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 3 of 13.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with deep shock for me and, I am sure, for hon. Members, to learn from you that the President has tendered his resignation owing to the seriousness of his illness. He has striven to be a good President, to be worthy of the highest office in our land, doing his utmost for Singapore, With hon. Members' permission, may I, on their behalf and on my own behalf, extend to the President and to the family of the President our best wishes for a speedy recovery of the President.”
“I think, Mr Speaker, you, myself and many Backbenchers share the same sentiment with the Minister for Education. Although we had many heated controversial sessions during the Budget debates on Education in previous years, they never seemed to be able to solve the problems of Education. We share in the wish and hope that perhaps the Budget debate under the heading "Education Ministry" next year will be a non-event in terms of heat and controversy. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,469,641,500 for Head L ordered to stand pan of the Main Estimates. The sum of $472,056,400 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“Even if you have a Law degree, I can assure you that you still do not know how to teach. This is the concern of the teachers, because you can undo what the schools are trying to do. You may teach the wrong thing! It is a serious matter. It is not meant as a flippant remark, but I think it is a serious matter. When we talk about private tuition, there must also be qualitative control. Anyway, I could go on, but since the Member for Anson is not here, I do not want to be unfair to him and go further on this. I also want to take the time now to say a few words in tribute to the Minister for Education. After all, if he could earn a compliment from the Member for Anson, I think it is only logical that from the PAP Backbenchers, and when I say so, I say it not only saying on my behalf but also on behalf of my fellow PAP Backbenchers, but if any PAP Backbencher disagrees he can dissociate himself from me. I think the Minister for Education deserves our greatest tribute for this excellent Budget debate on Education, not in terms of the debating style and the eloquence, but in terms of the decisions that he made on four very vital controversial issues. And those decisions would have very far-reaching and favourable impact on the lives of Singaporeans, particularly in regard to education. And I think many Singaporeans who heard the news last night through TV and read the newspapers this morning have reason to feel relieved that four bugbears concerning education will be removed as a result of very enlightened decisions made by the Minister. The Minister has expressed the wish that after he has solved these problems, perhaps next year the Budget debate will have less controversy.”
“I know, Mr Speaker. I am going to withdraw my amendment, but before I withdraw the amendment, since there are a few minutes left, could I just take the opportunity to do two things. One is to comment very briefly on what the Member for Anson has said; unfortunately he is not here. The other is to pay a tribute to the Minister for Education. In regard to the first matter from the Member for Anson - actually I would prefer if he was here, but unfortunately he is not here - he talks about the lowering of the standard of English. This is a very subjective matter. Of course, even in England they talk about the lowering of standard of English today and in many places. We have got universal education to cater for all Singaporeans. When we compare the school population today with the school population 20 years ago, where only a minority were able to go to school, of course, today when this quantitative element is involved, we can always pick a small group and use that as a yardstick when we talk about standards. I think he used a group of students in his constituency, the people who wanted some help in tuition, as a yardstick. He made mention to us that he gave tuition. I do not know whether he was trying to make political capital out of his statement that he gave tuition, apart from handling Meet-the-People sessions. What I want to know is, is he a qualified teacher? It is a serious matter because I remember the Straits Times came out with an excellent article some two years back analysing the problem of private tuition in Singapore. Children are put under tremendous pressure, and that today we have a sudden mushrooming of private tutors who are unqualified, people who have never known the principles of teaching; you know, HSC students, and so forth.”
“But was it not true that there was a principal who, having reached the age of 53" years, 12 years more to go before retirement and who had served more than 10 years as a principal was sent back to the school? How come you did not find this principal to be ineffective all those years and suddenly you found him to be ineffective? And with 1 1/2 years more to go, how unkind it was to send this particular principal back to teach in Primary 3. It is not just the case of this particular principal that I am talking about. You know how it affected him. Of course, I felt sorry for him. But think how this kind of move can affect the morale of the whole teaching profession in particular the principals? Every year, is the Ministry of Education going to have an exercise to remove 30-40 principals from the scene? Is it not true that there is an unwritten rule that those appointed by the Public Service Commission should remain until they either commit certain misconduct or mismanagement? What then were the reasons for the redeployment? Were they told about their inefficiency, or have they committed anything wrong? It is this kind of action that makes it very difficult for the Ministry of Education to get teachers to become principals.”
“One is his answer to the Member for Geylang Serai about the 'A' level teachers not getting their increments, and the Minister of State has said that they get the consolation of knowing that from there they will proceed to the University. But how many of them do proceed to the University? The point that the Ministry missed is this. In the past, before 1981, there was a scheme to grant two increments for those who obtained 'A levels. This scheme was in existence all this while. And there is the provision in the salary structure that those who enter the teaching service with 'A' level qualifications get two increments above those with 'O' levels. So there is some kind of consistency in the policy in the past regarding 'A' level qualifications. In the Ministry of Education, there is also an incentive scheme for those with 'O' levels who got distinctions in three subjects - English language, Science and Mathematics - to get three increments. Are you saying that those who obtained their 'A' levels do not merit the two increments which were given to them all these years, and that those who obtained three 'O' level distinctions are entitled to three increments? Of course, I agree that you give incentives to those with 'O' level distinctions. That is fine. But there seems to be an inconsistency in the policy if incentives for 'A' levels are withheld. Now, the other point is the answer given to the Member for Bukit Batok about the redeployment of principals. I think what was not mentioned was that last year some 40-odd principals were redeployed and sent back to schools. That was the point that I think the Member for Bukit Batok was trying to bring out. And the Minister of State explained away the policies, the importance of principals, training courses and so forth.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I withdraw, I would like to make two brief comments against the time that I have under the amendment. I do not want an answer from the Minister of State and I will withdraw it at the end of the discussion.”
“Sir, you do not want me to withdraw the amendment?”
“Before I withdraw the amendment, could I just react to the points raised by the Hon. Education Minister in regard to the choice that he is talking about? It is true that at present the choice is given, but then what kind of choice are you giving them if they are to go from Monolingual to Normal which is at the other extreme end. It is difficult, and it is a two-year difference? 3.00 pm If they go to the Normal stream, it is a six-year primary education. If they go to the Extended, it is eight years. The difference is too long. So you have got to make it more acceptable for them. I think most parents are sensible. They do not want to push their children, but you must make it easy for them to make the choice so that they can opt for the pace that their children can cope with. Sir, in view of the very satisfactory reply -”
“What is more critical is the opportunity given to every child to sit for the PSLE so that our policy of according equal opportunity of education to every Singaporean child who is not educationally sub-normal is upheld.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, I recognize the fact that there are slow developers. And that is why I objected to the present streaming policy in which pupils could be streamed into the Monolingual stream. At Primary 3 level, it is too early to determine whether they are academically able or not able. If they are streamed into the Monolingual Stream, then they are deprived of an opportunity to sit for the PSLE. So that is not right. But if my proposal to abolish the Monolingual stream is accepted, everybody will have the chance to sit for the PSLE. One extra year, that is about all and sometimes that extra year can be very helpful. If at the end, either of a three-year or four-year upper primary education, every child has got the chance to sit for the PSLE, then the slow developer is not deprived of that opportunity to sit for the PSLE and proceed to secondary school. So he has not lost anything under the proposal that I have made. In regard to the high enrolment in schools of 40 pupils in a class, of course, ideally if that number could be reduced to 30 or so, it will be fine. But because of the constraints, maybe at this stage it will be not possible to lower the enrolment. It has also been proved in countries like Thailand, for example, where they have come out with a very amazing study and experience that in certain rural schools where they are so short of space and teachers, they have classes with as many as 90 pupils. And the professionals in those areas have concluded that even with a class of that size, they could still do well because they use a different system. While it is desirable to have a small enrolment, that is not critical.”
“Sir, may I answer the Member for Potong Pasir?”
“I do not expect the Education Minister to react immediately to my proposals, but I will commend him to take my proposals into consideration when he reviews the present education policy on streaming.”
“So I met some 50-odd principals and teachers from junior colleges, secondary and primary schools and discussed with them whether the proposals I have just mentioned are educationally sound and can be implemented effectively in schools, taking into account that the Education Ministry is firmly adopting streaming as a policy. The general response is an overwhelming yes. Finally, I would like to draw the attention of the House to another problematic aspect of streaming. Many teachers have questioned the wisdom of using such negative labels such as Extended and Monolingual. Labels of this nature have a deleterious effect on the morale of less able students. Now, it has been found that teachers tend to have poor expectation of pupils who have been labelled as slow learners. It has been shown to be psychological truth that pupils tend to perform according to expectation. Treat them as if they are inferior and they will usually turn out to be inferior, This is referred to as the self-fulfilling prophecy syndrome. Pupils who have been labelled as Monolingual or Extended also tend to feel the stigma of being classified as inferior beings. In a recent study, it has been shown that the behaviour in these classes is particularly bad and teachers tend to dread dealing with these pupils. Is this bad behaviour symptomatic and is this the resentment pupils in these classes must feel? Is this not a self-imposed problem? It will be noted that we do not have this problem before these labels began to be used. I would like to ask whether there is really a necessity to use such labels. That is why I have proposed that in the upper Primary, the Monolingual stream be abolished and the present Normal and Extended streams be renamed Express and Normal streams.”
“There are those who will not be able to go beyond their primary education and those who will not be able to get 3 or more 'O' level passes. Our examination system will determine who passes and at what level. Let me now propose to the Hon. Minister the following modifications to the present streaming policy and procedures. With reference to primary schools: (a) the existing Monolingual stream should be abolished. Make special arrangements for the educationally subnormal children; (b) the present Normal and Extended streams in the primary level be renamed Express and Normal streams. The Express stream should take three years and the Normal stream four years before PSLE; (c) Primary 6 children in the Express stream who fail at the PSLE should be allowed to repeat Primary 6 in the Normal stream; and (d) Primary 6 children in the Normal stream who fail at the PSLE should be allowed to repeat one more year. 11.30 am With reference to secondary schools: (a) Children, after having sat for the PSLE and passed, should be channelled to the present Secondary Express stream or Normal stream; (b) Children, after having sat for the PSLE but failed after repeated sittings for the PSLE, should be channelled to the VITB after a one-year proficiency course in English and Mathematics; and (c) The stipulation, that those who sit for N4 must satisfy present criteria before they are allowed to proceed to N5, should be removed. Instead, those who pass in three subjects inclusive of English, ie, those with 5 points and below for each subject, should be allowed to proceed to N5. I am aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is very easy to offer ideas on how the education system should be restructured, but more often than not, the ideas are difficult to implement.”
“Is it not true that in the past a student at Secondary 3, after having passed the school examination which, by the way, is not usually as difficult as a national examination set by Cambridge, could proceed to Secondary 4 and sit for the GCE 'O' level? Is it not true that the grading for the CSE examination set by Cambridge for N4 students ranges from 1-6 points, and those who scored 1-5 points for any subject are considered to have passed? In other words, those who have scored 5 points also passed, except that it is a weak pass. So a student with 5 points for English should be considered to have passed his English paper, and if he also obtains 5 points in two other subjects, he should be considered to have passed. If this is so, then should not the aggregate for the best three subjects, inclusive of English, be 15 points as the criterion for entry to N5? Mr Speaker, Sir, I have mentioned two obnoxious features of the present streaming system. These, to me and to many others, make the present streaming system so unacceptable. Many parents and teachers can perhaps accept streaming if, at the end of it, children are not deprived of an opportunity to sit for our two very important national examinations, namely, the PSLE and the 'O' level. True, not all children are born equally endowed, but are not all Singaporean children entitled to an equal opportunity in education? If streaming is to let every child learn at his own pace, then streaming should let every child have an equal opportunity to sit for the PSLE and the 'O' level. I am painfully aware that even with the equal opportunity accorded, not every child is going to pass the PSLE or the 'O' level.”
“To every primary school child and his parents, the opportunity to sit for the PSLE is very important, as it provides the child with a passport to further education in a secondary school. He may pass or fail, and he knows that there can be no guarantee of success. But what he should have, after completing his primary education, whether he takes six years or eight years, is an opportunity to sit for the PSLE. Is he asking too much or are his parents asking too much for just an opportunity to sit for the PSLE? The answer must surely be in the negative. Today, the opportunity for a primary school child to sit for the PSLE after completion of his primary education is dependent on which stream he is placed in after the Primary 3 examination. Is it any wonder that parents with children in Primary 1, 2, and 3 are losing sleep and getting neurotic over the possibility that their children might end up in the Monolingual stream? This is why we hear that even Primary 1 children are receiving private tuition. How much more absurd can the situation become? The secondary school student who happens to be placed in the Normal stream faces the uncertainty of whether he will have a chance to sit for the 'O' level, because at N4 level, he must sit for a national examination set by the Cambridge Syndicate. And even though he passed, if he fails to obtain an aggregate of 9 points for 3 subjects, inclusive of English which must be at least 3 points, he will not be allowed to proceed to N5. Why should such an obstacle now be placed in his path? Why should such a high standard be set?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.* In moving this amendment, I wish to take this opportunity to comment on the streaming policy of the Education Ministry, particularly in regard to the manner in which it is implemented. The Hon. Minister for Education, on 7th March in this House, in his statement pointed out the fact that streaming is not new. Let me quote what he said: 'Putting children into various streams, so that they can learn at their own pace, simply recognizes the fact that those who are clever can learn fast, and those who are not so clever can also learn but at a slower pace. Streaming is not a new concept. It existed from the time when all of us were school children. The cleverest pupils were put into the A class, those who were not-so-clever into the B or the C class, right down to the G and H classes.' While there is no denying the validity of his statement, there is also no denying that there has never been so much criticism and objection to the way streaming has been implemented at present. Why is this so? The reasons are plain and simple. Streaming as implemented at present does more than just providing students with varying abilities to learn at their own pace. It also unfortunately deprives certain groups, such as the Monolingual at the primary level, from having an opportunity to sit for the PSLE, and the majority of N4 students from proceeding to N5 where they can sit for the 'O' level examination. Now this, to put it in a nutshell, is the underlying cause of so much frustration and dissatisfaction with the system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three amendments* under this Head. May I have your permission to move the first and third amendments, and have your permission to speak for 20 minutes since there are two amendments involved and the subjects are interrelated.”
“Can I just complete it? We have to be realistic in that to attract them we have to compensate them adequately. So it is in that context that we have to look at the Ministers' salaries.”
“But if you look at the salary of the Prime Minister in the context of the whole Civil Service, it is higher than any civil servant. So is the Minister's salary pegged, if not above, at least very close to the Permanent Secretary's salary. So if we are not to demean the Office of the Minister or the Prime Minister, an adequate recognition ought to be given to such office. And if we recognize that our top civil servants earn so much, then it is obvious that a Minister, who is above a Permanent Secretary, must get the same if not more, in order that he can acquit himself with dignity, because he has got to give directives to the Permanent Secretary. Earlier the Member mentioned that in a political office, the holder must give public service, and he brought in the national service. You cannot compare the two. In the case of the national service, it is only for two years. He is given an allowance. Many of the young men do not have family commitments. In the case of political appointments, and in our situation where we want the best to lead us not just for two years, three years, or for four years, but for as long as they are able to lead us and continue to bring progress to Singapore for a long, long time. In a way, it is a career. We want the best talents from all sectors, whether from the private sector or, from the public sector to come in.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to comment on this paper that the Member for Anson has distributed to us. He makes certain comparisons between the Prime Minister's pay and the Ministers' pay of other countries with those of Singapore. I think he has left out the important perks in the other countries which add up to the kind of rewards that are given to the political figures. In Malaysia, there are other perks, while in Singapore, except for salaries, there is nothing else. In Australia, for example, I know for certain that a Member of Parliament, not to mention about Ministers, after a few years is given first-class travel, I think, with his wife to any part of the world to educate himself. All these should be included when you calculate how much a Minister gets. 3.00 pm The Member also said the Office of the Prime Minister should not be demeaned as a result of us talking about salaries. If he takes a look at the salary of the Malaysian Prime Minister, I am quite sure there is no civil servant in the Malaysian Civil Service who draws anywhere near $10,000. I know for certain that it is much less than that. Take the middle rung; let us not talk about the Permanent Secretaries. A non-graduate teacher in Singapore, and similarly other middle rung civil servants, gets something like $3,000 maximum. In Malaysia it is $1,500. A graduate teacher in Malaysia gets $2,400, here it is $4,000 plus. So all the way up, when you compare salaries between Singapore and Malaysia, whether it is the junior civil servant or Permanent Secretary or Minister, we are much better off. We should be proud that we are much better off, and we wish Malaysia to be also better off in the course of time.”
“To be fair to him, we will give him time. Now he has stated so: Normal, Extended and Monolingual in Primary 3, if I get him right - I know he is a man of his word and he will make sure his Ministry officials carry that out - that at Primary 3 the parents are allowed to choose. In other words, if the children do not do too well and they are streamed to Monolingual, the parents are asked: would you like your child to go to Monolingual or to the Extended stream? The parents would have the final choice. If that is the position, if that is rigidly implemented, if that choice is really given, then everything is fine. Not like what they do now. They give the choice, but they say, "If you are streamed to Monolingual, you cannot go to Extended, ie the stream in between. You must go to the Normal Stream, which is the top stream and a stream which a child from Monolingual is sure to fail." If that flexibility is going to be extended, which will be welcomed, I am just asking that that flexibility be also extended at the N4 level, and let the parents have a choice. If they do not meet certain criteria, let them have a choice, whether they want to sit for the 'O' level or not. I have got a few more points to raise but because of time factor I promise the Minister and the Minister of State that we will meet again at the Budget Session. 3.15 pm”
“I think the device to prevent N4 students, particularly those who have sat and are not allowed to proceed to N5, from sitting 'O' level examinations is an injustice and, as I pointed out earlier, if this vision that we are talking about is to become a reality, education is the key. Education is something which every parent today wants his child to have, not just to go through the primary and secondary, but at least to reach the 'O' level; to have a chance to try. I know that nobody can get the best 'O' level results. Nobody is born equal. I accept that. But I think there should be the opportunity for everybody to have a try. At least he perceives that there is an opportunity. If in the process, the examination system is such that he cannot pass because academically he does not qualify - the examination system is there to make sure that he does not go beyond the level of his academic ability - at least he would be satisfied that he was given the chance, and it is just bad luck that it is the examination system that has flunk him. But it should not be an imposition, not a mechanism that is introduced by the Ministry of Education arbitrarily and say, "Well, we do not think you should sit." What would the Ministry get out of this? I have a strange feeli,,.g, you know, that it just wants to show each year 75%, 80%, 85% passed and get accolades on how clever they are because they have brought the results up. But at what price? Is that the true state of affairs? That is not the true state of affairs. I want to conclude by telling the new Minister for Education that I am heartened by the fact that at least at the first meeting of the Schools Council he has shown his recognition that there are problems, he wants to review them, and he wants to take time.”
“But what they did not tell the public or what they did not emphasize was that the pupils who passed the Primary School Leaving Examinations, 14,000 of them should have sat for the GCE 'O' levels together with the Express stream students last year. They were supposed to be the lower rung of the cohort because they were streamed into the Normal stream.They must be the lower rung. Otherwise, why did the Ministry stream them into the Normal stream? And if they were the lower rung and you have 30,000, that means the total number was 45,000, 66% or two-thirds, the top, the cream, have been creamed off into the Express stream and you have allowed them to sit for the 'O' levels last year. So they should get 100% passes, if not 99%, if not 95%. If you do not believe me, you ask some of the aided school principals, they would tell you so. Why do the aided schools achieve very high results? If you are not good at Secondary 3, you are not allowed to go to Secondary 4. Only the best are allowed to go to Secondary 4. Those whom they are sure will pass are allowed to go to Secondary 4. That is why they get 90% passes, while the Government schools in the rural areas take in everybody, including those who are not sure of passing, naturally their percentage point must go down. In 1982, the whole cohort of the Secondary 1 students - there was no streaming - went along. They sat. In other words, the good and the not-so-good, and even the very poor ones. In 1982, the students who scored three 'O' levels was 75%. The bottom 24% had one or two 'O' levels. Now, you have removed 33% of this out of the whole lot, leaving only the top cream of 66%, and you got only 80% passes. What does that prove?”
“But last year the impact was felt throughout because lO,000 children were involved and their parents and neighbours had come to know about this, I said at that time in 1982 and I will say it again that before streaming, as was done in the last few years, the old system was already a very strict system in the sense that children had to go through annual examinations and after that the national examinations at the Primary 6 level. And following that every year they had to sit for the annual examinations. By the time they reached Secondary 4, they would have already cleared a number of hurdles and they would have proven that they were not so bad. If they had failed at Secondary 4 and, as all of us who have sat for examinations in our lives at one time or another would know there are other factors out of our control which have nothing to do with our academic ability, I think sometimes results can be quite inaccurate. Last year the Ministry said an N4 student must have nine points before he could proceed to N5. In fact, the Ministry started off with eight points for three subjects and must also have a '3' in English, that even the Cambridge authorities - they are quite strict - were abhorred at such a high standard that the Singapore Ministry of Education was trying to impose. After that they relaxed and more children went in. Is this necessary? For the last 20 years, many of the children from Secondary 3, which is equivalent to N4, who went to Secondary 4 and sat for the Cambridge examinations, did not do badly. Sir, I will give you the results and make some comparisons. The Ministry is very fond of giving statistics. This year they fed the press. "They have done well," they said, "because of streaming." Now they have got 80% passes!”
“But there are signs that he is at least taking note of certain problems and he is reviewing them. As I read through the Addendum on the Ministry of Education, there are three things which I think are very important and a step in the right direction, a step forward, towards making the opportunities more and more affainable for the average Singaporean to attain the 'O' level. What are the three points stressed in the Addendum? First, parents' choice; second, flexibility in the system; third, improving the procedures of streaming. Now, as we all know, Mr Speaker, there have been considerable criticisms and anxieties of the public and of educationists on streaming or the way streaming was done in the last two or three years; the anxiety of the parents whether their children would go to the monolingual stream and when they reach N4, whether they can go to N5, and so fonh. What is unfortunate is that last year alone, which was the first year in which the streaming took its full effect and the first lot of children in the secondary schools reached the N4, out of something like 15,000 children, slightly more than 4,000 were allowed to go beyond N4, ie, to go to N5 and sit for the 'O' level. The rest were not allowed to proceed beyond that point. Sir, I raised this issue very strongly in 1982 with the Minister of State for Education. At that time, quite a number of people did not quite grasp the impact of what the policy was all about.”
“And as we prosper, parents become not only just as aware as before of the need for good education but they are very conscious of the fact that the education attained must be of a certain level. Twenty years ago, for example, parerits from the rural areas would be quite contented if their children had an opportunity to attend primary education because if the children could go back and rattle a few words in English and could do some calculations, this was considered to be an achievement. But today, with improvement in everything, the standard that is aimed by the ordinary Singaporean, not the professionals - of course, professionals aim for university and so forth for their children - every Singaporean is aiming for nothing less than the 'O' level certificate for his children. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the First Deputy Prime Minister is thinking of achieving one of his goals and his vision of the 1990s, particularly in regard to the provision of home ownership for the 15-20%, education is the key. There is no other way. Therefore, we must examine ourselves and see whether we have in all these years provided and improved upon the opportunities for the average Singaporean to attain the desired level of education. As I said, generally our education system has done well. But I must point out that in the last two or three years, certain booby traps have been placed in the course of this system. I am glad to note that we now have a new Minister for Education who is conscious of the problem. I know that he is a very cautious man, as he himself has stated in his first meeting of the Schools Council. He treads cautiously. He is a diplomat and he does not want to offend anybody. So he is studying it, he is taking time.”
“I also remember, in the introduction of new PAP candidates for the last general elections, there are many others who also have a similar background. What is the point? The point is that it is the Singapore spirit that helped us to be what we are today. Today we still see that spirit in existence, and the key to all this is education. In fact, we have been given accolades for all our achievements. Our Prime Minister and the Government have been given all kinds of accolades for economic development, for housing, and what have you. But one which I consider is the triumph of all triumphs is in the field of education. Well, I have been a great admirer and a great critic at the same time. But credit must be given where credit is due. Many Ministers in the past have done a good job. But one man who has been the driving force is the Prime Minister. And it is not a statement that is made in a light-hearted fashion because as a union official, I had the opportunity to travel, to meet at conferences, to make comparisons, to discuss. I think our education system despite all its defects, despite what some people try to do with it, is still one of the best. So what is important in the vision that the First Deputy Prime Minister is talking about is to ensure that the children of the 15-20% in the lower income group achieve a certain level of education. I think the key to all this is education. In the last few days, Members have asked, what have we done for the poor? The greatest thing that we have done for the poor is to provide the children with the opportunity to upgrade themselves, and what better achievement, what better indication of what we have done for the poor than to see, today, many who have from humble families moved up the social ladder.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Ayer Rajah. Under the People's Action Party Government in the last 25 years, many achievements have been anained for Singapore as well as for Singaporeans. Now, concern has been expressed as to whether the younger generation of Singaporeans are able to preserve and improve upon the achievements we have attained in the last 25 years. I personally think that the future is very bright for us, and my confidence is boosted today by a story reported in the Straits Times of a girl in Naval Base School who scored Als in all her eight subjects. And the story is not just about her academic brilliance, the distinction, but about her family background: a father and mother in poor circumstances but upright, live in dignity, bringing up a child well, and the child under those circumstances survived under our education system and comes out tops. What is touching and what gives me hope as a Singaporean is that there are others who read about the plight of this family, of this girl, and who want the best for her, offered assistance, donations. Her reaction was one that we have every reason to feel hopeful and be proud of: she does not want any more comforts. She is quite satisfied with what she has. But her concern is her mother's health. What more can we have? It is a model family. In fact, it typifies the Singapore spirit on which we built Singapore in the last 25 years. In this Chamber itself, I know the Member for Whampoa, for example. He also came from a very poor family. Today he is a very distinguished lecturer and an honourable Member of this House.”
“Let him hear me out and then he will see how ridiculous his argument is. What we are doing now is in anticipation of the earlier amendment Bill being assented to. It is assumed that assent will be given and following that, assent will also be given to this Bill. Of course, it will be wrong, for example, today after the Constitution (Amendment) Bill has been passed and before the President gives his assent that we co-opt three persons immediately to sit in this Chamber as Members of Parliament without constituency, because we would put into effect something which assent has not been given. We are not doing anything of that son. What we have passed will not be law until the President gives his assent. This is like taking action in advance. And we have earlier passed the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. What is so unconstitutional or legally not correct about it if, following the passage of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill today, we go through this Bill? This is a very simple commonsense kind of thinking. One does not need a law qualification to understand this simple commonsense approach.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am no lawyer. But I simply cannot follow the argument advanced by the Member for Anson.”
“Perhaps a similar programme with a different content should also be introduced through the community centres or the RCs for senior citizens on how to cope and adjust to new home environment, particularly on how to relate themselves to better educated sons and educated daughters-in-law, Often, family quarrels are the result of the inability of various parties to adjust to one another. Invariably the daughters-in-law get the blame for the breakdown of the family relationship. Perhaps this is justified in some instances, but it must also be said a few fathers and mothers-in-law are also difficult to live with. As the saying goes, it is not always the young who is wrong nor is it always the old who is right. To create a family environment in which harmony and respect can flourish, everyone must play a part, the old, the not-so-old and the young. It is only when everyone appreciates that, can a harmonious and respectful family environment be a fact of life in Singapore.”
“The essence of my proposal is that, for the elderly worker beyond 60, CPF contributions by both employer and employee should not be obligatory as in other cases. This is to make it more possible for employers to hire elderly workers beyond 60 and, at the same time, make it more likely for an elderly worker beyond 60 to continue to be employed. The requirement that an employer has to pay CPF and SDF contributions as well as payroll tax for a worker beyond 60 is going to stiffen the resistance of the employer against employing anyone beyond 60. It would have a negative effect on our effort to get as many able-bodied Singaporeans beyond 60 to be usefully and gainfully employed. Let me now comment on the proposal of the Committee that HDB should allow those owner-occupiers, who do not have children living with them and who do not have adequate savings, to purchase an annuity from or through HDB with either the consideration of the reversionary interest in the flat or financing through the difference in the prices when a bigger flat is exchanged for a smaller flat. In my view, this proposal is very sound and will effectively provide some financial security to those who have utilized a great portion of their CPF savings on the purchase of HDB flats and are in need of financial assistance in their old age because they do not have adequate savings to see them through for the rest of their lives. I hope the Government will not only accept this proposal but also direct the HDB to work out attractive schemes when implementing this proposal. Finally, let me comment on the proposal that the programme of family life education for newly-married couples should be introduced. I think the proposal is good, but it is not enough.”
“As we all know, a person's employment opportunities become scarce, if not, completely disappear, after 60 years of age simply because his physical and mental capacity to work is such that it is not likely to induce a prospective employer to hire him. If the employer is required to pay the same top wages to the elderly worker, with 25% CPF contributions as well as SDF and payroll tax, you can be sure the employer would prefer not to hire a worker aged 60 years or more, If the employer is permitted to opt not to pay CPF and SDF contributions as well as payroll tax for an elderly worker beyond 60, the employer will find it an incentive to employ him. Furthermore, the incentive for the employer becomes even more attractive if the employee is also permitted to opt not to pay his 25% CPF contribution. Then the employer can employ him at 75% of his last drawn salary. This does not result in any loss of take-home pay for the worker. There is, in fact, no loss in take-home pay except loss of CPF contributions. It saves the employer at least 50% of his large wage bill on him. This makes it attractive for the employer to employ him. Of course, to compensate for the loss of CPF contributions, the elderly worker beyond 60 should work perhaps only a five-day week and should have his annual leave eligibility increased. I am aware that some fortunate elderly workers, because of their experience and expertise and the special circumstances they are in, can still command very attractive terms of employment. My proposal does not preclude this category of elderly workers from freely negotiating with their employers on more favourable terms, including the present pattern of CPF contributions.”
“I am sure in the discussion, something that is sensible and responsible and much more acceptable to the public will come out of it. Even the Minister for Health is nodding his head in agreement. Let me come to the next point about continued employment after retirement age, particularly at 55. I am not sure the recommendations of the Committee are going to achieve any result. Some of the recommendations sound more like irrelevant platitudes than the realistic suggestions they are supposed to be. Let me quote a few examples. One of the recommendations states that the Government should set the pace by liberally employing its employees beyond 65. Is the Committee not aware that the Government does not even employ the bulk of its employees who retire at 55? And you are now asking the Government to liberally employ them after 65, Even after 55, the Government does not employ them. I am aware that a few selected civil servants were offered re-employment after retiring at 55, and even in this category of selected officers not all were offered the same terms of re-employment, Some were offered more attractive terms of re-employment than others. Why this disparity of treatment even among the chosen few? With this unenlightened policy of the Government on re-employment of retired civil servants, how are we going to get the Government to set the pace for other employers in Singapore to re-employ retired people? Let me now come to the recommendation that employers should not be exempted from paying CPF contributions, SDF and payroll tax in respect of elderly workers. In my view, this may be unrealistic and counter-productive in relation to those workers beyond the age of 60 years.”
“If I recollect correctly, I think he said that the Government is cheating in deferring the withdrawal age to 65 because people will die before 65 so that money will be put back into the Consolidated Fund. And then later on he corrected himself, "if they do not nominate anyone." I am no lawyer, Mr Speaker, Sir, but as a layman, I know that no matter what happens the money cannot be reverted to the Consolidated Fund, even if the contributor did not nominate anyone.”
“On the other hand, there are also the inspiring and heart-warming stories of people who have conquered the fear of growing old and have lived out their evening years of life gracefully as well as usefully, perhaps with as much zest and meaning as when they were young. Singapore should not view the prospect of an ageing population with temerity and anxiety, but should rather adopt a positive and constructive attitude towards it. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I particularly like the recommendations in Chapter 1 of the Report under the heading "Overview - A National Policy for the Elderly". Underlying these recommendations is a very positive tone and a call to society to change its negative attitude to a positive one towards old age. I fully endorse the views expressed in this chapter. The Committee deserves top marks forth is chapter. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot say the same for Chapter 2 under the heading "Employment". On this question of raising the age for CPF withdrawal, like my other colleagues, I am also against the idea of the deferment of the withdrawal age, particularly at this juncture when the retirement age for the majority of workers is 55. Sir, I do not want to bore you and the Minister for Health with the arguments why I am against it because I think all the arguments have already been advanced so eloquently by my colleagues, and repeating them will be boring to you. When I say my Parliamentary colleagues, I mean my PAP Parliamentary colleagues, not the Member for Anson. It is not because the Member belongs to a different party, but I just cannot follow his arguments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me begin by commending the Committee on the Problems of the Aged for presenting to us a very comprehensive Report with several very good recommendations on tackling the problems of the aged. These are the problems that Singapore has to face up to, as its population ages. The Report since its publication has unfortunately attracted a great deal of controversy and heat over one issue, namely, the raising of the withdrawal age for CPF contributions. While this is under- standable, it is a pity that the other recommendations and portions of the Report which are equally, if not, more significant, are not given the due attention that they deserve. Judging from the response of the hon. Members of this House to this Report up to now, I am sure the wide-ranging debate here will permit the Report and its recommendations to be given a comprehensive, critical and objective airing. Then we should be able to view the Report and recommendations in their correct perspective. This Report and the issues it covers are important and relevant to all Singaporeans, if not for all the time, at least for some of the time, for we must all grow old one day and live with the prospect of feeling neglected and unwanted by society, and possibly even by our children. This depressing feeling can also be further worsened by our own realization of uselessness, of deteriorating health and weakening vigour of life, with nothing to look forward to except the prospect of welcoming death. This is a terrible gloomy picture. Such gloomy pictures of life in its evening years are a common and unavoidable feature in the history of the human race.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RA-01 of the Main Estimates.* Sir, there have been some reports in the press on company welfarism through the employers' contribution scheme. As I understand it, the scheme will allow employers to retain a certain percentage of CPF contributions to provide more and better welfare benefits for their employees. It has been more than 18 months since the scheme was first mooted, and I am wondering if any head-way has been made with the scheme. Whilst I agree with the objective !of the scheme, which is to promote company loyalty and identification, may I take this opportunity to make the following observations? 6.00 p.m. First, will employers be able to convince their employees of the soundness and attractiveness of the scheme? Secondly, will employers and their employees be given a choice as to whether they want to continue with CPF or to join the company's Cowec scheme? Thirdly, would it not be safer to leave the money with the CPF to earn the 6.5% interest? Can the Minister for Labour assure this House that there are sufficient safeguards to the scheme to protect the money? Finally, will the workers' affordability for HDB housing be affected by this move? Can the Minister for Labour enlighten this House on the scheme and its various implications, please?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if there was such intention from the beginning, then what happened to those civil servants who retired in between the consolidation periods when the NWC allowances were NWC allowances and not consolidated? Before the Minister amended the Pensions Act, the allowances were not taken into account. So if he had intended it from the beginning, the Minister has therefore deprived those civil servants in the past of allowing their NWC allowances to be calculated for pension purposes. So which is which? Did the Minister intend it from the ,beginning, or it was an after-thought? I think it was an afterthought. I think it was a good move. It was a sensible move. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know this has got serious financial implications. I am not suggesting that the Minister should give me a positive answer now, but I think the points have been driven home. I hope that the Minister will reconsider what I have said. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“But the point remains that all these payments, whether it be basic pay, NWC allowance or 13th month pay, these are all his wages. The Minister had in the past resisted attempts to make the NWC allowance and the 13th month allowance pensionable but since he has given in to the NWC allowance, why can he not give in also to the 13th month allowance? After all, the status was the same before. I think the Minister is also aware that when we calculate pension, it is not only for that particular year but for all the years of service that the civil servant has served the Government. One important element of the formula is the number of years of service that he has put in in the Civil Service. So for the number of years he has received the 13th month allowance, I think that surely entitles him to at least a part of the pension, or pension-right. For purposes of computing the pension, I think this 13th month allowance should be brought in - divide by 12, top it on the basic pay and, together with the NWC allowance which the Minister has agreed to, that is the quantum, multiply it with whatever formula it is. I think that only makes sense.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not suggest to the Minister that the 13th month payment or the annual wage supplement should be consolidated. In fact, it can remain as it is. Just like the NWC, although you consolidate periodically, but in between you do not consolidate. But still the allowance in between if it remains as an allowance is a pensionable allowance. In the past, it was not a pensionable allowance. The reasons that the Minister gave why the annual wage supplement should not be pensionable were more or less the same reasons he gave why the NWC allowance should not be pensionable in the past. But he did not find the reasons strong enough and that is why he allowed the NWC allowance to be pensionable. Why can the Minister not extend this? Because I think the annual wage supplement and the NWC allowance came from about the same circumstances. After a long period of wage freeze because of the economic difficulties that we had after 1968 when the British pulled out, there was a slow thawing of this wage freeze for the public sector. When the NWC mechanism was introduced and wage increase was slowly allowed through this NWC mechanism, two things came out for the Civil Service. One, the NWC allowance and the other, instead of a monthly wage increase of so much, was allowed to accumulate so that it can be paid at the end of the year. So no matter what you call it, NWC allowance, basic pay, 13th month allowance, ultimately it is a wage that is paid to the civil servant. They have devised this form so that at the end of the year, you can help the civil servant to pay for his children's school textbooks and so on. This is a very good arrangement. But these are all devices to make the civil servant's life easy so that he can manage his home well and so forth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NA-01 of the Main Estimates.* Sir, at the present moment a civil servant's pay consists of three components - he basic salary, the NWC allowance and he Annual Wage Supplement, which is in he form of a 13th month payment, and now also a 13 1/2, month payment. When the NWC component and the Annual Wage Supplement component were first introduced, their status was a non-pensionable status. The basic salary has always been pensionable. Recently the Minister for Finance amended the Pensions Act to allow the NWC component to be pensionable. In view of that, would he consider amending the Pensions Act to make the Annual Wage Supplement component also pensionable?”
“They have to be physi- cally present in the office for eight hours, apart from getting a lot of circulars, directives and all kinds of commands from the Ministry of Education and answering all kinds of directives. There are parents to confront with. Who will want to become your principal? Is the Minister aware, or has he been told, that in the last Senior Education Service exercise the principals were also asked to nominate some teachers who were outstanding so that they could be considered to become principals and vice-Principals in the scheme? From my information, and very reliable because it is at ground level, the overwhelming majority refused to be nominated for consideration into the SES scheme. The scheme has failed before it has even started. Anyway, the Minister of State would probably give the same reply. In order to save time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, the salary for the Senior Education Service, I am talking about the non-graduates, starts at $2,050, and with $100 increase every year it goes up to $3,050. A teacher will take 19 years. In 19 years he would have wiped this. Now, let us take the actual situation today. There are 500 principals and, I suppose, another hundred vice-principals, all in all maybe 500 or 600 - I do not know the exact figure - these are people who have already got more than 19 years of service. They are already beyond the starting point. These are people who are already at the present moment enjoying $3,050 maximum plus $150 allowance. These are the people who must form the bulk of those who are going to the Senior Education Service, are they not? If they are not going to form the bulk of the people to go into the SES, then I think something must have gone wrong in previous promotion exercises. The wrong people must have gone in. The Ministry always deduces that if you do not pass one test, you are therefore not good for the other one. For example, take this CSE. The same principle applies, does it not? Let us look at the 19 years' service, that is, the teachers who joined the teaching service in the year 1964 and earlier. We know that the bulk of the teachers were recruited prior to that year because there was an expansion of the Education Service. After that there was a levelling off. The number recruited was a few hundred each year to replace the resignations and so forth. The bulk of the teachers constitute this group who have already passed the starting point of $2,050. If they go into the SES scheme whether as principals or teachers, they also get the same pay as the ordinary teachers. But what are the additional responsibilities for principals?”
“There is a tendency for the Ministry of Education to measure how many times the principal gets the teachers to come on Saturdays, conduct workshops and all kinds of irrelevant activities, to show that they are working. Teachers will be called upon to do a lot of unnecessary work, unnecessary burden, a lot of papers, workshops and seminars talking a lot of things, splitting hairs, but the basic problem is not being attended to. But you cannot blame the principal because he is made to feel insecure. Why have a system that is going to destabilize or make the present situation even much worse?”
“" I have never heard of any scheme anywhere in the private sector or in the civil service where when you get a promotion you get less pay. It only happens in the Ministry of Education. What is happening? When you get promoted to the SES, you are the SES principal. You get $3,050. If you do not get promoted as an SES principal, you come under the old scheme which is a teacher's pay plus $150 allowance. Financially, it is better not to get promoted. What kind of recognition is the Ministry giving? So that he gets a pay cut? Who conceives this brilliant scheme? Is this a kind of scheme that will stimulate people to work harder in order to aspire for that post? You are going to create a sense of insecurity among a few hundred principals and senior ministry officials because, especial!y for some of them who do not get into this SES, they will have a feeling that they are less good than their colleagues who got into this SES. There is a feeling of two-class among principals and vice-principals. We want to give the principal or the vice-principal a feeling that he is somebody to be respected. We want to have that kind of image always preserved. We want to give him the confidence. We want him to act as someone with confidence. But this scheme is going to destabilize that confidence. It is going to lower morale and it is going to cause more than ripples down the rank. And what is going to happen? If it is just the principals and the senior education officers who feel depressed, I think it is bad, but it is still not the worst. The worst is for those principals who do not get into the SES, or in order to get into the SES, to put pressure.”
“Society has got a way of showing prejudice against people who just simply do not get this. Why did the second-tier in the NWC recommendation in previous years come to a collapse or disaster? It was simply because people just could not accept the fact that they did not get the second-tier. There was nothing wrong with them. They were not above-average, but there was a feeling that they were less than good, counter-productive, that negative feeling. These principals and vice-principals had subjected themselves to two PSC interviews, once before when they apply to become Senior Education Officer grade, which was a very rigorous exercise. As the Minister replied recently to one of the Members, only about 2% of the whole teaching service were promoted. If anyone in the 20 000 teaching workforce could become a senior Education Officer through the PSC, there must at least be something in him. After having gone through that exercise, he went through a second exercise by the PSC to become a principal. Now he has to go through a third exercise. I tell him that the final irony of all this is in respect of principals in the primary schools. Under the old scheme, a principal in a primary school would get the pay of a teacher but in addition to that he would also get a principal's allowance of $150. Although it is only $150, it is the recognition that goes with it. Now the Ministry has introduced a scheme whereby if this principal is promoted to become a Senior Education Officer in a primary school, he gets the same end-point salary as the teacher. A teacher's salary ends at $3,050. A principal's salary also ends at $3,050, and that is all. He does not get his allowance. He is now worse off than before, and you tell him, "What is there to complain about? This is SES, very grand.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LB-03 of the Main Estimates. In making my comments under this Subhead, I intend to range my comments to cover topics under Amendment No. (7)* which I do not intend to move. Actually, Sir, I want to take this opportunity to inquire from the Minister of State of the progress in respect of the interview for the Senior Education Service (SES). When does he expect the process to be completed? Does his Ministry expect a large number of the present vice-principals, principals, education officers, senior education officers in the Ministry of Education, to be appointed to the Senior Education Service? And does he foresee any problems that would arise after this exercise? I am quite sure his Ministry will advise him: no problems. But let me tell him that a lot of problems will arise as a result of this exercise, and I will just mention a few. At the present moment, principals, vice-principals and even senior subject teachers in the junior colleges are eligible to apply, including the inspectors of schools. This is supposed to be a prestigious service, equivalent to a Superscale grade. In other words, there is a recognition. I just want to know how would this do for morale if in a school, the vice-principal is appointed but the principal is not appointed, or in a junior college, the senior subject teacher is appointed but both the vice-principal and principal are not appointed? How would this do also for the prestige and image of the school if in certain schools the principals are appointed SES Officer grade and others are not? We have built so much of glamour about the SES that it has become something very special, and there is a lot to look up to.”