平信徒的领袖角色
在教会和学校的历史中，平信徒，尤其是其担任的领袖角色总是被掩盖。事实上，如果没有战前的教会华裔经济精英，教会的教育发展将受到极大阻碍。这些教会领袖包括富人、堂区服务员和教理员，都非常关注教会儿童的教育问题。就位于武吉宝美(Bukit Purmei)的圣德肋撒华英中学而言，林亚平（Lim Ah Pin）不仅是主要贡献者，也是主要承包商。在市区的修道院，是陈德熙（Chan Teck Hee）确保了被遗弃的女孩得到食物和教育。同样的，阿裕尼修道院 (葡萄牙传教会)在上世纪 3 0 年代末建立时，黄成顺（Wee Cheng Soon）也如此照顾了那里的女孩。从上世纪 2 0年代到 3 0 年代，新加坡的每一个华语堂区旁边都建立了华英学校 ( Sino-English Schools)。圣若瑟华英中学建在武吉知马、圣德肋撒华英中学建在武吉宝美，以及建在圣伯多禄圣保禄堂旁的公教华英中学。1933年，在市区的修道院，一个专为教会女生的纯华校中学：圣尼格拉女校建立了。战前天主教华裔经济精英的涌现，在一定的程度上刺激了新加坡天主教华人团体的发展。这包括在教会内引入更高等的本地教育。这么一来，确保了教会今后将有自己土生土长的华文教育团体。
战后发展
日占时期完全破坏了新加坡天主教教育的进展。虽然一些天主教学校在恢复平静后重新开放，但新帝国领导将日语教学强加给所有学校，当然，所有学校也都改名为 “昭南岛” 学校。但更重要的是，从1943年起，许多天主教徒、神职和修会人员被派往马口（Bahau）工作。
当英国人重返，天主教会、学校和修会团体必须面对一个全新的现实。重建和重启的任务成为天主教教育家关注的主要问题。这一次，天主教学校没有教会富裕人士的协助；他们在战争结束前已死亡，或从公共场合消失。那些教学修会必须为他们现有的学校提供资金，并建造新的校舍。但更重要的是，殖民政府在新加坡教育政策的行政上有更多的繁文缛节。战后不久几年的特点是本地婴儿潮，以及移民和定居人数的大幅增长，尤其是来自印度和中国的人民。出生率增长如此之快，以至有必要将新加坡的学校数量，特别是小学增加一倍。天主教会在1950年代建立了十多所小学和相等数量的幼儿园以应对这一挑战。其中许多学校不附属于堂区。例如, 圣迈克尔小学。1950年代也是岛上神职和修会人员数量大幅增加的时期。
中国成为共产主义国家也导致了当地教会受到迫害。成千上万的华人基督徒跟着神职逃离，并与他们的主教组成了“流散中的教会”，流亡在外。虽然这个散居的华人教会，成为包括新加坡在内的海外华人教会学校的资金来源，但对这里天主教学校的发展产生更大影响的，是从中国被驱逐的外国神职人员，例如，圣母昆仲会发掘到新加坡开办海星学校的路。巴黎外方传教会本身有许多神职人员曾被共产党监禁和释放。他们中许多人最终被派往新加坡，安顿在当地堂区。他们进一步发展战前教会在实龙岗、武吉知马、武吉宝美和市区建立的 “华英学校”。
和战前一样，整个教会的发展也对其天主教学校产生了很大影响。在20世纪50年代，新抵达的巴黎外方传教会神父，得到了正为堂区进行“堂区活力使命”的赎主会会士的帮助。仅仅圣伯多禄圣保禄堂，上世纪 5 0年代中期的成人洗礼每年几乎达到 2 0 0位，而婴儿洗礼相近。
统计数据中的重要讯息是，其定性数据显示每年皈依的护士数目，而在某些年份，每年超过100人。看来，赎主会和巴黎外方传教会已经归化了整个护士协会。从数量上看，到了1960年，圣伯多禄圣保禄堂每年都有500人领洗, 这是很美妙的，意味着这个堂区每年都在生产整个新堂区。然而，对教会来说，更重要的是，如此多的女性皈依者也意味着形成相等数量新天主教家庭的潜能。有了这些家庭，就有更多的天主教孩子。教会和学校的成长速度和条件也随着这些国家社会人口的背景数据而产生变化。
变革之风
诚然，上世纪 5 0至 6 0年代对教会及其学校来说是一个激动人心的时刻。那是一个成长和进步的时代。然而，当时的社会政治暗流对学校也带来影响。有迹象显明,“变革”迫在眉睫。 1947年，政府已经实施了“十年教育改革计划”。这项新政策的一个重要原则是按照领土而不是族裔建立学校，后者是教会战前大多数学校的特点。虽然教会对这一新规定回应迟缓，但随着新加坡旧社会、城市和政治直到60年代末的改革，学校的创建自然是跟着这个步伐前进。因此, 这导致教会和其学校的深刻变化。
1955年，教育部的设立是加强国家对当地学校控制的第一步。除了要应对政府的“六天” 教育制度等政策外，政府亦加强了对所有非政府学校“补助金”制度的控制。然而影响整个天主教学校发展的不是政策或特权，而是新镇的建立，这是政府对岛国历史城市人口过多和拥挤问题的答案。这意味着必须放弃教堂的民族建筑模式。
教会，以及大多数教学修会缺乏资源和人力，无法像政府建设新的卫星乡镇一样迅速建造新的堂区和附属学校。例如，在创建女皇镇和大巴窑时，虽然政府 (在城市规划) 为宗教机构分配了空间，但没有在教堂附近为建立附属学校预留场地的计划。修会运作的教会学校也措手不及。在这些新镇建设新的学校和堂区需要时间和大量的资金。
在教会和学校，1950和1960年代是个令人费解的时期。出生率的大幅上升造成了新加坡每一所学校的过度拥挤状况，而不仅仅是在教会学校。大多数学校开始双班制应对。提供技术教育的国家政策还意味着必须增加新的设施 (和学校大楼) 或作出一些其他安排。在此期间, 几乎所有天主教学校都开办夜校，开设马来语课程 (当时所有人都必须学习马来语) 。此外，还需要腾出空间开办中学课程后的进阶课程。
公教初级学院成立于1975年，在此之前，天主教中学如圣若瑟书院在20世纪60年代末开办大学先修课程。1950和1960年代也是华裔天主教学校动荡的时期。虽然共产主义的煽动和华裔学生的骚乱威胁到华裔天主教学生加入争夺战，但华裔社会内部的混乱也导致许多家长转而选择英校。问题的关键是，华校生毕业后发现找工作比较困难。所有这些都为日后教会和学校如何进行更重大的改变埋下伏笔。
然而, 将我们学校面临的困难并列起来, 这也是教会最激动人心的时期。在教会和堂区学校的儿童人数大幅增加，更多学校的儿童参加堂区节庆和游行。这是大规模游行的高峰 (例如, 圣体圣血节、真人玫瑰经和拜苦路)，成千上万的天主教徒在实龙岗（后港圣母圣诞堂）、武吉知马（圣若瑟堂）、武吉宝美（圣德肋撒堂）、维多利亚街（葡萄牙传教会）、勿拉峇沙路（圣伯多禄圣保禄堂和主教座堂），站立在教堂场地，大规模的庆祝活动。此类大规模的活动后来并不在教会和其学校举办。
应当注意的是，与堂区有联系的学校也是为堂区儿童开设教理课的场所。当时，教会学校的修士、修女和教师也担任堂区的教理员。相反，每当学校有重大活动时，比如学校创办人日或国庆庆祝活动, 他们只是在附近的堂区举行弥撒 (如果他们的教堂没有足够的空间)。在这个时代，信仰生活和学校生活将教会学校的天主教徒交织在一起。然而, 到了1970年代和1980年代，随着大多数学校脱离其堂区，加上全国上学的孩子人数不断减少，首先是政府的节育措施，然后是自然下降的出生率，教堂和教会学校开始沿着不同的道路发展。
梵二的改革
梵蒂冈第二次大公会议的改革 (1965-75) 也为迈进70年代的天主教学校制造了一系列全新的问题。其一，一些神职、修会人员、修士、修女离开了他们的修会。其次，以当地神职人员取代外国传教士的运动转移了教会对学校的注意力。70年代对华文教育的普遍负面情绪，也导致教会华校停滞不前。
与此同时，政府学校也取得了极大进展。如前所述，1960年代对于中学之后的教育需求，促使一些中学设立了“大学先修班”。天主教学校紧随其后。国家初级学院成立时，教会知道她也需要一所自己的学院，以免所有教会学校的学生都去了政府或其他教派开办的学院。“天主教初级学院”的计划是在1970年提出的。然而，由于财政拮据和资源有限，学院直到1975年才成立。虽然该学院由修会(先是喇沙修士会，后由耶稣圣婴女修会)领导，但仍然是一所“教会学校”(属于教区级，与任何堂区无关的机构)，同时，也不属于教学修会的机构。
到了1980年代，教会也开始面临新的挑战，影响到整个天主教团体。圣召减少，同时本地的神职人员和传教士也逐渐老去。这样的情况下，天主教学校面临着一些根本问题。天主教学校是否只由修会领导？对于教会学校的精英主义，教会的立场是什么？虽然一些首屈一指的华文天主教学校接受了政府提出的建议，成为特别辅助学校（SAP schools），注入新元素，但其他教会华校，如圣婴中学和海星学校，必须成为英文源流才能生存。
接着是自主学校（ Independent Schools ）的引进，后来又有了自治学校（Autonomous Schools）。排名, 紧接而至。天主教学校面临的挑战是考虑、再考虑、界定和再界定对其附属学校和天主教团体的使命和责任。1981年开创的 “普通－快捷源流”和“特别源流”，进一步复杂化了天主教学校必须面对的根本问题。而讽刺的是，很多天主教学生都在普通源流。随着上世纪80年代中期所引入的“普通学术源流”，风险更大。要录取这些学生，将可能冒着破坏学校环境和排名的风险。所有的教会学校都陷入了学校进展和教会发展的漩涡之中。
到了 20世纪90年代，传统教会及其族裔群体几乎不复存在。新镇堂区现在已经成为常态，附近也没有太多天主教学校。此外，小学报名的入学率 (居住在一公里以内)、分流和排名，已成为影响天主教家长将子女送到最好学校的重点。不幸的是，这往往意味着不会是天主教学校。
上世纪80-90年代也几乎是其他旧有的教会学校都处在需要重建或搬迁的时候。在许多情况下，随着搬迁，传统的学校与堂区教堂的联系被破坏。原本堂区和学校团体为天主教学校的良好运作根基完全受到侵蚀。事实上，虽然以平信徒男女领导天主教学校已成常态，但上世纪 9 0 年代，也有一些天主教学校由其他信仰的校友领导。教学修会本身也缺乏人力，他们在所属学校，也难以让人感受到他们的存在。
许多年轻人，这群教会 (和他们的团体) 的未来，要面临的挑战是“踏上少人问津之路”，一个富裕的社会和常年增加的生活成本、新的愿望、现代物质欲望（例如拥有汽车、俱乐部会员证和公寓）、公共住房成本和其他挑战。使到加入圣秩的圣召人数有所下降。那些愿意加入辅助学校计划(保证在天主教学校获得教职)的教学工作者也大幅下降。事实上，当时现有的辅助教师也劝阻其他人加入他们的行列——指出缺点很多 (和公务员的利益有别）。学校领导本身在不同程度上，也希望在注重排名和自主的时代，最优秀的教师都在他们学校任教，而这些人不一定是天主教教师。
那时期，多数天主教学校很少或根本没有神职或修会人员从事教学，同时校内（1100至1800学生）一般只有12名天主教教师 (最多24人) 。当然，当时许多天主教学校的天主教学生入学率平均已下降到5%以下。例如，相比1990年末和21世纪初的天主教青年情况，圣母军在鼎盛时期，在新加坡国立大学校园里有大约10个支团，在这段时间里只剩下一个。在中学，直到1980年代，教会学校仍然有圣母军和圣文生协会，如今却寥剩无几。后者在十年前已关闭了所有支团。另一个天主教组织：公教学生青年，曾经在大多数天主教中学和堂区都有代表，如今只剩下少数支团，分布在6所学校。
结论
在教会失去所有的学校和青年，成为世俗主义和徒具形式之前，需要进行根本性的变革。 很明显，新加坡天主教教育历史充满了天主的恩典。天主教学校的进展一直与教会(堂区和团体) 的进展交织在一起。而当社会变革和国家发展超越教会和修会的进展时，天主教学校就只能自行发展。因此，教会学校之间现在存在着巨大的发展差距。虽然学术成就可能是衡量成功的标尺之一，但就教会而言，真正的关键是教会学校的天主教大公性。
文：刘伟强／译：海星报
4. Our Church, Community and Schools: Forgotten Connections（3）
Clement Liew Wei Chiang
All rights reserved: No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means Electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner．
Remembering the Role of Our Lay Leaders
The role of the Church’s laity has always been glossed over in all church and school histories, especially with regards to its community leaders. In truth, without the Church’s pre-war Chinese economic elite, the development of education within the Mission would have been greatly hampered. These lay leaders of the Mission, which included the well-to-do, wardens and catechists, had all shared a great concern for the education of the Mission’s children. In the case of St Teresa’s Sino-English School at Bukit Purmei, Lim Ah Pin was not only the main contributor, he was also the main contractor. At the Town Convent, it was Chan Teck Hee who made sure that the abandoned girls were fed and schooled. Wee Cheng Soon did likewise for the girls at the Aljunied Convent (Portuguese Mission) when it was established in the late 1930s. From the 1920s to the 1930s, a whole string of Sino-English schools that taught in the vernacular at the secondary level were erected next to every Chinese parish in Singapore. The St Joseph’s Sino-English School was erected at Bukit Timah, St Teresa’s Sino-English School at Bukit Purmei, and the Sino-English School, that later became Catholic High School, next to Sts Peter & Paul. In 1933, at the Town Convent, a separate all-Chinese secondary school, St Nicholas Convent, was founded for the Chinese girls of the Mission. The emergence of a Chinese Catholic economic elite in the pre-war years had stimulated a measure of development within the Chinese Catholic community of Singapore, and this included the introduction of higher vernacular education within the Church. And this in turn, ensured that the Mission would have in the future, its own locally born, Chinese educated community.
Post-war Developments
The Occupation years had totally disrupted the progress of Catholic Education in Singapore. While some Catholic schools re-opened after calm returned, the new Imperial masters imposed the teaching of Japanese within all schools, and of course, all schools were also renamed “Syonan-to” schools. But more importantly, from 1943, many Catholics and clergyman and Religious were sent off to Bahau to work.
When the British returned, there was a whole new reality which the Catholic Church, schools and Religious Orders had to face. The task of rebuilding and restarting became the main concern of the Catholic educationalist. This time round, the Catholic schools were without the assistance of the Church’s well-to-do elites who had all perished or faded from public scene before the war ended. The teaching Orders had to finance their existing schools, and the building of new ones. But more importantly, the colonial government had become more “executive” with regards to education policies in Singapore. The immediate post-war years was characterized by a local baby-boom and a great increase in immigration and settlement of peoples, in particular, from India and China. The birth rate increased so rapidly that it became necessary to double the number of schools in Singapore, especially the primary schools. The Catholic Church responded to this challenge by establishing more than a dozen primary schools, and similar number of kindergartens, in the 1950s. The 1950s was also a time when the number of Religious Orders and clergy on the island increased significantly. Many of these schools were not attached to parishes. For example, St Michael’s Primary School.
China’s transition into a communist state had also resulted in the persecution of the Church there. Thousands of Chinese Christians fled with their clergy, and they eventually formed the “Church of Diaspora” with their own bishop in exile. While this Chinese Church in Diaspora became a source of funding for the Chinese Mission schools overseas, including Singapore, it was the expulsion/escape of foreign clerics from China that had a greater impact on the development of the Catholic schools here. The Marist Brothers, for example, found their way to Singapore to start Maris Stella. The MEP themselves had numerous clergy who had been imprisoned and released by the communists. Many of them were eventually posted to Singapore and placed in the local parishes, and they became instrumental in the further development of the string of parish supported “Sino-English Schools” established by the pre-war churches at Serangoon, Bukit Timah, Bukit Purmei and in Town.
And as it was in the pre-war days, the development of the Church as a whole had a great impact on its Catholic schools as well. Through the 1950s, the newly arrived MEP priests were aided by the Redemptorists who ran dynamic parish missions for the parishes. Just by looking at Sts Peter & Paul alone, adult baptism in the mid-1950s almost reached 200 annually while infant baptisms kept pace closely. What is significant in the statistics is its qualitative data reveal that scores of nurses were converted annually, and in some years, more than a hundred annually. It would seem that the Redemptorists and the MEP had converted the entire nurses’ guild! In terms of numbers, it was fantastic that Sts Peter & Paul was achieving 500 baptisms annually by 1960, and this meant that this parish was producing whole new parishes annually. However, what was more significant for the church was that the inclusion of so many women converts also meant that the equal number of new Catholic families were potentially formed. And with these families, even more Catholic children were born. It was this national socio-demographic context that would set the pace and condition for more significant changes in the way church and schools had been planted historically.
The Winds of Change
Admittedly, the 1950s-60s was an exciting time for the Church and its schools. It was a time of growth and great progress. However, the social-political undercurrents of the times did not leave the schools unscathed. There were signs that “changes” were imminent. In 1947, the government had already implemented its “Ten-Year Programme” for educational reforms. One significant tenets of this new policy was the creation of schools along territorial lines and not ethnicity, which characterized most of the Church’s pre-war schools. While the Church was slow to respond to this new regulation, the creation of its new schools naturally followed the social-urban-political transformation of old Singapore through to the 1960s. Consequently, this led to profound changes that affected both the Church and its schools.
The creation of the Ministry of Education in 1955 was the first step towards greater control of the State over local schools. Besides having to cope with the government’s policies like the “six-day-week” education system, the government had also tightened its control over the “grant-in-aid” system for all non-government schools. Yet, it was not policy or prerogative that affected the development of the Catholic schools as a whole. It was the creation of New Towns, the government’s answer to over-population and crowding on the island’s historical urban areas in Town. This meant that the ethnic model of church building had to be abandoned. The Church, and most of the teaching Religious Orders, lacked resources and manpower to build new parishes and affiliated school as fast as the government built new satellite townships. Take for instance, when Queenstown and Toa Payoh were created, while the government allocated spaces for religious institutions (in Town Planning), there were no plans to set aside grounds near churches for the establishment of affiliated schools. The Religious Orders operating Mission schools were also caught unprepared. To build new schools and parishes in these New Towns would take time and lots of money.
At the Church and school level, the 1950s and 1960s had been an enigmatic period for all. The great increase in birth rate had created an overcrowding situation in every Singapore school, not just for the Mission schools. Most schools started double sessions to cope. The national policy of having technical education also meant that new facilities (and school blocks) had to be added (or some other arrangements made). Almost all Catholic schools were opened at night during this period for the night classes which conducted Malay language lessons (when all had to learn Malay). There was also a need to make room for post-secondary classes. Catholic Junior College was only established in 1975, prior to this, Catholic secondary schools like St Joseph’s Institution had to start Pre-University classes in the late 1960s. Besides being overly stretched, the 1950s and 1960s were also a period of upheaval for Chinese Catholic schools. While the communist agitations and Chinese students’ riots threatened the pull the Chinese Catholic students into the fray, the disruptions within the larger Chinese society also led many parents to opt for English medium schools instead. The crux of the matter was that Chinese stream students found it harder to find jobs upon graduation. All these set the context for more significant changes to how Church and schools were planted in the future.
However, juxtaposing the difficulties our schools were facing, it was also a most exciting period the Church. The great increase in the number of children in Mission and parish schools also saw greater participation of school children in parish festivals and processions. This was the peak of great processions (for example, Corpus Christi, Living Rosary and Stations of the Cross) when thousands of Catholic filled church grounds in large scale celebrations; at Serangoon (Nativity), Bukit Timah (St Joseph’s), Bukit Purmei (St Teresa), Victoria Street (Portuguese Mission), at the Bras Basah field (Sts Peter and Paul and the Cathedral). These were last large scale events of these kinds for the Church and its schools. It should also be noted that the parish linked schools also served as venues for catechism classes for the parish children. This was when the Brothers, Sisters and teachers of the Mission schools also served as parish catechists. Conversely, when each school had major events, like their Founder’s Day or National Day celebrations, they simply held masses in the nearby parish (if their chapel did not provide sufficient space). This was a time when Catholic life and school life had been intertwined for Catholics in Mission schools. However, by the 1970s and 1980s, with the delinking of most of the schools and its parishes, together with a decreasing number of school going children nationally, first with government birth control measures and then a natural falling birth rate, parish churches and the Mission schools started developing along separate paths.
The Vatican II Reforms (1965-75) had also created a whole new set of problems for Catholic schools going into the 1970s. For one, a number of Religious, Clerics, Brothers and Sisters left their Orders. Secondly, the movement to replace foreign missionaries with local clergy diverted the Church’s attention from its schools. The general negative sentiments against Chinese education in the 1970s also led to stagnation of the Mission’s own Chinese schools. Meanwhile, the government schools had made great strides forward. As noted earlier, the demand for Post-secondary education in the 1960s had led to the creation of numerous “Pre-U” centres within a number of secondary schools. The Catholic schools followed. When National Junior College was founded, the Church knew that it too needed a college of its own in order that not all of its mission school students would be lost to the colleges operated by the State and other denominations. The plan for a “Catholic Junior College” was mooted in 1970. However, due to the financial constraints and limited resources, the college only became a reality in 1975. Although headed by members of the Religious Order (La Salle Brothers and later, CHIJ nuns), the college had remained a “church school” (a diocesan, not a parish linked institution) and not an institution of the teaching Orders.
By the 1980s, the Church also started facing new challenges which affected the Catholic community as a whole. There were fewer vocations and the local clergy and missionaries were also aging. Within this context, Catholic schools were faced with some fundamental issues. Should only the Religious head Catholic schools? What was the position of the Church on elitism in our schools? While some of the premier Chinese Catholic schools were given a new leases of life by accepting the government‘s offer to become SAP schools, other Chinese Mission schools like Holy Innocents and Hai Sing had to become English medium to survive. Then came the introduction of Independent, and later, Autonomous schools. Ranking, subsequently followed. Catholic schools were then challenged to consider, reconsider, define and redefine their mission and responsibilities to their affiliated schools and to the Catholic community. The creation of the Normal-Express and Special stream in 1981 further complicated the fundamental questions the Catholic schools had to confront. And the irony was many of the Catholic students were in the normal stream. With the introduction of the Normal Academic stream in the mid-1980s, the stakes became higher. To include these students, one may risk disrupting one school’s environment, and perhaps the ranking too. All mission schools were caught in this spiral between progress and mission/church development. By the 1990s, the traditional Church and all its ethnic-enclaves had all but disappeared. The New Town parishes were now the norm, and not many had Catholic schools within the vicinity. Furthermore, the proximity rule for primary school enrolment (living within one kilometre), streaming and ranking, had become instrumental in influencing Catholic parents to send their children to the best schools, and unfortunately this meant often that it would not be a Catholic school.
The 1980s-90s was also the time when almost every other old mission schools were crying out rebuilding or relocation. In many cases, with relocation, the traditional school-parish church linkage was broken. The very foundation parish-school community which had worked well for the Catholic schools had completely eroded. In fact, while it became the norm to find laymen and women heading Catholic schools, the 1990s also saw a number of Catholic schools headed by alumni who were of other faiths. The teaching Orders themselves were also short of manpower and struggled to make their presence felt in most of their schools.
While many young adults, the future of the church (and their community), were challenged to “take the road less trodden”, the challenges posed by an affluent society and a perennially increasing cost of living, new aspirations, the want of contemporary comforts (eg owning a car, club membership and condo), the cost of public housing, and many other issues, saw a decline in the numbers joining Religious Orders and the priesthood. Those willing to enter the teaching service under the aided-school scheme (which guaranteed a place in a Catholic School) also declined significantly. In fact, conventional wisdom from amongst existing aided teachers then was also to discourage others from joining them – the disadvantages were great (the lacked the same benefits granted to civil servants). School leaders themselves, in varying degrees, also wanted the best teachers to staff their schools in an age of ranking and autonomy, and these were not necessarily Catholic teachers. Most Catholic schools at this time, had few or no Religious or clerics who were teaching, and most had only a dozen Catholic teachers (up to 2 dozen) holding the fort in their schools (1,100 – 1,800 students). Of course, on the average, Catholic student enrolment in many Catholic Schools had fallen below 5% by this time. As a case in point, a gauge of affairs afflicting Catholic Youth towards the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Legion of Mary in National University of Singapore, which had during its heydays, about 10 presidia on campus, had only one remaining one during this time. At the secondary school level, it was still common till the 1980s to hear of the Legion and the Society of St Vincent de Paul having branches in Mission schools, while there are few of the former to speak of today, the branches of the latter have all closed for more than a decade. Another Catholic organization, the Young Christian Students (YCS), were at one time represented in most of the Catholic secondary schools as well as at parishes. Today, there are just a handful of branches left, with presence in six schools.
Conclusion
There is a need for fundamental changes before the Church loses all its schools, and youth, to secularism and tokenism. It is clear that the history of Catholic education in Singapore is filled with instances of generosity and providential grace. The progress of Catholic schools has always been intertwined with the progress of the Church (parish and communities). And when social change and national development outpaced the progress of the Church and Religious Orders, the Catholic schools were left to develop on their own. As a result, a great gap of development now exists amongst the Church’s Mission schools. While academic achievement may be one yardstick to measure success, the real question, as far as the Church is concerned, is the Catholicity of its schools.
