MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1975 TO 31ST MARCH, 1976

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.35 p.m.

Head W -

Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AAA 1004*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Tay Boon Too, Ang Nam Piau, L. P. Rodrigo, P. Govindaswamy, Sia Khoon Seong, N. Govindasamy and Ho Kah Leong.)

Sir, I would like to make some comments on the restructure of the education system, to which a remarkable amount of publicity has been given during this Budget season - but outside the House. In the debate on the Minister of Finance's Budget statement, I did remark adversely on certain statements about restructure, but these statements were really marginal to the statement of basic principle. For example, I disagreed that the changes in the past 15 years had been minor and I also felt that there could have been more consultation with teachers and teachers' bodies over the definition of policy.

But having said this, where the basic principles germane to restructure are concerned, such principles have been stated in a manner that makes the restructure look like the answer to every teacher's prayer. Behold, Mr Speaker, Sir, schooling should be made a more meaningful and enjoyable experience; continual assessment of academic performance shall ensure that children are brought through their schooling with full appreciation of their abilities or their limitations. By implication the very intelligent would not find schooling a boring experience, and slow developers would receive due consideration. The promise is made that every student who has completed primary education will be channelled into some form of post-primary education or training. Thus by providing alternative avenues for different aptitudes, our resources will be optimally utilised.

In a recent seminar on the restructure of the education system, suggestions were sought from participants who were principals from all over Singapore regarding how to achieve certain outcomes that were envisaged as following upon the aim to make schooling more meaningful and enjoyable and the aim to ensure continual assessment of academic performance. Now this is the real nub of the restructure intention: the determination to achieve this intention and to implement vigorously and steadily what has been conceived of as a good plan. Views have been sought over aspects of implementation. Now these views have been forthcoming, and in terms of stress on certain lines of action, some recommendations standing out quite clearly. For example, children should have pre-school experience through kindergarten; learning should be through activities and experience that appeal to the children's interest and imagination, as for instance, excursions, projects, effective use of apparatus and aids, the application of a variety of methods and techniques; resort to educational hardware, necessitating of course the production of corresponding soft ware, group teaching, multi-level teaching and close monitoring of progress through personal observation, informal questioning, written assignments, stage by stage, unit by unit. Above all, classroom size should be reduced.

The Ministry of Education has come out with a classic education proposal. In soliciting views over implementation they have received classic educational answers. Teachers are looking forward to participating in this thrilling development. My observation has been that most teachers have stretched themselves to the limit in their work in schools. I am speaking here particularly of the primary schools where the new policy will be initiated. Without the organisation of manpower and resources to help the teachers, this proposal that has been presented with such a bang will end in a whimper. More manpower is required, more training facilities and retraining facilities. And certainly the production of first class supervisors in the shape of capable education development officers who will really advise on development and not perpetuate the old inspectors role. All these are needed. In the conclusion to the official November statement on the restructure there was recognition of all these needs. If the Ministry makes its own response in a rational, positive, understanding manner, we need have no fear about how the teachers themselves will respond to the challenge.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in recent years the Ministry of Education has wielded the big axe in implementing the restructuring of our education system and introduction of new teaching methods. Such measures are not only necessary but also welcome. This is because, unlike other fields, education cannot remain as it has always been. We cannot teach new ideas with old methods. Teaching methods must be formulated to suit the needs of the country and changing circumstances. Only in this way can we bring forth a generation to meet the needs of the changing times in our country. But the new education system now being vigorously implemented should also cater for the objective need for adequate school buildings and other facilities, in addition to good quality teachers. Only in this way can we achieve maximum results.

Sir, small schools in the rural areas have very little space. Their simple buildings are very old and dilapidated, and there is a total lack of facilities. In such circumstances, we can apply the saying which goes, "You may have the best cook, but he cannot cook without adequate ingredients." I, therefore, suggest that small schools in the rural areas should be amalgamated into larger schools.

2.45 p.m.

The Ministry of Education should treat all schools alike and give the best possible financial aid to all the amalga mated schools. It is only through an amalgamation of the small schools that we can ensure a certain standard of facilities and school buildings for the rural areas. It will then be in keeping with the implementation of the new education system. In this way, every child in Singapore will be able to enjoy the opportunity of a good education in better equipped surroundings and school buildings

Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to bring up another matter, and that is in relation to the announcement of results of secondary and higher secondary school examinations in the newspapers. The results of the Primary School Leaving Examination are not normally published in the newspapers. Notwithstanding this, cases have been known where unsuccessful PSLE students have left their homes or their families. The results of Secondary IV and Pre-U or HSC examinations, however, are announced in the newspapers. As a result of such public announcement, some unsuccessful candidates would develop an inferiority complex by not seeing their names together with their classmates' in the newspapers. They feel that they are put in a very poor light, and are more or less put to public shame, so to speak. In such circumstances, those unsuccessful candidates who do not have a strong sense of morale would simply lose face and would even do very foolish things, unpleasant or even unfortunate. This is regrettable.

I would therefore suggest that we cease the publication of examination results. The results can only be made known to all the candidates, including those from the Adult Education Board, by the school authorities or the AEB. Private candidates can be directly notified of their results through the post by the Ministry of Education. There is, therefore, no apparent need for the results of these examinations to be published in the newspapers, because such announcement may cause an unnecessary blow to unsuccessful candidates, at least psychologically. I would therefore suggest to the Ministry of Education that henceforth results of the secondary school examinations should not be published in the newspapers. This practice should be abolished. I would, however, concede that the publication of the results of very outstanding students may continue, because it will then give encouragement to our students.

Finally, Sir, I would like to touch on the question of Chinese stream Secondary IV students entering pre-U classes. In the case of the Chinese schools, those who desire to continue their studies in the upper secondary classes will only be allowed to join the classes after their results are known, so as to assess whether they possess the minimum standard of qualification specified by the Ministry of Education. So students wishing to join upper secondary classes have to wait for two to three months. And this year because the Secondary IV results were announced only in March, our poor students had to wait for nearly four months before they can enter the upper secondary classes to further their studies. We concede that it takes considerable time to mark the examination papers. But we must not forget that at the same time Secondary IV students in the English stream are allowed to join the upper secondary classes on the strength of the results of the preliminary examinations conducted by the schools. And after the official announcement of their results, they may either continue if their results meet the entry requirements specified by the Ministry of Education or drop out if they do not meet such requirements. Since this is allowed in the English stream, I wonder why it cannot be allowed in the Chinese stream.

Sir, the Government has always been saying that all the four streams of education are treated equally. So how does one explain this discrepancy?

Sir, I support the amendment moved by the Member for Katong.

Mr Ang Nam Piau (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Sir, education is the foundation for nation building. In recent years, our education policy has laid stress on the importance of mathematics, science and technology and bi-lingualism in order to help in the promotion of nation building. But in doing so, the inculcation of character building, moral and ethical concepts in the students has been neglected by the Ministry of Education. We all know that there is the subject called "Ethics" or "Civics" taught in many schools but it is not considered as a subject for examination. Therefore, the students do not pay much attention to this subject and the teachers themselves lack interest in teaching it. In fact, some of them even use the Ethics period to teach other subjects. As a result, the inculcation of the concept of moral virtues of the students has not been effective.

Sir, we do not profit in adapting education to meet social development and national needs. We should not do it at the expense of inculcating the ethical concept and character building in the students. If a person is brought up to be a specialist or a professor, but is lacking in morals, character or ethical concept, then of what use is he to our society? So we should not try to educate our students into becoming robots without a sense of morality and responsibility to society. Therefore, moral education is very important.

Sir, I therefore hope that the Minister will pay attention to this very important matter and make adjustments, if necessary, to include ethics or civics as one of the examination subjects, so that we can bring up a generation of students with moral character and imbued with a sense of loyalty and patriotism. Only then can the future of our country be assured.

Mr L. P. Rodrigo (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, as expected the Ministry of Education has attracted a large number of speakers in this Budget debate. The reason is that in the last analysis education decides the performance of the nation. A creditable performance of the nation depends on the collective courage, determination, ability and the social morality of the people. Thus if the education of the State ensures that every citizen develops with these potentials, then collectively the nation should perform successfully.

Now that the education system has been restructured again, and this time we hope for some appreciable period, I wish to make some observations on the restructuring as announced and the implications arising from it.

At the outset, Sir, the problem of sufficient classes and teachers comes to mind. Though the majority of primary school pupils will be completing the primary education in seven years (as that will be the normal course of primary education), the Minister has stated that about 40% of primary school pupils will be completing primary education in six years.

Thus, as the Minister has announced, there will be in operation two sets of upper primary classes in the primary schools. Now, if you take the hypothetical case of a school having two Primary III classes at the outset, and if after assessment, eight pupils from the first class and 15 pupils from the second class, making 23 in all, are found suitable for six years' primary education and the remaining 27 pupils from the first class and 20 pupils from the second class, making 47 in all, are found suitable for seven years' primary education, then for Primary IV, you will, have one class of 23 pupils for six years' primary education and two classes for seven years' primary education comprising one class of 35 pupils and another of 12 pupils (that is, if you apply the ratio of 35 pupils to a class). If the position rests there, it means that after the assessment one additional class is created and one additional teacher is required. If adjustments are made, it must mean transfers of pupils and teachers for that year. How has the Ministry planned to resolve these problems? And incidentally, Sir, thinking aloud, what will be the stand of the Singapore Teachers' Union on these problems? But the important thing is that parents must be satisfied that the results of the assessment must not be manipulated for the purpose of administrative expediency at the expense of the true academic ability of the pupils.

It has been announced that the decision of whether a pupil should take six or seven years to complete his primary education will be based on a "continual assessment of his academic performance".

I should think that the assessment itself should be based on certain standard forms and criteria of evaluating the academic performance of the pupil. If not, the disparities in the evaluations between different schools applying individualistic forms and criteria will not achieve a fair assessment of the pupils' performances. Have the forms and criteria of assessment been worked out? If not, I imagine they will be worked out soon. And when they are worked out, can they be applied fairly to assess the pupil's academic performance in Primary I in 1973 and Primary II in 1974 when this continual assessment was then not contemplated? How and to what extent will the pupil's performance in the second language in the first three years be decisive in determining whether the pupil does primary education in six years or seven years?

It has been announced that normal primary education will be seven years and that the majority of primary pupils will complete their education in seven years. But it has also been announced, as I have pointed out earlier, that about 40% of primary pupils will complete the primary education in six years. This cannot be regarded as an exception. And although it has been announced that corrective reassessment will be made at the end of Primary IV, parents generally will regard the assessment at the end of Primary III as crucial since they still see promise of a better future for their children through the OCE, the HSC and beyond.

3.00 p.m.

Parents will regard the assessment at the end of Primary III as a more or less conclusive determination of their children's future, that is, whether they are blue collar or white collar workers. This being so, they expect the more able and experienced teachers to be assigned to teach in Primary Is, IIs and IIIs. Nor should these teachers be transferred before three years at least. I am sure that no relief teachers will be assigned to these classes in the future.

As regards the PSLE and beyond, the Minister has stated that the PSLE will be a grading exercise to channel pupils into different forms of secondary education and training. Apart from the "0" and "A" levels in the academic, technical and commercial streams, there will be a variety of courses combining general education with technical training or apprenticeship scheme plan for a career in the industrial, commercial and service sectors.

The Minister has announced that the restructured system at the secondary level will operate in 1979. He has also announced that the restructured process will begin with Primary III pupils this year and the 1975 batch of Primary IV pupils will continue but making only one other attempt for the PSLE. Thus in three years commencing in 1976 these primary pupils will be graded at the end of 1978 for the restructured system at the secondary level in 1979. So at the end of 1978 there will be grading of PSLE pupils to decide whether they should do courses leading to the GCE or HSC or any of the other courses for a career in the industrial, commercial and service sectors. Such grading must be based on revised upper primary curriculum to operate in 1976, that is, next year. Can the Minister at this stage give an outline description of the other courses? When will the curriculum for operation in 1976 be ready this year and be made public?

I have raised these queries in order that the public can grasp the system fully, since the matter of children's education is always a matter of utmost concern to parents.

The Chairman: Mr Rodrigo, your ten minutes are up. Dr Lee, would you like to reply to the first few speakers?

The Minister for Education (Dr Lee Chiaw Meng): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very likely that the queries to be raised by the other Members will overlap. I would rather answer them altogether.

The Chairman: They can be stopped from repeating what other Members have earlier said.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: It is all right, Sir.

3.05 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Education Ministry is a very interesting Ministry as far as Singapore is concerned. It seems to be undergoing changes every so often that the result is chaos, confusion and puzzlement to everyone. Even those in the Ministry are confused as to what they are supposed to do. Worse, in schools the policy changes so often that principals and staff do not know exactly what is really required. What is the future of education in Singapore?

May I ask whether these changes or restructuring are really necessary. Can we not implement them in stages and with great patience? The policy directives from the Education Ministry are issued so rapidly that before one directive can be carried out effectively a new one is issued. We seem to make use of the present generation of students and teachers as guinea pigs. I do not know whether this restructuring is a wise move because the changes have been so rapid that we will not be able to see the results until the students leave the secondary schools. And by that time probably they will not know what hell they have gone through. Let us be a bit more patient and give it a little more thought. I am not saying that the changes are bad. I am not saying that the policies are bad. The policy of bilingualism is extremely good. It is necessary for Singapore's survival. Carry on by all means, but do so in stages. The Ministry should not just issue directives and instruct the principals to put them into practice overnight.

Sir, I notice that there are 125 vacancies for English teachers in primary schools and 215 in the secondary schools in the English stream as at 1st March, 1975. This gives a figure of 340, which, I must say, is very high. To make matters worse, I notice there were 301 resignations within a period of 14 months. What is being done to fill these vacancies? 340 vacancies are being filled by relief teachers, some of whom come today and disappear tomorrow. They are not teachers in the real sense of the word. They are merely filling the gap. How can we have a good education system if 340 vacancies are filled by relief teachers? This is a very sad state of affairs.

In the past the Institute of Education, formerly known as the Teachers' Training College, used to recruit teachers by the hundreds and produce teachers by the hundreds too. Unfortunately, after the TTC was renamed the Institute of Education, it has become another white elephant. Many accommodation units in the former College are as good as haunted. Many teachers have been transferred or opted out. There are a few of them left. To make matters worse, students who intend to take up teaching as a profession have to pay. Now, give us the answer in one breath who really wants to become a teacher today, with all the headaches and pressure of work? The stresses and strains are not really worth the money they get for their training. Even the courses organised by the Institute of Education have to be paid for by the teachers. No wonder we have 340 vacancies! 301 resignations had taken place in the last two years. What has been done to recruit more teachers to fill the vacancies? 340 vacancies means 340 teachers less.

May I at this stage ask what is the purpose of the Education Fund? A lot of money is collected from the foreign students studying in schools or colleges in Singapore. If these funds are used for the good of the Singapore citizens, then I say the fund has its purpose. Unfortunately I do not understand why a large sum of money is collected from students who study in private or commercial schools. These private schools are not in the least subsidised. Yet any student who wants to gain entry into these private schools has to pay to the Education Fund before he is allowed to continue his studies. I feel this is ethically wrong. We do not subsidise private schools. Why do we collect money from students who are studying in private schools? If it is the case with Government schools, it is understandable.

Sir, I understand that some school children are given fund raising cards for donations to the school fund just before the school holidays. They are instructed to collect as much as possible. When the school reopens these cards are handed back to the teachers. Some children who have not collected the targeted amount are given back the cards and instructed to continue to collect up to the required amount. I wonder why these students are asked to collect up to a certain expected amount. This might induce the children to do something irregular for fear of being harassed by the teachers.

At this point let me ask why GCE "A" level in Commerce course is not allowed to be conducted in private schools. This course is only done in a Government school. There are certain schools capable of conducting such a course, and I feel that some of them may produce better results than the Government schools.

Furthermore, on the subject of courses, let me also ask why is a restriction imposed on teachers who wish to do a course on their own? To give an example, if a teacher in the academic stream wants to do a technical course, permission is refused. The result is that the teacher is frustrated. Why must we restrict teachers who are keen to improve themselves and who will be of benefit to our education system later on?

Sir, how far has the posting of teachers and' students nearest their homes been carried out? I still notice that a great number of teachers and students are put in~ schools quite a distance away from their homes. Can the Minister look into the matter?

Finally, I will I would like to know when results of the recent teachers exercise be known? I hope greater number of them will be, thus causing lesser dissatisfaction. Teachers are very important in education of children. Their importance is next to the parents. If the teachers not properly educated, they not produce good students. If the re well educated they will be of benefit to the students.

3.15 p.m.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as the sixth under this subhead I am somewhat at a disadvantage for the simple reason that whatever I want to been very eloquently and put across by hon. Members spoken before me. But I feel nonetheless say something on this restructured education scheme because it has aroused considerable interest both from within and is House.

I think that, of all the changes in the educational policy that have taken place past decade or so, the recent have been the most sensible they are oriented towards the well-being and interest; unlike previous changes which were tailored the political, social, economic manpower objectives. The recent are not geared to meet such objectives but more to cater to the well-the child in school.

Two features of these changes demonstrate this. One is that schooling has been extended to 11 years in both primary and secondary levels instead of 10 years. In fact, all of us in this House were brought up under the 11-year education system. It was only a decade or so ago that the 11-year education system was reduced to 10 years, and I suspect that at that time the reason for the reduction of one year's schooling was purely economic: the Government wanted to save money. I could see no other reason for the reduction of schooling from 11 to 10 years except this economic reason. And the price paid for that reduction was that children were put under heavier pressure to cope with a certain amount of knowledge to be acquired both in primary and secondary schools.

As Members will know, in recent years because of economic and political developments, new requirements have come into the picture. More objectives are pumped into the education system, and more knowledge for the children to acquire. Even under the old system, where there had been many subjects for children to learn, 11 years were considered a desirable period for completion of the primary and secondary education; what more then if they have got more to learn now? It is only logical to conclude that a 10-year period would not be a desirable period. That is the reason why in the past few years there have been complaints from parents particularly about the pressure put on their children in the schools. So an extension of another year helps to relieve that pressure. This feature in itself demonstrates that this is for the good of the children.

The second feature of the recent restructured education scheme is the removal of the Primary VI entrance examination (PSLE) as a means to determine whether a child could continue with secondary education. I think many of us have heard of complaints and are quite aware of this problem of examination phobia, where everything is geared towards examination. A child is measured by the examination results. The system is a very imperfect one. A child is condemned for life if he fails his Primary VI entrance examination. Any teacher will know that passing or failing this entrance examination is no foolproof criterion in determining whether a child is capable of continuing his education or not. Not only was there anxiety on the part of parents and children over this entrance examination in the previous system which caused a lot of cramming of studies and private tuition but it also made schooling a very unpleasant experience for the children. By removing this requirement, education should become an interesting experience in school. Therefore, we have removed a feature which condemns a child, rightly or wrongly, by denying him an opportunity to continue with his education after primary school if he fails his primary six entrance examination. With this restructured education system an examination is no longer needed to determine whether a child should or should not proceed to secondary school. I think this is extremely desirable and in the interests of the children.

There exists a prejudice against blue-collar work and a preference for white-collar work. The result is that certain prejudices are created against certain types of jobs. Recent developments in our country as an independent nation, where we have developed into a modern society, have given us the opportunity to reflect that no matter what sort of job a person performs he has a role to play and there is an importance to it, irrespective of whether it is a white-collar or a blue-collar job. Everybody has a role to play. We must have doctors, lawyers, clerks, teachers, blue-collar workers, etc. We must encourage parents not to show any prejudice against certain jobs in preference for others.

With this restructured system, which caters for the children's future secondary education in the aptitude they are most suited for, either for academically-inclined subjects leading to the university, or technically-inclined subjects leading to polytechnic, or craft-inclined subjects leading to vocational training, we will ultimately have a well balanced all round development of our manpower resources in terms of the different strata in our whole manpower requirements. We will have skilled and trained people in all strata of our society.

Judging from all these desirable features, one can hardly find fault with the rationale and objective behind these changes. So it must be the concern of everybody - Ministry officials, Members of Parliament, members of the public, parents and teachers - to give all their support to ensure that these objectives are attained.

I must, however, express my reservation at this juncture as to whether the Ministry of Education is able to gear itself to meet these challenges ahead. Judging from past experience, I think they have not got a commendable record in terms of performance to give us the kind of confidence. But we must not give up hope simply because too much is at stake. Perhaps we give them a chance and we will do what we can to see how we can help them to achieve this objective. So if I appear to be very much in favour of these changes, that has got nothing to do with the fact that I like the very charming smile of the Education Minister. They are certainly very desirable objectives which all of us must assist to achieve.

I think the Member for Katong has brought up some very interesting points as regards the requirements and demands of teachers, training and retraining facilities, etc. I therefore do not wish to repeat what he has said, except to say that I completely agree with him.

With those remarks, Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have had my say although it was quite difficult for me not to repeat certain points which have already been raised by other Members.

Mr N. Govindasamy (Telok Blangah): Sir, after seeing the list of six speakers ahead of me, and practically all of them touched on the restructured education system, I thought I would ask you to appeal to the Minister once again to answer the questions raised first, before I speak. But having heard the hon. Member for Moulmein who so ably assisted the Minister in the first half of the debate, I would carry on with some other issues, not necessarily on the restructured education system. I think my mind has been put at ease in respect of certain matters on the restructured education system, not by the Minister as yet but by the hon. Member for Moulmein.

Sir, I am not going to touch on the restructured education system. My intention is to talk on our education policy in respect of the teaching of the second language in our schools and the relief teachers, which point has somewhat been tackled by the hon. Member for Anson. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst parents and teachers in respect of the teaching of Tamil and Malay as second languages in our schools. The complaint is that there are many English schools and integrated primary schools where Malay and Tamil pupils are grouped together permanently in one class, irrespective of educational achievements. This is just to make it convenient to teach the second language and also to ease administrative problems. It is claimed that many schools perhaps have grouped their pupils according to their second language choice in order to facilitate the arrangement of time-tables. No consideration at all is given to their second language ability nor their first language performance.

3.30 p.m.

I have been informed that all Tamil and Malay pupils in the Selegie Integrated Primary School, Telok Kurau Primary School and Whitley Secondary School have been put in one class permanently for this year. Is it also true that in the Selegie Integrated Primary School, one class of English-medium pupils are all Indians? Will not the system of segregation work contrary to the Government's policy of maintaining a multiracial character in the schools? Will not this defeat the whole meaning and spirit of the school's pledge and the Government's effort to bring about a mingling of all races in the school classrooms as well as school playing fields?

It has also been pointed out that the teaching of Tamil in many mission primary schools has been dropped completely. If pupils in mission primary schools offered to take Tamil as a second language, what provisions are being made?

Better known old and well established secondary schools like Gan Eng Seng School, Beatty Secondary School and Bartley Secondary School, which were centres for teaching of Tamil as a second language, have been closed down. These centres, I have been told, were the oldest in Singapore.

In Singapore, there are many teachers who have attained the required qualifications in Tamil and Malay to be recruited as Tamil and Malay Language teachers, and yet English-medium teachers who have obtained a credit or a distinction in the second language have been asked to teach Malay or Tamil as a second language. Why is this being done?

Is it true that the Institute of Education has stopped training Malay and Tamil Language teachers?

Sir, as early as 1969, six years ago, I objected to the employment of relief teachers by the Ministry of Education. In Hansard [Vol. 28, col. 639], I queried the necessity of employing large numbers of daily-rated relief teachers for long periods. In answer to the many questions raised, among other things, the Minister for Education, who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, replied as follows. Let me quote him [Vol. 28, col. 937]:

`The work of the relief teachers is under constant review by the principals who make reports on their performances.'

This was in 1969. Sir, again in 1971, on the same question of relief teachers [Vol. 30, col. 539], I asked the then Minister of State, now the Minister for Education, and I quote:

`.what concrete steps are being taken to do away with the method of employing unqualified relief teachers to man our schools in such large numbers.?.

He answered and I quote him:

`..we cannot do away entirely with relief teachers. . . , they are employed in a great variety of situations such as maternity leave and so on. The pure vacancies will be filled when graduates come out from the Teachers' Training College.'

In answer to queries raised by other Members of this House, on the same topics, he also told us that:

`.the programme of training of relief teachers will be carried out under the whole review of teacher training.'

When the Member for Moulmein asked to introduce part-time training as a way to minimise the problem of having to employ large numbers of relief teachers to meet the shortages of teachers in schools, he again affirmed that he was carrying out an overall review of teacher training. Sir, that was 1969 and 1971. This is 1975. What has happened?

On 17th March, in answer to questions raised in Parliament, the Parliamentary Secretary (Education) told us that 383 relief teachers are employed to fill the regular vacancies in addition to 175 relief teachers employed to fill casual vacancies arising from regular teachers being away on various forms of leave. In other words, 175 of them are relief teachers in respect of people who are away from their jobs and 383 of them are filling pure vacancies, the pure vacancies which the Minister promised to fill as early as 1971. I am just wondering if there are any other professions in the world where they have such a situation. Sir, can you imagine our hospitals manned by unqualified relief nurses dispensing medicine and giving injections. Worse still, Sir, can you imagine unqualified relief nurses assisting you in an operating theatre. Sir, if unqualified people dispense medicine we call them quacks. If unqualified people tried to interpret laws we call them "lawyer burok". What do we call unqualified teachers trying to teach? Perhaps we have got to think of a suitable nomenclature. If we allow this situation to continue in the Ministry of Education, I am sure the Minister for Health - fortunately for us he is not here - may also introduce such a system to relieve the shortage of staff in the hospitals.

In the Ministry of Education, there are more than 10,000 teachers. There certainly would be a number of teachers on various forms of leave at all times. Apparently, at the moment, 175 of them are away on one form of leave or the other. To relieve them, what we need is a pool of qualified teachers who can be utilised to do relief work instead of the present system of appointing unqualified relief teachers.

When can we expect our children to be taught by qualified people and not by unqualified relief teachers who come and go as they please.

Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I first explain that as one of the office-bearers in a teachers' union I am naturally more concerned with educational problems. Although I am placed last on the list of speakers in regard lo this item, I would now like to discuss in general some of our educational problems. As far as I can, I will try not to repeat what has been raised by my colleagues. The first problem is the restructuring of primary school education. First of all, may I express my support of the concept that in any education system the content of education in one set of conditions may not suit a different set of conditions. For this reason not only do I support the restructuring of primary education but I also fully praise the bold move taken by the Minister. However, to be successful any restructuring of a system must be preceded by detailed and thorough planning. What is most important is to understand thoroughly the old problems and shortcomings, the likely problems that will be encountered in the new system and the likely solutions. Sir, the new system will undoubtedly stimulate greater interest among students at different levels so that schooling will not be regarded as a burden. This is good because our society being practical attaches great importance to examination results.

Sir, while the theory of education is impressive, parents do not view it this way. In the past the results of the PSLE affected the reputation of parents, schools and also the students. But now we are going to conduct an exercise among Primary III students to determine whether they should do another three or four years. Will this not cause the burden of the students to be advanced earlier?

We are now actively promoting bilingualism. But according to the circular on Primary School restructuring, those who are not well versed in two languages are allowed to have reduced periods for the second language. However, when they take the PSLE they are still required to sit for the second language in the same examination. Thus, some problems will arise. First, how do we measure the term "well versed"? Second, can those who are less well versed be made more well versed? If these students have to sit for the same second language paper in the PSLE, then do we expect them to do well in the examination if they are given less time? Moreover, if they do well in the other papers too and carry on their studies in secondary schools, vocational or technical institutes, will they not have to use the second language as well? There is an obvious inconsistency here. If a student is not proficient in the second language, remedial measures should be taken as early as possible. According to linguistic experts, children learn languages faster than adults. Since we want to promote bilingualism, our policy should be thorough and not biased. And very soon, at the end of the year, the assessment will be made for the first batch of Primary III students. Have all the schools been notified of the criteria for assessment? If I am not mistaken, the first batch of July intake will complete their Primary III in June this year. Will they also be affected by this new education policy?

The second problem I would like to discuss is the transfer of teachers in charge of the uniformed groups. The policy of extra-curricular activities initiated by the Ministry of Education has been well supported by all schools, as can be witnessed by the good support and turn-out at the Youth Festivals. Certain changes will be made to the Youth Festival programme this year; its main objective is to reduce the burden on the schools. Many teachers and students welcome this move. They can heave a sigh of relief now because their lessons will not be unduly affected as there have been far too many extra curricular activities. However, recently certain officers responsible for the uniformed groups have asked teachers in charge of these groups at the second or third week after the opening of the school term to go for in-camp training for two or three weeks. Some of those teachers who go for in-camp training are substituted by relief teachers but others are not. By the time the relief teachers report for duty, the teachers are due to return from their training. In fact, the commandants of the uniformed groups should realise that calling the teachers away from their normal duties for training will affect both the teachers and students. These officers should be familiar with the school terms, the administrative problems of the schools, and should not regard school hours as holidays, or pay attention only to their own work.

I have also received complaints that some teachers who are in charge of uniformed groups as well as school administration have been asked to go to another school at short notice to take charge of uniformed groups there. I think due attention should be paid to the fact that these teachers are more urgently required to carry out the administrative duties in their own schools. But I understand that some of the commandants have given warnings to these teachers regarding transfers that if they do not follow instructions then they will be removed. I do not know whether these officers realise that teachers are first and foremost teachers. These teachers participate in uniformed group activities only because of extra-curricular activities. They should not be regarded first and foremost as teachers in charge of uniformed groups or part-time teachers. Extra-curricular activities are not their full-time job. One must realise that teachers in charge of these groups have to do more work and spend more time, and there is no extra benefit. Unnecessary restrictions and warnings are uncalled for.

Now I come to the third question. Recently some schools have received certain instruments and equipment as presents from Intraco through the Ministry of Education. According to them some of the gifts are somewhat outdated and do not serve much purpose. I do not know whether or not the allocation or distribution of these items has been based on the requisitions applied for by the schools. If so, it would be better to allot funds to the schools to acquire their own instruments.

3.45 p.m.

The fourth problem I would like to touch upon is in regard to the welfare o, retired teachers. By the keen efforts of the teachers' unions, the authorities concerned have allowed members of the family of a teacher to similarly enjoy medical benefits. But when he retires, he must surrender all medical benefits cards. Thus he and his family will not be able to enjoy any more medical benefits. According to medical science, the older a person gets, the more likely he will get sick. The body is just like a machine, which breaks down more often as it gets older. Therefore, when the teacher retires, he needs more medical care. But instead we are depriving him of medical benefits at the time when he is also going to lose his job. This "double-barrelled" attack will affect him drastically. However, I am glad to note that the Ministry of Finance is granting higher earned income tax relief to those who continue employment above 55 years of age. This is good and it is a practical move that expresses the Government's care for the aged, it is a virtue to pay due respect to the old. But people who are old have a greater need for medical attention. I hope that the Minister and the department concerned will seriously consider granting continued medical benefits to teachers who retire because they have sacrificed their whole life for the education of our children and now is the time that they deserve some warmth from the society.

The fifth problem that I would like to touch upon is the question of allowance for principals. Sir, all of us realise school principals have a very great responsibility. Their workload is very heavy and they have to tackle many problems, both great and small. In the past, they had the consolation of a post allowance which was used to offset the entertainment expenses which they could not avoid in the course of their duties. However, as a result of the revision of salary scales, the post allowance of principals was abolished. I understand that the Ministry of Education is finding it more difficult nowadays to get principals. Even in the Ministry of Education a survey was carried out inviting applications for the post of principal, but the response has been very poor. Therefore I hope the Minister will consider restoring the post allowance to principals.

The Chairman: Mr Ho, your time is up.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, can I have one more minute?

The Chairman: You can always come back to it after the Minister has replied.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Yes.

Mr Ivan Baptist (Potong Pasir): Sir, I am not an education expert as previous hon. Members who spoke. But may I humbly seek your approval to make a few comments on the restructuring of the education system. I am sure that the Hon. Minister is well aware that streaming children in schools according to estimated ability is damaging to the educational interests of children categorised as less able, and irrelevant to the interest of those categorised as more able. In effect, the practice of streaming tends to reinforce other discriminatory aspects of the educational system to the disadvantage of many children from manual workers' homes.

The restructuring of the education system will also pose problems. As I see it, there will be problems for the teachers and principals who will have added responsibilities and added burdens in making assessments to stream children after the completion of Primary III. Will these teachers and principals be able to make correct assessments? They will need to be trained to ensure that proper assessments are made. Then again these teachers and principals will be conscience-pricked if wrong assessments are made. This, I believe, is a grave responsibility to shoulder teachers and principals with.

Then there are problems that parents would be faced with. Even if parents are told over and over again the dire consequences of pushing their children too hard, the restructuring will catalyse an even greater pushing, much to the detriment of the children. Parents believe they know their children's capabilities too well and too often demand too much from them. This could damage not only children who are less able but also those who are more able.

Private tuition will also be introduced into homes to children as early as when they first start schooling. This will, of course, unduly fray the pockets of some parents and prohibit those who cannot afford giving their children private tui tion. The pace of the rat race has now been increased and the flag-off advanced by this restructuring proposal.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): Sir, as a simple-minded parent with school-going children, I have often felt rather confused about the direction of our education system, and listening to my learned colleagues here today, I must profess that I am becoming even more confused. I do not know anything about education, least of all education policies.

I think it is not so much a question of whether a policy is right or a policy is wrong. As far as policies are concerned, I am quite prepared to leave it in the very capable hands of our Hon. Minister. But I think it is more a question of implementation and we should look into it more closely. Many of our policies have started off with a big bang. It sounds good on paper and it is very difficult for a layman to quarrel whether it is good or bad.

If we take the restructuring of our primary education, which instead of six years we now have seven years, I am just wondering what is wrong with six years. We have all gone through six years of primary education, and during our time we did not even have kindergarten experience. So we can say that today the primary education is not six but eight years, if we count the two years spent in kindergarten. In fact, we are now going to have nine years' primary education. Anyway, as I said, I am not going to quarrel with that.

The main problem really is implementation. How do we go about it, and is the policy formulated being understood both by the officers in the Ministry and the teachers themselves? In fact, many teachers have told me that they are so confused with all the chopping and changing. I do not blame them. I think this is really a matter which we should look into very closely. We can argue on policy with a great number of learned colleagues here, who are all professional teachers. We can go on and on arguing as to who is right and who is wrong. Well, the test of the pudding is in the eating. It is too early to say. So I think it is a waste of time and waste of breath. I can only urge the Hon. Minister, as a parent: "Please, for goodness sake, whatever you are going to do, look into it very closely." And in its implementation, has he got the manpower, and whether the staff and teachers understand what is going on?

Sir, I like to be down to earth about this matter. As I say, I do not know anything about education. But this is causing general frustration among parents. I must give credit to our youngsters as many of them do not suffer nervous breakdowns. I have seen many cases of parents suffering from examination jitters. Each time there is a change of syllabus, or a change in the policy, it is the parents who suffer. Poor thing.

Sir, I think I have said enough, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, the few Members who have spoken have covered a very wide spectrum on the issue of education. Generally, the points raised fall into several categories and I propose to deal with them under these categories - changes in the education system and restructuring, professional matters concerning teachers, school management, and others.

First of all, on the restructuring of the education system, may I compliment those Members who have spoken for their in-depth knowledge of what is being done, in particular, the Member for Moulmein who spoke very eloquently in defence of the changes. Let mc assure all Members of this House that this proposed change is not an exercise on paper and it will not, as the Member for Katong has said, start with a bang and end with a whimper. I agree that superficially there appears to have been a lot of changes and at times confusing, as the Member for Jalan Kayu has said. All these changes over the recent years are actually the logical development of our education system over the last one and a half decades. Our education policy has been spelt out very clearly in our 1959 documents. All these changes are no other than logical developments of this policy. Why does there appear to be more changes than before? Well, it is because we have been able to consolidate and build up the base which enables these changes to take place.

With respect to the implementation of the restructuring of the education system, as all Members know, the Ministry is in close consultation with the teachers' unions, professional bodies and those in the field, like principals and teachers, on how best to implement it. For example, most teachers' unions have already set up their own committees to do an in-depth study of the implications, and some have already made their recommendations to the Ministry. Recently, we had a series of workshops and seminars organised by principals with exactly the same purpose. It is also the intention of the Ministry to carry out a series of in-service courses to prepare the principals and teachers for the proper implementation of these changes. I agree that many teething problems will be faced on the introduction of the new system at the end of this year. Many of these problems, in fact, have been envisaged by the unions and the principals, and recommendations are being made. The Ministry is presently studying them and adjustments will be made where necessary.

Sir, I will now deal with the more specific issues of the restructuring of the education system, which have been raised by various Members. The Member for Paya Lebar mentioned the difficulties that will be faced by schools with a small enrolment. He suggested that the Government should assist the merging of such small schools, particularly those in the rural areas. I could not agree with him more. In fact, a couple of years ago the former Minister of State for Education, now the Minister of State for Communications, announced that the Ministry encourages such moves.

4.00 p.m.

Wherever possible, the Ministry will make available land and financial assistance to effect such a merger. In fact, merging of such small schools will also solve the problem, as cited by the Member for Serangoon Gardens, of small schools having only two classes of students. With a fair-sized school, this problem will be minimised.

Various questions have been asked on how assessment will be done. First of all, may I reiterate what I have said in public. The Ministry has recently done a very detailed analysis of the last PSLE results. There appears to be a very good correlation between the predicted results by schools and the actual PSLE. We are sending this assessment to individual schools so as to assist them in making their assessment as to which students should do the remaining upper primary in either three or four years.

I think the Member for Serangoon Gardens as well as the Member for Potong Pasir mentioned the stigma on the three or four-year upper primary. Let me say this. Whether a child completes his upper primary in three years or four years has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the secondary education he will receive. He will have to cover the same syllabus. He will have to take the same Primary Schools Leaving Examination, and the sort of secondary education and training that he receives will depend on his performance then.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens also asked about the restructuring of the secondary level. The Ministry is now finalising the broad framework for the secondary level, and this will be sent to the various teachers' unions and professional bodies for comments. When finalised, it will then be made public.

The Member for Jurong raised the point about those students who could not be effectively bilingual. In my statement in November I did admit that those who were genuinely incapable of being effectively bilingual would be given less exposure time. Since then I have given much thought on this and recently I have made certain clarifications on that point. First of all, I say that less exposure time will be allowed for those who are genuinely incapable, and I expect the number to be very small. They are likely to be put in special classes. Perhaps they will not be given reduced exposure time as originally intended. And as suggested by the Member for Jurong, they may be given more intensive coaching; hence they have to be put in special classes. We have to recognise the fact that we have to assist those people who cannot be effectively bilingual.

The standardisation of performance and method of assessment is one of the topics discussed at the Principals' seminar, and certain recommendations have been made. We are studying the recommendations, which are very similar to what has been put up by the teachers' unions. This will be made known to all the principals and teachers concerned.

The channelling of students into either three or four years' upper primary education will only take place in December this year. Therefore, those students who will be going to Primary IV in July this year will not be affected by this change. Those in Primary 11 now and going on to Primary III in July will be affected in June 1976. I hope that clarifies the point raised by the Member for Jurong.

The Member for Potong Pasir also raised the question that there will be more private tuition. I am one who is not in favour of private tuition. But I also realise the parents' anxiety to encourage their children to take private tuition because of the restructuring. At the beginning of this year the Ministry conducted a very brief survey on one well established mission school and one typical Government-integrated school on the trend on private tuition last year, and again this year. The survey is not conclusive, but the results indicate that there is no rush for private tuition for the Primary III pupils. I cannot say also if this is an island-wide phenomenon, as this survey was conducted only on two typical schools.

The Member for Paya Lebar suggested that we should not make public the GCE "O" and "A" levels results in the press. He has a good point there -- that it would produce a certain stigma on parents whose children did not pass. I promise that I will look into this matter to see whether we should really scrap the publication of these results in the press.

The Member also raised the point of admission to Pre-U classes and the different systems adopted for the English and non-English streams. The position is this. Schools in the English stream usually have their "O" level results known sometime at the end of March, while those in the non-English stream have their results known by the end of January. In the past we had a preliminary admission exercise for the English stream but not for the non-English stream. This year I am afraid it was a freak year - there was a delay in the non-English stream and for some strange reason the English stream results were advanced by two weeks so that the results for both streams were announced simultaneously. We are looking into the possibility of having a preliminary admission exercise for all streams when all the Pre-U classes are confined to the junior colleges. When this is done, I think it would be possible for us to adopt a similar system for all the streams.

The Member for Thomson raised the question about the teaching of civics and moral education. I could not agree with him more. That is a very important aspect of education. This is not only being taught in the subject of "Education for Living" or "Civics", but we try to incorporate it in other subjects as well. The reason why we do not make it an examination subject is that, as of now, our education system is already too examination-orientated. By adding another subject, we could make matters worse. They might learn it by heart without really wanting to know why certain things ought to be done.

The Member for Anson raised a series of questions. Why do we not extend the A' level Commerce examination to private candidates as well? The GCE A' level examination in Commerce was introduced in 1970 as a pilot project. Over the last five years we have been able to monitor its development, and we are fairly satisfied that we can run it quite competently. It will be open to the private candidates in the near future; unfortunately not this year but most probably next year.

He also mentioned something about private schools doing better than Government or Government-aided schools. I am afraid I have to dispute that statement. For example, if you look at the results last year, 57% of the A' level candidates from Government and Government-aided schools obtained 2 A's, 2 `0's plus the General Paper, whereas only 14% from the private colleges obtained the same grades. Out of this 14%, only 1% managed to get into the University. In other words, although they get the same grade, they are of a lower quality.

The Member also enquired about the posting of students nearest their homes. It is the intention of the Ministry to post students to schools as near to their homes as possible. But we have also to recognise that parents want to send their children to schools of their own choice. Over the last few years, about 95% of the Primary I students have been able to find places in the schools of their own choice. Of the remaining 5%, most of them were posted to schools within three kilometres from their homes.

The Member for Telok Blangah raised a few questions regarding the teaching of second language. With 40% of the curriculum time being devoted to second languages, it will be extremely difficult to put students taking different second languages in the same class. It is not just a question of administrative convenience by putting them in the same class. In fact, it is educationally unwise to have students with different second languages in the same class because 60% of their time spent in one language will create one lot of classmates and 40% of their time will have a different lot of classmates. Moreover, the mingling-integration does not begin really in the classrooms. Students arc not supposed to fool and mingle around in the classrooms. They are supposed to mingle in the field or in activities where they can socialise together. Therefore, we should really consider progress in the school as a whole rather than by classes. Principals have been advised to integrate children taking different second languages as far as possible in activities such as extra-curricular activities, so as to achieve the objective which the Member mentioned.

The Member also asked what happened to the second languages, especial- ly Tamil as a second language in mission schools. Unfortunately the number of students taking Tamil as a second language is small. Therefore, it is not possible to have a second language Tamil (TL2) class in every mission school. However, we have a centre for Tamil as a second language. Students from mission schools are sent to this centre to learn Tamil as a second language. He also asked why the three established Tamil centres - Bartley, Beatty and Gan Eng Seng - were closed down. With the exception of Beatty, both Bartley and Gan Eng Seng, I believe, were closed more than eight years ago. It is not the result of a change in policy on bilingualism or of the recent changes. Beatty Secondary School was changed this year. The reason is this: as it stands, Beatty Secondary School does not have enough classrooms to cater for its own pupils. In attending these classes those TL2 pupils had to float from one classroom to another. This was rather unsatisfactory, and as a result we moved the centre to a school where sufficient classrooms for TL2 are available for this purpose.

4.15 pm.

The Member for Anson asked a few questions about the Institute of Education. He wants me to give a very simple answer to the question on who wants to be a teacher? May I assure him that in our present day context teaching is still a very noble profession. There are many bright young men and women who aspire to be teachers when they finish their schooling. During the last admission exercise carried out a couple of months ago by the Institute of Education there were about 550 applicants for the Certificate in Education course. Due to the staffing position, we have only been able to take in about 60. The ratio is about 1 : 10. Similarly, for the Diploma in Education course for graduates, there were about 450 applicants for 90 places. The ratio is 1 : 5. Despite what has been said, the teaching profession still has its attractions.

The Member mentioned that there are some restrictions on teachers who wish to pursue a course of study, for example, academic teachers studying for a non-academic course. Let me assure him that no restriction is imposed by the Ministry on teachers who wish to pursue a course of study in his own time provided it does not interfere with his work as a teacher. However, if he wishes to apply for study leave, then the course of study must be relevant to the requirement of the service. If a teacher chooses to study accountancy, for example, there is great doubt whether he will return to enrich the education service.

The Member also inquired about the posting of teachers to schools nearest their homes. It is more difficult than posting pupils nearest their homes for the simple reason that most teachers are concentrated in a few housing estates, such as Marine Parade, Thomson and Toa Payoh. There are also many schools in the rural areas where there are no housing estates, and we have to post teachers to man these schools. It is not possible to accede to the request of every teacher for posting to a school nearest his home.

About the promotion exercise, I am pleased to say that only this morning I received confirmation from the Public Service Commission that the exercise has been finalised and the results will be announced shortly.

Mr Conceicao: Good coincidence!

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: The number of teachers promoted will be slightly more than the previous year. The Member for Anson is most probably aware that the procedure for shortlisting this year has somewhat been modified after consultation with the various teachers' unions. As a result, there will be less belly-aching this year. We will continue to improve upon the procedure so that there will be less unhappy teachers.

The Member for Telok Blangah asked about the training of teachers to teach Malay and Tamil as second language at the Institute of Education. We are continuing to train them to teach the language as a second language. We are now working on a scheme to take in trainees who do not have the required `A' levels to undergo a more intensive programme of training as first language teachers.

The Member for Jurong raised two more questions on the conditions of service of teachers. One is on medical benefits for those teachers who have retired. I believe this question was raised by the Member for Paya Lebar in 1973 and it was again raised by the Member for Jurong in 1974. I am afraid the reply is still the same. The Member for Telok Blangah may quote from Hansard again. Briefly, we have to look at the public service as a whole and not on the teachers as an isolated incidence. They have to be considered in toto. Under the present circumstances, I am afraid the Ministry has been advised that it is not possible to extend free medical benefits to those teachers who have retired.

The Member also raised the question of post allowance for principals. I believe he raised the same question last year. The reply is again the same. The abolition of post allowance in the restructured education system is the result of very prolonged negotiations between the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance and the teachers' unions over a period of 18 months. The reasons, the rationale and the likely repercussions have been gone through in great detail, and having reached that agreement there is no possibility of going back and reintroduce the post allowance.

However, it is not true to say that there is no attraction in being a principal. Let us take the last promotion exercise - not the one I just mentioned but the one carried out two years ago -principals holding basic grades have four times as much chances to be promoted as teachers have in their own grades. Generally speaking, and as to be expected, principals have better chances of being promoted.

I now come to the question of relief teachers, which was raised by both the Members for Anson and Telok Blangah. The Member for Telok Blangah reminded me of the answers I gave when I was the Parliamentary Secretary and Minister of State for Education. I am afraid I have to give the same reply today - as long as there is maternity leave, there will be relief teachers. But I agree with both Members that it is not a very satisfactory arrangement. We will try our best to reduce the number of relief teachers. At present there are over 300 relief teachers for pure vacancies as against 800 when I replied to the Member for Telok Blangah in 1969. So there is a reduction of more than 50%. This could, of course, be resolved in various ways. Three hundred relief teachers among 20,000 teachers actually represents 1 1/2%. One convenient way is to do it administratively, that is, to increase the size of the class. But I do not think this is very desirable. I would rather that we do it slowly and solve the problem gradually by training more qualified teachers. I hope it will eventually be solved - not too long but perhaps within a few years. Three hundred relief teachers as compared to 20,000 establishments is not really a large number.

On issues relating to the school management, the Member for Anson said that there have been cases where students have been forced to collect donations during vacation. Schools are not supposed to do that. The principals are not supposed to sell lucky draw tickets and solicit donations. In fact, in the past when such cases were discovered by the Ministry, the principals were warned. I should be grateful to the Member for Anson, should he come across such cases, to let me know and we will take appropriate action.

The Member for Jurong made some reference to the officers in the uniformed movement. I agree with him that it is wrong to have in-camp training during the school term. I would bring this to the attention of the Commandant to see that in future this training should not be allowed to disrupt the teaching process for the benefit of the uniformed movement. I agree with him that in-camp training should be conducted during vacation.

The Member also asked about Intraco's donations as a matter of general interest. I do not have any knowledge of what Intraco has donated to the schools, but I believe that most of the items donated are new. But whether they are suitable or not I cannot vouch for them. I believe that the only item which was not new was the 30 odd re-conditioned buses donated to schools. In addition to that, Intraco donates a large sum of money every now and then to schools for various projects.

The Member for Anson raised some questions on donations to the Education Fund. These donations are collected from foreign students and paid into a fund known as the Education Fund. It is used for the benefit of our students. For example, every year a large sum of money is being drawn from this Fund to subsidize our students to go overseas or to go to the neighbouring countries on educational tours or for whatever activities the students wish to engage in but are short of funds. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Anson is so concerned about foreign students.

Donations are required from foreign students for a very simple reason. Although they study in private schools we ask for donation from them. Private schools have been able to attract foreign students because of the educational infrastructure built up by this Government at public expense over the years, and it cost millions of dollars. Without Government efforts there would not be this educational infrastructure and the private schools would not be able to flourish and attract that many foreign students. Why should foreign students come to Singapore and not elsewhere? Because of the efforts of the Government to build up this infrastructure, I think it is only fair that if foreign students wish to come here and benefit from our efforts they should make a donation towards the Education Fund to be used for the benefit of our students.

Sir, I hope I have answered most of the points raised by hon. Members.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, I would like to clarify two or three points. The first point is that the Minister mentioned that there are many applications for the post of teachers. But may I ask the Minister why there are 300 resignations?

The second point is about foreign students. I would like to know how this money which is collected from the foreign students is being used. I am not objecting to the collection of this money. The money collected must be utilised for a very good purpose.

The next point is that we must stop the practice of asking students to collect donations and the Minister has promised he would look into this. I hope that whatever the Minister says here is implemented.

4.30 p.m.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sorry I have to rise again. I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer, especially that concerning relief teachers. Perhaps it was because I raised this issue in 1971 when, according to the Minister, there were 800 relief teachers and that the number is now reduced to 300. I can assure the Minister that I will raise this problem again in three years' time, unless the 300 is reduced to 30.

I refuse to accept the Minister's contention that there will be relief teachers so long as there are teachers taking maternity leave. Sir, women have been going on maternity leave since time im memorial. The problem of relief teachers arose not decades ago but a decade ago or even more recently. The Minister is aware that quite a few of us here are practising teachers. This phenomenon of unqualified relief teachers going to schools to teach came about only six or seven years ago. And in answer to the Member for Anson's question as to who wants to become teachers, he said that lots of people have applied to become teachers. A-s I said, we should train them and from this pool of trained teachers we can draw the number required to relieve those who go on maternity leave or any other leave.

Mr Rodrigo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I appreciate some of the answers given by the Minister to my queries. But when I cited the hypothetical case of two classes in a primary school, I was merely setting a hypothetical situation to indicate how classes can multiply and teachers can be increased in number if the system is to be implemented. This tendency to multiply need not necessarily be limited to the hypothetical case I have cited. It can happen to the case of two or more classes.

Secondly, I did not, as the Minister said, mention that a child having to do four years of upper primary education after Primary III has a stigma attached. This is where the Member for Potong Pasir stands alone in this profound observation. But it did not issue from me.

Then I did raise the query of how forms and criteria of assessment will be formulated and I would appreciate a reply from the Minister on this query.

Next, I also raised the question of how the performance of a child in the second language under the new system in the three years of Primary schooling, that is, Primaries I, II and III, is going to he decided in so far as it relates to whether a child will do four years or three years of upper primary education after Primary III.

I would also invite a response from the Minister to my suggestion that relief teachers should in future never be assigned to primary classes, at least in the first three years in the new system. Nor should teachers in the first three years of primary education be transferred. In fact, I see a merit if the Minister could arrange for a situation where the teacher who starts off with a class in Primary I follows the class through to Primary II and to Primary III, because at the end of Primary III that teacher will have a thorough knowledge of his or her pupils and will be better able to make a reliable and accurate assessment of the academic attainment and potential of the child.

Mr Conceicao: Sir, I just want to refer briefly to a point that has been referred to indirectly by the Member for Jalan Kayu. From what he said, there seems to be one matter not adequately considered, namely, the question of getting parents to understand the education policy better. I hope in this respect the Ministry, teachers' unions and teachers' bodies will collaborate to put the idea across and get the cooperation of parents.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I cannot promise the Member for Telok Blangah that if he were to raise the same question in three years' time, the number of relief teachers will be cut down to 30. But I can promise him that it will not be of the same magnitude as it is today. If he will recall, in my reply in 1971 I said that it was our intention that eventually relief teachers would be trained teachers, but they would still be relief teachers. The intention is that there will be a pool of trained teachers serving as relief teachers but they will remain as relief teachers.

I must apologise to the Member for Serangoon Gardens if I have grouped his queries together with the Member for Potong Pasir. My apologies if I have done so. I understand his sentiments. His point about the multiplying of classes due to the restructured system was well taken. We are aware of this and this is, in fact, being planned for. He asked how the form and standardisation will come about and also whether the second language will affect the question of channelling. As I said just now, this is contained in the very detailed recommendations of principals and teachers' unions in a seminar. It is rather a lengthy report but it will be made public very soon.

He has asked for my assurance that relief teachers will not be posted to primary schools, especially from Primary I through to Primary III, if they are untrained relief teachers, I can say that perhaps in a few years' time this will not happen. But even now there are only about 100-odd relief teachers in the primary schools, out of a total of 15,000 teachers in the establishment. I cannot agree with him more about his idea of the same teacher following through from Primary I to Primary III. In fact, we have been urging principals to try to do that as far as possible.

The Member for Katong has made a very good point which unfortunately I have missed out in my reply, and the Member for Jalan Kayu has also raised it, that is, we should have an exercise to explain to the general public about the restructured system. In fact, this is being planned.

An hon. Member: A campaign.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: There will be no campaigns. What we intended to do have in fact been done now - that is to produce a series of films explaining the restructured system and also train a large number of education officers to familiarise themselves with this system. The idea is not to conduct a campaign but to get these specially trained officers to go to the individual schools and invite the parents to attend a session so that they can explain the new system and answer any queries. There will be various public forums for this purpose.

Mr Conceicao: Deputy Speaker, Sir, since so many matters have been raised on the Minister's Head, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I think this is a convenient time to take the suspension.

Thereupon Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at Ten minutes past Five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.37 p.m. until 5.10 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.10 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head W (contd.) -

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BAA 1105*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Teong Eng Siong, Sia Khoon Seong and Ho Kah Leong.)

Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Speech it is said that:

`The education system will be restructured by stages with the objective of reducing educational wastage, improving teaching and learning, and increasing the supply of trained manpower.'

Under the direction of the Minister for Education the restructuring of our education system has already been carried out partially. But in my opinion there is one very important aspect of education which concerns the future of our country, our social order and the happiness of our children and our children's children. I feel that this particular aspect should also be included in the restructuring of our education system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past, respect for the teachers was quite evident in Singapore. This was because the teachers were able to show not only kindness but also able to exercise authority and the students were also alert. Under this awe-inspiring authority of the teachers lazy students had no choice but work hard and to behave properly. But today the situation is totally different. We have even cases of students beating up teachers, much less giving any respect due to the teachers. Such students are allowed to remain at large. Why should it be allowed to deteriorate to such a stage? It is because some of our education policy makers believe too much in the laissez faire policy of the West. Teachers do not have the discretion to impose corporal punishment on students. If any teacher should dare to do so he will face the risk of losing his job. As a result, students are at complete liberty to act as they please and teachers do not have even the discretion of limited corporal punishment or taking limited action against students. That being so, it has made the students lose any respect or fear for their teachers.

5.15 p.m.

Furthermore, some spoilt children or even pampered students complain to their parents over the slightest admonishment. The parents will then take up the matter with the school. Then the officials of the Ministry of Education will pounce on the teachers on receipt of the complaints without any further detailed investigation into the complaints. Under such circumstances, teachers are always threatened by parents and the Ministry of Education and they find it very difficult to discharge their duties as teachers, particularly control over unruly students. So some teachers take the passive attitude of just teaching without trying to control the students- if the students want to go astray, let them go astray; why should I care? That is the attitude and so there is lack of control over students and an absence of respect for the teachers. Sir, since the students do not have even the slightest idea that due respect is to be given to the teachers, how do you expect them to receive instruction or guidance from the teachers?

Sir, while we admit that we can learn from the West of its advanced technology in order to improve our standards, we should not copy everything wholesale from the West. For example, while materially we have yet to learn the advanced science and technology, educationally there is little good to benefit from the West where the children are pampered and doted upon by their parents to such excessiveness that the children can go their own way. They even become Beatles and take to drugs. Their education is basically a failure. So this is the apple cart of the West. Why should we fall into the rut? Sir, if we do not want to degenerate and embark upon the path of self-destruction, if we really want to save our future generations from the ills of the West and to uphold our oriental cultural virtues, then as a teacher myself, I would like to suggest to the Minister for Education that he restores erstwhile good methods of teaching and controlling the students and allows the teachers the discretion to impose limited corporal punishment as and when necessary and then to report such punishment to the parents and the principals. Perhaps, such discretion could be experimented over a period before we conduct a review on it. In fact, according to history and my personal experience as a school teacher over twenty years, I have not heard of any case about a teacher beating up a student to death, not even since the days of Adam and Eve.

Sir, I read in the English newspaper this morning about a teacher beating up a student who had to be sent to the hospital for treatment. I believe that it is because the Ministry of Education has not given the discretion to the teachers to impose limited corporal punishment. So since teachers are not allowed to carry a cane in class and when students misbehave, some teachers may lose their head and give a tight slap with their bare hands, thereby resulting in the student being hospitalised.

The Chairman: Mr Tay, your time is up. Mr Teong.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, under this amendment, I would like to ask the Minister two questions. One, would the Minister consider building an auditorium for the Naval Base Secondary School? According to my understanding, this school has more than 2,000 students. It is a school of considerable size, but what is surprising is that it has no school hall at all. This is very regrettable. We know that the Ministry of Education is promoting extramural activities and encouraging students to take part in uniformed group activities, such as school band, dancing, singing, choir, and so on. In this way, the extramural activities of the students can be enriched. But, unfortunately, the Naval Base Secondary School has no school hall. The teachers responsible for dancing and singing are not able to conduct such activities in a proper place. It is also impossible for the school to hold any performances or shows in the school itself. I would therefore like to ask whether the Minister has any plans to build a school hail for the Naval Base Secondary School.

My next point is that I have heard some remarks from teachers and members of the public and parents to the effect that something is wrong with our secondary schools. To be more specific, Sir, it has been noticed that many secondary school students are sporting long hair. This is a very bad impression. Some teachers themselves are not behaving in the proper manner. Some female teachers like to wear very colourful or thin and revealing dresses. In the case of some male teachers, they attire themselves in mod fashion. These teachers are not setting a good example to the students. I would therefore like to ask the Minister concerned to consider the suggestion of requiring the teachers in secondary schools to put on uniforms. Since doctors and nurses wear uniforms why not make teachers wear uniforms? Uniforms will not only be pleasant to look at but they also give a dignified appearance to the teaching profession.

Sir, the next point is that in the Polytechnic there are students who keep long hair. They even attend classes in slippers. What manner of behaviour is this? I would like the Minister to immediately look into this matter and take steps to rectify this situation.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on Teachers' Day last year, the Minister for Education announced that his Ministry was planning a staff development scheme to provide teachers with opportunities for academic and professional advancement. According to him, initially, courses leading to the advanced stage of the Certificate of Education would be conducted by the Institute of Education. At a later stage there would be courses leading to the Bacheior of Education degree. These courses would be open to serving teachers with HSC or GCE A' level. My question to the Minister is: have the plans been finalised and, if so, when will these courses be run? I wish also to find out from the Minister whether he will consider extending these courses to serving teachers without the HSC or the GCE A' level.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Member for Paya Lebar when he made the request to the Minister for Education to restore to teachers the discretion to impose corporal punishment, that is to say, "to return the cane to the teachers." I feel that the students are getting more and more difficult to control, and discipline in the schools is on the decline from day to day. As a result, we have more and more delinquents in Singapore. Juvenile delinquency is mounting from year to year and the committee which looked into this matter has also recommended that teachers should be given the discretion to impose corporal punishment.

Sir, the Minister for Education will certainly turn round and say that if we give the cane back to the teachers, some of them will abuse their power and discretion to use the cane. In that case if we give only limited authority to the teachers to impose corporal punishment as the Member for Paya Lebar suggested, for example to use the cane on the palms or buttocks, then a lot of problems of discipline can be solved. Of course, we realise that at the present moment principals and senior assistants are authorised to impose corporal punishment. But from what I understand, most principals and senior teachers avoid exercising such authority because they know that in imposing any corporal punishment they are required to put up a lengthy report to the Ministry of Education. So to save all that trouble of putting up a long-winded report, they avoid taking this action and the matter is put in abeyance.

5.30 p.m.

I feel that the question of whether or not teachers should be given the discretion to impose corporal punishment is a matter to be seriously considered. If the Ministry of Education cannot come to any decision, perhaps we can hold a referendum among the teachers to decide. I believe that if a referendum is held, we will get a definite answer from the teachers.

Sir, in order to endorse respect for the teachers, the Ministry has been very generous in holding a Teachers' Day every year. The teachers are very grateful for this gesture. Unfortunately, Teachers' Day falls on the 1st September of every year, which happens to be during the school vacation. Perhaps the Ministry of Education had deliberately chosen this day to fall within the school vacation. I do not really know. But as a result of this coincidence or deliberate arrangement, teachers do not really enjoy a holiday. So much of the significance of Teachers' Day is lost. In order to attach true significance to the Day, I would ask the Ministry of Education to consult the teachers' bodies to fix a different date for Teachers' Day.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, the purpose of education is to inculcate a sense of proper social discipline among the students. I cannot agree more that we should not be too indulgent towards our young. I do not think that indisciplined students is the direct result of the withdrawal of the cane from teachers. Even 2,000 years ago we had Judas betraying his mentor. Under the present system the regulation for corporal punishment is flexible enough to enable the principal to exercise considerable discretion to designate any teacher to mete out corporal punishment. I believe the same assurance was given by my predecessor, the present Minister for the Environment, two years ago on the same issue.

The Member for Sembawang asked about the Naval Base Secondary School. If I recall correctly, Naval Base Secondary School was originally a primary school and it has since become a secondary school. Therefore, it has only a small canteen. The Ministry is, in fact, looking into the possibility of building a school hall for this school.

On the question of long hair, we have certain regulations which are, in fact, widely observed in the civil service. I do not think the problem is really that serious. Sometimes it is actually a question of discretion as to what constitutes long hair, and what is not. It is not something that is easily quantifiable. As long as it is tidy and not too long, I think it should be all right. He quoted a technical secondary school in particular. The technical secondary school follows exactly the same regulations in the civil service.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Point of clarification, Sir,I would like to correct one point. When I quoted the case of long hair, I was referring to the Singapore Polytechnic. The Minister talked about the problem of what is long hair and what is not. I think we should have a standard, and the Minister's hair-length is a good standard to follow.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, I have mentioned that we have a certain standard for civil servants, and there are posters to show what is long hair and what is not, e.g, if the hair is allowed to cover the collar and the ears, it is considered long hair, and so on. The Member mentioned the Singapore Polytechnic: we are trying gradually to impose certain rules in respect of Polytechnic students.

I am afraid his proposal for uniforms is not enforceable. In fact, I hate to see teachers come to classes in uniforms. I am afraid it is not a practical suggestion and we might get a very sterile service.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Point of clarification, Sir,I disagree with the Minister's statement that my suggestion is not practical. Every school has its own uniform for its students. The ratio of students to teachers is in the region of 30: 1. The number of teachers is very small. So it is not too difficult if we ask the teachers to put on their own uniforms. And if the Ministry can allocate funds for uniforms, it will be more welcome.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, there are only 65 Members of Parliament here and we are supposed to wear white shirts. I do not see the Member for Sembawang wearing white shirt. That answers his problem of uniforms.

The Member for Moulmein raised the question of stall development programme. I am pleased to say that we have finalised the curriculum for the advanced Certificate of Education course and invitations will be sent out to interested teachers to apply for such a course. We will also be implementing two other schemes, that is, the Overseas Scholarship Scheme, to send deserving staff with the necessary qualifications to the United Kingdom to do an undergraduate's course in English. There is a great shortage of these teachers. In addition, recently we announced a sponsorship scheme whereby successful teachers would be sent to the local university to pursue an undergraduate course. As for the course in Bachelor of Education, we have yet to finalise the curriculum, and I am afraid it will not be in time for the coming academic year. It will be ready by the next academic year, which will be sometime in 1976.

The Member for Jurong raised the question of Teachers' Day. The Teachers' Day was fixed on the 1st September many years ago to honour and remember this very noble profession. If Teachers' Day is to have any meaning at all, it should not be changed or altered just because the school term has been revised. Teachers' Day has been observed all along at a time when it did not fall within the holidays. I am afraid the Member for Jurong got it wrong that the Ministry of Education fixed it so that it coincides with the holidays. With a greater intake in July and the likelihood of introducing two GCE examinations per year, the school term is likely to be further changed. Are we then to change the Teachers' Day again if it happens to coincide with a holiday? It is something very significant and we cannot change it just because it happens to fall within the school holidays for the last few years.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, the Minister has not answered one of my questions and that is, will he consider extending the courses that I mentioned to serving teachers without the HSC or the GCE `A' level? Because in his announcement it was stated that teachers must possess those qualifications before they could be invited to these courses.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Sir, during the initial stage, the answer is no. Perhaps at a later stage we might consider when we are able to carry out the scheme smoothly.

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Sir, earlier on the Minister for Education mentioned that the discretion of limited corporal punishment has been given to principals and senior teachers. I do not know whether he realises a situation like this. If there are 50 or 60 teachers in charge of 1,000 students, is that not better than having only one or two senior teachers to control the whole student population in the school? Of course, I will answer in the affirmative - it is better to allow all the 50 or 60 teachers to control the students, as the effect of their control will be more evident. I have already given my reasons for such a situation.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: I do not think the Member for Paya Lebar understood what I have said. I said that under the existing regulations, the principal has the discretion to delegate whichever teacher he considers is suitable to mete out corporal punishment. I did not say "only the senior teachers". Therefore, if the principal so decides that all 60 teachers can mete out corporal punishment, so be it.

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Sir, in view of the Minister's clarification, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead CAA 1105 (The amendment also stood in the names of Messrs L. P. Rodrigo and Ho See Beng).

Sir, recently a number of mathematics and science teachers in secondary schools have complained about the attitude of some specialist inspectors. In Chinese secondary schools both science and mathematics are taught in English, and the textbooks are also in English. Most of the teachers of such subjects are graduates of Nanyang University. Although the Nanyang graduates are bilingual, they are not very much at home in the use of the English language because English has been their second language throughout their primary, secondary and university education. So they are not as proficient in English as they are in Chinese, which is their first language. This deficiency is especially seen when they come across technical terms and difficult words in the teaching of these subjects. Therefore, in order to make their students understand better, they intermix their explanations in Chinese. Unfortunately some specialist inspectors seem to prefer to assess the proficiency of such teachers in the English language, which is their second language, instead of the benefits to their students. These inspectors forget that these teachers came from the Chinese stream. So they "split hairs" over the standard of English of these teachers. This is very regrettable, Sir, and I hope the Minister will seriously look into this matter.

The next matter I wish to raise is the public statement by the Minister for Education that Chinese as the second language in the English stream has reached a higher standard than English as the second language in the Chinese stream. As a result of this statement the school inspectors in charge of second language teaching are very worried. So they visit all the various Chinese schools, not with the purpose of advising the teachers how to raise the standard of English as the second language but to tell the teachers, "My superior has pulled me up, so I must pull you up in turn." How can such an attitude be justified? This is not a proper attitude for school inspectors to take. They cannot just pull up teachers like that. What they should do is to advise the teachers and guide them as to how to improve the standard of English as the second language in Chinese schools, and thus achieve the objective of bilingualism. I hope the Minister will look into this matter.

5.45 p.m.

Mr Rodrigo: Sir, under this subhead I intend to touch on professional areas of responsibility relating to the standard of teaching in the service and problems related to the management of education in private schools. One reads of pupils who cannot count correctly, pupils who cannot speak correctly and pupils who cannot spell correctly, and one gets distressed.

There is the tacit claim that the Institute of Education produces well trained, able and committed teachers. But it appears that pupils' performance capacities keep falling. Are our pupils becoming increasingly unteachable? Or have the well trained, able and committed teachers become untrained, unable and uncommitted teachers after a few years in the teaching service and in the profession? If so, then there is in the service and profession a factor or factors which are dissipating the teachers' expertise and their commitment.

What are these factors? For one, is it the overwhelming number of women teachers in the schools? This is not to imply that women teachers are inferior teachers, but I have heard it said that they find it difficult to ensure a disciplin- ed class in which only effective teaching can be achieved. Is it because school heads are unable to be as effective as they should in maintaining standards or is it because of factors in the education service relating to promotion prospects? Or is it a malaise, an inertia that is settling upon the teachers eventuating in a commitment to opt out of a commitment to teach? And if so, we still have to know why this is happening.

Sir, I think it is pointless to rationalise that the quality of teaching is satisfactory, that a few teachers have deteriorated in their standard, these being a fraction of the large number of teachers and that, generally, all is well. The disturbing factor in the logic of poor teachers and substandard teaching is that the pupil, being the product of the teaching of his teachers, will when he himself becomes a teacher, be a teacher with that much less to give, despite the training he will have received in the institute of Education. Thus it appears that if the situation is not corrected, there is a process towards inferior human resource - something which we cannot afford. Sir, I am not particularly in search of sources to lay blame on. I am expressing an anxiety which I hope will invite the Minister's greater attention.

I would also like to touch on the role of the school head in primary schools. This has been the subject of much articulation in the past and I think all sources that matter agree that the school head should devote a sizable portion of his time to classroom performance in order to maintain and raise the general standard of teaching, and therefore the standard of education in the country. Although there is agreement on that in the Ministry, there is hardly any appreciable improvement in the opportunity of the school head to worry about matters relating to education. He is burdened with administrative work and any amount of injunction to the school head to raise the standard of teaching in his school will be futile in the face of numerous administrative responsibilities which heads are required to perform.

To assist the school head in all this administration work, he has one clerical assistant who is not authorised to sign on his behalf. As a result, much that can be done in the area of educational development is not undertaken with emphasis. `This includes the implementation of syllabus, choice of textbooks, guidance to project work, supervision of staff, supervision of discipline of the school arid setting the role and leadership of the school.

In the light of this problem, Sir, has the administration explored the feasibility and desirability of reverting to the system of one head for one school session? In the present situation, the application of this change will not cause additional money as the appointment of school heads is not a salary appointment as such today but an assignment of office. In addition, or alternatively, school accounts or other administrative matters may be centralised in the Ministry, thus relieving school heads to attend to performance in the classroom. This responsibility may then be properly supervised by inspectors of schools who are now termed Education Development Officers and who thereby would at least and at last be doing a job which befits their designation.

The Chairman: Mr Ho See Beng is not here.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Paya Lebar mentioned that in Chinese schools since mathematics and science are taught in English the school inspector, or advisor as lie is called now, appears to pay more attention to the teacher's pronunciation of English rather than on content. In fact, he drew my attention to this problem a few months ago to two specific cases. I have looked into these two specific cases where the adverse comment is really on the method of teaching - the teacher's approach and technique - rather than the command of the second language. I think in the assessment of a teacher's performance, it is how well lie can impart his knowledge which is of overriding importance.

I do not think there is a prevailing occurrence where an inspector of school hammered a mathematics and science teacher because he cannot pronounce the terms properly or the school advisor scolded teachers for not doing well. I agree with the Member that the job of the advisor is to advise and he is not supposed to scold. If the Member is aware of such cases, please let me know and perhaps I could advise the advisor to advise.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens referred to the so-called falling standard of pupils' performance. I think this is a world-wide problem. Is it true that the pupils' performance is falling, or is it because the demands of the modern times have increased? I would like to refer the Member to a report published recently in the United Kingdom called the Bullock Report on Reading. It studied whether the standard of English has gone down. Has it actually gone down? No, the demand on the standard of English has gone up. I think we are facing the same problem here. The demands on school leavers have gone up. I do not think the standard of education has gone down. In particular, I do not think the quality of teachers has gone down. Academic-wise, in the past we used to take in trainees with 0' levels. Now we insist on A' levels.

We are conducting in-service courses throughout the year for serving teachers to upgrade their skills. From the overwhelming response from teachers to attend these in-service courses, I have no doubt whatsoever of the dedication of our teachers who are highly motivated to excel in their work. There may be a few odd birds who join the service because there are no other jobs. But out of an establishment of 20,000 teachers I am quite satisfied that the majority of them are as dedicated as we expect them to be.

The Member mentioned about the administrative burden on principals in primary schools. I for one am greatly in favour of relieving the principals of any administrative burden. But unfortunately there is a certain amount of administrative work which he has to do. In fact, the Ministry was quite keen on that and a request was made to the Management Services Department, in the Ministry of Finance to do a study on how best this could be done. We were proposing, for example, to have an Executive Officer attached to a secondary school. Unfortunately, after some detailed study the Management Services Department came out with a negative answer. They said that it did not warrant the posting of an Executive Officer to such a school but they recommended the reduction of the size of the school and that in a school with a large enrolment additional clerks could be posted. Therefore, when the school building programme is completed we should be able to considerably reduce the school size and the administrative work of the principal will be reduced accordingly.

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Sir, in view of the detailed reply and assurance given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement:- Mr Tay Boon Too: (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead CAA 1107. (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead CAA 1111. Mr Ho See Beng: (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead CDA 1201. (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead CEA 1109. Mr L. P. Rodrigo: (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AAA 2440. Mr J. F. Conceicao: Mr L. P. Rodrigo: (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of item (h) of subhead AAA 3020.

Mr Tay Boon Too: (In Mandarin): Sir, I am not moving amendments (4) and (5).

The Chairman: Amendment (6), Mr Ho See Beng is not here. Mr Rodrigo, amendment (8).

Mr Rodrigo: I am not moving, Sir.

The Chairman: Amendment (9), Mr Conceicao is not here. Mr Rodrigo.

Mr Rodrigo: I am not moving, Sir.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AAA 3020.

Sir, in the first place, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Minister for Education, on his appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the Nanyang University. As the Government statement said, the Nanyang University must catch up with its development into a university of equal standing with the University of Singapore, and the appointment of the Education Minister as the Vice-Chancellor is the first step in this direction.

Sir, the establishment of the Nanyang University was to solve the problem of further studies for students of the various language streams. Since its establishment the Nanyang University has weathered many a storm. All along Nanyang University has suffered from antenatal deficiency and post-natal maladjustment. With the appointment of the Education Minister as the Vice-Chancellor, there will be no doubt that Nanyang University will develop rapidly into a university of equal standing with the University of Singapore.

Sir, I must stress that there is also no doubt about the academic achievements of Nanyang University graduates. The only disadvantage is that they are not as proficient in English as those purely English educated graduates of the University of Singapore. Nanyang University should emphasise upon their students a greater use of English, which is their second language, so as to better equip them for their jobs. However, irrespective of the language stream, we must emphasise on the fostering of bilingualism in order to fulfil our national policy of nation building.

A Government statement said that Nanyang University campus extends to 500 acres. The development potential of this campus has not been fully exploited to meet the national requirements. Sir, we know that the new Vice-Chancellor is a learned engineer with a Ph.D degree. When he takes over in his new appointment he will be able to assess the situation and develop the potentials of the massive campus of Nanyang University according to its topography, bordering the sea and the Jurong Industrial Town, the largest in Singapore. He will also be able to introduce practical subjects and courses in order to meet our national requirements.

Sir, the next step towards equalising the status of Nanyang University with University of Singapore is that the service conditions of the staff of both the Nanyang University and University of Singapore should be the same, particularly those in regard to fringe benefits. According to my understanding, staff of the University of Singapore can apply for low-interest housing loans whereas those in Nanyang University do not enjoy this good privilege. I hope the new Vice-Chancellor will look into this matter when he assumes duty, so that the staff of Nanyang University may similarly enjoy the benefit of a housing loan.

6.00 p.m.

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad to say that the Minister for Finance has made available half a million dollars to Nanyang University as a revolving fund for that purpose.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad to hear the good news. This is the first piece of good news that he has given to the staff of Nanyang University. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead CCA 2020.

Sir, in the year before last I asked the Minister concerned whether a day would be set aside to mark Youth Day. The Parliamentary Secretary replied on behalf of the Minister that he would take my suggestion into consideration. Sir, after a lapse of two years I think a decision would have been reached on this matter. Can the Parliamentary Secretary concerned therefore enlighten this House as to whether a day will be set aside during the school term to mark Youth Day?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible for the Ministry of Education to have a Youth Day. The term "youth", according to world-wide definition and the definition used by the People's Association, covers all persons within the age group of 18 to 30 years. As such the term does not apply to our students.

However, the Member for Jurong may be pleased to know that the Ministry is considering declaring the Monday following the official opening of the Singapore Youth Festival a holiday for all schools. The Member for Jurong and the rest of the House may also wish to know that, in view of the problems of traffic congestion and transport difficulties, the official opening ceremony of the Youth Festival will, as from this year, be held on a Sunday.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, in view of the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of item (c) of subhead AAA 8306.

Sir, Jurong is proud to have a vocational institute, namely the Jurong Vocational Institute, and its precincts. By virtue of its proximity to the Jurong industrial town, the JVI has been able to train skilled personnel to meet the exact demands of industries. Thus, the Institute helps the advancement of industries in Jurong in no small measure.

However, I was told and I have seen for myself the defects in the building of the Institute, as a result of the piling work carried out in its vicinity in recent years. The major defects are deep cracks on the walls, and ceilings and sunken floors. Due to the sinking ground the drainage system has been totally destroyed. Water flows in directions where it should not flow. Water remains stagnant here and there. I understand that the Institute has requested the Ministry to make good all the defects. But so far the major defects have still not been repaired. I do not know what is holding back the repair work. Can the Minister enlighten this House as to when all these defects will be repaired?

Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, as this subject happens to be my area of interest, I have to deprive my Parliamentary Secretary of the pleasure of replying.

Jurong Vocational Institute was built on reclaimed land which consists of a very thick layer of peats. The design of the Jurong Vocational Institute is such that the loads are transferred from beams to the columns on to the pile which go to the hard layer below the peats. All the floors are suspended floors so that the loads from the machines and human beings are transferred to the floor beam which in turn go on to the piles. On the other hand, such areas like the apron and passage way which are not of critical importance are not constructed that way. They are built directly on the filled ground. As a result of the consolidation of the peats, settlement takes place and the apron settles in relation to the pile, and therefore we have these cracks. I believe, the PWD had already taken these factors into consideration in their design. Therefore, there is no structural danger in this building. Ad hoc repairs have been made. We are now considering what to do when the final or rather the bulk of the consolidation of the peats has taken place.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, in view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr L. P. Rodrigo -

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead CDA 8101..

The Chairman: Mr Rodrigo is not here. Mr Ho Kah Leong.

6.08 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead CDA 8105.

Sir, we are here to vote for an appropriation of $1.5 million for the relocation of schools. While on the one hand we are in need of schools in the housing estates, on the other hand we have a surplus of schools in the old housing estates. I do not blame the officials concerned for their shortsightedness as the movement of population is sometimes unpredictable. The point I want to make is that why can we not design and build schools in such a way that it is feasible for them to be used as primary schools at one stage and as secondary schools at a later stage?

Mr Ahmad Mattar: Sir, it is not possible to convert a primary school directly into a secondary school. If, however, a primary school has to be converted into a secondary school, certain facilities not provided for in the primary school will have to be introduced. For example, workshops have got to be built, science laboratories have got to be built, and there will be a need for a separate assembly hall and, of course, bigger desks and chairs. The Ministry is currently looking into a number of new designs for both primary and secondary schools. The Member for Jurong may be pleased to know that the designs so far considered have a certain degree of flexibility in them.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, since that point has been taken into consideration, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In the absence of Mr Ng Kah Ting, the following amendment was not proceeded with:

(15) That the total sum to be allocated for Head W in respect of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

The sum of $355,929,350 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $92,096,800 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

6.12 p.m.

The Chairman: I shall now deal with the remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement. In respect of the Main Estimates, they are Heads D, E, F, G and I.

I propose to take those heads of expenditure en-bloc.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads of expenditure which appear in the fifth column of the Summary of Estimated Expenditure on page 43 of Paper Cmd. 3 of 1975 stand part of the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1975, to 31st March, 1976," put, and agreed to.

The Chairman: The remaining heads of expenditure in the Development Estimates are Heads D and I.

I shall take those two heads of expenditure together.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads of expenditure which appear in the sixth column of the Summary of Estimated Expenditure on page 43 of Paper Cmd. 3 of 1975 stand part of the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1975, to 31st March, 1976," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the sum of $2,202,770,190 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1975, to 31st March, 1976, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 1975," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the sum of $2,188,216,900 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1975, to 31st March, 1976, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 1975," put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Thereupon Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions.

First Resolution reported -

"That the sum of $2,202,770,190 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1975, to 31st March, 1976, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 1975."

Second Resolution reported -

"That the sum of $2,188,216,900 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1975, to 31st March, 1976, contained in Paper Cmd, 3 of 1975."

Mr Hon Sui Sen: Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions accordingly agreed to.