EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

10.43 a.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Governor in respect of the Education (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister has given notice of the Bill.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Can I proceed with the First Reading?

Mr Speaker: Will the Minister please introduce the Bill first?

First Reading

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Education Ordinance, 1957."

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Now, Sir.

Mr Speaker: May I have the Certificate?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Yes, Sir.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for Members?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Yes, Sir.

Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The cost of education in Singapore has been steadily rising since 1945 and the recurrent cost now absorbs as much as a quarter of Government revenue.

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the Minister proceeds, I need the Governor's recommendation or consent.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: I am sorry, Sir. I have the Governor's consent to proceed with the Second Reading and Third Reading of this Bill now.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Please proceed.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: As I have stated, the cost of education now absorbs about a quarter of Government revenue. The reasons for this are well known. It has been Government's policy to expand the scope and provision of educational facilities. The number of school-going children has steadily increased and the cost per pupil has tended also to rise. During this time, the education rate on the value of property has been no higher than two per cent and it has yielded a mere $1.6 million in 1957 against the total cost of education of over $57 million in 1957. If the education rate is to remain an item of Government revenue, it is reasonable to raise it in conformity with the increased cost of education. It is proposed therefore to raise the rate to four per cent. This will yield an estimated revenue of approximately $3.4 million in 1959. The increased rate will be assessment on the value of property in the City and in the rural area for next year. Notices of such assessment are issued in November of the year before and in order to facilitate the early issue of notices, I have asked that this Bill be taken through all the stages at this sitting.

Sir, I beg to move.

The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid): Sir, I beg to second it.

Question proposed.

10.47 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Explanatory Statement to this Bill is, I think the most illuminating statement of all time. It says:

"The purpose of the Bill is to increase the education rate from two per centum to four per centum of the annual value of rated property."

It is exactly what the amendment says: put "four" instead of "two". What I was hoping the Minister would do when he rose to speak in support of the Bill was to explain to us why the figure of four was chosen. Everybody has agreed that the education rate must go up with the increase in cost of education. We would like to know why he has arrived at the figure 4, not 4.5, 5 or 5.5. There must have been some logical and cogent reason why it was four and we would be obliged if he would inform the House of it.

Mr Speaker: Order. On the comment on the Explanatory Statement, I think the matter is procedural. Explanatory Statements should purely be factual and further explanations must be given at the Second Reading.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, with great respect I was not criticising the Explanatory Statement as either incorrect or improper. I was only saying that it must have been the most illuminating Explanatory Statement to a Bill that we have read in this House.

Mr Speaker: It is in accordance with Mr Speaker's ruling.

10.49 a.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, no one is happy when rates and taxes are increased. Hence we have to examine the necessity for such an increase and see that at least the increased rate should be put to good use. This two per cent increase is for education, a cause to which we are all committed, and the expenditure on which has increased by leaps and bounds during the last few years. This has happened because of the increase in the number of children attending school and I do not see how anyone in his right senses can object to this two per cent increase. But, as I said, we must see that this two per cent increase will be put to good use.

No one in this House has uttered more warnings than I have that we have to be very careful regarding public expenditure, particularly on buildings, as the carefree spending days of colonial government are over. My prediction has been proved correct. We have now reached the end of our reserves. Government, however, has at last realised this and has suddenly stopped many projects approved by this House. But the building of more schools and hospitals cannot be stopped. It must continue, and more must be built to provide facilities for our growing population.

In one case, I must say the Minister for Education has realised this and I congratulate him. After much persuasion, his Ministry has agreed to relax the rules requiring spacious playing-fields before plans for the building of schools can be approved. I read a letter that I received from him:

"The Kiau Nam School,

Reference our conversation, I write to confirm that this Ministry has recommended to the Senior Planner (Development Control), Singapore Improvement Trust, the building of Kiau Nam School on the following terms:

While this Ministry agrees to the stipulation that adequate playing-fields must be provided where land is available, it is of the opinion that there should be relaxation of standard where applicable, especially in a congested area where site for building schools is scarce and where the school serves a real educational need. The general policy of this Ministry is that the shortage of playing-fields should not be considered as a sole and insurmountable obstruction for a building project.

I also confirm that the Minister is prepared to relax the requirement under Section 24 (e) of the Education Ordinance."

Sir, I want to cite this case because this clearly shows how money can be saved when you are building a school. This particular school is housed in a large attap hut where 500 students attend morning and afternoon sessions. The Trustees raised $60,000 bought a piece of land of about $30,000 sq. ft. and submitted plans for the building of 11 semi-permanent class, rooms costing about $30,000. These plans were sent back with the information that they might be approved if a two-storeyed building were put on the land. Sir, a two-storeyed building would have cost at least $120,000 on this reclaimed land which' was a swamp. With this approval by the Ministry of Education, the school will be constructed and 800 children will be able to attend and use 11 class-rooms. All this has been done by the voluntary effort of the people living in that area who felt the need to help in building the school for the children who would otherwise be playing in the streets and around drains and getting into mischief.

Sir, we cannot and must not stop our children from receiving education because of a shortage of funds but we must see that the best use is made of the funds available.

10.55 a.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish the Minister for Education would listen very carefully and note what is being said. I am sure that the whole House will agree that money must be spent most effectively and wisely. Sir, I consider that the Minister for Education should not be portrayed as a bad man who has betrayed the cause of Chinese education. Now, this Bill asks for more money from the predominantly Chinese community of Singapore. Sir, all along, unfortunately, our courageous and hard-working Minister for Education has been condemned and termed as a destroyer of Chinese culture. If the Minister would take this opportunity to compare the so-called Ten-Year Plan for education of the then colonial Government with that of the present Government during the last 3½ years, it would help the public, especially the Chinese intellectuals and Chinese students, to know more exactly about how the Government spends money on Chinese education. Nevertheless, the outcry of discrimination against Chinese education is going on mainly on the question of capital grant for school buildings as applications for capital grant for Chinese school buildings seem always to be delayed by the Singapore Improvement Trust or because of other factors. But so far the Government has not taken effective steps to help any Chinese school management committee to put up a building. It is also very slow in granting such applications.

Sir, on the question of the salary of Chinese school teachers, there is an outcry against the experienced teachers receiving less pay than some of their former students. In other words, the salary scale for Chinese teachers is chaotic. Nobody understands why it should be so. Some say "Oh, we are experts, and we must be specially recognised." Others say, "No, the Chinese University degree cannot be recognised." I think it is high time for the Government to give a clear-cut statement on this vexed question of the salary scales of Chinese teachers.

My last point is to urge the Government to give more aid to the Nanyang University. Last month, the Minister announced that financial aid was to be extended to Nanyang University. I should imagine that if financial aid had been granted two years ago, the Nanyang University would be in a better position today.

11.00 am.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill which is to increase the education rate from two per cent to four per cent will touch my pocket to the extent of something like $10. I am quit happy to pay that because I know that I am getting much more for the many children that I send to school. I think everybody who is in a position to help Government in providing more money for the young people should rejoice at this step taken by the Government to help the young people. But what is uppermost in my mind now is that there will be 16,000 young students of about 12 years old sitting for the Government common primary examinations and the result of this will be that 11,000 of such children will be thrown out into the streets without any means of getting into a regular secondary school. Of the 11,000 children who will be out in the streets, probably 1,000 or so will be lucky enough to get into afternoon schools, private schools or Government evening schools, but there will still be that large number of about 10,000 young people who will not know what to do with themselves. I Think that with this increase in revenue,, we must find a way to help these young people. We must not leave them without employment and without anything useful for them to do.

I certainly think, Sir, that the education that we are having now tends to make almost everybody a pen-pusher. We have many other lines that we must accept. I certainly feel that in a large city we not only want clerks, managers and business executives, but we also want fitters, electricians and plumbers. We want people not only on the level of engineers, who are highly qualified people, but also those who will be just able to effect some sort of repair and help themselves in seeking employment or earning a living.

I am thinking that, for the 10,000 young people, something must be done for them. Some sort of school must be set up for them, a school that will teach them a trade, to be able to repair simple faults in radios, teach them about simple plumbing lines, all sorts of things at a level lower than even the Junior Trade School. I am thinking of this because it will then enable the young people to know a trade and so earn a livelihood. If they cannot help themselves, they will be a liability to society. If they cannot earn enough money, they will know where to get it, by fair means or foul. We should try to see that they are assisted along correct lines and not be misled by criminals.

Furthermore, Sir, apart from this question of young children and unemployment, there is the question of Government policy in helping Chinese schools. I happen to be connected with a number of Chinese schools, being on the Board of Managers, and in one instance I find that the Education Department has been willing to help in recommending an acre of land in the Tan Tock Seng Hospital burial ground for the building of a school. But then it seems that the Department of Education is not influential enough to help, and so the Land Office must also be brought into the picture. The Planning Department must also have its say and, all in all, the assistance to the school seems to be rendered in such a fashion that it does not give a feeling that help is being handed over willingly. There is a lack of co-ordination in all these Governments Departments - where one Ministry recommends, the other Ministry holds it up. That is absolutely bad. I would say that if Government is going to help, if the Minister says, "We will help certain schools in certain projects", all the other Ministries should assist in such a project. I have another case. This happens to be the case of a school of which I happened to be Chairman. We built a school for 18 classrooms, three storeys high. We wanted to have another storey to give added facilities. I was a Member of the Select Committee on the Education Bill and we all know that there is always a lack of space for school playgrounds. The Minister at that time assured the Opposition that the problem of playing fields will not be an obstacle to school building and so on. However, it spells quite differently when it comes to the Singapore Improvement Trust. As my colleague, the hon. Member for Paya Lebar said, the S.I.T. has its own rule to obstruct all these matters. We have been told not to proceed with the building of another storey to provide added facilities to the children. There is a lack of playing fields which, in this particular case, comprises five or six basketball courts. In such schools as the one in Telok Ayer Street and the one in Clemenceau Avenue, there are no playgrounds at all. I fail to see why we could not give a directive to the S.I.T. to assist Government in the execution of its policy by helping all people who are engaged in education.

11.07 a.m.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill): Sir, I welcome the proposal of Government to increase this Education Rate from 2 per cent to 4 per cent. When I looked at the Paper, as the hon. Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) said just now, I was shocked to see that 11,000 students will be left behind, not knowing what to do unless assistance could be given from other quarters.

I feel that if we want peace and harmony in this country, the fortunate people should help the poor ones. My only worry is this - as the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) has asked just now - how did the Government come to this figure of 4 per cent? Is that the right figure that is needed for this education assistance? I do hope that Government will think carefully, but the people do not mind contributing more. Once and for all, how much have they got to contribute; they get tired of having such appeals over and over again.

11.09 a.m.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question has been asked why Government has increased the Education Rate from 2 to 4 per cent and not to any other figure. The reason for this is that since the cost of education is continuing to rise, and since this Government will only plan for the next new government, I thought that the increase should be related to the education expansion plan for next year. Therefore I have chosen this rate, to ask for an increase of, as I said in my speech, from $1.6 million to $3.4 million, an increase of $1.8 million, which will be just sufficient to plan for a standstill budget so that the expansion which has been committed will carry on, but no new projects will be carried out by Government. That is the main reason for the increase from 2 per cent to 4 per cent.

As regards the concern of several Members over the possibility of throwing out, as they say, 11,000 children into the streets, I must say that this is not a correct statement. 11,000 children will not be thrown into the streets. I am sure some of them will be given places in the Junior Trade School. Many of them will, of course, be admitted into the evening schools run by Government. If necessary, the evening schools will be expanded to absorb those young persons whom the Education Department think will benefit by secondary education. I have stressed to this House quite a number of times that evening schools cater for those who, for one reason or another, cannot gain admission into secondary schools, but that they will be given education on subjects which will lead to their sitting for examinations held by the Royal. Society of Arts or even the Cambridge School Certificate.

The hon. Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) mentioned the case of his own school where he said that the S.I.T. was obstructive. Well, this is the first time that I have heard him air his complaint in public. I have not personally been informed of this. If he had told me personally about it, I am sure that he would have got all the co-operation from me. Even during the Select Committee on the Education Bill I stated that the lack of playing fields should not be an obstruction to the expansion of school building, especially in areas where there is congestion of buildings.

The hon. Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) said that there are always delays in the matter of capital grants. He makes it out that the delay is always due to Government, but I must say - I am sorry that he is not here to hear it - that usually such delays are due to the Committees of Management themselves. They have been repeatedly told to submit their claims or their application for capital grants before June in the year before the grant that is to be given. The reason for this is to enable the Government to vet the plans, to see that every thing is in order before the application is put down into the Estimates for approval by this House. Usually the Committees of Management of these schools come any time they like with inadequate plans or inadequate requirements, and when they are asked to complete those requirements or to give us more information, they usually take a long time; and when they do come, it is usually after the Estimates have been prepared and they have to wait for another year before those Estimates can be put down into the budget. Therefore, the delay is not due to the Government. If the managers o these Management Committees will cooperate with the Education Department and comply with the requests required, I am sure things would have been dealt with more speedily.

The question of teachers' salaries has also been brought up. The recognition of qualifications for the purpose of fixing salaries for the teachers is a question that is determined not by me but by the independent Public Service Commission, and the teachers in Chinese schools are paid according to the decision of the Public Service Commission. I think the question of salaries especially of the Chinese teachers will be resolved very soon. The hon. Member for Changi also mentioned something about aid to Nanyang University. Well, the aid to be given to Nanyang University is based on the deficit disclosed in the accounts submitted by the University authorities. Hon. Members must realise that we cannot give more than the deficit, otherwise it will mean that Government will be enabling the University to have a surplus, and this should not be the way in which public funds should be handled.

The hon. Member for Changi also touched on the black name supposed to have been associated with me as a destroyer and betrayer of Chinese culture, and asked me to mention something about the present plan in connection with the Ten-year plan. The Ten-year plan, augmented by the Five-year plan, envisages expenditure on Chinese education, subject to correction, of course, of something like $300,000, or less than $300,000 for ten or fifteen years; whereas in 1957 Members will realise that on Chinese education alone the Government has spent over $10-million as compared with the Ten or Fifteen-year plan envisaged with an expenditure of only $300,000.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: How do you spend it?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: I think that is a sufficient answer to those who say that I betray Chinese culture.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Did you spend it carefully?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: I think I have answered all the questions, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill [Mr Chew Swee Kee].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.