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 2 of 13.
“I was only strengthening my argument when I said that you not only said that but you also said that you were going to bring people who were going to support you. And you were wondering whether they would be paid. I am giving all these facts to strengthen my argument that, in fact, you did say that you were going to lead evidence. Therefore, you cannot come here today and say that you never said this, you never said that, and that the Commissioners were biased against you. That is what I meant when I said all that. Have I answered all your points? Or have you got any more?”
“You said something about payment for you which is not mentioned in the instrument. I am not talking about payment for you. I am only strengthening my argument that, in fact, you are trying to wriggle out from your statement that you never made a statement to the effect that you were prepared to lead evidence.”
“Leave it to the public to judge who is the man of ignorance. [Laughter].”
“Then you went to the Commission of Inquiry. When you were asked to produce the evidence to reveal extra wrongdoing, more than what the Prime Minister had revealed, you were not able to do so. Therefore, you got no case. Is it not correct? Next, you said about ---”
“I am explaining to you what I mean by "you have no case". Your case was that you had evidence to show that there was more to be revealed than what the Prime Minister had stated. That was your case.”
“It has also concluded that the integrity of our system to deal with corruption is intact. Going through the Report and following the proceedings over television, any reasonable person would also come to the same conclusion.”
“And when he, as a Member of Parliament, did that in this House, of course, the members of the public naturally got excited and thought that there must be something because members of the public, or at least most of them, take very seriously what goes on in this House and therefore expected to see a lot of interesting things coming out. He was given every assistance to produce the evidence which he could not. The Commissioners had finally come to the correct conclusion that he, in fact, had no evidence. I think it would be very honourable for the Member for Potong Pasir to just accept the conclusions of the report instead of taking the opportunity today to cast doubts over the competence and integrity of the Commissioners and trying to bring in red herrings. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Singapore one of the main reasons why we have succeeded so well is the honesty and integrity of our public institutions. It is not by chance that this is so. It is the unwavering position that the Government takes against corruption. No acts of corruption from anyone will be tolerated and will eventually be exposed. This is, as what the report stated, Singapore's "enviable reputation for the honesty and integrity of its public institutions" and that this reputation should be protected and preserved. The Government's position in response to what the Member for Potong Pasir had said regarding the late Teh Cheang Wan's case is that it is ready to hold a public inquiry into any matter of public interest so that there can be no question of cover-up." This Report before us has done precisely that. The Report concluded that there was no cover-up and that the CPIB was fearless and thorough in its investigations on the late Teh Cheang Wan case.”
“It has nothing to do with the system because the system that allows Ministers to exercise discretion has to continue in the interest of our constituents. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the report of the Commission of Inquiry on investigations concerning the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan, to me is comprehensive and thorough, despite the Commission's inability to obtain cooperation from the Member for Potong Pasir who had asked in the first place for the inquiry because he suggested that there was more to be known or discovered regarding the Teh Cheang Wan affair. He not only would lead evidence, according to him, but there were also people who would assist him. He was given every opportunity to do so to support his claim, but he did not do so. And according to the report, it was after quite some time that finally the Commissioners got him to admit that he never had any evidence. As a Member of the Opposition, of course, the Member for Potong Pasir has a right to ask for a Commission of Inquiry. But as the Minister for Home Affairs has said, he could have done so and argued his case for a Commission of Inquiry in a legitimate and valid way. That is to say, that he would ask that since the late Teh Cheang Wan committed suicide and no trial was possible and since the public was keen to know what happened, a Commission of Inquiry would be quite in order in the public interest provided, of course, he did not in the process try to go further and suggest that there was something that he could produce to show that the Government was trying to cover up something. I think his right to ask for a Commission of Inquiry is not being questioned. It is the manner in which he went about it.”
“Because, I think, as is proven in the Report, that if at all there was any intention to hide anything, the whole investigation would have stopped at some point of time. The Member also said just now that there is a flaw in the system and that is why the late Minister for National Development, Mr Teh Cheang Wan, could abuse that. The Prime Minister has explained it very clearly. In the system itself, where is the flaw? As Members of Parliament, we often receive requests from constituents who are not happy with decisions taken by Government Ministries. They want the decisions to be reversed, as the decisions affect them either in acquisition cases or resettlement cases, or whatever the case may be. All decisions taken by Government Ministries very often inconvenience our constituents, and some decisions are sometimes made without taking into account all the considerations - the human factor, the constituent's point of view. Very often they approach us, as Members of Parliament, to appeal to the Minister to rescind certain decisions so that they would not be inconvenienced. I think we have come across cases where we find that some of the requests are justifiable. So I think the system which allows the Minister to exercise discretion is a system that works in the interest of the public. It not only works in Singapore, it works elsewhere. Therefore, it is not so much the system that has got a flaw but it is the human nature of the individual who holds the position. It is the character flaw that induces the person to abuse his position resulting in all his acts of corruption. So if you could attribute the Teh Cheang Wan Affair to anything, it is due more to the flaw in the human nature of the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan, with due respect to him.”
“No, there is nothing wrong with that. But the point goes to prove that you did say that you were going to lead evidence, that you were going to produce people who were going to lead evidence, help you to lead evidence, and you were asking whether they should be paid. All these go to confirm that you did at that time made it very clear. And as the Minister for Home Affairs said, nine times the Prime Minister repeated, "Are you going to lead evidence?" And your answer was very firm and you said you were "on solid ground". I think it is quite extraordinary that the Member today should try to come and say that he never said such a thing and accused the Commissoners of being biased towards him. I think the Commissioners were trying to do their work, finding out what evidence the Member for Potong Pasir was trying to produce. Is it not their duty to do that? Is not the whole purpose of setting up the Commission of Inquiry was to determine whether there was any evidence to prove that there were other wrongdoings apart from what was revealed? In fact, that was the whole essence of setting up the Commission of Inquiry - on the strength of the statement made by the Member for Potong Pasir. Because the Prime Minister has made it very clear that as far as the Government is concerned, it is satisfied that the investigation by the CPIB is thorough, it is in the process of investigating further, that there is no lapse in the efforts of the CPIB in investigating any corruption cases, and let the CPIB proceed, as its function is to do that. There was no need for all this hullabaloo created as if the Government was trying to hide something.”
“Coming to his point that he raised earlier, his argument as to what was what - to lead in evidence or to lead evidence - I do not wish to enter into an argument as to which is correct at this point of time anyway. Whether it is to lead in evidence or to lead evidence, as far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant. What is more important is to proceed with the evidence, to proceed with helping the Commission to come out with whatever evidence that he claimed to have initially. I think everybody, not just the Commissioners but the public too, was waiting for the Member for Potong Pasir at the proceedings to come out with something dramatic. But instead, he chose to behave in the way he behaved. I do not have to repeat what has already been said in the Report and what has been stressed by the Minister for Home Affairs. The point is that he never had evidence in the first place. I think that is the position. Is he now saying that he denied saying those things in Parliament in March - that he was going to lead evidence, that he was going to bring people who would help him to produce the evidence? In fact, he went further and asked whether the Government would be prepared to pay those who assisted him in preparing the evidence and helping the Commission.”
“You would recall that the Commission of Inquiry that was set up in Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam's case, when the report was not in his favour, he tried to discredit the Commissioner. I think, in like fashion today, the Member for Potong Pasir is doing the same, ie, because he has got no case to put across, he is trying to retrieve whatever reputation he has lost.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs. Sir, before I comment on the report on the investigations on the Teh Cheang Wan Affair, could I just comment on the Chiam See Tong affair in the whole affair? The Minister for Home Affairs in his statement did express the hope that the Member for Potong Pasir would not follow in the footsteps of Mr Jeyaretnam. I am afraid his hope will not be entertained because it would appear that the Member for Potong Pasir is following in the footsteps of Mr Jeyaretnam all the way.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. What took the Government so long to introduce this Bill? They should have done this long ago. Quite frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know the setup of the Singapore Turf Club. I have always been under the impression that it is of a public character, that is to say, the right of the turf club members to gamble on the understanding that whatever proceeds or whatever winnings will finally go to some public charities and so forth. At least that is the kind of vague impression I had. Otherwise it would seem to me quite unfair. But that I know the true status of the turf club, ie, that the 500-odd members have got the private right to whatever earnings from the running of the races and so on. It would seem on the one hand that we grant rights to a group of privileged people, and on the other hand we go around arresting the small-time bookies and runners. It would seem that there are two classes of people in Singapore, those who can have the right and finally pocket the profits, and the other class of poor runners who do not have the right. So I think if this Bill is not passed today, it would appear to me to be rather unfair to the poorer man who is a small-time bookie. But with this move, now that nobody has the right to spend the profits for his or her own benefit but for charity, for social and educational purposes, for sports, I think that is fair because we cannot completely eliminate gambling. And if gambling is to be controlled, I think whatever profits that are going to be derived from gambling should be used for the good of the public. The intention of this Bill has got that spirit. Therefore I support the Bill.”
“Curriculum Development (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-04 of the Main Estimates.”
“My question is: since the Goh Keng Swee Report was published, have we done anything in regard to this great attrition rate in our schools? Have we done anything to correct this problem? I believe it is a grave problem. If I remember, I think out of a cohort of, say, 100 in Japan, I think 90 of them reached 'A' levels, and out of that 90, another 34. [Interruption] Anyway, what we want to know is that since that Report was published, have the children of our schools improved in their performance? That is what I want to know.”
“I think that is the important point that I posed the Minister. Because now, any Tom, Dick and Harry can just take the job and become a relief teacher. And I think this is what the parents as well as teachers are concerned about. For example, I know for a fact that there are thousands of retired teachers, experienced, qualified teachers, who have either retired or resigned, will not want to take up the relief teaching job because the rate of remuneration is so miserable. Has the Ministry considered, for example, reviewing its rates of remuneration to attract the right people? $30, or something like that, a day to attract a qualified teacher to do relief teaching? You are asking too much. So I think the problem is: does the Ministry think about the problem in the right direction? From the answer that the Minister of State gave, obviously they have not. Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, may I just be allowed to make certain observations of what the Minister has said. The last Education report we had was chaired by Dr Goh Keng Swee and it highlighted the pass rates of five countries, from primary level all the way up to university level, and the countries compared, I believe, were France, Taiwan, England, Japan and Singapore. We had the lowest pass rates for all the countries, all the way to secondary and 'A' levels, up to university. I note that out of the 10,260 'A' level students who took their examinations, from the results that came out in 1986, less than half passed. Is that what you say? Or half were admitted to the NUS? But anyway, their grades were not good enough. Their grades were not good enough for them to be admitted to the NUS.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, from the Minister of State's reply, I now fully understand why the relief teacher problem is never solved. It is because the Ministry of Education has not got the nub of the problem. He gave a long answer to the effect that there is a big publicity campaign on the attractiveness of the teaching profession. Yes, to a point it is useful to have sufficient numbers of teachers of the right calibre recruited. But supposing we manage to attract sufficient numbers of teachers or a number of people of the right calibre into the teaching profession, and you have filled up your Staff Establishment List of the Education service. What then? Let me use a figure by way of example. 18,000 teachers is all you need and is all that you can have, according to the number of pupils you have. Making teaching an attractive career is not going to solve the problem of relief teachers because with 18,000 teachers on the Establishment List, maximum to capacity, at least 1,000 or 1,500 of them will be on leave for some courses or on maternity leave. And now with this more generous provision of leave for procreation, with a longer leave, more people will be taking leave, I want to ask a question: how is the attractiveness of the teaching profession going to solve this problem? Are you going to employ extra teachers? You cannot, isn't it? So I think sometimes these shortages are temporary and you have to find a way to solve this temporary problem. There may be an abundance of job seekers of the right calibre. That will not help you to solve the relief teacher problem. My point is that while appreciating that we cannot run away from the problem of relief teachers, has the Ministry taken adequate measures to ensure that certain standards are observed?”
“Perhaps the best thing to do now is to take advantage of the recession and the excess of job-seekers to recruit the best in order to resolve the perennial problem of teacher shortage. This is a time of transition. We must ensure a smooth changeover as the young take over from the old. We would do well to provide the younger group, especially those who are assuming positions of responsibility, with some assistance and guidance from the older group. Perhaps we should retain a certain number of the old but experienced principals as consultants to their younger colleagues.”
“In our schools, the relief problem is further aggravated by the predominance of untrained teachers, many of whom are young job seekers waiting for their first job. They come and they go as they please. I appreciate that in the nature of things, the dependency on relief teachers is unavoidable. What I do question is whether enough of effort and imagination have been put into working out a scheme that will ensure the attainment of certain standards in relief teaching, at least in the foreseeable future. Even if this means incurring extra expenditure, the extra money spent is well worth it. On the problem of increasing demand for HSC education, last year the junior colleges were overcrowded because there were more students than what the capacity of the junior colleges could ideally cope. This year the problem is even worse, I believe. I believe there is an excess of several thousand students more than the present capacity of junior colleges could ideally cope. The problem must become more acute in the coming years as a greater number of students will qualify for entry to junior colleges and pre-university centres, with better teaching and learning facilities. Before, most parents would have been satisfied with an 'O' level certificate for their children. Now most parents will not be happy with nothing less than an 'A' level certificate. We should also be concerned that over the next few years we will be losing the services of some 1,000 to 2,000 experienced principals and teachers in both primary and secondary schools who will be retiring. This coupled with the fact that we are already engaging a large number of relief teachers means that we will be extremely short, not only in terms of numbers, but more important, in terms of experience.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LA-01-1210 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, with so much attention now focussed on independent schools and the recomendations of the 12 principals, is the Ministry going to neglect other areas of concern that need equal urgent attention of the Ministry of Education? I refer specifically to three issues, namely, the heavy dependence on relief teaching, the problem of coping with increasing demand for HSC education and the depletion of experienced teachers through retirement. To me, the problem of relief teachers has to be given urgent attention in its present drive for excellence in schools. No matter how much is done to improve on the quality of teachers and education, the efforts will be negated by our heavy dependence on relief teachers. This problem is going to be compounded many-fold by the introduction of more generous leave provisions for female officers in the Civil Serice. Not only the present number of relief teachers will be doubled, but also the period of leave in some instances will be extended beyond six months. Need I to say of the dire consequences this will have on the education of those affected? The problem is even more acute in the girls' schools where almost all the teachers are female, especially if the set of Government incentives on procreation works. The problem of relief teachers is not new. Yet a complete or even a partial solution seems so elusive. Now it is going to become more acute. When relief teachers take over, it is not only upsetting to the pupils' pace of learning but also disruptive. The problem will be less if all the relief teachers were trained teachers.”
“Mr Chairman, on the question of converting RI to an independent school, I think the Minister must take note of this point. Converting schools to independent schools is a project under experiment. In other words, we are not sure of the pluses or the minuses. It is a good idea. We should try. And since Singapore is so short of talents and RI is the place where we capture the talents, and so also a few other schools, I think we cannot at this stage of experimentation bank all we have in as far as our small pool of talents on experimentation. So can we not wait until the appropriate time? If the independent school concept and the proposal is a very successful project and it has got a lot of features which are desirable, then not only RI should go independent but more schools should go independent. The question is: at this point of time, should we not be more prudent in the way we manage our human resources, especially when we are in short supply of talents and when we have got to be very careful in the way we nurture our talents? And RI's way of nurturing talents all these years has produced results. Until we are sure of a new approach, let us not experiment with it.”
“Take it away and it will be perceived as taking away the hopes of the poor bright pupils. If at all the Ministry should allow an aided school to go independent, it would be to provide a welcome diversity and contrast to the state schools.”
“But, of course, the quality of attention and the quality of education will be that much improved if the class size is reduced. There is no lack of effort, no lack of enthusiasm on the part of teachers. But if you want quality, reduction of class size will achieve it. Thank you. Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Chairman, Sir, you have heard my Committee members express their views. We are glad that the Minister has identified the four areas concerned - single session schools and ancillary support for principals, reducing class size to create a more creative teaching environment, pastoral care, career guidance in secondary and junior colleges, and the greater flexibility and autonomy given to schools. I do not want to add further to the comments made by my Committee members, except to ask one question: why is it that they are concentrating so much on secondary schools? I would have thought primary schools should be considered first because it is in primary schools that we teach our children good habits, good behaviour, good attitudes. I was wondering whether we are putting the cart before the horse. When my colleague, the Member for Moulmein, mentioned RI, being an old boy of RI I must also respond. Yes, if you let RI go independent, I think we are going to have more dissatisfied parents. RI holds out hope for many parents. It is a good school. Many of us in this House come from that school and we are proud to be called Rafflesians. Do not take this hope away from many parents. Improve it by all means through the incorporation of the many recommendations. Reducing the intake into RI, which must inevitably happen if it goes independent, will definitely dash the hopes of many parents. You must remember, it is a desired school.”
“Perhaps, Mr Chairman, Sir, this is a very unfair and pessimistic projection of the kind of product of the proposed independent schools. But I think it is worth thinking about what the product can be if we are not careful about what kind of inputs that are put into the independent schools. One final comment on what the Member for Potong Pasir said about classroom size. While everyone of us welcomes the reduction of class size, I could not let his comment go unchallenged when he said that, because of the 40-pupil class size, therefore teachers were deterred from doing a lot of things. Despite the 40-pupil class size, teachers have all the while not been deterred to do extra things. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Making RI an independent school will cause a feeling of unease among the middle income and lower income group of parents. This feeling of unease is still present despite assurances given that scholarships will be given to children of poor background. Coming to the product, the possible product of the independent schools. What will the product be? Will the product of the independent schools likely to be accustomed to having the best of everything - the best teachers, the best facilities and amenities, the best academic and aesthetic programmes, etc? He will be spoon-fed with excellence and then on leaving school will expect the best treatment from society since he is such a privileged person. Society owes him a living since he has been specially groomed; it is a matter of course that he should get preferential treatment in the job market and that he deserves the best-paying job. It is his right to expect this since he has the ability to do well in examinations. He is less likely to want to talk about his obligations and debt to the society that raised and supported him. In his spare time, he will be more inclined to take out his violin or paint brushes rather than don sports shoes to play a game. Although participation in sports and games is implied, it will be observed that it is under-emphasized in the "Recommendations of the Principals". One would think that it is important to inculcate the spirit of sportsmanship and to develop a team spirit. In all, one does not get the picture of a rugged (another popular word at one time!), red-blooded Singaporean but of a pallid, snooty, arty-crafty, bookish person, more inclined to look out for himself than for others.”
“If the intention of the Government in setting up a few independent schools is to inject an element of competition in the way our schools are run, in my view the best approach to achieve the objective is to let a top Government school (run as a Government school) compete with a Christian Mission school and a Chinese school (run as independent schools). If RI (Raffles Institution), the top Government school, is turned into an independent school, it will effectively eliminate an essential element in the competition. RI, for more than a hundred years, has existed as a Government school. It has also existed as the premier school among all schools, both Government and non-Government. It can be said that one of the powerful forces behind ACS successes is its Christian missionary zeal that rallies the Methodist community behind the school. In the case of the more traditional Chinese schools, it is the sentiments for the Chinese language and culture that draws from the Chinese community strong support. When ACS and one of the Chinese schools become independent, they will have very powerful forces behind them to ensure their success. RI is different. RI old boys have a different sense of pride. RI is always 100% Government backed. It is the premier school. It is always treated more than just a school, it is an institution. The only school in Singapore treated as an institution is RI. It is the pride of the then colonial Government and the pride of the present Government. RI shines because of its special and prima donna status as a national educational institution. Remove that status and the force behind RI's eminence will considerably weaken. RI, for more than a hundred years, has always held out hopes to all bright students irrespective of their social background.”
“Sir, I welcome the response of the Minister for Education. I think he has got the priorities right and I wish him luck and success in the education direction that he is charting for the Ministry of Education. On the proposal to set up independent schools, I have only three areas of concern. The first is the confusion that the current debate has created in the minds of many. Secondly, what the product of the proposed independent schools will be and, thirdly, converting Raffles Institution into an independent school. I believe the principal argument behind the Government's proposal to set up independent schools is this. There is a danger of our schools which are centrally controlled, remaining stereotyped; the bureaucracy may stifle initiative and educational innovations. With a few schools going independent, an element of competition can be injected into the way our schools are run, and comparisons can then be made between the strengths and the weaknesses of the different approaches. There is merit in the argument. But unfortunately, as the Member for Ayer Rajah and the Member for Changkat have pointed out, the present debate on the setting up of independent schools takes a different twist. It appears that the real intention of the Government is lost. In the minds of many, independent schools mean excellence, and only by going independent can schools achieve excellence. This assumption is misconceived. Excellence can be achieved whether schools are state schools or independent schools. What determines excellence finally is the quality of the principals, the teachers, the pupils and the kind of facilities available.”
“While some of the recommendations, like making all secondary schools single-session and reducing the present teacher/pupil ratio sound good on paper, the problem is implementing them. Three essential ingredients are absolutely essential before we can hope to achieve them, namely, billions of dollars extra, large numbers of job applicants of the right calibre for teaching jobs and time. I am not sure even in 10 years' time whether we are able to achieve anything near the targets we set.”
“Such an emphasis may be justified in the United Kingdom and the United States because there are opportunities to satisfy those who are interested in such activities. But can the same be said of Singapore? Furthermore, can our society really support musicians and artists and afford them a decent standard of living if they are intent on such matters? Let us be realistic and practical and accept that for education to be meaningful it must prepare the young for the realities of their adult life. For one thing, they must be able to earn a living. Another important effect of this emphasis is that it seems to detract from the national pre-occupation of building rugged, self-reliant Singaporeans. While we fully support the suggestion that aesthetic education needs to be encouraged, we think that the curriculum proposed should be more carefully balanced so that it is in consonance with our national aspirations. The spirit of patriotism, for example, needs to be nurtured. Total defence is a theme very close to our hearts these days. At present, we have a fairly well developed education system which maintains a healthy balance between meeting the individual needs of the child and preparing him to be a good person and a loyal citizen who is capable of earning a decent living and playing his part as a member of our society. We must be willing to admit that our education system is not perfect and we should make improvements where these are necessary and desirable. Even if we are, is this desirable in the context of the need for the right subject combinations as a set of criteria for admission into university?”
“Even if we are, is this desirable in the context of the need for the right subject combinations as a set of criteria for admission to University? Generally, the pupils offer seven subjects for their 'O' levels. Brighter pupils may offer eight subjects. Of these, four are core subjects, namely English, Second Language, Mathematics D and a Science subject from five Science subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry, Pure Physics, Pure Chemistry, Biology or Human Social Biology. They may then select three or four subjects, as the case may be, from a group of elective subjects. These include Additional Mathematics, Literature, History, Geography, Home Economics, Art, Music and certain technical subjects. It is required that Science students do a humanities subject and vice-versa. The problem is that for admission into pre-university, polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic certain subject combinations are necessary and others are not given due weightage (eg. Polytechnic does not recognize Human and Social Biology as a Science subject). So one or two years ago, the Ministry of Education came up with a list of more than 10 recommended subject combinations which the schools may follow. Generally, certain elective subjects like Literature, History and Geography are favoured by our pupils and rightly so. After all, these subjects have their intrinsic value. We must encourage in our pupils a sense of both our geographical and historical positions. In the light of all this, it is difficult to see how much more flexible the curriculum can be. In the area of extra-curricular activities, the emphasis of the Report seems to be on the raising of standards in art, music and drama and the encouragement of cultural activities.”
“He should be a skilful manager who sets the tone and provides the conducive environment in which teachers will be encouraged to be creative and innovative in their teaching. Such an atmosphere cannot be achieved by coercion or threat; indeed these tend to stifle creativity and initiative and to produce hostile feelings. Sometimes this hostility may not manifest itself overtly, but may find expression in indifference, lack of enthusiasm or interest and minimal contribution. The underlying cause may be deep-seated resentment of the authoritarian style of the principal conceited enough to think that everyone else besides himself is misguided and foolish. A principal who runs down his staff habitually could very often be the root cause of the problem. We believe that the Report provides a lopsided view of the agents of change. Much more emphasis should have been given to the role of good teachers and the effect they can have on the whole tone and tenor of the school. The Principals' Report also recommends that principals be "encouraged to exercise flexibility to decide curricula, subject to the requirements arising from national considerations as well as an understanding of the place of national examinations." It is hard to see how, in a rigidly examination-oriented system like ours, there can be more flexibility than already exists. Our society emphasizes the importance of achievement in examinations as an indication of capability and merit. It also regards certain school subjects as central and others as peripheral and thus good results in these subjects matter. Also flexibility may imply that beyond the core subjects a child may do any subject he or she chooses to do. Within our present constraints, are we in a position to provide for this?”
“It is also questionable whether it is indeed wise to allow the individual philosophy of the principal to be the educational philosophy of his school, even if his philosophy takes into the total development of the child. Surely it is our national philosophy that must take precedence over that of an individual. The Report tends to over-rate the importance of the principal and to overlook the importance of teachers in the quest for excellence. Doubtless, the principal is a key figure in this quest but it should be emphasized that, of his own accord, he can achieve little despite all his talents. He is the leader of the team but it is the quality and composition of the team that is all-important. Talented, dedicated, effective teachers are absolutely essential in bringing about the transformation of a school. It is the good classroom teacher, the salt of excellence, who can tease out the potential of every child, develop his skills, abilities and knowledge, mould and shape his character and impart the values we cherish in our society. It is the classroom teacher coming into daily contact with pupils who can achieve this most important task and not the principal ensconced in his office. It is the job of the principal to ensure that the best conditions exist for achieving this task and that the teacher is not hindered in his work with pupils by mountains of paper work and administrative chores that ancillary staff might well deal with. The best thing a good principal can do is to provide teachers with the necessary administrative support to assist teachers to fulfil their professional tasks effectively. To motivate such a staff to give of their best, a principal will need, in the first place, to learn to respect his staff and to listen to their views.”
“Sir, as the Member for Ayer Rajah said, the recommendations made in the 12 principals' Report are not new. They are what teachers have been clamouring for many years now. We are all aware of the ingredients that go into the making of a good school - smaller enrolments, lower teacher/pupil ratio, adequate ancillary staff, better physical facilities and so on. The problem is one of finance. We may do well to set our priorities in education and deal with them in a rational manner. The Principals' Report seems to support the view that the headmaster, if given the authority to select his teachers and appoint key personnel, everything is fine and excellence will be achieved. I think the problem is not as simple as that. To find a person of this calibre is no easy task and yet, according to the Report, it is crucial to the system. On the other hand, to choose someone of a lesser calibre is to let loose a bigot who will try to enforce his own brand of education which may be misguided and dangerous. Given such power and authority, he may so impose his will that he will brook no opposition to his ideas, even though these might be highly questionable. It is doubtful if he will then be able to foster team spirit, although he will probably get a semblance of cooperation from teachers afraid to speak their minds. To be truly effective, a principal needs to be an informed, mature and wise person who believes in a consultative style of management, who gives a willing ear to good counsel from his teachers and who has the courage to act knowing that his decisions are fully abetted by his staff. After all, the considered opinions of a good professional staff are not to be belittled since they can see aspects of a problem that he might not have perceived.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could I ask the Minister of State whether dependency on relief teachers would not negate all the efforts of the Ministry of Education towards excellence in schools? The problem, as it is, is bad enough. So ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister of State for Education whether this dependency on relief teachers will become worse, now that the Ministry of Finance has announced that very generous leave could be allowed for female officers in view of its present drive on procreation? Is it not true that there are some 18,000 teachers in the Education Service today? And is it also not true that out of these 18,000 teachers about 60% are females? If that is the case, there would be about 10,000 female teachers. Now, assuming that out of these 10,000 female teachers, 30% are within the fertile age and that only one-third take advantage of this scheme, will not the problem of dependency on relief teachers be worsened by two-fold? So if the figure, as quoted by the Minister of State ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could I ask the Minister for Education whether or not one of the intentions of his Ministry, in increasing the fees as well as providing this loan, is to impress upon our young citizens in the University that the State is paying quite a great deal for their education and that when they graduate they are to pay back part of that cost to the University? If that is not one of the intentions, should it not be one of the intentions? If that is the intention, is it not wrong to suggest that the parents' CPF be used for this purpose? Because the buck will be passed to the parents and not to the students. I think the intention is to impress upon the students that the State is already paying so much for their education - "This is part of your cost and you must bear this responsibility." So I would like to ask the Minister: is this one of the intentions and, if not, should this not be one of the intentions in his move to raise the fee and have this loan scheme? Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Moulmein is absolutely right. It is important to impress on our University students that they are a very privileged lot and that their very expensive education has been very heavily subsidized by the Government at the expense of other taxpayers. As I have said in my statement, Sir, University students when they graduate can aspire to be members of very highly paid professions. And it is only fair that, after they have had the benefit of a University education subsidized by the Government, they should pay back part of the subsidy after they have graduated. In this case, I think that one good result out of this increase of university fees is that we will have a very responsible student population at NUS and at NTI.”
“Yes. My question was whether further instances of corruption have surfaced as a result of the investigation.”
“Mr Prime Minister, in the process of the investigation of these two cases of alleged corruption, were there other instances of alleged corruption involving Mr Teh surfaced in the process of this investigation during the period of the investigation in the last few weeks?”
“Can we afford to let our schools be understaffed continually in as far as trained teachers are concerned and expect to improve the quality of education? Surely the Education Ministry is aware that the shortage of trained teachers is also putting an extra strain on the existing trained teachers. They have to teach more periods than desired. If this situation continues, it will only impair their efficiency. In the teaching service, there should be an increase in staffing, not a decrease for the reasons that I have just stated. I am perturbed over the recent announcement that the Government is going to trim the civil service establishment by some 10% over the next five years. While not disagreeing with the need for such an exercise where it is not only applicable but desirable, I must urge that the trimming should not be done in a blind haste. In the teaching service, what is required is not trimming but the filling up of an under-strength staffing position. I am sure the Education Ministry under a very able Minister understands the problems that I have just outlined. I only hope that the Ministry of Finance and the PSC will lend a sympathetic ear and support the Education Ministry in its drive to improve the quality of education in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Address last year on the Ministry of Education, it was stressed that teachers and principals are central to any improvement in the quality of education. How well teachers and principals perform their role in schools and help to improve the quality of education will depend on several factors, such as: (a) Good service conditions and prospects to attract capable young men and women to join the teaching service; (b) Adequate training programmes for upgrading and prospects for promotion, adequate staffing of trained teachers; (c) A conducive working environment in schools; and (d) Public recognition. If these factors are taken care of, then teachers' morale will be high and their ouput optimal. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now turn to the subject of relief teachers. This is a perennial problem that the Education Ministry faces. Every year, criticisms are levelled at the Ministry of Education for not solving this problem once and for all. One of the reasons given in the past was that the Education Ministry was not able to attract the right people in sufficient numbers into the teaching service. Today, with the recession, there should not be any difficulty in attracting capable young men and women with the necessary qualifications to join the teaching service. In fact, in the recent recruitment exercise, the Ministry of Education had no difficulty recruiting some 600 graduates as temporary teachers. What better time can the Education Ministry find than now to recruit capable people into the teaching service. Is it not time to solve the problem of relief teachers once and for all, as it is an impediment to quality education?”
“The First Deputy Prime Minister had several meetings with trade union leaders from the affiliated unions of the NTUC to discuss with them these issues so as to get a feel of what they think about Government's proposal to make certain adjustments on matters like the CPF cut and wage reforms. The Secretary-General of NTUC himself convened several meetings with leaders of affiliated unions to discuss these issues, and got them to express their views so that their views on issues affecting labour could be channelled to the Government directly. Even as late as yesterday, there was another meeting of trade union leaders with the NTUC Secretary-General. All these views have not only been communicated orally to the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry and to the First Deputy Prime Minister but they will also be presented to the Government in a written form so that the Government, in deciding to what extent the Economic Committee Report could be accepted, would take into account the views of the trade unions. And the trade unions have every reason to believe that these views will be duly considered. I just want to take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, Sir, to disabuse what the Member for Anson is trying to put across - that these views do not represent the majority. In fact, as far as wage policy is concerned and as far as the CPF cut is concerned, as far as matters affecting labour are concerned, very thorough and numerous discussions have been held, and the response is the response of not just a few trade union leaders at the NTUC level but also at the trade union level. 12.53 pm”
“Do not interrupt me. Mr Speaker, could you please tell the Member for Anson that he should give me a chance? If he believes in democratic right, he should give me the democratic right to express my views. By its very nature, the business of the Economic Committee must surely be to discuss how to make business more viable. These are matters that concern businessmen, people who are involved in the economic sector of our life. Therefore, it is quite natural for this Committee to be largely represented by people from the different business sectors, because they know what are the problems of doing business and how to overcome the difficulties so that business can carry on unhampered, and progress. How many of the trade union representatives should be there? Is one enough or not enough? I think, as far as NTUC is concerned, it is adequate to have one representative there because there would be a lot of questions discussed at the Economic Committee which have got nothing to do with labour. But there would be certain recommendations, certain issues affecting labour, like, for example, a cut in the CPF rate, wage restraint policy and wage reform policy. I want to enlighten the Member for Anson that issues like these are not the only issues discussed at the Economic Committee meetings because there will be other issues. These issues are discussed not only at these meetings but also outside. For example, apart from their own trade union meetings, the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry met leaders of trade unions and discussed with them on issues affecting labour. He gave his views. He listened to the views of representatives of all the trade unions.”
“The NTUC member represented in the Economic Committee was an official of the NTUC elected at the triennial delegates conference of the NTUC held last year. He was not appointed by the Government. This is a historical fact. He was selected by the Central Committee of the NTUC to represent them. Now, what is the nature of the economic ---”
“I am using the argument of the Member for Potong Pasir. If the analysis of the Member for Potong Pasir was correct, then our present difficulties could be attributed to the fact that we lost two seats in 1984. I was listening intently to the Member for Anson's contribution to help solve our present economic problems. Today we all face the reality of this serious economic crisis and all of us are concerned with our future well-being. So we look forward to contributions from all quarters, including the Member for Anson. But unfortunately, we heard nothing of that sort. Instead we heard the usual barrages of criticism against the Government and also the NTUC. I just want to clarify with him one or two points with regard to his comments on the NTUC and its role in this Committee. On the composition of the Economic Committee, he mentioned that there was only one representative. And that was not enough. He went on further to denigrate my colleague and asked whether he was a Government appointee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson asked the question what went wrong between 1982 and 1985. In fact, the answer was in some way provided by the Member for Potong Pasir yesterday. You will recall, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir came to the strange conclusion that the present difficulties that we are in at the moment are due to political reasons and not economic reasons. He mentioned the dominance of the PAP in Parliament. In fact, he got the facts quite wrong. If he was right in concluding that the present difficulties were political and not economic, if he was right, I am using his arguments, the historical fact is that from 1968 to 1982 in this Parliament, all were PAP Members. Our economic growth was double digit, almost double digit, all the while. 1982, we lost one seat. So our economy went tottering. 1984, we lost two seats. So if the Member for Potong Pasir was right in his analysis that the causes were political and not economic ---”
“I am talking about the soliciting of funds.”
“No. I am not talking about the merits and demerits of the case. I am talking about ---”
“For example, if the ex-Member for Boon Teck, who had been charged with a criminal offence, turned to soliciting for funds so that he could take up his defence, I think it was not whether he was guilty or not, but I think the very act of soliciting for funds for a criminal charge, whether he was guilty or not guilty is a matter of ---”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson in his statement was trying to imply that the PAP MPs did not stand up on principles and, because of Party directives, compromised their scruples and allowed themselves to go against their conscience and just voted for the Party's directives. If I understood him correctly, this was what he meant. I think this is the most insulting thing that he has said of the PAP MPs. If he were to refer to the proceedings of this House in the last 10 or 15 years, and if he is honest in his assessment, he will notice that PAP MPs have stood up in this House to challenge Ministers' statements and Government policies on several occasions. They had not flinched when the moments came. But, of course, there were also moments in which they believed in what the Government was trying to do. Of course, the Opposition will never agree with the PAP's ideology and philosophy. And the fact that PAP MPs belong to the PAP must indicate that they believe also in the philosophies and ideologies of the PAP. Therefore, what is wrong for the PAP MPs, on matters of fundamentals which the PAP believes in, to stand with the party? It is perfectly in order. I think the point behind the motion of the Member for Siglap is this. Let me be very specific so that the Member for Anson cannot say that we are trying to dodge.”