Sia Khoon Seong
Singapore
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LD 1500 of the Main Estimates. Earlier, I stated that the morale of the teachers is dependent on their conditions of work.”
“For one thing it must be clear to the parents that the Day School is not just another name for a day care centre. Neither does the Day School scheme diminish parental role and responsibility in the moral upbringing of their children. Children can and will do just so much during school hours.”
“I must urge the Ministry of Education to allow as many serving non-graduate teachers as possible, who have the ability and qualifications, to join the degree programme and attain graduate status. Those who have proven their worth in the service more than deserve the opportunity to further themselves.”
“I have not finished. Of course, the underlying reasons for the teaching of Religious Knowledge are always valid since time immemorial - to teach man to be good. After all, our moral education basically wants to achieve that. Since 1959, not just 1982, the underlying reasons for moral education have always been the same.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to ask the Minister of State, is it not true that prior to 1982 Religious Knowledge was also an optional subject? Prior to 1982, all along Religious Knowledge was taught as an optional subject. In 1989, we are going back to pre-1982. The mistake in 1982 was to make RK compulsory.”
“With the introduction of caning for traffickers and employers who employ illegal immigrant workers, I am quite sure it will act as a strong deterrent to them from doing so. With the passing of this Bill, employers and traffickers will now find it not worth the while to take risk in employing foreign workers illegally.”
The complete record
Every one of 624 lines we hold for Sia Khoon Seong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 13.
“I now come back to the other point which I mentioned earlier but which was not answered, and that is the stipulation laid down by the Education Ministry (of course, with the approval of the Finance Ministry) that teachers who joined on or after 1st May, 1958 would receive a salary scale lower than that given to those who joined before that date. The old salary scale is much better. There are teachers who joined the service before 1st May, 1958, and so according to the stipulation, they should get the old scale, but instead they were given the new scale. And when representations were made to the Education Ministry, they said the Finance Ministry was responsible. The Finance Ministry in turn said the Education Ministry was responsible. This went on for years. What happens then to the teachers? This is only one example to show how helpless the civil servants are. When they want to seek redress for their grievances in matters relating to service conditions, I do not think the Ministry of Finance can pass the buck to anybody else, because the buck ends there. I think this manner of handling problems relating to service conditions and other matters has reach such a very unhealthy level that a log of dissatisfaction and unhappiness is caused, apart from the poor salary scales of the civil service. I think it is because of this situation that civil servants are just not satisfied with the answers they get for their grievances. They get lost. They are helpless. They do not know where to go to. This passing of the buck from one Ministry to the Finance Ministry conveniently ignores the civil servants' problems. So unless the Finance Ministry takes the buck and handles the problems more intelligently - rather than with a one-track mind - I think such problems will never be solved.”
“Sir, on the question of passing the buck with regard to promotion exercises, I accept the explanation of the Minister for Finance that the buck has got to be passed to the Public Service Commission, because it is the ultimate authority in determining the promotion of officers. But there are other civil service matters which the Public Service Commission is not concerned with, and the buck actually ends at the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, the Ministry of Finance is responsible for, shall I say, messing things up. To illustrate my point, I will just quote an example of what happened in the Education service. Not everybody knows that there is a shortage of teachers, but everybody knows that there is a shortage of graduate teachers. Sometime between advertisements for teachers, graduates applied for posts in the Education Ministry, and the reply was that there was no vacancy because certain civil service procedures had to be observed to determine the vacancies. I think it will take me a long time to explain how they work. In fact, I myself do not quite understand how they work. They have a one-track mind. This is just to illustrate the ridiculous situation that exists. You know very well that there is a shortage of graduate teachers, and yet you get a reply saying that there is no vacancy. And they quote so many rules and stipulations to prove that there is no shortage of teachers. This proves the point that when the responsibility is clearly with some department, they mess things up.”
“This problem was raised with the Education Ministry years ago by the Teachers' Unions and we received a reply saying that the matter had been referred to the Treasury, but up to now there has been no reply from the Trea sury. This is one example to illustrate my point about the very inefficient manner in which the Treasury is handling some of the civil servants' problems with regard to terms and conditions of service. Just to round off my request, I would seek the Minister for Finance's personal attention to the teachers' proposals so that the matter can be expedited. He will appreciate that on the 1st of September, 1970, the then Minister for Education, Mr Ong Pang Boon, made an announcement inviting the Teachers' Unions to negotiate with the Ministry of Education. The first official meeting was on 10th October, 1970. All that the teachers are asking for is some response to the proposals that were put forward at the meeting. Surely this is not too much to expect from the Ministry of Finance when the Ministry of Education has already submitted its recommendations on the teachers' proposals.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that on the 16th of this month I asked the Minister for Education about the progress of the current negotiations between the Teachers' Unions and his Ministry and the response of the Ministry to the teachers' proposal. The reply of the Minister for Education was that, as far as his Ministry was concerned, they had already submitted their proposals to the Ministry of Finance some time in December last year. This is late March. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance when we can expect an answer from his Ministry and whether he will personally look into the matter. He must excuse me if I have got not much confidence in the civil servants of his Ministry for two reasons. One reason is that, as the Member for Telok Blangah has pointed out, they are in acting capacities and are not confident or competent enough to make a very serious study and make sound judgments on some of the proposals that have been put forward by the Ministry of Education. The other reason is that I myself have personally lost confidence in the manner in which the Treasury handles civil servants' problems with regard to conditions of service. Sir, to illustrate my point, I quote the example of one teacher's problem on the question of anomaly. On 1st May, 1958, a new salary scale was introduced for teachers who joined the service after this date. This scale is inferior to the old scale. The stipulation of the Treasury and the Education Ministry was that those who joined the service after that date would be placed on the new scale and those who were in the service before that date would get the old scale. And today we have teachers who joined the education service before 1st May, 1958, and who were put on the new scale.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $191,098,630 for Head 0801 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0901 -”
“This will encourage teachers to express their views continually on the sort of action which the Minister himself has sought to encourage.”
“I would like to ask the Education Minister if he thinks that it will be a good idea for the Singapore Teachers' Union, the Education Ministry Research Unit, the Inspectorate of the Education Ministry and the Teachers' Training College jointly to organise meetings of teachers to enable them to discuss their professional problems with a view to establishing a larger sense of involvement and participation in the educational development of Singapore. I am also sure the Minister will agree with me that if Inspectors of Schools are asked to hold seminars or group meetings of teachers to discuss the educational and professional problems of teachers, this would be a much more fruitful way for them to spend their time than going around snooping and investigating complaints from anonymous letters. Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong): Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may briefly make a few points. I would like to support what the Member for Moulmein has said, and perhaps articulate specifically the point he has raised - that there should be more of these seminars. In my own experience, I find them to be very useful, but perhaps more use could be found at district level. In other words, the organisation of these educational seminars, which at present is confined only to the central level, should be brought lower down to the district level, so that a number of schools could come together and join in these discussions, and maintain a continuing discussion of their role in relation to society. The other point I would like to make is this. Perhaps the Ministry of Education could give teachers a feedback as to what it thinks of the proposals that have been formulated at these seminars.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3001. Sir, at this stage of our educational development, when the emphasis is on qualitative rather than quantitative education, I am surprised to note that the ensuing year's allocation for the item "Educational Exhibitions, Career Conventions and Teachers' Seminar" has suffered a cut of $3,500 as compared with the allocation for the previous year. The amount allocated for the previous year was $10,500, but this has been reduced to $7,000 for 1971-72. Activities under this subhead are to me of tremendous educational value, and I should imagine that the vote should be increased rather than decreased, if we are really serious about pursuing qualitative education. With reference to the "Teachers' Seminar", I would like to draw the attention of Members to the recent Teachers' Seminar from 27th February to 1st March, 1971, organised by the Singapore Teachers' Union. Some 250 teachers participated, together with representatives from the Ministry of Education and the Teachers' Training College. The seminar papers, as well as the discussions, were guided by a sense of proportional responsibility and realism on the part of the participants. It is important that the seminar papers, as well as the findings of the seminar on various professional problems of the teachers, should be discussed among teachers in the schools. The Singapore Teachers' Union, therefore, intends to organise group meetings of teachers on Saturdays to enable as many teachers as possible from the various schools to benefit from the ideas contained in the seminar papers as well as the conclusions of the seminar.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to inform the Minister that consciously or unconsciously I am not advocating the abolition of the Institute of Education, because I do not see the point there. The Institute of Education does not necessarily have to confine itself to full-time teacher training, as after all there are other activities to think of. And even if there is a reason to hold back full-time teacher training and part-time teacher training, it does not mean that we must also hold back the establishment of the Institute, because, as I have said, the Institute of Education could incorporate so many other forms of activity. Anyway, the Minister has said that next year over 600 trainees will pass out from the T.T.C. and the following year another 900 trainees will qualify. The question I want to ask is this: will all these teachers be given jobs? It must be remembered that much money has been spent on the training of these teachers. It has happened in the past that teacher-trainees who underwent training and obtained the Certificate of Education were not guaranteed jobs, and I have pointed this out in this House previously. This is one of the disincentives to this full-time teacher training, and therefore there is no response because, apart from the fact that they do not earn any salary while undergoing training, there is no guarantee that they are going to get jobs at the end of the course. So you can see the kind of situation that the teacher training scheme is in when there is this disincentive in the system. Therefore, I just want to ask the Minister whether he can give the assurance that all these teachers will be given jobs when they pass out from the T.T.C.”
“For such persons, while they may not take on full-time teacher training because they will become economically inactive when undergoing training, they may find it attractive enough to do part-time training and, at the same time, earn a salary as trainee teachers in schools. Sir, a partial solution to the problem of teacher shortage is the reintroduction of part-time teacher training. 2.45 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2118*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr N. Govindasamy.) Sir, I notice that there is an increase of $1.1 million for the 1971-72 estimate over the 1970-71 estimate in regard to the item of "Substitute Relief Teachers". I presume that this additional sum of money is for the Ministry of Education to employ more relief teachers in the coming year. At present, the ratio between the number of relief teachers and the total number of permanent teachers reaches an unhealthy proportion. Any further increase of the present number of relief teachers is going to further aggravate the situation. I would like to ask the Minister whether he should not consider the immediate reintroduction of part-time teacher training at the Teachers' Training College at this stage. I am quite confident that the response to part-time teacher training will be good. Part-time teacher training will alleviate the present shortage of teachers. The advantage of part-time teacher training over full-time training for student teachers is that while undergoing training they will be able to earn a salary which will help them economically, whereas in the case of full-time students, not only are they not paid a salary but they also have to pay tuition fees instead. We must appreciate the position of many school leavers who do not come from well-to-do homes and who would like to earn a living after the completion of their studies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that there is only one notice of amendment with regard to technical education. I think this is because there is so much confusion in the Technical Education Department that even Members of Parliament do not know where to start. Or it could be due to the fact that the Department is very well run! But I take it that it is fairly well run. My point is this. I think there is too much preferential treatment, so to speak, being given to the Technical Education Department as against the General Education Department. Even the quota of teachers for technical education is more than that for general education. There is also poaching of teachers from the General Education Department, and together with the transfer of teachers to the Technical Education Department, it has resulted in a shortage of teachers in the General Education Department. The question I want to ask is this: in the light of the limited resources and the difficulty of getting suitable teachers, could there not be some kind of check to prevent this over-emphasis that is being given to technical education, because all this is at the expense of general education? I think that whenever the Education Ministry embarks on any particular project, it overdoes things a bit.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, as regards promotion posts such as the posts of principals and Inspectors of Schools, it is not a question of difficulty in getting experienced people to fill them. I think it is because promotion exercises are not held regularly. I accept the Minister's explanation that this matter is outside the purview of the Ministry of Education and that it is a matter for the Public Service Commission. I suppose that the P.S.C, which deals with recruitment and promotion exercises for the whole civil service always faces the problem of finding the time to have regular promotion exercises for the Ministry of Education. In view of this practical difficulty and since the Ministry is big and a large number of personnel are involved, like the Police which has a separate commission dealing with staff matters, I wonder whether the Minister will consider setting up a separate education service commission dealing with recruitment as well as promotion exercises for members of the teaching profession. Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a most welcome suggestion which I will consider carefully.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1191. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Education whether he is aware that his Ministry is violating one of the provisions in the Instruction Manual which stipulates that no acting appointment should exceed more than a year. In his Ministry, for example, some principals act for as long as three years. I just do not understand it. Civil servants cannot violate the provisions in the Instruction Manual without any penalty. The Ministry of Education is getting away with this without any penalty. I believe that a few months ago, applications were invited from teachers for promotion posts and nothing has happened after that. We would like to know what is the progress of this promotion exercise.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1158. Sir, I believe the problem of the shortage of graduate teachers in secondary schools has been with the Ministry of Education for more than a decade, and non-graduate teachers have been playing a very important role in the secondary schools in the last decade. I am just wondering whether, with the intention of improving the system of teacher training and the talk about setting up the Institute of Education, the Ministry will take immediate steps to conduct Bachelor of Education courses to enable serving teachers to take up such courses so that they can move from their present status of non-graduate teachers to that of graduate teachers. This not only provides an additional incentive to the teaching profession, but I think it also helps to serve a need in our secondary schools where the question of constant upgrading of professional expertise is very essential.”
“Fair enough, there is a slight improvement in the sense that parents need not have to do that every year, hut I was not aware of this because there was no communication with the Ministry.”
“As regards filling those particulars, there can be a more efficient way of doing it. There can be a kind of index where you fill in the child's particulars only once and not six times when he is in the primary school. An hon. Member: There is a slight improvement on it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have discussed this matter with the Member for Jurong. Can I take this opportunity to reply on his behalf and clarify to the Minister what is meant by a simplification of the register? It is not that these particulars are not important. They are important and they must be kept. I think the complaint is, why should these particulars be filled year in and year out? A child is in a primary school for six years, and every year the parent has to fill in the same particulars. I think some parents are greatly annoyed when they are asked to bring their identity cards and citizenship papers every year.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I think the Minister has misunderstood what the Member for Anson was trying to say about extramural activities. It is not a question of teachers taking charge of football, scouting or netball. These are the normal extramural activities which they must perform. That is accepted. What they are grousing about is that they have to do things outside their normal scope of duties; like the savings campaign where they have to become postmasters or what have you. This definitely is not within their normal function even if they have to take up extramural activities. Other examples are the health campaign, the gardening campaign, and some time ago the Ministry informed the schools to set up advisory committees where principals must become secretaries of committees, and overnight everybody had to start looking around for about 10 to 12 persons who are education-conscious citizens to look after the interest of each school. These advisory committees have to be set up everywhere and the teachers have to serve tea during meetings and things like that. The point is not extra-mural activities that normally should be done by teachers. It is this sort of non-professional extramural activities that the teachers are grousing about. 5.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister of State tell us how his Ministry manage to do all the things that he has mentioned? Do they have people who are connoisseurs of food to ensure that the best food is provided at the cheapest cost, or is the work undertaken by a committee consisting of people who have been selected at random?”
“I wrote to the Ministry of Education and enquired about his position and whether he was going to continue receiving the scholarship in the Teachers' Training College. Sir, when there is a shortage of teachers these days, nobody can deny the fact that anybody who takes up teacher training, in technical education is making a contribution to the country. Up to now I have neither received a reply from the Ministry of Education nor a reply from the Ministry of Labour as to whether immediate consideration would be given to this particular case in giving him citizenship. This was a clear case of an unfortunate incident in which the person concerned should not be entirely blamed because, as I have said, in other cases there is a reminder that the person must take the oath of allegiance when he reaches the age of 21. In this particular case, the reminder was not there. This is one example in my constituency. There are many more examples to show that the Ministry of Labour is going a bit too far when they decide on citizenship applications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I crave your indulgence and the indulgence of this House to relate another pathetic example of a minor citizen who, as a result of his failure to take the oath of allegiance, has had his citizenship withdrawn. I think this was unnecessary if the Registrar of Citizens had exercised some discretion in the implementation of the policy on the granting of citizenship. May I relate the ridiculous situation in which this particular person faced? He was granted minor citizenship and, in many other cases, on the certificate of the minor citizenship there is a reminder to the effect that he must take the oath of allegiance when he reaches the age of 21. But in this particular case, somehow or other, there was a clerical error or there was an omission on the part of the staff of the Registry of Citizenship, and this was not done. So there was really very good reason for the person concerned to be ignorant of the fact that he had to take the oath of allegiance when he reaches the age of 21. We must not expect every citizen to have the law at his finger-tips. At the same time, this person received a scholarship from the Teachers' Training College to be a technical teacher. He went for the teacher-training course on a Government scholarship which stipulates that only citizens can be granted that scholarship. When he applied for the scholarship, his age was 19 plus. He got the scholarship because he was a Singapore citizen. Before he completed the training, however, his citizenship was withdrawn because, when he passed the age of 21, the Registry of Citizenship discovered that he had not taken the oath of allegiance and so withdrew his minor citizenship. This person is now in a predicament.”
“Sir, coming back to what the Minister of State has mentioned about the N.T.U.C. taking the responsibility for courses on industrial safety, I think that is a wrong step to take. This cannot be the sole responsibility of the N.T.U.C, and, as he himself has stated, the N.T.U.C, has done its share. I would have thought that the safety and welfare of the workers should be a tripartite affair. So as the N.T.U.C, has done its part, as the Minister of State has so kindly indicated, my question is: what has the Ministry done about the whole thing?”
“Sir, has the Minister of State any plans to mount a campaign on industrial safety as vigorously as the "Keep Singapore Clean" campaign mounted by the Ministry of Health, or the campaign to stop smoking, which is mounted by the Ministry of Culture?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in commenting on what the Minister of State has just said regarding the efforts of the Ministry of Labour to promote safety consciousness, I think the room where he invited the Members of Parliament, including myself, is too small to try to promote safety consciousness among the thousands of workers in Singapore. I think that room could take in only about 20 persons at a time. Such being the case, how long will the Ministry take to reach the thousands of workers? The question here is not so much the education to be given at the shop steward level, the managerial level or the representative level, as the promotion of safety consciousness at the ground level, I think that is more important than having the Factory Inspectorate operate in a small room trying to inculcate safety consciousness among the workers. I think that probably accounts for the big number of industrial accidents.”
“Perhaps the time has come for the Government to consider making the following amendments to the present labour legislation: (1) Reducing the maximum duration of collective agreements from five years to three years in non-pioneer industries and enterprises; (2) Raising the maximum limit for the negotiability of bonus payments from one month's salary to a more realistic sum, particularly in the case of undertakings which, such as the banks, have made exceptional profits; and (3) Raising the employers' contributions under the Central Provident Fund Ordinance from the present 10 per cent to 15 per cent and reducing the workers' contributions from the present 10 per cent to 5 per cent, thus increasing the present take-home pay of the workers by 5 per cent. This may be termed a "built-in" wage increase of 5 per cent all round. 3.32 p.m”
“This is tantamount to blackmailing the Union into signing away the rights of the bank employees in Singapore to have a share in the profits over the next five years. Mr Speaker, Sir, you may be aware that the trade unions were assured in 1968 that the increase in the maximum duration of collective agreements from three to five years was intended to ensure wage stability in the pioneer industries. We had assumed, therefore, that old established institutions like the banks would not seek to abuse the Employment Act by taking full advantage of the provision intended for pioneer industries. Local employers generally have up to now been much more ready than foreign employers to come to profit-sharing arrangements with their employees. In the recent past, the foreign banks have managed to infect several local banks also with the same virus of industrial blackmail. The "Lever" virus, also known as the `Gould" virus, or the "Rattray" virus, which manifests itself in an obstinate refusal to allow bank employees even a minimal share in the exceptional profits the banks have been making in the last few years from Singapore's economic growth and development, has also spread to several local banks. The result is that a united front has been established between the presidents of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and the International Chamber of Commerce. For employers such as those Shylock bankers who construe the Employment Act as entitling them to their pound of their employees' flesh, the Government should not hesitate to exact from them a similar and appropriate penalty for their avarice.”
“The problem today is not only one of simply educating our workers and trade unions to understand the realities of our economic life, as suggested by the Finance Minister, but also the much more difficult one of educating some of our unenlightened employers to realise the folly of their persistent refusal to see beyond their nose that their true interest also lies in the fair treatment of their workers. A case in point is the current industrial dispute between the Singapore Bank Employees' Union and the various banking corporations. With the exception of the Asia Commercial Bank and the Far Eastern Bank, all the other banks, both foreign and local, are exploiting the provisions of the Employment Act by blackmailing the Singapore Bank Employees' Union into signing away their right to share in the mounting profits for the next five years. Everyone knows that there has been an enormous increase in the turnover, volume and profitability of the banking business over the last few years. This increase has resulted partly from the efforts of the Government to develop Singapore and partly from the co-operation of the workers. It is not solely due to the genius of the banking management. The Union is merely asking that the additional month's bonus offered to bank employees be reviewed annually by the banks in accordance with the continuing profitability or otherwise of banking operations in Singapore. The concerted response of the banks, both foreign and local, is the offer of a once-and-for-all payment equivalent to an additional month's salary, on condition that the union signs a "no-change" collective agreement for the next five years.”
“Even then, some employers try to wriggle out of their liability under it. I would have thought that if the Government is embarrassed by the sum of money in the coffers of the Treasury accumulated from the payroll tax, some arrangement could be made to dispose of it in a constructive manner, such as to help those persons who require assistance most, and not give employers the opportunity to use the savings provided by the tax relief to employ more accountants to think of more ways to evade tax. What I have in mind is the channelling of the proceeds of the payroll tax into a special fund to supplement or enhance the payments under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. The crucial question is, who needs tax relief most? Is it the employers, who are only concerned with the extra sayings from tax, or the employees, who are concerned with their livelihood and, perhaps, their very own lives? While incentives have to be offered to foreign investors to help our industrialisation programme succeed, it does not mean that we have to pamper them, as they stand to benefit more from the industrialisation programme. Pampering of employers is more likely to create dissatisfaction than promote contentment among their own workers. It is meaningless for workers to regard themselves as contributors to Singapore's future progress and prosperity when their employers make it a point to taunt them to their faces with the laws of Singapore which, they say, preclude the workers from having a fair share of the fruits of the prosperity to which they have greatly contributed.”
“Employers to enable their workers to acquire greater skills for their own good do not establish training schemes. Granted that it is true the Minister for Finance might have been induced to allow such tax relief by reason of the undertaking of a few foreign investors to train more workers than required under their own training schemes, but it will be most unfair for such employers, who are co-operating with the Government, to bear the brunt of training more workers than is necessary. This inducement to industrialists to train workers is not desirable as long as there is this problem of a vicious cycle of a consequent shortage of skilled workers resulting from the practice of poaching of such workers. The solution proposed by the Minister is not necessarily the most equitable one. The solution of allowing employers tax relief against their payroll tax liability for the purpose of increasing the supply of skilled workers is a negative approach since it entails the use of public funds. It must not be forgotten that while Singapore stands to benefit from a greater supply of skilled workers, the employers themselves benefit directly from it. In fact, they have the first call upon the services of the skilled workers in such increased supply. A positive approach would be to apportion the cost of training extra workers among all employers or those employers without any approved training schemes. Workers have done more than their share in Singapore's industrialisation programme. Seldom does a day pass by without a report of a worker being involved in an industrial accident, sometimes fatal. Whether he dies, or is permanently or temporarily incapacitated, he and his dependants can only expect miserable compensation under the Outdated Workmen's Compensation Ordinance.”
“The workers are making great personal sacrifices by shouldering the burden of national service. Apart from the sentiments of patriotism that cause them to respond with enthusiasm to the call of service to their country, they have no property or wealth of their own to defend. On the other hand, if something should happen to Singapore, employers have a lot to lose apart from their valuable lives. They apparently want to have their cake and eat it too. The petty attitude of employers is most ridiculous, considering that their so-called burden under the National Service Act is too insignificant to talk about. The amount of money that an employer has to give by way of the make-up pay is probably negligible in relation to his total profits or assets. Employers have no reason to grudge the payment of insurance premium in respect of their property. In fact, they consider it good and sound business practice to have such insurance cover. It is, therefore, extremely unreasonable for them to grudge the cost of national service which is, after all, the best and most comprehensive form of insurance that they can obtain for their property, their livelihood, or profit-making enterprises. I come now to the question of training schemes for the improvement of skills of workers and the offsetting of their training expenses against their payroll tax. I find it difficult to believe, by any stretch of imagination, that anyone has the gall to claim that any scheme to improve the skills of workers is more a burden than a benefit to their employers. All training schemes are designed for one primary objective - to improve the skills and efficiency of workers so that they may be able to contribute more effectively to the profit-making capacity of their employers.”
“I cannot emphasise too strongly that every tax relief is tantamount to a payment from the public funds, since the principal source of public funds is taxation in one form or other. The Finance Minister has proposed that employers are entitled to use public funds to pay part of their workers' wages for which they are liable under the National Service Act. It appears that workers are expected, as a matter of fact, to sacrifice two or three years of their youth in national service. But when it comes to the turn of employers to make a bit of sacrifice, it appears that they are a different breed entirely, and so are not governed by the same considerations of national interest as their less fortunate employees. It is of immaterial consequence to such employers that the whole and sole purpose of national service is not for the martial glory of Singapore but for its defence and protection as a sovereign political entity and the protection of the lives and property of the people of Singapore. I would have thought that employers stood to lose most if Singapore had no credible defence system to deter any would-be aggressor. But the mind of employers, obviously, functions in a different manner. They can perceive no contradiction in supporting national service when only employees are affected, and in agitating against the burden of make-up pay for their workers doing national service. I should think that no one in this House, least of all the representatives of employers, expects employers to take the lead in expressing and proving their patriotism. But their churlish reaction to the slight obligation they must incur, by way of contributions towards the defence of the country, comes as a definite surprise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, no piece of information was more welcome to the people of Singapore than the declaration by the Minister for Finance in this House on the 8th March that no new taxation measures, either directly or indirectly, would be introduced in the ensuing financial year. The fact that the current needs for both ordinary and development expenditures can be met from the natural increase in the existing tax yields as a result of the rapid economic growth is eloquent testimony to the soundness and foresight of the economic planning and expansion programmes laid down by his predecessor. I note that the local newspapers have popularly termed the budget a painless one. That it would bring about "no harm" or "unhappiness" to the man in the street is an undeniable fact. Nonetheless, affluent employers have more cause to celebrate by reason of the tremendously "good cheer" the budget gave to them. Apart from the fact that no new taxes will be imposed on the excessively huge profits that the employers make, they are now to receive a new tax relief in that Government will use the proceeds of the existing payroll tax to defray their liability in respect of the "make-up" pay of their employees doing national service, and to reimburse their expenses in operating approved training schemes or apprenticeship schemes for their employees. Such tax relief, according to the Finance Minister, is to lighten the so-called burden of the employers in these two areas. The questions that immediately strike my mind are (1) What is this so-called burden of the employers for which the Minister has such great solicitude? (2) Should the Government lighten this so-called burden of the employers with public funds that may be better utilised for some other more worthy purposes?”
“The teachers are beginning to lose confidence in the whole exercise. They are wondering what it is all about. Is this a kind of joke? Their expectations have been raised as a result of the then Education Minister's announcement about pay negotiations. Since then, nearly seven months have elapsed and there is not even a squeak from the Ministry to indicate what their reactions are to our proposals. Some of our proposals were put forward ten years ago. Surely the Ministry does not require so much time to study them. Perhaps it is not possible for the Ministry at this juncture to give its answers or reactions to all of them. That is fair enough. But surely the Ministry should be in a position to say something on some of the proposals. What is the cause for this delay? This situation is causing unhappiness in the teaching profession. The Ministry has given them the hope that negotiations are forthcoming, but if it has to take more than six months to study the proposals, and there does not seem to be an indication when this period of study is going to end, I think you can quite fully appreciate the kind of frustration that is felt by the teachers. I appreciate the Minister's reply that time is required to study the very complex problems and I agree that there are very complex problems. But six months should be more than sufficient for this and I hope we should be hearing soon from the Ministry regarding what its counter proposals are.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I crave your indulgence to interrupt again because the Minister for Education, in his reply to my observation, has mentioned the Teachers Unions' pay negotiations. I thought I might take this opportunity to mention also one or two matters which I wanted to say in the Committee of Supply when I move the amendment to reduce the Minister for Education's pay by $10. Since he has already dealt with many aspects of the matter that I originally intended to raise later, perhaps I will take this opportunity to add one or two points on the question of the Teachers Unions' pay negotiations. I am glad to hear from the Minister that his Ministry intends to go one step further than its original intention to remove the post allowance of the promotion posts and substitute it with promotion scales, and that it intends also to look into the question of grievances, the 16 pay scales of teachers and so forth. I do appreciate that it requires time to do an exercise like this. But I think sufficient time has been given to the Ministry and to the Treasury to consider this matter. I can only express the hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the matter be considered without any further delay as too much time has been taken on this matter, in fact, the then Minister for Education made an announcement on 1st September, 1970, that he was going to invite the Teachers Unions to discuss pay negotiations. Some time in October last year, the Ministry of Education invited the Teachers Unions to put forward their proposals. Today is the 16th of March. It is about six months since we put forward our proposals and the Ministry is still studying them. It is fair enough that it needs some time to study the proposals, but there seems to be no end to the time required for it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just make an observation on the reply by the Minister for Education to the Member for Telok Blangah on the plight of the Ministry of Education in attracting a sufficient number of applicants for recruitment into the education service? I wonder whether the Minister, his Minister of State and others are now more than convinced that the salary scales for teachers are not so attractive as to attract enough applicants. Would they not think that in order to solve this problem the Government should seriously consider revising the salary scales for teachers immediately?”
“Is the Ministry of Education considering the introduction of part-time training as a way to minimise the problem of having to employ such a large number of relief teachers to meet the shortage of teachers in schools?”
“C, lecturing staff be given an opportunity to make representations through their teachers' union on their future position when the proposed Institute of Education is established and takes over the function of teacher training from the present T.T.C.? Let me, in conclusion, express the hope that, as a result of the proposed establishment of the Institute of Education, the current promotion exercise for T.T.C, lecturers in relation to appointments in the T.T.C, will not be frozen, but will be carried out as indicated in the recent vacancy minute. I just want to add that the term "teachers" in the context of my speech today also includes principals of schools, since they are also practising teachers basically. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 4.12 p.m.”
“Why is the Ministry of Education not providing opportunities to the present pool of relief teachers to undergo teacher training and seek permanent employment in the Ministry? 3. Is the Ministry aware that while, on the one hand, there is a shortage of teachers, there are, on the other hand, some teachers who have just completed their full-time teacher training this year who are not offered employment in the teaching service? 4. Does the Minister for Education envisage the proposed Institute of Education to continue the present policy in respect of teacher training, namely, that student teachers, on successful completion of their teacher training, will not be guaranteed employment in the education service? If this policy is continued, does the Ministry not see this as a great disincentive to future aspirants to the teaching service? 5. What will happen to the fate of the present lecturing staff in the Teachers' Training College when teacher training is taken over by the proposed Institute of Education? 6. Will those members of the present T.T.C. lecturing staff holding substantive appointments as assistant lecturers, lecturers, etc., at present be absorbed automatically into the staff of the Institute of Education? And will those members of the present T.T.C, lecturing staff holding acting appointments and who have given satisfactory lecturing service for a period of time be given special preference by the proposed Institute of Education in its recruitment of staff? 7. What will be the scheme of service of the staff of the proposed Institute of Education? Will it be similar to the existing scheme of service of the present T.T.C, lecturing staff, or will it be similar to existing schemes of service in the Polytechnic or Ngee Ann Technical College? 8. Will the present T.T.”
“It is imperative, therefore, that one of the paramount concerns of the Institute of Education must be the promotion of further teacher-education programmes at degree/diploma level to enable serving non-graduate teachers to avail themselves of such opportunities to increase their academic knowledge and upgrade their professional skills and status so that, on successful completion of such degree/diploma teacher-education courses, they can be placed on par with university graduate teachers in terms of status and service conditions. It is important that consideration must be given to the fact that many serving non-graduate teachers, meriting consideration for professional and academic upgrading courses, are often married men with both responsibilities and financial commitments that normally go with married men. Leave for studies in such courses therefore must be on full pay, and their experience in teaching must be taken as adequate entry qualification for any such courses. It is pertinent for me at this juncture to seek clarification from the Minister for Education on the following queries that I wish to raise: 1. During the transitional period of change when teacher training is transferred from the present Teachers' Training College to the proposed Institute of Education, is the Ministry of Education taking immediate steps to recruit and train more teachers to meet the present acute shortage of teachers in the schools today, normalise the staffing position in schools, and reduce to the minimum the present position where a far too excessive number of relief teachers are employed on an ad hoc basis to meet the present acute shortage of teachers? 2.”
“The Institute should also provide adequate further teacher-education programmes to enable serving non-graduate teachers in both primary and secondary schools to seek professional and academic advancement especially when they are required from time to time to shoulder additional professional responsibilities. The present non-graduate teachers are a case in point. Though trained essentially to teach in primary schools, they are posted to teach in secondary schools, sometimes at the upper secondary level of education where trained university graduate teachers are supposed to teach. This has been the position in the past decade when the Education Ministry has been faced with the problem of attracting and recruiting an adequate number of university graduate teachers to man the secondary schools particularly from secondary three level upwards. It is a credit to those serving non-graduate teachers that they have admirably played their role and proved their ability and worth. They have discharged their responsibilities very well and produced good results with the students that they have taught. It can also be said that many serving non-graduate teachers in primary schools, when posted to secondary schools, will also respond just as well to their new role. This is to be expected as they all went through the same training in the Teachers' Training College. No recognition of any kind is given to the non-graduate teachers in secondary schools for shouldering increased responsibilities that should normally be carried out by university graduate teachers.”
“Moreover, the good initial training for teachers is not enough at a time like ours when the content, methods and media of education are necessarily undergoing constant changes. The systematic organisation of refresher and advanced courses and a wide range of in-service courses on teachers' education will enable serving teachers to add continually to their professional as well as academic knowledge, and keep up to date with developments in all fields of education so that they will not lose touch with progress and become inefficient. But improvement in the economic, no less than the professional, status of teachers is required if serving teachers are to be encouraged to feel obliged to seek professional improvement. The improvement of the economic status of teachers is primarily a matter of social justice, since the qualifications required for this category of workers and the tasks assigned to them are becoming ever more complex and demanding, particularly when their role is extending beyond the confines of the schools because of the part the teachers must play today in community development. Teachers must enjoy a status commensurate with their role. The proposed Institute of Education, in consultation with teachers' unions, should promote the establishment of a wide system of in-service teacher education, and adequate incentive schemes, devised by the Ministry of Education after consultation with teachers' unions, should be offered to serving teachers on successful completion of any in-service course on teacher education. The Institute should also focus its attention on developments in the education service, keeping schools abreast of the results of research and methodological progress, as well as reflecting in its own work the experience of schools and teachers.”
“No one in his right frame of mind will dispute the need to gear our educational system to attain certain underlying political objectives of inculcating a sense of loyalty and pride of belonging to Singapore, of building a multi-racial and harmonious society, and of restructuring our educational system to meet the needs of manpower requirements in the fast-changing pattern of our economic development and progress. What I wish to point out, however, is that we must not lose sight of the educational standards and objectives at the same time. Whether -a review is necessary of certain educational activities that have been carried out so far in Singapore schools, and how improvements can be made in the direction of qualitative education, are matters that require the attention of educational experts engaged in proper research, study and analysis of the various fields of education. It is hoped that the proposed Institute of Education will have, among its staff, experts who will be able to evaluate the progress we have made in our educational development in the past decade, as well as spotlight the pitfalls we have stumbled into, and make expert and applicable recommendations for improvement in qualitative education. Let me turn to another subject that will come within the purview of the proposed Institute of Education - I am referring to teacher training. The adaptation of our educational system to the needs of modem Singapore necessitates higher and broader qualifications for the teachers who will have to prepare young people to live and work in the context of an increasingly complex economic and social organisation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill before this House seeks to establish a corporate body to be known as the "Institute of Education" which will make provision for the training of teachers in Singapore and promote research in the various fields of education. To my mind, this move opens up a new spectrum in our present efforts to seek qualitative improvement in our education system. Both the financial and human resources available to the Education Ministry in the past were geared and strained to meet the expansion of schools to meet the objective of providing every school-going child a place in school, with the result that very little attention was paid to the improvement in the quality of education. Whatever efforts were made in the past in the direction of qualitative improvement were only ad hoc measures and were neither comprehensive nor co-ordinated. It is hoped that with the establishment of the Institute of Education, all efforts aimed at qualitative improvement in all aspects of our educational system, ranging from curriculum development to teacher training, will be carried out more systematically, efficiently, and with imagination, with a touch of professional expertise. With the attainment of the objective of quantitative education, it is now imperative that study and research be made into the different aspects of our educational development in the past decade. In the past, changes made in the educational system were not only radical and rapid, but were also made to meet certain underlying political objectives of nation-building, with the result that high educational standards and objectives sometimes had to be sacrificed.”
“We hope that the travelling public will also co-operate to ensure their comfort and convenience while travelling in buses. On the point raised by the Member for Jalan Kayu with regard to the intention of the Government to issue 1,000 taxi licences to the proposed Workers' Transport Co-operative of the N.T.U.C., I can assure him that every effort will be made to ensure the success of the Co-operative. The N.T.U.C, is at the moment finalising the steps to set up the Workers' Transport Co-operative, and they will be made known at the appropriate time. Among the many underlying social objectives behind the proposal of the N.T.U.C, to start the Workers' Transport Co-operative, let me mention just one. This is to give a stake to the many taxi drivers in the Republic to help them own their own taxis. We hope that in turn they will give a better and more courteous service to the travelling public.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, not only do I support the proposals of the Government on the Reorganisation of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore, but I also wish to congratulate the Minister for Communications on taking such bold and imaginative steps to improve the present transport service. This move is timely as the service at present has numerous defects resulting in considerable discomfort and inconvenience to the travelling public. It can be expected that the radical move as evidenced in the White Paper is likely to bring about attendant problems. Many of my colleagues in this House have made valuable observations on the different aspects of the proposals as contained in the White Paper, and I do not therefore propose to comment on the details of these proposals. However, I would like to make some observations on the points raised by the Member for Jalan Kayu. He has mentioned that for a bus service to be efficient, there must not only be sound professional management but also the co-operation of the bus workers. I would have thought that to improve the bus service and to increase the comfort of the travelling public it is not only necessary to have sound management with the full co-operation of labour, but that it is also important that the travelling public should co-operate by showing more orderly behaviour, such as queueing up for a bus and not scrambling for places in the bus when it stops at the terminus, particularly during peak hours. With regard to the co-operation and conduct of workers necessary to ensure an efficient bus service, the Member for Jalan Kayu can rest assured that the N.T.U.C, is always conscious of its role to exhort the bus workers to demonstrate their courtesy to the travelling public. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify my point. I do not want to enter into a controversy over the value of money increasing or diminishing in years to come. My point is this. The Government has no moral right to use somebody else's money to make money. Similarly, it cannot say, "Today, we will not pay in full the M.P.s' allowances, or the Ministers' salaries or the Government servants' salaries. Instead we will pay them the balance of the money at the end of so many years." The Government's point of view is quite different, because it thinks it will earn interest on it. Making money is a good thing, but the point is, has the Government the moral right to take somebody's money that is due to him and earn interest on it? I think not only is the Government keen but the officer is also keen to get interest earned from the money put into the bank. But the point is, who has the moral right to the money? If the Government is thinking in terms of paying him the interest, I think that is quite fair, because it is saving the money for him. If he is entitled to $10,000 gratuity, then the figure of $10,000 is the same due to him no matter when he is given the gratuity. That is what I meant when I said it is the same amount. But whether the purchasing power of money has diminished or not is a separate matter. This is the money that is automatically due to him. You pay him gratuity after he has earned it. How can you keep his money and deny him not only the opportunity to earn interest on it, but you also deny him the chance probably to buy a house, or the opportunity to make use of the money profitably. I think the Government has no moral right to take that opportunity away from the officer concerned.”