SPEECH BY DR NG ENG HEN, MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER, ON THE JUNIOR COLLEGE/ UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AT PARLIAMENT ON 26 NOV 2002

1.             I am heartened that all members who have spoken thus far have largely supported the motion and the recommendations of the JC/Upper Secondary Education Review. However not a few have said that these changes while good and worthy of support and implementation should be extended to the majority. Both MP Amy Khor and NMP Jennifer Lee have called these educational changes to be extended to more so that more can benefit. Today, MP S Iswaran echoed these changes. Intended or not, these points raised by speakers before me may have given the wrong impression that MOE would be neglecting the majority as these measures largely benefit the top 10% who in Ms Jennifer Lee's words, 'are more than able to fend for themselves'. Sir, I would like to address these concerns. Implicit in their comments are two assumptions, both of which are debatable. One is that parity of attention is achieved through the provision of similar programs, and two, better treatment is accorded to the top echelons of our students at the expense of the weaker students. Sir, let me state in unambiguous terms as clearly and succinctly as I can - when it comes to paying heed to the educational opportunities for the masses especially the weaker ones: we have, we do, we will continue to do so. Let me substantiate these assertions. 

2.             First, we have. Sir, educational reforms for the masses as honorable members Cedric Foo and Wee Siew Kim have pointed out require enormous will and courage and effects take in political time-scales, well forever. Which is why beyond the political dimensions countries which have the temerity and succeeded in educational reforms have done so because of added strategic reasons. Those who have succeeded are like Singapore, Ireland and Denmark, island states or countries surrounded by competitors with greater resources and hinterlands. To survive, we have to get the best not from some but all our people. In contrast, large countries with better resources have had less strategic reasons to enable the masses to 'level up' in education. Don't get me wrong, all countries want it but the need to achieve that egalitarian goal is less urgent for these countries. So, like Senior Parliamentary Secretary Koo Tsai Kee recounted, Bush Senior promises reforms but like so many before and indeed after him, failed to deliver. Politically it's a card they play because people keep hoping that finally someone will deliver. And even if you don't because so many have previously failed, people forget. So, when previous MPs declared that we should also pay attention to the majority - I was bemused because it seems in Singapore even when you have succeeded magnificently people also forget. Sir, for the last 20 years or so since a similar motion on educational reform standing in the name of the then DPM Goh Keng Swee was accepted, we have been doing just that - paying attention to the masses, not those on the top. Let me elaborate. Prior to those educational reforms only one of two students completed secondary school. Even now the adverse consequences are felt. This is the group of 400,000 or so that NMP Jennifer Lee alluded to. But we broke the back of that problem and now more than 90% finish secondary education. The problem of masses of uneducated will not be repeated. So if I were asked the question, who benefited the most from the educational efforts in the last 20 years, I can objectively assert that it was the masses and not the academically brightest. Because as members themselves have said in most countries even in USA, the rich and able are able to take care of themselves. Streaming of aptitude and resources occurs spontaneously and to the disadvantage of the less able and less well off. A strong central system is inherently stacked against the elite because it enables the rest to catch up. This is exactly what happened in Singapore. In 1980, only 5% of each birth cohort went to university. Now if you were in families of the 5%, why would you want it changed? When others are less able, with less access and untutored there would be less competition, and as many of you mentioned it, therefore less stress. Indeed this occurs in the States. By gravitational affinity, students from more resourced families congregate at specific schools followed by better teachers. They therefore do better. But in Singapore, we do not send all our best teachers to only RI and RGS. We spread them out. These systemic changes opened up access to all and sundry. As I said, it is school-proof, any school will get you there if you have the aptitude. In 1999, the International Maths and Science Study showed that 90% of our students score above the median. Let me try to present this in mathematical terms. Mathematically this means that if you closed your eyes and plucked any student in any school, and transported him to an equivalent grade anywhere else in the world, even if the student was the 91st out of the 100 positions, he or she would be above average in that system. Is it any wonder that parents come back with children sent overseas said that our students 'blossom' when they go overseas! So contrary to what was implied, we have enabled the bottom 90% to be the best they can be. We added to the stress because now one in every four student comes within striking distance of a local university education. And because we have grounded them so well in fundamentals, about 40% to 50% of each cohort get a local or overseas university degree finally. 40% get a diploma and another 25% ITE certification and this latter group with above 80% employability, even in this recession. "Who is looking into the educational needs of the bottom 90%?" NMP Jennifer Lee asked yesterday. The government has for the last 20 years, thank you. 

3.             Second, we do. Having raised the water level across our nation, are we now poised to spend inappropriate resources only on the more abled? Cries of elitism! Not so. Minister Teo, because of these changes, wanted to convince ourselves at MOE that we are expending appropriate resources to those with lesser academic aptitude. He asked for comparable figures of spending between JC and ITE students, different end of the spectrum in terms of academic ability of similar ages. The results are illuminating and indeed gratifying. First, developmental cost. Both ITE and JC institutions cater to similar sized intakes about 1500 students. We spend $37 million to build one ITE institution and $36.8 million to build one JC. MPs know because you have seen it with your own eyes that we do not short-change weaker students, when it comes to facilities! In fact, equipment donated by industry such as in the case of Balestier ITE can come up to $ 10 million more. Ah, but you say, JC students get better and therefore more expensive teaching. Well let's look at the figures. The recurrent operating cost for JC is $11 million and $7,879 per student per year. For ITE, $10.5 million and $ 8,030 per student per year. The ITE student is worth 102% compared to the JC student in terms of spending. And for both JC and ITE students, government charges for their education a 'princely' sum of $25 per month. Let me say that MOE does not a priori provide educational programs to different aptitudes based on equivalent spending. Our guiding principle has and will be, enable each student according to his aptitude to realise his potential. And for an ITE student to have 80% employability at a starting salary of $1300 is something we can be proud of. 

4.             Finally, we will continue to do so. Our educational system though streamed and segmented by aptitude and pedagogy is nonetheless interconnected. In other words, changes at any point will have an impact throughout the system. NMP Jennifer Lee asked another intelligent question, and Mr Iswaran repeated it today - if changes are to be effected, why did we choose to start after the student has had about 6 to 8 years of our current system. Our response is a practical one - it is easier to do so and this is why we chose to work at the 'product'. The University Sector Review is also concurrently underway and the recommendations will be presented in January. Those recommendations will reinforce and be aligned to the objectives of this present preview. And I believe to start at the end is a smart thing to do. If we chose to start at the primary one level, we would have to systemically train and enable all 45,000 of students and their teachers to effect these changes. I have said educational reforms take quite long to effect, but some of us would wish to see changes in our children's lifetime! I also think it will work because Singaporeans by their very nature respond to clear signals. Take Project Work in schools for example. Even though it is not yet implemented as a criterion for university admission, already Project Work (PW) has been introduced at the primary school level, as every parent who has to spend nights preparing his child's PW will testify. Similarly the JC/Upper Secondary Education Review Committee recommendations while physically affecting only 10% initially will have a leavening effect on the entire system. For example once the specialised sports school is well established, I foresee students who excel in sports but continue in the mainstream schools participating in and upgrading through events in the sports school. Similarly the Arts school, the Science and Maths schools will have spillover effects. Indeed the training of teachers to facilitate these programs that we have talked about will also have an up-lifting effect. Singapore is small and teachers meet regularly and interact. They will discuss new methods and challenge outdated ideas. A change in the overall educational milieu will result and will make it easier to effect changes in mainstream schools. 

5.             I do however agree with members who feel that the changes may not reduce the workload. Regardless of the system and beyond educational goals, students will still want to go that extra mile, put in that extra hour of mugging to be one up on his fellow student, to enter into a top university. How and should we ameliorate this? Realistically, we can only aim to influence not how much but what they spend their time on. That is why the JC review calls for a contrasting subject to achieve breadth and for CCA to be considered in university admissions. A recommendation which the Honourable Member John Chen I am sure would fully support as it would have enable his 'borderline example of a badminton player' who excelled in sports to enter university. 

6.             Sir, let me reiterate that these changes do not in any way signal that we are going to neglect the majority and focus only on those who are more able. We continue to be guided by the vision of to each his ability and from each his best.