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 8 of 24.
“It is not possible for the authorities to physically apprehend the culprits who are involved in putting up such posters or dropping such leaflets. Section 3C of the Bill provides that if more than 10 copies of such smoking advertisements are found in the possession or premise of a tobacco manufacturer, distributor or retailer, he is presumed to have knowingly taken part in the publication of these advertisements unless he can prove to the contrary. Penalty The penalty for all offences committed, except that under section 3B, is a fine of not more than $10,000 or six months' imprisonment or both for the first offence. For subsequent offences, the penalty is a fine of not more than $20,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year or both. The increase in the fines is necessary in order for them to have an adequate deterrent effect. The Bill also allows minor offences to be compounded with fines not exceeding $1,000. Sir, the proposed amendments will allow us to curtail cigarette advertisement and promotion, thereby preventing the tobacco industry and retailers from directly or indirectly promoting the sale of their products to the general public. This will help to further reduce the number of smokers in the future, thereby contributing to the better health of all Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Provisions in the Amendment Bill Prohibitions on advertisements and sales promotions The Bill seeks to prohibit the following: (a) advertisements which mention or depict the brand name or trademark of tobacco products on any notices, vehicles, souvenirs, mementos and gifts; (b) sale of any product with a tobacco product as a free gift and vice versa; (c) sale of tobacco products packaged together with any other products; (d) distribution of free samples of tobacco products to persons other than those in the tobacco trade; and (e) giving of tobacco products as prizes in any lottery, draw, game or competition. Certain advertisements allowed Sir, my Ministry recognises that some tobacco companies are also involved in services and products unrelated to tobacco products. Section 3(2) allows bona fide advertisements by such companies to be considered and allowed on a case-by-case basis. It also allows the Minister to approve certain advertisements which mention the name of the tobacco manufacturer or distributor as a sponsor of an event or in congratulatory messages. Owners or occupiers of premises The Bill makes it an offence under section 3B for owners or occupiers to permit their premises to be used for the display and publication of smoking advertisements. The penalty for committing this offence the first time is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or six months' imprisonment or both. For subsequent offences, the penalty is a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year or both. Rebuttal presumption Sir, currently, posters and other cigarette advertisements are often displayed on hoardings at construction sites and other locations. Smoking advertisement leaflets have also been dropped in letter boxes.”
“Smoking among young How have we fared in our efforts so far? Our health education and other smoking control programmes have definitely made an impact. The prevalence of smoking has fallen from 23% in 1977 to 19% in 1984, and has levelled off at 13.5% in 1987 and 1988. Our latest survey showed that whilst an encouraging 25% of smokers were convinced that they should give up smoking because of the harmful effects, a significant number of the young are still tempted to experiment with smoking and eventually they become addicted to it. This is because our health messages to the young are being nullified by cigarette advertisements and various promotional gimmicks. Inadequacy of present legislation In recent years, the tobacco industry has increasingly used the exemptions provided in the existing legislation to extensively promote their products. These include the distribution of souvenirs and subtle advertising by means of posters at retail outlets. These posters associate smoking with sophisticated young men and attractive women engaged in sporty or glamorous activities. Such cigarette promotion efforts if allowed to continue will undermine our efforts to discourage smoking. Purpose of Amendment Bill Sir, the purpose of this Bill is therefore to tighten the existing legislation on the prohibition of advertisements related to smoking. The Bill seeks to make the provisions more explicit and comprehensive and widen further the prohibitions concerning all forms of promotion of smoking. This is part of our multi-pronged approach to the problem of smoking. Sir, I will now deal with the major provisions of the Bill.”
“Scientific evidence has shown that cigarettes are linked to at least 85% of all deaths from lung cancer, 75% of deaths from chronic bronchitis and 25% of coronary heart disease cases. Last year, cigarette smoking was largely responsible for the deaths of about 2,600 Singaporeans. This works out to about seven deaths a day. Smoking Control Programme Measures to control smoking were first introduced in 1970, when legislation was introduced to restrict tobacco advertisement, together with programmes to educate the public on the harmful effects of smoking. In view of the increasing pool of evidence on the health hazards related to smoking, my Ministry launched a coordinated, intensified national smoking control programme in December 1986, with the aim of promoting non-smoking as a norm in Singapore. To achieve this objective, we must discourage and prevent the young from taking up smoking, while encouraging and helping existing smokers to give up this harmful habit. My Ministry is striving to achieve this through our public health education programme through the mass media, through talks and exhibitions to members of the public, especially school children, national servicemen and young workers, and through personal counselling by doctors and nurses. The legal requirement to have rotating health warnings prominently displayed on cigarette packs will also serve to remind smokers of the risks that they are taking. Sir, it will take time to achieve the objective of non-smoking as a national norm. In the meantime, we need to continue to safeguard non-smokers from the harmful effects of cigarette smoke. Non-smokers have a right to smoke-free air. The Ministry of the Environment has therefore recently expanded the restrictions on smoking in various public places.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. BILLS INTRODUCED 4.28 pm CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL "to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore", presented by the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Environmental Public Health Act (Chapter 95 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. TRUSTEES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Trustees Act (Chapter 337 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chapter 185 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SMOKING (PROHIBITION ON ADVERTISEMENTS) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.30 pm The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Harmful effects of smoking Today, the pattern of illness in Singapore is dominated by smoking related diseases such as lung cancer, coronary heart disease and chronic bronchitis. Together they account for about 30% of all deaths in Singapore.”
“The final point I want to make, Sir, is the point made by three Members of Parliament - the Members for Cheng San GRC, Fengshan and Jalan Besar GRC - concerning the ground-rules for the separation of politics and religion which was mentioned in the President's Address. Sir, this is outside my jurisdiction. Perhaps my colleague, the Minister for Law and Home Affairs, might like to comment on it. Much obliged, Sir. [Applause].”
“I think it will make for a richer programme and this will benefit not only our students but also Singapore society and we will make an attempt to see what we can put within the context of an overall moral education programme. But to teach it specifically as a subject within curriculum time is not possible within the present context. Just one point from the Member for Potong Pasir who regretted the change because the teaching of RK was, as he said, a basic institution within our education system. I think this is not the case. In fact, before 1982, it was taught as an optional subject. We have now returned to what it was before. The change in 1982 was when we made it a compulsory subject and this is a change which we are now making. It was never a basic institution and we are not uprooting a historical tradition. I do not think, Sir, that the changes which we have made will in any way weaken the ability of those students whose parents would like them to study Religious Knowledge. Before I wind up, Sir, and pass on to the last point, I would like to thank all Members, as I said, for their comments today. The general tone of the debate I would sense, has been that in principle all Members recognise the necessity for this change. I welcome all the suggestions to modify or to make amendments to the transient arrangements. We welcome all the suggestions and, as I said, unwelcome as this change may be and disappointing to some groups, it is necessary. I would be quite satisfied if at the end of the day people regard it as fair and in the interest of Singapore and of all Singaporeans.”
“In this connection, Sir, I also want to refer to the point made by the Member for Fengshan regarding our tertiary institutions and whether we would allow religious groups and societies to operate there. I see no reason why there should be any change. They should continue. They add to the life of the polytechnics, to NUS and to NTI. I think they will conduct themselves in a responsible way. We have had no trouble with them so far and I do not see why this change of policy should in any way curb their activities. The position of Confucian Ethics was brought up by the Members for Jurong, Tampines GRC, Marine Parade GRC, Jalan Besar GRC and the Member for Leng Kee. I also understand the sentiment behind their comments and their reluctance and their regret at having to see Confucian Ethics treated as a subject within the Religious Knowledge programme. But, Sir, it is not possible to allow Confucian Ethics to be taught as a subject within curriculum time without allowing Islamic Religious Knowledge, Buddhist Studies, Bible Knowledge, Sikh Studies and Hindu Studies to be taught within curriculum time at the same time. Whether or not Confucian Ethics is regarded as a religion, you cannot allow one without allowing the others. Once you allow the others you breach the basic principle. But there are many elements of Confucian Ethics which I think are quite universal which would serve well within our society. And there is no reason why in the construction of this new Civics moral education programme we should not take the best of what there is and implement it.”
“When this new policy comes into palece, he intends to make these subjects also available as optional subjects outside shcool hours. Sir, if all our mission schools and I hope all the schools set up by religious groups will take this approach, I think there is no reason why they cannot thrive as before. I would emphasize, Sir, that I have discussed this with them and they have raised no objection to this change in policy. In fact, they welcome it. Now, Sir, following on that, I want to touch a little bit on the point made by the Members for Cheng San GRC, Aljunied GRC and Bedok GRC concerning the particular position of the members of our minority religions here, particularly the Muslims, the Hindus and the Sikhs. I know, that they will be disappointed with this change in policy. In my dialogues with them, they have expressed their wish very strongly to see the status quo being maintained and, that is, RK to be a compulsory subject to be taught within curriculum time and to be used as a subject for pre-university and junior college admission purposes. It is not possible because in principle we have to change. But the arrangements which we have made, I hope, will enable the pupils of these minority religions to continue the study of their religions but as optional subjects outside curriculum time. I would encourage all the schools to accept this arrangement and the Ministry will provide facilities where necessary, for example, for Islamic Religious Knowledge and the other minority subjects provided there are enough pupils within the school for the subjects to be taught outside curriculum time which is necessary but within the school premises, and we will try to provide the facilities as far as we can for that purpose.”
“' Sir, as a statement or principle to guide a mission school or any church school in our multi-racial, multi-religious society, I think it will be difficult to work out a more far-sighted and enlightened policy. So long as our mission schools and our church schools and the schools set up by the various religious groups adhere to this philosophy, which actually was set up 140 years ago, I think we should have no problems. I may say that before deciding on this policy, I had a meeting with various school principals, including principals from some of our mission schools and schools set up by other religious groups. I asked them whether they would have difficulty in implementing this new policy. I can tell Members that all of them said that in fact they would welcome this change of policy. These are people on the ground. They have the job of operating the schools and I am satisfied when they tell me that they can work with this new policy. Indeed, I asked the principal of St. Joseph's what would be his philosophy regarding the teaching of different religions in his school. Sir, his basic philosophy is that as principal of St. Joseph's his job is to look after the education of all his children. "All his children" means all children and the majority of the pupils in his schools are in fact non-Catholic children. To look after the education of all his children fully, he must provide for their moral instruction and, where necessary, also for teaching of the various religions within his school. As a result, St. Joseph today, in addition to the teaching of Bible Knowledge, the school also provides within curriculum time, as is the current practice, the teaching of Islamic Religious Knowledge, Buddhist Studies, Hindu Studies and Confucian Ethics.”
“And if you eliminate all vestiges of that particular religion from that school, then I do not see what you are left with. But having said that, Sir, I think it would be wise of mission schools and schools set up by religious groups to take cognizance of the particular circumstances in which they are located in Singapore and that is within the context of a multi-racial, multi-religious society. Sir, this is not a new subject. We have always been that way. I would like, Sir, in this respect, to advise mission schools to follow the examples which have been set many years ago. When I spoke at the opening of St. Joseph's Institution in April this year, I made the point that in fact this particular issue had been addressed by the founder of St Joseph's, a Catholic priest by the name of Father Burel, who issued a prospectus for St. Joseph's in 1848, ie, more than 140 years ago. I think what he said then is still relevant today. In his prospectus, Father Burel made a point, that he recognized that St. Joseph's will be drawing its pupils from a multi-racial community with people of many faces. Therefore, for St. Joseph's, he said, and I quote from his words: 'St Joseph's will be open to everyone, whatever his creed may be; and should, for instance, a boy of a persuasion different from that of Roman Catholics attend it, [that is the school] no interference whatever will take place with his religion, unless his parents or his guardians express their wishes to have him instructed in the Catholic religion. Public religious instructions will be given to Roman Catholic boys either before or after the hours for school; but at all times, the Masters of the school will most carefully watch over the morals of the whole school, whatever their religious persuasion may be.”
“Our children have shown a great capacity and the schools have shown the ability to advise the children and to prepare them. Now we are going to allow the use of RK as a subject for junior college and pre-university admission up to the year of admission 1994. This means that it will not affect any child who is presently in secondary school today. The only children who will be affected will be those who are going into secondary school from next year. Therefore, they will have at least four years for those in the Express Stream and five years for those in the Normal Stream to prepare for this change. We cannot go beyond that. Once we go beyond 1994, we have to make it permanent and I think this would be wrong in principle. Sir, a number of Members have touched on the very important topic about what would be the result of this new policy change on our mission schools, on the schools set up by the various religious groups. The Members include the Member for Cheng San GRC, the Member for Fengshan, the Member for Potong Pasir. This, Sir, is a very important point. I think we have to recognise that schools which are set up by the various religious groups, whether they are church groups, the Mission Schools or the Buddhist Schools, these schools have their own distinctive identities. I do not think that we would wish all our schools to operate in exactly the same way. Indeed, it is for that very reason that we have encouraged some schools to go independent. It is good for our children that schools should be differentiated, that each school should have its own character. And a mission school is a mission school, a Buddhist school is a Buddhist school, and a Catholic school is different from a Methodist school, a Methodist school is different from a Buddhist school.”
“In that case, Sir, I hope, within next year and in 1991, to inform Members from time to time of the progress of this subject, possibly when we debate the estimates of the Ministry of Education in March each year. It is still in its infancy. So I cannot say very much about it. Now, Sir, on the topic about the inclusion of Religious Knowledge as a subject for junior college and pre-university admission purposes, which was touched on by the Member for Cheng San GRC and the Member for Bedok GRC, I think that, as I tried to stress in my Ministerial Statement, we have to start from a general principle first. Is it right for schools to be used as a major vehicle for the teaching of Religious Knowledge to children? If that principle is not right, then it should not be made a compulsory subject to be taught within curriculum time. As I said, neither in principle should it be included as a subject for junior college and pre-university admission purposes. I think you cannot have it both ways. If that is the principle, then this must follow logically. But what we can do is to ensure that the phasing out of RK as a subject for junior college and for pre-university admission purposes is done in such a way so that it will give children the maximum time to adjust their subject combinations so that they will have the best opportunity to qualify for junior college and pre-university admission purposes. I stressed in my Ministerial Statement, Sir, that we were not unconcerned with this aspect. And if I may be so bold as to correct the Member for Cheng San GRC, I did not say that the impact will be insignificant. I said that while the number will be reduced, the figure showed that the impact should not be too severe. I think this is the case.”
“But what we can promise is that each change will be considered carefully as this has been done and we will try to make arrangements so that whatever happens, parents and students will not be stranded mid-stream and changes will be implemented with as little disruption to our children's education as possible. Sir, many of the Members who have spoken today have touched upon the new Civics/Moral Education Programme which is under construction at the Ministry of Education at the present time, and which we hope to introduce by 1992. Members who have touched on this topic and in general include the Member for Ayer Rajah who have suggested that perhaps it could be made a non-examination subject. So have the Members for Braddell Heights, Tiong Bahru GRC, Jalan Besar GRC, Moulmein and Bukit Batok. I thank them for all their suggestions. It is not an easy topic. What we are trying to do is to construct a syllabus which will not only involve Moral Education but also teach the elements of good citizenship, and a particular appreciation of what it means to live in a multi-racial, multi-religious society like Singapore. I cannot say, Sir, that the product which we will come up with in two years' time will satisfy everyone. It cannot be. But we will have a try and we will get the subject ready by 1992 and we will teach it. I hope that all Members will take an interest in this new subject so that after a period of time we will be able to have a Moral Education Programme which is suitable for our type of, multi-racial, multi- religious society, which will reflect the aspirations of parents and of Singapore society. I think if we put our hearts to it, if we apply our minds, if we have the will, there is no reason why we cannot succeed, although we may take a bit of time.”
“Mr Speaker Sir, first of all, I would like to thank all Members for their very constructive comments and suggestions regarding this very difficult and important subject on the teaching of Religious Knowledge in our schools. I think all of us must feel some regret that we have had to take this new policy direction. It not only means that at the very least, Sir, seven years of very hard work put in by the Ministry of Education will eventually have to be scrapped but not entirely scrapped, because the experience, the knowledge, which we have gained in working out the Religious Knowledge programme will not be wasted. Also, whenever there is a change of educational policy, I realise that it must bring apprehension and concern to children and to their parents. That is why I emphasised in my statement that we have not come to this decision lightly. I announced in March of this year that we were going to review the teaching of RK in our schools. I believe the review was necessary in the light of the circumstances which have changed since 1982. But we have given ample time for all views to be heard. The arrangements which we have made to phase out the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools are, I believe, fair. They will cause as little disruption to school schedules as possible and I hope that they will cause as little disruption as possible to the education of our children. Sir, this has always been the guiding principle in the Ministry of Education. We cannot promise Members, the public and parents, that we will not change educational policies from time to time. It is necessary as times change.”
“Sir, I just want to make one point with regard to Mr Chiam's point that the Opposition has not been given notice. I believe, Sir, at the beginning of this month, at the first meeting of the Mendaki/MOE Committee, I was asked by reporters as to when I would be announcing the Ministry's decision on the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools, and I said that I would do it at the next sitting of Parliament. I also notice that in today's Straits Times, it is stated very prominently that I will be coming to Parliament today to announce the Ministry's decision. I think enough notice must have been given.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do adjourn now. Question proposed. TEACHING OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE IN SCHOOLS 1.30 pm”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Before I proceed to move adjournment of the House, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the debate on my statement be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 1(8)(b), so that we will not be constrained by the half-hour time limit.”
“I do not expect the decision to be welcomed by all quarters. Indeed, I am sure that there will be some disappointment and also perhaps some criticism. But I would be satisfied if the public and parents particularly come to regard this decision as fair and, unwelcome as it may be, to be in the long-term interest of Singapore and of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, as this is a topic on which I know that Members have different views, I believe that Members would therefore like to debate my statement. Under the rules, this would not be possible as there is no question before the House. I have consulted the Leader of the House on how Members can have an opportunity of having a full debate on my statement. On his advice and with your indulgence, Sir, I intend to adopt the device of moving a motion for adjournment for that specific purpose. At the conclusion of the debate, I shall then seek leave to withdraw my motion, so that the House can then proceed to the other business in the Order Paper. May I add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I understand the Leader of the House has also sought your advice on this matter.”
“A simulation study done by the Ministry shows that, while the number going into junior college will be reduced, the impact should not be too severe. Sir, let me give some figures. Of the students who were admitted to junior colleges this year, ie, 1989, the number of pupils who would still meet the requirements for junior college, if Religious Knowledge was not included, would be reduced by 5% (from 10,651 to 10,107). The number of Malay pupils qualifying for junior college admission would be reduced by 13% (from 306 to 265). And the corresponding figures for the other races are: for Chinese pupils, a reduction of 4% (from 9,640 to 9,242); for Indian pupils, a reduction of 15% (from 514 to 435) and Other Races, a reduction of 14% (from 191 to 165). Sir, in order to give the students ample time to adjust their subject combinations, the Ministry has decided to allow the use of Religious Knowledge as a subject for junior college and pre-university admission requirements up to the Year of Admission 1994. What this means is that all students who are presently in secondary schools today, including those who will proceed to Secondary 3 in 1990 or 1991 and who will sit the '0' level examinations latest by December 1993, will be able to count Religious Knowledge as a subject for purposes of admission to junior colleges and to pre-university centres. Sir, the Ministry of Education and the Government have considered carefully the decision to phase out the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. We have not taken this decision hastily. Six months have passed since I announced the decision to review the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. We have actively sought feedback from all sectors who would be affected by our decision. All views have been taken into account.”
“The students may, if they wish, study a Religious Knowledge subject but on an optional basis outside curriculum time and they can still offer it as an '0' level subject. In the transitional years in 1990 and 1991, when the expanded Civics/Moral Education Programme will not yet be available, principals will be given the flexibility to decide on how to utilise the two teaching periods within curriculum time which are now allocated to Religious Knowledge. The principals can use these two periods for activities such as pastoral care and values education, discussions on current affairs, and strengthening rapport between teachers and pupils. Secondly, Sir, for the students who are presently in Secondary 3 and 4 and who will be proceeding to do the GCE '0' level examinations in 1990 or 1991, they will continue to be given instruction in the Religious Knowledge subjects of their choice during curriculum time. This is because the students would have already covered a substantial part of the syllabus with a view to including Religious Knowledge as a subject to be counted for purposes of admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres. We should enable these students, who are now in Secondary 3 or in Secondary 4, to continue their study of the Religious Knowledge subjects with as little disruption as possible. Now, Sir, I turn to the inclusion of Religious Knowledge as a subject to be used for purposes of admission to junior colleges and to pre-university centres. The Ministry has considered very carefully the effects of not allowing Religious Knowledge on the academically weaker pupils who would normally rely on the use of Religious Knowledge as one of their subjects to qualify for admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres.”
“In place of the Religious Knowledge programmes, it is the intention of the Ministry to extend the present Civics/Moral Education Programme, which is presently taught in the lower levels of our secondary schools, to Secondary 3 and 4 with a view to expanding the Programme and incorporating aspects of nation building, an awareness of our shared values and an appreciation of the beliefs and practices of the various religions and races in Singapore. It will take the Ministry at least two years to construct the syllabus, to write the textbooks and train the teachers to teach this new subject. The first cohort of students to study the expanded Civics/Moral Education Programme will be those going into Secondary 3 in 1992. Sir, I realise that this is a radical departure from the Government's position in 1982 when Religious Knowledge was introduced in schools. And it will be natural for parents to be concerned and to worry whether their children's education will be affected by this new policy. To avoid upsetting school schedules, the Ministry intends to phase out the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools over a period of years so as to cause the least disruption to the education of our children. Since the Ministry will not be able to introduce the expanded Civics/Moral Education Programme in schools until 1992 at the earliest, the following transitional arrangements will apply: First, students who are in Secondary 1 and 2 this year, the lower levels of our secondary schools, will not be required to study Religious Knowledge as a compulsory subject during curriculum time when they proceed to Secondary 3 in 1990 or 1991.”
“But to be neutral and even-handed in a matter of religions must mean, at the very least, that Government should not give the appearance even unintentionally of giving preferred status to any particular religion or of using Government institutions or Government-supported institutions such as schools to help propagate any particular faith. It follows then, Sir, that schools as Government-supported institutions should, in my view, not be used as a means to impart religious beliefs to children. The teaching of religious beliefs, of what guides a person through life, what impels a person to be what he is, this is the province of the home. It is not the province of the schools. And parents cannot abdicate this responsibility to the schools or to Government. It is the responsibility of parents to be moral exemplars, to set examples for their children, to teach them their religious beliefs and to bring them up in the religion in which they would like their children to follow. Schools can at most play a minor supporting role but the prime responsibility must remain that of the parents. Sir, if we accept the principle that the proper province for the teaching of religious beliefs is not in the schools but in the home, then it must follow that Religious Knowledge should not be made a compulsory subject to be taught within curriculum time in schools. And neither in principle should Religious Knowledge be used as a subject to be counted for junior college or for pre-university admission purposes.”
“Sir, if carried to extremes, this trend towards greater fervour in the propagation of religious beliefs can disrupt our traditional religious harmony and religious tolerance which are pre-requisites for life in Singapore. It is not possible for Government to ignore this new development. We must take cognizance of it and we must implement measures to ensure that it does not upset the present climate of religious tolerance in Singapore. I think, Sir, we have to face this fact squarely. But to avoid any suspicion of partiality in formulating and implementing the measures, it is essential for Government to be seen to be scrupulously neutral and even-handed in the handling of religious matters in Singapore. Now, Sir, to avoid any misunderstanding, I want to clarify what is meant by the phrase "to be neutral and even-handed in the handling of religious matters". What the phrase means simply is that Government cannot and should not be perceived to lean towards or to favour any particular religion. The phrase, does not mean that Government is against religion. All Singaporeans, including the Government, are well aware of the enormous contribution which religious groups have made to the life and progress of our country, particularly in the field of education. The schools which have been established by the major religious groups in Singapore have made a great contribution to the cause of education in Singapore. We hope that they will continue their good work and we can assure them of the Government's support for their educational efforts.”
“I think, Sir, that under such circumstances the correct approach which we should use in coming to a decision is first of all to go back to first principles and to ask ourselves one fundamental question and, that is: Was the Government right in 1982 to accept the principle that it was proper for schools to play a major role in the teaching of Religious Knowledge to children? This, to me, is the crux of the issue and we have to settle this question first before we can arrive at a decision on the future direction for the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. Sir, there is no right or wrong answer to this question. Our decision must depend on the type of society Singapore is, the component groups in our population, the circumstances in which we find ourselves and the general desire and priorities of our people. Furthermore, no decision is valid for all time. All decisions must change as circumstances change and decisions which were right at one time may be wrong and may have to be modified at another time. One example is our population policy. So we ask ourselves: has there been any fundamental change in circumstances since 1982 when Government decided to introduce compulsory Religious Knowledge options in schools? In my view, Sir, one fundamental change has taken place. Unlike 1982, there is today a heightened consciousness of religious differences and a new fervour in the propagation of religious beliefs. This trend is world-wide and it embraces all faiths. It can be seen in the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, enhanced Christian evangelisation and resurgence of activity and interest among traditional religions such as Buddhism.”
“In a report to me, they also reported that there was no consensus from participants at their public hearing and the subsequent informal dialogue sessions which they had as to the future direction the Ministry of Education should take with regard to the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. After deliberation, they have recommended that schools be allowed to continue to teach Religious Knowledge subjects but as optional subjects outside school hours and the subjects should continue to be used for purposes of admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres. In place of the compulsory Religious Knowledge subjects now taught within curriculum time, the GPC suggested that a new subject called "Civics" be introduced to incorporate both the Moral Education and Pastoral Care Programmes and to be taught as a non-examination subject to students at Secondary 1, 2 and 3 levels. Sir, the range of opinions that have been raised at the various meetings is aptly summed up in an editorial in The Straits Times on 12th August, and I quote: "Since the subject of the teaching of Religious Knowledge was raised in March, there has been no let-up in public discussions and no lack of educationists, religious leaders, teachers, parents and various individuals willing to offer their suggestions. Their preferences ranged from maintaining the status quo of having compulsory religious knowledge in schools to scrapping it completely; from making it optional within school hours to outside hours; from bringing back Civics to introducing world religions. For a matter so close to the heart or indeed for some, of the souls, the sentiments are understandable." Now, Sir, faced with such a number of options and with the complexity of the subject, the question is what should we do?”
“They feel that the subject is needed today to give children a guide to life and that it will be a grave loss to our education system if Religious Knowledge were not to be taught in schools. This view is supported by representatives from the major religious groups as well as by many parents who feel that they would like their children to be exposed to some religious education during their school days. The second group would recommend scrapping the Religious Knowledge subjects and replacing them by a subject to be called either Civics or National Education which would place emphasis on correct behaviour, national priorities, how Singaporeans should get on with one another, and an appreciation of how to live in a multi-racial, multi-religious society. This view is supported by many of our school principals and representatives of the teacher organisations. The third group would scrap the Religious Knowledge subjects and replace them with a subject on the major religions in Singapore. This would be taught, not as a means of providing a guide to children as to how they should live their lives, but as part of a moral education programme on personal conduct. The aim would be to provide an appreciation of how the major religions conduct themselves and their different practices and beliefs. This view was advanced by a wide cross-section of the public, including parents, representatives of the established religions and ordinary laymen. The Government Parliamentary Committee on Education has organised its own hearings on the subject and held informal dialogue sessions with teachers and students from different schools.”
“In putting forward the three options, I said that whatever course of action we eventually choose, there is one thing we must do and, that is, we should not take precipitate action on such a complex and important matter. Rather, we should first discuss the matter with parents, teachers and principals, community leaders and the heads of the established religions in Singapore, Members of Parliament, academics and the public, before making a final decision. Therefore, Sir, following the announcement in Parliament, I have held four meetings with various groups - on 20th May this year, with principals and teachers; on 26th May, with members and resource persons of the GPC on Education and academics; on 8th July, with the heads of the religious organisations; and on 12th August, with community leaders and the general public at a dialogue session organised by the Feedback Unit. All these meetings, Sir, have been reported in the press and I do not wish to bore Members by describing the proceedings in detail. It suffices for me to say that there was no consensus at the meetings. I think this should not be surprising. Religion is a very deeply felt matter. It touches the very hearts of people and determines their motivation. It is therefore not surprising that no consensus has arisen from the meetings. But, Sir, we can discern three groups of opinions as arising from the meetings. The first group would prefer to retain as far as possible the method and form in which the Religious Knowledge subjects are taught in our schools. This group feels that Religious Knowledge has been beneficial to students and has helped to give them a direction in life.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in March this year, during the debate on the Estimates of the Ministry of Education, I informed Members that the Ministry of Education was taking a fresh look at the whole question of the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. The basic reason that necessitated such a review was the conclusion of a recent study conducted by the National University of Singapore's Sociology Department on Religions and Religious Revivalism in Singapore. As Members may recall, the conclusion of that study was that Government, through the introduction of compulsory Religious Knowledge programmes in schools, has not been entirely neutral in the matter of religions. By designating only certain Religious Knowledge subjects to be made available in schools as compulsory subjects, the Government has given the impression of according preferential status to certain religions. This is not in accordance with the Government's desire to be neutral and even-handed in the handling of religious matters in Singapore. At the debate in March, I put forward three possible options for consideration. First, discontinue all teaching of Religious Knowledge subjects in our secondary schools and bring back the Civics courses which we had in 1979. Second, scrap the Religious Knowledge options and replace them with a general subject called "Study of World Religions" or perhaps "Study of Major Religions". And third, allow the Religious Knowledge subjects to be taught in schools but only as optional subjects to be taught outside curriculum time and not to be used for purposes of admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres.”
“The total number of cards sold in the first seven months of this year is about 820,000 (ie one card for every three Singaporeans), a clear indication of their convenience and popularity. The NCMP is thus mistaken. Sir, the use of cardphones is a technological advance which is happening worldwide. There are advantages to the consumer. Firstly, there is less vandalism of cardphones compared to coinphones which invite theft and damage, and hence are often out of order, causing inconvenience to potential users. Secondly, coinphones are also more labour-intensive to operate and maintain, and hence susceptible to increases in charges to recover cost as wages go up. Thirdly, cardphones are especially convenient for long and long-distance calls compared with coinphones, where large quantities of coins are required for such calls. Because of its inconvenience, the coinphone is being phased out worldwide, especially in developed countries. In introducing the cardphone, Singapore Telecoms has made every effort to ensure that the switchover from coinphones does not inconvenience the public. Today, 5% of the public telephones are cardphones. Where there are cardphones, there is also a coinphone nearby. The public therefore is not inconvenienced. In its replacement programme, Singapore Telecoms has also planned for the ease of purchase of phonecards and a wide choice of values of phonecards ranging from $2 to $50 to meet the different needs of users.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, school principals have all along been working closely with the various district Environmental Health Offices of the Ministry of the Environment to ensure that school tuckshop vendors maintain a high standard of hygiene in their food preparation. Stallholders and their assistants must be medically examined and cleared before they are allowed to handle food and drinks. Public health inspectors as well as school principals or their designated staff conduct regular checks on tuckshops and stallholders to ensure that they comply with the regulations laid down by the Ministry of the Environment. CARDPHONES (Particulars) 6. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Communications and Information how many phonecards are sold per month; how many have been sold as at the latest convenient date; whether he is aware of the inconvenience phonecards have caused to the public; and, if so, if he will ask the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore to reconsider their usage. 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, cardphones are gaining widespread popularity, with sales of phonecards increasing month by month. I have asked the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a table (Cols. 661 - 662) showing the sales data for Members. I think copies of the table are with Members by now. table - Phonecard Sales, Jan - Jul 89 (Cols.661 - 662) Sir, you will notice from the table that in June and July 1989 about 140,000 cards were sold each month, almost double the number sold in January.”
“The Ministry is presently discussing with the Cambridge authorities to make available examinations in the above five minority Indian languages at the 'AO'level and also at the 'N' level. When these examinations are available, possibly by 1992, non-Tamil Indian pupils will be allowed to choose one of these languages as their second language at the 'AO' level and at the 'N' level examinations. At the primary school level, the problem is more difficult as both the Ministry and Cambridge are at present not in a position to provide examinations in the minority Indian languages other than Tamil. We have asked Cambridge to look into the feasibility of their assisting us to make available examinations in the minority Indian languages at the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE). Pending the setting up of examinations in the minority Indian languages at PSLE, non-Tamil Indian pupils will continue to choose one of the official languages - Chinese, Malay or Tamil - as their second language at PSLE. Much obliged, Sir. SCHOOL TUCKSHOP VENDORS (Observance of high standard of hygiene) 5. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Education what stringent measures are being taken to ensure that all school tuckshop vendors observe a high standard of hygiene in their food preparation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, our bilingual policy requires all pupils in schools to study a second language in addition to English. The Ministry of Education provides instruction and examinations in the three official languages - Chinese, Malay and Tamil - and non-Tamil Indian pupils are presently required to choose one of these languages as their second language. Sir, the question of allowing non-Tamil Indians to study their own mother tongues (Gujarati, Punjabi, and so on) in place of Tamil is not a new one. It was considered as long ago as 1956. But owing to the difficulty of providing instruction in the languages and maintaining standards in examinations, the Ministry decided that non-Tamil Indian pupils should confine the choice of their second language to one of the three official languages, ie, either Chinese, Malay or Tamil. At present, a small number of Indian pupils in our secondary schools study a minority Indian language other than Tamil as a third language and offer it as an '0' level subject. The following minority Indian languages are available as '0' level subjects - Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu. Sir, since examinations in the above five minority Indian languages are available in the '0' level examinations and the standards are maintained by the Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, the Ministry has reviewed the matter and has decided to allow from 1990, ie, next year, non-Tamil Indian pupils to offer one of the above five minority Indian languages as their second language in secondary schools. As the Ministry will not be able to provide instruction in these languages, the non-Tamil Indian pupils will have to arrange for their own teachers but, where possible, the schools will make available their premises for lessons.”
“The Foreign Language Programme was introduced in 1978. The scheme is intended for bright students who can cope with and wish to take a third language. Since the start of the programme, 7,842 secondary school and junior college students have been admitted into the programme. The breakdown is as follows: 3,384 took French, 1,487 took German and 2,971 opted for Japanese. The present scheme is catering adequately for students who have an aptitude for languages. The Ministry of Education will expand the scheme if there is a need to do so. DATE-MARKING OF PRE-PACKED FOOD 4. Mr Chin Harn Tong asked the Minister for the Environment whether his Ministry strictly enforces the requirement that packaged perishable foodstuffs bear the expiry date of the contents; and whether he is satisfied with the present regulations.”
“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 1989/90, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, I do not think there is enough time for me to do justice to all the comments. I would just like to say that with regard to the comments from Dr Dixie Tan, Mr Leong Horn Kee and Mr Chiam See Tong on a third university, as Members will know, planning for a third university is currently being undertaken by my Ministry. We intend to do this carefully because, as Dr Dixie Tan has said, I do not think that we want to have a third rate university. If we have a third university, it must be a good university. I would just like to inform Members that the priority for the Ministry of Education over the next few years with regard to university education is to upgrade NTI to a full university, the NTU, by 1991. In this way, we will be providing more university places. And until that is done, we will not proceed with the third university. We have to do this step by step in order to make sure that all the universities which we establish will be proper ones, universities which we will be proud of. Just one comment, Sir, on the point made by Dr Lee Siew-Choh on tuition fee increases. I have spoken quite extensively on this matter last Friday. I do not intend to repeat myself. But I will tell him that if we find any correlation between the length of the loans and marriage and the ability of our graduates to bear children, then of course we will review the loans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, just a brief intervention. I think this dialogue can go on for a long time. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot put the cart before the horse. Things have to be taken step by step. As Dr Tay Eng Soon has said, we must get the teachers first and the Ministry of Education is exerting a number of steps in this direction. Once that is done, the Member for Potong Pasir will see that we will reduce class size and that his wishes will be granted. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“We could try the option for a few years and see whether it is workable or not. But, Sir, whatever course of action we eventually choose, the point which I want to make is that I do not think we should take precipitate action on such a complex and important matter. My approach would be a consultative one, to discuss with parents, teachers and principals, community leaders and heads of the established religions in Singapore, MPs, academics, the public, anyone who would be able to throw some light on this subject, before we make a final decision. This approach will take a little bit longer, but it will, I think, lead to a better and more rational solution. We will also have time to make transitional arrangements and, very important, Sir, to make sure that those students who are presently in our Secondary 3 or Secondary 4 classes will not be penalized or disadvantaged as a result of any changes that we may make in future. The Chairman: Dr Tan, I think you have to withdraw your amendment.”
“Indeed, the Ministry could not find any academic, either in Singapore or overseas, who was brave enough to try and write a textbook on this subject which should be simple enough to be understood by secondary school students. The final blow came when the Ministry realized that, even if the syllabus could be agreed and materials developed, there was no possibility of finding teachers who would be sufficiently conversant with the main principles of five or six religions to the extent that they could confidently present a fair and unbiased picture to their students. In the end, Sir, the Ministry gave up and, as Members know, the subject was never introduced. However, Sir, notwithstanding this rather disheartening experience, I promise Members we will take another look at this alternative but I fear we will run into the same difficulties which we encountered in 1982. But never mind, we will try again. Sir, the third possible course of action is a less drastic one. It would be to allow schools to offer the Religious Knowledge options but only as an optional subject to be taught outside school hours and not to be used for purposes of admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres. This would mean that only children whose parents would like them to study particular Religious Knowledge subjects will do so and they will study the subject outside normal school hours. Under these circumstances, Sir, we must be realistic and expect that the number of students who will choose to study the Religious Knowledge options may be rather small. But, nevertheless, it would enable the Ministry of Education to keep a small residual staff at our headquarters to monitor the teaching of the Religious Knowledge subjects and give us more time to study this issue in depth.”
“There are three courses of action which are possible. The first is simply to discontinue all teaching of Religious Knowledge subjects in our secondary schools and then, because there will be a vacuum, possibly bring back the old Civics courses that we had before 1979. This would mean that we would really be going back to where we were before we started this whole programme. But the difficulty then, Sir, is that we will be putting our students through a course which we already know to be ineffective and to have little impact on pupils. The second possible course would be to scrap the Religious Knowledge options and to replace them, as some have suggested, with a general subject on religions course called "Study of World Religions" or "Study of Selected Religions". On the surface, Sir, this is an attractive solution but there are complications. In actual fact, as far back as 1982, the Ministry of Education announced that in additon to the present six subjects which are available today, there would be a seventh subject called "A Study of World Religions". However, Sir, problems immediately arose when the Ministry got down to try and draft the syllabus. First, there was disagreement among the various religious bodies as to which religions should be included. After much discussion, the Ministry, with the help of a lecturer on comparative religions, settled on nine major world religions, namely, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism and Taoism. Once settled on the religions, the Ministry found that no one could agree on which aspects of which religion should be included for study. Without agreeing on the syllabus, it was obviously not possible to develop any materials for the subject.”
“The most popular option is Buddhist Studies with 16,352 students or 44% of the total 1989 Secondary III cohort of 36,800 students. Other subjects with large enrolments are Bible Knowledge with 7,874 students or 21%, Confucian Ethics 6,563 or 18% and Islamic Religious Knowledge 4,921 students or 13%. 1,008 students or 3% opted for Hindu Studies and 136 students or 1/2% for Sikh Studies. Annex - RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE OPTIONS AT SECONDARY 3 (Cols. 571 - 572) Sir, I believe that the concern of Members concerning these Religious Knowlege options probably arose as a result of the recent study conducted by the NUS Sociology Department on Religions and Religious Revivalism in Singapore. The conclusion of their study was that: 'Government through the introduction of compulsory Religious Knowledge programmes in schools has not been entirely neutral in matters of Religion (a point brought up by Dr Aline Wong). By designating only certain Religious Knowledge subjects to be made available in schools as compulsory subjects, the Government has given the impression of according preferential status to certain selected religions. This is not entirely in accordance with the Government's desire to adopt a secular approach and to be even-handed in religious matters.' I think, Sir, this is a valid and an important point and the implications are such that, notwithstanding the important reasons that have led to the introduction of Religious Knowledge as a compulsory subject in schools and the very considerable resources that have been put into the programme over the last 10 years, it is timely for the Ministry to take a fresh look at this whole subject. I want to briefly outline a few courses of action that we can take with regard to Religious Knowledge teaching in schools.”
“Members will know that numerous reports were produced and many studies were done. Finally, the Ministry concluded in 1982 that religions provided the best and the most dependable basis for inculcating moral values in our older children and producing the honest, upright citizens that we would all wish to see. Even so, it required two more years of very hard work before Religous Knowledge was made a compulsory subject at the upper levels of our secondary school from 1984. Presently, Sir, six Religious Knowledge subject options are available - Bible Knowledge, Buddhist Studies, Confucian Ethics, Hindu Studies, Islamic Religious Knowledge and Sikh Studies. Pupils are free to choose any one of the six Religious Knowledge options for study. The subjects are normally taught within curriculum time except where a given subject option in a school has fewer than 20 pupils. Then that option is taught at designated school centres outside curriculum time. While attendance at Religious Knowledge classes is compulsory, pupils need not offer the subjects in the GCE 'O' or 'N' Level Examinations. But if taken as an 'O' level subject, Religious Knowledge can be considered for purposes of meeting the requirements for admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres. Pupils opt to study the various Religious Knowledge options at the beginning of Secondary III. Members may be interested to know the distribution of pupils among the various options. This is given in an Annex (Cols. 571 - 572) which I have asked the Clerk of Parliament to distribute now. (Copies of document distributed to hon. Members). The Annex shows the number of pupils who opted for the various subjects this year.”
“Sir, I am sure the other Members will not mind because it is an important subject and the Members for Tampines GRC, Dr Aline Wong, Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Peh Chin Hua and Braddell Heights, Mr Goh Choon Kang, have spoken on the subject and I think they deserve a reply. Sir, first of all, I would like to give Members some background on the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools. The first thing I want to say, Sir, is that the decision to make Religious Knowledge a compulsory subject in schools was not taken lightly. It was done after a great deal of thought and study carried out over many years beginnng from 1979. There was at that time, as there is now, a concern that our children in schools should not grow up without absorbing some guiding principles or moral beliefs which would guide them through life. For children in primary schools and the lower levels of our secondary schools, the Good Citizens programme and the Being and Becoming programme provide a reasonably adequate basis for moral edu- cation. But for moral education to be effective at the higher levels of our secondary schools, ie, with children who are aged 15, 16 and 17 years old, they cannot be taught simply as a collection of bits and pieces of good advice or moral platitudes. At that age, Sir, children begin to question. They will not simply accept what they are told. In other words, for moral education to be effective with older children, it must be related to what is called a "unifying intellectual basis" which will place desirable moral values within an "intellectually acceptable conceptual framework." Much effort was expended by the Ministry of Education from 1979 to construct such a conceptual framework for moral education.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for Fengshan for his points. I would like to inform him that with the phasing out of the pre-primary programme, we will now have the resources to strengthen the kindergarten branch within the Ministry of Education. It is my intention, Sir, that the Ministry of Education should now enter into a dialogue with those who are operating in the non-MOE kindergartens to see how we can upgrade these kindergartens. Whether this will take the form of a grant or not, I think, is premature for me to say. But I can assure him, Sir, that we do not intend simply to wash our hands of this responsibility. I believe that the Ministry of Education will in fact be able to upgrade the quality of pre-school education by playing a supportive role to those who are now running the non-MOE kindergartens. Sir, I know I am treading on your indulgence but I have not responded to those Members who have spoken on the Religious Knowledge subject. Can I, with your permission, Sir, take a few minutes ---”
“The schools will utilize the pre-primary facilities to create special purpose rooms which will benefit the children in the other levels of the primary schools. This will also be the same for those primary schools which have pre-primary facilities but are not conducting the pre-primary programme now. Sir, the proposal to retain a number of Chinese primary schools as seed schools for the inculcation of core values in Chinese children does not mean that we have all the answers to the problem of teaching of core values. My own view is that this measure can at best be regarded as only the first step towards a solution. We need to study the matter further to identify core values which will be accepted by all the races in Singapore. And we need to see how these core values can best be disseminated in all our schools. Sir, we are not alone in this problem. Even countries which have established traditional cultures and homogeneous populations fear that their own core values are being weakened daily under the impact of westernization and the media. I believe that it is to our benefit to see how these countries approach the problem. Our aim is not to copy them blindly but to see what we can learn and adapt for our own purposes. As part of the Ministry's multi-prong approach towards this complex problem, my Minister of State, Dr Seet Ai Mee, has discussed the issue with various sections of the public, ie, teachers, community leaders and parents last year and also visited Taiwan and Hong Kong to see what can be learnt in the teaching of core values in these two countries. With your permission, Sir, I think that this would be an opportune time for Dr Seet to inform the House of her findings.”
“These studies by the Ministry were confirmed in a cost-effectiveness review of the programme which was undertaken by the Auditor-General last year. We have a difficult question, Sir, because the popularity of the pre-primary programme is not in doubt. I understand the reasons why this is so. Admission to the pre-primary programme guarantees a place in Primary 1 in the school in which the pre-primary class is held. The fee of $4 per month paid by parents for the pre-primary programme is very low as compared to the fees charged by some private kindergartens. This fee of $4 is low because Government is effectively subsidizing each pupil in the pre-primary classes to the extent of $120 per month. No doubt children in the pre-primary classes are better prepared for Primary 1. And it is therefore not surprising that over the years there has been much pressure from parents, from the public, even from Members of Parliament, for the Ministry to extend the pre-primary programme to all schools. But, Sir, we cannot escape from the central fact that as it is currently structured, the pre-primary programme is a kindergarten programme which can be conducted just as well by other non-MOE kindergartens. There is no educational necessity for the Government to continue with the existing pre-primary programme, except in the 10 schools where the programme will be changed to one that emphasizes the study of CL1. After considering the matter very carefully - and I would again emphasize the words "very carefully" because we have taken three years over this subject - we have decided to discontinue the pre-primary programme with effect from next year in the 31 schools.”
“This is the point raised by Dr Aline Wong on Friday and by Mr Chew Heng Ching today. Should we also convert the pre-primary programme in the 31 schools to this special one-year preparatory programme to lay a foundation in CL1 in the 10 schools which I have just described? Sir, with the experience that we have had over the last 10 years with the pre-primary programme, I think that to convert the pre-primary programme in all the 31 schools to this special one-year CL1 programme would not be wise. We have to study carefully how many children can study CL1 in addition to EL1 without affecting their other PSLE subjects and we can do this better and have a greater chance of success if we limit the number to 10 schools rather than to extend the scheme straightaway to all 39 schools. Members will know that the future of the pre-primary programme has been under consideration by the Ministry for many years. If the progrmame is retained in its present structure as a kindergarten programme, it is not equitable if we do not extend the programme to all primary schools and include the teaching of Malay and Tamil in addition to Chinese. The Ministry has hesitated to expand the programme because our studies, which is supported by discussions with principals, show that educationally the pre-primary programme, as it is currently structured, does not go very much beyond the kindergarten programme conducted by the non-MOE kindergartens. By Primary III, there is little significant difference in so far as we can assess in language competency between children who have gone through the existing pre-primary programme and those who have come from the non-MOE kindergartens.”
“So the pupils need to be given assistance and, in order to encourage the pupils in the 10 schools to do CL1, we have to give them the best possible chance. I have agreed after consulting the principals of the 10 schools, that these 10 schools will be allowed to enrol children next year, from the age of 5+ instead of the normal 6+. This, will commence from 1990. By enrolling pupils at 5+, the pupils will have the benefit of a special one-year preparatory programme which will focus on laying a foundation for the study of CL1 in the upper levels of the primary schools. The pupils in the 10 schools will remain in the schools and study EL1 and CL1 until the end of Primary 3. At the end of Primary 3 those pupils, who are linguistically talented and intellectually able, will be guided to continue with the study of CL1 up to Primary 6 and take the PSLE in the same school. Other pupils who cannot manage CL1 will be allowed to switch to CL2 in the same school or apply for transfer to other schools. Now, Sir, I want to stress the point that while the arrangements which I have outlined are initially to allow more Chinese children to study CL1 in addition to EL1 within a Chinese primary school environment, I want to say for the record and to make it clear that we will also make arrangements for Malay children and Indian children to study ML1 and TL1 in our primary schools if there is demand. I think there should be no misunderstanding on this point. We have an even-handed policy. We will treat all three languages in the same way. Having said that, Sir, I come to what is really the difficult question: What about the pre-primary programme in the other 31 primary schools which presently have pre-primary classes?”
“And if we can succeed in keeping the number of Chinese primary schools, we can in a way use them as "seed schools" to see what lessons can be learned in the area of retention of core values which can later on be transmitted to other primary schools. The Ministry has identified 10 primary schools for this purpose. They comprise the existing four primary schools - Catholic High, Maris Stella, Nanyang Primary, and St. Nicholas Girls - which currently teach CL1 and EL1; and an additional six schools - Ai Tong, Peh Chun, Red Swastika, Maha Bodhi, Nan Hua and Tao Nan. All the 10 schools are traditional Chinese medium schools. They have principals who were educated in Chinese. The 10 schools have strong Chinese traditions and good academic records. They will, we believe, provide an environment which is conducive for the learning of CL1 and the transmission of values which are inherent in the primary school ethos. To help these schools succeed, the Ministry of Education will develop special curriculum materials to facilitate the language learning and values education in the 10 schools. Where necessary, additional physical facilities such as classrooms and special rooms will be provided. The Ministry will also pose good bilingual teachers to the 10 schools and encourage the more able and better Chinese language teachers to apply to teach in these schools. Sir, we know that not all children can do CL1 in addition to EL1 without detriment to their other PSLE subjects. If Members would look at Annex II which has also been distributed, they will see that just under half of the pupils in the four primary schools which now teach CL1 and EL1 are assessed by the schools to have the ability to do the CL1 paper at PSLE without detriment to their other PSLE subjects.”
“Last Friday Dr Lee Siew-Choh in his speech made a point that many of the Chinese stream schools in the old days, particularly the primary schools, used to teach good traditional values particularly good manners. I think he has made a valid point. In fact, in 1979, noting the rapidly declining enrolment in the Chinese medium primary schools, the Government introduced a pre-primary programme in order to arrest the declining enrolment in the Chinese medium schools and to provide the foundation for the learning of languages. Unfortunately, as I shall explain later, because of the changes that the pre-primary programme had to undergo in order to accommodate the large number of schools that were involved at the start (67 schools or approximately a quarter of the present number of primary schools), the programme had over the years to be substantially modified until it is today effectively a kindergarten programme. But the original intention was correct. There is much in the traditional discipline and culture of the former Chinese primary schools which can be usefully incorporated to inculcate desirable core values in Chinese children. And we should prevent these Chinese primary school traditions from being totally lost. Many of the Chinese primary schools have closed down because of declining enrolment. But fortunately, Sir, we still have a number of existing primary schools which have not lost their Chinese primary school character, and we should retain these schools as Chinese-type primary schools but now teaching CL1 in addition to EL1. These schools will help to keep alive the best traditions of Chinese primary school education.”