TEACHING OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE IN SCHOOLS

1.05 pm

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Speaker, Sir, in March this year, during the debate on the Estimates of the Ministry of Education, I informed Members that the Ministry of Education was taking a fresh look at the whole question of the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. The basic reason that necessitated such a review was the conclusion of a recent study conducted by the National University of Singapore's Sociology Department on Religions and Religious Revivalism in Singapore.

As Members may recall, the conclusion of that study was that Government, through the introduction of compulsory Religious Knowledge programmes in schools, has not been entirely neutral in the matter of religions. By designating only certain Religious Knowledge subjects to be made available in schools as compulsory subjects, the Government has given the impression of according preferential status to certain religions. This is not in accordance with the Government's desire to be neutral and even-handed in the handling of religious matters in Singapore.

At the debate in March, I put forward three possible options for consideration. First, discontinue all teaching of Religious Knowledge subjects in our secondary schools and bring back the Civics courses which we had in 1979. Second, scrap the Religious Knowledge options and replace them with a general subject called "Study of World Religions" or perhaps "Study of Major Religions". And third, allow the Religious Knowledge subjects to be taught in schools but only as optional subjects to be taught outside curriculum time and not to be used for purposes of admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres.

In putting forward the three options, I said that whatever course of action we eventually choose, there is one thing we must do and, that is, we should not take precipitate action on such a complex and important matter. Rather, we should first discuss the matter with parents, teachers and principals, community leaders and the heads of the established religions in Singapore, Members of Parliament, academics and the public, before making a final decision.

Therefore, Sir, following the announcement in Parliament, I have held four meetings with various groups - on 20th May this year, with principals and teachers; on 26th May, with members and resource persons of the GPC on Education and academics; on 8th July, with the heads of the religious organisations; and on 12th August, with community leaders and the general public at a dialogue session organised by the Feedback Unit.

All these meetings, Sir, have been reported in the press and I do not wish to bore Members by describing the proceedings in detail. It suffices for me to say that there was no consensus at the meetings. I think this should not be surprising. Religion is a very deeply felt matter. It touches the very hearts of people and determines their motivation. It is therefore not surprising that no consensus has arisen from the meetings.

But, Sir, we can discern three groups of opinions as arising from the meetings. The first group would prefer to retain as far as possible the method and form in which the Religious Knowledge subjects are taught in our schools. This group feels that Religious Knowledge has been beneficial to students and has helped to give them a direction in life. They feel that the subject is needed today to give children a guide to life and that it will be a grave loss to our education system if Religious Knowledge were not to be taught in schools. This view is supported by representatives from the major religious groups as well as by many parents who feel that they would like their children to be exposed to some religious education during their school days.

The second group would recommend scrapping the Religious Knowledge subjects and replacing them by a subject to be called either Civics or National Education which would place emphasis on correct behaviour, national priorities, how Singaporeans should get on with one another, and an appreciation of how to live in a multi-racial, multi-religious society. This view is supported by many of our school principals and representatives of the teacher organisations.

The third group would scrap the Religious Knowledge subjects and replace them with a subject on the major religions in Singapore. This would be taught, not as a means of providing a guide to children as to how they should live their lives, but as part of a moral education programme on personal conduct. The aim would be to provide an appreciation of how the major religions conduct themselves and their different practices and beliefs. This view was advanced by a wide cross-section of the public, including parents, representatives of the established religions and ordinary laymen.

The Government Parliamentary Committee on Education has organised its own hearings on the subject and held informal dialogue sessions with teachers and students from different schools. In a report to me, they also reported that there was no consensus from participants at their public hearing and the subsequent informal dialogue sessions which they had as to the future direction the Ministry of Education should take with regard to the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. After deliberation, they have recommended that schools be allowed to continue to teach Religious Knowledge subjects but as optional subjects outside school hours and the subjects should continue to be used for purposes of admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres. In place of the compulsory Religious Knowledge subjects now taught within curriculum time, the GPC suggested that a new subject called "Civics" be introduced to incorporate both the Moral Education and Pastoral Care Programmes and to be taught as a non-examination subject to students at Secondary 1, 2 and 3 levels.

Sir, the range of opinions that have been raised at the various meetings is aptly summed up in an editorial in The Straits Times on 12th August, and I quote:

"Since the subject of the teaching of Religious Knowledge was raised in March, there has been no let-up in public discussions and no lack of educationists, religious leaders, teachers, parents and various individuals willing to offer their suggestions. Their preferences ranged from maintaining the status quo of having compulsory religious knowledge in schools to scrapping it completely; from making it optional within school hours to outside hours; from bringing back Civics to introducing world religions. For a matter so close to the heart or indeed for some, of the souls, the sentiments are understandable."

Now, Sir, faced with such a number of options and with the complexity of the subject, the question is what should we do? I think, Sir, that under such circumstances the correct approach which we should use in coming to a decision is first of all to go back to first principles and to ask ourselves one fundamental question and, that is: Was the Government right in 1982 to accept the principle that it was proper for schools to play a major role in the teaching of Religious Knowledge to children? This, to me, is the crux of the issue and we have to settle this question first before we can arrive at a decision on the future direction for the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools.

Sir, there is no right or wrong answer to this question. Our decision must depend on the type of society Singapore is, the component groups in our population, the circumstances in which we find ourselves and the general desire and priorities of our people. Furthermore, no decision is valid for all time. All decisions must change as circumstances change and decisions which were right at one time may be wrong and may have to be modified at another time. One example is our population policy.

So we ask ourselves: has there been any fundamental change in circumstances since 1982 when Government decided to introduce compulsory Religious Knowledge options in schools?

In my view, Sir, one fundamental change has taken place. Unlike 1982, there is today a heightened consciousness of religious differences and a new fervour in the propagation of religious beliefs. This trend is world-wide and it embraces all faiths. It can be seen in the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, enhanced Christian evangelisation and resurgence of activity and interest among traditional religions such as Buddhism. Sir, if carried to extremes, this trend towards greater fervour in the propagation of religious beliefs can disrupt our traditional religious harmony and religious tolerance which are pre-requisites for life in Singapore. It is not possible for Government to ignore this new development. We must take cognizance of it and we must implement measures to ensure that it does not upset the present climate of religious tolerance in Singapore. I think, Sir, we have to face this fact squarely.

But to avoid any suspicion of partiality in formulating and implementing the measures, it is essential for Government to be seen to be scrupulously neutral and even-handed in the handling of religious matters in Singapore.

Now, Sir, to avoid any misunderstanding, I want to clarify what is meant by the phrase "to be neutral and even-handed in the handling of religious matters". What the phrase means simply is that Government cannot and should not be perceived to lean towards or to favour any particular religion. The phrase, does not mean that Government is against religion.

All Singaporeans, including the Government, are well aware of the enormous contribution which religious groups have made to the life and progress of our country, particularly in the field of education. The schools which have been established by the major religious groups in Singapore have made a great contribution to the cause of education in Singapore. We hope that they will continue their good work and we can assure them of the Government's support for their educational efforts.

But to be neutral and even-handed in a matter of religions must mean, at the very least, that Government should not give the appearance even unintentionally of giving preferred status to any particular religion or of using Government institutions or Government-supported institutions such as schools to help propagate any particular faith.

It follows then, Sir, that schools as Government-supported institutions should, in my view, not be used as a means to impart religious beliefs to children. The teaching of religious beliefs, of what guides a person through life, what impels a person to be what he is, this is the province of the home. It is not the province of the schools. And parents cannot abdicate this responsibility to the schools or to Government. It is the responsibility of parents to be moral exemplars, to set examples for their children, to teach them their religious beliefs and to bring them up in the religion in which they would like their children to follow. Schools can at most play a minor supporting role but the prime responsibility must remain that of the parents.

Sir, if we accept the principle that the proper province for the teaching of religious beliefs is not in the schools but in the home, then it must follow that Religious Knowledge should not be made a compulsory subject to be taught within curriculum time in schools. And neither in principle should Religious Knowledge be used as a subject to be counted for junior college or for pre-university admission purposes.

In place of the Religious Knowledge programmes, it is the intention of the Ministry to extend the present Civics/Moral Education Programme, which is presently taught in the lower levels of our secondary schools, to Secondary 3 and 4 with a view to expanding the Programme and incorporating aspects of nation building, an awareness of our shared values and an appreciation of the beliefs and practices of the various religions and races in Singapore. It will take the Ministry at least two years to construct the syllabus, to write the textbooks and train the teachers to teach this new subject. The first cohort of students to study the expanded Civics/Moral Education Programme will be those going into Secondary 3 in 1992.

Sir, I realise that this is a radical departure from the Government's position in 1982 when Religious Knowledge was introduced in schools. And it will be natural for parents to be concerned and to worry whether their children's education will be affected by this new policy. To avoid upsetting school schedules, the Ministry intends to phase out the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools over a period of years so as to cause the least disruption to the education of our children.

Since the Ministry will not be able to introduce the expanded Civics/Moral Education Programme in schools until 1992 at the earliest, the following transitional arrangements will apply:

First, students who are in Secondary 1 and 2 this year, the lower levels of our secondary schools, will not be required to study Religious Knowledge as a compulsory subject during curriculum time when they proceed to Secondary 3 in 1990 or 1991. The students may, if they wish, study a Religious Knowledge subject but on an optional basis outside curriculum time and they can still offer it as an '0' level subject. In the transitional years in 1990 and 1991, when the expanded Civics/Moral Education Programme will not yet be available, principals will be given the flexibility to decide on how to utilise the two teaching periods within curriculum time which are now allocated to Religious Knowledge. The principals can use these two periods for activities such as pastoral care and values education, discussions on current affairs, and strengthening rapport between teachers and pupils.

Secondly, Sir, for the students who are presently in Secondary 3 and 4 and who will be proceeding to do the GCE '0' level examinations in 1990 or 1991, they will continue to be given instruction in the Religious Knowledge subjects of their choice during curriculum time. This is because the students would have already covered a substantial part of the syllabus with a view to including Religious Knowledge as a subject to be counted for purposes of admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres. We should enable these students, who are now in Secondary 3 or in Secondary 4, to continue their study of the Religious Knowledge subjects with as little disruption as possible.

Now, Sir, I turn to the inclusion of Religious Knowledge as a subject to be used for purposes of admission to junior colleges and to pre-university centres. The Ministry has considered very carefully the effects of not allowing Religious Knowledge on the academically weaker pupils who would normally rely on the use of Religious Knowledge as one of their subjects to qualify for admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres. A simulation study done by the Ministry shows that, while the number going into junior college will be reduced, the impact should not be too severe.

Sir, let me give some figures. Of the students who were admitted to junior colleges this year, ie, 1989, the number of pupils who would still meet the requirements for junior college, if Religious Knowledge was not included, would be reduced by 5% (from 10,651 to 10,107). The number of Malay pupils qualifying for junior college admission would be reduced by 13% (from 306 to 265). And the corresponding figures for the other races are: for Chinese pupils, a reduction of 4% (from 9,640 to 9,242); for Indian pupils, a reduction of 15% (from 514 to 435) and Other Races, a reduction of 14% (from 191 to 165).

Sir, in order to give the students ample time to adjust their subject combinations, the Ministry has decided to allow the use of Religious Knowledge as a subject for junior college and pre-university admission requirements up to the Year of Admission 1994. What this means is that all students who are presently in secondary schools today, including those who will proceed to Secondary 3 in 1990 or 1991 and who will sit the '0' level examinations latest by December 1993, will be able to count Religious Knowledge as a subject for purposes of admission to junior colleges and to pre-university centres.

Sir, the Ministry of Education and the Government have considered carefully the decision to phase out the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. We have not taken this decision hastily. Six months have passed since I announced the decision to review the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. We have actively sought feedback from all sectors who would be affected by our decision. All views have been taken into account. I do not expect the decision to be welcomed by all quarters. Indeed, I am sure that there will be some disappointment and also perhaps some criticism. But I would be satisfied if the public and parents particularly come to regard this decision as fair and, unwelcome as it may be, to be in the long-term interest of Singapore and of Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as this is a topic on which I know that Members have different views, I believe that Members would therefore like to debate my statement. Under the rules, this would not be possible as there is no question before the House. I have consulted the Leader of the House on how Members can have an opportunity of having a full debate on my statement. On his advice and with your indulgence, Sir, I intend to adopt the device of moving a motion for adjournment for that specific purpose. At the conclusion of the debate, I shall then seek leave to withdraw my motion, so that the House can then proceed to the other business in the Order Paper. May I add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I understand the Leader of the House has also sought your advice on this matter.

Mr Speaker: Yes. Please proceed, Dr Tan.