STOPPING OF AUTOMATIC PROMOTION IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS

Mr Lee Teck Him asked the Minister for Education whether he will consider stopping automatic promotion in primary schools especially in promotions to Primary 2 and Primary 3.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the practice of automatic promotion was, in fact, abolished in 1959. Schools at present may retain pupils in Primaries 3, 4, 5 and 6. However, retention at Primaries 1 and 2 level is at present not possible for the following reasons.

Firstly, it is the policy of the Government to ensure that every Singapore citizen who is of school-going age is given a place in school. As the number of such children is enormous, it is not possible to retain pupils in Primary 1 without depriving some of these school-going children of their places.

Secondly, it is also considered unsound by educationists to retain pupils at the end of the first year in school for psychological reasons.

Thirdly, the Lim Tay Boh Commission of inquiry recommended that the first three years of primary school work should be planned as a single coordinated unit and the final assessment of a child's progress should be made at the end of the third year.

Mr Lee Teck Him (Tiong Bahru): (In Mandarin): Sir, the Minister has just now given us an explanation. But I am not quite satisfied with that, because we know that pupils in Primary 1 and Primary 2 are not capable of thinking for themselves. So we should not allow them to be promoted automatically if they are not qualified. We should know that studying is like building a house. In order to build a multi-storey house, the foundations should be deeper and the piling should be stronger. The deeper the piling, the stronger will be the structure.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lee, you must have heard what I told Mr Ho and Mr Ng a few minutes ago. Can we have a supplementary question, if you have one, and not a debate, please?

Mr Lee Teck Him: (In Mandarin): Sir, thank you very much. I would like to add something more. If the foundation is not soundly laid, no tall building can be constructed thereon. So if Primary 1 and Primary 2, which should be construed as the foundation of a building, are not soundly laid, then how can any high structures be built on that basis? I would like to ask the Minister whether my explanation is correct.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have enumerated a number of reasons why retention at Primary 1 and Primary 2 is not possible at this stage. If the Member thinks that retention at Primaries 1 and 2 level is desirable, then that is his opinion. But it runs counter to the views of educationists.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, if a student in Primary 1 cannot make the grade and you promote him to Primary 2 and then to Primary 3, can the Minister say how he expects this student to cope with the work in Primary 3?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first year, Primary 1, and also Primary 2 to a large extent, teaching is mainly oral. I do not see why a reasonably intelligent child cannot improve in the second or third year. Perhaps the Member for Bras Basah should persuade parents of children failing in the first year, i.e., Primary 1, to pay more attention to their children's studies.