GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON EDUCATION

6.02 p.m.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a Motion on the Adjournment but I hate to spoil the effect of the speech from the Leader of the House by moving this motion. I wonder whether we can have a compromise. May I have leave to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, this right given to me, at the next sitting?

Mr Deputy Speaker: As it is already on the agenda, I think you should proceed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you like me to proceed, all right, I will proceed then. It is just that I did not want to spoil the effect of the speech made by the Leader of the House.

I am sorry I have to keep you, Sir, and the Members back to listen more about the state of our schools and the education of our children. But I asked for this right to speak because I had tabled an amendment under the estimates of the Ministry of Education but the guillotine time was reached before I could speak and, therefore, I was not able to say what I wished to say then. That is why I have asked for the right to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have heard about the shortage of teachers in our schools. We heard it only this afternoon when we were talking about the supply of teachers for the special schools for our mentally and physically disabled. I tabled a question for the Minister of Education not very long ago about the number of relief teachers who were being employed by the Ministry and I was given a written answer - my question was for a written answer - that there were 1,032 relief teachers employed on the average every month in 1982. I had asked for a list of all schools where they were employed and I was told that this was not possible to be supplied. About 422 schools in the State employed relief teachers at one time or other in the year, but the majority served for less than one year. I was not told very much about the manner in which the relief teachers were recruited and about their terms and conditions of service. But it is not on their behalf that I am talking. I ,am talking on behalf of the children who are being educated and of our education service. But I would like to say something about the manner in which the relief teachers are recruited.

I understand that they are recruited just as one recruits casual labour. Anyone has only to ring up a school and say, "Have you got a position for a relief teacher?" and he is told, "Yes, we have got a position for a relief teacher. You come along." And even if the person has the GCE 'O' level or 'A' level for just one subject, he will be given a class to teach, and he is told that he will be paid daily according to the number of days he teaches. Being daily paid, the relief teacher can stay away if he does not feel like turning up for school on that particular day. What is more, I am told that the relief teachers are given the extended classes or the monolingual classes. In fact, these children really need greater care and attention than the normal children. But it is these children that these untrained teachers, who are just picked up as it were, are put to teach. So the teaching of these children, for whom I thought special care is being taken, is neglected. Not only are these relief teachers just taken in a haphazard manner, but they also work whenever they feel like it and stay away if they do not feel like teaching on those days. I am told that there is no supervision over the work of these relief teachers. There is no record of work that they are required to submit and neither is there any supervision over their teaching nor is the record checked.

Sir, I do not want to run down these relief teachers. They are meeting a need. Although the answer from the Ministry suggests that most of them were employed for less than a year, I am told that some of them have been teaching for two to three years as relief teachers. They have their own grouses. But, as I have said, I am not here to speak on their behalf. Some of them say that they are dedicated teachers and they have applied to be taken on for training but they have been refused. The question is, if they are good enough to teach for three years, why can they not be trained or given some training? But what are we doing with our children's education? I want to know from the Ministry what is the cause of this, it seems to me, acute teacher shortage in our schools.

I was listening when the estimates for the Ministry was being debated, and the more I listened the more convinced I became that there is something very wrong with our education system in this country. With all due respect to the systems engineers who have put into plan the education system in our schools, there was a letter, Sir, which appeared in the Straits Times on 2nd February which highlights the problem. I am told that this is quite common in most schools or, perhaps not most, in many schools: classes left without teachers, children not having teachers to teach them. Here is a letter which carried 103 signatures and this was a plea from students. They say:

'Last year, 42 first batch Secondary 3 pupils from the technical stream in our school were idle most of the time in class during technical periods because there were not enough teachers (except from February to June).

Attempts to get a teacher for us, made by some considerate teachers and the principal, proved fruitless.

This year, the same thing has happened. Some 39 Secondary 4 and 74 Secondary 3 students from the technical stream are without a technical teacher. What is going to happen to those who are taking the GCE "O" level examination?' Well, they may ask, and I ask the question for them, what is going to happen to them if you are preparing them for the GCE 'O' level examination when you do not provide them with the teachers? And they go on to say:

'Our school needs a qualified technical teacher urgently to make up for lost time.

The Ministry of Education should ensure that there are enough teachers for students, otherwise all the important years that a young student should spend on studying will be wasted.' These are students voicing their views, and how right they are. This evening I was talking about the disabled children. But it looks as though we are also not paying enough attention to the education of our other children. What is wrong? There must be something wrong if we have an acute shortage of teachers? Is it not time that we sat down calmly to try and analyse, make a proper diagnosis of the sickness in our education system? What ails it? Instead of implementing ad hoc changes every two or three years, I would propose to the Minister very seriously that it is time we had a commission. I know I suggested a commission earlier this afternoon and it was refused. But this is a very serious matter because, as I have said, the education of our children is a sacred trust and we owe them a duty. They did not ask to be brought into this world. We brought them into the world and we owe them this duty as parents. We have got to see that they get the best education.

There was a statement that was referred to by the Chairman of the Singapore Association for the Deaf. The statement, I think, was made by the First Assistant Secretary-General of the ruling party at its conference last year - that it was a duty to give our children the best education that is possible. As the Chairman said, he echoes that. It is no good making statements, but what are we doing about it? We are collecting from our children in the primary schools, what is it - $3 I am told, although we maintain the myth that education in the primary schools is free. I am told that each child in the primary school is paying $3 and a child in the secondary school is paying about $9.50. We are collecting enough but it would appear that we are not delivering the goods. That again, I say, is dishonest.

I saw sometime ago about the teachers' union trying to arrange for private tutors for children. There is a great demand now in Singapore for private tuition for our children. Let me say that private tuition would be unnecessary if we taught the children in the schools. And, of course, if we are going to leave it to private tuition, then it must be obvious that only the children from well-to-do families are going to benefit. Is the Ministry of Education abdicating its responsibility to teach our children and leaving it to parents to educate their children through private tuition after collecting fees like $3 and $9.50 from the children? I say that is dishonest.

Let us have a commission. Let us hear the views of the parents. They will tell us what is wrong. I have heard from some parents. They tell me about the lack of teachers. They tell me about the extracurricular activities, the over-doing of these activities into which their children are drawn, the time that is spent outside school having to attend this function, that function, the national celebrations. But all at the expense of educating the children. They will tell us what is wrong.

Let us also listen to the teachers. Why are we not attracting enough people into the Education Service? Why are teachers deserting the Education Service? I say, Sir, that would seem to me to be the first priority now in this country to get our Education Service and the teaching of our children back on the right lines.

I do not have to say this. It is recognized by everybody that we were providing a good Education Service. We were teaching our children properly in the past. We were turning out children who were able to read and write well in the language that they were educated. We know now and this is no secret. The Government makes no bones about hiding it that the standard of English has come down.

I can go on and on. Somehow our standard of teaching has deteriorated. Why? What is wrong? I would ask whether the Ministry will now forget about its own plans, forget about what systems engineers have to say, forget what all its experts have to say and listen. It is good to listen sometimes. And listen to the people that matter, listen to the parents. Even listen to the children. I think if we tell the children to come forward and tell us what is wrong, they will do that. For instance, this letter in the Straits Times. Listen to them and listen to the teachers. Why do we not do that?

Then having listened to them, perhaps we can then evolve a plan to teach our children so that we may be proud of them when they leave the schools. Of course, I do not have to say they will then be worthy citizens of this place, contributing to the growth of this society. So my plea today is that we set up without very much delay a commission and listen to people who will tell us what is wrong with our education system. 6.20 p.m.

The Minister of State of Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson, as to be expected, wanders over a very wide range of things, mouthing pious platitudes if I may say. And he reveals his ignorance about education and what is going on in our education system. Let me ask him: where did his children go to school?

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Tay Eng Soon: What does he know about the education system when his children never went to any of our schools in Singapore? He sent them abroad and he sent them to the United World College, What does he know about education in Singapore? He talks as if he knows a great deal about what is going on in the classroom. He casts a slur on our teachers and he sneers at them by saying they are not teaching well, they are not doing a good job in our schools. That is what he is saying.

Mr Jeyaretnam: A point of clarification Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you giving way, Dr Tay?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: I am not giving way. The Member talks about something being very wrong with our education system. Let us have the facts. Let him substantiate the statements and I hope in future he will do so because I am not giving way to him to say anything now. But where are his facts?

He makes innuendoes about ad hoc changes. He makes innuendoes about the Ministry and its systems engineers, casting slurs again on highly professional officers that we have in the civil service. Obviously, he does not know anything about the Goh Keng Swee Report that was debated for four days in this House. I do not believe he has even read it. He has not understood the background in which education has evolved in this country and the changes that have had to take place because of this evolution.

We are a country that has undergone rapid changes in the last 20 years. First, we have four language streams, four types of schools in Singapore. We have evolved to a bilingual system. We have had a growing trend of parents who wanted to send their children to English-medium schools and so there had to be changes. Teachers had to be recruited to meet these changes. School buildings had to be put up at great speed. All these changes have had to take place. And the Member is saying that the Ministry of Education is making changes, making changes. If we did not make these changes, we would not be where we are today.

Let us look at the facts rather than listen to innuendoes which the Member has just been spouting. The fact is, even in the last four years with the implementation of the new education system, there is already a perceptible reduction in the number of pupils dropping out from our school system. Only a few days ago, I gave some information on this. There has been a three-fold reduction in the number of primary school pupils dropping out of the system. In the secondary school system which has only reached Secondary 1 and 2 as far as the new system is concerned, there is already a five-fold reduction. We are beginning to see improvements.

He talks of the old system as being wonderful and so on. It had its flaws because it went through rapid evolution. There was loss due to failure. I think he does not know what he is talking about when he tries to make comparisons between now and the past.

On the subject of relief teachers, I do not believe that there is any education system in the world that does not have to have relief teachers to meet their contingencies and their needs. It is not a situation that we are entirely happy with because, first, it represents a shortage of teachers that we have. Secondly, even if we do have the full complement of teachers, the need for relief teachers will still exist because we have teachers who have to go on maternity leave, we have teachers who have to go on sick leave, study leave and so on. These short-term interruptions in staffing have to be met, and one of the ways is to have relief teachers.

The selection of relief teachers is done with some care, minimum 'O' level. In fact, the majority of relief teachers who join our teaching force have 'A' levels. They are students. Many of them have 'A' levels who are waiting for entry into the University. For the six months of the year, they are available as relief teachers. And they come at a period of time which meets the needs because in the first month or so of any school year, there are adjustments that have to be made because of the movements of students from one school to another from the previous year and also of transfers of teachers from the previous year. So their service is indeed welcome for that one month or so.

On the whole, relief teachers are doing a pretty good job in our schools. In fact, many of them do go on to join the Institute of Education to become trained teachers. Roughly, about half the number of students taken in by the Institute of Educa- tion each year to be trained as teachers have had relief teaching experience in the past. So this is an indication that the relief teachers who are in our schools are persons of some ability. Granted there are relief teachers who do not have the minimum requirements for entry into the Institute of Education. There is a very small number of them. Their service in teaching is not long-term. They do leave.

The Member spoke about charging $3 for primary school pupils and $9.50 for secondary school pupils, as if this is something which is very wrong; as if it is wrong for Government to charge students a nominal fee to come to school. Let me inform him that the $3 that is paid by primary school pupils goes into the School Fund. It is called Miscellaneous Fees and it is used for many of the things that go on in the school, for ECA activities, for art materials and so on. This is something which no parent would grudge because it is going immediately to the pupils for their benefit.

I reject completely his suggestion that there should be a commission of inquiry on education or a commission on education. I think it is a typical approach that this Member has taken in this House on almost any issue that is beyond his comprehension. He calls for a commission, a tribunal, to look at the whole thing.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We are prepared to listen.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Read the blue book. Has he read the Goh Keng Swee Report of 1979? I would pass it to him now. It does not just contain recommendations. It contains also the history of our education and the issues on education. I think it would be very educational for him.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tay, you have about two minutes to conclude your reply.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Thank you, Sir. Sir, given that the Member for Anson has come up with a hotch-potch of issues on education betraying his lack of depth of comprehension of education, all I can say is that he needs some education himself. We will be happy, as patiently as possible in the future, to educate him and enlighten him on any aspect of the education system that we have. We have an open system. We are prepared to explain all our policies in public and we have done so in this House repeatedly.

The Question having been proposed at two minutes past Six o'clock p.m. and the Debate having continued for half an hour,

Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirty- two minutes past Six o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.