Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Member for Ulu Pandan to thank the President for his address at the Opening of the First Session of the Fourth Parliament. It was an inspiring speech which should constitute the main guiding factor in our deliberations in this new session of Parliament. Many of my colleagues have already spoken on various vital issues ranging from PUB charges to Communist threats. All the 11 new Members have already made their maiden speeches, touching upon matters of bread and butter issues which are of common concern to the common man - the man-in-the-street. For it is the man-in-the-street who ultimately matters most. His life, his livelihood, his well-being, his problems, his family, his happiness - these are issues which should be our prime concern. I have therefore chosen to speak, on a subject which is first and foremost of great concern to us all Singaporeans and which, at the same time, is very close to my own heart. I speak not only in my new role as a Backbencher and educationist but as a parent as well. The subject I shall speak on will concern all parents, that is, Education, It is, I believe, the responsibility of the Government to provide the right kind of education for our children, as the right kind of education is the key to a good life, a good conduct, a correct attitude, a key to the world, both our own and the bigger one outside. Education being a process of living and an inseparable part of one's personal development, as one journeys through life's maze of problems and pressures, its importance cannot be over-stressed. This, I think, is recognized. However, while we have all recognized its importance and implications, have we been mapping out and implementing the right policies in education? It is a difficult task, rio doubt. And upon the shoulders of the Ministry of Education has fallen this difficult task. The Ministry of Education is not only responsible for the formulation of our present educational policies, it should also be responsible for their successful implementation and to ensure their practicality and usefulness. Has this been the case? This is the question. The past few years have seen a great deal of debate on and discussion of our education system, not only within this House but also without. In some cases, the deliberations have been very intense, mainly in the problem areas. Much has also been printed on the subject. One particular newspaper published a series of articles, based on surveys it conducted. Parents and teachers joined in the fray with their letters and articles in the Mentor, the official organ of the Singapore Teachers' Union. Much of the statements has been critical. Some of the utterances have been evaluative and useful. There have also been instances of angry and contemptuous comment. All these go to show the immense concern our people in general have over the education of their children, in the future of their children. The questions that follow are: How much have we who are in Government taken note of all these? How much of the useful points raised have we used in our reviews and reevaluation of policies? There appears to be a continuing discontent over our educational policies. Sir, let me touch upon a few areas in our educational policies and our education system which have brought about a great deal of unhappiness and not a little confusion. The unhappiness and confusion apparently cut across the entire score board - principals, teachers, parents and pupils. The general feeling during the past few years has been that students have been made the "guinea-pigs" of what appeared to be a series of rather haphazard experiments formulated totally on an ad hoc basis, without any prior research nor any in-depth study done. Principals and teachers are equally apprehensive and concerned over the frequent "chops and changes". But most concerned of all are parents, naturally. They are often heard complaining about the frequent implementation of short-lived policies and new ideas, only to be aborted before they have time to take root. New experiments are abandoned as swiftly as they are implemented. Can we wonder the concern expressed all around? The recent Ministry of Education announcement of its decision to impose a second language requirement for entry into pre-university classes in 1979 and 1980 is an example of what has generated much concern among parents. It has also aroused anger and annoyance. Students begin to feel insecure all over again, unsure of their future and what is actually to come. What is needed now is to convince all concerned, especially parents whose children are, in the final analysis, the ones to benefit or to suffer, that there is every justification for this fresh imposition. There may be, as there should be, very good grounds for the move. But if there are, we have not heard them in clear terms, in simple language, and in convincing tone. What parents and pupils are uneasy about is that this may yet be another one of those many new experiments and new ideas that crop up in the minds of Ministry officials. What they wish to know is whether this new decision is the result of a careful study and survey of the real needs of pre-university students. And would this really create a new thirst for the learning of a second or third language? Or would students do it simply because they are compelled to and not because they are interested? There are, too, numerous other attendant aspects of the second language learning process that must necessarily be looked into before a far-reaching change of this nature is implemented. We must presume that the situation has been fully assessed and evaluated. But has it? Factual and forthright answers to these various questions would go a long way to dispel the doubts lingering in the minds of parents and pupils. I think we need these answers and assurances. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Addendum to the Presidential Address on the Ministry of Education, it says, amongst other things, that: `Moral and civics education is mainly taught through the subject Education For Living which is a combination of Civics. History and Geography) in the pupils' mother tongue' Sir, as far as I know, when the Education For Living idea was introduced, it was aimed to give exposure to pupils doing a second language, which may not necessarily be the mother tongue. Let me give an example. To many children who go to an English-medium school, English is a foreign language. Even for children of Chinese ethnic origin who come from English-speaking homes, they will find that the learning of Mandarin is not an easy task to cope with, Mandarin not being their mother tongue. In such homes, it is probable that other than English, Cantonese, or Hokkien or Teochew would be spoken. But Malay children attending an English-medium school would find it easy enough to learn Malay as a second language because they speak Malay at home. Then again, the Education For Living idea is carried Out only in the primary schools, but not in the secondary schools, where Civics, History and Geography are required to be offered separately. Where is the continuity? Sir, it is the feeling that the problems in education today are traceable to the primary schools, where all kinds of what must have appeared to parents and pupils alike, very ad hoc ideas and decisions - like the Primary Pilot Project, the Education For Living, and what have you! While the number of these new-fangled ideas introduced in the recent years has been disconcerting, the frequency with which they have been introduced has been astounding. Where have all these ideas so suddenly come from? The answer would be enlightening. The resulting frustration is inevitable. The resulting feeling of insecurity rears its ugly head. The resulting position can be most damaging. Take what took place a few years back when almost equal weightage was given to the second language because of a policy change. Many pupils attempting to achieve equal proficiency in languages at the same time actually ended up achieving neither. They finished "half baked" in both languages What was, for example, the rationale behind this policy change? Was there any attempt made to assess the damage done as a result? Our education system, with its examination and achievement oriented characteristics, places demands and pressures upon our children to an extent of daily harassment with hardly any let-up. Language learning capacity differs from person to person. This must be realised. To expect everyone and all to progress similarly together in this difficult learning process is to expect too much. It would be unrealistic, and it would be impractical. Sir, the current wave of social ills prevalent all around us is another aspect of education I would like to touch upon. For the ills of society are traceable to the schools. I feel that there should be a spiritual balance too in our education system. This would certainly combat the making of future drug addicts, drug traffickers, gangsters and other such like men of menace in society. A touch of religion is always good. Any moral value, strengthened by religious belief, at once becomes a matter of greater conviction and a better sense. Otherwise, the trend towards a money-minded and materialistic society would continue unabated. Proper, correct all round education should provide for the development of the intellectual, physical, social, aesthetic, and spiritual, areas of a growing person. One need not be a fanatic in any of these areas. A balance of all these aspects of the growing process is most desirable. This should be our aim and purpose in teaching the young. As a last point, may I now turn my attention to the area of Extra-Curricular Activities, or ECA for short. The aims and objectives are laudable enough. We do want the rugged Singaporean more than just bookworms, As they say, a sound mind in a sound body is the best thing in the world. Games are made for health. Debates and the like are made for intelligent enjoyment. Uniformed organisations are made for smartness and discipline. Other ,extracurricular activities are made for leisure. These are all fine, until their implementation goes wrong, until the importance becomes lopsided, until the real purpose goes cockeyed. The over-stress placed on ECA activities in the recent years has turned the original aim and purpose more than a little awry. The result? Pupils participate in ECA activities not so much to better themselves physically or to better the correct enjoyment of their leisure, but to gain points to add to their academic achievements, in order to gain admission to pre.-university classes. This is true in countless instances in schools all over the island. All this again has been the result of over-emphasis placed on a "new idea" - I say "new idea" because the idea of physical well-being complementing mental and intellectual well-being is as old as the hills. Sir, my purpose in bringing up all these various points is not so much to be unduly critical, but merely to express the general feeling prevalent among principals, teachers, parents and pupils like. But more importantly, to urge the authorities concerned to make a careful and an in-depth study - a real, genuine survey - of a situation before making policy changes which in the ultimate analysis affect our citizens as a whole, for today's school children are tomorrow's citizens of the State, who will have a hand in the running of the government, the business world and society. The implications of a drastic change is often lost sight of in the enthusiasm of implementing a new idea. The frequency of changes can also be bewildering. But these would be quite in order if they are made after a careful study, not just because a few principals happen to agree with the changes. I do not think I need elaborate on the importance of a good survey and the value of a thorough study before one embarks upon a new idea which is to be implemented and which will affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of our future citizens. Then there is the question of making the reasons for far-reaching changes widely known. This is equally important for general information and acceptance. Otherwise the unhealthy feeling of "throat-ramming" will, rightly or wrongly, persist. Needless to say, a policy change in .education that has the acceptance and support of the people - parents in particular - is certainly bound to have a greater chance of success than otherwise. Any successful policy change is also bound to be easier to maintain and sustain upon implementation, thereby avoiding the rather unpleasant task of having to make frequent "chops and changes" and to offer repeated explanations. In his Addendum to the President's Speech the Prime Minister, amongst other things, correctly pointed out that our youth "take the relative prosperity of Singapore as the norm" and everything else that goes with it, like "high expectations, the desire to seek jobs in comfortable surroundings". Sir, the young that we are much concerned about are, in fact, the products of our educational policy - the PAP Government's educational policy based on the acceptance of the 1956 Report of the All-Party Committee of the Singapore Legislative Assembly on Chinese education which provided, inter alia, the introduction of bilingual education in primary schools and trilingual education in secondary schools. Our present educational system was the result of the Prof. Lim Tay Boh Education Commission of Inquiry which was set up in 1962 when we were part of Malaysia. Its Final Report which embodied the unanimous findings and recommendations was submitted in 1963. Since then, more than a decade ago, our educational system has undergone so many changes not only in terms of the frequent ad hoc policy changes that have caused a great deal of confusion, irritation and frustration among teachers, principals, pupils and parents alike, but in that period of seven years there have been six changes of Ministers. In the Addendum on the Ministry of Education much stress has been laid on the Ministry's plans to reduce drastically the "enormous wastage in terms of pupils not benefiting from the system". This may appear to be fine on paper but I do not think that some of those measures that will be taken could produce the desired results. To avoid further "mistakes" and in the light of what I have already mentioned, Sir, I would like to urge the Government to set up a Commission of Inquiry to review the present Government educational policy. Its contents and administration in all fields and to make recommendations to the Government. I feel very strongly, Sir, that whilst we have done very well in the field of technical and vocational education, the implementation of our bilingual policy and the method of second language teaching and learning need a thorough study and, if need be, a general overhaul. Sir, I have tried to be both critical and constructive. I hope my comments will not fall on deaf ears - as so many comments on education have in the past. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!