HIGH COST OF SECONDARY EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE

6.16 p.m.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Government has prided itself on its pragmatic socialism and, in accordance with its socialist principles, has introduced and implemented various social projects and schemes for the benefit of its citizens. Not the least praiseworthy effort of the Government has been that in the field of education. We are one of the few countries in Asia to provide free primary education for the children of our citizens in the language media of their own free choice. It is not surprising that today in Singapore illiteracy has ceased to be a problem.

The Government, however, to give it due credit, has not contented itself with merely providing free primary education but has made plans to provide similarly free secondary education for our citizens. It is unfortunate that the scheme for free secondary education could not be implemented for various reasons of national exigencies. The indonesian confrontation, followed by our separation from Malaysia and the accelerated withdrawal of the British Armed Forces, has in no small way contributed to making this scheme economically unfeasible. It is inevitable that our scarce financial resources have to be channelled away from social projects to cater for more vital needs, namely, our industrialisation programme and defence responsibilities. The generous response to the National Defence Fund from all sections of our citizens, however, is sufficient indication of the realisation and the appreciation by our citizens of the magnitude of our national problems.

But while our citizens understand the problems of the Government, I am sad to say that a similar compliment cannot be paid to the authorities in charge of administering our educational policy. But I must also hasten to add that our Ministry of Education has done well to fashion its policies to meet the changing economic circumstances of Singapore. The recent emphasis on technical education is in keeping with the transition of Singapore's economy from entrepot trade to manufacturing industries. The channelling of students at the end of their second year of secondary education into various educational streams, in accordance with their respective aptitudes or skills as determined from their academic records, is in consonance with the rational development of our national resources. The Ministry, however, does not appear to give any thought to the minimisation of the economic effect of the readjustment of its policies on the parents of the students concerned. To my mind, it is a singular failure on the part of the Ministry not to take into consideration the problem of human relations when effecting changes in policy, thus showing an ignorance of the problems of our citizens.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

6.20 p.m.

Mr N. Govindasamy: While it is not possible for the Government to implement a scheme of free secondary education, it is reasonably expected of our Government, which subscribes to pragmatic socialism, to bring secondary education within the means of as many citizens as possible. But, contrary to such reasonable ex pectations, many citizens, particularly those from the lower income group, have found the cost of educating their children to a secondary level prohibi tively expensive. As hon. Members of the House are aware, every student in a secondary school has to pay a school fee of $4 per month plus a fee of $2 for miscellaneous purposes, thus making a total of $6 per month. The only students who are exempted from the payment of such fees are students of Malay origin. Others, even those whose parents are in receipt of public assistance from the Social Welfare Department, are expected to pay at least a fee of $1 for miscellaneous purposes. Thus even a student from a family with no income at all is expected to pay at least a fee of $1 per month for the luxury of secondary education, But the point I wish to make is that the conditions prescribed by the Ministry of Education for the remission of school fees from $6 per month to $1 per month are extremely rigid and restrictive to such an extent that it is possible for a student from a family in very difficult financial circumstances not to be granted such a remission of school fees. I refer, Sir, to the two conditions which must be satisfied before a student can be granted remission of school fees. The first is that the income of the student's family does not exceed $200 per month. The second is that the granting of such remission is subject to a maximum of 10 per cent of the total enrolment in each school being granted such remission.

I do not know what is the basis for the selection of the magical figure of $200 per month family income as a means test for determining whether a student qualifies for remission of school fee, exemption from the miscellaneous fee and entitlement to free textbooks. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the Ministry has chosen the figure of $200 because that is the figure mentioned in the Central Provident Fund Ordinance for the purpose of exempting an employee from making contributions under the Ordinance, it appears to be the reasoning of the Ministry of Education that if a family bread-earner can afford to pay C.P.F. contributions from his income of more than $200 per month, he should be able to pay the school fees of his children in secondary school.

Whatever may be the actual reasons for the selection of the figure of $200 per month, the figure is arbitrary and ridiculous as a means test. Reference here must be made to the Urban Incomes and Housing - a Report on the Social Survey of Singapore 1953-54 prepared by our Finance Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee. On the basis of data obtainable in 1953-54, the result of the survey indicates that a minimum monthly income to sustain a family of four (man, wife and two children) in bare comfort is $101.85. Such a figure was arrived at on the basis of the bare necessities, such as food, that are required for the survival of the family and do not take into consideration various luxury items such as cigarettes and entertainment. But most important of all, no account was taken of the expenses of educating the children, not even at primary level, not to speak of secondary level.

Another factor that was not taken into consideration is the cost of housing for the family. Assuming that the family is occupying the cheapest Housing Board accommodation at $50 per month, it would appear that a family of four requires at least $151 to house and feed itself on the basis of the findings in the 1953-54 Report. But from our investigations, it appears that the cost of living has increased by about 20.5 per cent over the last 15 years since the conduct of the survey in 1953-54. I am quite certain that our price index and cost of living index etc. may even show that the cost of living has gone down over the past few years. I am quite aware that the price index, the cost of living index and other statistical indices can be manipulated by assigning different weights to different components in indices. Thus, it is not surprising that it is possible to compile a price index to show that the cost of living has gone down by 50 per cent while every housewife in Singapore has found, from bitter experience, that the cost of living has increased rather than decreased. To return to my point, however, I would say that a family with an income of $200 per month can barely afford secondary education for the children,

This is more so with the introduction of compulsory technical subjects in Secondary I and II, The reason for the additional cost is the necessary expenditure of money for the purchase of drawing boards, workshop-aprons and geometrical instruments which are required for the technical subjects. From inquiries I have made, the lowest amount that is required to be spent on the purchase of such equipment is approximately $15. Besides such additional expenditure, there is the normal expenditure for the purchase of textbooks. Again, from inquiries I have made, I am able to quote the least amount of money that must be spent on the necessary textbooks for the secondary classes, The figures are as follows: Secondary I $35 (for textbooks alone) Secondary II $30 Secondary III $59 (for pure Science Stream) $50 (for non-Science Stream) Secondary IV $30

These figures are hypothetical figures based on the cheapest textbooks available. The actual figure may be around $80 when all the other equipment is bought for each of the secondary classes, as I understand each school has its own selection of textbooks to be used by students. Thus it would be accurate to say that to maintain a student in a secondary school, it is necessary for his parents to spend about $50 or $60 a year on books and other educational materials in addition to the school fees of $6 per month which works out roughly to an average of $11 per month per student in a secondary class.

At the risk of boring Members of the House, I wish to stress that the cost of secondary education is too burdensome for a family in the lower income group. I have previously referred to the remission of school fees by the Ministry of Education in the case of families whose monthly income is less than $200. Such remission is again subject to the condition that only a maximum of 10 per cent of the total number of students enrolled in a particular school are to be allowed such remission. Such a 10 per cent limit is strictly applied irrespective of whether the school is situated in the urban or rural area. It stands to reason that a greater percentage of students in secondary schools in the rural area are from families in the lower income group as compared to students in secondary schools in the urban area. Yet no consideration has been given by the Ministry to this fact in applying the rigid limit of 10 per cent of students to be given remission of school fees.

Thus, on paper it may seem very grand that our educational policy permits the maximum number of children of our citizens to avail themselves of a secondary education with the assistance of the Government.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

6.30 p.m.

Mr N. Govindasamy: In reality, the position is not so rosy as I have shown earlier. For instance, the remission of school fees for parents who are not financially well off by reason of fixing the arbitrary figure of earned income of $200 per month as a means test for qualifying for remission of school fees. It is true that the Government has a scheme of bursaries or financial assistance for students in the secondary schools. The voted provision for such bursaries this year amounts to $1.35 million, which works out to an average of $8.40 per student in the secondary classes. This, Members of the House will agree, hardly bears comparison with the actual cost of textbooks for a secondary class amounting to about $80 inclusive of school fees,

Besides shouldering the expenditure on school fees and textbooks, parents also have to pay for the bus fares and pocket money of their children who are fortunate enough to be enrolled in secondary classes. The Secondary I pupils in some schools have to stay behind at least once a week for technical drawing and workshop practice and in some schools they have to stay behind twice a week because of the lack of workshop facilities in many schools. Again, in accordance with the policy of our Government to develop a rugged society, students are now required to participate in more and more extracurricular activities. With the extensions of sports and athletic meets and parades of uniformed organisations at various levels, it becomes increasingly necessary sometimes for students to spend the whole day in school. For instance, those in the morning sessions have to come in the afternoon to participate in extramural activities. For those in the afternoon sessions, it is necessary for the students concerned to come to school in the morning. If the students do not return home they have to spend additional money on some necessary refreshments. If they go home for their meals, it is necessary for them to incur additional bus fares.

In giving vent to the grievances and grouses of parents in the lower income groups whose children are attending secondary schools. I am in agreement with their justified contention that the cost of secondary education could have been minimised to some extent if the Ministry had exercised some imagination in this direction. I have, therefore, two suggestions to put forward for the consideration of the Ministry. They are:

1. The creation and maintenance of a central poo1 of teaching aids and implements such as T-squares. set squares and other geometrical instruments of the type required for technical drawing. It is appreciated that consumer articles such as pencils, pins and stationery do not lend themselves to such a pooling arrangement, but a school can arrange for the bulk purchase of such material and sell them without profit to the students. This will help to save untold trouble for the parents and the students who invariably have to spend a lot of time hunting for particular types that have been recommended by teachers.

2. A more liberal policy of awarding bursaries or remission of school fees and the loan of textbooks to students whose parents are not financially well off.

In making these two suggestions, I am fully cognisant of the fact that the education budget is already very high and that we cannot go on increasing the budget just to afford an opportunity for secondary education to students who may not even complete the full course of secondary education.

All the same, it is the avowed policy of our Government that no student is to be deprived of an education because of financial hardship. A survey of the drop-outs from secondary schools, I am sure, will reveal interesting facts and figures concerning the family income of such students who have dropped out of school. I do not know whether the Government is planning to undertake such a survey, particularly in relation to the socio-economic aspect of the home environment of the students who drop out. But I do know that financial hardship is the real, if not the main reason for parents to plead for financial assistance for their children who are in secondary schools.

I agree that nothing can be given free, but we must understand the plight of families who cannot even afford to pay the school fees of their children attending secondary schools. I am sure that our efficient Minister for Education will give his sympathetic consideration to the very pressing problems of the underprivileged children.

6.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Dr Lee Chiaw Meng): Mr Speaker, Sir, for a moment, I thought the Member for Telok Blangah was going to give us new proposals whereby we can give everyone free secondary education. But, unfortu nately, they were not forthcoming.

Before I reply to all the queries raised by the Member, may I just state some facts?

In the past, the Ministry of Education had the largest share of the national budget. It amounted to nearly a quarter of the national budget. In fact, it is the highest in developing countries, if not one of the highest in the world. Even in Japan, it amounts to only 22 per cent.

In the 1968 budget, of the $152 million allocated to the Ministry of Education, some $50 million was spent on secondary education. This does not include the cost of tertiary education, administration and the cost of training the teachers at the Teachers' Training College. The cost per student works out to $360 per student per annum. As far as Government is concerned, $1 out of every $4 is spent on education. The amount spent on a student also works out to about 15 per cent of the per capita Gross National Product for last year.

Before I go on to the expenses borne by the parents, 1 would like to remind the Member for Telok Blangah, who, I believe, was a former committee member of the Singapore Teachers' Union, that our secondary school teachers at the present moment are working an average of 18 hours per week, which compares very favourably with secondary school teachers everywhere else who work an average of 22 hours per week. Their salary is one of the highest in the world and the highest in this region. In fact, I would like to add that some of the teachers and principals of secondary schools are drawing salaries much higher than those of Parliamentary Secretaries.

May I now come to the expenses borne by parents? As the Member correctly pointed out, parents pay $6 per month for their child's school fees and miscellaneous fees and every year pay some $60 on textbooks, exercise books, uniforms, etc. This works out to some $11 per month. May I ask the Member for Telok Blangah a question? Can anyone truly say that he has never foolishly wasted $11 per month if, in fact, that $11 can be wisely spent on the secondary education of his child?

I also like to point out some wrong impressions the Member for Telok Blangah gave. First of all, remission of fees is for 15 per cent and not 10 per cent of the school student population. And in the less affluent rural areas, the percentage is much more. I also wish to point out that some 9.000 students are at present receiving bursaries at the secondary level, representing some six per cent of the student population at this level. In other words. a total of 21 per cent of the student population are not paying any fees. In 1968, 8,000 students obtained free textbooks; this makes up another six per cent. Therefore, 27 per cent of the student population at this level, one way or other, directly or indirectly, are being subsidised by the Government. This is over and above the $360 which the Government is paying for their education,

I would like to draw the attention of the Member for Telok Blangah to the fact that while the cost of living has increased slightly - I will leave it to the Minister for Finance to contest the figure of 20 per cent which I recall was brought up in the last Budget debate the expenses borne by the parents of students at the secondary level have, in fact, decreased. I recall that when I was a secondary student, I paid $15 per month for fees while my teachers were drawing a salary of a hundred over dollars. Now they are getting over $1,000 and the school fees have come down to $4. Of course, the figure of 27 per cent does not include those students coming under social welfare relief cases. I must admit that I was unable to get this particular figure in time for this debate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, due to the remarkable success of this Government in improving the social conditions of the nation particularly in the field of education. I am afraid some people have come to a stage where they are taking everything for granted. They expect things to be free. I must remind Members that nothing is free in Singapore. In fact, at very moment, the very air that we are breathing is being paid for.

I also wish to inform Members that any further subsidy for secondary education has to be met by a corresponding cut somewhere else. Will the Member suggest that the teachers would volunteer to subsidise secondary education?

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of clarification. The Parliamentary Secretary has been talking about the teaching service. I fail to equate the teaching service issue with a better system of secondary education. I fail to see the connection at all.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are talking about the high cost of secondary education. Eighty-five per cent of the cost of secondary education goes to teachers' salaries. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary has only two minutes to conclude.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to take up the issue of teachers' salaries. But I would like to assure the Member for Telok Blangah that my Ministry is looking into various ways to reduce the burden of parents. In fact, the Department of Technical Education is now setting up a central pool of drawing boards which will reduce the burden of the students in this respect. We are also conducting a research into the number of drop-outs. or rather the wastage of education at the secondary level. In fact, by doing this, we hope, coupled with planned enrolment exercise, to be able, with a standstill budget, to improve - I will not say improve because we have reached the optimum stage - but to provide more or better educational facilities for people in the lower income group.

Finally, may I quote a figure for the Member for Telok Blangah - that for a person earning $150 or $200 a month, the education cost for his children amounts to only about five per cent of his income.

The Question having been proposed at 6.15 p.m, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes to Seven o'clock p.m.