As the first committee session of ASEAN commenced, the idea of using education to promote racial and religious inclusiveness quickly became the center of discussion. Specifically, the usage of social media to promote a general and pervading sense of acceptance, whether it be racial, religious, or cultural.
“Social media,” declared the delegate of Indonesia, “can educate the masses. Not all people have access to primary and secondary education, especially in developing countries.” The general consensus among the committee was that, although using social media to promote education may work in theory, in practice it faced many difficulties. First off, the issue of cost came up. The delegate of Vietnam was quoted saying that for “people living in poverty,” social media education may not be their primary concern.
Another concern brought up by Singapore was the role of parents as educators. It was argued that if certain families are inherently religious and nationalistic, no amount of education, school or social media could instill a belief of acceptance within a child if his or her parents are consistently reinforcing an opposing ideology. It was therefore agreed upon that parents have a much stronger influence on their children than schools, as a child is more likely to trust his or her parent than a teacher, and, as by the time a child is old enough to receive education, the beliefs of his or her parents will already be deeply ingrained within them.
ASEAN eventually concluded that social media, even when used positively, is too weak a force to combat the teachings of a parent. The committee soon moved to discussion other solutions. Vietnam proposed a “partnership with an NGO,” as a way to promote cultural exposure in countries that are usually deemed as unwelcome of outside beliefs, by sending volunteers from all over the world into these countries and promoting education through communal activities. It was generally agreed upon that NGO’s are inherently less corrupt than government organizations as they are more inclined to the idea of changing the status quo.
“Social media,” declared the delegate of Indonesia, “can educate the masses. Not all people have access to primary and secondary education, especially in developing countries.” The general consensus among the committee was that, although using social media to promote education may work in theory, in practice it faced many difficulties. First off, the issue of cost came up. The delegate of Vietnam was quoted saying that for “people living in poverty,” social media education may not be their primary concern.
Another concern brought up by Singapore was the role of parents as educators. It was argued that if certain families are inherently religious and nationalistic, no amount of education, school or social media could instill a belief of acceptance within a child if his or her parents are consistently reinforcing an opposing ideology. It was therefore agreed upon that parents have a much stronger influence on their children than schools, as a child is more likely to trust his or her parent than a teacher, and, as by the time a child is old enough to receive education, the beliefs of his or her parents will already be deeply ingrained within them.
ASEAN eventually concluded that social media, even when used positively, is too weak a force to combat the teachings of a parent. The committee soon moved to discussion other solutions. Vietnam proposed a “partnership with an NGO,” as a way to promote cultural exposure in countries that are usually deemed as unwelcome of outside beliefs, by sending volunteers from all over the world into these countries and promoting education through communal activities. It was generally agreed upon that NGO’s are inherently less corrupt than government organizations as they are more inclined to the idea of changing the status quo.