EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business of supply be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 5.00 pm. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 10 minutes to 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.32 pm until 3.50 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head L -

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I want to bring up the subject of university tuition fees. In March 1987, the Minister for Education said that in order to have a fairer distribution of the education budget, he proposed a reduction in subsidy for tertiary students. He said that in 1987 the Government was spending $14,400 to educate a student at the university level, as against $1,900 for each pupil in schools, junior colleges, pre-university centres, the polytechnics and VITB. Our university students comprise only 16,000 students, representing 3% of the student population and yet absorbing 20% of the total recurrent expenditure on education. The rest of the student population, 97%, which make up about half a million students, spend 80% of the total recurrent expenditure. Therefore, to ensure a fairer distribution of the education budget, he proposed a reduction in subsidy for tertiary students and he announced the hike in tuition fees then.

In answer to a question posed by the Member of Parliament for Ponggol whether there would be another upward review of fees in the foreseeable future, this is what he said and I quote from Hansard of 4th March 1987, Vol. 49, col. 33:

'I would hope to allow these fees to settle down for one or two years. We may have to make a small increase in 1988 but I would not like to see another major increase coming too soon after this one.'

Let us compare the increases. In 1987, non-laboratory-based faculty fees were up by $800. This year, it went up a further $600. Laboratory-based faculty fees were up by $1,200 in 1987. This year, it went up a further $700. Medicine and Dentistry fees were up by $2,600 in 1987. But this time it went up a further $3,300. The Minister is an honourable man. I believe he must have good reasons for such drastic increases of the fees within two short years. I hope he will give a satisfactory answer to this.

The universities adopted the American system whereby tuition fees are fixed at a certain percentage of the recurring cost per student for the various courses in the universities. If in adopting this system fees are going to go up at such a rate, I suggest the Minister had better review it or university education will be beyond the reach of the bright but poor students. And in the words of my colleague, Dr Aline Wong, "university education would become the exclusive rights of a very privileged few". I do not want to see it happen in this country. Education is an investment. Do not make it unaffordable.

There are thus two basic issues to contend with in a discussion of university tuition fees. (1) Reduction in subsidy. How much? (2) Operating costs of the university. Can it be controlled and maintained trim as much as possible? If we accept that education is an investment, then I do not see why we cannot continue the present percentage of subsidy for the university students. We talk of a $3.8 billion surplus this year, 11% growth rate and we expect growth for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it seems odd that we want to reduce the subsidy for tertiary education and pass it to the Singaporeans. Do we need to shift this subsidy for university students to the other student population when we are doing fairly well? Can we not maintain the subsidy and increase the subsidy for the rest of the student population? I hope the Minister for Finance is here but he is not around. Yes, the Minister of State for Finance is around. He should be listening. Because the Minister for Finance said that education is an investment.

We should not reduce the subsidy to such a degree that the cost of university education is out of the reach of the average Singaporean. Those involved cannot reconcile this move. Because while the economy is good and many enjoy the fruits of economic success by way of pay increases, they have to dig deeper into their pockets. I am not advocating no increase in fees. But I think while we can afford, let us maintain the subsidy and not reduce the percentage further for, after all, brain power is our only national resource. And these students are the best brains we have. They are our future technologists, leaders of industry, education and even politics.

Next, operating costs. The University Students' Council has written to me with suggestions that the administration be streamlined to minimize operating costs. Perhaps they may be aware that some things in the university need to be streamlined. This is a fair and reasonable suggestion and ways and means must be found to trim costs. It is a very important factor, operating costs, because if this cost is up for whatever reason, it will be passed to the students. Because, as I said earlier, tuition fees is worked as a percentage of the recurring cost per student.

Let me give you some suggestions as to how to ease the burden of the students. I think first we have to release CPF for education. I hope the Labour Minister is not sitting on it for too long. Loan schemes. Make it more liberal, up to 100% loan with minimum fuss. Provide students with more bursaries and scholarships. More information to students on banks and financial institutions which are prepared to assist in providing loans. Allow existing students to be exempted from this present hike. Provide Singaporeans with a projection of the university cost for the next five years or so, just like the long-term CPF projections. This will help to allay uncertainty in financial planning of their parents.

Finally, can I ask the Minister to have a heart? Do not announce such bad news in the midst of the examinations. Wait till the exams are over.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, once again tuition fees for university students have increased. This increase is not entirely due to the increase in costs but because over the last two years the increase in expenditure has been only about 20%. Here, I must declare that I am an academician and this increase in cost has nothing to do with me, because since 1985 I have not been promoted, and my salary has remained the same. The Prime Minister has announced it to all Singaporeans. In 1987, the Minister for Education in announcing a hike in tuition fees in the House said that he would not like to see another major increase in tuition fees. But no sooner had he said this that in the course of a short two years, there is another increase in fees by 30% to 85%. This is in comparison to the fees in 1987. If it is compared with the figures in 1986, the increase rates are 117 to 454%, according to the figures given by Dr Aline Wong. Some students were hit twice by such fee-hikes. I hope the Minister would think about the plight of the families of these students. For those students who come from poor families, such repeated increases have caused them and their parents endless trouble and worry. They do not know when will the next increase be, how big will it be and whether they will be able to shoulder such burden. We have to remember that the loan that they can get only pays for half of their tuition fees. On both occasions the fee increases were announced by the university during the examination when students were intensely preparing for and taking the examinations. To those who come from the well-off families it is all right but for those who come from poor families, on the one hand they have to prepare intensely for the examinations and on the other they have to worry about the increased financial burden on their families. This will greatly affect their mood and mental condition in the examinations. It seems the university is beset with a sadistic complex. This is incongruous with the benign and compassionate manner in which the Budget was presented by the Finance Minister. It is a full three months before the next academic term starts in July. Why should the fee increase be announced at this juncture amidst the examinations? On the one hand, the Labour Minister is delaying his announcement on the scheme for the use of CPF balances for university education. On the other hand, the Minister for Education is impatient and has been hasty in announcing fee increases. Can the two Ministers not coordinate on timing this policy?

The second point is more sensitive. In 1987 the Minister for Education clarified that Malay students would not be affected by fee increases. I believe the position will be the same for the Malays in the latest fee increases. According to our Constitution (Article 152), Malays in Singapore are given special concession on education. I believe most Singaporeans of my generation and older generations accept the Article and the need for the special treatments for the Malays. However, with the increase in the number of Malay students in our tertiary institutions and the increase in tuition fees, some some rumblings or grouses are heard from the non-Malay students. In fact, the young people have got a new set of values and viewpoints, different from the older generations. Young Singaporeans stress on fair competion and equal treatment. They ask: when the Malay students graduate from the university, will they not be receiving the same high pay? Then why should they not be required like other students to pay back some of the money to the society what the taxpayers have subsidized for their education? I hope the Minister and the government will not overlook such latent feelings of grouses.

The third point: in 1987 when the Minister announced the fee increases, he said one reason was that university graduates receive good pay after they come out to work and therefore they have the duty to repay part of the subsidies the society has provided them. Another reason is the principle of the American system that we should follow, that is, the tuition fee should be linked to the cost of educating a student. The fee should be fixed at a certain percentage of the recurrent cost per student. However, in practice, there seems to be some conflict between the two principles. The cost of educating a law student is lower in comparison with that of dentistry, engineering and science students. However, lawyers are better paid than most engineers, dentists and science graduates. Therefore, there seems to be some incongruency or contradictions between the "market value" and "cost". But a more important point I hope the Minister would accept is that the University should formulate a "long-term cost recovery rate" for each student in faculty, so that every student knows what is the target subsidy rate and what will be his recovery rate. This will be useful to students and their parents because they will know how to prepare their budget before they are admitted into the university. This will also be useful for the various faculties to exercise control over their recurrent expenditure.

Another topic is that when I talked about 'O' level above-average students in the House last year, I suggested that such students should enrol in the Polytechnics instead of Junior Colleges or Pre-U Centres. This is because the 'A' level students' chance of entering the university is only 60%. Moreover, the diplomas of these Polytechnics are of economic value and easily marketable with quite high starting pay. However, many parents still hope for high achievement and insist on sending their children to universities in order to obtain a University degree, just like collecting stamps, as mentioned by the Minister for Trade and Industry. In the Straits Times of 11th March, there was an article: "Is there Life without a Varsity Degree?". This article reflects the feelings of many people. In order to encourage more secondary students to enter Polytechnics, I would urge the Minister to prompt the NTI to recruit more Polytechnic students with good results into NTI.

The Minister for Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Mr Speaker, Sir, increases in fees are never popular and the increase in fees by NUS and NTI announced last week has predictably drawn a number of comments from Members of Parliament both today and on Monday and also from members of the public, in particular the university students.

Most of the comments have focused on the quantum of the increase and the worry that the increased fees will impose hardship on students. I think this is entirely understandable and I sympathize with much of the sentiment. I shall address this matter later on in my statement this afternoon. However, in my view, Sir, the comments have not really addressed the nub of the issue. The increase in fees is not the result of an ad hoc decision by NUS and NTI. the increase in fees is a consequence of a policy decision made by Government. The central issue, Sir, is how should university education be financed? Should it be entirely or almost entirely through a Government grant financed through taxpayers' money, or should it be through a mixture of Government grant, direct fees paid by students, and student loans? Let me give a little background to this issue.

In Singapore, as in many other countries in the Commonwealth, including England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand where some of our students go to, the traditional method of financing university education has been through a Government grant, and the fees paid by students are consequently nominal. This system has its obvious attractions, particularly for students. We would have liked to continue this system, and the system was workable so long as the cost of operating universities was not high.

However, Sir, today, with the cost of running universities being a major item in the education budgets of most countries, the system of financing university education entirely through grants from the Government is coming under strain. I do not have to point out to Members the financing problems which many universities today in England, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are facing. Some universities in those countries have expressed a fear that because of inadequate finance they have to run the risk of lowering the quality of education provided to their students. For example, by not filling up academic posts when these fall vacant or by not upgrading their facilities and equipment even when this is necessary. There is no shortage of reports in the daily press on how the universities in these countries are now today, finding that their grant from the respective Governments to be inadequate to run their universities properly.

Let me just quote a few examples which I have taken at random from the Times Higher Education Supplement. The first one, Sir, is from the 17th February 1989, and it is headlined "Principals' gloom and anger over pay". I will just read a few paragraphs. This is a statement by Sir David Smith, the principal of Edinburgh University and he warned:

'The time is fast approaching when it will be impossible to run good universities on the present system of funding (ie through a Government grant). In a bleak address to the University's General Council, Sir David Smith, the principal of Edinburgh University, says that he sees little prospect of improvement in the overwhelming problem of the university's financial position. Student/staff ratios will inevitably rise. The provision of services such as libraries will decline in quality and the discontent of the staff which is chronically underfunded will continue.'

Another article, Sir, from the same Supplement, 21st October 1988, headlined "Faculties' defiance as cuts loom".

'The English Department at Lancaster University in England has accused the University of putting financial constraints over academic quality in its drive to cut cost.

The third one, Sir, 12th August 1988, from a different country, Australia. "Australian students to be taxed as from 1989."

'Australia's 400,000 higher education students will pay a tuition tax of A$1,800 for each year of study from the start of 1989.'

This is for Australian students. For foreign students who are studying in Australia, as Members will know, they have to pay the full-course fees which is very much higher than the A$1,800. I will not bore Members with these articles but just one more, which I like very much: "Universities declare war on Ontario Budget". I just quote the first paragraph, Sir.

'The Ontario Council of Universities frustrated by what it describes as a decade of chronic underfunding has declared war on the provincial government [that is Ontario] 1989/90 budget.'

I think, Sir, these examples will, I hope, suffice to show that the traditional system of funding universities entirely from the Government with students paying only nominal fees cannot continue. In Singapore here, Sir, we have established two tertiary institutions, NUS and NTI. We can be proud of them. They are recognized to be of international standards. But if we want NUS and NTI to operate properly, we must give them adequate finance, not too lavishly, but enough for them to run their operations properly as universities, and this means a lot of money $351 million for the financial year 1989/90 for the operating cost alone, ie, the recurrent expenditure without taking into account their development costs. The major part of this expenditure, Sir, must inevitably be financed by a grant from the Government. But the question we should ask ourselves is: should Government finance all, or almost all, of the expenditure of NUS and NTI?

In this connection, Sir, the Member for Ayer Rajah has referred to some figures which I quoted in 1987. I have updated the figures and I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute the table now. These are the figures for the distribution of expenditure among our various educational sectors for the financial year 1988. If Members will study the table, they will see that for FY 88/89 NUS and NTI have a total student population of some 20,600 students - about 18,600 undergraduate students and about 2,000 post-graduate students. These 20,600 students comprise 4% of the total student population of 523,000 students in Singapore. The remaining 503,000 students are in our schools, junior colleges, technical institutions, Pre-U centres and VITB. But in terms of Government expenditure on education, however, this 4% of students studying at the university accounted for 19% of the total recurrent Government expenditure on education in 1988/89. The remaining 81% was spent on educating over 500,000 students in our schools, junior colleges, pre-university centres and other technical institutions. In other words, last year, on the average, the Government was spending over $13,000 each year to educate a student at the university level as against $2,300 for each student in our schools, junior colleges, pre-university centres, polytechnics and the VITB.

Now, Sir, the Government regards education as an investment in people and we have funded education generously. But the disparity between the allocations is such that it must be more equitably distributed among the various educational sectors in Singapore and I think that it is right that we should reduce, as I have said in 1987, the percentage of Government expenditure on education that is allocated to the universities so that we may have more money to spend on upgrading the quality of education in our schools and the other sectors of education in Singapore where the majority of our students and pupils are. This sets out the fundamental principle why it is necessary to raise university fees.

I now come to the actual fee increase. In raising university fees, we must always keep one basic principle in mind and, that is, we must make sure that students who come from poor families, whether these are Singaporeans or non-Singaporeans, should not be penalized or prevented from acquiring a university education simply because their parents cannot afford to pay the fees. This is a basic principle which we must follow in all fee increases. But it is because we want to ensure that access to university education is not dependent on the students' financial circumstances that the Government in 1987 earmarked a sum of $100 million to be operated as a revolving fund to finance loans to students and these loans are for a specific purpose of helping NUS and NTI students to meet the cost of their university fees.

I would like to inform Members of the number of students who have actually applied for these loans and the amount of the loans. For the academic year 1988/89, 3,174 students from NUS and NTI applied for the Government loan schemes. These students comprise 17% of the total undergraduate student population of 18,600 at NUS and NTI. The total amount that was borrowed was $4.5 million or an average of $1,400 per loan. In this connection, Sir, I just read in today's Straits Times a letter in the Forum page with the rather alarming headline "Indebted graduates will be hard-pressed to repay debts". I had, in fact, asked the NUS and NTI to work out how many years a student would need to repay the student loan from the Government after he or she graduates and Members may find some of these figures to be of interest.

Let me take, for example, a Singapore student who is studying a course in Arts or one of the non-laboratory based disciplines. Assuming that the student takes the full 50% tuition loan, ie, $1,300 out of the new fees of $2,600. Then for the three-year general degree course, his total loan will be $3,900. If he gets Honours, that means an additional year, the total loan would be $5,200. Assuming the student passes his examinations and graduates and then joins the Government and he uses, say, 10% of his starting salary to repay the loan. The calculation shows that he will be able to repay the amount of money which he owes to the Government well within four years. This is not taking into account any salary increases which the student may get during the period of the first four or five years of his working life, nor the salary increase which was announced this morning.

Similarly for a student who is taking a laboratory-based discipline like engineering or science and working on the same basis, the number of years which the student will require to repay the loan is just over four years. It is less than five years. For a student who is studying medicine, the period is just over eight years. Since the terms of the student loan allow the student as long as 15 years to repay his loan, one can see that the claim that indebted students will be hard-pressed to repay their debts is not borne out by the facts.

Sir, in the university's press statement, it is also stated very clearly that if the Government loan scheme is not sufficient, students can apply to NUS and NTI for additional loans from the universities' own loan funds. For 1988 and 1989 the number of students at NUS and NTI who applied for this additional financial assistance was 300, less than 2% of the student population of 18,600 students. Of those who applied, over 90% were granted additional financial assistance by NUS and NTI. The total amount approved by the universities was $219,000 with the average grant being just under $1,000. These figures show quite clearly that through the Government loan scheme and the universities' own funds, there are more than ample resources to ensure that no student who enrols or who is currently studying at NUS or NTI would be prevented from continuing his education simply because he is unable to find the ready cash to pay his fees. In fact, Sir, to our knowledge, no student has ever left the NUS and NTI on account of financial circumstances. He may leave because of other reasons, but not because he cannot find the means to pay his fees.

What I have said, Sir, applies just as much to non-Singapore students as to Singapore students. I may add that such generous provision of student loans to foreign students is unheard of in other countries. The reason for us being so generous is that we recognize the importance of having foreign students in our universities. They enable our own students to have a broader and richer university education interacting with students from other countries and with different cultures. It is pertinent to note that, even with the increased fees, the fees for non-Singapore students studying at NUS and NTI are between half and one-third of the corresponding fees which a foreign student would have to pay to study at universities in Australia, England, New Zealand or America. As I have just said, Sir, the loan schemes which we have made available for Singapore students, ie, the 50% tuition loan scheme from the Government and the universities' own additional loans, are not confined to Singapore students. The schemes are open to non-Singapore students as well. I hope therefore, that non-Singapore students would not be deterred from applying to study at NUS and NTI. If they are bright enough to be accepted by our universities, we will ensure, as for Singa- pore students, that they will be given sufficient financial assistance to enable them to study here.

In this connection, Sir, I want to refer to a point made by the Member for Tampines GRC, Dr Aline Wong, on Monday concerning the $2,000 limit on loans granted by the universities from their own loan funds. Sir, I am happy to inform her that the universities exercise discretion with respect to this $2,000 limit. They will waive the limit where necessary for students in needy circumstances. The Member can set her mind at ease that the limit will not be an obstacle to a student who needs additional funds.

As to the point brought up by the Member for Leng Kee regarding the timing of the announcement, the fee increases have had to be decided after the Finance Ministry has settled its budget for the year and we have to announce the fees before students apply for the new session. It is only fair. We cannot announce the fees after they have applied and then find that they have to pay new fees. So this is the reason why the new fees have to be announced during this period.

To sum up, Sir, university students are educated at very large public expense. They can aspire to highly remunerative jobs and to earn good salaries when they graduate. After receiving the benefit of a university education, it is only right, Sir, that when they are working they should pay back part of the Government's subsidy in order to lessen the burden of financing university education purely through taxpayers' money. After the recent fee increases, the grant by Government will finance about 77% of the operating expenditure of NUS and NTI.

As a long-term target, NUS and NTI should work towards steadily reducing the percentage of their operating expenditure which is financed by Government to somewhere between 60% and 70%. But, of course, this cannot be done immediately and it will have to be implemented over a period of time in order not to place an undue burden or hardship on students and their parents. At every stage we must ensure that the fee increases do not have the effect of limiting access to NUS and NTI, particularly for students who are bright but who come from poor homes. These students have as much right to university education as children whose parents are in more comfortable circumstances.

In a nutshell, Sir, the policy of the Government is and will continue to be to make sure that no bright student who has been accepted by NUS or NTI will be preventd from acquiring a university education simply because his or her parents cannot afford to pay the fees and we will do what is needed to maintain this policy, including, if necessary, reviewing our loan schemes or providing other forms of financial assistance, such as awarding more scholarships or bursaries if this is shown to be necessary.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Can I ask the Minister two questions?

Would you exempt the existing students from this present hike in fees? The other question I want to ask is: would it be possible for the university to do a projection study on the fees that the students will be paying in, say, five years?

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, the answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is yes.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): Thank you, Sir. May I take the two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: The President in his Address to this House spoke about the need to uphold the core values we have:

'We need to enshrine these fundamental ideal in a National Ideology. ... We need to inculcate this National Ideology in all Singaporeans, especially the young. We will do so through moral education and by promoting the use of the mother tongue, by strengthening the teaching of values in schools [and so on.]'

In the Addendum to the President's Address, the Minister for Education said:

'The inculcation of core values must begin in the home. The values can be reinforced in the primary schools by ensuring adequate proficiency in the mother-tongue, and through appropriate lessons in the Social Studies, Moral Education and Extra-Curricular programmes.'

Sir, one of the questions that come to my mind is: how are the core values to be taught in schools? I am referring to the medium for the teaching and learning of these core values - English or mother tongue? My personal view is that it should be taught in the mother tongue. This will be in line with the Government's professed intention of promoting the use of the mother tongue. It is also in line with the bilingual policy or in the study of mother tongue for the preservation of our cultural heritage. And I think it would also make the learning of the mother tongue more meaningful.

Sir, my second point concerns the teaching of religious knowledge in schools. A report entitled "Religion and Religious Revivalism in Singapore" was released recently. This is a report by three NUS dons. In view of the findings of the report by these three university lecturers, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will now review the teaching of religious knowledge in schools with a view to deciding whether we should continue such teaching.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Chairman, Sir, the Education Ministry's decision to incorporate the teaching of core values in the primary school curriculum is to be applauded. The move is timely to check the insidious erosion of traditional values that is taking place today.

Recently, the Ministry of Education sent a Study Team to Taiwan and Hong Kong to learn how they have kept their core values amid change and modernization. While there is no denying that we can always learn something from the experience and experiments of others, I hope that the superficial impressions formed from glimpses of two homogeneous societies will not be the basis on which Singapore's core values are formulated.

Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society, quite different in composition from Taiwan and Hong Kong. It is obvious that the core values which should be taught in our schools must serve the objectives of promoting social cohesiveness and developing a Singaporean identity out of the diverse groups of Singaporeans. That these must be essentially Asian is axiomatic. They must also be values which uphold the three most dearly held Asian institutions of family, community and country, besides the values which promote self-development. I hope that in its eagerness to draw up a core values progrmame, the Ministry of Education does not go about it the wrong way.

There are certain values that we cherish in Singapore and which have served us well. They have sustained us through turbulent times. Otherwise, we would not have survived and prospered as a nation. These are the values that we must identify, preserve and teach our young.

One challenge that is facing us is to put up a creditable team of experts who will not only be able to identify and prioritize the values we have, but also arrange for their introduction into our schools. Another challenge is to provide a definition of core values that transcends ethnic differences, reconciles incompatabilities and encompasses a universal outlook.

I will venture to suggest that in its search for core values, the Ministry should first look at its own backyard. Over the years we have had a whole host of values education programmes, from Education for Living and Good Citizenship to Being and Becoming and Religious Knowledge. I am sure that the Ministry will find a wealth of materials and information in its own archives.

Our problem has been that we have always relegated values education to an unimportant, secondary position in our school curriculum. The answer is not only to make the teaching of core values merely a subject in the school time-table, but also to make our core values a part of the ethos of every school community. The inculcation of core values, if they are to have a life-long effect, must be internalized in each child. In order to achieve this, our core values education programme must build upon the real life examples and experiences that children can see, practise and understand.

The teaching of the values must not only be formal but also pervasive, otherwise it will sound like shallow moralizing and will lack the ring of authenticity. These values must permeate the school system and be reflected in its organizational structure, its daily transactions and routines, the way staff and pupils are dealt with, the school rules, and the manner in which critical situations which will arise from time to time are handled. These values, to be effective, must constitute the school's ethos, its beliefs and its practices.

It is only when society, parents, Ministry of Education officials, principals and teachers themselves subscribe to the value system, that it will become a living reality. A value system only begins to function when there is a community of believers subscribing to it. However, if there exists only a superficial acknowledgment of the system, it is destined to fail. People who lack conviction will not reflect the value system in their daily conduct. What will become apparent mo all then is the existence of a double standard - do as I say but not as I do. Hypocrisy of this kind will neutralize all attempts to promote the system.

These are warning signposts that I would like to set up along with the accolades of moral values.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Chairman, the proposed teaching of core values in our schools, to in my mind, is going to be a regressive step in our efforts of nation building. In nation building, we must aim for unity, we must remove all divisive factors. For 30 years since attaining self-government, racial harmony has been a cornerstone in our society. What is going to happen when we teach the core values in our schools as has been suggested in some quarters? Chinese Singaporeans probably will be made to study Confucianism, our Malay and Muslim Singaporeans will study Islam, and our Indian brethrens will be taught Indian traditions. Each ethnic community in Singapore will eventually be different. They will not be able to attain a common Singapore identity. The Chinese, through the influence of Confucius teachings, will become more Chinese. The Malays will be drawn closer together as a group with Islam as a strong rallying point. And the Indians will be more Indian. They will identify themselves strongly with Indian traditions and culture. Sir, the teaching of core values will thus be a disruptive effective on our multi-racial society. It will undo what we have achieved in racial peace and progress over all these years.

Sir, the other point I want to bring up is that teaching of core values will also impede our progress towards a truly democratic society which is the aim of our national pledge. Confucianism will feature prominently in the teaching of our core values. Confucius lived in fedual times and he had never heard of words such as democracy, opposition parties, or general elections. Confucius advocated filial piety which is a philosophy in itself. When translated into political terms, it means blind obedience to authority. In Confucius' time, authority meant authority of the Emperor. As long as the Emperor carried out his duty to provide food, shelter and clothing for his subjects, they were obliged to obey him.

We have heard the Minister for Finance on 14th March in this House announce that the Government has discharged fully its primary duty to the people by meeting all their basic needs. By implication, Sir, is the Government saying that it then has the right to rule Singapore in an absolute manner? There is no room for democracy, there is no room for open debates on government policies, no room for opposition in Singapore's political system, since they have provided the basic necessities? Once the Government begins to talk in the Confucian language and to behave in an authoritarian manner, just because it has carried out its duty of providing Singaporeans with the basic necessities, then our society will surely begin to rot from within. Corruption of power will set in followed by widespread nepotism, just like the old empires in China. Confucius' teachings had been misused by Emperors in old China to the detriment of that country. If we launch an all-out effort to establish Confucianism in Singapore, could it not also be misused by a later govern- ment? Who will give us that assurance that future governments will not use Confucius' teachings once it is established here for their own benefit?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to touch on two aspects of the teaching of core values. I hope what Mr Chiam fears most would not materialize. Because as far as my understanding goes, Confucianism teaches many good values.

Sir, the point about the teaching of core values is: what core values do we want to teach? The Government has suggested four core values. They are all good core values. But the point is: how do they carry them out? And they have left out the universal declaration of human rights. These are the most important core values accepted by the whole world. Why can we not also accept them? Are we again exclusive in this area?

Sir, I asked, how do they teach core values. I think it is important that they teach by precept. When I say that, Sir, it means to say that the teachers who teach them must show and follow those examples which they teach. And what is more important, the political leaders must also live up to what they say. If they say one thing and do another, that is no good. It is going to get everything down and is wrong.

The other aspect which I want to stress has already been partly mentioned by Mr Sia, ie, that it is much better that core values be taught in schools. And taught in schools not by merely reading from books on civics but by doing and practice by the principals, by the teachers, by the administrators, by the students themselves. In my old days, we had to do everything in the school. We even had to sweep the drain and loos as well. We were taught good manners. Well, I hope I still have those good manners. In many ways, the manners of students from Chinese schools are, in general, better than the manners of students from English schools. That is because in the old Chinese schools, they used to teach the real good core values. This has also been mentioned in an article in the Lianhe Zaobao two days ago. I think the Minister should read that article. It says, Zai xue xiao chuang zao dao de huan jing. Maybe he will learn something from that. And I hope the students will surely learn in the schools. Once the core values are taught in the schools, then the students become immersed into the whole environment and they learn gradually, without knowing it, all the good values that they should value in their later life.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Tampines GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to speak on the cut on traditional values and religious knowledge first?

The Chairman: Of course.

Dr Aline Wong: Since Mr Chiam has talked about his views on Confucianism and one of the points I was going to make on the Religious Knowledge programme was also on Confucianism, I think I should deal with this matter first.

The Member for Braddell Heights touched on the Report on Religion and Religious Revivalism in Singapore. Likewise, I believe we should also take a very serious look at this Report and for the Minister to consider whether this course on Religious Knowledge should or should not be continued.

The researchers believe that the introduction of religious courses has a significant impact on the present and future religious development in Singapore. And they have recommended that the Religious Knowledge programme be reassessed, implying that if the undesirable consequences outweigh the desirable ones, then the programme should be dropped. The recommendation of the Report was based on several observations. First, Singapore, being a secular state, should keep religion and state separate. When religious courses are introduced into all schools, this principle of separation between state and religion is actually being breached. Second, in deciding on which religious courses to be taught as options in the RK programme, the Government is officially endorsing the chosen religions over the others. Third, when one religion begins to engage in active proselytizing or propagating its faith, then it may provoke a response from other religions. This would lead to competition and because religion is closely tied to ethnicity in our social context, competition may also lead to racial conflict.

Sir, I believe the observations of the Report deserve our serious attention. And I agree that a close look at the RK programme should be made. A decision on its continuation should be taken sometime in the future.

RK was introduced as part of the Moral Education programme in 1984. The rationale behind its introduction was our concern that younger Singaporeans have become "deculturised". To counter this trend, emphasis is placed on teaching traditional values so that young Singaporeans can identify with their own cultural roots. So the teaching of RK has served a useful function of transmitting cultural values. But should it begin to show some negative indications for social harmony, as the Report has reason to believe, I think we must be very careful. We may have to drop the courses no matter how good the original intention was and how much resources we have poured into the programme already.

However, dropping the programme would produce a lacuna in our school curriculum. At present, the Moral Education course for primary and lower secondary students only teach universal, humanitarian values. We may therefore have to inject more cultural value content into the teaching of the second languge. But even with this alternative, something is still going to be lost. For the Chinese in particular, the present course on Confucian Ethics is a most valuable source of cultural knowledge. The two school texts are comprehensive and are well-written, even if a bit heavy going especially if you read it at one go. A lot of resources have gone into their production, and into the training of the teachers. So how can we prevent such resources from going to waste? How can we still put back some Confucian ethics into the school curriculum?

Sir, to the majority of the Chinese, Confucianism is Chineseness, ie, Confucian values are central to Chinese culture and personality. No doubt, some of the Confucian values need to be adapted to our modern-day conditions. In fact, the two texts have attempted to adapt Confucian values to modern-day concepts of family living, and also to concepts about citizenship and democracy. One may argue, of course, whether the attempt to revise it especially as geared to secondary student levels is adequate or broad enough. But that is a separate question.

Perhaps for the Member for Potong Pasir, if he has some difficulty in understanding Chinese, he should read these two English texts to begin with and see how Confucianism, in fact, can be adapted to modern-day conditions.

For the Minister for Education, may I ask if his Ministry has actually begun to look at the RK programme, and when would a decision be made on the matter? If the programme were to be dropped, what does he propose to do with the resources that we have already put into the Confucian Ethics as a course?

Let me now turn to the subject of pre-primary classes. On 29th January 1989, the papers carried a report on the Auditor-General's recommendation that the pre-primary programme should be scrapped. Pre-primary classes have become very popular with parents because of the longer hours and the lower fees as compared with kindergartens. Also, the classes provide a Mandarin-speaking environment, a more structured programme and better-trained teachers. It is therefore understandable that parents are quite disappointed by the Auditor-General's recommendation, especially since it seems to place so much emphasis on the cost factor.

I believe cost-effectiveness should not be the main criterion for the Ministry to take a decision on the matter. Instead, we should address two fundamental questions: First, is it the function of the Ministry of Education to provide pre-primary education? If not, what other alternatives are open to parents? Second, has the pre-primary programme served to give children a headstart in learning Chinese?

With regard to the first question, I am of the opinion that the Ministry of Educa- tion's function is to cater to primary, secondary and tertiary education, just like ministries of education all over the world do. That our Ministry of Education has gone into pre-primary education was due to a pecular historical reason, ie, to help arrest the decline in enrolment in Chinese schools in the 1970s. But this reason is no longer valid now, because English has become the main medium of instruction in all schools since we implemented the national stream in 1987. Thus, pre-primary classes now are teaching both English and Chinese. And this is what most kindergartens run by private or community organizations are also doing. The fees charged by the kindergartens run by community organizations are affordable and the teachers are also trained at the Institute of Education. So I feel that pre-primary education can very well be left to non-MOE kindergartens. It can even be said that, since the kindergartens are not subject to the bureaucratic constraints of the Ministry, they can be even more flexible and more innovative.

The second question, giving children a headstart in learning Chinese, is a major concern among the Chinese-educated parents. Their concern has been highlighted by the Chinese press. I sympathize with their concern. But I think the Ministry has already got evidence that after a few years of primary education, the language abilities of children who attended pre-primary classes are no different from those who attended non-MOE kindergartens. So this rationale for the pre-primary education to be undertaken by the Ministry of Education is also not there.

Sir, the teaching of CL2 continues to be a very important challenge to the Ministry. But as far as the pre-primary programme is concerned, I wonder if the Minister can give us some indication as to whether or not he is going to accept the Auditor-General's recommendation. And if he is going to scrap the classes, what is he going to do with the existing facilities and the trained staff?

The Chairman: Order. Moment of interruption.

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

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1989/90, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 20th March 1989.

Mr Speaker: So be it.