Hansard, 1979-03-27

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:- 22nd March, 1979 (i) Civil Law (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Rubber Association of Singapore (incorporation) (Amendment) Bill; and (iii) Vocational and Industrial Training Board Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name, That this House having noted the Report on the Ministry of Education, 1978, contained in Paper Misc. 3 of 1979, (1) supports the revised structure of education which will allow each pupil to Study at a pace suited to his learning capacity and which will make him as bilingual as he can be, (2) approves flexibility in implementation particularly to accommodate the wishes of parents, (3) recommends periodic adjustments and changes to the revised structure which experience and advice of principals and teachers show to be desirable in the long term interests of pupils. The Report of the Education Study Team and the Prime Minister's comments on it have received extensive coverage in the local media. It is therefore not necessary for me to summarise the findings which I assume are familiar to Honourable Members. Instead, I want to explain the basic approach which the team adopted in examining a complicated and vexatious problem. We are not specialists in education. While education has its professional aspects about which the layman is not well informed, education impinges on everyone. To start with, we have been through the mill ourselves, though at different times in the past. Nearly all of us have children, grandchildren or relatives in schools. We are not therefore totally ignorant of the problems of school children. Our approach, the starting point of our investigation, or what in mandarin is aptly called chu fa dian ( ), is to find out the reasons why problems keep on recurring year after year, despite the efforts of successive Ministers of Education to solve them. The chu fa dian ( ) of the Education Study Team is best summarised in the motto of the London School of Economics: Rerum Cognoscere Causas - to know the causes of things. There is nothing special about this. Doctors use it regularly on patients - if their diagnosis is correct, the patient is cured unless the ailment is incurable, such as lung cancer. Engineers and mechanics regularly observe the motto of the London School of Economics when they have to repair a motor car, a piece of machinery or equipment. But in human affairs, to recognise the causes of things does not come naturally, especially in important matters of state. Take, for instance, what is probably the most important economic and social problem facing the world today - inflation. The causes of inflation are simple. Yet government leaders in some industrial countries pretend otherwise and believe that they can fight inflation by persuading trade union leaders not to press for higher wages and businessmen not to raise prices. They do not seem to be aware that they are attacking the symptoms of the malaise, not the root causes. They are therefore not likely to succeed. I believe that the Team has identified the real causes of trouble in our education system. There are three: (i) The languages of instruction in our bilingual system are not spoken at home for the great majority of school children. (ii) The rapid switch from the Chinese stream to the English stream made necessary the mass production of teachers for the English stream schools, to the detriment of the quality of teaching. (iii) Our system of education, lasting twelve years, has been tailored to suit the brightest 12% of pupils. The inevitable result is high wastage rates in our schools, both primary and secondary. Automatic promotion was practised in primary and secondary schools up to 1975. and 1977 respectively. This meant that as the slow learners moved from lower to higher classes, they understood less and less of what was being taught. Automatic promotion in Primary and Secondary schools was abolished in 1976 and 1978 respectively and retentions enforced on a large scale. This did not produce the results hoped for. Retention inflicts a psychological trauma on the child and when this is repeated two or three times, it would be an exceptional child who does not lose interest in learning, suffer a loss of self-esteem and self-confidence and develop character defects as a consequence of these. Once the basic causes have been identified, the solutions almost suggest themselves. We must accept the principle of teaching children of different learning capacities at different rates. The Report recommends different streams of education to suit the slow, average, above average and outstanding learners. I do not wish to discuss the details of this proposal. All I need to say is that while the principle is clear enough and the policy correct, there are formidable problems in implementation. Nevertheless, I believe that over the years they can be overcome, for reasons which I shall explain later. I want to discuss a number of issues not mentioned in the Report but which have a bearing on the subject. The first is: "Are parents acting rationally in switching their children from the Chinese, Malay or Tamil streams to the English stream in increasing numbers over the last two decades?" To answer this question, one must set up some criteria of rationality. I propose two simple criteria:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, when two minds of the order of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education and the Prime Minister have set down their findings and thoughts on the ends and means of education policy in our Republic, one might reasonably wonder whether there is anything fundamental left for anybody else to contribute. Nit-pickers galore there always will be. And there is nothing wrong about nit-picking because there will always be nits to pick, even in the best run of societies or education systems. But we can safely leave this occupation to those who derive a special pleasure from it. What one might usefully do is to elaborate or emphasise some of the principles, whether implicit or explicit, in the Report of the Deputy Prime Minister's Study Team on Education. And these are principles about which I have very strong feelings. But first, some general observations about the Report. In his moving letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, the Prime Minister has described the publication of the Report, and the exchange of letters, as "a watershed in our history". But even the word "watershed" falls short of capturing in its entirety the significance the Report and the proposals before us, has for me personally. As I scan the decades I have lived through, 46 years ago in 1933, when my parents came to Singapore from Malacca and dumped me into Standard 2 of the Rangoon Road English School, confining me in a closed world entirely divorced from the majority of the population who lived in a bewildering variety of closed worlds of their own; and as I range over the intervening years, the great depression of the 30's, through the Japanese Occupation, the struggle against colonialism, self-government in 1959, the struggle against the communists and the communalists, our brief sojourn in Malaysia, our speedy eviction from Malaysia, the grim battle for economic development and survival, the victory and, above all, the daunting and often intimidating task of building a nation out of diverse linguistic, cultural and ethnic strands - and as I struggled to find a word or words to adequately describe the significance with which the Report before us is charged, the inevitable descriptive word came to mind. It is a Latin word which I had long ago come across in a book describing the evolutionary process. The word used was saftus - a qualitative evolutionary leap into a completely new dimension of being and awareness, which would have been unthinkable 15 or 20 years ago. There were few real Singaporeans then. Most of us were Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians, and so on, who had been flung together on a small island by the accidents of history. Indeed, if a report of this kind had been produced some 20 years ago, the Government would have been turfed out of office by a mutually hostile combination of language chauvinists from all the various ethnic groups. The very fact that the Report on Education before us has been approached by all the newspapers in our Republic - Chinese, English, Malay and Tamil - in a spirit of calm and unemotional realism, is proof enough that a Singapore national identity is no longer a merely constitutional fiction, but a living, pulsating, political reality. As the Prime Minister put it, a generation of Singaporeans has come of age. In short, as the Report shows, and even more, as the popular media reaction to the Report reveals, the generality of Singaporeans has come to terms with the economic, political, and cultural realities of the very difficult world in which we have to make our living as a people, aided by nothing more than our own efforts and also, hopefully, by a hitherto beneficent Providence. And coming to terms with these realities involves the inescapable recognition that without the English language, our children will be denied entry into the world of modern science and technology, into institutions of higher learning here and overseas, and into the kind of jobs we would like them to have. In short, practically everybody recognises today that without English, our children would be woefully ill-equipped for the 21st century, which is just a mere 20 years ahead. If at all there is any unease, it is certainly not about the proposals on education policy before us, but rather a barely perceptible, an almost secret and gnawing unease, about whether or not the policy of bilingualism will effectively enable our children to preserve the best of their cultural past, and to continue to draw nourishment from their ancient cultural roots. I frankly confess to this unease myself. And there must be numerous other parents like me, from Chinese-speaking, Malay-speaking and Tamil-speaking homes, who feel the same unease. It must therefore be the responsibility of this House, the Government and, in particular, the Ministry of Education, to lay this unease to rest. I believe it can be laid to rest. They have done it in Switzerland, where most people are effectively bilingual, and not a few are even trilingual. But the sense of Swiss nationhood is strong, whether the main language spoken is Italian, French or German. People of my generation are already grandfathers, or are well on the way to becoming grandfathers. Whatever our main langauge may be, and whatever our value systems may be, we must remain what we are. At our age, we cannot be un-made in order to be re-made. It is no use my regretting, for example, that under a different education system from the one I was brought up in, I might have acquired a bit more Malayalam or Tamil, or that I might have usefully delved into classical Sanskrit, which has so profoundly influenced Indian culture and the Hindu ethos. When the British colonial government enrolled me, forcefully, into St. John's Island University in 1951, I undertook a course in Malay, which has stood me in good stead since then. My Chinese fellow detainees even taught me some 1,000 Chinese characters, But because I subsequently failed to use them, today I can recognise no more than 15 or 20 Chinese characters. These are regrets which will die with me. Very few grand-fathers of today will make it as the great-grandfathers of tomorrow. The intolerance of time will leave us with relatively few tomorrows to bother about. The men of today are more educable. They have a good way to go before they become the grandfathers of tomorrow. And it gladdens one's heart to know that many of our younger MPs, including Senior Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries, are diligently pursuing courses in Mandarin, Hokkien and Malay. I do not know whether the Members for Kallang and Kuo Chuan are doing anything to improve their level of Tamil. The Report on Education concentrates, quite rightly, on the children of today, who will be the men and women of tomorrow. To them, we must do justice - maximum justice. And I am seized by more than a twinge of regret because less than justice was done to the young people who went through our school system in the last ten years. But this was unavoidable, for we were all prisoners of the emotionally volatile political milieu which preceded the more rational political climate which prevails today. There were therefore unavoidable errors of conception and execution - errors which have been exposed with unflinching honesty by the Deputy Prime Minister and his Study Team. But I would plead with the officials (some of them) of the Ministry of Education not to go about whining and whimpering because they imagine that the strictures in the Report are levelled at them. I did not read the Report that way. I saw it more as an admission of the fact that we were all victims of the climate and circumstances of our political past, a phase which today we have left behind us. The possibility that the Deputy Prime Minister's Report offers is to become the determining masters of our future circumstances, rather than the hapless victims we were in the past. This is the qualitative evolutionary leap we have achieved, and which I referred to earlier. There is therefore no need for anybody in the Ministry of Education to wallow in self-pity, for the good reason that everybody must learn from past mistakes. Mercifully, we have learned in good time. There are other countries, with citizens and governments, who obstinately refuse to learn from experience. Since they cannot help themselves, one can only pray that at least God might help them, in His own mysterious and inscrutable way. But we have learned because, as a nation, we do not belong to the category of slow starters. We happen to be quick learners. I might now return to the unease I mentioned earlier. I agree with the Prime Minister's observation that the principal value of teaching the second language is the imparting of moral values and understanding of cultural traditions. Chinese, Malay, and Indian stories, myths, mythology and folklores are the stuff and substance of the cultural subconscious of the three great cultural traditions which we rightly seek to make part of the mental and spiritual make-up of our young people. But here we must utter a word of warning to parents as well as to Chinese, Malay and Tamil civic and cultural organisations. The exposure time to the second language in primarily English-medium schools will have to be substantially reinforced in our homes, and by the various Chinese, Malay and Tamil civic and cultural societies. A mere textbook acquaintance with the second language, which is the most we can expect from our schools, will prove a dismal failure, if this is not supplemented by opportunities for the actual use of the second language, as a living and not as a dead language, in our homes, and through the provision of a variety of cultural and literary programmes by civic and cultural organisations. There is one more principle, Sir, of the new education policy which it would be useful to expand upon. To allow each pupil to study at a pace suited to his learning capacity and which will make him as bilingual as he can be, is simple commonsense. But commonsense, Sir, is, in fact, quite uncommon, considering that nobody thought about this in all the years since 1959. In any school-going population, only a small percentage make it to the tertiary level. The majority do not make the academic grade. If we want our working population to be appreciating assets, not depreciating ones, then it is clearly necessary to give very special attention to the needs of the majority. In this regard, the proposals made by the Deputy Prime Minister make eminently good sense. One of the most execrable terms ever coined was the term "drop-outs", to describe the unfortunate majority who could not make the PSLE, or who failed to secure their 'O' levels. We might as well condemn square pegs as "drop-outs", because our attempts to fit them into round holes failed, quite forgetting the fact that square pegs have their own inestimable uses. Sir, I have made the point several times outside this House. Today, I am privileged to make the same point inside this House and it is this. Apart, perhaps, from the congenital criminal, or those with an incurable mental derangement, nobody can be a "drop-out" from society. You drop out of society only when you kick the bucket. What happens when you really drop out, and whether you will have company when you pass over to the other side, I do not know. We will have to find this out for ourselves. Our classification is not complete when we talk about the academic minority and the non-academic majority. There are the quick ones who manage to scale the academic peak in a short time. There are the slow starters, who take a longer time to scale the same peak. I told the Deputy Prime Minister this. Last December, I went mountain trekking in Nepal, with a Gurkha guide and two Sherpas. Our destination was a height of 12,500 feet. The last 500 feet I found excruciatingly difficult. The Sherpas made it in 45 minutes. I also managed to reach the top but it took me 4 1/2 hours. I believe the same thing applies to those who attempt to scale academic heights. The majority make it only to the foothills. A small number remain permanently on the plains. For the first time, our education policy makers are seized by the vital social and political importance of providing credible programmes for the majority of those who will only attain the foothills of academic achievement, as well as for those who will remain permanently on the plains. Sir, I believe in an egalitarian society, if what we mean is equality of opportunity for everyone, regardless of ethnic origin, social class or creed. In this sense, we have long been an egalitarian society. But in the very nature of things, there cannot be equality of achievement. All of us are not equally endowed - whether mentally, emotionally or spiritually. One of the besetting sins of most education systems in the world is the almost exclusive stress placed on intellectual and academic excellence. We therefore often allow ourselves to forget that the rounded and complete human being and citizen which the Prime Minister referred to is not merely a cerebral box. Each individual student, whatever his IQ level may be, is a body-mind-spirit complex. All of us are similar conglomerates. So a comprehensive education must aim, not merely at academic achievement which is important, but also at developing qualities of mind and motivation, the cultivation and refinement of the emotions and of taste, in a sound and healthy body. The IQ of a student is certainly important, and nobody need quarrel with the aim of providing the best possible conditions for the extra-bright minority to scale the highest heights of academic attainments. Our society would be the richer thereby. Egalitarian societies which have sought to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator have invariably come to grief. Thus it is that even in a professedly egalitarian society like the Soviet Union, special schools are provided for the exceptionally gifted and talented, in the spheres of music, art, mathematics and science. My colleagues and I in the NTUC have had no difficulty in satisfying the working class on the ground that talent and ability must be assessed and paid for at their market value, and sometimes at their international market value. For example, if the emoluments and perks of our brightest civil servants did not match those of the private sector, our Government ministries, departments and statutory boards would not be able to maintain the quality of their services to the public. Our port would deteriorate, our communications system would break down, and when we pull or push the handle, the toilet flush system might work in reverse. But nonetheless, the excellent chaps who constitute our meritocratic elite must never forget that the rewards of their excellence and high performance are ultimately justified only by the quality of their commitment and service to the general social good. Manifestations of selfishness on their part could turn the ground irretrievably sour. It would therefore be chastening for the meritocratic elite to observe that elites elsewhere in the world, who forgot what they owed to the ground, had brought the whole social system crashing down their ears. I remember the ground level reaction when medical students created a fuss last year over being bonded for service to the state. We were told in this House last week by the Minister for Health that they finally signed their pledges of service, but with reluctance. These students would have been usefully shocked if they knew that our workers, several of whom accepted bonding arrangements after they had gone through apprenticeship and other training schemes, regarded them with utter contempt. It was a potentially dangerous gut reaction. Indeed, some trade unionists seriously contemplated a public demonstration against the medical students, I recall telephoning the Minister for Health about this, and I was advised that he would deal with the medical students in his own way, and there was no need for trade unions to embark on a public demonstration of ground level feelings. The Prime Minister has repeatedly reminded us that intelligence is inherited. All the experts agree. But what has not been sufficiently emphasised is that character, wisdom, motivation, and desirable qualities of mind and heart, are not necessarily inherited. These are largely acquired, through our life experiences, our interaction with our fellow men and women, the manner in which we meet and deal with happiness and grief, pleasure and pain, success and failure, victory and defeat, fame and obscurity, and all the other multitudinous dualities which constitute the stuff of life experience. In the cities of the world, there may be found any number of street Arabs, and even plain criminals, with an IQ as high as that of our Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister. But there are other qualities besides their IQs which make the PM and the DPM the kind of men that they are. On the other hand, I have known an illiterate gardener, who turned out to be one of the finest human beings I knew, characterised as he was by a calm gladness of mind, gentleness, silence, a superiority to the small and petty reactions which plague lesser men, and a pair of calm serene eyes which surveyed the world around him without perturbation. He did not have an international market value, nor even much of a domestic market value, but he won my reverence. I would therefore urge care and caution on the Minister of Education, when conducting the streaming of our school-going population, according to ability, performance and potential. Labels can be grossly misleading, and I am glad that he has assured us of wise and prudent flexibility when it comes to implementing the streaming process. Talking about slow learners and slow starters, I remember that in my own case, my parents and teachers had serious doubts about whether I would ever start at all. I got through standard 5 of Rangoon Road Primary School by the skin of my teeth. And in those days the feeder primary schools (Rangoon Road, Outram, and so on) passed on all the average and below average students to Victoria School, while all the brighter sparks were despatched to Raffles Institution. My two elder brothers made the grade to Raffles Institution. Inevitably, a stigma came to be attached to Victoria School, and my parents. and elder brothers looked down upon me with more than a little disdain. This did me harm, but paradoxically, it also did me some good, because I found a quiet determination forming itself within me, to the effect: "I will show them!" Without going into autobiographical details, suffice it to say that show them I did. However, one cannot generalise from one's own experience. But in this connection, I would recommend to the Hon. Minister of Education that when streaming pupils for the four-year and five-year 'O' levels, they should not be sent to separate schools, whatever the professionals in his Ministry might opine. Political considerations, let alone moral or spiritual considerations, would dictate the wisdom of having in one school both four-year and five-year 'O' level streams. We can thereby avoid the stigma that would be attached to a particular school because it deals only with the five-year 'O' level stream. Another considerable advantage of doing this is that the brighter students and the average ones, although they are in different classes, are yet in the same school, and will rub off on each other, to their mutual benefit, in the playing fields, and in all extra curricular activities. And there will arise a spontaneous and ungrudging acceptance of the fact that endowments and abilities naturally vary, and must therefore be variously provided for. And we also avoid the rigid and horrible classification in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, between the separately and differently programmed Gammas Deltas and Epsilons and so on. What I suggest is something like what we are trying to do in the NTUC. Our bright young MPs are invited to sit in union Committees, to serve the workers, and to identify with them. In the process, both workers and the bright MPs benefit, for they become aware of a fundamental truth. However varied our endowments, our capacities, our stations in life maybe, we belong to each other, and to the nation. You may have noticed pillars in Hindu temples, of varying heights and thicknesses - but they all support the same temple. Or we may liken ourselves to an army, which fights better, because of the sense of solidarity which binds officers and men in a common loyalty, to a common nation, for the preservation of a way of life which all cherish equally. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, Whip or no Whip, the Motion by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education has my support. It has my support because it recognises that the recasting of our education system into a new and more socially efficient mould cannot be done overnight. It recognises the need for flexibility in implementation in order to accommodate the wishes of parents. And it gives assurance of a pragmatic approach by recommending periodic adjustments and changes to the revised structure which experience and advice of principals and teachers show to be desirable. Much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1978 Report on the Ministry of Education bluntly points out three main areas. Firstly, the defects of the education system for the last few years, Secondly, the weakness and the inefficiency in the administration of the Ministry of Education. Thirdly, the restructuring, the strengthening and the new developments in our education system. The fact that this Report is published and the fact that we have an open debate here on this Report show that the Government is prepared to face reality and to shoulder full responsibility on this matter. Human resource is our only resource. Therefore, how to nurture and educate our next generation in order to avoid unnecessary attrition is a problem that concerns both the Government and the parents most of all. For the past few years, Backbenchers have commented and criticised in this House certain measures of the Ministry of Education. Judging from the Hansard, it seems that despite such criticisms, everything remains as it has been. Had this Report been published a few years earlier or had administrative officials in the Ministry been more frank, humble and were prepared to face reality, to accept criticisms and to consult the views of the parties concerned, we would have been in a better position today. The Report indicates that we have a very high attrition rate in our education. The probable causes for this phenomenon were that, firstly, the system itself was irrational. Secondly, the administration had been faulty, and thirdly, the curricula were inappropriate. If we had not considered whether or not the pupils have the potential to cope with the demands and the situation, but force them to adapt to these questionable administrative setup and curricula, then they would have to be sacrificed. We will not be doing justice to their parents. We have to further investigate out of this high attrition rate, how many students did not complete their education, not because they lack innate ability but because of other factors. Only then can we find the correct remedy to reduce the attrition rate, so that we can educate our next generation in a better way. Paragraph 3 of Chapter 6 of the Report says that it is most important to give our children the best learning environment so that they can adapt to it and develop their potential. Only then can we correspondingly reduce the attrition rate in our education system. According to the principles suggested in the Report, our education system is to be divided into three sub-systems. This new system will be better than the single system that we have hitherto because it is broader in scope and more practical in application and takes into consideration the potential and the pace of learning of our students. We all know that students vary in intelligence, development, and capacity. Their home environment is different too. Some are late developers; some might be very bright when they are young but not so bright when they grow up. It is not easy to stream them into the various sub-streams with any degree of exactness. But, as pointed out in the Report, if adjustments are made whenever necessary it will help correct any deviation. In order to make this system successful, we need the cooperation of the members of the public in all ways. Education is to meet the needs of the society, including that of parents. No parent will admit that his child is inferior to other children. Every parent hopes that his child will become a dragon. Therefore the aspiration of parents exerts great pressure on the children and the school. We must launch a social education programme so that parents will recognise the capacity of their own children and should not demand too much from their children. They should leave it to the schools to take care of the pace and learning capacity of each child. Only in this way, can we avert disappointment and agony caused by tOo high an expectation demanded of by the parents. From the many instances of well-educated and professional people who were convicted in court for various crimes, it seems that we have to pay attention to moral education and character training. There is cause for concern over trends of development in the society. If we are not careful, our society can degenerate into a philistine and mercenary society, obsessed by short-term considerations, and the people become snobbish. We do not expect to see every student squeezing himself into the top 8% or 15% group and forgetting to acquire good character traits. Making a child concentrate on a few examination subjects and neglect or disregard the cultivation of basic moral concepts is a great defect in our education. Moral education in all classes in all streams will help reduce the undesirable phenomenon of the pursuit of material comforts, irrespective of the means employed, as evident in the society. All these propositions are in the initial stage and the take-off is usually very difficult. This is particularly so in education which is a long-term and difficult process. It is not easy to see the effects of any education reforms. In the past, measures and implementation had been forced at too great a pace, so much so that orders issued in the morning were only to be changed in the evening. In the end, there was confusion galore. Hence, it led to this Report. I hope the new recommendations will be gradually adjusted and implemented so as not to repeat past mistakes. The compilation and the teaching of the syllabuses for the three sub-systems will be major problems hereafter. I hope the Ministry of Education will seek the views of the various parties concerned so that before the curricula are implemented they would have been given careful study, review and close scrutiny so as to avoid the old mistake of merely treating the symptoms of the ailment. What the Report proposes is a general outline and a blueprint for education. The implementation of these recommendations which cover an extensive scope will involve a lot of people and it will have far-reaching consequences. It can be seen from the Report that human factor is the main factor determining the success or failure of this new system. I hope all education personnel and the officials in the Ministry would understand the aims and objectives of this Report, so that when they carry out the implementation there will be no dislocation or deviation. I fully support the Motion. 3.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the eloquence of the Member for Anson and the Member for Delta, I rise to join my colleagues in this debate on the Report on the Ministry of Education which is now before the House. It is not my intention here nor my purpose - far from it - to harp on happenings that are history today. History, however, has the habit of repeating itself, and in repeating itself it affects people's lives - yours, mine and everyone else's. This is the trouble with history whose happenings are generally full of trouble. It was because of history that today we have the Goh Keng Swee Report on Education in Singapore. It was because of the many troubles plaguing the Ministry of Education that a Study Team was appointed to look into them. It was because of the troubles existent in our education system that we are here today debating this most important aspect of society. I mentioned many problem areas in my speech on Education in this very House in 1977 during the debate on the Presidential Address. Without wishing to make any claim to being prophetic in any way. I note with some satisfaction that several of the problem areas I identified at that time have, in fact, been proved correct. May I quote an extract of the speech I made (Hansard Vol. 36, Cols. 186-8): "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". . . . . 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." The Study Team is, in some ways, such a Commission. In fact, it has done a better job than any Commission of Inquiry could do, as it has access to facilities and the know-how to get to the root of the problem. It is not my aim to take any credit; not at all. My purpose is to point out that these ills have been noticed before. I am, more than anything else, glad, very glad, that the 1978 Report on the Ministry of Education has come out. It is not only timely but it is also necessary. Sir, I also said at that time that any matter pertaining to education is a matter very close to my heart. It is even more so today. What I have to say is said with sincerity, honesty and with well-meaning intent. What is the real challenge for education in Singapore? As I see it, it lies in continuing the seemingly unending search for quality and an endeavour to realise the quality that we ultimately want. In the past 1 1/2 decades, we in Singapore have experimented enough in all things educational. We paid a price for such experiments because innocent mistakes were committed, but these experiments were justified in the sense that we emerged wiser. While it must be admitted that pupils suffer as a result of the different emphases placed on education at different times, one consoling factor is that the new generation of pupils is bound to benefit from the lessons learned. I see the educational challenge ahead close to a paradox of some proportion. We have achieved quite substantially, but we have not really arrived at it yet. I think this time we have arrived at it. Let me at the very outset say that our educational policy has been formulated with social and economic development in mind. These included the fullest development of the individual potentialities with the purpose of ensuring the collective development and welfare of our democratic society, love for freedom, truth and justice, respect for fundamental human rights, racial, religious and cultural appreciation and tolerance, and all other aspects involved in building our nation, particularly loyalty and patriotism. The provision included universal education, free primary education, free parental choice of language streams, equal treatment of the four official languages, bilingualism, emphasis on vocational and technical education, enhanced education with the development of knowledge and skills necessary for economic development, social and civic values and consciousness, health education and services as well as extra-curricular activities to ensure a healthy and robust society. Sir, in general, I am very pleased indeed with the Dr Goh Keng Swee's Report except that the criticisms were too severe on the Ministry officials. I find that the Goh Keng Swee Report on Education contains correct, incisive and perceptive observations as well as recommendations. It is unbiased, objective in its approach and very thorough in its presentation. As I have said earlier, it is timely. There is need for it. Timely because it is corrective at a time when correction is needed. Necessary because it is remedial at a time when a remedy is sorely needed. Many of the problems plaguing the Ministry of Education have been pin-pointed, identified, and solutions suggested. I would like to put it on record that, in the main, I concur with the observations and findings, and support many of the suggested solutions, and would like to command the Study Team's good work. That the Prime Minister has accepted the Report is certainly the real evidence of its worth. However, I also find that there are, at the same time, several areas of concern which have either been omitted altogether or not dealt with in depth. Similarly with some of the solutions suggested. Some of the recommendations bear a closer look because they appear to contain flaws, although at first glance they seem so secure. I shall come to these various areas in the course of the next few minutes. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me try to deal with these areas of concern one at a time. I am truly concerned over them. Firstly, the subject of moral education which the Prime Minister himself has found fit to comment on strongly. This is a fundamental issue. It is an essential consideration. For upon it, its proper learning at one's early and formative stage, largely rests one's character in the years to come. Unlike subject learning, moral education cannot be swotted for. Its results cannot be gauged by the marks obtained on a piece of paper or by answering questions. It has to be lived. It has to be practised. It has to be seen. It has to be felt. Living it and practising it is a long and continuing process which is not cut off at the end of the school day or at the end of the school term. Moral education is something that requires the contribution and the partnership of all concerned in its teaching and practice. The school, the home, the house of worship, society - all have their parts to play. But the school has a far-reaching role to play. Its part can take many forms, formal and informal. I am not advocating that any form of religious fervour be pumped into the minds of our young. I am not, certainly not, advocating any moral or religious fanaticism. But the teachings of the prophets and great leaders from all religions - Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and others - told in the context of modern day application and made relevant to the situation of the world today, would go a long way towards inculcating values, attitudes, tolerance, understanding, and a sense of duty and obligation that are desirable and correct. There are, unfortunately, too many people today who are either ignorant of the relation between duty and obligation, or who deliberately confuse this relation in order to avoid responsibility. There are obviously those who have had poor or insufficient or incorrect moral grounding. There are those who do not realise that they have to acknowledge the duty that accompanies each and every right they enjoy. There are those who often too readily and willingly put in their oars but refuse to do any rowing. If we had too many of such citizens, our country would be at a standstill. The school is one sure place where it can ensure that this will not happen. Moral education should never be lost sight of. What we make of our children in the years ahead will depend on many factors, and moral education is a major factor. Whether we will make them good citizens, loyal citizens, productive citizens, who will be proud of and be prepared to defend their country, who will be contributing significantly and unselfishly to the progress of their nation, and who will dutifully acknowledge their social obligation to their homeland, depends a good deal on how we bring them up in school, at home and elsewhere in terms of moral education. The examples we ourselves set are of the utmost importance. Teachers, parents, religious and other leaders all have their vital parts to play. But since children spend so much of their lives in school, it is the school that is looked upon as the main theatre in this drama of life. Sir, allow me at this juncture to read out an extract from a view expressed by a principal, a colleague of mine, on the same subject of moral education, which I also share: "What we did not dare to hope for is the introduction of formal education and we applaud the proposal. Moral education is, however, a totality, and the mere introduction of stories will not be enough. The stories from all cultures will help to promote respect for these cultures among those belonging to other cultures. But they are not enough to motivate us to action. They are only illustrations of good conduct. The strongest possible motivation is a religious one and this should only be introduced into education. While we acknowledge the dangers of proselytism and fanaticism, we feel that the best atmosphere is that of a multi-racial school where each religion is treated with respect and where each pupil is taught to love his own culture including his ancestral religion. Fanaticism is controlled by the prudence, tolerance and respect of principals and teachers who themselves teach these religions according to the faith they profess and only to those pupils who belong to this faith. Thus, if there are 40 Confucianists in a school and a Confucian teacher, he would teach that Confucian class. Likewise with Taoists or Muslims or Christians or Sikhs or Hindus or Buddhists. Thus at the same time moral attitudes and cultural values will be imparted and reinforced in an atmosphere of respect resembling what is practised in the Republic as a whole. It is time that we gave up the idea that religion has nothing to do with the school. Let us acknowledge that various tried and proven spiritual systems as practised in society and respected by all are equally valid in schools. Let us incidentally get across to our pupils that comparative religion entails a total respect for the spirit of man while allowing him to love and worship God." Sir, it is therefore rather surprising to note that such scant attention is paid to this major aspect of education in this Report. Let me now, Mr Speaker, Sir, turn to the question of streaming, student morale and teacher morale. The recommendation for a three-tier system of education is forward-looking and acceptable if the attrition rate is lowered. However, a few suggestions as to its implementation are made here: (1) The establishment of super schools for the top PSLE passes in all language streams. Here, parental option may be exercised to ascertain which super secondary school parents would like their children to go to. (2) No option to be exercised in the case of the other schools. Pupils, apart from the top 12 to 15% as in (1), will be posted to schools nearest their homes. This will result in a more balanced intake of pupils of more or less equal academic attainment. These pupils being average and slightly above average should be able to make the four-year course. However, streaming could be introduced at perhaps Secondary 3 level to sieve the slow ones, and these children could either be channelled into the five-year course or be made to sit for the CSE examination at the fourth year. Those who pass the PSLE after two or three tries should be channelled into a secondary school which offers only a five-year course of secondary education. Thus streaming is done at the PSLE level. However, reposting to schools, as indicated in (2) or even in (1), should be made possible should there be some pupils who are late developers. These schools should not unnecessarily suffer the social stigma of being slow schools if there is general acceptance that not all pupils can achieve similar academic standards. Those who cannot make it either at Secondary 2 or 3 level in spite of the slower pace should continue to be accorded the chance of being channelled into the ITB courses as at present. The age criteria should be made less stringent. That is, pupils should not be considered overaged at the primary school level, and those who have insufficient learning capacity to pass the PSLE should be channelled to a special stream as recommended. However, Sir, an option should be given to parents of dialect-speaking homes to choose whether their children should be literate in either English or Mandarin. Apart from Mandarin having close affinity with the various Chinese dialects, thus enabling the pupil to master it more easily, English in the present context appears to have an edge over Mandarin in utilitarian value. On completion of the special course, most of these pupils will probably end up as waiters, salesmen, taxi drivers, and the like. English could perhaps put them in good stead if they have greater contact with tourists, etc. To offset the danger of deculturisation among this group of pupils, moral education could be given greater stress. Sir, the concept of teaching children according to their ability has been in existence for a long time now. Just look up any good book on the theory and practice of teaching and you will find this to be the case. The concept of allowing children to learn at their own pace has been in existence for a good many years. The trouble is that it has remained only a theory in our schools. It has been put into practice with good effect in many other countries. But the teachers are not to be blamed at all, and neither the Ministry of Education which should not bear the whole brunt of the guilt. It is due to our education system - this constant paper chase, this one-upmanship syndrome, this relentless drive for examination excellence at the expense of almost everything else. All these have apparently not only been influencing factors but also determining factors in the implementation of educational policies. Often a policy is laudable enough in concept, but in its final implementation, it may become something else. We have seen during the past few years experiments and experimentation galore come and go. A great deal of confusion has resulted. Unhappiness has settled in. There are attendant, if implicit, dangers in categorising schools as "super" schools, "so-so" schools, or "lousy" schools etc. There are questions of pressure, stigma and low morale involved. Imagine the pressure put on those who go to the "super" schools. They are all expected to do "super well". What if they do not? I am not against the concept of giving the brightest of our pupils the best of opportunities. It is how we go about implementing our policies pertaining to these "super" schools that gives cause for worry. We have to ensure that we do not fall into the old trap of planning one thing and implementing another. And what about the so-called "poor" schools. How would the pupils and the teachers in these schools feel? The stigma is there, no matter what one says or preaches. Society decides on these matters. The social world of the child is just as important to him as the adult world is to the adult. It would be tragic if all the "poor" schools are filled with "poor" material, second or third triers and plodders only. As I have indicated earlier, how will all these students and their teachers feel? I think the Ministry should ensure that students who do not make it to the top nine "super" schools are evenly distributed among the rest of the schools, using a school's proximity to the child's home as a criterion and taking into consideration a parent's request. Sir, we come now to streaming. I think the Member for Anson has expressed his views earlier on, and I share most of his views on streaming. Streaming is not an easy thing to do. The IQ tests, as suggested, are not foolproof. Many of these tests are foreign in nature. Their application here may or may not provide the answers sought. In any case, a one-time IQ test is certainly not the right way to go about it. It Will certainly not obviate streaming errors. An error in streaming can affect a child's whole future, his very life. And when should streaming start? At what age of the child's school life should it begin? HOW does the Ministry plan to conduct the IQ tests for streaming? Sir, I would like to register a note of caution on the proposed introduction of IQ tests. I must also register a note of concern. Ever since 1959, we have not been able to devise an IQ test with local norms. We can import foreign IQ tests, such as Fenner, Weiss, etc. but this is an imposition of foreign norms on our population. Some children are slow starters, as the Member for Anson has said earlier. Imagine what would happen if great minds like Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill and Li Po had been streamed? They would probably end up in the Basic Course if they were schooled in Singapore! How many of the like of these men are we unwittingly smouldering by our unhealthy insistence that our children should make the grade in school? And what is the yardstick for the grade? Sir, we impose the same yardstick, the same criteria on all our children despite knowing, consciously or otherwise, that "different children have different capacities to acquire knowledge." This yardstick is academic performance in school which by some queer twist of logic is equated with economic contribution and remuneration. It is little wonder then that parents, anxious that their children should do well in life, engage private tutors the minute the toddler steps into primary one. Throughout their school career we make our children feel that the grades in their report books are the most important thing in the whole world, seeing the way we hound our children to study during school hours and, after school under private tutors, have to go over the same ground as that covered in school. It seems that we are pegging a child's future economic worth to his academic performance. Sir, growing up in such a limited and narrow world, is it any surprise then that most of our children are not politicised or aware of society's problems, or willing to serve as leaders without counting the costs and benefit? After all, we have indoctrinated them so well during their school years that whenever they put in hard work and effort, they will be rewarded with better grades and be one up over another child. It cannot be denied that our education system breeds unhealthy competition instead of cooperation. Yet we still preach about cooperation and say that if everybody cooperates there will be greater benefit all round for everybody. How often have we heard of books being stolen and pages being torn? This is all part of the selfish competitive game of Beggar-my-neighbour. Sir, the effects of competition in school can be disastrous in the long run for our nation. In the scramble to do well according to the stipulated academic standards, many will fall by the wayside. "These school dropouts ... constitute the majority of problem soldiers, those who wind up as court martial cases, summary trials, for disciplinary offences, drug addicts and attempted suicide cases." This is a quotation from the Study Report [page 1-3]. We can draw a parallel picture for the girls. In the words of Dr Goh's Report [page 1-4]: "The end product [i.e. those who suffer repeated failures] would have lost self-confidence, self-esteem and developed a host of character defects produced by feelings of inadequacy." Sir, but what of those who can cope with the present education system, especially those in the nine super schools? Being pressured to maintain the good academic performance under pain of loss of face for both children and parents, or being made to feel useless or not as good as somebody's child, they consequently cut down activities that do not directly lead to a brilliant academic record. All this must surely leave scars on otherwise healthy children. Sir, they will also develop character defects, the worst of which may be selfishness and an unwholesome sense of self-importance, born out of the notion that they are the leaders or saviours of Singapore. Our present leaders were nurtured under a more easy-going education system which did not put so much stress on them when they were children. Many in their time did not see the university degree as the be-all and end -all of life. Arid this was as it should be. And yet under such less stringent school conditions and with an undoubtedly more colourful and creative childhood (for they were in their childhood then) our present leaders have done remarkably well to see us through 20 critical years of our nation's growth. They were not nurtured as future Messiahs but they got the sense of commitment and service, I believe, through being thrown in with all and sundry. Need I say more, Sir? Many of the things they learnt in school could not be directly relevant to governing a country, but the importance of school subjects lies in the training and disciplining of the critical faculty in learning how to learn. In our efforts to force our children to pass examinations, we cram them with facts and more inert facts, without consciously training their mind and teaching them how to learn. Sir, with a discerning mind and an ability to learn and gather relevant facts, a person can tackle most problems without too much difficulty. Children have inquiring minds. They ask many questions until they are settled by impatient or ill-informed adults who have more important matters to attend to. Yet in our attempt to teach and cover the syllabus which is often unreasonably heavy, we race through lessons giving fact after fact and grade those students well who can faithfully regurgitate those facts which may soon be out of date. A great deal, Sir, has been said about whether or not teacher-morale is low. The Report maintains it is not low. But many teachers say otherwise. Many question the validity of the survey carried out by the Study Team. Does the small number of teachers interviewed really represent the views of the thousands of other teachers? Was a proper cross-section of teachers and principals covered? Naturally, it is felt that teachers in good schools exhibit better morale and teachers in poor schools would show a different picture. In any case, the general feeling is that the Study Team's findings are not correct in this respect. Now a new element has emerged - it concerns the morale of Ministry officials. The Report has apparently caused a great deal of embarrassment and created a lot of unhappiness among them. They feel that they have been made the scapegoat. The Report certainly puts them in poor light in general. But it is really not fair to blame Ministry HQ officials for all the ills of our education system and its implementation. Often, they merely carry out plans and proposals, changes, new ideas and decisions handed down by the Cabinet. I am saying that they should not be blamed for everything that has gone wrong so far. Identifying problems is one thing, but looking for scapegoats is another. Perhaps Mr Speaker, Sir, a good move would be to decentralise authority a little. What I am suggesting is that while the Ministry HQ should formulate policies, it should not interfere too much or too rigidly in the implementation of these policies in schools. It should largely be left to the schools because they are in the best position to ascertain what goals are possible and how to go about achieving these goats. There are several other pertinent points which I would like to bring to the attention of this House, Sir. Without meaning to make this a trumpet-blowing session, I can say that I speak with some authority on these matters because I live and work with them day in and day out. The first matter that is disturbing a great number of teachers, parents and students is the question, "What is meant by the term 'mother tongue'?" The Ministry should define this. For the Chinese, for example, Mandarin is in most cases not the mother tongue as explained in the Report. It could be any of the many dialects. Similarly with the Indian community, many of its members do not speak or even understand Tamil. So when we speak about L1, L2, L3 and so on, is the reference point and is the definition correct and really applicable? A simple, to the point answer and clarification would be useful in clearing up the existing doubts. I fully agree that there is an overload of work and assignments, both in the areas of formal education and ECA activities, for the average student today. Naturally, the spin-off is an overload of work and responsibility for the teachers, not to mention principals. The pressure is on daily. The race is on all the time. The push, the rush, the nudge - they are there every day. It is just not healthy, whichever way we look at it. On top of this and because of this, parents rush to give their children private tuition the moment they get into Primary 1. I do not know where all this is ultimately taking us to. Will it lead us to a society of geniuses, or will it lead us to a society of paper-chasers and nervous wrecks? I am therefore glad the Study Team has also identified this as a problem area. There should now be some relaxation in the implementation of the school curriculum. If it is really and truly the intention to allow students to proceed according to their own pace, then they should not be made to study compulsory subjects after Secondary 2, apart from the basic languages. Regarding ECA, the school should be allowed to choose and plan its own sphere of activities rather than be required to have mandatory activities like the National Police Cadet Corps (NPCC) or the National Cadet Corps (NCC). Students in Secondary 1 and Secondary 2, for example, would find Scouting or Guiding more pleasurable. Schools should be allowed discretion to choose their own activities according to their manpower availability, because it is acknowledged that there is a shortage of qualified ECA or PE teachers. At the same time, we know that our ECA programme is one of the best in this part of the world, recognised by such august bodies as the Colombo Plan. But we should not overdo it. There is also the dissatisfaction of the graduate teacher. While the non-graduate teacher is offered various avenues of advancement through the many channels of scholarships, etc., the graduate teacher is more often than not left to stagnate. This state of affairs can be most demoralising to those affected, Why should this be the case? Surely the graduate teacher who wishes to better himself or herself should be given the opportunity to do so. It is my hope, Sir, that this area of unhappiness would be looked into and remedial action taken to correct the unfortunate situation. Unless it is quickly resolved, its insidious effect will further contribute to the low state of morale of these teachers and erode their confidence. Their work will be affected, to the detriment of the students they teach. Teachers today somehow have lost the respect, the standing, the status, the place of honour they used to possess in the old days. Why should this be so? Teaching is a profession. It used to be a noble profession. Why has it lost its "nobility"? Is it because of the way they have been treated by the powers that be? Many feel this is the case, the reason, the cause of it all. We talk about upgrading professionalism in the teaching profession. How can we talk about professionalism if teachers are not accorded recognition as professional people? Look at the other professions - the doctors, the lawyers, the accountants, the architects, etc. Their professional status has not been eroded; even if it has been, it is only a minor one. For the teaching profession, it seems this erosion is almost complete. What is needed perhaps is a professional organisation of teachers, not merely unions. A professional organisation of teachers on the lines of the Medical Association, the Dental Association, the Association of Accountants and the like - organisations whose primary aims are not merely to get better salaries and improved working conditions, important though these may be, but aims that are more concerned with intrinsic values for the profession and the upgrading of skills and professionalism. Teachers would then be guided and governed by codes of conduct and ethics of behaviour. They would be encouraged to jealously guard against blemishing these codes and ethics. Those guilty will be rapped and punished in accordance with the constitution of the Association, just as the other professional associations take action against offending members. Sir, I believe I have tried to voice some of the areas of concern in the field of education. I believe I have tried to focus attention on genuine problems affecting education and the teaching profession in Singapore. I believe I have tried to bring out some important aspects of education which require a closer look and which need urgent resolution. May I conclude, Sir, by saying that I fully support the exercise to overhaul the administration of the Ministry of Education. Obviously there is a need for it, a need long felt. But this exercise should not be confined to only the administrative level of the Ministry. All those areas of weaknesses identified by the Study Team should be quickly acted upon and remedied. Any operation which is major will be painful. Some can bear the pain better than others. But it has to be done. However, Sir, the brush should not in one swipe tarnish all and everyone. Those who have done well should be so recognised. Any form of incision or excision should only be carried out in those areas which are really in need of it. As the Prime Minister has said, we must, for example, recognise those teachers who set a good moral example and care for the students. The Report of the Study Team should not be treated as the end-all. It is a good report, but not really complete, let alone perfect. More consultations should be carried out before the full implementation of its various recommendations. More teachers and principals should be consulted; possibly parents too. And even students if this is found desirable anywhere along the line for they are the ones most affected. I am personally very glad the Study Team was formed. It has managed to uncover many hitherto hidden weaknesses and drawbacks in our schools, the Ministry of Education and the education system as a whole. The shortcomings too, many of them, have been identified. Many of these are not really new. They have been there. We have taken shots at them before, both inside and outside of Parliament. Many of our criticisms and suggestions have hitherto fallen on deaf ears and thus gone to waste. The Goh Keng Swee Report will hopefully change all this, as it should. The Deputy Prime Minister and his Education Study Team therefore deserve a hearty round of congratulations. We are at long last moving along the right track and in the right direction, with goals and objectives spelt out in no uncertain terms. The Revised Structure of Education deserves support. Its full implementation will naturally take several years to complete. A major overhaul of a machinery so vast and complicated as Singapore's education system will need a length of time. What we hope to see, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, is flexibility in its implementation. What we also hope to see is that the Report will accept whatever modifications deemed necessary to suit genuine and established changing needs at any particular point of time, because, as I have said earlier, it is a good Report but by no means a complete Report. Modifications, amendments, additions and re-orientations may be found necessary. Since the publication of the Report, Sir, I have had the opportunity to meet principals, teachers and parents to discuss some aspects of the Report but not in greater detail. Unfortunately, those I spoke to said that they needed more time to study the Report and its many ramifications before they could submit their views either verbally or in writing. It is heartening to note, Sir, that the Motion "recommends periodic adjustments and changes to the revised structure which experience and advice of principals and teachers show to be desirable in the long term interests of pupils." On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I move that we accept the Report subject to the provisos I have outlined above, and may I propose that a Parliamentary Committee be set up to receive views and representations from members of the public. 4.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Education has always attracted a lot of lively discussion and criticism in this House. In the past, our attention and volleys of criticism were directed only at specific policy matters and the manner in which they were implemented. The Education Ministry has to-date stoutly defended its past actions as necessary measures to meet the growing demands of education. No wonder we saw quite a few red faces when the Special Task Force brought to light such a heap of skeletons in the Education Ministry's cupboard. In the past few days, the news media has been carrying the Education Report of the Special Task Force. We are now in a better position to know what the problems and difficulties are in our education system. No doubt, most parents would have read the various chapters of the Report with more than just superficial interest, as this Report has a great bearing on the future of their children on whom they build their hopes and dreams. It was reported in the press that parents generally welcomed the Report with enthusiasm. I suspect this is because the Special Task Force, in pointing out the weaknesses of the education system, was in fact expressing its own frustrations and criticisms against the Education Ministry in a more forceful and comprehensive manner. Following the spontaneous expression of satisfaction over the Report, quite a few parents must have had second thought on whether the recommendations of the Special Task Force would not also meet the same fate as past educational changes and end up on the debris of history as another fiasco of the Education Ministry. It is difficult to blame any parent for wondering so, simply because the past record of performance of the Education Ministry does make some people become sceptical of what it is capable of doing. Members of the Special Task Force have stated that they are generalists and they have only put into shape the bones of a more workable education structure. The question that is more difficult for the Education Ministry to deal with from now on must be to find a sufficient number of the right calibre professionals and specialists to "put flesh to the bones of the structure". Are there many such professionals and specialists in the Education Service? If there are, how does the Ministry plan to identify them and fit them into the various echelons in the hierarchy of the Education Service to provide professional leadership to the principals and teachers? Can the PSC, which has hitherto been the appointing authority for teachers, principals and Ministry officials, come out with any new formula to get more of the right calibre professionals and specialists to assist in the implementation of new educational changes? Is there a need to set up a separate Education Service Commission to deal with the appointment and promotion of principals and teachers? Are some of the large schools over-sized for effective management and control? These are questions which the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister must go into, as he tackles the task ahead of him. The successful implementation of the recommendations of the Special Task Force depends not on how systematically and how well the new education structure is devised, but how well the 18,000-odd educators will perform under the new structure and the administrative and professional leadership given to them. The Report's recommendation on streaming is not only educationally controversial but can also be a source of friction between parents on the one hand and principals and teachers on the other. No parent will ever accept the fact that his or her child belongs to the stream for slow learners. The decision of both the principal and the teacher in this regard will always be challenged by parents, no matter what criteria of assessment are used. Besides, who will work out the assessment criteria that can be uniformly applied, and how are their validity and reliability to be determined beyond dispute? According to the Report [page 1 - 2] "late developers in the primarily monolingual stream who perform very well may be promoted to the extended bilingual stream." How can a child from a monolingual stream cope with two languages in the extended bilingual stream? Furthermore, the level of attainment of children in the monolingual stream has been pre-determined in content, and this may be far behind the content of those in the extended bilingual stream. Does this not make the transfer from the monolingual stream to the extended bilingual stream well-nigh impossible? In fact, the statement that there can be lateral movement from the monolingual stream to the extended bilingual stream is not realistic and pragmatic. The proposal to introduce the Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) for the ordinary stream of secondary pupils at the and of four years must further encourage the "white-collar" mentality among our school leavers. Armed with the CSE, they will certainly feel that they are sufficiently "qualified" for some of the white-collar jobs. They will, therefore, be less inclined to go for skill training in vocational institutes and to seek blue-collar jobs. It may be pertinent to ask whether the Government will consider giving recognition to the CSE for purposes of employment, particularly in the public sector. Let me now come to the question of moral education and the role of the teacher in the inculcation of moral values. It is a tradition honoured from ancient times that a teacher was, first and foremost, a shaper of the human soul and mind: it was his sacred obligation to fashion his disciples according to his personal vision. It is unfortunate that in this modern day and age, a teacher can no longer choose his own disciples, nor can a student select a master whom he seeks to emulate; neither are all teachers visionaries, charged with a zeal to refashion human-kind. The mantle of the guru has been replaced by sheaves of instructions and orders from the Ministry of Education and he is bound hand and foot by the thongs of time, textbook and syllabus. There are overseers and regular examinations to ensure that these bonds are secure. Hampered by these constraints, the lesser teacher conforms and proceeds industriously to impart knowledge, forgetting his more important obligation of shaping his students into moral beings as good citizens by precept and example. Fortunately, there are still in our midst, many teachers who carry on this noble tradition, albeit quietly, despite the stifling constraints - some with unjustified guilty feelings that the time they took, which they considered opportune, to educate their students on some moral issue of the moment, could have been spent on teaching the Pythagoras theorem. I applaud, therefore, the recommendation that moral education should be given official recognition in the school curriculum. However, the introduction of moral education into the school system will bring about certain inherent difficulties and problems, the dimensions of which might not be fully appreciated by some. In a unilingual-unicultural society, it should be apparent to all what values need to be stressed, even if the process of implementation is no easy matter. It is not so perspicuous in a multi-lingual-multi-cultural society like ours. While it is true that there are many moral concepts which are similar - one might even say common - in the cultures represented here, and there are some which might be considered to have universal application, there are also divergent ones which cannot be ignored. Before one can consider introducing moral education into the school curriculum, it is imperative, therefore, to decide on the syllabus for the subject and this, I would like to point out, is no easy task. Who is going to decide what is moral? Which set of moral values should be highlighted and which should be left out at the syllabus? Which reactions to a situation are to be considered moral, i.e. acceptably so to all members of our community? There does not exist, as yet, a coherent corpus of materials that could serve as text and inspiration for such a school course. In a Christian or Muslim school, the problem does not exist. The sacred word of the Bible or Koran serves as ready reference for all moral issues. What framework of reference will the teacher in a secular school have to decide on perplexing moral dilemmas except on what he perceives as those values that are tacit in Singaporean society? His decisions might be skewed towards those religious beliefs he holds, and these in some cases might be contrary to those held by pupils of another religious persuasion. The necessity of giving this serious thought is underscored by the failure of the Education for Living programme which had similar ambitions to produce good moral citizens. What were the reasons for the failure of this programme? Might not this suggested programme fail too for similar reasons? Is the Education for Living programme so bad that it has to be rejected altogether? Might one not try to salvage those elements in it that are worth retaining? Moreover, it will become necessary to retrain teachers on how they can become effective moral educators. While I believe the majority of teachers themselves have a high moral code of conduct, I do not think that they can, without the benefit of instruction, teach all their pupils to be as morally good as themselves. A champion swimmer might be the worst coach under the sun for the average person; his methods are good only for the most capable and these usually constitute a very small minority. Another problem of a nebulous nature is to predict the potential of applicants for teacher-in-training posts as effective imparters of moral values. How is one to devise a moral proficiency test for all applicants? How is one to assess the effectiveness of a trained teacher in this respect? Can one devise the instruments to measure such intangibles? The proposed method of using stories from myth, tradition and history is, I believe, a sound one. It is something that the mass media should consider employing. Using media effectively is one way to making abstract notions vivid for pupils; a good story on TV supported by helpful lesson notes serves as a focal point for discussion and, in my view, this is more effective than merely to present lessons in textbooks. It will be necessary to keep parents informed of developments in this programme; for it to succeed there must be home support. Moral values are best learned in the home for the child will take the example best from his parents. The teacher can merely reinforce these values. It will, therefore, be imperative for parents to be well-informed of this subject, and this onerous task is necessarily the domain of the mass media. Regular features in the newspapers and on the radio and TV for parents on bringing up children and teaching them to be ethical will be necessary for the success of the programme. The infrastructure of such a programme, therefore, is not something that can be built up overnight. But built up it must be if we are to preserve the moral fibre of our future citizenry. All said and done, I think the Report on the Education Ministry, 1978, has given us a clear insight into the workings of the Education Ministry, its problems and difficulties. It has also at the same time provided an excellent basis from which the Education Ministry can chart its future direction. The Prime Minister's letter to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the Report provides not only a masterly summing up and incisive perception but also the missing pieces to the educational jigsaw puzzle. No doubt, the task has just begun for the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister in his new portfolio. The next phase of the long and arduous process of education is not only more difficult but also crucial in determining whether the next generation of Singaporeans are worthy inheritors of the land that we and our forefathers have built and lived in harmony, peace, progress and prosperity. I have no doubt that with the Deputy Prime Minister at the helm, ably assisted by efficient men and women in the Education Service, and given the goodwill and support of the press, parents and educators, the future augurs well for us in the field of education. I therefore support the Motion standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education.

Order. I propose to take the Suspension now and will take the Chair again at 5.15 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.44 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the presentation of the Report on the Ministry of Education to Parliament for debate comes at the conclusion of the annual Budget debate. This gives hon. Members very little time to make a thorough study of the Report, still less a second thought, on the recommendations made therein. The Report, comprehensive and elaborate in nature, and covering a wide range of educational matters, is indeed an important document in the history of education in Singapore. The Hon. Prime Minister, in his reply to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, has highlighted almost every main aspect, whether defective or progressive, in our present education system. He also vividly points out the direction in which our education should follow. I think very few people can disagree with him. Sir, the Report, as well as the reply from the Hon. Prime Minister, can well be a thesis for a doctorate. Therefore, within the time constraints and in the absence of data and statistics, our comments or deliberations, at least for me, can only be fragmentary and incomplete, although we do our utmost to voice our views conscientiously. By virtue of my association with the education service in the past 15 years, I would like to frankly bring out a few points for the consideration of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education. Sir, though our educational objectives may have been vague in the past, we must admit that the education system, since the People's Action Party took office in 1959, has not been grossly wrong. The fact that the secretary of the Study Team, who I believe has drafted the Report, is a 24-year old talented young scholar proves the point because even such a talented person is the product of our education system. Of course, there are other members of the Study Team who have also gone through our education system. Sir, the point here is, whether the present system really warrants a major change. Parents have been complaining of the many and abrupt changes in education policy all these years, that their children are no more than guinea pigs in the education "innovative" experiment. With the revised primary education system introduced in 1976 and the revised secondary education system in 1978, things are just settling down and results are still awaited. One cannot help but ask: when will the changes in education policy come to a stop? The Study Team, in its findings, asserts that the attrition rates under the present system are high, but it does not mention how far the suggested education system can rectify this wastage. Taking what it is today, in the context of a tight labour market, no one, including the premature school leavers, seems to have difficulty in securing a job if he so desires. It is true that the career prospects of Chinese stream students are less promising than those of English stream students. But when they enter the labour market, they can pick up English in a couple of years and their career prospects may henceforth be improved. Are we going to raise the literacy level to the extent that even graduates have to work as dish-washers in restaurants? Sir, I do not propose to defend the Ministry of Education. I am in no position to do so. But as a third party, however, I feel that justice must be done to some of the hardworking officials in the Ministry, as some of the criticisms on the Ministry of Education are subjective and contradictory. For example, when the Ministry took a cautious approach in working out plans to improve the standard of English in Chinese schools on the Prime Minister's directive, it was criticised for reacting too slowly. And when the Ministry managed to develop the relevant curriculum and produce a set of textbooks for the Basic Course in a matter of five months, it was chided for being too hasty. Again, the Ministry officials were highlighted for their unwillingness to accept responsibility. I think this phenomenon is not unique or peculiar to the Ministry of Education. It is, unfortunately, a common syndrome in many of our civil servants who are so afraid of making decisions, especially at a time when too many "top-down" instructions were not always consistent. The bureaucratic disease which leads into the belief that "more work, more mistakes; less work, less mistakes; and no work, no mistakes," is rampant in the public service. Sir, the Basic Course, which was initiated two years ago, provides room for the slow learners and I do not know why its termination should be hastened, as recommended, simply because of poor response. It is obvious and natural that at the initial stage of any educational innovation, there are bound to be teething problems. I am told that this year the response to the Basic Course has improved greatly. The only defect of the Basic Course, as I see it, is that it does not provide opportunities for lateral movement for late developers to return to the main stream. Sir, the Study Team asserts that the basic objective of our education system should be to produce school leavers who are literate in at least one language. I think the Prime Minister has rightly stated in his reply that the objective is "to educate a child to bring out his greatest potential, so that he will grow up into a good man and a useful citizen". Surely, the proficiency in any one language is not the ultimate aim of our education system, for language itself is but a tool for one to acquire other knowledge as well as the fundamental principles to live in a civilised way with his fellow citizens. The increasing number of white-collar crimes surely is a cause for alarm and, therefore, underlines the paramount importance of moral education, even more so in the case of the brighter students as pointed out by the Member for Delta earlier on. However, I do not totally agree with the statement that raising the standard of English should be done at the expense of the other languages. I disagree, in particular, with the proposal that the standard of Chinese for the brighter pupils should be one grade lower than the present level. I think the brighter pupils can cope with it as it has been proven up to now that they can do so. If they do find difficulties in learning two languages at the same level, adjustment can always be made in the curriculum to lighten their lesson load. Few people seem to realise that as a result of discarding the teaching of Classical Chinese in recent years, the standard of Chinese in our schools, both English and Chinese streams, has been consequently lowered. I am not a language chauvinist, but I think it is a pity that Singapore has not been established as a research centre for Chinese language and literature in this part of the world, despite the fact that we have all the potential. Further, the lowering of the standard of Chinese language will result in having less qualified Chinese teachers or even none in time to come. I hope the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education will seek the views of the professionals in his Ministry and give a second thought to this matter before making a decision. Sir, judging from the recommendations of the Study Team, Singapore will eventually have one type of schools where English and a second language, be it Mandarin, Malay or Tamil, are taught. Schools will no longer be branded with the language stream. This is a move in the correct direction. In this way, the congestion in certain schools can be avoided and the Government can have a better deployment of pupils in schools where the facilities can be put to optimal use. However, Sir, the proposed streaming of pupils in Primary 3 or 4, a main feature of the new education system, is something which should be carried out with flexibility and dexterity, especially when the first three years in school are mainly devoted to language learning. The streaming is aimed at reducing attrition. Has the Study Team ever thought that when streaming is effected, the attrition of the bright pupils will be far more costly than the other categories of pupils? Let me explain this. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed is king. But he will soon feel inferior once he is put among ordinary men with normal sight. In the same way, the lower grade of bright pupils in the midst of other bright pupils where competition is invariably keener will soon lose self-esteem and self-reliance, resulting eventually in losing self-confidence altogether. Further, as stated by the Member for Moulmein just now, the mentality of the majority of Singapore parents must be taken into consideration. They will hardly admit that their children are slow learners without having undergone any substantial tests or examinations. What is the yardstick, criterion, or measure that can convincingly prove to them that their children are classified in the less-able lot? One better alternative to streaming is the provision of double promotion for bright pupils. Sir, the Study Team has quite correctly pointed out that parents might pull their children out if they are put into the monolingual stream. But it further suggested debarring these dropouts from attending courses held by the Vocational and Industrial Training Board. These dropouts will then be at the age of 12 years or so. To debar them from taking a vocational training course will only add to the social problem of juvenile delinquency. A point to consider is whether the Government is bold enough to fix a compulsory school leaving age for all pupils. Sir, I agree with the Hon. Prime Minister in his disagreement with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education on the finding that an increase in Language Exposure Time does not improve the proficiency in that language. According to the principles of pedagogy, the more you are in contact with that language, the greater the chances of your mastering the language. The Prime Minister attributed the paradox to those same teachers who formerly taught Science and Mathematics in Chinese and who are therefore not competent enough to teach the subjects in English. This may be one of the contributing factors. But many people do not realise that it is the textbooks that hinder progress in the learning of the language. The Science and Mathematics textbooks used in the Chinese schools are the same as those used in the English schools. They are written with English as a first language in mind. To pupils of Chinese schools, these textbooks are as difficult, if not more difficult, than the readers. Pupils have to spend extra time learning the language as well as the contents. The ideal situation would be to have a different set of textbooks for different language levels of pupils. Sir, the pre-primary programme was introduced in our schools this year and the response has been encouraging. This House heard from the Senior Minister of State for Education the other day [Hansard, 15-3-791 that by 1983, all children above the age of five will be given a place in the pre-primary classes. It can be seen that the Government is placing more and more importance on pre-primary education. I would therefore think that pre-primary education should be incorporated in the formal education system. Sir, as it is now, pupils who are not academically inclined are channelled to the VITB to receive some sort of vocational training. This means that more pupils in the monolingual stream are to be channelled to the VITB. A logical consequence one can think of is to put the VITB under the purview of the Ministry of Education. In the quest for streamlining the administration of the Ministry Headquarters and ease of co-ordination and control, consideration should therefore be given to the taking over of the VITB by the Ministry of Education. Sir, the conclusion drawn by the Study Team, based on a sample survey of 140 teachers that the morale of teachers is not low, leaves much to be desired, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Bedok just now. The number of 140 teachers against a total teaching force of 20,000 is but less than 1%. The morale of a teacher is affected in many ways, such as the many changes in education policy without prior notice, unattractive salary structures with little promotion prospects, heavy workload and low social status. I am glad that the authorities concerned will do something about this. While enhancing the status and image of teachers, the pupil/teacher ratio should be favourably reduced in order that more effective teaching can be implemented. As far back as 9th April, 1964, Prof. Lim Tay Boh, in his final report of the Commission of Inquiry into Education, had recommended that the size of class enrolment in primary schools be brought down to 30-35 and in secondary schools to 25 - 30. To-date, most of our classes, irrespective of primary or secondary, are still filled to capacity at 44 pupils per class, Since our economic situation can now afford increasing expenditure on education, the size of class enrolment should be reduced as soon as possible. Sir, the Study Team also recommended that the assessment of teachers and the preparation of Staff Confidential Reports be left in the hands of Senior Assistants or Senior Subject Teachers. The Principals serve only as the counter-signing officers. While this system will lighten the load of Ministry officials, it has the defect that the reporting officer tends to abuse his power, or show favouritism to certain colleagues in the same school. It is difficult to ensure objective assessment. This will later give rise to incessant complaints and disputes. If this assessment system cannot be done away with, cross-assessment of teachers by assessors from other schools might be a better idea. Sir, the Prime Minister has set a very high standard of ideals for a teacher befitting the respect given to him by the society. Teachers are expected not only to teach diligently in schools but also to set a good moral example outside schools. In the context of Singapore today, where gambling, crime, vice, bars and night clubs are so prevalent, a teacher has to resist all these temptations. A great effort! A near Superman! And for all that he has done and shown, he,should be better rewarded, both materially and morally. Sir, the success of any education system is dependent on the executors at the ground level, i.e. the teachers, who are in physical contact with the pupils for whom the system is designed. The success or failure of a system very much depends on the willingness of the teachers to give of their best. As teaching is considered a conscientious job, it is only when the teachers enjoy job satisfaction that they can act not only as mere knowledge transmitters but also moral exemplars. A generation of Singaporeans can only come of age through the dedicated teachings of their mentors - the teachers. Sir, in the light of the misgivings I have mentioned, I can only support the Motion in the name of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education with reservation. 5.39 p.m.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, after only six months of being assigned to look into the problems in the Ministry of Education, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, and his Study Team have submitted a comprehensive report to the Prime Minister, In his letter to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education stated that his studies cannot be likened to that of a Commission of Inquiry. But anyone who has read and studied it will find that it is nonetheless close to that of a formal Commission of Inquiry. Therefore, I would like to congratulate him and his Study Team for having carried out their task so splendidly. The Prime Minister's letter expressing his views on the Report is also most unique and revealing. At first, I was of the view that it would have been better if the Prime Minister's letter had not been included or published, so that the public and we, hon. Members, including me, can give their views or our views freely without any inhibition whether to accept, reject or amend the Report and without the shadow of acceptance by the most important figure in the country, i.e. the Prime Minister. But, after having considered this carefully, I find that it is for this very reason that the true worth and value of the Report is felt. We human beings are not infallible. There will always be others who agree or disagree with the views of the two most important personalities in the State, i.e. the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister - that the problem of language, which was so sensitive in the 5O's, 60's and in 1970, can now be faced and discussed openly. Due to the seriousness of the problem, though somewhat extraordinary, the Group Editor of the Straits Times has seen fit to write an open letter on the front page to Hon. Members of Parliament inviting them to openly express their views. This reflects the concern of the press community who have the important role of conveying correct information to the public at large. To obtain correct information from the pages of the papers is the absolute right of readers and the absolute right of the people. If the truth is manipulated, then the good name of the writer, newspaper or journalist will be affected. Even if a journalist is endowed with a thousand eyes or a thousand ears, but without a sense of responsibility, those eyes and ears have no significance at all. In this connection, politicians and journalists, be they foreign or local, should study carefully a line from the poem written by the Western poet, Dylan Thomas, who said that, "Hands have no tears to flow." We just cannot afford to do that. An important fact we should know is that today's debate, apart from the usual criticisms, is evidence of the success of our education policy over the last 20 years, in spite of difficulties here and there. Another thing we should remember is that although the school is an agency for the individual to socialise, it constitutes a dominant feature of our modern society. So important is the role of education today and so far-reaching is its function that most countries of the world regard their educational policy as a matter of national importance. Data of the 60's give a picture of the intense activity in the educational field. For example; One-seventh of the population of the whole world who should attend schools are attending schools: One-eighth of the population in Asia are attending schools; One-tenth of the population in Africa are attending schools; One-fourth of the population in America are attending schools, three-quarters of whom are between the ages of 15 and 24 years; One-fifth of the population in Belgium, Soviet Union, France and Germany are attending schools, two-thirds of whom are between the ages of 5 and 25 years; One-fifth of the population in Japan are attending schools, three-fifths are between he ages of 5 and 25 years. The 70's would give higher figures. This means that the future of a country depends on its education policy. In his letter to the Prime Minister, Dr Goh has appropriately stated, "The approach we take is that of the generalist, and not of the specialist" as, on the whole, (there may be exceptional people) we are educational politicians and administrators and not professional educationists. It is here I feel that professionals are badly needed for the wheels of administration to function smoothly in the implementation of our education policy. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only 12 points which I wish to touch upon. The first one concerns streaming. This can be considered as a necessary evil. It seems that we have no other option. I am very pleased to see the following statement in the report: 'We recommend that the top 8% of the Primary 1 cohort [equivalent to about 10% of the PSLE passes] (giving some allowance for late developers) be channelled to a special bilingual stream.' I would like to express my appreciation particularly in respect to, "Giving some allowance for late developers". At least it is a form of relaxation and opportunity extended to the late developers. At a previous debate, I stated in this House that with streaming the Ministry has decided that the zenith of mental development of the human mind begins at the age of 11 or 12 years. Since then, I presume the Ministry must have made its in-depth findings on the basis of studies of experts in this field. My question was not answered at the time, but with the flexibility suggested by the Report it seems that the Ministry has reviewed the matter and found that flexibility is necessary. I am of the view that since our system has gone for hard-option or streaming, I suggest that a committee be formed to ascertain that the streaming made at the Primary 3 level is not something final. It is important for the Committee to recommend those students in Primary 4, 5 or even 6 who made the grade to be promoted to the top 8% category, the ablest. This problem of streaming was once a heated debating point in Britain where the great majority of the populace speak English - monolingual, although Welsh and Scottish are also acceptable. To illustrate how serious the problem of streaming will be, I would like to commend to the Special Committee the views and opinions of experts in this field, taken from the book. The Politics of Education, by Edward Boyle (former Conservative Minister for Education) and Anthony Crosland (former Labour Secretary of State for Education and Science) in conversation with Maurice Kogan (Professor of Government and Social Administration at Brunel University): '(a) Herbert Morrison or Ernest Bevin - who both left school at the age of 12 - could be the second and third Ministers of the Nation, how could some measurement experts claim to identify the nation's talent by setting a test for 11-year olds? (b) Increasingly, popular intuition followed the advice of three expert witnesses to the Plowden Committee (I am quite sure the Ministry officials are conversant about the Plowden Committee) that it is unsafe to predict a man's future before the age of 40. The three experts happen to be Philip Vernon, W.D. Wall and Gilbert Peaker - oral unpublished evidence. (c) The attacks on the weak or opportunity concept of equality came from many quarters. First, psychologists such as Philip Vernon and Torstan Husen of Stockholm threw doubt on the reliability and validity of testing. The reliability of testing over time was poor. Children's ability had been shown to shift with opportunity. (This literature is succinctly summarised in the Plowden Report chapter 2, paragraphs 56-64. If the IQ had been made the single criterion at 9 or 10 for sorting the children into sheep or goats and if the same criterion had been used again at 19, it would have been found that a mistake had been made in 20% of the cases.' (paragraph 59.) Mr Speaker, Sir, if this figure of 20% is correct, then the Committee On Streaming should make a study of it as those who are selected to be in the 8% category may not be able to maintain their position. If those outside the top 8% feel the effects of the stigma that is labelled on them, then a bigger stigma will be placed on the top 8% students (including their parents) if they could not maintain their position owing to the reasons advanced earlier. Now, on the subject of monolingualism, I agree that only one language is to be taught to the slow learners. The Report proposes English language for Malay and Indian students, whilst for Chinese students Mandarin and Oral English. I have inquired of my activists, comprising the various communities, with particular emphasis on the Chinese. They all hold different viewpoints. Some concur with the views contained in the Report while others agree with me that Chinese pupils should also be taught the English language for several reasons. One reason could be that the present Report based its studies on a society that existed before 1979 whereas we are now looking forward 10 to 20 years ahead. With our stand of making English the common language, with exposure to TV, with 80% of our children bilingual and the Indian and Malay children who are monolingual taking English, I fear that - my view stands corrected - we may be putting a greater stigma on the Chinese students who are learning Mandarin and Oral English only. Third, it is important to note that intelligent students taking Malay or Tamil as second language should have their classes in prominent schools like the Anglo-Chinese School, Raffles Institution, etc. The future trend is that most students will take their native language as a second language. At present this is not the case with the Malay students, or with Chinese and Indian students taking Malay as a second language. I am quite sure besides the Malays, the Chinese and Indians will still offer Malay as their second language. For these second language classes the best teachers should be provided. The same with the Tamil Language. If, for instance, the Tamil community considers that immersion classes should be held at Umar Pulavar Tamil School, then the matter should be given due consideration. Fourth, the weakness of the Basic Course has been pin-pointed and they will be replaced with special guidance classes. I feel that these special classes should be given careful attention, or otherwise the same fate will befall the proposed special classes, it may end up being a mere change in name only. Fifth, this concerns Principals, Vice-Principals, Senior Assistants and, I add, Sports Secretaries. That great attention will be given to Principals, Vice-Principals, and Senior Assistants is most welcome. However, I feel that Principals should pay greater attention to their teachers. There are teachers who are good in attracting the attention of Principals by demonstrating their good work at the right time and place, or that their work-book is always neat. But we are not in a position to know whether their methods of teaching are good or whether they are loyal and dedicated to their profession. I feel that it is very important for Principals to take note of those teachers who although do not behave as I have mentioned above but they are the true dedicated teachers. Apart from the Principals, Vice-Principals and Senior Assistants, those who are involved as Sports Secretaries, particularly the really dedicated ones, should also be given special attention by the Minister. They have very onerous duties to perform both mentally and physically. My sixth comment is on Teachers' Morale. I am surprised to find, from studies conducted amongst 140 teachers, that only 18% of the teachers have low morale, 52% average, and 30% high morale. This means that 82% of the teachers interviewed feel that their morale is good. I hope the morale of our teachers is really as good as stated. But personally, as a teacher of 26 years' standing, since the early age of 15, I would rather tend to agree with the view of a member of a forum organised in 1977. He stated that in a certain survey that was conducted earlier, when a girl was asked for the type of job she would be most interested in, the reply was "a teacher". And when asked further regarding the choice of a life-partner, the reply was also "a teacher". But, this same forum member stated that that statement no longer held true. He said that in 1977 when the girl was asked this question, she replied in the following order: doctor, lawyer, police inspector and, only fourthly, teacher. Recently when I asked some teachers about their status, some stated that perhaps even the soldiers had overtaken them in status and so had the other professions, such as the technical professions. I think it is important that the results of the survey on the 140 teachers be carefully examined. If the survey can satisfy the following requirements, perhaps it can be accepted. If not, it would do well to reconduct the survey on the morale of teachers. Relevant questions which should be considered pertaining to the survey are (if they are already included, well and good): (a) How many schools were involved (from among the 140 teachers); (b) Type of school - English, Malay, Tamil, Chinese Integrated, Primary or Secondary: (c) Category of teachers, whether male or female and their age, Graduate, Non-Graduate, and the positions they hold; (d) What are the subjects taught by them; (e) How many of them (if any) have just recently been promoted; if recently promoted, it goes without saying that all the answers to the questionnaire are good; (f) How long have they been teaching; (g) The forms must be kept truly confidential. Teachers' names should not appear. Then only can we get a genuine feedback. Even if such matters had been considered pertaining to the questionnaire, I think there are still views which should be given attention to, such as the feeling of teachers at the international level. Even in early 1970 there were teachers, at the international level, who were asked about their profession. It is quite unsettling to note that there are still some teachers who, when asked, replied, "I am only a teacher" with the emphasis on "only". At times when asked to purchase goods, the prices of which are costly overseas, would reply, "How could I buy it with a teacher's pay". This occurs at the international level. Perhaps, on this matter, our Singapore teachers are more fortunate. It is a different matter if a person is teaching at a college or a university. The question of inferiority complex does not arise. On the contrary, they will state their profession as a matter of course, even if they do not state it with pride. I think the Ministry's effort to raise the integrity and image of teachers is most welcome but it is still not enough. Teachers should, at the very least, be proud of their profession. Salary increment and promotion are not the sole criteria in raising the teacher's image. Students' appreciation of the teaching profession as a result of the dedication shown by teachers, is one of the most important criteria. This does not necessarily mean just the effort to make them succeed in, their examinations. There are students who have failed in their examinations but they still remember their teachers because of the love and understanding shown by the teachers. And when I say "love", I do not mean that the teacher should always pamper them or shower them with praises. Rather, the teacher should be frank with them in correcting their faults, and even scolding them if necessary. This attitude is imperative, because the teacher, next to the parents, is the person closest to the students. This feeling of closeness is ever present in their minds, and the good example that the teacher sets will have a permanent impact on them. It is through the words they use that the parents at home will form impressions and arrive at their own conclusions as to whether the teacher is good or otherwise. The teacher will be able to know of this when he meets them, particularly in their own homes. One thing teachers should realise is that not all students are enamoured of visits to their homes by teachers. Those students whose family income is low or whose economic standing is not so good sometimes feel ashamed of such visits. I had an occasion once to meet one of my students. He tried to run away on seeing me, as he was selling cakes. He did not run off after being told that his teacher at one time was also selling cakes. Coming back to the question pertaining to the Ministry, it is important that those who are unable to live up to the expectation ought to be cast aside. What is expected is as stated by the Prime Minister sometime ago: "You can be firm, you can be strict but, above all, you must be POLITE." Those who lack these important qualities should not move around in the company of teachers or at places where the main aim is to socialise. Seventh, on Language Exposure Time (LET). The views expressed by the Prime Minister are, I think, most correct. They are correct not only in respect of the languages in our country. They hold true even in the case of nationals who are exposed to Japanese, Arab and French communities and the like. There is no doubt about it. I believe that Principals, Vice-principals and Senior Assistants can play an important role in deciding this, particularly with respect to those students in the immersion classes. The degree of success of this scheme should be closely watched, particularly in respect of: (a) The response of teachers and students of the recipient schools. This is very important from the psychological point of view, especially if the immersion students are evidently weak in English. (b) Observation of their health to see if there are those among them who suffer from mental or physical fatigue. Specifically on this subject, I had once expressed my fear in this House. However, recently after I had personally asked the students themselves, I found that so far there had been no such cases. I am most thankful for this state of affairs. I hope this is also the case with students in the other immersion classes. As immersion requires the longest possible exposure time (five full days), reducing it to 3 days, for instance, will constitute a defeatist move. Nevertheless, it would do well for the Ministry to conduct a survey on this. In such a survey the essential question to be asked of the students is whether, in seeking success in the immersion class, they have found it necessary to stop their extramural activities such as music. If it is so, then a discussion between parents and teachers must be held to find possible means of enabling the student to continue with such activities or, alternatively, to indulge in other activities or hobbies which the students themselves were originally interested. These are good efforts, as occurred in the case in 1923 when Malay students were put in special Malay classes after completing Standard III. The following year, that is 1924, after having completed Standard IV, they studied English for two years under the special intensive course. After successfully completing this course, they were put in the English stream in Standard III while the brighter ones were put in Standard IV. This system was adopted under a scheme in 1950 but it was opposed by the Malay community. It is important to realise that the 1924 system was suitable at that time, and we hope that the immersion scheme is suitable for the present time as well as for the future. Eighth, extra-curricular activities. It cannot be denied that ECA is necessary because mental health goes hand-in-hand with the physical health of the body. But, like any other policy, flaws can be seen here and there, and these are usually the result of misinterpretation of the policy or are due to over-enthusiastic or over-zealous officials. Let us just take the school band, as an example. But before I give my critical view, let me state that the standard of performance of our school bands, including those of the primary schools, is high. Many people, including people from outside Singapore, agree with me that our schools, as well as the Ministry of Education should be congratulated for such high performance. The only point that should be questioned is the amount of time spent by the children for school band activities. Once again, I would like to suggest that a survey be conducted and set a maximum time for the school band, and if necessary, impose prohibitions so that no school will be allowed to exceed the limit as it can adversely affect the students' studies. If competition is the reason for the school to devote so much time and effort on its band activities, it might be a good idea for this matter to be given careful consideration. For instance, competitions should not be held once a year but rather once in two or three years. To do away with competition altogether would mean to cut off the climax to a course of study. But, to hold competitions annually or even twice a year, indoor and outdoor, will create adverse effects and flaws. Studies should also be carried out for other extra-curricular activities. I hope that the schools which do not have school bands of their own will not use what I have just said as a ground to continue to be without a school band. Both extremes are usually found in every situation. The present situation should therefore be closely watched. Now, ninth, there are three general matters on which I would like to air my views. (a) Recently the Senior Minister of State mentioned five-year olds in pre-primary classes. It is imperative that qualified teachers are provided for these pre-primary classes so that the scheme will be carried out smoothly. This is because the task of teaching children at this very tender age is indeed a much more delicate task than teaching older children, and therefore the teachers need to be specially trained. (b) On Principals and Vice-Principals, there are 138 secondary schools presently. This means that 276 Honours graduates or Pass Degree Graduate teachers are involved in school administration. For the Vice-Principals, they only teach six periods a week. I should think that the Ministry has already solved the problem of the 276 Honours graduates who have vacated their posts. At least 138 posts. There is also a rather awkward situation when a Senior Assistant is placed under a Vice-Principal who is a newcomer, as the Senior Assistant is usually a non-graduate teacher. The Senior Assistant also is normally an older person and has been longer in service. I hope the Ministry can find ways to ensure that the feelings of those who have long been in the service are not hurt by such arrangement. (c) Interview. It is imperative that every post, such as that of the Vice-Principal, is confirmed by the PSC before the person concerned is sent to a certain school. Otherwise, as is the case now, there is a fear of embarrassment if someone, who has been selected as a Vice-Principal, is unsuccessful in the interview by the Public Service Commission for this appointment. Tenth, on Moral Education and Culture. Human beings cannot live in isolation. We are social animals and not isolated creatures. We inherited four great cultures, Chinese, Malay, Indian and Western culture. Out of these four cultures we will forge one national culture. So, for the present, it is like five buds in the process of flowering. However, before we reach our goal, it is necessary for us to exchange national culture. We should understand that culture, inter alia, depends on how it can convey a special kind of knowledge and technique to enable mankind to be safe and survive socially and physically and, as far as possible, master the world around him. Generally, we emerge safe and sound simply because of the fruits of our learning, unlike animals which depend on their instincts. If we are able to use this to best advantage, then this vitally important God's endowment, intelligence, is not futile. Even today it has been proved that we have made proper use of our intelligence. Politic as "the art of the possible" has been utilised not to gain power but to mould mankind. Our children and our society must be imbued with good values even though from the West, because the good will remain good irregardless of its source. I consider that besides learning their own culture and morals, the study of the morals and values of the other races domiciled here should not be ignored. For example, Indian and Malay pupils should appreciate Chinese values and vice-versa. One point that I wish to say here is that as regards Malay society, their values do not stop at traditions only. Upon the advent of Islam, followed by conversion, by and large, the Malays embraced Islam. As far as they are concerned, Islam supersedes their traditions, or the least is that traditions and Islam must be viewed alike. The Malay man would be incomplete were he to discard either of the two ingredients. Non-Malay society should through interesting stories ascertain the reasons into matters that constantly provoke their minds, like chicken taken by Muslims must be slaughtered according to certain religious rituals and the reading of the Koran on Friday night. True, Muslims cannot eat pork or handle dogs, but it is meaningless if a Muslim fails to render service to a pig or dog that has been knocked down. He should remove the animal to safety and dispatch it to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Having discharged this obligation, he could then perform the ablution to cleanse himself from the pollution by the pig or dog. For, Islam is not merely a doctrine or thought that ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS. Living is devotion and devotion is to God and God's creatures and God's creatures are not confined to humans only, it embraces animals as well as plants. Similarly, the other values of this religion should be understood in our multi-religious society. On the eleventh point. Professional and Bureaucracy. In his letter, the Prime Minister stated that: "The grave problem you spotlighted in your report, the unwillingness of officials in the Ministry to take hard decisions, to make difficult choices, springs from this history. (about 1950's and 1960's detention of communist school teachers, and informers were assassinated.) An irregular group of forces was normally brought under one command in the 1950's. The government commander's authority was for some time tenuous and ambiguous. The irregular officers had their own supporters, and they wielded considerable political clout. The habits of caution and consensus are not easily changed. Hence your discovery of endless committee meetings in search of unanimity, when there should have been firm decisions by the officer in the chair." I think the reasons advanced by the Prime Minister should be examined. It gives an in-depth understanding of the extreme difficulty that an era of education had undergone. It also shows that the powers of politicians are not obstructed. This point is vital. This is a good sign and should be the hallmark of a government. Besides the minor defects it has also extended some form of credit to the existing professionals. We can still be grateful for the good rapport between the professionals and politicians in a healthy situation. For there are many nations which are unfortunate due to the absence of such a rapport and the situation is compounded because of the constant change of governments. Nonetheless, we should be alert to nip in the bud those professionals who deviate. Experience has shown that an advanced country like Great Britain has suffered this malady. Here, I shall quote Lord Hailsham when he was the Education Minister, as I think it is pertinent to our Minister of Education and ex-Minister of Defence, Dr Goh Keng Swee. Lord Hailsham said: "In the admiralty if you are a person with authority, you say to one person 'Come', he cometh, and another 'Go' and he goeth. It is not so in the Ministry of Education. You suggest rather than direct. You say to one man 'Come' and he cometh not and to another 'Go' he stays where he is." We are convinced that this situation does not prevail here and we would like the professionals to know and understand that they are a part and a prerequisite of modernisation, and it is important to maintain a situation such as the one mentioned by Karl Manheim who stated: "Bureaucracy has a tendency to turn all problems of politics into problems of administration." This is an important issue because the professionals and the problem of bureaucracy have an historical interest. Although some of the professionals have been discarded from the colonial era, there still exists the middle-class group who hold strategic positions in national affairs. If this middle-class mentality is not completely eradicated, there is a possibility that the administration of the people will suffer, as they comprise in the main the moderate group. Only recently we saw the effort of the former Senior Minister of State for Finance, Mr Goh Chok Tong, when he extended the tax concession to pensioners, which I deem commendable, and was misconstrued by some as an attempt to protect the interests of the high income group. What more then, at some future date, if the professionals do really attempt to besmirch the Government as had happened in Third World countries. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, as regards the Minister of Education and his political leadership, there is no gain-saying that a full Minister is justified and that he be given a sufficient length of time to head the Ministry of Education. I think this has been fulfilled by the appointment of the Deputy Prime Minister, whose ability and capability has withstood the test of time, and who, in the short space of six months, has produced for us a comprehensive report to inspire confidence in the society as to the direction of our education system. Except that we ought to give him a little time to implement policies, perhaps not to the extent of two years as was the case with Anthony Crosland, the Education Minister for Great Britain, in 1964, who then said: "I reckon it takes you six months to get your head properly above water, a year to get the general drift of most of the field and two years really to master the whole of the Department." He also argued: "In your two years you can certainly lay down long-term objectives in the central fields ... though ... you will seldom see them finally achieved." I would only like to add that if the Hon. Mr Goh Chok Tong's prediction that 10 to 15 years hence the present Government will continue to govern materialises, as I think it will, it is possible for Dr Goh to see the fruits of his labour. Finally, I reckon that the programme to offer some form of reward for the views and suggestions of teachers is a positive measure which will not only enhance the morale of teachers but also, in the final analysis, represent a positive contribution towards the activities of the Ministry of Education and the level of progress of a country. At the same time, relentless efforts in the development of the country must be pursued, I would like to quote two persons, Peter Blau and Richard Scott, who have drawn a most significant conclusion concerning national development. Inter alia, they said: ".... of course it must include proposals to separate research from teaching, effort to enlist more students to work with scholars in their research activities, and attempt to devise now methods of teaching appropriate o changing circumstances. Such actions are supported not only by those academic men and women who have maintained a commitment to education and teaching but also by those administrators, scholars, and scientists ho have recognised that the future progress of knowledge requires appropriate training of the next oration." Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." - [Mr E.W. Barker].

Debate to be resumed what day, Dr Goh?

Tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes past Six o'clock p.m. tables - MEDIAN MONTHLY INCOMES OF ENGLISH STREAM RESERVISTS, MEDIAN MONTHLY INCOMES OF CHINESE STREAM RESERVISTS (Cols. 75 - 76) charts - MEDIAN INCOME BY AGE (Cols. 77 - 78)