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 7 of 24.
“One issue, Sir, for example, which has worried some of our more thoughtful and perceptive principals in our SAP schools, is the long term social consequences of teaching children almost exclusively of one race in a system where they do not have the opportunity to interact daily and frequently with children of other races during a very formative period of their lives. These principals are concerned as to whether their pupils will, in later life, be able to interact easily with children of other races and develop an instinctive understanding and respect for traditions which are different from those of their own. Sir, we need to foster a core of students who are able to use Chinese at first language level. Some of these students will continue to study Chinese at university level and, in due course, help to transmit the language by occupying key positions in our society as teachers, media personnel, diplomats or businessmen. It is for this reason that we need the SAP schools and the Language Elective pro- gramme in junior college. We should note that students in the SAP schools have opportunities to mix with children of other races, for example, when they go to junior college or when they are in national service. But nevertheless, Sir, having regard to the concern of the principals, should we not seek to improve the system by consciously providing more opportunities to enable the students in the SAP schools to interact with children of other schools and other races? Now, Sir, another issue. This concerns the intellectual requirement for Chinese children to learn two languages - English and Chinese - which are completely different linguistically. English has a phonetic alphabet while Chinese uses ideographs to construct words.”
“Sir, before I deal with the question from the Member, perhaps I can continue with the rest of my speech, with the Member's permission. Sir, I just want to point out to Members the uniqueness of our situation. Sir, I do not know of any other country in the world which tries to make an entire population bilingual in two languages. Most countries which teach their children more than one language educate their children in their mother tongue first in their early years of school. The children then pick up the second language in the later part of their school career. But no system in the world, Sir, tries to educate an entire population so that every one is literate in English and at the same time has a reasonable knowledge of his mother tongue. In Japan and Taiwan, for example, the children are educated essentially in Japanese and in Chinese respectively. The learning of English in these two countries only comes at a much later stage in life. The nearest to our situation is Switzerland. But even then, Sir, the Swiss Confederation is split up into French speaking, German speaking and Italian speaking communities. A child in Zurich, for example, which is in the German speaking community, would be educated primarily in German at the primary school level. He only starts to learn some conversational French but without taking any examinations towards the end of primary school. It is only in secondary school that French and English are introduced as formal school subjects. Sir, I believe that the problems of implementing a bilingual policy of education in a multi-racial society like Singapore have not been sufficiently addressed. There are many issues which, to my mind, require further investigation.”
“All this, Sir, together with smaller teaching groups should help the schools to improve their pass rates in Chinese and make the CL2 pass rates more comparable with their high pass rates in the other subjects. Sir, I have more to say but I may be reaching the end of my time. Should I sit down before I continue?”
“Towards this end, we have introduced improved methods for the teaching of CL2 which are more pupil-oriented. There is a certain amount of repetition and memorisation which has to be done in learning a language like Chinese which uses characters instead of an alphabet. This is unavoidable. The work simply has to be done but to the extent that we can, we should help children to learn the characters by means of better textbooks, better teaching methods, more audio-visual aids, more interesting lessons and, if necessary, more time given to supplementary lessons outside normal school hours. To make Chinese more interesting, the Ministry is producing supplementary readers in order to help children to read Chinese at the primary school level. By next year, we will have produced 240 such supplementary readers. These readers will use the same set of characters which are required for the PSLE. They will expose the children to a greater variety of reading materials and enable them to acquire familiarity with the characters. In addition, the Ministry is also working with a number of primary and secondary schools, which have a significant number of children who are bright but who appear to have problems coping with Chinese. The Ministry is working with the principals and teachers of these schools to see how their pupils can be helped to learn Chinese with greater enjoyment and success. With the assistance of Chinese Language specialists from the Ministry, the teachers in these schools are using more interactive teaching approaches and providing more opportunities for pupils to use Chinese in school situations. Where additional teachers are needed by the schools, they have been provided by the Ministry.”
“We know that the majority of our children do not have problems with the study of CL2. They can tackle it in addition to their other subjects and they are able to pass CL2 without undue stress or difficulty. Last year, for example, the percentage of children who pass CL2 at the 'O' and 'AO' levels were 92% and 85% respectively. The majority of our children therefore experience no great difficulty in learning CL2 in addition to learning English. However, Sir, we know that some children have difficulties with the learning of CL2. There are essentially two groups of children who may have difficulties with the study of CL2. The first group comprises children who are not academically able and who naturally find difficulty with CL2 as with the other subjects. These children simply need more time and a slower pace of work so that they will be able to cover the material without being unduly rushed. With the arrangements which we have now made in our schools, this is possible on a systematic basis. The second group of children who have difficulties with CL2 are those who are academically bright and who do well in their other subjects but who do poorly in CL2. For these children, the problem is perhaps more of attitude rather than aptitude. It is important, Sir, that children who have difficulties with CL2 should not be dismissed. We should take a sympathetic attitude towards them and see how their difficulties can be overcome. My Ministry is therefore constantly trying to find ways to make the study of CL2 more interesting and to reduce the stress. Our basic approach is to follow the principle, which I have stated in Parliament on a previous occasion, that children learn best when they want to learn.”
“Now, Sir, with regard to the study of the mother tongue, the basic approach of the Ministry of Education is to have two tracks. The first track is for children who are academically able and who would like to study their mother tongue at first language level, and the second track is for the majority of children who will learn their mother tongue at second language level. For those who would like to study Chinese at first language level (CL1), we now have the 10 primary SAP schools, 9 secondary SAP schools and from this year, two junior colleges offering CL1 in the Language Elective programme. This provides the opportunity for roughly 10% of our school population who are academically able and who would like to study Chinese at first language level in addition to English. For Malay or Indian children, who would like to study Malay or Tamil at first language level, we have established language centres where children can study ML1 or TL1 at the secondary school level. And, as I have stated many times, if there is demand for Malay or Indian children to study ML1 or TL1 at the primary or at the junior college level, we will institute arrangements to make this possible. In a multi-racial society like Singapore, the Government must take an even-handed attitude to all our three official languages - Malay, Chinese and Tamil. If there is demand, we will make it possible for Malay and Indian children to study ML1 and TL1, just as we have made arrangements for Chinese children to study CL1 in addition to English. Now, Sir, the main problem when people talk about bilingualism in Singapore is the study of Chinese as a second language, CL2, the subject brought up by Dr Hong Hai in yesterday's debate. This is a matter of continuing concern to my Ministry.”
“Efficiency is enhanced and there is greater understanding among Singaporeans of all races. This has, I believe, Sir, helped substantially to build the peaceful harmonious Singapore that we have today. The second reason for studying English is more pragmatic. It is to equip our children with the necessary means to make their way in the modern technological society that Singapore is today. Without an adequate knowledge of an international language like English, as all countries in the world are finding today, our students will be handicapped in furthering their education and preparing themselves for gainful employment. The problem, Sir, for the Ministry of Education is, therefore, not only the study of the mother tongue, which is necessary to enable our children to retain their cultural identity and to strengthen traditional values, but also to ensure that all our children acquire an adequate standard in English so that they will be able to get a good start in life. This is the real problem. Considerable progress has been made in the teaching of English in the last 10 years. We have recruited many English teachers and introduced innovations like REAP and other teaching techniques. Standards of English in our schools have consequently risen. For example, the pass rate in English at 'O' level, which used to be the stumbling block for students wanting to go on to higher education, increased from 40% in 1980 to 67% last year. Indeed, Sir, the percentage of our children passing English at 'O' level is today comparable to that of English children in England. This is an achievement in which we can take considerable pride. What it means is that our education system today provides the means for our children, all of them, to have a good start in life.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bedok GRC, Dr Hong Hai, spoke yesterday on the teaching of Chinese as a second language and suggested that the Ministry should put greater emphasis on making the learning of CL2, as he said, a pleasure and a delight. I think that it may be appropriate for me to say a few words on this subject now and also on the topic of bilingualism in general. There are a number of points which I would like to make. The first point, Sir, is that we should not equate bilingualism with only the study of the mother tongue. Bilingualism means much more than the study of the mother tongue. Bilingualism means the study of English and the mother tongue. This, Sir, I emphasize, because it is a matter of which we should be quite clear as otherwise we are in danger of going off on the wrong track. Why does the Ministry of Education place so much importance on the study of English? After all, as Dr Hong Hai said yesterday, English is not our language. English is the language of another society, another culture. It was imported into Singapore when we were a British colony. But I submit, Sir, that there are two very cogent reasons why the study of English is important in a modern multi-racial, open economy society like Singapore. The first reason, Sir, is to build social cohesion in our multi-racial society. Precisely because English is not the mother tongue of any of the three main races in Singapore and none of the three main races - Malay, Chinese and Indian - can claim any special affinity to the English language, this makes English neutral and an appropriate language for all races to use as a means of communicating with one another. With English as our common working language, working relations are facilitated.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1990/91, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“I would just like to add, Sir, one general point, that, is, in 1979 when Lord Dainton made his first report on university education in Singapore, he was of the view that Singapore at that time could only sustain one strong university of good academic standards. Sir, it is a matter of satisfaction to us that on his visit last year, and after reviewing the progress which we have made in education in the last 10 years, Lord Dainton was able to come to the conclusion, quite independently, that Singapore now has the intellectual base and a sufficient number of able students to sustain two large comprehensive universities without any lowering of standards. This conclusion by an experienced educationist, like Lord Dainton, whatever be his race, sums up in a nutshell much of what we are trying to do in education in the last 10 years. Sir, a lot of work will need to be done to translate the above recommendations into reality. No doubt, difficulties will be encountered and perhaps some mistakes will be made but overall, I am confident that we have now set a clear direction on how university education should be expanded in Singapore in the 1990s. Much obliged, Sir.”
“In the case of engineering, the course in NUS is more research-oriented, perhaps slightly more academic. In the case of NTI, the course is well known to be more practice-oriented and to have a closer link with industry. I can say that the graduates from the NTI Engineering School have no difficulty in getting jobs. In fact, the last survey of employment made by NUS and NTI shows that the starting salaries of graduates from the NTI Engineering School are slightly ahead of the starting salaries of those from the NUS Engineering School. This is because the nature of their course is that they have much more interaction with potential employers during their four years of study in NTI, and employers perhaps find them more immediately useful. Similarly, Sir, in business management, NTI has got a School of Accountancy which is not available in NUS. The two Schools of Business Management, I believe, will develop in slightly different paths with perhaps the NUS concentrating more on general management and the NTI being stronger in the field of management in industry, in manufacturing, and also in financial services. So there will be scope for the two institutions to develop their particular specialties. It will not be an easy task, but we have a good group of administrators at NTI. They have the goodwill of NUS, and I think of all of us, and given encouragement and support, they will succeed. Sir, there are a number of other points regarding the polytechnics, the teachers, and the Academy of Performing Arts which will be answered by my Senior Minister of State and my Minister of State.”
“Sir, Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Encik Abbas have also brought up the matter about giving greater opportunities for mature students and part-time students to study in NUS or NTI. The position at present is that with the pressure for places in the university, priority has to be given to those who have just left school or junior college. However, with the expansion of NTU, we might be in a position to make some opportunities available for mature students and for students, for example, from the polytechnics who have been working in the economy for a number of years. NUS and NTI will be looking into this matter. Sir, the recommendation from Dr Tan Cheng Bock about allowing good students to major in two fields, I will refer this suggestion to NUS for their further study. Then the comment from Dr Aline Wong with regard to competition between NUS and NTU and how this can be managed. Of course, NUS has an advantage. It is an older university, it is well established, and being the first in the field it must have an advantage. This is why, Sir, we had taken such a long time before coming to these recommendations. The review on higher education in Singapore actually started in September 1988 and we had taken more than 15 months before finalising these recommendations. It will be difficult for NTI to compete with NUS in the first few years. But I believe, Sir, that with the support of the Government and members, the task is not impossible. NTI has made a very good start now in linking up with prestigious overseas universities for assistance in recruitment of staff and developing courses which will not simply be duplicates of similar courses in NUS. One example, Sir, where NTI has been able to compete effectively with NUS is in the field of engineering.”
“As an academic in the NUS, Sir, I would urge her to use all her influence with her colleagues in the NUS to ensure that this is done. Sir, the maintenance of academic standards is a sound principle. It ensures that the degrees awarded by our universities are good value, accepted by employers and recognised internationally. We would do well to continue to adhere to this principle when we consider future increases in undergraduate enrolment in Singapore. Sir, the Member for Ayer Rajah, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, has brought up the point in the Dainton's Report regarding the criteria used to select students and that perhaps we could exercise some flexibility with regard to these criteria rather than to rely entirely on 'A' level results. Sir, the NUS and NTI have made a detailed study of this matter. They have found that for courses in Science and in Engineering particularly, the 'A' level results are reasonably good predictors of university performance, perhaps less so in the Arts and the Social Science. The Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Singapore has already said that with regard to admissions in Arts and Social Science and perhaps in one or two other disciplines, particularly with respect to students who are on the borderline, as it were, their performance at interviews will be taken into account. In any case, Sir, for subjects like Law, for example, in addition to the "A" level results, students have to sit for a written paper and also have to be interviewed by the Law Faculty. But I do not think it will be possible for the university to interview every applicant to decide whether he or she is suitable material for the university.”
“I am pleased to inform Members that the recommendations have been approved by Cabinet. The Ministry, together with the relevant institutions, are now taking active steps to implement the recommendations. Sir, the most urgent task is the establishment of the NIE and the development of NTU into a comprehensive university. Towards this end, Sir, NTI has, with the support and assistance of the Ministry, been in active discussion with two institutions: First, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for assistance in accelerating and enhancing the development of NTI academic activities in the field of business management and, second, the Loughborough University of Technology for assistance in the recruitment and secondment of staff, development of courses and validation of degrees and diplomas in the areas of education, physical education, arts and science. Sir, these discussions are going on well and, barring unforeseen circumstances, NTI expects to be able to sign agreements with MIT and the Loughborough University of Technology sometime in the second half of this year so that the collaboration programmes can get off the ground. Sir, Members in this House have, from time to time, urged the Government to increase the number of university places in Singapore in response to requests from parents. Sir, the Ministry has not been unmindful of Members' requests. But the principle which we have followed with regard to the expansion of university places is that any expansion in university places should only be done if there is no danger of lowering academic standards. In this respect, Sir, I would fully concur with the sentiments of the Member, Dr Aline Wong, in that we should not seek to increase student numbers too rapidly at the expense of lower standards.”
“In addition, Lord Dainton also recommended the introduction of degree-level training for primary school teachers and the merger of the Institute of Education (IE) and the College of Physical Education (CPE) to form a single institution which should be linked to a university and offer degree courses in education, physical education and the performing and visual arts. The Committee, set up under the chairmanship of Dr Seet Ai Mee, agreed with Lord Dainton that the IE and the CPE should be merged to form the National Institute of Education (NIE) which in their view should have its own board of directors and be an institute or faculty of the Nanyang Technological University. In addition, the Committee recommended the following four recommendations: (1) The current Certificate-in-Education (Cert Ed) course be upgraded and be renamed the Diploma-in-Education (Dip Ed) which will be awarded, as at present, at the end of two years of study; (2) The current one-year Diploma-in-Education course to train graduates to teach in secondary schools be upgraded and renamed the Postgraduate Diploma-in-Education; (3) A new one-year course, the Postgraduate Diploma-in-Education (Primary), be started to train graduates to teach in primary schools; and (4) A new four-year degree programme to train 'A' level holders for primary school teaching be introduced. The Committee suggested that the NIE and the new four-year degree programme should be implemented with effect from the academic year 1991/1992, ie, next year, while the other recommendations should apply to those admitted from this academic year 1990/1991. Sir, I am happy that these recommendations have been well received by the public and have enjoyed the support of Members.”
“Sir, let me first thank the Chairman of the GPC on Education, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, and his colleagues, Encik Abu Abbas, Mr Lawrence Sia and Dr Aline Wong, for their valuable comments on university education in Singapore. With your permission, Sir, I will deal with the points which they have raised subsequently, but with your indulgence I would like to make a general statement first. Sir, last month, in February, my Ministry made public two Reports - the first report from Lord Dainton concerning the expansion of university education in Singapore, and the second report from the Committee chaired by my Minister of State, Dr Seet Ai Mee, set up to examine key issues in teacher training in the 1990s. Following the release of the two reports, the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological Institute (NTI) held press conferences to give their responses to the reports. The reports and the press conferences have been extensively reported in the press. Copies of the press releases and the reports have, I believe, also been made available to Members. Sir, I will therefore not go into the details. I will only summarise the recommendations in the report and then the actions which the Ministry will be taking with respect to these recommendations. Sir, to recapitulate, Lord Dainton's major recommendation was that, in the light of the changed circumstances since his first report in 1979, Singapore should now seek to build two strong comprehensive universities - the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) - with the two universities competing and offering many subjects on their respective campuses.”
“The proportion of Malay applicants who were eligible to apply but who were unsuccessful in gaining admission to courses at the National University of Singapore for the years 1980, 1985 and 1989 are 70%, 58% and 58% respectively. The corresponding figures for Indian applicants are 60%, 60% and 58%. For Chinese applicants, the figures are 42%, 46% and 39%. The information for the year 1975 is not available.”
“The percentages of foreign students admitted into the National University of Singapore in the following faculties are: Percentage of Foreign Students Admitted 1985-6 1986-7 1987-8 1988-9 1989-90 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- Medicine 19.7 15.8 11.1 5.9 6.9 Law 17.3 17.9 14.5 13.0 6.6 Engineering* 41.6 36.2 25.0 21.9 14.1 Arts/Social Sciences 4.6 3.0 4.5 2.8 4.0 Accountancy and Commerce** 8.1 6.4 8.5 7.7 9.2 Notes *Includes intake into the Nanyang Technological Institute (NTI). **The Accountancy course was re-located to NTI in 1987-8. Commerce was started in NTI in 1989-90.”
“The schools will also be regularly inspected by the Ministry of Education. In fact, the schools have asked for this themselves so that they have an independent external appraisal of how they are doing. I think with those two safeguards in the Bill, the schools will be well monitored and nothing should go out of hand. Finally, as to whether the board of governors would be paid, again this is entirely up to the schools concerned. So far, with regard to the six independent schools, I do not think the boards of governors have requested for any payment, neither has any payment been made to them, to the best of my knowledge. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Sir, the Member for Eunos GRC has brought up four points. I will deal with them in the order which he has brought them up. First of all, with regard to school fees charged by the independent schools, I believe that we have gone through this matter at some length last November. I do not wish to restate all the arguments. I am conscious of the apprehension and worry of Members and parents regarding the fees charged by independent schools. I would merely restate the position that the fixing of fees is the responsibility of the schools. The responsibility of Government is to ensure that there are sufficient financial assistance schemes in place so that no child will be denied a place in an independent school simply because his or her parents cannot afford to pay the fees. And the statistics which I have given to the Member during the Question for Oral Answer bear this out. We will monitor the situation and we will ensure that financial assistance will always be available. Secondly, with regard to the relationship between the boards of governors and the SMCs or the SACs, the board of governors essentially runs the school together with the principal. They set the general policy. If they want to set up a school advisory committee, it is up to them. If they want to set up executive committees or other committees, it is up to the board of governors. Thirdly, with regard to the checks on the board of governors, there are two very important provisions in the Bill which I have highlighted, ie, the members on the board of governors must be appointed by the Minister and the principal must be appointed with the approval of the Director of Education. These are the two key people who are involved in the management and the running of the school.”
“Sir, the Bill also makes provisions for the winding up and dissolution of governing boards of independent schools. Since these boards are created by legislation as separate legal entities, the enabling legislation must also make provisions for their winding up and dissolution should the need arise. I hope, of course, that we will not need to use these provisions but the Bill will be incomplete without them. Sir, the establishment of independent schools is another step in our drive for excellence in education. I commend this Bill for the approval of Members. Sir, I beg to move, Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill makes provisions for the establishment of boards of governors to manage independent schools. The governing board will be established as a body corporate with a separate legal entity independent from its members. This is to protect board members from having to bear personal liability for the acts, omissions and debts of a school. The Bill enables the Ministry to establish governing boards for independent schools by the publication of a Ministerial order in the Government Gazette. The order will set out the constitution for the governing board of the school concerned. The constitution of each governing board of an independent school can therefore be specially tailored to meet the needs and objectives of the school. The Bill provides for the governing board of an independent school to have autonomy in a number of matters, namely, the recruitment, promotion, discipline and dismissal of teachers and other staff of the school, determining the policy for the admission and dismissal of students and fixing the fees payable by the students. The school may retain the fees collected for the purpose of defraying the cost of maintaining the school. With greater autonomy in the management of the affairs of a school, the governing board can create a distinct character and identity for the school. My Ministry is conscious of the significant and far-reaching impact the governing board and the principal will have on the management of the school and its pupils. The Bill therefore provides that appointments to governing boards must be approved by the Minister and that the appointment of the principal must be approved by the Director of Education.”
“As for food vendors selling food obtained from illegal food manufacturers, they may lose their licence if they are caught. All licensed food vendors have been adequately warned that they must obtain pre-prepared food or cooked food only from licensed food manufacturers. This is a condition of their licence. Officers from my Ministry conduct checks to ensure that this condition is strictly followed.”
“Mr Chin Harn Tong asked the Minister for the Environment, (a) since the deterrence of adverse publicity and the quantum of fine do not, despite his Ministry's previous assurance to this House, seem to be effective against illegal food manufacturers who do not deal directly with consumers, whether he will consider other more stringent measures against such manufacturers; and (b) whether he will also consider taking more severe action against food vendors selling cooked food to consumers, if such vendors obtain their supplies of cooked food from illegal or unhygienic food manufacturers. The Acting Minister for the Environment (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, widespread publicity and the prosecution of persons involved in illegal food manufacturing have been effective in our enforcement efforts against illegal food manufacturing activities. Since October last year, operations against illegal food manufacturing activities have resulted in the closing down of 49 illegal food factories. Another 34 such factories were found abandoned by illegal operators. My Ministry's operation against illegal food manufacturers will continue. Illegal food manufacturers can be imprisoned up to three months and fined up to a total of $6,000, even for the first offence. So far, one offender was jailed for four weeks. My Ministry will press for more offenders to be jailed in order that we can put an end to such illegal activities. In the meantime, officers from the Food Control Department of my Ministry will continue to step up its enforcement actions to search and close down illegal food manufacturers and bring the offenders to Court. Property owners will also be prosecuted if they knowingly allow their premises to be used for food manufacturing without a licence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a Steering Committee, comprising Specialists from the Ministry of Education and the Institute of Education as well as school principals, has been formed to develop a syllabus and textbooks for the new Civics/Moral Education programme which will be taught in the upper levels of secondary schools in place of Religious Knowledge. This Committee has formulated a draft framework for the syllabus and this framework will be discussed at the Schools Council Meeting this Saturday, 24th February. As the subject is likely to be of wide interest and in order that the Ministry may have the benefit of informed opinion, I have also sent the draft framework to Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee on Education, and to Mr Chandra Das, Chairman of the Supervisory Panel of the Feedback Unit. Dr Tan and Mr Das will be organising meetings in order to obtain feedback on the draft framework. Their views will be communicated to the Ministry by June this year. This will enable the Ministry to finalise the curriculum in time to introduce the new Civics/Moral Education programme in 1992 starting with the secondary III pupils. ILLEGAL FOOD MANUFACTURERS (More severe action against) 6.”
“Sir, with regard to the first question, the impression could be that the criterion is too strict or that not many pupils require assistance. With regard to the second question, the Ministry, together with the independent schools, keeps the situation under review all the time. I think for this year the situation is well in hand. But if the need arises, the Ministry will obviously review the scheme and raise the criteria if this is necessary. CIVICS/MORAL EDUCATION PROGRAMME (Progress report) 5. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for Education what progress his Ministry has made with respect to the new civics/moral education programme follow- ing the decision to discontinue the teaching of religious knowledge as a compulsory subject in the upper secondary school curriculum.”
“No student applied for assistance under the Grant and Loan of Textbooks Scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education administers a financial support scheme to assist students in independent schools who need financial assistance to pay the school fees. The income eligibility criteria for financial assistance are as follows: (i) For full subsidy of school fees, the monthly household income should be $800 or less, or the household income per dependent child should be $400 or less; and (ii) For half-subsidy of school fees, the monthly household income should be between $801 and $1,200, or the household income per dependent child should be between $401 and $600. Sir, for 1990, a total of 402 students from the six independent schools, comprising 8.4% of the 4,785 pupils who have to pay the new fees, applied for financial assistance. 225 students were granted the full subsidy and 126 students were granted half subsidy of school fees. Of the 51 applicants who did not qualify for assistance, 39 students were granted assistance by the independent schools under the various schemes administered by the schools. In other words, 390 pupils or 97% of those applying were granted financial assistance either by the Government or directly by the schools. In addition to the above financial assistance scheme, students in independent schools can also apply for assistance under the Secondary School Bursary Scheme and the Grant and Loan of Textbooks Scheme which are open to all secondary school students in Singapore. The Secondary School Bursary Scheme grants remission of school fees and an award of $120 per annum. The Grants and Loan of Textbooks Scheme helps pupils to get the textbooks which they need for their studies. For 1990, 19 students from the six independent schools were awarded bursaries.”
“The Ministry of Education has identified 10 schools to implement the Primary SAP programme in 1990. We will use the experience gained by the 10 schools to see what lessons can be learned in the area of retention of core values which can be transmitted to other primary schools. We will consider increasing the number of primary SAP schools when we have evaluated the effectiveness of the programme. HDB RENTAL FLATS AT RACE COURSE ROAD AND WINSTEDT DRIVE 5. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong asked the Minister for National Development what plans have been made for the old, rented Housing and Development Board flats at Race Course Road and Winstedt Drive.”
“Sir, in recent years, HDB new towns in the vicinity such as Bukit Panjang, Choa Chu Kang, Jurong East and Bukit Batok have undergone rapid developments. To better serve residents, instead of a single regional interchange, an interchange or bus terminal was built in each of these new towns with trunk routes, taking residents directly to the CBD and to other parts of Singapore. There is therefore no need for the proposed regional bus interchange at Upper Bukit Timah. INTERNAL SECURITY ACT (Abolition) 7. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider abolishing the Internal Security Act now that the Communist Party of Malaya, whose jurisdiction also includes Singapore, has agreed to end its armed rebellion.”
“Yes, of course, the Ministry will be monitoring these programmes not only to ensure that children from poor families are able to get in but also to see what these schools do because they have introduced innovative programmes. One example which Members will know is that we have just introduced responsibility allowances for heads of departments in our secondary schools and junior colleges. The reason why we have done so is because this was introduced by the independent schools first and we have found that it has worked in getting teachers who want to assume positions of responsibility. So we will monitor the schools not only with regard to the admission of pupils but also with regard to what these schools do and what we can adopt and apply to other schools in Singapore. The final results, Sir, must be that we want to upgrade the quality of education for all children in Singapore. That must be the aim of the Government. UPPER BUKIT TIMAH ROAD (Building of bus interchange) 6. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Communications and Information when will the proposed bus interchange beside the Bukit Timah Plaza/Sherwood Tower complex at Upper Bukit Timah Road be built. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. Sir, the proposed Bukit Timah Bus Interchange was intended to replace the former Upper Bukit Timah road side bus terminal near Ewart Circus to serve as a regional bus interchange for services from less populated or rural areas in the northern and western sectors of Singapore and services to the CBD.”
“Sir, the Government has a responsibility to educate all children, not only bright children or children of above average quality. What we are doing by this system is to allow variations. I also do not believe that all wisdom in education resides within the Ministry of Education. Parents have different expectations, different aspirations. The people who should decide what is best for students are the principals and the teachers. They are the ones who are closest to the ground. They are the ones who know their pupils best. They are the ones who should decide what programmes are most suitable for the children who are in their charge. We should devise a system which will enable them to do this. And if the progress of the independent schools is any indication, it may be that the system of funding which we are using to fund these independent schools may provide the path which we will need in the future.”
“I am not sure what is the question. But, never mind, it is all right. [Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted] No. I have never said the fees will be as high as $12,000 a year. This is a yardstick which I used in order to get some testing. But the schools have said that if the pupils need help, come and ask, and we will ensure that they will get help. Why assume from the start that they will not get the assistance?”
“Sir, I am glad the Member has raised this question. I read in the press of some parents who said that they would not want to enrol their children in independent schools because they would not want to ask for assistance, because they will lose face and so on, which the Member has just said. Sir, I think this is a very wrong attitude. Any parent who does not give his child, if he is of the right quality, the opportunity to enrol and get a place in the best school that the child can get in, is doing his child a great disservice. We have said that, get your child in, then see the school and we will ensure that he has the means to pay the fees. But if you do not simply because you do not want to ask for assistance and you deny the child the chance of going to a school which he wants to go and which is good for him, I cannot think of any greater disservice which any parent can render to his child. My advice is to repeat what the independent schools have stated in their joint statement. They have encouraged all children who are able, who are of high quality, apply for admission to the independent schools. Once you are in, we will see what assistance which you will need in order to pay the fees. But not even to apply for admission simply because you do not want to ask for assistance, I think this is an attitude of mind which we should correct, and as soon as possible.”
“Sir, the Ministry has always assisted the independent schools and any schools which want to start their scholarship funds. The independent schools already have their own endowment funds. And I think the public should read the statement by the independent schools which was issued last week. It was stated that any pupil who requires financial assistance is requested to get in touch with the schools as soon as possible. And I would urge any pupil who needs assistance to get in touch with his school.”
“$3,000. It is not per month. It is per year, Sir. It is the average cost incurred by the Government in educating a child in one of our Government or Government-aided schools. Using this as the basis, this is the amount which we give to each of the independent schools for each child who is enrolled in the independent schools. But of course the amount varies from year to year. I have used $3,000 as the average. Next year, I think the amount will be increased to $3,100. It depends, because costs increase every year. As for the average cost of educating a child in one of the independent schools, it varies from school to school. It depends on what the school provides. [Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted] I do not know. It is up to the schools, as I said. The school has more programmes, it has got more facilities, it has music lessons, dance lessons, it has got smaller classes, the cost must rise. My point is that it is right and fair that the additional cost should be borne by the parents.”
“To sum up, Sir, the thrust of my remarks this afternoon is that we want to raise the quality of education for all children in Singapore and we will do this. But to improve the quality of education to meet the aspirations of parents, it is not sufficient merely for Government to spend more money, although this is necessary, and the Government has never stinted on its allocation of funds for education. But, Sir, we have to take a wider perspective and consider not only spending more money but also giving schools more control over their finances and educational programmes so that they can meet what parents want and change the system of funding schools. If you like, Sir, this is in a sense introducing a degree of market diversity within the general framework of centralised Government educational policy. Our overall educational policy will ensure that all schools in Singapore adhere to common goals which are consonant with our national and social objectives. But freeing the schools and giving them greater flexibility in operations and funding will, I believe, in the end, enable the schools to respond more effectively to the needs and aspirations of parents. In this way, we will at the end of the day have a more responsive, a more flexible education system which will more fully meet the needs and aspirations of parents in Singapore. Much obliged, Sir, for this long answer.”
“For the independent schools, instead of funding them on a line by line basis and determining the number of teachers, the number of pupils the schools should enrol, the programmes that they should run, we give each of these schools a block grant which on a per capita basis is equivalent to the cost required to educate a child in a Government or Government-aided school. In return for this block grant, the schools agree to follow basic Government educational policies, of which the most important is our bilingual policy, the teaching of English and the mother tongue. The schools also prepare children for our national examinations and teach the Civics/Moral Education Programme which is available in all our other schools. The crucial difference is that the independent schools have the flexibility to determine their own programmes, recruit their own teachers and charge their own fees. In this way, they have been able to raise the finance to fund new educational programmes without reference to the Ministry of Education. They have introduced smaller classes for better teacher-pupil interaction. They have introduced new elective subjects and enrichment programmes to cater for pupils with different talents and abilities. To attract good teachers to join them, the independent schools have introduced innovative compensation packages such as merit increments, responsibility allowances and year-end performance bonuses. As the schools are not tied down to simply being funded by the Government or through donations, they are able to respond more quickly and effectively to the different aspirations of parents. If the schools have to obtain the permission of the Ministry before they initiated any programme, I believe that many of their initiatives would not have got off the ground.”
“If we want to give a very good education to every child in Singapore, which I am sure all of us want, and if we were to ignore all economic considerations altogether and very roughly as a guide, say, we take a figure of $12,000 per annum as the cost required to finance the cost of a very good education for every child in our schools and compare this with the $3,000 which we are now spending at the present time - it does not require mathematical genius to work out - roughly speaking, if all of these additional costs were to come from the Government, we should raise our educational expenditure by roughly four times. What this means is that we should devote 15-16% of our GDP on education or roughly 40-50% of total Government expenditure. Obviously, this cannot be done without cutting down on other vital programmes, such as defence, internal security, housing and health. We therefore have to consider whether there is a means whereby we can allow those parents who want good education for their children to have it within Singapore and at the same time keeping Government expenditure on education to reasonable limits and to allow variations so that Government provides a good basic education. Anything above that should be paid for by the parents. In addition to increasing Government expenditure, Sir, I think the key is to change the system of financing schools. Effectively, the system which we are now using is called line by line financing, which means we approve every item of expenditure. It may be worthwhile to switch over to a system of block financing which is the system we are using to fund the newly established independent schools in Singapore.”
“But, Sir, we can get a very rough idea about what it would cost to provide very good quality education in Singapore if we use very roughly as a guide some of the fees charged by some of the foreign schools in Singapore, because these schools have to charge their pupils economic rates of fees. They do not receive any subsidy. And it may interest Members to know some of the fees which are charged by some of these schools. Let me just take three of them. For example, the American School. For students from Grades 9 to 12, which I think is equivalent to our Secondary 3, Secondary 4, Pre-U 1 and Pre-U 2 (the last four years of high school), the cost in fees alone, excluding registration fee and so on, is $11,400 per annum. United World College of Southeast Asia, for their secondary school and pre-university classes, $10,950 per annum. The ISS International School for Grades 9 to 12 again, $10,000 per annum. These schools are not profit-making enterprises. All of the revenue which they get from their fees is used to fund their operations. And even with these fees, the schools run at a deficit, not large, but they have a deficit every year which has to be covered and made up by gifts and donations.”
“While we are committed to upgrading the quality of education and meeting the aspirations of parents, the question which is pertinent which Members should ask themselves is: whether by relying on Government alone to provide all the funds, will we be able to provide the varied and comprehensive educational programmes which, as the Member says, more and more Singaporeans will want for their children? If I were to give an answer to this question, Members really need to know how much it will cost to provide a really good education which will fully satisfy the expectations of parents. Parents differ in what they would like to see in their children's education. They want the minimum, but after that each parent will have his own aspirations. The cost will differ accordingly. There is therefore no definitive answer. It costs us at the present time about $3,000 per annum in recurrent expenditure on the average to educate a child in each of our secondary schools. At this level of expenditure, with variations for primary education and tertiary education, total Government expenditure on education amounts to slightly under 4% of our GDP or between 11-12% of total Government expenditure. If we reduce class size to give more individual attention to students, if we provide a wider variety of enrichment and elective subjects, if we improve our school facilities, then of course Government expenditure must rise and this is right. But to what extent? Instead of $3,000, should it be $6,000, $7,000, $8,000? Where will the limit be? That is a subjective question.”
“Sir, there are undoubtedly many aspects which all parents would like to see in the education of their children - good academic development, preparation for future employment, building up strong and healthy bodies, building of character and building of strong moral values. All parents want to see these in their children. But more and more parents will not be satisfied with simply achieving minimum basic requirements. All parents will want to have educational programmes that are tailored more closely to the abilities and talents of their children. They will want to see more individual attention given to children so that every child can be developed to his or her fullest potential. Yes, Sir, there are gaps in education and there are areas in education which Government should properly attend to. We have to upgrade our primary school education. We need to have more and better designed secondary schools so that all secondary schools can go single session by the 1990s. In particular, I would say we need to provide more opportunities for training at the post-secondary and at the tertiary levels, especially in the technical and vocational fields. This means that Government must incur more expenditure on education. Provided that our economy continues to grow at a healthy rate and there are no extraordinary demands on Government expenditure, it is right that we should be prepared to allocate sufficient funds, even ample funds, to sustain our drive for excellence in education.”
“The schools cannot make any significant decision without reference to and getting permission from the Ministry of Education which in turn has to consider the financial implications and discuss with the Ministry of Finance before communicating their decision to the schools. The Government, therefore, decides for each school in Singapore how much money should be spent on the physical facilities, how many teachers the school should have, how many pupils should be enrolled in the school, what fees the school should charge and how much the teacher should be paid. The school must obtain the permission of the Ministry of Education before it introduces any variations from the norms which have been established. The result of all this, Sir, is a slowdown in decision making and a stifling of initiative. Because almost every improvement in educational programmes requires money at some stage or other, effectively no school in Singapore can embark on any improvement without getting the approval of the Ministry of Education. Hence, the many complaints about excessive bureaucratization of the education system in Singapore and the lack of initiative among our principals and teachers which Members have voiced time and again. When we were faced with simply providing more school places and ensuring minimal standards, such bureaucratic control of education may be tolerated. There was no choice. The alternative was simply that very little would have been achieved and even that would have been achieved at a very much slower rate.”
“Yes, of course, Sir. It will certainly benefit all pupils in every school in Singapore if we were to raise the standard of education. And surely this is what we all want. This is what all parents want. But what standard, what quality, what costs should we incur in raising the standard? I think Members should not afflict themselves with a cargo-cult mentality with the Government being the cargo plane. Just ask and we are expected to come out with an endless supply of goodies from a bottomless package. Every improvement, Sir, incurs a cost. Every benefit that we implement, every standard that we raise must incur a drain on the public purse. It is not that the Government does not want to raise the quality of education in schools. It is that we have to do this in a responsible way. Sir, effectively, the Member is asking that since parents want a high quality of education for their children, should the Government not meet the expectations of parents for high quality education? If I were to answer this question, first of all, we have to deal with it in a larger perspective and consider how our schools are funded and managed today. Because of the need to expand school places rapidly when we gained our independence in 1965, less than two-thirds of children were in schools. Today, almost every child has a place in school. And as a consequence of some of the political problems which we had in the 1950s, which the Member will be aware of, we have today evolved a highly centralised system of educational control in Singapore. By and large, schools in Singapore are almost entirely dependent on Government for their financing.”
“I have said, Sir, that the responsibility of the Government is to ensure that there are enough financial assistance schemes in place so that no child who is academically qualified and deserves a place in an independent school will be denied a place in those schools, simply because his or her parents cannot afford to pay the fees. Sir, the independent schools in a joint statement issued last week have made a commitment that the ability of parents to pay will not be a criterion for admission to their schools. The schools have a tradition of accepting pupils from all strata of society. The schools intend to continue their policy of admitting pupils on the basis of merit. I think this shows that the schools have a responsible attitude towards the admission of pupils and they will conduct themselves responsibly.”
“Sir, I do not imply any such thing. All parents want to have high quality education for their children. As I said, we will give a per capita grant to the independent schools. If the parents who send their children to these schools want a more varied education, the additional costs should be borne by them. But of course we will learn from the independent schools what are the programmes which are desirable, which are effective, to raise the quality of education in Singapore. Then we can spread these programmes to the other schools in Singapore and, in that way, as I have mentioned in my reply, all children in Singapore will eventually benefit from the establishment of the independent schools in Singapore.”
“Sir, the schools are independent. If we tell them what fees to charge, how can they have flexibility and autonomy in their operations? The admission of pupils, the recruitment of teachers, the fixing of fees, is the responsibility of the independent schools. We give them a per capita grant. They determine their own educational programmes. They determine how they would raise the finance to meet the additional costs that are incurred.”
“The responsibility of the Government is to ensure that there are adequate financial assistance schemes in place so that every pupil who qualifies for admission to the independent schools and RI will not be denied a place in the schools simply because his or her parents cannot afford to pay the fees. Pupils who are unable to pay the fees can apply for assistance under the Government's financial assistance scheme. If further financial assistance is needed, the schools have established their own scholarship funds which can provide financial assistance, where necessary, over and above that provided by the Government. Clan associations, Old Boys' Associations, Old Girls' Associations and private foundations can also assist. No child, if he is academically qualified and deserves a place in an independent school, will be denied admission to an independent school simply because he or she is unable to pay the fees.”
“To raise the quality of education, the schools need well-qualified staff, better facilities and a more favourable teacher/pupil ratio so that they can reduce class size to give pupils more individual attention. All this means that their operating costs must rise. Sir, it is not the business of the Government to hold back the independent schools and RI from improving their educational programmes. Indeed, we should encourage them to take advantage of their autonomy to try out new and innovative educational programmes. Their success in achieving their educational aims will help the Ministry of Education to assess what is desirable and effective to raise the quality of education in schools in Singapore. In this way, all children in Singapore will eventually benefit from the establishment of independent schools within our education system. Neither is it the Government's responsibility to tell the independent schools and RI how they should finance their increased costs or what fees they should charge. The Government gives to each of these schools a per capita grant equivalent to what it would cost to educate a child in a Government or a Government-aided school. If the independent schools and RI improve their educational programmes to meet the expectations of parents who want a more comprehensive and varied education for their children, it is surely only fair that the burden of the increase in costs should be borne by the parents who send their children to these schools. The fixing of fees is the responsibility of the schools.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, my answer to this question will also cover the points in the next two questions because the three questions essentially deal with the same subject, ie, the increase in fees next year by the five independent schools and Raffles Institution. Sir, the announcement on 2nd November by the five independent schools and Raffles Institution (RI) of their increase in fees from January next year has drawn a number of responses from Members of Parliament and members of the public. Some have been supportive of the fee increase. Others have been critical. One MP commented that the reasons given for the increase in fees are, I quote him, "too weak and difficult to accept". Another MP felt that the fee increases are way out of proportion in comparison to those of tertiary institutions. And to avoid large fee increases, a third MP suggested that the independent schools should adopt a more moderate pace in improving the quality of education in their schools, ie, they should, in effect, slow down and seek to do less for their pupils. Sir, these reactions are understandable but, in my view, they do not address the nub of the issue. The nub of the issue is not the size of the fee increase. The nub of the issue is: what are parents willing to pay for the more varied and comprehensive education programmes which independent schools want to implement and which parents desire for their children? This is the question which we should address. Sir, the independent schools and RI are committed to raising the quality of education for the pupils in their schools. They are doing this because parents want it.”