EDUCATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.40 a.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill is a natural consequence of the Government's acceptance of the recommendations made by the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education for the improvement of the education legislation.

The Bill provides within one Ordinance not only for the registration of schools, managers, teachers previously included in the Registration of Schools Ordinance, 1950, but also for the constitution of the Education Finance Board and the Education Advisory Council to replace the old Education Finance Board and the old Education Committee set up under the present Education Ordinance, 1948.

It also provides for the constitution of an Appeals Board to hear appeals against certain decisions made by the Director and for the extension of the provisions of the Bill to all types of schools. At the same time, opportunity has been taken to introduce a number of changes. Some, for instance, provide for a more realistic approach to the problem of registering teachers, managers and others, and there are also other in-corporations in the Bill which seek to strengthen it where experience has shown it to be weak. These changes are outlined briefly in the Explanatory Note which accompanies the Bill. There are a great number of these changes. Most of them are of minor importance and I do not propose to dwell on them in detail.

I should like to speak on the general principles of which the Bill is an expression and to deal with some of the misunderstandings which comment in the Press on the Bill has shown to exist about the purpose of the Bill as a whole, and especially about the more important changes. The All-Party Committee of this Assembly, hon. Members will recollect, was appointed in 1955 to enquire into the causes of the disturbances in certain Chinese schools. That Committee became aware at a very early stage of its enquiry that there was a strong feeling in Chinese education circles that the Registration of Schools Ordinance, 1950, was directed solely against the Chinese schools, managers and teachers. Though there was no justification for this suspicion, it was possible to find a cause for this misunderstanding. For certain perfectly sound reasons, the provisions of that Ordinance did not apply to Government schools, that is, to schools completely run by Government, controlled by Government, and staffed entirely by principals and teachers bound by regulations which controlled their activities, in fact, much more closely than the Registration of Schools Ordinance or any regulations made under it. But at the same time, there were then no Government Chinese schools, and though Malay schools were Government schools, it came to be assumed in Chinese education circles that the terms "English schools" and "Government schools" were synonymous, and that all English schools were exempted from the provisions or that Ordinance. It was to remove these possible doubts and suspicions that the All-Party Committee recommended that a new Ordinance, if Government were to introduce one, should apply to all schools. Now this Bill provides for the change. All schools - Government schools or aided schools or private schools - whatever the medium of instruction, must conform to the conditions laid down in the Bill and in any regulation made under it. Similarly all teachers must be either registered under the Bill or given authority or permission to teach.

So far as the Bill is concerned then, it does not matter in the slightest whether a school is a Chinese school, a Malay school, a Tamil school, or an English school, whether it teaches in the medium of Kuo-yu, Malay, Tamil or English, or whether the school is bilingual or trilingual; the provisions of this Bill must apply to all schools, it discriminates against no one. It is strictly non-communal and I can assure hon. Members that it will be administered quite impartially. The law must be strict, but the application can be generous and lenient.

Sir, I may say here that in drawing up this Bill we have kept continuously in mind the interests of one particular section of the community, and that is the children. The aim throughout has been, so far as possible, to see that they are given an education in conformity with the Government's education policy to fit them to become responsible citizens of the territory under the care of teachers with good education, professional training and personal integrity, and in premises which conform to the highest standards the community can reasonably afford.

I am aware that there has been criticism by managers and teachers of those clauses of the Bill which refer to them. I have been told -

"That the Ordinance shows no respect to the enthusiastic members of the public who have made great contributions to the culture and education of this country."

Another comment says:

"It contains unreasonable and stringent provisions which reduce the teaching profession to a slavish service and show no respect whatever to teachers who are assuming heavy responsibilities...".

Mr Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. Should the Minister not indicate to the Assembly the sources from which he is reading?

Mr Speaker: I was not aware that the Minister was reading.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Sir, I was only quoting.

Mr Speaker: It is strictly not a point of order. Of course, it is the practice that a Member ought first to disclose the source of any quotation.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: These quotations can be found in the newspapers and if the Member for Cairnhill has followed these papers or the Chinese Press, he will have been aware of these criticisms. I have also personally received memoranda from educational bodies in Singapore. These are some of the quotations which I am reading. Yet another quotation says:

"The Ordinance completely impairs the teachers' self-respect and prestige and makes them lose all sense of security and confidence in themselves."

These are surely ill-considered criticisms by a body of responsible men. I am very well aware of, and have frequently paid tribute to, the splendid and disinterested work which so many members of the Chinese community have done for Chinese schools and Chinese education. I am equally aware of and I now pay tribute to the excellent work which so many teachers have done for many years under very difficult conditions in these schools; but I think hon. Members will agree with me that an Education Bill is not the place to express such appreciation, though I am glad to say, as I said just now, I will avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to them, and I do so here. We all know that there have been some - and I am glad to say that there are only a very few - managers whose interest in the pupils has been purely selfish and who have taken advantage of the intense enthusiasm of so many parents to give their children a better education than they themselves had, to abuse their position sometimes. Some of the schools have been set up in very unhygienic premises. They packed more and more children into classrooms already grossly overcrowded, and some school children were taught by under-qualified, untrained, overworked and under-paid teachers, and for all this, excessive sums in fees have been extorted from the children. Is it therefore wrong of me to ask for powers to control the activities of managers such as these unscrupulous ones? Is it not reasonable for me to expect not opposition but support for measures which are designed to ensure that only honest and responsible people should be allowed to become or to remain managers or teachers? Let there be no misunderstanding. Most teachers and managers are responsible - I said so just now - but they occupy positions of such responsibility that not most but all - each and every one of them - must and should pass the test. That is my justification for enforcing strict conditions before registering managers and teachers. If anyone thinks that these regulations and conditions are not necessary, let him think of the children who have suffered because conditions in the past were not strict enough or were not enforced nearly strict enough. Undoubtedly some of the criticisms which come from managers and teachers arise from their misunderstanding of the powers and functions of the Director. They have assumed that the Director can act arbitrarily according to his particular whims and fancies, and therefore they naturally fear for their security. But the Director of Education is a Government servant who is required always to act in the public interests. He must administer the Department in accordance with the policy laid down by the Minister, and you may be sure that any decision he takes will be made only after due consideration of all the available evidence and after discussion with all officers of the Department. That does not mean, of course, that he does not make mistakes, so there is a, provision in the Ordinance for persons aggrieved by his decision to appeal to the newly constituted Appeals Board or to the Minister.

It was one of the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education that such an Appeals Board should be set up. The Board is to be a small one with six members and a Chairman, none of whom will be officials. Educational interests will be strongly represented with four of the six members, including two teachers. Very careful consideration and thought were given to the question whether the proceedings of the Board should be open to the public or not. The decision that they should not be open to the public has been criticised as contrary to normal democratic principles and practice, which requires that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. In theory, that criticism may be valid, but the decisions which the Board will have to take are not concerned with rightful or wrongful convictions of offences against the Criminal Code. It will be for them to decide, for instance, whether or not the Director was right in deciding that a school in some way failed to comply with or satisfied the conditions which the Department requires or that the manager or teacher for one reason or another is not a suitable person to have charge of the education of children. In my view, the Board will be the better able to arrive at a just decision if it can consider the appeals in an atmosphere free from the impact of political and emotional propaganda. The members of the Board will, in fact, have a difficult enough task if the proceedings are not public. Experience has shown that the task becomes impossible if the meetings are allowed to be used as occasions for political or communal propaganda. The Board will not in any sense be an official one. It is only right to leave them to hear appeals in peace and at the same time to avoid giving any further embarrassment to persons whose appeals may be unsuccessful.

The Bill also provides for appeals against certain decisions of the Director to be heard not by the Appeals Board but by the Minister. These are appeals against decisions which involve considerations of public security. It is the view of the Government that, while it is proper to delegate power to the Director to deal with questions of purely educational content, it is not proper to delegate that power where the public security is concerned. The Minister's power is after all the Government's power. It has been said that it is undemocratic that the Minister should hear such appeals, but I say that it is democratic that the Minister should be responsible for such matters and that he himself is responsible to this Assembly.

One of the other important changes recommended by the All-Party Committee was that both the old Ordinances -the Registration of Schools Ordinance and the Education Ordinance - should be embodied into one Ordinance. This has now been done.

The Bill not only provides for the registration of schools, managers and teachers but also the setting up of an Educational Finance Board and an Educational Advisory Council (the latter was recommended by the All-Party Committee). The new Educational Finance Board is in most respects very like the old one, but there is one important difference. The new Board will be advisory only. It will make recommendations to the Minister about the money needed for education and will also advise him on the administration of this money when it is provided, but it will not have the authority to decide what money is to be spent or how it is to be spent. That responsibility must be the Minister's who, in turn, as I say, is responsible to this Assembly. This will involve a change in the annual Estimates. The Estimates now appearing under the Head Education and the Appendix under the Head Education - Finance Board - will in future be incorporated into the ordinary departmental Estimates.

It has been suggested that the Finance Board should contain representatives of all the four main communities. I do not think it is necessary. There is already too much talk of communal interests. It will be the responsibility of the Minister, and in the last resort of this Assembly, to see that all are given a fair deal; and in any case it is most churlish, in my opinion, to suggest that we cannot find four men of sufficient standing, integrity and authority, who are sufficiently free from communal prejudice, to recommend a just allocation of the funds available for education.

The Advisory Council replaces the old Education Committee. It is a much larger body than the Education Finance Board and therefore here it is easier to arrange for the different communities and educational interests to be fairly represented. Here it has also been criticised because its membership is not wholly drawn from educational circles; but again in my opinion that criticism is ill-considered. It is not only teachers or managers and the like who are concerned with educational problems. Education touches every one of us. We need on this Advisory Council not only educationists but also men of authority and wide experience who can look at education from the outside; otherwise there is that danger that education for education's sake will become too ingrown and that in our concern about the means, we shall lose sight of the ends. So provision has been made in the Bill that the Council should have a strong leavening of members with no specific educational qualifications or interests. I hope the Council will be an extremely valuable means of keeping in touch with the views of the public and the community at large, whether on matters referred to it by the Ministry or matters which the Council itself might bring up to the notice of the Ministry.

Sir, I have touched on the most important features of the Bill, and I hope I have removed some of the causes of the misunderstandings. Before I move, Sir, may I emphasise once more what I have said at the beginning:

Firstly, that this Bill is strictly non-communal and that it is quite untrue to say that it discriminates against any particular group or schools or community or teachers; and

Secondly, that the over-riding purpose of this Bill is to protect the interests of the children without whom there would be no necessity for providing schools or teachers or managers or any need for this Bill at all.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

12 noon.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, as one who is not affected by communal matters, I would like to say that, having studied this Bill over two evenings, I am satisfied that the Minister does in fact speak the truth when he says that it is an attempt at non-communal unification of our educational system. There is much that is good in this Bill but a study of its provisions indicates that the emphasis is not so much on unification and on policy, but the emphasis is on the establishment of a "Dictator of Education" - and this I intend to prove.

Sir, the Minister has said that the Bill purports to incorporate the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on Education appointed by this Assembly, of which the Minister himself was the Chairman; and now that I am no longer a dictator of the Government or even a Member of his Party, let me say, Sir, what I have always said, that the All-Party Committee-

Mr Lee Choon Eng: On a point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, is it in order for a Member of this Assembly who has now openly renounced his Party, which is the governing Party, to remain on the Government Benches?

Mr Speaker: It is not strictly a point of order. As hon. Members do know, there are no seats reserved in this Assembly except possibly the front row of the Government Benches. When hon. Members take seats on the Government Benches, it is proper for other Members to assume that they are supporters of the Government in the sense that they are amenable to the Government Whip. But as I say, the choice is left entirely to the hon. Member himself, and if he chooses to take a seat on one of the Government Back Benches, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

Mr Marshall: I think perhaps the hon. Member is anxious to come here but he cannot accept my chastising presence. Sir, let me say this for myself - I have stood, and I stand and will continue to stand for the aims and principles of the Labour Front promulgated to the electorate and in so far as this Government -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think we should pursue the subject any further. I have ruled.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker. I was on the subject of complimenting the Minister for Education on what I have considered and consider to be a first-class job - that is the Report of the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education. That Report was followed by a White Paper on education for which the Minister was responsible - under my dictatorship - providing for equal respect for all languages and cultures, and I would like to say again, though I am not a Member of his Party and have no axe to grind, that it was an enunciation, a magnificent enunciation, of a courage, of decency, of foresight. It was a truly good policy and although members of the Chinese community and organisations indiscriminately "gave us hell" - if I may use that expression in this House; if I may not, I withdraw it -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the word "hell" has in fact been over-ruled in the past.

Mr Marshall: Although members of the Chinese community did attack us, and attacked us without cause and violently, yet I think they now recognise that they were very wrong in attacking that White Paper which was a thing of decency. I think they recognise that that White Paper put forth principles which they desire themselves to see put into concrete form in legislation. They are ready, they are anxious for legislation which embodies the principles of that White Paper, and some of those principles are in fact embodied in this Bill. But there is so much not in the White Paper but in this Bill that it destroys the value of the Bill, Sir, and the theme of this my speech is not so much to attack the Bill as to hope that Government, after considering the views expressed in this House, will take time to reconsider before seeking to force through this measure.

Sir, I have known the Minister for Education for some time and I trust he will take it as a compliment if I say this - that probably he is not fully aware of what this Education Bill contains, because to me, Sir, this Bill is drafted, or seems to be drafted, on the assumption that this Assembly consists of blind chickens, that we can neither read nor understand legal English. Sir, the Straits Times has depicted me as a hen addling the Easter egg, but at least it never depicted me blind. It gave me open eyes, and open eyes I have. Of all the Bills or Ordinances I have ever seen, this Bill, Sir, is unique in my experience, absolutely unique, in the breadth and the extent of the dictatorial powers which it gives to one man. If there were a museum of colonial exhibits, I would put this Bill Exhibit A, Sir, Exhibit A. Educational matters, Sir, are not specifically my line. I have never sought to interfere, particularly the administration of the Ministry, despite the bitter words of the Minister, but I thought it my duty the last two evenings to look at this Bill, and I am going to submit to this House that there are defects of a grave character which require very earnest consideration and which require that the Government should withdraw it for some time despite the urgency in order to reconsider its position. Sir, I was, am, and will be, as a representative of the people, anxious to receive representations from associations which seek to make their points of view heard. I have not been approached by anybody until this morning - by one at 9.30, by another at 9.50. At 9.30 a.m. I received a memorandum from the English Teachers of Chinese Schools' Union, and frankly, on a cursory reading, there seems to be some sense in many of their objections. I have also received a memorandum from the Singapore Chinese Schools Committee Teachers Association in the Chinese language. It looks very imposing, Sir, and very impressive but it is not followed by any translation and I am unhappy at being unable to know how I can be of assistance after reading it. But placed in the position of not being able to study the representations received, I can only indicate to this House the defects which exist in my view after a study of this Bill.

I should like to take the Educational Advisory Council appointed by clause 5. You will see from there, Sir, that there is an extraordinary preponderance of official appointments. There is the Director of Education, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, the Medical Officer in charge of schools, the Director of Social Welfare, ten persons appointed by the Minister at his discretion - ten.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Clause 8.

Mr Marshall: Clauses 5 (2) and 8 (2) (f). Clause 5 (2) provides for four and clause 8 (2) (f) provides for six. If it please you, Mr Speaker, I would like to explain it to the Minister in very simple language. Clause 5 appoints the Finance Board. Clause 8 says the whole Finance Board comes into the Educational Advisory Council. So the four people he appoints under clause 5 of the Finance Board become an additional four to the people he appoints to the Educational Advisory Council. If that is too difficult, the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong. Let me go back, Sir. I think four plus six makes ten. So under clauses 5 (2) and 8 (2) (f), the Minister appoints ten persons at his discretion. A total of 14 appointed by the Minister - four officials and ten nominated by him. As against that, Sir, there are eight persons nominated by educational bodies, the educational bodies themselves being institutions approved by the Minister. Sir, it is a heavy preponderance of officials and members appointed by Government, and it is to be noted that here, as in the Polytechnic Bill, these persons appointed by the Minister can be removed at his pleasure.

Now, Sir, we leave for a moment the Educational Advisory Council and come to the Schools Appeals Board. It is rather important to look at these things, to notice the preponderance of persons who are officially persona grata. The Chairman under clause 12 is appointed by the Minister. There are two registered teachers appointed by the Minister. There are two other persons - not teachers, brokers, merchants, Income Tax employees, what you will - appointed by the Minister. So you have got five persons - five - appointed at the discretion of the Minister; and there are two persons nominated by educational bodies who are approved by the Minister. But at least they are nominated by outsiders. So you have got - and keep this in mind when we come to consider the powers - an official preponderance of five to two on the Schools Appeals Board. Now, Sir, what are the powers of the Schools Appeals Board? Let us look at clause 14 which reads:

"It shall be the duty of the Appeals Board to hear and decide all appeals from the decisions-"

Now whether "decisions" include orders is rather an interesting point. I continue, Sir:

"-of the Director other than those expressly excepted under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 48 of this Ordinance:".

Now let us go chasing round, if you do not mind - I know it is a bore to follow paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 48: nobody ever bothered - but let us chase round and find out what this "expressly excepted" means. Let us turn to clause 48. Sub-clause (2) (a) of clause 48 says:

"in cases where the refusal is under paragraphs (o), (p) and (q) of section 24, paragraph (f) of section 25, paragraph (i) of section 33, paragraph (g) of section 34, or paragraph (g) of section 38...".

Of course, we could not say all that in the first one. In fact, in clause 14 it looks very simple except with the one exception, but now we find that there are in fact seven exceptions. Seven exceptions where the Schools Appeals Board has no power to hear appeals, and where the appeals are only to the Minister.

Sir, during the period when I was dictator, according to my friends and former colleagues who at the time enjoyed their posts without demur, I learned one thing if I learned nothing at all, and that is, a Minister is not in fact organised to hear appeals, to be able to gather facts and to sit in judgment quietly in order to do justice on a difficult matter. He just is not organised. Your Ministers - pity them! - have (if they work and most of them work) a great deal to do. Their time is cut up into little bits of appointments and little bits of other things. They just are not organised and can never be organised into a true Court of Appeal which can quietly and calmly and impartially examine appeals from decisions of their own Ministry. For let us recognise this - that if you do not co-operate with your Permanent Secretary, you come in for an awfully difficult time. I remember-

Mr Speaker: Order. I was not aware that I had a Permanent Secretary.

Mr Marshall: I beg your pardon, Sir. Indeed I was suggesting you. I apologise. Sir, let me quote a story of Churchill who, after a stormy interview with his Permanent Secretary to the Treasury when he was in the Treasury, turned round to him and said, "You might as well treat me as an equal." And that is too true. A Minister can, a Minister sometimes even does go against the advice of his officials in the Ministry, but let us recognise the fact that it makes life impossible if you are going to question every single act of your permanent officials. You have got to work with the tools you have. So a Minister cannot approach an appeal from his Dictator of Education impartially. He cannot. This power of appeal in respect of these seven clauses to the Minister is purely nominal. Now what are these seven classes? The Minister spoke of the danger to security. Let us look at these seven classes which are known as paragraphs (o) , (p) and (q) of section 24, paragraph (f) of section 25, paragraph (i) of section 33, paragraph (g) of section 34, and paragraph (g) of section 38-

Mr Speaker: It might be appropriate to suspend?

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The sitting is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.