The Excluded in an Inclusive Society

From President S.R. Nathan to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the all too familiar refrain of making Singapore an inclusive society has become the theme song for our nation since PM Lee first mooted his vision at his swearing-in ceremony in 2004.

The Enabling Masterplan (2007-2011), based upon the vision of PM Lee, was released on 12 Feb 2007. The 5-year plan is targeted at Singaporeans with physical or mental disabilities. It aims to help this group of people “to reach their full potential and be included as part of Singapore”.

But how can one build an inclusive society when a misguided dichotomy exists in the ways we dish out educational support for “normal” and “special needs” children?

When one is born “normal”, the Ministry of Education (MOE) will do its utmost to provide this child “with a balanced and
well-rounded education” so that he or she will have the potential to develop into a good and responsible citizen.

Primary education is compulsory and free for all “normal” children (Note: the $5.50 charge per month is known as standard miscellaneous fees). The mainstream schools are adequately equipped, spacious and stuffed with well-trained teachers.

However, when one is born with physical or mental disabilities, MOE does not get involved in the education of this child anymore. This responsibility is left very much to a complex tripartite arrangement involving the Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), National Council of Social Services (NCSS) and the Ministry of Community, Youth, and Sports (MCYS), with MOE merely taking a passive overseeing role.

For special needs children, education is not compulsory and the school fees are not cheap, not to mention that some early
intervention modules are “means tested”. The Special Education (SPED) schools are stretched to the limits in facilities and enrolment, and the teachers are grossly under paid since they are employed and paid by the usually cash-strapped VWOs, rather than the well-budgeted MOE.

The tripartite arrangement under the “many helping hands” approach to manage the education of special needs children is highly inefficient because not a single ministry or party is in total control.

In simple terms, the tripartite arrangement puts the VWOs in charge of these SPED schools, with NCSS overseeing the Programme Evaluation System and conducting on-site assessments, and MOE providing teacher and principal training programmes via the National Institute of Education (NIE). The funding for special education comes primarily from MCYS and MOE.

One of the key findings of the Enabling Masterplan was that there is a need for leadership in the area of early intervention and education for special needs children. There was a general call for MOE to assume this leadership but the ministry felt that it does not have the necessary expertise to do the job.

The government also felt that there is no need to ‘rock the boat’ now as the current tripartite arrangement has worked reasonably well.

But why is MOE so reluctant to take ownership of educating our special needs children?

Cost is not an issue because the government has stated that the current total funding per child in SPED schools is about four times the level of funding per primary student in mainstream schools. Although this funding is shared between MCYS and MOE, a simple consolidation of this budget under MOE would have streamlined this administrative anomaly.

Just for comparison, taking away the NCSS and other recurrent funding, the $55 million a year commitment by MOE (as outlined in a speech by Dr Ng Eng Hen on July 9, 2005) to support the SPED schools and mainstream schools with special needs programme is a mere 0.78% of its 2007 budget of $7 billion. One would have thought MOE could afford to do more for special needs children.

The lack of expertise in special education cannot be such an insurmountable hurdle for a world class institution like MOE to prevent it from assuming its rightful responsibility of educating all children regardless of any physical or mental disability.

In addition, an inclusive society cannot leave the career development of SPED school teachers in “no-man’s land”. These teachers should be duly recognised for their talent and effort, i.e. to be gainfully employed by MOE and not VWOs.

The claim that the tripartite arrangement has worked so far has much to do with the dedication of many tireless and selfless individuals running the VWOs, rather than the fragmented “leadership” the government is providing so far.

For many years, prior to the birth of the Enabling Masterplan, “disadvantaged” Singaporeans are virtually an invisible group of citizens in our society. Some early key public infrastructures did not even make provisions for these citizens in their designs and implementation.

For example, when our Mass Rapid Transit system was first conceived, there was no plan to allow citizens with physical disabilities to use this mode of transport due to cost considerations in implementing access for the handicapped. It was also not mandatory for public buses to be handicapped ready. Barrier-free access in many public and private places were inadequate or totally non-existent.

It is good to know that the government has finally awoken to the plight of this group of citizens. However, the government must instil urgency in the building of an inclusive society in Singapore.

MOE, for the lack of expertise, must acquire the necessary knowledge to run SPED schools sooner rather than later. The government must recognize that early intervention programmes and special education for special needs children are as essential and fundamental as providing primary education for “normal” children.

If a “normal” child is entitled to free compulsory primary education, a special needs child should not be treated any differently, i.e. a free compulsory special education must be offered as well. It is inconceivable that MOE would only take charge of the “able” but not the “disabled” or “less able”.

Every morning, thousands of school children are reminded that they are living in a democratic society that is built on justice and equality. While many SPED school students may not have the capacity to understand the national pledge, their caregivers and parents would probably have some difficulty believing the part about “equality” until MOE comes into the picture for special education.

In an inclusive society, no child, special or otherwise, should be “excluded”.