Restorative Practices in Singapore Schools: From Promises to Practice

Practice Points:

The following insights are drawn from a research study on Restorative Practices in two Singapore secondary schools, based on interviews with both teachers and students. These pointers may be useful for psychologists, counsellors, youth workers, and social workers exploring how to apply restorative practices in their own contexts.

Be mindful of concerns about hierarchy and authority: Clients on the receiving end of restorative or therapeutic processes, especially if they are accustomed to strict hierarchies in schools, workplaces, or institutions, may experience these processes as simply another form of discipline and management. At the same time, practitioners may feel that adopting restorative approaches reduces their authority or makes them appear overly lenient. It is therefore important to clearly distinguish restoration from punishment, make power dynamics explicit, and ensure that practitioners have appropriate guidance and institutional support, including shared organisational conversations about priorities, values, and the kind of institutional culture these practices are intended to sustain.
Actively address power asymmetries: In contexts where deference to authority is culturally ingrained, practitioners cannot assume equality of voice. Intentional work is required to flatten hierarchies and protect client agency. Institutions can consider engaging an independent third party to serve as facilitators of restorative conferences. In addition, they can conduct preparatory work by meeting clients individually or in small groups (e.g., in pairs or up to four persons) prior to any larger restorative conference (e.g., over five persons). This familiarises them with the process, encourages advance sharing of perspectives, and secures their commitment to active participation in the eventual formal or larger conference.
Consider using restorative practices to connect and heal, not just to correct: When ‘relationship repair’ is the stated aim, practitioners should consider whether this reflects genuine restoration or pressure for conformity to existing norms. They can achieve genuine restoration by prioritising agency, empathy and mutual growth over scripted compliance. If their institution utilises a restorative script, consider adapting it to encourage personal narratives (e.g., "What do you wish others understood about what happened?"). For participants in frequent-contact settings like schools or workplaces, integrating brief daily circles on everyday topics normalise authentic exchange, and inserting mid-session check-ins like "Is this helping, or should we try a different approach?" can also foster true engagement over formulaic or performative responses.

The Promise and the Paradox

Restorative Practices (RP) are recognised for their relevance across a range of contexts. Rooted in a philosophy of healing, the model promises to repair relationships, give voice to all participants, and do things with people, not to them. It is a participatory approach that views wrongdoing not just as a rule broken, but as a harm and a violation of people’s connections with one another. For instance, when someone vandalises a shared space at school or in one’s neighbourhood, the act is not only a breach of rules and laws but also damages trust, the sense of safety, and the relationships within the community.

RP, which views wrongdoing as harm to relationships, offers a model of healing that may not be instinctive to everyone. In Singapore, a society that values both social harmony and order, this approach exists alongside traditional deterrence and disciplinary practices. While RP may seem to align with a culture that emphasises community and collective well-being, in reality its goals can sometimes collide with the ongoing need to maintain order and follow rules, creating a delicate balance between repairing harm and upholding discipline.

How does RP play out in a context like Singapore? Drawing on research in two Singapore secondary schools, this article examines how local cultural values and entrenched power structures shape not only how these practices are implemented, but also the outcomes they produce.

Relationship-building vs Socialising Students to the Social Norms

While RP is taught as a philosophy for building and repairing relationships, in the Singapore school context, it is used as a complementary disciplinary tool to uphold existing social norms. Research has found a gap between the stated intentions of restorative practices and their actual application.

In my interviews with teachers and students, I found that teachers could articulate the core tenets of the practice, such as its ‘no-blame approach’ and the goal of working with students. However, in practice, the process was often shaped by the teachers’ pre-existing concepts of authority. Rather than creating a space for mutual understanding, there is a risk that RP can become a mechanism for shaping adherence to social norms. For example, when students were asked to reflect on how to repair harm or consider appropriate responses if the misbehaviour were to occur again, teachers sometimes guided or even dictated their answers, steering outcomes toward the school’s rules rather than encouraging independent reflection in line with the collaborative, ‘doing with’ philosophy of restorative practices. When this happens, the opportunity to build deeper relationships or to understand the student’s perspective through genuine, collaborative reflection can be missed.

The Shadow of Punishment

A fundamental conflict arises from the implementation of RP within a system that also retains corporal punishment. Research found that while many teachers acknowledged that “pure RP” should not co-exist with caning, they ultimately preferred to maintain the status quo.

The reason for this is revealing. Caning is not just seen as a punishment but as an essential symbol. It is retained because it serves as the utmost symbol of hard treatment that is required to express condemnation in cases of major offences.

This shows that RP is not viewed as a replacement for the existing disciplinary framework; punitive outcomes are retained. RP is seen as a complementary ‘softer’ add-on, a perception shared not just by teachers but also by students who often described the practice as being like ‘counselling’ or ‘without punishment’. It exists alongside the traditional disciplinary structure rather than transforming it; its restorative potential fundamentally limited by the ever-present shadow of corporal punishment.

Speaking Up and Saving ‘Face’

The success of RP processes like circles, group and class conferences hinges on the willingness of all participants to speak openly and honestly. However, research identified several specific cultural barriers that prevented students from participating freely.

Fear of being seen as a "tattletale": Speaking up about a peer’s wrongdoing goes against strong social norms among youths.
Succumbing to peer pressure: The desire to remain aligned with the peer group often outweighed the impulse to participate honestly.
Lack of trust that conversations will remain confidential: Students feared that what was said in the circle or group conferences would be disclosed.
A deep-seated fear of being "blacklisted" by teachers for speaking out: This reflects the power imbalance in the student-teacher relationship.

Underpinning these fears is the cultural importance of ‘face’. This concept makes direct confrontation, open criticism, and the admission of wrongdoing profoundly difficult for all parties involved. Beyond individual anxieties, my study found that the complex group dynamics of a classroom made resolving issues in a public forum inherently difficult. Classrooms are spaces where participants see each other nearly every day and often remain in the same cohort for several years. This constant proximity raises the stakes: a poorly handled discussion can have ongoing social consequences, such as strained peer relationships, loss of trust, or embarrassment that persists across multiple interactions. The awareness that one will continue to interact with classmates and teachers makes students, and sometimes even teachers more cautious, sometimes leading them to withhold honest reflection or avoid addressing harm fully.

An Unlevel Playing Field

In Singapore, where respect for authority and elders is a deeply rooted cultural value, the egalitarian and empowerment-focused philosophy of RP can sometimes be more difficult to implement fully. The respect for authority and elderly is encapsulated by a local, Hokkien phrase “boh tua, boh suay” (literally meaning “no big no small”, signifying a lack of respect for authority or elders) which a teacher shared in our interviews.

Such a scenario can create a clear tension between how students and teachers understand respect. Students often believe respect should be mutual and earned, while many teachers hold the view that teachers, by virtue of their age and position, deserve respect first. The system is therefore not a level playing field, and the expectation of deference undermines the RP goal of empowering all voices equally.

This hierarchical perspective is clear, as one teacher who also double hats as a Discipline Committee member puts it:

“…the teachers have lived so much longer than you, in the first place, they deserve your respect first before they respect you, I mean, based on age!”

A Tool is Only as Good as the Hands That Wield It

Herein lies a caution: RP is not automatically effective just because the model is well designed. Its ability to heal, foster growth, and repair relationships depends on the cultural values, social norms, and power structures of the context. In Singapore, a framework meant to encourage dialogue and empowerment can quickly be shaped by a strong emphasis on hierarchy, social conformity, and deference to authority, limiting its potential to fully achieve its restorative goals. As a result, the practice may reinforce existing structures rather than transform them, serving more as a complementary tool for managing misbehaviour and maintaining order, and missing the opportunity to realise its fuller potential to repair relationships and build genuine connection.

RP offers a vision of education and justice grounded in dialogue, empathy, and the building and repairing of relationships. Research from two Singapore schools conducted a decade ago indicates that its effectiveness depends not just on the model itself, but also on the cultural, social, and institutional context in which it is applied. At the time of the study, practices intended to promote empowerment and dialogue sometimes reflected existing power structures, making it difficult to deepen or repair relationships. While these observations are based on research conducted some years ago, they invite reflection on whether similar dynamics still exist today. It is my hope that, moving forward, schools and institutions will continue to adapt and support restorative practices so they can fully realise their promise of fostering connection, understanding, and mutual respect.

A PLEA FOR SUPPORT

At CYPHER, we believe that scientific knowledge should benefit youths, practitioners, policymakers, and the wider community.

That’s why we provide science-made-simple articles, expert insights, and even original research — all freely accessible, with no paywall and no hidden agenda. We aim to produce work that is clear, practical, and focused on addressing real issues within our community.

If you value independent, evidence-based resources, please consider supporting us with a donation. Every contribution, no matter the size, makes a difference. We rely on the generosity of people like you who believe in non-profit work for the greater good. Can you help us?

Yes I Can Help

Original Research:

Wong, F. Y. (2014). Restorative justice as a disciplinary tool: A perspective from Singapore (Doctoral dissertation, University of Westminster). WestminsterResearch. https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/964qx/restorative-justice-as-a-disciplinary-tool-aperspective-from-singapore

Author

Julia Wong

Assistant Professor
Health and Social Sciences Cluster
Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT)

Article Type : Original Research