Tan Cheng Bock
Singapore
“As I said, we have not done much. We must not be captured by our old style of managing the old. The new old, as I said before, are better educated and travelled, and are very knowledgeable. So we must quickly explore new ways and methods to meet the expectations of the new old.”
“If we only have such a small pool of talents in Singapore because of our population size, we should spare no effort in seeking every such talent.”
“Thank you. I accepted the Minister's reply on the different pricing in the outpatient polyclinics and the hospitals. My point is that the patient's problem has still not been solved. Whenever a doctor refers a patient from a hospital to an outpatient clinic, he still has to pay more.”
“Six out of the nine items were much more expensive. Sir, I am asking why is there such a difference. Is this a one-off incident or is it going to be a norm? How can doctors in the hospital then refer patients back to the outpatient clinic if the patient is going to pay more?”
“I move this amendment to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's stand on seat belts to be made compulsory for primary and kindergarten buses. I heard over the radio that the Ministry is reviewing the case. There are two issues here, question of cost and question of safety. I think safety has a higher weightage over cost.”
“I also want to commend the NTUC for working with the Government to put this package together. I believe that without the NTUC's representation in putting forward the workers' case, the workers would not be able to benefit so substantially this year from this package.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,095 lines we hold for Tan Cheng Bock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 22.
“However, the Minister must clarify this and I am going to ask him a direct question: Is there any truth in this? There are also many Singaporeans who watched the television programme and said that the detainees looked harmless and innocent. Therefore, it was inconceivable that they were involved in such a plot. Look at Chin Peng. Look at his picture. He has a mild, smiling, meek and kind- looking face. But he is the boss of the Communist Party of Malaya. 12.49 pm. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Tang Guan Seng)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment moved by the Member for Clementi. When the Member for Potong Pasir moved his motion, he said that these 15 detained people should be released on humanitarian grounds. I think what we should consider is either the personal freedom of these 15 people or the security of the whole nation, and whether we should consider either the grief of the members of the families of these 15 people or that of the interests of the whole population of Singapore. We have to choose between the two. As a responsible Government, we have to look after the interests of the absolute majority. We must have a balanced reasoning. In weighing our reasons, we should realize that until these 15 persons can show that they will cause no more harm to our society, we should not release them. This will then be a logical decision. When this incident happened in May, many people were puzzled because in our history of nation building this is the first time that a link between the Marxists and the Church has been shown. People in general may not understand how these two groups could get together because, like fire and water, they cannot co-exist.”
“It would be a shame if their good work gets tarnished by the actions of a few pro-Marxist elements. But there are people who tried to twist the matter into a confrontation between the Church and the State and if they had succeeded in this, grave consequences would have ensued. Perhaps at this juncture, we should note the following: The Archbishop and several lay members and priests met with our Prime Minister to review the evidence. The Archbishop then stated that he was satisfied that the Government had nothing against the Church and was satisfied that the proof was there. Four priests who were in charge of the infiltrated organizations submitted their resignations. A few days later, the Archbishop suspended them from preaching and from having anything to do with the organizations they were in charge of. He closed down the Geylang Catholic Welfare Centre and ordered his priests not to mix politics and religion in their sermons. Mr Deputy Speaker, all these measures were reported by the Vatican Radio. Would the Archbishop have said this and would Vatican Radio have supported these measures if Government's charges were totally false? Quite a number of overseas critics and press articles have alleged that those detained were tortured. Some of my MP friends have brought this matter up. The television broadcasts were also dismissed as confessions extracted by torture. May I refer you to Santa Maria's article in The Australian, 23rd June, where he said of Vincent Cheng's interview. I quote him: 'A video-tape copy of the interview which is in my possession, shows no signs whatsoever even of strain or tension.' In response to an international telephone inquiry, one of the journalists who actually interviewed Cheng stated he saw no signs of any agitation during the interview.”
“The question we should ask ourselves is, whether the Government should succumb to the pressures from outside which are so vocal and numerous. Will the Government be discouraged from using the ISA? This appears to be the motive behind the pressures. The internal reactions to this arrest is that the arrests are to stifle dissent and opposition. The critics allege that the Government has arrested these persons to stifle dissent and to put down the opposition. And it appears to be so, coming in the wake of the departure of the Member for Anson from this House. The question is whether this action or previous actions under the ISA has ever discouraged dissent or political activities. Perhaps the Member for Potong Pasir would like to ponder over some of these questions I pose to him. Have political rallies been banned? Have political forums been banned? Have any of the persons who attended these meetings been arrested? Have the publications of political parties been banned? Have people who spoke up or asked questions in any forum or dialogue sessions been dealt with? The other feedback that I have got is that this action is against the Church. In reality it is action against individuals who are using the Church as a cover for clandestine, subversive activities. I have always admired the Catholic church for their services to the poor, to the sick and to the handicapped. You can see for yourself the work of the Little Sisters of the Poor. They have done a marvellous job. The Orphanage at the Convent is another good example of the good work done by the Catholic nuns, the Mount Alvernia Hospital. These are all marvellous institutions which I am sure has won the admiration of Members of this House.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, there are people who would like to believe that there is general dissent on this matter. In reality this is not so. The majority of the people are now satisfied that the Government has taken the appropriate action. However, there is a certain group of solid Singapore citizens who because of their links with the detainees, either through a shared religion or community work activities, have yet to accept the reasons for their detention. It is because of this that I felt compelled to join in the debate. We must address this issue and hope that these good citizens understand the implications of the actions taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs. I also have a close friend whose relative is one of those detained. It must be a terrible blow for many Catholic church members to wake up one morning and be told that the Church has been infiltrated by Marxist elements. It is unbelievable and up till today there must be many Catholics who cannot understand or want to believe that some of their hard working dedicated Church leaders are people who believe in the teachings and workings of Karl Marx, who once said that religion is the opiate of the people. Most of those who protest from abroad cannot understand why we have preventive detention, especially those from the West. They ask for detainees to be immediately released or to be charged in court. They ask for the ISA to be abolished. They say that it is against human rights, against the rights of the individual and against the rule of law. How can we get them to understand our conditions? The British introduced preventive detention in colonial Singapore. The threats, for which preventive detention was introduced, still continue to exist.”
“Primary Health Services (16) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PE-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“Mr Chairman, just a point of clarification.”
“The Minister has talked about the changing role of the Ministry's Outpatient Dispensary. He said that because there has been a proliferation of private medical clinics, the role of the outpatient dispensary has got to change to a certain extent. This is precisely what I am asking him to do. You have got to really change the role of the outpatient dispensary. You must upgrade it. You must put it at a higher level. You must not only provide centre services (that is what we are providing now) but you should also extend it to the homes. Because you must realize that the problem of the old is coming up, and we are going to get many chronic patients, patients who are house-bound who cannot come down, patients who are semi-ambulant and, of course, the recently discharged hospital cases. I think they need attention. So I was thinking that perhaps you could use the outpatient set-up that you have now to provide this service to the homes. I know it is a highly personalized service but I think it is one area we should look into. I am sure that if you compare the cost involved and the cost of their having to stay in hospital later on, you will find that there is definitely some advantage. This idea that I have mooted is not new. Some of the advanced countries have put this into practice and I do hope that we can consider this. Don't close this option.”
“Yes. I am sorry. I am a private medical practitioner and all that I have said is for the interest of Singapore.”
“One of my best clinical teachers, the present Head of the Civil Service, was lost to clinical medicine, so also the present Director of Medical Services of the Singapore General Hospital and many others, including some in the National University Hospital. Perhaps they should be given time off to share their clinical experience and expertise with our medical students. Finally, I know it is difficult, Sir, to break away from traditional practices but I am asking the Minister to test out this simple approach to a better health care. Sir, the Minister for Health is a reasonable man. I know. I had occasions to work with him. He is prepared to listen and that is important. Think of what I have said, especially the changes I proposed on the level of health care at the Outpatient level, and Singaporeans will end up proud of a system that really takes good care of them - affordable and excellent. Thank you.”
“I hope the day will come when certain heart cases, diabetic cases, hypertensive cases that now require hospitalization can be managed by our outpatient doctors at the homes of these patients. Of course, this must involve special training, special mobile machines, special teams, paramedics, nurses. This is what I have been asking the Ministry of Health to do - to expand our outpatient dispensary to a second level of cost-effective health care system, complementing our hospitals and the private sector. We should open up our outpatient facilities to private clinics so that patients can benefit from cheaper investigation procedures. Duplication of facilities is wasteful and should be avoided. There is a wealth of medical expertise in the private sector. A continuing exchange programme between the outpatient doctors, the private practitioners and the hospitals would benefit all. In this respect, I must congratulate Alexandra Hospital and Toa Payoh Hospital and the private Medical Association for running courses for the busy medical practitioners. This continuing medical education must be expanded to involve more doctors. This will upgrade medical practice and benefit Singaporeans. Then the training of our medical students must be community-based because most of our doctors finally end up in the private sector. I have spoken on this subject before and I do not intend to repeat it. In this respect, I am also happy to note that the Faculty of Medicine has at last a department on community medicine. It is a shame, Mr Chairman, Sir, that some of our best clinical teachers end up being administrators.”
“These are simple but down-to-earth suggestions but require a lot of money, manpower, planning and careful implementation. That is why I ask that more money be put into this area. This is because if you teach a diabetic how to maximize the use of the outpatient facilities and the benefits he can derive from it, I am sure fewer diabetics will need hospital care. So also for the many chronic illnesses. We must remember that chronic illnesses will be on the increase - strokes, high blood pressure and hemiplegia. As our population ages, this will be on the rise. Proper education to this group of senior citizens would prevent early hospitalization. Next, the Ministry of Health must upgrade the outpatient service. Do not take the outpatient dispensaries for granted. When I speak of upgrading, I do not mean only increasing the facilities through the expansion of the service. Yes, while it is necessary it is not the most important. The most important is the people who man the services. They work under stressful conditions, the doctors, the nurses, the amahs, the dispensers. It is not glamorous medicine. Improve working conditions by providing more adequate staff plus a career programme for the outpatient doctors, nurses and other members of the team. These are but a few steps to begin with. Extension of involvement with the community at the home is one area that we can look into in the near future. It would be more challenging, Sir, and interesting if the outpatient doctor is perceived to be not only a cough-and- cold doctor but also a community leader of some sort, providing not only centre-orientated medical services but home medical services where patients discharged from hospital continue to be monitored by outpatient doctors at home.”
“Historical because in the past doctors who moved out into the private sector were not thought of highly by their peers in hospitals because they were not the ones who became Registrars. The other reason could be envy because private practitioners do make a lot of money. Putting aside all these prejudices, if the two sectors work closer together, we can give our Singaporeans a cost-effective health service that will be the envy of even the Western countries and Japan. For a start, more contacts between the two must be established to try to appreciate each other's problems and needs and the setting up of the Health Advisory Council is a good move. But above all this, we must educate our Singaporeans that the provision of hospitals by the Government and the private sector is not the answer to all our health ills. There is more to this. Hospitals may give us a false sense of health security and the Ministry of Health officials can help by not putting too much emphasis on what I describe as "glamour medicine", like the test-tube babies and heart transplants. Expensive equipment like brain scans create demand and increase costs unnecessarily. If needed, we must buy, but expensive medical equipment especially must be carefully assessed because the purchaser has to justify its needs and therefore may encourage its use while it creates also higher expectations from patients. Then we must educate our Singaporeans on the proper use of our health facilities. The A&E department's health education programme shows how effective it can be if carried out properly. They should be extended to the proper use of our outpatient services, its relation to the hospital and the private sector. You will be surprised, Sir, how little Singaporeans know of our health care services and system.”
“Sir, I have spoken many times in this House about the implications of hospital centred health budget and the Ministry of Health has only paid lip service to this call. The percentage share of the health budget for this area of health care remains around 8-plus percent. This year, it is still 8.2%. To be more exact, last year its share was 8.9%. In 1985, 8.2% and in 1984, 8.6%. Is it because hospital-centred health budget provides facilities and services that are more visible and glamorous whereas the services and facilities at the outpatient departments are so common, so insignificant that putting money here will have little impact on the public, no glamour? I hope this is not the thinking because we would be approaching the whole issue of health care from the wrong end of the stick. We must remember that primary health care is the first line of defence for the whole health service. I want to avoid another exchange with the Minister on this and would like to take this opportunity to put forward some views on our health care delivery system bearing in mind the aging population's health problems. Sir, we can provide a cost-effective system because all the ingredients to make the system work are present. We have the hospitals. We have the outpatient clinics, the maternal and child health clinics, the school health service, Home Nursing Foundation and an active private sector of many generalist clinics, specialist clinics and private hospitals. The only trouble is that the two sectors - public and private - are moving in parallel. There is only a weak bond, a weak link, because of historical and other reasons.”
“Sir, may I interrupt? The Member has not moved his amendment.”
“Allow me to say a few words, Sir. I felt rather uncomfortable when the Member for Boon Lay mentioned the need for a campaign to look after our senior citizens. I think we should not over-react. We should treat our senior citizens not as something odd that we need a campaign to remind our Singapore citizens to look after them. We should treat them as normal people. They have their pride. They are not unusual people. They are just old. So why should we have a campaign to remind all of us to look after our senior citizens? What will the outside world think of Singapore if we have a campaign to look after our old? We are brought up in an Asian society in which we should be looking after our old. I will be the first to object to conducting such a campaign.”
“When I brought up that point, I was thinking of two things. (1) a need, and (2) control. When the industrialists view the foreign workers' policy, they think that the objective of this policy is to ensure them a good supply of labour, foreign labour, and of course, cheap foreign labour. As I see it, and I am not going to be hypocritical about it, there is nothing wrong. The other thing is this. The industrialists are concerned because you ask them to bring in cheap foreign labour and yet you want to ensure tight control. The thrust of my argument then was to let the Ministry ---”
“Sir, I heard my name being mentioned. I heard the hon. Member for Kebun Baru accusing me of --- what did you say?”
“Can I make a clarification? The Chairman: Mr Lim, are you giving way? Mr Lim Boon Heng resumed his seat.”
“Because you knew the importance of it. Well, I do not see the Member for Queenstown here. So I can assure you that it will not turn out into a free-for-all discussion.”
“Sir, I move this amendment to make a very small cut. I want to ask whether the Minister for Finance shares the same vision as the Minister for Education. If he does, then he must be aware of the Minister for Education's dilemma of wanting to set up more secondary schools and the high cost involved. Would you, as the Minister for Finance, help him out of his dilemma by being more generous in your grant to the building of the 50 secondary schools he needs to carry out the programme of single session schools. I can assure you I did not collude with the Minister for Education. In fact, when I asked him, he was not too enthusiastic about it.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, can I just comment on the Minister's reply to my request? The Minister has said that if the refuse collection service for the whole of Singapore is privatized, then the Ministry of the Environment will face a problem. Can I take it to mean that if the refuse collection service for three-quarters of Singapore is privatized and one-quarter is not privatized, then the Ministry can maintain the back-up service, the vehicles and whatever he thinks is necessary?”
“That is right. I think his idea is worth looking into. I remember when I was in Washington, I saw some of these vans parked at designated places. They move into a particular site in the day-time and they move out in the evening or whichever time of the day they are allowed to park there. There are special attachments on these vans which are connected to special attachments on the road for the removal of refuse and waste material that is discharged from these vans. It is very clean and I see no reason why you should close that option. They can be towed away, according to your requirements.”
“And if you find that one of the companies mismanage or is not able to do it, then perhaps, as the responsible body in charge of the environment, you should provide the back-up service. Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, in responding to a point brought up by the Member for Boon Teck about hawker vans, said that he was not in favour of having special hawker vans. Am I right?”
“Actually I did not make a cut but I had to when the Minister for the Environment mentioned about privatization. I remembered sometime ago in this House last year, I brought up this question of privatization of refuse collection in my Constituency to the then Minister for National Development. He did actually ask me to discuss this matter with the Minister for the Environment. Well, I did discuss with his officials, and I think the answer I got was somewhat similar to what the Member for Chong Boon received. Basically the Minister's argument is that: (1) it is an essential service; (2) that it is low cost; and (3) he is afraid of mismanagement. On the question of essential service, I would like to ask the Minister what is essential service? Is health an essential service? I think it is essential service but we have allowed it to be privatized. Transport is also essential service, and we have also allowed it to be privatized. So I do not see any reason why collection of refuse should not be privatized. Then he mentioned about low cost. The private refuse collectors are also prepared to bring down their cost. They have told me that they are prepared even to do the refuse collection at the price that is at the moment paid for by the HDB residents - $5.00. Mismanagement - I do not know why he assumes that these companies will be mismanaged. If he fears mismanagement, then why not spread the task of this refuse collection to more companies and let the Ministry of the Environment have a back-up service. That is his role - the Ministry providing us with a back-up service and then these people will do the job.”
“Just like what the Member for Changkat has said, we should modernize and beautify all the hawker centres and the food should also be improved upon. Singaporeans like to eat. For the Malays, there is rojak and mee siam. For the Indians, there is mee siam and kambing soup. For Teochews, there is kway teow. For the Cantonese, there is char hor fun. For the Foochows, there is a kind of noodle called mien sian. For the Hainanese, there is chicken rice. For the Kheks, beef. There are so many different kinds of food for the people of Singapore to enjoy. We can say that Singapore is a paradise for food. So we should develop Singapore well into a famous food centre, a heaven or paradise for food. The young people used to say, "Let us go to the coffee house. Go to MacDonald or Kentucky." Some older folks would say, "Let us go to take coffee." I think we should develop our hawker centres into sites where people of various stations of life can go to drink coffee or to take food and chit-chat. This is all very good. I hope the Minister for the Environment could do well in the work of developing Singapore into a paradise for food and we shall all be gratified. I hope the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary will comment on this.”
“I am not moving, Sir. Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson)( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, I fully agree with the speeches and the opinions of the previous two Members of Parliament who spoke. A few days ago, there was talk about whether the vegetables that we consume here contained any poison or not. The Minister replied that there was no more poison. The problem has been solved. But today I read in the newspaper that certain hawkers complained that the prices of vegetables from Malaysia were very low, very cheap, but very few people would like to buy. From this we can see that Singaporeans are very concerned about food and about the hygiene of the food they take. This is good. All along we like to take fried kway teow. I also used to take fried kway teow. I believe you, Mr Chairman, also like to eat kway teow. But one day the Ministry of the Environment said that the cockles that are fried with the kway teow contain substances that would cause cancer. The news spread. Because of that many people gave up eating kway teow or ordered kway teow without cockles. This shows that we pay attention to what we eat. The Minister for the Environment is also paying attention to the problem of eating, which I entirely agree. The previous two Members have pointed out, particularly the Member for Changkat, that we should also pay attention to the eating environment. There are many hawker centres under the various organizations. Some are under the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, some under the HDB, some under the Jurong Town Corporation and some under the Ministry of the Environment. I have visited various hawker centres including one in the constituency of the Minister for the Environment. There have been certain improvements in the facilities and environment of the centre. This is good.”
“Financing of the Institute of Education (30) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LF-00 of the Main Estimates.”
“Junior College Education (16) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-03-1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“Yes, but a very short statement first. I am surprised to see that my amendment for a small cut to praise CDIS has generated so much debate, especially on Chinese education. I wonder why you allowed it to be debated under my amendment. It should be under policy matters. Perhaps the matter is important and emotional. Sir, with that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head L having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with:”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-04-1210 of the Main Estimates. Sir, about many budgets ago I criticized the Science textbook prepared by CDIS. I pointed out the poor presentation and the style. Today I am glad to note that the textbooks are much better, and much better not only in Science but also in the other subjects. I move this amendment to congratulate the CDIS for a job well done and I hope they will keep it up. As curriculum is one of the major areas that should be further upgraded, I would just want to know from the Minister whether more support will be given to CDIS to meet the newexpectations arising from the principals' report. The other very small query I would like to make is about school libraries. You know, libraries are important to schools. They can help to enrich the local content of CDIS textbooks which I know have a lot of local content. I just want to know again what support has the Ministry given to the schools for their school libraries.”
“Yes, I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Then I would not move this amendment. I move the other one.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-02-1210 of the Main Estimates. Mr Chairman, since I have another amendment, can I just take the whole lot together?”
“And I gave it up, yes. And the reason I gave it up was not that I was won over by the Ministry but that I really had no alternative. Having gone through the Report by the 12 principals, I realize that there is a way out for Singaporean students. That is why I have come back to this House to ask the Ministry to reconsider this policy of streaming. I am not asking very much. I just want to be convinced whether streaming is better than "setting" and if he can convince me and convince this House, then I will have to wait and see whether there are better alternatives. All that I want to ask him now is to study this policy and perhaps ask the Ministry officials to have a project on this. We all are very familiar with the Ministry of Education. They have many projects. They have the single-session projects and I am sure there are so many other projects. I just cannot remember what they are but I can tell you that one more will not do much harm. I think the study of "setting" is important because it is more challenging and more useful than even the single-session project. Before I withdraw - in fact, I have half a mind not to withdraw - but as time does not permit me, I would end by requesting the Minister not to close this option. It is something worthwhile to study because if at the end of the day you find that "setting" is better, then our whole population will give you the thumbs-up because you would have removed a very important source of unhappiness and, that is, the labelling of our children as Normal, Express, Special, Monolingual and Extended students. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“He has made a certain statement. I have a right to see whether I agree or disagree. I am sorry, Sir, for having this side discussion. This grouping of students wishing to learn a second language in a particular class is definitely wrong. It is an administrative convenience. I would like to let the Minister know that the repercussions are tremendous. It separates our students into racial groups and it also places children into the wrong class and this will definitely be bad for national cohesiveness. The other matter that I asked the Minister was his views on "setting" and whether he would like to review streaming in the light of the policy on "setting". Instead, Sir, I got a lecture from him on the merits of streaming and a plea to me and to this House to be more patient and allow this streaming to continue and see whether it will work. I think I have been very patient. I brought this up in 1981 and I have watched how streaming progressed.”
“Because he has made some comments. I have the right to reply.”
“He has made some comments and I want to respond.”
“Let me respond to the reply given by the Minister of State on the grouping of students wishing to learn a second language in a particular class.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.* Sir, in 1981, I spoke out strongly against streaming. After that, I gave up, not because I was won over by the Ministry but because I could not find a better alternative. But the Principals' Report rekindled my hope and I am back today to pose a question or two for the Minister and hope that the Minister would like to review the whole subject of streaming. I know it is very controversial but it must be brought up. Sir, in the Principals' Report, a policy called "setting" was followed in all the schools they visited and in case, Mr Chairman, Sir, you may not know what "setting" means, I think it is appropriate I read out from the Principals' Report on page 51: 'All schools followed a policy of grouping children according to ability in each subject by "setting". The Head of Department would decide on the grouping of pupils into sets; the timetabling team would then organize teaching time by scheduling, say, two or more classes for the same subject at the same time. Thus, a child could, for example, be placed in a top set for English and the third set for mathematics. The form class would therefore be split up for selected core subjects and pupils of like ability in a particular subject drawn together for all lessons in that subject. In this way, pupils were educated at a pace best suited to their ability.' With the adoption of the policy of "setting", I would like to ask the Minister whether the present streaming system will become redundant because you have accepted this Report and I presume this section of the Report has also been accepted by the Ministry of Education. Would the Ministry like to comment on this?”
“A minority understand this and even extol the virtues of such schools. What many object to is the over-emphasis on premier schools and the seeming neglect of the majority of the schools. The perceived anxiety and apprehension related to independent schools must not be allowed to overshadow the good intentions of the Government in introducing the independent school system. Perhaps, Sir, the answer lies in being more process-orientated rather than being solely goal-orientated in the attainment of excellence in education. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Education is a national concern. And all along, the Government has kept a tight rein on it. Parents must be assured that the establishment of independent schools would not disadvantage one child against another but instead would benefit all children. They also need time to be informed and to get used to the idea. Many parents are quick to criticize the educational system. In particular, the parents' over-emphasis on academic excellence at the expense of a more rounded education. Perhaps our system of meritocracy has contributed to this obsession. But parents too have a responsibility for they decry the attention placed on academic excellence. They are also the ones to complain about their children spending too much time on ECA at the expense of their studies. Many parents are unaware that if they desire all-rounded education and excellence, they together with the principals, teachers and Government, too have a part to play. This must be emphasised. Even those who concede to the benefits of independent schools are concerned that there would not be good Government schools left if all of them go independent. To many, it is logical for Government-aided schools, with their tradition of independence, to become independent schools. But good Government schools should remain as such, as they represent hope to many disadvantaged parents of a better future for their children. This hope must be preserved. Not all good Government schools should go independent. These schools should be maintained as they can also provide healthy competition to the independent schools. Undoubtedly, there are many benefits in having independent schools. It is like providing another kind of service to the consumer. And it provides contrast and diversity.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, before I withdraw my amendment, I would like to say a few more words. We have been criticizing but I think sometimes we should make some recommendations and that is what I intend to do. The Ministry of Education's approach in stressing that the objective of the principals' report is to identify principles for excellence which could be applied to all schools is correct. It is also correct to stress that the initiative for independent schools should come from the schools themselves and the Ministry would not impose on any school to go independent. But unfortunately, this message is either not getting through to the majority of the population or that many are sceptical of the sincerity of the Government. Therefore, it is imperative that the Ministry of Education continue to reiterate and reinforce this message that excellence is for all schools and initiative for independent schools should be from the schools themselves. The Ministry should also lay to rest the confusion in terminology between excellence, independence and privatization. More importantly, the Ministry must not only be saying that it is genuinely interested in improving all schools but also be seen to be doing so. Therefore, to convince the people that the Government's object is to improve the quality of schools as a whole, the Government should as far as possible implement some of the recommendations, pastoral care and career guidance and single session in all schools before embarking on independent schools. Perhaps then there will be less antagonism and apprehension but better acceptance when independent schools are introduced. Parents tend to be emotional and fear the worst on changes in education matters, especially when there is no precedence in such an area.”
“Yes, I forgot to move my amendment. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates*.”
“The First Deputy Prime Minister has listed independent schools as one of the Government's priority. What is it that we want of the end-product of our educational system? We want an all-rounded student good in studies as well as good in other fields. But is this the vision shared by all? Not from what we heard at the dialogue sessions. Alas, many Singaporeans say that this is not so in Singapore when opportunities with good jobs and positions are based purely on good grades. We must be clear in our minds what we want. What is excellence after all? If excellence is measured by the number of A's at examinations, then all this debate will be just an academic exercise.”
“Then teachers and principals expect more from the Ministry of Education. They want greater flexibility and autonomy, ancillary support and reducing class size. And how about the expectations of the Ministry of Education officials. They expect schools to be initiators rather than implementors. There is so much adverse accusation of the top-down approach system that they are now waiting to see how the bottom-up approach is going to be better. So, Mr Minister, Sir, with all raised expectations, the onus is now on you and the Ministry of Education to respond to the recommendations. What are the priority areas to start with? You must let us know. The school principals' recommendations are good. No one can dispute what they have recommended. In fact, there is nothing new in the report. It was what the teachers and principals were talking about for years but not recognized. But now it has official sanction. I support the report because it is towards the improvement of all schools and not for independent schools only. How the recommendations are going to be implemented will be watched by my committee and by many concerned parents. It must be across the board. If the Ministry of Education is seen to operate or subsidize more a fully independent school without allocating resources or less resources to the other schools as well, there will be unhappiness all round. And the Ministry of Education will be accused of favouritism. Many people, including teachers and principals at the dialogue sessions, believe that any school which is granted the resources and leeway that independent schools will have cannot but improve. The impression given is that the Ministry has decided that certain schools are going independent or should be independent.”
“Would not the less academically able children of the rich have an edge over the others? Because parents of such children are prepared to pay the substantial school fees required. Teachers are worried about the independence and authority given to the principal who can hire and fire them. Then as it is unlikely that independent schools will be able to shoulder the entire burden of financing their recurrent expenditure and capital development, they will need substantial assistance from the Government if they are to maintain high educational standards. Will the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education allow them to be really independent when they hold the purse strings or at least a big portion of it? Then what about the schools not going independent? They will watch how the Ministry allocates the funds. Will it be evenly distributed to all the schools or will more go to the independent schools? What is the implication of all these discussions and of the report? The Ministry of Education and the schools will be put to the test in the coming months. Why is this so? The reason, Mr Chairman, Sir, is very simple. As a result of this report and subsequent dialogues, we have raised expectations. We have raised expectations of parents, of teachers, of those in the Ministry of Education. Parents are now more aware of the shortcomings of our present school system, double session schools, overcrowded schools, high teacher-pupil ratio, etc. We highlighted all these. It is good that we are honest about these. So now they will be impatient to see that the schools their children are attending are better equipped, better staffed, smaller teacher-pupil ratio, better curriculum, pastoral care and career guidance programmes.”
“And this was followed in July 1986 when the Minister for Education spoke of the need to foster creativity and innovation in the educational system. The Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech in August 1986 stoked the idea further and hinted that better schools would become private schools. He added that the Govern- ment in providing education had moulded schools towards total uniformity. The underlying thrust of their messages showed that Singapore has reached the threshold to push for excellence in education through a new breed of strong, independent schools. Thus it is not surprising that even some professionals spoke up against the association of excellence only through independent schools. However, going through the report, Mr Chairman, I am convinced that the principals' concluding remarks in their final chapter, "Conclusions and Recommendations" were clear as to the focus of the report. I quote page 76 of the report, "Towards Excellence in Schools": 'These recommendations have been made in the belief that, if implemented, they would pave the way for our schools to achieve excellence in education.' The emphasis here is "our schools", ie, all schools in Singapore, not just the independent schools. The Ministry has been seen by some as trying to push independent schools, not excellence in schools. This must be corrected or there will be resistance to this innovation. And because of this association of excellence only through independent schools, many fears, worries and concerns were expressed at the dialogue sessions. The question of fees invariably cropped up because of the fear that fees of such schools would be beyond the reach of the majority. Then there is the question of admission criteria to such schools.”
“All right, I will move the amendment at the end of my speech. Since the release of the report, there have been wide-ranging dialogues between the Ministry, principals, teachers and parents. The Feedback Unit and the Government Parliamentary Committee on Education have also listened to the views of the professionals and grassroots leaders. I will present their impressions, their fears, their worries, their concerns, their expectations and the implications of this innovative change in Education. Basically, there are two issues here - excellence in schools and independent schools. The impression I get and shared by my committee is that many Singaporeans think that excellence in schools can only be achieved through independent schools. This is not true. You can have excellence in schools by not being independent like the Bronx High School of Science in New York. They have three Nobel Prize winners from that school. Singaporeans wonder if the principals' study tour was undertaken to secure anything more than an expensive endorsement of the Government's desire to push independent schools and shifting the burden of education to the public. Rightly or wrongly, it is a perception that the Ministry of Education must try to correct. How did this concept come about? This confusion has its origins in the way the subject of excellence in schools has been broached. It has coloured the discussion on excellence in schools. And because of this confusion, discussion on excellence in schools has centred primarily on the subject of independent schools. The First Deputy Prime Minister first broached the concept of independent schools in May 1985.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I have to speak very fast. There has been a great deal of discussion on Education recently and this was brought about by the Ministry of Education's new approach - that educational innovation should from now on come from the schools and not the Ministry. With this change in the focus of educational innovation came the 12 principals' report - a recommendation on how schools can achieve excellence. Sir, I forgot to move the amendment.”
“I always thought you were a very sympathetic man. But I see that you have changed your position!”