A Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education:
United Kingdom and Malaysian Experiences
Zaimuariffudin Shukri Nordin and Mansoor Ahmed ChannaHuman rights education is not only about political literacy but
is very much linked to economic and social issues. Human rights
education in schools should enable students to develop the skills
and attributes of active citizenship, and make individuals become tolerantof those who are different. Students should be equipped with the capacity to transfer the knowledge and understanding gained in the school community to the wider world. The study of human rights and citizenship canhelp develop empathy and understanding of people from different culturesand societies. Hicks and Holden (1995, 2007) maintain that through humanrights and citizenship education students learn about issues such as poverty
and environment and are encouraged to participate in school activities andto positively engage with the local and international communities. As Ross
(2007, 2) states with reference to the role of citizenship and human rights
education:
It is the relationship between the individual and society, between the self and others, and our curriculum must reflect this:it must help the individual understand both their own identity
and the nature of society, and, most importantly, how to manage
the complex relationship of rights and responsibilities that exist
between the two.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(2009) promotes human rights education that would contribute to the development of individuals who possess the skills to interact in society by providing students with the abilities to accompany and produce societal changes as a way to empower people, improve their quality of life by participating
in processes that decide on social, cultural and economic policies.
Young people can learn the fundamental principles of human rights andcitizenship in a subject in primary and secondary school system. Alderson
argues that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (crc)
227

228

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

is “an ideal basis for citizenship education” and argues that “rights are central to concepts of citizenship and democracy in clarifying the standards
which the citizens agree to share” (Kiwan, 2005, page 37).
Teaching about Human Rights: International Approaches
Human rights education started to develop after World War II, with initiatives taking place in different parts of the world. In Japan and Taiwan(in 1997) new curriculums were introduced in civic and moral education toteach about democracy and to encourage active citizenship. The 1980s saw
proposals on the introduction of human rights education in many countries
in Europe, North America and Latin America (Osler & Starkey, 2006). By
late 1990s, these proposals became a reality in the United Kingdom with theintroduction of the Citizenship curriculum, which included human rights
education. In Hong Kong and China, with the “One Nation, Two Systems”(Law, 2004), citizenship education was introduced to focus on democratic
citizenship after Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997. In Korea,
human rights education was introduced in 2000 (Lee) and in Singapore in2001 (Boon Yee Sim & Print, 2005). Citizenship education was later extended to include teachers, policymakers and education officials to strengthen
the understanding of this topic. Citizenship education, including elementsof human rights education, was also introduced in Australia, Indonesia andThailand.
Human Rights Education in the United Kingdom
During the early part of the 20th century, civics education attempted to instil a sense of belonging and create responsible citizens. Civics and later,
citizenship education, predominantly concentrated on teaching about theConstitution, war and the monarchy and was designed to encourage patriotic loyal citizens. It grew out of the work of the League of Nations in 1918
which was created to protect the rights of nations, especially small nations,affirmed the duty of states to maintain fair and humane treatment of labor and to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of their territories(Wright, 1954, pages 46-47).

A Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education: The UK and Malaysian Experiences

229

The League formed an education committee to “promote teaching aboutthe League and international affairs generally” (Heater, 2001, 115). During
this time, the term “education for world citizenship” was coined to indicate
this approach to citizenship education (Heater, 2001, page 115). The last few
decades have seen civics and citizenship education take many forms. An
attempt to include citizenship education as a cross-curricular theme in the
1980s died as it was non-statutory and other National Curriculum subjects
took precedence. Human rights education became associated with citizenship education in the 1990s when there was once again a call for education
which helped prepare young people for a responsible and active role in society. The work of Bernard Crick was influential here. He was supported by
the government of the time to find ways of redressing the political alienation of youth and the perceived lack of values among the young (Frazer,
2000; Kerry, 2003). The Crick Report of 19981 cited the low turn-out of
the 18-24 age groups in the 1992 and 1997 elections as alarming (Advisory
Group on Citizenship, 1998; Heater, 2001). Research carried out by Halpern
at the same time demonstrated that citizenship education was needed in
the school curriculum and that there would be support for its introduction(Halpern, John et al., 2002).
Meanwhile, in 1997, the Council of Europe embarked upon the Education
for Democratic Citizenship project to focus on the meaning of participatory
democracy and the status of citizens within Europe (Derricott, 2000). The
movement in the United Kingdom (UK) was thus part of a wider European
and international drive to ensure effective political and social education. In
2002, citizenship education was introduced into the National Curriculum in
UK, with an explicit reference to understanding rights and responsibilities.
Thus human rights education was firmly embedded in this new curriculum
subject (Gearon, 2003). Starkey (2000) who had long worked in the field of
human rights education welcomed this inclusion. He saw this as part of thegovernment’s attempt to create a multicultural society based on a “revitalized civic culture and to promote inclusiveness” (page 52) and to encourage
and enable students to learn about and become engaged with political issues
both locally and internationally.
While this research focuses specifically on human rights education, andthe ways in which schools foster respect for these rights, it is located within

230

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

the broader framework of citizenship education as this is where it sits predominantly in the UK.
Curriculum and Practice
Citizenship and human rights education is now widely recognized in the
UK as an essential part of education of all young people. As noted above,
citizenship education has been a statutory National Curriculum subject in
UK for all young people in key stages 3 and 4 (ages 11 to 16 years) since
2002 (Advisory Group on Citizenship, 1998). It is an important dimensionof work in primary schools at key stages 1 and 2 (ages 5 to 10 years) where
many schools choose to deliver it based on the non-statutory frameworkfor personal, social, health and economic education (pshe) and citizenship(Flew, 2000, 18). It also features in post-16 education and training where citizenship development projects have provided a range of different experiences for young people throughout the country, backed by the Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority (qca) which has designed guidance for post-16
citizenship (National Foundation of Educational Research). The Advisory
Group for Citizenship (1998, 40-41) initially identified three strands to citizenship education:• Social and moral responsibility
Students learning from the very beginning about self-confidence andsocially and morally responsible behavior both in and beyond the classroom, both towards those in authority and towards each other.
• Community involvement
Students learning about and becoming helpfully involved in the life andconcerns of their communities, including learning through community
involvement and service to the community.
• Political literacy
Students’ learning about and how to make themselves effective in public life can be achieved through knowledge, skills and values.
Discussions continued after the introduction of citizenship education
about the teaching of diversity and identity, which were considered as ne-

A Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education: The UK and Malaysian Experiences

231

glected key areas of the citizenship curriculum. (Ajegbo, Kiwan et al., 2007).
As a result, the 2007 revision of the National Curriculum saw citizenshipeducation revised to include democracy and justice, human rights and responsibilities, and identity and diversity as the three overarching concepts.
Thus issues of diversity were foregrounded and human rights education
continued to sit firmly at the center of citizenship education (Ajegbo, Kiwan
et al., 2007). The current citizenship education curriculum introduces students to the concepts of democracy and justice, rights and responsibilities
and informed social action. This includes discussion of the UK’s varying national, regional, religious and ethnic identities so that students consider themulticultural nature of British society and what it means to be British.
The debate about whether or not the current curriculum for citizenshipis appropriate for a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society continues. A reportin the Times Educational Supplement on 13 July 2007 entitled “Secularist
spoils citizenship” argued that the teaching of citizenship without a context
of religion encourages terrorism and religious extremism. Part of the blame
was laid at the feet of Bernard Crick, the “founder” of the 2002 curriculum,
who was described as a hard core secularist (Hilbourne, 2007). This issue
about the extent to which citizenship and human rights education should
include reference to religion, and how it should be addressed in faith-based
schools, is a key part of this thesis. This reflects current debates in the UK
as a whole. As Amin (2002) notes in Flint (2007), “issues of ethnicity andreligion are prominent in contemporary public discourses in the UK aroundimmigration, residential segregation, religious and political extremism andconceptualisations of citizenship and national identity” (page 252).
The introduction of citizenship education has been tracked by Kerr
(2005), among others. He notes the influence of personal, family, community and cultural factors on students’ understanding of citizenship-related
issues and indicates that these remain significant challenges to the successful implementation of this subject. Others have noted further obstacles, oneof which relates to teachers being expected to cover too wide a ground in
the time available (Mansell & Hilbourne, 2007). It is seen as a real challenge
for classroom teachers to be able to cover the many areas of the citizenshipcurriculum, which includes human rights education. With regards to issuesof identity and diversity, there is evidence that many teachers avoid issues
related to religion because they lack the subject knowledge and skills to deal
confidently with these areas (Holden, 2004).

232

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

Research by Holden (2004) reveals the lack of confidence of teachers toteach controversial issues central to citizenship education and human rights
education and were concerned about the potential views of parents. They
are concerned about their own role and the extent to which they are allowed to voice their own opinions. She concludes that better-trained teachers are needed, with the skills to facilitate debates and communicate withparents. While research by Chamberlaine (2003) indicates that pupils are
not engaged in political processes, Kerr, investigating student participationin school activities and their attitudes towards civic concepts, finds citizenship education having a central role in young people’s lives which can increase participation. He concluded that, “by age 14, they are already part of apolitical culture in society” (Kerr, Lines et al., 2002, page 166). There is thus
a need for further research into the ability of citizenship and human rights
education to increase student participation both in school and community
contexts, and raise awareness of human rights and responsibilities in young
people.
Human Rights Education in Malaysia
With the ratification by Malaysia of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child on 17 February 1995, the Human Rights Commissionof Malaysia assumed the responsibility of developing a human rights education program and set up an Education Working Group in 2000 basedon the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act 597). The
Commission was directly under the Prime Minister’s Department and answerable to the Parliament. Following this, in 2002, a committee was set upby the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia which included academics,
former judges and retired government officers. This group, named “Human
Rights Education in School,” was created to investigate the extent to whichhuman rights were being practiced in schools and the extent to which students, teachers and administrators understood human rights issues. The
committee’s research findings served to inform the subsequent recommendations and planning for the delivery of human rights education in theschool system.
This nationwide research was administered in 2002-2003 and involved
forty secondary schools in urban and rural areas. Four types of schools
participated - mixed, single sex, technical and faith-based schools. The re-A Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education: The UK and Malaysian Experiences

233

search focused on the participants’ awareness of the existence of the Human
Rights Commission of Malaysia (suhakam), the Convention on the Rightsof the Child, children’s rights and responsibilities, human rights practices
in schools and fundamental human rights as outlined in the MalaysianConstitution. The findings from the research indicated that many students
and teachers did not have a good level of knowledge of human rights education. Suhakam submitted suggestions to the Ministry of Education on ensuring that teachers, administrators, school support staff and education officials had a good understanding of the Convention on the Rights of the Childin order that these rights might be upheld (Human Rights Commission of
Malaysia, 2006). This included holding more seminars, conferences, dialogues and training.
Curriculum in Theory and Practice
The National Curriculum for primary and secondary schools was introduced between 1983 and 1989 in Malaysia. One area of focus was the teaching of values. The principal objectives of the subject of moral education at
primary school were:• to enable pupils to be conscious of, and understand, the norms andvalues of the society;• to appreciate these values and the use them as a basis for making
decisions in everyday life;• to practice moral habits and behavior in everyday life.
These objectives are meant to enable students to be rational in making
decisions and taking action (Haris Md Jadi, 1997). However, at secondary
schools students have:• to strengthen and practice habits and behavior in accordance withthe moral attitude and values acquired at the primary school;• to be conscious of, understand and appreciate, the norms and values of Malaysian society;• to develop rational thinking based on moral principles;• to give reasonable justification based on moral consideration when
making a decision;• to use moral consideration based on moral principles as a guide in
the practice of everyday life (Haris Md Jadi, 1997).

234

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

The principles underlying the teaching of morals and values in Malaysia
are based on religion. The official religion in Malaysia is Islam and its philosophical approach implicitly underpins the system. The challenges andcomplexities of this situation come to the fore when human rights issues
arise which involves Sharia or Islamic jurisprudence. While the theory ofhuman rights can be learned at school, in practice the implementation ofhuman rights can conflict with obligations associated with religion. For thisreason, the government indicated reservation2 on certain provisions of theConvention on the Rights of Child in signing the instrument.3
Although the National Curriculum included the teaching of values, theEducation Bill of 1995 rejected the need for citizenship to be included in the
curriculum as a separate subject; it was decided instead to embed it within
the history curriculum. Thus, for a decade, priority was given to the teaching and learning of history, with citizenship education seen as of secondary
importance (Haris Md Jadi, 1997). It was not until 2005 that civics and citizenship was separated from history subject and made a subject in its own
right which allowed human rights education to have more exposure. There
are key concepts which underpin the teaching of citizenship in Malaysia
and which have distinct links to citizenship and human rights educationelsewhere. These have been identified as:• community (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedomof information);• nation-building (equality and equal opportunities between genders
and races);• topical and global issues (freedom of religion and culture).
(Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center, 2006).
Thus human rights education is located partly within moral educationand partly within citizenship education. In both subjects, students learn
about their rights and the responsibility to respect the rights of others, including those with different race and gender.
The main aim of this research is to compare and contrast the humanrights education curriculums in UK and Malaysia. The main research question is: What curriculums relate to human rights education in UK and
Malaysian school systems?

A Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education: The UK and Malaysian Experiences

235

Research Contexts and Research Method
The research took place in four schools, two in UK and two in Malaysia:
one secular secondary school and one faith-based secondary school in eachcountry. Faith-based schools were included in this study because researchers wanted to examine whether the curriculum and practices of humanrights education and students’ understanding and behavior were influenced
by the faith context. This sample was an opportunist sample (Wellington,2000) using the connections of supervisors in UK and personal connectionsin Malaysia. However, within these parameters, the sample was carefully selected to meet the aims of this research. In Malaysia, the faith-based school
was a fully religious, mostly Islamic school and the secular school had children from the majority Malay race who are also Muslims. In UK, the faithschool was a Church of England/Catholic school and the secular school had
on roll children from different faiths or with no particular religious affiliation. Questionnaire surveys were used to explore the views and experiencesof two hundred forty one students in English and Malaysian schools. The
questionnaire was structured using a Likert scale requiring students to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. Students could choose
one of five different responses: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree and don’t know. In all four schools, the questionnaires were administered at the beginning of the school day before lessons began.
Research Analysis and Findings
Analysis of the questionnaire was carried out by using the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (spss). Frequency and cross-tabulations were produced.
The questionnaire was distributed in two schools in UK and two schools in
Malaysia. In each country, one secular and one faith-based school were chosen. The questionnaire was designed for students between 13 and 14 years
old and was completed by Year 8 and 9 students in UK and Form 1 and 2
students in Malaysia.
Knowledge of human rights in UK
Table 1 below describes the knowledge of human rights displayed by thestudents in the two schools in UK. The rights referred to are those relating

236

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

to their understanding of the rights of children per se, the right to their own
beliefs and religion, right to education, participation rights, right to play,rights of children with disabilities, freedom from abuse, and animal rights.
As the table below shows, over four-fifths of the children completing thisquestionnaire know that children, not just adults, have human rights andhave a right to their own values and beliefs; that everyone has the right tohave a basic standard of living; that every child has the right to relax and play
and that children with disabilities have a right to access special care.

Strongly agree

Agree

DisagreeStrongly
DisagreeDon’t know

Table 1: Knowledge of human rights in UK

1. Human rights include the rights of children

%

%

%

%

%

Secular School (n=47)

66

34

0

0

0

Faith-based School (n=52)

54

39

2

2

4

Secular School

51

49

0

0

0

Faith-based School

64

35

0

0

2

Secular School

62

34

0

2

2

Faith-based School

78

18

2

2

0

Secular School

65

30

4

0

0

Faith-based School

79

19

0

0

2

Secular School

52

35

7

4

2

Faith-based School

39

44

4

4

10

Secular School

74

26

0

0

0

Faith-based School

56

33

10

0

2

Secular School

68

21

4

4

2

Faith-based School

81

19

0

0

0

2. Everyone has the right to a basic standard of living

3. Everyone has the right to her/his own beliefs andreligion

4. Every child has the right to primary school education

5. Every child has the right to say what she/he wants

6. Every child has the right to relax and play

7. Children with disabilities have the right to special careA Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education: The UK and Malaysian Experiences237

8. Teachers have the right to hit children
Secular School

0

2

11

79

9

Faith-based School

4

6

10

80

0

Secular School

4

7

24

52

13

Faith-based School

2

19

29

40

10

Secular School

15

11

37

22

15

Faith-based School

2

31

29

17

21

9. Parents have the right to hit children

10. Human rights are more important than animal rights

During the follow-up interviews, most students in both schools demonstrated that they had some understanding of the basic concepts of humanrights. One student in the faith-based school commented that “it’s not rightto judge people by the colour of their skin.” This same student went on to
say “different people have different colored skins and some like to judge.”
Another student agreed that “everyone should be treated the same no matter what race they are and religion” while a third student explained that human rights meant “treating people with respect and not different.”
Students interviewed in the secular school gave different interpretationsof the meaning of human rights. For example, one student gave the answer“adults or teachers are not allowed to hit children in school or stuff like that.”
Another Year 9 student said “human rights are something that can protect
you from like laws and stuff.” A third explained that rights were “somethingthat everyone’s entitled to, that everyone has the right to do something, likeplay a sport or something.”
These responses indicate that the students interviewed have a broadand varied knowledge and understanding of human rights issues and canmake connections between the concepts in questions 1-3. It would be interesting to know whether the students are aware of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child because the data would suggest that they are aware of
Article 6 (the right to life) and Article 14 (right to practice own belief andreligion).
However, when these students were interviewed they did not mention
anything about freedom of belief or religion despite the majority of themagreeing with this statement in the questionnaire. This is particularly interesting in the faith-based school context. The right to one’s own religion andbeliefs (question 3) is fundamental in ensuring tolerance in society and the238

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

implications of this will be discussed further. However, students from bothtypes of school indicated that they were willing to accept new friends withdifferent faiths. One of the students said “I think it is good to learn stuff
about people like that” which indicates an awareness of the benefits of adiverse society.
Regarding the child’s right to a primary education, the data collected in
response to statement 5 indicates that 85 percent of secular school students
and 98 percent of faith-based school students agreed with this statement.
The figures are similar for the statement “every child has the right to say
what [she/he] want[s]” with most students agreeing. The number of students disagreeing was small – 11 percent in the secular school and 8 percent
in the faith-based school. One possible explanation for the high numberof students agreeing with this statement is that both cohorts experience ahigh degree of freedom of expression in school and in the home. The higher
figure for the secular school may also be a reflection of the differing school
ethos concerning students’ rights and responsibilities, school rules and belief systems that enable the students in the secular school to have more voice
within the school.
The statement “Every child has the right to relax and play” elicited ahigh level of agreement from students in both schools. 100 percent of students in the secular school agreed with this statement and 90 percent in thefaith-based school. One explanation for the high level of agreement withthis statement may be that play and relaxation are at the core of most young
people’s lives and thus regarded as a fundamental right that all children
should have.
Most students in both schools agreed with the statement “Children
with disabilities have the right to special care.” All students from the faithbased school agreed with this statement, while the vast majority in the secular school did so too. These findings indicate that students in both schools
are aware of the right of children with disabilities to receive special care.
Statements 9 and 10 relate to the right to freedom from abuse and sought tofind out whether students believe that adults have the right to use corporalpunishment. The data indicate that the majority of students in both schools
are aware that teachers do not have the right to hit them. However, one infive students in the faith-based school believes it is acceptable for parents
to do so. Interestingly, there are no responses in the “don’t know” column
regarding the right of teachers to hit children from the faith-based school

A Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education: The UK and Malaysian Experiences239

students; however 10 percent appear not to know if corporal punishment isallowed by parents.
The data indicate that students in the faith-based school are more likely
to accept being hit by their parents than those from the secular school. Thissuggests that, although most students have a clear understanding of their
human rights and are aware that hitting children is a violation of their rights,
some are willing to accept this when it happens at home.
The statement “Human rights are more important than animal rights”
produced a highly mixed response in both schools. In the secular school,
the number of students who disagreed with the statement was more thandouble those who agreed. The number of students in the secular school answering “don’t know” was also relatively high at 15 percent. The number ofstudents in the faith-based school disagreeing with the statement was also
higher than those agreeing but by a smaller margin of 13 percent. However,the number of students answering “don’t know” (21 percent) was higher
than in the secular school.
Domesticated animals are common in the UK with many families possessing dogs and/or cats and other small animals. The Royal Society for thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals, in existence since 1824, regularly prosecutes perpetrators of abuse of animals and these cases frequently receive
coverage in the local and/or national media. There is thus a high level ofawareness concerning animal rights issues in UK. This prominence of animal rights in everyday life may partially explain why so many students in the
English schools disagreed or were unsure whether human rights were more
important than animal rights. In conclusion, the survey of students’ knowledge of human rights indicates that there are few differences in the levelof understanding between students in the secular and faith-based school.
The main differences between students in the two schools occur in their attitudes and beliefs regarding corporal punishment by parents and teachers.
Knowledge of human rights in Malaysia
Table 2 describes the knowledge of human rights expressed by the students
in the two schools in Malaysia. As before, the focus is on the rights deemedmost relevant to human rights education and thus some questions considered not relevant have been omitted.

240

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I CStrongly agree

Agree

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Don’t know

Table 2: Knowledge of Human Rights in Malaysia

1. Human rights include the rights of children

%

%

%

%

%

Secular School (n=35)

31

46

3

0

20

Faith School (n=67)

31

36

8

6

19

Secular School

31

51

0

3

14

Faith-based School

34

45

3

0

18

Secular School

65

24

0

6

6

Faith-based School

55

37

2

0

6

Secular School

51

31

9

0

9

Faith-based School

58

30

8

2

3

Secular School

24

65

6

0

6

Faith-based School

22

49

10

6

12

Secular School

54

40

0

0

6

Faith-based School

47

41

8

0

5

Secular School

66

29

3

0

3

Faith-based School

58

30

8

0

5

Secular School

9

57

26

6

3

Faith-based School

12

40

21

10

16

Secular School

26

60

6

3

6

Faith-based School

31

51

8

2

9

Secular School

13

37

13

7

29

Faith-based School

24

31

24

5

16

2. Everyone has the right to a basic standard of living

3. Everyone has the right to [her/his] own beliefs andreligion

4. Every child has the right to primary school education

5. Every child has the right to say what [she/he] want[s]6. Every child has the right to relax and play

7. Children with disabilities have the right to special care

8. Teachers have the right to hit children

9. Parents have the right to hit children

10. Human rights are more important than animal rights

A Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education: The UK and Malaysian Experiences

241

Analysis of the responses to the first statement “Human rights include
the rights of children” is interesting because an average of 72 percent ofstudents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement in both schools.
However, nearly 20 percent of students in both schools responded “don’tknow” and a small number did not agree with the statement. This would
suggest that not all students in Malaysia are aware of child rights and thismay be an indication of the newness of the subject within the Malaysian
education system.
The majority of students agreed with the statement “Everyone has theright to a basic standard of living” but there were also students who did notknow if this was correct. This raises some concerns about how much knowledge some students have about basic human rights. However, the “don’tknow” responses might be due to the difficulty in understanding the concept of a basic standard of living for some students. Using the term “basic
living standards” assumes an understanding of the disparity between living
standards which some students may not have.
The data relating to the statement “Everyone has the right to [her/his]own beliefs and religion” indicates that 89 percent of students in the secular school and 92 percent of students in the faith-based school agreed withthis statement. One explanation for this might be that these issues are fully
addressed in the school curriculum in both schools. It is also important tonote here that Malaysia is a multicultural society with three major religions
and it is a societal expectation and norm that religious tolerance is exercisedand upheld by its citizens. However, there are continuing racial tensions between ethnic groups and there are concerns about fundamentalist teachingin some faith-based schools. Thus, it is encouraging that the knowledge baseof these students did not appear to reflect such tensions.
Statements 5, 6, 7 and 8 are related to children’s rights to education,
freedom of speech, relax and play and the rights of children with disabilities. The vast majority of students from both faith-based and secular schools
agreed with these statements. However, a small percentage of students did
not know if children have these rights. This response may be due to thestudents’ lack of knowledge of child rights or their difficulty in fully understanding the statements. The percentage that disagreed with the statement
is similar to that of the “don’t know” responses. The reasons for these responses were explored further during student interviews.

242

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

The high percentage of students who agreed with the statements would
seem to indicate that students in Malaysia are becoming more aware of childrights issues. The data illustrate that this is especially true for the rights ofchildren with disabilities, where student opinion reflects that of Malaysiansociety in general where support for special educational provision for children with disabilities has become the norm. Statements 9 and 10 relate to
the right to protection from abuse. The data show that more than 80 percent
of students believed that parents had a right to hit their children. There wasa mixed response regarding teachers hitting children. Half of the students
in both schools believed that teachers have this right; however a sizeable
minority (approximately 30 percent) disagreed. A considerable number ofstudents from both schools responded that they did not know their rights
with regard to this issue. The data suggest that, despite most students being
aware of their right not to be physically abused, they are more willing to accept corporal punishment from parents.
It must be noted that in contrast to English schools, it is accepted practice that teachers in Malaysia have the right to use corporal punishment,
though as a last resort, as part of school disciplinary policy. It is also common practice for corporal punishment to be part of disciplinary practices
within the home and family.
50 percent of the secular school students agreed with the statement“Human rights are more important than animal rights.” 20 percent disagreed and 29 percent said they did not know. In the faith-based school,
55 percent of students agreed with the statement, though a higher percentage than in the secular school 29 percent disagreed. There was also a highnumber of students who ticked “do not know.” The number of students in
Malaysia who prioritized human rights over animal rights was much greaterthan in the UK. The low profile of the animal rights issue in Malaysia may
explain these responses. Currently this issue is not discussed in Malaysiansociety and is not on the political agenda. The rights of animals remain insignificant compared to the need to ensure full human rights in Malaysia
and as such are unlikely to be considered by most students. It may be thatonce human rights are fully addressed Malay society will turn its attention
to animal welfare and animal rights.
During the interviews with the students the interviewer found it difficult to obtain information from students about their understanding of human rights and their knowledge appeared limited in contrast to the ques-A Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education: The UK and Malaysian Experiences

243

tionnaire responses. One group of students, when asked about what theyknew about human rights, said that they “didn’t know.” Another group gave
only one or two-word answers to questions and when asked to explain theiranswers further declined to do so stating that they “didn’t know very much.”
Students appeared unable or unwilling to elaborate on their ideas and gave
short responses such as “freedom”, “freedom from oppression” and “freedom from colonialism.” In conclusion, students seemed more confident todemonstrate their understanding of human rights during completion of thequestionnaire than in the subsequent interview sessions where they werereticent about discussing their views at any length. It may be that they lacked
confidence to discuss the concepts during the interview session.
Discussion and Conclusion: Comparative knowledge of human rights
in UK and Malaysia
This section highlights interesting findings (either similarities or differences) between schools in the two countries or between faith-based andsecular schools. The discussion focuses on whether the influential factor isthe faith or the country context. Upon comparing the research data fromthe two countries it can be seen that a large percentage of students in bothcountries understand that children have basic human rights. However, in
the Malaysian survey there were approximately 20 percent of students who
felt that they did not have the knowledge or information needed to answer
the questions. When asked about the right to a basic standard of living andthe right to freedom of belief and religion there were no real differences between the views of students in each country. However, in Malaysia between
14 percent and 18 percent of students answered “did not know” compared toa very small percentage on this question in the UK survey. This again may be
a reflection of the relative newness of human rights education in Malaysia
compared to the UK.
The statements regarding the right to education, freedom of expression
and the right to play and relax elicited similar findings in both countries.
Overall, majority of the students agreed with these statements. However,there was a significant percentage of students from faith-based schools inboth countries who did not agree or did not know if children had a right tosay what they want. This can probably be explained by the students’ experience of having less freedom of expression at home and school because of

244

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

strict moral and religious practices, which limits their right to disagree and/or express opinions. Most students in UK believed that teachers and parents
do not have the right to use corporal punishment, though this view was
not so strongly held among the faith-based school students. In Malaysia,
the picture is markedly different. One-third of students in both schools disagreed and two-thirds agreed or strongly agreed with the right of teachers
to use corporal punishment. 80 percent of students from both schools also
agreed or strongly agreed that it was acceptable for their parents to hit themwhich contrasted sharply with the view expressed by the English students.
These variances may be explained by the cultural differences between
UK and Malaysia. In Malaysia, it is a norm for parents to physically chastise
their children; whereas in UK this practice is becoming culturally unacceptable. As discussed earlier, it is also the norm for physical punishment to bepart of the disciplinary process in Malaysian schools, whereas in UK this is
illegal. UK students were much more concerned about animal rights thanstudents in Malaysia. Only around a quarter of secular school students anda third of faith-based school students in UK agreed with the statement that
“Human rights are more important than animal rights.” In Malaysia, overhalf of the students surveyed in each school agreed with the statement. As
previously discussed, the issue of animal rights does not really exist as suchin Malaysian society and is therefore less likely to be of concern. Responses
from the faith-based schools showed that 46 percent of the English students
also disagreed with the statement as compared to 29 percent in Malaysia.
Concluding Statement
It can be observed that knowledge of human rights among students is greater in UK but students from the faith-based schools in both countries are lesssure of their right to voice an opinion and to freedom from abuse. Thesefindings are important because they suggest that teacher education andtraining need to address the practical realities of implementing the concept
of inclusion of human rights education rather than just its theories and principles. Concerns about how new teachers are going to implement humanrights education practices in situations with limited resources, large classes
and high teaching loads would seem to be most effectively focused in preservice training. This is obviously a complex area, though overall the moreA Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education: The UK and Malaysian Experiences

245

positive teachers are about including human rights education during initialtraining they tend to be more accepting and accommodating in practice.
Also, further research is needed on how the benefits of using humanrights education as an instrument to focus on child rights generally andrights of children with disabilities particularly in order to safeguard theirinterest will lead to quality education.
References
Advisory Group on Citizenship. 1998. Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of
Democracy in Schools (the Crick report). London: Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority.
Ajegbo, K., Kiwan, D. and Sharma, S. 2007. Diversity and Citizenship: Curriculum
Review. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills, 123.
Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center. 2006. Human Rights Lesson Plans
For Southeast Asian Schools (Malay translation). Kuala Lumpur: Suruhanjaya
Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia.
Boon Yee Sim, J. and Print, M. 2005. “Citizenship Education and Social Studies
in Singapore: A National Agenda.” International Journal of Citizenship andTeacher Education, 1(1): 58-73.
Chamberlin, R. 2003. “Citizenship? Only If You Haven’t Got A life: secondary school
pupils’ views of Citizenship Education.” Westminster Studies in Education, 26(2): 87-97.
Cogan, J. J. and Derricott, R. 2000. Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International
Perspective on Education. London: Kogan Page.
Derricott, R. 2000. National Case Studies of Citizenship Education.
Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education. Cogan,
J. J. and Derricott, R. London, Kogan, pages 23-92.
Flew, A. 2000. Education for Citizenship. London: The Institute of Economic
Affairs.
Flint, J. 2007. “Faith schools, multiculturalism and community cohesion: Muslim
and Roman Catholic state schools in England and Scotland.” Policy & Politics,
35 (2): 251-258.
Frazer, E. 2000. “Citizenship education: Anti-political Culture and Political education in Britain.” Political Studies, 48: 88-103.
Gearon, L. 2003. The Human Rights Handbook; a global perspective for education.
Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
Halpern, D., John, P. and Morris, Z. 2002. “Before the Citizenship Order: a survey ofcitizenship education practice in England.” Journal of Education Policy, 17 (2):217-228.
Haris Md Jadi. 1997. “Values and Citizenship Education in Malaysia.” In Citizenship
Education and the Modern State. Kennedy, K. London: Falmer Press, 96-106.
Heater, D. 2001. “The history of citizenship education in England.” The Curriculum
Journal, 12 (1): 103-123.

246

H U M A N R I G H T S E D U C AT I O N I N A S I A - PA C I F I C

Hicks, D. and Holden, C. 1995. Visions of the future: why we need to teach for tomorrow. London: Trentham Books.
Hilbourne, N. 2007. Secularists ‘spoil citizenship’. The Times Educational Supplement:
11.
Holden, C. 2004. “’Heaven Help the Teachers!’ Parents’ Perspectives on the
Introduction of Education for Citizenship.” Educational Review, 56 (3): 247-258.
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia. 2006. Research on Knowledge and Practiceof Human Rights in Secondary Schools. Kuala Lumpur: Human Rights
Commission of Malaysia.
____________________. 2006. Suhakam’s Report On The Human Rights Approach
To The Millennium Development Goals Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary
Education. Kuala Lumpur: Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.
Kerr, D. 2005. “Citizenship Education in England - Listening To Young People: New
Insights From The Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study,” International
Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1 (1): 74-96.
Kerr, D., Lines, A., Blenkinsop, S., Schagen, I. and National Foundation for
Educational Research. 2002. England’s Results from the IEA International
Citizenship Education Study: What Citizenship and Education mean to 14 Year
Olds. Research Report, RR375, Department for Education and Skills: 1-202.
Kerry, J. K. 2003. “Preparing Young Australians for an Uncertain Future: new thinking about citizenship education,” Teaching Education, V14 (1): 53-67.
Kiwan, D. 2005. “Human Rights and Citizenship: an Unjustifiable Conflation?”
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39 (1): 37-50.
Law, W. W. 2004. “Translating Globalization and Democratization into Local
Policy: Educational Reform in Hong Kong and Taiwan,” International Review of
Education, 50 (5 & 6): 497-524.
Lee, M. J. 2000. “Korea: “Improving Human Rights Education in Schools,” Human
Rights Education in Asian Schools. Osaka: Asia Pacific Human Rights
International Center, 3.
Mansell, W. and Hilbourne, N. 2007. “Citizenship,” The Times Educational
Supplement : 5.
Ross, A. 2007. Citizenship Education in Society. The Ninth Conference of theChildren’s Identity and Citizenship in Europe Thematic Network. London:Children’s Identity & Citizenship in Europe (CiCe).
Starkey, H. 2000. “Citizenship education in France and Britain: evolving theories andpractices.” The Curriculum Journal, 11 (1): 39-54.
Osler, A. and Starkey, H. 2006. “Education for democratic citizenship: a review of
research, policy and practice 1995–2005,” Research Papers in Education, V21(4): 433-466.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2009. “Peace andhuman rights education.” Retrieved 1 August 2009, from http://portal.unesco.
org.
Wright, Q. 1954. “Human Rights and Charter Revision,” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 296:46 - 55.

A Quantitative Study on Human Rights Education: The UK and Malaysian Experiences

247

Endnotes
1 Advisory Group on the Teaching of Citizenship and Democracy in Schools,
Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools, Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority, September 1998, full report available at www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk/sites/teachingcitizenship.org.uk/files/6123_crick_report_1998_0.pdf
2 “A ‘reservation’ allows a State to disagree with a provision in a treaty. The
State can still approve the treaty as a whole, with reservations serving as exceptions.”
See “CRC reservations,” UNICEF Malaysia, www.unicef.org/malaysia/17982_crcreservations-malaysia.html.
3 The government of Malaysia maintains reservation on the following provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child:- Article 2 on non-discrimination- Article 7 on name and nationality- Article 14 on freedom of thought, conscience and religion- Article 28(1)(a) on free and compulsory education at primary level- Article 37 on torture and deprivation of liberty“CRC reservations,” UNICEF Malaysia, www.unicef.org/malaysia/17982_crcreservations-malaysia.html.