MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1977 TO 31ST MARCH, 1978
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, last Friday when the House adjourned there were two Members who spoke on this same item. This item relates to the administration of the Ministry of Education. Educational administration is a very difficult and sensitive matter as it will easily arouse criticism. Furthermore, if the criticism is not proper, then although the intention may be good, the result will be bad. I feel that to do well in educational administration, it is necessary to follow what Lu-Shun had said: that one should be stout and cool enough to face the criticisms of a thousand men, yet be humble and willing enough to serve even a child. I think if the principle is practicable, then it may yet serve the purpose somehow. About educational officers, although they do not profess to be education specialists, they do know a lot about education. So, if there is anything that the newspapers like to play up the result will be that the aim of such criticism is not achieved; on the contrary, the mood of the teachers is adversely affected. Thus, in the end the children in our schools suffer. Let me give an example. The Member for Bedok attacked the Ministry of Education when he spoke on the estimates on the Ministry of Home Affairs. But he forgot to mention in the House that he was speaking only in the capacity of an MP because he was also a school principal himself. Therefore, the next day there was a big headline in the Straits Times to the effect that somebody had said that the officials in the Ministry of Education were not cooperative in the anti-drug campaign, and that they even tried to frustrate the efforts of the Central Narcotics Bureau. If he had any information he should give me the details, that is, the name of the principal, and so on. When he spoke of this in this House the debate was on the Ministry of Home Affairs. That is why I did not reply. The next day there was a big headline in the press. So the parents were confused and worried. I do not mean that he cannot speak on such matters. But I do not think there are instances of Ministry of Education officials trying to frustrate the efforts of the Central Narcotics Bureau to stamp out drug addiction. If there is any such instance, please let me know and I will take immediate action. Sir, now let me answer questions raised by various Members. The Member for Kallang appealed on behalf of those disabled children and urged the Ministry of Education to pay greater attention to this category of children. With regard to these handicapped children, their education has all along been undertaken by various voluntary organisations. They were well looked after by them. But it does not mean that the Ministry of Education does not concern itself with their welfare. It is very concerned with their educational needs. But things differ in their degrees of importance and there is different priority with every matter. Up to the present time what I can say is that these voluntary organisations have done quite well in looking after the educational needs of these handicapped children. The Education Ministry is also helping them in all possible ways. This Ministry has sent out 60 teachers to help these organisations to run the classes and their salaries are, of course, paid by the Ministry of Education. Apart from this, every year the Ministry of Social Affairs also provides grants to help them. This has been the policy, though I do not say this is an ideal way of doing it. Before this question was brought up, we have already talked with the Ministry of Finance on how to solve this problem and whether these classes for such children should be taken over by the Ministry of Education or whether they should be treated as aided schools and assistance rendered to them as such. But the question is not so simple. In principle, there is no great problem. But in actual fact these organisations are quite different from the aided schools. So this matter requires further consultation. His suggestion is quite agreeable to me in certain aspects and I will continue to pay attention to it. But there are many ramifying problems which cannot be solved now and here. The schools for handicapped children run by these organisations have accommodated 1,126 students and we have sent out 60 teachers to teach in these classes, 22 of whom have received specialised training in educating handicapped children and the rest have received other professional training. I do not want to spend too much time on details as there will not be enough time to answer other questions. Coming to the various questions raised by the Member for Changi. He talked about the Ministry's recruitment of teachers from England and other countries and put forward certain advice. On Friday I had already clarified the postion in this regard that we would pay special attention to this matter. But there are not many such teachers, and their number will not be allowed to increase very much. I must stress that this is not the only way to solve the problem of the shortage of teachers. This is only a short term or make-shift measure to solve the problem. The long-term solution chiefly lies in a greater intake of trainee teachers into the Institute of Education. In 1976 the Institute of Education recruited a total of 547 trainee teachers. out of which 272 were graduate trainee teachers and 275 were non-graduate trainee teachers. In the first half of this year. 276 were recruited, out of which 115 were graduate trainees and 161 were non-graduate trainee teachers. In July this year the Institute of Education will take in more trainees to be trained as teachers. This is the main counter measure. Apart from this, we also provide an unrestricted number of scholarships and bursaries for university studies to those youths who like to take up teaching as a profession. We have also had arrangements with the authorities concerned in England, Australia and New Zealand on teacher exchange programmes so that we can send teachers in Mandarin in exchange for teachers in English. These are some of the measures we have taken to solve the shortage of teachers. He mentioned about a teacher who was recently asked to leave Singapore, who had taught in the International School, now called the United World College. I would like to stress here that this is a private school. The teachers were not recruited by the Ministry of Education. If they were recruited by us. they would have to go through certain procedures. Of course, we cannot guarantee that one or two undesirable elements will not infiltrate our teaching profession. However, this possibility is not great. But we will pay attention to his advice as to whether such teachers would produce any undesirable influence on our teachers and students. The Member for Kolam Ayer also enquired about the teachers' and pupils' reaction. I can say that up till now the reaction is quite positive and favourable, and they have carried out their duties as teachers quite well. The Member for Changi touched especially on the lowering standard of English in schools. As a matter of fact, I have read certain reports that even in England the standard of English has gone down. So it is not just in Singapore. On Friday, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has also referred to a drop in the standard of Chinese. It is a matter of opinion whether or not there is a drop in the language standard. In the past our forebears probably read only one book in school. Therefore, they had higher demands and could be very strict and meticulous about the form and grammar of the language and tolerating no mistakes. However, in the modern society this has changed. With most of the young people, their attitude is quite different. They are quite tolerant of language mistakes. The problems of examinations and others may have some bearing on this. But I believe the change in attitude is a crucial factor. However, we do not say that we condone a low standard of English. Of course, we should at least strive for a minimum standard to ensure that the language used is not faulty, if not excellent, and would be sufficient for one to develop and build on. That is one chief reason why recently we issued circulars to schools stipulating that from 1979 students wishing to go to the pre-university classes or junior colleges must attain a certain minimum standard in language. We believe that if the attitude is correct the language standard of our youths will be gradually raised. Another problem touched on by him and which was also touched on by the Member for Kolam Ayer, relates to relief teachers. A few of these relief teachers are teachers trained by the Institute of Education. They will eventually take up teaching as their profession. But for the time being, because of certain administrative problems, these teachers are not yet able to fill up suitable posts, so they remain where they are. Sometimes this is because the subjects they mastered do not fit in with the requirements of the school. This is only temporary. In other cases, certain trained teachers have given up teaching. But in the meantime because of good ties with the principal or of other reasons these teachers do not mind going back to the schools to help do a stint. Most of the relief teachers do not teach for long. It is not possible to give all of them training. I must inform the House that before these relief teachers take up teaching we have instructed the principals to brief them on professional guidance wherever possible, so that they can cope with the job more efficiently, and the principals have also complied. 3.30 p.m. The Member for Kolam Ayer also touched on this point. He asked when we would stop engaging relief teachers. I cannot give him a date. Under any circumstances, we will need relief teachers unless we employ far more teachers whose sole purpose is to temporarily fill up vacant posts whenever the serving teachers go on leave or fall sick. We cannot do that financially. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is not possible to stop recruiting relief teachers. There can be no fixed date, in fact, the date to stop engaging such relief teachers will be remote. Touching on the Member for Khe Bong's criticism, this relates to what I said just now. The speech was full of exaggeration. I do not deny that recently the Chinese Secondary IV students had started their school term late by five working days. Last year, the examination results were announced on 6th February 1976 and the school commenced on 1st March. This year the results were announced on 5th February and school commenced on 10th March. The delay was partly because of the Chinese New Year holidays. This year the time taken was 24 working days against 19 days last year. In fact, we do not want to delay and waste even a day. The delay for this year was due to several reasons. First, there was a greater number of applicants. Last year there were 2,500 applications. This year there were 3,100 applications. The second reason was due to wrongly filled forms. There were 500 of them. The applicants filled up subjects which were not provided by the schools concerned. The Member also alleged that computerised processing was faster. I am not a computer expert but I have some knowledge about computers, because I have gone through some courses. I know that the computer is not infallible or cannot do everything. If you do not know how to use the computer, it cannot help you at all. The computer can facilitate or expedite the processing of application forms, only if the data and programming are correct and proper. Any delay, even for one day, is not good. However, we must look at it from a wider angle. I must thank him for bringing it up here. But if his criticism is highlighted in the newspapers the next day, and my answer is given a small space in the newspapers the result will be misleading. I do not think this is his intention. Is it? Therefore, although the intention is good the result may not be good. The Member for Kolam Ayer touched on several points and I have answered some of them. He asked why before the restructured education system was fully implemented it was superseded by the new system. This restructured education system had engaged much of our time in its planning. Basically this education system was still geared to the needs of average and above average students. There was no provision for retention classes. However, before implementing this system, some very important information had come to hand. We found that the automatic promotion system had produced a backward symptom among many students, especially those below average intelligence. They were very weak in mathematics and language. They become the so-called "educational illiterates". They could not speak Mandarin or English. This is a very serious problem. We therefore did not implement this restructured education system but straightaway reverted to the traditional system with certain modifications in streaming to meet educational requirements of the below-averaged. This is well-known to all and we are not ashamed about this. Since the system was not practicable and had we persisted, it would not be in the interest of education. The Member also enquired how the streaming of students was carried out. I would stress that there is no streaming at the Primary I level. Because in Primary I we just take in pupils without regard to their intelligence or their capability. They are just taken in at random. There is no bio-data streaming in Primary I. Actual streaming only takes place at the Primary II level according to their scholastic results and performance. If there is only one class in the school, of course there is no streaming. It chiefly depends on the number of classes available. It also depends upon the facilities and the type of teachers in the school. Basically, the streaming is dependent upon their results in mathematics and languages, first language and second language, for Primary II and III. For Primary IV, V and VI, science is also taken into consideration when streaming them. The Member also enquired whether we intended to recruit those teachers who had retired to meet the shortage of teachers. In fact, we are doing so. Those who are good in teaching, physically fit and are willing to stay on, and the subjects they teach are those that we require to meet the shortage, then we welcome them back. But it sometimes happen that they do not want to come back. And sometimes what they are able to teach are not the subjects for which we are short of teachers. The Member also suggested whether we should employ married lady teachers who had given up teaching in our schools. He may be surprised to hear the figures I am going to give. At present 42% of the teachers in our schools are married lady teachers. Therefore, it is not the question of all married lady teachers giving up teaching. Actually I would like to see more male teachers in the secondary schools, because they are dealing with adolescents. I think male teachers are more suitable than lady teachers for the boys, and vice versa for the girls. Generally boys have problems that require male teachers to tackle while girls prefer lady teachers for help. So teaching should not be confined to either male or female teachers. The present trend is that the number of lady teachers is increasing. There are more and more lady teachers. Among the present group of serving teachers, more than 60% are women, speaking on a national basis. Most of these lady teachers are in the primary schools where they account for about 67%. The Member for Kolam Ayer also asked whether we were retraining those redundant Chinese and Malay medium teachers. Yes, we are doing this. Those who possess a certain passable standard of English will be given retraining, so that they can be sent to teach in another medium. Those who are not so good in English will be deployed to the type of work that does not require a high standard of English. The Member also mentioned another point. He said that the Education Officers' visits to schools had led to storms of complaints and dissatisfaction among the teachers. But when the Permanent Secretary with his retinue of administrative officers went round to certain schools, he was received warmly. This is plausible. Yet not quite so. In fact, there were both Education Officers and administrative officers accompanying the Permanent Secretary when he made his round of schools. It was reported once that some dissatisfaction and complaints had been generated by visits of professional officers to schools. But that had long since been over, and I am not here defending them. He should make specific references. He should not generalise upon some random examples, because this would cause certain anxiety among the people concerned. The purpose of the visit was to explain to the teachers and the principals the education policy and to enhance the understanding between the teachers, principals and Ministry officials. 3.45 p.m. The Permanent Secretary and his senior officials have visited 120 schools to-date. This includes schools, junior colleges, AEB centres and vocational institutes, and there have been thorough and harmonious discussions between the officials and the teachers, in arriving at a mutual understanding of the practical problems of education, with the result that many forums and seminars have been conducted by the Ministry for the benefit of the teachers. All these are being done without publicity. We do not want to talk so much about it because it is not going to help in our educational work. So we do not want to publicise our effort unless we have to. These are all undertaken quietly. Therefore, I quoted a saying by Lu Shun, a Chinese literatus, that we would just carry on our work quietly without pomp.