MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1973 TO 31ST MARCH, 1974
Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take the question of the promotion exercise first? This was already raised by the Member for Jurong in the debate on the financial policy of this Government, and he is bringing it up again today. This topic has attracted a lot of interest. There is a lot of publicity given by the press and a large number of anonymous letters have been received. I am afraid the most important consideration of a good teacher is his ability to teach, and short-listing has to depend on that. His ECA and community service activities, however, will be taken into consideration in the actual promotion exercise. Sir, one common misconception about the mechanics of the present promotion exercise is that the shortlisting of candidates was done by a computer, the implication being that the assessment of the candidate was left to a machine. This, I am afraid, is being alleged by the Member for Jurong during the debate on the financial policy. This is not so. Assessment in every case was made by a reporting officer and checked by a counter-signing officer who could, if he thought fit, change the grading given by the reporting officer. Apart from the confidential report prepared for the promotion exercise, the confidential reports for the two previous years are also taken into consideration, making three confidential reports in all. The computer part of the exercise was merely to work out the final grading awarded, and to list the candidates in order of merit for the purpose of short-listing. In other words, the computer did not pass judgment on anyone. It merely performed a mechanical task which would have taken a much longer time if it was carried out manually. Sir, admittedly human judgment is not infallible. However, every effort has been made to ensure uniformity and objectivity in assessing the merit of candidates by comparing them with their peers. For this purpose, a new confidential report form was devised with the expert assistance of the Public Service Commission, the Management Services Unit of the Ministry of Finance, and the Research Unit of this Ministry. Detailed notes were prepared and issued to all reporting officers, explaining the various qualities expected of a candidate and the system of grading to be used. Both the confidential report form and the notes to the reporting officers were subjected to various tests and amended several times before they were finalised. The Member for Jurong may be pleased to know that the whole process of developing this new confidential report took us more than six months. 3.30 p.m. Sir, another common complaint is that some teachers who were reported on by their principals were shortlisted for the interview whereas the principals themselves were not shortlisted. The argument behind this criticism seems to be that those who are good enough to report on someone else, must themselves be better than the officers they are reporting on, and therefore should be shortlisted. If we pursue this, argument to its logical conclusion, then every teacher, except those at the lowest grade, that is, Education Officers in Group III, would have to be shortlisted. I am afraid this is not the intention. The restructured scheme is aimed to provide greater promotion prospects for everyone in the teaching service. The criticisms clearly indicate that the complainants do not fully understand the basic philosophy underlying the restructured Education service. One fundamental feature of this new restructured scheme is that promotion is no longer awarded to a post but to a grade, so that a teacher can be promoted and still remain a teacher. It also follows that a teacher may be promoted whereas a principal may not. The principle of rewarding an officer according to his own merit and not according to the functions he performs is a rather new concept in the public service. This feature was fully publicised in October 1971 when agreement was finally reached after a year of negotiations between the Ministry of Education and the Singapore Teachers' Unions. At that time no criticism was levelled against either this principle or the new Education service structure. For one and a half years not a single criticism or comment has been received by the Education Ministry, or by the Singapore Teachers' Unions for that matter, on the principle underlying this new structure. It is only now when the teachers are being called up for interview that criticisms have emerged, including the anonymous letters. Sir, in any promotion exercise, it is inevitable that those who are unsuccessful will be disappointed. In this particular promotion exercise, being the first one under the new structure based on the new principle, it is to be expected that even more than the usual number of disgruntled candidates will voice their misgivings. I am not saying that the system is perfect. My Ministry will continue to improve the procedure, and any constructive suggestions for future promotion exercise will be most welcomed. But to those who are disappointed in the current exercise, let me assure them that promotion exercises will be carried out regularly in future as spelt out in the agreement with the Singapore Teachers' Unions. Let me also point out that in the past an average of 30 officers were promoted every year. It is to be expected that in this current promotion exercise, the opportunities for promotion will increase more than ten-fold. Finally, I would like to correct the statement made by the Member for Jurong during the debate last week, and that is, there was a massive resignation of teachers as a result of this promotion exercise. I am afraid that he has got his facts wrong. Only 32 resignations were received after the teachers had been called up for interview. Although this figure is slightly more than that for the corresponding period in 1971 and 1972, which is 28 and 21 respectively, it is relevant to note that more than half of them are still under probation. Therefore, the promotion exercise has nothing to do with their resignation. Mr Speaker, Sir, another popular issue under discussion currently is the review of textbooks. Arising from the recent incident concerning certain history textbooks, which has generated considerable interest, perhaps it is relevant for me to explain how the machinery works. When a publisher wishes to have his textbook accepted by the Ministry of Education for use in the schools, he has to submit a draft to the Ministry for review. The Ministry will then appoint a panel of three reviewers. The reviewers are experienced members of the teaching service, either in the schools or in the institutions of higher learning. We will have to keep their identity secret for fear that they may be unduly influenced. This system of review was introduced in August 1970 after a series of negotiations with the Singapore Educational Publication Council. In the past we had our Specialist Inspectors to do the reviewing. But unfortunately, this system did not work very well because there were lots of allegations against certain Specialist Inspectors who were book-writers themselves. We are now working out a more stringent system for the reviewing of textbooks. The Member can rest assured that the incident which came to light recently will not occur again. The Ministry will welcome any views and suggestions from the teachers on the textbooks which they use. The Member for Paya Lebar raised a number of questions on the retirement of teachers, in particular, the difference in retirement ages of 55 and 60 years. The retirement age for teachers and all other civil servants is governed by the Pensions Ordinance, 1956, under which those officers who were employed before 1st July, 1956 would retire at 55 years of age, and those employed after that date would retire at 60 years of age. This scheme is applicable to the entire public service, and not to the Education service alone. I am afraid we cannot make an exception to the teaching service. However, it is the policy of the Ministry to encourage good and dedicated teachers to remain in the teaching service, and therefore as is the practice in the past, an extension of service is generally given to such teachers. Other teachers whose performance has been found to be satisfactory are usually reemployed. The Member for Jurong will be pleased to note that, with immediate effect, in all new cases of re-employment they will be given their full salary. Those who have been paid four-fifths of their last drawn salary will have their cases reviewed at the end of their re-employment period and, if they are found suitable, they will be paid their full salary. The Member for Paya Lebar also raised the question of medical benefits for aided-school teachers on retirement. Again, I am afraid the Member for Paya Lebar thinks that aided-school teachers are the only category of public officers who are not on Government pensionable service. This is not so. There are thousands of such officers employed by the various statutory bodies, such as the Public Utilities Board, the Port of Singapore Authority and the Housing and Development Board. These officers and those in Government service who contribute to the Central Provident Fund are not entitled to medical benefit after their retirement. This ruling is applied to all officers in this category, and not just to school teachers alone. The Member for Paya Lebar can rest assured that retired school teachers, like all the others, are entitled to the excellent medical service available to our citizens. He also raised the question of correspondence between the Education Ministry and the school. He alleged that 95 per cent of the circulars and correspondence between the Education Ministry and the schools are written in English. Again, I am afraid that he has got his facts wrong. Practically all circulars from the Ministry of Education are written in the four official languages. Most of the correspondence are in the appropriate language of the school concerned. The Member for Paya Lebar will agree with me that the school is perhaps the most appropriate place to practise and implement our bilingual policy. I think both principals and teachers must be able to command a second language. Word must now have filtered through that in the recent promotion exercise considerable weight was given even to a teacher's command of a second language. There was another question raised on school clerks for the small rural school with a small enrolment. Let me assure the Member for Paya Lebar that we are, in fact, actively looking into this matter. He is aware that a number of large aided-schools have more than their quota of clerks. We are looking into the feasibility of transferring the excess clerks from these schools to the smaller rural schools which do not have a clerk at the moment. The Member for Anson raised a number of interesting points, especially on curriculum. I agree with him that at the moment the students are overloaded. In fact, it is the Ministry's policy to avoid overworking the students. But in order to provide an all-round education within the present constraint of curriculum time, there is only one way out, and that is, the integrated teaching approach. We are currently working on this system. For example, a few similar subjects will be integrated into one, such as physics and chemistry will be integrated into physical science; history, geography and civics will be integrated into social study. At the present moment there is an experiment to integrate English, mathematics and science into a single subject in the primary schools. This may partly answer the query raised by the Member for Sembawang. If he has the time, he is most welcomed to visit this school to see how the system works. The Member for Anson also raised a number of questions on extra-curricular activities. The Ministry of Education attaches great importance to ECA. Pupils generally turn up once a week outside school hours for ECA, and three hours for workshop practice. Only those who have been nominated for participation in special events, such as the Youth Festival, the National Day Parade, etc., are asked to go for practice occasionally. The Member for Anson is wrong when he said that it is a compulsory requirement for teachers to do two ECA, although I am aware that some of them are doing so. But it is not compulsory. The allocation of ECA responsibilities to teachers is made by the principals in consultation with the senior assistant and the teachers concerned, based on their attitude and interest, so that they could specialise in a particular activity. He also passed some very interesting remarks on "floating" classes. Sir, the introduction of "floating" classes in January this year was necessitated by the unexpectedly large number of students who passed the Primary School Leaving Examination last year. I have to disappoint him by saying that this has no direct relevance to the withdrawal of history and geography from the examination. There are 92 such "floating" classes in about 58 schools, an average of two "floating" classes per school. This system has been introduced in schools where there is not enough ground for building temporary structures or where other means to accommodate the students have failed. As a temporary measure, we have built some 50 additional classrooms and converted another 50 special rooms into classrooms, in addition to these "floating" classes. As soon as we have built enough schools, there will no longer be any "floating" classes. Sir, last year I announced the change of exposure time for second language. As a result there is a massive transfer of teachers. This has to be done to meet this change of policy. In fact, the Member for Anson can expect another massive transfer at the end of this year and next year so as to reach the target in 1975 whereby more than 40 per cent of the curriculum time in primary schools will be in the second language. Sir, in such a transfer exercise, school principals are generally asked to submit the names of teachers who will be redundant and, therefore, available for re-posting. Under this arrangement, certain appeals against the transfer are sympathetically considered and, in fact, entertained. But it is not always possible to accommodate the wishes of every teacher in respect of the school of his choice. To do so will result in chaos. Sir, I am afraid I am not aware of any case where teachers have been transferred by a telephone call. If the Member for Anson is aware of any such case, please let me know, and I will definitely look into the matter. 3.45 p.m. The Member for Sembawang has raised a number of questions. On the question of shortage of teachers for the second language in respect of the implementation of our bilingual policy, as I mentioned just now, the way to overcome this problem is to introduce an integrated teaching approach as has been done in many schools. And we will see the results of our work very soon. The Member has also suggested that in view of the shortage of physical education teachers, we should run more in-service courses during the school vacation. I think this is a good idea. We will look into his suggestion, and implement it if possible. The Member has quoted examples of relief teachers who have been doing relief teaching for 10 years or so. I am afraid I am not aware of such cases, and I would be most grateful if he could let me have more particulars. If the Member for Sembawang knows of such cases, it is not only his duty as a Member of Parliament but as a citizen to let mc know instead of keeping us in the dark. Sir, I am afraid that the use of relief teachers is unavoidable. Relief teachers are used, as I have said, almost every year to relieve teachers on maternity leave and so on. Unless we can do away with maternity leave and prevent teachers from going on maternity leave, we still have to use relief teachers. Sir, I could not disagree with the Member that there must be greater rapport between teachers and students. We are encouraging this by all means and the ECA is one of them. Sir, there is one point which I am afraid the Member seems to contradict himself. At first he pointed out that we have a shortage of teachers, and therefore we have to use relief teachers. Five minutes later he said that we should reduce the number of students per class, which means that we require more teachers. Sir, we would not be able to get the teachers, and we would not also he able to satisfy the Member for Anson because there would not be enough classrooms. Until such facilities are available, we will not be able to do so. Finally, notwithstanding the many good words the Member for Sembawang has said about the Ministry, I am afraid there is no demand for a pre-University class in Sembawang. We will look into this when the need arises.