TEACHING OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE IN SCHOOLS

1.30 pm

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this fair recommendation and I wish to put forward some views and make recommendations to the Ministry of Education. I also want to put on record in Hansard my GPC's stand on this subject. I do not want to go through the introduction of my paper. I will just come down to the summary of feedback received by the Ministry of Education.

Generally, there was no firm consensus from the participants at the public hearing that my GPC conducted, and the subsequent informal dialogue sessions as to the future direction that the Ministry of Education should take with regard to the teaching of Religious Knowledge (RK).

There were four different schools of thought and I shall summarize these as follows:

1. That RK should continue to be taught in its present form, ie, taught during school hours as a compulsory subject and which can also be considered for Pre-U/JC admission. This was strongly supported by the representatives from the Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim religious bodies.

2. That RK be taught as an optional subject during school hours which can also be considered for Pre-U/JC admission, a view propounded by most of the other participants including the Christian and Tamil Teachers' Unions. In that case, the Taoists and the Bahais would also like to see equal treatment being accorded to all religions.

3. That in addition to making RK an optional subject, Civics should also be reintroduced into the school curriculum, as was suggested by the Singapore Chinese Teachers' Union.

4. That RK be replaced by a Moral Education Programme which also incorporates the essentials of the main religions, a proposal put forward by the Singapore Teachers' Union and the Tamil Language Society.

No one spoke up for the retention of Confucian Ethics. When asked for an opinion, the representative from the Singapore Teachers' Union said that Confucian Ethics was too difficult and abstract to teach effectively at this level.

I shall now give the views and recommendations of my GPC. Whilst recognising that the teaching of the RK may provide moral guidance to pupils, our GPC is of the opinion that it should not be taught as a compulsory subject during school hours for the following reasons:

(a) Teaching only a few religions, especially the main ones as practised in Singapore, is not being fair to the other religions, bearing in mind the multi-religious fabric of our society. Nor is it fair to the large numbers of free thinkers, an increasing section of the population who have no RK option.

(b) Making RK a compulsory subject for all students does not appear consistent with the secular basis of the Government and State.

(c) Teaching students only one specific religion may lead to religious exclusivity and is likely to further accentuate the religious differences which, in turn, may indirectly hamper our efforts to create a united nation, especially when, as happens, religious and ethnic divisions coincide.

(d) With the recent religious revivalism, there is a danger that the continued teaching of RK may heighten religious proselytization by certain religious groups leading, in turn, to the same by hitherto inactive groups from the other faiths.

In view of the foregoing and after taking into consideration the feedback and views received, our GPC would like to make the following recommendations:

(a) That the teaching of RK as a compulsory subject during school hours be discontinued and instead be taught as an optional subject outside school hours. This is in line with the Ministry of Education's thinking and recommendation.

(b) That students be allowed to take it as an examination subject if they so desire, and the grades they receive can be considered for Pre-U/JC admission, as is the present practice.

The Ministry of Education has now agreed that it could be used for Pre-U/JC admission but only up to the year 1994. I was about to ask the Minister how this will affect enrolment in the JCs and he has given us the answer and therefore I would not want to pursue. But I agree with him that this will cause some unhappiness, especially among those students who took up RK as a subject because they could use it as a subject for entry into Pre-U. I support the Ministry in this because I think sufficient time has been given, up to 1994, and therefore adjustments could be made by then.

In doing away with RK as a compulsory subject, steps should also be taken to streamline and link the present Moral Education Programme taught to Secondary 1 and Secondary 2 students with the Pastoral Care Programme at the upper secondary level. We make this recommendation and it may sound a little bit odd mixing the Moral Education Programme with the Pastoral Care Programme. But discussions with teachers give me the impression that there are many similar topics being taught by the Moral Education teachers and also by the Pastoral Care teachers. There seems to be a lot of similarities. That is why we suggest that it should be streamlined. This will make the curriculum neater and also easier to manage the time table.

Accordingly, we propose that a new subject called Civics be introduced and this is also in agreement with the recommendation of the Ministry. But we would like to say that its syllabus could include citizenship education as well as the values of the proposed National Ideology together with a broad over-view of the main beliefs and practices of the various religions in Singapore, focusing on shared moral values in order to promote greater racial and religious understanding and tolerance. Such a course should emphasize shared loyalties and values and not differences as does the present RK Programme. This new subject, Civics, should be taught as a non-examination subject to students at Secondary 1, 2 and 3 levels. Here, among my GPC Members, there was disagreement. Some felt that it should be an examination subject, but the majority thought otherwise. We suggested that at Secondary 4, it will be better to allow the students to concentrate on the other examination subjects and leave teaching of Civics or whatever subject that the Ministry is proposing to stop at Secondary 3 level. We are also concerned that measures should be taken to ensure that the periods allotted to the teaching of this subject are not utilized for other purposes, such as make-up or remedial lessons for other subjects.

In my dialogue sessions, we encountered many requests from religious bodies that they might not be able to cope with this new change. They suggested that the Ministry should consider providing the necessary facilities such as administrative and physical arrangements necessary for the holding of such classes which could be centralized in certain selected schools. This interim measure will allay the fears of some religious bodies which have, as I said, no facilities to conduct these classes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, I would just like to say that I have pointed out the similarities and the differences of the Ministry's recommendations and my GPC's recommendations. I have also pointed out the implications of this change, how it will affect the school, how it will affect the students, how it will affect the enrolment in JCs, and whether this new subject will also be an examination subject when it is combined with Moral Education or combined with Pastoral Care.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that I concur with the Minister that ultimately the family plays an important part in inculcating values to our Singa- poreans. This must be strongly recognized and that the schools only play a supportive minor role.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that the present decision is a very difficult one to make. But I believe the decision made by the Minister for Education is a very fair one which meets the long-term interest of our people and our country. I firmly believe that we must insist on the policy of separation of religion and politics or the State. Therefore, I am of the opinion that religion should not be brought into the school. Therefore I support the Government's decision on this point.

Undeniably Religious Knowledge has its good points to the students. But now we have also seen its maladies. Because of changes in objective circumstances we now can see that if we were to maintain the present status quo there would be more disadvantages than advantages. He who adapts will suit the time. Now it is one time, then it was another time. The situation five years ago was different from the situation today. What particularly would call for our attention is the NUS sociology scholars' study-report on religion in our society, what they have pointed out about the possibility of social tension and religious conflict resulting from religious revivalism and fervent religious propagation by some groups.

On the abolition of Religious Knowledge as a compulsory subject, I believe the majority of the principals and teachers will also agree with the decision of the Ministry of Education. But here I would like to say that this decision also behoves us to go back to our traditional moral education, ie, moral education without religious colours, such as to subjects like Civics.

On this point, we have noticed that in the past, even now, subjects like moral education or ethics, which had nothing to do with examination had been ignored by the schools and the students. Some schools even made use of the period for such subject for other things such as supplementary teaching and make-up classes for other subjects. This neglect on teaching of moral education or ethics is possibly the major problem in our schools, moral education. So we must try to rectify this situation. In fact, at the moment, we also lack one set of common subjects on moral education or ethics which would be acceptable to all schools, particularly secondary schools and to students of all ethnic communities as a continuation of Civics subjects taught in primary schools. In our secondary schools, there should be one set of common teaching materials on ethics or moral values so that our students may be inculcated with a commonly shared and accepted traditional moral values and concept irrespective of ethnic origin and be able to discern and cultivate good and high standard of personal character and conduct so that they will be imbued with our correct moral values and attitude and be able to ward off any undesirable western decadent influences and stand up as morally upright and self-respecting Asians and good Singapore citizens, not subjecting themselves, in their spirit to be slavish to western decadent sub-culture and values through the English language and the neglect of one's own social responsibility as against extreme Western individualism as a duty owed to one's own country. I hope that this set of common moral textbooks will come into being very soon and our schools, including our principals and teachers, from now on will pay more attention to the education of moral values in the schools and try to set examples to the students to guide them in their ethical behaviour.

Sir, the difference between religion and moral education lies in the fact that religion is a kind of faith in some metaphysical deity imposing certain precepts binding on the believers, whereas ethics or moral education depends on the teachers untiringly setting good examples to show the students how to behave, how to be upright and good citizens. In view of this important role of the teachers, a long time is taken for education. I hope and believe that from now on our schools, teachers and all people concerned would respond to and take active part in this task and challenge.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Sir, I wish to make a few observations on the question of teaching of Religious Knowledge in our schools. While I accept the Ministry's decision, given the long-term implications the teaching of the subject may have on political stability, racial harmony in our multi-racial and multi-religious society, I am rather concerned about the reaction that certain religious organisations and minority communities will have on this change in policy.

Sir, the Ministry of Education is aware of the preference of most religious organisations and a number of minority communities on this subject. The Minister himself has heard these various views both at his own dialogue sessions and dialogue sessions organised by the GPC on Education and the Feedback Unit. They have unanimously held that the teaching of religious studies in a manner that would not compromise the Government's secular stand on religion. They believe that such classes would benefit the students by giving them basically some moral anchor. This is particularly so for some ethnic communities like Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus who have found that the teaching of their respective religious studies has helped their children to become more responsible and better citizens, thus alleviating and reducing social problems within their communities. Furthermore, Sir, it is their view that Religious Knowledge was only introduced five years ago and it is still too early for the Government to assess its long-term impact, good or otherwise. To begin, in their own words, another experiment could produce to be unwise.

Secondly, Sir, there are also a number of mission schools in Singapore which will be affected by this policy. Religion has been a major pillar in such schools and we know for a fact that many of them nurture very good students, including the Minister for Education. To remove religion from their curriculum is like taking away their souls. A number of religious organisations representing these schools even feel that they should be allowed to continue teaching their respective religious studies to the exclusion of even other studies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my next point refers to the withdrawal of religious studies like Hinduism and Islamic studies during curriculum time. Whilst I accept the necessity to withdraw, I think somewhere it is necessary for the Government to provide brick, mortar and even teachers to facilitate the teaching of such subjects for a period of time, possibly on a centralised basis if there is a need. This would allow some form of continuity. However, Sir, I also believe that on a longer term basis, the community itself through organisations like MUIS, the Hindu Advisory Board, Sikh Board and similar institutions, should take the responsibility for the teaching of religious studies.

Sir, a major worry and concern among the minority communities is the impact this policy will have on the admission of students from these communities to Junior Colleges and Pre-University Centres. So far, as the Minister indicated, students have been allowed to offer Religious Knowledge as a subject for entry into Junior Colleges and Pre-University Centres. Some of the figures the Minister gave in his statement apparently would deny 13% of Malay students, 15% of Indian students and 14% other races, if Religious Knowledge is not included as a subject. This number is not insignificant, as suggested by the Minister in his statement. If Religious Knowledge is still left as an examinable subject, I think the Ministry should reconsider this and allow it to be included as a subject for entry into junior college, just as second language is allowed as a subject. The relevance of a second language or Religious Knowledge to the academic studies is about the same. Otherwise, if this is not included, I feel that Malay and Hindu students will be further disadvantaged.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, let me add that apart from the above observations which I have made, I fully agree with what the Minister has stated about Singapore being a secular state. It is not only a secular state but a multi-racial and multi-religious one. To preserve religious harmony, we have to be extremely sensitive and it is also essential to keep religion and politics totally separate.

Sir, the President in his Address at the opening of Parliament this year stated that some ground rules should be spelt out to keep religion religiously separate from politics. I believe it will not be out of place during this debate for me to ask the Government what has happened to this proposal for establishing ground rules. Or does the Government feel that it is not a serious problem and that there is no need for such rules during this period of time?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion and to seek clarifications from the Minister.

The Minister has stated that in Government institutions or Government-supported institutions, the Government must be seen to be scrupulously neutral. In this connection, I would like to ask the Minister for clarification regarding, firstly, Government-aided or mission schools and, secondly, the tertiary institutions, the polytechnics and the universities. Sir, firstly, with regard to Government-aided or mission schools, will they be allowed to propagate their beliefs? Will chapel classes, for example, be allowed? Will these schools still be allowed to appoint chaplains who are church ministers? Will religious groups be allowed to meet in mission or Government-aided schools, outside curriculum hours?

Sir, regarding the tertiary institutions, practically all the major religions have student groups meeting in these institutions. Will these student groups be allowed to meet and be recognised by the authorities so that they can, for example, continue to use certain lecture halls or rooms for meetings?

Sir, I agree with my colleague, Mr Chandra Das, that it is time that the Government further elaborated on what are the ground rules regarding the State and religion.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Aljunied GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with mixed feelings that I listened to the Minister's statement on the status of the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. It is a feeling of regret tempered with anxiety.

I regret that what was thought to be educationally sound in 1982 is now considered unsound. I recall that the Report on Moral Education (1979) recognised the fact that "religious studies help to reinforce the teaching of moral values." Hence, the introduction of Religious Knowledge in schools in 1982. Now, after seven years, just as Religious Knowledge is about to firm itself, this educational investment is now considered too risky.

My anxiety, Sir, is over public response to the statement. Recognising the value of Religious Knowledge, what will be the form and substance of the substitute that will fill this educational vacuum? Will this substitute again have to suffer the same fate seven years after its formal adoption? These are some of the questions that will be asked by the public and the parents.

Sir, as there is no consensus on this issue, as reported by the Minister, I would prefer that we maintain the status quo but with some modifications. Much time and effort have gone into this educational project. It has yet to reach its maturity stage, so to speak.

Perhaps the question to ask is: has the teaching of Religious Knowledge served its purpose of reinforcing moral values? The Ministry could have done an interim survey or study on this. Like any curriculum development project, there are the expected and the unexpected results or by-products. If there are unexpected ones, what are they? Has the Ministry convinced itself that the unexpected or the undesirable by-products far outweigh the desirable ones? And again, on this question of the fundamental change on religious revivalism, to what extent are there indications that the teaching of Religious Knowledge will contribute to the rise of religious fervour amongst our students?

However, Sir, based on the Minister's statement and against the backdrop of this heightened religious fervour, I do sympathise with his concern in this matter. If anything else, he wants to err on the side of caution. It is a precautionary step to ensure that the teaching of Religious Knowledge does not develop into a hornets' nest. It is a step to insulate the school system from this stream of religious fervour that is flowing upstream in our society. The Ministry wants to free the schools from later becoming the fertile soil or the vehicle or the conduit for religious fervour and maybe extremism.

That is the underlying concern of the Ministry. If in the judgment of the Minister that the teaching of religious knowledge within the formal education system would one day be in danger of being influenced by the growing strength of religious fervour within our own environment, and if the education system does not have at its disposal the defusing mechanism on matters as sensitive as religion, then it is sane enough to expect the Ministry to neutralise the religious elements or the teaching of religious beliefs within the school curriculum.

But, Sir, what then will be the alternative that will fill this educational vacuum? The Minister mentioned the possible introduction of an expanded version of Civics and Moral Education. But whatever the form and substance of this new syllabus will be, I hope the Ministry will not lose sight of the primary objective of educating our Singaporean children. It should take the cue from what was said by the Prime Minister in his response to the Report on the Ministry of Education (1978). I think it is worth repeating, Sir. He said, and I quote:

'... the litmus test of a good education is whether it nurtures citizens who can live, work, contend and co-operate in a civilised way. Is he, loyal and patriotic? Is he when the need arises, a good soldier, ready to defend his country, and to protect his wife and children ... Is he a good neighbour and a trustworthy friend?' And of direct relevance, Sir, to our debate today, the Prime Minister emphasised, and I quote again:

' ... Is he tolerant of Singaporeans of different races and religions?'

This, Mr Speaker, Sir, encapsulates the kind of a rounded Singaporean that we hope will emerge from our education system. And it is this new expanded Civics and Moral Education that will have to provide the necessary ingredients for the making of this rounded Singaporean.

Sir, this envisaged new syllabus will undoubtedly be a challenge to our curriculum developers. Apart from giving the syllabus its own intellectual basis, it must have a structure and character that is distinctively Singaporean. It must mirror the values and virtues of our social and cultural environment, circumstances and even temperament. When completed, the curriculum developers must ensure that the values and virtues inherent in the syllabus could be translated into the teaching materials and modules. And I am confident that the curriculum developers will succeed in venturing into this new educational frontier that is relevant to Singapore's multi-racial setting.

Now, turning to the question of the transition period. I am glad to note that the Minister will be exercising great flexibility. Whatever the dislocation may be, it must be minimal.

On the provision to allow religious studies to be taught outside curriculum time as an optional subject, I hope the Minister will take into consideration and allow Muslim students to study Islamic Religious Knowledge outside curriculum time should there be requests from them in certain schools.

In conclusion, Sir, I must say that to chop and change the syllabus mid-stream is an unhealthy practice. But here, I think it may be an exception to the rule. It seems to me that we need to chop or amputate the leg to save the body. The overriding reason in doing this is because this is Singapore.

Our social, cultural and religious setting is unique. But we must not forget that it is also fragile. It can crack or crumble under growing inter-racial and inter-religious pressure. We therefore need to be vigilant and prevent this from happening. We must guard and preserve this racial harmony. Nothing should be allowed to destabilise it. Only then will our future be safe.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that this is a very important subject, a whole change of Government policy in regard to religion, and yet the Opposition has not been given notice that such an important debate is to take place here. I notice Members of the GPC have come with prepared texts.

Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Chiam. Earlier on when I asked the House if there were any dissenting views on the Minister's request to move a motion to exempt the debate from the provisions of the Standing Orders, ie, to remove ourselves from the constraint of the half-hour time limit, there were no objections. But your objection was directed against the moving of the motion of the adjournment by the Minister. And if you know your Standing Orders, the Minister is within his right to move a motion for the adjournment without any notice. You really have no grounds for any objections to the debate.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I do realise the Minister is right on technicalities. But we are talking of an important subject with regard to our nation.

Mr Speaker: I wish to indicate very clearly that the Minister is within his right to move the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I do realise that also, Sir.

Mr Speaker: All right. So I suggest you proceed with debating the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I hope that in future Ministers who want to move a motion on a very important topic should give the Opposition some notice. I do realise that they can get round all this with the technicalities of the rule.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I just want to make one point with regard to Mr Chiam's point that the Opposition has not been given notice. I believe, Sir, at the beginning of this month, at the first meeting of the Mendaki/MOE Committee, I was asked by reporters as to when I would be announcing the Ministry's decision on the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools, and I said that I would do it at the next sitting of Parliament. I also notice that in today's Straits Times, it is stated very prominently that I will be coming to Parliament today to announce the Ministry's decision. I think enough notice must have been given.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the absence of the Leader of the House, may I say that I agree with the Member for Potong Pasir when he said that it is an important topic. And if he feels that he has not got ample opportunity today to express all that he wants to say, I think Members would certainly have no objections if in future he exercises his right to move a motion on this matter.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, first of all, I will comment on what the Minister for Education has said. I do not think it is fair that our Order Paper should be transferred to the Straits Times and we have to keep tab with what is going on in Parliament by reading the Straits Times.

I thank the Minister for Law and Home Affairs for saying that I could move another motion. I think he has got it right there.

Sir, the Minister for Education did say that religious teaching, whether or not to change the policy, depends upon the type and circumstances of our society. I think this is very true. The type of society we have is inherited from the British. We have an education system for more than 100 years. Apart from the education system, religion has been taught in school and this is a historical fact.

Sir, in order for the society to have stability, we must not abruptly uproot or change institutions that have already been established and tested for a long time. I am referring to the mission schools in Singapore. They have been a great contributor to the society and they are tested institutions. The teaching of religion in these schools, I think, has been recognised by the Government as an important fact contributing to the good of our society. I think that is why in 1982 the Government had in fact gone one step further and introduced the teaching of religions in schools.

Sir, I do recognise and accept that Government must be secular. But I think the teaching of religion in schools does not make the Government involved in religion. We should continue the historical institution of teaching of religion in our schools. This is something that is historically with us. We are accepting what is already with us for a long time. I do not think it is wise to go around trying to change a very fundamental thing in our society very quickly. That will disorientate our society and make us really rootless. If we want to have roots in our society, we must have basic institutions. I think the teaching of religion in our schools is one of these basic institutions. The Government recognised it in 1982. They must have given it a long and hard look and thought about it. And now all of a sudden, we come to this House today and say that we are going to completely change that policy. I think this is a major decision to be made in Singapore - to take away religious teaching in our schools. The Government should not take such a strong step, but perhaps modify it. All right, if you do not want to make it compulsory, maybe it could be on an optional basis. [Interruption] No, you are taking it away completely from the schools and teaching it outside the schools.

Mr Chandra Das: Outside the curriculum, but still taught in the schools.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is right. I know. But it is not part of the school curriculum. I think that is very important. Because you are taking religion as if it is athletics, badminton or some other subject. I think that is a wrong emphasis on a subject. It should be taught within the school curriculum time, but on an optional basos. There is a basic difference there.

Sir, I do not think it is true to say that the students who take religion as an examination subject are students who are weak, who cannot pass the normal subjects or take religion to get them into pre-U classes. I think that is not fair. There are many students who want to have a grounding of religion and they take it as a subject, and they just follow it through as an examination subject.

Sir, I think religion is definitely important in our society. It gives a man the ballast, something to hold on to. We have seen a lot of social problems in Singapore, because if you take something away from them, they do not know what to cling on to unless, of course, you have got a good alternative. It is important that if we do not give our people some spiritual balance, they might search for other teachings.

Sir, the reason given for changing this policy is that they say there is a heightened religious awareness. I think this is typical of this Government. If there is a show of any slight movements in our society, they will have to go there and make big changes. I think this is wrong. This is something which is typical of our society. Sometimes when something comes up, it goes in a cycle and it will probably fade out in time to come. But I do not think it is right to change a major policy just because there is some heightened religious awareness. On this policy of trying to take away religious teaching from our curriculum, I do not think that it is a good thing. Many people fear that this is only a first step. As Dr Arthur Beng has stated, maybe the Government will say, "No more religious activities or groups of activities in our schools." I think people will fear that this is a first step and the Government should assure the people that they are not taking such steps. 2.15 pm

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: On a point of clarification on what Mr Chiam said. I did not make that statement. I asked the question for the Minister's clarification.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister for Education has said in his statement and also as reflected by the various Members of Parliament the question as to whether we should retain or do away with the Religious Knowledge subject, everybody has his own reason and justification for saying so. But since the Government has already balanced the pros and cons of this subject and has made the decision to abolish RK as a compulsory subject, I think we should only hope that this decision is a correct one.

Sir, what I am concerned is that this decision will cause the subject of Confucian Ethics to be the victim of abolition of RK subject. By name or by connotation Confucian Ethics, is a kind of ethics, a philosophy. It is not a religion. So, it should not be mentioned in the same breath and treated as a Religious Knowledge subject and subject to the same fate, being abolished together.

I remember that when the subject of Confucian Ethics was being prepared, the Ministry of Education had taken the trouble to recruit Confucian specialists and scholars to come to Singapore as consultants to help in compiling teaching materials and texts for the teaching of this subject. There have been many forums and seminars and studies to collect views on this subject. Finally, there was a systematic compilation of Confucian teaching taken from "The Four Books" into textbooks in both English and Chinese versions as a subject to be taught in schools. Singapore's effort is the first ever in the world. The Ministry of Education's attitude and careful manner in dealing with this matter should win our accolades. It has been lauded also by many International Confucian Scholars. Confucian Ethics as a subject has also been adopted by many schools, about one-fifth of our Secondary 3 and 4 students have opted for this subject.

Although Confucianism originated from China, but it does not mean that it is a Chinese thought. Much of the teaching is universal. Its promotion are also very popular in other countries such as Japan and South Korea, not just confined to China or Taiwan. There are many Confucian scholars, even among western countries. So now if you take away Confucian teaching from the schools, treating it as a religious subject to be abolished together, it would be a retrogressive action. The more sensible way for the Ministry to do is to treat Confucian Ethics teaching as the subject Civics, teaching morals, and not regard it as a RK subject. So, we should continue with and strengthen the teaching of Confucian Ethics as a curriculum subject in schools to fill up the vacuum left by the abolition of Religious Knowledge. Since Confucianism has been a subject of study internationally, it is also a subject good for all non-Chinese students in Singapore, whatever race they are. Because in the teaching of Confucianism there are such teachings on how cultivate oneself, form one's character and how to have proper relationship with other people. All students, whatever their race, will have life-long benefit from the learning of these teachings. If the text of Confucian Ethics had been too hard to compre- hend, as alleged by the Member for Ayer Rajah, we could ask the CDIS to amend it. We should not discard it just because it is hard to swallow by aboloshing the Confucial Ethics as a curriculum subject. Therefore, I hope the Minister will give furhter and deeper consideration to my suggestion before abolishing Confucian Ethics as a subject in the schools.

Dr Aline K Wong (Tampines GRC): Pending the clarification from the Minister on the position of the mission schools, vis-a-vis the teaching of Bible Knowledge, let me also share my concern about the particular position of the mission schools in Singapore in view of their past contributions to our education efforts.

Like the Member for Kampong Ubi, I also feel that the public is bound to ask the question that, after only five years of the introduction of Religious Knowledge, why is the Government now making the decision to change the status of the programme from a compulsory to an optional one? It would appear to have been a great waste of resources if the programme is scrapped only after such a short time. However, I also understand that circumstances are such that we have no choice but to change the status of the programme. What I do foresee is that even though we are making the programme an optional one from now on, in effect, I think the programme will die a natural death. Once Religious Knowledge ceases to be a compulsory subject and once it is no longer tied to the admission criteria for junior college and pre-university courses, I can see that the number of students is going to drop so drastically in a few more years and the whole thing will just die off.

Another point is that even though the Minister has clarified for us the circumstances surrounding the change of the status of the programme, ie, an increase in awareness of religious differences among the population in the last decade or so, I must add that this is not necessarily due to the Religious Knowledge Programme in itself. Even in Singapore there has been a quiet revival of religious fervour. In fact, we already hear of occasions when some communities feel that they are encroached upon and feel quite upset about it. In our situation, I think the complexities become more so because race and religion are quite closely linked to each other. In that light, in the past few years there has been a noticeable increase in the racial awareness of our population because we have discussed so many racial issues in the open, about political representation, about educational privileges and fertility. So the awareness of religious and racial differences has not arisen because of the RK programme in itself. Be that as it is, then it is by a coincidence of a number of factors external to the Ministry of Education that the RK Programme has been caught up with racial and religious sensitivites.

In my mind, the only way to resolve the problem is to ask the most fundamental question about the whole programme. The most fundamental question is whether the Government of a secular state should be involved in the teaching of religion. In my mind, the answer is a very clear, no. Having settled that, the next question is how to phase out the programme. I think the way proposed by the Minister is entirely fair to the students. The students' interests would have been taken care of and I should say this is very characteristic of our Minister's way of dealing with things, to be very fair and keep promises. The question which now remains is: what kind of formal teaching should take the place of Religious Knowledge so that the original objective of the programme can still be achieved?

The original objective, ie, the rationale behind the introduction of Religious Knowledge was our concern that younger Singaporeans have become so westernized as to lose the sense of their cultural roots. So Religious Knowledge was supposed to transmit cultural values rather than to teach religious beliefs. In the lacuna left behind by the dropping of Religious Knowledge from the school curriculum, then the question is what can we put back. Moral Education is already being taught at Secondary 1 and Secondary 2 levels. Should the new Civics course be introduced at the upper secondary level? I do not know how this will work out in practice. But if the new Civics course is to be a mere extension of the present Moral Education course emphasizing universal humanistic values or even incorporating the new set of core values, I doubt very much if there is enough course content to occupy the Civics course for two further years of studying. The more appropriate place for the teaching of cultural values, ie, values specific to our major cultural traditions, is the teaching of the second language. Lessons in the second language should be expanded in terms of cultural and historical content, as well as introducing students to literary works in that particular language. So in lieu of the Civics lessons, students can be given additional hours in the second language with this increased cultural, historical and literary contents. The Ministry of Education should not rule out this possibility. Otherwise I cannot really imagine how you can fill two more years of Civics lessons with good enough content.

As far as the Chinese community is concerned, Sir, I think the advocates of the teaching of Confucian Ethics are going to be very disappointed. We have just heard Mr Ho Kah Leong speaking up for this segment of the Chinese population. Personally, I also feel a sense of loss at the fact that Confucian Ethics will also have to be dropped along with the other subjects. Some people may even think of the eventual demise of Confucian Ethics as a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water." They would argue that Confucianism in itself is not a religious subject and it really should not be treated on the same status as the others in the programme. But in my mind, no matter how I regret the decision, I feel that you cannot separate it from the rest of the programme because once we have accepted it as part of the programme, there is no other choice. So the question is, how to put back some Confucian Ethics or some elements of it into the teaching for our Chinese students in the Moral Education lessons or, as I said, in the extended version of the second language.

Sir, I think the Chinese community itself must also ask a very deep question: why is it that even when Confucian Ethics is a compulsory subject, only 17.8% of the students are taking it as compared to 44.4% who are taking Buddhist Studies? I think this is a very soul - searching question and we should really look at ourselves very honestly. It is said that it is easier for the students to pass Buddhist Studies than Confucian Ethics. If our parents hold this pragmatic orientation towards Moral Education in our children, I do not think it is fair to blame these things on the Ministry of Education or the set of texts. I do not know whether Chinese parents now feel that we have missed out on a golden opportunity. When Confucian Ethics was taught as a Compulsory RK lesson, we did not ask the children to take it. Now it is going to be gone. Are we going to ask or pressurize the Ministry of Education for further consideration? I think with or without the parents' demand, it is the duty of our educational professionals to think in terms of the interest of our students and to re-introduce Confucian Ethics in some form or other into second language teaching, or into the new Moral Education teaching, because I think only then would the original objective of the RK programme be preserved. 2.30 pm

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Minister's move to remove the teaching of Religious Knowledge from the curriculum. I think the decision to introduce the teaching of Religious Knowledge as a compulsory subject in 1982 was a wrong decision.

To answer Mr Chiam's point whether this actually changes the Government's decision on religion, the answer must be no, because the position is very clear with regard to religion. Everybody is free to practise whatever religion he wants to practise. The state is secular. On that fundamental, there is no change.

In 1982, when Religious Knowledge was introduced as a compulsory subject at Secondary 3 and 4, it was not to propagate or to enhance the religious status of certain religions. That was not the purpose. The purpose was in one of the twin objectives of education. The twin objectives are to teach every child the three R's and to make sure that he is morally sound, he has got the moral fibre to be a good citizen, a good father, a good member of the community. While in the past there were subjects like Civics and Moral Education to ensure that this aspect of education was achieved, it was thought that perhaps Religious Knowledge could better achieve this second objective of education and that was why it was introduced.

I had certain reservations then because it was a direct contradiction of the State philosophy, ie, the State is a secular state and therefore it should have nothing to do with how religion should be taught. Now that it has taken place for the last six years, the more I look at it, the more convinced I am that it was a wrong decision.

The question is whether a person can be a better person with Religion Knowledge. The mere knowledge of a religion itself does not make a person a better person. Look at the number of criminals in the prison. Ask the Minister for Home Affairs. Do you mean the prisoners do not know what is right and what is wrong? Do you mean they do not know the different types of religions? In fact, if you examine their background, many of them are not ignorant of religions or ignorant of what is right or what is wrong. I think many of them went in because they lacked the moral fibre, the courage or the morality to take the decision not to do the wrong thing at the time when there was a great temptation. Therefore, if religion is to be of any use to inculcate this moral fibre, to give this moral value and to bring about a better citizen, I think religion cannot be taught in the school in a secular state where there is a total absence of this religious element. Because without faith, without the practice of that religion, a person will find very little value to just know of Religious Knowledge, if the objective is to make him a better person.

Therefore, the school as compared to the church, mosque or temple is the last place where Religious Knowledge should be taught. The right place is in the church if you are a Christian, in the mosque if you are a Muslim, in the temple if you are a Hindu or Buddhist. Because, apart from the knowledge, it is strengthened by the atmosphere, by the element of faith, then there is a value.

I fully support the Minister's point that parents must recognise that ultimately it is their responsibility. Now we are telling the parents squarely and emphatically and I think they must not abdicate from this responsibility. Because it is only with this recognition that finally it is the parents who take the responsibility to ensure the moral well-being of their children that we will ensure that our children are brought up properly. To pass it to the schools will be the wrong place.

I come to the last point which is that the Singapore schools are not adequate to teach religion. In certain countries where they have a state religion, because it is a state religion, it is part of their responsibility as a state to make sure that that religion is propagated and that religion is taught in the schools. It is essential in such a situation. What do they do in such a situation? Apart from setting aside periods for such religious knowledge studies, they make sure that they employ the right type of religious teachers to impart not just knowledge but also the religious values. Therefore, if you look around, in some countries where they have a state religion, where they teach religious knowledge as part of the responsibility of the state, they employ competent and qualified religious teachers to teach. It will be disastrous if you get religious teachers to teach Mathematics, English and Science. Equally, it will be disastrous if you get secular teachers who are trained to teach English, Science and Mathematics to teach religion. It is not just another subject that you read up, because you must not take religion as a trivial matter. You must not let teachers take religion as a trivial matter where they just read up and go to class and teach.

Many of the problems of religious fanaticism and deviant behaviour is a result of people teaching the wrong things about religions. If you want to be serious about making sure that our future generations are properly imbued with the right values and the right religion, I think the choice is not with the State. The choice is with the individual. And every parent, if he is serious about what his son or daughter should profess in regard to religion, the first responsibility is to make sure that he goes to the right place to be taught by the right people on religion. I say without fear of contradiction that the Singapore school is not competent for such a role because we are not made up that way. Our school is a secular school manned by teachers who are well trained to teach English, Mathematics, Science and all the secular subjects.

Did the Ministry of Education or the PSC recruit teachers on the basis of their religious qualifications? It is nothing like that. If you want to put the moral future of your children in such an unsuitable situation, that is not the right way to do things. Therefore, I think the decision in 1982 to introduce compulsory teaching of Religious Knowledge was a wrong decision and today I am more convinced that it is a wrong decision. At least, now the Government has got the courage to say that it is a wrong decision. We should encourage the churches, the temples, the mosques, and the parents to take a greater responsibility in the religious education of their children. We should help them. And although this is not the responsibility of the State, there are ways and means in which the State can help indirectly.

Before 1982, as Mr Chiam mentioned, the Christian schools did a great deal by making great contributions, particularly in religious education and things like that. They did that without going through the formal curriculum. They found other means of doing so. So we could go back to pre-1982. The Christian schools could still continue to do whatever they had done before 1982. The Muslims, with so many mosques now and through Mendaki, MUIS or whatever body, because they are interested in the children's education and since so much efforts have been made, they can do that.

I want to make it very clear. I am all for religious education. I believe that religion is very essential for an individual, for those who believe in it. A religion can make a man a much better man and I think we want that. But there is a right place to do it and a wrong place to do it and the Singapore school is the wrong place to do it.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, basically I agree very much to the Minister's exposition and I welcome his proposition very much. In terms of Singapore's educational history this is a very important milestone. It is a very important decision. I hope the Minister will also consider and adopt the opinions expressed by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Ho Kah Leong, Dr Aline Wong and Mr Goh Choon Kang. I believe that when the subject Religious Knowledge is changed to be an optional subject and the new subject Civics is introduced in the schools these changes will be acceptable to and get the support of the parents, the teachers, principals and the people of our society.

The subject of Religious Knowledge taught in the past few years may not now meet the requirement of our present circumstances. Times have changed. Everybody knows that Singapore is an oriental, multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural society. If we continue to allow our young people to take RK as a curriculum subject in school it will be limited in scope. The learning of Civics in place of RK is very appropriate and timely. But what is important now is to look forward, not to look back.

What we should do now is to talk about how is the Ministry of Education going to compile a series of textbooks for the teaching of Civics in schools in order to meet the requirements of our society, a plural, multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society and to bring up a new generation of educated, cultured and loyal citizens. I hope that the new Civics course will include the following. Other than emphasizing the teaching of moral education, I hope we should also teach the younger generation about the principles of life, concept of the family and so on, introduce to them our history, our people and their customs, and also introduce to them the principal teachings and the truths of the various religions existing in our country and, of course, also inculcate Confucian thoughts, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has just said. Confucianism is not just confined to the Chinese society. Its universal teaching is applicable to all people and countries. It meets our local situations also. Or, we can teach them some suitable thoughts and ideology befitting our situation. Since we do not have a long history, I also hope that the Ministry can also adopt the deeds and achievements of some historic figures as good teaching materials from various countries such as, say, Yue-Fei from China and others to cultivate the spirit of national consciousness and patriotism in our young. We also know that different types of music used for different situations will produce different moods and atmospheres. Therefore the system of education and the course contents of the Civics subject taught will determine what type of younger generation will be produced. We all hope that our next generation will be of good quality imbued with good ethical spirit and sense of citizenship with refined cultural standing.

Therefore, I hope the Ministry of Education in compiling Civics course will pay great attention to culling and harnessing the various aspects and scopes of the deeper essence and values from various sources without undue religious colour as education is a sacred task. To educate the people, four aspects of education should be stressed, they are moral, knowledge, physical and social education. Without RK as a curriculum subject in school will not make our younger generation walking corpses as alleged by the Member for Potong Pasir. On the contrary, with the subject Civics introduced into the schools, I believe, our people will be imbued with more Eastern traditional cultural values and more able to promote our economy and the advancement of our country a step forward in our nation building.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tiong Bahru GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to say a few words regarding the changes in the educational policy relating to the teaching of Religious Knowledge.

Sir, some parents and community groups would be disappointed with the move to exclude the teaching of Religious Knowledge from the curriculum. This is understandably so, Sir, because they feel that the teaching of Religious Knowledge is useful to their children as it provides a basis to help them to be better people, at least to learn about how to become people who have some morals.

I think the question is: which are the institutions that should be basically concerned in trying to imbue such religious values to children? I feel that the family is the basic foundation of any society. And it is this foundation, the basic family unit which should be concerned about inculcating religious values to children.

Sir, the option is with the family. The family can make the choice in terms of what religious persuasions they would like to go to, and I do not think the State should intercede or intervene in such personal choices. Rightly so, Sir, that if this is the case, then the policy that we are adopting should in a way steer ourselves from interceding into areas which are outside the domain of the Ministry of Education.

Sir, however, there are parents who are concerned with the impact of these policy changes and I am of the opinion that these parents and the wider public need to be given further explanation by the Government for making a departure from its present educational policy.

Sir, more importantly, the schools affected should work with the parents perhaps through the parents/teachers association, through various other groups within the school system, to see how the difficulties facing children taking Religious Knowledge as a subject in the next few years could be reduced. I see this is a crucial thing and I note that the Ministry is trying to take various measures to deal with the problem as a result of these changes in this curriculum.

Sir, assistance must be given to minimise disruptions which would be caused by this change. The question that I would like to raise is whether the schools that are providing religious teaching would continue to provide whatever support in terms of facilities, manpower positions, and teacher assistance, to allow the children that are undertaking religious knowledge as a subject. And this, I think, would have to be looked into and whether future policies would change in relation to whether the Ministry will continue to give support in terms of teacher and manpower resources for the teaching of Religious Knowledge outside the school hours. These are important issues that we would like to seek clarification.

Sir, like all reasonable parents, I support the move by the Ministry of Education to promote moral and civics education as a part of the education curriculum and make religious teaching outside the school hours. This is a sensible decision which is important for Singapore's long-term interest and social health. Sir, I do not want to sound moralistic or be moralising. But I would like to acknowledge that this switch in the policy is timely. I see a number of good reasons for this and I am sure other Singaporeans would see the merits of the case.

Firstly, Sir, the social health of our society is dependent on the moral fibres of our people and our capacity to find social antidotes to counter religious antagonisms, conflicts and other negative or decadent values which could erode the moral and social responsibilities of our people. Therefore, the provision of a more rounded and carefully designed moral and civics education programme in our schools would be an answer to this problem. I know that in many educational systems they have devised very good moral education programmes and value education, and these have produced effective results. And I think that if we are going to implement moral education and civics education programme in the schools, I stress that we should give serious thought in terms of how to devise a good curriculum to implement this programme. Sir, it is the view of many educationists that a good moral and civics education programme can play an important role in inculcating into students desirable social and moral codes. Formal moral and civics education must therefore start as early as possible, especially when a child begins school. If we can provide them early exposures in terms of this area of education, I think the better edge we will have in trying to produce better students who have good moral values.

I would like to ask the Ministry whether it has professional expertise and teachers to mount an effective civics education programme. What steps are being taken through CDIS to develop a well-rounded and effective CIVICS education programme to cater for our secondary school pupils.

Secondly, Sir, the teaching of moral and civics education is non-sectarian and not biased towards any single religion, be it Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. It is universal and encourages our students to be mutually supportive, respectful and tolerant in their later years. This can help to promote social cohesion among our citizens with different religious persuasions and ethnic backgrounds.

Thirdly, Sir, in implementing moral and civics education, we duly recognise the multi-ethnic and religious composition of our society and the complications that may arise if allowance is made to promote values of one religion over others. Sir, we can ill-afford to allow communal groups to ruin our social and economic well-being by inciting religious conflicts and differences. There are many historical lessons to draw from many multi-ethnic societies where religion and language have led to communal strifes and consequently breakdown of these societies. I agree with Mr Chiam that we should learn from history and we should preserve historical traditions. But there are a lot of lessons from history that we can learn and I am sure that he is quite aware that in many societies, because of religious differences, communal conflicts, such societies have broken down. And I am quite sure that Mr Chiam and myself would not want to see this happen in the context of Singapore.

Sir, in our case, I assert that moral and civics education can help to prevent these consequences as it is centred on a curriculum designed to encourage good citizenship. It is a universal programme which would reduce perceptual contradictions between and amongst different religious and interests groups.

Fourthly, Sir, our educational setting would be able to allay future demands by various religious groups to deploy governmental resources to support religious activities. I feel that if the Education Ministry does get into the promotion of religious programmes within the curriculum, then what is there to prevent different groups to make demands on State resources? I think these are some of the fundamental questions that the Education Ministry has to address itself and I am glad that the Government has finally been able to make a clear decision to drop the teaching of Religious Knowledge within curriculum time.

Sir, in conclusion, I assess that the change to civics education is for the overall good of our society. It will still strengthen the moral values of our children and enhance their civic consciousness.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Bedok GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the release of the report on Religions in Singapore by the Ministry of Community Development last year, various comments and views have been conveyed to the Government, urging fairness in matters of religion. There have also been organisations and individuals, including Members of Parliament in this House, who proposed that the Government, in particular the Ministry of Education, carry out a detailed study of the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. The Malay/Muslim community in Singapore had been looking forward to the decision to be made by the Ministry of Education on the issue of Religious Knowledge in school, and the statement just given by the Minister for Education would certainly be a disappointment to many members of our Malay/Muslim community. It would mean the closure of a main channel, i.e. the schools, for the inculcation of values and for the teaching of religious knowledge, something which our students truly need. The step taken by the Ministry would also put greater demands on mosques and Muslim organisations to meet our children's need for Islamic religious education.

In view of the currently inadequate number of mosques and Muslim organisations having facilities of their own to conduct Islamic religious classes, it is still too early for the Ministry of Education to phase out the teaching of Religious Knowlege in schools. 3.00 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, Islam is important and has been of positive influence to the Malay community. Islam is a necessary shield against evil elements, more so in this era of negative influences. Religion helps us to inculcate moral values in our children and to produce a community of high morals, which is what the country needs. We also cannot deny that Islamic Religious Knowledge has brought good to the Malay students. Their conduct has improved; they perform their duties with a greater sense of responsibility and they are able to differentiate between good and otherwise. For the better students, good Islamic Religious Knowledge grades at 'O' level help them to gain entry to pre-university education. Mr Speaker, although what I said concerns Islamic Religious Knowledge, I think the same applies to the other religious subjects in school. We should not be concerned about the grades for Islamic Religious Knowledge or the other Religious Knowledge subjects being used for purposes of pre-university enrolment, as usually it is offered as the sixth subject, equivalent in ranking to other subjects not relevant to Pre-University education. What is important are the compulsory four or five subjects that enable student to enter Pre-University.

Mr Speaker, the statement by the Minister for Education can be considered retrogressive, not progressive. If the phasing out of Religious Knowledge is done because of problems relating to the increase in religious propagation activities, I think what we should do instead is to take measures to control over-zealous propagation, not phase out Religous Knowledge in school. If it is because RK has led to our pupils banding up according to religious persuasion, we should introduce a more effective Civics Education programme to bring about harmony among our younger generation in school. In view of the positive impact of Religious Knowledge on our students, I would like to urge the Ministry of Education to continue its teaching in school. If the Ministry is not in favour of that, at least it could allow the teaching of Religious Knowledge outside school cirriculum hours and, in addition, provide teachers for the purpose. I would also like to urge the Ministry to allow Religious Knowledge grades to be offered for enrolment into, at least, Pre-university centres. I agree with the Ministry of Education that our country is a secular state and that relgion and politics must be kept separate. However, in view of the multi-racial, multi-religious make up of our society, we have to allow Religious Knowledge as a school subject to remain, because religion is an important element of the character of a society. And in our present process of development, where we are trying to maintain our identities as Chinese, Indian or Malay, Singaporeans, I think we still need to have Religious Knowledge in school. Thank you.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministerial Statement on Religious Knowledge made by the Education Minister just now is worthy of support. Since 1982, the Education Ministry has implemented Religious Knowledge and Confucian Ethics in the secondary school curricula, with religious Knowledge further divided into Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Its basic aim is to ensure that our students have a better understanding of the religion of their choice as well as to inclucate positive moral values. However, since its implementation, it has somehow departed from its original objectives; some schools are becoming religious "conversion halls", thus causing great concern among members of the public.

Moreoever, our students are only exposed to the religion of their choice, resulting in ignorance of other major religions. In the long run, religious extremism may develop, and this will run contrary to the basic principles behind the implementation of Religious Knowledge. As such, if left unchecked, this trend will pose a serious threat to our existing social harmony.

In his speech at the Opening of the Seventh Parliament, President Wee stated that religion and politics should not be mixed so as to prevent any unscrupulous usage.

However, as religious knowledge has caused much concern among the public, I fully agree with the Member for Cheng San GRC, Mr S. Chandras Das' sentiment. To avoid further confusion among the public, I feel that our Government should make a clear stand as to whether religion and politics should be mixed.

The Ministry should set up a committee, comprising knowledgeable and established personalities, to look into the course structure and content of Religious Knowledge. This will minimise any past mistakes, such as "dead or dull" content and avoid further confusion to parents and guardians through frequent changes within a short period of time.

If we have to include religious knowledge into the new subject, we should ensure that it is a unbias representation. Regardless of race or religion, our students will be able to appreciate the principles of multi-religions in our society and to tolerate different religions practised by others. This will be a step further in religious tolerance and cooperation, thereby preserving our existing social harmony and, at the same time, avoaiding religious extremism.

As to Confucian Ethics, and other philosophy, we should also consider including these into the new subject because Confucianism is not a religion. If we were to lump Confucianism as a traditional ideology, regressive to our society, then we will be making the same mistake as Mr Chiam See Tong and it will be a great pity indeed! This will contradict our Government's stand in promoting traditional and cultural values, as well as cause parents to be suspicious of the setting up of seed schools.

I sincerely hope that this new subject will not cause students to have the misconception that it is a secondary subject of minor importance in the syllabus.

I hope the Education Ministry would consider the following points:

(1) Using modern and updated stories to inculcate civic qualities. Examples used could be stories from ancient times as well as modern-day examples which students are familiar with. This will ensure a better understanding and erase any misinterpretation of values.

(2) Using simplified but interesting language to prevent long and weary leassons, carried out in a "preachy" manner. In this way, the new subject will be able to capture the attention of the students.

(3) Prohibit teachers from utilizing periods to teach other subjects, which will cause students to have the misconception that the new subject is a secondary or unimportant subject.

(4) Consideration for the teaching of this new subject in two different languages. Students would have an option of pursuing the study in the language they like best, which will indirectly strengthen their language command and promote our policy on bilingualism.

(5) As a replacement, Ethics will be a better alternative than Civics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Ministerial Statement.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, 10 years ago I participated in the work of the Committee on Moral Education which was chaired by the then Minister for Culture, Mr Ong Teng Cheong who is now the Second Deputy Prime Minister. I remember that one of the main recommendations of the Committee was to replace the "Education for Living" then taught in the primary schools and the then Civics subject in the secondary schools by a Moral Education course. The Committee also recommended that the curriculum of the Moral Education course should entail the three following points: First, personal behaviour, such as good habits, honesty, filial piety etc.; secondly, Social Responsibility such as civic consciousness, law-abiding, cherish one's own cultural heritage and respect other people's cultural heritage etc.; and Thirdly, Loyalty to the country such as patriotism, upholding democracy and justice, etc. All the three points are still valid in today's context.

At that time, the Committee on Moral Education felt that the study and learning of Religious Knowledge could reinforce the teaching of moral values and, hence, it suggested to the Ministry of Education to review its policy so as to allow the mission schools greater flexibility in the teaching of Religious Knowledge and implement their own religious instruction programmes.

In principle, I support the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools as an extension to the moral education programme. However, during the Budget Debate in March 1982, when I spoke on the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools, I raised a few problems for the Ministry of Education to consider when it implements its policy to teach Religious Knowledge in school. First, I pointed out then, we should emphasise the mutual respect and tolerance among the various religious groups, and such tolerance should be extended to cover the traditions and customs of the various communities. Among the Chinese, there are many who are polytheistic. They worship not only the deities but also their ancestors. They also believe in geomancy. At that time, I asked whether the students who studied Religious Knowledge would tolerate all these. Would the Christians say these are heretical beliefs and superstitions? Would the non-Christian Chinese feel that the Christian are devoid of feeling for their ancestors and are forsaking their roots? If we were not careful, Religious Knowledge would have some disintegrating effect on the cohesiveness in our society. Unfortunately, what I said at that time turns out to be true.

Secondly, I was also concerned that some religious fanatics would make use of the teaching of Religious Knowledge to preach their religious beliefs and to attack the other religions. The Ministry of Education then announced that a monitor unit would oversee the teaching of Religious Knowledge. I was doubtful, even at that time, that the unit would be able to supervise 140 schools in the teaching of Religious Knowledge. I believe the Member for Moulmein also expressed his worry on this matter at the same sitting. At that time, the Minister of State, Dr Tay Eng Soon, replied that the Government would take very stern action against those who made use of Religion and religious issues to disintegrate our society and create conflicts therein. In his conclusion, he said that the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools was appropriate, otherwise many of our students would have no knowledge of the major religions in the world and he asked whether this was what we wanted for our future generation. His exact works (in English) were, "Is this something that we want for future generation?". Yet, just a few years later, the Ministry of Education has now decided to abolish the teaching of Religious Knowledge.

Over the past few years, circumstances have changed. Religions in our Republic have undergone some revival. Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion for our people. The Government has adopted a fairly neutral stand as far as religions are concerned. However, in a multi-religious society, if any of the religions is to develop too rapidly, it would naturally result in reactions or response from the other religious groups in self-defence. Some over-zealous or even fanatical preachers may forsake the basic principle of inter-religious tolerance and neglect the importance of inter-religious peaceful co-existence. In order to further their objectives of preaching their religions, they will not hesitate to run down the other religions and beliefs, and criticize other people's traditional customs and practices. Such development will result in more friction among the religious bodies in our society. It would also aggravate the conflicts and problems among members of a family because of different religious beliefs. We have often heard that in a family, many problems arose at their wedding ceremonies or funeral rites because of different religious beliefs. In other instances, some members of the family refuse to perform some traditional rites or to observe certain festive occasions owing to their religious differences, thereby resulting in conflicts and unhappiness in the family.

In the circumstances, if we persist in teaching Religious Knowledge in our secondary schools, it will not only result in our schools being used as the cradle for the preaching of religious beliefs, but also further aggravate the frictions among the various religions in our Republic, thereby polarizing our society. For these reasons, I support the Minister of Education's decision to abolish the teaching of Religious Knowledge which he announced just now. I believe this is a correct decision.

However, while the teaching of Religious Knowledge is being abolished, Confucian Ethics, as an innocent by-stander, unfortunately, has to face the chopping board and be abolished as well. Few years ago, we spent a lot of time and effort, in developing the subject. We even went to the extent of going abroad to invite experts such as Tu Wei-Ming, Yu Ying-Shih, etc. to help us draw up a conceptual framework for the syllabus for Confucian Ethics. This syllabus is used for just a few years and it has to be abolished. In fact, as my colleagues have already pointed out, Confucianism is not a religion. What it emphasizes is human relationship, the relationship between man and society, and the relationship between man and the nation. It does not involve the relationship between man and God. It is not a religious belief and is not in conflict with any other religion.

The circumstances here have changed. But, the various adverse effects on our society brought about by religious revival over the past few years have nothing to do with the teaching of Confucian Ethics. Moreover, we are now emphasizing the inculcation of oriental values. To many Chinese, Confucianism is a complete set of traditional values by itself. What the Ministry of Education is doing is to treat the six subjects on equal footing. Although, superficially, this may appear to be a fair treatment for all. But, in reality, such an act is most unfair! As such, I concur with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Ho Kah Leong's view that the Ministry of Education should reconsider the matter and not abolish but retain Confucian Ethics.

With the abolition of Religious Knowledge, what are we going to replace it with? It is not just a question of filling up the lesson time. The important point is Moral Education is part and parcel of our education programme. We all know that education must comprise the three essential components: Moral Education, Intellectual Education. Moral education is particularly important when we see so many unhealthy phenomena in our society today. We have delinquents and an increasing number of drug addicts; some commit suicide at the slightest setback; and other resort to emigration over the slightest dissatisfaction in life. As such, the school should coordinate with the family in the inculcation of the right values and the true meaning of life in our students. This is the main objective of Moral Education, irrespective of its approval or method of teaching.

Of course, the teaching of core value is a feasible method. I agree with Dr Aline Wong that Confucianism can be included in the Civics subject, although I must say the scope of civics is somewhat narrow. Unless we have some interesting teaching materials, it will become sermon-like and boring. One other feasible way is like what I suggested just now - to retain Confucian Ethics as an optional subject. A third alternative for the Ministry of Education to consider is perhaps the teaching of the essence of oriental and western thoughts, philosophies and civilization. Such a subject will have no religious flavour in it, but it will enable our students to widen their field of vision so that they can look at things in a more balanced manner. By this, we can offer our students with a more intellectually challenging subject. I hope that the Ministry of Education will consider these suggestions. Thank you.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the policy outlined by the Minister. Circumstances have changed since Religious Knowledge was first introduced as a compulsory subject in our schools. There is an upsurge in religious activities in our country and religion is increasingly a sensitive subject in our midst. We therefore have to adjust and adapt our policies.

In this context, Sir, the State should, and must, maintain a position of complete impartiality and seen to be so, be equidistant from all and even-handed towards all religions. The State should not use its powers to compel its citizens to study and sit for examinations in Religious Knowledge. Religious studies, Sir, should be by choice, not by compulsion. The spiritual realm should be best left to private initiative, to private choice. I believe this is in line with our overall privatisation programme. After all, Religious Knowledge is not scrapped but made optional. So one can exercise the choice.

Sir, I welcome the better alternative of Civics and I welcome its introduction to our schools. It is good for Singaporeans of all races and religions to share the same Civics lessons in class, to learn what it is to be like to be Singaporeans, together in the same class, rather than going their separate ways to different classes to study different religions during curriculum time. In Civics lessons, the pupils will be on common ground, together as Singaporeans, learning about our common heritage, sharing our common aspirations as Singaporeans and committed to our common destiny as a nation. This, Sir, cannot be but for the good of all, and all Singaporeans should support this.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate.

Sir, I was involved in the policy and in the implementation of policy to make Religious Knowledge a compulsory subject in schools in 1982. Having heard a number of Members speak on this, especially with reference to 1982, I felt that I should join in to clarify the position and also to answer one or two points raised by Members, particularly the point raised by the Member for Moulmein, Mr Lawrence Sia, who says that he is now more convinced than ever that that policy was wrong.

Sir, the reasons that motivated the Ministry of Education and the Government to introduce Religious Knowledge in 1982 were valid and are still valid. The difference that brought about this change in the policy announced by my Minister today is this. It is to make Religious Knowledge optional, a matter of personal choice, as a subject which anybody can choose and it is no longer compulsory. And, secondly, to introduce in its place within curriculum time more Civics education which will bring together the students in a common cause throughout their secondary education. But otherwise Religious Knowledge is still available as an optional subject for anyone to choose.

Sir, why do I say that the reason for introducing Religious Knowledge in schools then and now has validity? The reason why, after careful consideration, we decided to introduce Religious Knowledge as a subject in schools is based on the recognition that undergirding the moral values of most people are in fact the major religions. If you look at the history of all our societies, all our cultures, religious beliefs and, religious faith have always been the undergirding foundation behind the moral values of most societies and most cultures.

Even in Chinese society, one cannot deny that religious beliefs have undergirded the values that have been held important and even sacred by the members of that society. This is the human experience and for centuries and thousands of years this is how societies have generally kept themselves intact as far as moral values which have helped to shape them have survived. Those societies that have completely done away with religious faith, religious values, religious convictions, stand to change and possibly to lose their direction and I think we can see this happening in some parts of the world today.

It is with that recognition that it was felt that some knowledge of the major religions in our society should be made available as subjects for the students to study and that if they understand the foundations of those religions, their origins, their precepts, this will reinforce the moral education that they will have received in school. Sir, we should note that the children in our school have eight years of moral education (six years in primary school, two years in Secondary 1 and 2). When Religious Knowledge was introduced, the purpose was to reinforce the moral education that they will have received in school, so that by the time they leave school their foundations will be that much stronger.

We were careful even then in recognising that we are a secular State, that a secular Government cannot be involved in religious instruction, in religious propagation as implied in religious education and therefore we called it Religious Knowledge. There is a difference. In religious education and in religious instruction, one sets out to implant in the individual full religious conviction and practice. But in Religious Knowledge, one teaches the subject from the point of view of its foundations, its founder, its origins, its precepts, as a body of knowledge. And therefore in the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools we were careful, and we are careful to ensure that there are no worship practices, that no religious objects are brought into the classroom, that no meditation or practices take place within the class.

So we have been aware of this very important difference between what the State can and should do and what the State should not be involved in. We knew, Sir, that two years of Religious Knowledge (Secondary 3 and Secondary 4) can only achieve a number of limited objectives. Its objectives are limited to helping the child to understand something of one of the major religions that he should choose to study and the precepts. And the hope is that this will reinforce the moral values that he would have studied in his earlier years. Certainly, the objective was not to convert him from one religion to another, or from no religion to a religion. So to say that Religious Knowledge is dangerous because it will result in this, I think it is misunderstanding this course, misunderstanding its objectives, and giving too much to the two years in which the subject is taught. Anyone who is a religious person, who takes his religion seriously, can tell you that it is a life long process. It is something which starts very young and is something which grows with the individual with time, with personal experience, with practice. It is not something that happens in two years.

We were aware of the limited educational objectives of the subject of Religious Knowledge. The difference then and now with the new policy is that we made it compulsory. Perhaps in our eagerness to get every child to study one of the major religions, we failed to see that it should not be compulsory. You cannot compel everyone to choose one of the major religions and/or Confucian ethics and say that you must study it. I think in that respect perhaps we have erred. It is an error in application or approach. Nonetheless, it is an error. But the reasons for making Religious Knowledge available are valid, as I have mentioned and explained. The change proposed is to remove the compulsion, but to make it available as an option to anyone to choose and to do it outside curriculum time.

Sir, the inculcation of religious values of a religious faith is certainly something which must take place in the home with individuals. It is not the right place for a secular school to be involved in. The Minister has quite rightly given emphasis to the key role that parents who believe in the moral upbringing of their children would have to play in this.

I am glad that Religious Knowledge in its present form as a curriculum subject will be available as an option in schools outside curriculum time. The issue then is whether parents will choose for their children to study one of these subjects, whether they will take up the option. I believe they will, after hearing the Members in the House, that people place high value on the moral education of their children. Furthermore, from the feedback sessions, from the GPC on Education's feedback, many parents say that Religious Knowledge has been good for their children and that they believe that their children benefitted from it.

The choice is still there. It has not been removed. It is now optional. They can choose and, of course, I hope very much that many parents will still choose to let their children study a religious knowledge of their choice outside curriculum time in the facilities and premises that the schools can provide. Then we have lost nothing, Sir. We would still have available this important subject. Parents who believe in its value will have the free choice. The element of compulsion has been removed. Furthermore, Civics will be expanded for integrating our children much more through a course of civics education. I think this change has not removed Religious Knowledge. It has not invalidated the reasons why it was started. It has removed the compulsion and I think parents will stand to gain out of this exercise.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to ask the Minister of State, is it not true that prior to 1982 Religious Knowledge was also an optional subject? Prior to 1982, all along Religious Knowledge was taught as an optional subject. In 1989, we are going back to pre-1982. The mistake in 1982 was to make RK compulsory. So how could the Minister of State say that there was no mistake.

Dr Tay Eng Soon rose -

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: I have not finished. Of course, the underlying reasons for the teaching of Religious Knowledge are always valid since time immemorial - to teach man to be good. After all, our moral education basically wants to achieve that. Since 1959, not just 1982, the underlying reasons for moral education have always been the same. And that is why from 1959 to 1982, in the mission schools particularly, Religious Knowledge was an optional subject. But the Education Ministry made it compulsory in our schools. That was the mistake. So today we are going back to pre-1982 and do not try to absolve from the mistake. It is quite all right. It is a genuine, sincere mistake made with a good intention. It is quite all right.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: I thank the Member for his generosity. But I think he must have heard me say that the reasons for introducing Religious Knowledge were valid and are valid. The mistake was in making it compulsory.