the backlog of students deprived of education during the Japanese Occupation . The crowds waiting to get into S ]] were typical of what was going on in every English-medium school . There were too few schools and too many pupils .
This story begins when , in 1946 , the Director of Education , J . B . Neilson , was instructed to draw up a blueprint to meet the crisis in the local schools . His scheme became known as the Ten Years ' Programme , and he laid it before the Governor ' s Advisory Council on 19 December 1946 .
For the purposes of our story we need only make a few generalisations on the Plan before we reach the issue that became crucial to it .
In the first place the Plan demonstrated the intention of the Government to become more thoroughly involved with education in the colony and especially with vernacular education . It affirmed the importance of the schools in preparing people for selfgovernment . It implied that the practice of mingling the races in the classrooms of the schools was an ideal to encourage . And it eventually - in its amended form - made an emphatic statement , almost revolutionary to some people , on access to English-medium schools .
The burden of Mr Neilson ' s report was this . It would take two or three years before the schools were restored to their pre-war level . The position of the English schools was one of great difficulty . Three of the main school buildings had been totally destroyed by enemy action , while two others , including the main Trade School , were occupied by the Forces . Those that had been re-opened were far from adequately equipped . Furniture was expensive and of poor quality and text books were in short supply . Lack of school libraries and scientific apparatus added to the difficulties . At the same time , as the school accommodation was in short supply there had been a huge increase in the number of pupils .
In these circumstances he advanced a plan which had as its objective the building of ten new Primary schools every year for ten years , the teaching of English in the vernacular schools after the third year , and ' free education in English for pupils whose mother tongue is English , or , who can satisfy the Department of Education that English is their home medium .'
The Select Committee that was delegated to review this scheme cautiously enlarged this provision to include ' children of local families with English school associations .'
With the lawyer ' s keen eye for the vague and woollyphrase , CCTansailed into the attack . Rising in the debate on the Plan on 7 August 1947 , he said :
' The amendment proposed by the Select Committee will only set up a system of protective selection for admission to these schools . In addition to the inherent objection to such a system there will arise the inevitable dispute as to how far a family should extend and what is an " English school associa tion . "
' I therefore submit that any restriction to the admission of children into the Primary English Schools will also be a restriction against the free inter-racial mingling of school children and as such is a retrograde step in view of all our efforts to engender local civic-mindedness and patriotism .
' By all means develop free primary vernacular education , but while doing so Government must keep in mind the fact that English remains the most important language in this country . That being the case , there is entirely no justification for cutting down the class of children admissible to Primary English Schools . Parents of children of all races should be free to elect which of the schools they would like their children to enter and there should be no bar or compulsion . Otherwise the plan will be regarded as a move either to segregate the races or retard the development of English education .' It must have taken courage to take such a firm stand . But the trouble was there was not enough money available . Thio Chan Bee underlined this point , very thoroughly , in the ensuing debate :
' We are told that in England and Wales the percentage of revenue spent on education is about 19 %, but in Singapore we only spend about4 %. 1 note also that in the 1947 Estimates of Singapore expenditure we are spending more on broadcasting than on ed ucation . This poor percen tage of revenue spent on education , 1 think , explains why there are thousands of children still loafing about the streets of Singapore instead of being in school to be trained to be good citizens of the country . One thing seems to be clear : if we have more money to spend , then more money can be spent on education ; but even if we do not have more , I still feel that we ought to spend more on education by cutting down on other items . Perhaps we migh t allocate 10 % for education for a start and , later on , increase the percentage to 15 % of the Colony ' s revenue .' Finally , His Excellency said :
1do not propose to put the matter to the vote and on behalf of the Government , 1 accept Mr . CCTan ' s amendment .' Doubtless the Governor accepted because the Government regarded , and intended to use , the English school as the agency most suited to foster the growth of Malayan consciousness and to prepare the inhabitants for eventual self-government . Nevertheless it was a triumph of principle . It was to take many years to realise .
Reflecting on the whole issue in November 1986 , Mr Tan recalled :
' What Neilson wanted was to put up a plan under which only children who came from an English-speaking background would be allowed to be enrolled in English Language Schools . All the rest must go to schools where the initial teaching was in the vernacular-Chinese , Malay , Tamil . In other words he would have divided the population completely and the intake of the English Lan-
48 Memories of SJ1