”. Australians, Malaysians, and Japanese appear in
the third- grade English textbook (conversations with Vietnamese people).
Students complete junior high school over a four-year period (grades 6–9). A
course on civic education (Giao Duc Cong Dan) is offered one hour per a week for
first to third graders, while fourth-graders take the class for two hours a week.
Students complete high school over a period of three years (grades 10–12), and
they take a class in civic education, first graders take it for 1 h, while second and
third graders take it for 1.5 h. Previously, the junior high school textbook on “Civic
Education” dealt slightly with international relations: In grade 9, the Asia Europe
Meeting (ASEM) was discussed, specifically concerning relations between Asia
and Europe, as well as between Vietnam and ASEAN. The subject of “History”
covers Southeast Asia in grade 9, and only the content of Vietnam’s accession to
ASEAN was included. However, in recent years, in a manner that goes beyond the
revision of the textbook’s content and the accom- panying curriculum reform
described above, references to ASEAN have increased in textbooks meant for
secondary education. Dr. Lap, an overseas collaborator of this research, suggested
this at an international workshop held in 2017 regarding joint research. Although
not directly related to ASEAN, textbooks on mathematics and physics have been
published with explanations in English and Vietnamese as well as in Vietnamese
only. In addition, in the grade 11 textbook on geography (published in January 2018,
which means that it started to be used in autumn of 2018), the number of pages
that covers Southeast Asia increased to 12 pages. Meanwhile, 11 pages are
dedicated to the United States, and the EU is covered in 15 pages, 13 pages are set
aside for Russia, 12 pages discuss China, 12 pages are dedicated to Japan, and 3
to ASEAN. Specifically, the following has been added to the textbook: “As part of
the ASEAN Integration Process”, Vietnam has actively cooperated with ASEAN.
Through such efforts, Vietnam’s international status has improved. Close relations
with ASEAN countries have been established through imports and exports. In
2005, ASEAN accounted for 30% of Vietnam’s international trade. At the end of the
section, the following question is asked: “Please explain how the relationship with
ASEAN is extremely significant”. However, “differences in political systems” are
mentioned in the section on ASEAN. It is crucial to discuss what democracy means
in the ASEAN context and to what extent democracy is acceptable in Vietnam.
“Democracy” is well respected in Vietnam. Yet, what is currently being achieved
is “democracy” as understood in Vietnam. When considering ASEAN as a
whole, it is necessary to determine the degree to which Vietnam and other
ASEAN nations can reach a consensus. I wonder if there is a global standard for
“democracy”.
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of 241
ASEANness
The grade 12 English textbook (published in February 2016, which means that
it was used starting in autumn of 2017) has 12 pages on Southeast Asia and
ASEAN topics that were not often handled before. Conventionally, human
exchanges within ASEAN have been active in terms of upper secondary and
higher education (taking up the topics mentioned above in G12 is proof itself).
Such effects gradually flow “downstream”. However, speaking of educational
management of national unity as a large framework, the system has not changed each
local government education office in terms of support from the People’s
Committee. For example, defense textbooks for G11 and 12 both explain how to
realistically protect Vietnam. “Remain Open” to foreign countries, but protect the
country! Therefore, the degree of opening is questioned.
What about the practice of classroom education? My Class observations
(morality, civic education, English, physical education, etc.) were conducted in
Ben Tre, Can Tho and Ho Chi Minh. There was a lot of creativity, such as
experiments in the labora- tory and mutual learning, but the emphasis was not placed
on considering unexpected results from experiments or examining the ideas
students obtained through mutual learning. Instead, the teacher’s conclusions were
highlighted. For example, in a grade 7 class of civic education, the student
participation method was adopted. Finally, a student memorized a “speech”
probably written made by the teacher and brilliantly delivered it speaking about
the class contents of the day. In a grade 8 chemistry class, students performed
experiments in group learning, but at the end, teachers wrote down “conclusions”
on an electronic blackboard, indicated what to learn, and students wrote notes (i.e.,
memorized the content). In short, the framework obtained →from joint research
(Ishimura et al., 1998) on “memorization testing” is still alive and well.

12.3 Analysis of Survey on Citizenship Education to

School Children

12.3.1 Overview of Student Surveys

Period: December 2011–February 2012.

Survey location: Ho Chi Minh City
Target: 202 Tuy Ly Vuong Elementary School (5G), 202 Chanh Hung Junior High
School (9G)198, Luong Van Can High School (12G) Total 602
Gender ratio of the respondents: Males 46.7% Females 51.5%
Religion: Buddhism 61.3%, Christianity 10.8%, Confucianism 0.2%, Non-
religion 20.8%, Other 2.7, No answer 4.3%.
242 M. Ishimura

12.3.2 Findings on Citizenship

12.3.2.1 The Importance of Learning About Local,

Regional, and Global History

The percentage of respondents who answered “very important” and “important”

are as follows: 64.5% of respondents answered that Vietnamese history is “very
important”, whereas 28.6% answered that it is “important;” 18.6% answered that
ASEAN history is “very important”, whereas 36.7% answered that it is
“important;” 31.7% answered that world history is “very important”, and 38.7%
answered that it is “important”.
It is worth noting that the percentage of those who answered that ASEAN
history is “very important” or “important” was the lowest among the countries
surveyed; for example, it was significantly lower than the percentages found when
the survey was conducted in the Philippines (where 46.1% answered “very
important” and 44.8% answered “important”). This finding indicates that for
Vietnamese students, the history of their own country is considered more important
than that of the ASEAN region.

12.3.2.2 Understanding Tradition and Culture

The percentage of respondents that answered “very important” to “Understanding

Vietnamese tradition and culture” was 62.3%, and the percentage of respondents
who answered “important” was 30.4% (giving a total of 92.7% of participants). In
contrast, “Understanding ASEAN tradition and culture about” resulted in 17.9%
for the former and 35.7% for the latter (totaling 53.6%), and “Understanding
world tradition and culture” produced 33.1% and 36.0% respectively (totaling
69.1%).
It should be noted that the percentage of respondents that are expected to appreciate
ASEAN tradition and culture is over 50% and the percentage of respondents expected
to appreciate world culture and tradition ought to be greater than that of ASEAN.
In this regard, it should also be noted that, for this item, the ratio of responses for
ASEAN (“very important” and “important”) is the lowest among surveyed
countries and is significantly lower than the highest percentages in the Philippines
(where 39.8% answered “very important” and 47.3% answered “important” 47.3%,
totaling 87.1%).

12.3.2.3 Knowledge of Citizenship-Related Keywords

Keywords such as “environment” (70.1%), “peace” (65.6%), “development”

(60.0%), and “democracy”: 50.0%, have a high percentage of “often heard”.
Adding the answer “heard” to the above answers gives the following.
“environment” (94.5%), “peace” (90.7%), “development” (87.2%), “democracy”
(81.1%).
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of 243
ASEANness
Morishita (2013) points out that, in terms of these data, the ratio of “often
heard” and “heard” for “sustainable development/development” is higher than that
of other ASEAN countries (78.1%: third after Malaysia and Thailand).
In this regard, as seen in the discussion on the introduction of Japan’s
Shinkansen (Bullet train) in Vietnam, “development in good standing” is often
stressed. Further- more, it is thought that the media are often taken up. Terms that
are recognized rela- tively less frequently (“do not hear about at all”) include “the
international commu- nity” (31.9%), “interdependence” (23.4%),
“Coexistence/living together” (15.3%), “social justice and development” (12.0%),
and “cross-cultural understanding” (11.1%).

12.3.2.4 About “Active Citizenship”?

Respondents who answered, “I do not do much” or “I do not do it at all”men-

tioned “research on various social issues” (69.7%),“I have an opinion on social
issues”(63.9%), and “I have an opinion on social issues”(88.5%) and “Do some-
thing to solve social problems” (81.4%). The latter two are especially noteworthy.
In this regard, Morishita (2013) remarked on a “lack of experience compared to
other countries”.
From the above, we can see that “active citizenship” is not very established.

12.3.2.5 To Whom Can You Say Whether This Opinion is

Right or Wrong

For the question “Who can I say is right or wrong about that opinion?” the respondents
said they can express it to friends (80.2%), parents (73.8%), and teachers (54.5%).
Conversely, respondents commented that they cannot voice their opinion to 45.5%
of adults and older people, 16.3% of politicians, and 20.1% of religious leaders.

12.3.2.6 Is English Important?

Out of all respondents, 94.6% consider learning English to be “very important” or

“important”. The answer trend for this item is the same as for other ASEAN countries.

12.3.2.7 Reading, Writing, Listening, and Speaking in English

Out of all respondents, 20.6% said they “often” or “always” write letters and e-
mails in English, and 20.6% said they “often” or “always” read newspapers,
magazines, and websites in English. This ratio is the lowest among ASEAN
countries. These items are unusually low compared to the Philippines (92.2% for the
former and 97.9% for the latter). In addition, 26.6% of the respondents said they
“often” or “always”
244 M. Ishimura

speak with foreigners in English, an extremely low figure. This ratio is second
only to Indonesia (19.4%). In comparison, the ratio for this item in Brunei is
79.5%.

12.3.2.8 What You Think You Can Do in the Future

With regards to the item “Can solve and take action on various issues in the
region, country, ASEAN and the world together”, 37.2% of Vietnamese respondents
said they “can do so very well”. Meanwhile, 14.0% said they “can”. The total is
51.2%. This ratio is the lowest compared to other ASEAN countries. (For
example, in Thailand, this figure is 75.2%, in the Philippines, it is 73.2%, and in
Malaysia, it is 68.1%). In addition, 34.2% of the respondents said they “may be
able to live with different cultures and different ethnic groups”, and 10.3% said
they could. The total was 44.5%. This ratio is the lowest among the surveyed
countries, with a response rate below 50%. This is consistent with the results of
the expert survey. Regarding “the ability to solve social problems common to
ASEAN countries together with others”, few expert respondents believe that such
problems are not dealt with much in terms of class and research that this matter is
not considered important and therefore has not been achieved.

12.3.2.9 National Pride and Morality

Out of the respondents, 70.3% said they “had a lot of” pride or morality in their
country. Meanwhile, 19.6% said they “had” pride or morality. The total number of
respondents is 89.9%. This ratio is the lowest compared to other ASEAN
countries. (For example, overall in Laos this number is 99.2%, in Malaysia, it is
98.6%, in Brunei, it is 98.6%, in Cambodia, it is 98.4%, in the Philippines, it is
98.0%, in Indonesia, it is 96.8%, and in Thailand, it is 96.6%). This may be due to
Vietnam having problems as a socialist nation and its widening social inequality, as
mentioned above.

12.3.2.10 Regarding the Question, “What is Important to You?”

The answers to the question “What is important to you?” were as follows: the
percentage of those who answered “Loving the town/village where I live and
acting in accordance with its tradition and culture” was 33.1%, and the percentage
of those who answered “Love the country and act in accordance with its tradition and
culture” was 29.2%. Additionally, 20.9% answered “World Peace”; 20.6%
answered “Being proud of being a member of the ASEAN”; 20.4% answered
“Love countries around the world and act according to international conventions
and customs”.
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of 245
ASEANness
Furthermore, the percentage of respondents that ranked ASEAN as the most
important thing was lower than respondents in other ASEAN countries (the order
of importance was ranked as follows: country
→ town/village → world→ ASEAN
region).

12.3.2.11 What is Needed for Modern Society (Select up to Three)

The top 4 responses to “What are needed for modern society” were as follows:
“Mutually caring and living with others” (40.9%); “Patiently achieving your
goals” (37.2%); “Maintaining basic ethics and morals” (31.1%); “Keeping your
thoughts and beliefs to yourself” (30.6%).
Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “International cooperation for problem solv-
ing” (3.3%); “Making decisions and acting on them” (3.0%); “Understanding and
cherishing the differences between world cultures” (2.0%).
Based on these answers, it is apparent that a recognition of the value of
coexistence exists. However, people do not apply this value to the international
stage, and are hesitant to change the status quo.

12.3.3 Questions About Knowledge of ASEAN

12.3.3.1 The Accuracy Rate of Locating ASEAN Countries on a Map

Using a map, respondents demonstrated their knowledge of geography by pointing

out where each ASEAN member country is located. The rates for correct answers
were as follows:
Laos (83.1%), Cambodia (80.2%), Thailand (79.6%), the Philippines (76.9%),
Indonesia (69.4%), Singapore (66.9%), Malaysia (65.8%), Brunei (65.6%), and
Myanmar (62.6%).
Compared to the answers from respondents of other ASEAN countries, the answer
rate was high and less biased between countries. Of these, Laos had the highest
rate of correct answers, excluding answers about their own country.

12.3.3.2 The Correct Answer Rate for Understanding the

Meaning of the ASEAN Flag

53.7% of respondents said “I don’t know” when asked whether they understood
the meaning of the ASEAN flag (at 22.4%, Vietnam ranked 7th out of the 8
surveyed countries in ASEAN). The main reason for this is that they were not
taught it.
246 M. Ishimura

12.3.3.3 The Accuracy Rate of the ASEAN Establishment Year (1967)

Vietnamese respondents had the highest correct answer rate (62.5%) to the ques-
tion “In what year was the ASEAN established?” compared to respondents from
other ASEAN countries. ASEAN’s establishment is taught in school textbooks
with detailed explanations including the date (August 8th).

12.3.3.4 The Correct Answer Rate for the ASEAN Integration

Target Year (2015)

The correct answer rate among Vietnamese respondents to the question “When is
the ASEAN Integration Target Year?” was only 4.0%. In fact, 77.9% of
respondents answered “I don’t know”, ranking seventh among the eight ASEAN
countries. The ASEAN integration target year was not mentioned in textbooks at
that time, which explains the low correct answer rate. These issues require history
textbooks to be re-edited.

12.3.3.5 How Much Do You Know About ASEAN Member Countries?

The ratio of the top 3 countries whose respondents answered “I do not know anything
at all” or “I do not know” to this question was as follows: Myanmar 82.2%, Malaysia
75.9%, and the Philippines 70.1%. On the other hand, the ratio of the top 3 whose
respondents answered “I know some” or “I know a lot” was: Brunei 48.8%, Thailand
47.0%, and Singapore 39.5%.

12.3.3.6 Through What Kinds of Media Do You Gain

Knowledge of ASEAN?

Schools (55.5%) ranked first, the Internet (52.3%) ranked second, and TV (44.7%)
came in third. In terms of school being in the first place, this only occurs in
Vietnam, as described above, suggesting that the influence of school is very
strong.

12.3.3.7 Others

79.4% said they would like to know more about ASEAN.

81.0% think that being a member of ASEAN is beneficial for their country are
the total of “I think so” and “I think so very much”. This ratio is the lowest among
ASEAN countries, in contrast to other countries, which exceed 90%. Those who
think that being a member of ASEAN is beneficial for themselves are the lowest
among all ASEAN countries, at 67.4% (the total of “I think so” and “I think so
very
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of 247
ASEANness
much”). This ratio is in contrast to other ASEAN countries, which generally
exceed 80% (but Laos is at 78.8%).
“Awareness, attachment, and pride as ASEAN citizens” is the lowest among all
ASEAN countries at 64.6% (the total of “feel” and “feel very much”). This ratio is
also in contrast to the fact that other ASEAN countries generally exceed 80% (but
Indonesia is at 77. 7%). The total of “feeling” and “feeling very much” regarding
one’s “sense of belonging to ASEAN” is 61.3%, which is the lowest among ASEAN
countries (Other ASEAN countries generally exceed 80% However, it is 68.0% in
Indonesia and 79.0% in Laos).

12.4 Analysis of Delphi Survey: Citizenship

Education of 10 Years Later

12.4.1 Overview of the Surveys

Period: First survey, March–April of 2013, Second survey, June-July of 2013.

Survey location: Ho Chi Minh City, Long An Province.
Number of people surveyed: First survey, 100, Second survey, 90(out of 100
respondents who participated in the first survey.)
Respondent’s Sex: Male 26, Female 72, Unknown 2.
Respondent’s Age: 20’s 4, 30’s 38, 40’s 24, 50’s 29, 60’s 5.

The respondents’ occupations were as follows: 49 people were “Social Studies

Teacher”; 20 people were “University Professors specializing in social studies
content”; 7 people were “Principals/School Administrators”; 5 people were
“Social Science Researchers, Education Specialists”; 15 people were “Education
manage- ment organization executives (municipalities, counties/prefectures, special
cities)”; 1 person worked at a “Professional organization for education”; and 3 people
answered “Other”.
The characteristics of the respondents’ occupations were: “Mainly education
activity” (62 people); “Mainly research activity” (7 people); “Mainly educational
management activity” (28 people); “Everything mentioned above” (1 person);
“Other” (2 people). As mentioned above, many respondents were involved in
education or educational administration with only a few responses from
researchers.

12.4.2 Findings of Citizenship

12.4.2.1 Ranking Answers for “Which Characteristics Do You

Think that You Have Achieved at Present”

Regarding Knowledge and understanding, the Local level (86%), National level
(71%), and the Universal level (60%) were the top three chosen options. The
bottom
248 M. Ishimura

two were the Global level and Regional level (38%). Regarding Skills and
abilities, the Universal level (72%), Local level (65%), and Regional level (41%)
were the three most chosen options, while the Global level (18%) and National
level (24%) were the least chosen.
Regarding Values and attitudes, the Local level (96%), National level, and
Universal level (82%) were the most chosen. The lowest was the Global level
(35%) followed by the Regional level (59%).
What should be noted here is that the Global level was the least chosen option,
which is considered an accurate representation of the current situation in Vietnam. In
addition, with regards to Skills and abilities, although achievements at the
Universal level were being evaluated, it should be noted that achievements at the
Global level were not. It should also be noted that the achievement rating at the
National level, which was evaluated as an achievement at the other two levels, was
low.

12.4.2.2 The Top Three and Bottom Three Items that Are
Treated as “Very Often” and “Often” in Terms of
Classes
and Research on Knowledge and Understanding

The top 3 items that respondents answered “very often” and “often” to in classes
and research on Knowledge and understanding were “Democracy” (91%),
“Coexistence and living together” (83%), and “Sustainable development” (83%).
Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “ASEAN history and culture” (29%), “Common
social problems of ASEAN countries” (31%), and “Different cultures” (42%).

12.4.2.3 The Top Three and Bottom Three Items that Are
Considered “Very Important” for Knowledge and
Understanding

The top 3 items that respondents answered “very important” for were Knowledge and
understanding are “Environment” (88%), “Democracy” (77%), and “Human
rights” (75%).
Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “ASEAN history and culture” (24%),
“Common social problems of ASEAN countries” (25%), and “Different cultures”
(26%).
Vietnamese respondents said that “different cultures” (2.95: weighted average,
hereby referred to as WA), “ASEAN history and culture” (2.91), and “Common social
problems in ASEAN countries” (2.91) were not always considered very important.
Respondents from other ASEAN countries consider these items to be very important.
Instead, Vietnamese respondents strongly recognized the importance of three other
items: Environment (3.93), Democracy (3.79), and Human rights (3.76).
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of 249
ASEANness
12.4.2.4 Regarding Knowledge and Understanding, the Total
of “Completely Achieved”, “to Some Extent”, “Achieved”

Regarding Knowledge and understanding, the percentage of those who answered

“Completely achieved”, “To some extent”, or “Achieved” was 76% for “Human
rights”; 74% for “Coexistence and living together”; 69% for “Interdependence”
and “Democracy”. Conversely, this percentage was only 49% for “Environment”.
The Vietnamese respondents indicated the lowest WA for current achievements
regarding the items of the “Environment” (2.86) and “Sustainable Development”
(2.89). In addition, other items showed the same results as other ASEAN
countries. Of course, there is a large difference between the answers that these
indicators have been reached now and those that should be reached in 10 years.
The former is 0.67 and the latter is 0.39. This number is interesting given − that it is
between 0.24 and
0.06 in other indicators, that is, it is now believed to have already reached some
extent. In particular, Democracy — ( 0.24), Social welfare ( 0.22), Common social
problems of ASEAN countries (—0.19), Coexistence and living together ( 0.18),
Social justice and equity (−0.15) show negative gaps. It should be that.
Regarding Knowledge and understanding, negative WA is shown for 5 items
out of 12 characteristics. These five items are: Coexistence and living together− (
0.18), Social justice and equity
— ( 0.15), Democracy
− ( 0.24), Social welfare (
0.22), and “Common social problems of ASEAN − countries”. The Vietnamese
respondents believe that Knowledge and understanding of these items will not be
as effectively achieved in the future as they are “at present”. In addition, the WA of
the gap between the present and the future for the following items has changed
minimally or not at all. “Different cultures” (0.03), “Interdependence” (0.06),
“Foreign language” (0.00), “Human Rights” (0.06), and “ASEAN history and
culture” (0.06). The only items that should be achieved in the next ten years were
two characteristics: “Environment” (0.67) and “Sustainable development” (0.39)
(Table 12.1).

12.4.2.5 The Top Three and Bottom Three Items Treated as

“Very Often” and “Often” in Classes and Research on
Skills and Abilities

The top 3 items that respondents answered “very often” and “often” to in classes
and research on Skills and abilities were “To cooperate with each other” (94%); “To
have self-discipline and self-control” (89%); “To solve problems” (88%). Conversely,
the bottom 3 items were “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries
with other people” (18%); “To behave in accordance with common rules and values
among ASEAN countries” (26%); “To use foreign language” (46%).
250 M. Ishimura

Table 12.1 Comparison of weighted average of questions on knowledge and understanding

Questions
Topics Q3: The Q4: The Q2: The The gap
degree of characteristics significance of between
achievement that should be this present
of this achieved characteristics and future
characteristics 10 years later (C) “(B)–(A)”
at present (A) (B) (D)
Knowledge (1) Environment 2.86 3.52 3.93 0.67
and (2) Coexistence 3.42 3.23 3.79 −0.18
understanding and living
together
(3) Different 3.22 3.26 2.95 0.03
cultures
(4) Social justice 3.33 3.18 3.39 −0.15
and equity
(5) Democracy 3.40 3.16 3.79 −0.24
(6) Sustainable 2.89 3.28 3.72 0.39
development
(7) 3.17 3.22 3.11 0.06
Interdependence
(8) Foreign 3.34 3.34 3.28 0.00
language
(9) Social 3.52 3.30 3.58 −0.22
welfare
(10) Human 3.20 3.26 3.76 0.06
rights
(11) ASEAN 3.29 3.34 2.91 0.06
history and
culture
(12) Common 3.47 3.28 2.91 −0.19
social problems
of ASEAN
countries

Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company

12.4.2.6 The Top Three and Bottom 3 Items that You Think Are
“Very Important” for Skills and Abilities

The top 3 items that respondents considered “very important” for Skills and
abilities were “To have self-discipline and self-control” (69%); “To improve
quality of life” (61%); “To solve problems” (58%).
Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “To solve common social problems of
ASEAN countries with other people” (20%); “To behave in accordance with common
rules and values among ASEAN countries” (21%); “To contribute to society” (36%).
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of 251
ASEANness
Vietnamese respondents were more likely to focus on the following two items
than other countries: “To have self-discipline and self-control” (WA, 3.84) and
“To improve quality of life” (3.76). Other than these two items, “To behave in
accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” (2.99) and
“To solve common social problems in ASEAN countries with other people” (2.96).
Vietnamese respondents recognized the importance of each item, in accordance
with responses from other ASEAN countries.

12.4.2.7 Total of “Completely Achieved”, “to Some

Extent”, or “Achieved” for Skills and Abilities

Regarding Skills and abilities, the percentage of those who answered “Completely
achieved”, “To some extent”, or “Achieved” was 82% for “To respond to ICT;”
79% for “To cooperate with each other;” 77% for “To develop sustainablity”.
While other items reached almost 70%, the ability for “To solve common social
problems of ASEAN countries with other people” and the ability for “To behave
in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” had lower
numbers, and only 56% of respondents gave answers for the two items above.
The WA shows a high figure of 3.62 for “To solve problems”, 3.60 for “To respond
to ICT”, 3.57 for “To cooperate with each other”, and 3.57 for “To develop
sustain- ablity”. In addition, “To solve problems” exhibited a high value. For the
two items, “To behave in accordance with common rules and values among
ASEAN coun- tries”, “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries
with other people”, the WA shows positive values of 0.22 for the former and 0.53
for the latter, and the Vietnamese respondents believe that these will be achieved
in the next 10 years.
Regarding Skills and abilities, 11 out of 14 items show negative WA. These
eleven items are as follows. “To express opinions on social problems”, “To have
self-discipline and self-control”, “To solve problems”, “To make decisions”, “To
respond to ICT”, “To make a peaceful resolution”, “To think critically”, “To improve
quality of life”, “To cooperate with each other”, “To develop sustainably”, and
“To use foreign language”. Regarding “To contribute to society” (0.05), the
difference between the present and future of the WA is very small. It is believed
that the Viet- namese respondents think this item will not be improved very much
in the future (Table 12.2).

12.4.2.8 The Top Three and Bottom Three Items Treated as

“Very Often” and “Often” in Classes and Research on
Values and Attitudes

The top 3 items that respondents answered “very often” and “often” to in classes
and research on Values and attitudes were “To respect human rights” (90%); “To
respect democracy” (89%); “To have morality and a pride as a nation” (87%).
Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “To promote international cooperation” (33%);
“To preserve
 252 M. Ishimura

Table 12.2 Comparison of weighted average of questions on skills and abilities

Questions
Topics Q3: The Q4: The Q2: The The gap
degree of characteristics significance of between
achievement of that should be this present and
this achieved characteristics future “(B)–
characteristics 10 years later (C) (A)” (D)
at present (A) (B)
Skills and (1) To express 3.48 3.26 3.59 −0.22
abilities opinions on
social
problems
(2) To have 3.49 3.27 3.84 −0.22
self-discipline
and self-
control
(3) To solve 3.62 3.29 3.72 −0.33
problems
(4) To make 3.41 3.22 3.62 −0.19
decisions
(5) To respond 3.60 3.30 3.49 −0.30
to ICT
(6) To make 3.28 3.20 3.64 −0.08
a peaceful
resolution
(7) To think 3.53 3.27 3.30 −0.26
critically
(8) To improve 3.52 3.34 3.76 −0.18
quality of life
(9) To 3.57 3.29 3.74 −0.27
cooperate with
each other
(10) To 3.57 3.27 3.69 −0.30
develop
sustainably
(11) To 3.17 3.22 3.29 0.05
contribute to
society
(12)To use 3.45 3.33 3.34 −0.12
foreign
language
(13) To behave 3.03 3.26 2.99 0.22
in accordance
with common
rules and
values among
ASEAN
countries

(continued)
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of 253
ASEANness
Table 12.2 (continued)
Questions
Topics Q3: The Q4: The Q2: The The gap
degree of characteristics significance of between
achievement of that should be this present and
this achieved characteristics future “(B)–
characteristics 10 years later (C) (A)” (D)
at present (A) (B)
(14) To solve 2.86 3.39 2.96 0.53
common social
problems of
ASEAN
countries with
other people
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company

natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its

development” (50%); “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN”
(62%).
However, some of the data require context. Although it is understandable that
the ratio of people that chose “To have morality and pride as a nation” was high,
the items of “To respect human rights” and “To respect democracy” were also
high. There may be a difference between the perception of Vietnam from the
outside and that from the inside. Similarly, there may be differences between the
inside and the outside perspectives on human rights and democracy.

12.4.2.9 The Top Three and Bottom Three Items that You Think
Are “Very Important” with Regard to Values and Attitudes

The top 3 items that respondents answered “very important” to with regard to
Values and attitudes were “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment,
and have an interest in its development” (79%); “To respect human rights” (72%); “To
respect democracy” (69%). Conversely, the bottom 3 items were “To have
morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (34%); “To pay attention to global
issues” (36%); “To promote international cooperation” (46%).
Looking at the WA, Vietnamese respondents valued many items. “To have morality
and pride as a member of ASEAN” (3.17) and “To pay attention to global issues”
(3.18) had the lowest importance of all the characteristics that were examined.
Viet- namese respondents recognized the following characteristics as having the
most importance: “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and
have an interest in its development” (3.88); “To respect human rights” (3.88); “To
place importance on the law” (3.85); “To respect democracy” (3.84).
254 M. Ishimura

12.4.2.10 Regarding Values and Attitudes, the Total of

“Completely Achieved”, “to Some Extent”, and
“Achieved”

The percentage of those who answered, “To respect tradition and culture” was 86%;
the percentage of those who answered, “To have morality and pride as a nation”
was also 86%; and the percentage of those who answered “To promote
international cooperation” was 83%.
Other items also accounted for more than 70%, but 59% of respondents were
“To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its
development”, while 64% of respondents were “To face wrong things and injustice”.
Regarding Values and attitudes, six out of 13 items show negative WA. These six
items are as follows. “Self-dependence”, “To respect cultural diversity”, “To promote
international cooperation”, “To pay attention to global issues”, “To respect
tadition and culture”, and “To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new
science and
technology”.
The following answers have the smallest difference in WA among the ASEAN
countries. “To face wrong things and injustice”, “To preserve natural resources,
protect the environment, and have an interest in its development”, “To place
impor- tance on the law”, “To have morality and pride as a nation”, “To respect
democracy”, “To respect human rights” and “To have morality and pride as a member
of ASEAN”. It is estimated that the Vietnamese respondents think this item will
not be improved or will worsen in the future (Table 12.3).

12.4.3 Discussion of the Survey Results

As described above, in general, the acquisition of Knowledge and understanding,

Skills and abilities, Values and attitudes at the regional level is not sufficient.
What should be analyzed are the answers to the questions regarding ASEAN? It is
thought that there is the following structure. The Vietnamese respondents do not
regard ASEAN as important and have not achieved it. This structure is similar at
the global level. However, as seen in 4-2-1, these items, that is, Knowledge and
understanding at the regional level, and Knowledge and understanding, Skills and
abilities, and Values and attitudes at the global level, which are considered
insufficient at this time, are expected to be satisfied in 10 years. Vietnam’s future
policies and practices are drawing attention. The problem lies in whether they will
become reality. For that purpose, at least the following points are important. It is
vital to have Skills and abilities at the national level, such as political participation,
which is deemed to have currently been satisfied at only 24%.
Furthermore, only Vietnam has a tendency to have a negative gap between
many of the answers already achieved and what will be fulfilled over the next
decade. This feature is not found in other ASEAN countries. For experts on
Vietnam, many items have already reached their “current” level and will not change
—even after 10 years-, or are regarded as efficient.
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of 255
ASEANness
Table 12.3 Comparison of weighted average of questions on values and attitudes
Questions
Topics Q3: The degree Q4: The Q2: The The gap
of achievement characteristics significance of between
of this that should be this present and
characteristics achieved characteristics future
at present (A) 10 years later (C) “(B)–(A)”
(B) (D)
Values (1) To face 3.32 3.43 3.76 0.11
and wrong things and
attitudes injustice
(2) To preserve 3.18 3.46 3.88 0.28
natural resources,
protect
the environment,
and have an
interest in its
development
(3) To have 3.35 3.33 3.77 −0.03
self-dependence
(4) To respect 3.33 3.31 3.64 −0.02
cultural diversity
(5) To place 3.13 3.29 3.85 0.16
importance on
the law
(6) To promote 3.60 3.38 3.39 −0.22
international
cooperation
(7) To pay 3.53 3.31 3.18 −0.21
attention to
global issues
(8) To respect 3.47 3.34 3.63 −0.12
tradition and
culture
(9) To have 3.47 3.48 3.82 0.01
morality and
pride as a nation
(10) To respect 3.19 3.22 3.84 0.03
democracy
(11) To respect 3.15 3.28 3.88 0.13
human rights
(12) To think in a 3.60 3.42 3.78 −0.18
scientific way
and catch up with
the new science
and technology

(continued)
256 M. Ishimura

Table 12.3 (continued)

Questions
Topics Q3: The degree Q4: The Q2: The The gap
of achievement characteristics significance of between
of this that should be this present and
characteristics achieved characteristics future
at present (A) 10 years later (C) “(B)–(A)”
(B) (D)
(13) To have 3.23 3.33 3.17 0.10
morality and
pride as a
member of
ASEAN
Source Original translated from the table in the book of Hirata 2017, permitted by Toshindo
Company

12.5 Comparative Consideration of the Analysis

Results of the Student Survey and the Delphi
Survey

An overview and comparison of the two surveys dealt with in this chapter reveals
that the Vietnamese government has a solid educational policy framework for
civic education and that there is no “blurring” between the two survey results. The
results of the two surveys show that the same response tendency, and the contents
of civic education, which the Vietnamese central government considers important,
are prop- erly policy-based, taught at schools, and accepted by students. Conversely,
that which the government does not consider important is not policy-based, is not
dealt with in schools, and is not communicated to students (for example, ASEAN
education (3-2- 10, 4-2-8, etc.)) Given the results of the Delphi survey (only
Vietnam has a tendency to have a negative gap between many of the answers
already achieved and those that will be fulfilled over the next decade), this
situation will not change within the next decade.
Here, the symbolic item that should be noted is “democracy”. Students think
that democracy has been realized in Vietnam (3-2-3 the word “democracy” was
“heard” and “often heard” at a high rate (81.1%)). For experts, “democracy” is
treated as “often” and “very often” in terms of classes and research (91%, 4-2-2)
and they consider it “very important” (77%, 4-2-3). Experts also think that it has been
realized (69%, 4-2-4). The same applies to other items related to civic education,
and it is “natural” for Vietnam, a socialist country, to realize each item. The
stereotypical claims of capitalist countries that “the dictatorship of the Communist
Party” violates the rights of its citizens should be examined in more detail. For
example, the mode of “disagreeing” with others, which was revealed in the student
survey, is not simply due to the maturation of “citizenship”. It is because the issue of
citizenship in oriental familism or citizenship in the socialist system (democratic
centralism) was not fully examined in this survey, and citizenship was set based on
Western “citizenship”. This is an issue for future research.
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of 257
ASEANness
12.6 Summary and Recommendation:
Model of Citizenship Education

Sorting out the problem of the overall structure of education in Vietnam against
the background of education for ASEANness should be considered.
The first thing to consider is that Vietnam is a socialist country and has a
framework for citizen education within it. As mentioned above, it is important to
note that Skills and abilities at the national level (such as political participation)
are considered to have been fulfilled at just 24%. In order to solve this issue, it
is necessary to deal with the following matters: (1) education for ASEANness will be
realized as the framework of socialism is re-examined; (2) education for
ASEANness will be carried out as part of socialism, which is supposed to have an
international character, but has come to be debated and changed. However, this
obstacle is beyond the scope of this chapter. Hence, let us assume that the status
quo is maintained. In the framework of this assumption, we will consider how to
develop Vietnamese-ASEANness, which means ASEAN within the national
interest, secured by the central state, within the next decade.
For this, it is necessary to consider the following. Under globalization, the
range (the rule and model of inclusion/exclusion), contents (rights and
responsibilities) and depth (the degree of commitment) of Citizenship need to be
re-defined (Kimae et al., 2012). In Vietnam, Citizenship Education does not
necessarily play a “role as relativization device of national identity education”
(Minei, 2011), at least in govern- ment education sectors. It is necessary to think
about the possibility of transforming this situation. If such a possibility cannot be
found, will the Vietnamese government form and spread government-made
ASEANness? In other words, will Vietnam create “Vietnamese-ASEANness”
secured by the Vietnamese government and in the range of the national interest? It
is necessary to analyze this further.
The second thing to take into account is Vietnam’s “specialty”. Compared to
ASEAN countries, awareness of ASEAN leading to “regional” and “global”
citizen- ship is low in Vietnam. Other ASEAN countries have a high awareness of
ASEAN, which engenders “regional” and “global” citizenship, but those figures
are low in Vietnam. The fact that Vietnam is heading toward China, Japan, the
United States, France, Australia, (etc.), may have also weakened its desire for a
“regional” identity. In addition, it is necessary to scrutinize “active citizenship” in
Vietnam. Vietnam has a higher national or traditional dominance than other
ASEAN countries and needs to consciously break away from it. The Vietnamese
government is taking steps to deepen its ties with the international community,
including its connection with ASEAN. Questions remain about how to resolve the
gap between such global and traditional policies at the individual level. There is
still a “binary” relationship between the two policies. The key to overcoming this
hurdle is the educational strategy in schools that links these two policies. The
challenge is how Vietnam responds both philosophically and practically to the
“classical problem” of how to relate to the members of the nation as well as of the
international community. For this purpose, Skills and abilities at the national level
(to express opinions on social problems, to cooperate with each other,
258 M. Ishimura

to have self-discipline and self-control, to solve problems. etc.) are acquired for
the time being. Dr. Trung (2013) argued that if national and ethical (universal?)
rules are in conflict, the latter should be emphasized. There is a problem in Vietnam
where this must be stressed. However, in this regard, the following analysis has
been conducted for other Asian and Pacific countries. Forming active citizenship
in a conservative pedagogy based on national values and priorities remains a
challenge, that is prob- ably the biggest issue that needs to be addressed for civic
education teachers in the future (Grossman et al., 2008). In Vietnam, the matter is
more serious.
In the case of Vietnam, it becomes a complication when going into ASEAN
with the aim of integration specifically in terms of how to attain “national”
integration through socialism. Integration into ASEAN carries the danger of a
state becoming socialist, to counter this possibility an ASEAN member country
should engage in a coalition that includes a capitalist country. ASEAN integration
expands economy and socializes education. However, the disparity may widen
further. In other words, while accepting the global era economically, it is
considered unacceptable as a “national theory and national education theory in the
global era” (Minei, 2011). However, in the current situation of not accepting a
global system, although the need to provide education linked to employment and
income is declared by law, there is a limit at the national level. Herein lies the
difficult question of how to consider the degree of national involvement and the
extent of freedom beyond the country. In this regard, Kennedy (Grossman et al.,
2008) pointed out the issue of how to deal with the ongoing tension between the
liberal economy, a free curriculum, and conservative (socialist in Vietnam) citizen
values. This is illustrated schematically in Fig. 12.1 at the beginning of this
chapter.
Concretely, in terms of what should be done to further develop Vietnamese-
ASEANness, the issue must be clarified from three angles: Knowledge and
understanding, Skills and abilities, Values and attitudes.
1. Regarding Knowledge and understanding, school had a strong influence.
Therefore, it will be important to include cultural and social issues related to
ASEAN in addition to history and geographical content in educational
content (textbooks especially). As revealed in this survey, Vietnam has a high
level of “knowledge” about ASEAN. Vietnamese students have a high level
of “knowl- edge” about the year of ASEAN’s establishment and the position
of each ASEAN member country. For the latter, as compared to other
ASEAN coun- tries, the answer to knowing each country’s position, there is
no bias. On the other hand, as for what is not well taught at school (3-3-2, 3-
3-4), the correct answer rate is extremely low. The challenge is to teach, in
addition to already well-acquired knowledge, expertise that has not been
sufficiently taught. This can be confirmed by an expert survey.
Looking at 4-2-3, 4-2-4 (Knowledge and understanding) and 4-2-6, 4-2-7
(Skills and abilities), they are relatively untreated in lessons/research and seem to
be not important. Looking at 4-2-8 (Skills and abilities), these achievements are
more than half. Let us analyze the answer regarding the Values and attitudes of “To
have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN”. In examining 4-2-9, relatively
few respondents
12 Citizenship Education in Vietnam: Cultivation of ASEANness 259

deal with this item in lessons or research. For 4-2-10, what I think is “very impor-
tant” has the lowest selection rate among the items. Hence, when considering how
to acquire such Knowledge and understanding regarding citizenship and education
for ASEANness in classes and research, it is necessary to contemplate how such
Knowledge and understanding are evaluated. It is essential in Vietnam to establish
and disseminate an evaluation method for Knowledge and understanding that is
not judged solely by test results. The improvement of the evaluation method is
further emphasized in the 2019 Education Law, and I would like to pay attention
to the implementation process in each school/classroom in the future.
2. Regarding Skills and abilities, it is important to actually visit ASEAN countries
and increase opportunities for concrete cooperation with those people. It is
extremely important to build relationships with ASEAN people through such
experiential and practical learning approaches. However, regarding “to
behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN
countries”, as mentioned below, it is necessary to discuss the following. In
other words, what are the rules and values that can be co-translated and
shared in Vietnam?
3. It is necessary to clarify the above in terms of Values and attitudes, since
they may be different from what is common in other ASEAN countries.
Similarly, it is crucial to determine what form of democracy (according to
ASEAN) is considered acceptable in Vietnam. At present, Vietnam respects
“democracy”, but does not view it as a “thing to achieve in the future”.
However, what is currently being upheld is “democracy”, which Vietnam
recognizes as such. Here, it is also necessary to discuss the issue of how
democracy should be realized under socialism, while taking into account that
the idea of socialism itself has an underlying international character. In terms
of Values and attitudes over the next decade, it will be vital to establish how
far they can be collectively translated and shared between Vietnam and other
ASEAN countries. In terms of future goals, it is clear from this survey that
“being a member of ASEAN is beneficial to one’s own country”, and “a
sense of belonging to ASEAN” are commonly shared concepts. Furthermore,
the data reveals that “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” is a
factor that adults believe children should acquire.
4. Through the above, it is critical to analyze education for ASEANness and
citizenship education in classrooms. How to teach/learn citizenship
education, including education for ASEANness, in classrooms has to be
examined. The cramming of Knowledge and understanding, Skills and
abilities, Values and attitudes for citizenship education is inadequate.
Learning from the experience of pupils/students and Practical Learning which
relates to knowledge in society must be developed and enhanced (Kennedy et
al., 2010). For example, through class observation, scholars should explore
how a sense of self-respect among pupils/students is tied to citizenship
education. In this regard, the following three points, which Kennedy points
out to be imperative for citizen education,
260 M. Ishimura

are also significant in Vietnam. (i) Breaking away from traditional civic
educa- tion, (ii) Breaking away from swallowing and drill learning, and (iii)
Breaking away from test-based evaluation.
In addition to the above, the issue is where to position education for
ASEANness and citizenship education in the existing concrete subjects in schools.
As mentioned in this chapter, such education is positioned to some extent in terms of
Knowledge and understanding in subjects such as morals, civic education, history,
and geography. In these subjects, it is also an issue to position such education from
the aspect of Skills and abilities, Values and attitudes.
 Part
III Citizenship Education
Paradigm for Surviving the 21st
Century
in the ASEAN Community
Chapter 13
Comparative Analysis of Citizenship
Education in the ASEAN Community

Minoru Morishita, Toshifumi Hirata, and Masahiro Teshima

Abstract This chapter conducts a cross-sectional comparative analysis of the current

status, characteristics, and challenges of citizenship education in the ASEAN commu-
nity based on the results of two citizenship surveys conducted in the ASEAN
coun- tries, following the reports of the ASEAN countries in Part II (Chaps. 3–12).
The two surveys were designed to be conducted in all ten ASEAN member
countries. However, we were unable to conduct the student and Delphi surveys in
Singapore and Delphi survey in Myanmar. Summarizing the results of the
analysis, it is clear that although the ASEAN Community, which was founded in
2015, has made good progress and efforts are being made for further development,
efforts are still needed to achieve its objectives. The remaining challenges for the
ASEAN Community were how to overcome the diversity of each country, how to
promote the transforma- tion of students’ awareness of ASEAN, and how to
promote national policymaking and curriculum development. This chapter is a
partial translation, a compact re- organization, and a final summary (Summary and
Recommendations) of “ASEAN Shokoku niokeru Shiminsei Kyouiku Chousa no
Hikakubunseki (Comparative Anal- ysis on Citizenship Education Survey in the
ASEAN Countries)” (Morishita, 2017). In Toshifumi Hirata. (Ed.). ASEAN
Kyoudoutai no Shiminsei Kuouiku (Citizenship Education in the ASEAN
Community). 270-307. Toshindo.

·
Keywords ASEAN Community Awareness ·
of ASEAN Comparative analysis
Delphi survey · Diversity · Student survey ·

M. Morishita (B)
Faculty of Marine Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2-1-6,
Etchujima, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8533,
Japan e-mail: [email protected]
T. Hirata
Faculty of Education, Oita University, Oita City 870-1192,
Japan e-mail: [email protected]
M. Teshima
Faculty of Education, Bunkyo University, 3337, Minami-Ogishima, Koshigaya-shi,
Saitama 343-8511, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
263
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_13
264 M. Morishita et al.

13.1 Comparative Analysis of the Results of

Questionnaire Surveys for Students

13.1.1 Outline of the Survey

The survey aimed to identify the characteristics, current status, trends, and issues
in citizenship education in each country by comparing the attitudes of students in
ASEAN countries toward citizenship and clarifying the current status of
citizenship education they are actually acquiring. The timing and methods of the
survey differed slightly from country to country, and the details are described in
each chapter. In creating the questionnaire, we incorporated contents from the
questionnaire devel- oped for the JSPS Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research
(KAKENHI) research project “An Empirical Comparative Study on Fostering
Citizenship in Japan and Thailand” (2002–2004) (Hirata, 2007). The comparative
analysis of the results of the student questionnaire survey in this chapter is based
on the analysis in “A questionnaire survey to the students on citizenship in the
ASEAN countries” (Morishita, 2013), with additional data from Myanmar.

13.1.2 Structure of the Questionnaire Survey

The questionnaire consisted of two parts: the first part asked about students’
citizen- ship, and the second part asked about their knowledge and attitudes about
ASEAN. In the first part, according to the citizenship quality table developed in this
study, five levels of local–national–regional–global-universal were set on one axis.
On the other axis are the three dimensions of knowledge and understanding, skills
and abilities, and values and attitudes. The second part of the questionnaire asked
about the basic knowledge of ASEAN member countries and ASEAN as an
international organiza- tion, media for acquiring such knowledge, and identity as
an ASEAN member. It was based on a survey of university students conducted by
Thompson (2008).

13.1.3 Survey Results

We will conduct a comparative analysis based on the nine-country comparison table

for each question. In the analysis, we will proceed with Tables 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4,
13.5, 13.6 showing the average values and representative alternative answers to
the questions of the four-step method.
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 265

13.1.3.1 Citizenship in Terms of Knowledge and Understanding

The first part of the questionnaire, Q1–Q3, asked about the knowledge and under-
standing aspects of citizenship. The results are shown in Table 13.1, where Q1
asks about history learning and Q2 asks about tradition and culture learning and
how they consider their importance at each level (local, national, regional, and
global). In Table 13.1, the mean of the responses of the four-level method is
shown.
Q1: Looking at the level of importance of history learning, all nine countries
consider “History of my country” as the most important, followed by “History of
the world.” The average value for “History of ASEAN countries” is low in
Vietnam, which differs from the trend in other countries.
Q2 Looking at the importance of learning about tradition and culture, “local
tradition and culture” is considered the most important. As for the other items, the
tendency differed depending on the country. Regarding local tradition and culture,
the average value is lower in Malaysia (17.1%), where few respondents selected
“very important” while it is important in Laos and Cambodia. Regarding tradition
and culture in ASEAN, the level of importance is high in the Philippines,
Thailand, and Laos, while it is low in Vietnam, Brunei, and Indonesia.
Q3 was an attempt to measure the acquisition of knowledge by asking about the
experience of seeing and hearing the keywords of citizenship. The results showed
that (3) peace, (6) environment, and (8) development were seen and heard very
well in each country. However, in Myanmar, the average value was slightly lower
than that of other countries. (7) Human rights and (11) Democracy, which have
high averages in many countries, were low in Brunei. (2) Social justice and equity
was low in Brunei and Vietnam.
Experience differs by country in the following aspects: (1) international society,
(4) interdependence, and (5) sustainable development. The average values for (9)
coexistence and (10) intercultural understanding were low in many countries, but
the values for (9) coexistence were high in Laos and Thailand, and those for (10)
intercultural understanding were high in Malaysia.
Malaysia and Thailand are both considered to have many opportunities to acquire
knowledge of citizenship, as 10 out of 11 items are above the mean value of 3.
However, in Brunei, seven items were below the mean value of 3.

13.1.3.2 Citizenship in Terms of Skills and Abilities

The first part of the questionnaire, Q4–Q8, asked about the skills and abilities of
citizenship.
In Q4, respondents were asked about their experiences with learning, thinking,
and acting on social issues (e.g., issues related to politics, the environment, human
rights, and conflict). Table 13.2 shows the mean values of the responses to the
four- step method. The results show that (2) experience of having one’s own
opinion is the most common, followed by (1) experience of learning by oneself,
and (3) experience of expressing one’s opinion and (4) experience of taking action
tend to
 266
Table 13.1 Comparison of citizenship in terms of knowledge and understanding (The numbers in the table are the averages for each country)
Part 1: Citizenship Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Q1 Importance of studying history 1 = Not at all important, 2 = Not very important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very important
1. History of one’s own village or town 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.0
2. History of one’s own country 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.6
3. History of ASEAN countries 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.2 2.7
4. World History 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.0
Q2 Importance of learning about tradition and culture 1 = Not at all important, 2 = Not very important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very important
1.Tradition and culture of the village or town where you live 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.5 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1
2 Tradition and culture of one’s own country 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6
3.Tradition and culture in the ASEAN region 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.1 2.7
4. Diverse traditions and cultures from around the world 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.9 3.5 3.3 3.0
Q3 Record of observations on citizenship keywords 1 = Not at all, 2 = Not very often, 3 = Yes, 4 = Often
1. International society 2.9 2.5 3.2 2.4 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.1
2. Social justice and equity 2.7 3.0 3.6 3.1 3.4 2.9 3.3 3.4 2.7
3. Peace 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.6
4. Interdependence 3.1 3.4 2.8 3.1 3.6 2.7 2.9 3.4 2.3
5. Sustainable development 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.8 3.5 2.7 3.0 3.2 3.2
6. Environment 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.7
7. Human rights 2.7 3.7 3.6 3.2 3.5 3.1 3.7 3.5 3.2
8. Development 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.5
9. Coexistence 1.7 2.6 2.7 3.6 2.8 3.0 2.7 3.5 2.7

M. Morishita et al.
10. Understanding of other cultures 2.7 2.4 2.9 2.7 3.5 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.7
11. Democracy 2.8 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.8 3.3
Source Morishita, 2017
Table 13.2 Comparison of citizenship in terms of skills and abilities; values and

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

attitudes
Part 1 Citizenship Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Q4 Experience in social issues 1 = Not at all,2 = Not very often, 3 = Yes, 4 = Often (The numbers in the table are averages for
each country)
1. I did my own research and learning 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.0 2.8 2.5 1.9
2. I had my own opinions 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.8 3.0 2.4 3.1 2.8 2.1
3. I expressed my opinions 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.2 1.3
4. I acted on my own to solve the problem 1.5 2.3 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.8 2.4 2.4 1.6
Q5 To whom you can express your opinions? The numbers in the table indicate the percentage of respondents who answered “Yes”
1. To friends 67.7 69.2 92.0 91.9 79.9 94.4 92.7 92.1 80.2
2. To parents 84.2 85.8 84.9 68.6 89.4 62.1 71.9 72.6 73.8
3. To school teachers 61.2 83.4 73.6 38.5 67.7 48.2 47.3 37.8 54.5
4. To adults and older people 48.9 71.3 67.8 35.0 56.3 51.8 51.1 42.0 45.5
5. To people who are in politics 18.1 29.9 19.5 25.6 36.6 25.1 23.4 19.3 16.3
6. To religious leaders 63.2 39.1 41.8 25.6 76.0 28.7 29.6 17.1 20.1
Q6 The importance of learning English The numbers in the table indicate the percentage of respondents who answered “Yes”
75.5 66.0 74.4 78.2 55.3 86.2 76.8 67.4 67.9
Q7 English proficiency 1 = Not at all,2 = Not very much, 3 = Can do, 4 = Sufficient (The numbers in the table are
averages for each country)
1. Conversation with a foreigner 3.1 2.5 2.1 2.2 2.9 1.8 3.0 2.4 2.1
2. Correspondence and e-mails 3.2 2.7 2.5 2.1 3.0 1.9 3.3 2.3 1.9
3. Browse magazines, newspapers, and websites 3.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 3.3 1.9 3.5 2.3 1.8
4.Watching TV and listening to radio programs 3.4 2.5 2.5 2.2 3.3 1.9 3.5 2.2 2.2
(continued)

267
Table 13.2 (continued)

268
Part 1 Citizenship Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Q8 Skills related to future citizenship 1 = Not at all,2 = Not very much, 3 = Can do, 4 = Sufficient (The numbers in the table are
averages for each country)
1. When I do something, I alone decide 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.9
2. A richer life in body and mind than the present one 3.1 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3
3. Understanding of native and foreign cultures 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.1 2.7 3.0 3.1 2.4
4. Living with different cultures and ethnic groups 2.8 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.8 3.0 2.3
5. Confronting injustice, inequality, and discrimination 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.6 3.1 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.7
6. Understanding regional, national, ASEAN, and 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.5
global issues
7. Responding to the Information and Communication 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.8 3.2 2.8 3.0 3.1 2.9
Technology (ICT) Society
8. Helping toward world peace 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.3 3.1 3.0
Q9 Practicing religion and faith in daily life The figures in the table show the percentage of respondents who answered that they “fully protect
and implement”
25.3 39.3 40.3 27.2 39.8 54.4 44.8 20.1 17.8
Q10 Morality and pride as a citizen The figures in the table show the percentage of respondents who answered “have enough”
85.1 87.1 59.3 83.8 86.8 68.2 80.0 56.9 70.3
Source Morishita, 2017

M. Morishita et al.
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 269

be less common. Vietnam, Brunei, and Myanmar have the least experience in
these areas. On the other hand, the Philippines is the most active country, followed
by Malaysia and Thailand.
In Q5, respondents were asked whether they could express their opinions
frankly and to whom. Table 13.2 shows the percentage of respondents who
answered “I can.” The overall trend was that respondents were able to express
their opinions to friends and parents, but less so to teachers and adults, and a larger
percentage of respondents answered “I don’t know” to politicians and religious
leaders. However, when we perform an item-wise analysis, we can observe a
variety of trends. For teachers, the percentage of respondents who answered “don’t
know” was quite high, at more than 70% in Cambodia and Indonesia, while the
percentage was about half of that in Thailand and Laos, at around 30%. The
response rate for religious leaders was high in Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia, in
that order, while the response rate was low in Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and
Myanmar. We observed a trend wherein the response rate is higher when the
predominant religion among the respondents is Islam and lower when the
predominant religion is Buddhism.
In Q6, we asked respondents about their awareness of the importance of
learning English, ASEAN’s common language. Table 13.2 shows the percentage
of respon- dents who answered, “very important.” There is a strong awareness of the
importance of learning English in each country. Myanmar scored particularly high.
Although only Malaysia appears to be reluctant, the total of responses for “not very
important” and “not important” is 1.5%, which is the second lowest after
Myanmar’s 1.0%.
In Q7, respondents were asked about how they rated their English language
skills necessary to understand, think about, and express opinions on global issues
by skill (speaking, writing, reading, and listening). Table 13.2 shows the mean
values of the responses to the four-point method. Overall, there are large
differences between countries, and not large differences by skill within a single
country. The countries with the highest self-evaluations were Brunei, the
Philippines, and Malaysia, where the average score was generally in the 3-point
range. This may be due to the fact that the British or Americans were sovereign
countries during the colonial period and that some of the teaching terms were in
English. On the contrary, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand, in that order,
have lower self-evaluation scores.
In Q8, respondents were asked whether they would be able to acquire the char-
acteristics of citizenship and live in a way that is considered desirable in the
future. The specific questions included eight items that were elaborated from the
table of characteristics of citizenship. Table 13.2 shows the mean values of the
responses to the four-step method. Looking at the overall trend, the scores are
roughly in the upper 2 to lower 3 ranges and are not very dispersed. Thailand,
Malaysia, and the Philippines can be said to be confident in their future citizenship-
based abilities, with the majority of items in the 3-point range. Cambodia can be
said to be less confident among the nine countries, with all items scoring within the
two ranges. Looking at the results by item, (2) affluent life was high in all countries,
while (6) problem-solving was low in all countries.
270 M. Morishita et al.

13.1.3.3 Citizenship in Terms of Values and Attitudes

The first part of the questionnaire, Q9-Q10, asked about the values and attitudinal
aspects of citizenship.
In Q9, we asked whether they observed and practiced teachings of their own
religion/faith in their daily lives. One of ASEAN’s characteristics is the diversity
of its religious beliefs. Although there are many multi-religious societies, more than
90% of the respondents in Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia answered that they follow
Islam, followed by Thailand, Cambodia, and Myanmar with more than 90%, Laos
with 86.8%, and Vietnam with 61.3%. The Philippines is the only country in which
93.2% of the respondents are Christian. Table 13.2 shows the percentage of
respondents who answered the option “I fully observed and practiced it.” The
results show that Myanmar has the highest rate at 54.4%, and the Philippines and
Indonesia have rates above 40%. On the other hand, Vietnam’s percentage was
less than 20%, and Thailand, Brunei, and Laos had percentages less than 30%. There
are large differences between countries.
In Q10, respondents were asked whether they had pride as citizens of their country.
Table 13.2 shows the percentage of respondents who answered the option “I have
enough.” Looking at the overall results, although the percentage is over 80% in
many countries, it does not reach 60% in Thailand and Indonesia. It seems neces-
sary to examine whether the results of nationalist education are in line with public
expectations.

13.1.3.4 Citizenship At the Local-National-Regional-Global Level

In Q11, seven characteristics common to each level from local to global were
extracted from citizenship characteristics, and respondents were asked which of
each was the most important. The results are presented in Table 13.3. Looking at
the overall response trends at the local level, (1) local tradition and culture was
selected most frequently in all nine countries. Next, (3) peace was selected most
frequently in Brunei, Myanmar, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. In Thai-
land and the Philippines, (5) environment and development was also selected. At
the national level, (8) patriotism, tradition, and culture was selected by many
respon- dents, except in Brunei. In Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, (9) national
pride was selected by many respondents, while in Brunei and Myanmar, (10) peace
was selected most frequently. At the regional level (ASEAN), the responses are less
concentrated than at the other levels, which can be seen as a characteristic. The
exceptions are Indonesia, Myanmar, and the Philippines, where (17) peace in
ASEAN was selected most frequently. At the global level, (24) world peace
attracted responses from all countries except Thailand, with more than 50% of
respondents in Malaysia and Brunei in particular. In Q11, respondents were asked
which of the four levels they thought were the most important, with (24) world
peace coming first, followed by Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and the
Philippines. Cambodia ranked first for (8) patriotism, tradition, and culture; Laos
ranked first for (1) local tradition and
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 271

Table 13.3 Comparison of citizenship in terms of local-national-regional-global levels

Part 1 Citizenship Bru Camb Indon Laos Mala Myan Philipp Thaila Vietn
nei odia esia ysia mar ines nd am
Q11-1 What according to you is the most important at the local level? (select only one)

1. To love one’s village or 20.7 51.2 46.6 56.8 24.9 32.3 23.2 23.7 33.1
town, and to preserve its
traditional culture
2. To take pride in being 10.2 4.4 10.0 4.3 13.1 3.1 1.8 8.2 11.1
a village or town's delicacy
3. To have peace in one’s 36.0 17.2 20.6 6.8 22.0 30.8 26.6 7.7 18.1
village or town
4. To maintain 1.5 8.0 6.1 7.6 6.3 15.4 13.0 15.3 6.1
democracy in one’s village
or town
5. To be concerned about 15.9 12.7 5.0 18.0 11.2 15.9 22.7 24.4 13.3
environmental and
developmental issues in
one’s village or town
6. To take an interest in 5.4 3.9 4.4 3.3 5.5 1.5 6.4 6.6 7.0
human rights issues in
one’s village or town
7. To have an identity as 9.7 2.5 7.1 2.1 15.5 1.0 5.9 12.4 4.8
a member of a village or
town
Q11-2 What according to you is the most important at the national level? (select only one)
8. To love one’s country 17.9 57.9 44.4 54.8 22.4 26.2 37.0 21.8 29.2
and preserve its tradition
and culture
9. To be proud of being a 23.5 11.2 29.4 13.2 35.1 11.8 12.5 25.2 19.4
member and a citizen of
one’s country
10. To have peace in one’s 36.5 15.4 13.2 8.1 22.8 27.7 19.1 10.8 10.5
country
11. To preserve 1.5 4.8 2.4 5.9 5.6 15.4 12.0 15.1 7.5
democracy in one’s country
12. To be interested in the 7.9 6.4 4.4 11.1 5.6 9.2 10.7 13.1 16.6
environment and
development issues in
one’s country
13. To be interested in 5.7 3.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.1 5.7 3.2 7.0
human rights issues in
one’s country
14. To have a national 5.9 0.2 3.9 2.5 4.5 7.2 2.5 8.4 1.3
identity
Q11-3 What according to you is the most important at the regional level? (select only one)
15. To have a liking for the 12.0 20.9 21.0 29.8 28.6 21.5 25.2 14.1 12.3
ASEAN region and
preserving its tradition
and culture
16. To be proud of being a 16.1 24.4 14.8 10.5 10.3 7.2 5.9 10.6 20.6
member of the ASEAN

(continued)
272 M. Morishita et al.

Table 13.3 (continued)

region
17. To have peace in the 25.0 27.4 42.7 17.4 18.2 34.4 30.2 16.8 11.1
ASEAN region
18. To preserve democracy 4.9 6.4 8.9 7.0 11.4 15.4 9.1 16.5 12.1
in the ASEAN region
19. To have an interest in 16.3 12.4 4.9 22.0 10.2 11.3 15.0 20.5 19.9
the environment and
development in the ASEAN
region
20. To be interested in 15.4 5.1 3.3 5.7 11.9 4.6 9.1 12.9 12.0
human rights issues in the
ASEAN region
21. To have an identity as 9.9 3.2 4.4 5.6 7.2 5.1 5.0 6.4 3.3
an ASEAN member
Q11-4 What according to you is the most important at the global level? (select only one)
22. To love Earth and follow 12.0 30.3 38.5 29.8 7.5 21.0 35.7 14.5 20.4
global rules and customs
23. To be proud to be an 6.2 12.4 7.4 10.4 3.9 11.8 2.7 17.3 8.1
Earthling
24. To have world peace 50.9 32.7 39.1 21.5 56.5 44.1 37.7 14.6 20.9
25. To preserve of 1.5 6.9 3.6 5.4 5.9 7.2 4.8 12.8 13.5
democracy in the world
26. To be interested in 14.1 8.5 4.6 21.3 9.2 8.7 12.7 24.4 15.3
Earth's environment and
development issues
27. To be concerned about 6.1 5.3 4.1 6.7 8.8 2.6 3.0 4.9 8.6
global human rights issues
28. To have an identity as a 8.2 1.8 2.8 2.9 6.6 4.6 3.0 9.7 3.3
human being on Earth
SQ11-1 What according to you is the most important among the four choices above from No.1 to
No.28? (choose only one, choice number and response rate (%))
No. No.8- No.24- No. No.24- No.24 No. No.26- No.8,
1st 24- 18.1 23.2 1- 43.4 -29.2 24- 14.7 24-
30.4 15.3 27.7 4.7
No. No.1- No.8- No. No.9- No.22- No.22- No.23,
2nd 10- 13.1 21.8 8- 10.2 7.7 16.8 24-8.4
8.7 13.7
No. No.24 No.9- No. No.1 No.26 No.8- No.1,
3rd 26- -12.9 11.6 24- 0-6.8 -6.2 7.3 9-4.0
8.2 11.9
Q12 What according to you is necessary in today's society? (rank the 15 items and select up to 3
choices)
1. To keep one’s thoughts 2 5 3 2 2 1 6 6 4
to oneself and believe in
oneself
2. To value each other's 1 4 1 4 1 6 2 1 1
feelings and live in
harmony with others
3. To not be selfish, be 10 6 2 1 5 5 1 2 2
patient, and accomplish
one’s goals
4. To make decisions calmly 12 12 8 6 3 10 7 5 5
and dispassionately

(continued)
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 273

Table 13.3 (continued)

5. To do things that benefit 9 3 11 3 4 3 14 8 6
the public and humanity
such as volunteering and
helping each other
6. To have basic ethics (the 13 13 9 14 13 9 11 6 3
way to be a human being)
and morals
7. To be able to say what is 5 8 4 9 12 2 8 9 10
right.
8. To participate in activities 8 7 13 10 6 12 12 13 12
to improve society
9. To abide by the law 4 11 6 8 10 7 13 3 7
10. To work together 6 10 12 5 9 12 10 15 13
internationally to solve
problems
11. To keep up with the 11 9 10 11 11 14 15 11 11
world's economic,
scientific, and technological
innovations
12. To understand and value 7 14 7 13 8 15 5 12 15
the differences in cultures
(ways of living and acting,
and customs) around the
world
13. To be concerned about 3 2 11 7 7 8 3 4 9
and solve global problems
(environment, poverty,
conflict, peace,
discrimination, human
rights, development, etc.)
14. To make decisions and 14 15 15 15 14 11 9 14 14
take action
15. To respect human rights 14 1 5 12 14 4 4 10 8

Source Morishita, 2017

culture at 15.3%; Thailand ranked first for (26) global environment and development
(14.7%). In Vietnam, no item garnered more than 5% of support.

13.1.3.5 Universal Level of Citizenship

In Q12, the respondents were asked to list 15 characteristics of citizenship at the

universal level and select three of them. Table 13.3 shows the rankings of the 15
items, with the top three shaded. The overall trend was that (2) getting along well
was ranked first in the five countries of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand,
and Vietnam, and (3) restraining oneself and achieving goals was ranked first in Laos
and the Philippines. Next, (1) self-reliance ranked first in Myanmar. Only in
Cambodia,
(15) respect for human rights was ranked first, which shows the characteristics of the
country. In contrast, (14) decision-making and action was ranked low in all countries.
274 M. Morishita et al.

13.1.3.6 Knowledge and Understanding on ASEAN

In the second part of the questionnaire, Q1 to Q5, respondents’ knowledge about

ASEAN countries and their basic knowledge of ASEAN itself, were tested. Table
13.4 shows the results.
In Q1, participants were asked to identify the location of the ASEAN member
countries. Table 13.4 shows the percentage of correct answers. First, it is note-
worthy that the Cambodian students provided a single-digit percentage of correct
answers which is abnormally low. Regarding the location of their country, 95.4%
of the respondents answered correctly. In the other eight countries, the percentage
of correct answers was relatively high in Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos. In contrast,
the percentage of correct answers was generally low in the Philippines.
Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia shared the same low percentage of correct
answers for Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam, which are the least
developed member countries. Additionally, in Indonesia and the Philippines, the
low number of correct answers regarding Singapore was striking.
In Q2, the students were asked to choose the meaning of the ASEAN flag
from among four options. Table 13.4 shows the percentage of correct answers.
The percentage of correct answers was high for Indonesia (71.6%), Laos (65.3%),
and Thailand (61.0%), in that order; the percentage of correct answers for all nine
coun- tries is more than 50%, suggesting that the meaning of the ASEAN flag is well
known to more than half of the students.
In Q3, the respondents were asked to choose the year of establishment of ASEAN
from among four options. Table 13.4 shows the percentage of correct answers.
Overall, the percentage of correct answers tended to be lower than in Q2, with the
exception of Vietnam, which had the highest percentage of correct answers
(62.5%). Laos was the second highest (59.1%). In other countries, many
respondents tended to answer “I don’t know.”
In Q4, respondents were asked to choose the target year for ASEAN integration
from among four options. Table 13.4 shows the percentage of correct answers, which
was even lower than Q3, with four countries in the single digits: Malaysia (3.9%),
Vietnam (4.0%), Brunei (6.4%), and the Philippines (9.1%).
In Q5, we asked the respondents how much they knew about the 10 ASEAN
countries, including their own. Table 13.4 shows the mean values of the responses
in the four-step method. Overall, knowledge of countries other than one’s own is
lined up with an average value of two points; one point is shown in the responses
of four countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Vietnam. However, Myanmar
and Brunei are not well known in this regard. It may be stated that each country
faces a challenge in learning about its neighboring countries.
In Q6, respondents were asked to choose from 16 items to answer the
means/medium of finding information about ASEAN, with no limit on the number of
responses. Table 13.4 shows the means and media that ranked third in each
country, in order of the number of responses. It may be noted that television is
among the top three in all countries, followed by the Internet, which is among the
top three in eight countries. An exception is Myanmar, which seems to be due to
the prevalence
Table 13.4 Knowledge and Understanding on ASEAN

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

Part 2 ASEANness Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Q1 Location of the country The numbers in the table are the percentages of correct answers for each country in the vertical columns
and the country in question is indicated the rows
Brunei 95.2 4.2 75.7 57.8 88.6 47.2 38.0 55.0 65.6
Cambodia 30.4 95.4 30.9 94.9 38.1 52.3 22.5 80.2 80.2
Indonesia 87.7 1.4 97.0 65.0 88.2 63.6 50.0 65.4 69.4
Laos 30.0 1.4 38.3 97.1 42.0 69.2 22.3 82.7 83.1
Malaysia 89.5 7.6 80.1 67.8 93.5 59.5 35.2 82.9 65.8
Myanmar 29.6 1.4 29.2 92.0 46.4 96.4 22.3 80.8 62.6
Philippines 72.7 0.2 70.0 64.6 60.5 60.5 98.6 60.3 76.9
Singapore 85.2 1.9 29.2 57.0 91.7 63.1 28.4 67.7 66.9
Thailand 58.0 1.8 46.5 96.3 84.8 78.5 23.2 99.0 79.6
Vietnam 29.4 1.1 38.9 95.2 41.4 51.3 33.6 80.0 91.2
Q2 Meaning of the ASEAN flag 55.8 41.1 71.6 65.3 56.9 50.3 57.7 61.0 53.7
Q3 Year of establishment of ASEAN 16.4 34.9 34.4 59.1 18.1 22.6 12.5 20.2 62.5
Q4 Year of ASEAN integration 6.4 37.9 22.1 32.3 3.9 27.7 9.1 22.2 4.0
Q5 Knowledge of ASEAN member countries 1 = I don’t know anything about the country, 2 = I don’t know much about the country, 3 = I know about
the country, 4 = I know quite a bit about the country (The numbers in the table are averages for each
country)
About Brunei 3.8 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.7 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.7
About Cambodia 1.6 3.6 2.1 2.7 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.2
About Indonesia 2.7 2.1 3.8 2.5 2.9 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.0
About Laos 1.6 2.2 2.1 3.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.2
(continued)

275
Table 13.4 (continued)

276
Part 2 ASEANness Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
About Malaysia 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.6 3.5 2.4 2.6 2.3 1.8
About Myanmar 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.3 3.6 2.0 2.5 1.7
About Philippines 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.0 3.8 2.2 2.0
About Singapore 2.7 2.3 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.3
About Thailand 2.1 2.7 2.5 3.2 2.7 2.5 2.6 3.6 2.4
About Vietnam 1.7 2.6 2.2 3.2 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.3 3.7
Q6 Means and type of media to obtain information on ASEAN (multiple answers from 16 items)
1st TV Book Book TV Internet Newspaper Internet TV School
2nd Internet TV Internet Newspaper TV TV TV School Internet
3rd Newspaper Internet School Internet Newspaper School Book Internet TV
Source Morishita, 2017

M. Morishita et al.
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 277

of the Internet. In addition, newspapers (four countries), schools (four countries),

and books (three countries) were among the top three. It will be interesting to see
whether people learn about ASEAN from schools. The survey was conducted in
2011, after the advocacy of ASEAN Studies (2006) and before the publication of
the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (2012). The results showed that learning
about ASEAN in schools was highly prevalent in Indonesia (80.2%), Thailand
(74.5%), and the Philippines (71.1%). In the countries where schools were selected
among the top three mentioned above, the percentage was more than 50% in
Vietnam (55.5%) and Myanmar (51.8%). In other countries, this percentage was
below 50%.

13.1.3.7 Awareness of ASEAN

In the second part of the questionnaire, Q7 through Q11, respondents were asked
about their attitudes toward ASEAN. The results are shown in Table 13.5, and the
closer the answer is to 1, the more supportive the opinion is.
In Q7, respondents were asked whether they would like to know more about
ASEAN countries. Each country demonstrated a willingness to learn, with a score
of 1. Indonesia and Laos were the most willing, at 1.4.
In Q8, we asked the respondents whether they thought that being a member of
ASEAN was beneficial for their country. As in Q7, each country acknowledged
that it was beneficial with a score of 1. In particular, Laos was the most positive
with a score of 1.3.
In Q9, respondents were asked whether they thought that being a member of
ASEAN was beneficial to them. For this question, the mean values were
distributed between 1.8 and 2.2, which is more negative than Q8.
In Q10, respondents were asked whether they were aware of being an ASEAN
citizen, felt attached to ASEAN, or felt proud to be an ASEAN citizen. For this
question, the mean values were distributed between 1.8 and 2.2, with relatively
more negative opinions in Vietnam and Indonesia than in other countries. On the
other hand, in Laos and the Philippines, more than 30% of the respondents answered
“very much so,” a higher percentage than in the other countries.
In Q11, respondents were asked whether they think that they have a common
identity with the people of ASEAN countries to achieve the goals that ASEAN
aims to achieve. Responses to this question were distributed between 1.9 and 2.3,
with more negative responses. In particular, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Brunei had
relatively more negative opinions than other countries. On the other hand, more
than 20% of respondents in Myanmar, Laos, and the Philippines answered “very
much agree,” which is a higher percentage than in other countries.
 278
Table 13.5 Attitudes toward ASEAN (The numbers in the table are averages for each country) 1 = Very much, 2 = Yes, 3 = Not much, 4 = Not at all
Part 2: ASEANness Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Q7 I want to know more 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.9
Q8 Beneficial to my country 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9
Q9 Beneficial to me 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.2
Q10 Awareness, love, and pride being ASEAN citizens 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.2
Q11 Common ASEAN identity 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.2
Source Morishita, 2017

M. Morishita et al.
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 279

13.1.3.8 Summary of the Comparative Analysis

Based on the analysis results, the following points may summarize the characteristics
commonly observed in the current situation and issues in ASEAN countries: First,
in terms of values and attitudes, they are enthusiastic about religious beliefs and
their practice, and have a sense of national pride and self-awareness. Second, in
terms of knowledge and understanding, the importance they place on history,
tradition, and culture at the national level is common. Furthermore, in terms of
skills and abilities, they share a common problem with taking action. The results
of the second part of the survey indicate that there is a lack of awareness of
ASEAN as an international organization and its member countries. With regard to
pupils’ ASEANness, they are interested in other ASEAN countries and are aware
of ASEAN’s benefits. However, they lack awareness with regard to being an
ASEAN citizen and identity formation. It may be pointed out that ASEAN
countries need to address the issue of promoting education for ASEANness.
While the above common issues were highlighted, there were also aspects that
showed differences among countries, indicating the current state of diversity
among the ASEAN countries. The factors and backgrounds that influenced the results
of the questionnaire survey were considered different. For a discussion on these
factors, please refer to the chapters in Part II of this book.

13.2 Comparative Analysis of the Delphi Survey Results

13.2.1 Outline of the Delphi Study

The Delphi survey aimed to provide a ten-year forecast of citizenship education

and ASEANness education in ASEAN countries. For this purpose, a Delphi
survey was conducted with experts and knowledgeable people involved in
citizenship educa- tion. In the Delphi method, the results of the first round of the
questionnaire survey were presented to the respondents, and then they were asked
to answer the same questionnaire again to achieve convergence of opinions and to
improve the accuracy of future predictions. Two questionnaire surveys were
conducted in each country. However, since it was not possible to conduct the survey
in Singapore and Myanmar, the following comparative analysis was based on the
results of the second round in eight countries. The surveys were conducted in 2012
and 2013. For an overview of the specific implementation, please refer to the
chapters in Part II. The analysis of the survey results was based on discussions at a
workshop held in February 2014 (Venue: Nagoya University). Sixteen research
members from each ASEAN country participated in the workshop, and together
with 13 members from Japan, the total number of research members was 29.
280 M. Morishita et al.

13.2.2 Composition of the Delphi Questionnaire

The Delphi survey consisted of two parts. The first part was intended as a warm-
up to raise respondents’ awareness of citizenship and education. Therefore, these
results are omitted from this report. The second part comprised the main part of
the Delphi survey. This part is divided into three areas based on the framework of
citizenship characteristics shown in Fig. 2.1 in Chap. 2 of this report. Specifically, 12
characteristics related to “Knowledge and understanding,” 14 characteristics
related to “Skills and abilities,” and 13 characteristics related to “Values and
attitudes” were selected from the table of citizenship characteristics shown in
Table 2.1 in Chap. 2 of this report, as follows:
Characteristics related to “Knowledge and understanding” (12 characteristics).
(1) Environment (2) Coexistence and living together (3) Different cultures (4)
Social justice and equity (5) Democracy (6) Sustainable development (7) Interde-
pendence (8) Foreign language (9) Social welfare (10) Human rights (11) ASEAN
history and culture (12) Common social problems of ASEAN countries.
Characteristics related to “Skills and abilities” (14 characteristics).
(1) To express opinions on social problems (2) To have self-discipline and self-
control (3) To solve problems (4) To make decisions (5) To respond to ICT (6) To
make a peaceful resolution (7) To think critically (8) To improve quality of life (9) To
cooperate with each other (10) To develop sustainably (11) To contribute to
society
(12) To use foreign language (13) To behave in accordance with common rules
and values among ASEAN countries (14) To solve common social problems of
ASEAN countries with other people.
Characteristics related to “Values and attitudes” (13 characteristics).
(1) To face wrong things and injustice (2) To preserve natural resources,
protect the environment, and have an interest in its development (3) To have self-
dependence
(4) To respect cultural diversity (5) To place importance on the law (6) To
promote international cooperation (7) To pay attention to global issues (8) To respect
tradition and culture (9) To have morality and pride as a nation (10) To respect
democracy (11) To respect human rights (12) To think in a scientific way and
catch up with the new science and technology (13) To have morality and pride as
a member of ASEAN.
For each of these characteristics, the following questions were asked: Q1 “Your
level of involvement in this quality,” Q2 “Importance of this quality,” Q3 “How
well does your child acquire this quality at present,” Q4 “How well should your
child achieve this quality 10 years from now,” Q5 “At what age should your child
learn this quality?”
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 281

13.2.3 Survey Results

13.2.3.1 Ranking of Citizenship Characteristics to Be

Achieved in 10 years

Table 13.6 shows the results of the Delphi survey so that they can be compared across
boards. This table shows the results by country in the order of the degree to which
the respondents answered that “citizenship characteristics expected to be achieved
in 10 years” in Q4 should be achieved in each of the areas of “Knowledge and
understanding,” “Skills and abilities,” and “Values and attitudes.” In order to rank
them, “fully achieved” was given a score of 5, followed by “achieved to some
extent” (4 points), “achieved to some extent” (3 points), “not fully achieved” (2
points), and “not achieved at all” (1 point); then, the average was calculated, and the
characteristics with the highest average scores were ranked in order. The “weighted
average value” in the table is the average value calculated by the above operation.
Although the above five options are strictly a ranking scale, we decided to treat the
data as an interval scale by assigning numbers 1 to 5 to give respondents the
impression that each option is equally spaced. In addition, in Table 13–6, the
characteristics ranked within the top five in importance by domain in Q2 are
italicized. Furthermore, the characteristics ranked within the top five in each
domain are shown in bold, in descending order of the weighted average of the level
of achievement at the present time in Q3 subtracted from the weighted average of the
level of expectation 10 years from now in Q4. When determining the rankings, if
the values were the same at the second decimal place, they were treated as having
the same rank. Therefore, although the fifth-ranked characteristics are italicized or in
bold, there are cases in which six or more items apply. In other words, the
characteristics in bold are those that are insufficiently achieved at this point in
time, but have high expectations 10 years from now, and are considered to be
high-priority characteristics for curriculum development. Among these
characteristics, if they have a high level of importance in answering Q2, they are
extracted as the highest priority issues. On the other hand, even if quality has a
high level of importance and a high level of expectation 10 years from now, if it
can be achieved sufficiently at present, it is not considered a high priority for
curriculum development.
In the following section, we compare and analyze the responses of each country
by domain.

13.2.3.2 Knowledge and Understanding

Among the citizenship characteristics in terms of knowledge and understanding of

ASEANness, what characteristics are expected to be achieved in 10 years is discussed
based on the results of Q4. Table 13.6 shows that “Environment” ranked first in
five out of eight countries (Brunei, Laos, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam).
Next,
Table 13.6 Delphi survey results: Ranking of citizenship characteristics expected to be achieved 10 years hence, by country (weighted average of Q4)

282
[Italicized characteristics are ones ranked in the top five in terms of importance (Q2) . Characteristics in bold are ones ranked in the top five, in terms of the
difference (gap) from the current level of achievement (Q3) (weighted average of Q4 minus weighted average of Q3).]
Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Knowledge and 1) Environment 1) Democracy 1) Coexistence and 1) Environment 1) Coexistence and 1) Environment 1) Environment 1) Environment
understanding 2) Coexistence and 2) Social welfare living together 2) Democracy living together 2) Human rights 2) Coexistence and 2) Foreign language
living together 2) Human rights 2) Environment 3) Coexistence and 1) Different cultures 3) Democracy living together 2) ASEAN history
3) Social welfare 4) Social justice 3) Democracy living together 3) Environment 4) Coexistence and 3) Democracy and culture
4) Interdependence and equity 4) Different 4) Social justice 4) Social justice and living together 4) Foreign 4) Social welfare
5) Sustainable 5) Coexistence and cultures and equity equity 4) Social justice language 5) Sustainable
development living together 4) Social justice 5) Human rights 5) and equity 5) Human rights development
6) Different cultures 6) Interdependence and equity 6) ASEAN history Interdependence 4) Sustainable 5) ASEAN history 5) Common social
7) Human rights 7) Environment 6) Human rights and culture 6) Sustainable development and culture problems of
8) Social justice and 8) Sustainable 7) Sustainable 6) Common social development 7) Social welfare 7) Different cultures ASEAN countries
equity development development problems of 7) Democracy 8) Different cultures 7) Interdependence 7) Different cultures
9) Foreign 9) Common social 8) Social welfare ASEAN countries 8) Social welfare 9) Interdependence 7) Common social 7) Human rights
language problems of 9) Interdependence 8) Interdependence 9) Foreign 10) ASEAN history problems of 9) Coexistence and
10) Democracy ASEAN countries 10) ASEAN 9) Sustainable language and culture ASEAN countries living together
11) ASEAN history 10) Different history and development 10) Human rights 11) Common social 10) Social justice 10)
and culture cultures culture 10) Different 11) ASEAN history problems of and equity Interdependence
12) Common social 11) Foreign 11) Foreign cultures and culture ASEAN countries 11) Sustainable 11) Social justice
problems of language language 11) Social welfare 12) Common social 12) Foreign development and equity
ASEAN countries 11) ASEAN 12) Common 12) Foreign problems of language 12) Social welfare 12) Democracy
history and culture social problems of language ASEAN countries
ASEAN countries
(continued)

M. Morishita et al.
Table 13.6 (continued)

13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education …

Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Skills and 1) To cooperate 1) To make 1) To improve 1) To cooperate with 1) To express 1) To cooperate with 1) To respond to 1) To solve
abilities with each other decisions quality of life each other opinions on social each other ICT common social
2) To respond to 2) To have 2) To think 2) To have problems 2) To have 2) To use foreign problems of
ICT self-discipline and critically self-discipline and 1) To solve problems self-discipline and language usage ASEAN countries
3) To improve self-control 3) To solve self-control 1) To make self-control 3) To contribute to with other people
quality of life 2) To cooperate problems 3) To improve decisions 3) To solve society 2) To improve
4) To have with each other 4) To have quality of life 4) To have problems 4) To cooperate with quality of life
self-discipline and 4) To improve self-discipline and 4) To solve problems self-discipline and 3) To improve each other 3) To use foreign
self-control quality of life self-control 5) To contribute to self-control quality of life 5) To behave in language
4) To make 4) To contribute to 5) To make society 5) To respond to 5) To think accordance with 4) To respond to
decisions society decisions 6) To make ICT critically common rules and ICT
6) To solve problems 6) To make a 6) To cooperate decisions 5) To make a 6) To express values among 5) To solve problems
7) To express peaceful resolution with each other 7) To make a peaceful resolution opinions on social ASEAN countries 5) To cooperate with
opinions on social 7) To think critically 7) To respond to peaceful resolution 5) To develop problems 6) To make each other
problems 8) To solve ICT 7) To develop sustainably 6) To make decisions 7) To have
8) To think critically problems 8) To express sustainably 8) To cooperate decisions 7) To improve self-discipline and
9) To make a 9) To develop opinions on social 9) To respond to with each other 8) To develop quality of life self-control
peaceful resolution sustainably problems ICT 9) To improve sustainably 8) To express 7) To think critically
10) To contribute to 10) To express 9) To contribute to 9) To think quality of life 9) To make a opinions on social 7) To develop
society opinions on social society critically 10) To think peaceful resolution problems sustainably
11) To develop problems 10) To make a 11) To behave in critically 9) To contribute to 8) To solve problems 10) To express
sustainably 11) To behave in peaceful resolution accordance with 11) To contribute society 8) To develop opinions on social
12) To use foreign accordance with 11) To develop common rules and to society 11) To respond to sustainably problems
language common rules and sustainably values among 12) To use foreign ICT 11) To solve 10) To behave in
13) To behave in values among 12) To use foreign ASEAN countries language 12) To solve common social accordance with
accordance with ASEAN Countries language 11) To solve 12) To behave in common social problems of common rules and
common rules and 12) To respond to 13) To behave in common social accordance with problems of ASEAN countries values among
values among ICT accordance with problems of common rules and ASEAN countries with other people ASEAN countries
ASEAN countries 13) To solve common rules and ASEAN countries values among with other people 12) To have 12) To make
14) To solve common social values among with other people ASEAN countries 13) To behave in self-discipline and decisions
common social problems of ASEAN countries 13) To express accordance with self-control 12) To contribute
problems of ASEAN countries 13) To solve opinions on social common rules and 12) To make a to society
ASEAN countries with other people common social problems values among peaceful resolution 14) To make a
with other people 14) To use foreign problems of 14) To use foreign ASEAN countries 14) To think peaceful resolution
language ASEAN countries language 14) To use foreign critically
with other people language
(continued)

283
Table 13.6 (continued)

284
Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Laos Malaysia Philippines Thailand Vietnam
Values and 1) To have morality 1) To have morality 1) To respect 1) To respect 1) To have 1) To respect human 1) To have morality 1) To have morality
attitudes and pride as a and pride as a human rights democracy self-dependence rights and pride as a and pride as a
nation nation 2) To respect 2) To respect 2) To promote 2) To have morality nation nation
2) To have 2) To respect democracy cultural diversity international and pride as a 2) To preserve 2) To preserve
self-dependence tradition and 3) To respect 3) To have morality cooperation nation natural resources, natural resources,
3) To respect culture cultural diversity and pride as a 3) To preserve 2) To respect protect the protect the
cultural diversity 3) To have 4) To respect member of ASEAN natural resources, democracy environment, and environment, and
3) To place self-dependence tradition and 4) To preserve protect the 4) To have morality have an interest in have an interest
importance on the 4) To respect culture natural resources, environment, and and pride as a its development in its development
law democracy 4) To think in a protect the have an interest in member of ASEAN 2) To respect 3) To face wrong
5) To respect 5) To respect human scientific way and environment, and its development 5) To place democracy things and
tradition and culture rights catch up with the have an interest in 3) To respect importance on the 4) To have injustice
5) To preserve 6) To place new science and its development cultural diversity law self-dependence 4) To think in a
natural resources, importance on the technology 4) To have 5) To face wrong 5) To respect 4) To respect scientific way and
protect the law 6) To place self-dependence things and injustice tradition and culture tradition and culture catch up with the
environment, and 7) To preserve importance on the 6) To respect human 5) To pay attention 7) To preserve 6) To respect new science and
have an interest in natural resources, law rights to global issues natural resources, human rights technology
its development protect the 7) To have morality 7) To place 5) To respect protect the 7) To respect 5) To promote
7) To respect human environment, and and pride as a importance on the tradition and culture environment, and cultural diversity international
rights have an interest in member of ASEAN law 8) To place have an interest in 7) To place cooperation
8) To face wrong its development 8) To preserve 8) To face wrong importance on the its development importance on the 6) To respect
things and 8) To have natural resources, things and law 7) To have law tradition and culture
injustice morality and pride protect the injustice 8) To respect self-dependence 7) To think in a 7) To have
8) To think in a as a member of environment, and 8) To have morality democracy 9) To respect scientific way and self-dependence
scientific way and ASEAN have an interest in and pride as a 10) To have cultural diversity catch up with the 8) To have morality
catch up with the 9) To respect its development nation morality and pride 9) To pay attention new science and and pride as a
new science and cultural diversity 9) To face wrong 10) To respect as a nation to global issues technology member of ASEAN
technology 10) To think in a things and tradition and culture 11) To think in a 11) To think in a 10) To have 9) To respect
10) To pay attention scientific way and injustice 11) To think in a scientific way and scientific way and morality and pride cultural diversity
to global issues catch up with the 10) To have scientific way and catch up with the catch up with the as a member of 9) To pay attention
11) To promote new science and morality and pride catch up with the new science and new science and ASEAN to global issues
international technology as a nation new science and technology technology 11) To pay 11) To place
cooperation 11) To promote 11) To pay technology 12) To respect 12) To promote attention to global importance on the

M. Morishita et al.
12) To have morality international attention to global 12) To promote human rights international issues law
and pride as a cooperation issues international 13) To have cooperation 12) To face wrong 12) To respect
member of ASEAN 12) To pay 12) To have cooperation morality and pride 13) To face wrong things and injustice human rights
13) To respect attention to global self-dependence 13) To pay attention as a member of things and 13) To promote 13) To respect
democracy issues 13) To promote to global issues ASEAN injustice international democracy
13) To face wrong international cooperation
things and cooperation
injustice

Footnote When determining the rankings, if the values were the same at the second decimal place, they were treated as having the same rank. Source Morishita, 2017
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 285

“Coexistence” is ranked first in two countries (Indonesia and Malaysia). These

char- acteristics are relatively high in all the countries. Only in Cambodia is
“Democracy” ranked first. In addition to Cambodia, many other countries ranked
“Democracy” at the middle or higher level, but some countries ranked it lower,
such as Vietnam (12th) and Brunei (10th).
On the other hand, there are commonalities among countries with low expecta-
tions. For example, the two items of “ASEAN history and culture” and “Common
social problems of ASEAN countries” were ranked 11th and 12th in both Brunei and
Malaysia, 10th and 12th in Indonesia, 10th and 11th in the Philippines, and 9th
and 11th in Cambodia. On the other hand, in Vietnam, Thailand, and Laos, the range
was from 2nd to 7th, and the trend of expectation in these three countries was
different from the three countries above. It is also noteworthy that while “Foreign
language” is ranked 12th in Laos and the Philippines, and 11th in Cambodia and
Indonesia, it is ranked 2nd in Vietnam, and 4th in Thailand.
Next, when we examine the characteristics considered to be of high importance
in Q2, which are italicized, we find a tendency for many countries to occupy items
with high expectations. This is not the case in Vietnam, where “Democracy” is
ranked 12th, “Coexistence and living together” is ranked 9th, and “Human rights”
is ranked 7th, all of which are of relatively low importance. In Thailand, too, the
highly important “Sustainable development” was ranked 11th.
Next, when we look at the characteristics in bold that have a large difference
between the level of achievement today and the level of expectation ten years
from now, we can see that they tend to be dispersed in both the top and bottom
of the ranking. However, in Malaysia, four characteristics (“Foreign language,”
“Human rights,” “ASEAN history and culture,” and “Common social problems of
ASEAN countries”) are clustered at the bottom of the rankings, from 9 to 12th.
In Indonesia, four characteristics (“Social welfare,” “ASEAN history and culture,”
“Foreign language,” and “Common social problems of ASEAN countries”) are
clus- tered in the 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12th positions. Seven countries have both or
either of the two ASEAN-related characteristics in bold, with the Philippines as
the only exception. Next, “Foreign language” is also in bold type in all seven
countries. The exception is Vietnam.
The characteristics that are relatively high in the ranking of Q4 and are itali-
cized and expressed in bold as items that have a high priority for action, such as
curriculum development, development of teaching materials, and dissemination of
teaching methods, can be extracted by country as follows: “Sustainable
development” in Brunei, “Democracy” and “Social justice and equity” in
Cambodia, “Environment” in Indonesia, “Environment” and “Social justice and
equity” in Laos, “Environment,” “Social justice and equity” and “Sustainable
development” in the Philippines, and “Environment” and “Sustainable
development” in Vietnam. No relevant quality was found in Malaysia or Thailand.
The results show that the characteristics that are common among multiple
countries are “Environment” (4 countries), “Social justice and equity” (3
countries), and “Sustainable development” (3 countries). In the case of cooperative
measures among ASEAN countries, education in terms of knowledge
286 M. Morishita et al.

and understanding of these three characteristics is considered to have the highest

priority.
The characteristics in bold that are not highly important but are at the top of
the ranking in Q4 can be regarded as characteristics for which countermeasures
are essential, in that order. By country, “Interdependence” was selected in Brunei,
“Social problems common to ASEAN countries” in Cambodia, “Social welfare” in
Indonesia, “ASEAN history and culture” in Laos, “Interdependence” in Malaysia,
“Social welfare” in the Philippines, “Foreign language,” “Human rights” and
“ASEAN history and culture” in Thailand, and “ASEAN history and culture” in
Vietnam. The results show that “ASEAN history and culture” is common in the
three countries, and “Interdependence” and “Social welfare” are common in the
two countries.

13.2.3.3 Skills and Abilities

Next, we consider citizenship characteristics in terms of skills and abilities in the

middle section of Table 13.6. First, analyzing the commonalities from the results
of Q4, “To cooperate with each other” is ranked first in three countries (Brunei,
Laos, and the Philippines), and it is also ranked in the top or middle six in the
other countries. However, only Malaysia was ranked 8th. “To make decisions” is
ranked first in two countries (Cambodia and Malaysia) and is also ranked sixth or
higher or in the middle in other countries. However, only Vietnam ranked 12th. In
addition, “To improve quality of life” is ranked first in Indonesia, but it is ranked
seventh or higher or in the middle in seven countries, except Malaysia.
On the other hand, in terms of the characteristics with low expectations, “To
have in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” and
“To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people” are
ranked 13th and 14th in Brunei, 13th and 13th in Indonesia (same rate), 12th and
13th in the Philippines, 11th and 13th in Cambodia, and 11th and 11th in Laos
(same rate). Malaysia was ranked 12th. In Malaysia, the questionnaire did not
include the item “To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with
other people.” On the other hand, in Vietnam, “To solve common social problems of
ASEAN countries with other people” was ranked first, indicating high expectations.
This was followed by “To have in accordance with common rules and values among
ASEAN countries” in Thailand, which ranked fifth, showing a different trend in
these two countries. Next, when looking at “To use foreign language,” Cambodia,
Laos, and the Philippines ranked the lowest at 14th. Brunei, Indonesia, and
Malaysia also ranked low at 12th. However, Thailand and Vietnam ranked second
and third, respectively, showing a different trend.
Next, looking at the italicized characteristics that were considered to be highly
important in Q2, we find that in many countries, these characteristics tend to
occupy the items with the highest expectations ten years from now. However, there
are some exceptions, such as “To express opinions on social problems” which
ranked 13th in Laos and “To have self-discipline and self-control” and “To make a
peaceful resolution” which ranked 12th in Thailand.
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 287

Next, looking at the characteristics in bold that have a large difference between
the level of achievement today and the level of expectation ten years from now,
there is a tendency for them to be dispersed in both the top and bottom of the
ranking. By quality, there are seven countries in which both or either of the two
ASEAN-related characteristics are indicated in bold, with Indonesia as the
exception. In addition, “To use foreign language” is also shown in bold type in six
countries, except for the Philippines and Vietnam.
To determine the characteristics that have the highest priority for response
measures, the characteristics that are relatively high in the ranking of Q4 and are
italicized and shown in bold are extracted by country as follows. In Brunei, it was
“To cooperate with each other” and “To make decisions”; in Cambodia, it was
“To make decisions”; in Indonesia, it was “To improve quality of life”; in the
Philippines, it was “To have self-discipline and self-control”; in Thailand, it was
“To use foreign language”; in Vietnam, it was “To improve quality of life.”
Additionally, no rele- vant characteristics were observed in Laos and Malaysia.
Based on these results, the common characteristics among multiple countries are
“To make decisions” (Brunei and Cambodia) and “To improve quality of life”
(Indonesia and Vietnam). Educa- tion in terms of competence and skills in these
two characteristics is considered the highest priority for cooperative response
measures among the ASEAN countries.
To determine the next most important characteristics that need to be addressed, the
following is a list of the characteristics in bold that are not highly important but
are ranked high in Q4 by country. In Brunei, “To express opinions on social
problems”; in Cambodia, “To behave in accordance with common rules and values
among ASEAN countries”; in Indonesia, “To make decisions”; in Laos, “To
contribute to society”; in Malaysia, “To develop sustainably”; in the Philippines,
“To solve problems” and “To think critically”; in Thailand, “To behave in
accordance with common rules and values in ASEAN countries,” and in Vietnam,
“To solve common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people.” “To
behave in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” was
common in Cambodia and Thailand.

13.2.3.4 Values and Attitudes

Finally, the citizenship characteristics in terms of values and attitudes are

discussed in the lower part of Table 13.6. First, analyzing the commonalities from
the results of Q4, “To have morality and pride as a nation” was ranked first in four
countries (Brunei, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam), followed by the Philippines.
However, some countries ranked it in the middle or lower, such as 10th in Malaysia,
8th in Laos, and 7th in Indonesia. Next, “To respect human rights” ranked first in
Indonesia and the Philippines, but similarly, some countries ranked it as low as
12th in Malaysia and Vietnam. “To respect democracy,” which is ranked first in
Laos, is ranked high or middle in many countries, but it is ranked 13th and lowest
in Brunei and Vietnam, with a large difference. “To have self-independence,” ranked
first in Malaysia, is also ranked high or middle in many countries, but it is ranked
low in Indonesia at 12th
288 M. Morishita et al.

place. As shown above, some characteristics were common in the top rankings,
but there was a tendency for some countries to rank low.
On the other hand, “To face wrong things and injustice” is ranked 13th and lowest
in Cambodia and the Philippines and is in the middle to lower range in many countries,
although it is ranked as high as 3rd in Vietnam and 5th in Malaysia. “To promote
international cooperation” is ranked 13th and lowest in Indonesia and Thailand.
This quality is also ranked 11th or lower in many countries, but it is ranked 2nd in
Malaysia and 5th in Vietnam. As for the ASEAN-related characteristics that
ranked low in other areas, the question included one quality, “To have morality
and pride as a member of ASEAN,” and while some countries ranked it low, such
as Malaysia at 13th and Brunei at 12th, many countries ranked it relatively high or
middle, such as Laos at 3rd. In Laos, in particular, it was ranked third. In Laos, in
particular, “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” (3rd) is much higher
than “To have morality and pride as a nation” (8th), which is noteworthy.
Next, when we look at the characteristics ranked as highly important in Q2,
which are italicized, we find a tendency in many countries for these characteristics to
dominate the items with the highest expectations ten years from now. The
exception to this is Vietnam, where the three most important characteristics, “To place
importance on the law,” “To respect human rights,” and “To respect democracy,”
are ranked 11th through 13th. Furthermore, it may be noted that “To have morality
and pride as a nation,” which was ranked highly important in Malaysia, is ranked
10th.
Next, looking at the characteristics in bold that have a large difference between
the level of achievement today and the level of expectation ten years from now,
there is a tendency for them to be dispersed in both the top and bottom of the
ranking. However, Malaysia stands out with five items from the bottom of the list,
from 8 to 13th place. Cambodia is also in the 7th and 13th positions. In terms of
characteristics, “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have
an interest in its development” and “To face wrong things and injustice” are
shown in bold type in six countries, with Malaysia and Thailand being the
exceptions in both cases. This is followed by “To have morality and pride as a
member of ASEAN” in bold type in five countries.
To find the characteristics that have the highest priority for a response, the charac-
teristics that are relatively high in the ranking of Q4 and are italicized and shown
in bold are extracted by country as follows. In Brunei, “To place importance on the
law” and “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an
interest in its development”; in Cambodia, “To preserve natural resources, protect
the envi- ronment, and have an interest in its development”; in Indonesia, “To
place impor- tance on the law”; in Laos, “To preserve natural resources, protect
the environment, and have an interest in its development”; in the Philippines, “ To
preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest in its
development”; in Thai- land, “To have self-dependence” and “To respect human
rights”; and in Vietnam, “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment,
and have an interest in its development.” In Malaysia, no such quality has been
found. These results indicate that “To preserve natural resources, protect the
environment, and have an interest in
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 289

its development,” which is a common quality among the five countries, is the most
important issue to be addressed by ASEAN as a whole.
Next, the characteristics for which measures are most needed are examined by
country: “To respect cultural diversity” in Brunei; “To have morality and pride as
a member of ASEAN” in Cambodia; “To face wrong things and injustice” in
Indonesia; “To respect cultural diversity” in Laos; “To respect democracy” in
Malaysia; “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN” in the
Philippines; “To think in a scientific way and catch up with the new science and
technology” in Thailand; and “To face wrong things and injustice” in Vietnam.
Here, these three characteristics are common to both countries. In addition, in
Malaysia, a quality that is of high importance and for which there is a large gap
between the current level of achievement and the level of expectation 10 years from
now is “To have morality and pride as a nation.”

13.2.3.5 Age at Which Citizenship Characteristics Are Learned

In Q5, the respondents were asked about the age at which they thought each of
the above characteristics should be learned. The six age categories were 8 years or
younger, 9–10 years old, 11–12 years old, 13–14 years old, 15–16 years old, and
17 years or older.
First, looking at the overall trend, in many countries, the knowledge and under-
standing aspect is considered to be appropriate to be studied at a relatively early
age group, with many of the characteristics concentrated at the age of eight or
younger, while some of the characteristics should be studied at a relatively older
age group. In terms of skills and abilities, there are many characteristics that
should be studied in the age group of 8 years or younger, but compared to
knowledge and understanding, there are many characteristics that shift to a slightly
higher age group and should be studied in the age group of 17 years or older. In
terms of values and attitudes, there is a division between lower and higher age
groups. The responses tend to differ by country. In Malaysia, knowledge and
understanding are evenly divided into five levels, from 8 years old and younger to
15–16 years old, and skills and abilities, as well as values and attitudes, are evenly
divided into three levels, from 11–12 years old to 15–16 years old. Moreover, the
degree of convergence was high, with most opinions (more than 40%) clustered in
one age group. Similar to Malaysia is the Philippines, where, with a few
exceptions, characteristics are assigned to four age groups from 8 and under to 13–
14. However, the degree of convergence is lower than in Malaysia, and there are
not many characteristics that account for more than 40 percent of the total in any
one age group. In Thailand, most of the characteris- tics should be studied at the
age of 8 years or younger, with some exceptions at the ages of 9–10 years and
11–12 years, only a few people argue that the age should be 13 years or older.
Close to Thailand is Brunei, where, with some exceptions, the distribution is
almost entirely from under 8 to 11–12. In Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, and
Vietnam, the distribution tends to be less than 8 or 15–16 or 17 + , respectively.
290 M. Morishita et al.

Moreover, opinions are divided between lower and higher ages depending on their
characteristics.
Next, we analyzed the age at which students believed they should learn the charac-
teristics identified as high priorities for action based on their responses to Q2 through
Q4.
Looking at the knowledge and understanding aspects of “Environment,”
“Social justice and equity,” and “Sustainable development,” in all eight countries the
greatest number of respondents in “Environment” were aged 8 or younger. For
social justice and equity, four countries have children under the age of 8, three
have children aged 9 and 10 years, and one has children aged 11 and 12 years.
These two characteristics should be taught at age 8 or younger, or at age 9 or 10.
Sustainable development is a diverse topic with differing opinions among
countries. Cambodia is divided between under 8 years old and 15–16 years old, in
Laos between 9–10 years old and over 17 years old, and in Vietnam between
under 8 years old and 11–12 years old.
Looking at “To make decisions” and “To improve quality of life,” which were
extracted from the ability and skills aspect, for “To make decisions,” the opinions
of four countries are concentrated in the age group of 8 years or younger. This was
followed by three countries at the age of 11–12 and one country at the age of 15–
16. Broadly speaking, learning at the primary education level is desirable.
However, the degree of convergence is lower in Laos, Indonesia, Cambodia, and
the Philippines. As for “To improve quality of life,” there are large differences
among countries. In Indonesia, Laos, and Vietnam, it is 17 years old or older,
whereas in Brunei and Thailand, it is 8 years old or younger. In Cambodia,
Indonesia, and the Philippines, the degree of convergence is low.
Looking at the values and attitudes aspect of “To preserve natural resources,
protect the environment, and have an interest in its development,” seven countries
are of the opinion that children should learn this at age 8 or younger. The
exception is Malaysia. Malaysian experts believe that children should learn this at 11–
12 years. Therefore, there is a commonality with regard to learning at an early age.
The other five characteristics of ASEAN relations should also be examined. In
terms of knowledge and understanding, for “ASEAN history and culture,” the age
range is 9–10 years old in three countries, 11–12 and 15–16 years old in two countries,
and 13–14 years old in one country. A slightly higher age range is desirable for all
eight countries compared to the lower age ranges for most of the other knowledge and
understanding characteristics. For “Common social problems of ASEAN
countries,” even higher age groups are considered desirable, ranging from 9–10
years in Laos to 17 years and above in Cambodia. In terms of skills and abilities,
“To have in accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries” and
“To solve common problems of ASEAN countries with other people” are both
considered desirable to be studied in older age groups than the other characteristics. In
Thailand, where there is a tendency to focus on younger age groups, both of these
characteristics are 9–10 years old, and in Brunei, where the same tendency exists,
the former is 11– 12 years old and the latter is 17 years or older. In Malaysia and
the Philippines, where characteristics tend to be distributed in a balanced manner,
the age groups are 15–16 years old and 13–14 years old, respectively, which are
higher than the
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 291

other ability and skill characteristics. In Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, and Vietnam,
where there is a tendency to divide respondents into younger and older age groups,
the respondents in each country were at least 17 or 15–16 years old. In terms of
values and attitudes, only Thailand selected the age group of 8 years old or
younger for “To have morality and pride as a member of ASEAN.” Cambodia,
Indonesia, Laos, and Vietnam set the age at 17 years and above. Summarizing
ASEAN-related characteristics, it is desirable for all five characteristics to be
learned in a higher age group.

13.2.3.6 Summary of Delphi Survey Results

The above analysis can be summarized as follows.

Analyzing the characteristics that are expected to be achieved in 10 years, some
characteristics are common in several countries for which there are high expecta-
tions: “Environment,” “Coexistence and living together,” and “Democracy” in
terms of knowledge and understanding; “To cooperate with each other” and “To make
deci- sions” in terms of skills and abilities; “To have morality and pride as a nation” in
terms of values and attitudes. On the other hand, there are low expectations are:
“ASEAN history and culture,” “Common social problems of ASEAN countries,”
and “For- eign language” in terms of knowledge and understanding; “To behave in
accordance with common rules and values among ASEAN countries,” “To solve
common social problems of ASEAN countries with other people,” and “To use
foreign language” in terms of ability and skills; and “To face wrong things and
injustice” and “To promote international cooperation” in terms of values and attitudes.
However, diversity among ASEAN countries is more pronounced than their
commonality. Even among the char- acteristics for which commonality was found in
several countries listed above, there are often countries with completely different
trends.
Next, when we extracted the high-priority characteristics that require counter-
measures, such as curriculum development, development of teaching materials,
and dissemination of teaching methods, a variety of characteristics were narrowed
down in each country. Some of these characteristics are common to multiple
countries, and it is thought that effectiveness will be higher if such characteristics
are addressed in order of priority when the entire ASEAN region works together.
Specifically, these characteristics are “Environment,” “Social justice and equity,”
and “Sustain- able development” in terms of knowledge and understanding, “To
make decisions” and “To improve quality of life” in terms of skills and abilities,
and “To preserve natural resources, protect the environment, and have an interest
in its development” in terms of values and attitudes.
In terms of the age at which citizenship characteristics are learned, there are
marked differences in the trends across countries. The following countries can be
categorized according to their tendencies: countries in which characteristics are
distributed in a balanced manner in stages (Malaysia and the Philippines), coun-
tries in which quality tends to be concentrated in the younger age groups (Thailand
and Brunei), countries in which quality tends to be divided into younger and older
292 M. Morishita et al.

age groups (Vietnam), and countries in which opinions tend to be dispersed and
consensus building is difficult (Cambodia, Indonesia, and Laos). These countries
can be classified on the basis of their tendencies. It is difficult to determine which
country’s way of thinking is desirable, based on the results of this survey alone.
However, it is reasonable to assign weight to the opinions of experts in Malaysia,
where citizenship education is practiced, and in the Philippines, where integrated
national education subjects have been practiced.
Regarding ASEANness education, four of the five ASEAN-related characteris-
tics tended to have very low expectations. Therefore, none of them were included
in the characteristics of the top-priority issues mentioned above. However, there is
a tendency for there to be a large difference between the level of achievement
today and the level of expectation 10 years from now. Many countries consider
these char- acteristics to be of high importance, so it may be stated that there is a
need to plan and implement measures in accordance with the top priority issues. In
terms of the age at which children learn, there is common agreement among the
countries that it is desirable for all five characteristics to be learned at an older
age.

13.3 Conclusion: Summary and Recommendations

In summary, the results of the pupil survey were as follows: First, in terms of
knowl- edge and understanding, it was confirmed that history and culture were mostly
learned at the national level. This can be understood as evidence that the national
educa- tion policy has sufficiently penetrated. Next, in terms of skills and abilities,
it was confirmed that there were issues with actually trying to take action. As
mentioned in Chap. 2, this indicates that the ultimate goal of “making decisions
and taking action,” which is the framework of citizenship education in this study,
has not been sufficiently achieved. Furthermore, religious beliefs and practices
were enthusias- tically followed in terms of values and attitudes. In this respect, it
is reasonable to understand that this may be because the three major world
religions are practiced in many ASEAN countries. However, the development of
ASEANess has been inade- quate. They seem to be interested in ASEAN and
recognize its significance, but their knowledge of ASEAN seems to be insufficient.
This may mean that while the policy at the national level is functioning well, the
policy for fostering ASEANness is not yet fully functional (issue). It is appropriate
to understand that educational reform and curriculum development for the
development of ASEANness are required in the future.
On the other hand, analysis of the Delphi survey shows that each country strives to
develop various characteristics of citizenship and will continue to do so in the
future. However, the characteristics required in each country are diverse, and
therefore the realization of the ASEAN motto, “One Vision, One Identity, One
Community,” may be difficult. The age of the students was not necessarily the
same in all the countries, and the development of ASEAN-related characteristics
did not seem to function well. ASEAN countries are diverse in terms of religion,
ethnicity, society, political
13 Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Education … 293

systems, and many other aspects, and this may have created various challenges. This
illustrates the difficulty in sharing a common vision for the ASEAN countries.
Finally, in the area of education, the success of the ASEAN Community in its
future development will depend on how students engage in ASEAN learning; how
governments and education experts (experts) promote policymaking, curriculum
development, and teacher training reform; and, consequently, how students and
policy-makers/education experts work together to promote education and research.
The successful implementation of these conditions will be a challenge in the
future. In addition, the analysis in this chapter clarifies the characteristics and
trends that can be read from the comparison table. We developed an analytical
framework and hypotheses at the planning and design stage of the questionnaire.
Nevertheless, analysis of the collected data shows that the “diversity” among
ASEAN countries far exceeds our expectations. These data, together with the actual
situation on the ground, should be analyzed in greater detail. Furthermore, the
Delphi survey predicted the future of 10 years from now. To realize this future,
several characteristics are recom- mended in the next chapter (Chap. 14) as those
that should be prioritized. Therefore, we would like to conclude by pointing out
that further analysis of this research data, tracking the reform trend of citizenship
education, and examining the results 10 years
after the establishment of the ASEAN Community (2025) are future tasks.
Chapter 14
Citizenship Education in the ASEAN
Community: Summary
and Recommendations

Toshifumi Hirata, Minoru Morishita, Masahiro

Teshima, and Kumaraguru Ramayah

Abstract This final chapter summarizes citizenship education in the ASEAN

Community based on the research and professional opinions of the authors in the
previous chapters and presents general conclusions and comprehensive
recommen- dations. This chapter discusses our investigation into whether
ASEANness was acquired through ASEAN studies and the ASEAN Curriculum
Sourcebook (2012). It also discusses the results of our student survey on
citizenship awareness and our Delphi survey of education experts on their
recommendations for citizenship over the next ten years. Overall, we found that the
ASEAN Community appeared to function smoothly when issues of diversity and
commonality in ASEAN were successfully balanced and integrated. While each
country had citizenship education issues that required attention, there were also
issues that affected ASEAN as a whole. In sum, although the entire ASEAN
Community showed positive progress, ASEANness had not been sufficiently
fostered. Therefore, we conclude with recommendations for ASEANness and
citizenship education over the next ten years, including enhanced efforts to foster
ASEANness, more rigorous curriculum development, and improved teacher
development training.

T. Hirata (B)
Faculty of Education, Oita University, Oita City 870-1192,
Japan e-mail: [email protected]
M. Morishita
Faculty of Marine Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 2-1-6,
Etchujima, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-8533,
Japan e-mail: [email protected]
M. Teshima
Faculty of Education, Bunkyo University, 3337, Minami-Ogishima, Koshigaya-shi,
Saitama 343-8511, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Kumaraguru
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, UTM, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, FSSH,
Block D05, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
295
T. Hirata (ed.), Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community,
Governance and Citizenship in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3692-0_14
296 T. Hirata et al.

·
Keywords Active citizenship Curriculum development Diversity and
commonality · Global citizens · Teacher development training

14.1 The ASEAN Community: Social

Conditions in Individual Countries

The ASEAN countries have diverse ethnicities, religions, languages, traditions,

cultures, and customs. At first glance, this might suggest that it would be diffi-
cult to build unity among them and make the Community motto, “One Vision,
One Identity, One Community,” unfeasible. Nevertheless, in the years since 2015,
when the Community was officially founded (ASEAN, 2015a,b), the ASEAN
Commu- nity has made great strides toward realizing its motto. At a recent
ASEAN Summit (37th Congress, 2020) and the Education Ministers’ Meeting
(11th Congress, 2020), the ASEAN Community declared its intention to
strengthen partnerships among the ASEAN countries and further promote
educational cooperation and exchange. They recognized that achieving further
development under the Community’s motto required taking steps to ensure digital
skills and literacy for the twenty-first century and ICT-based teaching and
learning.
We interviewed authors in some countries about the current status of the ASEAN
Community and its citizenship education. The findings are summarized below.

14.1.1 Brunei

Brunei emphasized the importance of being a member of ASEAN and committed

itself to develop the ASEAN Community (ASEAN.2015a). Recognizing the
impor- tance of ASEAN youth awareness, King Hassanal Bolkiah facilitated
efforts to provide youth with knowledge and information regarding his vision to
develop a people-centered and people-oriented ASEAN. As one of his efforts, he
prepared a curriculum to foster citizenship among the youth and expand their
knowledge of ASEAN, including awareness. The King considered it important to
educate young people to see themselves as members of ASEAN and have
awareness about ASEAN.

14.1.2 Indonesia

In Indonesia, citizenship education was undergoing further decentralization.

14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 297

14.1.3 Laos

Laos and ASEAN studies were not conducted, partly because of the country’s
continued emphasis on developing its educational infrastructure. However, we saw
evidence of ASEAN’s awareness in urban areas.

14.1.4 Malaysia

Malaysia is a multiethnic, multicultural, and composite nation. Unifying the nation

has been a central concern and the primary goal of its national language policy
in Malaysia since its independence from the British Empire in 1957. Malaysian
citizenship education views citizenship from the perspective that being a citizen is
a subject of the nation, citizenship education has a national focus, and the ultimate
goal is to emphasize and instill pride in their membership in the Malaysian nation.
They associate citizens and citizenship with (1) understanding the responsibilities
and moral values of being a member of the community; (2) understanding and
respecting the characteristics, customs, and practices of all ethnic groups and the
diversity of cultures and religions; (3) participating in politics and society as
Malaysian citizens and taking responsibility for the rights that should be granted
and duties that should be fulfilled. While they believe that students should
recognize the multilayer nature of citizenship (i.e., local, national, regional, global,
and universal), they emphasize national citizenship; they require that students
understand the concepts of challenge and victory and do their part to perpetuate
and develop Malaysia.
In particular, the Malaysian team reported these priorities for citizens: (1)
appre- ciate the responsibility and moral value of communities as a member of the
Malaysian nation; (2) understand and respect others’ customs; (3) be responsible
for and partic- ipate in politics and society and understand their rights and
obligations as Malaysian citizens. Citizenship education stressed the concepts of
Malaysia meeting its chal- lenges and holding its position in today’s globalized
world: Malaysians’ contribu- tions to keeping the nation strong and prosperous,
and understanding that beyond national citizenship, Malaysians are also local,
regional, global, and universal citi- zens. Malaysia plans to survive in the twenty-
first century by building a strong national identity while affirming its place in the
world.
The current educational content related to ASEAN emphasized learning about
its establishment, history, objectives, and cooperation agreements. Thus, although
Malaysia recognized the importance of ASEAN, citizenship education strongly
emphasized national identity over ASEAN’s identity.
298 T. Hirata et al.

14.1.5 Thailand

The 1997 economic crisis was a major turning point in Thailand. Between that
time and the establishment of the ASEAN Community in 2015, Thailand focused
on building the Thai nation with global standards and ensuring the survival of the
Thai people in the twenty-first century. Their leaders attest that Thailand is
currently implementing numerous educational reforms based on the 1999
Education Law. However, the new Constitution of 2017 conveys that Thailand is
focused on structural issues and formulating a long-term strategy for sustainable
development and social and human resource development. Thailand enjoys
political, economic, and social stability within ASEAN and appears to be the most
committed ASEAN member in dealing with ASEAN Community relations.

14.1.6 Vietnam

Vietnam’s official name is the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, with an extensive public
and private education system under the Ministry of Education and Training. While
ij

maintaining relations with the ASEAN, Vietnam is “continuing its d-ô i m´o,i
(renewal,
innovation) policy, working on structural reforms and strengthening its
international competitiveness” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan, 2021).
The countries discussed above have diverse political, economic, and social
systems; however, all remain deeply involved in the ASEAN Community. They
strive to achieve the motto of “One Vision, One Identity, One Community.”
Despite their social, cultural, political, economic, religious, and linguistic
differences, these countries stand by this motto. Future research should follow up
on how citizenship education functions and achieves results.

14.2 Laws, Regulations, Policies, Curricula, and Textbooks

Table 14.1 summarizes the relevant laws, regulations, curricula, and textbooks in
the 10 ASEAN countries.
The overview in Table 14.1 indicates that all the countries constantly promoted
educational reforms. As members of the ASEAN Community, each country was
developing citizenship education to cultivate ASEANness and build global
citizens, reflecting a strong awareness of the global society. All countries made
some effort to make students aware that they were ASEAN citizens. Thailand even
published a textbook specific to ASEAN studies, highlighting its interest in and
support of the ASEAN Community. Thailand also made August 8, the ASEAN Day.
On that day in 2013, the authors visited a large school event in which there was a
special ASEAN room filled with students enthusiastic about learning about the
ASEAN Community.
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 299

Table 14.1 Laws, policies, plans, curricula, and textbooks on citizenship education
Brunei Sistem Pendidikan Negara Abad Ke-21 (National Education System for the 21st
Century) (SPN 21) (since 2008). The Malay Islamic Monarchy (Melayu Islam
Beraja or MIB) (Muslim identity). Global and regional approaches are scarce and
weak
Cambodia ESP (Education Strategic Plan) 2019–2023; the National Curriculum
Framework. Good citizenship education emphasizes being a good Cambodian
and appropriate global citizenship. Growing awareness of ASEAN citizenship
Indonesia 2013 Curriculum. Pancasila and Citizenship Education. Curriculum content
regarding ASEANness should be expanded
Laos Education Act of 2015. World Around Us (reformed in 2010), integrating science,
social studies, and environmental studies
Education for socialism. Coping with globalization. Recent media broadcasts
about ASEAN. Teachers need to be trained in foreign languages, ICT, and active
learning
Malaysia CCE taught since 2005. In 2019, a new civics education effort to deepen learning
in multiple subjects (e.g., Malay, English, Islamic education, morality, history,
assembly, and co-curricular activities). Fostering active citizenship is a future
issue
Myanmar The 2015 National Education Law, the 2015 National Curriculum Framework,
Life Skills and Moral and Civics. Seeks to develop global citizens with critical
thinking, communication, and social skills and basic understanding of peace
Philippines K–12. Students are expected to learn about and master the new citizenship
characteristics of ASEANness. Multilingual education beyond the
national language (Filipino) remains an issue
Singapore The 2020 curriculum plan covers three areas: enhancing CCE, knowing Asia, and
strengthening digital literacy. The CCE is designed to develop global awareness
Thailand Stipulated by the National Education Act of 1999 and the Core Curriculum of
2008. Fosters global standard citizenship characteristics; enthusiastic about
ASEAN studies. Encourages regional, global, and universal citizenship as well
as local and national Thainess. Seeks an active role in the ASEAN Community;
has prepared a textbook for ASEAN studies
Vietnam The 2019 Education Law. Aims for Vietnam’s version of ASEANness.
Insufficient acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes at the regional and
global levels.
Current challenge is promoting national integration in socialism and
citizenship education as a member of the ASEAN
Source Authors, 2021

14.3 The ASEAN Countries’ Key Concepts in

Citizenship Education

Based on the research results and the latest information, we conducted a

comparison of the key concepts of the ASEAN countries in citizenship education
from four perspectives. The following paragraphs and Table 14.2 provide
summaries of the findings.
300 T. Hirata et al.

Table 14.2 Current status of citizenship education in the ASEAN community

Brunei Cambodia Indonesia
Perspective (1): The ASEAN Community
Regional educational Regional and Intra-ASEAN Assistance mainly
cooperation international cooperation included from developed
educational teacher training and countries; established
organizations (e.g., student exchanges cooperation in
CoL, ASCOE, research and other
ISESCO, SEAMEO, areas
APEC, EDNET)
Relationships with the Presided over the Maintains close Some regions had
ASEAN Community ASEAN Summit and relationship with strong ties; others
strengthened its China; criticized for had weak ties
relationship with the giving China de facto
ASEAN Community veto power over
ASEAN
decision-making in
return for economic
assistance
The future of the Interested in Expects economic Required cooperation
ASEAN Community leadership roles, such cooperation, in various fields,
as ASEAN chair in educational including education
2021 (Brunei, 2021) cooperation, and
cultural exchange from
ASEAN. Although the
ASEAN holds the
principles of human
rights and democratic
norms, it also holds
the principle of
non-interference in
internal affairs,
respecting the
one-party dictatorship
of the Cambodian
People’s Party
Perspective (2): ASEANness education
Understanding of Basic knowledge had They had not yet They had not yet
ASEANness been acquired acquired it acquired it
Perspective (3): ASEAN studies
Position in the ASEAN education is In Khmer language Partly included in
curriculum not systematically textbook and history Indonesian language,
positioned in the and geography studies religious education,
curriculum, but is Panchasila civic
partially addressed in education, social
social studies and studies, and history
MIB textbooks studies
(continued)
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 301

Table 14.2 (continued)

Brunei Cambodia Indonesia
Status of ASEAN Emphasis on learning Institutional reforms to Encouraged learning
Community initiatives English and improve the quality of focusing on key
outside of ASEAN addressing education and teacher competencies
studies environmental issues training
Preparation of No textbooks. Flags No textbooks. Schools No textbooks. Few
teaching materials for of ASEAN member rarely had the flags of schools had flags of
ASEAN studies countries ASEAN member ASEAN member
countries or the countries or ASEAN
ASEAN flag flags
Creating an Sought to provide ASEAN sections are Insufficient
environment for young people with set up in some school
ASEAN studies knowledge and libraries
information about the
ASEAN’s vision
fostering a
people-centered,
people-oriented
ASEAN (Prime
Minister’s Office
2015)
Extra-curricular None None None
activities
Perspective (4) ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook
Response status Not supported Not supported; Not supported
however, some content
was picked up
Laos Malaysia Myanmar
Perspective (1): The ASEAN Community
Regional educational Main source was Received direct Unconfirmed
cooperation assistance from assistance from
developed countries. developed countries
Within the ASEAN and educational
region, received support from
assistance from Cambodia, Laos,
Thailand and Vietnam Myanmar, and
Vietnam (CLMV)
Relationships with the The ASEAN was The ASEAN formed Unconfirmed
ASEAN Community actively engaged in the basis of foreign
international policy. Economic and
cooperation in various educational ties are
fields. The likely to be
relationship was strengthened in the
strong future
(continued)
302 T. Hirata et al.

Table 14.2 (continued)

Laos Malaysia Myanmar
The future of the Laos has scarcely Economic ties within Achieving
ASEAN Community contributed thus far the ASEAN region are communality under
but hopes to grow as expected to continue the current
a more active regional to grow stronger administration seemed
community partner unlikely
Perspective (2): ASEANness education
Understanding of Gradual progress and Low acquisition of Unconfirmed.
ASEANness understanding ASEANness Expectations for the
future
Perspective (3): ASEAN studies
Position in the The 2010 reform Primary year four and New curriculum for
curriculum introduced basic above civics and 2015. Life Skills
content to the primary citizenship education and Moral and Civics
education subject The textbook and
World Around Us secondary form two
(Malaysia and
International
Relations) topic
Status of ASEAN Emphasis on English Prioritized English as Unconfirmed
Community initiatives language education a communication tool
outside of ASEAN starting from 3rd year for regional and global
studies of primary school, mutual understanding
based on 2015
amendments to the
Education Law.
Efforts to improve
quality, including
implementing ICT
education
Preparation of Textbooks available. Some texts and Unconfirmed
teaching materials Few schools workbook materials
for ASEAN studies displayed the ASEAN for civics and
flag citizenship education.
Few schools displayed
the flags of the
ASEAN or ASEAN
countries
Creating an ASEAN section is set ASEAN section is set Unconfirmed
environment for up in some school up in a few school
ASEAN studies libraries libraries
Extra-curricular None Nothing particular Unconfirmed
activities
Perspective (4): ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook
Response status Not supported Not supported Unconfirmed
(continued)
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 303

Table 14.2 (continued)

Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam
Perspective (1): The ASEAN Community
Regional Southeast Asian Many training Supporting CLMV Mutual visits of
educational Ministers of programs for countries with teachers;
cooperation Education the ASEAN in university teachers dispatched
Organization cooperation teacher trainers
(SEAMEO) with advanced to Thailand.
were working as countries and Provided
the Regional international educational
Center for organizations cooperation
Educational (e.g., the (assistance) to
Innovation and Singapore Laos
Technology Cooperation
central hub Program)
Relationships Betting close Strong Proud to be an Weak and
with the ASEAN confronting with original member of delicate
Community the threat of ASEAN. Maintained
China Joined a flexible and
RCEP all-round diplomacy,
with a basic of
cooperating with
ASEAN and other
major countries (e.g.,
Japan, the United
States, China)
Future of the Expected strong TTP and RCEP Recognized the Economic aid
ASEAN economic and were important importance of the organization
Community political factors in ASEAN with loose
relations with inter-regional Community; political ties
the ASEAN cooperation continued to
Community contribute as a
central actor
Perspective (2): ASEANness education
Understanding of Learning the Saw the basis Knowledgeable but Did not identify
ASEANness significance of for ASEAN less so about with those that
close relations citizenship as ideologically distant defined their
with ASEAN being acquired countries own behaviors
nations, but did through psychologically
not have learning and
sufficient life
knowledge yet experiences
Perspective (3): ASEAN studies
(continued)
304 T. Hirata et al.

Table 14.2 (continued)

Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam
Position in the Taught as part Taught as Added and expanded Lesson of
curriculum of social studies Diversity and contents for social morality (Dao
(araling Interaction in studies, religion, and Duc), lesson of
panlipunan) and Southeast Asia culture civic education
values education in the latter (Giao Duc Cong
(edukasyon sa half of the Dan), history,
pagpapakatao) fifth-grade and geography
social studies
course and as
History of
Southeast Asia
in the third and
fourth grades
of junior high
school
Status of ASEAN Had an ASEAN Responsible Introduction of a key Curriculum
Community leadership for the competency-oriented reform with an
initiatives outside exchange development of curriculum emphasis on
of ASEAN program for all ICT education key
studies school ages, in the ASEAN competencies
especially work plan
college level 2016–2020
Preparation of Reading Prepared a Had many textbooks Scarce
teaching materials on specialized and other materials. availability of
materials for ASEAN studies textbook on Displayed flags of teaching
ASEAN studies were usually Southeast ASEAN member materials in
integrated into Asian history countries and ordinary schools.
social studies for junior high ASEAN in schools Few flags of
textbooks school students nationwide ASEAN member
related to Asian countries or
study ASEAN flags
except in urban
schools
Creating an Internet access ASEAN Special classrooms ASEAN section
environment for to information sections are set with a collection of is set up in the
ASEAN studies about ASEAN up in some ASEAN teaching library of some
countries’ school libraries materials and the schools
cultures and ASEAN Center
histories. Books
on ASEAN.
ASEAN flags
displayed
(continued)
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 305

Table 14.2 (continued)

Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam
Extra-curricular ASEAN Week Participation in ASEAN Day Not practiced
activities celebration, UN the Southeast activities were
Week Asian Games becoming popular
celebration, school events. Used
museum visits, in-school
heritage tours, announcements
coastal clean
ups
Perspective (4): ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook
Response status No separate Not supported, Fully compatible No
ASEAN but covered with the secondary correspondence
sourcebook used many topics level of textbooks
(e.g., nature, published in 2013
culture,
history,
economy,
science and
technology,
and education)
Source Authors, 2021

14.3.1 Perspective (1): The ASEAN Community

Regional educational cooperation—We identified several points from the infor-

mation provided by the various countries. The first point involved teacher training
provided through educational cooperation and assistance from developed
countries. In some countries, such as Brunei, aid and educational cooperation from
international organizations coexist. Other countries, such as Cambodia and Laos,
sent teachers to countries such as Thailand and Malaysia for training. Still, other
countries, such as Vietnam, were conscious of the importance of cooperation.
Thailand’s cooperative system is particularly noteworthy.
Strengths and weaknesses of the relationship with the ASEAN Community
— The ASEAN Summit is held once a year, with a new chair being elected every
year. The host countries take the lead, and their involvement in the ASEAN
Community increases. Some countries, such as Brunei, have tried to strengthen
this relationship, but others have not. In general, however, this relationship
appeared strong.
The future of the ASEAN Community—None of the countries exhibited a
negative stance towards the future. Some, such as Brunei and Malaysia, were willing
to host and show leadership. Others, such as Indonesia, stressed the need to build a
cooperative system not only in the field of education but also in other fields.
306 T. Hirata et al.

14.3.2 Perspective (2): ASEANness Education

Our research addressed the question of whether ASEANness had been acquired.
We identified countries that showed significant progress in acquiring ASEANness
and those that did not. Although all the countries showed some progress, some
were more advanced than others in their efforts. The reasons for this are topics for
future research.

14.3.3 Perspective (3): ASEAN Studies

Position in the curriculum—We placed different countries’ ASEAN studies in

various subject areas, including specific subjects (e.g., the MIB and the World
Around Us), civic education, religious education, social studies, history,
geography, and moral education.
Status of ASEAN Community initiatives outside of ASEAN studies—In
addi- tion to key competencies, teacher training, and environmental issues, we
found a significant emphasis on English language learning and ICT.
Preparation of teaching materials for ASEAN studies—Only two countries
had textbooks that specifically covered the ASEAN: Malaysia and Thailand. Most
countries have teaching materials related to ASEAN, such as flags. However, few
countries displayed the flags of other ASEAN countries or the ASEAN flag; we
found them only in Brunei and Thailand.
Creating an environment for ASEAN studies—Many of the schools in
ASEAN countries had well-maintained ASEAN sections in their libraries.
Extra-curricular activities—Singapore promoted participation in the Southeast
Asian Games. Thailand and other countries instituted the ASEAN Day, and ASEAN
Day activities were widespread. However, most had not yet begun offering such
extra-curricular activities.

14.3.4 Perspective (4): ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook

Thailand responded actively and positively to queries about the ASEAN

Curriculum Sourcebook (2012). Some countries did not respond at all, and most
provided only cursory responses. Thus, we obtained detailed information about the
use of the Sourcebook only from Thailand, as described in Chap. 2, and one of our
collaborators in Thailand (Chanbanchong, 2013) proposed a curriculum based on
the Sourcebook. However, the research on the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook
remains a topic for future research.
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 307

14.4 Recommendations for Citizenship Over the Next

Ten Years: Results of the Delphi Survey

Chapter 2 explains the meaning of the weighted values we used. Table 14.3 lists
the top three characteristics with high WA values for each country following the
(B)–
(A) = (D) formula. The experts ranked these as the most important characteristics
to acquire over the next ten years, meaning that ASEAN countries should
prioritize curriculum and teaching material development to focus on these
characteristics.
Table 14.3 reveals some significant findings regarding the experts’ responses to
our Delphi survey. First, the top three characteristics of knowledge and understanding
were foreign language, ASEAN history and culture, and social problems common
to ASEAN countries. The top three skills and abilities were ICT competency, the
ability to understand and follow the common rules and values in ASEAN
countries, and foreign language competency. The top three values and attitudes
were valuing international cooperation, interest in addressing injustice, and the
preservation of natural resources, environmental protection, and sustainable
development.
Chapter 1 discusses the nearly half-century evolution between ASEAN’s founding
in 1967 and the establishment of the ASEAN Community in 2015. Most of the
char- acteristics cited by the experts were placed on the agenda at the 2005 ASEAN
Summit and the ASEAN Education Ministers Meeting. The importance of these
character- istics has been frequently discussed and confirmed. For example,
related concepts, such as ASEAN identity, ASEAN awareness, ASEANness, ICT
competency, and foreign language competency, have been discussed in numerous
meetings (ASEAN, 2005a, 2005b, 2006). At the 37th ASEAN Summit in 2020, it
has been confirmed that efforts will be made to actively promote ASEAN awareness
and ASEAN identity (ASEAN, 2020). Therefore, it is worth noting that even before
the official establish- ment of the ASEAN Community, there was already a mutual
recognition among the experts that these characteristics were essential and
education was needed to achieve them. The Delphi survey results confirmed this
finding.

14.5 Conclusions: Citizenship Education

Paradigm for Surviving the 21st Century

We have argued that a significant component of citizenship education is respect

for, understanding, and coexisting with other cultures. This is easier said than
done, given the critical issues currently facing the world. The ideal form of
citizenship education involves making informed value judgments and decisions, and
responding to immediate action. The experts’ views align with our own:
improved education is essential, particularly in ICT and foreign language
competency. The citizenship education curricula should be developed by
government policy-makers, researchers,
308 T. Hirata et al.

Table 14.3 Citizenship characteristics to be acquired over the next ten years
Country 1st 2nd 3rd
Brunei Knowledge and Foreign language Common social Sustainable
understanding problems of development
ASEAN countries
Skills and To make decisions To express opinions
To solve common
abilities on social problemssocial problems
of ASEAN
countries with
other people
Values and To promote To face wrong To preserve natural
attitudes international things and injustice resources, protect
cooperation the environment,
and have an
interest in its
development.
To respect for
cultural diversity
Cambodia Knowledge and ASEAN history and – Social justice and
understanding culture. Common equity
social problems of
ASEAN countries
Skills and To solve common To behave in –
abilities social problems of accordance with
ASEAN countries common rules and
with other people values among
ASEAN countries.
To respond to ICT
Values and To face wrong To promote To have morality
attitudes things and injustice international and pride as a
cooperation member of ASEAN
Indonesia Knowledge and Foreign language ASEAN history Environment.
understanding and culture Common social
problems of
ASEAN countries
Skills and To use foreign To improve quality To respond to ICT
abilities language of life
Values and To face wrong To pay attention To promote
attitudes things and injustice to global issues international
cooperation
Laos PDR Knowledge and Foreign language Social justice and ASEAN history and
understanding equity culture
Skills and To respond to ICT To use foreign To think critically
abilities language
Values and To think in a To preserve natural To respect cultural
attitudes scientific way and resources, protect diversity
catch up with the the environment,
new science and and have an
technology interest in its
development
(continued)
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 309

Table 14.3 (continued)

Country 1st 2nd 3rd
Malaysia Knowledge and Common social ASEAN history Human rights
understanding problems of and culture
ASEAN countries
Skills and To behave in To use foreign To contribute to
abilities accordance with language society
common rules and
values among
ASEAN countries
Values and To think in a To have morality To respect
attitudes scientific way and and pride as a human rights
catch up with the member of ASEAN
new science and
technology
Philippines Knowledge and Foreign language Social justice and Environment
understanding equity
Skills and To respond to ICT To have To solve
abilities self-discipline and problems. To think
self-control critically
Values and To preserve natural To have To face wrong
attitudes resources, self-dependence things and injustice
protect the
environment, and
have an interest in
its development
Thailand Knowledge and Foreign language Common social ASEAN history and
understanding problems of culture
ASEAN countries
Skills and To use foreign To behave in -
abilities language accordance with
common rules and
values among
ASEAN countries.
To solve common
social problems of
ASEAN countries
with other people
Values and To promote To pay attention To have morality
attitudes international to global issues and pride as a
cooperation member of ASEAN
Vietnam Knowledge and Environment Sustainable Interdependence.
understanding development Human rights.
ASEAN history and
culture
Skills and To solve common To behave in To contribute to
abilities social problems of accordance with society
ASEAN countries common rules and
with other people values among
ASEAN countries
(continued)
310 T. Hirata et al.

Table 14.3 (continued)

Country 1st 2nd 3rd
Values and To preserve natural To place To respect
attitudes resources, protect importance on the human rights
the environment, law
and have an interest
in its development
Source Authors, 2021

PIan (PIanning)
Law/Policy/Scheme/
Curriculum/Textbook
Do (Teaching) Local
Schools Educational
By Government/ Practices
Policy-makers
By Schoolteachers/
Action (Improving) Students Teachers
Check (EvaIuating)
By University Researchers/
Teachers/Students Local Schools
Internal and external evaluation
By University Researchers/
Teachers/Students

Fig. 14.1 PDCA cycle of citizenship education in the ASEAN community (Made by Authors,
2021)

and graduate students and implemented by in-service teachers at schools. The frame-
work of citizenship education must be refined and reconstructed through the
PDCA cycle, as shown in Fig. 14.1.
Plan (Planning): Government policy-makers and other experts producing laws,
policies, schemes, curricula, textbooks, and other teaching tools.
Do (Teaching): Local schools (school boards, administrators, schoolteachers,
student teachers, etc.) implementing educational practices.
Check (Evaluating): Local schools (researchers, teachers, students, etc.)
conducting internal and external evaluations.
Action (Improving): Researchers, teachers, students, experts, and governments
to improve the curriculum.

14.5.1 Summary

The following paragraphs briefly summarize the authors’ views on the citizenship
education of ASEAN countries.
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 311

14.5.1.1 Brunei Status

The Delphi survey results indicated that Brunei’s experts should be able to design
and implement a citizenship curriculum that improves students’ knowledge,
under- standing, skills, abilities, values, and attitudes at the local, national,
regional, global, and universal levels. Enhancing and increasing the specific global
content in textbooks would help teach balanced citizenship characteristics.

14.5.1.2 Cambodia Status

Cambodia has overcome the effects of genocide and horrific atrocities of the past
Pol Pot regime and is trying to adopt education for the global age with
international development assistance. The introduction of the National Curriculum
Framework under the Education Strategic Plan 2019–2023 emphasizes good
citizenship and the importance of good citizenship in building a civil society that
respects democracy and human rights. It seems that students are equipped with the
characteristics of the ASEAN citizens.

14.5.1.3 Indonesia Status

To enhance ASEANness education in the Indonesian context, Indonesia needs

to expand and increase the school curriculum content related to Southeast Asian
countries.

14.5.1.4 Laos Status

Laos needs to intensify its citizenship education, focusing on ASEAN and interna-
tional awareness.
The student survey addresses the development of an internally and internationally
balanced curriculum regarding citizenship education to foster global awareness.

14.5.1.5 Malaysia Status

Malaysia needs to intensify its citizenship education, focusing on regional ASEAN

knowledge and awareness to match the global and universal knowledge and
aware- ness. The country’s lack of ASEAN awareness, ASEAN identity, and progress
toward ASEAN integration are concerning.
312 T. Hirata et al.

14.5.1.6 Myanmar Status

Based on an analysis of reform trends in the education system and curriculum,

Myanmar aims to develop good citizens and global citizens for the twenty-first
century, who have critical thinking skills, communication skills, and social skills.
The student questionnaire revealed that “peace” is seen as the most important, and
that “having one’s own ideas and believing in oneself” and “being able to say the
right thing is the right thing” are also considered important.

14.5.1.7 Philippines Status

The K-12 education reform is necessary for the progress of ASEAN and the
ASEAN Economic Community. This K-12 reform will be the next step in citizenship
education for the Philippines.

14.5.1.8 Singapore Status

Singapore is an immigrant and multiethnic nation, so citizenship education has

become a major national concern. The Singapore government has been promoting
various policies such as “Civics,” “EFL,” “EFL, and Being and Becoming. Good
Citizens,” “Confusion Ethics,” and other policies.

14.5.1.9 Thailand Status

Over the next ten years, Thailand needs citizenship education that expands
students’ understanding of regional, global, and universal issues while maintaining
Thainess at the local and national levels—no easy task. Thailand should become
more active in the ASEAN Community and encourage education to promote ASEAN
knowledge and ASEANness.

14.5.1.10 Vietnam Status

Vietnam, as a socialist country, has a unique ASEANness version. It has not yet
acquired the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills, abilities, values, and atti-
tudes at the regional and global levels. This complicates the country’s discussions
with other ASEAN members, especially those concerning regional integration and
national integration through socialism. However, Vietnam has a framework for
citizen education. Therefore, given its insufficient regional perspectives, it should
develop an ASEAN curriculum.
Some countries, such as Thailand and Vietnam, actively fostered ASEANness
while maintaining and continuing citizenship education at the local and national
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 313

levels. However, other countries did not seem to have fully developed a sense of
regional citizenship among students. Overall, the countries would benefit from further
research and development related to ASEAN curricula and citizenship education
integrating country-specific, regional, global, and universal perspectives.

14.5.2 Recommendations

The authors also have some country-specific recommendations for the ASEAN
Community.

14.5.2.1 Brunei Recommendations

Brunei needs to develop a curriculum that promotes international cooperation,

morality, pride in the ASEAN, and international cooperation. They should
incorpo- rate Rosmawijah et al.’s (2019) 21st Century Learning Design (21CLD)
professional development model in citizenship education.

14.5.2.2 Cambodia Recommendations

As shown in the results of the Delphi survey, students’ knowledge and understanding
of ASEAN history, culture, and social problems in ASEAN, their ability to solve
social problems in ASEAN, and their ability to act in accordance with the
common rules and values of ASEAN, and their ability to cope with ICT, and their
values and attitudes toward ASEAN, are the most important factors. In terms of
values and attitudes, confronting injustice and international cooperation should be
addressed in the future. It is also pointed out that the qualifications and abilities of
teachers should be improved.

14.5.2.3 Indonesia Recommendations

Indonesia’s civic education teachers and teachers of related subjects should share
their knowledge and experiences about ASEAN pride and respect with teachers
from other Southeast Asian countries.

14.5.2.4 Laos Recommendations

Laos needs to develop teaching materials for ASEAN studies and train teachers to
raise awareness of intercultural education.
314 T. Hirata et al.

Since the challenges are to develop a nationally and internationally balanced

curriculum on citizenship education to enhance international awareness, these
chal- lenges must be addressed through a review and reform of educational
policies on citizenship education.

14.5.2.5 Malaysia Recommendations

Because of the importance of the ASEAN relationship, teaching and learning, as a

whole and individually, should not be limited to in-class learning, but should
include experiences and learning approaches that relate to the knowledge gained from
school in relation to the real community. In addition, it should be emphasized that
active citizenship should be developed and not only focused on knowledge, but
active citizenship should be fostered so that it can be nurtured and progressed at
home, school, community, national, and ASEAN levels.

14.5.2.6 Myanmar Recommendations

Based on the new curriculum framework, it is desirable to develop good citizens

and global citizens of the twenty-first century. To achieve this, it is necessary for
those in charge of curriculum development in the Ministry of Education,
researchers in universities, and teachers in schools to cooperate in developing
curricula and accumulating educational practices related to citizenship education.

14.5.2.7 Philippines Recommendations

According to the Delphi survey, Filipino students need more time to acquire ASEAN-
ness. However, since students seem to be aware of the importance of the connection to
ASEANness, schoolteachers and policy-makers should be more involved in ASEAN
integration and make more efforts to acquire ASEAN citizenship and
AESANness.

14.5.2.8 Singapore Recommendations

In particular, they should develop and strengthen the correlation between CCE, which
plays a leading role in the teaching of moral and cultural values, and the
humanities, which are designed to foster global awareness.
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 315

14.5.2.9 Thailand Recommendations

To enhance ASEAN literacy, Thailand should continue using the Thai context as the
foundation for its citizenship education, but gradually integrate ASEAN
knowledge, understanding, and skills into the school curriculum.

14.5.2.10 Vietnam Recommendations

The country needs to consider developing Vietnamese-ASEANness—a version of

ASEANness that still highlights national interests secured by the central state.
They need to add ASEAN-related knowledge and understanding of cultural and
social issues in their historical and geographical educational materials, particularly
their textbooks. Vietnam’s students should enhance their skills and abilities by
building relationships with other members of the ASEAN Community through
experiential and practical learning approaches.
The recommendations are that ASEAN countries need to improve teacher training
(especially in languages and ICT), expand exchange programs, and ensure that
teachers can develop and use effective teaching materials. The countries should
emphasize active citizenship and acquisition of knowledge. They should develop citi-
zenship curricula according to their unique national circumstances while fostering
ASEANness. The goal should be to embrace both national diversity and ASEAN
commonalities.
A 2014 presentation on citizenship education in the ASEAN Community at the
Comparative Education Society of Asia reported that the foundation for citizen-
ship education in the ASEAN Community was a balance between diversity and
commonality (Hirata & Morishita, 2014). Figure 14.2 summarizes the above
results.

Fig. 14.2 Diversity and commonality in citizenship education in the ASEAN community (Made
by Authors, 2021)
14 Citizenship Education in the ASEAN Community … 317

14.6 The Study’s Challenges and Issues

Chapter 1 discusses the limitations of the study. The paragraphs below identify several
specific and concrete challenges and issues for future research.
First, almost ten years have passed between the survey and the publication of
this book. Thus, we need empirical verification of how the authors’ and experts’
predictions have been made. This will require a comparative longitudinal study
with additional student and Delphi surveys to gather new information and
recommenda- tions for future citizenship education policies. In particular, we need to
verify whether and how well the top-ranked characteristics identified from the
Delphi survey have been achieved. Following the PDCA method, we passed through
the P (Planning) and D (Teaching) stages and are now approaching the C
(Evaluating) and A (Improving) stages. We cannot just sit back and watch what
happens; we need additional predictive research.
Second, we identified a common issue among the ASEAN Community: the
chal- lenge of fostering ASEANness in each country while respecting national
interests. ASEAN studies and the ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (2012) help with
ASEAN- ness education. However, we need to know more about how countries use
the Source- book and why so many ASEAN countries do not take advantage of the
resource. All countries’ governments, educational institutions, and education
researchers need to promote curriculum and teaching material development. Future
research should explore the ASEAN Community’s use of this Sourcebook; we
believe that it could be the key to fostering ASEAN identity and ASEANness in all
10 countries. We also need to examine whether and to what extent countries’
citizens assimilate ASEAN- ness. As Table 14.2 shows, even the incomplete data
we gathered suggest that the results are far from uniform. Additional data are
needed, and future research needs to investigate the reasons for the data.
Third, the critical takeaway is the need to improve the quality of teaching in
citizenship education, particularly in CLMV countries. This will require reforms
in teachers’ training and development. Furthermore, educational exchange and
coop- eration should be promoted. Our research is not alone in noting the urgent
need to improve the quality of the ASEAN nations’ teachers, including those in
charge of citizenship education.