EDUCATION POLICY

7.13 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, this motion* was tabled some two months ago -

• The motion reads as follows:

That this Assembly calls upon the Government to recommend the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the Government's Education Policy, its content and administration in all fields other than vocational and technical education, and to make recommendations.

Mr Speaker: Is the hon. Member moving?

Mr David Marshall: Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, unless it is more convenient to postpone it till tomorrow if I can be informed that the Minister would wish to make a Ministerial statement. I wrote him as suggested by the Prime Minister yesterday, and he may well not have had the time to study the issue and reply, but I will be very happy to give way if he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Speaker: Is the Minister prepared for a statement?

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): No, Sir.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, this motion was tabled two months ago and on the 19th of December, as the Prime Minister informed you, I wrote to the Minister for Education urging upon him my anxiety to avoid making this topic a matter for political debate.

7.14 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mr David Marshall: I was anxious that there should be a generally non-political approach; rather that he would consider making a statement appointing a Commission, in which event I would be happy to withdraw the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of what had occurred immediately prior to that date, I suggested amendments and the basic amendment was that, in addition to the terms of reference which should include the six-day week, we should have the political activities and machinations in primary and secondary schools, the extent thereof, and the persons and organisations responsible therefor. The Minister was good enough to make a statement a few days later assuring us that he would appoint a Commission in the spirit of those terms of reference. However, on Monday, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, somewhat to my consternation, I heard from the Prime Minister that the appointment of the Commission undertaken would not, in fact, be carried out forthwith but would be on the never-never plan in the nebulous future, because of the need to have a High Court Judge and an inadequate number was not available to chair the four Commissions he had in mind. I pointed out then that the main part of the motion did not require a High Court Judge - in fact, it would be rather inappropriate - and that the second part of the motion could well be tagged on to the terms of reference of the Commission he had in mind, which was, in his own words, "to look into the agitation in the Chinese middle schools over the conversion from the 3: 3 to 4:2 system which led to the organisation of the attempted boycott of the first secondary certificate examination in December last year with particular reference to Communist cadres behind the scenes responsible therefor". It seemed to me that they were associated and the proper thing was co make those two terms of reference - if in fact the two terms of reference were necessary - into one and leave that to the High Court Judge and not delay the question of the appointment of the Commission on Education.

I would like to emphasise that when the Minister for Education promised this Assembly the appointment of the Commission, he made it plain that the provisions he had contemplated for the relaxation of the six-day week would no longer be put into effect, and therefore the six-day week would continue to plague parents and educationists who are taking very strong exception. And everybody in Singapore was entitled to believe that, particularly in view of the action of the Government in not implementing proposals for the relaxation of the six-day week, it would proceed with expedition to the appointment of this Commission and not make it an excuse for refusing to carry out measures which it itself recognised to be necessary and to be called for. I repeat, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not my desire that there should be - and I hope there would not be - any attempt to criticise or praise or otherwise indulge in statements with reference to the educational policy, because I am deeply anxious that the matter should be left to non-political educationists and public men who could give us an impartial picture which may well be complimentary to this Government - and I hope also to preceding governments - in respect of their efforts in the field of multilingual education which was and is a brave experiment in this area. But this Commission should be appointed forthwith and the purpose of my moving this motion is to obtain an assurance which I have not obtained, that in fact the Commission will be appointed speedily.

You will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in reply to the Prime Minister, who said that in view of my suggestion I should write in to the Minister for Education, I did, on the morning of the 16th, which was only yesterday, write an urgent letter to the Minister for Education repeating my suggestion. I said:

`I would appreciate an indication from you by way of Ministerial or Press statement on the subject if possible before the time for consideration of my motion is reached.'

The purpose of my request, Mr Deputy Speaker, was to avoid a debate on this motion if the terms of the Press statement or Ministerial statement were adequate. I have not received a reply either written or orally from the Minister, and you will have noted that he refused an opportunity to make a Ministerial statement.

I therefore move the motion standing in my name. I do hope I will obtain from the Government not merely the assurance that this Commission will be appointed but its honest support of the motion in an indication as to when it is anticipated that this Commission will be appointed.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): The Member for Joo Chiat is absent. Dr Thio.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question of education and the welfare of our school children is so important that I think it should be above party politics. I therefore intend to speak very briefly in a constructive manner.

Sir, we know that it is a very difficult task to try to solve the problem of education in a multiracial and multilingual society, and if the Government have not been one hundred per cent successful in their attempts. I do not think we should blame them. But there is nothing so good that it cannot be improved. If we could have an independent Commission of Inquiry to go further into the problem and make recommendations, I think it will all be to the good.

Sir, in many respects, we agree with the aims of the Government - for example, education towards common identity and loyalty. The Government want to promote a common national language which children will learn and understand with respect and love for one another and with a common identity and loyalty. That is in the Sixth Anniversary Celebration Souvenir 1960 magazine of the P.A.P. However, Sir, I have once stated before and I reaffirm that my conviction is that, although a national language as a common language is highly desirable and very important to facilitate communication of thoughts, it will not necessarily promote unity and harmony as we have seen in this very Chamber where people speaking the same language can get rattled. For instance, in the international sphere, we have Red China and Formosa practically at war although the people in both places speak the same language. In the history of America, the British and American colonialists were at war although they spoke the same language. Perhaps the Commission of inquiry could go further and find out how the Government could supplement the policy of one common national language with other means to deve1op a spirit of tolerance, goodwill and harmony so that while speaking the same language they can also be on good terms with one another. I am sure that although we can disagree, yet we need have no ill-will towards one another.

The second objective of the Government is stated as education with common content, and that is interpreted as the preparation of common syllabuses for all the schools in the different media. Sir, one question that could be referred to the Commission is whether this policy should be rigidly adhered to. There is a danger that if common syllabuses are rigidly drawn up for schools in the different media, then we will produce citizens with a one-track mind. Perhaps there could be room for diversity so that, with the approval of the Ministry, if schools like to diversify their syllabuses and depart from those laid down and if there is nothing subversive they may do so. The Government could perhaps agree to the Commission going into this.

There is again the abolition of inter-school sports. While we are in favour of inter-district sports, the feeling among the school children is that the abolition of inter-school sports deprives them of the development of loyalty to their schools. The result has been that very poor crowds go to these inter-district sports, whereas when it comes to inter-school sports, arrangements are made so that Chinese, English, Malay and Tamil medium schools can all participate because children are such that their loyalty to their schools is stronger than their loyalty to their districts. After all, what is a district to them? A country yes, but when children come from different parts of Singapore to a secondary school, it is very difficult to develop loyalty to a district.

On the question of Government-aided schools and their future, there is a danger that the Government is inclined to promote State schools as a sort of "their" schools. The Government might forget that there must be free competition even in the field of education, otherwise qualities and standards might suffer. In the interest of the welfare of the children and in order that the wishes of the parents might be complied with, I should think that every encouragement should be given so that the Government-aided schools would be allowed every chance to grow and make good progress. At the moment, there are more and more difficulties because the Government imposes almost the same conditions on aided schools and yet when it comes to buildings, they are asked to provide half the cost. It is very difficult to approach people to provide half the cost of the buildings when the rules are so rigid that it is the same whether a boy goes to a Government school or to an aided school. I think in the case of the aided schools there should be more leeway in regard to curriculum and other activities, so long as the standards are maintained and there is no subversive activity going on.

Sir, then comes the question of private schools. Is there not room for good private schools in this country? The demand for education in this country is so great that I think it is even greater than that in Western countries. We Asians almost worship education. Parents who have grown-up children who should be employed still want their children to go to school if they are not employed. So we have these young people, who are 18 or 19 years old, who still want to go for education, in secondary schools or high schools although they should be working. And the parents' complaint is, "Well, since they cannot get employment and the Government provides only evening schools, what are they going to do in the day time?" They prefer these children to go to day schools until such time as there is full employment. If these parents want their sons and daughters to continue in high schools or secondary schools and the Government finds it too difficult or expensive to have more secondary or high schools, perhaps good private schools could be encouraged. We find that in the Philippines they do that, and standards can be maintained by a common examination.

Sir, the question of the full six-day week will be. I think, considered by this Commission and I hope that opportunity will be given to parents, teachers, unions, and others interested to submit their views.

There is one thing missing in our educational policy, and that is that we assume that in a multi-racial and multi-lingual society, people speaking one language can come together easily. Sir, we find even in this Chamber it is not so easy to get people to reach agreement. I think democracy can only work if we have the development of qualities of character such as tolerance, goodwill, integrity, charity, and the spirit of service, all of which are very important. Because many schools are keen to compete in school examinations and get good results, the education system tends to fill the minds with just intellectual facts without effecting any change in a person's character, so that we produce not good citizens but educated rascals. In the interest of this country and for the future of this country, I do hope that the Commission appointed will go into this, matter as well.

7.35 p.m.

Mr Leong Keng Seng (Serangoon Gardens): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of having such a Commission of Inquiry to look into the education policy of the Government. But this Commission of Inquiry should not indulge in politics. It should be concerned purely with the education policy of the Government. Because this .policy has many shortcomings, it has led to many difficulties and confusion at the moment. This confusion has been created by the Government itself. For example, the 4:2 system. If the Government could have postponed the holding of the public Secondary IV Examination for one year, then there would not have been such trouble and there would not have been any boycott of the examination at all.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are several matters worth investigating in this Commission of Inquiry. First, we should look into the past as to whether the Government have assisted the Government-aided schools in respect of their development and progress, because we know that many of the Chinese schools are aided by the Government. Many of the English schools are Government schools. The private aided schools are meant to help the Government. This is, correct, and the Government should make use of public funds to assist the aided schools. In the same way, private' individuals are helping the Government to develop and bring advancement to our education.

The second point concerns teachers. In many aided schools teachers who have reached retiring age are not well taken care of, especially in regard to their after-care, so that in their retirement these teachers are more or less unemployed. So they have financial problems in their families.

The third point concerns the future of students. We know that of the students who have passed the Secondary IV public examination and the Senior Middle III examination, some are still unemployed. Also some who have passed the Secondary IV examination are not given a chance to go for further studies. So how are we going to think about their future? We know that this year the Government does not seem to want these graduates to become temporary teachers. It seems that it wants to wait for the result of the examination `before those students who have sat for the examination can become teachers.

The fourth point concerns Nanyang University. We all know that the Minister in the forum convened by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce answered questions in regard to Nanyang University. The Minister said that after merger he could request the Government of the Federation to recognise the degrees of the Nanyang graduates. I do not know whether the Singapore Government, which has not officially recognised the degrees of Nanyang University graduates, can ask the Federation to recognise such degrees `before it does so. How can the Government do such a thing? In fact, the Government itself should take the initiative to recognise Nanyang University degrees before it can expect others to do so.

The last point I want to raise is that we are in doubt whether the Government wishes to change all the schools on the lines of English schools. I hope this point can be looked into as well in the Commission of Inquiry.

7.43 p.m.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the last sitting in December, to be exact, on 21st December, 1961. I had occasion to make a Ministerial statement to indicate that the Government was prepared to appoint a Commission of Inquiry in accordance with the spirit of the motion before this House. Mainly to spare Members of the House, both on the Government side and on the Opposition side after a marathon session, I agreed to make a statement at the request of the Member for Anson so as to cut short the debate on the motion. In fact, he had proposed an extension to his original motion to include the six-day week, and added political activities and machinations in primary and secondary schools to the extent thereof, and the persons and organisations responsible therefor. This extension of the terms of reference for the Commission of Inquiry was also accepted by Government. So since there is to be a Commission of Inquiry into not only the educational policy of the Government but also the six-day week, it would be highly improper for my Ministry to proceed with any amendments to the six-day week if the Commission of Inquiry is to inquire into the six-day week. So in my statement I did specifically mention that, arising out of the decision of the Government to have this Commission of Inquiry, the intention to bring about a revised version of the six-day week for 1962 for primary schools would have to be cold storaged. After I made that statement, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson was gleeful and happy and volunteered to withdraw the motion. The Speaker then told him that he could do so under the ordinary rules of the House. Then comes another letter from the Member for Anson to tell me a few other things. Well, I have already given an assurance that a Commission of Inquiry will be appointed. But if the Member for Anson thinks he can write letters to me telling me to do this and that before he withdraws the motion, if he is to appear like a weather cock which twists and turns at every puff of the wind, I must tell him that he is taking things too much for granted. I can assure him that the proposed Commission of Inquiry into the examination boycott could include political activities and machinations in primary and secondary schools. This proposed Commission of Inquiry would be headed by a High Court Judge. There would be a second Commission of inquiry to look into the educational policy other than on vocational and technical education, because that has already received the attention of a Commission of Inquiry. I do not think I need make further assurances whether that Commission of Inquiry is to he formed. It will be formed at a time when the Government has been able to find the members to form this Commission of Inquiry.

You will recall, Sir, that on 21st December. 1961, the Member for Anson asked for one Commission of Inquiry to bring everything in, and I said, "No, there should be two Commissions to go into the issues apart." I think the Member for Anson now accepts that. That is what the Government will do.

There are various points mentioned by the Member for Tanglin. I disagree with him when he says that it is not enough just to have a national language to bring about unity, but that it is necessary to have other languages as well. I think it is essential, if there is to be nation building in a muti-racial society, that the national language must be the language to bind all the people of this country. It is along this line that the question of the Federation of Malaysia is proceeding - that the national language would be Malay for the proposed Federation of Malaysia.

The Member for Tanglin next touched upon the fact that a common content in syllabuses might tend to some form of regimentation. The tragedy has always been that there has been no common content in our schools, thereby resulting in different standards and different ways of thinking. So not only are syllabuses to be of a similar content, but we should also have a common loyalty, and that is to have syllabuses Malayanised. That work has been achieved within the first two years of office of the present Government in the Ministry of Education. I disagree with him when he says that the abolition of the inter-school sports in favour of inter-district sports has not brought about a large response from students because they tend to have greater loyalty for schools than they have for districts. The reason for abolishing inter-school sports and substituting in its stead inter-district sports was purely to break down the communal barriers so long as we have English schools, Chinese schools, Malay schools and Tamil schools. But with the creation of more integrated schools - by that we mean more than one language medium of instruction in one school building - perhaps the time would come when we could come back to inter-school sports.

The Member for Tanglin then raised the perennial question of aided schools to allow for competition. It has never been denied that there is value in the educational system of Singapore for the existence of aided schools. In fact, in the past, aided schools have played a great part in providing education for the children of Singapore. But that was the distant past when the colonial Government failed to shoulder their full responsibility for the education of all its children. It is. I think, elementary knowledge that an elected government must be prepared to shoulder the responsibility of educating all its children. Therefore, whether we like it or not, it is the responsibility of an elected government to build more and more schools and to provide facilities for education so that the time will come when the majority of children will receive their education in Government schools, but those wishing to send their children to aided schools may do so. It is a question of free choice in as much as parents are allowed to choose the language medium of instruction for their children every year when children of six or seven enter school for the first time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin next raised the role of private schools in Singapore. Here again, the Ministry has not placed anything in the way of private schools opening and providing education if people do join such schools. But it is still the responsibility of the Ministry to ensure that private schools do charge reasonable fees and not exorbitant fees; that the teachers they employ are qualified for their task, and that they do not - as many do - give the students a certain type of education which does not really prepare them for recognised examinations. To take an example, private schools might train their students especially those who have failed in their primary school leaving examinations, and allow them to proceed to secondary classes, but they stop short at Secondary III level and not Secondary IV level, when if they were in English private schools, they should be prepared for the Cambridge School Certificate examination. It just shows this. I think they know quite well that the students who attend their classes might fail miserably if they do take the Senior Cambridge examination. That is the thing we want to stop. If private schools are genuine in their desire to coach people for a recognised examination and get them through the classes satisfactorily from Secondary I, II, III, and IV, we have no objections at all. But I must say that the Adult Education Board, that is, the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa, is making strenuous efforts to provide secondary education for adults, so much so that more than 5,000 are now attending ten centres for secondary classes. In fact, there are more applications than the Adult Education Board is able to handle. However, we feel that this is meeting a great need because the Ministry's and the Government's view is that we should not try to deprive people of the opportunity for education, be it secondary or higher education, if they wish to do so in the evenings to catch up on what they have missed during their younger days.

It will be remembered, Sir, that when the University .of Singapore Bill was before this House, Members of the Opposition were quite pleased with the new provisions in the University of Singapore Constitution which permit the University to grant external degrees, something which colonial universities were most unprepared to give.

7.59 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: We do think that the policy which the Ministry of Education has been following is along the right lines although it is common knowledge that education is education for the next generation. So whatever we do today we may not see the results next year or a few years after. But when all of us are perhaps no longer in this House, we are able to reflect on past history.

The Member for Tanglin touched upon the six-day week, which is part of the education policy of the Government that will come under review by the proposed Commission of inquiry. There is no doubt at all that interested parties, be they teachers, parents or even politicians who are interested in this subject, would be invited by the Commission to submit their views and that would be followed up with the giving of evidence in person if it is so desired by the Commission. I am wholly in support of the view put forward by the Member for Tanglin when he said that it is not enough that education is schools should be confined to school subjects, and that it is very dangerous if all that we do produce in schools would be children who are too examination conscious. Character forming is indeed an important aspect of education -

8.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption.