Parliament No: | 6 |
Session No: | 2 |
Volume No: | 49 |
Sitting No: | 6 |
Sitting Date: | 19-03-1987 |
Section Name: | BUDGET |
Title: | BUDGET, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION |
MPs Speaking: | Dr Tay Eng Soon (Minister of State for Education); Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Minister for Education); Encik Sidek Bin Saniff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry); Mr Wong Kan Seng (Leader of the House); Dr Aline K. Wong; Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam; Dr Lau Teik Soon; Dr Ow Chin Hock; Dr Tan Cheng Bock; Encik Ibrahim Othman; Encik Othman Bin Haron Eusofe; Encik Wan Hussin Bin Hj Zoohri; Mr Chiam See Tong; Mr Goh Chee Wee; Mr Goh Choon Kang; Mr Jek Yeun Thong; Mr Ng Kah Ting; Mr S. Chandra Das; Mr Sia Khoon Seong; Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon; Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Mr Deputy Speaker); |
|
Column: 587
Head L -
Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,
I have prepared a long speech. It would take 30 minutes to
deliver. As you know, Education is such a big subject and you
have only given me 10 minutes. So I have condensed what I want
to say in these few pieces of paper. If I exceed by a few
minutes, I hope you will forgive me. Will it be all right, Sir?
The Chairman: Dr Tan, no matter how much you have to say,
you have only 10 minutes.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Even if I promise to pay it back from
my other amendments?
The Chairman: You will not get one second more. You have
nine minutes left.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I always thought you were a very
sympathetic man. But I see that you have changed your position!
The Chairman: Eight and a half minutes left.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Chairman, Sir, I have to speak very
fast.
There has been a great deal of discussion on Education
recently and this was brought about by the Ministry of
Education's new approach - that educational innovation should
from now on come from the schools and not the Ministry. With
this change in the focus of educational innovation came the 12
principals' report - a recommendation on how schools can achieve
excellence.
Column: 588
Sir, I forgot to move the amendment.
The Chairman: You can move it at the end of your speech.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: All right, I will move the amendment
at the end of my speech.
Since the release of the report, there have been
wide-ranging dialogues between the Ministry, principals,
teachers and parents. The Feedback Unit and the Government
Parliamentary Committee on Education have also listened to the
views of the professionals and grassroots leaders. I will
present their impressions, their fears, their worries, their
concerns, their expectations and the implications of this
innovative change in Education.
Basically, there are two issues here - excellence in
schools and independent schools. The impression I get and
shared by my committee is that many Singaporeans think that
excellence in schools can only be achieved through independent
schools. This is not true. You can have excellence in schools
by not being independent like the Bronx High School of Science
in New York. They have three Nobel Prize winners from that
school.
Singaporeans wonder if the principals' study tour was
undertaken to secure anything more than an expensive endorsement
of the Government's desire to push independent schools and
shifting the burden of education to the public. Rightly or
wrongly, it is a perception that the Ministry of Education must
try to correct.
How did this concept come about? This confusion has its
origins in the way the subject of excellence in schools has been
broached. It has coloured the discussion on excellence in
schools. And because of this confusion, discussion on excellence
in schools has centred primarily on the subject of independent
schools. The First Deputy Prime Minister first broached the
concept of independent schools in May 1985. And this was
followed in July 1986 when the Minister for Education spoke of
the need to foster creativity and innovation in the educational
system. The Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech in
August 1986 stoked the idea further and hinted that better
schools would become private schools. He added that the Govern-
Column: 589
ment in providing education had moulded schools towards total
uniformity. The underlying thrust of their messages showed that
Singapore has reached the threshold to push for excellence in
education through a new breed of strong, independent schools.
Thus it is not surprising that even some professionals spoke up
against the association of excellence only through independent
schools.
However, going through the report, Mr Chairman, I am
convinced that the principals' concluding remarks in their final
chapter, "Conclusions and Recommendations" were clear as to the
focus of the report. I quote page 76 of the report, "Towards
Excellence in Schools":
'These recommendations have been made in the belief that,
if implemented, they would pave the way for our schools to
achieve excellence in education.'
The emphasis here is "our schools", ie, all schools in Singapore,
not just the independent schools.
The Ministry has been seen by some as trying to push
independent schools, not excellence in schools. This must be
corrected or there will be resistance to this innovation. And
because of this association of excellence only through
independent schools, many fears, worries and concerns were
expressed at the dialogue sessions. The question of fees
invariably cropped up because of the fear that fees of such
schools would be beyond the reach of the majority. Then there
is the question of admission criteria to such schools. Would not
the less academically able children of the rich have an edge over
the others? Because parents of such children are prepared to pay
the substantial school fees required.
Teachers are worried about the independence and authority
given to the principal who can hire and fire them. Then as it
is unlikely that independent schools will be able to shoulder the
entire burden of financing their recurrent expenditure and
capital development, they will need substantial assistance from
the Government if they are to maintain high educational
standards. Will the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education
allow them to be really independent when they hold the purse
strings or at least a big portion of it?
Column: 590
Then what about the schools not going independent? They
will watch how the Ministry allocates the funds. Will it be
evenly distributed to all the schools or will more go to the
independent schools? What is the implication of all these
discussions and of the report?
The Ministry of Education and the schools will be put to the
test in the coming months. Why is this so? The reason, Mr
Chairman, Sir, is very simple. As a result of this report and
subsequent dialogues, we have raised expectations. We have
raised expectations of parents, of teachers, of those in the
Ministry of Education. Parents are now more aware of the
shortcomings of our present school system, double session
schools, overcrowded schools, high teacher-pupil ratio, etc. We
highlighted all these. It is good that we are honest about
these. So now they will be impatient to see that the schools
their children are attending are better equipped, better staffed,
smaller teacher-pupil ratio, better curriculum, pastoral care and
career guidance programmes.
Then teachers and principals expect more from the Ministry
of Education. They want greater flexibility and autonomy,
ancillary support and reducing class size. And how about the
expectations of the Ministry of Education officials. They expect
schools to be initiators rather than implementors. There is so
much adverse accusation of the top-down approach system that they
are now waiting to see how the bottom-up approach is going to be
better.
So, Mr Minister, Sir, with all raised expectations, the onus
is now on you and the Ministry of Education to respond to the
recommendations. What are the priority areas to start with? You
must let us know.
The school principals' recommendations are good. No one
can dispute what they have recommended. In fact, there is
nothing new in the report. It was what the teachers and
principals were talking about for years but not recognized. But
now it has official sanction. I support the report because it
is towards the improvement of all schools and not for independent
schools only. How the recommendations are going to be
implemented will be watched by my committee and by many
Column: 591
concerned parents. It must be across the board. If the Ministry
of Education is seen to operate or subsidize more a fully
independent school without allocating resources or less resources
to the other schools as well, there will be unhappiness all
round. And the Ministry of Education will be accused of
favouritism. Many people, including teachers and principals at
the dialogue sessions, believe that any school which is granted
the resources and leeway that independent schools will have
cannot but improve. The impression given is that the Ministry
has decided that certain schools are going independent or should
be independent. The First Deputy Prime Minister has listed
independent schools as one of the Government's priority.
What is it that we want of the end-product of our
educational system? We want an all-rounded student good in
studies as well as good in other fields. But is this the vision
shared by all? Not from what we heard at the dialogue sessions.
Alas, many Singaporeans say that this is not so in Singapore when
opportunities with good jobs and positions are based purely on
good grades. We must be clear in our minds what we want. What
is excellence after all? If excellence is measured by the number
of A's at examinations, then all this debate will be just an
academic exercise.
The Chairman: Order. Dr Tan, your time is up.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I did it in ten minutes, Sir.
The Chairman: So you are not so long-winded after all.
You may move your amendment now.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Yes, I forgot to move my amendment.
Sir, I beg to move,
That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10
in respect of Subhead LA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates*.
The Chairman: Dr Ow Chin Hock, you have 10 minutes.
Column: 592
Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): Sir, in the Report "Towards
Excellence in Schools", I find one sensible recommendation, and
that is, providing "Pastoral care and career guidance". May I
suggest that, to begin with, the Ministry of Education provide
secondary school students with guidance and information on
courses and careers. At present, many principals and teachers
take the percentage of students entering junior colleges as an
indicator of their success and achievement. The schools provide
the Secondary II students, before they select their subject
combinations, with information on the junior colleges and
pre-university requirements and even course requirements of the
NUS.
There is nothing wrong in aiming high and to strive for
academic excellence. However, at the same time, students should
also be given a more realistic assessment of their own abilities
and be informed of all the channels and opportunities open to
them after the 'O' level. Students must realize that not
everyone can be a 5-pointer, and only a small proportion of
junior colleges and pre-university students make it into the
universities.
Should not the principals and the Ministry advise students
and their parents to consider the polytechnics as a more
market-orientated alternative? Is it not better for the
11-20-pointers, particularly those from the Science and
sub-Science streams to go into the polytechnics and get a good
technical training? Should not the principals and the Ministry
inform the students of the good career prospects and employment
opportunities of polytechnic graduates? Is it not true that the
polytechnics provide training programmes which are more relevant
to the technical manpower requirement of the economy?
I was told that the cut-off point for entrance into the
polytechnics has dropped in the last few years, as more and more
students opted for junior colleges and pre-university centres.
If this trend is not checked, then we may lose out to other Asian
NICs which are producing highly competent technicians and
technologists
Column: 593
in large numbers. So we face a situation that on the one hand
for every successive batch of new intakes into the polytechnics,
the average grade, or mean grade, of students has declined. On
the other hand, we are creating a potential pool of frustrated
'A' level students who cannot get into university and who may
not be able to find suitable jobs. Is this not a waste of
manpower?
I remember in the 1984 Budget debate the Minister of State
for Education had to defend and explain why 2,000 students who
were eligible for junior colleges chose to go to the
polytechnics. But two years later the polytechnics had
vacancies. What went wrong, and what caused this reversal in the
last two years? Was it because the Ministry tried to persuade
'O' level students with 17-points and below to go to
pre-university? Or were there other reasons? What about this
year? I hope the Minister of State will not quote me the
9,000-plus students who have applied for the two polytechnics.
Partly, this was the result of the "Promote Poly" campaigns. In
the last few months of 1986, the staff members of the two
polytechnics were all over Singapore, talking to principals,
teachers and students and urging them and begging them to apply.
Moreover, the two polytechnics had open house exhibitions, with
music thrown in, in order to attract students. But more
important, many of these 9,000-plus students will not be admitted
into the polytechnics because of the mis-match between demand and
supply. Some popular courses such as electronics,engineering and
business studies were "over-subscribed". On the other hand,
courses such as civil engineering, building and mechanical and
manufacturing courses have not got enough applicants.
All these facts highlighted the importance of providing
guidance and information on courses and careers. Otherwise the
unhealthy competition for students between junior colleges,
pre-university centres and polytechnics will grow. This will
eventually undermine our manpower training programme and our
economic growth. Has the Ministry given sufficient attention to
this aspect of education, and what are the solutions?
Column: 594
The next point I would like to raise is the bilingual
policy. It was announced in December 1983 that after 1987 the
so-called national stream will be introduced. Except for four
primary schools and nine SAP schools, all pupils would be taught
EL as First Language and mother tongue as Second Language. While
most parents have accepted this, many Chinese Singaporeans have
expressed their doubts about the sincerity and commitment of the
Ministry to the bilingual policy. They were also concerned with
the decline of the CL standard.
The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education was
quoted to have said:
'The bilingual policy is strongly supported and will be
strongly implemented by the Government.'
That was in the Straits Times on 22nd December, 1983. How strong
is the support and how strong is the implementation? I regret
to inform the Minister that people are simply not convinced. We
have a credibility gap here.
With regard to the CL standard, the Parliamentary Secretary,
in his reply to a question by the Member for Delta on 13th March
last week, claimed that the CL standard has improved between 1981
and 1986. He quoted the increasing percentage of PSLE and 'O'
level students who passed CL2 as evidence. Anyone who has
commonsense knows that the passing rate does not necessarily
reflect the standard of CL. The passing rate depends on many
factors such as the difficulty of the examination questions, the
expectation of the examiners, the way the examinations are marked
and so on and so forth. Moreover, I was told that examination
marks could be adjusted.
In 1984, the Minister of State also claimed that a
Secondary 4 student had to study a minimum of 3,000 Chinese
characters and 200 idiomatic expressions. My question is, could
they master and use these characters and expressions?
In January this year I attended a workshop on Chinese
literature. The participants were scholars, writers, teachers
and journalists. Many of them were very pessimistic about the
future of Chinese education and Chinese language in Singapore.
Column: 595
They gave concrete examples on how poor our students' CL standard
is. Many Secondary 4 students could not read the Chinese
newspaper editorial with comprehension. The essays and articles
they submitted to the newspaper were so poor - can bu ren du ( )
- that they cannot be published without rewriting and
heavy editing by editors. May I find out from the Minister what
concrete steps have been taken to maintain the CL standard?
Another related question, how could we ensure that we have
sufficient local CL teachers and journalists and editors in the
near future? I dread the day when the Chief Editor of Lianhe
Zaobao and the principals of the SAP schools have to be imported.
Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): Mr Chairman,
Sir, I would like to echo the sentiments of the Member for Ayer
Rajah in that we should re-focus the importance of this Report
Towards Excellence in Schools to what it can contribute not
solely to the independent schools but to all the other schools
in Singapore. After all the focus of this Report is to seek the
ingredients that go into the making of a good, effective and
successful school, irrespective of what type it is.
In this respect, Sir, it is my hope that the Ministry of
Education would ensure that this initial interest and enthusiasm
of this Report would not fade away. Of particular importance is
that reference to and discussion on this Report should be
sustained between the Ministry and all the schools. A systematic
way could be worked out whereby all school principals would be
given the guidance and the encouragement of extracting the
relevant items from the Report so that they could translate this
in their own schools. Perhaps the 12 principals could act as
resource persons for these other principals in the other schools
and follow-up discussions and workshops in their different zones
could be held where the 12 principals would provide the
additional inputs of identifying what I call "selected potential
areas of educational growth". In this way, all the schools would
be involved in the positive implementation of the Report and
Column: 596
thus the philosophy of encouraging principals and teachers to be
initiators of change and not merely implementers of policy would
be realized.
As an extension of this bottom-up approach, Sir, it would
be a refreshing change if more school principals and teachers
could be given greater opportunity of exposure to innovative
projects done in schools in other countries. This, in fact, was
one of the criteria mentioned by the Minister for Education at
the NTI forum on 22nd July 1986, when he referred to the subject
of fostering innovation and creativity in schools. Perhaps in
this respect the Ministry could have some funds set aside where
schools which have identified their potential areas of
educational growth and want to seek additional knowledge and
expertise in these areas could be assisted or subsidized to visit
successful schools in other countries. Of course, procedures and
criteria for selection and assessment of these areas of growth
could be worked out systematically. What is important is to
provide the right incentives for the growth of the right
professional environment where initiative, ideas and success are
duly recognized and rewarded.
Sir, I have one other observation to make. Looking at the
13 schools visited by the 12 principals, all these schools cater
for students up to the age of 18, or equivalent to our
pre-university students, except that these schools have different
levels of in-take ranging from 3 years to 13 years. I am just
wondering if some thought has been given to the possibility of
having one of our independent schools adapting this model where
secondary and pre-university students are in the same school with
all the necessary facilities catering for both groups of
students. With this school one could study what are the
comparative advantages in terms of cost and efficiency as
compared with having separate schools for secondary and junior
colleges. I see several educational advantages in this model.
(1) A student spends longer years in this school and this helps
to strengthen his loyalty to the school and upon leaving the
school would keep his links with his alma mater. (2) There is
a natural or a smoother transition from his secondary to his
pre-university education in the same
Column: 597
school without having to re-adjust himself to a new environment
should he go to another pre-university institution. (3) Over
this longer period his educational path and performance can be
better monitored by his secondary and pre-university tutors in
the same school. (4) There will be optimum utilization of
educational facilities both by the secondary and the
pre-university students. Lastly, the students having gone
through this cycle of secondary and pre-university education in
the same school will be that much confident and ready for his
university education. I hope, Sir, this is one area that could
be looked into by the prospective independent schools' boards and
management.
Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Sir, as the Member for Ayer
Rajah said, the recommendations made in the 12 principals' Report
are not new. They are what teachers have been clamouring for
many years now. We are all aware of the ingredients that go into
the making of a good school - smaller enrolments, lower
teacher/pupil ratio, adequate ancillary staff, better physical
facilities and so on. The problem is one of finance. We may
do well to set our priorities in education and deal with them in
a rational manner.
The Principals' Report seems to support the view that the
headmaster, if given the authority to select his teachers and
appoint key personnel, everything is fine and excellence will be
achieved. I think the problem is not as simple as that. To find
a person of this calibre is no easy task and yet, according to
the Report, it is crucial to the system. On the other hand, to
choose someone of a lesser calibre is to let loose a bigot who
will try to enforce his own brand of education which may be
misguided and dangerous. Given such power and authority, he may
so impose his will that he will brook no opposition to his ideas,
even though these might be highly questionable. It is doubtful
if he will then be able to foster team spirit, although he will
probably get a semblance of cooperation from teachers afraid to
speak their minds.
To be truly effective, a principal needs to be an informed,
mature and wise person who believes in a consultative style of
management, who gives a willing ear to good counsel from his
teachers and who
Column: 598
has the courage to act knowing that his decisions are fully
abetted by his staff. After all, the considered opinions of a
good professional staff are not to be belittled since they can
see aspects of a problem that he might not have perceived.
It is also questionable whether it is indeed wise to allow
the individual philosophy of the principal to be the educational
philosophy of his school, even if his philosophy takes into the
total development of the child. Surely it is our national
philosophy that must take precedence over that of an individual.
The Report tends to over-rate the importance of the
principal and to overlook the importance of teachers in the
quest for excellence. Doubtless, the principal is a key figure
in this quest but it should be emphasized that, of his own
accord, he can achieve little despite all his talents. He is the
leader of the team but it is the quality and composition of the
team that is all-important. Talented, dedicated, effective
teachers are absolutely essential in bringing about the
transformation of a school. It is the good classroom teacher,
the salt of excellence, who can tease out the potential of every
child, develop his skills, abilities and knowledge, mould and
shape his character and impart the values we cherish in our
society. It is the classroom teacher coming into daily contact
with pupils who can achieve this most important task and not the
principal ensconced in his office. It is the job of the
principal to ensure that the best conditions exist for achieving
this task and that the teacher is not hindered in his work with
pupils by mountains of paper work and administrative chores that
ancillary staff might well deal with. The best thing a good
principal can do is to provide teachers with the necessary
administrative support to assist teachers to fulfil their
professional tasks effectively.
To motivate such a staff to give of their best, a principal
will need, in the first place, to learn to respect his staff and
to listen to their views. He should be a skilful manager who
sets the tone and provides the conducive environment in which
teachers will be encouraged to be creative and innovative in
their teaching. Such an atmosphere cannot be achieved by
coercion or threat;
Column: 599
indeed these tend to stifle creativity and initiative and to
produce hostile feelings. Sometimes this hostility may not
manifest itself overtly, but may find expression in indifference,
lack of enthusiasm or interest and minimal contribution. The
underlying cause may be deep-seated resentment of the
authoritarian style of the principal conceited enough to think
that everyone else besides himself is misguided and foolish. A
principal who runs down his staff habitually could very often be
the root cause of the problem.
We believe that the Report provides a lopsided view of the
agents of change. Much more emphasis should have been given to
the role of good teachers and the effect they can have on the
whole tone and tenor of the school.
The Principals' Report also recommends that principals be
"encouraged to exercise flexibility to decide curricula, subject
to the requirements arising from national considerations as well
as an understanding of the place of national examinations." It
is hard to see how, in a rigidly examination-oriented system like
ours, there can be more flexibility than already exists. Our
society emphasizes the importance of achievement in examinations
as an indication of capability and merit. It also regards
certain school subjects as central and others as peripheral and
thus good results in these subjects matter. Also flexibility may
imply that beyond the core subjects a child may do any subject
he or she chooses to do. Within our present constraints, are we
in a position to provide for this? Even if we are, is this
desirable in the context of the need for the right subject
combinations as a set of criteria for admission to University?
Generally, the pupils offer seven subjects for their 'O'
levels. Brighter pupils may offer eight subjects. Of these,
four are core subjects, namely English, Second Language,
Mathematics D and a Science subject from five Science subjects,
namely, Physics, Chemistry, Pure Physics, Pure Chemistry, Biology
or Human Social Biology. They may then select three or four
subjects, as the case may be, from a
Column: 600
group of elective subjects. These include Additional
Mathematics, Literature, History, Geography, Home Economics, Art,
Music and certain technical subjects.
It is required that Science students do a humanities
subject and vice-versa. The problem is that for admission into
pre-university, polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic certain
subject combinations are necessary and others are not given due
weightage (eg. Polytechnic does not recognize Human and Social
Biology as a Science subject). So one or two years ago, the
Ministry of Education came up with a list of more than 10
recommended subject combinations which the schools may follow.
Generally, certain elective subjects like Literature, History and
Geography are favoured by our pupils and rightly so. After all,
these subjects have their intrinsic value. We must encourage in
our pupils a sense of both our geographical and historical
positions. In the light of all this, it is difficult to see how
much more flexible the curriculum can be.
In the area of extra-curricular activities, the emphasis of
the Report seems to be on the raising of standards in art, music
and drama and the encouragement of cultural activities. Such an
emphasis may be justified in the United Kingdom and the United
States because there are opportunities to satisfy those who are
interested in such activities. But can the same be said of
Singapore? Furthermore, can our society really support musicians
and artists and afford them a decent standard of living if they
are intent on such matters? Let us be realistic and practical
and accept that for education to be meaningful it must prepare
the young for the realities of their adult life. For one thing,
they must be able to earn a living. Another important effect of
this emphasis is that it seems to detract from the national
pre-occupation of building rugged, self-reliant Singaporeans.
While we fully support the suggestion that aesthetic
education needs to be encouraged, we think that the curriculum
proposed should be more carefully balanced so that it is in
consonance with our national aspirations. The spirit of
patriotism, for example, needs to be nurtured. Total defence is
a theme very close to our hearts these days.
Column: 601
At present, we have a fairly well developed education system
which maintains a healthy balance between meeting the individual
needs of the child and preparing him to be a good person and a
loyal citizen who is capable of earning a decent living and
playing his part as a member of our society. We must be willing
to admit that our education system is not perfect and we should
make improvements where these are necessary and desirable. Even
if we are, is this desirable in the context of the need for the
right subject combinations as a set of criteria for admission
into university?
While some of the recommendations, like making all secondary
schools single-session and reducing the present teacher/pupil
ratio sound good on paper, the problem is implementing them.
Three essential ingredients are absolutely essential before we
can hope to achieve them, namely, billions of dollars extra,
large numbers of job applicants of the right calibre for teaching
jobs and time. I am not sure even in 10 years' time whether we
are able to achieve anything near the targets we set.
The Chairman: Mr Bernard Chen is not here. Dr Aline Wong.
Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Sir, I would like to join the
debate on the independent schools. Few people would disagree
with the rationale behind the independent schools. They will
provide diversity in our educational system, promote creativity
and help us attain excellence in education. However, the
foremost question in the mind of the public is that of tuition
fees. This has been repeatedly raised in various dialogue and
feedback sessions, and although the Minister and various Ministry
of Education officials have given us their assurance that needy
students who are bright will be given Government assistance in
the form of scholarships and bursaries, a question still remains
in the minds of the public, ie, what further action is the
Ministry likely to take in order to ensure that there is enough
of a good mix of students from various economic or social
backgrounds, so that students who go to independent schools will
grow up and study in an environment
Column: 602
which is much more representative of the cross-section of
society?
Although the raising of tuition fees is likely to affect
only the small number of independent schools, I am sorry to
report that amongst some members of the public they are already
getting worried about the possibility of the raising of fees even
in Government schools. As it stands now, education in our
primary and secondary schools is heavily subsidized and is
provided almost free to all Singaporeans. Unfortunately, the
wrong message that the public seems to be getting from various
recent Government policies is this. Excellence equals
independence. Independence equals privatization. And
privatization equals reduction of Government subsidies.
One question raised by these concerned parents is whether
the Government will be tempted in future to even reduce the
subsidies for State schools such as by charging tuition fees
which are pegged to those charged by the independent schools,
thereby reducing the present high levels of educational
subsidies. Personally, I do not see the possibility of this
happening within the near future. The Government has always
realized that education is not only a basic social service but
that it is a very important part of investment in human
resources. By comparison, there is the possibility of the
Government increasing the amount of subsidies to the independent
schools, at least initially, to enable them to take off. If so,
we may be accentuating the elitist tendencies which are already
present in our society in spite of our system of meritocracy.
Related to this is the question that the public again has
raised whether the independent schools would be creaming off the
best students and the best teachers and, if so, what would happen
to the quality of the other schools. I think there is need for
the Minister to clarify the policy on the selection of students
as well as the selection of teachers who would be going to these
independent schools.
As the Member for Moulmein has pointed out, the Report of
the principals places a great deal of emphasis on autonomy to be
given to the headmaster or headmistress. This is rightly so.
But of
Column: 603
equal importance for the Ministry's consideration is how to train
good and dedicated teachers who share the vision of excellence
in education and this applies not just to the independent schools
but for all schools if we were to raise further the general
quality of education. To tackle this problem, Sir, requires
something more than improving the terms of service for the
teachers. Social attitude towards teachers or the social status
of teachers has somehow to be put right. In the old days,
teachers had very poor terms of service but they were respected
by society. In those days, society placed a great deal of
emphasis on the intrinsic value of learning and on the concept
of self-cultivation through education. Sad to say, the emphasis
today is on the utilitarian value of education - the paper chase,
paper qualifications as a passport for well-paid jobs and
comfortable living. So year after year, we lament the
detrimental effects of the extreme examination pressure on our
students and the entire system. But are we not going to really
take some practical steps to solve the situation?
The Chairman: Order. It is 1.00 pm.
Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee
and took the Chair of the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will
take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm.
Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm
[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]
Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.
[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]
Head L (cont.) -
Dr Aline Wong: Before we broke off for lunch, I was on the
subject of what kind of practical measures we can take to help
reduce the examination pressure. Mr Chairman, I am aware this
is a very complicated subject and in fact the Ministry has made
a lot of effort in the past to help
Column: 604
reduce the trend. In order to stay within the purview of the
discussion of independent schools, let me just make one
observation, that is, I feel that the independent schools, the
principals and teachers must resist the pressure of social
expectations for all or most of their students to excel only
academically speaking. I think at the moment there is a tendency
for students to take a large number of '0' level papers and 'A'
level papers beyond what is really necessary for entry into JCs
and universities. In this way, the schools, even including
independent schools, may be stifling the creativity of the
students, may be depriving the students of the time necessary in
order to benefit from the broad-based curriculum and this is
perhaps the kind of problem that the Member for Moulmein was
talking about.
My point is, I sincerely hope that the principals and
teachers in the independent schools will resist this kind of
social pressure or expectation that their students must be
academic high-flyers. After all, the right educational
principles must be put back in place. And I believe the
independent schools would be a very good place for this kind of
right philosophy on an all-rounded education to be put back and
to spearhead this return to the right emphasis in education. And
with this, I thank you, Mr Chairman, Sir.
Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would
like to take the opportunity to bring up the matter of University
tuition fees which I have touched on in my so-called long
rambling speech during the Budget debate. I have given my
support to the measure and I have also offered some suggestions.
But unfortunately, this point has not been taken up by the media.
In fact, I have brought up many good points about the Budget and
about the Government which they have conveniently dropped under
the pretext of constraint of space and preferred to highlight
only the troublesome points such as consumption tax which formed
a very small part of my speech. As a result, I have become a
highly misunderstood person.
It seems that they are in a conspiracy to build up an image
of me to be a critic which a humble and harmless person like
Column: 605
me does not deserve. One journalist even said that I was using
different notes but singing the same tune as that of the Member
for Potong Pasir, which I take it to be a great insult. But
since they are not protected by parliamentary privilege, I
reserve the right to sue for libel. It is not that I do not like
the Member for Potong Pasir but I do not like his relationship
with Tan Koon Swan, a crooked businessman and a Malaysian
politician.
The Chairman: Mr Jek, can I ask you what has all this got
to do with the policy on Education?
Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Well, it is about the misrepresentation
and the distortion or missing of the part of my speech by the
press.
The Chairman: But I do not see how the distortion of the
speech you made on financial matters has got to do with the
Ministry of Education. Could you get back to Education, please?
Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Yes, of course. I think the trouble
with the press is that they missed my point on Education. The
style they happened to like is what the Chinese call
- wan shi bu gong (playful and not taking things
seriously). So they really do not know what to do with me - I
mean the press, not the Government. For a start, they do not
know when I am serious and when I am not serious, and whether I
have lost my head. And if they are not careful about reporting
it, they may be in danger of losing their own heads.
The Chairman: Mr Jek, the press reports on you have got
nothing to do with Education. Can you confine yourself to the
subject? Otherwise, I will rule you out of order.
Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Okay. In that case, I better come back
to this point. But this time I am serious. I support the
measure and philosophy behind the increase in tuition fees. But
while I appreciate the consideration and magnanimity of the
Minister to set up a $100 million study loan for needy students,
I would also urge him to peg the interest rate on the loan not
to the prime rate of the Big Four banks but to the rate the
Government borrows its funds from institutions such as the CPF.
That is on the assumption that the CPF always
Column: 606
lends its money to the Government at rates lower than prime. I
feel that the Government should not make any profit out of the
study loan from the poor students. Furthermore, prime rate
fluctuates according to the demand and supply of capital. We are
only lucky that the rate now stands at an all-time low of 5 1/2% and
many can now afford it. But if the population is again mad on
speculation on all sorts of things (gold, property, shares and
so on), then the prime rate will skyrocket and 11%, 12%, and even
14% prime rates are not unheard of in recent years. So continued
high prime rates for several years could mean disaster for the
poor students. It could mean that their liabilities would be
higher than their assets and they might be disqualified from
signing the form of non-indebtedness when they join the
Government Service. And as for the law students, who knows, in
future there may be more Francis Seows among them.
My second suggestion is that the Government should also
extend the $100 million facility to students who go abroad to
study in approved and recognized universities. The merits of
doing so are obvious and I have mentioned them in my speech
during the Budget debate and I do not want to repeat them. Also,
there is no danger that the students having taken the loans would
abscond or not come back since at the moment all the male
students going overseas are providing bonds because of national
service. And as for female students, if we are still having too
many of them, we can easily arrange bonds for those who intend
to take the loan. Since the students going overseas will
eventually return to contribute to the good of the nation, it is
only fair that they be given the same treatment as the students
in the NUS. So I hope the Minister could give these suggestions
his serious consideration. Thank you.
Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker,
Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the discussion on
independent schools.
I wish, first, to deal with the question of the authority
to be vested in the principals. Sir, I support the comments of
the Member for Moulmein in this area. The
Column: 607
Report, Towards Excellence In Schools, was prepared by a group
of 12 principals. I cannot but ask myself whether the Report
would have taken a different form if the report had been made by
senior teachers instead of principals.
Sir, in Singapore, the trend is towards a more consultative
form of government and in management of HDB new towns, there will
be more consultation and also involvement of residents in the
town councils. Thus, it is not surprising to me that some
teachers and parents look upon with alarm at the role that is
envisaged for principals. Some teachers have even stated that
they would prefer not to teach in independent schools because of
the perceived over-domineering role of the principal. This is
understandable because, in the Report, extensive powers will be
vested in the principals, including the power to choose their own
teachers. This, by implication, means also that they will be
vested with powers to terminate the service of a teacher. In the
Report by the principals, it is stated that only the governing
body can terminate service. But who will it be that will put the
teacher's report to the governing body? The principal, of
course. Under the heading of Authority of the Headmaster, the
Report reads, I quote:
'The headmaster might have been appointed by the governing
body of the school and therefore accountable to it, but once
appointed he carried its confidence and trust and was left to run
the school as he saw fit.'
In the same paragraph, it is stated:
'It was more a question of the governing body, having
selected a head, giving him the necessary support to do a good
job and to get on with it, rather than place obstructions in his
path and slow down the pace for him to operate.'
Sir, I am concerned with the principals' perception of the
role of the governing body, namely, only to appoint or select the
principals. Further, I am sure much as principals want their
schools to excel, so do members of the governing body or the
Board of Governors. I see no reason why the Board of Governors
of a school would want to obstruct or slow down the principal
unless the Board has good reasons to do so. What may be regarded
as obstruction by the principals may be regarded as
Column: 608
checks on the system. If one is even more open-minded, one could
regard this as consultative management. The closing sentence of
this paragraph reads:
'In such circumstances, the head could grow further in his
role and give expression to his own brand of education.'
While I agree that autonomy for schools and independent
school is good, I am apprehensive regarding this reference to the
headmaster being given the latitude to practise his own brand of
education. To allay the fears of the teachers and parents, I
hope that the Minister for Education will explain the role and
authority that will be vested in principals as we move towards
excellence in schools. I hope that in the future, parents and
teachers will continue to select schools and not select the
principals instead.
Sir, if it is any comfort to us, the question of excellence
in schools is not a new one. In a book entitled "Schooling for
Individual Excellence" by an American author, Don H. Parker,
printed in 1963, it discusses many of the problems that we as
a nation are now addressing in our educational system. The
problem is well described in this anecdote. The scene is set
in a shoeshop:
'First customer: I like to see a pair of shoes in size 7
for my son Adrian.
Salesman: Size 7, I am sorry, Sir, we carry only size 5.
Second customer: I like to see a pair of shoes in size 3 for
my son Lawrence.
Salesman: Size 3, I am sorry, Sir, we carry only size 5.'
The author comments, "Could clothing business survive misfitting
two-thirds of its customers?" Can schools? Can our country
survive giving two-thirds of its children a misfit education?
Can any nation? Yet everyday in school rooms throughout our
nation, we tell millions of children, "We are sorry. We only
carry grade 5," when many an individual child actually wears only
a grade 3. Just as bad is our response to another fifth grade
child who needs a grade 7 when we try to cramp his superior
learning ability into grade 5 with learning limitations.
Column: 609
In a chapter entitled "Change in the Making", the author
states positively his belief that things can change for the
better. He cites an example of change that took place in Long
Island, New York. I present three quotes from the author:
'1. Curriculum change can take place in a relatively short
time when the people of the community want it.
2. There are many controversial religious and political
elements in each community which the school must deal. As each
of us knows only too well, trying to satisfy all of them often
leads to an impasse or even a stalemate to curriculum change.
3. We are finding that when we talk with parents/taxpayers
about better learning for their children each unto his own,
religious and political differences give way to thinking together
about how all can move towards the goal of improving learning in
the daily ongoing classroom.'
Sir, I believe that the Ministry of Education is on the
right path and that Singaporeans have the will and the verve and
want to see these changes implemented so that we can really
achieve excellence in our schools and also have schooling for
individual excellence.
Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Mr Chairman, Sir, compared to
the school leavers, say, 15 years ago, our 'O' and 'A' level
school leavers have more opportunities and options to further
their studies or undergo skills training. Our universities,
polytechnics and vocational institutions now offer a wide range
of courses to meet the different academic grades and academic
interest of the students. The school leavers who wish to pursue
further studies have to make a difficult choice of which
institution to enrol in and which course of study to pursue.
Much depends on the students' own interest, their parents'
influence and their peer group influence. I agree with the point
raised by the Member for Leng Kee that there is a need to give
the students a proper guidance in choosing a course of study.
Sir, with so many institutions offering different types of
courses and all stepping up their public relations and marketing
efforts to attract students and all promising good career
prospects for taking up courses in their institutions, I think
the students can be thoroughly confused. What I want to ask of
the Minister for Education is whether the Ministry or the
Column: 610
schools could provide proper counselling and guidance to help the
students to make their choice. And I also wish to know whether
the teachers and the principals are themselves knowledgeable
enough to offer such guidance. I know of the instance when the
students asked the teacher, "What is the difference between the
courses offered by the VITB Training Institute and the ones
offered by the EDB training centres? How does one compare the
status of the Diploma or Certificate awarded by the Singapore
Polytechnic and the EDB training centres?" Guess what is the
answer? "Don't know."
I think this is an honest answer. Many people do not know,
not just the teachers. Sir, I believe that principals and the
teachers themselves need adequate briefings too.
What about the students who are leaving the school to seek
employment in the job market? I think they need career guidance
also. And I would like to suggest that the Ministry of
Education as well as the schools organize more career talks and
visits to the industrial and commercial establishments to enable
the students to understand the nature of work and the working
environment of different vocations. So when they apply for a
job, they more or less have an idea of what the job entails, the
prospect for advancement, what the physical environment is like.
In this way, perhaps we can reduce the chances of the young
people hopping from one place to another in search of a job of
his preference. This will help to reduce job hopping among the
young workers. And I would appreciate the Minister's response
to this suggestion.
The Minister for Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Mr
Chairman, Sir, first of all, may I thank hon. Members for their
suggestions, views and comments on this very important topic of
Education which is of interest and concern to all Singaporeans
as it affects our children. Members have ranged over a wide
variety of topics. With your permission, Sir, and with the
permission of Members, what I would like to do now under this
particular Head is to deal with broad policy issues and later on
when there are more departmental matters, I will take them up and
also my colleagues, the
Column: 611
Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to
them under the respective subheads.
Sir, in December last year, I led a delegation of 12
principals to visit a number of acknowledged good schools in
Britain and the United States. The purpose of the visit was to
identify the factors which go to make a good and effective school
and to consider how such factors could be developed in our
schools in Singapore. As Members know, the principals have set
out their conclusions and recommendations in a Report, "Towards
Excellence in Schools". I see the Chairman of the GPC on
Education has got a copy in the House. This Report has been
widely publicized in the press and on SBC. Also, in a series of
meetings last month, I discussed the principals' recommendations
with parents, with principals and with teachers. The points that
were raised at the meetings have been adequately covered in the
press and I do not propose to repeat them today.
What I intend to do is to respond, first of all, to the main
point raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah, and that is, to
identify what are the priority areas. What are the areas of
concern that emerged from these meetings and how does the
Government propose to respond to these areas of concern?
Sir, there are four principal areas of concern which
emerged from the meetings which I had and which can be seen from
the comments of Members today. These four areas are:
(1) Implementing the Single Session System in all schools,
starting with the secondary schools.
(2) Creating a more effective teaching environment by
providing principals and teachers with adequate ancillary support
and reducing class size.
(3) Emphasizing pastoral care in our schools and
particularly career guidance in our secondary schools and our
junior colleges.
(4) Allowing schools to operate with greater flexibility and
greater autonomy.
Column: 612
Let me, Sir, deal with each of these areas in turn. First,
the implementation of the Single Session System in all schools
in Singapore. Thirty years ago, there was a shortage of places
in our schools and many of the children in Singapore did not have
the opportunity to go to school. In order to provide a place in
school for every child of school-going age, our schools had to
go double session.
However, the double session system has many
disadvantages. With two sessions of pupils sharing the same
facilities, principals and teachers face real handicaps and
constraints in devising appropriate education programmes for the
children under their charge. There are time-tabling difficulties
and it is difficult to arrange either remedial or enrichment
classes simply because the classrooms are often not available.
Furthermore, as the double session system comprises essentially
two separate schools operating in the same school premises, it
is rare for staff and children from both sessions to come
together at the same time. This makes it difficult to build up
a cohesive and distinctive school community.
The pilot project in 20 schools started by my Ministry in
January 1986 has shown that with only one session of pupils using
the school facilities for the whole day, schools have much
greater flexibility in time-tabling and in programme
organization. Sir, this makes possible a variety of programmes
to be organized to meet the specific needs and interests of
pupils.
There is also better coordination among school staff as more
regular consultation on pupil and curriculum matters allows for
better planning and continuity in teaching. Relationships
between teachers and pupils are therefore strengthened as staff
and pupils stay back more often for formal and informal
activities. This greater sense of belonging makes schools life
more enriching and enjoyable.
Sir, Government has therefore decided to introduce the
Single Session System in all our schools beginning with the
secondary schools. To implement the Single Session System in all
secondary schools, we will need to build an additional 50 schools
over and above the 25 new schools which
Column: 613
have been provided for under the present school building
programme scheduled to end in 1989. It will not be an easy task
to build the schools nor to train the principals needed to lead
the schools and the teachers needed to man the classrooms and to
conduct the lessons. Nevertheless, Sir, for the sake of our
children, we must try.
My Ministry will draw up a plan to implement the Single
Session System in all secondary schools over a period of 6-7
years. This will involve building, on the average, 10-12 schools
a year or about one school every month over the next 6-7 years.
Barring mishaps, all children who register for Primary 1 this
year can look forward to entering Single Session Schools when
they enrol for Secondary 1 in 1994.
Now, Sir, I go on to the next point brought up by the Member
for Moulmein, and that is, the creation of a more effective
teaching environment in schools. As pointed out by one of the
principals at the meetings which I had with parents, a teacher
today does not only teach. He is also a collector of fees, a
keeper of records and an amateur typist. And when he has free
time, he is called upon to repair and to maintain audio-visual
equipment.
In order to enable teachers and principals to be more
effective, my Ministry will implement a scheme to provide an
executive officer and adequate clerical staff and technicians in
all our schools in order to reduce the administrative burden of
principals and teachers. Further- more, the Ministry will
introduce measures to relieve teachers of unnecessary
administrative chores, thereby allowing them to concentrate on
their teaching duties. A pilot project on the use of GIRO for
the collection of school and miscellaneous fees was implemented
in eight schools last year. With the GIRO scheme, teachers are
freed from the task of fee collection. The Ministry will extend
the GIRO scheme for the payment of school and miscellaneous fees
to all primary schools by March 1988 and to all secondary schools
and junior colleges by December 1988.
Similarly, with the implementation of the computer network
linking schools to
Column: 614
the Ministry Headquarters, teachers will be relieved of many
non-teaching and mundane tasks, such as filling in of report
books, mark sheets, class registers and pupils' data forms.
Sir, one of the problems which makes for less effective
teaching in our schools is the very large class size, which can
be over 40 pupils to a class in some of our more popular schools.
This large class size makes it difficult for teachers to vary
their teaching styles to fit the particular requirements of the
subjects which they teach. The teachers also cannot use
individualized instructional methods or pay as much attention to
each pupil as they would like.
As a first step towards reducing class size, the Ministry
will increase the intake of the Institute of Education over the
next six to seven years with, first of all, the aim of training
an additional 1,500 secondary school teachers over and above our
normal requirements. Sir, when this is done, it will enable us
to reduce class size in our secondary schools to an average of
not more than 30 pupils per class.
Sir, I go on to the topic of pastoral care and career
guidance in our schools, points which have been emphasized,
first, by the Member for Leng Kee and then by the Member for Boon
Lay.
Sir, education does not consist only of teaching our
children how to pass examinations, although, as I have always
stated, examinations are very important. Education, Sir, is also
concerned with giving our students a purpose in life and in
inculcating in them, through our moral education programmes,
through our extra-curricular activities, good habits of
self-discipline, respect for the family, loyalty for the nation
and concern for the community. To further develop these
important aspects of education, the Ministry plans to introduce
a proper pastoral care and career guidance programme in our
schools. Two lecturers in the Institute of Education are at
present undertaking specialist training in the particular field
of pastoral care and career guidance. In collaboration with the
IE, the Ministry will mount training courses to train teachers
in these areas. The IE will also strengthen pastoral care and
career
Column: 615
guidance aspects in its training programmes for both its
Diploma-in-Education and Certificate-in-Education courses. These
measures will enable the Ministry to help principals and teachers
to develop comprehensive pastoral care programmes for their
schools and, in particular, career guidance in our secondary
schools and our junior colleges.
Now, Sir, the topic of flexibility and autonomy in schools
and independent schools commented upon by the Members for Kampong
Ubi, Moulmein, Fengshan and Changkat. I will just take all of
these together.
Since the enactment of the Education Ordinance in 1957,
schools in Singapore have been closely controlled by the
Government. This centralized control of schools has brought
about major benefits. It ensures that all our schools, without
exception, meet minimum standards of instruction and of physical
environment. While there must be checks and balances to ensure
that there is no abuse of authority, the Minister will, in
consultation with principals and with teachers, work out how best
we can remove those restrictions which are unnecessary or which
have become outdated.
One example of a regulation which can be relaxed is the
present rigid guidelines on the transfer of pupils between
streams in our schools. I announced at the Schools Council
Meeting in January this year that the Ministry was reviewing the
guidelines, particularly those relating to the transfer of pupils
from the Normal stream to the Express stream in secondary
schools. This review has been completed and I am happy to
announce that with effect from today the transfer of pupils from
the Normal stream to the Express stream in our secondary schools
can be done as and when, in the judgment of the principals and
the teachers, the pupil is ready even if this is not at the end
of the year.
In order to see how we can further remove restrictions in
our schools so that they can perform better and respond more
sensitively to the needs of parents and of pupils, the Government
will also allow a
Column: 616
small number of our well established schools to go independent,
if the schools wish to do so. I would like to stress here again
that the initiative must come from the schools.
In the implementation of independent schools in Singapore,
we must however make sure that the following conditions apply:
(1) The independent schools must conform to our national
education policies and chief among these, Sir, are the
maintenance of our bilingual policy and the teaching of moral
education.
(2) There is proper provision for control and supervision
of these schools.
(3) A scheme of financial assistance funded, if necessary,
by Government must be set in place so that bright children from
poor families who qualify for admission to the independent
schools will not be prevented from attending these schools simply
because they are unable to pay the fees.
Sir, these three conditions must be set in place before we
can allow independent schools to be set up in Singapore.
Since the debate on independent schools started in October
last year, about six months ago, four schools have indicated
strong interest in going independent. Three of them are aided
schools - the Anglo-Chinese School, St Joseph's Institution and
Chinese High School. The fourth is a Government School - Raffles
Institution. These four schools have set up Committees with
members drawn from the Boards of Governors or the School
Management Committees, School Advisory Committees or Old Boys'
Associations to work out plans on how their respective schools
can operate more independently of the Ministry of Education than
is the case at present.
Sir, I think we should not pre-empt these committees but to
allow them to work out their plans before we can decide or amend
them. The Ministry will work with these four schools in order
to help them to implement their plans expeditiously.
Column: 617
Sir, I will conclude by saying that improvement in education
is necessarily a slow and sometimes a painful process. The
Report prepared by the principals who went with me and the
discussions which I have had with parents, principals and
teachers have given us a new momentum in our quest for excellence
in education in Singapore. Sir, we must build on this momentum
and we must not be afraid to undertake bold measures to improve
our schools. Only then, Sir, can we be sure that our children
will be adequately prepared to face the future with confidence.
I will now be happy to take any questions which Members will
have.
Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, first let me
congratulate the Minister for his prompt response to the
recommendations of the principals. The principals made four
major recommendations and the Minister has responded to all of
them. I think what the Minister has just said is very
reassuring, particularly to parents, teachers and students
because he has reiterated that the Government emphasis now and
in the future is to improve the present school system, to improve
our secondary schools and achieve excellence. That is the
emphasis of the Government. That I am sure is very reassuring
to parents, teachers and pupils.
May I comment on some of the points which the Minister
has mentioned in his statement. With regard to the
single-session schools, I hope that the Minister for Finance, and
I see he is not here, will grant the Minister for Education the
request to expedite the construction of schools so that the
scheme to implement single-session schools can be achieved as
soon as possible. But may I just add a word of caution that in
the implementation of this scheme,that the single-session school
should be spread across the country to ensure that in each of our
HDB housing estate there will be at least one or two
single-session schools. There should not be a concentration of
single-session schools in any one particular place.
With regard to the support which teachers will be receiving,
I am glad to hear that the Minister has mentioned that the
schools will get executive officers to
Column: 618
lighten the load of the teachers, particularly to relieve them
of the administrative duties. I would like to say that if the
teachers are relieved of their administrative duties, the
principals should not add on additional load to the teachers.
In this connection, I would like to comment on the number
of in-service courses, relevant or irrelevant, to the teachers
which are being conducted by the Ministry of Education and which
teachers have to attend. It should be reduced. The Minister has
just mentioned that immediately principals will be given the
flexibility to transfer students from one stream to another. I
think he is rather cautious here. I would like to see the
Ministry give a little more authority to principals. For
example, give them the authority to recruit a small percentage
of the staff they require for the schools. If that were to be
the case, the principals would have the opportunity to select the
best of the applicants. Additionally, I think they should also
be given the authority to employ one or two additional clerical
staff to help the school in the administration.
The Minister mentioned about the pastoral care and career
guidance and the steps being taken. If there is any omission in
our present school system, Mr Chairman, it is the lack of
pastoral care and career guidance in the schools. As far as our
academic standard is concerned, I think we should have no concern
about that. The academic standard in Singapore is comparable to
the best, in my view, of the schools in the Commonwealth and even
in the United States. We all know how well our students compete
with the undergraduates in the various universities abroad. But
it is this area of pastoral care and career guidance, which has
been missing from our school system and I am very glad indeed
that the Minister has agreed to adopt that recommendation. I
hope that the Institute of Education will accelerate the
establishment of this Department and go ahead with the training
of teachers in this particular area.
Finally, Sir, with regard to the independent schools, as the
Minister has mentioned, it is entirely up to the school to offer
its scheme to go independent. I
Column: 619
hope, however, in the process teachers from the Government
schools, ie, the good teachers, will not be drawn into the
independent schools.
The Chairman: Dr Lau, your time is up.
Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights)(In Mandarin): Mr
Chairman, Sir, I share the sentiments of the Member for Serangoon
Gardens. I am glad that the Minister now says that measures have
been taken to upgrade our educational standards, including the
adoption of single session for secondary schools, providing
office administrative staff, strengthening pastoral care and
career guidance for the students and promoting independent
schools. All these measures, if implemented in toto, will
definitely entail greater expenditure for the Ministry of
Education. The question is whether the Government will give
greater subsidy to education so that such increase in expenditure
will not be transferred to the consumers. This is a question
that everyone is concerned about.
As a member of the Feedback Unit Supervisory Panel and the
Government Parliamentary Committee on Education, I have been able
to get in touch with people from all walks of life. I feel that
many of them are worried whether in future, particularly when
implementing the idea of independent schools, schools tuition
fees will be greatly increased. Although the Minister for
Education said just now that on implemention there would be a
scheme to ensure that needy students would not be deprived of
education because of poverty, he did not mention whether, or to
what extent, school fees would be increased. From the feedback
from members of the public we found that they are very concerned
about whether school fees will be greatly increased and the
extent of such increase. They are also worried that when
independent schools have increased their school fees, Government
schools and aided schools would also follow suit and increase
their school fees. Some people openly discuss this question
while many more others discuss privately and quietly whether
school fees would be greatly increased in future and
Column: 620
whether such increase would be passed over to the consumers or
whether the Government would continue to give big subsidies to
education. Are all these worries and concerns of members of the
public correct or well founded or not? I hope the Minister will
give an answer to allay their fears and suspicion.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): Sir, I am glad to hear the
reply made by the Minister. It is amazing that within a short
space of time the Minister managed to get all the information,
browse it through discussion, come to a conclusion and give this
House and the people of Singapore a crystal clear direction.
As the Minister mentioned just now, over 30 years ago in
1957, an intensive school building programme was initiated where
double session schooling was first introduced. Then in 1958, the
Singapore Polytechnic was established. The great demand for
adult education was met through the Singapore Council for Adult
Education or more popularly known as the Adult Education Board.
Let us compare 30 years after 1959. The Minister mentioned that
instead of having double session schools we are going to have
single session schools. We are going to build between 40 and 50
secondary schools within the next 6-7 years. For adult
education, our Government has introduced BEST, MOST and then
WISE. What can be wiser than by giving us today a clear
direction of excellence in schools and, of course, independent
schools which I will comment later.
In my meeting with the community leaders, there are three
major areas which the people are concerned about. First, they
are worried about the criteria of admission that would be adopted
in the independent schools. This has to be answered by the
Minister. Second, fees. I am glad that the Minister mentioned
that the Government will take care of it. I am not quite sure
whether the independent schools will look after it. And third,
the community. I would say that the moment our kids manage to
go to independent schools, it is best that parents do not worry
about it. We have nothing to worry about it because the
Column: 621
community as a whole is responsible for it. If it is a Malay
community, let the community take it as their responsibility, as
a present, as an award to the parents or to the students.
As far as the growing elitism is concerned, my conclusion
is that any tendency towards elitism would be eroded over time
by Singaporeans' sense of common destiny and common aspirations.
I always believe that whatever measures taken, let us put
everything equal.
On the suggestion made by the Minister, I would like to
highlight one important area and, that is, the number of students
in the class. Being a former teacher, I always believe that if
you put 40 students in a class, say, in ACS, and 20 students in
another class, let us say, in Raffles Institution, I have this
notion somehow or other, that everything being equal, the school
with 20 students in a class will perform better. I am indeed
glad that the number of pupils in a class is 30. Who knows, as
time goes by, maybe we can make it to 25, 20 or even 15, as
suggested by the principals. I congratulate the Minister.
Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): I am glad to hear from
the Minister that steps are finally being taken to reduce the
class size. I believe 30 at the moment is a realistic figure
although we know that the smaller the number the better. But I
have no quarrel with the number of 30 in the class in Singapore's
present context. But I would urge the Minister to implement this
policy as fast as he can because as long as there are 40-45
pupils in the class there will be very bad results. What will
happen will be that a teacher who is confronted with 40 pupils
in the class will be indifferent. He just simply cannot teach.
He will not volunteer to do extra work and he will lose
interest. There is less motivation and in the circumstances the
authority will probably put pressure on the teacher and say,
"Look. You have to do this amount of work." The teacher is
forced to give so many essays and so many sums a week. This kind
of method will in fact make the situation even worse. With a
bigger class, things will always get worse and it would not be
better. There will of course be no effective teaching and that
is why in Singa-
Column: 622
pore we have got such widespread private tuition.
Recently we have read in the papers that even someone at
Primary 5 level is employed to teach a Primary 4 student. The
situation as regards private tuition in Singapore is really bad
because it stems from big classrooms. Too many in the class.
Of course, economies of scale in school management is an unwise
policy. You try to save and the situation is made worse. What
will be the result? The students who come out from such large
schools suffer from apathy. They do not seem to have an interest
in anything. There is a lack of social consciousness and it will
be difficult for the authorities. More stringent laws will have
to be enforced to keep this type of people in place. I think it
is a very good thing that the number of pupils in the classroom
is becoming smaller. If there are too many pupils in the class,
it also does not encourage creativity. There is no motivation
for innovative teaching. It will always be mechanical. This is
not good as far as education theory is concerned.
What is the aim of education? Of course, it is to bring up
students so that when they come out of school, they will have,
what they call, an all-round development. What does it mean?
It means that he is physically and mentally developed. He will
be a good citizen. I think I did not hear the Minister mention
that. In fact, one of the main aims of education is to teach
students to think. That is very important. At the end of the
day, what we want are students who are self-confident, who can
think and who can solve problems by themselves. These are very
important aims of education. I hope the Minister will bear that
in mind.
In Singapore's context, another important area which is not
touched on in our schools is the teaching of democracy. I
believe Germany suffered a totalitarian type of government and
after the war, when the Allies gave independence to them, they
had this subject in the schools - what democracy is all about.
Teach the students our Constitution, our parliamentary processes,
their rights, their duties as citizens. If we really want to be
a democratic society, we have to include this in our
Column: 623
schools. I think it is very important and I hope the Minister
will bear in mind and have some things done in this area.
The Chairman: Mr Chiam, your time is up.
Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, I welcome the response of the
Minister for Education. I think he has got the priorities right
and I wish him luck and success in the education direction that
he is charting for the Ministry of Education.
On the proposal to set up independent schools, I have only
three areas of concern. The first is the confusion that the
current debate has created in the minds of many. Secondly, what
the product of the proposed independent schools will be and,
thirdly, converting Raffles Institution into an independent
school. I believe the principal argument behind the Government's
proposal to set up independent schools is this. There is a
danger of our schools which are centrally controlled, remaining
stereotyped; the bureaucracy may stifle initiative and
educational innovations. With a few schools going independent,
an element of competition can be injected into the way our
schools are run, and comparisons can then be made between the
strengths and the weaknesses of the different approaches. There
is merit in the argument.
But unfortunately, as the Member for Ayer Rajah and the
Member for Changkat have pointed out, the present debate on the
setting up of independent schools takes a different twist. It
appears that the real intention of the Government is lost. In
the minds of many, independent schools mean excellence, and only
by going independent can schools achieve excellence. This
assumption is misconceived. Excellence can be achieved whether
schools are state schools or independent schools. What
determines excellence finally is the quality of the principals,
the teachers, the pupils and the kind of facilities available.
If the intention of the Government in setting up a few
independent schools is to inject an element of competition in the
way our schools are run, in my view the
Column: 624
best approach to achieve the objective is to let a top Government
school (run as a Government school) compete with a Christian
Mission school and a Chinese school (run as independent schools).
If RI (Raffles Institution), the top Government school, is turned
into an independent school, it will effectively eliminate an
essential element in the competition. RI, for more than a
hundred years, has existed as a Government school. It has also
existed as the premier school among all schools, both Government
and non-Government. It can be said that one of the powerful
forces behind ACS successes is its Christian missionary zeal that
rallies the Methodist community behind the school. In the case
of the more traditional Chinese schools, it is the sentiments for
the Chinese language and culture that draws from the Chinese
community strong support. When ACS and one of the Chinese
schools become independent, they will have very powerful forces
behind them to ensure their success.
RI is different. RI old boys have a different sense of
pride. RI is always 100% Government backed. It is the premier
school. It is always treated more than just a school, it is an
institution. The only school in Singapore treated as an
institution is RI. It is the pride of the then colonial
Government and the pride of the present Government. RI shines
because of its special and prima donna status as a national
educational institution. Remove that status and the force behind
RI's eminence will considerably weaken.
RI, for more than a hundred years, has always held out hopes
to all bright students irrespective of their social background.
Making RI an independent school will cause a feeling of unease
among the middle income and lower income group of parents. This
feeling of unease is still present despite assurances given that
scholarships will be given to children of poor background.
Coming to the product, the possible product of the
independent schools. What will the product be? Will the
product of the independent schools likely to be accustomed to
having the best of everything - the best teachers, the best
facilities and
Column: 625
amenities, the best academic and aesthetic programmes, etc? He
will be spoon-fed with excellence and then on leaving school will
expect the best treatment from society since he is such a
privileged person. Society owes him a living since he has been
specially groomed; it is a matter of course that he should get
preferential treatment in the job market and that he deserves the
best-paying job. It is his right to expect this since he has
the ability to do well in examinations. He is less likely to
want to talk about his obligations and debt to the society that
raised and supported him. In his spare time, he will be more
inclined to take out his violin or paint brushes rather than don
sports shoes to play a game. Although participation in sports
and games is implied, it will be observed that it is
under-emphasized in the "Recommendations of the Principals". One
would think that it is important to inculcate the spirit of
sportsmanship and to develop a team spirit. In all, one does not
get the picture of a rugged (another popular word at one time!),
red-blooded Singaporean but of a pallid, snooty, arty-crafty,
bookish person, more inclined to look out for himself than for
others.
Perhaps, Mr Chairman, Sir, this is a very unfair and
pessimistic projection of the kind of product of the proposed
independent schools. But I think it is worth thinking about what
the product can be if we are not careful about what kind of
inputs that are put into the independent schools.
One final comment on what the Member for Potong Pasir said
about classroom size. While everyone of us welcomes the
reduction of class size, I could not let his comment go
unchallenged when he said that, because of the 40-pupil class
size, therefore teachers were deterred from doing a lot of
things. Despite the 40-pupil class size, teachers have all the
while not been deterred to do extra things.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr Sia Khoon Seong: But, of course, the quality of
attention and the quality of education will be that much
improved if the class size is reduced. There is no lack of
effort, no lack of enthusiasm on the part of teachers. But if
you want quality, reduction of class size will achieve it. Thank
you.
Column: 626
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Chairman, Sir, you have heard my
Committee members express their views. We are glad that the
Minister has identified the four areas concerned - single session
schools and ancillary support for principals, reducing class size
to create a more creative teaching environment, pastoral care,
career guidance in secondary and junior colleges, and the greater
flexibility and autonomy given to schools. I do not want to add
further to the comments made by my Committee members, except to
ask one question: why is it that they are concentrating so much
on secondary schools? I would have thought primary schools
should be considered first because it is in primary schools that
we teach our children good habits, good behaviour, good
attitudes. I was wondering whether we are putting the cart
before the horse.
When my colleague, the Member for Moulmein, mentioned RI,
being an old boy of RI I must also respond. Yes, if you let RI
go independent, I think we are going to have more dissatisfied
parents. RI holds out hope for many parents. It is a good
school. Many of us in this House come from that school and we
are proud to be called Rafflesians. Do not take this hope away
from many parents. Improve it by all means through the
incorporation of the many recommendations. Reducing the intake
into RI, which must inevitably happen if it goes independent,
will definitely dash the hopes of many parents. You must
remember, it is a desired school. Take it away and it will be
perceived as taking away the hopes of the poor bright pupils.
If at all the Ministry should allow an aided school to go
independent, it would be to provide a welcome diversity and
contrast to the state schools.
Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Chairman, Sir, first of all, I
would like to respond to the point which has been raised by three
Members - the Member for Serangoon Gardens, the Member for
Braddell Heights and the Member for Kolam Ayer - and that is
regarding the financing that will be required to implement the
proposals which I have just made. They are right in the sense
that this will require additional funds to be provided by the
Ministry of Finance. All I can say, Sir, is that the
Column: 627
statement which I have just made in reply to Members' comments
has been approved by Cabinet, of which the Minister for Finance
is a member. So I presume that, as and when funds will be
required, funds will flow liberally from the Minister for
Finance. If that is not the case, then I presume also that
Members of Parliament will remind the Ministry of Finance of its
duties to help to provide a good education for our children. And
I would look forward to Members' assistance as and when this is
required.
Secondly, Sir, the proposal from the Member for Serangoon
Gardens that we should extend the autonomy for principals to
allow them to recruit some of their teachers. Sir, this is a
matter which is now being looked at by my Ministry. It is not
an accident that in the principals' report, so much emphasis has
been given to the leading role of the principal as one of the
factors which go to make a good school. Yes, it is necessary in
a school to have good teachers, it is necessary to have committed
teachers. But it is also essential, vital, to have a leader,
someone who can coordinate the teachers, someone who has got a
sense of vision, someone who can make his teachers share the
sense of vision of what a good education is, someone who can be
an inspiration to his teachers or her teachers. And it will be
the intention of the Ministry of Education to try and see how we
can give our principals as much flexibility and autonomy as
possible, consistent with the need to have checks and balances
to avoid abuses of authority. So this is an area which we will
look into. My own view is that when you are proceeding with
these matters, it is better to approach them cautiously, and that
is, to relax only when we are sure that such relaxation will be
for the good and will not cause abuses.
Now, Sir, the matter of class size was brought up by a
number of Members here. Yes, like everyone else, we would like
to implement this recommendation as quickly as possible and to
reduce the class size expeditiously. But it takes time to
recruit teachers, it takes time to train teachers. I think one
of the problems which
Column: 628
we have had in education is this. When we decided to achieve our
aim of providing a place in school for every child of
school-going age, we had to expedite the training of teachers.
That is why we have the normal trained teachers. While I
appreciate the feeling of the Members that we should try and
expedite this as quickly as possible, I think, Sir, that it is
only fair to our children that we should make sure that we
recruit the right type of teachers not only with the ability, not
only with the technical knowledge, but also with the right
attitude. We must have men and women who not only know their
subjects but who want to teach, men and women for whom teaching
is not only a job but a profession and a commitment, men and
women who like to bring up children and see them grow under their
charge. So it will take time and I think that it is better that
we select our teachers carefully and we train them carefully
rather than try and rush into reducing class size within any
specified period of time.
Now, Sir, on the comment from the Member for Ayer Rajah as
to why are we concentrating so much on secondary schools and what
about the primary schools. Yes, the primary schools are just as
important as the secondary schools. But we have to make a start
somewhere. And it is the years from the age of 12 to 16 that are
the most formative period of a child. It is there that the child
is beginning to form attitudes, is beginning to think about what
careers he would want to aim for. These are the years when the
child's teachers and the principals have a maximum influence on
the child's development. And that is why, for a start, we have
to concentrate our efforts on the secondary schools. When we
have done that, I promise the Member for Ayer Rajah that we will
not forget the primary schools and they will certainly have our
attention as well.
In these remarks I think I have also covered most of the
points of the Member for Potong Pasir except that he says that
we have left out two things. One is that I have not mentioned
that we have to teach students how to think. Sir, I will send
him a copy of my speech which I made to the Harvard Club of
Singapore in which he will see that this topic is adequately
covered.
Column: 629
Secondly, on the point about teaching democracy to students
in our schools. I recommend that when he goes back - I know he
has children studying in schools - he looks at the Civics
textbooks which his children have and he will see that this topic
is adequately covered.
Finally, Sir, the point about Raffles Institution. I think
this is a point of great emotion for many Members of the House
here. I know there are 11 Members of this House who can count
on RI as their alma mater. Sir, I do not think that it would be
right for us at this stage to take a final decision on how RI
should go independent. What we know is that RI is a premier
school. RI is a jewel in the educational crown of Singapore.
All that we want to do is to make sure that RI retains its
leading position among the schools in Singapore. There is now
a committee which has been set up comprising old boys, the
principal and other people who are concerned for the welfare of
RI. I am sure that this committee will take into account the
strong views which have been expressed by the Member for Ayer
Rajah and the Member for Moulmein. It may not be incompatible
for RI to have a high degree of independence and yet remain
within the ambit of the Government schools. But I think, Sir,
I would prefer that this be left, on reflection, to the committee
so that they can come up with the best solution to giving RI the
maximum independence and autonomy that is possible and yet retain
its leading position among the Government schools in Singapore.
If that is possible, Sir, then I can assure the Member for Ayer
Rajah and the Member for Moulmein that the Ministry will not
stand in the way of the committee. But at all cost, I think the
final solution that we take must be to enable RI to progress
further and to retain its position as one of our most leading
schools in Singapore.
Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Minister has not
touched on my point regarding the tuition fees of University
students. I do not know whether he would like to take this
opportunity to answer or he would want to leave it to others to
answer it.
Column: 630
Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I was proposing to respond to
the Member under the cut of the Financing of the National
University of Singapore. But since he has raised it, I will say
this. On the point about the interest rate, I have received a
petition from the Students' Union of the National University of
Singapore and the Nanyang Technological Institute requesting
among other things for some concession or some reduction in the
interest rate. I am at present in the process of discussing
their request with the University authorities and also with the
Ministry of Finance and I will obviously take into account the
Member's suggestion in my discussions.
Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the
Minister for his clarification regarding the role of principals.
Would the Minister care to clarify about the role of the board
of governors as he perceives it?
Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Chairman, on the question of
converting RI to an independent school, I think the Minister must
take note of this point. Converting schools to independent
schools is a project under experiment. In other words, we are not
sure of the pluses or the minuses. It is a good idea. We should
try. And since Singapore is so short of talents and RI is the
place where we capture the talents, and so also a few other
schools, I think we cannot at this stage of experimentation bank
all we have in as far as our small pool of talents on
experimentation. So can we not wait until the appropriate time?
If the independent school concept and the proposal is a very
successful project and it has got a lot of features which are
desirable, then not only RI should go independent but more
schools should go independent. The question is: at this point
of time, should we not be more prudent in the way we manage our
human resources, especially when we are in short supply of
talents and when we have got to be very careful in the way we
nurture our talents? And RI's way of nurturing talents all these
years has produced results. Until we are sure of a new approach,
let us not experiment with it.
Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, first, I will respond to the
point of the Member for Fengshan regarding the responsibilities
of
Column: 631
the board of governors. During the visits which I made with the
principals to the independent schools in Britain and the United
States, basically, we found that the board of governors have four
responsibilities.
The first one which is very important is the appointment of
the headmaster or the headmistress, ie, the principal of the
school. That, rightly, Sir, they give a lot of attention and a
lot of time.
The second responsibility is when the school makes a major
financial decision, ie, if they want to build a new hall or a new
school wing, then obviously the board of governors would have to
come into the picture. Or when the school makes a major change
from its traditional policies. For example, if it is a boys'
school and it is felt that they should now start admitting girls
in the Sixth Form, then this would be an area which the board of
governors will want to have a say.
Then there are two other areas, Sir, which are not of the
same magnitude as these two areas but which are also given very
great importance by the board of governors. One is when a
teacher has to be dismissed or to be asked to leave the school.
The system in the independent schools is that the board of
governors would have full confidence and trust in the principal
to select the teachers because it is felt that this is necessary
to enable the principal to build up his own team. But where, for
various reasons, the teacher does not work out well and has to
be asked to leave the school, then the responsibility is taken
not by the principal but by the board of governors. Of course,
the principal and heads of departments will have their say but
the board of governors make it very sure that theirs is the final
decision. And if we have a responsible board of governors, I do
not think that this will be done lightly.
The fourth area, Sir, is when a child has to be expelled
from the school for grave misdemeanours. This may be regarded
as not of the same magnitude as the other three. But rightly,
Sir, the board of governors feels that this is a very traumatic
experience both for the child as well as
Column: 632
for the parents and therefore they say no child should be
expelled or be asked to leave a school without the approval,
explicitly, of the board of governors. These are the four major
responsibilities of the board of governors of the independent
schools overseas.
Then, Sir, on the point made by the Member for Moulmein
about RI - that we should take our time and not rush into such
matters as changing RI into an independent school. I am not
known to be a person of reckless disposition. In fact, I think
the comment which I have heard about the independent schools is,
"Why are we doing things so slowly? We seem to be talking a lot
about it. Unlike some other Government initiatives, we are
taking our time over this." I think that this is right.
Education is a very important process. Whatever experiments we
do, at the very least it must affect one cohort, one generation,
of students. And I do not think that we should lightly go into
education innovation until we have thought the matter out fully
and be sure that as best as we can, we are confident that this
will be for the benefit of the children, for whose benefit we are
now putting through this innovation. Sir, I can assure the
Member for Moulmein that all these will be given very careful
consideration before RI changes its status.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Chairman, Sir, before I withdraw my
amendment, I would like to say a few more words. We have been
criticizing but I think sometimes we should make some
recommendations and that is what I intend to do.
The Ministry of Education's approach in stressing that the
objective of the principals' report is to identify principles for
excellence which could be applied to all schools is correct. It
is also correct to stress that the initiative for independent
schools should come from the schools themselves and the Ministry
would not impose on any school to go independent. But
unfortunately, this message is either not getting through to the
majority of the population or that many are sceptical of the
sincerity of the Government. Therefore, it is imperative that
the Ministry of Education continue to reiterate and reinforce
this message that excellence is for all
Column: 633
schools and initiative for independent schools should be from the
schools themselves.
The Ministry should also lay to rest the confusion in
terminology between excellence, independence and privatization.
More importantly, the Ministry must not only be saying that it
is genuinely interested in improving all schools but also be seen
to be doing so. Therefore, to convince the people that the
Government's object is to improve the quality of schools as a
whole, the Government should as far as possible implement some
of the recommendations, pastoral care and career guidance and
single session in all schools before embarking on independent
schools. Perhaps then there will be less antagonism and
apprehension but better acceptance when independent schools are
introduced.
Parents tend to be emotional and fear the worst on changes
in education matters, especially when there is no precedence in
such an area. Education is a national concern. And all along,
the Government has kept a tight rein on it. Parents must be
assured that the establishment of independent schools would not
disadvantage one child against another but instead would benefit
all children. They also need time to be informed and to get used
to the idea. Many parents are quick to criticize the educational
system. In particular, the parents' over-emphasis on academic
excellence at the expense of a more rounded education. Perhaps
our system of meritocracy has contributed to this obsession. But
parents too have a responsibility for they decry the attention
placed on academic excellence. They are also the ones to
complain about their children spending too much time on ECA at
the expense of their studies. Many parents are unaware that if
they desire all-rounded education and excellence, they together
with the principals, teachers and Government, too have a part to
play. This must be emphasised.
Even those who concede to the benefits of independent
schools are concerned that there would not be good Government
schools left if all of them go independent.
Column: 634
To many, it is logical for Government-aided schools, with their
tradition of independence, to become independent schools. But
good Government schools should remain as such, as they represent
hope to many disadvantaged parents of a better future for their
children. This hope must be preserved. Not all good Government
schools should go independent. These schools should be
maintained as they can also provide healthy competition to the
independent schools.
Undoubtedly, there are many benefits in having independent
schools. It is like providing another kind of service to the
consumer. And it provides contrast and diversity. A minority
understand this and even extol the virtues of such schools.
What many object to is the over-emphasis on premier schools and
the seeming neglect of the majority of the schools.
The perceived anxiety and apprehension related to
independent schools must not be allowed to overshadow the good
intentions of the Government in introducing the independent
school system. Perhaps, Sir, the answer lies in being more
process-orientated rather than being solely goal-orientated in
the attainment of excellence in education.
Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, I beg to move,
That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10
in respect of Subhead LA-01-1210 of the Main Estimates*.
Sir, with so much attention now focussed on independent
schools and the recomendations of the 12 principals, is the
Ministry going to neglect other areas of concern that need equal
urgent attention of the Ministry of Education? I refer
specifically to three issues, namely, the heavy dependence on
relief teaching, the problem of coping with increasing demand for
HSC education and the depletion of experienced teachers through
retirement.
To me, the problem of relief teachers has to be given urgent
attention in its present drive for excellence in schools. No
Column: 635
matter how much is done to improve on the quality of teachers and
education, the efforts will be negated by our heavy dependence
on relief teachers. This problem is going to be compounded
many-fold by the introduction of more generous leave provisions
for female officers in the Civil Serice. Not only the present
number of relief teachers will be doubled, but also the period
of leave in some instances will be extended beyond six months.
Need I to say of the dire consequences this will have on the
education of those affected? The problem is even more acute in
the girls' schools where almost all the teachers are female,
especially if the set of Government incentives on procreation
works.
The problem of relief teachers is not new. Yet a complete
or even a partial solution seems so elusive. Now it is going to
become more acute. When relief teachers take over, it is not
only upsetting to the pupils' pace of learning but also
disruptive. The problem will be less if all the relief teachers
were trained teachers. In our schools, the relief problem is
further aggravated by the predominance of untrained teachers,
many of whom are young job seekers waiting for their first job.
They come and they go as they please.
I appreciate that in the nature of things, the dependency
on relief teachers is unavoidable. What I do question is whether
enough of effort and imagination have been put into working out
a scheme that will ensure the attainment of certain standards in
relief teaching, at least in the foreseeable future. Even if
this means incurring extra expenditure, the extra money spent is
well worth it.
On the problem of increasing demand for HSC education, last
year the junior colleges were overcrowded because there were more
students than what the capacity of the junior colleges could
ideally cope. This year the problem is even worse, I believe.
I believe there is an excess of several thousand students more
than the present capacity of junior colleges could ideally cope.
The problem must become more acute in the coming years as a
greater number of students will qualify for entry to junior
colleges and pre-university
Column: 636
centres, with better teaching and learning facilities. Before,
most parents would have been satisfied with an 'O' level
certificate for their children. Now most parents will not be
happy with nothing less than an 'A' level certificate.
We should also be concerned that over the next few years we
will be losing the services of some 1,000 to 2,000 experienced
principals and teachers in both primary and secondary schools who
will be retiring. This coupled with the fact that we are already
engaging a large number of relief teachers means that we will be
extremely short, not only in terms of numbers, but more
important, in terms of experience. Perhaps the best thing to do
now is to take advantage of the recession and the excess of
job-seekers to recruit the best in order to resolve the perennial
problem of teacher shortage.
This is a time of transition. We must ensure a smooth
changeover as the young take over from the old. We would do well
to provide the younger group, especially those who are assuming
positions of responsibility, with some assistance and guidance
from the older group. Perhaps we should retain a certain number
of the old but experienced principals as consultants to their
younger colleagues.
Encik Ibrahim Othman (Tanah Merah): Sir, I wish to join
my colleague, the Member for Moulmein, in talking about teachers.
I think we cannot deny the fact that teachers make a very
big contribution to the making of a very good school. We have
within our system qualified and dedicated teachers who could be
relied upon to carry out their duties in implementing educational
policies laid down by the Ministry of Education.
The Ministry of Education has constantly looked into the
qualification of teachers and has encouraged many teachers to
pursue higher studies. This is in line with the recommendations
made in the 1978 Goh Keng Swee Report, which states:
'The Ministry should offer opportunities for deserving
teachers to further improve themselves academically and
professionally. For example, selected teachers with GCE 'O' and
'A' level qualifications should be given the opportunities
respectively to study for their 'A' level and degrees with full
pay.'
Column: 637
Sir, I wish to know, up till today, how many teachers have
been given this opportunity to further their studies? And what
other plans are there to upgrade our teachers' qualifications?
To pursue this matter further, I am pleased to note that the
Ministry has been sponsoring teachers to do their second degree,
especially their Masters degree. However, sometimes the Ministry
has not been kind in giving study leave to deserving teachers who
want to do their second degree on their own. I know of a number
of applications for study leave to go overseas made by teachers
rejected by the Ministry due to reasons known only to the
Ministry's officials. Besides, some teachers admitted to the
Masters-in-Education course at the Institute of Education this
year were not given study leave by the Ministry of Education.
I thought this is part of the process whereby if we want to
achieve excellence in schools we must give the opportunity to
teachers to improve themselves academically and professionally.
I wish to know the Ministry's policy on encouraging teachers to
pursue higher studies. I am of the opinion that teachers have
to be given time off after a few years of teaching to further
their studies. Sir, I wish to say that I am presently in the
Education Service. However, I do not have any direct interest
in the matter that I am raising about. I can tell you, Sir, that
it is frustrating teaching year after year and when we want a
break of about a few months we are not given the chance even if
we want to go on our own. So after five or six years of service,
this sabbatical leave would do a lot of good to the teachers
concerned. I think there is a scheme in the University to
encourage lecturers to go on sabbatical leave. I am sure
teachers will be more motivated, eager and enthusiastic to impart
their newly acquired knowledge to their pupils. The students on
the other hand will look upon them as models to excel in their
studies. I hope the Minister would comment on this matter.
Another point I wish to make is connected with pre-primary
education. Last year when the Minister for Education replied to
Members in this House during the Committee of Supply, he touched
on how the quality of education in our schools can be improved
at various levels.
Column: 638
At the primary schools, there are plans to make pre-primary
programme available to more children, including those children
who take Malay or Tamil as their second language. This
pre-primary programme which was started in 1978 has shown that
an early start in proper language instruction is useful in
providing pupils with a stronger foundation in school languages.
This phase of education is necessary to prepare a child for a
normal primary education, especially English. As such, the
Ministry must continue to increase the intake of pupils into
pre-primary classes. I wish to know the progress of the plans
of the Ministry of Education to increase the intake of
pre-primary children, including those who take Malay or Tamil as
a second language. I hope the Minister could elaborate.
The Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Sir, I would like to reply to the points brought up by the Member
for Moulmein and the Member for Tanah Merah. Both Members touch
on matters to do with teachers and the teaching service.
The Member for Moulmein highlighted three points. One was
that of the problem of relief teachers and what the Ministry
proposes to do to reduce the dependence on relief teachers and
to reduce the vacancies. I gave him an answer in a Question for
Oral Answer two days ago when he raised this, and I think it is
worthwhile for me to elaborate on the answer then. We have about
600 relief teachers today, and that is about one or two teachers
per school. The number has been coming down as we have had more
success in recent years in recruiting teachers into the teaching
service. But the problem still lies with the question of how
quickly we can find people who have the right qualifications and
aptitudes for teaching. We would of course like to encourage as
many as possible to join the teaching service but, like other
services in Singapore, we are competing with many sectors for
graduates and for 'A' level school leavers who could come to the
teaching service.
It is true that in the last two years, with recession, we
have had more success in recruiting teachers. But I can assure
the Member that we spare no efforts in trying to do so. We have,
in fact, publicized the
Column: 639
teaching service to students while they are at junior colleges
to let them know what the teaching service is about so that, when
they leave or when they go to university, this is one option they
can keep in mind. I just would like to bring a personal
experience to illustrate this problem. A parent spoke to me
sometime ago on this very point about the lack of teachers and
how she wanted to see more better qualified teachers in our
schools, and I agreed with her. I asked her how many children
she had. She told me she had two daughters and that they were
at the upper secondary, pre-university level. I asked her that
when her children finally leave school would she encourage them
to become teachers. She hesitated. In other words, she was not
willing to encourage her children to take up a profession which
she knew was useful and important. I think there lies the root
of one of our problems. People have different ambitions and
expectations and the teaching profession has to compete with all
other professions.
Today, the teaching profession is a well-paying profession.
The conditions of work are improving. As you heard from the
Minister just now, steps are being taken to reduce class sizes.
This will take time. Ancillary staff will be provided to make
administrative chores less of a problem and allow teachers to
spend more of their time in the real task of teaching. All these
moves are in the right direction to make the teaching profession
an even more rewarding one. Our hope is that we can get more
people to come into this service. Even career counselling that
was mentioned by several Members is a part of this because last
year the IE wanted to take in 600 into their course. They had
4,000 applicants and they had to reject many of them because they
did not have the requisite teaching subjects when they applied.
They did the wrong combinations when they were at the
university, for example. This is where career counselling would
have helped some of them before they embarked on their courses
at the university.
The Member for Moulmein also brought up this question of the
overcrowding of our junior colleges and the large numbers
Column: 640
that are now registering to come in. I want to take this
opportunity to link this question with the point brought up by
the Member for Leng Kee who expressed concern that students today
seem not to want to join the Polytechnics to do technical courses
leading to a diploma. Sir, these two issues are inter-related
because the junior colleges and the pre-university centres, on
the one hand, and the Polytechnics, on the other, draw from
essentially the same pool of 'O' level students. I would like
to provide Members with some information and background on this
to see how the trend or the choice of the students affects one
institution or the other.
Every year, about 30,000-35,000 students complete their 'O'
levels. Of course, many go on to work but many also aspire to
join the pre-university centres and junior colleges to do their
'A' levels. Others want to go to the Polytechnics and yet others
want to join the VITB or the EDB training centres to further
their skills. In the last few years the trend has been that more
and more students choose to go to the junior colleges and
pre-university centres to do 'A' levels. From 1983 to 1986, the
increase has been in the direction towards the 'A' level courses.
In 1983, 9,500 went to the pre-university centres and junior
colleges. In 1986, 13,300 went to the pre-university centres and
junior colleges, an increase of 40%.
This is understandable in that perhaps students'
expectations have risen and they believe that by going to these
institutions and doing their 'A' levels their chances of going
to university will be greatly enhanced. But the reality of the
situation is that not all students who do their 'A' levels go on
to university. The university has been expanding but there is
a limit to the number of students the University can take in
based on the capacity of the faculties and based also on what the
country as a whole needs in terms of various types of graduates.
For example, the country needs about 200 doctors per year for
replacement purposes into the medical careers and it does not
make sense to expand that intake at great cost simply because a
lot of people want to be doctors. The overall picture has to be
taken into account by the University in relation to the country's
needs.
Column: 641
Of the students who go to junior colleges and pre-university centres to do their 'A' levels, obviously only the
ones who have got very good 'A' levels have the chance to go to
NUS because it is by competition. Let me just give Members the
latest figures. The 1985 candidates totalled 10,260 doing 'A'
levels. Admission into NUS in 1986, last year, was 4,698. That
is to say the success rate was less than half, 46%. So the
majority with 'A' levels go on to other streams, to work, to
become teachers through the IE and to various other careers. I
think this point needs to be understood by students who opt to
go for 'A' level studies and that their chance is as indicated
here.
On the other hand, the needs of our economy today are very
wide. We have people who are needed at all levels, graduates as
well as large numbers of non-graduates. The job situation is
complex and we need to give career guidance. We need to inform
our students while they are at school or at junior colleges or
before they leave the secondary school what all these different
types of careers and jobs are and how a person may get into them
and what the opportunities are. For example, let us take
graduate engineers and technicians who have a diploma from the
Polytechnic. From the feedback we get from employers who employ
both types of people, for every one engineer that they employ
they need to employ three or four or more technicians or
technologists. That is what the employers need. So it is
important that in the educational institutions that prepare
people for this, there should be cognizance of this fact and
there should be a balance in the places available and we need to
let our students know this.
Another point that perhaps is not understood by many
students when they make these choices, apart from the
opportunities, is that unless the student has very good 'O' level
results, when he does his 'A' levels the likelihood of his
getting very good 'A' level results is also affected and unless
he gets very good 'A' level results his chances of going to NUS
would be that much less. I have asked my officers to look into
the records in the last few years to see how the 'O' level
results of students influence or is related to their likelihood
of getting into NUS through the 'A' levels or,
Column: 642
in the case of those who go to the Polytechnics, the likelihood
that they will get a diploma at the end of their three-year
study. They looked at students with 'O' level results in the
range from 15 points to 20 points and that is an average group,
in the middle band, so to speak, ie, 15 points to 20 points at
'O' levels based on five subjects. In that group, less than one
in five students successfully obtained good 'A' level results and
went on to the NUS, which is to say that unless you have better
than 15 points your chances are less than 20%.
On the other hand, the same group of students with the same
15-20 points who joined the polytechnics, after three years of
study, more than 90% successfully completed their Polytechnic
diploma. This again needs to be made known so that students can
weigh their chances and make a realistic decision on which course
they should go for. There is no doubt in my mind that we need
to do more in the way of information providing and career
guidance in our secondary schools, and this point has been
stressed by at least two Members of Parliament. This process is
already going on and we will do more. For example, reference was
made to the Polytechnics and even the VITB sending people with
audio-visual aids and so on to secondary schools to brief
students in Secondary 4 on courses they run and, more than that,
on the careers and jobs that these courses lead to. This is a
move in the right direction and it provides information and
allows students as well as the teachers in the schools to raise
questions and to clarify many points. More of this will be done
in the next few years. My belief is that when students are
better informed on these matters they will make better and more
realistic choices concerning their own careers.
The Member for Moulmein talked about the teachers retiring
in the next few years. I assure him that we are fully aware of
this. In fact, we have a manpower plan for the teaching service
by making allowance for teachers who will retire as well as the
new teachers that have to be brought in, and this is reflected
finally in the recruitment figures for the Institute of
Education. So we are preparing all the time for this because
this is a never-ending process.
Column: 643
The Member for Tanah Merah talked about opportunities for
teachers to improve themselves during their teaching service.
I agree with him that it is important that there are
opportunities for teachers, particularly to refresh themselves
after teaching for a number of years. Various schemes are
available at present to enable teachers to do this. Let me give
him some examples of this. There are various forms of study
leave for teachers to upgrade themselves. For example, there is
opportunity for teachers who have only '0' levels to work for 'A'
levels. Over the past seven or eight years, something like 1,200
teachers had that opportunity to work for 'A' levels and
therefore improved their general education. There is also
opportunity for teachers who have 'A' levels to work for degrees,
and we award bursaries and scholarships to teachers for NUS
courses and even abroad to get degrees. Again, over the past
seven or eight years, 621 teachers successfully obtained
bursaries and completed their degrees. There were also a number
of teachers who were allowed to go on no-pay leave or half-pay
leave to work for degrees, and this number is 365 over the past
seven or eight years. So there are these opportunities.
But I would like to say that there are also some criteria
behind the decision to let teachers go on to improve themselves.
The most important is that the courses that they pursue should
be relevant to the teaching service and to subjects that are
being taught in schools. The second is that the teachers should
have the adequate years of service as well as pre-requisites in
academic grades and so on before they get bursary awards or go
on to upgrading courses.
The Member suggested that perhaps some kind of sabbatical
leave could be provided. I think sabbatical leave is not
appropriate to the teaching service. What would be more useful
in the teaching service are short breaks where the teachers can
go for refresher courses or in-service courses. As the Member
well knows, there are many courses today available precisely for
this - short courses
Column: 644
at the IE or other institutions like the RELC and the British
Council, where teachers can have a refresher in the subjects they
are teaching or do an in-service course to prepare them for new
subject areas. These opportunities are there.
Finally, he touched on post-graduate education, that is,
going beyond the first degree. The same criteria that I have
mentioned earlier regarding relevance of the course as well as
the teachers' own working experience and educational
qualifications apply. There are small numbers who go away each
year to do post-graduate courses.
I will leave the subject of pre-primary education to be
answered later because I think other Members also want to raise
this matter.
Dr Ow Chin Hock: Sir, I thank the Minister of State for
giving the assurances and the statistics so that the students got
a realistic picture of the careers and courses. I agree with him
that Polytechnic staff members and VITB staff members must do
their share of counselling and guidance. In fact, we have seen
the results - the 9,000-plus applicants for the polytechnics in
no small part is attributed to their help in the last few months.
However, may I ask the Minister of State: is it not more
effective for principals and teachers in secondary schools to
provide this information and guidance? Because students have
been conditioned day in and day out to think only ofJCs and
universities. So how could staff members of polytechnics and
VITBs, within a few hours of counselling, talks and
consultations, change their attitude and counter their biases
against technical education of the polytechnics?
Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Chairman, Sir, from the Minister of
State's reply, I now fully understand why the relief teacher
problem is never solved. It is because the Ministry of Education
has not got the nub of the problem. He gave a long answer to the
effect that there is a big publicity campaign on the
attractiveness of the teaching profession. Yes, to a point it
is useful to have sufficient numbers of teachers of the right
calibre recruited. But
Column: 645
supposing we manage to attract sufficient numbers of teachers or
a number of people of the right calibre into the teaching
profession, and you have filled up your Staff Establishment List
of the Education service. What then?
Let me use a figure by way of example. 18,000 teachers is
all you need and is all that you can have, according to the
number of pupils you have. Making teaching an attractive career
is not going to solve the problem of relief teachers because with
18,000 teachers on the Establishment List, maximum to capacity,
at least 1,000 or 1,500 of them will be on leave for some courses
or on maternity leave. And now with this more generous provision
of leave for procreation, with a longer leave, more people will
be taking leave, I want to ask a question: how is the
attractiveness of the teaching profession going to solve this
problem? Are you going to employ extra teachers? You cannot,
isn't it? So I think sometimes these shortages are temporary and
you have to find a way to solve this temporary problem. There
may be an abundance of job seekers of the right calibre. That
will not help you to solve the relief teacher problem.
My point is that while appreciating that we cannot run away
from the problem of relief teachers, has the Ministry taken
adequate measures to ensure that certain standards are observed?
I think that is the important point that I posed the Minister.
Because now, any Tom, Dick and Harry can just take the job and
become a relief teacher. And I think this is what the parents
as well as teachers are concerned about. For example, I know for
a fact that there are thousands of retired teachers, experienced,
qualified teachers, who have either retired or resigned, will not
want to take up the relief teaching job because the rate of
remuneration is so miserable. Has the Ministry considered, for
example, reviewing its rates of remuneration to attract the right
people? $30, or something like that, a day to attract a
qualified teacher to do relief teaching? You are asking too
much. So I think the problem is: does the Ministry think about
the problem in the right direction? From the answer that the
Minister of State gave, obviously they have not.
Column: 646
Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, may I just be allowed to
make certain observations of what the Minister has said. The
last Education report we had was chaired by Dr Goh Keng Swee and
it highlighted the pass rates of five countries, from primary
level all the way up to university level, and the countries
compared, I believe, were France, Taiwan, England, Japan and
Singapore. We had the lowest pass rates for all the countries,
all the way to secondary and 'A' levels, up to university.
I note that out of the 10,260 'A' level students who took
their examinations, from the results that came out in 1986, less
than half passed. Is that what you say? Or half were admitted
to the NUS? But anyway, their grades were not good enough.
Their grades were not good enough for them to be admitted to the
NUS. My question is: since the Goh Keng Swee Report was
published, have we done anything in regard to this great
attrition rate in our schools? Have we done anything to correct
this problem? I believe it is a grave problem. If I remember,
I think out of a cohort of, say, 100 in Japan, I think 90 of them
reached 'A' levels, and out of that 90, another 34.
[Interruption] Anyway, what we want to know is that since that
Report was published, have the children of our schools improved
in their performance? That is what I want to know.
Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Chairman, Sir, the main points
will be taken by the Minister of State. I just want to respond
to a point from the Member for Potong Pasir. I think what he is
asking is: since the Goh Keng Swee Report, are there more
students who are going on to university?
Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, overall passes all the way. What
I want to know is up to secondary, 'A' levels, and up to
university level, have we improved since the Report was
published?
Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: The answer is yes. In 1979, if I
remember correctly, the number admitted to NUS was about 3,000
students every year.
Mr Chiam See Tong: In percentages?
Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: The number which will be admitted
to NUS this year
Column: 647
and last year is in the region of 4,500 and 5,000 students. So
the number has gone up by at least 50%. In terms of percentages,
more of our students are now passing their '0' levels and more
of our students are going to some form of post-secondary
education, either at junior colleges or at our pre-U centres or
at our polytechnics. Therefore, the number of students having
some form of advanced training after secondary level has gone up
at all levels.
Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not know where
we are now. But I suppose we are still on this vote for
administrative manpower, and that includes teachers and the
quality of teachers. Since the Minister has earlier mentioned
single session schools, it would mean that eventually we will
need more teachers to man these schools.
This single session school is, I think, a very good
move. I for one am one of the products of a single session
school. There is a lot of merit in it; for instance,
procreation. But I hope you will not rule me out of order. It
is very true that single session schools have got this. I
remember when I was in Chinese High School - I know this is no
laughing matter; I am serious - it was a single session school
and at that time the Nanyang Girls' School happened to be just
round the corner. And in between the Chinese High School and the
Nanyang Girls' School, there was a huge piece of jungle of, what
you call it, rubber trees. But they are now all gone. You now
see only bungalows there. But, you see, the good thing about the
single session school is this. You had classes up to 12 o'clock
and then you adjourn for lunch, and then resume at 2 o'clock.
Those two hours is very crucial. A lot of relationships had been
struck during those two hours. When you go to the jungle, you
will see what they call ta tiak, meaning pak tho in Cantonese.
This is one thing. Then there were also students who were doing
other things. Not all the students would go there. As for me,
I did not take advantage of that. Instead I spent all my time
in the library and read books. That was why, instead of getting
a wife, I got myself
Column: 648
involved with the Communists. As a result of that, I think the
single session schools, the procreation part of it, has very good
merit, and that is, we have the time to let students read
extra-curricular books. I remember I read a lot of books, both
orthodox and unorthodox, books like the Dream of Red Chamber and,
what you call, Xi Xiang Ji. It is a romance between a scholar
and a student. But the problem now is that students do not have
enough time to do reading. But with single session schools, they
will have time to do reading and the others will come on its own.
Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua)(In Mandarin): Sir, I would
like to air my views on the Minister's speech about the single
session schools. In my view, with regard to the education
system, usually when the standard of living is raised, the
parents and the whole society also raise their expectations of
the education of their children. When we discuss the question
of change in our education system, usually we do so with some
conservative views. Some will have more advanced views.
The Minister has touched on four main points in the wide
scope of education policy relating to the care and educational
development of our children. I feel that the living standard of
Singapore is rising and the standard of education and technology
has reached a certain stage where if we do not reform or change
certain aspects of the education system, then some parents would
like to ask why do we not make some changes. I feel that where
schools have good facilities and are preparing themselves for
autonomy and to be independent, we should let them have this
opportunity to have a try. I am all for it. However, I must
point out that many people are concerned mainly about educational
expenses or school fees.
The Minister has also touched on his attention to school
fees. If the admission of students into schools would not be
hinged on the ability to pay school fees but on merits then I
would support independent schools. I had intended to speak on
single session schools which could be developed into full day
schools. Sometime ago, we had tried out full day schools. At
that time the Ministry of Finance did not provide adequate
financial support. Therefore, the
Column: 649
facilities were not adequate to cope with the demand of the
schools which implemented full day sessions. Therefore, the
Minister could not have a good success. I hope the single session
will lead to full day school system. We could have a certain
arrangement to provide extra-curricular facilities to be carried
out outside normal school hours, so that students may better
utilize their leisure hours on beneficial activities. In this
way, with adequate facilities, parents will feel safe for their
children while they are working with peace of mind. I hope after
the implementation of single session system in the secondary
schools, the Ministry can go on and implement it in the primary
schools.
Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I think I have touched on the
topic of single session schools at some length during the first
cut, and I would just like to mention to the Member for Yuhua who
has raised this point about fees, that I have already given the
assurance that whatever the arrangements for independent schools
we will make sure that all bright children will have the
opportunity to go to these schools. The Government regards
education as an investment. I think that there are fewer things
on which Government can spend its money more usefully than in
providing a good education for our children. So I do not think,
on that point, that she should have any concern.
Before I pass on to my Minister of State, if I may, Sir, I
would just make one last point. Although I know that there are
many merits in the single session school, I was glad to learn
from the Member for Queenstown that among these merits is the
fact that it will lead to many marriages in our society. That
is a new fact that we can take into account.
Dr Tay Eng Soon: Mr Chairman, two points were brought up
by the Member for Leng Kee and the Member for Moulmein. I would
like to deal, first, with the point brought up by the Member for
Moulmein regarding relief teachers on the one hand and the need
to fill up vacancies and to recruit more teachers on the other.
I think the Member has somehow mixed the two issues. They
are really quite separate. There is no doubt in our mind that
the
Column: 650
goal which we should work towards is to fill up vacancies in our
schools, and we work towards this goal. The solution is not to
try to provide more relief teachers because, by filling up
vacancies, in fact, we make ourselves less dependent on relief
teachers. So the goal that the Ministry has set for itself is
to recruit as many qualified people as possible into the teaching
service to fill up the vacancies, especially now bearing in mind
that we have set ourselves even higher goals, namely, to reduce
the class size and so on. We have to work towards this. And it
is not going to be an easy task because we will not compromise
standards of recruitment into the teaching service in the
interest of the pupils and of the service. This is a process
that will take a number of years.
As for relief teachers, I can assure the Member that there
are minimum requirements for a person to become a relief teacher
in terms of his educational background and even some teaching
experience that he may already have. If the Member feels that
the rate being paid to relief teachers is not adequate, this is
something which the Ministry can look into and, in fact, does
review from time to time. But the solution, as I said, is to work
towards reducing vacancies in the service.
The more generous maternity leave that he pointed out may
help the education service. More women may be willing to come
into the education service precisely because maternity leave is
easier and they do not feel there is a conflict with being a
mother of very young children and being a teacher at the same
time. So we will have to see the impact of this in due course.
The Member for Leng Kee touched on the career guidance and
the importance of involving teachers and principals in this
process. I could not agree with him more. We will certainly, in
developing this programme, involve principals and teachers
because they are the people who are in contact with the students
day in and day out. But I would say that we can go even beyond
that because schools can draw upon outside resources, employers,
parents who have contributions to make to give talks in career
guidance to their own school pupils.
Column: 651
Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Minister of
State is tempting me to continue with this. But in view of the
time factor and the many issues involved, I will allow him one
year to think about what I have said and we will meet again next
year. So in view of that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Goh Choon Kang: Sir, I beg to move,
That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10
in respect of Subhead LA-01 of the Main Estimates*.
Sir, I would just like to take this opportunity to repeat
the question I raised just now, ie, whether the implementation
of the independent schools will result in higher school fees
across the board and, as a result, parents will have to bear a
higher educational cost for the education of their children. I
believe this is one of the main concerns of the public.
Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would just
like to touch on change, not for change's sake but change that
has brought progress for Singapore and the third-world countries.
It means survival.
Sir, our future, as the Prime Minister said and reported in
Newsweek of February 1987, "lies in being plugged into the
international network of trade and communications," which means
from finance to robotics to biotechnology. And this can only be
achieved through our educational system. That is why I must say
that changes in the educational system and innovations in
Singapore started as early as 1946, right after the Second World
War and have continued ever since.
Mr Chairman, Sir, the innovative effort was later embodied
in the Education Ordinance in 1957. But, of course, as we all
know now, it needs an action oriented, business-like Government
like ours to translate intent into action. We have gone through
many phases of educational change. From 1946 to 1956, as
educationists term it, the period of conflict resolution. I
mentioned earlier, in the case of 1957-59, and 1960-68, that
period of
Column: 652
dynamic action, 1969-78, the period of qualitative consolidation
and, of course, 1978 till 1985, upgrading of quality, Dr Goh Keng
Swee's Report on streaming to prevent wastage or wasteful,
talented students, gifted education projects and SAP schools.
Educationists are always being posed with many questions
such as: are there not factors which inhibit change? The answer
is always yes. And they found that whenever a change is being
introduced, there are five areas which hamper changes. One is
the entrenched beliefs and I am quite sure here, with due respect
to my colleague, the Chairman of the GPC on Education, he
expressed that maybe we have to ponder about the change to be
made in RI. I am not a Rafflesian but my boy is. Maybe he may
not agree with me. Second, the stronghold of unrelieved and
monotonous experience. The third hamper, bureaucratic reticence.
Fourth, fear and insecurity. Fifth (maybe this does not apply
to us) limited financial resources and shortage of educators with
both knowledge and perspective. That is why if we were to cover
these five hampers, we will notice that a person like Stedman,
for instance, in his book "Engineering and the many Cultures",
and in De Simone DV, "Education for Innovation, London, Pergamon,
1968" page 40, what did he say? He considered the following as
the killer phrases. What are the killer phrases for change? "We
tried something like that years ago". This reminds me of the
so-called Christian Brothers School run by themselves. "That's
ridiculous", "That's too radical", "Let's form a committee to
consider it", and it takes years and years to find the solution.
"That's contrary to the policy", "Has anyone ever tried it?", "It
won't work", "That's superficial", "That's interesting, but we
don't have the time or manpower". And to add to these, according
to Dr Ruth Wong, a well-used local retort, "My gosh, the English
school teachers will not like it". Or as the case may be, "The
Chinese school teachers will not like it", "The Malay school
teachers will not like it", or "The Tamil school teachers will
not like it".
Column: 653
Ladies and gentlemen, I pose you this question simply
because I think we must ask ourselves: if we agree that
independent school is better than the present school, then we
must change. But if we think, if we observe, if we finally come
to the conclusion, that "towards excellence in school" will give
the right answer, then status quo. Do not change.
So my conclusion, especially to my GPC Chairman, if we
finally found out that independent school is the answer, not to
allow RI to be an independent institution is a disservice to RI.
Unless of course you can find some other alternative and that
alternative maybe to give all the manpower, all the money and
create two RIs. You solve the student population problem. You
need two RIs, two schools to cater, in order to have the 20 or
even 15 students per class. So I wish we can ponder this problem
and, as the Minister said, we come to the conclusion so that that
conclusion will not only satisfy us here in this august Chamber
but the people of Singapore.
Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged to you, Mr Chairman.
May I just mention something about the kindergarten schools found
in our housing estates. I notice that many of them have got PAP
signs outside their premises and exercise books have got the PAP
logo printed on them and the PE outfit has the PAP logo on it.
This is politicizing the kindergartens in our housing estates.
This is not a new thing. In fact, in the early days I believe
some other political parties attempted this and the PAP objected
vehemently. Now the PAP is copying those left-wing communist
orientated political parties and they are doing exactly the same
thing today. I think this is not right and I hope the Minister
will do something to remove all the PAP logo from education
centres and let us not make education a ground for political
work.
We read in the papers the first walk-about of the Second
Defence Minister. He was welcomed by about 300 kindergarten kids
waving pom-poms.
Mr Chandra Das: Why not? Come on.
Mr Chiam See Tong: What do you mean by "why not?" These
poor kids got no choice. They have to go out whether they
Column: 654
like it or not to wave their pom-poms. They have a pressure put
on them to do it. If not, out they go. They probably cannot
attend the kindergartens. So what choice have they got? I hear,
at some other walkabouts, the same thing occurred. So the PAP
is using all these poor kindergarten kids for their own political
purposes. Is this right?
If this kind of standard has been set for one political
party, why not allow other political parties also set up
kindergartens with all their logos put up? I think it is not
correct to allow kindergartens to be politicized.
This question of independent schools has been talked about,
but under the present circumstances I think more than one Member
has mentioned that as long as the Government controls the purse
strings there is no real independence in these schools. It will
just have to follow Government policy, although the name is
"independent" it can never be really independent. So I do not
know whether these so-called independent schools are set up more
for the purposes of the Government than for the sake of good
education, as they say, "excellence in education". But I have
my doubts. Probably, it is more to get the cream of students,
keep them and hopefully get them into Government service and in
the end probably sitting here as Ministers.
An hon. Member: What is wrong? That is the whole idea.
Mr Chiam See Tong: Oh, we have got an admission. I hope
the Minister will come out and say that. So Government money
is to be spent to train our students to be future PAP ministers.
Let the electorate know that.
Independent school, as I say, is not a new thing. Before
the PAP came into power there were many independent schools. The
Member for Queenstown has mentioned this. In fact, he came from
an independent Chinese school. I think all the Chinese schools
in those days were independent.
The Chairman: Mr Chiam, we have been talking about
independent schools since 12.20 pm and a lot of replies has been
given.
Column: 655
Mr Chiam See Tong: The point I am going to make is that
I think the Government should encourage, if they really want
independent schools, the private sector, the business community,
the clan association, whichever section of the community wanting
to set up schools of their own, they should be encouraged. I
think the Government should have a policy telling the people,
"Set up your own schools if you want to." That will really be
independent schools. Of course, I think the Government should
not charge them above the price paid for acquiring the land.
Give them this land at the price paid for to set up schools. I
think, if you really want to set up independent schools, the
Government should take that step.
I notice that the Government education policy is closely
tied to our economic policy. You see what is the number of
doctors that is required, or the number of engineers that is
required, and you churn out that same number. I think this is
a very short-sighted type of education policy. I think we should
have an education policy that trains minds so that the children
can be equipped for life for any work they would later on want
to do. Whatever the course, whatever the subject, I think, a
child who has got talent should be allowed to pursue in that
direction. I do not think a child should be prevented from
fulfilling his or her talent because of certain economic
policies. I think this is short-sighted. Unless a person is
allowed to pursue the things he like, he will never really
succeed in life. He must do the things he likes and not do the
things that he is told.
Dr Tay Eng Soon: There are so many points made which are
not under this Amendment that it will take a little while to sort
it out. But I will deal with the points made by the Member for
Potong Pasir.
First, the subject of kindergartens and the ones provided
by the PAP education centres. I am afraid I detect a tinge of
envy on his part when he said it.
Mr Chiam See Tong: No envy, please.
Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, many kindergartens are providing
this service and they are run by the People's Action Party. Let
me first tell the Member for Potong Pasir that
Column: 656
nobody is compelled to come to these kindergartens. These are
kindergartens fully paid for and run to cater for the children
in the neighbourhood. Not one cent is subsidized by the
Government. And people are free to come to these kindergartens
or to go to other kindergartens.
Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I make a point of clarification?
Is the Minister advocating educational centres with political
aspects to that? Is he advocating that the education system can
be politicized? This is what my objection is all about. I am
not objecting to providing educational service.
Dr Tay Eng Soon: Let me elaborate on this. It is an
educational service. Let us ask ourselves what is taught in the
PAP kindergartens? The subject matter that is being taught is
no different from that taught in the PA kindergartens run in the
community centres. It is very similar to the materials being
taught in private kindergartens run in churches and other
organizations. They learn the basics - drawing, music,
alphabets, numbers. What is he talking about political
education? You must distinguish the two.
Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I be allowed to clarify?
Dr Tay Eng Soon: No, I would not give way. I have
answered his point. So this is a community service provided at
very reasonable cost to the residents. And as I said, they are
completely free to come and register or to go elsewhere to
register. It is good service and that is why they come.
Turning to another point that the Member brought up about
the economy and the needs of the economy and why is it in
education policy we must gear everything towards the economy.
There is no doubt that the economy in the first place is what
generates the wealth and income that makes it possible for all
of us to enjoy a high standard of living and growing standards
of education in Singapore. The economy does have its needs of
various kinds of people. As I said earlier, it is a very wide
range of people. Nobody is being compelled through the education
system to become an engineer or to become a technician.
Information is provided and people make their choices again.
Column: 657
Mr Chiam See Tong: No. They were forced to go into ---
Dr Tay Eng Soon: Nobody is forced to go into any course
that is run by the university or the polytechnics or VITB.
Opportunities are provided ---
Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---
Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, I will not give way.
The Chairman: He is not giving way.
Dr Tay Eng Soon: I would like the Member to understand
that it is a system which has many opportunities at many levels,
and all that must be done is to present as objectively as
possible to the students who have to make these choices for their
own lives, for their own future and their own careers.
Mr Chiam See Tong: They were qualified for certain
faculties but they were not allowed to go in. Isn't that true?
Dr Tay Eng Soon: I will come back to this point about what
the country needs in terms of talented people in various fields.
Take medicine as an example. From all the estimates and all the
records, it is obvious that Singapore does not need to train
hundreds and thousands of doctors every year because if you do
so at the cost of nearly a quarter million dollars to train one
doctor it is a very costly affair which finally the taxpayer has
to pay. Therefore, it is prudent on the part of those who have
to plan educational institutions and to provide the money for
this purpose to make the best estimates they can of needs and to
match needs with demands and with the resources available. We
are not unique in this. Every country in the world, every
advanced country that has to make these provisions has to make
these plans and it is prudent and wise to do so. Within it,
choice is available based on merit, based on aptitudes, and
information is provided so that people who have to make these
choices, we hope, will make realistic and good choices for
themselves and for their children.
Column: 658
Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I be allowed to clarify? Does
the Minister not agree that a person will do best on the subject
he likes? Does he not agree with that? I have known of a pupil
who has got excellent grades and he was refused to go into
Medicine because they say the country needs something else. We
might have missed a Nobel Prize winner.
Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, there have been many points
raised and although we have, as you said, talked about the topic
of independent schools since 12.20 pm - it arises from time to
time - I want to respond to one important point which was raised
by the Member for Braddell Heights. I detect from his comments
that there was a worry that the introduction of independent
schools may be simply a device or a means for the Government to
initiate an all-round rise in school fees across the board. Let
me, Sir, assure him that this is not the case. The introduction
of independent schools is for the purpose of providing greater
diversity of schools in order to provide greater choice for our
children and provide a better quality of education for them. It
is not, Sir, for the purpose of enabling Government to initiate
an increase in school fees across the board and it will not be
done.
Mr Goh Choon Kang: Sir, in view of the assurance given by
the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting:-
(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by
$10 in respect of Subhead LA-02-3310(4) of the Main Estimates.
Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am not moving, Sir.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I beg to move,
That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10
in respect of Subhead LC-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.*
Sir, in 1981, I spoke out strongly against streaming. After
that, I gave up, not because I was won over by the Ministry
Column: 659
but because I could not find a better alternative. But the
Principals' Report rekindled my hope and I am back today to pose
a question or two for the Minister and hope that the Minister
would like to review the whole subject of streaming. I know it
is very controversial but it must be brought up.
Sir, in the Principals' Report, a policy called "setting"
was followed in all the schools they visited and in case, Mr
Chairman, Sir, you may not know what "setting" means, I think it
is appropriate I read out from the Principals' Report on page 51:
'All schools followed a policy of grouping children
according to ability in each subject by "setting". The Head of
Department would decide on the grouping of pupils into sets; the
timetabling team would then organize teaching time by scheduling,
say, two or more classes for the same subject at the same time.
Thus, a child could, for example, be placed in a top set for
English and the third set for mathematics. The form class would
therefore be split up for selected core subjects and pupils of
like ability in a particular subject drawn together for all
lessons in that subject. In this way, pupils were educated at
a pace best suited to their ability.'
With the adoption of the policy of "setting", I would like
to ask the Minister whether the present streaming system will
become redundant because you have accepted this Report and I
presume this section of the Report has also been accepted by the
Ministry of Education. Would the Ministry like to comment on
this?
Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I am not speaking.
The Chairman: Dr Koh Lam Son is not here. Mr Chandra Das.
Mr S. Chandra Das: Sir, I have only one query for the
Minister and this is in relation to streaming of students both
in primary and secondary schools. I am not referring to the
streaming which the Member for Ayer Rajah was referring to.
Sir, I for one am a strong supporter of streaming of
students by academic ability. I believe this is absolutely
necessary so that the right pace can be set for children of
equal or similar ability. During my days in school in the late
fifties, students were streamed simply by academic ability. I
still
Column: 660
remember my year in Secondary 4 there were eight classes, Class
A to H. The first 40 students went to Class A and the next 40
to B and so on.
I understand the practice is somewhat slightly different
today. Pupils are not only streamed according to academic
ability but I am told they are also streamed according to choice
of their second language. Hence, streaming, apart from academic
ability, also takes into account choice of the second language
of the student. I believe this may be done for some
administrative convenience or because of shortage of second
language teachers. But whatever the reason, Sir, I am told this
is a practice prevalent in many schools and I would like the
Minister to confirm whether it is the official policy of the
Ministry to stream students by choice of second language or is
it just administrative practice undertaken by the schools
themselves. Sir, if it is official practice or official policy,
then I would like to question the wisdom of this policy.
However, if this is done for administrative reasons, then I would
urge the Ministry to have a second look or serious look at this
before this policy causes more damage in building up a
multi-racial society.
Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Sir, the question of
pre-primary education has been raised by the Member for Tanah
Merah and I would also like to speak on this.
Sir, I would like the Minister to state the original
objective of introducing pre-primary education in schools and
whether the objectives have been or can be achieved based on the
evaluation done on the pilot scheme. One of the objectives of
introducing the pre-primary programme, as I understand it, is to
facilitate early language learning for children, especially those
from dialect-speaking homes. But just like any other programme,
after a period of time, one tends to forget about the original
objective. I would therefore like to ask the Minister for
Education, if we had not departed from the original objective,
are we admitting the target group of children into the
pre-primary programme? Are we offering places to those children
who really need help?
Column: 661
Of even greater concern, I believe, is the question of the
ability of the Ministry to meet the demand of parents who wish
to enrol their children into the programme. Hitherto,
pre-primary education has been provided by private kindergarten
operators without Government subsidies. With the expansion of
the pre-primary programme, does it mean that the parents can now
expect the Government to provide subsidized pre-primary education
to their children as in the case of primary and secondary
education? Can the Government cope with such a demand and has
the Ministry considered the impact of such an extensive
pre-primary programme on the private kindergarten operators? I
would appreciate the Minister's response to these questions.
Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, I would like to reply to the
questions raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah and the Member for
Chong Boon. With regard to the questions raised by the Member
for Boon Lay on pre-primary education, I would like to collect
them from more speakers for reply later because I believe there
are others who would like to speak on that subject.
Sir, the Member for Ayer Rajah accepted streaming because
as he said he saw no better alternative and now he believes that
"setting" may be an alternative. First of all, let me say that
the streaming policy which has been implemented very carefully
over the past seven years has yielded positive results. For
example, because we are giving pupils who need more time two more
years in the primary school, many more of them today are
completing their PSLE successfully through the extended course.
Had we not given them that time, had we adopted the previous
policy, we may have lost many of them through failure. Likewise,
at the secondary school, because we have given pupils who need
more time one more year at the 'N' level before they have to take
their GCE 'O'
Column: 662
levels, again from the results in the last two years, many more
have achieved 'O' levels than it would have been if there was no
time provided for them. So the results speak for themselves.
Streaming by and large has helped more pupils to go through
primary school and secondary school and successfully complete
their GCE 'O'levels.
Just as a matter of comparison, prior to the streaming
policy, the educational wastage was very high and there was
reason for this policy to come into place. Not more than about
40% of our students of a cohort in those days successfully
completed their secondary education. Today, something like 75%
of our students successfully complete secondary education at 'N'
or 'O' levels, the majority being in the 'O' levels. We should
give streaming a chance to continue to bring about good results.
Of course, fine-tuning is going on and over the years we have
implemented various forms of fine tuning. Even today the
Ministry ---
The Chairman: Order. It is 5.30 pm.
Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the
Committee and took the Chair of the House.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report
that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the
Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1987/88,
and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
ADJOURNMENT
Resolved,
"That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].
Adjourned accordingly at
half-past Five o'clock pm.