EDUCATION POLICY (White Paper)

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will recall that when the Report of the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education was tabled at the February sitting of this Assembly, I promised that Government would be issuing a White Paper based on that Report. This Paper on the education policy is now in your hands.

I must emphasise, however, at the very outset that the first part of the Paper, from paragraphs 1 to 7, furnishes only the background to the whole problem and if one might disagree here and there on questions of assessment or opinion, it is really not worth while to go over old ground again.

The Report has had favourable Press notices and a few adverse reactions have been confined to those who have, I am afraid, not quite studied the implications or, having studied them, they have not risen above sectional consideration to higher motives of national interest.

In order to have the basic structure for retention of all the four major languages in Singapore equally respected and permitted to be used in debate in our Councils, both local government and central government, we must encourage, to the greatest possible extent, the study of these four languages. By insisting on bilingualism in the primary schools and providing for trilingualism in the post-primary stages of education, the secondary school, Technical School and the Polytechnic, we will have very soon people conversant in at least two of those languages and the problem of finding a common language will, it is confidently hoped, be satisfactorily solved.

More important than that, the main objective of such bilingual and trilingual education is the over-riding consideration to build up a Singapore-centred consciousness and a common Malayan loyalty in our schools. As school pupils grow up in watertight compartments, only being taught in the medium of one language, there will not be that sufficient diffusion of the best teaching talent, that breakdown of communal barriers, and that sympathetic understanding and respect of other people's cultures and languages which are necessary factors in building up a common loyalty. The All-Party Committee Report expressed the dangers of the two streams of education proceeding without a common objective and with no provision for intermingling, thus producing youths unsympathetic towards each other and even on occasions antagonistic in their attitudes on matters on which there should be no grounds actually for conflict. The Report has sufficiently stressed the grounds, whether real or fancied, why the Chinese stream feels that past neglect and indifference has contributed towards evoking a sense of discrimination in that stream.

The White Paper seeks to implement immediately those sections of the All-Party Committee Report which advocate equal treatment being given to all schools under exactly equal conditions and hon. Members will agree, I am sure, that speedy implementation of those proposals specifically mentioned in paragraph 25 of the Paper will dispel the suspicion and distrust which have hitherto existed on that score.

On the question of grant-in-aid for Chinese schools, it is unfortunately not possible, if the general education policy is to be carried out as laid down by the Government, for some schools to receive partial aid and others full aid.

Since the main aim of Government is, through its education policy, to build a Malayan nation, it should not support any schools which lack the emphasis on a common Malayan loyalty. Communal schools as such, whilst retaining the content and attributes of the basic cultures, must therefore give way to and become as speedily as possible national schools in the sense of using similar Malayan-centred syllabuses, with textbooks specially written in the various languages for this purpose, providing bilingual tuition in those syllabuses. It is hoped, therefore, that sectional and communal interests will see that this is of vital importance and that they will speedily accept the full aid with the conditions attached thereto.

There may be misgivings on the part of certain teachers in vernacular schools, that the new deal will affect them adversely. Let me give a categorical assurance, once and for all, that the recommendations it is proposed to implement will not result in the retrenchment of any teacher. Teachers, in fact, will be needed in ever increasing numbers and there are more vacancies even at present than there are existing teachers to fill them. No teacher will suffer by the proposals put forward. It is quite likely that many chosen teachers of vernacular languages in English schools or of English in vernacular schools will get slightly enhanced rates of pay once qualifications and experience have been properly assessed; and let me assure teachers even on this score, that the assessment will be done with the greatest possible latitude, especially in the case of those with very many years of experience. We can ill afford to lose such teachers in the face of our expanded programmes.

Another point which I might stress strongly is the security which teachers in vernacular schools will now enjoy. They will get permanency of tenure, regular increments and an adequate scale of salary and allowances. If a teacher wishes to undergo further professional training, he will be enabled to do so without any cost to himself and he can then attain higher skill or be promoted to a grade more important or carrying better allowances than his former one. I intend to see that bursaries, departmental scholarships and all other educational opportunities be henceforth the same for Government schools or aided schools, including vernacular schools. No more teachers will be forced to supplement their income with other uncongenial part-time occupations. They will not be at the whim of an impecunious management committee where the school is actually a small one and depending on fees alone supplemented by uncertain contributions to pay the salaries of the teachers.

If all the Chinese schools accept the full aid offered, there will be immediately an improvement in the staffing position and an easing of the burden of those parents with several children in school at the same time, as fees will be remitted if they are all of the proper ages for the classes they attend.

With regard to paragraph 17 of the Paper, it is definitely not intended to prune language syllabuses in such a way as to touch their cultural content. It was stressed in the All-Party Committee Report that nothing would be done to hurt the culture of the Chinese and that includes the Chinese language. Any pruning will be done after full consideration and consultation with the school authorities concerned and after their objections have been carefully weighed, there will be no steam-rollering over these objections.

As stated in the All-Party Committee Report, audio-visual aids will be used extensively to make up for deficiencies in language teaching and there will be no shortening of courses at the sacrifice of standards.

I wish to remedy an inadvertent reference, in paragraph 37 of the Paper, to the Chinese schools which might give the impression that only these schools are to have a Disciplinary Sub-Committee. It is, of course, Government's intention to treat aided schools and mission schools exactly alike.

It is for consideration, therefore, to see what practical measures may be adopted to provide better accommodation and profit by the capital grants under the full aid system for schools in rural areas or in overcrowded urban areas. Generally, the system of such aid will be ap- plied in a sympathetic manner and aid will be more readily given in the case of those schools with poor resources without insisting too much on compliance with too many conditions all at once.

As regards the last sentence in paragraph 16, the rate of progress depending on recruitment and retention of high quality staff, my attention is drawn to the possible implication that this might be taken to mean that there will be delay in Malayanisation because of this. I have therefore to correct such a misapprehension. Malayanisation will be carried out as quickly as possible and in the spirit of the Commission's Report if agreed by Government.

Lastly, may I stress, in the strongest possible terms, that it is not the Government's intention to do anything to endanger any one culture. Henceforth, not only will the culture of each racial group be respected but positive steps will be taken to associate the various groups in such a way as to enable them to understand and appreciate each other's cultures. Whatever my officials and I can do in the Ministry of Education in close consultation with other Ministries to bring about this cultural enrichment to wider contacts and positive encouragement, hon. Members may rest assured that we will do our utmost.

With all these essential drastic reorientations of thought in preparation and in objective, there must be sections and individuals who do not agree with the recommendations made. I can only appeal to these groups of persons to rally round and to forget, in the interest of the nation that is now being built, their own individual preferences. If Singapore is going to emerge as a free living country to be worth living in, it must also be worth sacrificing for. Parents, teachers, community leaders, Government officials and voluntary workers must all work together to make our education policy a success.

I may inform the House that the Singapore Chinese Schools Committee Teacher Association had an interview with me the day before on questions touching on the White Paper and the All-Party Committee Report. They touched on several points, one of which is the age limit proposed by the White Paper, and I have given the assurance that evening classes and more adult classes will be provided to give facilities of education to those who are not allowed to go into either the primary or the secondary schools.

There is also a fear that the powers of the school management committees, if they come into the full aid scheme, will be wrested from them and vested in Government. I give them my categorical assurance that that is not the intention. They will still have their powers and they will still continue to exercise them, although there are safeguards on the principle that teachers and principals must be protected from impecunious management committees who either dismiss principals or teachers at their whims and fancies.

There is also that fear that their qualifications and teaching experience will not be recognised, as only recently, the Ministry of Education announced recognition of only eight Chinese University degrees. I can assure the House that the Ministry is still considering recognising other Universities and when the process of sifting the various University degrees is finalised, I will announce the Universities which will be recognised by my Ministry. Sir, I beg to move the motion that stands in my name,

That this House approves the adoption of the Education Policy outlined in the White Paper on Education Policy as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 15 of 1956.

Mr Wong Foo Nam: Sir, I rise to second the motion.

Question proposed.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, I rise to move,

That debate on this motion be adjourned in accordance with Standing Order No. 20.

Sir, representations have been made to us from various educational authorities that they have not been able to secure copies of the White Paper from the Government Printer. In fact, I was informed by the local English papers that they received a copy of the White Paper on 30th March and then in between came the Easter Holidays. On Monday, the Chinese copies of the White Paper reached some Chinese newspapers and the first time the public knew of the existence of the White Paper could not have been earlier than the 1st of April in English and later in Chinese.

We are living today, Sir, in what we like to call a democratic country where the views of the people are allowed to be ventilated and where the people should know what exactly the Government will want to do for them. We should make known what this House wants to do to the public for a length of time that would enable them to comment in the papers or write to us. If we publish a Paper and then keep it until the last moment before we let it out to the public giving them no chance to comment on it, then there must be one reason or another. One reason probably would be that the Paper is defective.

The Chief Minister: Shame!

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I said may be.

The Chief Minister: I say shame.

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: If it is not, it will stand up to the public eye for any comments because any comments in this direction will not be unfavourable.

The Chief Minister: Make your comment.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: We will, later on, when the time comes. If it is not a good document, the public will definitely comment on it. We must be able to take criticism and we must be able to be benefited by criticisms. What is good should be taken in and what is not good we have every right to reject, but if we want to cover up our faults and carry on in this unholy haste -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is probably dancing on the fringe of Standing Order 31 (6) which says:

"No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member."

The White Paper has been presented by the Minister for Education and, as I say, the hon. Member seems to be dancing on the fringe of that Standing Order.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Thank you for drawing my attention to it, Sir. I always thought that a Paper is presented after the Council of Ministers have given consent to it.

Mr Speaker: Order. That, of course, I think the hon. Member must realise, will make it worse because the Council of Ministers are all Members of this Assembly.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Well, Sir, today we live in this world where we agree that we will rule democratically, where we say we must not have dictatorship and if we have a Bill rushed through without its being considered properly by every person concerned, especially the people who are affected and who are best versed in it - the educational authorities - then we are not doing our duty. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr John Ede: Sir, I rise to support my hon. Friend as seconder. In the last 24 hours, I have also received representations from educationists from different schools complaining that they had not time or opportunity to study the White Paper. There is no denying the truth of these representations. Copies of the White Paper, if available at all, could not have been obtained until the last two days after the Easter Holidays. It stands to reason therefore that the teaching profession has not had adequate chance to express their considered opinions upon it.

Now, this is all wrong. The Government is asking the House today to approve a fresh education policy for the country before the education authorities have had a proper chance to examine it. If the Government does not wish to give the impression to the education authorities and to the public at large that they arc trying to steam-roller this White Paper through this House, they should give a chance to persons in the schools and in the education world to express their opinions and that is why we wish to see this motion adjourned until a later date.

The Minister for Education had ample opportunity to take out the White Paper earlier than he did and to make available ample copies to study and indeed it was to have been tabled at the March sitting. Why he has chosen this method of sending it to Members of this Assembly without releasing it simultaneously to the Press and public is something for him to explain. The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) has said and as the Hon. the Chief Minister stated only yesterday, we believe, as he believes, in democratic principles and we feel that in this case, there is a possibility of criticism that these democratic principles are being overlooked.

Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us get some facts straight. On the 24th of March, that is to say, a fortnight ago, the White Paper was distributed to all Members. The delay in giving it to the Press, Sir, arose out of the fact that we wished to have the Chinese translations available at the same time for the Chinese Press. They were made available to the Press on the 30th of March. So there has been, in fact, an interval of six days

We would also remind the Assembly that there has been a nine-man Committee of the Assembly from all Parties engaged in studying this question and in making a Report and that the White Paper is based on it. I would also remind the Assembly that it is the Assembly that governs the country and not associations outside the Assembly and pressure groups.

Finally, Sir, I would like to say this: that when I received the request for an adjournment, I tried to find out the reason why, and it may surprise you. Sir, as I am sure it surprises every intelligent and reasonable person, that there should be made a request without any suggestion of criticism. Neither the mover nor the seconder has had a single objection to this White Paper. No major aspect is being objected to. There is nothing that requires further study. Why this excuse, Sir? Is it a desire to mount opposition along the lines of last May? If that is the desire, Sir, we will meet it. It is being camouflaged, Sir. You, as a lawyer, will appreciate this: you cannot go to Court and ask for an adjournment unless there is something substantial in the way of a defence which you wish to be heard at a later date. Here, no single indication has been given on any aspect of the White Paper to which objection can be taken. In fact, we are very proud of this White Paper, Sir. There are three legs, Sir, to our efforts to seek equal justice for all communities. The first is multilingualism. The second is equal facilities for the main basic cultures of this country in our education system. The third which will come is citizenship.

We have taken considerable care and given considerable thought as has the nine-man Committee but, Sir, the question is now placed on a basis of democracy - we must give an opportunity to these schools to make representation. You have heard from the Minister that he has, in fact, received these representations. If that is not enough, right, Sir, I accept this motion and I name the date - the 12th of April - for the hearing of this motion.

May I ask your guidance, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Can the Chief Minister explain further?

The Chief Minister: I would like to ask, Sir, whether I am right in reading Standing Order No. 20 (1) as indicating that Government can accept the motion and can name a date for the adjourned hearing.

Mr Speaker: I will read the relevant portions of Standing Order 20 (1):

"At any time before the conclusion of the consideration of any item of business any Member may move "That the debate be now adjourned" ... and if such motion is agreed to the debate shall be adjourned.The Speaker shall call upon the Member in charge of that item of business to name a day for its resumption and the item shall thereupon become an order of the day for the day so named."

It is quite clear, then, that if the motion is accepted by the House, the debate will be adjourned. Then I will call upon the Minister in charge to name the date. He will name a date and I take it that the Minister or a Member of the Council of Ministers will move tomorrow (if the sitting carries on tomorrow) that at its rising the Assembly do adjourn to the date named.

The Chief Minister: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The motion for adjournment is before the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr Speaker: Debate to be resumed, what day?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: 12th April.