...is neither to preach nor to indoctrinate; it is to explain.' - Emile Durkheim

THINGS do not always work out the way we want them to. Take the case of moral education in schools.

Moral education was introduced to create a society of well-behaved and principled people, with the hope of reducing crime and corruption in society, and indiscipline in schools.

While non-Muslims attended moral education lessons, their Muslim classmates went for Islamic religious classes.

With so many religious rules and moral values poured into youngsters over the years, we should, logically, not be living in fear of snatch thefts, robberies, rape and violence.
The reality, however, is different. Indiscipline is swelling in schools, while crime and corruption continue to climb.

There are, of course, many factors, including economic inequities, lack of employment opportunities, police efficiency and the influx of foreigners, that impact on the crime rate.

But I can't help feeling that if more young people had indeed become upright, the rise in crime and corruption might not be so steep.

Isn't this evidence that all those religious and moral lessons have failed?

My generation, and those before me, did not trudge through moral education classes. But we did not turn out too badly.

Certainly, there were muggings and robberies in the earlier days, but people in housing estates then did not employ their own security guards or turn their houses into fortresses like they do today.

Also, if values such as tolerance, justice, fairness, courtesy and responsibility had been imbibed by those who were taught these religious and moral lessons, we should have greater racial understanding and a more equitable society today. Do we?

So what went wrong?

The fault, so far as education is concerned, appears to lie in the way religious and moral lessons are being taught.

Some of those who had gone through the lessons, including younger office colleagues, cannot remember what was taught.

If they are good citizens today, one of them said, it is despite the lessons, not because of them.

My son, who finished Form Five last year, said they were required to learn the values and definitions by heart, and so they did. To pass the exam, they had to regurgitate the values and definitions, which they did.

The student has to write the definitions exactly -- word for word -- as in the text. If the text, for instance, says "ahli keluarga" (member of the family) and he writes "anggota keluarga (which means the same thing), he will be failed. Ridiculous? Certainly.

Is it any wonder then that this drilling hardly ever produces a lasting commitment to any of the values taught?

I have heard parents say the education authorities are so dull, they don't realise this is not the way to teach morality.

That might be rather harsh, but I wonder if the education authorities have ever done follow-up studies to test the efficacy of the teaching methods?

I wonder, too, if they have seen the frightening correlation between the teaching of moral and religious lessons and the rise in crime, corruption and indiscipline?

Children should be taught virtues and moral habits so that they can lead good lives, both as individuals and as part of a cohesive society.

In fact, apart from attending to the intellectual development of the child, it is incumbent upon the school to help shape his or her character.

Such education needs to be both overt and covert: overt as in formal lessons and covert as in the school culture. Students pick up much from the behaviour of their teachers and peers; school traditions and rules also serve to nurture character.

During my time, character building was covert. But, it worked.

Today, with changed situations, I am inclined to think that a combination of both processes will work better. But not rote learning, no. One does not teach moral values as one does the mathematical tables.

There should be discussions, role-playing and also getting pupils to actually do virtuous deeds. The latter could include helping out at orphanages and older pupils giving tuition to the younger ones.

The lessons should be so designed as to help them reflect on what morality means, and to reason through moral problems. Interaction is indispensable.

The trouble is, our education authorities are treating children like computers to be programmed. Sure, they may give you the correct answer. But it defeats the purpose of having moral lessons if they do not internalise the values.

Any teaching approach that does not give students a reason, or motivation, to practise the values they have learnt, is, indubitably, a failure.

Students must also be exposed to the value systems of the various races. If the government is serious about nurturing unity, if it is serious about moulding responsible, thinking citizens, it should introduce programmes that enhance knowledge of each other's cultural mores and values.

For, you only fear what you don't understand. If our children are exposed to each other's cultures, including rituals and customs, then they will learn that there is nothing to fear.