Tony Tan Keng Yam
Singapore
“One of the problems which they have in Britain is that, up to recently, they have no means to stop people coming into Britain and preaching in their mosques messages of hate, jihad and violence. Here, MUIS monitors our mosques very carefully, what is being preached at Friday prayers.”
“Sir, I am not going to enter into a debate about whether the war in Iraq is justified or not. That is another issue. But I would say, Sir, that with all the measures which have been taken over the last three years since 9/11, including the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the arrest of the Al Qaeda leaders, the detention of the JI lea…”
“Sir, we are extending the CCTV coverage in our bus stations, MRT stations and other places in Singapore where people congregate. It is a part of life now. For example, at our MRT stations, all our CCTV cameras are those where the films are recorded and we can analyse them. Surveillance is one of the effective ways of deterring terrorism.”
“The Muslim community in the UK has contributed to the healing process and has worked hard with the other communities to strengthen the moderate voice of Islam.”
“I would say again, Sir, that what we should do is when you see something which is suspicious, if you see a bag which is left unattended, report to some authority. We will look into it. We have to. And I am glad that we are getting more reports today, be vigilant.”
“It could reach here. We have to live with it. We support the war in Iraq. We believe that it is good for us to join the coalition led by the US against terror. The fight against terror is worldwide. We cannot opt out by not taking part. We are in it. We must continue whatever the difficulties.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,158 lines we hold for Tony Tan Keng Yam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 24.
“The IE will also strengthen pastoral care and career guidance aspects in its training programmes for both its Diploma-in-Education and Certificate-in-Education courses. These measures will enable the Ministry to help principals and teachers to develop comprehensive pastoral care programmes for their schools and, in particular, career guidance in our secondary schools and our junior colleges. Now, Sir, the topic of flexibility and autonomy in schools and independent schools commented upon by the Members for Kampong Ubi, Moulmein, Fengshan and Changkat. I will just take all of these together. Since the enactment of the Education Ordinance in 1957, schools in Singapore have been closely controlled by the Government. This centralized control of schools has brought about major benefits. It ensures that all our schools, without exception, meet minimum standards of instruction and of physical environment. While there must be checks and balances to ensure that there is no abuse of authority, the Minister will, in consultation with principals and with teachers, work out how best we can remove those restrictions which are unnecessary or which have become outdated. One example of a regulation which can be relaxed is the present rigid guidelines on the transfer of pupils between streams in our schools. I announced at the Schools Council Meeting in January this year that the Ministry was reviewing the guidelines, particularly those relating to the transfer of pupils from the Normal stream to the Express stream in secondary schools.”
“This large class size makes it difficult for teachers to vary their teaching styles to fit the particular requirements of the subjects which they teach. The teachers also cannot use individualized instructional methods or pay as much attention to each pupil as they would like. As a first step towards reducing class size, the Ministry will increase the intake of the Institute of Education over the next six to seven years with, first of all, the aim of training an additional 1,500 secondary school teachers over and above our normal requirements. Sir, when this is done, it will enable us to reduce class size in our secondary schools to an average of not more than 30 pupils per class. Sir, I go on to the topic of pastoral care and career guidance in our schools, points which have been emphasized, first, by the Member for Leng Kee and then by the Member for Boon Lay. Sir, education does not consist only of teaching our children how to pass examinations, although, as I have always stated, examinations are very important. Education, Sir, is also concerned with giving our students a purpose in life and in inculcating in them, through our moral education programmes, through our extra-curricular activities, good habits of self-discipline, respect for the family, loyalty for the nation and concern for the community. To further develop these important aspects of education, the Ministry plans to introduce a proper pastoral care and career guidance programme in our schools. Two lecturers in the Institute of Education are at present undertaking specialist training in the particular field of pastoral care and career guidance. In collaboration with the IE, the Ministry will mount training courses to train teachers in these areas.”
“Now, Sir, I go on to the next point brought up by the Member for Moulmein, and that is, the creation of a more effective teaching environment in schools. As pointed out by one of the principals at the meetings which I had with parents, a teacher today does not only teach. He is also a collector of fees, a keeper of records and an amateur typist. And when he has free time, he is called upon to repair and to maintain audio-visual equipment. In order to enable teachers and principals to be more effective, my Ministry will implement a scheme to provide an executive officer and adequate clerical staff and technicians in all our schools in order to reduce the administrative burden of principals and teachers. Further- more, the Ministry will introduce measures to relieve teachers of unnecessary administrative chores, thereby allowing them to concentrate on their teaching duties. A pilot project on the use of GIRO for the collection of school and miscellaneous fees was implemented in eight schools last year. With the GIRO scheme, teachers are freed from the task of fee collection. The Ministry will extend the GIRO scheme for the payment of school and miscellaneous fees to all primary schools by March 1988 and to all secondary schools and junior colleges by December 1988. Similarly, with the implementation of the computer network linking schools to the Ministry Headquarters, teachers will be relieved of many non-teaching and mundane tasks, such as filling in of report books, mark sheets, class registers and pupils' data forms. Sir, one of the problems which makes for less effective teaching in our schools is the very large class size, which can be over 40 pupils to a class in some of our more popular schools.”
“The pilot project in 20 schools started by my Ministry in January 1986 has shown that with only one session of pupils using the school facilities for the whole day, schools have much greater flexibility in time-tabling and in programme organization. Sir, this makes possible a variety of programmes to be organized to meet the specific needs and interests of pupils. There is also better coordination among school staff as more regular consultation on pupil and curriculum matters allows for better planning and continuity in teaching. Relationships between teachers and pupils are therefore strengthened as staff and pupils stay back more often for formal and informal activities. This greater sense of belonging makes schools life more enriching and enjoyable. Sir, Government has therefore decided to introduce the Single Session System in all our schools beginning with the secondary schools. To implement the Single Session System in all secondary schools, we will need to build an additional 50 schools over and above the 25 new schools which have been provided for under the present school building programme scheduled to end in 1989. It will not be an easy task to build the schools nor to train the principals needed to lead the schools and the teachers needed to man the classrooms and to conduct the lessons. Nevertheless, Sir, for the sake of our children, we must try. My Ministry will draw up a plan to implement the Single Session System in all secondary schools over a period of 6-7 years. This will involve building, on the average, 10-12 schools a year or about one school every month over the next 6-7 years. Barring mishaps, all children who register for Primary 1 this year can look forward to entering Single Session Schools when they enrol for Secondary 1 in 1994.”
“Sir, there are four principal areas of concern which emerged from the meetings which I had and which can be seen from the comments of Members today. These four areas are: (1) Implementing the Single Session System in all schools, starting with the secondary schools. (2) Creating a more effective teaching environment by providing principals and teachers with adequate ancillary support and reducing class size. (3) Emphasizing pastoral care in our schools and particularly career guidance in our secondary schools and our junior colleges. (4) Allowing schools to operate with greater flexibility and greater autonomy. Let me, Sir, deal with each of these areas in turn. First, the implementation of the Single Session System in all schools in Singapore. Thirty years ago, there was a shortage of places in our schools and many of the children in Singapore did not have the opportunity to go to school. In order to provide a place in school for every child of school-going age, our schools had to go double session. However, the double session system has many disadvantages. With two sessions of pupils sharing the same facilities, principals and teachers face real handicaps and constraints in devising appropriate education programmes for the children under their charge. There are time-tabling difficulties and it is difficult to arrange either remedial or enrichment classes simply because the classrooms are often not available. Furthermore, as the double session system comprises essentially two separate schools operating in the same school premises, it is rare for staff and children from both sessions to come together at the same time. This makes it difficult to build up a cohesive and distinctive school community.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, first of all, may I thank hon. Members for their suggestions, views and comments on this very important topic of Education which is of interest and concern to all Singaporeans as it affects our children. Members have ranged over a wide variety of topics. With your permission, Sir, and with the permission of Members, what I would like to do now under this particular Head is to deal with broad policy issues and later on when there are more departmental matters, I will take them up and also my colleagues, the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to them under the respective subheads. Sir, in December last year, I led a delegation of 12 principals to visit a number of acknowledged good schools in Britain and the United States. The purpose of the visit was to identify the factors which go to make a good and effective school and to consider how such factors could be developed in our schools in Singapore. As Members know, the principals have set out their conclusions and recommendations in a Report, "Towards Excellence in Schools". I see the Chairman of the GPC on Education has got a copy in the House. This Report has been widely publicized in the press and on SBC. Also, in a series of meetings last month, I discussed the principals' recommendations with parents, with principals and with teachers. The points that were raised at the meetings have been adequately covered in the press and I do not propose to repeat them today. What I intend to do is to respond, first of all, to the main point raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah, and that is, to identify what are the priority areas. What are the areas of concern that emerged from these meetings and how does the Government propose to respond to these areas of concern?”
“I do not think we should anticipate the question. I said the plan must come from the school community. They have not presented me with a plan yet. I do not think we should prejudice their case at present.”
“The planned enrolments at present for the standard schools are 2,330 pupils for each primary school and 1,890 pupils for each secondary school. These may be revised if the single session school concept is adopted. The Hougang Junior College is earmarked for development in 1987 and scheduled for completion in 1989/90. The present planned student enrolment for a junior college is 1,200 students. Sir, with regard to the query from the Member for Potong Pasir, as I have said, when a school wants to go independent, the initiative must come from the school itself. So in the case of ACS, not only will the old boys have a say, I would expect them to take the initiative in converting ACS from a Government-aided school to an independent school if they want this. Regarding the school enrolment, it depends on the plan which is put up by the old boys. I have not seen the plan yet.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will first take up the queries raised up by the Member for Punggol. Under the present school and junior college building programme, there are 23 primary schools, 14 secondary schools and two junior colleges under construction. The supplementary funds amounting to $13.4 million are required to meet the increased expenditure on progress payments owing to the acceleration of the building programmes. As a result of the accelerated pace of construction, the completion of three schools will be advanced from 1988 to 1987. The schools involved are, first, a secondary school at Bishan Site 1 which has been advanced from January 1988 to April 1987; a secondary school at Hougang Site 1, from February 1988 to November 1987; and a secondary school at Bukit Batok Site 7, from February 1988 to November 1987. During FY 86, there has also been better progress of building works on all other school building projects. Hence progress payments fell due earlier and additional funds are required to meet these payments. Now I come to the schools in the Punggol/Hougang zone. In 1986, the demand for schools within the Punggol/Hougang zone was adequately met by the existing 20 primary and 15 secondary schools, including aided schools. Three new Government primary and four secondary schools were completed during 1986. Another four schools are due for completion in 1987. Two secondary schools are located at Serangoon; one primary and one secondary school at Hougang. All recently completed schools and the schools currently under construction are built to prevailing standards and specifications which, of course, are double sessions as at present.”
“Sir, I think that question should properly be directed to the Minister for Finance. I would not advise him to do so.”
“With better starting ratios and a greater variety of courses, it is not possible to keep polytechnic tuition fees at an unchanged level. But, Sir, with stringent cost control at the two polytechnics, I am of the view that the polytechnics should hold down any increase in fees to a much lower level than the average increase of 20% per annum which was the case for the last three years, 1984/85, 1985/86, 1986/87. There was one other question on the administrative cost. Sir, the University will be discussing with a number of banks as to whether they can help the University to administer this particular loan scheme. We will try and keep the cost as low as possible. I think the net result is that it will be worth the exercise.”
“Sir, I will first respond to the question raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah regarding the polytechnics. Sir, fixing tuition fees at a certain percentage of the recurrent cost per student studying in the various courses is a new principle which has not hitherto been applied in Singapore. Like all innovations affecting our educational institutions, I am inclined to take a cautious approach and confine the application of this new principle to the NUS and to the NTI, at least for the next few years until the system settles down and any transitional difficulties have been resolved. With regard to the polytechnics, I note that the polytechnics' three-year diploma courses are designed mainly for an intake consisting of '0' level students. About 90% of the intake of the polytechnics are '0' level students. The polytechnics draw their students essentially from the same pool of '0' level students as the pre-university centres and the junior colleges. And each year the polytechnics participate in the Ministry of Education joint admission exercise together with the pre-unviersity centres and the junior colleges. The role of the polytechnics is to produce technicians and middle-level personnel for our economy. As institutions of post-secondary education, the polytechnics are mid-way between the NUS and the NTI and the pre-university centres and junior colleges. The operating cost per student, which is about $6,000 at the polytechnics, is more than double the operating cost per student, about $2,700, in our junior colleges but it is much lower than the operating cost per student, about $14,400 as I have just mentioned, at NUS and NTI. Presently the Government subsidizes about 83% of the operating cost for each student at our polytechnics.”
“Sir, with regard to the first question as to the numbers who have been educated in medicine or dentistry over the last 10 years, I do not have the information at hand here. I will obtain them and give them to the Member. Secondly, with regard to whether the cost of recovering the loans will be high, I think it will be. We did take that into consideration. We have thought of making the loan conditions somewhat more strict by perhaps requiring two guarantors who must be approved by the University. But, Sir, this is the first time that we are moving to this new system and, on balance, we should make the loan scheme as liberal as possible. If, in the light of experience later on, we have to modify some of the condi- tions, this question can always be considered. But as the first step, we should make it as liberal and as easy as possible for students to get loans. Next, the question raised by the Member and also by the Member for Ayer Rajah regarding CPF. Obviously, Sir, these points raised by Backbenchers will be taken note by the Government. I am sure the Minister for Labour will consider it very seriously. I will discuss the matter with him and eventually a paper will go to Cabinet. What the result is, I do not know.”
“Furthermore, all foreign students who study at NUS and NTI are required to work in Singapore for three years after they have graduated and in that case supplementing the number of skilled people which we have to service our economy.”
“No, that is not true then. In that case, there are no foreign students who have been given half-grants. All foreign students are bonded to work in Singapore for three years after they graduate. If they do not work in Singapore, then they have got to pay back essentially the full cost of their university education here, which is at a very much higher rate. The final question is, why should we not raise tuition fees for foreign students much more than the current 50% more than our own local students, and thereby charge our local students less? Sir, this comes back to the point which I made at the end of my ministerial statement. We are a small talent pool here, Sir. We must, first of all, make sure that any local student who has the ability and the talent to make it to university will be enabled to do so. And here, Sir, the very generous loan scheme provided by the Government will make it possible for any local Singapore student, no matter what his or her circumstances are, to attend University if he or she can qualify. But, Sir, I would not like to have fees for foreign students fixed at so high a rate that we discourage very bright talented foreign students from joining our University here. In addition to supplementing our own talent pool, Sir, I think they are a benefit to our own University students. I have explained on many previous occasions that with all our students coming from the same type of social and home backgrounds, it is useful for them to mix with students from other countries, students who have had other experiences of life, so that our students can broaden their outlook and thereby acquire a good University education.”
“Sir, with regard to the first question from the Member for Potong Pasir, there is no saving of $28 million. The $28 million is required by the University to meet its operating expenses for 1987/88. So the University will not be saving any money. Secondly, the reason for the size of the jump or the increase in the fees. I have already explained that we would like to reduce the subsidy for university education over a period of time so as to be able to spend more on education in our schools, junior colleges, polytechnics and VITB where the majority of our students are. Thirdly, with regard to the question about Malay students, they will enjoy the privileges specified in the Constitution. Fourthly, the question about foreign students with half-grants. I am not quite sure about that point. Perhaps the Member might be referring to students who are on university scholarships. If he can let me have the details, then I will give him the reply. Would that be all right?”
“Mr Chiam See Tong: I notice, by this increase of fees, there will be a saving of at least $28 million which has to be paid for by tuition fees. Will this benefit go to the junior colleges and technical institutions? You said here, "Do they pay less over the other side?" That is one question. I notice the fee increase is almost twice or three times. Is there a necessity for this big jump, rather than increase it by stages? The third question is: what is the position of our Malay students? Do they still get their benefits under our Constitution? The fourth question is this. I have been told that some foreign students are currently getting half-grants from our local University. What is their position then? The other question is: why are we charging the foreign students rather low tuition fees at only 50% extra when compared to our own students? When you go to foreign universities, you find that their own students go into their universities almost free, with a lot of liberal grants, but foreign students are charged probably 10 times the amount. So why are we charging only 50% more? Can we not charge our own students less and, perhaps, increase the fees for foreign students?”
“Sir, the Member's first question is on the cost of educating each student in the Medical and Dental faculties. The operating cost now is in the region of over $40,000 per student each year in the Medical and Dental faculties. The second and third questions relate to why we fix the cost recovery rate of 9% as against 16% for the non-laboratory based faculties and 15% for the laboratory based faculties. Sir, I agree that it will be more equitable to have them all at the same rate, say, 15% or 16%. But this would mean that we will have to raise the fees for the medical students, perhaps by four or five times. I think it is quite high. I did consider it but, as you can see, the fees are already quite high. Perhaps we should take a bit of time before we raise it to the same level as the other faculties, although I agree with the Member that in all fairness there is no reason why students studying Medicine or Dentistry should, in principle, enjoy a higher subsidy than those studying in the other faculties. But it is best not to try and do too much at one stage and I think this can be adjusted over a period of time. But I will keep in mind what the Member has just raised. The fourth and fifth question is how long will this increase last and whether there will be another upward increase in future years? Sir, I have always taken the view that in terms of education and in terms of fees, one should not try to rush things. This increase was necessary and, as I have explained to Members, it has taken us some two years to work out a scheme which, I believe, is now fair and workable. I would hope to allow these fees to settle down for one or two years. We may have to make a small increase in 1988 but I would not like to see another major increase coming too soon after this one.”
“Sir, with regard to the first question, what happens should the fund run out? Let me just say that the present provision of $100 million is much more than adequate for the next few years. For 1987/88 I think the total amount is not estimated to be more than $20 million to $25 million. So the $100 million fund will be more than sufficient for the foreseeable future. And if that is not enough, then as I said before, Sir, we must make sure that more funds will be available. The second question is the interest rate. Fixed at the banks' prime rate, is it not too high in relation to the CPF rate? And if that is the case, should parents not be allowed to use their CPF rather than take a Government loan? Well, Sir, CPF is not within my province. I would not presume to announce policies which are under the proper supervision of another Minister. Perhaps the Minister for Labour might like to comment.”
“109 - 110) With the new fee structure, tuition fees will now fund 12% of the estimated 1987/88 operating cost excluding the capital cost of the NUS as against 8% in 1986/87. With the loan scheme that I have just announced, the amount of fees in 1987/88 that a student studying in the faculties other than Medicine and Dentistry will have to pay from his own funds in cash will be either the same or, in fact, less than the amount the student had to pay in 1986/87. For a Singapore student who is studying either Medicine or Dentistry, he will have to pay in cash $650 more than in 1987/88 than in 1986/87. I think that this should be within the capacity of the Medical or Dentistry students to pay. And if there are genuine cases of financial hardship, then the University has other loan funds which can be used to supplement the Government loans. However, to qualify for these additional loans, I think it is only fair that the student should be required to produce evidence of genuine financial hardship. Sir, we are a small nation with a small talent pool. We must develop every child to his fullest potential. Every student who can make it to University is an additional asset for Singapore. We must therefore at all times ensure that children from all economic groups have a chance to be admitted to our Universities. And if Uni- versity fees have to be raised further, we will make sure that there is sufficient availability of loan funds so that no student will be denied admission to NUS or to NTI simply because his or her parents cannot afford to pay the fees. Sir, this is a responsibility which Government must fulfil.”
“Fourth, one guarantor above 21 years will be required, but no income or residential qualifications will be stipulated for the guarantor. Now, Sir, I come to the tuition fees for the current year 1987/88. These are shown in Annex II (Cols. 109 - 110). (Copies of document distributed to Members.) As Members will see, they are divided into three categories, one for the non-laboratory based faculties; (2) for the laboratory based faculties and (3) for dentistry and medicine. Now, Sir, a word on how the new fees are worked out. First of all, these fees will apply to both the NUS and the NTI. The fees are worked out on the following principles. The new fees will achieve a cost recovery of 16% of the average 1987/88 budgetted operating cost per Singapore student in the non-laboratory based faculties, which are Accountancy and Business Administration, Arts and Social Science and Law, as against 12% for 1986/87. For the laboratory based faculties which are Architecture and Building, Engineering and Science, the new fees will represent a cost recovery of 15% for 1987/88 as against 10% for 1986/87. For the Medical and the Dental faculties, the cost recovery for 1987/88 is 9% as against 4% for 1986/87. For foreign students, which means non-Singaporeans and non-permanent residents, the fees will be set, as of now, at 50% above those for Singapore students, and the new fees will apply to existing as well as to new students but with national servicemen enjoying a two-year lag as at present in accordance with present practice. Annex II - NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE AND NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE TUITION FEES AND LOANS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 1987/88 (Cols.”
“It is only right that after they have graduated they should pay back part of the Government's subsidy in order to lessen the burden of financing University education from taxpayers' money. For the academic year 1987/88 excluding the research institutes and the School of Accountancy which will be transferred to the NTI, the NUS has estimated an operating expenditure of $231 million. This expenditure will be financed largely through a Government grant of $189 million. The University expects to be able to raise an amount of $14 million from other revenues such as miscellaneous fees and income from investments. The balance of $28 million will have to be raised from tuition fees. Before I announce the tuition fees for the academic year 1987/88, I would like, Sir, to reiterate the point I made at the beginning of my statement that whatever scheme we devise we must make sure that students who come from poor families are not penalized or prevented from acquiring a tertiary education simply because of their financial circumstances. To ensure that the increased fees for the academic year 1987/88 do not bar bright children from poor families from obtaining a University education, the Government has earmarked a sum of $100 million to be operated as a revolving fund to finance student loans which will be given liberally to students at the NUS and the NTI. The terms of the loans will be as follows: First, the amount of the loans will be 50% of the new fees to be charged for the academic year 1987/88. Second, the interest rate will be the average of the prime lending rates charged by the Big Four local banks. Third, repayment will be over a maximum period of 15 years, depending on the size of the loan, and commencing not later than one year after graduation.”
“107 - 108) As Members can see from Annex 1, the bulk of our student population of over 500,000 are in either schools, junior colleges, pre-university centres or our technical institutions, the VITB and the two polytechnics. The number in our Universities comprise some 16,000 students representing 3% of the student population in Singapore. However, in terms of Government expenditure on education as you can see from Annex 1, 20% of total recurrent expenditure in 1986 was spent on Universities as against 80% in our schools, junior colleges, pre-university centres and the technical institutions. In other words, Sir, Government was spending each year some $14,400 to educate a student at the University level as against $1,900 for each pupil in schools, junior colleges, pre-University centres, the polytechnics and the VITB. With most of our students studying in schools, junior colleges, pre-University centres and the technical institutions, it would be more equitable to reduce the Government's subsidy for University education and increase the amount that we can spend to upgrade the quality of education in our schools. This, Sir, we intend to do. The current proposal to make all our secondary schools single session will, for example, necessitate the building of another 40 to 50 schools with the capital cost alone amounting to over $1 billion. If we wish to reduce class size to a manageable level, we will need to train and employ an additional 3,500 teachers to staff our secondary schools. This will increase operating expenditure in our secondary schools by at least $150 million annually. Sir, University students on graduation can aspire to be members of highly paid professions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will remember that in March 1985 and again last year during the debate on the Estimates of the Ministry of Education in the Committee of Supply, I pointed out that students at our Universities, the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological Institute, were extremely heavily subsidized by our taxpayers. To reduce the subsidy, I suggested that it would be worthwhile for us to move to the American system whereby the tuition fees are fixed at a certain percentage of the recurring cost per student for the various courses available in the Universities. In making the suggestion, I emphasized that whatever scheme we devise we must make sure that students who come from poor families are not penalized or prevented from acquiring a tertiary education simply because of their financial circumstances. Sir, it has taken some two years to work out a scheme which is equitable and workable. I would like today to inform Members of the main details. Let me start with some statistics. Each year, some 40,000 pupils register for Primary 1 and Pre-Primary in our schools. Of these 40,000 children, 85% go on to secondary schools after passing the PSLE examinations. Those who eventually finish their secondary school education with either 'N' or 'O' levels represent 80% of the Primary 1 cohort. Approximately 50% of each Primary 1 cohort go on to some form of post-secondary education in either the junior colleges, the pre-university centres or the polytechnics and 12% of the Primary 1 cohort eventually make it to the University. Can I now ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute an Annex? [Copies of Annex (Cols. 107 - 108) distributed to hon. Members.] Annex - 1986 RECURRENT EXPENDITURE AND ENROLMENT (Cols.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the former Seh Chuan High School building is earmarked for use as a holding school for the Pei Hwa School, whose proposal to upgrade its existing facilities is presently under consideration. TELOK BLANGAH ESTATE (Flooding problem) 7. Dr Koh Lam Son asked the Minister for the Environment whether steps have been taken to deal with the flooding problem along Telok Blangah Road in Telok Blangah Estate.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, manageable enrolments and better teacher-pupil ratios are necessary if we are to improve the quality of education in Singapore. These and other findings were identified by the principals and myself during our visit to schools in the United States of America and the United Kingdom in December 1986. A Report on the visit is being finalized and will be made public early next month. The Report will deal not only with the query raised by the Member but with the other factors which are necessary to make a good and successful school. To answer the Member's query fully, I should discuss it in relation to these other factors. Sir, if the Member will be patient for a few more weeks, I promise that his query will be answered fully. PLANS FOR FORMER SEH CHUAN HIGH SCHOOL 6. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Education what is the plan for the former Seh Chuan High School building located at the junction of Chun Tin Road and Jalan Seh Chuan.”
“The reasons for the changes in the criteria for admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres have been fully explained in the press. There is no need to table a paper in Parliament. WALL CLADDING MATERIAL FOR MASS RAPID TRANSIT BISHAN DEPOT 16. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Communications and Information if he will explain (a) why the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation found it necessary and desirable to order wall cladding material for Bishan Depot from abroad when the same could have been obtained locally and much cheaper; and (b) whether the Corporation has been asked to encourage local manufacture even if the materials may not be of the same aesthetic standard as foreign materials.”
“Children of members of Citizens' Consultative Committees, Community Centre Management Committees and Residents' Committees are not automatically accorded priority of admission to primary one in any school of their choice under Phase 2B but they can register their first, second or third child for admission to primary one in a school within the constituency they are serving or residing under Phase 2B. PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION SYSTEM 15. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Education whether he will table a Paper in Parliament for a full discussion on the Government's plans to overhaul the pre - university education announced in the press on the 29th May 1986 before any steps are taken by the Government to reform the present system.”
“Sir, as there are barely five minutes more, I think it is fair to let my Parliamentary Secretary use up the time. The Member for Potong Pasir has had more than his ample share of time in this Debate.”
“We will do our best to effect what further improvements we can make, depending on our constraints and resources. Sir, two things are necessary if the Ministry of Education is to succeed in meeting its objectives: (1) We shall need the full support of teachers, of principals, of parents and of Members of this House; and (2) We shall need a lot of money. I am therefore happy that, as announced by the First Deputy Prime Minister, Government has committed to spend an additional $3 billion over the next ten years over and above the normal Education budget to improve the quality of education in Singapore. Sir, this handsome commitment, particularly at a time of severe financial stringency, gives me confidence that the Ministry of Education has more than a fair chance of success in its efforts to give the children of Singapore an advantage which is more precious than money, that is schools and institutions which do not stifle the spirit but which will inculcate in our young the qualities of intellectual adventure, self-confidence and respect for the nation and our traditional values. Sir, this is a great aim and a worthy challenge. Unlike last year I cannot promise Members that we will be able to resolve the issues, which I have outlined, by the end of 1986. However, I hope that we shall be able to make sufficient progress this year for me to be able to make an interim report to Members when we meet again next year to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Education in the 1987 Budget. Much obliged, Mr Chairman, Sir.”
“I suggested then that to eventually reduce the subsidy it would be worthwhile to move closer to the American system whereby the fees for the various courses are fixed at a certain percentage of the recurrent cost per student for the various courses. The First Deputy Prime Minister in a recent speech to Singapore Polytechnic students has also suggested that a scheme should be devised to enable Polytechnic and University students to pay back at least part of the Government subsidy after they have graduated. It goes without saying, Sir, that whatever scheme we devise, we must make sure that students who come from poor families are not penalized or prevented from acquiring a tertiary education simply because of their financial circumstances. I think that this is very important. I stated last year that I was unfortunately not able to get the necessary information in time to introduce a suitable scheme in the 1985 Budget. I regret very much that due to pressing tasks I have had to postpone the resolution of this problem for another year. But knowing how disappointed Members must be, I therefore give my assurance that I shall make this problem a priority this year so that I shall not try Members' patience unduly. Sir, in giving this broad outline of the objectives of the Ministry of Education over the next few years, I am conscious that I have not touched on many other important areas, for example, improvement of curriculum, including subjects like Art and Music, as mentioned by the Member for Ulu Pandan, strengthening of moral education, and more assistance for the education of the handicapped, which was mentioned, I believe, by the Member for Bo Wen. I would like to assure Members that the Ministry of Education does not intend to neglect these important areas.”
“The undergraduate population at NTI would eventually be between 5,000 and 6,000 students, and this would be sufficiently large to form the basis of a first-class integrated technological university at a very high level. The Accountancy courses would also complement the Engineering courses currently available at NTI and would make for a richer academic environment. As with the present Engineering schools at NTI, the Accountancy students will continue to receive NUS degrees. This is made possible by the present arrangement whereby the decisions of the NTI Academic Board which oversees academic standards at NTI, are confirmed by the NUS Senate. The staff members of the School of Accountancy and the Council of the Singapore Society of Accountants are of the view that the relocation would be in the long-term interest of the School. They have informed me that they are in favour of the proposal. Sir, the relocation of the School of Accountancy can only be effected when the new NTI Complex, which is presently under construction, is fully completed in 1987. I realize that the relocation may result in inconvenience and perhaps some financial hardship for a number of students. I have, therefore, asked the Vice-Chancellor of the NUS to arrange for me to meet with the representatives of the School of Accountancy students to see how the problems arising from the relocation can be alleviated. Now, Sir, on the problem of funding of our tertiary institutions. Members will remember that I pointed out last year that students at our University and Polytechnics are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.”
“Sir, the two main issues concerning tertiary education in Singapore today are: (1) How to make the optimum use of the facilities and land which we have at the NUS at Kent Ridge and the NTI at Jurong? and (2) How to put the funding of tertiary education on an appropriate basis? The total undergraduate population at NUS and NTI in the present academic year 1985/86 comprise some 15,600 students, with 13,600 students enrolled in the eight faculties at NUS and just over 2,000 students in the three Schools of Engineering at NTI. Provided that there are sufficient students of the required academic standard, the Economic Committee has suggested that the enrolment at our tertiary institutions should continue to increase, although at a much slower rate than in previous years. Projections made by NUS and NTI indicate that, even with very conservative assumptions, our undergraduate population could exceed 20,000 students by the 1990s with about 17,000 students at NUS and just over 3,000 students at NTI. This would mean overcrowding at Kent Ridge and under-utilization of resources at NTI. I have discussed this problem at several meetings with the Vice-Chancellor of the NUS, the President of the NTI, and the Deans of the Faculties and Schools at both the NUS and the NTI. The consensus of these meetings is that it would be desirable to relocate the School of Accountancy from NUS at Kent Ridge to NTI at Jurong. This move would have many advantages. It would alleviate the overcrowding at Kent Ridge and keep the undergraduate population at Kent Ridge to under 15,000 students.”
“VITB will expand its enrolment to 26,000 by 1990. The annual intake then will be about 15,000. This represents approximately 38% of all school leavers each year. Every school leaver will then have an opportunity to acquire an industrial or business skill before he or she joins the workforce. Three new vocational institutes will be built. Adjustments to courses will be made from time to time in response to the needs of employers. The Polytechnics will similarly restructure their enrolment programmes commensurate with the needs of our economy and the pool of qualified students that we can produce. The Polytechnics and the VITB will also continue to give emphasis to continuing education and training, the importance of which has been emphasized by the Member for Kebun Baru. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.35 pm Each year more than 40,000 workers participate in 120 part-time evening courses conducted by the VITB. The BEST programme which is jointly administered by the VITB and the NTUC has been highly successful. Since its inception, about 60,000 workers have participated in this programme. The VITB now intends to extend this programme to offer GCE 'N' level courses in English and Mathematics to workers who complete their BEST courses. The VITB will also expand its modular skills training scheme which assists small companies to improve the skills of their workers. Now, Sir, after having gone through primary schools, secondary schools, junior colleges and polytechnics, I finally arrive at our two premier tertiary institutions - the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological Institute.”
“The Ministry will review the admission criteria this year with a view to putting greater weight on the subjects which are relevant to the courses taken by the students in the junior colleges and in the Pre-University centres. I hope that this matter will be resolved within the next few months. Sir, the Economic Committee, whose recommendations have been endorsed by the Government, pointed out that despite all the efforts which have been taken since 1979 to increase the enrolment at our various educational institutions, our workforce is still generally less educated than the workforces in the United States, Japan and even Taiwan. The Committee made the important point that the direct comparison of Singapore with the educational performance of these countries may not be entirely valid since the countries do not have uniform examinations at the national level. Furthermore, Japan and Taiwan have largely homogenous populations which make their education problems easier. Given the differences, it would be difficult for us to achieve the same levels as these two countries. Nevertheless, the Economic Committee stressed that we must upgrade the educational level of our population relentlessly. They recommended that we should aim by 1990 to raise the median educational standard of our workforce to Secondary 4N or the equivalent. Unless we can achieve this, our efforts to upgrade to high value-added and knowledge - intensive activities will be hampered. To meet the Economic Committee's recommendations that the intake of trainees for technicians and skilled workers be increased, the Polytechnics and the VITB, as well as the EDB training centres, will have to expand further and add to the variety of courses which they are now offering.”
“About half of the students in the pre-university centres register for commercial subjects and many in the remaining half would register for the commerce stream if places were available. It is, I think, useful to retain the post-secondary course to provide further education for secondary school graduates who want some additional training before going to work. But we must find some means to eventually phase out the pre-university centres from the secondary schools. Since the majority of the students in the pre-university centres are attracted to useful commercial course, the VITB and the Polytechnics can expand their intakes of 'O' level students for their Diploma and their Certificate in Business Study courses. A substantial number of students who would normally have joined the pre-university centres would be attracted to these commercial courses. At the same time, the Ministry of Education will study the possibility of setting up centralized pre-university centres, independent from the secondary schools, which would teach mainly commercial subjects to meet the needs of those students who, for one reason or another, may find the courses in the VITB or the Polytechnics not suitable for them. Finally, a word about the present criteria for qualifying for admission to junior colleges and to Pre-University Centres. For admission to junior colleges, the present criterion is 17 points or better for the student's First Language and his best four other subjects at '0' level. ECA is not included. For admission to Pre-University centres, it is 18, 19 or 20 points which may include ECA. In both cases, a grade of at least D7 in the student's second language is compulsory.”
“I think that it is best for each junior college to make up its own mind as to how it should conduct its own academic and college programmes. For this purpose, I have encouraged the principals of each of our junior colleges to draw up a development plan for his or her junior college covering not only the physical facilities but also the academic programmes, the administrative arrangements and other core curricular activities. When the principals have finalized their plans, I shall discuss their plans with each one of them individually. Now, the pre-university centres, a point brought up by the Member for Buona Vista. We have currently some 7,800 students in 21 pre-university centres and the intake is between 2,500 and 3,000 students each year. The situation in our pre-university centres leaves much to be desired. For one thing, the attrition rate is very high. Out of each cohort of students who are admitted to the pre-university centres in any one year, less than a third would eventually sit for the 'A' level examinations in three years' time and obtain two 'A' levels and two 'AO' levels, including the General Paper. One-fifth to one-quarter of the pre-university centre students, in fact, drop out before taking their 'A' level examinations. The principals of the secondary schools which have pre-university centres also informed me that they face considerable difficulties in integrating these students into the school life. The pre-university students who may be 19 or 20 years of age are much older. They have little in common with the secondary school students. They do not feel that they belong to the school. Consequently, problems of morale and discipline arise.”
“From these students, Sir, will come the majority of our administrators, doctors, engineers, architects, other professionals and business and civic leaders. We cannot spend money more usefully than on educating these students. The return that Singapore will get from improving the quality of junior college education far outweighs any possible return from other Government expenditure. Sir, it is unlikely that our junior college enrolment will increase significantly from the present level since we are rapidly reaching the point when all students who can benefit from a junior college education are provided with a place. But even if our junior college enrolment does not increase further from the approximately 20,000 students which we now have, we will still need at least another four junior colleges to reduce the enrolment of each junior college to an average of 1,200, and if our school cohort becomes smaller in the 1990s with declining birth rates, then we should be able to look forward to reducing the enrolment further to 1,000 students in each junior college. Each junior college will then have about 500 students in each year of the two-year course and this will enable more individual attention to be given to each student than is presently possible. Just as important as improved facilities is the need to make sure that our junior colleges develop their own individuality and their own character. It is not necessary for all the junior colleges to offer the same courses or to have the same emphasis. Some junior colleges may want to concentrate on arts and science while other junior colleges would prefer to have a wider variety of courses.”
“I am sure, Sir, that we will learn much from this pilot project and the results obtained will help us to draw up a realistic schedule to implement the single-session system in our secondary schools. Now, Sir, the junior colleges and the pre-university centres. Over the last three months, I have had several discussions with the principals of our 12 junior colleges and the 21 secondary schools with pre-university centres to find out their views on the future of post-secondary education in Singapore. Let me first deal with the junior colleges. We have at present 12 junior colleges with a total enrolment of 18,767 students, 9,565 students in Pre-University 1 and 9,202 students in Pre-University 2. One new junior college, the Yishun Junior College, is presently housed in a new secondary school and will only be able to move into permanent premises at the end of this year. The 13th and the newest junior college, the Tampines Junior College, will begin classes in April. Like the Yishun Junior College, it will have to utilize secondary school premises until the end of this year when permanent accommodation will be ready. Sir, I do not regard the accommodation in our junior colleges to be satisfactory. To provide sufficient places to all those who have qualified, it was necessary for each for the 11 established junior colleges to increase their enrolment to between 1,600 and 1,800 pupils. If we consider that the junior colleges were designed to cater for a maximum enrolment of 1,200 each, the extent of overcrowding is very clear. Sir, we do ourselves a disservice when we stint on the resources that we devote to junior college education. The students in our junior colleges comprise the most promising 25% of our school cohort.”
“However, this problem will be alleviated when part of the MRT network becomes operational after 1988. The operating cost per student in single-session schools will be higher because the same school facilities will be used by fewer children. Also, those students who take part in activities after school hours will need to take their lunch in schools. Proper tuckshop facilities or other arrangements for pupils' lunches will therefore have to be worked out. To implement the single-session system in all secondary schools, we will need to build an additional 55 standard secondary schools over and above the present school building programme which is scheduled to end in 1989. The existing secondary schools will also need to be substantially upgraded. The most critical factor, however, in implementing a single-session system is the need to train an additional 100 principals who will have the resourcefulness and the imagination to exploit the opportunities that become available in a single-session system. If the principal lacks the leadership and initiative to make his teachers want to enrich the school life with imaginative programmes, then all that will result from the single-session system will be an expensive under- utilization of precious resources. To study in detail how a single-session system can best benefit students and what operational difficulties will be encountered, 20 schools are operating on a single-session system this year as a pilot project. I have encouraged the principals of these schools to follow their own initiative in developing programmes, activities and arrangements to implement the single-session system in their respective schools.”
“The concept of a single-session school, Sir, is different from that of a full-day school. In a full-day school, the curriculum time is increased. Formal classes stretch from the morning to the afternoon. However, in a single-session system the schools will conduct the normal curriculum in the morning. The advantage of a single-session school is that the principal and the teachers have the flexibility to make use of available school facilities in the afternoon to organize additional school activities, for example, remedial or additional lessons or sports or other extra-curricular programmes. I was worried that, with the implementation of the single-session system, the workload of teachers would be increased and this might cause some unhappiness. I was therefore pleasantly surprised to learn from the principals, whose schools are already single-session, that with proper scheduling they were able to take this problem in their stride and that they had not encountered any opposition or resentment from teachers to the introduction of the single- session system. In fact, the teachers in single-session schools found it easier to arrange their ECA and other activities since these can be spread out over the week and need not be confined to Saturdays. Indeed, Sir, one principal was even able to recruit the assistance of parents to run extra-curricular activities and courses in her school, including a course on social graces and proper grooming for her secondary school girls. I think such initiative by principals deserves to be highly commended. With single-session schools, more pupils will be going to schools in the morning. This will generate heavier morning traffic, strain the resources of the public transport system and necessitate an increase in the number of school buses.”
“Implementation of the pre-primary programme for a full cohort of 40,000 children will require an additional 2,000 teachers, the majority being teachers in English, and the others, teachers in the mother tongue. We would have to recruit potential teachers immediately and send them for training at the Institute of Education. New classrooms would have to be built and specially outfitted to cater for these young children. This means that the present primary schools would have to be expanded and new schools would have to be built. Extending the pre-primary programme to children who take Malay or Tamil as a second language would also mean the need to develop syllabus and curriculum as well as instructional materials for these two languages. The Ministry will therefore have to give this matter very serious consideration before making a final decision. Sir, I now move on to secondary schools. Here our major objective will be to implement the single-session system in all secondary schools. The principals whom I consulted at the last Schools Council meeting in February were enthusiastic about the advantages of having a single-session system. They believe that this will enable them to offer a richer variety of programmes to cater for the needs of their pupils. Time-tabling difficulties will be significantly lessened and teachers will have more opportunities to interact with their pupils and to know and guide them better. This, the principals believe, will enable them to significantly improve the quality of education they can provide for their pupils. It will also engender in them, I hope, the qualities of creativity and initiative which have been so eloquently suggested by the Member for Changkat.”
“The pre-primary programme was initiated in 1978 in 67 Chinese-medium schools. The objectives at that time were (1) to facilitate the learning of languages, especially for children from dialect-speaking families and (2) to help arrest the steady decline in enrolment in the Chinese-medium schools. At present, we have 49 pre-primary centres in our primary schools with a total pupil enrolment of 4,865 compared with the Primary 1 enrolment of just under 40,000 pupils. The objective of the pre-primary programme is now to give children an early start in the learning of their school languages, which is English and their mother tongues. Since all children in our primary schools today study English as the first language, I consider it timely to reconsider whether the present restriction of the pre-primary programme to what were originally Chinese-medium schools should be broadened. The pre-primary programme has shown that an early start in proper language instruction is useful in providing pupils, especially those from dialect-speaking homes, a stronger foundation in the school languages, particularly English, which is the main language of instruction in our schools. It would appear to me to be logical, and indeed to be desirable, to make the pre-primary programme available to more children, including those children who take Malay or Tamil as their second language. Before the Ministry can decide to take this step, we will have to overcome a number of administrative problems. First, we shall need many more teachers who have been specially trained to look afer children of that young age. It is not desirable to have relief teachers teaching the pre-primary pupils. Children at that age require special care and special attention.”
“Sir, for society to recognize and to give proper value to the status of teachers, we must ensure that the salaries and the remuneration of teachers do not fall behind other professions. The Japanese, perhaps more than other nations, have given tangible acknowledgment to the importance of the teaching profession by putting salaries of teachers at a premium over comparable salaries in the other sectors of their civil service. It is no wonder, Sir, that Japanese economic achievements have so astonished the world. We may not be able to achieve such a desirable situation in Singapore, but we can at least make sure that the salaries and the promotional prospects of teachers and principals do not lag behind those of the other services in the public sector. If we can do that, Sir, then I can assure the Member for Paya Lebar that the problem of a shortage of teachers will be rapidly and expeditiously solved. However, Sir, monetary awards alone will not ensure that we have good teachers and good principals. Recognition by the public, by parents, by Members of this House, is vitally important. This, I hope, we shall give unstintingly. I will now go on to discuss how the quality of education in our schools can be improved at the various levels. First, the primary schools. The majority of children in Singapore begin their education at the age of 6 when they register for Primary 1. We will continue to upgrade the skills and the professionalism of teachers in our primary schools and improve the curriculum materials. But the main issue in primary school education which we have to consider is whether or not to lower the school-going age to 5, ie, extending the pre-primary programme to all primary schools. There are many problems which have to be resolved.”
“Getting better teachers means making the Education service an attractive vocation for capable young men and young women, providing better training and retraining, particularly at the Institute of Education, and ensuring that teachers and principals have good prospects for advancement in their careers. In this connection, Sir, I cannot agree more fully with the comments made by the Member for Moulmein. I hope that those in the other Ministries which have some connection with Education, particularly the Ministry of Finance and also the PSC, will pay due regard to his wise words. Some hon. Members: Hear! hear!”
“This will merely confuse parents and students and will not achieve any significant results. Our policy on bilingualism that every child should learn English and his mother tongue, I regard as a fundamental feature of our education system. I intend to preserve this policy. Children must learn English so that they will have a window to the knowledge, the technology, the expertise of the Western world. They must know their mother tongues so that they can understand what makes us what we are today. We would also not want our children to grow up to be mere book- worms, capable only of passing examinations and blinkered by the confines of the academic curriculum. A full education for our children means giving them not only rigorous academic standards which is essential but also healthy bodies, strong constitutions and robust moral values. However difficult it may be to achieve these aims, we must never stop trying. The two broad aims which the Ministry of Education will work towards in the next two to three years are (1) providing more flexibility and variety in our school programmes so as to allow more scope for the development of the different talents of our children. (2) Helping each school to develop its own character and special features so that the school does not become merely an anonymous training institution where children go to acquire knowledge, but an academic home where children go to be educated to become responsible adults. If we hope to achieve the above aims, one requirement is essential: continued upgrading of the quality of our teachers and our principals.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, with your permission and that of the Members of this House, I would like my two colleagues, the Minister of State for Education and the Parliamentary Secretary for Education, to share with me the work of answering the various points made by Members today. Sir, last year I identified four major and immediate problems which confronted the Ministry of Education. These were (1) the priority scheme for graduate mothers in the pre-primary and Primary 1 registration exercises. (2) The procedure for streaming at Primary 3, particularly with regard to the role to be played by parents at this early stage of the child's education. (3) Double weighting for English and for second language at PSLE. And (4) The criteria for promotion from Secondary 4N to Secondary 5N for students in the normal stream in our secondary schools. I informed Members then that the Ministry of Education would study these four problems with a view to resolving them by the end of 1985. We have done so, Sir, and I am happy that the solutions have been well received by the public and by parents. This year, Sir, I would like to take the opportunity to inform Members of what the Ministry of Education hopes to achieve in the next two to three years and how, with the assistance of Members and the support of parents and teachers, we believe we can achieve them. Let me first begin by telling Members what will not change. What will not change, Sir, will be our commitment to develop each child to the limits of his abilities and talents so that he will grow up to be a responsible adult, loyal to his country, concerned for his family and able to earn his own living. The basic structure and direction of our education system, I consider to be sound and do not need any further drastic modification.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, 16,058 students are offering TL2 in our schools and junior colleges. Of these, 13,253 students take TL2 lessons as part of their curriculum in the schools and 2,805 students go to Tamil language centres for the TL2 lessons. Sir, the Ministry will continue to increase the number of schools teaching TL2 within the school curriculum, subject to constraints of manpower and efficient utilization of resources. DEMAND FOR HDB FLATS (Effects of retrenchment and reduced CPF contributions) 5. Dr Koh Lam Son asked the Minister for National Development whether the reduction of 15% of employers' contribution to the Central Provident Fund and the retrenchment problem will lead to a reduction in the demand for Housing and Development Board flats thereby depressing further the construction industry. 6. Dr Koh Lam Son asked the Minister for National Development whether tenants of Housing and Development Board flats who intend to purchase flats will be affected by the reduction in the Central Provident Fund contribution and the unemployment situation thereby affecting the Government's plan to achieve a 100% home ownership by 1990.”
“Sir, there are none who are so blind as those who will not see. And there are none who are so deaf as those who will not hear. I do not direct the Vice-Chancellor of the NUS to appoint, promote or dismiss any staff member.”
“With respect to his second supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Vice-Chancellor and the Council of the National University of Singapore have been charged with the day-to-day administration of the University, including the appointment, promotion, and extension of service of the University staff members. I do not consider it appropriate for the Minister for Education to direct the University to make any particular decision concerning an individual staff member.”