Hansard, 1994-03-11

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 18th January this year, during the Debate on the President's Address, the Prime Minister proposed raising the Minimum Sum amount in the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme as a way of coping with an ageing population. Before I explain how Government intends to revise the Minimum Sum Scheme, allow me a few moments to reiterate some of the points made by the Prime Minister. While other countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Japan are also ageing, Singapore is ageing far more rapidly. It will take the United Kingdom 85 years to double its aged population from 10% to 20% of the population; it will take us only 17 years. We are ageing faster than Japan, already one of the fastest ageing countries in the world. In Japan, it will take them 25 years to double the aged percentage. This means that the resources which we must devote to the aged will increase dramatically in the next two decades unless we help the aged to prepare for a prolonged retirement. Our rapid ageing is mainly because of the unusually sharp decline in fertility rate coupled with the increase in life expectancy. The total fertility rate has dropped sharply from about 3.1 per female in 1970 to 1.7 in 1992. On the other hand, life expectancy of Singaporeans has increased quite dramatically from 63 in 1957, which was two years after the inception of CPF, to 67 by 1970 and to 76 by 1992. These are figures for life expectancy at birth. Life expectancy at age 55 is even longer. It is now 79 for a person aged 55 in 1992. Singapore will therefore increasingly feel the impact of an ageing population as our post-war baby boomers join the ranks of the aged at around 2015-2030. In 30 years' time, compared to our neighbours, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, we will only have half the number of economically active persons supporting each aged citizen. Our problem will be more acute if we do nothing to prepare our society for the drastic and unavoidable change. The two main problems of an ageing population are, firstly, getting the older workers to work for as long as they are healthy and able; and, secondly, providing for the aged in their retirement. To address the first problem, we have already raised the retirement age to 60 years from 1st July 1993. We will be raising it progressively to 67 over the next seven to 10 years. The second is a serious problem experienced worldwide, particularly in countries that rely on state pension to provide for their retirees. Several European countries, such as Germany and Italy, both facing ageing populations, have resorted to raising the retirement and pension withdrawal age. France has extended from 37.5 years to 40 years the length of time people must work before they qualify to collect full retirement benefits. Sweden is also planning to increase its retirement age. In Singapore, we have adopted a different approach to provide for old age. Instead of state pension, we have the Central Provident Fund which is a fully funded individual savings scheme. Each worker saves for his own old age requirement so that the Central Provident Fund will never lack funds to pay those who reach the withdrawal age. Nor will future governments of Singapore have to impose heavy taxes on Singaporeans to pay retirees their pensions. Countries which adopted welfarism have found that such taxes erode competitiveness and act as a strong disincentive to work. They drive up costs of production and services. In the long term, they will cripple the economy. We must therefore encourage and enable workers to start saving for their old age as soon as possible through the Central Provident Fund mechanism. Sir, the Prime Minister's proposal to revise the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme is not the only way to cater for the longer retirement period and greater need for retirement savings of Singaporeans. A more direct solution would be to raise the CPF withdrawal age to the prevailing retirement age for all current CPF members. Or a variation could be used where you raise the withdrawal age only for new contributions or new members joining the CPF system. But raising the withdrawal age for current CPF members would require those who are nearing the age of 55 to make major adjustments to their plans to use some of their CPF savings. They may have to postpone their long awaited desire to make a haj, buy something for themselves or carry out some renovations to their homes or pay for some educational expenses for their children. The direct approach might cause great misunderstanding and concern among current CPF members, particularly the older members. We have decided that it is not necessary to make such drastic changes. The revision of the Minimum Sum Scheme will achieve the objective of getting Singaporeans to set aside adequate savings for their old age more quickly and with less disruption. CPF members will still be able to withdraw part of their CPF savings at age 55. Whether the member is a low income or high income earner, when he reaches 55, he can withdraw some CPF savings to meet his immediate needs. Sir, my Ministry will raise the Minimum Sum gradually to the target amount of $80,000. We will make the adjustment over the next 10 years. For a start, the Minimum Sum will be raised to $40,000 on 1st July 1995 and subsequently by $5,000 a year until it reaches $80,000 on 1st July 2003. The schedule of the increase is as shown in Table 1 (Cols. 955 - 956), which I understand the Clerk of Parliament has already circulated to Members. I wish to remind the House that the increase in the Minimum Sum includes adjustments for inflation over the next 10 years. In fact, if we do not revise the Minimum Sum Scheme but only carry on with the annual adjustments for inflation, by the year 2003, the Minimum Sum would be about $46,000, ie, if we just carry on with our current practice of adjusting the Minimum Sum annually for inflation, and this assumes that our low rate of inflation of about 3% per annum remains for the next 10 years. Hence, the proposed adjustment to the Minimum Sum is not as dramatic as it sounds. Table 1 - SCHEDULE OF INCREASE OF MINIMUM SUM (Cols. 955 - 956) $80,000 in the year 2003 is less than double today's Minimum Sum of $34,600 in terms of actual purchasing power. Nevertheless, this amount will provide a retiree with a monthly income of about $450 for 20 years from age 60. In terms of real purchasing power, this $450 in the year 2003 is equivalent to $345 today. This is what one person in a two-person household in the lower income group spends today, ie, the lower 50th percentile of our household income. This assumes that we manage to keep inflation low over the next 10 years. Thus, the new Minimum Sum amount will enable retirees in future to maintain only a modest standard of living somewhat higher than the subsistence level provided by the existing Minimum Sum. Sir, I now come to the pledging of properties by CPF members to meet their Minimum Sum requirement. The existing Minimum Sum Scheme allows CPF members to pledge their properties instead of setting aside the Minimum Sum in cash. The weakness of this is that the Minimum Sum set aside in property cannot generate cash income for the CPF member, unless he sublets, sells or mortgages the property for cash. To remedy this, we will require half the Minimum Sum, ie, $40,000 to be set aside in cash by the year 2003. To reach this target, we will require $4,000 to be set aside in cash from 1st July 1995. This amount will increase by $4,000 a year until it reaches $20,000 on 1st July 1999; and subsequently by $5,000 a year to reach $40,000 on 1st July 2003. CPF members can still pledge properties for the remainder of the Minimum Sum, ie, up to $36,000 from 1st July 1995. This will increase by $1,000 a year until it reaches $40,000 on 1st July 1999. Details are shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 1. Sir, under the existing Minimum Sum Scheme, every CPF member can withdraw a lump-sum of at least half his CPF cash balance at age 55. This will continue to be the case under the revised scheme. In other words, a CPF member whose cash saving is less than twice the Minimum Sum requirement can still withdraw half of his cash savings. This will help meet the needs of CPF members, particularly those nearing 55, who have already made plans to use their CPF savings immediately at age 55. The lump-sum will also provide CPF members who for a variety of reasons are unable to continue working after the age of 55 with some money to live on until they reach 60, when they can start monthly withdrawals from their Minimum Sum accounts. Under the existing Minimum Sum Scheme, CPF members with less than $11,600 can withdraw their entire CPF balance at the age of 55. This is meant to help members with low CPF balances who would otherwise not be able to withdraw a significant amount at age 55. However, this is also the same group of people most in need of help in building up their retirement savings. We will, therefore, refine this feature by lowering the minimum withdrawal amount from $11,600 to $5,000. I refer Members to Tables (Cols. 957 - 964) 2, 3, 4 and 5 which set out four examples of how the new Minimum Sum amount will affect CPF members when the scheme is implemented on 1st July 1995 and by 1st July 2003, when it would have reached the targeted amount of $80,000. Tables - EXAMPLE 1, EXAMPLE 2, EXAMPLE 3, EXAMPLE 4 (Cols. 957 - 964) As the monthly withdrawal from the Minimum Sum is meant to provide an income for retirement, the age at which such withdrawal commences will be pegged to the prevailing retirement age. Today, the Minimum Sum withdrawal age is 60, coinciding with our current or prevailing retirement age of 60. Hence, as we raise the retirement age progressively to 67 over the next seven to 10 years, we will correspondingly raise the age at which monthly withdrawals begin. At present, all CPF members on the Minimum Sum Scheme may withdraw the same monthly amount in a given month, regardless of how much the member actually sets aside. The savings of members who have set aside less than the full current value of the Minimum Sum will, therefore, run out much earlier. Someone who has set aside half the Minimum Sum and withdraws on a monthly basis the same amount as somebody who has set aside the full Minimum Sum is obviously going to consume it twice as fast. This has been workable so far as the adjustments in the Minimum Sum from year to year for inflation have been quite small. But over the next 10 years, we will be approximately doubling the Minimum Sum. To allow a person retiring in 1995 with $40,000 in his Minimum Sum to withdraw from his Minimum Sum as if he had retired in the year 2003 with $80,000 in his Minimum Sum will mean depleting his savings twice as quickly. Therefore, in future, the amount members can withdraw monthly will be based on the amount they themselves have actually set aside, both in cash and pledged properties. It will be adjusted annually for inflation. However, the amount which can be withdrawn at monthly intervals will not be lower than the amount which can be withdrawn under the present Minimum Sum Scheme because this amount, which can be withdrawn under the present Minimum Sum Scheme, is already estimated to be at the subsistence level. Therefore, we will assure all CPF members that the minimum that they can withdraw monthly under the revised Minimum Sum Scheme will be equal to this amount, which is $230 per month at present, but this amount will be adjusted annually for inflation. Sir, if the CPF member continues to work after 55, he will be required to make up any shortfall in his Minimum Sum. In other words, those who are unable to set aside the full Minimum Sum at age 55 can withdraw only half of any subsequent CPF contribution made after the age of 55. CPF members who are working after the age of 55 can withdraw their CPF contribution at three years' interval. We will be requiring them to withdraw only half of what they have contributed. The other half will be used to top up his Minimum Sum amount in his Retirement Account. CPF members who have set aside their Minimum Sum under the existing Scheme, ie, those who have already met their Minimum Sum requirement before 1st July 1995, will continue to be allowed to make monthly withdrawals at subsistence rate, with the usual adjustment for inflation. Sir, as with the existing Scheme, we will make annual adjustments to the Minimum Sum for inflation after it reaches $80,000 in the year 2003. We will also make adjustments to the monthly withdrawal amount under the revised Scheme. Now I will touch on the Minimum Sum requirement for married couples. The present Minimum Sum Scheme gives a concession to married couples. They are required to jointly set aside only 1.5 times the Minimum Sum required, instead of twice the Minimum Sum. The shortcoming of this approach is that when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse may end up with less than the full Minimum Sum, if he or she was not nominated as the sole beneficiary of the Minimum Sum by the deceased spouse. This can happen. To avoid this situation, we will require couples who wish to set aside jointly only 1.5 times the Minimum Sum to irrevocably nominate each other as the beneficiary of their Minimum Sum for as long as they remain husband and wife. Otherwise, they will each be required to set aside the full Minimum Sum as individuals. Sir, the present Minimum Sum Scheme exempts CPF members, who are receiving pensions or annuities exceeding the Minimum Sum monthly withdrawal amount, from the scheme. Where the pensions or annuities are less, they are required to set aside a reduced amount. This feature of the Minimum Sum Scheme will be retained. In other words, those who are going to receive pension when they retire or who have bought annuities which will assure them of receiving a stream of monthly payment which is equal or better than what they would obtain under the Minimum Sum Scheme, they would be able to withdraw all their CPF balance at the age of 55. At present, the Minimum Sum is a qualifying criterion for CPF members to participate in the CPF Basic Investment Scheme and the Education Scheme. In the Basic Investment Scheme and the Education Scheme, the CPF member must have a gross CPF saving (including amounts that have already been withdrawn for housing and other investments) which exceeds the Minimum Sum before they can invest in gold, shares, or take out education loans. As the Minimum Sum is raised, the prevailing Minimum Sum will apply to these Schemes. For instance, from 1st July 1995, when the Minimum Sum is raised to $40,000 ($36,000 in property and $4,000 in cash), a CPF member must have at least a Minimum Sum in such composition before he is allowed to invest under the Basic Investment Scheme or to take out a loan under the Education Scheme. We will also be adjusting the $50,000 cash savings members must have before they can participate in the Enhanced Investment Scheme. Sir, the other Scheme that uses Minimum Sum as a qualifying criterion is the Minimum Sum Topping-Up Scheme. Under that Scheme, CPF members who have at least twice the Minimum Sum in their CPF account are allowed to use their CPF to top up their parents' Retirement Account. They can top up their parents' Retirement Account up to the prevailing Minimum Sum amount. CPF members are also allowed to top up such retirement account with tax-exempt cash contributions. As the Minimum Sum is raised, the prevailing Minimum Sum will apply to the Topping-Up Scheme. Hence, a member wishing to use CPF to top up his parents' Retirement Account on 1st July 1995, must have at least twice the prevailing Minimum Sum, in other words, $80,000. As is the current practice, the Minimum Sum requirement will not apply to CPF members using their CPF savings to buy approved shares of corporations which are formed when Government privatises its statutory bodies or Government-linked companies. One example is the Group A shares of Singapore Telecom. This waiver will give lower income groups the opportunity to invest in privatised statutory boards or Government-linked companies, thus helping them to enhance their old-age savings. Sir, to further help CPF members build up their savings, the Government has decided to pay 1.25 percentage points more interest than the normal CPF interest rate on savings in the CPF Special and Retirement Accounts with effect from 1st July 1995. This was announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement. This higher interest rate will help CPF members to accumulate more savings in their Special Account by the time they reach the age of 55. For instance, projections show that the higher interest rate will enable a typical 45-year old CPF member earning $1,000 per month today to accumulate about $1,000 more in his Special Account when he reaches the age of 55. Finally, Sir, I wish to address some concerns raised since the Prime Minister made the proposal. Several Members were concerned that raising the Minimum Sum can cause hardship to older workers. To meet this concern, Government has decided on the gradual increase of $5,000 a year, which will minimise the impact on older workers. Those above the age of 45 will not be subjected to the full increase in the Minimum Sum. Those aged 45 now, are the first cohort of CPF members to be required to set aside the full $80,000 as their Minimum Sum. Our projections show that most of them will be able to do so. For example, a typical 45-year old worker, who earns $1,000 a month today and had used his CPF savings to buy a 3-room flat in a new town 10 years ago, will accumulate about $90,000 in his Ordinary and Special Accounts by the time he reaches 55. He can pledge his flat for half the Minimum Sum of $40,000, set aside another $40,000 of his CPF savings and withdraw the rest of it, ie, he can withdraw $50,000. If he earns a slightly higher salary of $1,200, his CPF balance at age 55 will be higher, about $120,000. He should have even less difficulty meeting the Minimum Sum requirement. Another concern is that CPF members in the lower income group, particularly the older ones, will not have sufficient CPF savings to set aside the Minimum Sum and therefore will not be able to withdraw any CPF savings at the age of 55. However, as I have explained, CPF members, whose total savings are less than the Minimum Sum requirement, will still be able to withdraw half of their cash savings at the age of 55. Our projections show that most CPF members in the lower income group should be able to meet the Minimum Sum requirement. About 72% of active CPF members, who are citizens, who reach the age of 55 in 1995 will have Special and Ordinary Accounts savings (including the amount that has been withdrawn for their housing needs) which exceed the Minimum Sum requirement of $40,000. This is shown in Column 3 of Table 6 (Cols. 965 - 966). About 90% of active CPF members will have more than double the $4,000 cash component of the Minimum Sum after 1st July 1995. If you refer to Column 2 of Table 6, you will see the figures there. Column 5 of Table 6 also shows that more than 80% of active CPF members reaching the age of 55 in the year 2003, will have total CPF savings which exceed the Minimum Sum requirement of $80,000. Table 6 - PROJECTED NET AND REGROSSED BALANCE (IN ORDINARY AND SPECIAL ACCOUNTS) OF ACTIVE CPF MEMBERS (NRIC) WHO REACH AGE 55 IN 1995 AND 2003 (Cols. 965 - 966) In conclusion, Sir, the revised Minimum Sum Scheme will better prepare our population for a longer retirement. The $80,000 Minimum Sum amount will support retirees at a modest standard of living. It will enable them to remain self-reliant and not suffer the indignity of having to depend on the State for public assistance.

Sir, I would like to seek some clarification. However, before that, I would like to say that my GPC supports the proposal to raise the Minimum Sum amount to $80,000 over the next 10 years. I think this would be sufficient to achieve the objective of getting Singaporeans to set aside adequate savings for their old age with minimum disruption to the CPF. We also agree to the Minimum Sum withdrawal age coinciding with the retirement age, and that half the Minimum Sum by the year 2003 be in cash. We are quite happy to note that this proposal will enable older workers to withdraw part of their CPF at the age of 55. I would like to ask the Minister the following clarifications. First, what will be the position if the member is to die just a few years after his retirement? Will the remaining cash balance go to his spouse or to his estate? Next, will the Minister confirm that the withdrawal amount of $450 per month or the adjusted amount, if the member does not have the full amount of $80,000, be paid during his entire lifespan and not just 20 years from the age of 60 or the retirement age? Sir, in that event, will there be an adjustment made to the withdrawal amount to take account of inflation or will this just be a fixed amount over the member's lifespan? In the event that the retirement age is raised to, say, 63 years old, will the monthly withdrawal amount be increased? I also have some proposals for the Minister to consider. In addition to a higher interest rate of 1.25 percentage points more than the normal CPF interest rate on savings in the CPF Special and Retirement Accounts with effect from 1st July 1995, will the Government be prepared to make contributions to top up the CPF Special and Retirement Accounts of members, say, during good years when there is a good budget surplus? Sir, if this cannot be made available to all members, at least it should be considered for members, say, above 50 years who may have problems of meeting the target amount of $80,000 when they retire. Maybe the Minister could also consider asking the CPF Board to work together with banks and other financial institutions to see whether a better monthly withdrawal income can be obtained from the amount under the scheme. Sir, besides the financial resources, I think we also need to look at the medical needs of our senior citizens. Under the current MediShield scheme, I think the scheme applies only to persons up to 70 years old. In view of this, we should try and consider extending the MediShield coverage to the age of at least 76 years in the first instance and, perhaps, subsequently even longer. Further, could we link the Minimum Sum to the MediShield scheme for members who have retired to the extent that when they begin to withdraw their monthly income from the scheme, the payments for MediShield premiums, that is, if they are members, can be automatically paid as well? Perhaps the Minister may want to seek the Minister for Health's agreement on this arrangement.

Sir, what is the basis of the Government's calculation for this increase in CPF Minimum Sum?

I have some points of clarification: (1) Since the retirement age is legislated to 60 and since we want to have more cash in the CPF after the age of 55, would the Minister consider raising the CPF contribution of those over 55 to the same rate as those under 55? (2) What about the husband who is working and has a CPF account but his wife is not working and does not have a CPF account? Can we ask this man to irrevocably nominate his wife? Otherwise what will happen to the wife if the husband dies and he has nominated someone else? (3) When will the retirement age be raised to 67 and what is the plan for going from 60 to 67? (4) We are going to link the withdrawal of the monthly subsistence allowance to retirement age. If the retirement age is 67, but if the life expectancy does not go up very much, and you only begin to take out your money from the age of 67 and the life expectancy remains at about 72 for men, as it is now, then it is not going to be long that they are going to be withdrawing their subsistence amount. So maybe we have to look at life expectancy as well before we formulate these numbers.

Sir, I am not concerned for the younger workers because I believe that they would be able to meet the Minimum Sum scheme in time to come. But my concern is for the older workers and the whole objective of the CPF Minimum Sum scheme is to ensure that they have enough money for their old age. So we must do whatever we can to help this group of people. I would like to ask the Minister two questions: Firstly, for those who are prepared to contribute in cash to their parents' Minimum Sum, will they enjoy tax deduction? And if no, why not? Because that is a very good way of encouraging people to contribute to their parents' old age. The second point is - I have mentioned this in the Budget debate on the CPF Minimum Sum Top-up Scheme provided by the Government - I believe that it should not be across-the-board. It should be given to those who do not have enough savings, and we must work out a set of criteria to make sure that a certain principle is upheld, for instance, if you work, we give you more. The principle is similar to the SOTUS scheme. I would like the Minister's response to this.

I wonder whether the Minister will consider increasing the quantum of CPF contribution for those non-employee CPF members, ie, the sole proprietors or people who are in partnership.

Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify the position of joint accounts of husband and wife. It has been said that only one-and-a-half times need be set aside. If the amount is set aside by only one spouse and if it so happens that they are divorced, how do they divide the CPF Minimum Sum? I must declare my interest. I am a practising lawyer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, may I thank the Chairman of the GPC for Labour and other MPs who have spoken up in support of the changes. I will address the questions as they were raised by each of the Members. The Chairman of the GPC for Labour sought a few clarifications. First, he wants to know what will happen if a member dies just a few years after his retirement. What will happen to the remaining money in his Retirement Account? There are two possible scenarios. If the surviving spouse is not a CPF member, then obviously the surviving spouse is not covered by the Minimum Sum requirement. In that case, all the money that is remaining in the deceased member's Retirement Account will go to the surviving spouse or to the nominees that he has appointed during his lifetime. On the other hand, if the surviving spouse is a CPF member, and the surviving spouse and the deceased had jointly set aside one-and-a-half times of the Minimum Sum requirement for married couples, then we will take the remaining money in the deceased's Retirement Account and use it to top up the surviving spouse's Minimum Sum account to the full amount. Thereafter, whatever money that is still left in the deceased's Retirement Account will be paid out to the spouse or to his nominees that he has appointed in his lifetime. Sir, he has also asked whether the withdrawal amount of $450 per month will be paid during a CPF member's entire lifetime. We have structured the Minimum Sum on the basis of ensuring that a retiree will have a stream of income which will support him for a period of 20 years because that is the expected retirement period based on current life expectancy. And we have therefore taken this approach because the amount that has been set aside at age 55 and the interest earned will be used to commence the payment once the person reaches the age of 60, based on today's retirement age. We have calculated that the monthly payment should go on for a period of 20 years. So we are unable to provide payment to the CPF member for life because the Minimum Sum Scheme, as we operate it, does not have the insurance component. There is no provision in it for those who have a shorter lifespan to subsidise those who have a longer lifespan. So there is no insurance component in this sense. Each person maintains his own Minimum Sum amount and his own Retirement Account, and he will withdraw from it a monthly amount that has already been calculated on the basis of 20 years. He asked whether the monthly withdrawal amount will be adjusted to take into account for inflation. Yes, this will be done. We have already been doing so with the current Minimum Sum Scheme and we will continue to take this adjustment to take into account inflation. He has also asked that when the retirement age is raised from the current level of 60 to 63 or more, will the monthly withdrawal amount be increased? Let me first point out that the monthly withdrawal amount will now be dependent on the Minimum Sum amount that a person sets aside. While the possibility exists that as a person works for a longer period, he should have more money in his Minimum Sum and his Retirement Account, he should be able to withdraw a bigger amount. We will have to study, as Dr Soin pointed out, what are the changes in the life expectancy of Singaporeans in the next 10 to 30 years. We will have to study whether life expectancy in fact is going up progressively as we are raising retirement age, perhaps not on the same scale but, nevertheless, still going up, and a significant number of people, because of good health and a very healthy lifestyle, may well live longer than the current average lifespan. Mr Othman Haron Eusofe has also asked whether we could make special concession to help members, particularly those who are in the lower income group and do not have much CPF savings. I think the same point was made by Dr John Chen. The point is taken that for the lower income group, they need some extra assistance to meet their Minimum Sum requirement and, in a sense, last year's implementation of the CPF Share Ownership Top-up Scheme was a very good start. It was a timely introduction of a concept to help the low income Singaporeans. The Share Ownership Top-up Scheme will certainly help CPF members to build up their Minimum Sum amount. The cash grant of $200 was credited to every citizen CPF member last year. And next year, the cash grant to be given to CPF members who are citizens will be $300. This will certainly help them to build up the savings in their CPF accounts and to meet their Minimum Sum requirement. In fact, the members who have bought Telecom shares under the Share Ownership Top-up Scheme will also have enhanced their asset in the CPF because they would have enjoyed capital gains. Government's policy is to continue with such share ownership top-up scheme. Dr John Chen has suggested during the Budget debate, and he repeated earlier today, whether we can have a direct top-up for the purpose of helping the low income group to meet their Minimum Sum requirement. This idea is new. The Minister for Finance has already assured Dr John Chen that since it is a new idea, it needs to be studied and it will be studied carefully to see whether we should do such a top-up directly for the purpose of helping the low income group to meet their Minimum Sum requirement. Mr Othman Haron Eusofe has also asked whether the Government would consider working together with the banks to improve the returns that are available under the Minimum Sum Scheme. We have already taken the first step in that direction. As the Minister for Finance had announced during his Budget Statement, to give better returns to CPF members who have opted to leave their Minimum Sum amount with the CPF Board, the Government will, from 1st July 1995, pay a higher interest to the savings in the Special Account and the Retirement Account of CPF members. We have also decided to pay this higher interest rate for savings in the Special Account because it would help the lower income group and the younger workers to accumulate more savings by the time they reach the age of 55 and be in a better position to meet the Minimum Sum requirement. Apart from leaving the Minimum Sum amount with the CPF Board, the member can always deposit the Minimum Sum in an approved bank, or use the Minimum Sum to purchase an annuity which will give him a steady monthly income which is equal to or better than that which the CPF Board can give to him. We are actively encouraging CPF members to purchase such annuity. And on the point about receiving payment on a lifetime basis, this is one solution for more CPF members to use their CPF saving at age 55 to buy an annuity which would give them a lifetime monthly payment.

Dr Lee, can I just remind you that you are taking the time of the Ministry of Education?

Yes, may I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker? This is a very important matter and Members have raised many queries.

But the Minister for Education may not think so.

The Member has also asked whether we could consider extending MediShield. I think this would be studied by the Ministry of Health. And on the possibility of using the Minimum Sum monthly payments to pay the MediShield premiums, this is something worth studying. I will now deal with the points raised by the other Members. Mr Low has asked what is the basis for the Government's calculation of setting the Minimum Sum at $80,000 in 10 years' time. The original Minimum Sum of $30,000 was introduced in 1986 and was meant just to provide support for CPF members at the subsistence level. The original $30,000 would be able to provide members with $230 a month from the age of 60 years over a 20-year period. This monthly payment of $230 was estimated by the Ministry based on a study conducted by the Singapore Council of Social Services on what a person living alone would need for subsistence. Sir, the intention now is to have CPF members set aside enough savings to maintain a modest standard of living, slightly higher than the subsistence level. As a benchmark, we have used the average monthly expenditure of a person living in a 2-person household in the lower 50th percentile of total households, in other words, the lower half of the income groups in Singapore. We want to reach this standard in 10 years' time. This works out to about $450 a month in the year 2003. The Minimum Sum amount that is required to support this monthly payment of $450 a month from the age of 60 years, for a 20-year period, is $80,000. It should be noted that the targeted Minimum Sum is still less than double the present Minimum Sum of $34,600. Sir, there will be no separate adjustment for inflation between 1995 and 2003 when the Minimum Sum is being raised by $5,000 a year. This is because the yearly increase of $5,000 will include inflationary increases. However, after the year 2003, we will make annual adjustment to the Minimum Sum amount to take into account inflation. Sir, Dr Soin has asked whether we will consider raising the CPF contribution rate for those who are aged 55 to 60. The reason for lowering the CPF contribution rate for those who are aged 55 to 60 was to ensure that people in that age group will be able to remain gainfully employed. Employers are of course concerned with the high cost of wages. And in Singapore, in the context of our time-based wage scale, the older workers invariably will cost employers more. When we raise the retirement age from 55 to 60, we have decided that it is necessary to provide an incentive to employers so that they will not try to release or find some ways of retiring their older workers. So we have granted them a 5% reduction in the CPF contribution for older workers. I do not think we should go back, or turn the clock back, so to speak. We will remain with this level of CPF contribution for those who are aged 55 to 60. Sir, in the case of a wife who is not a CPF member, then of course the question of the Minimum Sum for the wife does not arise at all. The Minimum Sum Scheme works only for CPF members, as I explained earlier on. She also asked when will the retirement age be raised to 67 years. We have already said that we will do so over a period of 10 years. We have just raised the retirement age to 60 years last year. We do not intend to make any adjustment this year but we will be reviewing, and we will be increasing it gradually. I think I have addressed Dr John Chen's point about giving the lower income group some extra assistance. He also asked whether children can top up their parents' Minimum Sum amount. The answer is yes. They can do so in cash and they will receive tax exemption for that. It is already in existence. The present rules permit the CPF members to make cash contributions to their parents' Minimum Sum accounts. I am afraid I did not quite get Mr Choo Wee Khiang's point on the self-employed. But I think the self-employed are being included in the CPF and we have already started doing so by asking them to contribute to Medisave. We will have to work with Medisave for a start and get more and more self-employed to contribute. Mr Chiam asked about joint account for a married couple. What happens when they are divorced? What happens to the Minimum Sum Scheme? I have already said, in my statement, that to obtain the concession of setting aside 1(r) times of the Minimum Sum for a married couple, they have to irrevocably nominate the spouse as the beneficiary. But if, for whatever reason, there is a divorce, then of course the settlement will have to depend on the court. How they decide on the assets to be distributed, that will be dependent on the court's decision.

Mr Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question.

Sir, can I have a point of clarification? I am surprised that the Government does not ---

Order. We have taken too much time meant for the Ministry of Education. Can I suggest to Members that they take up further questions in the Committee of Supply when we discuss the budget of the Ministry of Labour?

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day].

Head L (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [10th March, 1994], "That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Mr Lew Syn Pau]. Question again proposed. 2.26 pm

Sir, as we have taken up more time than expected for the first item today, may I suggest that we allow more time for the first cut because there are still a lot of issues not answered. The subsequent issues will take less time because they are relatively simple issues.

All right.

First, I would like to take up this point about enhancing the education service. This was raised by Mr Sinnakaruppan. I think all of us would like to see that our teachers and other educational officers are well paid and well motivated so that they will do their best in carrying out their noble task of educating our children. My Ministry has, over the years, improved the pay scales and promotional opportunities of the teaching profession. Graduate Education Officers have been accorded Division I status since 1971 and their salaries have been pegged to the professional service scales since 1982. In 1990, the higher grades of SEO 1A (Senior Education Officer 1A) and SEO 2A were created for graduate and non-graduate Education Officers, respectively. Some principals have also been placed on Superscale grades. With effect from January this year, two new intermediate grades of GEO 1A (General Education Officer 1A) and GEO 2A for graduate and non-graduate Education Officers, respectively, have been introduced to further improve promotional prospects in the teaching service. Most teachers remain as teachers on their long basic scales throughout their careers. With the new intermediate scales, deserving teachers can be promoted even whilst they remain as teachers. I think many teachers will welcome this. But we will have to see how it works out in practice. We are discussing with the Education Service how to go about this massive exercise. The problem of workload on teachers has been a perennial problem and they complain that they have to do quite a few non-teaching duties. The problem here is basically shortage of clerical and other supporting staff, not only in schools, but in Singapore as a whole. My Ministry has provided funds to schools to buy services of supporting staff. Unfortunately, they have not been successful in finding suitable persons to carry out supporting duties. My Ministry is looking into various means to lighten the workload on teachers. Fax machines and personal computers have already been supplied to schools. Other labour-saving equipment, such as heavy duty photocopiers have also been provided. Timetabling for ECA and other non-teaching duties will be done to facilitate closer monitoring and distribution of workload among teachers. The Ministry has been constantly looking into ways to raise the morale and image of the teaching profession. For example, our advertising and publicity efforts are creating a greater public awareness of the contributions made by the teaching profession. Such publicity has helped to attract a larger number of recruits to join the teaching service. More opportunities have also been created for overseas training, both for graduate and non-graduate teachers. There has been an increase in the number of teaching bursaries and teaching scholarships awarded to good `A' level holders. More than 120 teaching scholarships were given out in 1993. The other important factor, of course, is the salary and here we have made significant adjustments, especially to starting salaries. For example, for a good honours graduate with post-graduate Diploma in Education, the starting pay has been raised by about $325 per month, from $1,882 to $2,207. I hope that with the salary revision, more graduates and more `A' level holders will decide to take up the teaching profession. We, in the Ministry, will continue to do our best to improve the terms of service of the teaching profession as far as possible. Next, I would like to turn to the question raised by Dr Ow Chin Hock concerning the study of Chinese as a third language by non-Chinese pupils. He referred to my letter of reply to him concerning such a request from a Malay parent. Let me explain the situation. The option to study a third language is given to the top 10% of pupils in the PSLE. They do a first language English, second language mother tongue and a third language. They study the third language from Secondary 1 to Secondary 4 and sit for the paper at `O' level. It is not an appreciation course. It is actually at `O' level. MOE's experience shows that it is not easy, on top of the seven, eight, or even nine subjects which such students do. Many drop out even before Secondary 4 so that the final number taking `O' level is small. This applies to students studying German, French and Japanese. Similarly, only 10 students did Malay as a third language at `O' level. I think Members can understand that it is even more difficult for a non-Chinese to study Chinese in four years and sit the `O' level paper. 2.30 pm The other consideration is a practical one. Are there sufficient non-Chinese students really interested for us to form a class for them? There is really no objection in principle but it is just whether it is a practical idea. It sounds very good, but can we really do it? There are three times as many Chinese students as non-Chinese students in Singapore. In the top 10%, there are even fewer non-Chinese students by proportion. If only 10 Chinese students are interested in Malay elective, how many non-Chinese students are interested in Chinese, even given the current Chinese fever? I think the number is probably less than 10. It is basically a practical consideration. That is why I am reluctant to start the classes. So far, we have only one or two requests. But if there are more requests, enough to form a class, maybe we can look at it. Next, I would like to respond to the points raised by Mr Ling How Doong, who is not here, about the scholarships for the independent schools. He said that the scholarships should be linked not only to academic performance but also to the financial status of the students. I must inform him that these scholarships are meant to encourage effort and excellence. And the scholarships are not only available for independent schools but also for all secondary schools in Singapore, including the normal stream, for the top 10% of the students in all secondary schools to encourage them to excel in their studies. For those who are needy, eg, in the independent schools, there is a different financial assistance scheme which is already available. And many students, I think about 20% of the students in independent schools, are benefiting from financial assistance. This provides for the children from families with incomes below $800 per month to receive a 100% waiver of independent school fees. If the income is between $800 and $1,400, then the subsidy level is 75%. In other words, they pay one-quarter of the fees. If the income level is between $1,400 and $2,000 per month, then they have to pay half the fees. So we have different schemes for different purposes. Similarly, for the Government schools at all levels, there is a financial assistance scheme for needy pupils. Next, the question of manpower planning in tertiary education is an important issue concerning many of us and therefore I would like to take some time on this topic. The Government has long recognised the importance of developing our people to their maximum potential. This is reflected in the upgrading of our schools, the rapid expansion of university and polytechnic education and the restructuring of the ITE into a post-secondary training institution. The enrolment of undergraduates in the NTU, formerly the NTI, has increased five-fold over the past 10 years, from about 2,000 in 1984 to about 10,000 today. It is targeted to increase to about 15,000 undergraduates by the year 2000. NUS, as a more mature university, has increased its undergraduate enrolment from about 13,000 in 1984 to about 15,000 today. It will increase to about 17,000 over the next few years. It is also taking in more postgraduates, 1,200 in 1984 increasing to about 3,000 today. Total enrolment of undergraduates in both universities has doubled, from 13,000 in 1984 to 26,000 today. It will expand to 32,000 in about five years. This will correspond to about 20% of an age cohort. The Government is also providing a grant of $38 million to the Singapore Institute of Management to set up the Open University Degree Programme (OUDP). With an intake of about 1,000 a year, the equivalent full-time enrolment is about 3,000 or about 10% of the NUS and NTU combined enrolment. The OUDP caters to working adults. The expansion of the polytechnic sector has been even more rapid. The number of polytechnics has increased recently from two to four. The total enrolment has more than doubled, from 14,000 in 1984 to 34,000 today. With the completion of the Temasek and Nanyang Polytechnic campuses, total capacity will increase to about 48,000, catering to about 40% of each cohort. As you know, our target is to have 20% of a cohort of students in universities, 40% in the polytechnics and 25% in the technical institutes. This leaves only 15% of a cohort who will not have some form of post-secondary educational training before they join the employment market and are trained on the job. With the achievement of these targets, we will have over time a highly educated and trained population, well able to earn a living in the world market. The expansion of our tertiary and post-secondary education sectors is guided by projections of our needs for high-level manpower. Such projections are made on a 5-yearly basis and reviewed annually by the Council on Professional and Technical Education (CPTE) which is chaired by the Minister for Trade and Industry. Whilst we are anxious to have sufficient high-level manpower to forge our economic growth and regionalisation efforts, we should be careful not to compromise our educational standards or to flood the market with graduates in disciplines which the economy cannot readily absorb. Already the NUS and NTU are finding that their students who qualify marginally for enrolment are having difficulty coping with their courses of study. The universities would like to take in more students into the engineering and science courses if there are suitable applicants who can make the grade. I think this is an important point. So long as you are able to make the grade and the university thinks that you can get through the course, they will be happy to take you in. But the experience is that those at the margin, the low pointers, find it quite difficult. Unfortunately, more of our students appear to prefer courses like Medicine, Law, Accountancy, Business and, to a lesser extent, even Arts and Social Science. As the manufacturing industry remains a pillar of our economy, we must produce sufficient engineers and scientists in future. One way is to take in a larger number of good engineering diploma holders from the polytechnics into second year Engineering courses at the universities. Such students have been found to perform well. With our limited manpower resources, it is important that we channel and guide our students into disciplines which will strengthen our economy and provide rewarding careers. Together, the universities and polytechnics will provide education for about 60% of each age cohort. This is an ambitious target which is higher than those of some industrialised countries. The bulk of the students will go into the polytechnics which provide a more practical and job-oriented education. The better ones will go to universities, preferably after some working experience. As we expand our regionalisation efforts, we should, of course, factor in the requirement for additional trained manpower. Such people need not all be university graduates. In fact, those with polytechnic diplomas may well be the ones with practical skills and the willingness to venture abroad. We should learn from the experience of countries like Australia and the Netherlands which have taken a liberal approach towards providing university education. The result is over production of graduates in the Humanities and other similar degrees who are not readily absorbed into the economy. The trend in industrialised countries is towards more job-related or vocational education in the broadest sense to include areas like nursing, banking and tourism. Whatever we do in Singapore, there will always be parents who can afford and who prefer to send their children to overseas universities. Such universities vary in quality and cost over a very wide range. We will have to factor the number of returning graduates into our manpower projections. Ultimately, with an abundance of paper qualifications, it will be the quality of the person which counts, not the piece of paper that he possesses. The most useful person in a particular situation may not be a university graduate. He may be an electrician who can fix your TV set, the media expert who can put together an attractive advertising package or a technician who can keep the machinery running. Next, I would like to respond quickly to the different points raised on the Open University Degree Programme. Response, as you know, has been overwhelming, but it is not practical for us to take in all the students at one go. It has been the experience with other countries setting up similar programmes that there is always a backlog and a rush in the initial years. Apart from resource constraints, it is necessary to do it on a steady and sustainable basis. As it is, the OUDP has taken in 1,000 students, 920 to be exact, in the first batch and this is already almost double the original plan. I think we should let the OUDP carry on for some time and see how it goes. Whether the OUDP will offer engineering courses, the answer is yes, that is the intention. But the British Open University Programme does not have good engineering courses or it does not have engineering courses in the form that is presented in the Open University mode. So the SIM and the OUDP may have to approach other overseas universities for collaboration. This will have to wait till later because we want to see how the first programme gets on. Mr Lau Ping Sum wants to know whether there is an age limit for teachers taking the course. The answer is no. We have taken in many teachers who are above 40. And the OUDP/SIM is keen to expand to other courses like Psychology and maybe to other subjects like Arts if there is sufficient demand. Several Members quoted the figure of $ 1/2 million contribution in the Budget for the OUDP. The reason for this small amount is that they have yet to build the building which they are planning to build near the Ngee Ann Polytechnic. The Government's contribution would come to $38 million. As the building plan comes on and as the course is being developed, this contribution from Government would then flow into the scheme. And that is the way we are supporting this project, not on a per capita basis but on a front-end basis. The Government has decided that this is the better way to go for this programme to cater to the working adults. I think the fees of about $3,000 per year, roughly speaking, or about $20,000 over six years for the programme, are quite reasonable and affordable. Next, the question of university fees raised by Mr Sinnakaruppan. I think his point about having possibly separate fees for NUS and NTU has some merit, and is something to be considered. The concern is, if you do it on that basis and NTU ends up with a lower fee, whether it would give an impression to the public that it is an inferior course. Of course, when you go on a per-capita cost basis, NTU, being a newer university, has a lower cost per student than NUS. So far, we have done an averaging of the two and come up with a common fee. But his idea is a feasible one and deserves consideration. He asked whether we are able to respond to the NUS Students' Union's proposal to have a fund to provide for bursaries and scholarships to help the students in the university. I am glad to inform the House that my Ministry has decided to contribute $ 1/2 million to this fund. It will be on a dollar-for-dollar basis - $ 1/2 million to be raised by the Students' Union and $(r) million to be provided by the Ministry from the Education Fund. I think it is a very worthy projet and it is good of the Students' Union and the students to go about it in such a positive manner. Mr Koo Tsai Kee asked about the correspondence courses. Yes, it is true there are a lot of these courses, some of variable quality. But these are beyond our control because they are not within our jurisdiction. I think whoever takes these courses will have to decide for themselves whether it is worth their while to spend so much money on these courses. I think, on the whole, it is beneficial for them to improve their knowledge. But as to whether they will earn more after that, I am not sure. As there is a bit of time, I would just like to take one last point and this is in response to several MPs who have commented on the data from the Labour Force Survey. Dr Soin, for example, has asked why amongst those who are employed, aged 15-20, there is such a high proportion of people who have below primary level or lower secondary qualifications. The number of these people is about 70,000 for these five-age cohorts. We must realise that this is a labour force survey. So it applies to people in employment. For that age group, in fact, the majority are still in school. Apart from this number, there are another 140,000 persons who are in full-time education. There could also be others who are in National Service. Furthermore, for this group of workers who join the workforce at this age, they are likely to be the ones with the lower qualifications. The other point to be clarified is that under our system of education, we used to send those who could not make it through the PSLE, after P7, P8 and Monolingual stream, to the ITE (former VITB) for training. So I am not sure to what extent this is reflected in the data. I think these people are trained and ready for employment. In a way, they have been provided with some form of post-primary or even post-secondary training. This is not reflected in the work force data. Because of the way it is constructed, in fact, this number could even include students who are working part-time. So it is not reflective of the real situation. A better indicator is to look at the percentage of students who score three "O" level passes every year. Take, for example, last year. Out of a cohort of about 45,000 children, 34,000 eventually made it to sit for the "O" level examinations. This represents about 80% of the cohort. Some would have sat for the "N" level and not made it to the "O" level. But eventually 34,000 or 80% made it to "O" level. Of this lot, 90% scored three or more "O" level passes. So the proportion with three or more "O" level passes is actually about 70% of the age cohort, which I think is very good by world standards. Compare this to the previous batches, the batch that took the "O" level examination in 1984, 56% scored three or more "O" level passes. The batch that took the examination in 1974, only 39% got three or more "O" level passes. So this is really what matters. It is not how many years they spend in school but eventually how they have benefited. This is a good measure of the quality of our work force in future. I think we should not be unduly pessimistic and we should interpret the data with care.

( In Mandarin): Sir, first of all, I would like to reply to Mr Lew Syn Pau's and Mr Leong Horn Kee's questions on the second language and bilingualism. Mr Lew Syn Pau and Mr Leong Horn Kee have pointed out that under the policy of regionalisation, the value of Chinese has increased. The Ministry of Education agrees with their view. We are implementing the recommendations of the Chinese Language Review Committee led by former Deputy Prime Minister Mr Ong Teng Cheong. Because of the regionalisation development programme which includes Indonesia, Malaysia and India, the value of our other mother tongues like Malay and Tamil has also increased. We therefore encourage more students to take up Higher Malay and Higher Tamil. At the moment, we only allow those who are within the top 10% of students in the PSLE examination to take up higher mother tongue language. The Ministry of Education has announced that from 1995 the students within the top 20% of the PSLE examination will also be allowed to take up the higher mother tongue language. On 22nd October last year, I made this announcement at a teachers' union function. Today, in this House, I would like to inform Members that the Ministry of Education is also prepared to allow eight more schools and two centres to offer Higher Chinese in 1995, and these include Anderson, Cedar, Crescent, Bukit Panjang, Holy Infant, Temasek, Fairfield, Paya Lebar Methodist and two centres, Commonwealth Secondary and Ang Mo Kio Secondary Schools. Right now we have already 17 schools offering Higher Chinese. With these eight extra schools and two centres, we will have 25 schools and two centres offering Higher Chinese. For Higher Malay, we have also increased three more centres, namely, Anderson, Bukit Panjang and Temasek Schools. Altogether, we have five schools plus four centres offering Higher Malay. For Higher Tamil, we have also increased by one, that is, Victoria School. So altogether, we have three schools and one centre offering Higher Tamil. As regards other schools, so long as we have enough enrolment of 20 students to form a class, the Ministry of Education will consider allowing the school to offer Higher Chinese, Higher Malay or Higher Tamil. Mr Leong Horn Kee also asked whether we had carried out any survey on the mastery of these languages by students. Judging from the fact that our students today use English and mother tongue, especially English and Mandarin so commonly, there is no need to carry out such a survey. Next, I would like to answer the point raised by Dr Ow yesterday. Dr Ow asked yesterday whether the Ministry of Education had implemented the recommendations of the Ong Teng Cheong Chinese Language Review Committee. According to what he said, it appears as though the Ministry of Education or the Government has not been implementing any of the recommendations of the Committee. That is incorrect. I would like to say that what Dr Ow said yesterday might lead the public to a misunderstanding that the Government or the Ministry of Education has not implemented the recommendations of the Committee. I had already pointed out last year that some of the recommendations of the Committee were implemented. On 21st March 1993, I also pointed out that the periods for Chinese Language in the 15 SAP primary schools had been increased. On 22nd October last year, I announced that more schools would be allowed to offer Higher Chinese. I said that we would also add an examination paper in Chinese, equivalent to General Paper, as an optional paper for students taking `A' level examinations. Overall, there are altogether 18 recommendations submitted by the Chinese Language Review Committee. I have just distributed a report on the progress in the implementation of each and every recommendation of the Committee in the House. Members may wish to refer to the Report for details. I would like to summarize the details into the following five aspects. First, we allow students who are strong in their language skills to take Higher Chinese in Primary 5 and Primary 6. Students with good results up to top 10 percent in PSLE Examination from Secondary One to Secondary Four would also be allowed to do so. Starting from 1995, the top 10 percent limit will be extended to top 20 percent, allowing more students to take Higher Chinese. Now there are 17 schools offering Higher Chinese. As I have just announced, this will be increased to 25 schools and two centres in 1995. Secondly, curriculum, teaching materials and examination papers have all been reviewed and modified. Thirdly, more extra-curricular reading materials are made available for students. The Federation of Clan Associations has also set up a committee to look into this and next week they will be announcing specially selected reading materials to be recommended to our students. Fourthly, from 1995, General Paper would also become a subject at `A' level in schools. Fifthly, we have sent school teachers for training overseas or locally. All these recommendations implemented have shown that the Government has been positively promoting the teaching and learning of Chinese. We have implemented all recommendations of the Chinese Language Review Committee and will monitor the implementation closely. The second point raised by Dr Ow refers to the discipline among students in schools. I agree with Dr Ow that we must pay attention to discipline in schools, otherwise students in Singapore may behave like students in the US. Some even carry guns to school. In Japan, some older or bigger students always bully the younger ones. This is very bad. Of course, discipline must be implemented by schools and the Ministry of Education will oversee the activities in enforcing and developing discipline in schools. Next, I would like to reply to Dr Soin. Sir, may I be allowed to reply in English?

Yes.

Dr Soin asked about the registration of private tutors. The purpose of registering them is to give them training and upgrade their teaching skills so as to ensure a higher quality of private tutorial services. The Ministry of Education agrees with Dr Soin's observation. But on the practical aspect, I think it is very difficult and not practical to enforce. As regards private tutors who are from the private tutorial colleges or schools, we require them to register. For institutional tutorial services, like CDAC, SINDA, or MENDAKI, we can encourage them to give training before they take up tutoring. But for home tuition it is very difficult because their service is very personalised. They have to go to the home and it all depends on what type of subject they teach, the duration, and the number of students. If we require them to register, quite a number of them will not register because most of these tutors have a full-time job besides tutoring and many of them take tutoring as a part-time job. If we do require them to register, they will probably stop tutoring. That will result in fewer tutors and higher tuition fees. Although we share Dr Soin's view that we need to have a better quality of private tutors, we find it not practical requiring them to register with the Ministry of Education. 3.00 pm

I would like to respond to Mr Lew Syn Pau's two questions on the use of Edusave funds. As far as the Edusave accounts for pupils are concerned, last year the Ministry paid out $17.7 million into pupils' Edusave accounts. The total number of accounts was 349,000. The number of withdrawals made from these accounts in 1993 was 52,100, which means a participation rate of 15%. The total sum withdrawn from these accounts by pupils amounted to $1.08 million. Of this amount, the bulk of the money was used to pay for various enrichment programmes and activities, accounting for about 58% of the total withdrawal. These activities included things like educational visits, leadership camps, arts and craft courses, academic projects, dance, drama, music, sports, and other kinds of activities. Another 42% was spent for the second-tier miscellaneous fees which also go towards paying for school activities. The Edusave grant for secondary schools last year came up to $13 million. A total of $6.8 million was spent by the schools last year, which amounts to 52% of the total allocation, and the bulk of this allocation was used for the purchase of teaching materials (46%), followed by innovative programmes (31%), engagement of part-time specialist instructors (17%), and the rest are for miscellaneous items and for non-teaching staff services. Mr Lew also raised the question of Edusave for the fourth and subsequent child. I think this question was raised in the House before. The position of the Ministry has not changed. The Government has decided to limit the Edusave scheme to three children per mother because this is in keeping with our population policy of "three children or more, if you can afford it". So parents who can afford to have more than three children should be able to pay for the enrichment activities of the additional children. Mr Peh Chin Hua asked about the system of retention. He suggested that we should revert to the previous system of retention that we had in order to help some slow children to progress in school. I think he should remember that a key feature of our present education system is the streaming of pupils in both primary and secondary schools according to their abilities. In other words, these streams are catered to the learning abilities of these students. If students can learn according to their own pace, there is no longer any need for general retention. In the past, there was a system of general retention. But it was found that it was not very effective because for many of those students who have academic or linguistic inadequacies, retention was of no help to them. After one retention, two retentions, they still could not pass examinations. So it was not a very effective way of helping these children. Then we adopted streaming and, as I said, streaming caters to the different learning abilities of the students, and at the end you have different career or academic paths. As a result of streaming, the attrition rate has been reduced very significantly. The Minister yesterday gave the House a full picture on the decline in the attrition rates. We already have very low attrition rates and they are still falling. Although there is no system of general retention now, we do allow for selective retention of a small group of pupils. At the primary level where extenuating circumstances are present such as the student has been absent from school because of illness or other family reasons, he is allowed to repeat. Additionally, a pupil in the Primary Five (EM2) stream may be retained if such retention is of benefit to him. On the other hand, a pupil in the Primary Five (EM3) stream who has done well in his examinations can be transferred to the more demanding Primary Five (EM2) course. So in a way, it is a repeat of the Primary Five but it is in a different stream. Between 1991 and 1993, a small number of Primary One to Primary Five pupils were retained. Last year, after we have the modified Primary School Leaving Examination, 3,730 pupils were retained at Primary Six because their performance was such that they were not ready for secondary education. This group was largely made up of the students from the former extended and monolingual courses. So last year's retention rate should not be taken as a typical year's. In the secondary schools, Secondary One and Two pupils in the Special and Express courses may also be retained under extenuating circumstances. Secondary Three students, if they do not do well, can be retained. Principals have the flexibility to decide, with the concurrence of the Ministry of Education, to retain students if they think that such retention is of benefit to the students. Mr Koo is not here. But yesterday he spoke very enthusiastically about the introduction of the abacus. I am not sure I entirely agree with him that the learning of the abacus is the single most important reason for making the Japanese smart. There may be something in the learning of abacus and we believe that it may help students to improve on their mental arithmetic skills. That is why we are introducing it as a pilot project. We will see how this pilot project progresses and, if the results are positive, we may decide to extend the teaching of abacus to more primary schools later. Dr Kanwaljit Soin raised three points. One is about pre-primary education. She wanted the Ministry of Education to provide for two-year pre-primary education for our children. When the Ministry decided to discontinue our preparatory year programme in 1992, the Minister stated very clearly in the House that the role of the Ministry is to concentrate on formal education, starting from Primary One for six-year old children. This is the case with many other countries and many other governments in the world. Kindergarten education should be left to the private sector, and the private sector is doing a very good job. At most of these centres, they are charging very affordable fees and, based on the data collected by my Ministry between 1991 and 1994, about 99% of our Primary One pupils had actually attended kindergartens before joining Primary One. So the greatest majority of them had benefitted from a pre-primary education. Although we do not provide pre-school education, I am sure the Member knows that we do give grants to charitable, non-profit making organisations which run kindergartens. We also help to run training courses for kindergarten teachers at the National Institute of Education. There is nothing to stop these kindergartens from sending their teachers for training to upgrade the level of services they provide. A second question she raised was on Edusave for special schools. Again, this question has been raised in the House before and our position still remains, that is, Edusave is meant to improve the educational programme in our mainstream schools. Therefore, we are excluding all special schools. The Government has made it clear that it will assist the special schools through a different arrangement. These schools receive a much bigger per capita grant from the Government as well as from the National Council of Social Service, as much as up to four times the grant given to the students in the normal school. In 1993 alone, the Ministry gave $11 million for recurrent expenditure and this year we have budgeted for $13 million for recurrent expenditure by these special schools. The Ministry also caters to the development projects of these schools up to 80% of the capital cost. And if we renovate old schools for them, we pay for all the renovations plus 80% of whatever standard facilities they require. Lastly, on the novel suggestion that she made in the House yesterday about segregating boys and girls into different classes in mixed schools. First of all, let me clarify that the study done by the MOE in 1988 that she referred to refers only to sex differences at the PSLE level, that is, the sex difference in terms of boys and girls' achievement in Mathematics and Science at the PSLE level. The findings on the Primary Three results on Mathematics and Science that she cited, I think, come from a Master of Education thesis. Not having read the thesis, I cannot comment on whether the author's research was done with rigour, whether her sample size and her control groups were selected appropriately, and so on. But even if we can confirm that there are differences between the sexes at the Primary Three level, it is a big jump to conclude that to help girls improve on Mathematics and Science results, we should therefore segregate boys and girls in separate classes simply because, as Dr Soin put it, it is observed that teachers tend to pay more attention to boys. She said, as a result of that, girls suffer a loss of self-esteem and their Mathematics and Science grades suffer. I think in her argument there is a series of jumps. From the beginning to the end, there is a series of inferences which are open to a lot of questions. We must be very careful about drawing such quick conclusions and suggesting rather simplistic solutions. It is well known in social science research that cause-effect relations are very, very difficult to establish. There are many more factors besides the classroom situation, that is, the way teachers teach and treat boys and girls, which account for the girls' performance in Mathematics and Science. To put the question in a proper perspective, I asked for some statistics on how the boys and girls progress in terms of grades later on, not just at the PSLE level. Yes, at the PSLE level, 1992 results, the percentage of boys who passed Mathematics was higher than the percentage for girls. The difference was about 3.6%. For Science, the difference was only 1.5%. Then when it comes to the 1992 GCE `0' level results, for Mathematics, the difference in terms of pass rate was only 1%. The interesting thing is that for Additional Mathematics, the situation is reversed. Girls did somewhat better than boys in Additional Mathematics. And for `A' level Mathematics C, girls also did slightly better than boys. So how do you explain? No doubt these data are also very crude. But my point is, given this type of differences, the size of the differences, is it worth our while to make all kinds of rearrangement in order to implement the suggestion of Dr Soin? We have to double the number of classrooms, double the number of teachers, teaching materials, equipment, and so on. And do not forget we have different streams in the schools now. So the whole matter is very complicated. I think it is best that we let streaming sort out students according to their learning abilities. In streaming, both boys and girls can benefit from a curriculum catered to their ability. As far as the study quoted by Dr Soin is concerned, I think it is best to leave this particular subject to academic curiosity.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I have three questions to ask the Minister. I am glad to know that there will be more schools offering Higher Chinese. With the trend in regionalisation, will the number of words in our students' Chinese word list be increased? Will the mother-tongue curriculum be extended to include the cultures of countries in the region such as Malaysia, Indonesia, India, etc? With regard to retention of students, can a student be retained in the same grade if he fails in his examinations? 3.15 pm

( In Mandarin): I would like to thank the Minister for Education for his flexibility in dealing with the non-Chinese students in opting for Chinese as a third language. He said that if there were enough students he would start the classes. Would 20 or 30 students constitute a suitable class? What is the number of pupils in a Japanese or French class? As for the Minister of State, I would like to thank him for the details on the implementation of the recommendations of the Ong Teng Cheong Committee. I have some specific questions on the details. But for now, I would like to ask him one question: what was it I said yesterday that could have led to the misunderstanding?

( In Mandarin): Sir, let me first reply to Mr Peh Chin Hua's question. On the word list, we have carried out a review to determine the actual needs for changing the word list. Times have changed and a new vocabulary has emerged. So the word list must also be changed. The second point on whether Geography and History have been included or not is a question beyond the scope of the recommendations of the Committee. In so far as what I know, the Ministry of Education has also been reviewing the content of the curricula of History and Geography. History lessons will be extended to cover the whole region and not just confined to Southeast Asia. For Geography, apart from Physical Geography, Human Geography will also be included. On the question of retention of students, I think Dr Aline Wong has already replied. Dr Ow asked what did he say yesterday that could have given the wrong impression that the Government had not been implementing the recommendations of Chinese Language Review Committee. I watched the TV news last night to ensure that I have the correct impression of what he said. Dr Ow asked me to answer him "positively". That would imply that I have been evading his questions. I remember correctly he also said that, as of now, there had been no implementation in concrete terms. These may not be his exact words, but this is the impression I gather from the debate in this House and again from watching the TV news. That gives people the impression that the Ministry, or the Government, has not been implementing the recommendations.

( In Mandarin): Let me repeat what I said yesterday: "Over the past one year, what progress has the Ministry of Education made? What is the effect? I like the Minister for Education or the Minister of State for Education to answer me in positive and concrete terms." So if he does not answer me in positive and concrete terms, then the mistake is his. I did not say that the Ministry of Education has not been implementing the recommendations.

Firstly, on the simple question of class size. I think somewhere in the region of 10 to 20 will be a reasonable number and these pupils will have to be prepared to travel to the language centre because it is not feasible to do it in every school. I think we need not prolong this exchange. But I think many Members have got the impression, I myself included, that the Ministry has not been following up on the recommendations. I think the particular phrase that jarred on many people was this phrase yang feng yin wei [ ]. It means "Openly you are supportive, but behind the back, you are doing something else". I think that was a rather strong term.

( In Mandarin): This was the expression I used on 10th March last year, that is, overt compliance and covert opposition. I did not use it this year. I repeat what I have said last year after I did not get a direct answer from the Minister of State last year: after reading the two notes of the dialogue session, he felt that the complaint of the participants in the dialogue was on the use of the dictionary in the examination. I did not pursue the matter at that time because he assured me that the Ministry officials would not be indulged in overt compliance and covert objection. I did not pursue the matter further because he assured me that there would be no such thing.

( In Mandarin): Dr Ow said that I did not answer his question in positive or concrete terms. Is this not his question? That would imply that I had something to hide and did not give him the complete answer.

( In Mandarin): I said, "Last year, you did not answer in positive and concrete terms." Before I ask the question this year, how would he know what I was going to ask?

( In Mandarin): In his question, he said that even up to now I still had not answered his question in positive and concrete terms. So he asked me to answer in positive and concrete terms. Let me repeat what I had announced over three occasions last year. During Budget Debate 1993, I reported that some recommendations were implemented. On 21st March 1993, I announced that the number of periods for Chinese Language would be increased in the 15 SAP primary schools. On 22nd October last year, at a function of the Chinese Teachers' Union, I also announced, in positive terms, that more students would be allowed to take Higher Chinese in 1995. All these were reported in the Straits Times and the Lianhe Zaobao. Perhaps, he did not read the reports. I can give him the copies of newspaper clippings if he so requires.

( In Mandarin): Let me repeat. I did not say that the Ministry of Education has not implemented the recommendations. All that I asked was: in the past one year, what progress has been made in the implementation? What is the effect? He has just to answer my question. Why did he say that I mislead the people?

( In Mandarin): Because in his question, he said that, up to now, I have not answered him in positive and concrete terms. That is to say that the Ministry, or I, have evaded his question. I have not evaded his question. As I just mentioned, I had already answered him in part during the Budget Debate last year, and in March 1993, I had answered it. In fact, on 22nd October 1993, I also answered it. Perhaps, Dr Ow is too busy that he has not read the newspaper reports.

I think perhaps we should just end this exchange. The Members may want to sort it out outside the Chamber as to who said what. Mr Lew.

Sir, I thank the Minister and the Ministers of State for their replies. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LA 1500. According to published data, we have about 20,000 teachers in primary/secondary schools, pre-university centres and junior colleges. And out of these 20,000, 69% of them are females. These data may not sound too alarming until you break them down by years of service. For the older teachers with more than 30 years of service, the ratio of male to female teachers is about 50:50. But for those with 20 to 24 years of service, it is about 31:69, ie, 31% males. But new teachers with less than five years of service the ratio is 18:82, ie, about 18% male teachers only. So if this trend continues, we may soon have only one male teacher in every 10 teachers. I have nothing against having more female teachers. I am sure they all make very good, diligent and patient teachers. However, the boys in schools do need some, in fact, more good male role models to follow after, especially if we are to prepare them well for National Service. I would like to ask the Minister whether action has been taken to correct this imbalance and, if so, what are they. Perhaps, the Minister for Defence may wish to consider allowing some young men, especially those who are not combat-fit, to serve in the teaching service as part of their National Service.

( In Mandarin): Sir, in 1992, the Ministry of Education informed all the secondary school principals in Singapore that, with effect from 1994, a new course would be introduced for Secondary 1 classes, that is, the Normal (Technical) course. Therefore, with effect from 1994, most of the secondary schools would have three different streams of students - Express, Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical). This arrangement by the Ministry of Education would enable the vast majority of our students to be promoted from the primary schools to the secondary schools and to complete 10 years of basic education, thereby enhancing the quality of education of our people and this would be of great help to the economic construction, cultural development and social development of our nation. We should give active support to this policy. However, when dealing with this matter, the Ministry of Education appears to have failed to make adequate preparation. First of all, with the establishment of this new course, the cohort of Secondary 1 students will be increased by approximately 15,000. According to the present ratio, we would need about 400 teachers to teach these students. The existing number of teachers in our secondary schools is already inadequate and many schools have no choice but to engage relief teachers. However, most of these relief teachers are inexperienced and they have not been trained. Under their teaching, the progress of our students will surely be affected. Now we need an additional 400 teachers. I would like to ask the Ministry of Education how they are going to resolve this problem. Two years ago, when the Ministry of Education proposed this policy, did they carefully look into this problem? As our schools are understaffed, the volume of work of our teachers must necessarily be increased. Will this add on more stress to our teachers? 3.30 pm Secondly, the Ministry of Education made this decision two years ago. They should have carefully planned and trained up a team of specialist teachers to teach students in this new course. But the Ministry of Education has not done so. All the Ministry did was to organise a 2-day seminar, only two days, to give the existing teachers and principals a brief idea of the curriculum of this new course. As a result, when the present teachers take on this group of students, they face many problems. So our teachers have to face additional stress. If the Ministry of Education had thoroughly planned and prepared properly, then the teachers would not have to face all this unnecessary stress. Education is very important to the development of the nation. However, if we do not have enough teachers, then the quality of our education will surely be affected. Many people do not like to take up teaching as a profession because teachers have to face tremendous stress. The Ministry of Education should study this problem. At the same time, when they are making and implementing a new policy, they should have more careful planning and preparation in order to save our teachers from all this unnecessary stress.

( In Mandarin): Sir, at the opening ceremony of the National Conference of School Principals in September last year, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong mentioned that in the past three years, an average of 450 teachers resigned from the teaching service each year. Apart from the stress faced by teachers, I think there are some other problems that require the Ministry's attention. There are many young people who apply for the teaching course at the NIE. They are rejected. This is because their school results are not up to the expectations of the NIE. As a teacher, it is important to have good results. But work attitude, interest in the job and personal conduct should also be included as the criteria of selection. A good teacher might not be a student with the best academic results. At the same time, a good principal might not be selected from a pool of the best teachers. Therefore, it is possible that a teacher can help to nurture future PhD holders, but he might not be a PhD holder himself. I read with interest in the papers about a lady who was not a qualified teacher and yet she was voted the best teacher. Her name is Madam Chai Chu Suan. She is, in fact, an employee of the Singapore Association of the Deaf and seconded to Upper Serangoon Technical School. She revealed to reporters of Lianhe Zaobao and Shin Min daily news that her ambition was to become a teacher when she graduated from the National University of Singapore in 1990. However, she was not successful in her application for the teaching post. This is indeed ironical and a mockery of the criteria of the selection by NIE. I hope that NIE will not gauge a person's capability to be a teacher on the basis of external appearance and examination results alone. I was touched by the report. It is qualities such as a caring heart, a self sacrificing spirit and dedication to the teaching profession that we are looking for in a teacher. However, the NIE rejected her application. Furthermore, a good teacher might not be a good administrator. We should not make administrative capability as a condition for promotion. Because not every good teacher will be a good administrator. As long as they have got the necessary qualifications and teach well they should be promoted, otherwise this will lead to lower morale among the teachers and it will deter young people from taking up teaching as a profession. Officers in the Ministry of Education should also try their best to avoid giving teachers undue pressure, because this will discourage youngsters who aspire to become teachers from doing so.

Sir, I too welcome the Government's $500 million grant to Edusave in this year's Budget. As the Minister of State has already answered most of the queries on Edusave, I just have two questions. (1) Will all primary schools be allocated $100,000 from the Edusave grant, as is the case with the secondary schools? If not, why not? (2) Will the Ministry consider giving Edusave grants to students in ITE in the future?

Mr Tong Kok Yeo is not here. Mr Lee.

Sir, as time is short, I have to be very brief in my replies. Firstly, concerning the shortage of new teachers. I share the concern of Mr Lew and we are doing the best we can to try and interest more boys to take up teaching. We are also working with Mindef to second some of their physical education instructors to our schools. At present, there are 72 of them attached to 72 secondary schools. Through our advertising campaigns and talks to 'A' level students and so forth, we have had some success in arresting the decline in the proportion of male teachers. Let me give him some figures. In 1992, out of 1,800 graduates and non-graduates recruited, there were only 7.4% male teachers. In 1993, the figure was 10.4% So through our efforts, there was an increase of 3 percentage points. But unfortunately, the ratio is very close to the 1:9 that he was fearful of. We will have to try and do something about it. Unfortunately, with so many opportunities in Singapore and overseas as well for our men, perhaps it is unavoidable that there will be many more females whom we have to depend on as teachers. This phenomenon is not peculiar to Singapore. If you go to other countries, even the UK and China, teaching is mainly a job taken up by the females. I also hope that Mindef will consider his suggestion and allow more men to come and join us, maybe as part of national service. Mr Chin Harn Tong brought up the unhappiness of the Normal (Technical) Stream teachers. He said that they were not adequately prepared. I can understand their feeling pressurized, because we tried to bring about this change in the education system rather quickly. This problem will be with us for about a year or two. As a result of this bunching effect of the former Extended and Monolingual stream pupils being pushed to secondary schools, we will have a shortage of teachers in the secondary stream for perhaps a year or two. That is why over the last year, we have stepped up efforts to bring back retired teachers and to recruit from overseas. There are all kinds of measures. I can say that in terms of numbers, the current manning situation in secondary schools is satisfactory. It is not ideal but I think they are able to cope. In terms of training of teachers, the assessment of my staff is that actually what we have given them is quite adequate. The skills that are needed are not very different from those of teaching other stream pupils, except that they have to realise the characteristics of these pupils, that they have to be more patient with them, know how to interact with them and so on. That is why we have this crash programme to train a large number of teachers over a short period, in fact about 2,000 teachers. These teachers were specially selected by the principals on the basis that they are likely to be the ones who can relate to this kind of children. We are equally concerned that these teachers should be well prepared, should be able to do a good job in the schools, otherwise our dropout rate will go up again. So we appreciate the feedback from the Member and from others about how the teachers are feeling. We will go round the schools and if there is a need for further training, we will be happy to do so, especially in specialised areas like application of computers where there are longer courses. Mr Peh Chin Hua mentioned about the need for flexibility in the selection of teachers. Yes, I agree with him that we should try and be as flexible as possible. Of course, we do need to make sure that these people have the adequate qualifications in terms of the academic knowledge to be able to transmit to the pupils. That is number one. Two, we have to try and assess their aptitude and commitment to their job. This is a difficult area. Third, we make sure that they are properly trained. There is no requirement that they must have administrative skills. This is more for people who eventually become heads of departments, principals and vice principals. In fact, for the latter group, we do send them for training at the NIE. There is a Diploma in Education (Administration) course specially for these people to teach them administration. These are the basic requirements that we have and we require them to go for some proficiency test, unless they qualify for exemption. Also, there is an interview process chaired by an Education Service Commission member. The key point is that there is no way of assessing whether a person would be a good teacher. They may tell us at the interview that they are very keen on teaching and so on. Until we hire them, we do not really know. So if there is some way we can assess that, we will, of course, like to have more of such teachers in our system.

Sir, Mr Sinnakaruppan asked about the Edusave grant to primary schools. Let me clarify that the Edusave grant to schools at the present is applied only to secondary schools. This is because the Edusave Endowment Fund takes some time to build up. So far, we have only received $2 billion and only the income from this Endowment Fund can be used. For 1993, the total income was $58 million. Out of this $58 million, we have already given $13 million to secondary schools and $37 million to pupils' Edusave accounts. So we have to wait a while before we can extend this to primary schools. In the same way, I think we can consider whether we could extend this to the ITE at a more appropriate time.

Sir, I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for their replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order. I propose to take the break now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.45 pm to 4.05 pm. Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head L (cont.) -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LA 2300. Sir, as most of the points I want to raise have already been brought up by Members before me and addressed by the Ministers, I shall confine myself to two or three very short ones. The first is whether in its efforts to solve the manpower shortage problems in schools, the Ministry will consider the use or extend the use of closed circuit television in classrooms. There are plus and minus points for this. The disadvantage, of course, is that they do not have eye contact between teacher and pupils but the plus point is that a good teacher need not repeat himself to several classes and let many students simultaneously benefit from his teaching skill. The second point I want to raise is whether the Ministry will consider using non-teachers as administrative heads of schools. This has been tried in tertiary institutions where good administrators who are not academicians have become Presidents of universities. In Singapore, we have also dispensed with the use of doctors as Medical Superintendents to take charge of hospitals and we use now a new group of administrators known as Hospital Administrators. The last point is one that concerns foreign teachers. On 8th March, the Straits Times carried a report from the Ministry of Education that to solve its manpower shortage, the number of foreign teachers has doubled and they have been hired from non-traditional places. My concern is whether, with this constant and prolonged exposure of young and impressionable minds to foreigners, social values, moral values and cultural values, and even political values, which are alien to Singapore, will be imbibed by them.

Sir, I thank Dr Toh for his suggestions. My Ministry will certainly look into his ideas. For example, the use of closed circuit television. This is a possibility. We are interested in using all kinds of teaching devices such as computer-aided instruction, television, videos and so on. Recently, I met a teacher, a Professor from Canada. I understand they make use of this in some areas where the children are very dispersed over wide areas. So if they can do that in Canada, maybe we can do it here too, to some extent. The use of non-teachers as administrative heads? Yes, that is a possibility we have considered. I do not think we have implemented it yet. There are a number of areas to consider. One will be whether these people will be able to provide the academic leadership because principals are not only administrators but they also have to guide the teachers in the academic field. Perhaps somebody else can supplement him in this area. The other point is whether the teachers will accept him. So far, we have not tried it out but maybe we should try it out in one or two schools. The third point is the concern about foreign values imported by these foreign teachers. Yes, we share the same concern. I think we will have to monitor the situation. So far, the indications are that these teachers from Australia, New Zealand and India have adapted quite well to our situation. But we will have to monitor and make sure that there are no undesirable values transmitted.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LA 3200. Sir, the Ministry of Education has been very supportive of the Sports Excellence 2000 Programme (SPEX 2000). However, I find that our two tertiary institutions, namely, NUS and NTU, are not really very supportive of it. The reason is this. All our polytechnics are very supportive and they have special admission scheme for all the outstanding athletes and coaches. I wonder why NUS and NTU are not prepared to do so. Maybe they think that having such a special scheme will lower the quality and standard of the university. But if the polytechnics have been doing that and the standards have not been compromised, I do not see why the two tertiary institutions have not been able to do so. Now that the NUS has introduced the new modular system, I believe it would certainly benefit our outstanding athletes and coaches who could then spread their course work, all training very hard, competing hard and bring about glory for our country. So I urge the Minister to look into this matter seriously and show us his support.

Sir, Mr Choo is correct in saying that students are admitted to our secondary schools, junior colleges and polytechnics based largely on their academic performance. This has to be so to ensure that they will be able to follow the courses conducted to benefit from them. Nevertheless, all our schools and polytechnics on their own are keen to admit students who are known for their outstanding performance in sports, for they know that the presence of these students would enrich the life of the institution. In addition, their outstanding performance would also help to motivate other students to be interested in sports. In this regard, our schools do make special arrangement to admit students talented in sport on an individual assessment basis. Where the four polytechnics are concerned, they have jointly worked out with the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) a scheme known as the Joint Polytechnic-SSC Admission Scheme for Sports Persons. Under this scheme, a sports person who satisfies the minimum entry requirements of the polytechnic but is unable to obtain a place will be given a chance to further his or her education. This sports person will be required to follow laid-down guidelines in his or her academic and sporting obligations. 4.15 pm Now I come to the question on the Universities. This is very crucial, very important. To us, admission to the NUS and NTU is by academic merit. While they do not have any special admission scheme for outstanding athletes and coaches, preference will be given to an outstanding sports person or other candidates of equal academic merit. The Universities wish to encourage sports and ECA but, as Mr Choo Wee Khiang rightly said just now, without compromising academic quality.

I am not quite happy with the answer from the Minister of State. What does he mean by "preferences", if a student has met the minimum entry requirement? I see no reason why we should not actually admit that particular outstanding sports person.

If there are two persons - one outstanding in sports, and the other one of equal academic merit - everything being equal, preference will be given to the one with an acumen in sports. I think for a start, he should welcome it.

I am still not very satisfied with his answer. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LC 1500. The Gifted Education Programme has been around for about 10 years now. I would like to ask the Minister how much we are spending on this programme, both in absolute quantum and also on a per student basis. What concrete results have we achieved and is the Ministry happy with the results? What is the ratio of boys and girls in this programme? And are we going to continue with this Gifted Education Programme indefinitely?

( In Mandarin): Sir, according to the Shin Min daily news of 3rd September 1992, some students had seized the opportunity to make a fool or sabotage their teacher during Teachers' Day. There was an editorial advocating a restriction on freedom for students. Because the students took the opportunity to create trouble for the teachers, such as luring the teacher to the classroom and smashing a cake into his face. Another group of students drenched the teacher with six bottles of champagne. The school authority can give its students some freedom. But if the freedom is abused, then the school should immediately curb it. According to a source from the educational profession, incidents of abuse of freedom have been on the increase since 1992. It is worrying to see such mischievous acts during the birthday parties of students and even at the Teachers' Day celebrations. Sir, is this the way to transmit the message of freedom to our future leaders of Singapore? Could it be that the adverse western influences have seeped into our sacred educational institutions under the guise of freedom? In the past, whenever we met our teachers we had to bow and salute our teachers with dignity. What has become of it now? I believe the Ministry of Education has a responsibility to adopt proper measures to correct the present bad conduct of our students. The schools should not open one eye and close the other, but rather it should take appropriate measures. At the same time, the Ministry of Information and the Arts should also do something to stop the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation from airing unhealthy programmes which may have bad influence on the students. Otherwise, the students will continue to abuse their freedom and learn the mischievous deeds from the programmes. Sir, I do not object to our students being given certain freedom. But when freedom turns to mischief, it should be stopped immediately. If they are not put under control, it could happen one day with our Ministers and MPs ending up with a cream cake in their faces and champagne being poured over them as a gesture of "respect" from our people, during their ministerial walkabouts or house-to-house visits. This might well happen. Do you want this to happen? Sir, our Senior Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, once said that the leaders of some developed countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom have begun to realise that the old, strict and well-organised educational system was much better and more effective than the present liberal laissez-faire education system. Therefore, we must adhere to our traditional education system. The traditional value of respecting the teachers should be preserved, instead of being replaced by freedom and laissez-faire attitude. Otherwise, it will be pathetic. I hope the Ministry of Education and MITA will take appropriate actions to correct the situation.

Prof. Low is not here. Mr Lau and Encik Yatiman are also not here. Dr Wong.

Mr Lew Syn Pau asked about the progress of the Gifted Education Programme (GEP). Yes, the Gifted Education Programme has entered its 10th year. It now caters for 1,500 pupils in four primary schools and three secondary schools. The number of primary school students in 1993 was 583. For secondary schools, it was 853. This Gifted Education Programme offers pupils a stimulating and enriching programme in the schools. We have also succeeded in developing a network with institutions of higher learning to provide special mentorship programmes in Science, Creative Writing, Mathematics and the Humanities for these pupils. Evaluation of the programme shows that it has achieved its goal of developing the pupils intellectually and socially as well as in terms of the pupils' performance at national examinations. The pupils not only have broadened their knowledge base but also developed leadership qualities and thinking skills which enable them to be more critical and creative in problem solving. The programme has also been successful in teaching pupils to become independent, self-directed learners. At the same time, they learn to be concerned about moral and social issues and are actively involved in community and charity work. Mr Lew asked how much we are spending on a per student basis. The education grant for a primary school student in the programme is $4,300 a year; for a secondary student, it is $6,100 per year. I think what I have told him would be part of the concrete results, although he would probably like to know more specifically about the examination results. Indeed, as a group, they have performed very well at both the Primary School Leaving Examination level, the GCE "0" and "A" levels. For example, in 1993, at the PSLE level, the percentage of pupils who were in the programme who scored three "A" stars was 52%, as compared to the top performers among the other students in the same GEP schools. Among these other students who were not in the programme itself, the percentage of pupils who scored three "A" stars was 40%. You have to compare like with like. You have to compare with the top percentage of the pupils. Among the students in the GEP, 37% of the students scored four "A" stars, as compared to 25% of the top pupils who were not in the programme but in the same school. For the 1993 "0" level results, the mean number of "A1s" scored by GEP students was 5.6, as compared to 4.4 among the Express students in two top schools, that is, RI and RGS, both of which have GEP programmes. For "A" level results, the mean number of "A" level distinctions for the GEP students was 2.7 as compared to 1.8 among the students in four top JCs. The mean number of "S" papers taken by GEP students was 0.9 as compared to 0.4 among those in the four top JCs. So these results clearly show that the GEP students have been able to benefit from the much expanded academic as well as extra-curricular activities that we have provided for them in the programme. Many of them have also won local and overseas awards. I must say that the Ministry is quite happy with the results of this programme and from our feedback, the parents are happy also. What is the proportion of boys and girls among the students in the GEP programme? In 1994, and this is actually quite a steady trend in the last 10 years, the proportion of boys among the GEP pupils is 64%; girls, 36%. So the ratio of boys to girls is roughly 2:1. I was quite intrigued by this ratio. So I asked the officials: does it show discrimination? They said no, there is a universal preponderance of boys over girls in the ratio of 2:1, among the top, the gifted children. Are we going to continue with this programme? Definitely yes, but we have in the past deliberately expanded the programme slowly because we want to see the results. And we do not envisage any sudden increase in enrolment or expenditure on the programme within the next few years. We will do so, but very slowly and steadily.

Sir, I am quite sure MPs also do not want to end up with a pancake in their face as a gesture of respect when they make their house-to-house visits. Sir, schools have been given greater autonomy to allow principals to meet their pupils' needs better. In keeping with this emphasis on accountability for responsible decision-making, pupils have been taught to make choices regarding their school career and some school activities. They are also given opportunities to assume leadership roles in the school. This is to meet the objective of preparing our youth for responsible citizenship when they leave school. The majority of pupils take their responsibility seriously and discharge their duties with commitment and I must say, to a certain extent, with maturity. Teachers' Day is set aside to honour the work of teachers and provide pupils with the opportunity to show their respect and affection for them. The occasion is accorded the dignity befitting it and it is celebrated in the schools through the organisation of appropriate activities. 4.30 pm An incident occurred in Tampines Secondary School in 1992 in which pupils poured champagne, but I must clarify here that it was "actually sparkling fruit juice", over the teachers. This was an isolated instance of, shall we say, our exuberant pupils getting carried away in their celebration of Teachers' Day. But let me assure the House that the pupils involved were reprimanded and warned that such behaviour, although carried out in affection, is inappropriate and unacceptable.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I do not know whether the Ministry of Education is aware that this happened not only in Tampines Secondary School, but also in some schools in Bedok. There were similar occurrences last year.

The same action that we have done to the pupils in Tampines Secondary School will be applied to the school in Bedok or any other school.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LC 2100. (In Mandarin): I heard the explanation of the Minister for Education to Mr Chin Harn Tong's query about the curricula of the Secondary Normal (Technical) stream implemented by the Ministry of Education. I think the Ministry seems to have failed in its duty to educate the students ( ). Now, let me go into what I want to say. The Ministry of Education has always been famous for having all kinds of gimmicks, the different kinds of curricula, different designs and developments of different curricula. In 1992, the average cost of one set of materials was $4,600, the estimated cost for 1993 was $3,590, but now it has been increased to $7,300. So the cost of materials has gone up and it will increase the burden of the students and the schools soon. What kind of teaching material had the Ministry designed? Why is it that there is such a big jump by nearly 100% in the costing? Then there are the audio-visual aids, computers, laser discs, and all kinds of pictorial cards. There are so many kinds and such a great variety. It may appear to be very advanced, but the production costs are not cheap. What is the effect, however, of the teaching? For example, you may have only a few periods a week to use all these kinds of materials. Do you have enough time to use them? For example, there are only about three to six periods of Chinese a week in secondary schools. If these materials and audio-visual aids have not been properly and fully used, it is a waste of money and time. I think the Ministry should conduct a survey into the effective use of such teaching aids. What is the effect? Can they meet and justify the production costs, and are they cost effective or not? I think the Ministry should exercise effective control to evaluate the production of teaching materials to prevent creation of of "white elephant" due to over creativity of curriculum material by some people. The other related question is the change in the curriculum of Mathematics. Over the past two years, the Ministry has adopted new materials for teaching Mathematics. I am not an expert in Mathematics, I cannot evaluate or comment on the value of this so-called New Mathematics. But what I know is that many parents do not quite understand the concept of the New Mathematics. The primary school Mathematicstests and exercises are set in such a way that even the parents cannot help their children. If the Ministry and the schools recognise the importance of the role of parents, then the Ministry should help the parents, especially the parents of primary school students, to understand the concept of the New Mathematics. Recently, a school has started a workshop to explain the concept of the New Mathematics to parents. It is a good beginning. I hope that the Ministry and the schools could help parents to understand all these new curricula and courses. I also suggest that the Ministry should encourage the parents and the schools to interact more often. Apart from workshops and other programmes, they should be encouraged to fix Saturdays as "Open House Day" for parents who have problems with the various subjects and they may want to ask the teachers so that they could better understand the contents. At the same time, the teachers can also use this "Open House Day" of the school to interact with parents to understand the background of weaker students so as to promote a closer school-parent relationship.

( In Mandarin): In 1992, Mr Peh Chin Hua asked the Ministry of Education about the weight of the school bags. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister for Education, after two years, what has the Ministry done about the weight of the school bags, so that the students do not have to carry a heavy bag on their back. From 1992 until now, some new school buildings have been completed. I would like to know whether any locker system is provided in the classroom in these schools, or somewhere else in the school.

( In Mandarin): Sir, let me first reply to the Member for Hougang on the contents of the curricula. The Member for Hougang said that the revision of the curriculum of some technical subjects was carried out in a hurry. This is not true because the Ministry of Education normally makes a decision on curriculum revision after very careful consideration and consultation with the various people concerned. Mr Low also mentioned that there had been too many curriculum projects. This is in fact a praise for the Ministry of Education. It is true that there is a variety of curricula and audio-visual aids projects developed by the Ministry. I agree with him that the co-operation between schools and parents is an important factor in making these projects effective and useful. In fact, the schools have always been doing this to promote such close relationship. He complained that there were too many subjects and their curricula were complicated. We need a variety of subjects because we have to prepare our students to deal with changes in the society. After leaving schools they have to work. So they must be able to master the basic skills and knowledge which will be changed with times and the advancement of technologies. School curricula and the subject contents should also be changed as time passes. If the curricula remain unchanged, say, 10 or 20 years, then it is something that we should be worried about. On audio-visual aids and other teaching accessories, we have been selecting and acquiring the best available in the market. The most modern audio-visual aids such as laser discs, compact discs, video tapes and other facilities are used to teach languages and technical subjects. The production of such teaching aids is important to help students in learning the subjects. I do not know why the Member for Hougang wants to criticise this. Another point raised by him is the difficulties in understanding Mathematics. It is true that some parts of the New Mathematics are difficult because we did not learn it at our time. So some parents may not understand it. But it does not mean that because of this, the students should not learn New Mathematics. He suggests that the schools should have "Open House" for parents to understand the contents of New Mathematics. It would certainly be a good thing if schools could do that. We will try and do our best to see whether, in terms of time and resources, it is possible for schools to help parents in this aspect. I would like to thank him for his suggestion.

( In Mandarin): I do not know whether the Minister of State understands my Mandarin, or he has missed the point. He has either misunderstood me or is giving a misleading answer. My main question is why the cost of production has gone up so much, from an estimated $3,590 to $7,300. I would like him to evaluate the teaching materials. I have been a teacher myself and I know it is always the more teaching materials the better. The question is cost effectiveness, and whether the materials designed have achieved the teaching aims and objectives. You spend so much money to produce these materials. In fact, have you achieved the objective? Has the Ministry of Education made any evaluation of these teaching materials? I have never said that the students should not learn New Mathematics. What I said was that the parents are faced with the problem about New Mathematics. It is a general problem. Because the parents do not quite understand New Mathematics, they cannot help their children. Since the schools place importance on the role of parents, then the schools should help parents so that they can help the students and, at the same time, foster better relationship between parents and schools.

( In Mandarin): The Member for Hougang spoke about various curriculum projects, course materials and high production costs. As I said, because the Ministry is revising and developing new curricula and course materials, we need more manpower, more resources to plan, design and produce various teaching aids. So the costs have gone up because there have been increases in both quality and quantity. It was not due to sharp increase in unit production costs. The second point is whether we have been evaluating the effectiveness of these teaching aids. Of course, we do not buy accessories and equipment just for show if they are of no value. I believe that officials at the Ministry do evaluate the efficacy of projects and equipment before project implementation and purchase of equipment. Thirdly, the Member for Hougang said that parents had problems with New Mathematics. I did not say that the Member for Hougang wants us to stop the teaching of New Mathematics. What I meant is that if we want to give up New Mathematics because of the difficulty in understanding its concepts, then it is not a progressive way in dealing with the problem.

( In Mandarin): The Minister of State himself says that we should not drop New Mathematics. What I am saying is that the Ministry or schools should help the parents to solve the problem with New Mathematics. As regards teaching materials developed by the Ministry, the cost of production went up by over 100%. What sort of human resources and materials were used? What kind of evaluation is done? Can you make public the results of the evaluation? I am talking about the production of materials and not the purchase. 4.45 pm

( In Mandarin): On the question of the content of the curriculum development and the increase in costs, I will give a written answer to the Member for Hougang. As for the evaluation of our projects in developing audio-visual aids, I will also provide a written answer to the Member for Hougang so that he will know the exact details of our evaluation process. As for the problem relating to New Mathematics, as I said, there are two ways. One is to give up the learning of New Mathematics and, two, is try to understand New Mathematics ourselves so that we can help our children.

( In Mandarin): Since the Minister of State is going to give me a written answer, I will leave it for the time being ( ). I will wait for his written answer. As for the New Mathematics, I wonder whether the schools could play an active role to help the parents in Singapore to have a better understanding of the New Mathematics. Is the Ministry of Education going to help the parents by enlightening them on the New Mathematics?

( In Mandarin): As I said just now, schools and parents should always maintain close contacts and, if possible, help them understand New Mathematics or any other new subjects. This is a desirable and effective way to help students. As long as time and resources permit, we would encourage schools to do so.

( In Mandarin): What concrete system or method has the Ministry of Education for this proposal?

( In Mandarin): Schools will have to find the time and make the necessary arrangements to brief parents on the subjects. Some schools may not be able to do it due to manpower shortage. So we cannot make it compulsory for the schools to introduce such an arrangement.

Sir, Mr Choo Wee Khiang asked about heavy school bags and he was right that the subject of heavy school bags had been raised previously. The Ministry then noted that if pupils follow the class time table, they would not have to carry heavy loads to school. It may also be a good practice for pupils to bring their books home so that they can do their revision under parental supervision at home. Nevertheless, the Ministry has taken up on the Member's suggestion to provide lockers in every classroom. Ten primary schools have been selected for a pilot project. The Ministry will evaluate the pilot project in mid-1994. If it is found successful, the Ministry will extend the locker facility to all primary schools.

Mr Low, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (7), Mr Peh. You may speak now on the two subjects together.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LD 1500. The Straits Times reported on 23rd January 1993 that from April 1991 to January 1993, there were six reported cases of arson and damage to school properties in Singapore. Other cases like break-in and minor damages were not reported in the papers. But I believe this is not a small number. In the past, security in schools was quite good, as security guards were employed to patrol the school grounds. With the abolition of the school security guard system by the Ministry of Education, coupled with the lack of an alarm system, the unguarded schools have become less secure at night. According to my knowledge, most cases of housebreaking were committed during examination periods and at the beginning of a new term. The prime targets are valuable items in the teachers' common room, the computer room and the school bookshop. Some of the law breakers even threatened the students. Sir, we understand the difficulty in employing security guards to patrol the school ground. But we should not neglect the security of schools. Otherwise, schools will often have their properties damaged or become the target of arson, burglary and intrusion at night by the bad hats. I therefore urge the Ministry of Education to place emphasis on the security problem. Last year, I suggested that we should have a regional patrol system to do this. I do not know whether the Ministry has got any assistance from the Police. If not, I think the Ministry should think about it. Secondly, the Ministry should install alarm systems in the schools which are linked to the nearby NPP so that the Police can arrive at the scene at the shortest possible time in order to arrest the criminals. Thirdly, the schools should also have better equipment. Schools can keep their documents and other important examination papers in fire-proof safes. I hope that the Ministry will look into the matter seriously and should not take it lightly. Next, I would like to refer to the eyesight problem of students. Singapore is one of the countries that has the highest number of myopic students. About one in four persons is shortsighted. I think the figure came from the late Dr Tay Eng Soon. This situation is getting worse and worse. We cannot afford to overlook this. According to the Head of the School Health Section, Dr Uma Rajan, in the past 34 years, ie, from 1958 to 1992, myopia in students has been on the increase by nearly 34-35%, ie, 34.5% for males and 34.9% for females. This situation is not only confined to the number of people. The degree of myopia is even worse than mine. Some primary school pupils wear spectacles of nearly 1,000 degrees, like mine, before leaving school. So it is very worrying. According to reports, about 25% of Singaporeans are shortsighted, but the rate for students is more than 40%. In the past 10 years, the number of Primary 1 pupils who wear spectacles has increased from 7% to 12%, and for Primary 6, it has increased from 29% to 55%. If the situation is not carefully studied and rectified by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health, then the rates will be even worse. I suggest that the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health should do an extensive study on this problem and consider the following two points: (1) Is it because we are lacking in natural resources, so we are over-conscious about "saving energy"? Because of the PUB's success in its "save energy campaign", every household and every school is trying to save energy by not switching on the lights or switching on fewer lights. As a result, there is inadequate lighting. (2) Our primary school students may think that it is fashionable to wear glasses.

Mr Umar, can you take your three subjects together.

Sir, with your permission, I would like to drop amendment (d) on security of 'O' and 'A' level papers, since the Minister has already answered that question. With your permission, may I take amendment (e) in the Malay language?

Yes.

Sir, the object of Edusave is to provide scholarships to top students in secondary schools, annual grants averaging $100,000 per school, and also contribute to each pupil's Edusave account. May I suggest to the Ministry that the allocation of the Edusave fund be extended to self-help groups like MENDAKI, SINDA and CDAC to help schools disburse the allocated funds more effectively. Let me give an example. As it is, MENDAKI today runs about 16 centres of week-end tuition scheme for Malay students. Some of these students could not afford to pay the tuition fee for the week-end tuition scheme. In view of that, maybe a proportion of the Edusave fund which has been allocated to the students' accounts can be used for some of the programmes conducted by MENDAKI. Also, with the addition of another $500 million for the next financial year, thus making the Edusave fund to $2 billion, may I ask the Ministry whether there will be an increase in terms of the number of scholarships to be granted to schools? Will the amount of grants to be given to schools be doubled? Or will the contribution to each pupil's Edusave account be doubled? If this is not going to be the case, where will the additional $500 million be allocated to? Now, Sir, I would like to take amendment (e) in Malay. (In Malay): The Ministry of Education has granted full autonomy to principals to adapt and streamline the administration of their respective schools. This move has proven effective as school services today are running smoothly. However, a small number of principals have shown a lack of understanding of the powers granted to them. Recently, Berita Harian reported two cases. The first was where two sisters were directed by their principal to have their hair shorn because they had head lice. In the second case, a principal wanted his pupil to obtain certification by a mosque that the pupil was a Malay. The first letter the child obtained from the mosque was rejected because it was handwritten. The pupil had to go back to the mosque for a letter with the mosque's stamp and it was only then that the school accepted it as certifying that the pupil was a Malay. I am concerned, in view of these incidents, that some principals might not fully understand the guidelines for them. I would like to ask the Minister what guidelines are issued to school principals. What are the things they can do and what they cannot do?

Sir, the latest statistics released by the CID on 22nd February 1994 pertaining to juvenile offenders are indeed disturbing. Not only does it show that it is on the increase since 1990 but what is shocking was that there is an unhealthy quantum jump of 30% in 1993 over 1992. What is also raising eyebrows is the profile of the juvenile suspects. Most are aged below 16 and are students or school dropouts. Sir, it is obvious that there is a correlation between juvenile offenders and delinquent students. For some time now, I have heard that principals and teachers have been saddled with the problem of delinquent students but cannot do much to effectively handle it. Unless appropriate measures are taken by all parties concerned, including the school authorities, it will be a question of time in the near future before we see an alarming proportion of law breakers within our midst when this category of students becomes adults. Sir, my question is: what is the extent and degree of the problem of delinquent students in schools? Are the schools doing enough to tackle it? Also, I would like to know what measures have the Ministry of Education taken so far to train principals, discipline masters and teachers with relevant skills to enable them to better cope with the problems. 5.00 pm

Sir, I will answer the questions posed by Mr Peh Chin Hua, Mr Umar and Mr Zulkifli. First, Mr Peh Chin Hua talked about the school security and a lot of break-ins in schools recently. Sir, the Ministry of Education is aware of the recent spate of break-ins in schools. Last year, following a series of arson cases, the Singapore Police Force and the Singapore Civil Defence Force jointly conducted a survey in 35 of our schools with the aim of identifying the areas in schools where security needs would be strengthened. The report was submitted to the Ministry of Education in April 1993. The Ministry has accepted the recommendations of the study team and has started working with the PWD to improve the physical security of the schools. One of the main programmes to be implemented is the installation of burglar alarms in all schools, junior colleges and centralised institutes on a priority basis. When the project is completed, potential intruders and arsonists of schools can expect to be promptly detected. The closer liaison between schools and their Neighbourhood Police Posts will also ensure that such offenders will be apprehended and charged. Other physical security measures such as security grilles and locks will also be installed in vulnerable areas and those where equipment or important documents are kept. A seminar on school security was also conducted by the Police and Civil Defence Force in August 1993 for school principals and administrators. The principals have been given good advice and suggestions by the Police and the Civil Defence Force personnel on how to safeguard their schools from intruders and arsonists. The Ministry of Education, the Police and the Civil Defence Force are concerned about the break-ins that occur in our schools and will work closely to improve the security of our schools and apprehend the offenders. Sir, with your permission, I will answer the other questions in Malay. (In Malay): Mr Umar, the Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC, has asked questions concerning two recent incidents. Sir, schools are given autonomy in order that principals may make relevant decisions in meeting the needs of their pupils. This autonomy in school management is granted within the bounds of the educational policies of the Ministry, for example, the promotion of bilingualism and the emphasis on civics and moral education. The Ministry has also issued a "Handbook for Principals" containing guidelines on the daily management of schools. On the whole, principals have made appropriate decisions in the interests of their pupils. Nonetheless, it is accepted that the autonomy has led to decisions that are less than ideal or not quite appropriate. Slips such as those cited by the Member can be curbed by monitoring and advising the schools and principals. In the two incidents mentioned, the principals involved have been advised as to the inappropriateness of their decisions. (In English): Mr Zulkifli asked about the juvenile problem in schools. The Ministry of Education, the schools and the Police have been working closely to curb juvenile delinquency in schools and have broadly grouped the disciplinary problem in schools into three categories so that the departments are clear about their own responsibilities. We divided it into three categories: Category A, Category B and Category C. Under this arrangement, the schools work closely with the Neighbourhood Police Post in handling the disciplinary problem in Category B. Let me just give Members the details of these categories. Category A has something to do with minor breaches of school rules, mischievous but not delinquent behaviour. Category B is for major breaches of discipline where some delinquent behaviour may be involved. Category C has something to do with criminal behaviour. So for Category B cases, we will discuss and work closely with the Neighbourhood Police Post. So far as we are aware, the incidence of juvenile crimes involving pupils has not risen. Pupils are more commonly arrested for petty offences such as shoplifting or petty theft. At the school level, our principals and discipline masters or school counsellors will counsel the pupil offenders. If outside assistance is needed, the school will seek the services of social work agencies in the neighbourhood. Nevertheless, it has been observed that pupils become problematic in schools when there is a lack of parental supervision. If these parents would collaborate with the school authority in overseeing more closely the behaviour of their children, the schools would be more effective in helping these pupils to improve and to do better in their studies.

Sir, Mr Peh spoke about the problem of short-sightedness among our students. The increasing prevalence of defective vision which includes myopia among the student population has been an area of concern for both the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education. We have noted this trend whereby the students have been developing poor vision earlier in life, and the severity has also been progressing steadily as they move up to the higher grades. So Mr Peh is correct in pointing out a worrying trend. Unfortunately, we do not know what is the cause of myopia or short-sightedness. The exact cause is not known. But I can definitely say that when more and more students are wearing glasses, it is not because it is a fashionable trend. I think he is just saying that to provoke our thought. Definitely, they need the glasses. Definitely, there is an increase in the incidence of defective vision. According to the eye doctors, short-sightedness has to do with genetic pre-disposition. But another important contributing factor is prolonged near-vision work. For example, when students read at close distance for too long, watch television for too long, look at computer screen for too long, then the eye muscles cannot adjust when the person looks at far away things. The correct approach to control the problem is to prevent the problem from occurring too soon and try to prevent it from progressing too fast. I am glad to inform Mr Peh that between the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education, we have already implemented a comprehensive set of guidelines on vision care since April 1992. The teachers in the primary and secondary schools have been trained to conduct vision testing for students as part of the regular health education classes in schools. The teachers help to check the eyesight annually, six months after the school health team's visit, in order to complement the annual vision screening for all the students carried out by the School Health Service. With effect from this year, the eye care programme will also be extended to junior colleges and the centralised institutes. Meanwhile, the School Health Service of the Ministry of Health has been conducting a pilot project on eye exercise among some primary schools. If this kind of exercise proves to be of benefit, I think we may want to extend this to more primary schools later. On the other hand, the Ministry of Education intends to carry out re-lighting works for primary schools as the first priority because the problem of myopia should best be tackled when the children are young. So far, the pilot re-lighting project has been carried out in three primary schools. The aim of the pilot project is to enable the PWD to determine the cost of the renovation work as well as the time required for all the primary schools to have the lighting work done. For new schools under the Fourth School Building Programme, PWD has already incorporated the guidelines on vision care in the building specifications. I do not think that the energy saving campaigns that we had have anything to do with the parents dimming the light when they watch television or whatever. But surely we are aware of the fact that, given proper lighting students' vision should improve. Mr Umar Abdul Hamid asks several questions on Edusave. There seems to be a lack of understanding on Edusave fund. Perhaps, the public seems to think that it is a vast amount of money that has to be distributed and therefore if the Ministry of Education is not distributing all the money, maybe other groups can also help the Ministry to disburse the money. It is not the case. As I have explained to Mr Lew earlier on, the transfer of Government fund into the Edusave Endowment Fund is to help build up the fund. Only the income from the fund will be disbursed to pupils' accounts, to give grants to secondary schools and also to give out scholarships in both independent and Government and Government-aided schools. The Edusave Pupils' Accounts are meant for the students to use for school-based activities that would help to enrich and broaden their education. So it is not meant to pay for tuition. Since we are building up the account, whether we would be giving out more scholarships or more grants to the secondary schools, it is a bit too early to say. In my reply to Mr Lew, I said that quite a sizeable proportion of the schools still have not used up the initial grants given to them. They are allowed to keep the surplus this year, and we will see how the pattern goes. Scholarships, by definition, must be given to the top few percent of the students as an encouragement. So for independent schools, the proportion of scholarships would be 25% of the enrolment, and for secondary schools, it is 10%. I think we should keep it that way for some time.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 5.15 pm

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LD 5100. (In Mandarin): Sir, the important objectives of the Ministry of Education is to educate the future masters of Singapore, not to do business. Recently, it was reported that a secondary school in my constituency, the Whampoa Secondary School, was to be closed down by the end of this year. I think it is regrettable. At the same time, the principal of the school told me that the Old Boys' Association felt great regret about it. On 10th January this year, the Old Boys' Association wrote a letter to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education but it has not received a reply so far. I do not know whether there is any new development on this matter. Whampoa Secondary School has a history of over 30 years. The building may be old but it does not mean that the school is useless. When we decide whether a school should be closed or not, I think it is not so simplistic. We must consider all factors. We must consider whether the school has got its own tradition, its value, as Mr Peh has pointed out. Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew has said that the traditional system is better than the modern system. So respect to teachers is very important. When you decide to close a school, have these factors been taken into consideration? Whampoa Secondary School has few students. Business is no good, so chop, cut it off. When McDonald opens an outlet and business is no good, they can go to another place to start another outlet and it is still called McDonald. The Education Ministry should consider this. If you consider that it has a history of over 30 years, it has a tradition. From what I understand, the school is promoting Confucianism and they do not seem to be taking all these factors into consideration. It is also stated that we must build the spirit of cooperation, good moral, good conduct and good learning. So we must work for the school, work for yourself, work for the country. So this is the spirit of Whampoa Secondary School. It is very good. I hope that the Minister for Education can accept the request of the Old Boys' Association and look for a new building and name it as Whampoa Secondary School, so that the new school can inherit the tradition of the school, ie, the same badge, same school anthem, and same uniform. I hope the officials of the Ministry of Education will not treat education as a form of business.

Sir, the Ministry has to make decisions to close schools now and then because of falling enrolment. It is a difficult thing to do but has to be done. Otherwise we will be faced with a situation like in other countries where closure of schools is a problem and as a result, the class sizes become smaller and smaller, and utilisation of resources becomes poorer and poorer. We are not doing this as if we are running a business. But we do have to look after the use of our resources in Singapore. As the Member has said, the Ministry of Education has decided to close the school because the enrolment has fallen steadily over the past few years. And in this year, the student enrolment is only 262. So it has to close. Also, the results have been below average. This kind of problem arises every now and then and it is a very emotional issue for the old boys involved. I can understand their feelings but we need to have certain criteria to use. So far, our practice has been not to retain the names of Government schools when they are closed. If they are closed, usually it is because they have not been successful. So retaining the name does not really help in setting up a new school in a new area. Apart from the old boys, there is not the same kind of sentiment amongst the other members of the public. We have the experience of the Chinese schools. When we tried to close them, there was a lot of unhappiness. So in 1986 we laid down some criteria to decide whether the school name should be retained. We will retain the school name if there are good historical reasons, if it is a good name that has history in it, and, secondly, if the school has been performing well. So it is something that is worth preserving. Supposing we retain this name of Whampoa Secondary School and we put it in Bukit Batok. I think people will get very confused. So unless there are good reasons, we have to stick to these rules. It is not an isolated case. There are other cases. If I say yes to this, a lot of other schools will come after me and say, "How about this name, how about that name?" And often it affects the Malay schools. Quite a few Malay schools were closed down. We found that to retain Malay names means that the new school will have difficulty attracting other students. So whilst I appreciate the sensitivity and the unhappiness of the old boys, in this case, unfortunately, my answer has to be no.

Can I make a clarification? Sir, actually, I fail to understand what the Minister was trying to explain. Because for the retention of name, I think one has to take various factors into consideration. What is wrong with Whampoa? Whampoa is a good name. It is a sound name. If you move it to Bukit Batok, people still know what Whampoa is all about. They do not think of Whampoa as one in my constituency nor do will they think of the one in China. Likewise, Tanglin Secondary School is already in West Coast and River Valley High School is along Ayer Rajah. So what is wrong with retaining the name? I think it does not mean that rules and regulations laid down in 1986 have to be rigid. So I beg the Minister to rethink about it again. Please retain Whampoa Secondary School wherever it is going to be.

In the case of River Valley High School, it is one of our top schools. I think it ranks as number three or four in the school ranking list. But it does cause some confusion having River Valley High School in Ayer Rajah. The name "Whampoa School" is mainly associated with the area. There is Whampoa Constituency, there is a Whampoa canal, there is a Whampoa Community Centre. It is a well-known part of Singapore. So I do not see the reason why we should retain the name "Whampoa", unless it meets our criteria. As I said, it is always a problem retaining names. If you want to retain this name and I say yes, I have to say yes to a lot of other cases where they have to close down the school and not use the name again. Mr Choo Wee Khiang rose ---

Mr Choo, we have other amendments.

Just a very quick point. Sir, Whampoa was absorbed into Kallang and it has become part of Kallang division. In Whampoa estate now, they all know that it is part of Kallang division. It is a matter of getting used to it. Sir, anyway, I am still not happy. But I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (9), Mr Chng is not here. No. (10), Mr Lew.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LG 3200. Teachers should spend their time teaching and not fund-raising. Unfortunately, many independent schools spend a lot of time organising many fund-raising activities, together with the help of the Old Boys' or the Old Girls' Associations and management committees, to help to raise money for extra sports and other social facilities, enrichment programmes, or even to keep the school fees at affordable levels for as long as possible. Some fund-raising is okay as it helps to make parents, old boys or girls, community leaders and other well-wishers feel a part of the school. However, too much of it detracts the school from its main mission of providing a good all-round education for the students. In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister to consider giving independent schools the same level of subsidy we give to autonomous schools, so that the amount of fund-raising in independent schools can be kept within reasonable limits.

Sir, I realise that fund-raising for schools has been a problem and a burden. In the case of independent schools, the funding formula is 80% paid by Government and 20% by the school itself. The Government funding is up to a limit of $32 million. In the case of the eight independent schools, I think most of them have been able to raise the funds with a lot of effort, no doubt, but they have succeeded. And where they have difficulty, we allow them to come to us and we will provide some kind of loan for them. But so far, no school has come to us for any funding support. I think most of them have been able to manage. The only ones that are still raising funds are SCGS, where they are building their new school at Whitley area, and also Nanyang Girls' School, where I think they have almost achieved their target. And, of course, I think ACS has no problem at all. They have so many supportive parents. The issue, therefore, is more a question of grants for operating expenses. Here I would like to clarify that in fact the independent schools are quite flushed with money. They are having fees of $100 per month in the case of girls' schools, and up to $200 per month in the case of RI and ACS. From our records, that is in fact more than sufficient for their present needs. The question is whether the Government should further fund them because we have these autonomous schools established where we give them funding support up to 10% extra per capita and the school itself has to raise fees by 1%. So we give 10%, the parents pay 1% as a base case. If they want additional funds, then it is dollar-for-dollar, up to a maximum of another 10%. The reason why we establish these autonomous schools is to create more choices for parents as a new model where we contain the cost of running the school. We keep the class size the same, we keep the same teaching norms. But we allow them flexibility in changing their curriculum other than retaining the core curriculum. We allow them to introduce innovative programmes. So now we have two models to compare with. On the one hand are the independent schools where they are allowed to charge fees to cover the additional expenses over and above the base level, which is the same per capita level as given for other Government schools, and the extras the parents have to pay. That is one model. If parents do not want that, they can apply to the autonomous schools and some of them are of equal ranking in terms of academic performance. So there is a choice for them. I do not think it is fair for the independent schools now to come back to us and say because we have autonomous schools, therefore we must give them the same grant as for autonomous schools.

Sir, since we are running out of time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LL 3200. Sir, I declare myself as a practising architect. Sir, the original objective of the Singapore Polytechnic Diploma in Architecture Technology course is to produce draughtsmen to serve the architectural profession. At the end of the course, they are awarded a Diploma. I understand that what is happening now is that more and more of the Diploma graduates have no intention of staying as a draughtsmen because of the availability of universities in New Zealand which, for their own reasons, are granting them full two or three years' exemption to take up an architectural degree course. The result is that the number of these Diploma graduates later enrol into these universities and graduate as architects. While I am not against our young having higher aspirations, in fact, it is good that our young people always aim for better and higher goals, but this anomaly has created a problem.

Mr Chen, are you expecting a reply?

Yes.

I suggest you ask your question. We barely have enough time.

Okay. This means that more and more students will take a short cut to go to Australia and become a graduate. The difference is that if they go to Australia, they take about five to six years to finish the course, while our local university students will take about eight years to finish the course. And also because of this, the profession is short of draughtsmen because they all aspire to be architects. So I would ask the Minister to look into the problem and maybe establish a draughtsmanship course in the ITE so that the profession will have a sufficient supply of draughtsmen. 5.30 pm

Order. It is "guillotine" time. The sum of $2,486,211,800 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $930,757,700 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head W -

Head W - Ministry of Trade and Industry. Amendment No. (1), Dr Ow Chin Hock.

Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, under this amendment, I wish to raise the issue of profiteering and inflation. The most important challenge for the Government in implementing GST is how to contain the inflation rate at below 6%. The average rate of inflation based on CPI is 2.4% per year, from 1980 to 1993. I believe this will continue unless something unexpected happens. As the GST rate is 3%, this should lead to a one-off 3% inflation rate. However, we should not discount the other sources of inflationary pressure which may raise the inflation rate to beyond 3% GST-induced rate. These sources are (a) profiteering, (b) wage-price spiral, and (c) compliance cost of GST being passed on to consumers. Profiteering I wish to report that the Feedback Unit received a total of 51 complaints about price increases in the last four months. In quantitative terms, 51 complaints out of the total of 837 inputs received during the four months constituted only 6.1%, a very small percentage. However, from these 51 complaints, I detected two serious perception gaps between the public and the Government. First, the Government's repeated assurance that it will monitor prices closely and act against profiteers has raised the public expectations. They want the Government to take action against what they perceive as errant traders, but so far, they see no such action being taken. Second, grassroots leaders and members of the public seem to take any price increases they deem "unreasonable" as profiteering. The Government, or at least the Ministry of Trade and Industry, feels that "profiteering can exist if there is a monopoly on the supply of a commodity or if a real shortage exists". This is a reply from the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Trade and Industry on 3rd February this year to my Unit. If we want grassroots leaders and members of the public to help us counter profiteering, we should give them a clear understanding of what constitutes profiteering. Perhaps, a set of criteria or guidelines should be provided by the Committee on Inflation and Profiteering to help them. Wage-price spiral If inflation goes beyond 6%, unions and workers may demand higher wages so as to protect their real income from being eroded by inflation. Further, expectations of rising prices may lead some unions and workers to ask for even higher wages in anticipation of inflation. Both will lead to higher costs and higher prices. Hence, it will trigger off a wage-price spiral. I hope that both unions and managements will act responsibly and exercise restraint to come to a fair settlement on wages, because wage-price spiral will hurt our economy and eventually hurt every Singaporean. Compliance costs of GST incurred by businesses I have dealt with this subject before but suffice for me to point out that, even with the tax saving from the 3% point corporate tax cut, a part or the whole of the compliance cost will be passed on to consumers and, hence, it will raise prices even higher. Finally, Sir, last Monday, I suggested that fees and charges of the Government departments or statutory boards be frozen for one or two years after the implementation of GST. The Minister for Finance has said that a two-year moratorium on Government fees and charges is not wise and he gave two reasons: (i) the fees need to be increased to "recover manpower, material or operating costs" and (ii) "delaying fee increases would only result in larger and more painful adjustment later." While I agree with the Minister for Finance that fee increases are sometimes unavoidable, I wonder which body monitors Government fee increases and decides whether these increases are justifiable. Is this within the purview of the Committee on Inflation and Profiteering? Similarly, I agree with the Minister for Finance that "more frequent and smaller adjustments" are better than "one time big jump over a long time period". I agree with that principle. However, I would like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry to urge his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to balance this consideration against the possible erosion of Government's moral authority to act against businesses which raise their prices beyond the cost increases. After all, GST is not just an economic issue, but also a political issue. To make GST more acceptable, we must allay the people's fear of inflation, and here the Government has an opportunity to set an example in containing price increases.

Sir, enough has been said about profiteering. Many measures to combat profiteering have, indeed, been discussed, ie, the strengthening of CASE, the formation of the Committee on Inflation and Profiteering, consumer education, publication of listed prices for essential foodstuff, boycotting hawker stalls or retailers who set high prices, and the list goes on. The Government has said that, if necessary, it will punish profiteers. My question to the Minister is: will the Ministry seriously look at invoking the Price Control Act? Because I think this is the best signal to deter would-be profiteers and show consumers that the Government is serious about checking profiteers.

Sir, with less than one month to go before GST day, fears that profiteering will raise its ugly head are real. Dr Ow and Mr Chew have together expressed some ground sentiments. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure Singaporeans that CASE will expose any profiteer who uses GST as an excuse to cheat customers. For this reason, we are keeping our CASE GST hotline open for feedback. CASE will not hesitate to blacklist profiteers. But at the same time, consumers should also not work themselves into hysteria every time their favourite hawker, or their shopkeeper, raises prices. One must understand that the rising cost of services is a consequence of the rising standard of living that comes about through the increase in productivity in manufacturing. Not many people realise this but it is a truism that productivity in the service industry, like hawking, for example, always lags behind those in manufacturing. How is it so? In manufacturing, one can always optimise, design and automate the production lines. With the economies of scale and flexible manufacturing systems, it is possible to use less to produce more, so productivity goes up. But how can a hawker or a barber, for example, raise his productivity beyond a certain threshold? It is a simple observation that it takes a barber today about just as long to cut a head today than it was 30 years ago. Similarly, Sir, a char kuay teow man takes about just as long today to fry a plate of good kuay teow than it was about 20 years ago. And the number of plates a waiter or waitress can serve in a restaurant or hawker centre has not changed much over the last 20 years. But the cost of living of the char kuay teow man and his hawker attendant is determined by the economy in general. The price of his HDB flat, the cost of his children's education and the rates he pays the PUB are all determined by the overall productivity of the nation. So in order for them to keep up, not surpass it, mind you, the hawker has to raise his price. Thus, raising of prices per se is not profiteering. Then what is profiteering? The media and the public are obsessed with profiteering. Let me set out some simple examples where profiteering can exist in Singapore because CASE receives a lot of calls asking us to take action against profiteers. But when we look at the cases, these are not profiteers. First, a profiteer must have the opportunity, and opportunity comes in the form of being a monopolist. This means that the monopolist must be able to set prices without losing customers and that what he sells or offers has no substitutes. Do hawkers fall under this category? I think the answer must be no. There are about 23,000 hawkers in Singapore and one can choose from any one of these 23,000 hawkers. Second, there must be effective barriers of entry of competitors. In Singapore, anybody can rent a stall from a coffeeshop owner and become a hawker. So there are no barriers of entry to becoming a hawker. But CASE recognises that in some very, very rare circumstances, local monopolies can exist. For example, maybe the canteen of a very far-flung factory, say, in Tuas, may be charging exorbitant prices for food which is sold cheaply in HDB heartland. So workers who work on night shift in that particular factory in Tuas, for example, have no choice but to patronise that canteen. But from my union experience, managements are also very concerned. So it is unlikely that management will allow the canteen operator to charge these monopolistic prices. But in any case, in a situation like this, where local monopoly exists, please give the CASE hotline a call and we will go down and investigate. The Government has suggested a joint price monitoring exercise. CASE welcomes the gesture. In order for the joint monitoring to be meaningful, CASE would like the Government to publish the CPI on a more frequent basis, if possible, monthly. This way, perceptions on the ground can be squared with reality. Sir, in view of this concern about profiteering, I would like to report briefly what CASE is doing. CASE has set up a hotline and during the critical period, CASE will man the hotline until midnight. CASE has mounted the wet and dry markets survey and CASE has observed that prices of the watched items have been floating downwards. Soon CASE will add to the existing list and this means that consumers will get more items at even cheaper prices. CASE has also encouraged grassroots leaders to form consumer clubs to serve as listening posts for CASE. Consumer clubs on the ground can decide for themselves which hawker has profiteered, and which has not. It is at that level that boycotting becomes more meaningful. CASE is also pleased to announce that several MPs have also urged their market committees to absorb the GST cost as far as possible. I have two questions for the Minister. One, can the Government publish more up-to-date CPI on a periodic basis? I have just said, perhaps month to month. And second, can the CPI be broken down into perhaps smaller baskets, let us say, a cooked food basket, a dried food basket? And I am very pleased to say that NTUC Fairprice has come out with their own basket. So perhaps NTUC Fairprice can also release their monthly Fairprice basket. Just to reassure Dr Ow, the unions will never ask for wage increase on account of GST. The unions will only ask for wage increase on the ground of productivity increase and the overall level of profitability of the company.

Sir, I share the concerns of my Parliamentary colleagues on this issue of inflation and profiteering. In fact, I have raised my concern regarding this aspect in the previous years as well as during the recent Budget debate. The people, especially those in the lower income group, the housewives, the elderly, are very concerned about inflation and excessive profiteering by retailers and shopkeepers. The Government has assured the people several times that the impact of inflation due to GST will be minimal and probably not more than 3%. These are reassuring words but, unfortunately, not comforting enough. 5.45 pm What the people like to see is that the Government actually comes out with concrete measures to curb inflation and check on profiteering. Some ideas I have raised in this House in the past are to actually form a central body or committee to monitor prices and take action against profiteers. Secondly, to publish on a regular basis the normal prices, inclusive of GST, of various essential goods and services. This list serves as references for consumers to avoid those companies and shops that charge excessively. Thirdly, to form watchdog groups at constituency level to monitor unreasonable price increases. This group which I have named profiteering monitoring groups (PMGs) may refer profiteering cases to a central body under MTI for further investigation. If proven to be a serious case of profiteering, I hope the Minister can invoke his powers under the Price Control Act to deal with such cases. Sir, I hope that the Minister will consider these issues and proposals seriously. Although I have made a very short speech, I would like to assure you, Sir, that I am as impassioned and concerned about this issue as my colleague, Mr Koo Tsai Kee, who has made a long and deliberate speech.

Mr Ling How Doong is not here. Mr Koo.

Sir, I understand that "Talking Point" of SBC has gone to New Zealand to look at New Zealand's Fair Trading Act, which was put in place at exactly the same time as New Zealand's Goods and Services Act. Sir, Singapore looked at various GST models around the world before deciding on the New Zealand model. Although Singapore adopted the New Zealand GST and modified it, of course, Singapore decided to drop its other twin half, the Fair Trading Act. Sir, what can the Fair Trading Act do for consumers that the existing legislation in Singapore cannot do? I am not a lawyer, so I am unsure whether there are any remedies to the following situations which I will elaborate later on. I have been told that there are no cheap and quick remedies to these situations which adversely affect consumers. Let me give you situation number one, Sir. Suppose we hear on the radio or read in the papers about a special offer on chairs. You immediately take a taxi and go to the shop. To your disappointment, there are only two such chairs in the shop and by the time you arrive, they have been sold. The trader offers you a similar chair at the normal price, meaning more expensive price. This is called bait advertising in Singapore. It is not uncommon and I am told that CASE has no quick immediate remedy. What about situation number two, Sir? Suppose you read in the papers that a shopping centre is having a clearance sale. Everything is marked down from 10% up to 70%. You rush down in a taxi to buy everything you can afford. Next month, you find that the same store is again advertising for clearance sale. Every month later, you find clearance sales. This is misleading advertisement. It is not uncommon. I am also told that CASE is quite powerless to take action without incurring expensive legal costs. Situation number three, Sir. You bought a video recorder and the company promised you a 3-year warranty on the product and island-wide home service. In other words, when your video breaks down, the trader will come to your house and service your video recorder. Six months later, the video breaks down and you call the company. The company asks you to bring the video recorder in for repair. Why? Because you are staying very far away, maybe in Tuas. This is false representation. My staff showed me this advertisement this morning. If you look at this advertisement, it says, "GST on us". GST has not even started yet. It says, "GST paid". Who paid for the GST? I think this type of advertisement is something that we should disallow. But the Straits Times is accepting it. I am looking into what we can do. I have made informal checks with several lawyers and they tell me that there is not much CASE can do in the cases I have just elaborated. An hon. Member: Gone case!

That is why I am asking you to come for a case! Sir, the individuals can probably get some redress, but it might cost them quite a bit of time and perhaps a lot of money. I am not sure whether I have been advised rightly or wrongly. CASE wanted to publicise the names of some traders who have attracted persistent complaints from the public, but I was cautioned that publicising these names without a legal basis might attract unnecessary legal suits. I can understand one reason why the Government does not want to enact legislation for consumers, something like the Fair Trading Act, because it might encourage a litigious culture where every other consumer begins to sue every other trader for breach of sales contract, for misrepresentation, so on and so forth. But I have been told that legislation can be drafted such that these unnecessary consequences can be minimised or circumvented. CASE does not want to cultivate a litigious Singapore. We think that in the long run, a litigious society adds to the cost of consumption which runs counter to the aims of CASE. But an equivalent of the Fair Trading Act which covers advertising and selling and which prohibits (1) misleading and deceptive conduct; (2) false representations; and (3) unfair practices, will give CASE some bite and consumers some protection. My question to the Minister is: will the Government look into possible legislation for CASE?

Sir, last year, labour cost increases were moderate despite our exceptionally strong economic growth of 9.9%. This was due to the fact that last year's economic growth was propelled by the financial services sub-sector and the electronics and petroleum industries. The financial services sub-sector and the two industries are traditionally considered as capital intensive. Moreover, there was excess capacity in the economy last year. This was put into use. As a result, real wages increased by only 3.9%. On the other hand, labour productivity growth rate was higher at 6.4%. This was the first time in the last five years that productivity growth rate has exceeded the real wage growth rate. The result was lower unit labour cost. I have checked the Economic Survey for 1993. For the whole economy, the unit labour cost index fell from 129.6 in 1992 to 129.0 in 1993. Although it is marginal, it is significant. The experience last year underlines the importance of improving productivity and raising the workers' skills. I advocate that wage increase should be tied with productivity growth, so as to avoid inflation, and to reward workers for their better performance. However, we need a better measure of productivity than labour productivity. While labour productivity growth reflects higher educational and skill level, better work attitudes and greater efforts on the part of workers, labour productivity can also be influenced by other factors, eg, higher capital-labour ratio, and use of labour stockpile or excess capacity. A better indicator of productivity performance is total factor productivity (TFP). TFP measures contributions by labour, capital and other factors of production. NPB's calculation shows that the TFP average growth rate was -0.8% per year in 1980 to 1986, and only 1.7% in 1986 to 1992. I was quite surprised by the results and I believe this was partly due to the measurement problems of total factor productivity. For example, what should be the weights assigned to labour, capital and other factors, and what should be used as the price for capital? I do not have technical notes on how NPB measures total factor productivity. But I suggest that NPB work closely with the relevant departments in NUS and NTU to come out with a better measurement of productivity.

Sir, last year, Singapore attracted $3.8 billion in investments, while many of the other regional countries saw a drastic drop in their investments. No doubt, some of them are unable to match the strong magnetic force drawing investors into the booming economy of the PRC. We can expect more such forces to emerge from Vietnam and India as they too turn on their powerful magnets to attract investors into their new but potentially large consumer markets. I wish to pay tribute to our farsighted Government for levelling up our capabilities through the constant upgrading of our infrastructure and enhancement of the skills of our workers and the quality of our financial and telecommunication centres and our airport and seaport. As reported by BERI, we have emerged as number one in most of the categories of their competitiveness report. But let us not rest on our laurels and say that we have arrived. Whenever I led business missions around the region and met politicians, officials and businessmen of the various countries, I could sense that while they envied the progress we had made, they felt that over time they could emulate our model and success and even surpass us. The only way we can remain internationally competitive is to keep improving our systems and the quality and productivity of our manpower, removing all obstacles to progress and taking nothing for granted, constantly challenging what exists with a firm belief that it can be made even better. May I ask the Minister to spell out the Government's strategy and latest programmes to keep Singapore's manufacturing sector internationally competitive?

Sir, can I take both (e) and (g) together?

Dr Wong, can you please take your topic first?

According to the 1993 Economic Survey of Singapore, local enterprises in the manufacturing, commerce and services sectors in 1991 accounted for 57% of the total value added and 70% of employment in these three sectors. The value-added of local small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector grew by 11%, from $4.8 billion in 1991 to $5.3 billion in 1992. The local enterprises sector therefore contributed significantly to the growth of our economy. Local enterprises were able to do well because they expanded their activities to take advantage of new markets and business opportunities emerging in the booming Asia-Pacific region, particularly in countries like China, Indonesia and Vietnam. The Government has set up a Committee to Promote Enterprises Overseas under the Chairmanship of the Minister of State for Finance, Cdre Teo Chee Hean. This Committee published an interim report in May 1993 and a final report in August 1993. May I ask the Minister for a progress report on the follow-up of recommendations made in both these reports, particularly in the following areas: (a) Government financing assistance for companies venturing overseas The Government recently announced a $150 million fund to help firms go abroad. Can the Minister explain how the fund will be used to help local entrepreneurs expand overseas? I understand that the Local Enterprises Finance Scheme has been expanded to include financing for approved overseas projects. Can the Minister report on the number of projects and amount of loans that have been disbursed under this scheme? (b) Government as a partner in overseas ventures One of the important recommendations made by the Committee to Promote Enterprises Overseas is that Government and its agencies should partner the private sector in overseas ventures. May I ask the Minister how many such partnerships have been formed by the Government and how have such partnerships benefited Singapore? According to the 1993 Economic Survey of Singapore, the Government plans to build promising local companies into Singapore MNCs. May I ask the Minister how many such local companies the Government has identified and how the Government plans to build these companies into Singapore MNCs?

Order. Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates for the financial year 1994/1995, and ask leave to sit again on Tuesday, 15th March 1994.

So be it.

Sir, may I have your permission and beg your indulgence to make a statement?

Yes, please proceed.

I wish to draw the attention of Members to an article entitled "Hold the guillotine when issues are of public concern" by Mr Cherian George, published in the column "From the Gallery" in the Straits Times on 10th March 1994, and I would like to quote parts of the article. I quote: 'Chairman Tan Soo Khoon and his Deputy Eugene Yap cut off exchanges with ruthless efficiency, keeping the Committee of Supply moving strictly according to the time-table on the first day. But the speed came at a cost. Some discussions that deserved more of a public airing had to be aborted, leaving many in the gallery feeling somewhat shortchanged. The strict time keeping is probably a reaction to the days when the Budget Debate lasted 14 days or more, and some MPs luxuriated in the time to make speeches that added little of substance. But one wonders whether if Parliament is in danger of swinging to the opposite extreme, such that issues of public concern do not receive adequate time. And this in a period of increasing public desire for accountable Government - which is of course what Parliament is all about. Clearly a balance has to be found between what Parliamentary authority Erskine May calls "the claims of business and the rights of debate". If the former takes precedence too often over the latter, this may result in public disillusionment with the country's principal democratic institution. Yes, on paper, the Committee of Supply certainly made progress yesterday, despatching the budgets of three government departments and three ministries by the 6 pm adjournment deadline. But in Parliament, efficiency cannot be measured only by the clock; the product must satisfy the quality control of an increasingly critical and demanding public.' Sir, Mr George's article thus criticised the Speaker and Deputy Speaker for curtailing the rights of Members of Parliament to air and discuss issues of public concern, by exercising the guillotine "with ruthless efficiency". The innuendo was that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker had stifled debate and were not using the "guillotine" procedure in a fair and proper manner. This was an unjust reflection on the conduct of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker in the discharge of their duties. It thus constitutes a breach of privilege and a contempt of Parliament. However, we should give Mr George the benefit of the doubt, and assume that his criticism is born of ignorance rather than malice. Although Mr George quotes Erskine May on "the claims of business and the rights of debate" in his article, he makes factual errors. For example, in Singapore, the Budget Debate has never lasted 14 days or more. Sir, I am only raising this matter in this House today because I wanted to take some time to consider carefully how to respond to Mr George's article, to set the record straight without being too severe in our reaction. Instead of referring Mr George immediately to the Committee of Privileges, I am taking this opportunity to explain the Parliamentary procedures which apply to the Committee of Supply, and when Members wish to raise issues for debate. I expect this explanation to come to Mr George's notice and hope that it will correct Mr George's misapprehension. The Committee of Supply has to be conducted according to a set schedule in order to complete discussion of the budgets of Government Ministries within the seven days set aside for this purpose, so that Parliament can pass the Budget Resolution in time for the start of the new financial year on 1st April. Many Members have submitted cuts on Ministries' budgets. To accommodate them, the Speaker has extended the debate on the Budget by one day. The sitting time of the debate has also been extended by 30 minutes each day. Despite this, it is necessary to regulate the time the Committee spends on individual Ministries. The "guillotine" is the standard Parliamentary device for doing so, not only in Singapore but also in other Commonwealth countries with Parliamentary systems. If the Speaker allows some Members to prolong the debate beyond the "guillotine" times, then less time will be left for subsequent and equally important items of discussion. Sir, the Committee of Supply is not the only occasion on which MPs can raise issues and hold the Government to account. Under Parliament's Standing Orders, Members who want to raise issues of public concern can file a Question for Oral Answer, or move a Motion of Adjournment when he can speak for 20 minutes, or move a substantive motion for a general debate when he can speak for two hours. If, even after speaking for two hours in a general debate, the Member still feels that the issue has not been fully discussed, he can seek the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of the House to suspend the Standing Orders, so that he can continue with the debate. Any Member not satisfied with a Minister's reply in the Committee of Supply may raise the matter for further discussion at any time, using any of these provisions in the Standing Orders. Hence the Speaker's and the Deputy Speaker's enforcement of the time-table for debate in the Committee of Supply will not and cannot prevent issues of public concern from being thoroughly discussed and answered. Mr George's criticisms of the proceedings of the Committee of Supply are therefore totally unfounded. I hope that Mr George, after reading this clarification, will withdraw unconditionally his criticisms of the proceedings, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, and publish this retraction in the same "From the Gallery" column in the Straits Times. After I have read his response to my statement, I will decide whether it is necessary to make a formal complaint to the Committee of Privileges.

Sir, may I seek clarification from the Leader of the House?

I do not propose to have a debate on this matter, Mr Low. I have taken note of what the Leader of the House has stated and I suggest that we leave the matter over till next week.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes past Six o'clock pm to Tuesday, 15th March 1994. Table 1 - SCHEDULE OF INCREASE OF MINIMUM SUM (Cols. 955 - 956) Tables - EXAMPLE 1, EXAMPLE 2, EXAMPLE 3, EXAMPLE 4 (Cols. 957 - 964) Table 6 - PROJECTED NET AND REGROSSED BALANCE (IN ORDINARY AND SPECIAL ACCOUNTS) OF ACTIVE CPF MEMBERS (NRIC) WHO REACH AGE 55 IN 1995 AND 2003 (Cols. 965 - 966)