MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT - ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1980 TO 31ST MARCH, 1981
Mr Speaker, Sir, the transfer of the Education portfolio into the charge of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education last year did not take place under the best of circumstances. The Education Ministry was then plagued with many problems arising out of the frequent shifts and changes in education policies. In the process, the Minister may be said to have taken on a hard task, perhaps no less difficult than cleaning the Augean stables. Nonetheless, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister set out on his "Mission Impossible" with a stout heart and quiet determination. One year has elapsed since then and, no doubt, many Singaporeans with sons and daughters in schools are anxious to know how well is the Education Ministry faring so far under his charge. There are, of course, many ways to assess how the Education Ministry is faring. One method is by making use of statistics, a method very popular these days with the Education Ministry. Looking at the number of amendments to the Budget allocations for the Education Ministry under the Committee of Supply this year, we see that there are only seven amendments submitted by five hon. Members. In previous years, the number of amendments averaged twice this number from twice as many hon. Members. Perhaps we can ask the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister to direct his systems engineers to feed these statistics into the Education Ministry computer to determine their significance. Their analysis may well show that the reduction by half in the number of amendments means a corresponding reduction by half in the number of education problems in the past one year as a result of the massive salvage operations mounted by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and his team of systems engineers and officers from Mindef. 3.15 p.m. If the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister can be persuaded to humour me with my seemingly frivolous proposal, I hope the findings of this exercise will make some sense. At least, the findings would make more sensible reading than those relating to the 1979 streaming ratio for Primary 3 to indicate the percentage of Primary 3 students entering the Normal, Extended and Monolingual classes in 1980. The performance results of Primary 3 students in 1979 were way off the projections worked out by the systems engineers and the computer. Could this far-off-the-mark forecast on the 1979 Primary 3 Examination performance be due to the poor quality of the computer in the Education Ministry? I doubt it, as the Education Ministry would have ensured that the best computer available on the market has been obtained. If there is nothing wrong with the computer brain, could it be that the chosen "apostles" of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, sorry, I mean the systems engineers, are not so infallible after all? This is also unthinkable, as otherwise they would not have been chosen by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps the missing piece to this jig-saw puzzle is that the understanding and solving of educational problems requires more than just computer brains and systems. There are other important factors outside the spheres of computer science and system-analysis. What these other factors are, I leave them to the social scientists to enumerate, many of whom, unfortunately, at this time do not enjoy the confidence of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, judging from the recent exchanges in the local press between him and some of the social scientists. Of course, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister will have a good explanation to give for the wide discrepancy between the actual performance results of the 1979 Primary 3 Examination and his Ministry's projected results. Of course, all findings on system-analysis, collation and interpretation of statistics, when translated into actual situations, can make very confusing reading, especially when the matter involved relates to human behaviour and motivation. This, I accept. But the question that begs an answer is: to what extent does the Education Ministry use system-analysis and computer findings to formulate its education policies and determine their implementation? Principals and teachers of schools were given a streaming ratio, based on their schools' previous three years of PSLE results before the 1979 Primary 3 examination, to help them plan the number of students who should be channelled to the normal, extended and monolingual courses. Was it not obvious to the Education Ministry that the criteria for assessing the past three years' PSLE results were different and more stringent than the criteria for assessing the 1979 Primary 3 examination results? Let me explain. The Primary 3 students who sat for the special streaming examination in 1979 stood a better chance of succeeding (as compared with those who sat for the PSLE of the last three years) because the retention policy introduced in 1977 ensured that the weaker pupils were allowed to repeat, and thereby improving their chances of passing. Again, in the Primary 3 examination last year, the pupils were only required to attain a 50% overall passing mark to qualify for the normal bilingual stream, and their performances in both their continual assessment and their semestral assessment were also taken into account. This gave them an added advantage because it meant that those who failed in the mid-year and end-of-year examinations could still score an overall pass if their results in the continual assessment exercise were good. The child could even afford to fail in his first language and still would pass the examination if his overall marks was 50% and above. Whereas in the past three years of PSLE, for a pupil to pass, he had to obtain 50% of 600 marks - 200 marks each for first and second languages, 100 marks each for Science and Mathematics. These criteria were loaded against those weak in one or two languages. Is it any wonder then that the performance results of the 1979 Primary 3 examination were better than what the Education Ministry forecast? But to the Education Ministry, apparently everything is not simple. It has to be more complicated than what I have explained. I suppose that was why principals and teachers, whose schools achieved better 1979 Primary 3 examination results than what the Education Ministry forecast, were asked to explain why. Instead of getting bouquets, they had to explain why the results were better. It was as if they were the ones who blundered and not the computer and systems engineers. Subsequent to the publication of the results, some Ministry officials were purported to have told the principals, in a series of meetings, that, basing on the 1979 Primary 3 examinations, the schools should achieve 95% passes in the 1982 PSLE. I do not know whether they are not again on the wrong track. From this year onwards, a pupil sitting for the PSLE must acquire a pass in the first language and two other subjects. These are very different and more stringent criteria of assessment, and therefore any projection of how pupils will perform in the 1982 PSLE, basing on their performance in the 1979 Primary 3 examination, is unreliable. Some principals and teachers were naturally concerned whether such a high target is possible when a different set of more stringent criteria is now used for the PSLE. They fear that in the 1982 PSLE results, if their schools do not achieve the 95% passes, they will again be asked to explain why, besides receiving a barrage of criticisms from all quarters. Hon. Members now should know the occupational hazards of the principals and teachers, and the nightmares they are experiencing in trying to keep up with the sometimes impossible, demands of the Education Ministry. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now turn to the matter of the Certificate of Secondary Education Examination recommended by the Goh Keng Swee Education Report. In the Parliamentary debate on the Goh Keng Swee Report on 27th March, 1979, I did ask the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government would consider accepting the Certificate as one of the basic qualifications for entry into public service. The question is relevant in the sense that the holders of the certificate must find it useful when seeking employment. If Government as an employer does not lead in recognising the Certificate of Secondary Education for employment purposes, then employers in the private sector are not going to recognise it. I did not receive any reply from the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister at that time, probably the timing of the question then was premature. The question must now bear a greater relevance, especially when Britain has decided to scrap its Certificate of Secondary Education because employers never fully understood it and accepted it. In the light of the British move, may I enquire from the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister whether his Ministry will still pursue with the Certificate of Secondary Education Examination, and if so, whether he sees any problem in getting employers in both public and private sectors to recognise its value as an entry qualification for employment? Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the question of staff development, I must commend the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister for his efforts towards staff development. Never before were teachers given such active encouragement and opportunities for development. Non-graduate teachers taking up HSC are even exempted from ECA activities. This is a positive way to encourage and help some teachers to seek educational advancement. There are also other equally attractive measures to encourage staff development. I hope, in the course of time, he will increase the opportunities and introduce incentive schemes for more teachers to upgrade themselves professionally and educationally. Recently, he announced the recruitment of 400 expatriate English teachers from England and elsewhere to teach English Language and Literature in our schools to meet the very acute shortage of such teachers at present. Of course, the idea was not new. In fact, before he took over the Ministry, an operation was launched to recruit expatriate teachers, but it ended in miserable failure because the scheme was not attractive enough. What the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister did afterwards was really to salvage the operation. Let us see how successful he will be this time. But hon. Members must appreciate that such a large number of expatriate teachers in our midst is bound to have some impact on the social behaviour of our pupils and morale of our teachers. Mr Speaker, Sir, partly because of time factor, and partly because I know the hon. Member for Serangoon Gardens will later deal with this subject at great length, I shall therefore not dwell on the matter any further, I am sure I will concur with whatever views he is going to express on the matter because we often share identical views on educational matters, particularly when they relate to the sins of commission and omission by the Education Ministry. Mr Speaker, Sir, since taking over the Education Ministry, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has initiated a number of educational changes, some of which, no doubt, have far-reaching consequences. It is not possible for us now to say for sure whether the changes are for the better or worse. In my view, these changes have a better chance to succeed because they are made after some very careful study and planning. Besides, persuading the Finance Ministry to release funds for the projects proposed under the educational changes is no problem with the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister. As we know, money not only helps, but is also sometimes the critical factor in determining whether a project can get off the launching pad. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has already secured for his Ministry's projects additional millions and millions of dollars. And as they say, "money talks". That is why we find that in recent months, not only the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, his Senior Ministers of State, but also the Director of Education and other officials have been talking a lot about new projects and new changes. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me offer sincerely my best wishes and congratulations to the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister for so quickly coming to grips with the problems he has to tackle, if our education development is to make the qualitative jump successfully to meet new demands. Quits honestly, some of his new educational changes and measures are remarkably sound, and the results undoubtedly are going to be beneficial to our pupils. In my view, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has, in one short year, made very good progress, I do not know whether he should feel elated over my compliments and congratulations for a job well done, seeing that my assessment of his performance is based on very subjective observations, and not on any objective analysis on the basis of statistics and facts. And if system analysis by brainy systems engineers sometimes can be wrong, as in the case of the 1979 Primary 3 streaming ratio, what chances are there for the subjective observations of an "unsystematic" layman like me to be right? Consequently, the chances are more likely for me to be wrong to conclude that the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has done well since I base the conclusion on observations and not on any systematic analysis of facts and statistics.