APPROPRIATION BILL

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day]:

Resumption of debate on Question (17th December, 1958) proposed to Head 46 in the First Schedule of the Bill,

"That the sum to be allotted for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 29 therein."-[Mr Lim Cher Kheng].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

FIRST SCHEDULE

Head 46-

Question again proposed.

10.02 a.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir at the moment of interruption yesterday, I intended to give an answer to the hon. Member for Changi in regard to the question of salary scales of teachers, but as it was not possible then, I will therefore take the opportunity this morning. It is not possible to explain in detail the salary structure in the public service as against the qualifications of Chinese school teachers, because the hon. Member for Changi, who is absent today, will not be able to understand it. It is not because the salary structure is complicated, but because the qualifications of Chinese school teachers are more complicated than is the salary structure; the reason being that for a long time, while Chinese schools were outside the control of my Ministry, the teachers were recruited by the school committees of management without any uniform requirements at all as to their qualifications. Therefore, it is no wonder that the assessment of Chinese qualifications has caused so much difficulty. If there is any teacher who does not know how his salary is arrived at by my Ministry, the proper course open to him is to make enquiries from my Staff Officer.

On the question of University degrees and their recognition, I must remind the hon. Member that it is the Public Service Commission which advises the Government on the value of certain qualifications; and as to who advises the Commission, I am afraid the hon. Member must direct his question to the Public Service Commission, and not to me; I cannot answer on behalf of the Public Service Commission. I also want the hon. Member to understand that, as Minister for Education, I am not an adviser on qualifications or on the public service. The recognition of certain qualifications has a wider implication than for the purpose of teaching when you consider the public service as a whole.

Sir, I do not know if I may be ruled out of order if I should touch on Tamil education?

The Chairman: Has the point been raised?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: No. Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr A. R. Lazarous (Farrer Park): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allotted for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 53 therein.

Sir, we have in Singapore the Council for Adult Education which is run under the direction of the Minister for Education. The function of this Council is to educate the adults who could not and did not attend either primary or secondary schools. The Council are now conducting about 630 night classes teaching in almost all languages, in the Adult Education Association. Sir, when the Rendel Constitution comes to an end, elections to the next Assembly will be ready and the voters in Singapore will have to play a more important part than they were hitherto doing. Double the number of Assemblymen will he elected from more than double the number of voters. Therefore, it is as important to educate the adults as to educate the children, not only as voters but also as parents. If the adults of today are steeped in prejudice or superstition or some sort of bad behaviour of one kind or another, naturally the children will inherit these habits in spite of all the textbook knowledge pumped into them, and we would not be able to get independence in Singapore. So, Sir, it is important, as I have told you, to educate the adults.

We have seen in this Estimate, for the Council for Adult Education, that only $500,000 is allowed. Sir, we have in Singapore, 252,000 children in primary schools, 42,000 in secondary schools, 3,000 in universities, and 2,000 in technical schools. Therefore, out of a total of 300,000 children after completing primary education, we have roughly 45,000 children attending secondary schools, universities and technical schools. Sir, what happens to the other 255,000 children? They are not getting any further education. At least in the interest of these children, apart from so many adults who wish to educate themselves, adult education is important.

Sir, to convince the Members of this Assembly, I am quoting from the Annual Report of the Singapore Council for Adult Education presented to the Annual Conference on 6th December, 1958, page 1:

"Though we hope for a greater expansion in our activities this year, because of the economy drive of the Government of Singapore, we have had to be satisfied with consolidating what we have done rather than to increase our classes. Originally we had planned $613,317 estimate for the year to be received from Government grant. This had to be reduced to $522,387 estimate. Hence, there has been little expansion, and out of the request for 204 more new classes in basic education, only 51 could be approved. We had to be satisfied again with only a token grant of $10 for cultural education.

It should be pointed out that though, from Government, we have received $522,387 the total expenses of the Council have been in the region of $700,000, the balance being met from our own General Fund. In our opinion, in the present stage of rapid development in Singapore and with its large body of new citizens, to curtail our work would be disastrous to the community and it should be strongly urged that it is the responsibility of the Government to help us to expand our work. To reduce one adult class means one policeman less."

I will just quote one more sentence from page 6:

"The Basic Education Committee met on 15th October, 1958, and considered various possible measures. It finally decided to ask our Association running classes to close their classes on 23rd November, 1958, about 3 weeks earlier than the scheduled time, so that there would be a saving of expenditure sufficient to meet the deficit."

I do not think it is necessary for me to explain further than what I have read from the Report, and in view of the above I hope the Hon, the Minister for Education will consider giving a bigger grant to the Adult Education Council.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will notice in the Estimates that the grant for next year in respect of the Council for Education is the same as the grant for this year. At the outset, I think I must explain that the Council for Adult Education was formed on one principle, and that is to provide literacy classes for the adult population. It is not supposed to run classes for the Ministry, and therefore there must not be duplication of classes such as providing lectures on Cambridge examination subjects, commercial subjects and further education. These are being run by my Ministry in many spheres, such as commercial schools running in several centres. We have also secondary commercial schools. Therefore, the Council should not duplicate the work and incur unnecessary expenditure. The Council should confine itself to providing literacy classes for adults for which it is formed and not embark on providing classes on further education, instituting law lectures and such like subjects.

I admit that the Council's constitution does give it very wide powers and room for discretion, but as I am entrusted with public funds I cannot allow the Council to go on merrily spending money on duplicated work without a check. I will, however, if I am reasonably satisfied that the expenditure asked for is justified, come to this Assembly for a supplementary vote, as I have done sometime this year.

If I heard the hon. Member for Farrer Park rightly, he mentioned something about cultural education. May I remind him that we have a cultural section in my Ministry for which we have asked for a vote of some $50,000?

Mr Lazarous: I am glad, Sir, that the Hon, the Minister for Education admits that there is need for adult education. But to answer his point that the Council is spending too much money not only on adult education but also on further education - by which he means cultural and other activities - I want to assure the Minister that the Council has already stopped these activities and to convince him, I will just read one paragraph on page 9 of the Report:

"It may not be out of place to point out in this context that the Council recognize that, as far as possible, they should avoid duplication with the Ministry of Education or the Polytechnic or the universities. It is because this year the Polytechnic and the Ministry of Education itself have started offering facilities for secondary level classes in the evening that the Further Education Committee decided to start economising by cutting down secondary level classes."

10.15 a.m.

Sir, I think this clears the Minister's anxiety that the Council are spending more money on further education. I shall quote some figures to convince the Minister. Sir, the total amount of money allowed by the Ministry to the Adult Education Council is $500,000. Sir, the Minister admits that basic education is necessary. For teachers' salary and basic education alone, they have spent $364,954. For teachers' salary and further education (that is what the Hon, the Minister complains about) - only $36,990 was spent. But the fees collected from students on basic education is $129,050; and the students' fees for further education, which the Minister complains about, is $27,596.90 cents. Sir, this figure shows that, from the grant which this Council have received from the Ministry, they have not wasted anything. They have conducted classes for basic education; they have almost maintained themselves. They have collected fees from students for further education, which were sufficient to maintain their classes. I think the Hon, the Minister need not be anxious about their wasting money. Actually they are not. They have more or less stopped all these classes.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Does the hon. Member realise that they stopped further education only at my intervention, when I found out that they were embarking on such duplicate subjects as I have pointed out just now?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the sum of $63,539,180 for Head 46 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want just a few points of clarification from the Minister for Education on the running of evening classes. Do I understand that there will be places in the evening classes for all the students who are not able to gain entry into normal schools? Do I understand again that the evening classes will be run on more or less the same footing as the day schools, enabling the students who join them to come up to the level of Senior Middle III in Chinese schools and the Cambridge School Certificate in the English stream? If it is the case, then I think the people of Singapore will not have any grouse at all. It assists them a great deal. Of course, when I am talking about this, I do not for one moment forget about students who may be at school all the time and yet are unable to benefit by it. I am aware that there may be a great number of students whose parents want them to become great men - doctors, lawyers and all that - and they cannot even pass Standard V or VI. Now some useful outlet must be found for such people, and I wonder if the Minister has in mind plans to assist them, to help them with some sort of a vocation so that at that age, when they leave school and are not able to go for further studies, and too young to get a job, they are able to absorb some useful learning of some sort at institutions which will train them for a job. I am aware that the Minister has had that plan in mind for quite a long time, but it has not been put into practice - for reasons which I do not know.

I would also remind the Minister that there are welfare organizations which are prepared to assist Government in that direction. In fact, last year I made an offer to the Minister that the Federation of Boys' Clubs has been thinking of starting classes - in fact, they have started classes which teach motor repairing, wood-work, and such other crafts - and that they would be prepared to assist the Ministry in helping these young people.

Another point, Sir, which I would like to ask the Minister is the policy in respect of youth movements in Singapore. We have had the Ministry sending over to us representatives to sit on our Management Committee, to learn and assist the youth movement, the Federation of Boys' Clubs. Previously they had an officer sent to us. This officer, of course, had notices of meetings sent to him all the time, but he never attended meetings! However, we are grateful to the Ministry for sending the present officer, Mr Peter Lim, to represent the Ministry on our Committee, because he is particularly interested in the youth movement and has been very helpful - suggesting a lot of improvements and ways of co-operating with the Ministries for the betterment of youth. I am talking about this co-operation in connection with the limited playing fields we have in Singapore. All this time the Ministry has assured us that they will help us out over this matter at the highest level; but when it comes to actual practice, we find the red tape is such that it is almost impossible to make use of school playing fields! We have put forward our views to the Ministry that schools are meant for the youths of Singapore, and whether they are within school hours or outside school hours, they should be made use of instead of being left idle. We have not had much success at that.

I would like the Minister to know that the education of our young people must not be confined only to classrooms, and to within the hours of teaching in schools, but that it should be an all-round affair, and we should take care of our youths inside the schools as well as outside them. If the youth movements are prepared to help Government on that basis, to look after the young people when they are out of school and see that they have something useful to do, instead of ganging up with the wrong type of people, then Government should help them. I am certain that if the Minister will assure us in this House that he will do so, and that he will give a directive to all his officers concerned to give the youth movements full and tangible co-operation in helping the young people, it will be appreciated by all.

The Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary (Mr M. P. D. Nair): Sir, I would like to raise the question of Tamil education and I would invite the Minister to speak on his plans on further Tamil education in Singapore.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said on the Second Reading of the Budget that I was very perturbed to note that the Government, instead of building more secondary schools to absorb those pupils who pass out from the primary schools, have provided only 9 secondary schools to 59 primary schools. Sir, we all know education is very important in this world. Education is a human problem and also a human need, like health and housing. We must pay particular attention to education, particularly for the younger set. The Government say they are unable to build more secondary schools on the flimsy excuse that they are unable to recruit able and experienced teachers.

Sir, we must have teachers. We do not care whether they are able to recruit or not. We must have them at any cost! [Laughter.] You may laugh, Sir. What I know is that the Ministry of Education -

The Chairman: Order. I must point out that I did not laugh at all!

Mr William Tan: Sir, what I meant was that there was giggling in the House.

We know the Government is always very smart, I mean in the way they cook up something - "We cannot get teachers; we are unable to get teachers", or "We have no money." They are very fond of saying the same thing again and again, in spite of the fact that they say they want to provide six years' free education for all the children.

Look at subhead 11, "Free Text Books" - page 256. Under this item $300,000 was provided for Free Text Books for the previous year.

10.30 a.m.

Now we have this grant for Free Text Books under three subheads: subhead 11 on page 256; subhead 28 on page 257, and subhead 34 on page 257. These three totals of grant for Free Text Books amount to $151,000 for 1959 as against the $300,000 provided for this year. Why has this amount been reduced? Sir, we know very well that free textbooks should be provided for the children of those who are poor. They cannot even pay the school fees. They cannot pay for the textbooks. So Government has provided a grant for free textbooks. But now Government has the effrontery to reduce this amount. Why? I can tell you the reason. It is because many of these students have been kicked out of school because they have failed in their examinations. We know very well that the population of Singapore is increasing. Year in and year out we have more and more children attending school. I am quite sure many people will be affected by this reduced grant. What is the Ministry of Education doing?

There is another aspect of Government which I have already condemned, and that is, they only know how to look after their own interest. They use sugar-coated words when they say they want to provide education for all. I have been patiently sitting on this side of the House for nearly four years.

Sir, I know that if the Government had been doing its job properly, the recent leakage in the examinations would not have happened. Do you know how much worry, anxiety and trouble the school children went through to prepare themselves for the examinations? After having sat for the examinations, we can imagine their disappointment when they came back home and the news broke out that the examination papers could be bought for $30. Sir, you know of this situation. The leakage happened not only in the English schools but also in the Chinese schools.

Sir, for so many years under the Colonial Government - I was educated in a Government school for nearly ten years - we never heard of such a silly thing as a leakage of examination papers. We never heard that examination papers could be bought for $30. If there are any excuses which the Minister for Education could give, I would still not be satisfied, because as Minister for Education, he must be responsible for his Ministry. It is his duty to see that his Ministry is properly run, and he should not blame the Printing Office or anybody else. He may cry to heaven and earth! He may cook up excuses! I am not interested.

The Chairman: Order. The expression "cook up", of course, is very unparliamentary. I think the honourable Member must be careful in his choice of words. Will he please withdraw the expression?

Mr William Tan: I withdraw it, Sir,I wish to know the policy adopted by the Ministry of Education in regard to the registration of children in all the schools in Singapore. Does the Minister know that when a parent has four or five children, he would naturally prefer them to go to the same school or to schools nearest his home? Instead, they have adopted a nonsensical policy in the Department. Do you know what has happened? I will refer to the case of a parent living in my area. One of his children was studying in Tiong Bahru School. The next child was posted to Trafalgar School. The third child, who was registered at Tiong Bahru School, was given the excuse that there were no more places. They said they were sorry, and could not find him a place in Tiong Bahru School. He was posted instead to Kim Seng Road (West) School. The fourth child was transferred to Trafalgar School. Imagine a parent having his four children going to three different schools! In addition to the members of his family whom he has to support, he has to pay rent. He has to pay everything on a salary of, say, $150 or $200. With all these commitments, he has to send four children to different schools in different parts of the island. Has he enough time, or can he take the trouble to send his little children to Trafalgar School, Kim Seng Road (West) School, and Tiong Bahru School - three different places, Sir?

I, for one, Sir, send my children every morning to school - to three different schools. I do not mind that much, Sir, because I can get in my car and send them off. But can an ordinary working-class parent, who has four children, do the same? Some wives may have lost their husbands, or a housewife may have a tiny tot nestling in her arms. Do we expect this woman to send her children to different schools, when their ages may be just around seven to nine years? Is it fair to this poor woman? When you ask the principal of a school to put all the children in the same school, he will say: "I am sorry, I cannot do anything. We are instructed by the Ministry of Education." Who controls them? The Ministry of Education. The principal cannot do much. He realises the plight of the family. The excuse is every time given that it is the Almighty, the Minister for Education, or the Ministry of Education, who controls the destiny of our children. The Minister may be God in his Department, but I have the liberty to speak in this House.

The Minister then talked about secondary schools. He said that many children, on passing their primary school examination, would go to a trade or a technical school. May I ask the Minister how many children who fail in their primary school examination manage to get a place in a trade or technical school? For example, we notice in the papers that 15,000 students sat for their examinations, and only 7,000 were accepted, leaving 8,000 students stranded. Do not forget that they are the citizens of tomorrow. These 8,000 students will be our people. Yet he is talking about trade schools and technical schools. He likes them to go there. Sir, may I also remind the Minister that it is the parents' wish to decide what education is good for their children? The Minister has no right to dictate to me and ask me to send my children to a trade school. In my case, I will not listen to his advice. I will choose to send my children to any school I like, whether to a trade school, a secondary or a carpentry school, or any school I like. He gives the excuse that we have trade schools to absorb the people.

Sir, look at the students roaming in the streets. In my area in Tiong Bahru alone, there are thousands of them, not hundreds. What is the reason? It is because they are over-age. It is because they have failed in their Primary VI examination. It is also because the Government want to save money, as in the case of the reduction in the grant of free textbooks, under cover that it is necessary to economise in order to give education for all. Cook up excuses!

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member is not careful with his language and his tone of voice, he will be prevented from speaking further at this sitting. He has used the expression "cook up" once. He has withdrawn it. He has now used it again. I ask him to withdraw it again and to be careful with his language.

Mr William Tan: I withdraw that, Sir. I will use the word "invent".

The Chairman: Order. That word "invent" also is unparliamentary. The honourable Member must withdraw that.

Mr William Tan: I withdraw that word. You cannot blame me for being angry, Sir, because I have seen parents coming to my house or my office, weeping, particularly those poor women who have no husbands, or whose husbands were jobless, saying that they have to send their children to various schools.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a strange thing that since Mr Opposition, the champion for the poor, has decided not to participate in this debate, this House seems to have been monopolised by the two ex-Democrat Assemblymen.

The Chairman: Order. I have permitted "wisecracks" - I do not know whether that is unparliamentary or not - but I do ask hon. Members not to make any personal references to honourable Members, but to get on with the debate. We are debating Government policy, and, therefore, whether an honourable Member is an ex-Democrat or not makes no difference. We are now debating Government policy.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Yes, Sir. I beg to withdraw, but actually it is relevant to what I am going to debate. I wonder whether the Minister for Education can recollect what he said yesterday when he answered my first question. What is the policy of the Government right now in building so many schools and granting so much money - even those schools which we call vernacular schools under the item of Grants-in-Aid - spending so much money -

The Chairman: Order. We have completed the debate on Grants-in-Aid on the honourable Member's own amendment. He was not here this morning when the Minister replied to his amendment. A vote was taken, and therefore this topic of Grants-in-Aid is now closed.

10.45 a.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I am fully aware of my position. The Minister gave me an answer yesterday that he is not the Minister for Employment. Therefore, it is not his duty to answer my query as to what is in his mind or in his Government's mind in respect of Singapore's education policy - whether he has made any move to co-ordinate our education policy on a Pan-Malayan basis. That is, of course, what I intended to mean. So I can quote, to show my point on what I already said yesterday on this question, from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of yesterday's date. There is a feature article written by a student by the name of Tsu-hua, a new graduate from the Senior Middle High School.

December 17th.

"MY ACCUSATION The name-Tsu-hua Confession of a newly senior graduated student".

In order to save time I will just quote two sentences. It says: