MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1976 TO 31ST MARCH, 1977

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day]

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head V --

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

That the sum to he allocated for Head v be reduced my $10 in respect of subhead AAA 1004*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs L. P. Rodrigo. Hwang Soo Jin. N. Govindasamy. Sia Khoon Seong. Ng Kah Ting. Ho Kah Leong, P. Govindaswamy and Ch'ng Jit Koon.)

No ministry in our Government has been as riddled with problems as the Ministry of Education. Only last year one of the previous Ministers for Education came out with a restructured system which he claimed was not an exercise on paper. A warning was sounded in the House that what seemed to have started with a bang might end with a whimper and actually this seems to have come to pass, because new directions have this year been laid down. How is ii that all these things have happened in education?

The basic education policy of the Government was laid down in the chapter Spring Source of our Nation, incorporated in the Party manifesto The Tasks Ahead, in 1959. I agree with the previous Minister, who is now the Minister for Science and Technology, that basically this policy has not changed. Throughout the years of PAP rule. this policy has been assiduously adhered to because it was shown to have continuous relevance and to be grounded in a clear-sighted understanding of issues.

So we have trained teachers and built schools to give everybody a place and a chance for primary education. We have given places in secondary school to all who have qualified for it. We have established the Institute of Education to provide for more varied and better quality of training of teachers; although here presently a constituent has written to me commenting upon the alarmingly small output of teachers from the Institute of Education. We have established the Industrial Training Board in response to an important article in our education policy, namely, that of contributing towards a better and more productive economy. We have done our best to take care of the material aspects of our policy with emphasis on science and technology. technical training, a chance for everybody to prepare himself for a job for which he may be well fitted. We have encouraged bilingualism and multi-lingualism in response also to the needs for integration in a multi-racial community.

These lines of policy direction are as relevant today as they were in 1959. Yet we seem to have missed out on some important ingredient. I am not talking about the changes which have been many indeed: for example, we have had three or four Ministers of Education within the space of less than 1 5 months - a high turnover rate indeed. Changing directives have been freely issued but these switches, modifications and variations are not basically the ailment, they seem to me to be symptoms. They indicate that we have been more concerned with the educational outcomes that we wanted or thought we could contrive. The point is we were so concerned with objects and objectives that we lost sight of the fact that we were dealing with children and people. Let us just consider the following scenario relating to the early education of our children.

At a pre-school stage our children are brought up in an atmosphere of care and attention. Parents show their great affection for their children by looking after them well, and even by indulging them. Our children respond with a freshness. We can see it in the kindergarten classes in the community centres when we organize little occasions for children. They respond with a freshness. That, however, seems to be a little dimmed when they enter into school. Once our children go to school they become enmeshed, geared into a system that is heavily influenced by a compulsion to achieve, initially in a superficial way, namely, the examination. Towards the aim of passing examinations, pupils will obediently lap up even a surfeit of information (I think our school curricula are over-loaded), and regurgitate what is appropriate for examination purposes.

Generally our children give the appearance of being obedient and well disciplined. Or is it that they are subservient and subordinate to the petty needs to achieve in examination. Of course, many do not achieve. The normal distribution of talent would exclude them from the meritocratic upper strata.

Emphasis on competition has resulted in the inculcation of some very good virtues -for example, a willingness to work hard and to strive after set objectives. But because of the need to achieve distinction in schools, teachers too have been tempted to Orientate their teaching simply to those factors that are tested and are revealed by examinations. In the process a fundamental educational principle is ignored. The system becomes subject-oriented, not pupil-oriented. The basic principle that you learn when you are at the Teachers' Training College or normal classes or at the Institute of Education is that you care for the little children. You orientate your effort towards the children, not towards what you want to teach them. They are not bottles into which you fill little things. It is no wonder that we have discovered in dismay lapses into illiteracy in fact possibility that literacy may never have been achieved by some who have gone through the primary stages of our school system.

The system has significant characteristics of being an impersonal one. Even in the treatment of teachers, much has been said time and again about the impersonality of directives and poor communication between the Ministry and the people in the field. This impersonality can be further illustrated by the way a very senior Ministry official, in addressing school principals, likened a school to a factory, principals to managers, and pupils to factory products. With that kind of attitude characterising the thinking of a very senior man, what sort of human component do you expect to be worked in to the attitude towards children?

This sort of attitude has led to the notion that the school can provide the inputs that will result in a pupil endowed with the right knowledge and attitudes. We have not thought too often about the fact that the child's environment also determines the way he behaves. We have changed the physical environment for thousands of our children as a result of our successes in the housing field. But is it not possible for us to try, through the mass media especially, to reach to the home and community environment, to the parents and adult citizens, to show them how they might reinforce what we teach our children in schools.

However, even what we teach our children in schools in respect of their cultural, historical, geographical environment becomes subordinate to other considerations as, for example, Education for Living having to be in the second language. Education for Living should be taught by Education-for-Living teachers, not by second language teachers. Frequently the two specialisms do not coincide.

In the end, where community influence and school influence have combined to sharpen the competitive instinct in our young people, we get what is exemplified in the following. When a team wins a school debate on television, the members of the winning team are so completely overcome with elation that they have no care for how their opponents feel as a result of their unseemly jubilation. When results are announced at an interschool band competition at the National Stadium, the same unseemly jubilation results in near chaos on the field. Ranks are broken, nearly all semblance of order and discipline become vapourised. Where is the spirit of the game? Where is the vying in friendly competition? Where is the consideration of one young person for another in these hysterical circumstances? All this is the result of the emphasis not on individuality but on individualism.

And talking of individuality, let me hark back to the odious comparison of the school to the factory. It is important that all should realise that the child at whatever stage he leaves school is never a finished product. He is a developing person. You cannot produce finished products from schools. The child is a developing person, moving to the next stage of his life, growing, changing with a personality blossoming and in some sad cases withering. I do not think our teachers are interested in producing stereotyped finished products, duly labelled and set out on the assembly line. On the whole, I think our teachers are concerned for their charges, that is why they find all the administrative and clerical work that is sometimes imposed upon them irksome.

I think we want to give our teachers all the support possible in the development of individuality in our young citizens, and we want, if possible, to encourage schools to bear the stamp and impress of each school's particular personality.

Mr L. P. Rodrigo (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the outset I wish to stress that the observations which I will make under this head are made with the knowledge that the Minister of State has a difficult job on his hands. But at the same time I want to say that he must grasp in perspective the problems that have bedevilled the Ministry, and in this regard I will make references to specific issues which I have raised in this House. In doing so, I also wish to indicate to the Minister the existence in his Ministry of a professional mechanism which appears to obscure fundamental errors of decision in education policy or implementation of policy. I would warn the Minister of the propensities of this mechanism and to ask him to be alert in issues of education at all times.

If there is one Ministry the successes or failures of which determine the successes or failures in other Ministries and ultimately in the performance of the nation, it is the Ministry of Education. Education makes the kind of manpower which will fill the Ministries and which man the nation. It determines the kind of young people you have, the workers, the soldiers, the managers, the leadership you have; and then it also determines the kind of teachers you have. And if these teachers are 30% below par, then their pupils will probably be 30%-plus below par; and if some of these pupils themselves become teachers then these teachers will probably be 3O%-plus-3O% below par, and so on. Finally teachers will not be able to give much of value to the pupils because they have not got the stuff themselves. On this, I said in 1968 Hansard, Vol. 28, col. 364):

`The reason why I am concerned with the subject of education is my belief that it will take a new society, a society with radically different responses and reactions, if we are to achieve national security and prosperity in the years ahead. And in the final analysis, it is the content of the education that we provide our young today which will determine their responses and reactions tomorrow.'

Today we have improvements of the recently restructured system. The recently restructured system was a restructure of the system restructured in 1968. At that time I said [Hansard, Vol. 28, col. 365]:

But today we have restructured our education system. The restructuring is extensive in scope, involving primary, secondary, technical, tertiary and teacher education which I hope is a final restructuring, and is intended to describe in perspective our education system.'

2.45 p.m.

I was a little optimistic.

Today we have identified certain basic difficulties in our system, one of which is the non-retention policy by which pupils get promoted upwards irrespective of their performance in the year. This difficulty, we all seem to agree, is partly responsible for the slide into illiteracy. But the Backbench identified it in 1968. In the debate on the President's speech in May that year I said, after analysing the defects of the non-retention policy [Hansard. Vol. 27, col. 89]:

`The non-retention policy by which the student of maximum age for that class is promoted to the next grade at the end of the year, despite his failure in the terminal examinations, progressively worsens his inarticulateness apart from his overall ability. Sir, this is a decline which must be arrested immediately.'

Even at this time I was already aghast at the kind of effects that the non-retention policy was producing. The non-retention policy was introduced in 1956 by the Ministry of Education to correct the inability of the administration at that time to build schools sufficiently fast enough to accommodate a backlog of children due to commence schooling.

Today the Ministry has also discovered the meaninglessness of the Primary School Leaving Examination and has initiated the assessment system at the end of six years' primary education. This is also done at the end of the third year of primary education as described in the restructured system. This is intended to divert pupils at an early stage so that they will be able to learn at their own rate of capacity. In the debate in 1968 after underlining the adverse effects that the Primary School Leaving Examination was having on our primary and secondary education I said [Hansard, Vol. 27, col. 89]:

`Sir, as suggested, the Primary School Leaving Examination may be suitably modified or even abolished and in its place a system of annual assessment set up.'

I also said in that debate [Hansard. Vol. 27, cols. 87-8]:

`Sir, diversion of academic potential, which is the end product of six years primary education, to technical education and vocational training is short of what is ideally correct. Diversion of primary school students to vocational training as it is being done today must cease. It is a diversion of primary school students who have failed in the Primary School Leaving Examination. notoriously, abbreviated as PSLE, and who are over-aged. It operates on the inscrutable theory that the overage rejects of this examination have an aptitude for vocational training. I would suggest that the Government consider making the diversion at the early secondary school sta9e.'

The Chairman: Mr Rodrigo, could you slow down a bit because the interpreters cannot catch up with what you are saying.

Mr Rodrigo: Sir, I am trying to hurry between the interpreters and your ten- minute guillotine.

The Chairman: That is too bad. You are so long-winded.

Mr Rodrigo: In this case the Ministry did rearrange the diversion to take place at the end of Secondary II in 1969. But I am sure it was not as a result of my having raised it. Suffice it to say that my anxieties have been confirmed by the initiative of the Ministry.

I have made these flashbacks with the intention of indicating to the Minister that on education the Backbench has searched the subject and articulated on it extensively in Parliament. Contributions have come from the Members for Jurong. Paya Lebar. Jalan Kayu and Telok Blangah. I hesitate to include the Member for Moulmein. I think he holds a watching brief for teachers in this House. If I have omitted quoting all Members it is purely because of a lack of time.

We are realising today that the traditional media in which the education of pupils is undertaken, i.e, the classroom, has lost its effectiveness as the form at the primary level. The classroom has always been a grouping in which there quickly developed a relationship between teacher and pupils that made education possible and effective. This form dissipated as soon as subject teaching was liberally used in the primary schools. If four subjects in the class time-table draw into the classroom four different teachers of the subjects, then the close intimate relationship between one teacher and 35 pupils is lost and in its place there is only the indifferent communication link between one teacher and 140 pupils. What happens then is that you no longer tend to have education but instruction and therefore you no longer have schools but centres of instruction. Subject teaching may be suitable as a method of instruction, but is it suitable as a form of education? I expressed this worry in 1968 where I insisted that quality in education can be achieved only when the classroom retains the intimacy of the teacher-pupil relationship. I would urge the Minister to explore the desirability of once again recovering what we formerly had, that is, the true form teacher.

But let me say that our education system has not collapsed. There are major defects. If we are to attempt the correction of these defects we must be realistic. These defects cannot be solely attributed to the system. The failure in or the non-performance of teachers has helped to bring about these defects. The bull in the china shop is all right. Sir, but teachers are not china wares also. If I am the Backbencher to say these unpopular things, let it be so. But to what extent the system has been responsible in stifling the performance of teachers so that their performance as the teacher has been aborted or retarded by the system, is a matter for the Minister to find out and correct.

Here, I wish to make the point that the Ministry in charge of half a million pupils and the teacher unions representing approximately 20,000 teachers determine much of the future of our society. While I realise that parents in their homes owe it to themselves and their children to begin laying the basis for the development of character and ability, many parents still depend and, in fact, expect the institution of the school to nurture their children into citizens useful to parents and society. This in itself calls for a re-education of parents. In this co'inection, what does the Minister think about reactivating on a mass scale parent-teacher association?

Teacher unions have grave responsibilities in the effort to make our education, system successful. On the question of education policies and their implementation, teacher unions cannot afford to posturise or compromise to achieve administrative convenience at the risk of a deterioration in the content of education. Principals of primary schools had their post allowances withdrawn. This change removed administrative difficulties in selecting senior teachers as principals of primary schools At the same time, the professionals in the Ministry are prepared to admit that the system should assist in achieving the correct motivated principal for the school in order that the entire school functions. If the restoration of post allowances for such principals is necessary I would urge the Minister to do so.

The Chairman: Mr Rodrigo, your time is up.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): Sir, travelling in an elevator one day recently, I happened to overhear a conversation between two school children. They were arguing as to who was the Minister for Education. Neither of them was obviously in the right and they would appear to realise it too, as they finally compromised by agreeing that what difference did it make whether it was Lee, Chua or Chai.

Sir, this little incident, amusing as it may be, illustrates very well the state of confusion we are all in as a result of regular changes in our education policy in recent years from Ministry officers to school principals, teachers, pupils and parents. It would seem to me that very few people really know what is happening at any one moment. Take, for example the subject of the use of the School Funds. More than a year ago, the attention of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament was drawn to the fact that all the schools in Singapore had among them accumulated a total sum of close to $10 million under their School Funds and this large sum of money was left lying idle in banks. The reason, as the Committee discovered, was apparently that principals were at a loss as to how to go about obtaining the necessary approval from the Ministry to use their School Funds.

The Public Accounts Committee of Parliament, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Katong, then recommended that the money should be used for the purposes intended, since they were collected from the pupils. Subsequently, in March 1975, a Notification No. 73 was issued by the Ministry authorising the principals to incur any expenditure not exceeding $200 from their School Funds. This partial relaxation obviously was not too successful as on 1 7th December, 1975 a further Notification No. 150 on the same subject was issued, removing all restrictions in the use of School Funds. On the one hand, this news was enthusiastically welcomed by the teaching profession and hailed as a significant step taken in the right direction, and yet in an article entitled "School Funds, a New Look", appearing in the latest issue of the Teachers Rostrum, the author urged that principals would appreciate it very much if some guidelines could be provided for them. This, to my mind, suggests that principals are still at a loss as to how they should go about using their newly delegated authority.

Incidentally, Sir, you would have noted that the first Notification No. 73, referred to by me earlier, was issued in March 1975 but by December 1975 the second notification on the same subject has already reached the number 150. In other words, altogether a total number of 78 notifications were issued by the Ministry to schools in a matter of nine months. I do not know what is contained in the other 76 notifications. All that I can say is that I sympathise with the poor principals and teachers in trying to comply with whatever the nature of the numerous notifications, not to mention the poor pupils who obviously suffer in the process.

A more recent example is to be found in a seminar conducted by the Ministry. According to the press, at the opening of the Seminar the Senior Minister of State emphasised the need to educate school children on population control. There were, I gather, subsequent speakers from the Ministry. After listening to the various speeches, some primary school principals, I was told, went away from the seminar feeling rather confused as to what they were expected to do. One expressed rather grave concern to me that principals were asked to borrow films and illustrations from the Family Planning and Population Board to show to their children. His interpretation was that primary school children were to be taught sex education or birth control.

These two examples only serve to illustrate a rather sorry state of affairs in the implementation of our education policy. It would seem to me that a very serious communication gap exists in all levels of our Ministry and the schools. The gap would appear to be much worse between the Ministry and the schools. Sir, unless there is greater and constant awareness of the need, on the part of those implementing the policies of Government, for proper dialogue to be maintained between Ministry officers and the schools, policy decisions are unlikely to be correctly interpreted and translated into suitable administrative actions to attain the desired objectives. We have emphasised on greater qualitative improvement in our education system but until and unless the very fundamental problem of communication gap can he satisfactorily resolved. I have my doubts as to the extent of improvement that we can hope to achieve.

Mr N. Govindasamy (Telok Blangah): Sir, since 1959 our education policy has undergone many and varied changes. Two features stand out for commendation and condemnation. Let us take the commendable feature first. We have diversified the educational structure from a purely academic type of education given to pupils in the past to one with a science and technology bias. Our emphasis on technical schools. vocational institutes, etc, is a complimentable feature. Other than that, we have left a string of failures.

Our education policy is still examination-oriented. Let us take the Primary School Leaving Examination first, the six to seven-year primary education controversy. What happens to the thousands of children who have failed the Primary School Leaving Examination? About 10 or 12 years ago, we started post-primary classes for Primary VI failures and advocated the setting lip of post-primary vocational classes for pupils who did not make the grade for a regular secondary education. The Ministry of Education was not prepared nor equipped for the vocational classes and the programme was a failure and the post primary vocational classes closed down.

3.00 p.m.

Now we are talking in terms of allowing pupils who failed the PSLE to repeat and to keep them in schools until they are 1 5 years old. What kind of instruction are the 1 5-year old backward pupils going to get? I should not have called them "backward pupils". In the new educational parlance, they are ESN, Educationally Sub-Normal. Are they going to be grouped with the other students who have failed? Are there still going to be 40-odd backward overaged pupils in the same class? Does the Ministry seriously expect the 1 5-year olds who fail year after year to really make good with 40 such pupils in any one class? What attention is going to be paid to them to actually make them useful citizens? Are remedial teaching methods advocated? If so, has any thought been given to remedial education, and are answers available? These are questions for which answers must be found before action could be initiated.

Let us take our second language policy. From normal second language teaching, the Ministry of Education advocated additional exposure for the second language. When they found that the children were not effectively bilingual, they decided they could solve the problem by increased exposure to second language for all. Subjects normally taught in the first language had to be :aught in the second language. As a result, we found that many of our pupils who were not effective in the second language earlier became ineffective in both the first as well as the second languages. What we are now, therefore, advocating is back to square one, and that is, an under-exposure for those who are not able to cope up with the two languages.

We gave another name for Civics. We did away with History and introduced Education for Living to be taught in the second language. This has really become neither a civics lesson, nor an Education for Living lesson but in many schools, it has bec3me a second language lesson. Again, a failure.

Activity method advocated by one of the seven Education Ministers (we have had seven Ministers since 1959) became PPP. For those who are uninitiated in the educational jargon of these days, it means the Primary Pilot Project.

An Hon. Member: Play, play, play!

Mr N. Govindasamy: Yes. A big boo-ha was made. Special classes for teachers were conducted. Special teaching aids were made. Instruction manuals were printed. Thousands of dollars were spent by individual teachers as well as schools. After a few years' trial, even as late as last year, we were told that the PPP programme has come to stay. Now I hear it is out. Why?

Only last year we were debating in this Chamber on another new education policy, namely the Restructured Education System. There were considerable criticisms as well as apprehension about this policy. The Education Minister then, tried to explain the system, not too successfully, I am afraid. He also sang praises for such a system. Sir, now the rumour has it that the Restructured Education System is still-born.

Every child was forced to participate in extra-curricular activities. Special record cards were introduced for ECA. The points system was introduced. Parents kicked up a row. Members of Parliament made speeches in this House and ECA cards were withdrawn and insistence on participation in ECA has been relaxed and forgotten. Another change in policy or a failure?

Our teachers, while keeping tab of the numerous changes and trying to understand and implement them, have also to be Anti-Narcotics Counsellors and, of late, as has been mentioned earlier by the Member for Jalan Kayu, family planning experts.

An Hon. Member: Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Yes, Post Office Savings Bank. I read in the papers that family planning or population education is to be given even in primary schools. Do we seriously expect primary school students to understand family planning concept?

The shortage of teachers in our schools is phenomenal, especially graduate teachers in secondary schools. Even from the Government's own statistics, in Division I alone, there is a vacancy position of 45.3%. Secondary school pupils even up to Secondary IV levels are being taught by non-graduate teachers, in some cases, even by those who themselves only have a School Certificate. The Ministry of Education ought to be grateful to these teachers who teach Secondary IV classes far beyond their call of duty. There was some talk earlier on of upgrading these teachers by inservice classes in the Institute of Education. What has happened to this scheme? How does the Ministry hope to recruit graduates for secondary schools?

Ordinary teachers, principals and inspectors have now been classified differently. Just as a jaga these days calls himself a Security Officer, and a door-to-door salesman calls himself a Sales Representative, our teachers, principals, inspectors, etc, have become EOs, SEOs, PEOs, EDOs, ADs and DDs. Very soon we may run out of alphabets! This euphemism has become some kind of a status symbol among our educators. The need for promotion prospects for teachers was understandable. In fact, I was one of those who advocated for more promotion posts in our Education Service but never did I dream that the Ministry would be creating so many grades of teachers. It appears as if there are no more teachers in our Education Service.

Are all the failures that I have enumerated necessary? Sir, a study of the Hansard, as pointed out by the Hon. Member for Serangoon Gardens, would show that numerous criticisms were made in this Chamber. Some of the pitfalls of the education policies were pointed out and they could have been avoided. If only the gods at Kay Siang Road had genuinely discussed with the organisations representing the teachers and the people who have to implement the policy before proposing any new scheme, many pitfalls could have been avoided. When I say "discussions and consultations". I mean genuine discussions and consultations and not some little dictator from the Ministry of Education calling up principals and organisations representing teachers and giving them a lecture on the latest policies.

Is there a moral to be learnt from the past failures? I would say `yes. If the education planners in Kay Siang Road take heed and accept the fact that there are also others outside the Ministry who are also interested in the education of our young, we will not be in the mess that we are in now.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, education has always been a subject of interest both within and without this House. This is to be expected considering the fact that in our society so much depends on the proper development and utilization of our human resources.

Criticisms on our educational system as well as on our educational standards have been galore. No doubt, these criticisms have been made with good intentions, but unfortunately quite a lot of them have been misdirected against the teachers, maligning them for so many of the ills in our educational system. Teachers have been made convenient whipping boys for any failings in our educational endeavours. This can only engender a feeling of malaise and dejection among teachers, especially when so many of our criticisms on our failings have been misdirected against the teaching profession. It is time we stopped making scapegoats out of the teachers whenever something goes wrong in our educational system. It is about time we directed our volleys of criticisms at the right places where the sins of commission and omission in education have been committed. I am referring to the source where many of the ills of the educational system originated. This is where many of the "bright" ideas were conceived and then turned into educational Policies which must be implemented at all costs.

Changes in our educational policy are desirable as we must keep up with the times and new demands, provided such changes are made after very careful consideration of the impact and the implications these changes would have in the total context of our educational, policy In some instance, corrective measures will have to he taken in order to reduce any ill effects resulting from any shift of our educational policies. Changes in our educational policies must be few and gradual as the educational process is a long-term one. Time and care in nurturing the new ideas are important elements that will determine whether the new ideas will blossom or wither. But when changes were made and then retracted at some future time, they not only reflect the haphazard manner in which some of these changes were made, but also caused so much confusion among school principals and teachers as to what the educational policy-makers really want, apart from causing a dislocation of existing educational programmes in our schools. In determining educational changes, one cannot be as fickle as a vain woman in her dressing room, changing her mind now and then about what she ought to wear for a party.

A case in point of this fickleness in policy adjustments is the recent announcement by the present Minister for Home Affairs and Education that primary education will now be extended up to a maximum of nine years for a slow learner and that automatic promotion in primary schools will now cease. This announcement represents a total reversal of the announcement made by the ex-Minister for Education (who is now the Minister for Science and Technology) in 1 975 concerning the restructured education system. Following the ex-Education Minister's announcement on the restructured education system last year, the whole Ministry was geared to prepare for the implementation of the restructured education system. Evaluation and assessment courses for teachers and meetings of principals were arranged to work out the details to implement the ``brainchild'' of the ex-Education Minister. It now appears that with the changing of the Education Minister, there also goes the "brainchild" of the ox-Education Minister. But what remains still is the hullabaloo arising out of the restructured education system. Instructions to principals and teachers concerning steps to be taken to implement the restructured education system have not been withdrawn, although the Education Ministry now adopts a completely new set of ideas. Ministry officials when contacted by the principals for guidance are bewildered and are not sure which is the latest "fad" in the educational policies.

In the midst of these confusions, not to mention the entire efforts put in by teachers and principals over the implementation of the restructured education system going up in smoke, how in the name of fairness can we point an accusing finger at principals and teachers for the misdeeds originated and perpetuated by the Education Ministry itself? For goodness sake, can the Hon. Minister or his Senior Minister of State inform this House whether the policy regarding the restructured education system and what it entails are thrown overboard or are still operative, in the light of the recent announcement by the present Minister for Home Affairs and Education that primary education will now extend up to a maximum of nine years for the slow learner with no automatic promotions?

3.15 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the sentiments so ably expressed by my colleagues on the Backbench who spoke before me just now on matters concerning the policy of the Ministry of Education. I would like to make reference only to two issues. Firstly, I refer to the announcement of the Ministry of Education with regard to what is termed as "New rulings of priority for Primary I admissions" which amongst other things stated that:

`only children whose parents were sterilised before they reach 40 years of age will be given priority for admission to Primary I from this year. Previously there was no age stipulation'. (Straits Times. Thursday, 18th March, 1976).

Hon. Members are well aware of my personal feelings towards abortion and sterilisation. But I am extremely disturbed about ground reports voicing not only concern which is growing with increasing intensity of unhappiness and snowballing into resentment, but also posing questions such as: is it really necessary for Government to push the education policy so far as to compel aided schools to conform to it when such rulings handed down are against their moral principles? If Government can push such a policy down their throats, what is to follow next? These questions cannot be lightly treated. Morally it is wrong to do likewise.

I believe that the question of sterilisation is not something which is directly connected with education. By so doing, the Government is taking it too far. I would suggest that this matter ought to be reviewed.

The other point I wish to touch on concerns the requirement of Secondary I and II students, boys or girls, to attend a 3-hour workshop session once a week. I have received complaints from parents whose daughters have to attend such sessions. They complain that there is little time for their daughters to have their meals before they catch a bus to go to their workshops or schools. I believe there is a point in their complaint. Moreover, the parents also point out that they would prefer to see their daughters take up Home Economics instead of attending workshop sessions. This is because they feel that their daughters could learn something more meaningful for their future lives than to spend three hours a week in the workshops for two years and at the end of which a basic knowledge of technical skill is picked up by them and which will not be of any benefit if they should go to non-technical schools to complete their secondary education. I would strongly urge the Hon. Minister to look into this matter.

Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that so many Hon. Members have spoken on the problems of education shows the concern we all have for education which directly affects one-quarter of our population and indirectly affects the whole of our population. It is only natural and it is good, because it is an important matter affecting our future.

In discussing the problems of education, we must recognise that on the whole there is nothing fundamentally wrong with our education system. Otherwise we would not have a society as stable as we have now, or we would not be here either. With changing times and social progress, our education policy, system, syllabuses and teaching materials, have to change accordingly in order to meet the requirements of our nation and our society. Education is not something that cannot change. However, the more conservative group do not like to see any changes or innovations in our education system. On the other hand the innovators are impatient to see that education is being changed with quick results. Therefore, there is inevitably a conflict between the new and the old.

In the past, there have been many changes in our education system. From my observations and experience over the years, frankly speaking all these have been quite well motivated. If there had been any aberrations, they could be due to the decision makers not having thoroughly examined our education policy. They could also be due to the inappropriate moment of its implementation. However, there has been one shortcoming, that is to say, in the process of formulating our educational policy those organisations representing the teaching profession had not been given a say. I have always held out that teachers are the actual implementors of any education policy. Since the teachers come into direct contact with the students in the classroom, they should know the feelings and response of the pupils and they should also know what is receptive and absorbable and what cannot be acceptable to the pupils. We have 20.000 teachers represented by five teacher-organisations. I think if the teacher-organisations were given some say in the educational policy-making process, then there would be fewer changes due to education theories which might sound very grand but are not practicable.

Sir, education affects the future of our country. The chief implementor of education is the teacher. So we can see that the teachers are very important in the process of education. I regret to say that in our mercenary society, teachers are losing their status and are less and less respected. The respect for the teacher and the teaching profession seems to have become a historical relic. Therefore, it is important to enhance the status and respect for teachers, and the Government can do a lot in this matter besides the efforts by the teachers themselves and their organisations.

Sir, doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers are all professional people. They have professional bodies which are given considerable statutory power in respect of admission for practice and disciplinary codes to exercise control over them. The teachers should also be regarded as professionals, as they have gone through professional training. However, unlike the other professional bodies, the teachers' organisations are not given statutory power with disciplinary codes to control their members. Teachers are not required by law to join their representative body. So the teachers' organisations are not able to exercise authority over the teachers, neither can they raise the social status of the teacher. If teachers' organisations are given such a statutory right and if we also enhance the status of the teachers, it does not follow that all problems will be solved. But at least we will be able to help them to better honour their professional duties and to be more contented in their profession. At the same time, we would be able to attract more talent into the teaching profession.

Now all those who are engaged in the teaching profession are basically given three categories of salary scales with nine grades. The intention is good and it is good 10 give them yearly increments. But, there is no special salary scale for the principal. This seems a bit unfair. Very often, there are principals who are only Education Officers whereas some teachers are Senior Education Officers. Sir,I have said in this House many a time that a principal's appointment is due to his superior merits. He has to be responsible for the affairs of the whole school, including school administration, the arrangement of the school curricula, time-table, and he will have to take charge of the school finance, personnel control and the discipline of the students. Whatever matter, big or small, will have to go through the principal. However, his salary is sometimes not compatible with his heavy responsibility. No wonder some principals on their appointment seem to accept it with a feeling of drudgery. I wonder whether the Ministry of Education has noticed this problem and will consider giving the principal a more adequate and significant salary.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education is in some ways comparable to our bus services. During the last 15 years, at least five ministers have been given this portfolio. It has gone through so many changes that it produced nothing but only confusion, not only among the officials in the Ministry but also among the teachers, students and parents. Nobody knows what is going to happen next. Nobody knows what is the aim of education. The situation seems to be `the blind leading the blind'. It is time a commission of inquiry was set up to look into the question of why many teachers are resigning and are disgruntled with their duties.

We have to prevent our education system from going down the drain. It appears that our young citizens have been turned into guinea pigs to satisfy the fancies of some administrators in this Ministry. Whenever some senior officials want to impress the public with their ability, they think of changes and then introduce them through trial and error, literally bulldozing the system by virtue of their seniority. School principals and teachers are not given a chance to question these changes but simply told to carry out instructions. We have seen the failure of the Primary Pilot Project. Sometime ago bilingualism was emphasised. To a certain extent the classes became dramatic. Schools were told to increase the exposure time for the second language. Then, all of a sudden, principals were given the discretion to reduce exposure time as they see fit. Why this about-turn? Obviously very little thought has been given to planning this policy in stages.

3.30 p.m.

The introduction of six or seven-year primary education is another fiasco. The criteria for guiding the pupil's ability are so confusing. There is so much doubt that very few people are really convinced that it will really work. The simple reason is this. The judging of the individual student's potential is left in the hands of the young teachers, some of, whom have very little experience in teaching. What is the position of this system now? Is it still in force?

Sir, we have also seen another move whereby pupils are allowed to take care of their schools by doing some kind of work in the schools. The danger is that principals may become over-enthusiastic and may use the pupils as substitutes for school servants. Some principals are only interested in creating all image to the Ministry at the expense of teachers and students. Many parents have complained that their children have been made to sweep the school floors. Why is this so?

Sir, it has become a tradition with the Chinese schools to conduct classes on Saturdays. Of late, many English school teachers have been seconded to these Chinese schools because of bilingualism. Many of these English language teachers have expressed dissatisfaction with these Saturday classes. They say that during the weekdays after every subject period there is a short break and it has to be made up by the Saturday classes. I wonder why the Chinese stream does not follow other streams and leave Saturday for extra-curricular activities only.

The standard of Tamil education is rather "high". I am told the teachers themselves are not familiar with the text books. They are not given proper training. If so, how are they going to teach? I hope the Ministry will recruit, more qualified Tamil teachers.

In some schools the teachers themselves do not know what they teach. There was a case where a father checked his son's books and found an answer to a mathematical problem marked as wrong when it was, in fact, correct. So to seek clarification, the father wrote a note to the teacher through his son. The teacher in turn scribbled a note to the father in pencil admitting the mistake, and he also told the boy to erase the scribbled note after showing it to the father, Again, time-tables in some primary schools are not strictly followed. Quite often, the time-tables are changed all of a sudden. so much so that the students do not have the required books.

Sir, in some primary schools teachers request pupils to pay for something which they do not properly explain. There was a case of a student who had to pay 50 cents for something which he could not explain to his parents. When the parents asked the teacher the reason for this collection, the reply was for a curtain. I wonder what has happened to the school's miscellaneous funds. Why are teachers collecting donations from students? Is this the type of education for our children?

Sir, of late principals have been given the discretion to spend money collected from pupils. However. I wish to point out a certain anomaly. The schools are still allowed to spend only a certain sum, a sum specified several years ago. Let us take, for example, a school with an enrolment of 2,000 pupils. Tile collection from these 2,000 pupils will come to $7,000 a month and the school is allowed to spend only $3,000 a month. Any further expenses will need special permission to be sought every month. The figure is unrealistic, for the simple reason, that it was decided long before the fantastic price inflation occurred. I feel that the rate of expenditure should be revised to a higher proportion of the total collections from the school.

I suggest a commission of inquiry be set up to look into what has gone wrong because most of our teachers are now disgruntled with their duties. This inquiry could correct the defects in the education system so that our students would not be made guinea pigs where at the end of 1 0 years of schooling they would be more illiterate than literate.

Sir, the education policy with regard to sterilisation is unfair. Most of the mission schools give preference of allocation to those who already have brothers or sisters in the school. The introduction of this new priority for children whose parents have been sterilised will seriously affect these mission schools. Therefore, could the Minister review this policy?

Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon (Tiong Bahru): (In Mandarin): Sir, many times I have criticised the Ministry of Education as a Ministry which has changed its policy most frequently. Last Monday when we were debating the Budget statement, a number of Members in this House expressed their concern over the confusion caused by the frequent changes of policy in the Ministry of Education. Even a few moments ago, some Members have also touched on this subject.

Some senior officers in the Ministry of Education, in order to show off that they know more than the others, try to copy whatever they have gathered from overseas for implementation in Singapore. But they have not made a thorough study of local conditions to see whether what they have copied would fit into our education system. So what they have copied was implemented. The moment they found that something has gone wrong with such implementation, they changed their policy. So we had a situation in which instructions issued in the morning were changed in the evening. As a result, teachers and principals were completely at a loss.

Sir, I have been given to understand that the various specialist inspectors in the Ministry of Education have called up teachers in charge of various subjects to discuss invariably how to improve the teaching standard of those subjects. This is, of course, a good move since the aim is to improve. But in such a discussion they invariably say that the teachers must do more work to bring about an all-round improvement. So they must do this, do that, and everything else. As a result the teacher's work-load is increased and the students also have their increased burden. But if the students have very few subjects to study, then the situation is different. But we all know that the present secondary students, particularly those in Secondary I and II, have to take as many as ten subjects. On top of that, they have to attend technical lessons and go for workshop practice and a host of ECA activities. In the case of school girls, they have to learn domestic science as well. If various specialist inspectors intend to show off their performances by way of increasing the workload and lessons of the teachers and students, in the end, the students will suffer more. The obvious consequences would be that, they fear to attend school and will not know a subject well.

A friend of mine told me that he has two children in the same secondary school, one in Secondary I and the other in Secondary II. In order to teach the students how to read newspapers, the language teachers make the students do press cuttings on editorials. The civics teachers also want these two students to cut out items on civic news, The music teachers also want them to do the same thing but on musical events. As a result, my friend finds a lot of holes in his newspapers, and that one set of newspapers is not enough to share between the two sons. He has to buy another set of newspapers for them to cut out. He also says that, as marks are given for newspaper cuttings, his sons have to spend some time to cut them out and paste them up properly and show them to the teachers for marking. In fact, they have no time to read the newspaper cuttings, some of which they might not even comprehend.

If the example I have quoted is the cause for an increased sale of newspapers, which may be misinterpreted as the rise in our cultural standard, then it is a travesty of the truth. Just to require the students to cut out and paste newspaper cuttings mechanically is to achieve nothing for the teachers and the students themselves. It is deceiving oneself as well as others. So I feel that this practice of the specialist inspectors vying for show should stop. I would go so far as to suggest that there should be a coordinating committee in the Ministry of Education to ensure that there will be a fair distribution of time among the various subjects for secondary school students, so that there will be no more stereotyped method of teaching.

Recently some parents are vexed about the use of simplified Chinese characters because their children now write a number of simplified characters which many people do not understand. The simplified Chinese characters initiated by the Ministry of Education have increased from 502 to 2,248 characters. Some of them have been considered not suitable for use are still being used in the magazines and newspapers. Some new locally created simplified Chinese characters are not to be found in any Chinese dictionary. This gives rise to a greater problem for the students studying the language. Our history is very short and our new culture is still in the making. We should not create a Picasso-type of simplified Chinese character experts.

Sir, language takes a long time to develop. It is also a common fact that language develops with the history of a country. It is my hope that the Ministry of Education in promoting the use of simplified Chinese characters could accept and pay attention to the new development of Chinese culture in this field. We should not be narrow-minded and obstinate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Haji Sha'ari Bin Tadin): Sir, much criticism has already been levelled in the House against our educational system in general as well as in specific terms. Both the educational administration and the teaching staff in our schools have been in the line of fire. This identification of weaknesses in the system is entirely constructive and to the point in the present context of our rapid progress.

It is wholly relevant to stop and ask ourselves seriously just where we are going with our educational innovations and reforms, and what exactly are the ultimate goals we hope to achieve within the framework of our national aspirations. Mistakes in education are too expensive in human terms for us to delay any further in attempting to locate the trouble spots and areas of vagueness in our educational policies and administrative approaches.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to suggest practical action in three areas for consideration by the Minister for Education. First, I would like to suggest the restoration of a special allowance for principals in view of the important role they are called upon to play in our educational sphere. In this respect, I share the view of the Member for Jurong expressed earlier on. The present scheme is quite ludicrous, for it is based on academic qualifications. It is quite common in many schools for a principal to be earning far less than his teachers merely because he is not a university graduate but has come up the ladder by dint of hard work, skill and experience. In rational terms, it would seem that this is all the more reason for appreciation to be accorded him in concrete money terms, thus acknowledging the special status he has won for himself.

3.45 p.m.

Clearly, a principal who does not have his special position acknowledged and safeguarded in some definite way is going to suffer from a certain sapping lack of morale. He thereby stands in danger of having his very authority undermined. He has every right to expect a special allowance by virtue of the fact that he is the man who is at the top and responsible for the- coordinated running of the entire school. If we deny him this right, we are in actual fact and by definition denying his special authority and thus condemning him, in psychological terms, to a mediocre performance.

The second point I wish to make, Mr Speaker, Sir, concerns our policy of bilingualism, which has, to-date, produced innumerable casualties from the point of view of the fact that some of our students are not even proficient in one language. The policy has been implemented inflexibly so far, and it is high time that a thorough study and review be immediately initiated, before we proceed any further. Only after such an assessment has been made, should there be any decisions made on the degree of bilingualism, could we then impose it on our students. It is a psychological fact that some students are fast at learning languages while others are impossibly slow, though they may excel in other areas of the school curriculum. We should manifest our educational realism by adapting national goals to the facts of an existing situation.

In most of the developed countries a careful study is made before educational policies are implemented. Pilot schemes are usually introduced and the results fully tested before any policy decision is taken. Here we seem to specialise in the "instant change" method, change being introduced according to the whims and fancies of a few educationists who thus far appear to have betrayed their appalling detachment and lack of comprehension of existing realities. I submit. Mr Speaker, Sir, that on such an important matter as bilingualism a careful study should be made on the implications of any change in implementing methods. We are not quarrelling with the bilingualism policy. The introduction of the exposure time and Education for Living have resulted in a lot of unhappiness and confusion not only for principals, teachers, students but also parents. I do not intend to go into detail as other Members have already aired their views.

The last point I wish to bring up, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the fact that we have a vast reservoir of educational expertise that we can profitably tap, instead of having to rely so heavily, and in some cases, blindly, on expensive foreign expertise. I refer to our retired educationists, among whom we have some truly notable talents. This is available for the harnessing at our very doorstep. I suggest that the Ministry of Education seriously look into the possibility of reemploying as advisers or consultants men who have already proved their eminence in the field of education. The Health Ministry utilises the services of consultants many of whom were formerly in Government service or in the university.

It is both foolish and dangerous to maintain the notion that the more money one is called upon to shell out to a foreign expert. the greater the quality of his expertise and wisdom. More often than not, the expertise of these foreign experts have proven to be wide of the mark simply because they are not familiar with existing local situations, and the net result is often a precious waste of both time and money. A pool of wisdom created from among our own citizens should prove a source of inspiration that can fuel many worthwhile policies, innovations and reforms of real practical value. Let us not waste any time in creating such a source for dynamism in the education mill,

Now that we have started to look closely and critically at our educational system, we can hope to make some real progress. I hope that the new spirit of criticism and inquiry is viewed in a positive and optimistic light by all concerned. What we need for the future may be education "in questions rather than answers" as one educational sociologist puts it. For teachers, administrators and students it sounds a workable philosophy, for education in questions pre-supposes education in the right answers.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the middle of last year the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence revealed a piece of very alarming news that over the past 10 years more than $1,000 million had been spent by the Government just to create a large number of educated illiterates. According to the Deputy Prime Minister, these illiterates mainly came from English schools with a non-English speaking family background. If this is so and if in future more and more parents send their children to English schools, will it not result in a situation in which more and more money will have to be spent to create still more illiterates? This is the state of affairs which is causing alarm and concern among the people.

Sir, that parents expect their children to grow up into celebrities is understandable. If there could be a Muhammad Ali in Singapore, I believe our parents would also want to send their children to some boxing school. What corrective measure does the Ministry have to rectify such an incorrect choice by parents?

Sir, UNESCO conducted a certain survey of certain countries which were ex-colonies. The report of the survey revealed that those countries which, since their independence, still continue to adopt the language of their former suzerain power as a medium of education, despite spending millions of dollars are still lagging far behind in social and economic development as compared with other countries whose educational medium is their mother tongue, or with countries which pay equal importance to their mother tongue and the former colonial language. They opined that modern educational system should contribute towards the economic, social and cultural development of a country. They criticised the educational system left behind by the colonial power as "Schools meant only to produce civil servants who could not engage themselves in productive work." "Such educational system has destroyed the national cultural values and character of those countries and created a group of foreigners out of their own nationals". Such observations are also to be found in the speeches of our political leaders. Why is this so?

There was an African scholar, Abdou Mounouni, who said that in the past the Education Ministry in the African state defended and implemented the colonial system of education left behind by the colonial power. They argued that if education was based on their mother tongue, complicated problems would arise. Although they advocated educational reforms, they never interfered with the sole use of the colonial language as a medium of instruction. literacy and the mass media. Therefore, the colonial type of educational relic developed into the foundation of the education system of an independent nation.

Sir, if we care to study what I have quoted, we would know that the cause for anxiety and confusion which exist in our education system at present could be attributed to the neglect of our national culture and mother tongue. That is why our political leaders have today once again emphasised that education must be relevant to production, that the incidence of juvenile crimes must be reduced, that our young people should be instilled with the correct work ethics, and that we should return to our mother tongue and writing at once, and so on.

When talking about the values of the languages and the cultures of the various races and the importance of English, the Prime Minister has clearly indicated that for our economic reasons English is most important. However, in our multi-racial and multi-cultural context, if we only study English it is a great folly because it will separate ourselves from our cultural roots. He also emphasised that we must let our younger generation strike root in their respective languages and cultures and at the same time arrive at the largest common ground through a second language (i.e. English), in the context of living in a multiracial and multi-cultural society. He also frankly pointed out that after 15 years of heart-searching for a solution, we have come to adopt the policy of bilingual education -the mother tongue and English. The Prime Minister has said that our ultimate decision and objective is to have a bilingual education policy. This will be a foundation for our future education policy as well as the ballast for our multi-racial society.

4.00 p.m.

I would like to make two points here. I believe that we must resolutely proceed with our bilingual policy thoroughly in spite of difficulties. We should not give up such a policy as a failure merely because of some minor drawbacks in the way. I would like to remind the Minister that our bilingual policy has been implemented only two years ago. So we should continue to carry it out to a successful conclusion.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the views expressed by the Member for Punggol and the Member for Anson against the priority admission of a child into a primary school through the sterilisation of a parent. This is an immoral incentive. Sir, the Archbishop of Singapore has expressed his views as follows:

`The proposal to grant privileges on admission to a Catholic school to children one of whose parents has been known to be sterilised is not acceptable to the Catholic church on grounds of conscience. To accord such privileges is incompatible with the moral teaching which specifies our Catholic church. At no time has the Catholic church, either directly or indirectly, approved of the granting of privileges on admission to a child one of whose parents is known to have been sterilised. This is for us a matter of conscience.' Sir, since the Archbishop of Singapore has expressed his disapproval of the sterilisation of the parents so that their child could be admitted into a Catholic school, may I suggest to the Minister for Home Affairs and Education to review this policy and to accord a discussion with the Archbishop of Singapore and other Christian leaders on this moral issue?

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard a number of Members speaking enthusiastically on education. I endorse their views in many respects. But I feel that education in Singapore is not entirely a fiasco. I feel that we have been successful in our education insofar as providing primary education for all our children is concerned. We have also increased the provision for education to $390 million for this year and it now takes the fourth position in the entire allocation of Government expenditure, This vote is to maintain as well as develop various stages of our national education. This is only right. It also shows how much importance our Government has given to the question of education. Undoubtedly education occupies a very important place in nation building. It is only with universal education and the development of talents of our people that we are able to proceed with nation building.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past few years there have been far too many changes in our education policy, as has been mentioned by other Members in this House. The main changes relate to exposure time for second language and the extension of primary education from six to seven or nine years. These issues have caused much confusion in educational circles. Even those in the school inspectorate are confused because when questions are asked of them, the school inspectors are not able to give a clear answer. They just give a very vague answer on these matters. In this regard I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify the whole position.

Next, I would like to touch on the question of emphasis on teaching the second language. On 23rd October, 1972 a circular was issued by the Ministry of Education to all primary schools to the effect that from 1973 the exposure time for second language should be increased from 18% to 25% of the total curriculum, and that by 1974 such exposure time was to be increased to 33.3%. Again, it also says that by 1975 the exposure time should be increased to 40%. But surprisingly, on 19th September, 1974 another circular was issued to all principals of primary schools saying that, dependent on Circumstances in each school, principals would be allowed to adjust the exposure time for the second language so long as it would not drop below 25%. Mr Speaker, Sir, does the second circular signify a relaxation of the policy on second language? I would also like the Senior Minister of State to clarify this.

Next, I would like to refer to the question of redundancy of teachers in Chinese schools. I understand that in the first semester of this year there are a number of redundant teachers in some Chinese schools. I would like to know how many Chinese school teachers in the primary and secondary schools have become redundant, and what is the Ministry of Education going to do about them?

I would also like to know how many English schools are under-staffed. According to my understanding these vacant posts are manned by relief teachers. This is an abnormal situation. I would also like the Senior Minister of State to answer this and inform the House how is he going to tackle such problems.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Lim Guan Hoo): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to express a fleeting thought that has crossed my mind, A number of Members have raised the policy of bilingual education in Singapore. I personally feel that the Government has got to give a review in this respect. When the Member for Paya Lebar spoke in Chinese just now, many students in the Strangers Gallery had to put on their earphones to listen to him. I suppose they must have come from the English stream, This goes to show that there is something wrong with our bilingual education policy as a result of which these "guinea pigs" (not guinea pigs as mentioned by the Member for Anson) in the public gallery have to use earphones.

The Minister of State for Education (Mr Chai Chong Yii): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the names of 14 Members on my list, the last one being the Member for Bukit Merah who has expressed his feelings on the failure of our second language policy. Sir, as far as I know, 14 is the largest number of Members to have spoken on a single head in this Budget debate. In a way I am honoured but I am a bit nervous having to reply to so many questions. I have tried to take down as fast as I could the points raised by these 14 Members, but I am quite sure I have missed out quite a few of them.

Before I answer the various questions raised by these 14 Members, I would first like to thank them for the interest they have shown towards our education system. Their speeches give me the impression that Singapore's education system has failed badly, although a few do not agree, saying that we have done not so badly. Is it true that Singapore's education has failed? Personally, I do not think so. Singapore's education system, like any other education system in the world, has its fair share of shortcomings. I accept that there is ample room for improvement in our education system. The question rightly should be, have we done enough? Could we have done better if we were given a second chance to do it again? I am not so sure.

Sir, on the whole, we have not done too badly. Our education is regarded as one of the test in this part of the world. Sir, in the field of education everyone of us is an expert of some sort. We have at least gone through many years of school life. We have at least talked and read a lot about educational problems. In addition to school life, some of us have a few years of teaching experience. We are either the brothers or parents of some pupils in schools. Under these circumstances, it appears to me that the best line of defence is to receive all criticisms with a smile and proceed to analyse all the constructive criticisms for facts and figures that may help us to improve our educational efficiency. Education is teaching our young the proper values and knowledge and preparing them to face the real life situation some 15 or 20 years later when they grow up. So in the process a lot of unknowns have to be faced. When we are solving unknowns, the chances of making mistakes are very much greater and changes are unavoidable in order to achieve better results.

Sir, since Singapore attained self-government, there have been a lot of changes in our society in the political, economic and social fields. Under such circumstances, it is unavoidable that some corresponding changes in our education system have to be made. We all know that no matter how accurate our prediction is, we can hardly be sure of what is going to happen, say, five years from now. So it is not possible for an educational system to remain static all the time. Sir, we inherited from the colonial days four separate educational systems. So at least the first change which we should do is to try to form them into a single system and, of course, this change is unavoidable.

4.15 p.m.

Coming to the various questions, especially the communication gap raised by the Member for Jalan Kayu, I would like to inform the House that the Ministry of Education has recently undergone some changes. The Permanent Secretary and his three deputies were newly appointed. The Permanent Secretary has made it a point to visit the schools every week together with his deputies. I am sure that this will at least improve the understanding between Ministry officials, school principals and teachers. So let us hope that the communication gap will be narrowed as much as possible.

The Member for Telok Blangah raised a few questions on primary school dropouts, second language policy, the PPP system, the population education seminar recently conducted, teachers with "0" level qualifications teaching in Secondary IV. On the question of teachers with "0" levels teaching in Secondary IV. I would like to say that this is true. We do not like then to do that. But it is a fact that the Ministry is faced with the problem of shortage of graduate teachers. These shortages are felt in the area of English. Mathematics and Physical sciences. The teachers with "0" level qualifications teaching in Secondary IV are those who mainly teach the languages. They are normally teachers with more than 10 years' experience. Sir, I have some figures here which indicate that teachers with "0" level qualifications are mainly teaching English as a second language in Chinese schools. There are also a few Mathematics teachers with "0" level qualifications teaching Mathematics. These are the two main areas. But as I said they are teachers with long years of experience who have picked up sufficient knowledge and the decision to allow such teachers to teach in Secondary IV rests with the principals. The principals must have found that such teachers are capable of teaching the subjects.

Sir, on the question of primary school dropouts, primary school pupils who sit for the PSLE when they have reached the age of 1 4 years are those who have been retained twice during the primary stage of education. Under our existing' system when they are superannuated they are encouraged to enrol in vocational preparatory classes organised by the Adult Education Board. The latest change of providing a maximum of nine years in Primary means all those who fail again in the eighth year will receive a ninth year of education. The curriculum for the ninth year will be a mono-lingual one, and it will consist of the learning of one language, basic arithmetic, craft work and workshop practice for boys and handwork or home economics for the girls plus civics and moral education, some physical education, health education and singing, to make it more interesting. The purpose of craft work and workshop practice, hand work and home economics is to prepare the pupils concerned for employment. The details of these courses are being worked out in collaboration with other Ministries, statutory bodies, industries and commercial organisations. We believe that this strategy will help pupils to become literate and to become useful citizens.

On the subject of Education for Living, this subject is aimed to inculcate moral and ethical values in our young pupils. From Primary Ill upwards, apart from Civics and Ethics, the curriculum also comprises History and Geography. At Primary IV, V and VI levels, it includes topics on the preparation of working and living in the adult world, such as the fostering of right values and attitude towards honest labour, family budgetting, habits for saving, consumer education, population education and knowledge about the functions of the various occupations in our society. This is done with the object of educating those who can make the grade and those who have to leave school after the primary stage. It must be recognised that at the primary stage when children are still rather young and physically undeveloped, physical skill training is not provided.

On the question of exposure time for the second language, may I inform Hon. Members that the rationale for bilingualism remains as relevant in our present context as it did when the policy on compulsory learning of a second language was first announced more than 10 years ago. There is no intention whatsoever to change this policy. In the implementation of this bilingual policy, however, flexibility in respect of exposure time and the rate of learning must be accepted. This is because a number of factors such as the availability of properly qualified staff able to teach a second language competently and to use it effectively as the medium of instruction, the availability of suitable instructional materials and the availability of suitable general reading materials must be taken into account. Thus the trend is not towards under-exposure but is a realistic response to the situation as it exists in our schools. It is the policy of the Ministry that those who aspire to pursue higher education are expected to know a second language well. Those who are unlikely to go beyond Primary VI may, therefore, concentrate on one language as it will be unrealistic to expect them to know a second language.

On the question of the Primary Pilot Project, the PPP as it is commonly known, is a child centred approach towards achieving the outcome as spelt out in our national syllabus. All the materials which include the teaching-unit, readers and work-cards have been tried Out in some schools and revised and, based on feedback from these schools, they are then released for publication. Principals and teachers have the professional prerogative to scrutinise, to evaluate and hence to adopt, adapt or reject the use of these teaching units, each according to his own professional judgment.

4.30 p.m.

The Chairman: Mr Chai, I am giving you 10 minutes more than you are entitled. Perhaps if you could hasten a bit you might be able to finish your reply.

Mr Chai Chong Yii: Yes, I will try, Sir,It has been found that PPP is very useful in terms of language development but it is very demanding for teachers to adopt the system. So the Ministry in reviewing the system realises that not as many teachers as we thought like to teach under this system. As it is very demanding, the Ministry has no objection to those principals who wish to carry on. We also have no objection to those who want to revert to the traditional system. The materials developed by PPP so far-have been found to be very useful and it will be used by schools, if not as teaching materials, then as supplementary materials.

A few more matters which I want to clarify concern population education. It is definitely not the intention of the Ministry to teach birth control or sex education in primary schools. It is essential to teach our younger generation the broad concept of a small family so that when they grow up and become parents themselves they will keep their families small.

Sterilisation is an issue raised by a few Members. I would like to say that this policy is not new, It is actually a revision by the Ministry after having taken into account the various representations. It is true that one of the churches does not agree to it but we do see representatives from churches and the majority of them do not object (if not agree) to this national policy. It is actually a revision taking into account the various suggestions made by members of the public. We have definitely no intention to meddle with the religious beliefs but national policy should take precedence over any other policy.

I would like to thank Members again for their interest and if there is anything which they would like me to answer. I shall be glad to do so.

The Chairman: I propose to take the Suspension now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House,

Mr Speaker: I will suspend the Sitting now and take the Chair again at five minutes past Five o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.33 p.m. until 5.05 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.05 p.m.