Making Changes that Work for the Long Term

We have, over the last few weeks been engaged in almost 20 strategic planning consultations, both face-to-face and online.  One of the topics that has emerged during our sessions is our responsibility to provide an education that contributes to positive social change, and I have been reflecting on recent changes in Singapore, and their relevance to our current and future school community, and to our mission. Social change is notoriously difficult, and in August I was rather caught by surprise when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the repeal of Section 377A, a colonial-era law in the Singapore Penal Code that criminalised sex between men. The authorities had publicly stated they would not enforce Section 377A, and had been engaged in some public consultations, but I had not expected change to come so soon.

By chance, I was fortunate to meet Singapore Minister for Law Mr K. Shanmugam that week, and I offered a few words of support and said that I was sure it had been a complex decision. He smiled, and replied quietly with, There was a lot of work behind the scenes – in much the same way as Bill Gates mentions he is well off.

Looking at political polarisation globally, this seems to me to be a particularly brave time to be making such a change. Well-known for social order and stability, Singapore was introducing change in territory that has proven inflammatory elsewhere, and listening to both the Prime Minister’s speech and Minister’s remarks, it was clear that social polarisation was indeed a real concern.   Looking back now, a few months, perhaps we can learn a lot from observing what has happened and see the importance of having open discussions on such an important matter of human rights.

Firstly, from the outset this issue was recognised as one that affects all of us. PM Lee said, like every human society, we also have gay people in our midst. They are our fellow Singaporeans. They are our colleagues, our friends, our family members. They, too, want to live their own lives, participate in our community and contribute fully to Singapore. That is, this is about flesh-and-blood people, about family and friends as well as abstract principles.

Secondly, the authorities recognised the validity of alternative perspectives, and sought to offer ways to signal support and legitimacy for other views. Democracy should, after all, provide support for all. In this case the PM announced plans to amend the Constitution in tandem to protect the definition of marriage from being challenged constitutionally in the courts. Now while goes against the spirit of the first move, it does allow for a win for both sides in this debate; it recognises and honours the legitimate differences of perspective. That’s real, not tokenistic, respect for diversity.

Thirdly, the PM named and addressed the dangers of polarisation. He called on all sides to avoid aggressive and divisive activism, noting that if one side pushes too hard, the other side will push back even harder, with poor outcomes for us all… For some, this will be too modest a step, he continued. For others, it will be a step taken only with great reluctance, even regret. But in a society where diverse groups have strongly held opposing views, everyone has to accept that no group can have things all their way.

These three principles extend well beyond Section 377A or issues to do with sexual orientation.  In a school with families from 100+ countries, we are bound to have differences around how we deal with a huge range of things. Attitudes to behavioural expectations, to homework, to different subject areas, to the importance of play, to exams, and to consequences for breaking the rules, for example, vary greatly. We need to be consistent in our approach, recognising that in most real cases (to paraphrase PM Lee) we will not go far enough for some, but too far for others. And in a liberal, pluralistic society, we all need to be OK with that, and to not insist on absolute adherence to our way of thinking. It’s difficult, but this is the price of diversity.

There are, of course, some cases where it’s likely there will be near total agreement. Physical violence, racist, sexist, homophobic or any other type of bullying is utterly unacceptable and we deal with proven incidents decisively. These are, fortunately, rare.

In less extreme cases where we have a diversity of views to contend with, it is the first principle above that we need to lean on; to remember that we are dealing with fallible humans, and that as a place of education, our job is to teach, and our students are here to learn. We all make mistakes; and our children all make mistakes, and the fundamental question should be how can we help young people become better versions of themselves; the ones that they have the potential to be? Reaching those better selves should be the goal of all schools.

I have no doubt that our strategic planning exercise will stimulate further deep questions about the role of our school in building a more peaceful and sustainable future, and the nuance and diversity of thought we must hold within that unifying mission.