MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1983 TO 31ST MARCH, 1984

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.20 p.m.

The Chairman: Main and Development Estimates of Singapore for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 1983. For convenience, I shall take the totals for each head of expenditure in the Main Estimates and the Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of Estimated Expenditure under the Main Estimates and under the Development Estimates on pages 17 and 18, respectively, of Paper Cmd. 2 of 1983.

I shall deal first with the heads of expenditures in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.

Head F -

Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head F be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead FA-03 of the Development Estimates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been wondering when coming to Parliament about the works that have been going on just outside this House. And I would like the Leader of the House to explain to the Members here the purpose of these works.

The Leader of the House (Mr E.W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would assure the Member that, though I am the Leader of the House, I am not responsible for the garden behind.

I have the details, and I will start off by saying that in 1980 the piece of State land abutting the south-western corner of Parliament grounds bounded by North Boat Quay and Hallpike Street was being cleared together with other lands behind for urban renewal. At the suggestion of the Speaker, it was agreed that the site be incorporated in the Parliament Complex as an extension of the existing garden. The area of the site is about 910 square metres. The inclusion of the site provided a regular western boundary along Hallpike Street and more open space in the immediate vicinity of Parliament House.

What are the works being carried out? The first project is really to landscape the new site as well as the existing garden. A Japanese architect is doing the landscaping. The works include earthworks to raise the level of the new site to the level of the surrounding land, erection of a low wall and iron grille fencing to enclose the new site, constructing three pavilions, a dry rock pond and footpaths, planting of flowers and shrubs and the installation of garden lighting.

Members will be interested to know that a dry rock pond is being constructed instead of a water pond to avoid wastage of water. Apparently, the dry rock garden is based on a Japanese-style garden concept. The theme and essence of this garden is essentially similar to that of a pond. Instead of a waterfall and pool, varying shades of pebbles are used to symbolize the flow of water through the valley and the plain and thence to the ocean. The ocean is not far away - Singapore River. Specially selected boulders and rocks and suitable plants are carefully arranged along the stream to complete the landscape. Such a garden is normally created when there is site limitation and to reduce maintenance. I do not think I need give details of the cost, but the total cost is about $1 million.

With your permission, Sir, I think Members should not concentrate on what is going on outside this House. They had better concentrate on what is going on inside!

This building was the old Legislative Assembly of Singapore. It was this building that I stepped into in 1963. At that time, there were 51 Members. Today there are 75. Not much money has been spent on this building. It is not like other Parliaments where they have special rooms for each Member; grand Parliaments. This is a cosy Parliament. But space is running out. From 51 Members in 1963, the number has increased to 75. In a decade or two, there will hardly be space for more. We either have to cut the Public Gallery and keep some of those people out, which would be a shame, or we have to push Mr Speaker back, which would also be a shame. I myself would be sorry to see this House demolished and rebuilt because, as I have said, it is a cosy House. The Member for Anson can come right here and point his finger at me. But in other Houses he will be far away. This is the seat of our Legislature. We make laws here. I am sure Members will agree with me that we need a better environment outside and a million dollars is well spent.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Leader of the House for his kind explanation on your behalf. In fact, he has taken the wind out of my sails. I agree with the Leader of the House that it is very unlikely that Members of Parliament will be spending their time holding hands to admire babbling brooks in a Japanese garden or watch the traffic along the Singapore River. But there is an urgent need indeed for Members who attend meetings of Parliament to find a car park. Every time there is a full meeting of the House, we find that cars are double parked, against all traffic regulations that we ourselves institute in this House. So it might be useful, Mr Speaker, Sir, to take up the suggestion of the Leader of the House that some serious thought be given to the reconstruction of Parliament for the future.

You will note too that this Chamber, as the Leader of the House has pointed out, has reached a stage of overflow. In fact, according to the Estimates of Expenditure, Paper Cmd. 2 of 1983, the political appointments for 1983 total 63 whereas in 1982 there were 62. So obviously we are going to face a traffic jam in the Government Benches. If the Registry of Vehicles can find better quarters for its offices, I expect, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will be able to persuade the Minister for Finance likewise to give more space to Parliament which is an institution in our Constitution. Perhaps the Leader of the House could head a Committee to assist you to look into this matter.

Sir, I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn,

The sum of $6,436,550 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $160,000 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

3.30 p.m.

Head U -

The following amendment stood in the names of Mr S. Chandra Das and Dr Augustine H. H. Tan:-

(1) That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UA-01 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Mr Chandra Das, amendment No. (1).

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): I am not moving, Sir.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UA-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, there are a couple of issues I would like to raise here. Perhaps I could take them one at a time to allow the relevant Minister to reply in turn.

The first concerns the conduct of national campaigns. In 1980, according to my count, we conducted eight national campaigns, plus three others under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. To give some Members some idea of what we did, we had the Promote the Use of Mandarin campaign; we had the Metrication campaign; we even had the Parking Coupon System campaign; Fire Prevention campaign; a campaign to educate the people about the census of population; Courtesy campaign; Anti-smoking campaign; and one to get people to get the urine and blood tested; three others organized by the Ministry of Education; Use Your School Language campaign; Use your hands campaign; and a Courtesy campaign; a total of 11 for 1980.

In 1981, I counted a total of six campaigns: Crime Prevention campaign; International Year of the Disabled Persons - I do not know what we are campaigning for - Fire Service Week campaign; Energy Conservation campaign; National Courtesy campaign and Promote the Use of Mandarin campaign.

In 1982, I counted six main campaigns. Again Energy Saving, Crime Prevention, National Courtesy, Traffic, Speak Mandarin campaign; and "Productivity Month". Then there were other minor events, like Use your Hands campaign in the schools, Mother and Child Care Exhibition - again conducted at various places.

In 1983, I expect us to have a total of seven campaigns and two of them would occur within the same month of September.

The point I am trying to make here, Sir, is that we are conducting quite a number of campaigns within each year. What are we trying to achieve, and are we achieving the purposes for which we set out to do? Perhaps the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary from the Prime Minister's Office could reply.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been directed by the Prime Minister to reply.

In so far as I am aware, no Ministry or statutory board has complained that the numerous campaigns organized have prevented them from achieving the desired results. For the information of the hon. Member for Whampoa, prior to 1980 there was no centralized coordination of the schedule of the various national campaigns. These campaigns have often overlapped and the effectiveness of the campaign diluted. The media which are required to play a key role find it difficult to service two or more campaigns simultaneously. Grassroots organizations such as the Citizens' Consultative Committee, the Community Centre Management Committee and the Residents' Committee, which often assisted in national campaigns, have found overlapping campaigns difficult to manage. It was then decided that the Prime Minister's Office should coordinate the timing of the various national campaigns.

Sir, campaigns are actually an on-going affair and a particular month has been chosen or set aside for the numerous activities which are being organized to create the necessary impact and to drive home the desired message. Campaigns will continue to be organized as and when there is a need for them.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I welcome the efforts of the Prime Minister's Office to coordinate these campaigns. But I did notice that since the Prime Minister's Office took over this responsibility, we have more campaigns than ever before. Sir, I want to emphasize this point because the Senior Parliamentary Secretary made mention of organizations like the Citizen's Consultative Committee, the Management Committee of Community Centres and Residents' Committees. The point, Sir, is that each time we have a national campaign, we have to involve these community leaders. We have to motivate them; we have to get them to go out, door-to-door distribution of pamphlets, and in hawker centres. We have to get them to organize film shows, exhibitions, talks, forums, and so on and so forth.

My point, Sir, is that these people are serving in a voluntary capacity and each one of these organizations already has its own activities, including monthly meetings. Are we not overtaxing these people in terms of their time and efforts? Are we getting the results that we want? I get the curious feeling that maybe people become blase; people even become cynical. Another campaign. What are we doing? And we get a proliferation of buttons and pamphlets and so on, but what do people do with these? Do they use them as toilet paper, or do they read them or pin them up? I am quite serious about this because, unless we gear the campaigns properly so that people are motivated and the message really gets down to the ground, we are defeating the purpose. Are we getting the feedback on the efficacy of these campaigns?

Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon: Sir, as from 1980 the number of campaigns organized has been actually cut down, a lot. Those mentioned by the hon. Member just now were actually campaigns from 1980 onwards. All campaigns are organized for specific purposes. All activities organized for each of these campaigns are to create the necessary impact and to drive home the specific message. The number of campaigns organized for this year has been kept to the minimum and is considered as manageable by all these grassroots organizations. However, any good suggestions that can help to achieve the target set are always welcome. I shall take note of the points made by the hon. Member.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, since the Prime Minister himself is not here, I will pass on to another topic.

Sir, I notice that the People's Association is spending $29.2 million on the Main Estimates and $34.5 million on development projects this coming year. Sir, we certainly welcome the efforts of the People's Association and we appreciate the tremendous upgrading in terms of facilities which are provided at our modern community centres. This has certainly resulted in a tremendous range of activities for the people of Singapore, especially for the lower income groups who now have access to sports facilities, reading rooms, libraries, and so on.

There are a number of points I would like to direct to the Prime Minister or his delegate. The first point is that these community centres are open only from 2.30 p.m. on weekdays to about 10.30 at night. Why can't we open these centres from 8.30 in the morning, because this will enable more people to make use of these expensive facilities?

The second point I would like to make concerns the policy on the posting of staff. Some of the People's Association staff, the Organizing Secretaries and their Assistants are really very good at their job. They try hard; they work hard. They are dedicated. Unfortunately, by the time they develop their contacts on the ground, whether in the Women's Sub-Committee, the Management Committee, the CCC, YEC, they are transferred to some other community centre and we get some new chaps or a new lady sent to us, may be "bran d new", without any prior experience. So it has an unsettling effect on the activities of such community centres. Perhaps the Prime Minister's Office can enlighten this House of such policies.

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the Member for Whampoa, that with the building of costly and big community centres, the People's Association is even more acutely conscious of the need to maximize the use of the community centre's faciiities.

The facilities of most of our community centres are being used from early in the morning till late at night. In the morning, kindergarten classes are conducted in 113 of the 154 community centres with an enrolment of over 10,000 students this year. Demands for use of sports and other facilities only come in late afternoon and peak in the evening hours. This pattern of utilization has been confirmed by surveys conducted from time to time. However, facilities of community centres are always made available to the public if there is a sufficient demand. For example, some community centres open their indoor sports facilities in the morning hours during weekends. When school examinations are approaching, some community centres with study rooms and other similar facilities are open for use by students in the morning as well.

It is true that given its present manpower, the People's Association will not be able to open all its community centres from morning to late in the evening. However, the most important question is whether the demand is justified. The current utilization rates of community centre facilities do not justify the opening of all the facilities in all community centres in the morning.

On the question of frequent transfers of community centre staff, I agree with the view expressed by the Member for Whampoa that centre staff should be given time to establish rapport with the community leaders and to acquire the necessary knowledge of the catchment areas where the community centres are located. However, the People's Association employs nearly 500 staff to man the network of community centres and changes or transfers of centre staff are inevitable. In general, transfers of staff are only effected when there are compelling reasons, for example, resignations, promotions, training and career development and requests by the staff themselves. Admittedly, some community centres can be harder hit by staff changes than the others, and I would like to assure the Member for Whampoa that the People's Association will continue to do its utmost to minimize disruptions caused by such transfers.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I am already aware that our community centres have been used as kindergartens in the morning and that during examination periods, whenever requested, some centres have been opened for students who want to study there. My question concerns the use of the other facilities, the sports facilities in particular, at the community centres. I am at a loss to know how, either the People's Association or the Minister himself, could have made a survey to find out that the use of facilities peaks in the late afternoon or early evening when the community centres are not open at all in respect of sporting activity.

In the matter of staff, I have heard a complaint from the People's Association that they have difficulty recruiting and retaining staff because of the long hours or the odd hours which are required for this kind of work; they have to work from 2.30 till 10.30 at night. So by the time they get home, it is close to midnight. But if my suggestion were taken up, i.e. these facilities be open from 8.30 in the morning, then we could consider having two shifts and then rotate the staff accordingly, so that it becomes less taxing and less onerous for people to work in the People's Association and its community centres and would make the job more attractive. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Sir, as I have explained, if there is demand for indoor games, the centres are always open to anyone who requests for it. I would like the Member for Whampoa to give me some details. If he has any information on the requirements in other centres, I will be quite willing to consider them. But at the moment our survey shows that there is no such demand for sports facilities.

As for staff, we are still a little bit short of staff. But with the increase in pay now, I think we will be able to recruit more staff in the coming years.

Mr S. Chandra Das: Sir, the People's Association was set up in 1960 and we all know that it has been a very effective vehicle as it provides a network of community centres to serve the basic recreational and social needs of Singaporeans. In the sixties and seventies, this island-wide network also served as a social integrator where Singaporeans of all races and of all economic groups could participate in all the activities organized by the community centres.

Sir, since 1970 the scope and quality of activities organized by the People's Association have also been widened and improved to meet the new and rising expectations of a more affluent and much younger generation of Singaporeans. Questions, however, have now been raised on the adequacy and relevance of some of these activities. Perhaps it may be necessary now for the People's Association to restate its objectives and devise new strategies and activities to meet these new objectives in the eighties and beyond.

Sir, I would also like to suggest that the People's Association look into the question of limiting the age to 30 years for members of the youth group. I am suggesting this because the population profile has changed recently and there may be need to consider possibly raising this to 40 years.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Sir, the Member for Chong Boon is talking about the requirements for the future. One of the most important long term objectives of the People's Association and its community centres is to organize social, cultural, sports, recreational, educational and other wholesome activities to meet both the existing and emerging needs and interests of the people. Hence, the community centres organize a very wide range of activities to cater to the varied needs and interests of the different income, language, cultural and racial groups. Changes within the country and the world have influenced the life-styles of Singaporeans. These changes are monitored closely by the People's Association and community leaders at the community centres in order to respond to any emerging needs of the residents and/or to improve or expand existing programmes.

To remain relevant, the People's Association conducts surveys and reviews its range of programmes at the community centres, introduces new activities and discontinues those which have become obsolete, e.g. as more and more Singaporeans are better educated, they become more affluent in their needs and interests and the People's Association has organized a wide range of activities which appeal to them. These activities include computer appreciation courses, ballet, squash, tennis, scuba diving, classical musical instruments, health care centres, and video filming. The policy of making activities more appealing to a multi-racial and wider cross section is also reflected in the national projects organized by the People's Association in association with other organizations. Whether it is the Singapore International Kite Festival, Chingay, Sepak Takraw Championship, Lantern Festival or Dragon Boat Race, the People's Association has made every effort to transform these traditionally mono-ethnic festivals into occasions of national festivities participated and enjoyed by all communities. This effort and the introduction of new activities in the community centres have enabled the People's Association to reach out to a very wide section of the people.

As part of its long term planning, the People's Association is also aware of the new social needs arising from the transformation of Singapore into a highly urbanized and industrialized country and the aging of its population. The People's Association has introduced service-oriented programmes to meet these newly emerging needs which include the following:-

(i) Scheme for Premature School Leavers where People's Association youth volunteers engage premature school activities in community centre activities.

(ii) Aftercare (Counselling) Service for ex-drug addicts by People's Association youth volunteers who act as Volunteer Aftercare Officers.

(iii) Day Care Service for children of working parents.

(iv) Retirees Services' Scheme to help healthy retired persons find employment.

(v) Senior Citizens' Club facilities at community centres for the aged to plan and involve in activities for themselves.

(vi) Pre-retirement preparation courses and seminars.

On the question of age limit, it is very hard to define the word "youth". A 60-year old man may seem still youthful and a 30-year old man may appear to be like 60 years in terms of spirit. However, to the United Nations, the term "youth" refers to those from 15 to 24 years.

Indonesia and Malaysia both define youth as those from 15 to 30 years. For the Philippines, youth is only from 15 to 20 years. Thailand considers all those 25 years and below as youth.

The People's Association has defined youth as those from 15 to 30 years for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the People's Association Youth Movement membership. However, the Constitution of PA Youth Movement also provides for members who exceed 30 years and who are still interested in staying with the Youth Movement to apply as Associate Members. As an Associate Member, he is eligible to all the benefits enjoyed by an Ordinary member but is not eligible to vote or stand for election. However, he can still make his contribution through the various sub-committees. This being the case, there is no need to extend the upper limit of the age requirement of the PA Youth Movement membership.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am much encouraged by the forward-looking plans of the People's Association and its vision. Maybe the Minister could assure this House that, in planning for new community centres, increased land allocation could be made to provide for the new facilities that he has in mind. I foresee the day when a community centre ought to be a place where you can find a swimming pool in addition to the range of activities that are currently there.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Sir, I do not decide the acreage for the centres. I would have thought that nowadays, with new architectural designs, one could plan upwards. But I would convey the desire of the Member for Whampoa to the relevant authorities.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendments* Nos. (2), (3) and (4) are withdrawn because the hon. Members are not here. Amendment No. 5, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, we have been talking for the last 20 minutes or so on the work of the People's Association, the community centres and the consultative committee officials, and it is about them that I wish to say something. This community work, Sir, has its origin in the passing of the People's Association Act in 1960. I see that by section 10 of the Act, the objects of the Association are:

'the organization and the promotion of group participation in social, cultural, educational and athletic activities for the people of Singapore.'

This is to encourage our residents to live together as a community and to interact as a community.

I see, in the Second Reading of this Bill, the then Minister for Labour and Law speaking, said this:

'This organization [referring to the People's Association] would be able to provide trained leaders who would be able to work on the ground amongst the people, popularise the community centres and youth clubs and organise their activities.' Sir, I have no doubt that they are carrying out a worthwhile object and activities for the communities. But what I am here this afternoon is to protest at the use to which the People's Association, the community centres, the officials of the consultative committees and the Residents' Committees have been put in promoting the fortunes of a political party. Sir, I do not find that in the objects of the People's Association Act - that they have been set up to promote the fortunes of a political party be it the party in power. But over the years - I do not know whether this was intended and whether it was one of the reasons for setting up the People's Association and the various committees - the community centres, the officials in the consultative committees and now even the Residents' Committee officials have been used more and more to promote the fortunes of a political party. 4.00 p.m.

We read only on the 28th of last month, Sir, and this is taken from the Straits Times, that the Member for Queenstown, Mr Jek Yeun Thong, making his annual pilgrimage to his constituency, was accompanied by 25 Housing Board officers, members of the Queenstown Zone C Residents' Committee and community centre leaders. This is becoming common practice in all the constituencies. We have heard about the officials in the community centres, the consultative committee leaders being overtaxed. They are also, it would appear, being overtaxed in the interests of this party. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen over the years community centre staff - who, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, are public servants, paid out of public funds, funds provided for the People's Association - putting up posters for this political party in question. This was reported to me even way back in 1976. And it is common knowledge -

The Prime Minister: Where was it?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Bukit Panjang constituency.

The Prime Minister: Time, date?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, if you want that, I will give it to you later, but it has been reported to me. But may I carry on.

It is common knowledge that the Party's candidates at election time are accompanied on their rounds by officials of the consultative committees, by the community centre staff, and even by officials of the Residents' Committees. Is this the use for which the People's Association was set up - to promote the fortunes of a political party?

As against this, Mr Speaker, you go down to Anson now, after 31st October, 1981, where there is one constituency in Singapore which is not represented by this political party. What do we find? The Residents' Committees which were set up to work together with MPs in the constituencies - the MP for the constituency expected to be the guiding force in the Residents' Committees - changed overnight. What do we find? Immediately after 31st of October, 1981, the Residents' Committees in Anson became the Prime Minister's committees for Anson, and the Member of Parliament for that constituency was treated as a leper. The Resident's Committees would have nothing to do with him. They would not even speak to him, and we have the community centres and the consultative committees similarly ignoring the existence of the MP for the area.

On the other hand, what do we find? We have a gentleman who is aspiring to be the next MP for Anson, and it has been reported to me that he is accompanied on his rounds, as he goes round the constituency, by community centre officials and even Residents' Committee officials.

The Chairman: You have one minute left.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I say that this is a most improper use of the organization and the citizens consultative committees that were set up. They were set up, as I understand it and as it is spelt out in the Act, to promote the interest of the residents, not to promote the fortunes of a political party. Mr Speaker, Sir, why should one political party be in this favoured position? To quote a local idiom, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is tak patut. You cannot have one political party trying to take an unfair advantage over the other political parties and using the People's Association and the community centres for its purpose.

The Chairman: The time is up, Mr Jeyaretnam.

The Prime Minister: I have had no notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the subject that the Member for Anson wanted to raise, otherwise I would have taken out the newspaper cuttings of his disdain, his derision, his contempt for the organizations of the People's Association - the community centres, the consultative committees and the residents' committees. Soon after the exhilaration of his victory in Anson, he pronounced to the world that he was going to set up a democratic organization. He was going to have elections in Anson, true, real representatives of the various blocks; not the bogus, handpicked, unrepresentative lot in the Residents' Committees, in the community centres, in the consultative committees.

Obviously in the last 17 months he has acquired some political wisdom. I congratulate him on his painful political education. I took him literally at his word when he denounced these organizations as futile and useless, and decided that he had rendered himself unfit to be an advisor to the various committees. There was a moment when it was quite possible that had he been a wise man and sought the privilege of being an advisor as an MP, I would have seriously entertained that proposition. But he totally disqualified himself.

Let me commiserate with him at his loss. I can assure him that nothing improper has been done. He makes allegations of posters being put up for a political party. I asked for details. I received none.

Mr Jeyaretnam: In Bukit Panjang, in 1976.

The Prime Minister: In Bukit Panjang, in 1976, Who, why, what for? I see nothing wrong with what he said or what he has read out about Mr Jek Yeun Thong, the MP for Queenstown, being accompanied by his CCC or his RCs. They are friends of his over the last, I would say, 20 years, since 1963.

Mr Jeyaretnam: HDB officers.

The Prime Minister: I have no reason to suspect that anything improper was done. If it is an impropriety, would he bring it up? What he is, in fact, grousing about when he says, in his rather pompous, accented Malay, tak patut is that he is not part of the establishment,

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not. That is quite clear.

The Prime Minister: And he has not got the advantage of being a member of the Government which, in 1960, saw the need for grassroots organizations.

I take it as a deep compliment that he should have taken the trouble to look up the People's Association Act, 1960. I think he should ponder over this: why did we put in the Act that the Prime Minister should be Chairman of the People's Association? It is an unusual association to meet an unusual set of circumstances. Let me facilitate his education by giving him the historical background and let him find his way into the future, on his own. And I believe, if he is wise and takes to heart that I have to tell him, he might be able to retrieve himself from the wilderness into which he is heading.

In 1955 Singapore went through a first tumultuous election with popular voting given to all who took the trouble to exercise the vote, and we discovered in the four years from 1954 to 1959 the capacity of the Communist underground to intimidate, to manipulate and to terrorize, I had the advantage of over four years of studying their methods and their techniques and, therefore, when we assumed office in 1959 we had some tentative proposals on how to meet this problem. The first problem was that the average Singaporean - in fact, there was no such thing as a Singaporean in 1959 - the average Chinese ie. the average Hokkien, Teochew, Hakka, Hainanese, preferred not to be involved. He preferred to be one step removed from any political involvement, Malays were slightly different. They were closely organized along kampong/village lines.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, Sir.

The Chairman: Is it on a point of order? Has the Prime Minister broken any Standing Orders? You said, "On a point of order." Do you mean a point of clarification?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, my objection, in moving this amendment, is the use to which the People's Association's officials, the community centre officials and the residents' committee officials are being put. The Prime Minister is embarking on a long speech about the history of the People's Association, and why it was put up. We know that. What I want to know from the Prime Minister, quite shortly, is this: does he deny that these officials, the RC officials, community centre staff, consultative committee officials are being used to promote the fortunes of the party of which he is the Secretary-General? And whether he does or does not think that it is an improper use of the committees and these centres? 4.15 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Is it a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir?

The Chairman: It is a point of clarification.

The Prime Minister: I think he ought to listen to me. I am telling him the history so that he will understand how totally false and completely unfounded are his allegations.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Are you denying this?

The Prime Minister: Would you bear me out? This desire never to be involved - because to be involved and to be found on the losing side meant physical harm - posed a deep problem to every political party other than the Communists. We therefore came out with this proposition which enabled community leaders not to identify themselves with a political party but to identify themselves with the Government of the day. There is a clear distinction. [Interruption]

I hear that the Member for Anson is dissatisfied because some of the members of the consultative committees and residents committees at election time have decided to take sides. That is a next step. And when he does so, he does so in his capacity as a member of the consultative committee or the residents committee. He is under no obligation to do so. And that is the security that he has. That is why I am the Chairman of the People's Association. And it will be thus for a very long time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are hoping to be.

The Prime Minister: I think the Member should listen carefully. He has misunderstood me. I am saying that the desire of the people not to be actively politically involved with any political party is a problem that will plague us for a very long time. Hence his inability after 11 years in active politics to have on his central committee anybody other than men of straw. What is his reason? Everybody knows he has been going around town looking for candidates amongst lawyers, doctors, dentists, somebody of worth and stature, and he is unable to find any.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Shall I tell you why?

The Prime Minister: Please.

The Chairman: May I remind hon. Members that the guillotine time is 4.35 p.m.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, we are departing from the amendment that I moved. But since the Prime Minister wants an answer, I will tell him why, It is common knowledge in Singapore and it has been for a long time, and it is only now that we are beginning to make a bit of headway on this, that there was a fear in the people of Singapore to be identified with any party that might dare to oppose the party in power. We found this time and time again. And I tell the Members of this House we have found it difficult to get premises in Singapore because no private landlord would want to let his premises out to the Workers' Party.

The Prime Minister says we do not have members. Does he know that even when people apply to join our party, the first question they ask me is: "Will the all-seeing ISD, CID, come to know if I join your party?" Is the Prime Minister not aware of the prevalence of this fear in Singapore, until perhaps 31st October 1981? That is why he has been able to keep out people from our party.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened very patiently to know why he has not had any professionals on his committee. All he has got is Mr Murugason and the Chairman who has been found guilty of punching a taxidriver.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is sub judice. We are appealing.

The Prime Minister: I am suggesting to him that it is a deeper underlying trough. It is a problem which confronted the PAP when it came in in 1959, again in 1963, and we have gradually overcome it.

I can assure the Member that the People's Association is run properly, accounts are properly audited, that no member of any management committee or consultative committee or residents' committee is under any duty to help an MP as a candidate. His duty is to get the MP to help him move the wheels of government, to help the residents. If, in the process of long association, the MP establishes confidence, rapport, enough to win the man over so that at election time he is prepared to identify himself with the candidate, I congratulate that MP as being worthy of having been appointed to the constituency. They are under no obligation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: To go round with the man.

The Prime Minister: Absolutely. I say so here. It will be reported in the newspapers. I give every member or every one on these committees a clear-cut directive. They are under no such obligation. And if they wish to do so, they are doing so in their individual capacities. I commiserate with the Member. He has failed to get his committee elected. They are a miserable lot. It cannot be done.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will tell you why.

The Prime Minister: Please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Prime Minister talks about me not being able to get a committee going. I have a committee. May I tell him that it is my intention to have a properly elected committee for the whole of Anson, and I think I will get it in time, But let me tell you this, Mr Speaker, Sir. I tried to call a meeting of all the people who were interested in the formation of this Elected Committee for Anson together. We fixed an evening for this in one of the void decks. I turned up, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I found a few people and then it was reported to me by several people that there were several ISD detectives around and the police - I myself saw a police car circling round the car park. [Laughter]

This is no laughing matter. This is why we did not have enough people that evening to get an elected committee going. Let us face up to it. If you want to know, I will tell you. The Officer-in-Charge of Queenstown Police Station came to me that evening. You ask him. He came to me whilst I was there, and he said, "Mr Jeyaretnam, do you know that you've got to get our permit, our licence, before you can call a meeting?" I said, "What nonsense! Are you telling me that an MP cannot meet his residents in the void deck?" He was a bit embarrassed, and he said, "Well, Mr Jeyaretnam, I have been told to tell you this. You've got to have a licence before you can have a meeting in the void deck with your residents." That is the sort of conditions under which we have been made; to work. The Prime Minister comes here and gloats over the fact that we have not got an elected committee.

The Prime Minister: But I thought he said he had, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let us hear from the committee and we will consider whether or not we should extend commensurate facilities, Let us have the committee's names.

Mr Jeyaretnam: So that you can send ISD men to see them!

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, Sir.

Question put, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Division, Sir.

The Chairman: Do you really want a division? Or shall we record it down in the Hansard as an "Aye" for you?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

Question put, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Aye.

The Chairman: The Noes have it.

Amendment negatived.

The sum of $43,731,510 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $34,461,800 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head L -

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.*

Sir, the Goh Keng Swee Report was tabled in this House in March 1979 and, after a spirited debate, the House adopted the Report with the proviso that the Minister of Education reports to Parliament after two or three years on the progress, unresolved problems, and the state of implementation of the New Restructured Education System (NRES). As four years have passed since the Report was adopted, is it not overdue for the Ministry of Education to report to this House on the progress and problems it has faced in implementing the revised structure of education? Will we ever get a mid-term report on the implementation of the revised structure of education? If not, I would like to know the reason. If the answer is in the affirmative, may we know when such a report will be forthcoming? Has the Ministry completed monitoring progress in the implementation of the NRES? If so, is the Education Ministry as confident as it was in 1979, that some of the assumptions and bases on which the recommendations were made are still valid?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is no exaggeration to say that there is mounting public anxiety over the implementation of the Goh Report. There are several reasons for this. One reason is that when the Report was first published in 1979 with a fanfare of lavish praises and accolades bestowed on the Study Team which had impressive credentials, the public generally heaved a sigh of relief that, at long last, the Education Ministry was going to have its house put in order. People were carried away by the big headlines, the bold print and the persuasive language of the lead stories on the Report. It calls to mind those insurance policies we sometimes buy, simply because we are attracted by the more beneficial provisions printed in bold letters but do not take the trouble to scrutinize the small print qualifying the benefits. Sometimes even new clauses can be subsequently added to restrict the benefits further. 4.30 p.m.

Four years have elapsed since the Goh Report was implemented and the so-called small print and subsequent clauses are beginning to be noticed.

Let me come to one specific example. Let me quote chapter 6 of the Goh Report - 3.1.2d.

'Today, about 41% of the Primary 1 cohort would fail to obtain at least 3 GCE 'O' Level passes at the end of their secondary education. For these pupils who would definitely not go for GCE 'A' Level and university studies, it would be better for them to concentrate on the learning of languages rather than the studying of factual subjects (for example, Physical Sciences). We recommend that these pupils be channelled to an ordinary stream concentrating on English Language (EL1) and doing only a lower "second" language (L3). The standard of L3 will be lower than that of L2. The primary aim is to at least maintain the level of the second language they have learnt in the primary school (that is, they should be able to read local news and to write at least simple sentences in L3). In order to help these pupils obtain at least 3 GCE 'O' Level passes, we also recommend that: * the pupils be allowed to complete their secondary education at a slower pace (leading to the General Certificate of Education Examination in five instead of four years), and * the students be allowed to sit for fewer GCE 'O' Level subjects than those in the bilingual streams. We suggest that the ordinary stream will lead first to the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) in four years. Pupils may take the GCE 'O' Level Examination in the fifth year, sitting for the same subjects for which they have performed well at the CSE examination. They may sit for as few as 3 subjects in any one examination. The CSE is recommended for three reasons: * to provide students who could not succeed at the GCE 'O' Level with a lower qualification, * to provide average and below average students guidance on the number and choice of subjects for GCE 'O' Level Examination, and * to provide the average and below average students exposure to a common examination in order to reduce examination shock at the GCE 'O' Level Examination a year later.'

Sir, the essence of this is that there are two streams of students, the fast learners and the slow learners. You put the slow learners under a 5-year course, but they will all lead to GCE 'O' Level.

Let me also quote certain relevant excerpts from the Principal's Handbook issued by MOE, August 1981, and NES(S) Supplementary Guidelines on Normal Course, October 1982.

'If they fail the CSE examination at the end of the 4th year, they are allowed to repeat it in the 5th year. For these pupils, the CSE will be terminal.

Only the better pupils who perform well in the CSE will proceed to offer the GCE 'O' Level Examination a year later.

The new criteria will be a pass in L1 and 2 other subjects.

They must have an aggregate not exceeding 8 points for 3 subjects including at least a grade 3 in L1.'

This is a departure from the recommendation because in the recommendation the essence of the recommendation is very clear. If you are a slow learner, you take five years to complete your 'O' Level, but you are allowed to sit. Here, they have got to go through a hurdle, and they will be eliminated if they do not get a pass in the First Language (L1) and two other passes with an aggregate of not more than 8 points.

These excerpts suggest that there is a shift from the original intention of streaming at Secondary level. The guidelines indicate that some pupils will not be allowed to sit for GCE 'O' level if they do not pass L1 and two other subjects.

Does this not impose additional strain and stress on pupils and increase the anxiety of parents? Previously all pupils could take the GCE 'O' level examination. Now a large percentage of the Secondary 1 pupils will have to surmount one additional hurdle, the CSE, before they are allowed to sit for the GCE 'O' level examination. In the process, many will be prevented from sitting for the GCE 'O' level simply because they do not pass L1 and

o other subjects, with an aggregate of not more than 8 points. It does not necessarily follow that those who do not do well at the CSE level will also not do well at the GCE 'O' level. It is not as simple as all that. Various factors have to be taken into account. A student who does badly at the CSE examination may be jolted into putting in extra effort in the following year to prepare for the GCE 'O' level. Sometimes, a child's failure to do well in an examination may be due to emotional or other factors at the time of the examination and not because of any academic inability to cope with the examination. Whatever it is, every child will want an opportunity to attempt the GCE 'O' level especially when he or she has come this far in his or her school career. Every parent will want this for his or her child.

The 1982 GCE 'O' level results indicated that 75% got three or more 'O' level passes and 99% got one or more 'O' level passes. These were the pupils who were under the old system where there was no weedingout at the CSE level. All those who made it to Secondary 3 proceeded to Secondary 4 and sat for the GCE 'O' level.

The results showed that only 1% did not obtain any pass. The bottom 24% got at least one or two 'O' level passes, If the form of lateral streaming as recommended by the Goh Report had been implemented earlier, and all the 1982 GCE 'O' level pupils had been affected by the streaming and the need to pass the CSE examination with at least a pass at L1 and two other subjects, then the bottom 24% or so of the cohort would probably not have been able to get a pass in the L1 and two other passes at CSE level, and would therefore have been deprived of sitting for the GCE 'O' level. They would have had to be content with just only one or two passes at CSE level. Fortunately for them they have obtained at least one or two passes at GCE 'O' level, simply because they were allowed to sit for the GCE 'O' level. Which is better, one or two passes at GCE 'O' level, or one or two passes at "CSE" level? I think the majority would prefer the former rather than the latter.

The CSE, as recommended by the Goh Report and implemented today, is now one more addition to the many obstacles that a child must surmount before he can even have a chance to sit for the GCE 'O' level. Our education system, instead of making it easier for every child, especially for the academically less inclined, now makes it even more difficult.

A veritable array of formidable mountain peaks now separate him from the desired goal. He has to cross over many perilous watersheds before he can even think of attempting the mountain at the end of the school course.

The Chairman: Your ten minutes are up, Mr Sia.

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since our education system has been revised in 1979, a number of new ideas and measures have been implemented. These included the streaming of students, the establishment of CDIS, the SAP schools, the Schools Council, the introduction of full-day schools, moral education, Confucian thoughts, computers in schools, etc. Besides, there have been personnel, administrative and other changes, both multi- farious and eye-catching. Most of these matters receive wide coverage and publicity in the mass media and have been matters of concern and for discussion to the general public, particularly about streaming and moral education referred to by the Member for Moulmein just now. I am sure many questions will be asked by my colleagues in this House today on related matters. Therefore, I am going to limit myself to just a few cooler topics, in the Confucian spirit of giving way to others, and let the other Members of Parliament take on those hot topics.

First, the full-day school. Sir, a few days ago we were informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education, when answering a Question in Parliament, that the building of a new primary school in Telok Blangah would depend on the decision of the Ministry whether to turn our schools into full-day schools. The full-day school has the advantage of allowing students to have more time in school so that they can use the extra hours for self-study, homework and ECA. In Singapore many parents want to engage private tutors for their children with the idea of helping them to do well in the examinations. It would appear that either the child is stupid or the school is inefficient in teaching the child so that he needs private tuition. However, the fact proves otherwise, that students from the more prestigious schools engage private tutors rather than the other way round. I shall touch on this some other time. Perhaps with successful full-day schools, there will be less need of private tuition. However, the general impression I got from some parents and students on full-day school was quite negative. In fact, they were a bit apprehensive towards the full-day school. They complained that additional hours in school meant more teaching, more homework and a heavier study load; and therefore more private tuition would be needed and that the students just would not have sufficient time and energy to cope. I hope the Ministry can give us a more favourable report or review on the full-day schools. From the point of view of education, full-day school is better than half-day school. I hope the Ministry can verify this point.

Sir, the second matter I would like to raise concerns the introduction and use of computers in our schools. It is well-known that all our secondary schools are now equipped with micro-computers. But whether the schools make good use of the computers is not so well-known. Enough has been said about the importance of computerization and the importance that our young generation must learn how to use computers. How computers and computerization would fit into our schools and education system has to be carefully studied and planned, as it is not a simple matter. I do not know whether the Ministry of Education has made any study in this respect.

Just now, when answering a Question by the Member for Kebun Baru, the Minister of State described the Computer Appreciation Clubs in our secondary schools. He said that the average computer time available for each student member per week is about half an hour. Obviously only very few students have been given exposure to computers. My feeling is that, except for a few schools, there are not enough micro-computers in most schools to cater for the need of the Computer Appreciation Clubs, let alone general use by all students. I would like to know if it is the policy of the Ministry of Education to eventually provide sufficient micro-computers in all our schools so that all our students will be able to learn how to use a micro-computer if they so wish.

To teach our students to use computers is a good idea. But I think the greatest advantage of having computers in schools is not just to teach them computer programming. The greatest contribution of micro-computers to schools is likely to be computer-aided instruction. The micro-computer can be a very powerful and versatile teaching tool. In many advanced countries, computer-aided instruction has already been widely used in schools. I would like to know if the Ministry of Education is interested in introducing such technology into our schools. The cost of equipping our secondary as well as primary schools with a sufficient number of micro-computers will be enormous. However, in order to catch up with time, it may well be that we cannot afford not to do it.

My last topic is on the Schools Council. The aim of setting up the Schools Council is to facilitate the flow of information within the education system so that the schools and teachers would be able to understand the policies of the Ministry and at the same time the Ministry would get feedback from the schools. Through the Council, the schools would be able to contribute towards policy-thinking and decision making in matters related to education.

Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether his Ministry is able to make an evaluation of the performance of the Schools Council. I would like to find out whether the original aim of the Council has been achieved, whether the Council is able to contribute towards decision-making in the Ministry. I would also be interested to know how are school principals appointed members of the Council. What is the general attitude of the majority of school principals who are not members of the Council? Do they make use of the CCTV to view the meetings of the Council? Or do they come forward only on the invitation of the Ministry, or otherwise they would not turn up? It was reported that at one of the meetings there were very few observer principals. On certain instructions from the Minister, at the next meeting all the principals turned up. I do not know how far it is true. But I feel that whether or not the principals turn up to watch the proceedings on TV is not important. The important thing is whether they have paid attention to the matters under discussion and whether they have on their own accord put forward their own views and suggestions to the Ministry on the matters under discussion. I hope the Ministry can confirm that the Schools Council has been able to perform its roles and achieve its original objectives as envisaged.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing, me to speak at this juncture so that I need not move my two amendments*. The topics I am bringing up are related to what has been raised by the Member for Moulmein.

Sir, three years have elapsed and three groups of PSLE students have been streamed into Normal, Express and Special Courses, and three years of streaming experience has been gained by the Ministry of Education. It is all too familiar to us present in this House and outside that the reason students were streamed to the Normal stream was their poor performance in the PSLE and that they were slow learners. But, Sir, is this what is being done? Is the Minister satisfied with its implementation policies on streaming? Are only slow-learners in the Normal stream? How many are there because of the double weightage given to language? Is the Minister aware that double weightage could produce an error in streaming? Some students have got good grades in Science, Mathematics and English but failed in Chinese, and similarly some have also landed in the Normal stream because of English. What has the Minister done to ensure that the child who does badly in the second language but has good results in other subjects are not wrongly streamed?

I quote the footnote at page 6-2 of the Ministry of Education Report 1978:

A few students who fail an examination may not be slow-learners, They fail because of other reasons (for example, poor home environment), These students would have the intellectual capability to handle the standard academic course. They could be identified by Intelligence Tests ...' To improve the degree of accuracy in streaming, questions testing intelligence were suggested for incorporation in the PSLE. Is this being done? How many of such cases have been identified out of those who did not fare well in the PSLE by this procedure? The Minister must seriously look into the distortion that double weightage given to the language may produce.

Any right-thinking Singaporean would by now have realized the importance of bilingualism. There is no further need to hammer this point home by giving double weightage to the two languages. It would not be bad if the Normal course prepares such students adequately for the GCE 'O' level examination. But judging from the way the course is implemented, I see these non-linguistically inclined students paying a heavier price. I will go into this later. Sir, may I request the Ministry of Education to re-examine the double weightage for languages in the PSLE with a view to identifying those who are intellectually capable of doing the Express course but are only handicapped by the second language.

I have also filed an amendment to speak on the Normal course in our schools. As I said, judging from the way the Ministry is implementing this course, I see little hope whatsoever of those students of ever doing or succeeding at the GCE 'O' level. Yet parents still think that sending their children to the Normal course would allow them to study at a slower pace for the GCE 'O' level. They think that this will benefit their less academically able children as the Normal course was expressly created to help this group of slow learners. The truth is, Sir, the normal course students are not being prepared to do the GCE 'O' level. In theory, it was the intention to prepare students at a slower pace. In practice, however, teachers are told to teach these students only 50-60% of the Express course syllabus. How, Mr Speaker, Sir, by any stretch of the imagination can you expect a slow learner, equipped with only 50-60% of the Express Course syllabus, to be able to cope with the GCE 'O' level examination at the end of the fifth year? He must be a super-fast learner and yet he is in the Normal Course, a course for slow learners.

Sir, is it also possible that this course has very good students who were wrongly streamed for whatever reason? Perhaps the Minister would like to explain. Let me refresh his memory on why the Normal course was implemented. The Normal course was set up to salvage those who failed to obtain at least three 'O' level passes in the GCE examination. The Member for Moulmein has quoted from the blue book, i.e. the Ministry of Education Report, 1978, and I will quote again:

'In order to help these pupils obtain at least 3 GCE 'O' Level passes, we also recommend that: * the pupils be allowed to complete their secondary education at a slower pace (leading to the General Certificate of Education Examination in five instead of four years), and * the students be allowed to sit for fewer GCE 'O' Level subjects than those in the bilingual streams.' From this Report, Sir, it is clear that these slow learners will be sitting for the GCE 'O' level examination in five years. Yet at the Schools Council meeting, it was reported in the Sunday Times on 15th August 1982, that 65-70% of these students would not be allowed to sit for the GCE 'O' level examination after another streaming at Secondary 3 in the Normal course. These students would have to leave school after sitting for the Certificate of Secondary Education at the end of Secondary 4. The remaining 30-35% would proceed to do the GCE 'O' level examination if they did well.

Sir, this re-streaming in the Normal course is contrary to the objective of streaming, which is to help the so-called slow learner to obtain at least three 'O' level passes. In this way, the Normal Course students are worse off. First, he has to endure the label of slow learner. Then the Ministry of Education gives up on him by inadequately preparing him to do the GCE 'O' level. Are we being fair to such students? This is not salvaging them.

I read the Sunday Times report dated 15th August, 1982, as quoting the Minister of State to have said:

'The CSE (Certificate of Secondary Education) must be structured so that the weaker pupils will be able to pass at least one subject.' I hope he is misquoted because this year's GCE 'O' level results showed that 98% passed at least one subject, and mind you, Sir, this was without streaming. In other words, most of the Normal Course students would have at least passed one subject at the GCE 'O' level without this streaming.

In summary, Sir, parents with children in the Normal Course believe that their children will ultimately do the GCE 'O' level examination but at a slower pace. Teachers who are teaching Normal course students know that this is far from the truth. Students in the Normal course end up worse off as they are not allowed to do or they are inadequately prepared for the GCE 'O' level examination. We must do something. Already three batches have been streamed.

I propose that, first, the syllabus must cover in each year of study 20% of the total GCE syllabus so that by the time the students complete his Secondary 4 he has already covered 80%. This will equip him better for his GCE 'O' level examination at the fifth year by having to cover only 20% instead of 40-50% at present. Second, allow them to do fewer subjects, maybe four, but at GCE 'O' level standard. This will ensure that they fulfil the Ministry's primary objective of salvaging them. Lastly, I quote again from the Ministry of Education Report, 1978 (page 6-4):

'It must be complemented by a properly-organized implementation programme; a realistic curriculum, competent teachers, sufficient teaching materials and facilities and a healthy social environment.'

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, I would first like to thank the three speakers for the important points they have made concerning several topics thus giving me an opportunity to answer them.

Let me deal first with the question of the CSE and the Normal course, a subject which has been dealt with by the Member for Moulmein and the Member for Ayer Rajah. They quoted this year's examination results which show that 99% of our students achieved one 'O' level pass which indeed is true. But that is only half the story because they may not be aware of the fact that the students who sat for the 'O' level examination last year represented only 72% of the students starting off at Secondary 1 four years ago. In other words, 28% had already disappeared from the scene and never even reached a level to attempt the GCE 'O' level examination. This 28% of the students dropped out at Secondary 1, 2 and 3, and some even at Secondary 4. So when we say that 99% of the students at GCE 'O' level managed to get at least one 'O' level pass, we are talking of what was left of the Secondary 1 cohort, after attrition, who finally arrived to sit for the GCE 'O' level examination.

What about the 28% that were missing? We should see the Normal course and the CSE in its total light, and not deal only with those students that make it to the GCE 'O' level, namely, the 72%, but 100% of the students who join Secondary 1, and see how we can help as many of them as possible to get through secondary education and get as much education as they can before they leave school. So the Normal Course must take into account two different groups of students.

5.00 p.m.

First, the group of students who, the two Members have rightly pointed out, can make it to one or perhaps two 'O' level passes. These are the group of students who, given enough time, will get two 'O' level passes and may even achieve three 'O' level passes. That group is within the 72% that I spoke of. But the second group that the Normal course must cater for are the 28% who have dropped out in the past. These students must have a goal which is attainable. If that goal is raised to a level which is beyond their reach, such as the 'O' level, they will never make it because in the past they have not made it. This goal which we have set for the Normal course is achievable, hopefully, by a large proportion of this 28% who would otherwise drop out, i.e., the CSE. So the Normal course is designed for these two different groups of students progressing at their own pace and, after four years, sit for the CSE examination. With the first group that has the potential to go on to the 'O' level, there is no doubt that they will do well at the CSE examination achieving three or more CSE subjects and many of them will have achieved sufficiently to go on to the fifth year to do their 'O' level. Since they have an extra year, they are likely to do better than just one 'O' level, which is what students like them are achieving today.

On the other hand, the group who were premature school leavers would get hopefully one, if not more, CSE subjects. They would have had four years of secondary education compared to one or two years of secondary education today. For this group of students, it is reasonable for them to expect the CSE to be a terminal examination for them. They will leave school with a certificate. They would have received more education than they would otherwise have got. Even then the door is not barred because some of them undoubtedly will do well enough at CSE to go on to 'O' level. There is no bar. The only bar is their own achievement. How far can they go? How much can they do? I hope this point clears any doubts that may have arisen even from the remarks made today regarding the purpose of the Normal course.

I want to assure Members of the House that there has been no change in the purpose of the Normal course, that it is still intended to enable the slower students, i.e; those who were able to make it to one 'O' level, to make it to two 'O' levels and, at the same time, to help those who were dropping out to stay on to get the CSE.

As for the standard of the CSE examination which was raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah, he said that the CSE was pitched at 50% or 60% of the 'O' level. Secondary 3, which is the year before 'O' level for the Express course, is pitched at 50% of the 'O' level. A student who finishes Secondary 3 would have, roughly speaking, finished half of what he has to complete for the 'O' level, so that when he goes on to Secondary 4, in the Express course, he will complete the rest of it and sit for his 'O' level. So for a student to complete 50% or 60% of his course or his syllabus at CSE and to spend one more year to complete the balance for his 'O' level is not unreasonable. All teachers will be able to tell you that to pass the 'O' level examination, it is not crucial that the student must complete 100% of the syllabus because nobody actually does that. The students complete as much of the syllabus as they can and are still able to pass the examination. What I am saying is that one more year for those from the Normal course-who are going to take the 'O' level should be adequate for them to prepare for that 'O' level examination. On the other hand, if we were to raise the level of CSE, as has been suggested why not make it 70%, so that those who are doing the CSE will complete 70% instead of 50% or 60% of their 'O' level so that when they go into the fifth year they will have less to do and therefore have a better chance of going through the 'O' level - there is also a negative consequence in that more students are not going to make it to the CSE, especially those at the lower end of the group. There are going to be more failures at CSE. Therefore, while you are helping one group at the top end of the Normal Stream, you are also doing a great dis service to those at the lower end of the Normal stream. There has to be a middle course.

Let me just say that there has been no change in the policy concerning the Normal course. If Members read the recommendations very carefully, the one quoted by the Member for Moulmein, it says here, "The CSE is to provide students who could not succeed at the GCE 'O' level with a lower qualification." It goes on in the second part to say, "Pupils may take the GCE 'O' level examination in the fifth year, sitting for the same subjects for which they have performed well at the CSE examination." So the CSE is really trying to cater for two groups of students.

The second point that is worth making concerning the 'O' level is this.Of course, it is every parent's aspiration that his children should make it to the 'O' level and to get as many 'O' level passes as possible. This is the ideal. This is what drives many parents and children to work hard. But, at the same time, we must see the 'O' level in a realistic light. It is a very academic course. In the UK 25% of the students get three 'O' level passes. We are achieving more than that. As we are asking a larger and larger proportion of the cohort to get three 'O'level passes, we are running into difficulties which become insurmountable for the students concerned. From that point of view, if the students are able to achieve a pass at CSE and leave the school system to go on to vocational skills training and so on, it is by far a better alternative than to struggle with only the 'O' level in sight and to perhaps pass one 'O' level or none at all.

Next, let me deal with the point raised by the Member for Moulmein that the new education system should be reviewed and reported to Parliament three years after the Goh Report was adopted by Parliament in 1979. On this point, first of all, my Minister would like to remind the House that in 1981 in the Addendum to the President's Address, a very full report was, in fact, presented to Parliament. It contained 19 pages. It reviewed what had been achieved up to that point of time and it also projected some new matters that were going to be implemented. This is not to say that the Ministry of Education is reluctant to report on the progress that is being made in the implementation of the Goh Keng Swee Report. In fact, as Members know, many reports are made public concerning what is going on in the Ministry. For example, three catalogues comprising 1,077 MCM papers have been published covering the years 1980, 1981 and 1982. These three catalogues are available to Members of the House as well as to bodies outside. They can request for any of the reports contained therein. I note that some Members of the House have indeed availed themselves of these reports, 10 Members to be precise. In these reports, detailed reports on the streaming in the primary schools, secondary schools, the implementation of the monolingual course and so on are available. They run into many pages. At the Schools Council itself, many reports are tabled and reported widely. From the point of view of reporting on what the Ministry is doing, what progress the educational system has made, I think a great deal of information is available.

But I take note of the request by hon. Members that, at some stage, the Ministry of Education should compile a comprehensive report on the implementation and progress of the new education system. We must bear in mind that at present the system has not been implemented a full cycle yet, meaning that the monolingual students are still in the schools. They will not complete and leave the schools until 1985. The CSE examination has not yet been set. It will only take place at the end of next year. These matters are still in the implementation stage, and the system has not yet completed a full cycle. It might be appropriate after that cycle is completed for a more comprehensive report to be made. But, as I have said, the request by Members of the House is noted.

The Member for Nee Soon has brought up three topics. The first is the full-day school. He asked about the full-day school and whether the implementation problems that he has heard of are being studied by the Ministry, and what would be the final outcome of the pilot schools that are trying out the full-day programme. To date, two studies have been carried out by the Ministry on the full-day school. One is concerned with the homework and the workload of the students as a result of the full-day programme, and the second looked at other qualitative factors, such as the problem of meals and lunch and the problem of counselling by teachers, whether there is better rapport between the teachers and the students and so on. A third study is, in fact, under way to see if there are any educational advantages gained by these pilot schools as a result of the full-day programme. Until that study is completed, I think it is premature for us to say whether or not we should go ahead with the full-day school programme. But the Ministry is aware that apart from the implementation problems of the kind mentioned by the Member for Nee Soon, there are some other more fundamental problems, the foremost of which is the need to build a large number of schools if we go full-day and, therefore, the need to use up a lot of land. 5.15 p.m.

The second point he made concerns the computer clubs. In the Oral Answer this afternoon, I have already elaborated on the points concerning the computer clubs. But I would like to inform him that presently a survey is being carried out on all these computer appreciation clubs to see how well these expensive items are being used and whether the students are gaining the benefits we expect from the clubs. Until that survey is completed, we are not ready yet to say whether we will further extend the clubs and to provide more micro-computers.

He also raised the question about the Schools Council and asked whether the Schools Council was fulfilling its purpose. Let me say that the Schools Council is fulfilling its purpose, providing a two-way channel of communication between the Ministry and its officers and school principals. It has provided a forum where many professional matters concerning curriculum, teaching problems, methodology and so on can be discussed openly and frankly with school heads.

The school principals have organized themselves into Zone councils so that Schools Council papers can be discussed at the Zone level before they are discussed at the Schools Council. These Zone councils have been an effective forum for other heads of schools and principals who are not members of the Schools Council to thrash matters out so that their members, who are on the Schools Council, can bring forward their suggestions and ideas. This is one measure that has been taken to further involve school principals in the matters that are being discussed at the Schools Council.

Secondly, the Member for Nee Soon is quite right in saying that many principals come to observe the proceedings of the Schools Council on closed-circuit television. The number varies but an intercom is available between those in the observer room and where the Council meets, so that members who are in the observer room not only observe what is going on but can raise questions and contribute points through the intercom. This is used at every Council meeting, and I think it has improved communication.

Of more importance is the fact that the school principals themselves and groups of principals in neighbouring schools have been coming forward to present reports and memoranda for discussion in the Schools Council. So it is not just the Ministry providing materials for discussion but also vice versa.

As for the appointment of members of the Schools Council, a third of the members are retired each year and new members are appointed. The selection of teachers is by districts or zones so that there is a wide cross-section of teachers from primary and secondary schools and junior colleges.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not at all satisfied with the Minister of State's reply. On the first question about a report being presented to Parliament, I think the answer he gave is rather feeble, about having an addendum. All Ministries put up their addenda. When we talk about a mid-term report, it is specific - a mid-term report on the Goh Keng Swee Report. Because the Goh Keng Swee Report makes very fundamental changes in the education system. And about all those reports he circulates among the Schools Council members, some of them are not easy to understand what it is all about. We want to know whether the Ministry has shifted from the basic changes. And when he presented the report to Parliament, it is not just for us to read when we have nothing to do at home. We want to debate it because we represent the people of Singapore, and if we are not satisfied with the manner in which the Ministry has implemented the report, we are going to say so.

I think the Ministry has shifted from the basic policy of Government to give every child a chance to attain 'O' level, despite his protestations to the contrary. He said something to the effect that if the students fail the CSE they can still proceed to the 'O' level. Did he say something like that just now? He says that that is half the story. I know. But under the old system, when the students reach Secondary 3, they proceed to Secondary 4. Under this system, the Normal course that he has introduced, it is also natural that in the process, at Normal 1, Normal 2, Normal 3, there will be some dropouts. There will be a certain percentage of dropouts, leaving only a reduced percentage at the fourth year. But the point is they reached the Secondary 3 level. And when they reach the Secondary 3 level, they proceed to the Secondary 4 level. In the old system where they were burdened by the second language and all the other burdens, in four years they could still go to Secondary 4, sit for the GCE and get at least one or two 'O' level. 99% of them did that.

But streaming, which is supposed to relieve them of this burden, instead of doing it in three years, the student is supposed to do it in four years. All those who were not fortunate enough, those 28% that he mentioned, dropped out. If, under this new system with an extra year, we are not able to help them reach Secondary 3 level where they have a fighting chance to go to the 'O' level, then what is the point of introducing this system and bring heartaches to all? Why bring in one extra year of education and causing a lot of dislocation to the whole education programme, and costing the Government more money?

What is the whole objective of this new system? The whole objective is to make learning easier, facilitate learning, particularly for the slow learners. The Ministry of Education has got no right to advocate whether the child has the right to sit for the 'O' level or do not have the right to sit for the 'O' level. The 'O' level is important to every child, to every parent, and this is particularly so for those who are less fortunate, but not the professionals. The professionals, the high-fliers, the systems engineers - they have got very brilliant, very impressive academic qualifications. They look upon the 'O' level as nothing. But to those with a humble background, I think attaining the 'O' level is an achievement. It is an important achievement especially in a society which places so much importance on paper qualifications. For them, not being able to get a university education is already a disadvantage but the least they must have is an 'O' level. Why deprive them of the chance? If they cannot get it, that is bad luck. But why do you stream them? Why are you imposing an extra year? It is to help them. So why are you not giving them all the assistance to proceed?

Dr Tay Eng Soon rose -

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, I do not want to be interrupted because I would lose my trend of thought. I did not interrupt him when he spoke.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to make a clarification.

The Chairman: You want to clarify something?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: I want to clarify this point which the Member for Moulmein has been stressing.

Those who are going on to 'O' level via the normal route and who in the past have reached 'O' level, will continue to do so under the new system. There is no reason why the CSE should be a barrier because they should pass the CSE. The Member should be aware of the 28% who number about 10,000 who drop out from school, for whom CSE is a reasonable and attainable goal.

If the Member says that every child in Singapore should have the chance to reach 'O' level, he might be misleading the public because this has never been the case. And if the Member conveys this view to the public - that every child in Singapore can and should reach 'O' level - I think this would lead the public into an unrealistic expectation, because no educational system as far as I know has been able to remotely achieve that. So let us see the CSE in its proper light. First, the CSE is to cater for those who would otherwise drop out from school, and they are not a small number, not a few dropping out each year. It is 10,000 or so. And, at the same time, the CSE allows those who have the ability to get to 'O' level to do so, and this is provided for in the Normal course where they take five years instead of four.

This is the message we want to assure parents of, but not to raise the impossible expectation that every child should have the right to reach 'O' level and so on, because this is unattainable. No system, as far as I know, has been able to achieve that. As Members here, we ought to look at the system and the capabilities of students going through school as realistically as possible.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister of State has not understood what I have said, that a child should be given the opportunity to reach the 'O' level. I am quite aware that not every child in Singapore can reach the 'O' level because there are so many bars - streaming at Primary 3, PSLE at Primary 6, and what have you. What I am saying is that a child has come a long way to reach Secondary 3. But the Minister of State says he cannot go on to 'O' level if he does not have three CSE passes with a maximum of eight points. That is my point. The point is if a child is able to reach Secondary 3, then I think he should be given a chance to go on to Secondary 4. I agree that not every child could be given a chance to go up to Secondary 4. Some will drop out in the process. That is correct. But the opportunity must be given. If he does not take advantage of the opportunity to meet the requirements of the system and gets out in the process, then he is out fairly and squarely. This is in the old system which is already a tough system. But the Ministry has now come out with another hurdle, the CSE level. One more hurdle to cross. This is the point - having cleared so many hurdles to reach Secondary 3 where, under the old system they were all allowed to proceed, the Minister of State now says that they cannot proceed to Secondary 4.

As the Member for Ayer Rajah pointed out, in one of the reports, it is said that nearly 65% of the Normal course cohort at the CSE level would not be allowed to sit for the 'O' level examination. Does he know what is the number involved? How many children's lives are involved and their parent's lives are involved each year? I dread the day when this is implemented as I think we are going to get a lot of members of the public coming to us and say, "Please get a place for my child." The Minister of State says that just because a child has failed the CSE, he cannot do the 'O' level. He is the Chairman of the VITB which took over the Adult Education Board. Why were we spending money on the adult education board? What was the adult education board for? It was for those who did not make it during school, was it not? How many of them have passed despite the fact that they are working? They work, they study, after having failed in school which is one extra handicap, yet they passed. Why is the Ministry not providing them with one extra year, which in the past has been provided to them, to study and obtain the 'O' level? Is this not their right? That is my question. I am not misleading the public when I say that every child should be given a chance to reach the 'O' level. I think that is the important difference. 5.30 p.m.

The Minister of State talks about this poor 28%, that it is better to let them have the CSE. If he can persuade the 28% who dropped out in the process to take the CSE, that is fine. I am all for that. He says that those who would normally pass should pass the CSE. He is not quite aware of how examination can affect people. Examination is not a fool-proof system to test whether a person is capable or not. Sometimes even a person who has passed the 'O' level will probably fail the CSE if you make him sit the test. If he does not believe me, I am willing to get somebody to conduct some tests on, say, those who have passed B.A. (Hons.). If they were to take their B.A. degree again, they may fail.

I think those who are involved in education know that there are many other factors. The point is, the public has been protesting. The teachers have been protesting. The system has been overburdened. The parents are becoming neurotic because they are anxious that their children would be dropped out in the process. The old system was already overburdened. The Goh Report recommended a new system. It is supposed to relieve, to make it easier, and to look after the slow learners, and I can quote chapters expressing such sentiments. What has happened to those sentiments? What is happening? Is it because the Ministry is run by men who are mesmerized by statistics, who get lost in the process and forget the most important human factor? What are we doing for education? If this Government does not give every young Singaporean the chance, a feeling that he has got the chance, an opportunity made as easy as possible without weakening standards so that he can attain the best grade possible and not a system which finds ways and means of making it more difficult, then I think this Government has breached its promise to the people. I do not believe the Government has flinched from this. It is not because I am a member of the Government that I am saying this to the Minister. It is because education is very important, and that is why we are so excited about starting the BEST programmes, and all kinds of programmes. Even to the worker, persuading him just to improve by one grade more than what he has attained is so important. To a 16-year-old boy probably, what is he going to do? He is too early to go for national service; too late to find a job because nobody wants to employ him. He may become a drug addict probably. One more year away from getting the 'O' level. Do you know that one more year in school, the social interactions, all your campaigns, despite what the Member for Whampoa has said, has got a tremendous effect on the children. In an atmosphere where other values are also being taught - loyalty, team spirit, moral values and all the things that we are trying to propagate - in the vital age of the child, at the age of 16 years, an impressionable age which I think is the best age during which we can hold them, you are doing everything possible to get rid of them. What kind of administration do you have in the Ministry of Education?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I fully agree with what the Member for Moulmein has said about salvaging the less capable students, and he has debated it so well that I hope the point has been driven home to the Minister.

The Minister has mentioned that 28% of the Normal course students have little hope of passing the GCE 'O' examination? Am I right?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Yes.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: In that case, why not put them into the VITB in the first place rather than make them go through this course?

I would like to ask one question. Is it true that teachers have been instructed to pass 90% of the Normal course students? They were given no definite written Normal course syllabus to cover. This means that to achieve this pass rate of 90%, Normal course students must be taught at the pace of the slowest learner. The Minister has not answered two of my queries: one is on intelligence test and the other is on double weightage.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, I feel I must correct any misimpression that the Member for Moulmein may leave with the Members of the House or with the public at large. He is championing a situation where as many of our students as possible should be given the chance to do the 'O' Levels because he says that this was the system that we have had and it is that very system which had resulted in 28% who do not even reach Secondary 4.

He says that CSE is another examination and therefore it is an obstacle. Every year there is an examination in school at every level. And in the old system where they were all rushing through four years, every year students who failed were retained; those who were over-aged left school. In the Normal course the syllabus has been reduced for each of the years; and the passing criterion, which is what the Member for Ayer Rajah alluded to, has been reduced to a pass in L1 and any two other subjects so that a student in the Normal course can proceed from one year to the next. That is as low as we can reduce the passing criterion. I am sure the Member for Moulmein will agree with me that the new system is a far more humane one, making it possible for more students to remain in school to receive as much education as they can before they finally have to leave at CSE or for some at 'O' level. He is saying that CSE is preventing students from getting to do 'O' level. CSE is an examination, in this case a public examination but not unlike a school examination. If a student reaches CSE and does badly in his CSE, is the Member suggesting that we should still give him the chance to go on to Secondary 5 to do his 'O' level despite the fact he has done very badly at CSE? Perhaps it is better for him to leave school with a CSE, one subject or two subjects, and go into skills training, vocational training, or develop some marketable skills so that he can go on into the world of work. But the Member seems to think that if the student fails his CSE, we should still let him have a chance to do his 'O' level, knowing that the results are predictable. I think the stand that the Ministry has taken, which is derived from the policy of 1979, is a realistic one.

He says one more year in school means these students are less likely to become drug addicts and secret society gangsters and so on. Let me just say that the old system which we had where pupils leave school at Secondary 1 and Secondary 2 creates a much greater chance of more students going astray into drug addiction or crimes and so on because they are no longer in school. This has been the case. The system which we now have where the pupil would remain in school for a longer period of time reduces this chance. Surely this is a more humane system than the one that he advocates we should return to.

Let me deal with the two points raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah, which I apologize for having overlooked. The first point he raised is that of double weightage for the first and second language at PSLE. He asked whether this has any adverse effect on streaming, distorting the pattern of streaming of students going into Normal or the Express stream. Let me say that this very subject is under very close scrutiny and study at the moment because there are borderline cases who will be affected by this.

The double weightage policy itself has a long history. In the case of the first language, it dates back to 1963, and double weightage for the second language dates back to 1973. The purpose of the policy in those days was precisely to emphasize the importance of language and the importance of bilingualism. This is the policy which we have retained up to now, but we should now examine it in the light of the new education system and, if necessary, make changes. But we should not rush into this and make changes simply because some students find it difficult to do the second language and therefore feel that the change is for the better. We should be very careful about making changes of this kind.

He also touched on the question of IQ test, whether these tests should be used for the purpose of streaming. Let me say that IQ tests are a class of tests that require a great deal of expertise, first, in devising these tests and, secondly, in interpreting the results of such tests. Let me give an account from other educational systems, for example, in the UK when they had the 11-plus examinations. At one time IQ tests were incorporated into the 11-plus examinations. The results of those tests had errors. Pupils were being wrongly streamed by the predictions of those tests. So we should be very careful when we look at this whole subject of IQ tests. First, whether we have the expertise to handle them and, secondly, what is the experience of other people in the use of such tests.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, before I withdraw my amendment, I just want to say that I have other amendments to move and I intend to carry the debate over to the other amendments. For the moment I will withdraw this amendment to allow you to provide tea time and to let off the heat.

The Minister of State is a nice person. I am in full sympathy with him for policies which probably at one time he was not even a party to them.

The Chairman: So are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: I am withdrawing my amendment, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I think we will take a break now.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and shall take the Chair again at 6.15 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.45 p.m. until 6.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 6.15 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head L (cont.) -

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LA-01 of the Main Estimates*.

Sir, as I was saying just now, a veritable array of formidable mountain peaks now separate the school child from the desired goal. He has to cross over many perilous watersheds before he can even think of attempting the mountain at the end of the school course. Many who might have made their way up this mountain with some degree of success, given the right training and assistance, will have fallen by the wayside, victims of a terrain that tends to discourage rather than encourage the development of latent abilities. Eventually even subjects like Moral Education will become examinable. Are we not making the education system more competitive and fraught with unnecessary burdens for our children? Do we want a generation of future citizens troubled with a sense of early failure and of broken dreams of what might have been had they been given a fairer chance in school?

The Goh Keng Swee Report, Chapter 4, para 2, under the heading "The Existing Education System" states:

'The 'single-curriculum' education system does not take into consideration differences in absorption capacities and rates of learning of the pupils. Although pupils may be streamed according to merit into different classes and schools, all are required to cover the same syllabus within the same period and to sit for the same examinations. This rigidity in the system tends to favour the above-average pupils, penalising the below-average pupils and the slow learners. This resulted in high failure rates. In 1976, 41% of the PSLE candidates and 40% of the GCE 'O' candidates failed. These high failure rates could be reduced if the education system is flexible enough to cater for the different categories of pupils.' The last sentence of the paragraph implies that when the NRES is implemented with lateral streaming at primary and secondary levels, the high failure rates could be reduced.

Last year, the GCE 'O' level students who were taught under the old system scored 75% passes and 99% of them passed in at least one subject at 'O' level. If you compare the,1976 GCE 'O' level results with the 1982 'O' level results, you will notice that there is a marked improvement between the performance of pupils in 1976 and 1982 and yet the GCE candidates in both years were taught under the old system. What this seems to signify very graphically is that there are other more effective means of reducing the attrition rate in examinations than the mere application of the streaming method as recommended by the Goh Report. What the recommended streaming method really does is to eliminate the supposedly weak pupils through a vigorous obstacle course comprising such hurdles as the Primary 3 streaming exercise, the Primary 6 School Leaving Examination, the Secondary 1 streaming exercise and the CSE for Normal course students.

Let us now look at last year's PSLE results. Percentage pass, 87%. The pupils were the products of the New Restructured Education System. In 1980, at a meeting with school principals, a Ministry official projected the percentage pass in 1982 for the first batch of students under the NRES to be 95%. This estimation was based on the statistics of previous PSLE results and it took into account the fact that the monolingual pupils would not be sitting for the examination. Consequently, it was expected that there would be a dramatic increment in the rate of percentage passes in comparison to that of previous years when all pupils were allowed to sit for the PSLE. This was unfortunately a pipe-dream.

Let us look at the actual facts. The pass rate under the old system was about 82% in 1981. This result compares favourably with the 1982 result if you take into account the fact that the weaker pupils were not channelled into the Monolingual stream and practically all pupils were allowed to sit for the PSLE, Based on the

1982 PSLE results, streaming did not achieve the high rate of PSLE passes that was confidently predicted and expected. But streaming effectively barred those who were channelled into the monolingual course from sitting for the PSLE in 1982 as they would normally have done had it not been for streaming.

It would seem that streaming only produced a marginal increase in the rate of PSLE passes despite the weeding out of supposedly weak pupils, The difference in performance between the cohort of 1981 under the old system and that of 1982 under the new system is only 5.6% increase. In 1981, it was 81.7%, 1982, 87.3%. Compare this with the more impressive difference in the PSLE results of 1979 and 1980, namely, 9.1% .In 1979, it was 74.2%, 1980, 83.3%. This is a 9.1% jump. These pupils took the examination before the introduction of the present form of lateral streaming.

From this set of statistics I have just cited as well as for other reasons, is it not fair to suggest that a review of the Goh Report is both necessary and timely? A review would enable this House to see if the original assumptions and basis of arriving at some of the recommendations, especially on streaming, are still valid and, if so, whether the manner in which the recommendations have been implemented needs adjustment.

Sir, the Normal stream programme in the secondary schools is now in the second year. Are the official syllabuses for all the subjects in the Normal course readily available, assuming that there are official syllabuses? How different are these from the syllabuses for the Express stream? Are there sets of specially prepared textbooks available for the pupils? Or are these selected on an ad hoc basis? The programme prepares pupils for the CSE examination. Is a pre-tested sample for the CSE now available? In other words, if they want to prepare the students for the CSE examination next year, I think the teachers have to start working with the students, giving them sets of model questions and so on, so that they all can be prepared for this examination. Has the Ministry got a pre-tested sample available at this moment for all teachers to follow?

The Chairman: May I remind hon. Members that guillotine time for this Head is 8.00 p.m. and we still have 17 speakers on 10 amendments.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Sir, my two colleagues, the Member for Moulmein and the Member for Ayer Rajah, have touched on many issues on streaming and the curricula. I would like to talk on the SAP schools, a matter which many Chinese-educated are concerned about.

On 30th November 1978 the SAP schools scheme began with a loud bang. At that time, the Prime Minister also said that the nine SAP schools would take in only the golden carps from the grey ones, namely, the cream of the students. However, just four years after the first batch of the SAP students emerged from the chute, the Ministry of Education indicated, as the Minister of State has said when he answered a question put by the Member for Boon Teck just now, that it would be beating a retreat from such a scheme.

There would almost be no more supply of the fish now, whether golden or grey ones. This is yet another example of the indecisiveness of the Ministry in respect of the bilingual policy.

In 1979 the nine SAP secondary schools began to take in Special course students and at that time nearly 100% of the top 10% students from the Chinese schools opted for the Special course in these nine SAP schools. However, only 25% of the top 10% students from the English schools chose to go to the nine SAP schools. I was with the Ministry for some time.

There are three reasons why top students from the English schools do not opt for the SAP schools. First, parents think that there is no tangible benefit in studying CL1. A pass in CL2 will be more than sufficient. The second reason is that parents are worried that their children are not able to cope with two L1s. Third, owing to the historical reasons and results of past examinations, parents have a varied assessment of the nine SAP schools; and so if a child is not able to get into a SAP school of his own choice, the parent would enrol him in an Express course in an English school rather than send him to any other SAP school.

Of the three factors, the third is more in the nature of administrative procedure and hence it is easier to solve. At present, the Ministry of Education stipulates that if a student in the top 8% wishes to opt for a SAP school, he can be put in any one SAP school, not necessarily the school of his choice. The rationale for such a measure is to have a better spread of top students among the nine SAP schools. But such measure is counter-productive. As I have said, if a child cannot get into a SAP school of his own choice, the parent would rather send him to an English school. I would like to know whether the Ministry has any remedial measure to improve the procedure governing students' choice of a SAP school.

Regarding the second factor, judging from the results of the combined school examination taken by the first batch of SAP students, parents can well feel at ease. The results indicate that students coming from the English schools have done exceedingly well in CL1 : 93% passed and 37% with distinctions. Their performance in EL1 is comparable to the best students in English schools. For the Chinese stream students the excellent performance in CL1 is expected, while their performance in EL1 is considered to be very encouraging. Of the nine SAP schools as a whole, 55% of the students passed EL1. From what I know, for the three SAP schools, over 85% of the candidates from the Chinese stream passed EL1. I would like to congratulate these students for their achievement. The good performance of the first batch of SAP students will serve as a timely boost for the SAP scheme and to clear up any anxiety of parents that their children might not cope with two L1s. The fact clearly shows that the reluctance of the top 8% students to enrol in SAP schools is not because they cannot cope with the two languages at L1 level but because they do not want to study two languages at L1 level. ( ). Therefore, we are left with the third answer, namely, the crux of the matter lies with the first factor which relates to the question of the value of CL1. I would like to know what steps the Ministry of Education will take to convince parents and these 10% students of the value of CL1. Perhaps the officers of the Ministry of Education also regard a pass in CL2 to be quite sufficient. 6.30 p.m.

We often, say that parents are quite pragmatic in sending their children to English schools and not Chinese schools. But sometimes it has something to do with the measures of the Ministry of Education. Let me give an example. In 1979 the Ministry of Education set up pre-primary classes in some Chinese schools. Before 1979, the enrolment for Primary 1 Chinese schools was going down every year. In 1980 when the first batch of pre-primary students were promoted to Primary 1, the number of Primary 1 students in Chinese schools that year was more than that for 1979. However, in September last year the Ministry of Education suddenly distributed questionnaires to parents of pre-primary pupils asking which stream, English or Chinese, they wanted their children to join in Primary 1. I fail to understand the reason for this. Originally, parents send their children to the pre-primary classes to enable them to receive education in Chinese schools for a few years. These questionnaires caused much surprise and aroused much anxiety in many parents. Many parents choose to follow the majority. They would rather sway with the wind, .and so they opted for the English stream so that their children might not lose out. I understand that 10% to 12% of the 1982 enrolment for Primary 1 opted for Chinese schools. Consequently the enrolment for Primary 1 in Chinese schools this year (1983) is pitifully small, just 2%, according to the Minister of State.

May I ask the Ministry of Education what is the intention of conducting such a survey by asking the parents to fill up the questionnaire? If the Ministry wants to satisfy certain English educated parents or those who regard English as more important, then why do they not just set up pre-primary classes in English schools instead? Why should they set up pre-primary classes in Chinese schools in order to ensure an intake of students? I sympathize with the Minister of State because the problem of language is difficult to solve. If we raise the standard of the mother tongue, many people may not be happy, and vice versa.

May I advance some "unpleasant" advice to the Ministry of Education. The lowering of the standard of the mother tongue is not just a question of the quality of language. Language is to transmit culture, language is a matter of culture and traditional values, a major question of heritage. Education is a centenarian plan. To educate a man, it takes a century, to plant a tree, it takes a decade. Like chess, a wrong move may cause one to lose the whole game. If we allow one whole generation to be lost, how are we going to account to history? Do not forget that according to the population census carried out in 1980, about 604,000 people were literate in Chinese, 320,000 people were literate in English, while the bilingual (English and Chinese) population was about 370,000. I hope the Ministry of Education takes great care in formulating its language policy, as it involves our social stability, political stability and a lot of other major issues.

Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore): Mr Speaker, I will be brief as you have warned us that there are several other speakers who wish to speak on the amendments to the Ministry of Education's budget. In the debate in March 1979, I warned the House and explained very clearly to the Minister of Education at that time that there were distinct differences in the learning of languages, one was the recognition of phonetics and the other the recognition and recalling of patterns. And that was why we should not try to equate student ability with the ability to be fluent in both English and Chinese because these two languages were vastly different and unrelated to each other.

We do not have to go too far to learn from the experience of the Japanese. There are 116 million Japanese, and we can ask ourselves how many of them do speak or use English as fluently as they do Japanese. Likewise in Taiwan, how many Taiwanese have we met who can speak and write English as fluently as they can in Chinese? And there are one billion Chinese. They do find problems learning English.

The problems of Education today have arisen from the fundamental disability of the Ministry of Education to dissect education from politics. The idea of being bilingual is being imposed upon a student population, which is a small population. It is a pity that the political desire to make everybody bilingual, because we are living in a multi-lingual society, has distorted our education system.

Now we did ask for a report from the Ministry of Education so that we would be able to identify whether progress has been made or what difficulties have been encountered in implementing the restructuring of the education policy. No report has been submitted to Parliament which, I think, is not just disgraceful but an insult to Parliament. If Members of Parliament do just sit back silently, then they deserve the insult. Since no report has been submitted, I would like to pose a few questions to the Minister of Education and I hope they will be answered.

First, how many students passed the 'O' level examination without a second language? How many students passed the 'A' level examination without a second language? How many students applied for admission into the National University of Singapore but have not been admitted? How many of those who have not been admitted had no second language pass at 'AO' level? Is the Ministry or the Public Service Commission aware of the number of Singapore students who have not been admitted into the National University of Singapore but have been admitted to universities either in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada or even New Zealand? Lastly, how many students are in the Monolingual stream in English, Chinese, Malay or Tamil? In the light of what the Member for Moulmein and the Member for Ayer Rajah have said, I think it is not just desirable but urgent that the public be informed of the results of the restructuring of the education system that we have in Singapore. If the Minister cannot provide the answers to these questions today, I hope he would do so at some future date.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi (Kampong Kembangan): Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to a Question for oral answer earlier this afternoon, the Minister of State informed the House of the declining admissions into the SAP schools. He also gave some reasons for the decline and indicated, in rather broad terms, the possible solutions to this problem.

I would like to take this opportunity to discuss what he has suggested just now and consider the possible implications of the SAP schools as well as the students in the other streams, particularly TL1 and ML1. Essentially the concept of giving the best facilities, environment and teaching to the students with the best potential is a profoundly important instrument to help ensure the systematic grooming of our future leaders, managers, policy-makers and professionals. In principle, I share this concept and I think we must not change it. I, therefore, regret that the SAP programme has not succeeded.

As for the reasons, I am not too sure whether the Minister has time to cover all the reasons for the failure, but I would like to share the views of my colleague, the Member for Leng Kee, that there should be a more in-depth study of the problems of the SAP schools. We were told specifically that in view of the decline in the number of admissions, the Ministry would be modifying the plans of the SAP programme by taking certain measures which I consider a form of compromise to the basic concept which I mentioned just now. The original purpose of the SAP school and the basic criteria rest on the requirement of CL1. If you change the criteria, then the whole principle of SAP is defeated. Not only that, it opens up a wider scope for other questions to arise. I say this because when the SAP schools were introduced, I had the opportunity to discuss with my colleagues, teachers in other streams, the basis on which to justify the SAP schools, that we need to select the top students, EL1 and CL1, and there are reasons for this. But once you change this to CL2, then the people ask "Why"? Why cannot the other students be considered as well? I fear that this could be a problem to those in the ML1 and TL1. I think the claim to have a scheme similar to SAP will become more valid. I personally prefer that we stick to the original SAP principle, but if there is any need to change, then let us take a broader concept. I recall that this House had the privilege of listening to the comments or proposals from some Members on the national type of SAP schools. I think we should consider this concept seriously.

I have another point which concerns the possible expansion of the scheme that will provide for part-time courses for working Singaporeans. I think the Minister of State is aware that there are many school leavers who have the qualifications but cannot continue with their tertiary studies. They have to work. These people have the potential for education at a higher level. There was a proposal to have part-time courses leading to degrees or even diplomas. I am aware of the problems of expanding or introducing more part-time courses in the University. In fact, I know that we tried this previously with the Law degree but the programme had not met with any success. But I think it is worthwhile to explore again the possibility of expanding the part-time courses leading to university degrees. But maybe we could spend more time now to consider more part-time courses on the technical subjects, in this regard with the establishment of the Nanyang Technological Institute. I think we should take this opportunity to consider such part-time courses.

6.45 p.m.

The third point concerns a rather mundane problem, the noise level in schools. I am aware that the Ministry has discussed this problem recently. But as a matter of feedback, I would like to relate this to the Minister. There are certain new schools in my constituency which are beautiful but because of the design the noise level is high. I am sure that the PWD when designing this school has taken this into account. But the fact remains that the noise level has been found to be high, not only by the parents who came to see me but also by the teachers with whom I had a brief discussion. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify whether, in the planning of new schools, the problem of noise levels is being exhaustively looked into.

There is also one minor problem concerning a constituent, Singapore citizen woman who married a Malaysian citizen. After a number of years they are divorced and the child is in the care of the Singapore citizen mother. Maybe they have contravened the regulations on marriage imposed by the Immigration authorities. But I think the Ministry should try and look at the problem, not from the Immigration point of view but from the education point of view. The child was born in Singapore and the guardian is a Singapore citizen, and I do not think that the child should be penalized for the rest of his life, particularly in respect of education. I have made some appeals to the Ministry and the chances are that the Ministry will just quote the regulations relating to the marriage policy. But in the interest of education, the Ministry should try and advise the Immigration authorities on why we should consider treating this child as a child born in Singapore and the child of a Singapore citizen.

Finally, about teachers. Whenever I meet students, the first thing I always ask is, "How is your principal?" Then I ask, "How are your teachers?" In most cases, they say that they have very good principals and very good teachers. But there are some instances where they tell me that the content of the conversation between teachers and students sometimes relate to matters which can lead to a lowering of respect by the students for the teachers. They do joke to make things friendly but sometimes the jokes are in bad taste. Maybe this is very incidental but the occasions which have been related to me are quite frequent. I do not know whether there could be a need for the Ministry to reiterate this point - that whenever teachers talk to pupils even in football fields or outside the class, whatever the teachers say is taken seriously by the students.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the point that a report should be made to Parliament regarding the progress of the new education system, which has been mentioned by the Member for Rochore as well as the Member for Moulmein, I have already said that we will certainly look into this. Obviously from the points that have been raised, there is much that need to be made better known to Members of the House and to the public. So this is a matter that we will look into.

The Member for Leng Kee touched on two topics, namely, the SAP schools and the pre-primary schools. He asked in his speech on the SAP schools what can be done to attract more students to join the Special course, namely, the CL1 and EL1 course. I think Members of the House know that a great deal of effort, in fact, has been done by the Ministry in this respect. For example, the SAP schools enjoy a much better pupil-teacher ratio which is known to the parents and to the students. As many as 50% of their teachers are graduates compared with a lower percentage in the non-SAP schools. They have facilities for language learning and so on. So the special programme in the SAP schools enjoys a large measure of support, recognizing that it is difficult even for able students to deal with EL1 and CL1 at that level.

Notwithstanding that, as I said earlier, in my oral reply, there is a downward trend in the enrolment or intake into the SAP schools, steadily over the past five years including this year. The Member for Leng Kee has very clearly stated the reasons why some of the parents are not sending their children to do the Special course. I agree with him. I think he has made a very clear analysis of the reasons.

Whether any more can be done to encourage students to join the Special course in spite of what has already been done is another matter. But this year, as we all know, the results of the first batch who took the 'O' level have been very good. They have done as well if not slightly better than the same top 10% who were in the non-SAP schools. This, I think, should give confidence to more parents that it is possible for the ablest students to do the Special course and to do well. The results have been widely publicized. We will, of course, be monitoring the intake for next year to see if this has registered with parents when they make a choice for the enrolment of their children.

The Member raised the point that some administrative problems may have been one cause for parents hesitating to enrol their children in the SAP schools, namely, in order to achieve a better spread of students among the nine SAP schools, parents have not been given the school of their choice. This is not so. In fact, they have been given a choice. But, of course, failing to get the first choice, alternatives have to be offered within the SAP schools. Nevertheless, the administrative aspects are noted, and where they can be improved upon, we shall certainly do so - to make it less deterrent, or more convenient, for parents to register their children for the SAP schools.

As regards pre-primary schools, he asked why did the Ministry carry out a survey last year to find out the desires of parents for their children, whether they want them to go on to the English stream or the Chinese stream in primary school. As a result of a lot of demand by parents for this option, the Ministry felt that a survey should be carried out to see what the demand is of parents whose children are in pre-primary schools.

But over and above this, the pre-primary programme has been in operation since 1979 and the first batch that reached Primary 3, namely, the batch of 1979, passed the Primary 3 last year. As you know, in the pre-primary programme it was stated right from the beginning that after Primary 3 parents would have the choice of opting whether their children should go on to the Chinese stream or English stream. In that first batch, after Primary 3, 77% opted to go to the English stream. These are clear indications by parents of what they perceive to be the right choice and decision for their children, and we must take serious note of such desires.

It is with this feedback, as well as the fact that the pre-primary intake itself from 1979 to 1983 has also been on the decline, that the recent offer of the option for registration in Primary 1 was made. Between 1979 and 1983 after an initial interest in the pre-primary course, the intake had dropped by 25%. I think we cannot ignore these trends and hold firm to a position irrespective of what are the real wishes of parents for their children. So this year, the pre-primary batch going into Primary 1 were given the option to choose either the EL stream or CL stream in the same schools. The result is that many of them, in fact, a high percentage or over 80%, chose to go to the EL stream and in the same schools that they have registered under.

I think we must recognize that, over the intervening four years, the Chinese primary schools themselves have undergone a change in those four years. Many of them have become dual stream schools. Some of them have become wholly EL stream schools. They have undergone changes themselves, reflecting the demands of parents for the streams so that, far from the danger that many of the Chinese primary schools will close down, many of them in fact have changed into integrated schools and have continued to take in students into both streams and more and more into the EL stream. So what we are observing is a transition. Many of the good Chinese primary schools are being preserved by the very fact that they are changing in their course structure. 7.00 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Dr Tay Eng Soon: The question is whether the pre-primary policy, which was enunciated in 1979 whereby students must go on from Primary 1, 2 to 3 in CL stream because they had gone into schools which were considered to be Chinese primary schools, should remain irrespective of these changes that are taking place. If we continue with that policy, I think we will see a decline in the enrolment into the pre-primary course because parents want their children to go into the EL stream at Primary 1 rather than wait till Primary 4. Of course, changes in the SAP course as well as in the pre-primary that I have described and have been expressed by the Member for Leng Kee have wider implications such as cultural heritage and so on. I do not think this is the moment to discuss or to speculate on these wider implications. At the heart of it, however, we must recognize parental choices, parental wishes are involved and we must be prepared to meet these parental wishes as far as we can.

The Member for Rochore raised several questions. I do not propose to give him the details now but rather wait until the report that has been called for by him is ready because these are details which should be properly presented in the total context of what has taken place in our educational system.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan raised several issues. I think I have answered him concerning the special course and why the change has taken place. He also asked about part-time courses for Singaporeans to do further education. I am pleased to inform him that, in fact, at the diploma level at the two Polytechnics, this has been going on and the enrolment has been steadily going up. So the opportunity for working people who want to get back into a technical course to improve themselves is there and is being offered by the Polytechnics. At the lower level, the VITB offers numerous courses, of all kinds, including courses leading to 'O' level and 'A' level, which the Member for Moulmein talked about earlier, an opportunity for people to take their 'O' level or 'A' level again. These courses are there and thousands register each year in these part-time courses run by the VITB leading to 'O' and 'A' levels and also to technical qualifications.

I take note of what the Member for Kampong Kembangan has said about noise level. I will certainly feed this back to the PWD who are responsible for the design of the schools. We are aware of this problem and as far as possible, we want to locate schools to minimize the noise problem. But this is not possible in every case because the sites for some of these schools have been chosen and reserved many years ago and roads have been built after the sites have been chosen. It may be possible in some cases to change sites but in other cases it may not be possible. But where a school has been located near a major road, the architects generally locate the school as far back as possible, leaving enough space for a playing field between the school and the road. In some cases noise reduction measures, such as earth bunds, trees and so on, are introduced to minimize the problem. I can assure him that this is a matter which is of concern to the Ministry whenever new schools are being planned and built.

His point regarding the pupil whose mother is a Singapore citizen and who is divorced, I suggest he brings this matter up with me and I would certainly look into it on his behalf.

His final point about teachers, we will take note of it. It is very desirable that teachers' relationship with their pupils should be good and one that sets a good example, but I think we have to allow for human limitations and failings from time to time.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, just a last point for the Minister to note. I suggested in the debate four years ago that perhaps the Ministry of Education could copy 2,500 characters which are most frequently used in the Chinese newspapers in China for the teaching of Chinese, and so make the teaching of Chinese much easier, more acceptable, and therefore more agreeable with parents' understanding of children's aptitude and ability.

With this last note, I would like to thank the Minister for his explanation on this amendment, and on behalf of my other colleagues I would like to withdraw.

The Chairman: Mr Sia, would you like to withdraw?

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: I beg leave to formally withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Paniang): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LB-02 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to voice my concern and apprehension over the state of, and interest shown, in physical fitness and mental health by our youth. In the pursuit of academic achievements and material gains, I am afraid, most of our youths are neglecting their physical well-being. To be successful even in material comfort, Sir, physical fitness is an essential factor for it is said that a sound body breeds a sound mind.

Physical fitness is the very basis of our national defence, increased productivity and rugged society. I am aware of the fact that far from utilizing a considerable part of their energy, enthusiasm and interests in physical activities, most of our youths in schools are deeply engrossed in the paper chase. In this context it would be true to say that the present day youths lack the adventure spirit that was prevalent in the youths of earlier generations.

I am sorry, Sir, that when I speak about physical fitness I seem akin to an old gramophone record that keeps repeating on the same groove. The key to a fitter people is an effective physical education programme for all categories of pupils in our schools. However, I gather that a major obstacle to such a programme is the lack of full-time PE teachers who are adequately trained. According to statistics available from the Resource Planning Branch of the Ministry of Education, there are a total of 882 PE teachers in our schools and most of them do not possess any diplomas, degrees or certificates in physical education. Furthermore, the majority of them are untrained or partially trained.

To emphasise the dire need for an effective and proper training institution to train PE teachers, Sir, the question of setting up a College of Physical Education in our Republic was raised on a previous occasion in this House. It is quite some time since the Minister of State of Education stated that action was being taken to set up the said college, and I would like to know how the project is progressing? When will the first batch of graduates be available to give the long overdue boost to physical education in our schools? In the meantime, what steps have been taken to implement the PE programme effectively? I wonder also if any form of monitoring is done as to the proper implementation of the PE programme in schools, particularly taking into account the interest shown and inclinations of the Principals and staff.

I have to seek answers to these queries, Sir, because shortfalls in the implementation of the PE programme at all levels of schools, have resulted in a snowballing effect in the army when our youths report for National Service. Much time is wasted in attempting to build up the physical fitness of our NS trainees before they begin their basic military training. If our youths are sufficiently and physically prepared while in schools and junior colleges, then much time and effort could be saved.

To solve this problem effectively, I feel it would be pertinent to instil the qualities of physically-fit consciousness amongst our youths right from an early age. Once this attitude is firmly inculcated in our youngsters, it would become a part of the normal way of life. Keeping oneself fit could also have an important place in life, just as would acquiring sound education, wearing good clothes or eating nutritious food. Such youths would become an asset to the nation. This attitude could be further fostered and nurtured in the Armed Forces, so that it remains in their minds and habits well into adulthood and old age. Furthermore, Sir, with about 70% of our people living in HDB flats, life in general, has become more domestic and sedentary. Thus, it is all the more necessary that people, both young and old, become concerned with the promotion of physical fitness.

In order to achieve this realistically, it is imperative that a dedicated and enthusiastic corps of Physical Education teachers, well qualified and motivated, be formed. This corps of specialists, while catering for the general physical well-being of society, could also provide special assistance to those who wish to excel in their chosen field of games and sports. Hopefully, the future national team participants could benefit immensely through proper and specialized coaching by these PE experts.

Finally, Sir, I would like to get further feedback and clarifications about the progress of the long awaited PE College. 7.15 p.m.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, I share the concern of the Member for Pasir Panjang that physical education could be and should be better taught to our students, especially to boys in the secondary schools. This is a subject which has engaged the Ministry's attention for some time.

I mentioned in answer to a question sometime last year in this House that we had conducted a feasibility study and were at that time waiting for an expert to come from another country to review the feasibility study and to advise us where to go next. I am pleased to inform the Member for Pasir Panjang that the expert has reviewed our plans and has recommended strongly that a PE College be set up. The final decision is about to be taken and, barring any unforeseen circumstances, the plans should proceed with the setting up of a PE College which will train GCE 'A' level holders for the Diploma for Physical Education. The initial intake will be modest, of about 50 persons, and we hope that the first intake can take place in June 1984.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LB-03 of the Main Estimates.

In making my comments under this Subhead, I intend to range my comments to cover topics under Amendment No. (7)* which I do not intend to move.

Actually, Sir, I want to take this opportunity to inquire from the Minister of State of the progress in respect of the interview for the Senior Education Service (SES). When does he expect the process to be completed? Does his Ministry expect a large number of the present vice-principals, principals, education officers, senior education officers in the Ministry of Education, to be appointed to the Senior Education Service? And does he foresee any problems that would arise after this exercise? I am quite sure his Ministry will advise him: no problems. But let me tell him that a lot of problems will arise as a result of this exercise, and I will just mention a few.

At the present moment, principals, vice-principals and even senior subject teachers in the junior colleges are eligible to apply, including the inspectors of schools. This is supposed to be a prestigious service, equivalent to a Superscale grade. In other words, there is a recognition. I just want to know how would this do for morale if in a school, the vice-principal is appointed but the principal is not appointed, or in a junior college, the senior subject teacher is appointed but both the vice-principal and principal are not appointed? How would this do also for the prestige and image of the school if in certain schools the principals are appointed SES Officer grade and others are not?

We have built so much of glamour about the SES that it has become something very special, and there is a lot to look up to. Society has got a way of showing prejudice against people who just simply do not get this. Why did the second-tier in the NWC recommendation in previous years come to a collapse or disaster? It was simply because people just could not accept the fact that they did not get the second-tier. There was nothing wrong with them. They were not above-average, but there was a feeling that they were less than good, counter-productive, that negative feeling. These principals and vice-principals had subjected themselves to two PSC interviews, once before when they apply to become Senior Education Officer grade, which was a very rigorous exercise. As the Minister replied recently to one of the Members, only about 2% of the whole teaching service were promoted. If anyone in the 20 000 teaching workforce could become a senior Education Officer through the PSC, there must at least be something in him. After having gone through that exercise, he went through a second exercise by the PSC to become a principal. Now he has to go through a third exercise.

I tell him that the final irony of all this is in respect of principals in the primary schools. Under the old scheme, a principal in a primary school would get the pay of a teacher but in addition to that he would also get a principal's allowance of $150. Although it is only $150, it is the recognition that goes with it. Now the Ministry has introduced a scheme whereby if this principal is promoted to become a Senior Education Officer in a primary school, he gets the same end-point salary as the teacher. A teacher's salary ends at $3,050. A principal's salary also ends at $3,050, and that is all. He does not get his allowance. He is now worse off than before, and you tell him, "What is there to complain about? This is SES, very grand." I have never heard of any scheme anywhere in the private sector or in the civil service where when you get a promotion you get less pay. It only happens in the Ministry of Education. What is happening?

When you get promoted to the SES, you are the SES principal. You get $3,050. If you do not get promoted as an SES principal, you come under the old scheme which is a teacher's pay plus $150 allowance. Financially, it is better not to get promoted. What kind of recognition is the Ministry giving? So that he gets a pay cut? Who conceives this brilliant scheme? Is this a kind of scheme that will stimulate people to work harder in order to aspire for that post? You are going to create a sense of insecurity among a few hundred principals and senior ministry officials because, especial!y for some of them who do not get into this SES, they will have a feeling that they are less good than their colleagues who got into this SES. There is a feeling of two-class among principals and vice-principals. We want to give the principal or the vice-principal a feeling that he is somebody to be respected. We want to have that kind of image always preserved. We want to give him the confidence. We want him to act as someone with confidence. But this scheme is going to destabilize that confidence. It is going to lower morale and it is going to cause more than ripples down the rank.

And what is going to happen? If it is just the principals and the senior education officers who feel depressed, I think it is bad, but it is still not the worst. The worst is for those principals who do not get into the SES, or in order to get into the SES, to put pressure. There is a tendency for the Ministry of Education to measure how many times the principal gets the teachers to come on Saturdays, conduct workshops and all kinds of irrelevant activities, to show that they are working. Teachers will be called upon to do a lot of unnecessary work, unnecessary burden, a lot of papers, workshops and seminars talking a lot of things, splitting hairs, but the basic problem is not being attended to. But you cannot blame the principal because he is made to feel insecure. Why have a system that is going to destabilize or make the present situation even much worse?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, the first exercise for the Senior Education Service is on-going at the moment and PSC is interviewing teachers, principals, vice-principals, headquarters officers and heads of departments from junior colleges for emplacement in the Senior Education Service for both graduates and non-graduates. It is too early for me to say what the outcome will be, but it should be known before too long.

The Member for Moulmein has really raised a dilemma. We had a mass promotion exercise in 1977. 10,000 teachers took part in that exercise and, of course, as he knows, not everybody could be promoted and only a small number, over 400, were promoted after a very long exercise. Since 1977, there has not been any promotion exercise. The 1977 exercise, although it resulted in the promotion of over 400 officers, also resulted in unhappiness, as to be expected amongst many hundreds who were not promoted. This is the nature of any promotion exercise: that those who are not promoted feel dissatisfied and unhappy. Since then, as I have said, there has not been any promotion exercise and, equally, because there has not been any promotion exercise, many teachers feel unhappy over the fact that there is no promotion exercise. We must accept that every promotion exercise results in some people who will be promoted and some others will not be promoted and, in the nature of every promotion exercise, it is the minority who will be promoted.

If, as the Member suggests, promotion exercises lead to unhappiness, the alternative is to have no promotion exercise which also results in unhappiness. We have to face this and teachers, principals and vice-principals are generally realistic and are prepared to face this fact before going to an interview board for promotion. The problems that he mentioned are not unique to the Senior Education Service. The same problem is faced in every other service, whether it is promotion in the SAF, in the Administrative Service or in any other service. Even in the private sector, there will always be this problem of unhappiness. But the more important point is that deserving officers are recognized. They are interviewed by a fair board and they are accorded promotion so that those who continue in the service can look forward to advancement to higher levels, and that is what this SES exercise hopes to achieve.

He said that principals have already been through two exercises; the first to be confirmed as vice-principals and then subsequently to be confirmed as principals and that both these exercises are con- ducted by the PSC as these are promotion grades. He says that principals now have to go through another exercise to go into the Senior Education Service. Let me say that after the principals have got into the Senior Education Service, there are still further promotion steps ahead of them. That is the nature of career advancement; that people have to face promotional exercises from time to time to be considered and to be promoted accordingly. If he implies that there is no need for principals to go through the exercise, then there is no way in which the Senior Education Service can be developed and there is no way in which this career path and scheme of advancement can be created. We have explained before in great detail the reasons for setting up the Senior Education Service so that the whole Education service will have at its pinnacle a core of very experienced and very able officers who can give the whole Education service the professional leadership that it is looking for and that it needs. The setting up of the Senior Education Service is the first step to achieving this. 7.30 p.m.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: What about pay?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: The Member mentioned the apparent anomaly of the primary school principal - that he will have the same salary end-point as the classroom teacher, after the latter has gone through many years of service, namely, $3,050. But has the Member not considered the fact that a person who is promoted to the SES as a primary school principal will have gained an advancement in salary of a number of years so that, in monetary terms, while the classroom teacher takes more than 20 years to reach $3,050, the person who is promoted to principal, assuming he started at the same time, is already a number of points ahead and, therefore, deriving the benefits of a higher income by virtue of his promotion to the Senior Education Service. That differential must be borne in mind. He will get there earlier no doubt but he will also have the advantage of having gained a number of years and, therefore, deriving the income from that advantage all along, not to mention that he is also a member of the Senior Education Service and, therefore, gains recognition by being so.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, the salary for the Senior Education Service, I am talking about the non-graduates, starts at $2,050, and with $100 increase every year it goes up to $3,050. A teacher will take 19 years. In 19 years he would have wiped this. Now, let us take the actual situation today. There are 500 principals and, I suppose, another hundred vice-principals, all in all maybe 500 or 600 - I do not know the exact figure - these are people who have already got more than 19 years of service. They are already beyond the starting point. These are people who are already at the present moment enjoying $3,050 maximum plus $150 allowance. These are the people who must form the bulk of those who are going to the Senior Education Service, are they not? If they are not going to form the bulk of the people to go into the SES, then I think something must have gone wrong in previous promotion exercises. The wrong people must have gone in. The Ministry always deduces that if you do not pass one test, you are therefore not good for the other one. For example, take this CSE. The same principle applies, does it not?

Let us look at the 19 years' service, that is, the teachers who joined the teaching service in the year 1964 and earlier. We know that the bulk of the teachers were recruited prior to that year because there was an expansion of the Education Service. After that there was a levelling off. The number recruited was a few hundred each year to replace the resignations and so forth. The bulk of the teachers constitute this group who have already passed the starting point of $2,050. If they go into the SES scheme whether as principals or teachers, they also get the same pay as the ordinary teachers.

But what are the additional responsibilities for principals? They have to be physi- cally present in the office for eight hours, apart from getting a lot of circulars, directives and all kinds of commands from the Ministry of Education and answering all kinds of directives. There are parents to confront with. Who will want to become your principal? Is the Minister aware, or has he been told, that in the last Senior Education Service exercise the principals were also asked to nominate some teachers who were outstanding so that they could be considered to become principals and vice-Principals in the scheme? From my information, and very reliable because it is at ground level, the overwhelming majority refused to be nominated for consideration into the SES scheme. The scheme has failed before it has even started. Anyway, the Minister of State would probably give the same reply. In order to save time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I beg to move,

*That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-02 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I am just asking the Minister of Education why is it that my constituency, which is a fairly big one, should have only one primary school. I am wondering why they are depriving me of primary schools. Each year during the Primary 1 registration I am swamped with parents requesting places for their children in school. Can the Minister please explain why, and whether there are plans to build more schools in my constituency and, if so, when will they be built?

Sir, the Minister of State made a point about the intelligence test. Now, if intelligence test is of little value, as pointed out by the Minister of State, I wonder why such a recommendation was made in the first place. I would recommend the Minister to tell the systems engineers not to make such non-practical suggestions in the future. In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether the other recommendations are workable.

Mr Bernard Chen: Sir, at the last Budget debate the Minister of State elaborated on the implementation of the new Religious Knowledge programme in secondary schools and various problems were enumerated. While there are not as many problems in implementing the program- mes of Bible Knowledge and Islamic Religious Knowledge in the various schools, it seems that there will be difficulty in introducing Buddhism, World Religions, and the teaching of Confucian Ethics. In the past year we have received various reports on the implementation of these particular programmes. We have had visits of some Confucian scholars from the United States who did a lot of interviews and suggested a lot of things. It may perhaps be timely for the Minister to inform this House what has been the progress in the implementation of these various Religious Knowledge programmes in the schools, first, whether Bible Knowledge teaching is now applied in all Christian schools and, secondly, whether the syllabi for Buddhism, World Religions and Confucian Ethics are being drawn up, when they will be ready, and whether there are any problems encountered in the writing of textbooks as well as the recruitment and training of teachers. As part of the moral education programme, I think parents would be very concerned about the successful implementation of this programme for their children. If we are to build up the moral fibre in our younger generation, we have to pay a bit more attention to ensure that these programmes are properly drawn up, and see the success of the various efforts. I hope the Minister of State will elaborate on these various points.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, first, allow me just to clarify a small point that the Member for Ayer Rajah implied I had said. I have never said that intelligence tests are next to useless. I said they have to be carried out very carefully by experts who know how to set such tests and how to interpret the results of these tests.

May I pass on to the comments by the Member for Clementi, before asking my Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the questions raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah concerning the absence of schools in his constituency. I thank the Member for Clementi for giving me this opportunity to inform the House of the present situation regarding the Religious Knowledge projects which are in various stages of pre- paration. He is quite right that, in the case of Bible Knowledge, because it has been a subject offered in a number of mission schools for many years, this subject does not present any problems except perhaps the training of more teachers to teach the subject in those schools which do not presently have Bible Knowledge. The schools that have in the past been offering Bible Knowledge have continued to offer this subject at the 'O' level for their students. But the subject has not been made available to any other schools which have not in the past been offering the subject up till now. Next year, 1984, when we implement all the other Religious Knowledge subjects, Bible Knowledge can also be implemented at the same time in the other schools which do not have it today. 7.45 p.m.

As regards Islamic Religious Knowledge, there has been some revision of the syllabus by MUIS, and this is being finalized, and presently MUIS is preparing the materials for the teaching of IRK. The Ministry is working very closely with MUIS on this, including lending staff to MUIS for the preparation of these materials. MUIS is also identifying suitable teachers who can be trained to teach IRK when the programme is launched.

In the case of Buddhist studies, the material is undergoing some revision because the first draft version has been found to be too difficult, from the language point of view, for the students, So revised materials are being produced by the CDIS working together with the Singapore Buddhist Federation. This is ongoing and the materials for Secondary 3 should be ready during this year for implementation in 1984. Of course, the training of teachers has already been going on for this subject. But they will have to be phased in with the revised materials that are being produced during this year.

With Hindu studies and the appointment of a consultant after discussion with the Hindu Advisory Board, the materials are now being produced, again, initially for Secondary 3. And by the middle of this year or so, that material will be ready for Secondary 3 so that training of teachers can commence.

With the Study of the World Religions, the syllabus is being looked into at this moment. It is a difficult subject because it covers a fair number of religions, and although books on world religions are available and used elsewhere, we will probably have to adapt these books for our own use. That is only one part of the problem. The other is to find teachers who can teach this range of religions. So this project may not be available in 1984 when we start with the other Religious Knowledge subjects.

With Confucian Ethics, as Members know, in August/September last year, eight consultants were invited to Singapore to advise the Ministry on how to proceed with this difficult subject. They have since submitted reports to the Ministry giving their views. From the discussions they have had with the local committee that is also responsible for Confucian Ethics materials, a syllabus has now been produced and the synopsis derived from the syllabus is currently in production. The local committee will proceed from there to write the Secondary 3 textbooks in the first instance.

The Ministry plans that in 1984 Confucian Ethics should be offered on a pilot basis with a small number of schools to test the suitability of the materials. We do not underestimate at all the difficulty of preparing materials in a form suitable for teaching this subject. As far as we know, nobody has attempted to teach Confucian Ethics as a subject to students of the age group that we are talking about. So the availability of expert advice from these Confucian scholars has proved to be invaluable in guiding the local project team on how to proceed with the development of the syllabus and now of the textbook.

Sir, I think I have covered all the points raised by the Member.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education (Mr Ho Kah Leong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is fully aware that there is only one primary school in Ayer Rajah Constituency and also the inconvenience caused to the constituents of the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah. I think we have to recognize as a fact that due to limited resources the building of schools and the building of flats in new towns can never be completed at the same time. It is inevitable that there is always a time lapse. In this respect, Sir, my Ministry is thankful to the hon. Member for his understanding of the problem and his taking pains to explain the difficult position to his constituents when a new school term starts each year.

However, his predicament will soon be relieved. I am pleased to inform the hon. Member that a new school will be coming up in his Constituency. The school will be built at West Coast Avenue in Hong Leong Gardens. Piling work has just commenced and the school is expected to be completed in August 1984 and operational in January 1985.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, in view of the assurance given to me by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Culture (Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-04 Object Group 2610 of the Main Estimates.*

Sir, in moving this amendment I am a little concerned about the three items under this Subhead of Extra-Curricular Activities or ECA which have no allocations made for them. Whilst it is encouraging to observe that there is an overall increase in the estimated expenditure for ECA, the three items, which have no provision in this year's estimates, constitute to my mind an integral part of ECA. These are in the area of the youth festival, camping for pupils and teachers, and combined schools sports activities. It is acknowledged among the school population that the youth festival marks the culmination of the varied school ECA activities in the form of either a mammoth pageantry, drama festival or other exhibitions of the pupils' creative works. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten this House as to this dramatic turn or volte-face regarding one of the most interesting and entertaining events in the Ministry's ECA annual calendar.

As regards school camp for pupils, I hope there is no contradiction between what has publicly been said and what is intended to be done. I am happy that the Ministry is able to get additional sites for camps. However, in the additional camp sites, in spite of the most encouraging response by the schools as reported in the press, there is no provision in this year's estimates. Could the Minister enlighten this House on this matter? And by the same token of argument, I am unable to understand why there is an absence of provision for this year's combined schools sports activities.

Sir, on those three points, may I have some clarifications from the Minister?

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Sir, I fully share the sentiments expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Culture because I too see no valid reason why these three items, (5), (6) and (7) under Object Group 2610, Extra-Curricular Activities, are not given any provision. The sums for last year, as I can see, Sir, only amount to about $65,000. But what I am saying is that the Ministry owes this House a full explanation, not only enlightenment but an explanation as to why these three items have been taken out.

The Chairman: Mr Ng, if you want a reply you have to cut your speech short.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Does the Ministry feel that the annual youth festival has outlived its purpose? The Minister of State, Sir, is shaking his head.

On that note, I am willing to give a listening ear.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish the Minister for. Finance is still here because these three items were taken out from the voted funds after a lot of negotiations between my Ministry and the Ministry of Finance. But I hasten to assure the Members for Kampong Ubi and Punggol that these activities will continue but that they will not be funded from voted funds because the Ministry of Finance has decided not to give voted funds for this. It will be funded from school funds and the education fund. So let me say that, first, the three activities will receive maximum support from the financial point of view as well as every other point of view and that there will not be any curtailment of these very important ECA activities which have come to mean a lot to our students and to our teachers.

However, the Ministry of Finance has observed that school funds which come from the miscellaneous fees have been accumulating quite substantially in schools, and they feel that since these activities, particularly camping and so on, are school ECA activities, they should be supported by the school funds as the funds are available to them. But nonetheless where a school does not have adequate school funds, the Ministry has the education fund and is prepared to help schools which are in those circumstances.

I hope that assures Members that we have - 8.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Moment of Interruption. Encik Wan Hussin, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri: Sir, I am relieved by the assurance of the Minister of State, and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head L having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with:-

Mr Ng Kah Ting: (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01 Object Group 3310 of the Main Estimates.

Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri: (10) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-02 Object Group 2510 of the Main Estimates.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam: (11) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-02 of the Main Estimates.

Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri: (12) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-01 Object Group 3110 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: (13) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-01 Object Group 3310 of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $1,152,444,500 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $567,967,400 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

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

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.