REVISED STRUCTURE OF EDUCATION (Paper Misc. 3 of 1979)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Amendments [28th March, 1979] to Question [27th March, 1979] "That this House having noted the Report on the Ministry of Education, 1978, contained in Paper Misc. 3 of 1979, (1) supports the revised structure of education which will allow each pupil to study at a pace suited to his learning capacity and which will make him as bilingual as he can be, (2) approves flexibility in implementation particularly to accommodate the wishes of parents, (3) recommends periodic adjustments and changes to the revised structure which experience and advice of principals and teachers show to be desirable in the long term interests of pupils." - [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education]. Which Amendments were, (i) at end, to add a comma and the following new sub-paragraph - "(4) resolves that the Minister of Education do report to Parliament after 2 or 3 years on the progress, unresolved problems and state of implementation of the revised structure of education". - [Mr Fong Sip Chee, Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour]. (ii) at end, to add a comma and the following 2 new sub-paragraphs - "(4) advocates that the Ministry of Education collates the suggestions and criticisms raised during the debate in the House, (5) urges the Ministry to study the implications of policy changes in depth and to give schools and parents adequate lead time to implement such policies". - [Dr Toh Chin Chye, Minister for Health].

Question again proposed, "That the comma and new sub-paragraph (4) proposed to be added by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour, be there added"

Mr Speaker: As was agreed to yesterday, the debate may range over both amendments and the Original Question. Encik Mansor. 2.32 p.m.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi (Kampong Kembangan): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in line with our policy of encouraging the use of English, I therefore wish to speak in English on this debate.

(In English) On 14th March 1979, I wrote to six principals of primary schools in Kampong Kembangan and Kampong Ubi constituencies and also to 20 community leaders in these two constituencies urging them to carefully study Dr Goh's report which was released in instalments through the press and RTS. I also asked them to seek the views of their teachers and friends. The response I had was most gratifying. 109 teachers and residents met me in four separate dialogue sessions on 24th and 26th March 1979 and, from these sessions, I managed to prepare a report which summarises their views and comments. The report contains 46 recommendations and comments. In these dialogue sessions, I invited them to express the views or comments freely. Then I presented my views and sought their comments and verifications.

After the discussions, I prepared a draft report which was then referred back to 17 of the original 109 and together we went through the draft, paragraph by paragraph. Some of the participants in the dialogue sessions who were teachers did a great service to me. We finished the redraft at 12.15 a.m. on 27th March 1979. With the amendments and additions, I prepared the final paper on 27th March 1979, and I submitted it to the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education on the same day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have consulted the Clerk of Parliament who told me that you have very kindly allowed me to formally table this report. I understand that the Clerk had made additional copies for distribution to Members.

I am happy to inform you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during the dialogue sessions, we discussed very freely. The mood was most reassuring, quite unlike the tense anxiety which prevailed in previous meetings I had with my constituents on education policies. This change I thought was a good sign and it indeed facilitated the discussions I had with my constituents.

Since the report will form an appendix (Cols. 221 - 244) to my presentation today, I will not go through each and every comment contained in the report. I only need to highlight six issues: appendix - VIEWS AND COMMENTS FROM TEACHERS AND RESIDENTS OF KAMPONG KEMBANGAN CONSTITUENCY ON DR GOH KENG SWEE'S "REPORT ON THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION 1978" (Cols. 221 - 244)

(1) Governing Principles in Implementation

It is clear from the report, and from Dr Goh's statements that there is still so much preparatory work to be done. In Section 3.1 of Chapter 6, Dr Goh and his team recognised the need to do a more detailed study and preparatory work on the new curriculum, streaming procedures, formats of examinations, IQ tests, text books, allocation of teachers, briefings to principals and teachers, and promotion programme to explain the new system to the public and parents. As there is this assurance, it is perhaps not necessary for me to discuss this preparatory work in detail. However, it is useful if we set out some principles and guidelines to ensure that the preparatory work is implemented smoothly, expeditiously and correctly.

In paragraph 51 of our report, my constituents and I have offered nine governing principles. We have, in particular, urged that the Ministry formulates an integrated action plan to govern the implementation and follow-up actions. We thought that if the Ministry could produce the network similar to the techniques applied in Programme Evaluation and Review Technique, or more popularly known as PERT, I think we have a better chance to identify and know the critical components of the follow-up work and will ensure proper co-ordination, monitoring, and control. With regard to IQ tests, Dr Goh could perhaps ask one of his officials to review the article by Robert B. McCall entitled "Childhood IQ as Predictors of Educational and Occupational Status". In this article, McCall discusses the review done by C. Jencks and his colleagues on the sparse evidence on the predictive validity of IQ tests, and that the correlations between school-age IQ and the indices of adult educational and occupational success rarely exceed 60, not high enough for practical purposes requiring long-term prediction.

(2) Need for Continuing Dialogue

Mr Speaker, Sir, my constituents and I heartily welcome the Government's decision to subject the Study Team's plan for debate in Parliament. This is an enrichment of our parliamentary tradition. We strongly recommend that Government continues this opportunity for dialogue and debate particularly on selected key issues of the Study Team's proposals. Our recommendations for continuing this dialogue are outlined in paragraphs 5a-i of our paper.

(3) End-Products

In paragraphs 10 to 13 of our report, we referred to the need for Singapore to have a clear picture of the types and quality of students or citizens that we expect to emerge from the educational system. This we consider important because without this clear idea it will not be possible for us to design and formulate the curricula, syllabi, content of moral education, types of strategic school activities, content and depth of textbooks, etc. On the other hand, if we have clearer ideas about the end-products, then it will be more possible for us to consciously relate Curriculum, school activities and the education programme to our effort of creating the types of citizens we would like to have in Singapore.

We realise that this is not an easy job. We may not have that degree of acumen or insight. Or that the tools for this purpose may not be precise or reliable enough to define the end-products we desire. Nonetheless, we strongly urge that a serious attempt be made on this.

(4) Proposed Modification of the Streaming Programme

We agree in principle on the need for the educational system to cater for late developers or slow learners. This is laudable. However, we are not too sure whether the three-stream structure - super bilingualists, average students, and monolingualists - is a good one. There are a number of problems which may arise and our views are expressed in paragraphs 42 to 50.

We have suggested a modification to the Study Team's proposal and this is described in paragraphs 59 to 61. In essence, the modifications are as follows:-

(i) We should have a two-stream structure instead of three. One is for the normal, bright student and the other the slower learner. As in the Study Team's recommendations, we suggest that streaming begins from Primary 4.

(ii) For the slower learners, we recommend that the class be smaller. To these classes we should deploy more teaching and supportive facilities and more and better teachers. We strongly urge this on the principle and responsibility of "rendering best help to those who need it most." This must be our profound principle. If this is done, there is a greater chance for us to give closer attention and guidance to the weaker students.. It could help reduce the attrition rate. More positively, we will help the weaker ones to improve on their grades. We could even minimise parents' sensitivity in seeing their children being streamed to the monolingual stream or the average stream. We are mindful of possible resistance from teachers who are deployed to teach the weaker class. Nonetheless, this problem can be solved if the approach is right and we know that there are still sufficient teachers who are enlightened enough to appreciate the value of this proposal.

(iii) This two-stream structure will be continued in Primary 5 and 6 and where the weaker students make the grade, they could move laterally to the other stream.

(iv) If after doing this, there are still weak students at Primary 6 who require the one-year extension, then let them have the additional year but we must continue the "beefing-up" support.

(v) If after all these special efforts and the students still do not improve, then we have no other choice but to channel them to the Vocational and Industrial Training Board. When we do this, we know that we have tried our best to help them and we will send them to the VITB with a clearer conscience,

(5) Problems arising from Disparity in Performance amongst Primary Schools

In paragraphs 54 to 57 of our report, we discussed the adverse implications of wide disparity of performance amongst primary schools. I have written to the Deputy Prime Minister on this matter. My constituents and I have requested the Ministry to develop a longer term policy to make all primary schools achieve comparable levels of performance. This should be done by deliberate "beefing-up" of the weaker schools with more and better teachers and facilities. We consider this policy a cardinal responsibility.

If we succeed in this, then we could neutralise the distinction between "popular" and "unpopular" schools. We could also minimise the problems of teacher deployment and teacher demoralisation. Parents could also have less reason not to send their children to primary schools closer to their homes and, in certain cases, we could avoid the sensitive situation where there is the unwitting segregation of primary schools along racial lines. (6) Home and Community Environment

The Study Team's Report has essentially confined itself to the formal aspects of the education system - structure, administration, curriculum, streaming, teacher assessment, etc. We agree that these issues must be given priority attention. At the same time, it is important for us to recognise that the ability of the child to learn is not determined solely by the efficacy of the teaching techniques, learning processes in the school, or the school administration. There are other factors which affect the child's predisposition to be (or not to be) attentive, keen, interested or willing to pursue his studies with joy and deep commitment. Most of these factors arise from problems at home and the child's environment outside school. If we really want to help the child to develop, it is also important for us to minimise the influence that these adverse factors at home and the child's neighbourhood have on the child.

We must give this subject more serious consideration, not just lip service. We must strive to understand the child, his environment, and all key factors which affect his educational performance. And we must consider this endeavour as an integral part of our education system.

The successful child; his mind and life pattern

To me, a successful child is one who has the disposition or habit or discipline to want to study. He gets personal satisfaction in both the process or studying, and the impact of understanding and acquiring knowledge. Studying to him, therefore, becomes a purposeful effort and offers him a means to seek and experience self-worth and self-esteem.

Such a state of mind or character gives the child a kind of momentum or inclination to pursue his studies as if it is part of his natural self. He becomes keen, serious and enthusiastic about his studies and he is faithful and conscientious about his daily work. His life history is generally characterized by the following patterns:-

(1) He is attentive and conscientious about school work.

(2) He has parents or somebody in the home environment who gives him the deep inspiration and motivation.

(3) He has very close friends who are also keen students and, together, they strengthen each other's vigour and keenness in studies.

(4) To him, the "process of studying" becomes an "abiding companion" and there is a deep and private relationship between him and his studies.

Criticality of the child's environment

These qualities of mind are things which must be consciously nurtured. Someone must do the "engineering", or to put it in another way, create the conditions, motivations and rules for the child to develop the positive attitudes, habits and discipline.

How can these personal values be nurtured

We feel that this process is best done in the context of three situations:-

(1) The family (ie. parents, elder brothers or sisters, uncles or aunts or even grand-elders). A family which shows concern, motivates and looks after the child's educational life, and creates conditions for the child to be "education-oriented" is the best guarantee for success.

(2) The teachers in school. A dedicated teacher who teaches properly, guides and motivates the child is the biggest help we can hope for. The dedication of the teacher towards a student will indeed be more forthcoming if the student himself is hardworking, attentive, conscientious, enthusiastic and determined in pursuing his studies.

(3) The child's immediate friends. A set of close friends who makes the "pursuit of education and knowledge" a joy in life to the child is the heartiest blessing we can grant the child.

These three factors therefore are critical conditions which will determine whether the student is a self-starter and self-developer, or otherwise. If the conditions are positive, the student will succeed in developing the positive values. If they negate the inculcation of the positive values, then the student will fail to equip himself with the capacity, resilience and inclination to succeed in education.

Family setting

The role of the family is most critical here because "success in education" rests on the initiative, determination and self-motivation of the child himself and these primary qualities are best nurtured in the context of the family setting, and done when the child is still at a tender age.

In this regard, the family should:-

(1) Create an environment and life style which gives high priority to education.

(2) Help the child to become keen, serious and enthusiastic in his studies.

(3) Train him to be faithful and conscientious in his daily studies.

(4) Encourage him to:-

(a) be up-to-date with his school work;

(b) develop his self-confidence; and

(c) broaden his knowledge and self-development.

To achieve these attributes, the family could consider the following measures:-

(1) Parents and elders in the family should regularly converse with or enquire from the child about his school work. Such dialogues are best done during family meals, during rest time, immediately on the child's return from school, and immediately before or after the child's self-study at home, or even immediately before the child goes to sleep.

(2) Parents could pray together with the child and immediately after the post-prayer, the father, uncle, grandfather, or elder brother should talk to the child about the importance of education.

(3) The child must be encouraged (or even disciplined) to have regular self-study at home every day. It is desirable to fix the commencement and end of the study hours. All other home activities (including TV programmes) must be modified, if not ceased, during these study hours.

(4) If parents find it difficult to initiate the child's self-study at home, they may consider getting a tutor to be with the child at home to teach and, more importantly, to develop the habit and discipline of home self-study. This tutoring should, however, be limited in time - 6-12 months - because prolonged tutorship will make the child tutor-dependent.

(5) Parents must encourage the child to look after his school books and other personal items properly and neatly. This is important to cultivate the child's respect for his books and education.

These are some examples which the family can do to develop the qualitative environment and home life-style to ensure the discipline and habit of consistent studying by the child.

The basic requirements are simple: family sacrifice; priority of education; and joint effort in the family. The fulfilment of these requirements is difficult. But it must be done! There is no simpler way out. Without these, all other measures will bring about little impact.

Tuition Classes

This brings me to the subject of tuition classes, an issue which I have been battling since July 1977. There are many tuition classes organised by community centres, mosques, civic and private organisations, purportedly intended to help poor performers. In a survey conducted in November 1978 on tuition classes conducted by 21 mosques and Malay civic organisations, we found that 2,081 students, most of them weak performers, attended tuition classes ranging from once to three times a week. I am not against tuition classes, as such, especially if the number of pupils per class is small and they are guided by well-trained teachers. However, this is not so in many cases. Tuition classes do not always have qualified teachers. The classes are too large. There is more frolicking than serious study. By requiring the child to take tuition at these centres, (and now we also have classes in community centres) we may, unwittingly, be doing a disservice to the students and their families. The child and his family may also be discouraged from being more self-reliant or ensuring that the home environment is more conducive to consistent and conscientious study.

I know the proponents of tuition classes would say that these classes are a necessary evil. They would say that these children's homes are too small or the home environment too distracting. To me, these are excuses. After all, overcrowding or distractions at home are not wholly physical problems. They are essentially human. A home becomes cramped or noisy because of family disorganisation, or because the family is unwilling to subject itself to self-restraint for the sake of the child.

Sir, we have presented our views on this subject of tuition classes in paragraphs 66 to 69 of our report and we would like the Ministry to seriously review the quality of tuition classes conducted in civic organisations and community centres and to assess whether these tuition classes had really helped or will help the students in their studies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first part of my presentation. I have a second part. But before I go on to the second part, may I, on behalf of my constituents and the teachers who teach the children in my constituency, wish the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education and his officials all success in their job of tackling all these most vexing problems of education. They should feel privileged for they are tackling a task which, if successfully done, will have such a profound meaning to all Singaporeans. This, to me, is the best reward that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education and his officials can look forward to. I humbly request that our views as presented in the paper are taken into account in the planning and implementation of the recommendations. At this juncture, may I, Mr Speaker, Sir, take this opportunity to express my most sincere thanks to the 109 principals, teachers and residents who contributed so much, and who have so sincerely and freely given me their views and advice.

Now, the second part of my presentation.

Heredity and Intelligence

I am glad that the Hon. Minister for Health mentioned the critical function of the brain in the learning process. I thought this should be obvious to all of us. After all, we learn and get educated because our brain learns and gets educated. So much work has been done on the brain and it is indeed a shame - a tragedy - if we ignore these studies or, worse still, brush them away as the work of quirks. We must not forget that "teaching" and "learning" are two different concepts. Teaching is a process; Learning is the result, the impact. The rules of teaching are different from the rules of learning. I thought the most obvious strategy is, first, for us to understand how the brain works. How it functions. How it absorbs learning. What makes it to function well. What impedes it.

Leslie A. Hart in his pioneering book entitled How the Brain Works argues why and how schools operate in a way contrary to how the brain works and learns. His ground-breaking Proster Theory synthesizes solid findings in evolutionary biology, anthropology, neurophysiology, computer science, primotology, and ethology. Intensely "human" in his approach, Leslie Hart suggests the almost limitless capabilities of the human brain, if and when it is properly understood, respected, and utilised.

Then there is so much research done on the correlation between heredity and intelligence, and also the roles of diet, family size, and environment as they promote or impede the growth of the brain. Heredity has been said to be the fundamental determinant of intelligence. I am no expert on this subject but if the case of Sir Cyril Burt is taken as our reference point, we must be extremely cautious when making claims on heredity. When he died at the age of 88 in 1971, Sir Cyril Burt left behind an almost indisputable reputation as the most prestigious, powerful and influential psychologist who has convinced many people, renowned people, that heredity is the most important determining factor in human intelligence rather than the environment, or for that matter, any other factors. During his lifetime, he enjoyed a high reputation as a scholar of enormous charm and erudition but this was shattered by the findings of Leon Kamin, a Princeton psychologist.

Kamin was one of the first researchers who scrutinised Sir Cyril's work in 1972. He found at least 20 glaring anomalies. One of the most important of these was the fact that Sir Cyril's statistical correlation between the IQ scores of identical twins in three separate statistics remained exactly the same to the third decimal point - this despite the fact that the number of twins in each of the three studies was different. Kamin suspected that such statistical correlation was virtually impossible. In his further studies on Sir Cyril's work, Kamin found similar errors, some of them dating back as far as 1909. At about the same time, another researcher, Arthur R. Jansen, from Berkeley, who was a strong proponent of the heredity claim, found himself puzzled by Sir Cyril's statistics and, mind you, Jansen was one of Sir Cyril's proteges. Even Sir Cyril's co-authors, Miss Margaret Howard and Miss J. Conway, were found to be persons who never existed. The London Sunday Times charged that Sir Cyril invented these persons.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee): On a point of order, Sir. Will the Member please quote the date of the London Sunday Times so that we can make reference to it?

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: Sir, I will do it later, as I have left my file at home. But if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour is interested in this study, I would be very happy to give him a copy.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, I am only interested in the date of the publication as required by Standing Orders.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: If you are of the view, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this particular reference to the London Sunday Times is contrary to the Standing Orders, then I beg leave to withdraw it. Thank you very much, Sir. I also thank very much the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour.

The husband and wife team, Professors Alan and Anne Clarke of Hull University, who worked with Sir Cyril in the 1940s and the 1950s, suspected his integrity even then. The mystery of how much, if any, of Sir Cyril's work was fraudulent and why, will probably never be solved. Six chestful of papers were burnt immediately after his death and many of his original works were thought to have been among them.

This battle between "naturists", and the environmentalists, or "nurturists", will certainly continue. The lesson to learn is that we must be extra cautious when making claims about genetic determinism. It could be extremely dangerous, considering its frightening underlying tones and its fatalistic meaning.

In the case of Cyril Burt, he was known to be a man of enormous charm and erudition. He was also famous for being a fearsome figure, an autocrat of the old school but wrapped in a most charming style. The eminent geneticist, L.S. Penrose, who had known Sir Cyril for 30 years, once said of Sir Cyril Burt:

"I don't believe a word the old rogue says, but, by God, I admire the way he says it".

Brain research has now moved more and more to the less discomforting issues - how diet affects brain growth; how size of family or spacing of children promotes intelligence growth; how a rich stimulating environment, meaningful to the child, can boost up the breadth, depth and capacity of the child's brain. And thank God, this is the trend.

The Hon. Minister for Health has rightly brought to our attention the critical growth processes that occur during the first two to three years of the child after birth. To me, this is one of the most profound statements that can ever be said during this debate on education policy.

Roger Lewin, in his excellent review article, entitled "Starved Brains", presents research work which confirms Dr Toh Chin Chye's statements. In that review, it is stated that research has shown that the brain grows in two stages. First, between the 10th and 1 8th week of pregnancy, the adult number of nerve cells develops. Second, about the beginning of the 20th week, the brain's packing cells begin to appear, followed by the production of the insulating material (myelin) that coats the long fibres along which the nerve cells send their messages. This second stage, the research shows, continues for at least two years after birth. Myelination progresses at a lower rate until the age of four years. The second stage, known as the brain-growth spurt, represents the most vulnerable period of brain development. It is the critical period when inadequate nutrition and lack of stimulation inflict the most lasting damage. Before John Dobbing and Jean Sands of the University of Manchester laid out clearly the timing of the human brain's growth spurt, we assumed that most of the brain's important development took place prenatally and was more or less complete by birth. But their demonstration that about five-sixths of the growth spurt comes after birth forced an awareness of the hazards of prolonged malnutrition and of poor environment in these critical early years of life.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Toh Chin Chye's suggestion that we should now take these findings to the ground is most laudable.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: On a point of order, Sir. Will the hon. Member please refer to the Minister for Health as such, instead of by name, as required under the Standing Orders?

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: Once again I thank the hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour who is very experienced and more knowledgeable about Standing Orders than I am.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, my intention is to give the Member a lecture on Standing Orders while receiving his lecture on medicine.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: Thank you very much. The Hon. Minister for Health's suggestion that we should now take these findings to the ground is most laudable and should be taken seriously. If more parents, especially newly-weds, know the critical importance of the first two or three years of the child's life, and if we help them to know how to nurture the child's brain development, then we will have a better base to put into effect our educational and child development activities.

I have tried to do this on 23rd April, 1978, when I lectured to 270 participants of a family guidance course, and all of them were either newly-weds or would-be marrieds. And what I did was to summarize the work done by Dobbing and Sands on the 2-stage development of the brain; the work of Zena Stein and associates; Myron Wiwick and associates on the non-correlation of diet and intelligence, and the findings of R.B. Zajone of the Confluence Theory which argues that the size of the family is not as critical as the spacing between childbirth and the quality of intellectual interactions and the environment the child is exposed to.

The response was cold. Even the reporter from a local press took me wrong. I had to write to the Editor. I even wrote to MUIS on 23rd May, 1977, suggesting that these studies on brain development be culled into simple information booklets and distributed to couples who register for marriage. That was on 23rd May, 1977. I received no reply.

I even had a letter to the Director of Medical Services ready to be signed, but I chickened out for fear that it would be wrongly misunderstood. I think we should take the suggestion of the Hon. Minister for Health seriously. Perhaps, some professional doctors or, better still, a multi-disciplinary team, should do a review of all important work on brain research. The team should then submit its verifications on the research findings, and recommend how they can be beneficially used for Singapore's child educational and development programmes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure all of us want to see our children and their children grow up to be literate, educated and wholesome citizens. Let us all give our support to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, his officials, all principals and teachers to whom we will entrust our children. And let us do it with a sense of calm urgency and with abiding purpose.

We may not have succeeded in tackling all our problems or getting answers to all our questions. Indeed, sometimes we have the exasperating feeling that- we have not completely answered any of them. The answers we have found may only serve to raise a whole new set of questions. In some ways, we feel that we are so confused as ever. But the difference is that we know we are confused on a higher level and about more important things. 3.10 p.m.

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was tempted to remain silent after so many hon. Members have spoken. What could I add to the luxury of words and blooming of ideas? But this debate happens to invoke in me a bitter-sweet experience in my memory which I would like to share with hon. Members of this House, particularly the newcomers. For the last three days, we have been debating in an atmosphere of calm and tranquility unperturbed by voices inside or noises outside this House, on an explosive subject on education. This would not have been possible 18 years ago.

As I sat listening to so many speeches on this issue, my mind goes back to the afternoon of 29th November, 1961 in this House when the then Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to go along with a mace to rescue me from a crowd of angry student demonstrators who had prevented me from attending this august Assembly. They were demonstrating outside the old building of the Ministry of Education at Kay Siang Road in protest against the Government's decision to change the Chinese school system from 3.3 to 4.2. I was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and was on my way to attend a Parliament sitting. A group of some 60 militant communist-led students, who boycotted the Secondary 4 examinations, blocked my car, forced me out, threw rotten apples at me and chanted abusive slogans. They were some of the thousands of other students who had tried physically to prevent others from taking the examination. I had to return to the Ministry and telephoned to this Parliament that I could not attend the sitting. A Motion had to be approved in this House to protect my privilege to attend this Parliament Sitting. However, I arrived just in time to save the Sergeant-at-Arms the trouble of rescuing me. Today's debate would have been unthinkable in those days.

The dramatic episode which took place during that early period of self-government was an eye-opener to most of us who were then new to the game of politics and government. The Secondary 4 examination boycott reflected two important aspects of our society which hon. Members both in the Frontbench and Backbench who are new to the game should bear in mind. The first aspect is that an education issue is not necessarily and does not always remain a purely educational issue. When it suits the Communists and when the ground is sour, an educational issue can at any time be turned into a political issue. The Government's decision to change the Chinese secondary school system from 3.3 to 4.2 was to bring Chinese-educated school leavers on the same footing with the English-educated counterpart so that both could be treated equally in the employment market. It was well-intended. It was the result of a long deliberation by prominent educationists and with the support of most parents. But the timing was just before the struggle for merger. The Communists had engineered the examination boycott to down the Government which was planning for a merger. This could happen again if the heat is on and the ground is sour.

The second aspect was that Singapore parents were prepared to fight for their children's education. When the boycott started, a group of parents came to see me and requested police protection against the hooligan tactics adopted by the demonstrators. They were determined to escort their children to the examination halls. They succeeded. The police had no need to use force at all when the wiser parents made up their minds. The lesson derived is that in matters of education, no one should take the views of parents for granted.

The fact that today we are able to discuss this controversial subject in such a placid atmosphere reflects the maturity of our society. The Prime Minister describes this situation as "a watershed in our history". The Member for Anson prefers the word "saltus". Whatever it may be, we have reached an enviable position when the issue of language and education no longer generates political or emotional tension. Many multi-racial societies in developing countries are less fortunate as they are still plagued by language and educational issues. When language and educational issues are tied up with politics and emotion, it would be impossible to approach the problem rationally and professionally as we do today. Members have just heard the Member for Kampong Kembangan speaking quite professionally.

A political solution was necessary in those days when language and education were so closely identified with the preservation of communal culture and the pride of civilization. The formula had to be a political one of providing equal treatment to all the four streams of education besides providing sufficient classrooms to accommodate the backlog of uneducated children who still roamed the streets. In those days, there were other more urgent priorities of political struggle against communist subversion and communalism, to occupy the time and energy of the then Government Bench. There was not enough time to look into the real problems of education just as we are doing today. The Deputy Prime Minister was then the Minister for Finance and was just putting his mind to bear on the development of Jurong which was a swamp. We have come a long way to reach a situation whereby we can afford to review our education policy rationally and objectively in an atmosphere of calm and poise, quite detached from political and emotional implications and complications. This, I would say, is by no means a rare achievement by itself.

We are, after all, a very young and small nation compared to the two giants of Asia - China and India - which have several thousand years of history and civilization behind them. Compared to them, in terms of size and history, we are but a pygmy. However, the decision makers of these two nations with ancient wisdom have yet to disentangle their education policies from political and emotional attachment. In the case of China, it was a conflict between "red and expertise" gong yu zhuan ( ). In other words, between "politics comes first" zheng zhi gua shuai ( ) and "economics comes first" jing ji gua shuai ( ). Presently, the latter seems to gain an upper hand over the former. In the case of India, the struggle is still between the central authorities which want to introduce Hindi as the national language nation-wide and the provincial authorities of Tamil Nadu's resistance against it because of the linguistic pride in Tamil. Wherever it may be, unless and until the problems of language and education are detached from politics and emotion, it would be difficult to settle them rationally and professionally.

I will now comment on the Report itself. It appears to me that its approach to education has too utilitarian an outlook. When moving the Motion the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of chu fa dian ( ). In other words, to know the cause of things. The emphasis was more on charts, data and computer findings relating to the earning power of the English educated as compared to the Chinese educated. It dealt with the criteria of the earning power of a child after leaving school; and the likelihood of him becoming literate in at least one language. It seems to me that the whole " " of our education policy is centred on catering for these two utilitarian needs, that is, to earn more or at least to be literate in one language. If the main " " of education is to achieve these two objectives, then the whole approach becomes too utilitarian inclined.

All parents want their children to be as powerful as a dragon, wang zi cheng long ( ). If the criterion of success is earning power, then parents would want their children to become the money making dragons. There are many types of dragons in the Chinese mythology. According to the Shuo Wen ( ) dictionary AD 200, there are 369 species of scaly reptiles which can be classified as being in the dragon family. There is the heavenly dragon, the sea-dragon, the land dragon; crocodiles, snakes, lizards and even silk-worms belonging to the same family. There is a good reason why parents want their children to become dragons for a dragon has the combination of the best qualities of so many animals. It has the head of a camel, horns of a deer, eyes of a rabbit, ears of a cow, neck of a snake, belly of a frog, scales of a carp, claws of a hawk and palm of a tiger. In other words, it has the stamina and endurance of a camel, the sensitivity and wisdom of a deer, humility of a rabbit, diligence of a cow, flexibility and shrewdness of a snake, virility of a frog, poise of a carp, decisiveness of a hawk and bravery of a tiger. To expect all these qualities in one's offspring is dangerously idealistic. Yet, this is the ambition of most parents. When our emphasis is on power and money making, we are encouraging the emergence of the money dragon qian long ( ) or power dragon quan long ( ). The other qualities of a dragon are not given chances to develop.

Too much emphasis on the utilitarian approach to education may create a distorted sense of value in our younger generation. It will breed the habit of equating everything with money. They will try to place everything in terms of international market value. For instance, when he has to choose a friend, he would ask: "What can I get out of him or her?" He befriends a person because of his position, status or wealth and not because he has an affection or respect for him as a person of charm or character. What is the price of loyalty? How much is loyalty worth? What is the price of honesty, integrity, diligence and even patriotism? He is loyal to Singapore just because she provides him with a job, shelter and comfort. The moment these utilitarian values are gone, he migrates. This is going to happen if we give too much emphasis on the utilitarian aspect of education and overlook the other equally important humanitarian aspect. We want our younger generation to be Singaporeans who are not only useful citizens but have strong moral character and who care for the welfare of his community and nation. In this respect, allow me to quote the questions thoughtfully posed by the Prime Minister in his reply to the Deputy Prime Minister on this Report referring to "what kind of man or woman does a child grow up to be after 10-12 years of schooling".

'Is he a worthy citizen, guided by decent moral precepts? Have his teachers and principals set him good examples? Imparting knowledge to pass examinations, and later to do a job, these are important. However, the litmus test of a good education is whether it nurtures citizens who can live, work, contend and cooperate in a civilised way. Is he loyal and patriotic? Is he, when the need arises, a good soldier, ready to defend his country, and so protect his wife and children, and his fellow citizens? Is he filial, respectful to elders, law-abiding, humane, and responsible? Does he take care of his wife and children and his parents? Is he a good neighbour and a trustworthy friend? Is he tolerant of Singaporeans of different races and religions? Is he clean, neat, punctual, and well-mannered?'

We may be well-off in the utilitarian aspect of education, but humanitarian-wise, we can learn a lot from our ASEAN and Asian neighbours. In Central Java, for instance, from a tender age, a child is instilled with the Javanese traditional sense of moral values: the importance of self-discipline, the virtues of humility, tolerance, comradeship, bravery, sacrifice, honour and dignity. All these through wayang kulit. As the child sees the favourite shadows on a screen and listens to the stories of Ramayana or Mahabaratha, beautifully related by the dalang, the moral lessons are sunk home. His character is being moulded and he knows his place in society and the role he should play. Similarly, in Japan, whilst the parents encourage their children to study Western science and technology, they never forget to drive home to the young minds the importance of remaining Japanese in their lifestyle and retaining their cultural roots. It was the quality of these strong cultural mots that gave the Japanese the stamina and strength to overcome the humiliating defeat of the second world war, and gradually put the nation on its feet again, and now to become an economic giant. Without the cultural ballast and backing, the Japanese would not have recovered.

Like the Member for Anson, I would like also to confess the feeling of uneasiness myself that the over-emphasis on the short term benefits of utilitarian values may gradually erode the cultural foundation which was laid by our forefathers. The cultural qualities that helped to build up Singapore from a fishing village to a cosmopolitan city state should not be left to decay. I am by no means a chauvinist. But I am one of those who do not believe that we can transmit Eastern cultural values through English translations. What is learnt through the filter of translation can be anything but superficial. Anything learnt can be only skin-deep. It never gets into the qi ( ). And Western vocabulary has yet to find the appropriate translation for the word " ". Some say it is spirit. The Japanese has a word for it - ki. The Koreans also have a word for it. But there is no proper Western translation. Western trained doctors do not believe in the existence of " ". But the word " " has significant bearings on the understanding of Chinese philosophy, including physical and moral training. For better health, strength stamina and longevity, one is advised to xiu xin yang qi ( ). Sir, it is difficult for me to translate. For moral training, children are told: zuo ren yao you yong qi ( ) (brave), yao you gu qi ( ) (I find it difficult to translate, it is the ki of the bones, it is neither stubborn nor tenacity). There are also other " ": zheng qi ( ), zheng qi ( ), hao ran zhi qi ( ).

An hon. Member: Wen Tian Xiang ( ).

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Sir, a Member has mentioned Wen Tian Xiang ( ). Talking about Wen Tian Xiang, people may say he was a failure because he was in jail for so long. He was beheaded but he wrote a poem on zheng qi ge ( ) and that was the real " " refusing to surrender.

These are generally termed qi jie ( ). Then one should not sheng qi ( ) (I hope Mr Speaker will not be " ", for he has to endure so many words spoken and he cannot leave the Chair) or fa pi qi ( ), lou qi ( ) or have ao qi ( ) but be ke qi ( ) and he qi ( ) when dealing with people but when necessary ren qi ( ). When someone is down in spirit, ti ta da qi ( ). Then there is also yun qi ( ) (luck) which is considered necessary in all human endeavours particularly those who gamble. In fact, no one can live without " ", for when someone has his zui hou yi kou qi ( ), that is the end of him. How does one understand the meaning of so many complicated " " when there is virtually no adequate word in English for it. I do not intend to turn this into a translation session. What I wish to point out is that no one can honestly claim to understand the root or spirit of any culture without knowing the language. This leads me to the topic of bilingualism, and the problems of studying languages. I am one of those who do not believe that the speaking of mother tongue or dialect at home is a setback in the study of languages just because they are not spoken at home.

I am speaking from my own experience and that of my children and my views may be subjective. I belong to the same generation as the Member for Anson except that I was educated in the Chinese stream in Penang. I was the product of an education system described by the Prime Minister as outside the control of Government. The school which I studied, Chung Ling High School ( ), was China-oriented in those days. I was a British Subject but nobody treated me as a British Subject. I was treated as a Chinese. We had our own source of revenue, syllabi, teachers, principals and management committees. Chung Ling, however, was different from other secondary schools throughout Malaya in those days in that it was bilingual in character giving emphasis on Chinese during the first three years and English on the 2nd three years, Bilingualism was successfully implemented in the early thirties when its advocators could be branded as colonial stooges. I had the advantage of having a large number of elder brothers educated in English. I was the black sheep who studied Chinese. We lived right in the middle of a Malay kampong. We spoke dialects at home. Thus I had the advantageous trilingual environment. I therefore find it difficult sometimes to understand why there has been so much fuss about learning two languages. I must point out, however, that when I entered Chung Ling from a village Chinese school in Butterworth, my knowledge of English was very poor and I flipped my English/Chinese and Chinese/English dictionaries so often that they were torn to pieces by the end of the term. It was a matter of hard work and the opportunity to practise at home. I spoke Mandarin in school, English and dialect at home. I do not think it is that difficult for Chinese school students to study English. It is a matter of providing the right environment and climate, such as what we are trying to do - immersion - the right teachers with dedication and most important of all, enough time for a system to prove its worth. I am surprised to find that the Education Ministry chose to use English as a medium of instruction in Science and Technology, and then was disappointed that it did not help to improve the standard of English of Chinese school students. I would have thought that the best way of learning English is to make the students read novels, poetry and litera- ture instead of Science, Mathematics or Technology. The teaching of Science and Technology is a matter of gathering facts and thinking scientifically and not linguistically. In many cases, the teachers who taught Science and Technology, I was told, were not competent in English and were teaching the subjects in Mandarin. It was not so much the failure of students to learn English, but the failure of methods and choice of teachers. I am therefore in favour of the recommendations in the Report to devote the first three years of primary education to the teaching of languages.

The speaking of dialect at home, to my mind, is not a hindrance to the study of Mandarin. It may, on the other hand, help the study of Mandarin because after all, the same character is used to spell out dialects including Mandarin. It was a matter of different spelling of the same word. For instance, anyone who speaks Mandarin, Cantonese or Hainanese would find it easier to study Vietnamese because so many Vietnamese words have similar tones to either Mandarin, Cantonese or Hainanese. Mother-tongue comes with the child naturally from the mother through constant hearing from childhood. It is imparted without effort. I learnt the various dialects, in fact, without conscious effort but picked them up by the wayside in a given environment. Perhaps, language is something much easier learnt and absorbed at a tender age. It may be difficult for those who are over 35 years of age to start learning the Chinese language for I admit that Chinese is one of the most difficult languages in the world, particularly for adults. The experience may not be so bitter if one learns from a tender age. I am quite sure that given the opportunity to learn languages during the first three years of education our younger generation can be put on a sounder bilingual footing. I have no doubt that bilingualism will succeed especially when requirements are made for pupils to obtain a pass in the second language in order to gain admission to the Pre-U classes. I am afraid I may not agree with the Member for Punggol and the Minister for Health. I have also no doubt that our people will become bilingual if we spell out the prerequisites for entry into the civil service and, better still, a prerequisite in the climb to hierarchy in the civil service. Our utilitarian approach to things have already created a reward conscious population. Given the incentive, Singaporeans could make it.

Another point I would like to raise on our education policy concerns the crammed curriculum of our schools. The childhood days of our younger generation are most unenviable. There has been a tendency to cram our children with facts and figures, and knowledge of all kinds, leaving them very little time to think or play. Cramming of borrowed language may not necessarily make a person wise. It reminds me of my trip to Peking when I saw how the Peking ducks were fed by a machine. I could not imagine how the ducks could enjoy eating when the food was rammed down their throats. Crammed knowledge may be indigestible. In my younger days, and I think in the younger days of most of my senior colleagues, despite bilingualism, I had the time to play marbles, fly kites, catch fighting fish and do a lot of thinking after school, and also play music. We did not have a crammed curricula. Nowadays children hardly have time to sing a tune or know how to sing a tune. The rat race for social recognition, rewards and status bogged the children down with homework and extra tuition, sometimes even burning the midnight oil. In some cases, music and ballet lessons are thrown in because of parental pressure, leaving the children insufficient time for sleep and rest This trend, I am afraid, will produce in our society a crop of young people, crammed with borrowed knowledge but unable to think for themselves, least of all, wise. When confronted with the practical problems of living such as human relations, affecting fellow neighbours or unexpected emotional upset, he would fumble. Textbooks do not provide him with answers to solve human problems. Some for lack of moral stamina committed suicide, others went into drug abuse or vandalism because they could not rise to the expectations of their parents. It is dangerous for parents to expect too much from their children. They want their children to become "dragons". As I have explained the multiple high qualities of a dragon, only a small minority may make it. One should learn to be content with lesser heights if the children cannot make it. If they force the pace, some may turn into dangerous "crocodiles", or poisonous "snakes" which are harmful to society or, worse still, social worms which are a liability to society.

With these observations, I would like to congratulate the Study Team for their excellent work. But education is a long term affair. It cannot be hurried. The relevant Chinese proverb is yu su bu da ( ) meaning, if you are in a hurry, you will not reach your target. We may not see the fruits of our labour during our life time. We cannot see the results of education the same way as I see sky-scrapers and factories mushrooming. We need time to reach a sound decision and also to give a system sufficient time to bear fruits. I therefore support the amendment put forward by the Minister for Health to the original Motion. 3.43 p.m.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Sir, last year when the Deputy Prime Minister and his team of MINDEF officers moved into the Ministry of Education, many hailed the move. Sir, like the brilliant military strategist of ancient Rome, he came, he saw and, as we all know, he finally conquered. But unlike Julius Caesar who chose to return to Rome, the Deputy Prime Minister stayed on in the domain he invaded and today he rules as the Minister of Education.

Sir, the Report by the Deputy Prime Minister and his team of brilliant young analysts is a report on the problems surrounding the education of our children. To be able to probe so deeply, and to allow us to speak without inhibition today on a subject which is so highly sensitive is a credit to the political stability of Singapore. Twenty years ago, or even 15 years ago, it would have been unthinkable and a political suicide for any government in Singapore to discuss with such candour a topic that could so easily arouse passion, stir emotion and incite violence. Therefore, it was with a little regret that I note that the Report was not prefaced with a little more of the past, for to give a deeper insight into those very traumatic and harrowing days of the 1950s and the 1960s would have provided me or at least those of my generation with a better understanding of the background from where many of the present problems arise.

Sir, with that, I would like to delve straight into some of the points I wish to raise and some of my own observations on the Report. First of all, moral education. The Prime Minister in his letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education quite rightly expressed some concern about moral education. I quote him:

'The principal value of teaching the second language is the imparting of moral values and understanding of cultural traditions.... The greatest value in the teaching and learning of Chinese is in the transmission of the norms of social or moral behaviour.'

Sir, I discussed this matter with some parents and I was quite surprised that three of them were not agreeable to this. I found that the reason probably was that those three parents were English educated. Let me give my own observation and I would just like to draw on one example.

Filial piety was one of the most admired virtues of ancient China. Other personal virtues like probity, loyalty, sincerity and benevolence provided the means of social conduct. There were laws, just like we have our own laws, to administer and regulate society, but personal morality was the foundation of society. Chinese society was, in the old days, firmly knit together by Confucianism, a great ethical institution that produced strong social cohesion. And if we are to transmit such values through the generations it has to be done in the Chinese language.

Let me just quote an example from the ancient Chinese proverbs. Sir, at this stage, I beg your indulgence and that of hon. Members as well, for my Chinese language is not even up to CL2. There is a proverb which says yu gong yi shan ( ).In English, it means "A stupid old man moving a mountain." But to a Chinese educated, he knows at once that this proverb extols the virtues of patience and tolerance. Another proverb, lu bu shi wei ( ). "No one would take into possession anything left on the road." This again connotes honesty. To the English-educated, it does not really mean very much. The translation is one thing. The Westernised reaction to anything found on the road is even worse. It is finders keepers. Four simple words in a Chinese proverb can tell a lot. To one who knows the Chinese language, the lessons to be learnt from the proverbs are easily communicated and remembered. To do so in another language, like English, would be to lose the subtlety of contrivance, part of that magic and refinement that makes the learning of the proverbs and folklore of the old so interesting. The same goes too for the stories of the Malays and the Indians. The mother tongue is, therefore, most useful in transmitting from a different ethnic and cultural background to our children the values and the beliefs of men and society. Moral education begins at home but the school is the instrument to reinforce it.

My second observation concerns Language Exposure Time, the failure to upgrade the standard of Science and Mathematics in Chinese schools and also the failure to upgrade the standard of English. I spoke to some teachers about this to find out why. The Prime Minister suspected that the Chinese-speaking teachers who were not trained to teach in English were probably frequently switching back to Mandarin. This is true to some extent. But what is the reason? I found out from my inquiries that the reason lies with the subjects taught. In Mathematics and Science, the terms used are highly technical and even the English stream students have difficulty in understanding some of the technical terms. What more the Chinese educated? So the starting point in solving this problem probably lies in a modification of the textbooks used.

Streaming recognises that the children have different degrees of academic and intellectual abilities. Provision is therefore made for the bright pupils as well as the slow ones to develop at their own pace. In principle, I support it but I have my own reservations. Sir, are we not equating linguistic ability with academic ability? That is, we say that a pupil who is good in languages is one who will also be good in the learning of contents and the absorption of facts. Is this assumption correct? Granted that the intelligence tests will rescue those who are wrongly streamed but who may actually have the intellectual capability to handle the standard academic course, I am still a bit sceptical about these intelligence tests. What are they? Are they reliable determinants or indicators of a child's intellect, especially at such a young age?

Sir, "lateral movements among the three streams will be allowed." Again I am sceptical. On paper it looks fine, but I am wondering how a child in a monolingual stream can ever hope to gain promotion through the extended or normal bilingual stream if, in the first place, he is already deprived of that environment which is conducive to the practice of two languages.

The next point is on the Certificate of Secondary Education. I have two specific questions. Is it a common examination, or is it going to be set by each school? The second question is: what will the Certificate of Secondary Education give to the children Are we going to provide them with jobs, or is it just another piece of paper? In other words, is the Government going to give due recognition to the Certificate of Secondary Education?

Sir, my last point concerns the morale of school teachers. I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Nee Soon when he pointed out that it was beyond his comprehension that 18% of the teachers interviewed said that their morale was low when, on the other hand, 72% of the teachers felt that their status was low, 64% indicated that their principals never discussed their problems; and 74% of the teachers considered their chances of promotion as slim. Sir, I am wondering why the survey was limited only to the teachers in the English stream. Why were only 140 teachers interviewed? Is this sampling size conclusive enough? I think this problem has to be looked into again because if the Study Team claims this finding to be accurate, then I say that it is grossly guilty of sweeping the whole problem under the carpet.

Sir, these are some of my own humble observations on the Report. I am in full support of the Motion. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education deserves our support and if he can satisfy me with some answers to the questions I have raised as well as those which have been raised by other Members, my support will be even more wholehearted.

Sir, the task before him is a very difficult one. I speak today not as an educationist, certainly not as a parent, but I speak here as a concerned citizen, concerned about the welfare and future education of the thousands of children into whose hands we will be committing the future of our nation. Somehow and somewhere along the line the rope has come up with a lot of tiny knots and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education now has to untangle all these knots. As I said, the job is not an easy one and we have only just begun. 3.57 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Khe Bong): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a Chinese phraseology called kai men jian shan ( ) so I shall come straight to the point instead of talking about Indian mythology and Chinese folklore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the current debate on the Motion before the House, many words of caution have been sounded, many views have been aired and alleged weaknesses in the "Education Report 1978" pointed out. And this is as it should be, for on a very important issue such as the one before the House, no effort should be spared in ensuring that the public are kept fully informed and the views on every side adequately represented. However, it will do us well also to remember that it is usually easier to find faults than their solutions and, in this exercise before us, let us hope we are able to match criticisms with concrete and practical proposals.

I detect a sense of unease both inside and outside of Parliament on the issue of streaming pupils according to their varying abilities. There seems to me to be a little contradiction on the stand taken by those who do not appear to favour the principle of streaming. I believe we are all in agreement, however, with the fundamental recommendation in the Education Report that pupils of varying abilities should not be subject to a single system of education if they are to be given the opportunity to realise their full potential. If this is so, then some form of streaming cannot be avoided. The question perhaps is not whether there should be streaming but how and when pupils should be streamed. No one in this debate, so far as I can recall, has suggested an age or an educational level when streaming may be carried out with minimum risks or detriment to the pupils' interest. The problem perhaps lies in the fact that children not only have varying abilities but that the development of body and mind in different children takes place at different rates during different stages of their growing up. It seems that late-developers have been found at as late a stage as the university level. I wonder if any have been found to begin developing only after graduation. The problem, as I see it, is not so much when to stream pupils but whether in so doing we make provisions for corrective actions to be taken in the event that pupils are found not to have been channelled into the appropriate stream.

Several hon. Members of this House have criticised the measures provided in the Education Report which enable pupils to switch from one stream to another as lacking in realism and therefore not likely to be effective in practice. The criticisms, though valid, do not negate the case for streaming. They only serve to emphasize the need for a thorough study on how streaming can be carried out so that the pupils' welfare will not be gravely jeopardised as a result of flaws in the process of streaming.

I view with mixed feelings the suggestion by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education that parents be given the final say in deciding the educational stream into which their children are to be channelled. Whilst it is correct to decide that parents should have the ultimate say in matters affecting the welfare and future of their children, it is also my fear that the Education System recommended by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education and his Study Team may not work smoothly and effectively should there by excessive parental interference. And I foresee a very real possibility of excessive parental non-compliance in the case of children considered not academically inclined and only suitable for a monolingual course of education.

I suggest therefore that there should be only two streams of education in the primary school, one for the above average and the other for the average and the slower pupils. The above average pupils may complete their primary school course in six years while the average and the slower pupils may be given up to eight years to complete the same education course. All pupils, however, are required to sit for a common examination at the end of their respective courses to qualify for admission into the secondary school. Those who fail to qualify can then be channelled into another stream of education which provides them with an opportunity to be reasonably proficient in one language and to learn a skill or trade. This scheme may perhaps help to reduce the extent of parental interference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to state that the fundamental aim of any education system should be to produce citizens who are able to contribute in their own ways to the growth, progress and well-being of the nation and, at the same time, enable all citizens to find their rightful place in society whatever their capabilities or individual differences. In my view this fundamental aim of education is manifest in the Education Report submitted by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education and his Study Team.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my next point concerns the morale of teachers. According to the Report, a survey of 140 teachers from 16 primary and 12 secondary schools in the English Stream led the Education Study Team to conclude that, "the claim that the teachers at present have low morale is more apparent than real."

It is my opinion that the conclusion of the Education Study Team drawn from the said survey is not valid as the views and feelings of a handful of teachers out of a total teacher-population of about 20,000 can by no means be considered representative. Based on my own association with the ground, among whom many are teachers, it is my contention that a sense of low morale does prevail in the teaching profession. Further, it is my strong suspicion that the problem of low morale is more prevalent among the non-graduate teachers and particularly so among male teachers.

The question of the morale of teachers is a very pertinent one as it ultimately affects the success of a nation's education policies and programmes. A well-formulated or a well-planned education programme will not be fully successful or may even fail completely if the people at the final stage of implementation - the teachers - do not have the enthusiasm or dedication to put in the required efforts. No amount of good planning or of the most up-to-date facilities and techniques will automatically lead to the attainment of set objectives if teachers do not or are unable to give of their best. The Ministry of Education should therefore take proper steps to objectively assess the state of morale of our teachers and investigate into the relevant causes if, in fact, the morale is found to be low, and seek the necessary solutions. Perhaps a proper survey of teachers' morale may take the form of issuing questionnaires to teachers in all primary and secondary schools and requesting them to answer the questions without having to reveal their identity.

While still on the subject of morale, it may perhaps be interesting to know how many trained teachers have resigned from the teaching profession over the last ten years. Doubtless, a high attrition rate of teachers arising from resignations would represent a great loss to the cause of education in the Republic.

Towards the end of the concluding chapter in the Report, several suggestions were made with a view to bringing about some improvement in the terms and conditions of service for teachers. This, I am sure, is welcome news for teachers and a step in the right direction in ensuring the successful implementation of the new education system. Perhaps, herein lies also the solution to our problem of teacher-shortage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my firm contention that for the Government to be able to draw citizens of calibre into the teaching rank and to motivate those already in the profession to be dedicated and give of their best, it must be able to hold out for the profession the prospect of a satisfying and meaningful career. Zeal, dedication and conviction do not thrive for long on mere exhortations and, in a merit-orientated and highly materialistic society such as ours, we would be indulging in self-deception if we expect teachers to dedicate themselves selflessly to "the cause of nation-building" while their other fellow citizens indulge in self-dedication and enjoy all the fruits of social and economic progress made possible through a collective effort. Teachers should be given a better deal than they are receiving at present not only to make the profession more attractive but also in recognition of their contribution to our social and economic progress and in adherence to a corner-stone of the Republic's economic philosophy which is "from each according to his ability and to each according to his contribution."

Unless terms and conditions of service for teachers are improved, there is little hope that much can be achieved in our efforts to provide quality education for our children; and what is worse, the teaching profession will become what it is already in danger of becoming - an occupation of last resort. Such an eventuality will be disastrous for a nation like Singapore whose continued well-being and progress lean heavily on the quality of its human resources.

Another point to note about the Report is that it is surprisingly silent on the issue of teacher-shortage. I believe the shortage of teachers is a recurrent and perennial problem of the Ministry of Education and every year many relief teachers are recruited to teach in the various primary and secondary schools. While it is acknowledged that these relief teachers provide a useful service, it must be pointed out that most of them are not likely to be as effective and committed as regular-trained teachers. Relief teachers, as I have been told, may not be asked to carry out extra-curricular activities and are free to leave the service any time they like so that pupils under their charge suffer disruption in their studies. This is surely a very unsatisfactory state of affairs which leads me to wonder just to what extent the shortage of regular-trained teachers has contributed to the high attrition rate of pupils in the past. The high attrition rate of pupils is one of the main concerns of the Education Study Team and, in this connection, the problem of teacher-shortage becomes even more pertinent and calls for a thorough investigation into its cause or causes.

The Report also touched on the need for moral education to be incorporated into the curriculum and for such lessons to be formally carried out. This is a sound suggestion, and it does not preclude the need for the inculcation of right conduct and correct values in our growing citizens in informal ways such as through school activities like scouting, and perhaps even through the mass media.

To have the subject of moral education formally on the school time-table serves as a constant and useful reminder to both teachers and pupils of the importance of this aspect of education to the continued progress, stability and strength of our nation.

It is mentioned in the Report that the subject of moral education is currently under study by a Committee of Parliamentarians headed by the Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Culture. It is further noted that in the Prime Minister's reply to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education in an exchange of letters upon completion of the Report, the Prime Minister dwelt at some length on the kind of moral education that would be of particular relevance to the Singapore situation. The Prime Minister's thoughts on moral education as contained in his reply to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education are very pertinent indeed, and it is my suggestion that they be used to form the terms of reference for the study that is being undertaken by the Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Culture and his Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to give my full support to this very comprehensive and lucidly presented Report on the current state of educational affairs in Singapore. The Report has provided me with a valuable insight into a very complex field of Government responsibility in the Republic. The problems are multifarious and the solutions by no means easily found. Nevertheless, the first positive step has been taken. 4.16 p.m.

Mr Ang Nam Piau (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time in Singapore's history that the Government has lifted the Whip for the debate on the Report presented by the Education Study Team headed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education. All Members of Parliament, including Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and Political Secretaries are free to express their views and vote on the Report. This shows that the Report is very important and that the Government has taken the Report seriously.

More important, Sir, the Team has submitted its Report to the Cabinet and yet the Prime Minister has responded to the Report in writing. Ministers are urged to speak freely. This has created a precedent. Members of the public are wondering why. No doubt, Sir, I am sure this Report will become one of the most important documents in the history of education in Singapore. It will affect our whole society and nation in future.

Education is a long-term plan and has far-reaching effects. Therefore, Sir, we cannot afford to be like before. For the past decade, we have seen too many educational changes in rapid succession as to leave one completely at a loss. This time, Sir, we must be very sure that the system is near-perfect.

Sir, after a few days of thorough reading, I am of the opinion that the Report is good. But since the Study Team took only six months to produce such an important Report, I think there is room for improvement. For example, there are so many doubts about the principle of early streaming and the practical side of it. There are also many other doubts, Sir. As most of the details of the Report have been covered by hon. Members yesterday and the day before, I do not propose to repeat them again, except to make very brief comments.

The Education Study Team will not be dissolved with the completion of its Report on the Ministry of Education. But it would join the Ministry as a special unit of staff advisers. The members of the Study Team are young men and women. They are intelligent and successful in their academic career. This does not mean that they know everything. They may be able to write good theoretical reports but in practice it is entirely different. No matter how good they are, they are still short of life experience. Therefore, Sir, for them to act as advisers, I do not think it is appropriate, as the saying goes, "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

By and large, Sir, I think the recommendations made by the Report are rather specific, but it is a different thing altogether to put them into practice. Past experience shows that in order to implement policies well, we must first have a sound organisation. Hence, improving the administrative efficiency of the Ministry of Education is, I think, the most important task at present. Therefore, Sir, I strongly object to a vote on the Report in this debate. We cannot afford to try any new education system any more. Sir, we must not rush this time. We must be very sure that the new education system this time is right and the best and go ahead without any further changes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot rush to vote on this Report without a longer and deeper study. To have as near-perfect an education system as possible, Sir, time is needed. Therefore, I would like to urge the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education to consider setting up a special parliamentary committee and that voting on the Report should be deferred. The Report should be passed to the proposed committee for further deliberation. This committee will study the various recommendations in detail and invite both written and oral representations from the public. 4.22 p.m.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Pang Boon): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the new education system recommended by the Education Report is based on the principle of streaming with due consideration for the ability and progress of the individual pupil. Pupils differ in their intelligence. This results in differential achievement and language competence. It is therefore necessary to teach pupils of varying mental capacity differently according to their ability. This principle of streaming has my support, Sir.

However, the recommendation to lower the present standard of Chinese as a second language needs to be reconsidered.

As more and more parents send their children to English schools, the traditional Chinese, Malay and Tamil schools will in time no longer be in existence. Henceforth, schools will teach English as a First Language and the other languages as Second Languages. Although nobody shows any surprise over this trend, yet for those who have been closely associated with Chinese education the disappearance of the traditional Chinese schools in Singapore is a bitter pill to swallow. To them, this means a regrettable loss. They may even worry about the possible ultimate disappearance of the Chinese language and Chinese culture resulting from the disappearance of the traditional Chinese schools from the Singapore scene. Perhaps this may be a groundless worry. But such emotional response is only human and to be expected.

Under such circumstances, we need to do something to dispel the anxiety. We must make a conscious effort to ensure that our pupils will in future have the necessary minimum ability to understand and use the Chinese Language. This will not only enable them to understand their own cultural roots but also to accept and strengthen their sense of loyalty and their faith in the country and the society as behoves good citizens. For this reason, I consider that the level of Chinese Language recommended by the Education Study Team for secondary pupils of the Normal Bilingual Stream (i.e. 31% of those who pass PSLE), is too low, as it is only equivalent to the present Secondary One Chinese of the Chinese secondary school.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report suggests that the future Primary school leavers should achieve a standard of Chinese which will enable them to read local news in the Chinese newspapers. In the secondary schools, the study of Chinese as a Second Language is mainly aimed at raising and maintaining its standard so that, eventually, the students will be able to read more complex news such as foreign news and even editorials. In my view, it will be quite an achievement for the present Chinese Primary school leavers to be able to read the local news in the Chinese newspapers. Nevertheless the Report recommends that the future Primary school leavers will only have to achieve a standard of Chinese equivalent to the present Primary 5 of the Chinese school. Such a low level of Chinese will not be sufficient for pupils to read the local news in our Chinese newspapers. At present, it is already not easy for our Secondary 1 pupils in the Chinese stream to read local news in the Chinese newspapers. It will be even more difficult for them to read the more complex items such as foreign news and editorials.

Therefore, for pupils to be able to read newspapers, as envisaged by the Report, Chinese at Secondary 1 level is inadequate. I feel that the standard of Chinese for secondary school leavers in the future Normal Bilingual Stream should at least be equivalent to Secondary 2 Chinese of the present Chinese secondary school. In other words, the present standard of Chinese as a Second Language in the English stream should be maintained. Is this possible? I believe it is. Let us look further into this matter.

Firstly, the 31% in the Normal Bilingual Stream of secondary schools are considered above average in their ability. It should therefore be quite easy for them to attain the Secondary 2 level in Chinese schools. Secondly, according to statistics in the last three years compiled by the Ministry of Education, the percentage of English stream pupils who have sat for the GCE 'O' level examinations, and who have secured a P6 and above in Chinese as a Second Language has been quite high, and has been progressively increasing each year from 68.7% in 1976 to 77% in 1977 and 79.6% in 1978. At present, there is a gap of about two years' difference between the standards in the First and the Second Languages. From the given figures, the standard of Chinese attained by the Secondary 4 pupils from the English stream can be said to have attained that of CL1 at Secondary 2 level.

Thirdly, the Report points out that our curriculum is very heavy and very often the textbooks include more than is required by the curriculum. This has been aggravated by the unnecessary materials added by teachers in the course of teaching. When these shortcomings have been rectified, the pupils will have more time for the Second Language. It will be even easier then for our pupils in the Normal Secondary Bilingual Stream to attain a standard of Chinese equivalent to Secondary 2 Chinese Language in the Chinese schools.

Fourthly, at present, five 'O' level passes are sufficient for a pupil to qualify for entry into the Pre-University class. Yet, secondary schools generally require students to take seven subjects for their GCE 'O' Level examination. In this respect, a certain degree of flexibility is called for to allow the pupils to offer only six subjects for the GCE 'O' Level, so that they will have more time and energy to master the Chinese Language. Then, it would not be expecting too much of our secondary school students in the Normal Bilingual Stream to attain a standard of Chinese equivalent to that of the Secondary 2 level in the Chinese Schools.

If the purpose of learning Chinese as a Second Language is not to use it, but to pass an examination as a means to enter Pre-University or University, then the pupils' competence in the Chinese Language will regress as soon as they leave school. They may even forget whatever Chinese they have learnt after leaving school.

One cannot deny the fact that there are increasingly fewer opportunities to use the Chinese language (or the Malay or Tamil language for that matter). This tendency is closely linked with our economy. The Deputy Prime Minister in tabling his Motion has pointed out that the use of English is on the increase in various occupations and sectors. Even in the civil service, for administrative convenience and because language is no longer a sensitive political issue, the opportunity to use languages other than English is decreasing. Furthermore, a recent circular issued by the Public Service Commission states that civil servants who hope to better their chances of promotion should have a good command of the English Language. This will encourage further neglect of the Chinese Language and other Second Languages and relegate them to a position of no consequence. As the Chinese Language will be of no use in Government departments and statutory boards, is it possible for its standard not to regress? Under such circumstances, if the schools should set the Chinese Language at too low a standard, the pupils' foundation in the language cannot be firmly laid. When that happens, I am afraid the pupils will lose their limited ability to read Chinese within two or three years after leaving school.

We ought to train our pupils to read Chinese newspapers and ordinary Chinese magazines and even to write simple letters in Chinese. To achieve this, however, they should have attained at least Secondary 2 level in the Chinese Language of the Chinese schools. Meanwhile, in Government departments and statutory boards some kind of incentive ought to be instituted to encourage the use of the Chinese Language. The importance of such measures cannot be over-emphasised because it is only through having incentives such as have been given to the learning and use of the English Language, that pupils, after leaving school, will be encouraged to continue using the Chinese Language. And it is only through using the language in daily life that they can be imbued with Chinese culture and develop the right values. Only then will our efforts to teach Chinese in the schools be rewarded and our expectations fulfilled.

If, however, on leaving Secondary 4, these pupils in the Normal Bilingual Stream are really unable to attain a standard of Chinese Language equal to that of Secondary 2 in the Chinese stream, then we should consider extending the secondary education from four to five years.

In the first Chapter of the Report, "An Overview of the Problem", the Deputy Prime Minister clearly pointed out that for Singaporeans, whether their ancestors came from China, India or the Malay Archipelago, it is highly undesirable for them to be severed from their cultural mots. In accepting the Report, the Prime Minister has also in his letter emphasised the importance of moral education and character development. He says, "the greatest value in the teaching and learning of Chinese is in the transmission of the norms of social or moral behaviour." Since the teaching of Chinese is so important, the additional one year of secondary education is a price worth paying to achieve this aim.

The GCE 'O' Level examination was originally meant for a five-year secondary school curriculum. But, in Singapore, our pupils are expected to complete the curriculum in four years. As pointed out in the Education Report, the content load of our secondary education curriculum has become increasingly heavier from year to year and with the emphasis placed on the teaching of the Second Language, the burden on pupils is becoming too heavy. Therefore, it is reasonable to extend the secondary education from four to five years. In this way, the pupils will not only have ample time to cope with their studies but will also have more time for extra-curricular reading, for music and art, and for participation in group activities to promote solidarity and cultivate the spirit of cooperation and loyalty to the country. But at present, being hard-pressed in the preparation for examinations and tests, our pupils hardly have any time left to pursue these beneficial extra-curricular activities.

It is also recommended in the Report that in the Special Bilingual Stream, the pupils should attain a standard of Chinese Language equivalent to the present Secondary 3 of the Chinese school. It is also envisaged that they will continue to study Chinese Literature at the pre-university level. But, unless the standard of Chinese Literature is lowered in future pre-university classes (the Report makes no such suggestion), this category of pupils will not be able to cope with the learning of Chinese Literature. This will be so because the current syllabus for the subject, Chinese (Paper 11), prescribes such materials as An Anthology of Tu Fu ( ). Selected Works of Shu Sze ( ), the classical novel, Romance of the Scholars ( ), modern novels like Midnight ( ) and modern dramas like Sunrise ( ), etc. With the present Chinese school Secondary 3 standard of Chinese Language, the pupils will not be able to follow Literature lessons of such a level. Therefore, to extend the secondary education from four to five years will also benefit pupils in the Special Bilingual Stream. If pupils of the Special Bilingual Stream have five years of secondary education, they will be able to attain a standard close to that of the present Chinese school Secondary 4 level in Chinese Language. Consequently, they will be able to cope with the prescribed syllabus in Chinese Literature at the 'A' level. And, the Member for Jurong will not have to worry about the drying up of sources of supply of Chinese Language teachers. Furthermore, the extension of secondary education from four to five years will also have the added advantage of helping to dispel the feeling of inferiority among pupils in the Normal Bilingual Stream.

It is also recommended in the Report that if parents want their children to attain a standard higher than that of Second Language, the pupils will be allowed to return to school for one additional year after completing Secondary 4. I do not think the parents or students will accept such a proposal because very few pupils would want to go back to school for one more year after obtaining the GCE 'O' Level certificate just to improve their standard of Chinese Language, and repeat those subjects which they have already taken. So if we cannot extend the four-year period of secondary education to five years, perhaps another practical alternative is to allow our secondary pupils to opt for either a Secondary 1 or Secondary 2 level of the present Chinese schools in graduation. It will be more practical for a pupil to opt for the level of Chinese Language he wishes to attain within the period of four years. I believe that parents of those in the Normal Bilingual Stream which comprises pupils of above average intelligence will also wish that their children attain a higher standard of Chinese Language on leaving the secondary school, for the reason that if secondary school pupils who are learning Chinese as a Second Language attain a standard of Chinese Language equivalent to the present Chinese school Secondary 2, they should be able, after leaving the school, to read Chinese newspapers, magazines and novels when they join pre-university classes, even if they do not follow the Chinese Literature lessons of the present CL syllabus. I therefore hope that in implementing the bilingual policy, the Deputy Prime Minister will make such an arrangement for the pupils.

Sir, education has always been a difficult matter to handle in any country. Every family has children in schools. Every parent is very concerned about the education of his children. This is particularly so in Asian countries. School education is not a very specialised subject. Almost every parent is able to expound his own views on education. Therefore, the office of Education Minister, even in times of stability and prosperity, is not a bed of roses. Furthermore, over the past two decades, Singapore has gone through periods of political storms and stress. The complex situation has been further aggravated by the problems and background of our multiracial, multilingual and multicultural society, compounded by the rapid economic development and social changes. All these have contributed to the complexity of the problems of education. Any wise man would eschew the problems of education matters, let alone take on the job of Minister of Education. I can only sympathise with our honourable Deputy Prime Minister upon his appointment as Minister of Education to handle a hot potato.

But, what is comforting for him is that, during his term of office, he will be able to devote his attention single-mindedly to education and treat it as purely an educational matter without having to worry about boycotts of lessons or of examinations by pupils like those in 1961, when thousands of secondary pupils demonstrated against the conversion of the 3-3 system to the 4-2 system. Likewise, his Senior Ministers of State would not be surrounded and besieged at the Ministry of Education building by demonstrating pupils as was the experience of the then Parliamentary Secretary in 1961. Any decision of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education on any educational issue need not have to take into consideration the possibility of wilful distortions by communist elements and chauvinists with a view to inciting innocent pupils and gullible masses to demonstrate against the Government in the name of the preservation of Chinese education and culture. Unlike in the past, our present Minister of Education will not be running the risk of being called, in newspaper editorials, 'Er Mao Tze' ( ) or one who has lost his soul and forgotten his ancestors. Also, the senior officials in the Ministry, principals and school teachers will not become targets of ridicule or abuse. Nor will they be physically assaulted by unruly pupils. There will not be a repeat of the former situation as described in the Education Report, where senior officials were indecisive and ineffective and would not accept responsibility.

Sir, judging from the release of this far-reaching and important Report on education vis-a-vis the very moderate Lim Tay Boh Report of 1964 which did not see the light of day, and further judging from the calm and objective manner of the debate in this House and comments in the newspapers over the past few days, and the absence of any emotional outbursts in any quarters, we can safely say that there is a world of difference between the present political climate and that of 10 to 20 years ago.

Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister does not have to worry about the problem of providing enough places for children of school-going age every year, since the success of family planning has reduced the yearly number of school-going children from a peak of 63,000 in 1964 to 49,000 this year. I would like to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education and I hope that, with the prevailing favourable conditions and political climate, he will be able to successfully and happily resolve the controversial educational problems which have been vexing us for many years.

Mr Speaker: I propose to take the Suspension now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.20 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.48 p.m. until 5.20 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.20 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Dr Ow Chin Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I hesitated whether to use CL1 (Chinese as a first language) or EL 2 (English as a second language) in delivering my speech, but finally I have decided, for your convenience, Sir, and for the convenience of Hon. Ministers who have to plug themselves into the bench, to use my second language - Singapore English. Sir, my colleagues who have spoken before me have nearly exhausted all the points. Nevertheless, I feel that I should take a stand on this vital issue of education and make my views known on this Report on Education, at least to my constituents, Sir, I am no expert in education and have never taken a child psychology course. However, having gone through 20 years of bilingual education, and experienced two immersions without being suffocated, I feel that I could make some observations and comments here.

First, my general comments and observations on our education system. Many hon. Members have mentioned that parents have high expectations of their children, but I wonder if we have ever paused to reflect whether we ourselves have also expected too much from our education system as a whole, overloading it with too many objectives and functions. Sir, first, the system is expected to produce good citizens and this is made clear in paragraph 19 of the Prime Minister's reply dated 10th March, 1979 to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education's letter.

Secondly, the system is expected to give our students training in language, mathematics, science and technical know-how and skills, so as to prepare them for a career or employment. Thirdly, at least 80% of students are expected to go through the system and come out as bilingual as possible. Yesterday, we heard the Hon. Minister for Health mentioned that the education system was supposed to contribute to a rugged society through extra-curricular activities (ECA).

The first objective is the nation building aspect of education, and moral education is supposed to take care of this. The second objective is economic in nature, and our education system has been turning out economic agents or economic digits which have contributed to the continuous economic growth of the past decade. Bilingual education, the third objective, is somewhat related to the first two and is also needed to build a cohesive society in our multiracial context.

Given our economic structure, our social and demographic background as well as the geo-political factors in the region, it may be rational for us to expect all these to be achieved through the education system. However, Sir, two languages, mathematics and science, moral education and ECA all compete for the limited time and energy of a child. For the system as a whole, we cannot expect the education system to perform these functions simultaneously and produce good results. Rather, priority of objectives should first be established.

My second general comment is related to the educational content. I submit that our education system attempts to pump too much factual knowledge and information into the young minds too soon. So, even in the textbooks for Education for Living or Civics, students are supposed to acquire such knowledge as the use of community centres, function of Government clinics, the Constitution of Singapore and the United Nations and its affiliated bodies. Knowledge on these, though useful, may be acquired later. The basic aims of-education are to arouse curiosity and interest in the pupils, to develop their analytical minds and to teach them basic skills and languages with which they could acquire knowledge on their own. The education system should not aim at producing "walking-talking encyclopaedias" as exemplified by some of the participants in the Science and Industry Quiz who could give the name of a biological object or of a tool instantaneously.

Sir, based on the above two general observations, I welcome the recommendation that "the first three years of primary schooling concentrate on language learning more than on the absorption of facts" (Chapter 6, paragraph 3.1.1 a). I further suggest that during this period, the language learning should emphasise more on Chinese, Malay, or Tamil rather than on English, and that the mere acquisition and remembering of facts and figures should be de-emphasised as far as possible throughout the primary and secondary stages of education.

Sir, the Report on the Ministry of Education, 1978, has re-emphasised the importance of bilingualism and moral education. It has also proposed the adoption of streaming according to the linguistic ability of the students so that different categories of students could learn at the pace most suitable to them. If we accept the importance of bilingual education and moral education as the objectives of our education system and agree with the concept of streaming, then logically we must accept, at least in principle, the recommendations of Dr Goh's Study Team, as outlined in Chapter 6, paragraphs 2 -3, of the Report. Here, I should indicate that I support the proposed revised education system in principle. Nevertheless, I would like to identify some problem areas relating to bilingual education, and make some comments on the implementation of policies and proposals in relation to moral education and streaming.

The implementation of our bilingual education policies has posed a number of difficulties. These difficulties have accounted for the unsatisfactory results reported in Chapter 1 of the report. First, there is the question of incentives. We need not persuade parents how important the English Language is to their children. They know that if they want their children to have promising career prospects, and to earn a decent living, the children must achieve a certain level of proficiency in English. On the other hand, there is no such built-in incentive for the learning of the other three official languages. True, the learning of these three languages has been linked with cultural and traditional values. But, Sir, a deficiency in these languages, including the risk of deculturalisation, does not incur obvious disadvantages. I believe that many English-speaking monolinguals do not even feel culturally deprived. Personally, I know of a few English-educated Chinese who are even proud of the fact that they cannot use chopsticks because they are, in the words of one of them, "very European". Given the materialistic outlook, pragmatic thinking and the somewhat calculating attitudes of Singaporeans, we should expect and cannot blame parents for sending their children to English schools, even at the risk of deculturalisation. Sir, the data on the differences in the median monthly incomes between the Chinese educated reservists and the English educated reservists, quoted by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education two days ago, only serve to further convince these parents that they have made the right and rational choice for their children. To encourage the learning of Chinese, Malay or Tamil as a second language (CL2, ML2, TL2), there must be incentives for students to do so. The minimum proficiency in the second language at the GCE 'A' level as part of the requirements for admission into University, and later, perhaps for entry into the Administrative Service, may provide such an incentive. However, it must be cautioned that in the case of CL2, these measures do not necessarily make it a living language.

This brings me to the special problems confronting Chinese students who try to achieve proficiency in both the English and the Chinese languages. The use of dialect has posed a problem. The difficulty for these students is not just that they have to learn three languages - English and Chinese at school and a spoken language - dialect - at home. The problem also arises from the fact that dialects interfere with the learning of English and Chinese, particularly in sentence construction. It suffices here for me to quote a few examples. The Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has told some of us the conversation he overheard between two nurses. "Johnny is the worst type!". "Why?" "He said he come he don't come type!". This kind of expression is very common. I have come across students from a technical tertiary educational institution using such expressions as "cannot don't go la!" and "mother don't give me come!". Similarly, the learning of Mandarin is also affected by dialect. Tou xian, wo kan mei you ( ) is a direct translation from Hokkien, whereas Bao zhi you mei you mai ( ) is a translation from the Cantonese expression. Sir, for these reasons, it is necessary to encourage our students and young people to use Mandarin as often as possible instead of dialects and parents must, as far as possible, converse likewise with their children in Mandarin, if they do not want to hear from their own children the type of expressions I have just quoted.

Further, for Chinese students, there is the complexity of written Chinese. It is true that simplified Chinese characters have created some confusion. Just a few days ago, I heard a secondary student reciting a poem of the Tang Dynasty, xi chu yang guan wu di ren ( ) (instead of xi chu yang guan wu gu ren ( ). Mr Speaker, Sir, for the information of Members, "di ren" means enemy and "gu ren" means old friends. The necessity of having simplified characters could also be demonstrated by the following examples: a student with a name Ting I San ( ) has only six strokes to write, whereas his poor classmate Kwan wan Fong ( ) has to make a total of 50 strokes just to complete writing his name. I counted the number of strokes of the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education. I think the total number of strokes was about 36. In the old days, one of the punishments favoured by the Chinese school teachers was to ask the misbehaved student to write his name 100 times. Just imagine how painful it was for Mr Kwan. Each time it is 50 strokes. On the other hand, if Mr Kwan knows simplified characters, he needs to write only 13 strokes ( ). For these practical reasons, I support the use of simplified Chinese characters. However, there should be a single, unified list of these simplified characters which could be universally adopted by the Chinese newspapers, EPB textbooks and other Chinese publications.

Talking about Chinese characters, I have checked with the two major Chinese newspapers. The Managing Director of Sin Chew Jit Poh (SCJP) gave me the following data: No. of characters most 1193 frequently used No. of characters frequently used 999 _____ 2192 No. of characters seldom used 2939 No. of characters rarely used except in Chinese classics 2174 _____________________________________________ Total No. of characters available in SCJP 7305 ==== It is obvious that the Chinese characters frequently used number only 2,192. The Managing Director suggested that people who master 2,000-2,500 Chinese characters should be able to read Chinese newspapers. This is confirmed by the General Manager of the Nanyang Siang Pau, who informed me that the more commonly used Chinese characters in his papers number about 2,500. If literacy in Chinese language means the ability to read and understand what are in the newspapers, then the 60% of primary students would just need to learn some 400 characters in a school year, and for the remaining 40%, the number of Chinese characters to learn per year is even less. This is not an impossible task to achieve.

At the secondary level, the Report has recommended the lowering of CL (Chinese Language) in all the streams. For the top 8% students in the special bilingual stream, they have to learn both ELl (English as a First Language) and CL1 (Chinese as a First Language) with the standard of the CL1 adjusted downward. For the next 31% of students who are in the normal bilingual stream, the standard of CL2, again, is to be adjusted downward. The remaining 41% of students in the ordinary stream will learn ELl and CL3 (Chinese as a Lower Second Language). All these are, presumably, aimed at reducing the load in learning CL. However, I am not convinced that the time saved through the lowering of CL will necessarily result in the improvement of the standard of their English language. What is more puzzling is that the learning of a foreign language such as German or French or even Russian, is even recommended (Chapter 6, para 2.1.1) for the top 8% of students. Sir, I wonder if these brilliant students have excess capacity and time to learn this extra foreign language. It appears to be too premature a move anyway. I think the Member for Serangoon Gardens will bear me out on this. In the graduate schools of Australia or America, we normally learn one or two foreign languages like German and French, and forget about them after the examination. It will be more fruitful for the top 8% students to learn the regular CL1 instead of the diluted CL1.

What is really needed is not the overall lowering of CL. The solution lies in the building up of a pool of effectively bilingual teachers who have gone through the two systems themselves and consequently, know how to correlate, transpose and interpose the two different languages. If there are only few effective language teachers, the system will not produce many good bilingual students. Without the supply of enough bilingual students, there will not be enough effective language teachers and defective language teaching will be perpetuated. To break this vicious cycle, the Ministry of Education should try to retain the services of effective bilingual teachers, who could easily be lost to the private sector and other Government departments. The Public Service Commission should try to channel more bilingual graduates to the teaching profession by appropriately adjusting upwards the terms and conditions of service.

Members have raised many points on moral education. Sir, I simply want to make some observations. There is a basic incon- sistency in our system. On the one hand, we expect our education system to produce good citizens and people with good character. On the other hand, our elitist education system in particular, and our emphasis on meritocracy in general, assesses our people not in terms of their conduct or behaviour, but rather by their academic qualifications, performance and efficiency in carrying out a specific task. Sometimes, aggressiveness and arrogance are even regarded as signs of a strong and dynamic personality. Perhaps, this is one of the reasons why we have so often heard of white-collar crimes committed by our well-educated professionals. It is therefore gratifying to note that the Study Team has given moral education a rightful place in the curriculum. However, let us have no illusions. Moral teaching is not just imparting knowledge; even students could recite the "do's and dont's" in their lessons perfectly and reciting the stories of Yue Fei, Wen Tian Xiang ( ) vividly does not necessarily mean that the moral teaching is successful. The litmus test is whether these students have imbibed the moral values in them and have used them to serve as the inner mode of conduct, guiding their behaviour all the time.

To reinforce the moral lessons they learn from the stories, folklores and texts, all teachers, not just teachers of moral education, should set good personal examples. If they do not even greet each other in school, how do you expect the students to greet them? The parents' examples are equally, if not, more influential. I agree wholeheartedly that the family is the most important factor in moral education. If the students are taught to be respectful and courteous to one another, but when they come home they find their parents using abusive language on each other, how could you make the students believe in what have been taught in school? Similarly, they are told not to gamble, but if mahjong ( ) games go on in their home every weekend, how can we tell them that gambling is undesirable? These cancelling games between school and family must be stopped. In moral education for children, we must also educate the parents.

Finally, on streaming, Sir, I accept the principle of streaming. Streaming of students is better than the present singular system. We have provided equal opportunity of education to children of schooling age, yet we have to accept the fact that not all are equally good in learning. We have to adjust the system according to the needs of different categories of students with different capacities, rather than expecting all of them to adjust to the singular system.

However, we have to face the reality squarely and that is streaming will bring about some undesirable consequences. As expressed by several Members, because of high expectations, parents will pressurise their children even harder, never allowing them to slip into the bottom category. I wonder how many parents have sleepless nights when their children are taking PSLE or GCE examinations? We have also to ask whether streaming will also aggravate the tendency towards excessive competition, and advance the rat-race to an early age. Parents will never accept that their children are inferior to anyone. If their children do not perform well, they will blame the teachers, the school, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, or even the Government. I also share the concern of several Members that streaming will lead to the average and below-average students having to live through life with a stigma on them, just like in the Brave New World. All these are implementation problems; some could be solved, others could not be solved. But in any circumstances, parents should be adequately consulted and their views sought. Therefore, I support the Motion that flexibility in implementation, particularly in accommodating the wishes of parents, be given. Officers of the Ministry of Education must bear in mind that in streaming, they are dealing with sensitive human souls, who have pride, esteem and feeling; they should not be sorted out like computer cards by a sorter. Similarly, the views and opinions of principals and teachers who are in constant contact with the pupils and their parents must be seriously sought. I therefore support paragraph (3) of the Motion standing in the name of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education.

Sir, no system is perfect; notwithstanding the tremendous implementation problems which have been discussed and highlighted in this House, the revised system appears to be workable. The solutions to these problems and the success or failure of the proposed system will depend largely on the quality, commitment and attitude of principals and teachers on the one hand and the understanding and co-operation of parents on the other. Much has been said on the low morale of principals and teachers and many hon. Members, including myself, have urged the Government to revise upward the terms and conditions of our teachers and to give them proper recognition. These are the logical steps to take if we expect to have qualified and dedicated teachers and the revised education system to be workable.

Sir, we Parliamentarians also have our share of responsibility. We should constantly help to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the new education policies and give the Ministry of Education the feedback we have from the ground. One way to keep the Ministry officials on their toes all the time and provide a direct channel of communication between MPs on the one hand, and teachers and parents on the other hand, is to have a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education. However, the Ministry of Education may complain of too much or too frequent interference from the Committee. This will probably happen as everyone seems to be an expert on education, looking at the issue from the political, economic, social, historical or even biological and medical viewpoint. The next alternative therefore will be for the Ministry to collate the suggestions and criticisms made by hon. Members during this debate and for the Minister of Education to report to Parliament periodically on the progress and problems encountered in the implementation of the revised education system. Thus, Sir, I support the amendments standing in the names of the Hon. Minister for Health and Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour. 5.45 p.m.

Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah): Mr Speaker, Sir, as one of the tail-end speakers in this debate, I shall attempt to give a broad-brush view of the revised education structure rather than delve into cracks and crevices of the proposed revision because I feel these cracks and crevices have been adequately covered by my colleagues who spoke before me.

There is no doubt that the education process is a complex one as otherwise it would not have foiled the best minds in the land for the past 20 years. There were, of course, other priorities such as industrialisation and economic development and later defence.

The best way to analyse a complex problem is to break it up into its components and then examine each part in turn. The Mindef Study Team has attempted to do this and in my opinion has fared remarkably well in identifying the short-comings of each component of our educational system.

Measures have been recommended to remedy the defects of each part of the system, and no doubt, these measures, if implemented judiciously and carefully, will produce the desired results. However, it will be prudent to reassemble once again in the mind's eye the reconstructed parts prior to execution to see if the improved system as a whole serves our purpose and is capable of meeting our objectives.

The primary objective of our education system is to nurture each and every one of our young people into a loyal and patriotic citizen with the qualities which will stand him in good stead in caring for the community and our nation as a whole.

The emphasis on moral education in the revised education system is therefore rightly placed. In addition, we ought to tap from the vast cultural reservoir which provided our forefathers with the strength and tenacity to build this nation of ours. It would indeed be foolish if we did not make full use of this scarce resource in our possession. However, to do this effectively, our children must be given at least a working knowledge of their mother tongue. It is for this reason that we have pursued the bilingual policy so relentlessly. It is not easy to achieve this objective. There are many obstacles, but we must succeed, otherwise our future generations will be cut off from our cultural heritage from which our society can draw strength.

The acquisition of knowledge and skill is the other facet of our education process. Not surprisingly, this aspect is the main source of concern for parents. They feel that possession of the right skills and high academic performance are the passport to good jobs and secure livelihood for their children. This pre-occupation of parents with the achievements of their children is not unexpected as every parent naturally hopes that his children will do well in life.

However, parents must accept the fact that children do not all possess equal capabilities nor indeed similar interests. In fact, this dissimilarity is evident even amongst children from the same family.

Given this nature of things, the objective of the recommended education system to provide every child the best opportunity to develop his or her full potential is a laudable and correct one. The essence of the recommendations made by the Mindef Study Team is captured in its expressed intention "to seek ways of giving half a loaf when a whole loaf would choke" (paragraph 3.2.1, page 6-4 of the Report). The Study has confirmed what is probably obvious to all but accepted by few, especially parents and purists and that is "different children have different capacities to acquire knowledge" through a formal education system.

It is precisely this reluctance to accept what is essentially a fact of life that has led to an education system that subjects the less able students to the same regime of learning drawn up for the brighter ones. This unsatisfactory state of affairs is further aggravated by the fact that for a large proportion of our students, the language of communication at home differs from that used and taught in the classrooms.

While it is true that half a loaf is better than choking on a full loaf, parents in many cases will be unwilling to accept that their children are only capable of consuming that much and no more. At the same time, parents will always be nursing a nagging doubt that their children have not been given the best opportunity to develop their children's potential to the fullest.

Given this natural reaction of parents, it is incumbent upon the Ministry of Education to explain fully, clearly and in very simple terms why the recommended system had been drawn up, how it will ensure that every child will be able to develop to his fullest potential and the length of time it will take to accomplish these objectives.

The Report on the Ministry of Education 1978 presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education provides some answers to these questions. Unfortunately, the Report cannot be easily digested by the average parent or even by all teachers. The Ministry of Education should consider therefore explaining the rationale for and details of the proposed education structure to parents and teachers in a series of forums. With better understanding, there will be greater acceptance. Their responses will also help the Ministry when they draw up implementation details.

With the variety of environments to which different children are exposed and the wide range of inclinations and abilities displayed by children, the practical difficulties encountered in implementation of the proposed education scheme are considerable.

It will help to reassure parents if implementation plans are executed only after careful evaluation of their impact on children and their performance. Minor changes and adjustments are unavoidable and indeed are necessary to improve and fine-tune the system. But there ought not to be any drastic policy changes which will throw the whole education system into disarray. Once our citizens are convinced that the proposed system is the best, taking into consideration both our national long term objectives and the perceived ambitions of parents for their children, there should be no reversal of policies unless there is clear evidence that the results are far from desirable. Frequent policy changes will only create doubts in the public mind as to the veracity of the Ministry's claims.

It will take many years before the fruits of our labour can be seen. It will require the concerted effort of the whole Government, not just the Ministry of Education alone, to ensure success. In fact, most Ministries could, through their respective policies help to create a social and physical environment conducive to the proper moral, mental and physical development of our children.

The mass media's role is unquestionable in the context of language learning. The impact of TV, radio and newspapers on the development of language ability among children cannot be over-emphasised. Those people who are responsible for these communication media have to put in a conscious effort to make language learning a less onerous task. It is towards this end that the Ministry of Culture can direct some of its policies.

Much can be done to improve the environment for children to help them in their pursuit of skills and knowledge. The Report has stated clearly that the home environment does affect the performance of children in school. There is no doubt that some who have the intellectual capability to handle the academic course, may find their progress hampered by a poor home environment.

During the recent debate on the Government's financial estimates, it was made very clear by many Members that there is a tremendous demand for study space, and that the present facilities are inadequate to meet such demands. In this respect, the HDB and other bodies such as the People's Association and the JTC can do much to provide improved facilities for our younger generation.

These are some examples of the concerted effort that is needed before the objectives of our education system can be attained. I would therefore like to suggest that a high-powered inter-Ministry Committee be set up to examine the contributions which each Ministry can make towards creating a better social and physical environment for our children and hence assisting them to achieve their full potential.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am fully aware that there are already over 100 committees in existence in the Ministry of Education. In fact, I am most reluctant to add on to that number. But I am confident that with the Ministry under new management, this Committee will fulfil the purpose for which it is set up and decisions will be made and implemented promptly without any attempt to pass the buck. I believe that a co-ordinated effort will bring about results that much quicker compared to ad hoc decisions and individual requests for assistance. 5.55 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah): More important than this, Sir, we will need the understanding and co-operation of parents, teachers and all the many others responsible for the education of our children. For in the final analysis, no matter how good a system is, and how laudable its objectives are, our efforts will be futile unless full support is given by those directly responsible for moulding the character of our young, especially parents and teachers.

In this respect, the Ministry of Education should, on the one hand, help parents to understand the complexity of the task. On the other hand, it should spare no efforts to train a corps of dedicated teachers equal to the task in hand and with a complete understanding of what is expected of them.

On that premise, Sir, I give my full support to the Motion standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, everyone has a certain limit in his capacity of learning a language or any subject. If we force a child to learn two languages, i.e. English and Chinese, when he is capable of learning one language only, we are over-pressurising him in his studies. This may make him lose his self-confidence and he may dislike his studies. It is a matter of time before he becomes a school dropout.

Sir, I support bilingualism but there must be flexibility in taking up two languages at the same time. It is most regrettable that - most parents have too high an expectation of their children's abilities. Students nowadays are quite loaded with their studies in schools in addition to their extra curricular activities. Some parents engage teachers to give extra tuition to the children so that they can score higher marks. They should realise that if the children are studying well, it is not necessary to overburden them with extra tuition. If the children are poor in their studies, then it is quite all right for them to do so. Parents must allow their children to have time to play and relax so that they can be healthy and strong. Otherwise we will find a number of them suffering from gastric ulcers. This happens in Japan. We hope it will not happen in Singapore.

Parents must accept full responsibility for the development of their children's character. They must make them understand the importance of moral values in life. They cannot expect the teachers to teach moral education and character development to their children. The teachers can give a helping hand on this matter but the sole responsibility lies with the parents themselves. The only way to teach children moral values and good character is for the parents themselves and the teachers to set good examples for the children to follow.

Sir, to be a teacher, one must have a love for children and to dedicate his or her service for their welfare. He or she must accept the responsibility to do his or her best in teaching the children to be loyal and good citizens of Singapore. The success or failure of a student depends to a great extent on the teaching techniques of a teacher.

Sir, several hon. Members in this House have already expressed their views on the question of streaming especially the slow learners. Streaming them to the lowest grade classes will definitely cause frustration, humiliation and will demoralise their self-confidence in studying further. The parents may raise objection to this downgrading classification. If possible, let us avoid the streaming system to classify the slower learners.

May I suggest the formation of a pool of experienced teachers to help the slow learners to improve their studies, especially on the subjects that they find difficult to understand. To do this, extra periods for the teaching of the slow learners are necessary. Perhaps if these extra periods of teaching are found successful, we may not proceed with the streaming system. I hope this proposal will be given some consideration.

I would suggest that there should be consultation, communication and cooperation between the officials of the Ministry of Education and the school principals, as well as the school principals and the teachers in the various schools. By doing so, they can exchange views on various educational matters and to find a solution to solve the problems. The Ministry of Education must also consult the leaders of the teachers' unions when changing or implementing important educational policies. To by-pass the trade union leaders, especially the teachers' unions' leaders, I think is most unfair. I hope this error will be corrected accordingly, in order to achieve success in the coming educational system.

Sir, I support the Motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education and I wish him all success in his efforts to perfect the educational system.

Resolved,

"That the debate be now adjourned." - [Mr E.W. Barker].

Mr Deputy Speaker: When is the debate to be resumed, Mr Minister?

The Leader of the House (Mr E.W. Barker): Tomorrow, 30th March, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.