Hansard, 2000-03-17

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: NameFromTo (2000)(2000) Mr Chay Wai Chuen17 Mar20 Mar Dr Lily Neo19 Mar5 Apr Mr Bernard Chen20 Mar1 Apr Mr K Shanmugam20 Mar28 Mar Mr Tan Soo Khoon23 Mar28 Mar NameFromTo (2000)(2000) Mr Lim Swee Say29 Mar1 Apr Mr Matthias Yao1 Apr9 Apr Mr Hawazi Daipi1 Apr9 Apr 17 Apr22 Apr Mr Wong Kan Seng20 Apr23 Apr TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [8th Allotted Day].

Head L (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [15th March, 2000]. "That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Dr Wang Kai Yuen]. Question again proposed.

Dr Tan Boon Wan is not here. Dr Jennifer Lee.

Sir, when parents express dissatisfaction with the education system, I expect that part of the problem may lie with the system, but part arises from parents' own response to the system. It seems to me that if we could engage parents in the education process, share information with them about policies and how they work, the reasons for them, the benefits and good outcomes, and the misperceptions and misconceptions that they may have, we could go some way towards gaining the awareness and understanding and alleviating the angst that many parents feel. A good example is information that the Minister shared at the recent sitting that 60% of our school leavers actually make it to our local universities and polytechnics. The implication of 60% making it to tertiary education is that parents do not have to move heaven and earth to try and get their children's performance to the top few percentile and, in fact, fairly average children will be able to make it through tertiary education. I do not know how many parents were or even now are aware of that statistic, but certainly information of that nature would give them significant comfort. And I think that we could do more in getting parents involved in this process and give them this kind of understanding. In hospitals, we find that time invested upfront in communicating with parents of young patients yields much dividends in gaining their understanding and tolerance and reducing anxiety in the subsequent interactions in the course of their children's care and management. I am acutely aware of the House having just discussed on Wednesday about the burdens of the workload that our teachers face, but I think that time spent with parents explaining policies and sharing information would be well worth the investment. And I hope that the Ministry will be on the look out for opportunities to share useful information with parents and engage them, wherever possible, in the education process.

Sir, we often read in the Straits Times of delinquent school children. While discipline is an age-old problem, it seems from recent reports that disciplinary problems are on the rise. At the constituency level, I often receive complaints from residents of students who misbehave themselves outside school. It seems that students and perhaps even some schools operate on the principle that what the students do outside the school is not the concern of the school and should not be within the school's control. As a result, we receive reports of students loitering at the void decks and engaging in such anti-social activities like smoking, littering and vandalism. To be fair, some schools have resorted to ensuring that their students do not engage in such activities by sending members of their staff on patrol in the neighbourhood. I am not sure if all schools have such a practice. On the other hand, it seems that the schools can only intervene in a limited manner, as beyond that I am not sure whether all schools have the practice of checking on the behaviour and conduct of their students. Certainly, when children misbehave themselves, it gives the school a rather bad name. Needless to say, it is imperative that we continue to ensure that our students remain disciplined, as this may impact on our population in the future. Sir, I know that the Ministry has a system in place called the behavioural tracking and analysis system that tracks the number of delinquent cases in schools. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not disciplinary problems have been on the rise and what additional measures, if any, the Ministry is going to take in dealing with the problem.

Sir, there have been many reports in the media these days regarding the deterioration of family values. There have been reports of acts of atrocities between teenagers, gang fights amongst teenagers, abandonment of babies by teenagers and so on. I know that families have the responsibility to imbue the right values in their children and to discipline them when necessary. It is acceptable to argue that the teachers in schools can only do so much. However, I would like to beseech the Minister for Education to reassess this area to see how the Ministry of Education could chip in here and nip the problem in the bud before things get out of hand. Although the school's main task is to impart skills towards academic achievement, all the efforts will be wasted if moral values deteriorate further. I hope the Ministry of Education will consider the teaching and observance of moral and good values in life as an integral part of education. The teachers in schools are in an extremely good position to diagnose early symptoms of delinquency in many cases, as students do spend a lot of time in school. There are many full school days, especially for secondary students, and the teachers are in a lot of contact with their students. The schools should be able to identify at-risk children and either alert their families or any organisation or community. Sir, the reason for the deterioration of family values in many instances is due to underlying faults within the family unit or to lack of discipline at homes. These trends may be on the increase with more broken homes and increased divorces. The lack of discipline is compounded by the norm of the dual income families of Singaporeans with two-child families or less. Has the Ministry of Education done any studies on these problematic students thus far, to find out the underlying problems in them? Could the Ministry of Education help those students who are predisposed to these problems and take a more proactive approach to prevent the ill effects? Sir, it has been said that every Singaporean counts. This being so and since some kids need more attention than others, would the Ministry of Education not have to allocate more time and effort for these high-risk students? It would be good if the Ministry of Education could collaborate with parents, voluntary welfare organisations, self-help groups and more professional counsellors. Sir, may I ask the Minister for Education whether he needs to review the discipline meted out by schools in view of the increased rate of offences committed by secondary school students, especially female school students? Should the schools not use more mentors and role models to lead the pupils? Could the Minister consider self-esteem courses for secondary school students? Sir, it will be good to teach children how to empower themselves to succeed in life through a correct understanding of one's self worth and through one's core values. A lot of delinquency and gangster issues stem from lack of self esteem. Gangs provide the security and status that the delinquents do not have due to their family situation. Employment of external organisations to facilitate this may be helpful. I know that some schools have engaged outside parties for this purpose. Perhaps this should be put in as a core non-academic curriculum. Sir, I hope the Minister for Education could enlighten me on these issues I have raised.

Sir, the three Members have raised various issues concerning our students and the role of parents. May I take this opportunity to enlighten Members on some of the efforts undertaken by the Ministry to achieve some of these improvements. Firstly, holistic education of a child, we believe, cannot and should not fall squarely on the shoulders of schools. Parents and the community have a role to play. In this case, I agree with both Mr Sin Boon Ann and Dr Lily Neo that we need to get our children to believe in and to practise the good values taught in our schools. Parents and community too help in moulding the child's character, building up his inner motivation, developing a sense of belonging, spirit of service to the community, and also in creating the environment to help the child learn better. The leverage comes from parents, community and schools working in tandem to nurture our young. Also, where one faces constraints, the others can rise to the call and help to address the need. There are two main reasons why the Ministry of Education is now stepping up its efforts in strengthening these partnerships. The first is to recapture some of the spirit of community service or gotong royong for schools. This spirit used to come about almost naturally in the past because schools then were mainly set up by the community. But today, with education being seen as the responsibility of the Government, there is a need and we must try our best to rekindle the bonding, loyalty and mutual sense of responsibility among schools, parents and community. The second is the changing structure of our society and homes. Dr Lily Neo mentioned that in many households, both parents work, and therefore they have less time to interact with their children. Parental expectations have also increased. And this is natural for every parent would want his child to succeed and thrive. At MOE, we realise that we need to put in place a framework for schools to engage parents and the community in our children's education, and at a level where there is mutual understanding of the fundamental purpose of education. Every child has talent and ability, and MOE aims to develop to the fullest each child's potential, so that he acquires the values, instincts, attitudes, skills and knowledge to be a useful and responsible individual and citizen. In this respect, we have set up the Community and Parents in Support of Schools (COMPASS). COMPASS is a national advisory council to advise the Ministry on ways and means to promote and strengthen school-home-community collaborations. COMPASS has and will continue to solicit feedback and ideas from parents and the community. It will then develop a common understanding about what are the different roles of the school, the parents and the community in the upbringing as well as the education of our children. Already, many of our schools have built up strong traditions and alumni. In 1998, MOE announced that children of former students would be given higher priority for Primary One registration if their parents were also members of the school alumni association. Since then, the number of primary schools with affiliated alumni associations has increased around 50%, from 33 to 48. We also have the School Advisory and Management Committees that give members of the community and parents opportunities to be involved in school governance and its activities. Our schools also conduct meaningful Community Involvement Programmes that help students build up a sense of responsibility, belonging and commitment to the community and country by way of rendering service. 12.45 pm The situation now is that there is great diversity in the way our schools, on their own, involve the parents and the community. Some organise seminars for parents while others conduct computer courses for parents as well as for community leaders and they tie up with companies and industries for student work attachment programmes. What works best in a particular school might not meet the needs of another. Therefore, MOE encourages schools to try out their ideas. In doing so, they will go out to reach out to the community and along the process we will gain some experience, and we will build upon it. I would like to thank Dr Lily Neo for her suggestion to network with parents and external agencies, especially to help some of our at-risk students. This is what we have been doing and will continue to strive to do even more. Many schools engage the services of part-time professional counsellors, link up with self-help groups, MCD, VWOs, neighbourhood police posts or police centres, work with the Police and Central Narcotics Bureau to conduct talks and programmes. As for mentors, not only do our schools tap on older students and ex-teachers in the school, but also ex-students, tertiary students, parents and other working adults. Many have come forward to help. But there is still more that can be done to strengthen the links between parents, the schools and the community . COMPASS is actively encouraging parents and the community to partner schools to bring up our young. Over the past year, COMPASS have visited schools, received briefings on programmes in schools, and attended a seminar on school-home collaboration conducted by an expert. These activities gave COMPASS the background and understanding of the issue to work out what we call the stakeholders' statements and the models of effective school-home collaboration. The stakeholders' statements are student-centred and outline the roles and qualities we expect of each stakeholder in helping the child to learn and grow. At the heart of these statements is the ultimate aim of achieving the Desired Outcomes of Education. These statements should be ready by sometime next month. This year, COMPASS will be formulating various models of effective school-home-community collaborations so that our schools can adopt the good ideas. This should be ready by the end of the year. With the efforts of COMPASS, there will be more frequent and higher quality interactions among parents, schools and the community. In this way, we hope we can better align our efforts to develop our young into robust, industrious and morally upright citizens. To further encourage partnerships between schools and the community, MOE decided also to take a wider view of our co-curricula activities (CCAs). Previously CCA marks were only awarded for activities offered by schools. From this year, CCA marks are awarded to students in secondary schools for their representation in an approved organisation or for their contribution of at least 30 hours of community service beyond the six hours under the Community Involvement Programme. The scheme has also been extended to junior colleges and centralised institutes. This will encourage our students to widen their social circle and interact with the community beyond the school. We hope to start them young in forging strong links with the community. Dr Jennifer Lee will be pleased to note that our schools engage not just the parents but the community in the two areas of communication and partnerships. I had described a little bit about partnerships. Now I will discuss a little bit about communications. Firstly, our principals and teachers do plan various opportunities like the meet-the-parents sessions, school newsletters, parent-teacher associations, prize-presentation events and these are used to explain changes in our education system. They describe how the school programmes develop our children holistically and discuss the progress of each child. On the part of MOE, we ensure that all major changes to the education system and their rationale are also announced through the media and our website. But we also need parents to do their part by attending the school functions, by reading the school newsletters and also hopefully by keeping up with the news. Members have also asked about discipline matters in our schools. I would report here that the state of discipline in our schools is generally good. This has been found based on a research done earlier. The great majority of our students are found to be hardworking, well-behaved and responsible. Serious cases of breach of discipline are infrequent occurrences. A Committee on the discipline of female pupils was set up sometime in 1998 chaired by Dr Aline Wong. They have looked into the matter and found out that generally there has been some increase, but not alarming. The Committee has also made recommendations ranging from preventive measures such as peer support as well as various other programmes intended to achieve what Members asked for, ie, to nip the problem in the bud. Finally, I would like to urge the hon. Members in the House, as leaders in their community, to lead their people to support the schools in their constituencies. We can all treat the children as our own. Get involved in their lives and engage their parents, and involve them in the life of the community. If we can work hand in hand to jointly assume responsibility for our young, the Ministry is confident that we will be able to help our young develop to their full capabilities and contribute positively to society.

May I ask whether the Ministry of Education would have any more steps taken to further improve the moral and good values of our students? Secondly, is there any system in place in the school where the teachers are able to actively diagnose high risk students?

Other than civic and moral education that is already in place, we also engage students through the Community Involvement Programme. This is where we plan to internalise the concept of good moral values in the children. They visit homes and engage with the homes to do some community service. This will hopefully help them to have good moral values. There are other efforts that we do through the schools to help especially those who are at risk. Thus far, we have trained at least two teachers in every school to become teacher-counsellors. In other words, if a child, through our behavioural tracking system, which is already installed in every school, were found to have some problem and is likely to become a discipline case, he will be referred to the teacher-counsellor. In some schools, we have the Special Constabulary officers who are also helping us to deal with some cases of discipline among our children. So there are such cases. Other than counselling, the school has also the right to impose stricter disciplinary measures if they find it necessary. This will hopefully reduce the incidence.

Has the Ministry done any studies on problematic students in Singapore because such studies will help us in planning for the future policies and preventing us from having such children?

I do not know whether we can prevent our country from having such children. But it is normal to have in our schools cases of discipline. In fact, hon. Members should not be surprised that in some schools the number may increase. What has happened, as had been explained by my Minister earlier, is that our school system is now carrying a lot more students than in the past. What happened previously, especially before we started streaming in 1980, was that many of these children would be outside of the school system. Therefore, they were not captured by our behavioural tracking system or whatever scheme that we have in the schools. What we have done since then is that we want to allow them an opportunity to continue to study. We expect that some of them may come to school with some behavioural problem. The school has a system in place to help them so that they can continue to study and not cause any disruption to other students and, where we can, we will do our best to help them to be more disciplined. Hopefully, with better exposure at secondary school, these children can later on continue with further education. I do not think there is a special study just to find out how we can stop children from misbehaving in our schools, but there is a system in place to track them and try to identify them early so as to reduce the problem.

Sir, the published criteria for university admission by the various faculties in NUS and NTU are actually the minimum standard where an application will be considered. However, practically, no student with that level of minimum standards is admitted today. As in the COE system, applicants to the faculties are stack ranked by their "A" level results and then based on the vacancies available, a line is drawn. Those above the line are admitted and those below are not. It is as simple as that. Except for the Medical and Law faculties where interviews are part of the admission process, very little weightage is given to other attributes of the candidate. In fact, for the Faculties of Medicine and Law, where we actually have a limited number of vacancies available, they are turning away candidates who would otherwise be highly sought after in other universities. Notwithstanding my hon. colleague, Dr Jennifer Lee's comment, I believe that it is not true that parents are not aware that more than 60% of the cohort is admitted into tertiary education. It is which faculty they get admitted into. I doubt increasing the percentage will help the problem. So long as we have a quota system for the more desirable faculties, the competition for more "As" and the pressure to acquire higher academic result will not go away. What we can conclude is that university admission criteria strongly influence the behaviour of our students. No amount of exhortation will change the behaviour if the bottom line is whether they get admitted into the faculty of their choice depends on their "A" level results. I am aware that a tentative step has been taken to include Scholarstic Aptitude Test (SAT) results as an additional criterion for admission into SMU as well as into NUS and NTU. I would like to know how would the Ministry prevent this from becoming an additional burden on the students on top of their commitment to "A" level studies. Furthermore, how would that contribute to greater involvement in other co-curricular activities? Perhaps, can we take one step further? Some parents have suggested that if we set the threshold for the number of distinctions that would be considered for admission into the university and that more than this threshold, the additional distinctions will carry no weight, might we be able to change the emphasis on examination results? Perhaps if we put more weightage on co-curricular activities, such as participation in sports, especially participation in a national team, more students might be encouraged to spend time in healthy activities beyond burying their nose in books. Sir, on the next subject under university education, I would like to touch on the linkage between the number of student intake of the various faculties and the projection on manpower needs in the economy. In fact, I recall that at the depth of our recent recession in 1998 and 1999, around 9,000 tertiary educated persons were unable to find suitable employment. Perhaps by now, this number has dropped to a number that is less worrying. What is disturbing to me is that even in the depth of the recession, we were indeed short of computer professionals, web designers, and other IT professions, and yet, on the other hand, there were graduates unable to find jobs. In other words, we are not just having structural unemployment problems amongst our older workers but also amongst our young graduates. Fortunately, Sir, this state of affairs is only transient, it is temporary. But are there any lessons we can learn from this? At first glance, it would imply that the universities are not adjusting the enrolment mix quick enough to meet the demands of the economy. For many days now in this Chamber, we have heard how the new economy is moving at Internet speed. Yet, for students deciding on their majors, they need to spend three to four years in that particular major before they come out to the job market. Because of this time lag, it is becoming all the more important that forecasting of manpower needs be taken seriously. Sir, I would like to find out from the Ministry how quickly we are adjusting the university enrolment in the face of a fast changing job market. 1.00 pm

Mr Sinnakruppan is not here. Dr Tan Boon Wan.

Sir, going to university is a major decision. It often means sacrifices and commitment by the students and their families. It is an investment for the future. The students would therefore want to study a course that is useful to help him find a job. To decide on a course, a student would want to know how many Singaporeans are already taking the course. The GPC Chairman (Education), Dr Wang Kai Yuen, has just said, despite the fact that in the depth of recession, some students were unable to find jobs, yet the industries were calling out for graduates of particular disciplines, such as IT, which they required. So there is, in fact, disparity in the demand and supply in the various courses. If students know exactly who are studying what courses, this information will allow our people to better allocate their time and resources in pursuing their courses of study. Right now, it appears such information as available is partial, not complete. Singaporeans can take three major routes to obtain a university education. They can study in the local universities. They can study at distance learning outfits in Singapore, or they can study in oversea universities. We have information on the local universities. Recently, we obtained information on the number of people studying for university degrees through distance learning outfits in Singapore. We know that there are about 22,800 pursuing their degrees through this route. Many of these long distance learning students are doing business and management courses. What we still lack is information on Singaporeans studying overseas. I wonder if it is now time for the Ministry to collect information of our people who are studying overseas, in particular the courses they are studying and the number of students studying them. Besides, this information is also useful for national manpower planning. If we know the amount of manpower we will have in each area or expertise, we can then encourage more to study in areas where manpower is scarce and discourage others from studying in overcrowded areas.

Sir, under this cut, I would like to speak on university education for working adults. We have heard from the Finance Minister and the Manpower Minister that a key priority of the Government is manpower training. Resources are amply provided to train and upgrade the 850,000 adults, above the age of 40, who have less than secondary education. Sir, notwithstanding this, we should not forget and ignore the need of working adults who have received their secondary and post-secondary education and wanting to further their studies to obtain their diplomas, degrees and even higher degrees. Continuing education has become necessary and essential to work and live in today's knowledge-based and digital age. Sir, I have a brochure here, "Singapore's Snapshot - Facts At A Glance", and there is this heading "Education". Besides describing the two universities and polytechnics, it states: "Working adults can enrol in the Open University Degree Programme offered by the Singapore Institute of Management."

Sir, it is good and right to publicise what we are doing for the working adults. Therefore, I am quite disappointed that the overall expenditure budgeted for the Open University Degree Programme has been cut by 86% for FY2000. Even if one can explain that the bulk of the Development Expenditure projects has been completed, the running costs should not be reduced by as much as 56%. I do not believe that there has been a drastic decline in the demand for Open University and distance learning places. If anything, the demand has gone up, as evident by the increasing number of overseas universities and private institutions setting up shop in Singapore to tap the growing demand for undergraduate and postgraduate education. What is disturbing is the wide variation in the quality and standards of the overseas universities and institutions offering courses here. This has resulted in graduates having spending vast amounts of time and money and later finding out to their disappointment that they are not able to secure good jobs and their qualifications are not as well recognised by employers. Our universities and polytechnics should be made more accessible to the working adults who want to take courses to upgrade themselves. Many courses offered today were not available in the past. For example, Computer Science and IT subjects are new courses offered by the universities and polytechnics only recently. The new job opportunities in the knowledge-based economy are very different from the employment opportunities available in the past. This requires our Singaporean managers and professionals to constantly upgrade and develop themselves. Our executives and managers need to learn and acquire new knowledge, skills and competencies to remain employable and be able to perform effectively in their work. Singapore will become a truly learning nation only if our people are given free and open access to new learning opportunities. Our institutions of higher learning should open their doors to meet the new educational and learning aspirations of our adult population. I hope the Minister would provide more funding to boost the educational standing of the older generation of Singaporeans. The more educated and enlightened Singaporeans are, the more they would contribute to a stable, cohesive and gracious Singapore.

Sir, I agree with Dr Wang Kai Yuen that as long as there is this high demand for faculties of choice like medicine, law, accountancy, business and computer science, the anxiety of parents and students will always be there and even if they know that 60% do make it to tertiary studies. In line with helping to release the pressure, actually having more faculties of choice would be a good solution, and I think along these lines, it is good news that the NTU is thinking about introducing medicine. But, in this case, the medicine taught there would be to orientate the students not to practise but to channel their talents to the life sciences and research. Sir, the SMU becomes operational this year and that will be another way to relieve the pressure. More places will be given for business. In line with its name, there would certainly be more degrees and courses in various aspects of management from this University. The SMU is also a city university. In line with city-based universities around the world and taking advantage of its location in the civic district, it would be good if the University goes on to non-management courses relevant and related to the city. Sir, I have in mind degrees such as urban architecture, management and conservation of heritage buildings, political science, law, history or historiography or archaeology and such like studies. The city provides the environment for learning these subjects and live case studies are readily available. Preserving our culture and heritage, discovering our past and drawing lessons from these for the future require special skills which are currently not taught in a deep way in our universities. As far as law is concerned, we need not worry about an over-supply of lawyers either. Like the suggestion for the NTU medicine courses, the students who graduate from the SMU law courses need not be given the right to practise. Instead, they could combine their studies with politics, management or business studies so that they can serve better in Government, in the diplomatic corps, professions and industries where law is increasingly complex and problems multi-disciplinary in nature, and a knowledge of law would be an advantage. An even more radical suggestion to make sure that there is no over-supply of lawyers practising would be to follow the lines of what the Law Minister has mentioned many times in this House, that is, we could increase the quality of the lawyers that come out. Perhaps in both the NUS Law School and the SMU Law School, if ever there is one - only those who qualify with a Second Lower Honours and above would be given the right to practise. A final advantage of having such courses as I have mentioned in SMU is that it would avert some of the brain drain and the outflow of funds that we are currently experiencing as Singaporeans send their children overseas to pursue such studies.

Sir, from the experiences of many people who have been involved in the setting up of technology-based industries in Singapore, the important lesson that all of us have learned is that we have serious weaknesses in the overall industry infrastructure as far as the protection of intellectual property is concerned. While in Singapore, we do produce a number of lawyers, there are too few specialising in this area of intellectual property protection. So if we are serious about promoting the new economy, especially focusing in the info-com area, we would need to build up our strength in the area of intellectual property protection. In fact, the best intellectual property lawyers are those who have some form of technical training as their first degree; like engineers and scientists, who subsequently take on law as a second degree, they are the best lawyers who actually promote such an industry. Sir, I have three questions for the Minister: First of all, of course, can the universities in Singapore focus on producing more lawyers whose expertise is in the area of intellectual property protection? Secondly, can we allow some flexibility in the admission criteria in our universities where we allow people who have had a first degree, preferably a technical degree and have had a number of years of experience and who subsequently want to have a change in career, to take on law? Will the university criteria be modified to allow such people to take a second degree in law? I am sure there will be other Members who will ask for many other areas for a second degree but since we are talking about promoting this knowledge-based economy, my interest is to ask for a second degree in law for the protection of intellectual property. Thirdly, perhaps maybe a part-time law degree or Masters in Law for people who have had a first technical degree would be useful. I think, at this moment, many of us and many people in this industry are turning to lawyers from the United States or many other countries to file intellectual property issues for them, because not enough of our lawyers in Singapore are capable of doing it. So I think this is an urgent issue that needs to be looked into. 1.15 pm

Sir, there are many foreign students studying in our midst. Most of them will return to their home countries eventually. When they do, they could be serving in important positions in business and government. Many will remain friends of Singapore for the rest of their lives. Some will stay in Singapore and enrich our lives and our talent pool. As we have spent a lot of money to partially or fully finance their studies here, many of them are made to sign bonds that they will work in Singapore for a number of years. To ensure that the bonds are taken seriously, the foreign students are asked to get guarantors for their bonds. For some strange reason, these bonds are signed not in their home countries before they come to Singapore, where their friends and relatives could be roped in - but in Singapore. The result is that the students will ask their lecturers or fellow students, both foreigners and locals, to be guarantors. If the foreign student disappears after graduation, the guarantor has to pay damages. There is, in fact, no incentive for the foreign student to stay on as his guarantors are nothing more than strangers to him most of the time. The guarantors, who are students, do not understand the full legal import of their guarantees. In practice, I am told that the education administrators even tell them it is a mere formality and they will come to no harm by signing these guarantees. Sir, this is a very bad practice. Such guarantees, besides being difficult to enforce, make a mockery of the whole process because of the way it is lightly treated. Surely, there is a better way to ensure that foreign students serve their bonds. On a separate matter, could the Ministry update us on the number of such foreign students who are studying in Singapore on Singaporean scholarships, bursaries and other types of financial assistance? How many of these students remain in Singapore and how many break their bonds? For those who stay, is there any record of how many actually settle down in Singapore or at least of the average length of time they stay to work in Singapore?

Sir, for our universities to achieve world-class status, it is important that they have a conducive environment and ample resources to recruit, motivate and retain the top talents to conduct research and teach in our universities. The Singapore Management University Bill was passed in Parliament recently to set up SMU as a private company with its own Memorandum of Understanding and Articles of Association. SMU is given greater autonomy to run its enterprise as deemed fit. Also, the University of Chicago and INSEAD will soon be starting their MBA programmes in Singapore. These developments have implications for the two Singapore universities, NUS and NTU, especially in their business faculty. How should our universities respond? I suppose they have no choice but to join in the race. Not too long ago, there was the re-titling of designations of university academics into Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors. May I ask the Minister how successful has the re-designation been in fulfilling the needs of the university academics? What more can and should be done to improve the attractiveness of the university to attract our bright young graduates to take up academic careers in the backdrop of abundant employment and career opportunities for talented young graduates? How can we induct more internationally reputed and established researchers and academicians to tenure in our universities? I wish to ask the Minister what is in the pipeline to review the employment and terms and conditions of service of university academics. How prepared are we to be flexible to pay competitive remuneration packages to compete for top talents in our universities? Are our university professors confident enough in their ability to perform on a sustained basis in making valuable contributions in their work for the benefit of society, university and the students? Will our university administration be able to cope and operate in the changing environment with dramatically different employment and reward systems for academic staff? In today's world, in-depth knowledge provides the competitive edge for the economy. We have to spur our universities to strive and pursue academic excellence. The status and performance of our universities have bearing on the kind of graduates we produce, thereby affecting the future progress and development of Singapore. I hope our universities will take the bold step forward to the highest level to match the best universities in the region and the world.

Sir, yesterday, the Straits Times reported that the National University of Singapore would be investing an estimated $200 million in an office building in downtown Raffles Place, Hitachi Tower. This decision of the university has raised some eyebrows. The question is: why is NUS taking on such a high exposure to a single piece of property for which it appears to have no direct use for its pedagogic purposes? The NUS should be commended for being proactive in wanting to obtain greater returns for the excess funds that it has. Indeed, if it is successful in its endeavour, it will help reduce fees and make available more resources for better programmes and facilities in the university. But the question really is the method used by the university in this regard. Could the university administration have chosen to deploy these funds in investment assets through fund managers? Alternatively, if the university's finance committee felt that the property sector offers attractive investment asset classes, why not do so through property funds or real estate investment, investment trusts or other investments in property counters themselves to allow itself a greater spread, in terms of risk and diversification? This investment decision certainly is unorthodox and the question may particularly be pertinent because the university does receive public funds for operating expenditure, development expenditure and also has matching grants for its endowment fund. May I therefore ask the Minister whether there are any policies or guidelines that govern the deployment of investible funds, which our universities have? Sir, this also raises a broader question of whether our universities might be better off if they were truly private institutions. We are compelled to ask and raise these questions because they are receiving public funds and entrusted with proper usage of them. The SMU appears to offer a different model, in terms of being a private company. The question then is: could this be used as a model for other faculties in the universities, if not for the entire university itself? It seems to me, other than the greater flexibility it would afford the institutions, in terms of how they manage their resources, it can also allow them to be closer to the private sector, both in terms of cooperation with corporations, as well as in rewarding their staff at market rates. We could start with the faculties that are most amenable to privatisation, such as the business faculty, where students who go in, for example, for MBAs will be in a reasonably good position to ascertain the potential economic value of their degree. I would appreciate it if the Minister could address those questions.

Sir, once again, I would like to thank Members for their questions and interest in university policies. Our two public universities, NUS and NTU, aim for excellence in education, research and contributions to the community. They have initiated a number of innovative programmes, including broadening of undergraduate education, introduction of a core curriculum, collaborations with top foreign universities and establishment of inter-disciplinary research centres. The universities are also building niches of excellence in key areas where they can achieve global prominence. Steps have also been taken to enhance the vibrancy of campus life, by attracting foreign students. A new university admission system will be introduced in 2003. Sir, I shall come back to some of these points in greater detail later, but first, let me talk about how our universities can be more innovative and entrepreneurial. For example, whether we should privatise NUS and NTU, or certain facilities in NUS and NTU, as some Members suggested during the debate on the SMU Bill, or as suggested by Mr Iswaran today. I take it that when Mr Iswaran said to privatise the universities, he does not mean that the Government should stop funding them, except that we should let them spend the money the way they think they ought to spend the money. That is quite different. In academic matters today, the universities already have a considerable degree of autonomy. While the Ministry sets the overall level of public funding and spending on development projects, as statutory boards, NUS and NTU already have a fair degree of operational autonomy in financial and personnel matters. The internal allocation of resources is largely left to the two universities. They decide for themselves. The Ministry and the universities are currently conducting a review on university governance and funding to encourage NUS and NTU to be more innovative and nimble in responding to global competition, which is what Mr Loh Meng See referred to. The review will identify changes, either to promote innovation and enterprise in individual staff, or faculties and the university as a whole. However, while the Government wants to provide more autonomy and flexibility to NUS and NTU, the Government has no plans to privatise NUS and NTU. The launch of the Singapore Management University, on the other hand, provides us with an opportunity to try out a different governance framework. This will allow the governance experiences of NUS and NTU on the one hand, where they are governed in slightly different ways and SMU, on the other hand, to be compared and best practices to be applied, where appropriate, in all three institutions. Let me address this issue of endowment fund. First of all, what is an endowment fund? An endowment fund is a sum of money or some asset, which is put aside in order to generate a continuing stream of income. The endowment fund itself ought not to be seen as assets which the university should consume for current expenditure. Some comments have been made that the monies in the endowment fund can be used for the operating expenses for universities. That would go against what an endowment fund is for. The income from the endowment fund would help the universities. I will explain how a little later on. Secondly, what fund is this that we are talking about? This fund, which the NUS has used to make this investment, is called the General Endowment Fund. How did this fund originate? This fund originated from public contributions to finance the University of Malaya's development in the 1940s and 1950s. A princely sum of $3.342 million of this General Endowment Fund was used in the 1950s to purchase residential properties in the Bukit Timah area for use as staff and student housing. These were subsequently acquired by the Government in 1996 and the proceeds amounting to $242.4 million was credited to the General Endowment Fund. How to invest this endowment fund in order get the best continuing returns in the long term for the university is a matter for the university to decide. It has a finance committee and an investment committee and they make these decisions. Mr Iswaran is right. There is really no need for us to question how they make these decisions in Parliament because I have some confidence that the members of the investment committee will decide, in the best long-term interests of the university, to get both capital appreciation, as well as a continuing stream of income. 1.30 pm The university has other endowment funds, including the NUS Endowment Fund, for which the Government provides the matching grants and some special endowment funds of smaller quantities. The whole idea of these endowment funds comes to the question of what do we use these endowment funds for. The whole idea of these endowment funds is to allow the university to use these funds for projects and activities in line with the university's mission and which contribute to its long-term development, but which are otherwise not available from the budget, from Government grants or from the fees paid by students. The whole idea of these funds is to provide the university with the flexibility to do things, which it thinks it wants to do and for which we may not be able to completely agree on. So, the whole idea is to provide the university with some flexibility and autonomy in its operations in the areas of research and development, and perhaps student enrichment and so forth, which it wants to go into. So we are quite happy to see these endowment funds develop and provide the university with a continuing stream of income for which it can develop its resources. By the way, some of these funds can only be used for specific purposes, because donors, when they donated the money, specified its purposes. That is the story on the university endowment funds and how the monies are invested. Incidentally, in the case of the NUS, the decisions are made by the finance committee. The finance committee reports to the Council. The university's annual reports are audited by the Auditor-General or commercial auditors recommended by the Auditor-General, and the accounts are presented to MOE as well as to this House. However, autonomy alone is not going to guarantee excellence. Mr Loh Meng See has rightly identified remuneration and service conditions of academic staff as an important factor in the whole equation. The university could only flourish if it has capable and committed staff of high quality who can make use of this autonomy to bring the university close to its goal of attaining world-class standard. The NUS and NTU must therefore place priority on recruiting and developing excellent staff. The existing remuneration and benefits scheme in NUS and NTU is modelled after the civil service. There is some flexibility in deciding salaries, but the flexibility is still constrained by the salary scales for different grades of staff. As an interim measure, a market adjustment allowance has been provided to staff in certain disciplines, eg, medicine and in business. The current review of university governance and funding will give universities greater flexibility in remunerating staff. The ideas being studied include the injection of more performance based and market components into the remuneration system. Mr Loh has also asked about recruiting good foreign staff to teach at our universities. NUS and NTU have indeed been recruiting overseas staff for many years and, currently, more than 20% of the academic staff are foreigners, not including Singapore permanent residents. So, Sir, the number is actually higher than 20%. NUS and NTU are keenly aware that they need to cast their net globally and already have plans to step up such efforts. When looking for outstanding staff, whether locally or globally, to take our universities to greater heights, the universities must be able to provide a remuneration package that is globally market competitive. However, remuneration is only half the story when recruiting and retaining staff of high quality. The reward system needs to be supported by a rigorous appraisal system, so that there is a clear link between performance and remuneration. The rigour of the appraisal system signals that the university is serious about quality, and it is such a university that can attract and retain people of high calibre. An effective appraisal system serves three purposes. First, it encourages desired behaviour by setting out the expectations for the staff in the areas of teaching, research and service to the universities. Second, the appraisal system helps the universities assess how far expectations have been met and what improvements need to be made. Third, the appraisal system allows staff to be recognised and remunerated according to performance and/or potential. The review committee will come out with recommendations on how the current appraisal systems can be strengthened, so that this most critical resource in any university, its people, can be better managed. And only then can rewards be more meaningfully targeted and help to attract, develop and retain staff of high quality. Sir, let me now turn from staff of universities to students. Prof. Toh See Kiat has expressed some concern regarding the bond that foreign students need to sign. Prof. Toh is right. Foreign students studying in our tertiary institutions, including permanent residents, benefit from a considerable subsidy, and that is why in return, after they graduate, they have to work in Singapore for a minimum of three years. Prof. Toh asked how many there are, they currently constitute 20% of our undergraduate intakes. My Ministry acknowledges that it is inconvenient for foreign students to get guarantors, usually their parents or relatives who are based overseas, to sign the bonds. Hence, from this year, foreign students can send the tuition grant deeds overseas for their guarantors to sign in the presence of a notary public in their home country, rather than having to travel to Singapore to sign the papers. Sir, being a guarantor is a serious matter and guarantors should be aware of their legal obligations. I am not aware of the kind of poor advice that is provided by my Ministry officials. This is a serious matter, and if the Member has knowledge of specific cases, please let me know and I will advise my officers. As far as I know, these legal obligations are made known to them by my officials at the point of signing the deed. Prof. Toh would also be pleased to know that after serving their three-year obligation, a good number of foreign students continue to work in Singapore or Singapore companies in the region. Mr Inderjit Singh asked about training of lawyers well versed in intellectual property protection. The NUS' LLB curriculum has a number of subjects relating to intellectual property laws, eg, copyright and patents which attract a large number of students, and as Mr Singh has correctly said, this is an area of growth. So our budding young lawyers have an interest and they are quite quick to spot the market opportunities. In addition, the information technology law course deals extensively with intellectual property issues relating to computer technology and Internet. Many practising lawyers register for LLM or diploma courses at NUS. And the intellectual property law courses at these levels are also heavily subscribed. Mr Singh also asked about a second degree. He will be happy to know that this avenue is already open. In 1998, NUS launched the approved graduate programme whereby candidates with a first degree can complete their LLB programme in three years. On the suggestion to have a part-time law degree, NUS will consider it if there is sufficient demand. Sir, Mr Loh Meng See asked about university education for working adults and about the reduction in budget funding for the open university. The reduction in budget allocation for the open university is not an indication of future student numbers. The OUDP has been taking in an average of 14,000 students per year in the past three years. There are no plans to reduce this number. In fact, OUDP is a self-financing institution run by a private organisation. It is free to increase those numbers if it wants to and if there is a market demand. From the start of the programme, the understanding was quite clear that OUDP funds the operating cost, while Government would fund the initial development cost, including the cost of land, buildings, computer systems, consultancy by the UK Open University for course development. I think with the bulk of development coming to an end, the budget allocation has also fallen. I agree completely with Mr Loh Meng See regarding continuing education opportunities for working adults, but it should not be confined only to universities. I understand that we are talking about universities here, but most working adults really require upgrading opportunities, not at the university level but at the polytechnic level and at certificate level. And the polytechnics and ITE have really been providing quite a lot of opportunities here as well. Continuing education really is the next major wave in education - from mass primary, mass secondary and mass further education and, I think, now mass continuing education. No country has yet worked out a complete doctrine or system for this. The Ministry of Manpower, Members would have heard from Dr Lee, and the Ministry of Education are currently discussing how we can put such a system in place in Singapore which will provide Singaporeans the opportunity to carry on with continuing education and learn throughout their lives. Prof. Toh has asked about the course offerings in SMU. SMU was set up to focus on serving the business and finance sectors and SMU will start offering its Bachelor of Business Management programme this August. Although it is likely to expand its degree offerings to other related courses like Economics, it will continue to maintain its focus as a management university. There are therefore no current plans for SMU to offer courses in disciplines removed from business management, especially courses requiring heavy equipment or heavy capital investment. Perhaps the proposals that Prof. Toh made are certainly things which I am sure SMU will consider. The President of SMU is herself a lawyer. Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Dr Tan Boon Wan have asked about manpower forecasting and how many places we allocate to each discipline in the university. I agree with Dr Wang and Dr Tan Boon Wan that more forecasting and more data will be useful. But I am not optimistic that students and parents at the point at which they enter university will make sensible long-term choices for themselves, because, as Dr Wang and Dr Tan have pointed out, there is a considerable market lag. And what looks reasonable now may not be right at the time that the students graduate. For example, students tend to move away from architecture and civil engineering when there is a downturn in the construction cycle. That may well be the best time to start taking architecture and civil engineering because by the time they finish in four or five years' time, that is when the boom may start again. So it is a bit difficult to predict because there are long leads and lags in the system. And also we are talking about education for a lifetime. While more forecasting may be useful. I think we should really be looking at the longer-term trends and hence, for example, in our tertiary institutions, we have placed a high emphasis on science and technology. Because we think that in the long term, good foundation and training in science and technology will actually provide our students with a big advantage in being able to shift into other areas, and because science and technology is one of the fundamental drivers of the future world. As to why there are limited places for some courses, these are guidelines that were drawn up by the National Manpower Committee, and we want to make sure that what we expect the economy will require is reasonably balanced with the output from the various faculties. We also have to recognise that certain faculties do have more demanding requirements at entry for the students than others. So not all students who go to university may be able to go to these courses because some of the courses simply have more demanding requirements, and that is a reality which we have to accept. 1.45 pm Dr Wang has suggested that we cap the number of distinctions. In fact, it is capped. Under the current university admission system, we count three "A" level subjects. So a student who takes more than three "A" level subjects and scores distinctions for his five, six, seven, eight subjects, if a student has the energy to take that many "A" level subjects, is not going to have those counted for university admission. In fact, weightage is provided in other areas, like GP and mother tongue. With the new university admission system, as Dr Wang has suggested, we will be providing weightage to co-curricular activities as well. In order to de-weight the "A" levels so that students do not become overly obsessed with scoring that last mark in the "A" level examination, we have introduced SAT or a SAT-like test which gives us a different view of the student's abilities and readiness to undertake a university course. This is a test which a student can take a number of times. So the preparation level and so forth is not quite the same in intensity as taking the "A" levels. The content knowledge that is required for a test like that is really something which a student should already have if he has completed something like his "O" levels. I would also like to point out at this point that while we have spent some time on university education, there is really a wide range of high quality further education that is available and, as Dr Jennifer Lee has pointed out, we have actually one of the highest rates of higher education participation in the world. We have over 20% in university, 40% in the polytechnics. Even beyond that, for further education, we have the Institute of Technical Education. Mr Peter Chen has asked for this booklet on ITE to be distributed because over the last few months and years he has got questions even from Members of this House, which revealed quite a high level of ignorance as to what ITE is today. People still think that it is characterised by a vice on the table with people filing away in semi-darkness on a greasy table. It is quite a different institution from that today. The students who go to ITE are highly motivated, having finished four years in a secondary school, with a good grounding in computers, languages and Mathematics and science. They are quite well prepared for the future world. It will be quite a revelation and, if Members are interested, I am sure Mr Peter Chen will be happy to take them on a visit.

Sir, I had participated in several dialogue sessions on compulsory education both as Vice-Chairman of the Feedback Panel as well as a member of the Committee on Compulsory Education. As we are aware, the CCE has yet to complete its task and I think it is only appropriate that we wait for the findings of the Committee to be published before we spend too much time on this topic. Nonetheless, judging from the number of cuts on this topic, it is obviously one of public interest. With your indulgence, Sir, I thought it might be appropriate to share some of my observations, in particular, those of the participants in the dialogue session organised by the Feedback Unit. In fact, many Singaporeans are surprised that we have not already made education compulsory in Singapore. It would seem logical for a country like Singapore with its high level of education and standard of living and where our Government does not hesitate to influence people's behaviour, through compulsion. Most agree with my hon. colleague, Mdm Claire Chiang's compassionate plea in Parliament that one child not educated is one too many. Majority polled also felt that four years' compulsory education is too low a number. Many felt that six years is the minimum with 10 years the ideal duration. Sir, among those participants who expressed strong views in these forums are the parents who strongly supported home schooling. While I do not necessarily agree with their assertions about our education system, I do admire their dedication and commitment. They hold the following principles to be true, which I thought are useful to repeat here. Firstly, they support compulsory education, ie, the State has a right to intervene to ensure the child's right to an education. At the same time, they are also adamant that the parents' right of choice for their children is inalienable. They are quite insistent that this right is not taken away. Secondly, that so long as the child is educated to an agreed standard, the goal of compulsory education would have been met. Compulsory education legislation should provide options to allow this. They do not accept that compulsory education means attending the national education school system. At first glance, most people regardless of their ethnic or religious background will support those views. After all, giving parents the choice cannot be all that bad. However, in the course of deliberation in such dialogue sessions, when these arguments were pushed to their limits, most participants ultimately changed their views. They quickly realised that it is possible that different communities in Singapore could set up their own schools to educate their children along their own ideal concepts of social and religious values. Today, there is actually no legal barrier for any group to do so. The main hurdle is primarily financial. Yet, Muslim parents are already prepared to pay more when they send their children to the Madrasah. As Singaporeans become better off, financial burden would become less of a hurdle. Assuming that is the case in the future, then it is possible, as an example, that the Catholics would set up their own schools to impart Catholic religious values, the Buddhists would do likewise, and so on. For a multi-racial and multi-religious society like Singapore, this would plant the seed of potential future racial and religious conflicts. Once this possibility was highlighted, most participants in this session would move away from their idealistic position towards a more central position. They accept that it is important for all children to have a common educational experience so that the risk of fragmentation would be minimised. Thus, I would conclude that most Singaporeans would accept the twin goals of our national education system, namely, to impart knowledge and skills so that young Singaporeans would become productive citizens in the future knowledge-based economy and, secondly, to develop a common experience to bolster national cohesion. The participants would come to accept that if we were to introduce compulsory education, then we might as well ensure that the child is enrolled in the national school education system. If this means usurping the choice of the parents, most would consider it a price worth paying so that future generations of Singaporeans can live in peace and harmony.

Sir, the Member for Bukit Timah GRC, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, mentioned the Feedback Unit's dialogue session on compulsory education. The people who attended his session were mainly English-educated. I have also conducted a similar feedback session in Chinese for the Chinese-educated. The attendees were mainly school principals, teachers and community leaders. I made a survey. Their views on compulsory education came to a total of three 100%. Firstly, 100% of them supported the view of the Prime Minister to introduce compulsory education. Secondly, 100% of the attendees did not agree that compulsory education be implemented up to Primary 4 only. Thirdly, 100% of them held the view that compulsory education should be implemented up to at least Primary 6, that is, PSLE. In fact, about 65% proposed that compulsory education should be implemented up to "O" levels. These participants support compulsory education because they are concerned that some 1,000 students have not been admitted to schools despite all the counselling and home visits to the parents to send their children to school. The Ministry of Education cares for these children. It is something we must commend. Some parents persist in not sending their children to school and the Ministry of Education cannot take any action against them. These children will then be sacrificed as they would have missed the best gift society can give to them in their whole life. If there is compulsory education, then we can ensure that all children of school-going age will go to school because young children cannot decide their own fate. It is only the law that can give them the protection and the safeguards. A compulsory education system has already been established in the Philippines and the European and Asian countries. Compulsory education is good for Singapore. But in implementing the system, the Ministry of Education must also conduct a study into those parents who do not send their children to school to find out why they have chosen not to do so. Is it because of poverty or because of family disharmony or because the parents themselves have low educational level so that they do not care about their children's education? I think the Ministry of Community Development and the Community Development Councils should help these parents to solve their problems. We all know that compulsory education up to primary four is not so ideal because at primary four the child is only 10 years old. The children are still young and they do not know the consequences of not studying further. They would not have enough grounding in English and their mother tongue to survive in the new knowledge-based economy. For Mathematics, they would be even worse. When we are developing the regional economy and high-tech economy, the children must learn information technology so that they can prepare themselves for the future and earn their livelihood. It is a common view that compulsory education must be implemented up to primary six or, better still, secondary four. As for those who are mentally handicapped and unable to make the grade, MOE may treat them as special cases, and deal with them on a case-by-case basis. When compulsory education is introduced, how do we ensure that the students do not absent themselves from class? This is important. I wonder if MOE has considered engaging counsellors to help the student and, when necessary, the teachers and parents must also be counselled to ensure that compulsory education can be implemented properly. According to my understanding, counselling is normally done by the teachers. We all know that the teachers have already had a very heavy workload. Do they have enough time and energy to counsel the students and their parents effectively? I would therefore suggest that MOE should consider getting professional counsellors or engage retired teachers to work as counsellors. In this way, counselling would work more effectively.

Sir, there is a Chinese saying that when drops of water fall on a piece of granite long enough a dent will be made on that granite. Sir, this analogy is like my quest for compulsory education in this House. Members will know that I have brought up this subject of compulsory education year after year during the Budget debate in the Committee of Supply. There is a reporter in the Straits Times who likens me to an old horse that trots old ground all the time. I hope that the reporter has already taken note that the old horse trotting on old ground in regard to compulsory education has been successful. The Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, agrees with me. PM Goh announced last year that Singapore is to have compulsory education. When he made that announcement I was in Parliament and I was really elated. However, I was a little bit disappointed that there was only going to be four years of compulsory education. From an educational point of view, four years' compulsory education is definitely not enough. Most of those skipping school in the first place normally come from poor families or parents who are probably themselves illiterate or lowly educated. Most likely, those children are slow learners or have some kind of a problem. Therefore, four years of compulsory education is not enough. Even the Jesuits require six years to train a child to be what you want the child to be. 2.00 pm Sir, six years of compulsory education would probably be the minimum period to keep a child in school to make sure that he learns the 3Rs. I believe that from the educational point of view, the child is best kept in school for eight years. Eight years would certainly give a better chance for an average or even below average child to learn the 3Rs. I personally favour eight years' compulsory education to let the child stay in school up to age 14. Sir, in 1973, I had the opportunity to teach in a school in London for a very short period of time. I was posted to take care of 15-year olds. At that time, England had a 10-year compulsory education programme. They forced their children to remain in school up to age 16. I can say from experience that 10 years' compulsory education does not work. It is a complete waste of time and money. What happens is that those pupils in their last year of school at age 15 just refuse to learn. They know they want to leave school, but they are not allowed to. They know that they are forced to be in school by law. They are restless. The teacher cannot teach them anything. So they are brought to the hall to watch movies on social issues. But as soon as they return to the class, they are noisy and rowdy. It is difficult to keep them occupied. Maintaining discipline is a problem. We do not want such a situation in Singapore. The Minister has said that a Committee has been set up to look into compulsory education. I hope that the Committee shall not recommend four years but at least six years' compulsory education and eight years, if possible. I believe that eight years of compulsory education is the best because then the children shall be given a real chance to master the basics in reading, writing and arithmetic. For 10 years, I have mentioned the problems. If compulsory education is fixed at only six years, I am afraid that there may be wastage. Money is spent on keeping children in school but they learn nothing when they leave school at the end of the six years in school. Sir, I also hope that the Committee shall recommend to the Ministry to set up a section to monitor the children who have not been attending school to find out their problems and try to assist them to ensure that they do go to school. The mode of operation for this section in the Ministry should be based more on counselling rather than on threats and punishment. Therefore, the Government needs to train good counsellors to deal both with family problems and truancy.

Sir, after listening to Mr Chiam, I am not so sure whether he is arguing against himself that there are problems in compulsory education, regardless of the length of time, and therefore should it be made compulsory at all. Because if you have problems with 10 years, you suggest eight; and you have got problems at eight years, you move down to six; then to four, what have you got left? So I am not very sure whether if you have difficulty, you should make it compulsory at all. Sir, the issue of compulsory education first arose in this House when some Members learned that a number of children were not attending school because of financial hardships and parental neglect. Since then, a formal Committee has been set up. Dr Aline Wong has been appointed as the Chairman. The scope of study has now widened. It has now to define clearly what compulsory education should entail. If compulsory education is intended to ensure that every child is taught and prepared for later adult life, it is an easy matter to deal with. However, if compulsory education is to include how the child should be taught and have the effect of insisting that every child must attend formal schooling in our schools, it is a different matter. We know how delicate and sensitive it is if we were to require students currently studying in the Madrasah to switch to our national schools. However, should we continue to segregate these students from the mainstream educational system? For what they are learning in the Madrasah, are the students well prepared in the long term to work and live in a multi-racial Singaporean society? If the decision has to be made for the long-term good of these Madrasah students, then a way has to be found to handle it carefully by persuading the parents concerned and the Malay leaders and community to have them switched to the national schools. There are a small number of parents who believe in teaching their own children themselves in the home setting. They have their own reasons for deciding that their children are better taught and brought up themselves. Some of these parents are themselves well educated with strong academic and professional qualifications. They feel that the educational system does not tailor to the gifts and needs of their children. The question I wish to ask is whether we should insist that parents could no longer be given the option of home schooling for their children. From time to time, we do hear university professors having a child prodigy and making geniuses out of their children, and one child not attending school against another child prodigy that you can bring up differently. I think there is also this consideration. Many children with disabilities and in need of special education are not attending school for a variety of reasons. By making education compulsory, the beneficiaries would be the disabled children. In so doing, adequate resources will be provided. The parents will have to be assisted to send their children to school and not lose out the opportunity for special education. With compulsory education, is the society ready to deploy proportionately more resources to equip these children to cope with independent living? Many Singaporeans are working overseas, and with each change of posting there are disruptions to the education of their children. With compulsory education, we must ensure that our schools cater to these students who receive part of their education overseas and in institutions with a different educational system from ours. How do we ensure that these children who are brought up in a different educational environment are accommodated into our system? Otherwise, we run the risk of losing these children who might not return to Singapore for their education.

Sir, in the early days of nation building, the majority of our people were poor. Families were large. Children, when enrolled into Primary One, had few if any pre-school education. As a result, we all learned our ABC together. Today, the situation is quite different. Every child at the entrance to Primary One would have taken at least two years of kindergarten; majority attended the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) kindergartens. For those who attended non-PCF kindergartens, they would have attended programmes based on other pedagogical principles. Thus, on one end of the scale, we have children who are very well schooled in reading and writing; on the other end, children who have very little basis at all. This state of affairs was reported in the Straits Times recently. My question to the Ministry is: How does the school cater to different capabilities of the children at Primary One? How does the school assign them to different classes? Do they go through a grading process? What is the assumption of the education level of the children at entry to P1? Is it pegged too low or too high? The fact is that most children have attended two years of PCF kindergarten. Presumably, the PCF has a common set of curriculum for all its kindergartens. Thus, once the PCF kindergartens are brought to a set of consistent standards, it would appear that the problem of different standards of various kindergartens would have by and large been contained. In fact, some educationists consider pre-school to be just as important, if not more important, than the first few years of primary education. For some higher income families, parents would have sent their children to private pre-schools where more individualised attention is possible. Of course, these parents are prepared to pay for the privilege, sometimes ranging from $300 per month upwards. I remember several parents who approached me expressing fear that their children are so far advanced that they would be bored and de-motivated if their children are enrolled into Primary One. They would prefer to have their children enrolled into a higher level. Sir, our education system is built on an egalitarian principle that all children, rich or poor, must be given the same educational opportunity. Yet, it is beginning to emerge that not all children beginning their Primary One education are studying from the same starting line. If we truly believe in giving children the same headstart, we should start thinking about subsidising pre-schools so that quality teachers can be hired and engaged for these programmes. Sir, I am also aware that MOE has given up the idea of extending primary school into pre-primary after experimenting with it several years ago. However, I would like to find out from the Ministry whether it is prepared to draft a set of curriculum for all pre-primary schools and our pre-schools and provide some sort of subsidies to all these pre-schools that conform to the curriculum. Moving from pre-school to primary school, in terms of school fees, today the child pays $12 per year as supplementary fees for primary schools. For those parents who have been paying more for their children's pre-school education, I believe many would not mind continuing to pay at that level. Yet, because they do not have to do so, they continue to spend the same budget on additional enrichment programmes and engaging private tutors once their children enter primary school. This is not necessarily desirable as the children end up spending additional time in private tuition. My question is: Is it possible that our primary school system has become too egalitarian? There were some preliminary discussions on allowing a few selected schools to go independent. I would like to find out from the Minister whether this scheme has moved one step further.

Sir, pre-school education is not funded by the Government. Though the Government is providing $39 million in FY2000 for the development of childcare centres through the Ministry of Community Development and Sports, no significant amount is provided for by the Ministry to spend on pre-school education. There is a small mention under the Education Programmes Division stating that it plans, monitors and regulates pre-school and special school education. If anything, the workload and performance indicator shows a decline in commitment for pre-school education. I am sure this is not reflective of the intention of the Ministry of Education. The moulding of the child starts at a very early age. It is important that the infants and toddlers are well taken care of and be properly prepared for formal schooling when they enter primary school. 2.15 pm The PAP Community Foundation is the largest provider of kindergarten education in Singapore. We, PAP MPs, are proud in making kindergarten education affordable to the vast majority of HDB residents, especially the children from lower-income families. Of course, times have changed. We have introduced computer courses and music in our kindergarten curricula. At times, it is a challenge to convince parents of the change and that education is an area best left to the educational experts and professionals. However, because of the pace of growth and development in Singapore, and the expectations of Singaporean parents have gone up manifold, it is time that we reviewed how we can upgrade and develop pre-school education to higher levels of performance. It is now time for the Education Ministry to be proactive to ensure that the desirable outcomes are spelt out and accomplished for children going through pre-school education. There are now a wide variety of sources and institutions providing early childhood education. Should not these establishments be properly certified with stringent standards imposed? Should not the Ministry be interested to ensure that only good teachers are teaching in these institutions for pre-schoolers? Our review would have the benefit of strengthening the delivery system of pre-school education in Singapore for the benefit of our children in the new millennium.

Sir, a recent report in the Straits Times showed that there is a disparity in the standards of pre-school education in Singapore. This disparity is most evident in the extent to which children have been prepared for formal education in schools. The report indicated that some children have already covered a major part of their primary 1 syllabus by the time they entered school. On the other hand, some children are just beginning to get down to the basics of their English Language at primary 1, even though they have attended pre-school education. Quite naturally, some concerns arose in relation to the divergence of standards amongst pre-schoolers in Singapore. The Education Ministry said that they were looking into this area by specifying clearer indications on the desired outcomes of pre-school education here. For the moment, I am given to understand that our Government's position has been to leave pre-school education to the private sector, and not to take over this task. As a result of leaving it to the private sector, standards for pre-school education vary, not just to the extent of the ability of the child on entering primary school, but also the quality of pre-school education and the teachers. Besides, the fees also differ from kindergarten to kindergarten. Despite the differences in standard, I accept that pre-school education should, at the moment, continue to remain with the private sector. There is no reason why the Government should now step in to take over that responsibility. Besides, there is no real evidence that kindergartens are generally not doing an adequate job of it. Sir, there is, however, something to be said of the role of Government in setting clearer guidelines and standards in this area. The Government's guidelines should cover not only teaching methodology and curriculum, but also the standard of administration, recruitment and training of teachers. In the final analysis, I am not too confident that even if the Government were to set clear guidelines on what the child is expected to know from pre-school education, there would not be differing abilities among children in primary 1. Parents often contribute to the intense competition by wanting to be ahead of their peers in schools. The common response of parents from recent interviews states that primary 1 standards are tough and for that reason, their children are over-prepared for primary school. I am afraid I do not follow the logic of that reasoning. If primary 1 standard is tough, how does over-preparing help? Should not the approach be to mentally prepare the child to deal with the tough syllabus ahead by cultivating a more enquiring mind? Setting expectations of the abilities of children on entering primary school is not the same as requiring them to cover the primary 1 syllabus in kindergarten. Unfortunately, that is the expectation of a fair number of parents. Somehow, there is a sense of one-upmanship for parents whose children are able to do book reviews at primary 1. Is this ability really necessary and expected of a child at that level, or is it to give the child or the parents a certain sense of superior ability over the rest? At this moment, I would like to say something of the work of the PCF. We know that the PCF is presently the largest provider of pre-school education in Singapore. Since its inception, the PCF has provided Singaporeans with affordable pre-school education. Many generations of Singaporeans benefited greatly from it. By all accounts, there is no reason to believe that PCF does not adequately prepare the child for primary education, although I cannot quite say that they prepare the child to write book reviews at primary 1 too. The Government believes that they are doing a good job. At my PCF centre, we track the progress of our children at primary 1 as of this year. I have no reason to believe that the children are not doing fine. The PCF even has its own training institute to prepare and train kindergarten teachers. PCF centres are generally well-managed, and I would say that they are even better-equipped than some of the privately run kindergartens in Singapore. Many PCF centres undergo constant upgrading and renovation. Unfortunately, Sir, PCF suffers from the effects of snob appeal. Many up-only mobile parents do not think that the PCF is good enough for their children. I suspect this prejudice may have to do with the fact that the PCF is rooted in the HDB heartland or maybe because the PCF is not charging exorbitant sums to have that gilt-edge or maybe it is true that the PCF does not teach the children to write book reviews. One has to be realistic. At the end of the day, one has to ask the question whether pre-school education is to prepare a child to undertake primary education or is it to ensure that he or she is ahead of his peers at the commencement of school. If we honestly ask ourselves, the answer is obvious. Even if the Government clearly sets the expectations of desired outcomes in preparing a child for school, there will be many, many kiasu parents who want to play the one-upmanship game. When it comes to this, I am sure that there are many centres who will continue to respond to their demands.

Sir, allow me to share my experience as the father of a child about to enter pre-school education. There is literally a bewildering array of options open to parents. There is something for every budget, from a few tens of dollar a month up to a thousand dollars or more a month and, at the higher end, it is, in fact, more expensive than university education in some cases. There is something for every form of pedagogic persuasion. There are some who emphasise the traditional 3Rs, that is, reading, writing and arithmetic. There are others who propose and propagate self-directed learning. Some emphasise more on the mother tongue. Others emphasise more on the English language. In terms of facilities, the array is again quite vast. You have kindergartens in void decks, you have them in converted landed properties and you have some customised facilities. Such diversity is desirable for it gives parents a choice. But the process of analysing this information and making informed decisions is worthy of a thesis in my view. Because parents in general have some difficulty in ascertaining what exactly is desired in pre-school education. I for one do not want to subject my child to the rigours of writing book reviews, if that is not necessary, and indeed that is something that the child will acquire in the fullness of time. On the other hand, if this is a requirement or there is some expectation from the primary 1 school level that the child should have certain minimum capabilities in this area, I would wish to know about it because that would be a criterion in deciding which centre I choose for my child. My purpose here is not to absolve parents of decision-making on the all important choice of where to send their child for pre-school or, for that matter, primary or secondary school education. My purpose is more to ask whether the Ministry can be more proactive and helpful to parents in making those choices. My colleagues, who have spoken before me, have highlighted several of these points. I wish to add a few key points. First, basically, to know what is the desired outcome of pre-primary education. If we know what the hurdle is, then we know how hard to train to clear the hurdle. Second, can the Ministry be less reticent about what form of curriculum it thinks will best serve that desired outcome? I think it would not be unappreciated by parents if they have an idea from the Ministry of Education on what curriculum structure it thinks will meet the basic requirements in preparation for P1. Could the Ministry go a little bit further and in fact undertake certification to reassure parents that regardless of where the school or the kindergarten resides, regardless of the teacher-pupil ratio and regardless of the pedagogic method, a certain minimum standard is being met and that parents can confidently enrol the child there without concern that the child may not be getting what is appropriate? Finally, can the Ministry allocate more resources towards research in this area, in order to ascertain clearly in our minds the value of pre-primary education and if it is found to be valuable, then let us take a step further and say we will accord adequate public funding to ensure that this is done properly. In relation to that is the question of the training of our teachers. The quality of pre-school teachers is extremely wide. These issues come to the heart of one main problem that a lot of parents face, which is, the contrast is stark in the terrain between pre-primary education and primary education. Once we enter primary school, the choice is quite simple. You choose the school, but you know in general that they are within certain boundaries and your child is being prepared for the Primary School Leaving Examinations. But when you enter pre-primary education, it is not very clear what you are preparing the child for. You know that there is this P1 hurdle but we do not know what exactly it represents. I would be grateful if the Ministry could comment further on how it proposes to assist parents in this regard.

Can I just ask hon. Members to try to shorten their speeches because we still got a lot of speakers on this amendment and we have three other amendments to take before we reach "guillotine" time, which is slightly over an hour away.

Sir, I share some of the views by Mr Iswaran and I would like to think that adopting a more national standard in pre-primary education would be one answer. But I would like to raise two concerns of mine here today. First, as Members have spoken, leaving the current system of pre-primary education entirely to the private sector has brought about some vastly different outcomes and it certainly must be the case as reflected in some surveys and articles in the Straits Times. Because different schools adopt different teaching methods and the philosophy towards learning, have different curriculum and facilities, charge different fees, provide different moral and religious foundation. Some provided more enjoyable learning experience, while others put children through a more rigorous preparation for primary 1 with examinations, homework and tests. Certainly, these different exposures and experiences will produce different outcomes. Yet, they are all expected to go to primary 1 where the students will be introduced to a more standard national education programme and I think more can be done to ensure a smoother and more consistent transition from pre-school to primary 1. Second, and this is my deep concern, I observe a growing trend of religious and ethnic based organisations providing pre-primary education, either as a social service or for commercial purposes. Most parents have legitimate reasons to want to send their children to such schools. They want to give their children a very strong foundation in religious and moral education from the very young. However, others, especially Malay and Indian parents, quite frequently cite unavailability of Malay and Tamil as second language in some kindergartens as one of the reasons for sending their children to a school run by ethnic and religious based organisations. Whatever the reasons, these are worrying trends because the very success of this may result in, and hopefully not, pre-primary education being delivered predominantly along ethnic and religious lines. I fear that even at the very young and early age, this may result in children having conflicting perceptions of values, cultures and separate groups. Should we not plant a strong foundation of multi-cultural education beginning at pre-school education? And as this would involve parents also, I think a more culturally integrated pre-school programme can help develop better awareness of cultural perceptions, biases, prejudices and stereotypes, even amongst parents. I am therefore asking the Minister to really consider a national standard for pre-primary education. 2.30 pm Sir, while running kindergartens can be left entirely to the private sector, they should not be left entirely to set their own standards and agenda. A recent Straits Times' survey shows that while more than 60% of parents do not want Government to take over pre-school education, amongst Malays and Indians, more preferred that the Government made pre-primary education part of the national education system, as they feel that the Government would be the best placed agency to make this a more level playing field. Otherwise, we will continue with the perception that the better schools charging higher fees provide a better system of education and therefore if you have more money, you can better prepare your children for primary one. Certainly, we must maintain flexibility and variety that the private market offers. There will always be better and more expensive schools which parents can choose from. But the bottom line must remain that even if parents can afford only the cheapest, they must and can be assured that all schools have the resources and ability to adequately prepare children for primary one education. This is an assurance that we can give to all parents. But to do that, we need to ensure standards. I can think of a few areas where the Ministry can enforce standards to conduct audits and ensure that schools are meeting the requirements. One, for example, is in qualification and competency of teachers. The Ministry can decide what are basic skills that teachers should have, what are the minimum requirements before someone can become a teacher. Sir, I hope I can now address the Minister of State on this matter, as I notice the Minister has left.

Mr Zulkifli, could you continue?

Second, is on syllabus and curriculum, whether the syllabus has the right combination of academic content, play and creative aspects, social skills to build confidence. We can provide a basic core curriculum that must be very important, but I think we can also provide flexibility where schools can be left to choose their own elective subjects. Thirdly, is racial composition. I come back to this point again. I think this is so very important. And the survey shows that parents do not rank mixing with other races as very important, but it is important to Singapore. It is important to us that we cannot leave it completely to free choice. And if it has to be ensured, encouraged or enforced, then we have to do so. So nobody should just set up a school predominantly for a particular ethnic group. On the teaching of second language, this is quite serious sometimes, because what do you do when you have one Indian or Malay student in the school? Do you employ a Malay teacher and say, "Fine, it is going to be expensive to teach you." Or you invest and say, "Fine, this is something you are committed to. Let's find other students." Or send them to some nearby schools without much of a problem, but still assure them that they can get second language education, even in pre-school. I think here I feel a more coordinated effort can better address this. My own vision really, if I could share with this House, is that perhaps with CDCs wanting to take more and more roles, the CDCs could provide the facilities where these various ethnic groups can provide education under one roof. They can go to their ethnic-based schools, but when it comes to common subjects, whether to share computers, playground, music, they can have common experiences. And then they can go back to their own respective class where they can have religious or language education. But at the end of the day, we can and we should provide, even at the very young, a very integrated experience, so that our long-term objective of racial integration cannot be hampered by racial or ethnic tendencies.

Sir, the Senior Minister of State for Education, Dr Aline Wong, had, in a recent sitting of Parliament, spoken about the cross curricular approach that the Ministry takes for the delivery of sex education in our schools. Dr Wong mentioned that the schools tap resource speakers from external agencies, such as MOH and the Singapore Planned Parenthood Association, to conduct talks, courses and seminars relating to the subject. My understanding, however, is that the primary responsibility still lies with teachers assigned to the subject in schools. Many of these teachers are most uncomfortable with this assignment. May I ask the Minister if it might not be a better approach to source out the teaching of sex education altogether in an organised and structured way with a well-defined curriculum to agencies or organisations who would be able to assign trained and qualified instructors, who would be far more comfortable and skilled in undertaking this.

Sir, let me reply to those points on pre-school education first. The recent surge of interest in this sector, shall we use the abbreviated form of PSE for pre-school education, has come about partly because, over the last decade or so, there has been some research, especially brain research, which suggests exciting possibilities especially in non-cognitive development and language acquisition that PSE can bring to children. This has prompted the public as well as the press and parliamentarians alike to urge greater MOE involvement in this sector. On past occasions, I have stated in this House my position on PSE. I think it must be cautioned that, taken as a whole, the findings are by no means conclusive. While there is some evidence that PSE provides a learning head-start, there is also countervailing evidence showing that the benefits wear off after some time. In fact, it is unclear today whether PSE brings sustained benefits, ie, well into elementary school. There have also been calls in the press for MOE to pump in more money into this sector. But I think simply pouring money into PSE will not raise quality automatically. It is better for us to carefully decide how to deploy resources so that most children can get the most value out of PSE. What then is my Ministry's response to the research findings? We will look at them more closely and explore their relevance to the local context. In MOE's Addendum to the President's Address last year, we announced that we will be more involved in PSE, paying particular attention to high leverage areas like defining outcomes, designing a developmentally-appropriate curriculum, training teachers, conducting research and improving our regulatory framework. The first step must be to delineate the outcomes desired of PSE, in order to lend focus to our efforts and direct our attention to what is most crucial. Mr Loh Meng See, Mr Iswaran and Mr Zulkifli Baharudin have all asked what MOE wants to achieve by PSE. I am glad to inform the House that the Steering Committee on PSE, which I chair, has come up with the Desired Outcomes of PSE. It is a comprehensive, yet succinct, list of the end-objectives of PSE and this has been put together in consultation with professionals, practitioners and policy-makers. May I ask the Clerk of Parliament to help me distribute the sheet of paper containing the Desired Outcomes of PSE. [Document distributed to hon. Members.] Members will notice that the Desired Outcomes of PSE closely mirrors MOE's desired outcomes of education for the other levels, ie, primary, secondary and JC levels. This is deliberate, so as to ensure a continuity of focus from PSE to primary one. After all, learning is a continuum. As a statement of outcomes reflecting values, attitudes and skills, there is no mention of specific competencies in the 3Rs - reading, writing and arithmetic. Again, this is deliberate, as we want to emphasise that PSE should be about preparing children for life-long learning, and not just a preparation for primary one. The current practice of some kindergartens offering parts of the primary one curriculum needs to be re-looked at. I am not saying that we should not teach the 3Rs. Indeed, it is most unnatural to designate the first day of primary one as the beginning of reading, writing and arithmetic education. What I am saying is that there are important pre-reading, pre-writing and pre-arithmetic skills to be learnt before a child can read, write and do sums. We need to give adequate attention to these critical fundamentals. Moreover, a child's motivation and interest in learning must be nurtured from this tender age. We must fire his curiosity and his sense of wonder. He needs to learn in fun ways, through play, art, music and movement. Feeding him with a curriculum that he is not ready for may raise his performance in primary school or at primary one, but this may also dampen his love for learning which will severely affect success in school in the long term. The press recently reported the case of one primary school requiring children entering primary one to have already learnt to read and spell about 100 words. I would like to assure the House that this is an extreme case, and that the practice is not widespread. MOE's policy is that schools will take in primary one pupils with varying degrees of readiness and teach them from there. In regular meetings with principals, MOE has reminded schools of this policy. The desired outcomes will be translated into a new curriculum which will provide age appropriate learning activities in five domains, ie, moral, cognitive, social, emotional and physical domains. This new curriculum will be ready in about half a year's time. We will teach the children what is right and wrong. Cognitively, children should learn through discovery, experimentation and observation. Language learning will focus on aural, ie, listening, and oral, ie, speaking, skills. Socially, children will learn to listen attentively, share and work together. Emotionally, they will develop self-confidence and be able to relate to others, to their peers and to adults. Activities will also help children develop their physical co-ordination. I would like to assure the House that the new curriculum will help to ensure a smooth transition for young children from pre-school to primary one. In designing the curriculum for primary one, MOE will start from the desired outcome "Be able to listen and speak with understanding". There is a language focus in primary one, particularly in English, because this is the medium of instruction and the means by which students access most subjects in the curriculum. Pupils entering primary one do differ in English proficiency, because of their different abilities and backgrounds. For those with basic oral and aural proficiency, the primary one curriculum will build on that. For those with no English facility, schools will focus on the development of the aural and oral skills first, and early reading and writing activities will be gradually phased in. Some Members have remarked on the different standards of various PSE centres. I think this is natural, given that the community and private sectors provide PSE, and MOE's regulatory role is in setting guidelines on curriculum and teacher-training. Many people want MOE to bring children to the same starting point at primary one. While this is well-intentioned, in reality, it is impossible. Children have different abilities and aptitudes, and their home backgrounds vary. It is unrealistic to expect that they will turn out the same just because they have been through the same pre-school programme for one or two years. Even students attending exactly the same pre-school class will come to P1 with different levels of preparedness and proficiency. Also, as Mr Sin Boon Ann has put it so eloquently, there will always be parents who try to give their children that extra head-start in PSE over their peers. Children, especially at this age of rapid growth, are different. They develop at different rates and in different ways. We cannot "equalise" everyone after two years of kindergarten. We cannot even do that after 10 years of general education. In fact, as education is about enabling each child to achieve, given his own combination of talents and abilities, it must show up in the end the diverse achievements of people in different areas. 2.45 pm The PSE can, and should, bring children to an adequate level of school readiness. It cannot, and should not be expected to "equalise" every child by Primary 1. The P1 programme and P1 teachers recognise that pupils are different and they will adapt strategies that are appropriate for them. Actually, our schools already have programmes that cater to these differences. For example, the Learning Support Programme is designed to help P1 and P2 children who have not yet attained a sufficient level of English proficiency to improve quickly. This programme has proven to be successful and has greatly helped the children improve their reading and writing skills. To recap, school readiness is not about mastering some of the P1 curriculum by day one in primary school. It is also more than having adequate language facility, important though it is. School readiness is about being eager to learn, able to make friends, take turns and share, pay attention, and enjoy learning. Members have rightly identified teacher quality as the key to raising the quality of PSE. This point has been raised by Mr Iswaran and Mr Loh Meng See. My Steering Committee on PSE has set up a task force comprising MOE officials and representatives from NIE and other service providers in order to study the matter. It will look into the teacher-training curriculum for different levels of qualification, as well as an accreditation framework, and map out progression routes for PSE teachers to attain higher qualifications. The task force will also study how PSE teachers can participate in continual education and training in order to develop better practice and keep abreast of professional developments in their field. At present, there are a number of agencies providing PSE teacher-training. The task force is looking into how MOE can assure standards and rationalise the provision of teacher training among such agencies. As for research, I have earlier explained the need to establish the long-term value of PSE. I also made a case for carefully determining the optimal investment in PSE, should it be shown that it plays a significant part in raising the overall capacity of our people. MOE intends to achieve the above through a pilot research programme. This is a longitudinal study to ascertain the long term cognitive and non-cognitive benefits of PSE. In particular, we will be studying the impact of teacher-training and a new curriculum on children's intellectual and social growth. Full details of the pilot research, such as the number of children involved, participating centres, research methodology and funding will be announced later. The pilot research will yield useful insights into the training of teachers and the development of instructional materials. The aim is to see how we can raise the quality of PSE in Singapore, and what level of Government investment is justifiable. A full research programme with longitudinal studies indicating the effects of different pre-school strategies is likely to take many years, perhaps up to seven. MOE will carry out a pilot study, and is prepared to proceed on a wider scale on the basis of the preliminary results of this study after two to three years, if the preliminary results indicate that longer term results are likely to be good. Before I end, I want to emphasise that MOE will not take over PSE. The provision of PSE will remain firmly in the hands of the private and people sectors. There is merit in allowing different centres with different philosophies and schools of thought to offer different types of PSE. If we look at the range of opinions offered by the press interviews just two days ago, some parents do not want the Government to step in at all. They want choice. They want variety. I think leaving it in the private and voluntary sectors will encourage creative innovation, as each centre strives to meet the needs of its unique pupil profile. I would urge parents to work hand in hand with the centres, and later on with schools, to provide the best learning opportunities and experience for their children. It must be remembered that PSE is only one factor of success in learning. Home support for children is equally, if not more, important. In our eagerness to promote PSE, we must not think that early childhood education is just done in or by PSE centres. I should add that the recent spate of press reports, interviews and comments have shown that parents have a very wide range of views on the issues. This is to be expected. However, if these reports have raised a lot of expectations and anxieties among parents regarding PSE, maybe this is an unintended result, it is still not very helpful. It would not help matters. MOE will take the approach of tackling the issues step by step. This will ensure that any further Government investment in this sector will be worth the monies spent. Before I move on to compulsory education, I would like to respond to Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin's point regarding the segregation of children in ethnically run or religious affiliated centres. The PCF centres which provide the largest proportion of pre-school education to children in Singapore are open to everybody. In fact, many of them have Malay teachers. They offer classes in Malay language as a second language. Yes, there is some problem with the offering of Tamil language and they are trying to group together to send children to certain centres that have these classes. Mr Zulkifli said that the Government should perhaps come in and integrate the different ethnic groups in the PSE centres. But if there are some parents who prefer to send their children to religiously-affiliated centres that teach not just PSE but religious education, I think there is nothing very much the Government can do about that. I think I have addressed most of the points raised by Members on PSE. Let me move very quickly to compulsory education as time is running out. I would like to thank Dr Wang Kai Yuen for calling us to focus on the twin goals of our national education system. To reiterate, the two goals are: First, to give our children a common core of knowledge and skills, which will provide a strong foundation for further education and training that would prepare our children for a knowledge-based economy. Second, to give our children a common educational experience which will help build national identity and social cohesion. Given the range of views that we have been hearing at our feedback sessions, and from the press as well as from Members of the House, I think it is important for us to keep constantly in mind these two main objectives of our national school system. In deciding on whether or not compulsory education should be introduced and the form and duration by which it should take place, we must constantly bear in mind these two major objectives, which are the reasons why MOE has done its best to bring most children into our national school system. As the Committee on Compulsory Education is still in the process of gathering feedback and studying the experience of other countries, I do not think I should take up the time of the House much further. We will study the issues and the feedback raised by Members of the House very carefully before we make our recommendations and put up a report by the second half of this year. Mr Chiam is not here. I think he said something about the duration of compulsory education. I would also consider his views together with the other Members' when we decide on the duration of compulsory education. Let me respond very quickly to Dr Jennifer Lee's questions on sexuality education. She asked whether or not we should source out the teaching of sexuality education because most teachers who are entrusted to teach this subject find it uncomfortable to do so. This is indeed one problem, but sourcing out is not the solution because there are very few agencies out there which have the expertise and the inclination to do so. What we plan to do is that we would like to get the support not just from the teachers but also from members of the community and, where necessary and possible, even volunteer parents, to help us teach the subject. Bearing in mind that not all teachers may have the background or inclination to conduct lessons in sexuality education, we will be providing the schools with a set of criteria for the selection of appropriate teachers for sexuality education. We will give them the adequate training. In drawing up the criteria, we have consulted psychologists, social workers and other professionals in this field from organisations such as the Institute of Health in the Ministry of Health, and Family Service Centres. They have been involved in the development of the selection criteria. They will also be involved in the training of teachers, and may act as advisers to schools. We are presently developing a more holistic approach to sexuality education, building on what is already covered in the existing curriculum and bearing in mind the different needs of the students at different stages of their development. A multi-media package is being produced which will examine concepts and attitudes in sexuality education in a structured manner. This will be used as an additional resource for guided discussions about responsibility, consequences and choices with respect to one's sexuality. Sexuality education has been, and will continue to be, carried out alongside civics and moral education because MOE always believes in imparting the right moral values. But MOE is aware that the subject of sexuality touches very deeply held beliefs which may differ between people and across communities. As such, we will consult various groups before deciding on whether this additional component of sexuality education should be built into the school curriculum or be left as an optional programme. Let me assure Dr Jennifer Lee that we are working on the subject.

Sir, technical education as provided by ITE is not considered high in the aspiration of our secondary school students, neither do parents encourage their children to take this up as a career choice, thereby relegating it to a choice of last resort. As the Minister has already pointed out earlier, the perception of ITE education is that it is still a career choice resulting in getting one's fingers greasy. This is unfortunate as it is natural in the human population that individuals are endowed with different abilities and talents across the whole spectrum. Every Singaporean counts, and each must be educated and trained to the best of his ability. Thus, ITE caters to those for whom the academic progammes of the "A" level would not be suitable. Furthermore, ITE graduands would play meaningful roles in our society. Hence, the negative perception regarding ITE training should be changed and this job should not be left to the Government alone. All of us must play our part. I am glad to note that the various Community Development Councils are already doing their part by inviting the advisers to hand out Edusave bursaries to ITE students at public functions. From time to time, we also read about the success stories of ITE graduands in striking out and starting their businesses. More could be done. I would urge the Ministry to do more in promoting the image of ITE education among Singaporeans.

Sir, four out of every 10 students do not go to the polytechnics or the universities. They are encouraged to go to the Institute of Technical Education to acquire skills that will fit them into the factories and offices. As Singapore globalises and our industries move into high-tech, it is important that we train all our people at every level to the best of their capability. This is one of the reasons for starting the Normal (Technical) stream to cater to students who are not academically strong. By now, several Normal (Technical) stream cohorts have graduated. I wonder if the Minister would share with the House the performance of the Normal (Technical) students to-date. How many just stopped after they completed their secondary education? How many of them proceeded to the ITE? How many managed to transfer to a Normal (Academic) stream? Among the latter, how many went on to take the "O" level examinations? 3.00 pm Sir, we are fast transforming into a knowledge-based economy. I am sure that the training that the Normal (Technical) students are getting at the ITE is preparing them for such a future. We should therefore get as many of them as we can to go to ITE. What more can we do to achieve this, so that more students can participate in the very exciting and challenging future before us?

Sir, I would like to thank Dr Wang and Dr Tan for their interest in Technical Education. Their interest is well-placed because our technical institutions have been tasked to provide technical training for secondary school leavers, so as to meet the economy's demand for technicians and skilled manpower. The concern about ITE's image is understandable, given that the number of students entering ITE constitutes a significant 25% of each cohort. Dr Wang believes that technical education deserves a much higher profile and reputation, an image that people should have in their mind. I fully agree with him and I would substantiate this point. Since the establishment of ITE in 1992, concerted efforts have been made to improve the public perception and image of ITE. There are many parties to thank for. Firstly, the Government has invested, on average, $170 million a year over the past five years in ITE to expand campuses and build modern facilities. ITE students now study in a conducive environment and have access to the latest high-tech equipment and information technology. Secondly, the quality of teaching has improved. The care and concern shown by ITE teachers have helped boost students' self-esteem, confidence and motivation. Thirdly, the media has been most supportive of ITE. In 1999 alone, there were 284 favourable mentions in media coverage in the form of press reports, TV exposures and radio broadcasts. This is a 21% increase over 1998. As more and more ITE graduates make some headlines with their successes, ITE has found it useful to consolidate these success stories as an encouragement to staff, students and parents. I have given to Members of the House here a copy of an annual publication by ITE titled "I did it my way" [indicating]. The title is reminiscent of the well-known song by Frank Sinatra, but it has a ring of confidence and a certain pride in it. The current publication features 23 ITE alumni who are now successful professionals or entrepreneurs and also those who have excelled in the pursuit of further studies in polytechnics and universities. It gives an account of how ITE has given students a headstart to a worthwhile career by providing a technical education and how teachers, through their enthusiasm in teaching and faith in these students, have inspired learning sometimes against seeming odds. Today, ITE is a reputed post-secondary educational institution with a network of 10 modern and well-equipped institutions, offering a wide range of engineering, technical, business studies and service courses. ITE students are proud to be in such a vibrant learning environment. The premium placed by employers on ITE education did not come about just by better packaging and selling. The latest employment survey conducted by ITE showed that the mean monthly gross salary of ITE graduates had increased from $1,321 in 1997 to $1,469 in 1998. This is despite the economic downturn. The employment survey also reflected a strong industry demand for ITE graduates - 92% of 1998's graduates were employed and 87% of them obtained their first jobs within three months from graduation. In short, there is real substance in an ITE graduate. Sir, we all know that ITE students are practice-oriented and are quick at assimilating hands-on training. There is nothing wrong in being practice-oriented, especially when you are good at it. But there are also many who are academically inclined - they may develop this trait a bit later than others. About 15% of ITE students move on to polytechnics and 2% go on to complete their university education. The statistics also suggest that ITE graduates who go on to polytechnics are likely to do well there. Generally, they achieve a higher pass rate than other non-ITE graduates and in most instances, the pass rate was 100%. Also, a higher percentage of them achieve Diplomas with Merit, as compared to non-ITE graduates. Dr Tan has asked whether ITE education prepares the young for a KBE. I would like to stress that ITE has always made it a point to stay relevant to the needs and development of the economy by regularly reviewing its curriculum and programmes. Employability skills such as communication skills, mathematics, IT, industrial studies and social studies are taught to ensure that students will be able to cope with demands beyond their own areas of specialisation. ITE has also introduced four courses during the last two years in response to the growth in IT and chemical process industries. However, we must recognise that with the rapid pace of technological developments, knowledge and skills will become obsolete very quickly. The only way to ensure skills relevance is through training and retraining. In this regard, ITE will gear up in terms of training capacity and programmes so that more ITE graduates and the workforce in general can upgrade and renew their skills to remain employable. Sir, ITE's intake comprises mainly three levels of students from secondary schools: first, the Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic) as well as the `O' levels. Dr Tan has specifically asked about the performance of the Normal (Technical) stream students. If Members recall, the Normal (Technical) course was introduced in 1994 to allow the more practice-oriented students to go through 10 years of general education, before undergoing technical training. To ensure that these students can learn at a comfortable pace, they were given a different curriculum which focused on the teaching of English Language and Mathematics and a practical, hands-on approach in learning, so as to prepare them for a technical education at ITE. We have made significant progress in achieving these objectives. Since the introduction of the Normal (Technical) stream course, an additional 10% of the Primary 1 cohort has completed 10 years of education. The first three cohorts of Normal (Technical) stream students have completed their secondary education. This has provided them with the necessary foundation in language and mathematics for a technical education in ITE. Three quarters or more of the Normal (Technical) pool of students are enrolled in ITE each year. ITE will continue to encourage even more to enrol. I am pleased to report that our Normal (Technical) students have done well in their ITE training. Of the 4,033 Normal (Technical) stream students who have enrolled for full-time ITE training in January 1998, 2,204 have graduated with NTC-2 qualifications and 1,013 with Certificates in Office Skills, marking a success rate of 80%. The percentage of Normal (Technical) students who have been awarded Certificates of Merit is also comparable to those from the Normal (Academic) students who enrolled in ITE. Sir, I have said enough about the benefits of ITE education. How can we spread this message even further? I believe our school teachers can help to encourage more students to further their education at ITE with their counselling on career development. ITE's next target would be the teachers who can help to make things happen. ITE is planning to introduce an Immersion Programme to strengthen the information network and rapport between ITE and schools. The programme will serve as a platform for secondary school teachers to experience first-hand the improved teaching environment in ITE, to find out about the different courses and modes of training available, talk to ITE students and obtain feedback on the progress of their ex-students and their strengths and learning difficulties. The programme will include in-house briefings, workshops and sharing sessions, as well as tours of companies which offer apprenticeship training to ITE students. The apprenticeship training scheme allows students to work to earn some income as they continue their education at ITE. The tours will help teachers to gain a better understanding of the career prospects of ITE students. Sir, ITE has really come a long way. We are encouraged by ITE's achievements and the positive change in public perception. We hope Members of this House and the public can continue to support ITE in creating a fruitful educational experience for our students.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I hope that the Ministry of Education would review the school admission system. Let me give you an illustration. A mother looked at the plot of vacant land near her HDB flat. Words got round that the Government was going to build a primary school there. She was full of expectations. "Good," she said, "next time, my boy can just walk to school. No need to take a bus. Save time, save money." Soon, piling works started. Noise, dust, and all sorts of inconvenience. Never mind! Suffer a bit now, but think of all the conveniences next time. It is worth it! More noise, more dust, and the children suffered plenty of mosquito bites because of the patches of water at the work-site. Endure it silently. Finally, the building was completed, and the school began to enrol its first batch of students. Now, the boy was all geared up to go to school next door. When registration started, the boy was eligible under Phase 2(c). Alas! When it was time for Phase 2(c) registration, the school was fully enrolled. Registration closed. No more place. Now, mother brings her son downstairs to take the school bus to a school which is one hour's ride away. She looks at the brand-new school building, and all the cheerful boys and girls running and playing away. Flag-raising ceremony, and the National Anthem is sung. She clutched her fist and held it against her chest. Was she singing the National Anthem? No, she was singing the pop song: "You are my pain in the heart"! I hope that the Ministry of Education can understand the predicament of all these young couples who stay near the neighbourhood schools, yet cannot find a place there for their children. Can the Ministry of Education consider allowing the neighbourhood schools to have more flexibility in implementing the one-kilometre radius priority rule, for the benefit of all those who live within walking distance of the school? Perhaps we should bring these cases forward to Phase 2(a) instead of Phase 2(c).

(In Mandarin): Sir, the annual Primary One registration exercise is something that parents are most concerned about. As a parent, I do not agree with sending my children to the so-called branded school. I can fully understand the eagerness of the parents to send their children to these branded schools, because they have high expectations for their children. Therefore, the number of children seeking admission into these schools has increased over the years. I would like to suggest to the Ministry that "seeded" primary schools be given greater autonomy by allowing them to set their own entrance test for the purpose of admitting Primary One children. Although the prospective students should not be subjected to a written entrance test, they should at least be tested on their conversational and counting skills. This is better than the present system where children are admitted in Phases 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). The majority of schools, such as neighbourhood schools and non-SAP schools, can retain the existing admission procedures for children who do not want to take such an entrance test. 3.15 pm

Sir, children enjoy priority in selection when they register at a primary school within two kilometres of their home. This makes sense as this arrangement reduces the distance and the amount of time needed for them to commute between home and school. Therefore, ideally, every home should lie within the two-kilometre radius of a primary school. But this is not always the case. Some of these exceptional houses are in Nee Soon South, the ward that I am in. I have a request to make to the Minister. Would he consider allowing children from such houses anywhere in Singapore to enjoy priority selection at the nearest school to their homes as it is for such children, the nearest school is already far from home? If these children do not study in the nearest school, they will have to travel to a school even further away. Hence, compared to a child that lives within two kilometres of a primary school, these children are disadvantaged twice over.

As time is running out, I thought I should come in now and at least respond to some of the questions that Members have raised in case I do not have time to answer afterwards. The P1 registration system balances many different considerations, including previous loyalty and contributions to the school as well as proximity to the school. Proximity to the school is actually one of the considerations which receives quite a lot of weight because there is a limit to previous connections with the school after the old boys as well as siblings have been taken into account. Whatever is left is divided into two, half of that goes to students who have previous connections with the school and the other half to those who are living within the proximity of the school. There are many ways to divide proximity and we have decided to treat those within two kilometres as one group and those within one kilometre as another group. It will be very complicated to go down any further than that. We can assure Mr Yeo that all students will be able to get a place in the school within their DGP. We will also consider what Dr Tan has raised, which is, what happens if students do not have a school within two kilometres. We will see whether we can devise a system for that. As for having schools to set entrance examinations, written or otherwise, I am really not in favour of that. We already have quite a lot of examinations and pressure for students in school. But I must agree with Mr Peh though that whatever primary school that our students go to, the quality is generally quite good. As we can see, students who come from very neighbourhood schools can do very, very well. And when we have students who have come from neighbourhood primary schools, at the end of Primary 3, they do have an opportunity to take the evaluation for the Gifted Education Programme and some of them do go for the Gifted Education Programme and they transfer schools in the process. We have also seen that students who have stayed on in their own primary schools have done very well. For example, one of the top students in the PSLE last year came from one of our neighbourhood primary schools, and I imagine that in future, we will continue to see some of this happening.

Sir, there is no doubt that the responsibility for guiding and establishing right values in children lies with parents. This responsibility cannot be delegated to others, such as school teachers, social workers, etc. Yet, if there are children who are not receiving the right nurturing, or perhaps none at all, what should be done? Should the void be left alone and the development of such children be left to chance? With dual-income families, single parents, or circumstances where parents are unable, unwilling or just unknowing about how to go about bringing up their children, there is a need for support from the community or even the system. Every child has the potential to become a successful individual with the proper guidance and help. I am urging the Ministry of Education to consider setting up boarding schools to supplement those which exist in Singapore. The track record for properly operated boarding schools has been good in Singapore and elsewhere. There is a long history of such successes in other countries, especially in England. There is, of course, the fear that parents would be encouraged to take the easy path and send their children off to boarding schools, instead of making the effort to bring them up themselves. This is a valid fear and no doubt, it will be the motivating reason for some parents. However, whatever, the underlying reason for the children to be sent to a boarding school, at least these children can be assured of guidance and assistance. At least as a nation, we are assured that our precious children are being cared for and not neglected. For every Singaporean to matter, our children must be given a fair chance at life. We must make sure that they have a fighting chance of becoming successful adults. Their success will be the nation's success. Boarding schools provide the vital environment to help children through the difficult stage of teenhood. Proper care is always at hand. In the boarding school, their time is organised and they only have to concentrate on learning and developing. Boarding schools can be the alternative for parents who cannot cope with their parental role. I urge the Ministry to consider this.

Sir, while Mr Ee has quoted one particular tenet of S21, there is also another tenet of S21, which I consider equally important, and that is, the family as the basic unit of society. I would not want to undermine that by creating boarding schools so that dual-income families can discharge their responsibility to their children by placing them in boarding schools. In other countries, there are quite different circumstances. For example, boarding schools in England were the places where colonialists who came out to the Far East and elsewhere, sent their children back home to get an education. That is quite a different environment. In fact, one of our objectives of having boarding schools in Singapore is really to provide places for Singaporeans who go overseas and work overseas and who may want to have their children come back to Singapore for secondary education, and we provide for that. Singapore is a small country. Children do not live very far away from their schools and the boarding schools are expensive. I would not want to spend educational resources on providing boarding schools for children when I think they will be much better off spending time at home. Rather than taking them away from their parents who are busy by putting them in boarding schools, I would prefer them to spend whatever time that they have with their parents at home.

I think we have run out of time on this amendment. We need to deal with the remaining amendments. Dr Wang, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister, the two senior Ministers of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for their comprehensive response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (2), Mr Chiam is not here. Amendment No. (3), Dr Tan.

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 LB 5100.

Sir, it was envisioned that information technology would alter the face of education, especially it would drastically change the way that instructions are delivered and this would reduce the number of teachers needed in our schools. An example is the use of on-line courses or e-learning. The instructions are computerised and automated. It is done once. It does not depend on the number of students or the number of batches of them. Thereafter, every student is brought through the delivery process by the computer. The Ministry has used IT in our schools for teaching and learning for several years. I have a few questions on the impact that IT has made on our schools so far. Have we taken sufficient advantage of the potential of IT in the delivery of lessons in our schools? How is IT being used in the delivery of lessons? Has it since reduced the number of teachers needed? If so, how many less? What is the saving in manpower cost from these reductions? And finally, what further impact and role will IT make in the delivery of education in our schools in the future?

Sir, the purpose of introducing information technology in schools was not to replace teachers. That was not the intention at all. In fact, as I have said many times in this House, teaching is a completely human enterprise and the purpose of introducing information technology in the schools is to give the teachers and students quite another tool in which to pursue teaching and learning. I am unable to answer some of the questions that Dr Tan brought up because that was not the objective at all of introducing information technology in schools and if introducing information technology in schools was for that purpose, I will not agree with it. As for the other matters which Dr Tan has raised regarding what we have done for teacher training and so forth, I believe my colleague, Mr Chen has given a comprehensive reply on Wednesday.

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

Amendment No. (4), Mr Low.

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 LF5200.

I would like to ask the Minister: (1) When did the Government decide to provide the grants to PCF and on what considerations that Government so decided? (2) How much grant has been disbursed to PCF so far since the scheme started? (3) Does the Ministry assess the effectiveness of application of the grants, and if so, what improvements have been made by the PCF in terms of its curriculum or upgrading of its facilities, and whether these improvements are across the board of all PCF education centres or only in PAP wards? (4) Does the Ministry impose any guidelines on operation of PCF education centres, for example, whether we allow PCF to admit students based on political affiliations?

I believe Mr Low Thia Khiang is talking about the disbursement to the PCF under the capital grant scheme which was implemented from 1991 to help kindergartens in the private and community sectors upgrade their facilities. If the Member will remember, in the early 1990s, as part of the MOE's review of its role in pre-school education (PSE), it was decided that provision of PSE should remain in the hands of the private and people sectors. So this capital grant scheme was implemented. In fact, Mr Low himself asked a question of Mr Lee Yock Suan, the then Minister for Education, in a Parliamentary debate sometime in 1992. He was aware of the implementation of this project in 1992. The disbursements under the scheme are given under a set of criteria. Applicants must be registered with MOE. Applicants must offer a good two-year kindergarten programme. Applicants must have a good track record and must be non-profit bodies. They must submit the detailed development proposal which has been approved by the relevant authorities. To safeguard public funds, kindergartens in receipt of capital grants should abide by the following conditions, failing which, they should refund Government the entire capital grant. The applicants must apply the money for the purpose for which it is given and they should complete the project within a stipulated period of time, keep proper accounts and support claims for grants with audited statements of accounts and so on. The applicants must also operate the kindergartens for a period of at least five years. They should adopt the education programme and curriculum materials which meet the Ministry's standard and they should admit all members of the public, regardless of race, language or religion. It is never meant to admit people with political affiliations. In the event that a kindergarten fails to operate within the minimum stipulated period of five years, they will have to refund to the Government the capital grant on a pro-rated basis on the balance of the five-year period. Any kindergarten which fulfills the above criteria is free to apply for the capital grant. To answer Mr Low, this capital grant scheme is not confined to the PCF. Any charitable organisation which meets these criteria is free to apply for the capital grant. 3.30 pm As regards how much money has been spent so far under this scheme, to-date, a total of $19.4 million has been released to the PCF, and 116 centres have benefitted from this capital grant. Mr Low also asked whether this scheme has been effective in helping to raise the quality of pre-school education. I think so. If Members remember, before this scheme was instituted, the quality of the programmes being offered in the non-public sector, including the PCF centres, left much to be desired. Ten years back - and we are talking about 1991 - the cohort participation rate in pre-school programmes was not high, not as high as today, especially among the lower income families. Even among the children who attended pre-school programmes, a significant proportion were attending programmes for only two hours a day or for only one year. PCF already was the major provider of pre-school education at that time, and they were willing to come forward to put in resources and efforts. The capital grant scheme allows MOE to fund only up to 90% of the capital or renovation cost. The centre itself has to come out with the balance of 10%. The PCF was the only organisation that met the criteria and was willing to come forward to put in resources and efforts to help raise the standard of pre-school education in Singapore. Ten years later, ie, now, PCF centres, particularly those which benefitted from the capital grant scheme, have benefitted a great deal. And enrolment at these centres is often up to the brim. The scheme has worked to help upgrade the quality and accessibility of PSE, especially to lower income families in Singapore. Mr Low also asked whether this grant has been given to PSE centres across all wards, and not just PAP wards. As I said, the only organisation which met the criteria to apply for this grant and willing to come forward has been the PCF. But I must also inform him that not all PCF centres are using this grant. There are some which have not utilised the grant, as I think they are providing a different kind of programmes. He asked whether there are guidelines to admit students based on political affiliation. I have already informed him that this is not in the guidelines at all. No distinction is made between children who have or who do not have political affiliations.

Sir, I read the Hansard and understand that Mr Chiam complained in the past that PCF officials had indeed asked whether or not students who requested for admission belonged to any political party. Is this correct? What is the Senior Minster of State's view on this?

Sir, maybe Mr Low would like to ask Mr Chiam to repeat his question.

I have told the House that one of my grassroots helper's child was not allowed to study for the second year in the Potong Pasir Kindergarten. After the first year, he was not allowed to study there in the second year.

Sir, may I inform Mr Chiam that this is actually not under the purview of MOE. PCF is an independent charitable organisation. But as far as I remember, I think there was a time when a PCF kindergarten had to close because of its own reasons. Therefore, that child was informed that he could not carry on, because the centre would not be opened.

Sir, one of the kindergartens in Potong Pasir was closed, but that is a different issue. But in this particular case I am referring to ---

Order. We have reached the "guillotine" time. Mr Low.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,944,037,060 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $2,052,000,000 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

I shall now deal with the remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement. In respect of the Main Estimates, they are Heads C, D, G and Z. I propose to take those heads of expenditure en bloc. Question, "That the sums stated for those Heads of Expenditure which appear in the last column of the Schedule of estimated expenditure under the Main Estimates on page 37 of Paper Cmd. 2 of 2000 stand part of the Main Estimates," put and agreed to.

In respect of the Development Estimates, it is Head C - Auditor-General's Office. Question, "That the sum of $291,800 for Head C ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates." Question, "That the sum of $35,462,730,330 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 2000," put and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $29,780,204,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 2000," put and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Finance, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. First Resolution reported - Question, "That the sum of $35,462,730,330 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 2000," put and agreed to. Second Resolution reported - Question, "That the sum of $29,780,204,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 2000," put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions accordingly agreed to.

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 3.40 pm

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In accordance with Article 148(1) of the Constitution, heads of expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund, other than statutory expenditure, have to be included in a Bill to be known as the Supply Bill. The purpose of the Supply Bill before Members is therefore to give legislative approval for the appropriations from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund to meet expenditures in the financial year 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001. The heads of expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each head are shown in the schedule to the Bill. These have been approved by the House in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001, and appear on pages 37 and 38 of Command Paper No. 2 of 2000. The Supply Bill, when approved, will empower me to issue warrants, authorising expenditure up to the amount for each head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second and Third Readings read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make final provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148C(2) of the Constitution for additional expenditure in excess of the provisions authorised by the Supply Act, 1999. The additional sum has been presented as Supplementary Estimates which have been considered and approved by the House as Command Papers Nos. 1 and 3 of 2000. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining item on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Order for Second Reading read. 3.44 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Government intends to restructure the Primary Production Department (PPD) into a statutory board, called the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), on 1st April 2000. The proposed Agri-food and Veterinary Authority Bill 2000 is to provide the legislative framework for the formation of the new statutory board. Sir, let me now explain the rationale for the new statutory board. The PPD was formed in 1959 to develop and regulate the local farming industry. Through its agricultural development and health programmes, PPD ensured that local farms produced safe and quality food for consumption. With the gradual shrinking of the agricultural sector over the years, PPD's role and focus also shifted. Currently, PPD ensures the safety of primary food imports, which include meat, fish, eggs, fruits and vegetables. It also prevents and controls animal, bird, fish and plant diseases, promotes animal welfare, as well as develops the agricultural industry and facilitates trade in agriculture produce. Sir, in October last year, in my Addendum to the President's Address, I informed this House that we will diversify our sources for the supply of safe foods to meet the needs of our growing population. We will also upgrade our food inspection and surveillance systems and laboratory services to further improve on food safety. Today, local farm production supplies only 1.5% of the poultry, 10% of the fish, 30% of the eggs and 6% of the vegetables consumed in Singapore. The bulk of our primary food requirements comes from overseas sources. This heavy dependence on primary food imports has made Singapore vulnerable to disruptions in primary food supplies due to unforeseen circumstances at the sources of supply. We therefore need to continually identify new sources of supply so that we can maximise food security. Our heavy reliance on food imports also makes us vulnerable to outbreaks of food-poisoning and zoonotic diseases, in other words, where animal diseases are transmitted to humans. In recent years, there have been disease outbreaks, such as the Mad Cow Disease, Avian Flu and the Nipah virus. It is vital for us to maintain a high level of integrity in our food safety system to detect, prevent and control emerging diseases and food hazards. Sir, it is now timely to restructure PPD into a statutory board. The board will have a mandate to ensure the safety of Singapore's primary food needs. It will also be responsible for animal and plant health, animal welfare and the agricultural industry, all of which are integral components of a food safety system. As a statutory board, AVA can leverage on its expertise in agriculture and veterinary science to offer consultancy services to the food and agriculture industries in Singapore and the region. This may enable more overseas farms to meet our food safety requirements and enable them to export their food to Singapore. AVA can also provide consultancy services to assist our local farmers to set up farms, as well as facilitate the setting up of overseas food producing projects for supply to Singapore. AVA finally can look into making Singapore an agricultural hub and distribution centre in the region. This will increase the trading of agricultural and food products through Singapore, and enable us to have access to more varieties of food. AVA will plug into the relevant international networks to monitor closely the global spread and incidences of potentially dangerous diseases. It will also maintain world class diagnostic and testing laboratories. Resources are now being put in place. Two new laboratories are being set up and these will be ready by 2002. They will have the latest equipment and instrumentation for the detection of disease agents and harmful food contaminants as well as genetically modified foods. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on the main features of the Bill. Part I of the Bill gives the short title and interpretation of the Bill. Part II provides for the establishment, incorporation and constitution of the Authority. Part III spells out the functions and powers of the Authority. These are essentially the same as those already vested in PPD, either administratively, or through the various existing Acts administered by PPD. It will also be able to form companies, joint ventures or partnerships. Parts IV and V of the Bill relate to staff and financial matters. In particular, clause 16 includes provisions to protect the Authority from liability in respect of products or processes which have been deemed to have conformed to the Authority's requirements. This is required as the AVA will be involved in formulating standards and issuing certificates, brands or other marks related to the agri-food and veterinary sectors. Part VI comprises the transitional provisions relating to the transfer of property, assets and liabilities of the PPD to the AVA. Under clause 31, all persons employed by PPD shall be transferred to AVA. The terms will be no less favourable than those enjoyed by the officers immediately prior to their transfer. The pension rights of Government employees would also be preserved under clause 32 of the Bill. Part VII of the Bill covers the miscellaneous provisions such as the Authority's symbol, powers of enforcement and power to make regulations under the Bill. These provisions will help the Authority to carry out its functions. This Part also includes the list of consequential amendments to be made to other legislation which are currently administered by the PPD and to any other legislation referring to PPD or the Director of Primary Production. Sir, in conclusion, let me say that we are now facing new challenges in ensuring the safety of our primary food needs and in dealing with threats from emerging diseases and harmful food contaminants. The restructuring of PPD into AVA will allow us to have a statutory board to work towards managing these challenges. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, I support the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority Bill which basically establishes a statutory board for the current Primary Production Department. As we all know, a statutory board gives greater autonomy to the Authority, both in the employment and deployment of staff and greater speed and effectiveness in carrying out its functions. Even as a department today of the MND, it is already doing a good job, as can be seen in the way it has dealt with several crises recently, for example, in the Mad Cow Disease, the chicken flu and the pig diseases of Malaysia. If anything, I think the PPD has always been very fast and too conservative in the way they have dealt with food crisis. In this case, I am not complaining and I think we should continue to remain conservative whether the PPD remains a Government department or statutory board. The PPD has always been seen more as a regulator than as a promoter of domestic food production. Given our limited land resources, it is understandable that most of our food products would be imported. However, with new technology, new food production may take up a lot less space or land. With the PPD becoming a statutory board, I would like to urge the new Authority to be more proactive and take more initiatives to make Singapore more self-sufficient in our food supplies, in addition to its role as a regulator. I would like to touch on a few specifics of the Bill. In clause 31 regarding the transfer of employees, it states here that "all persons employed immediately before that day . shall be transferred to the service of the Authority on terms no less favourable than those enjoyed by them immediately prior to their transfer." The Bill does not seem to address any of its structuring, rationalisation and possible redundancies that may occur in the process. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be such redundancies and, if so, how will these be addressed by the Authority. Clause 39 regarding powers of enforcement states that any person found guilty of an offence shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both. My question to the Minister is: have these powers of enforcement been increased as a result of the establishment of the Authority or have they remained the same? In clause 46 there is a reference made to the Director of Primary Production Department and it says that it should be read as Director-General of Agri-food and Veterinary Services. Actually, I am a bit confused whether this job is the same job as the Chief Executive of the Authority or will this be a different person. I am not very clear about this. This is not stated very clearly in the Bill.

Sir, the Primary Production Department (PPD) will be converted into a statutory board on 1st April 2000. The main concern of the affected officers is the terms of transfer of employment. As many as 333 non-pensionable officers crossing over to the statutory board will lose their option to convert back to pension upon retirement under section 6(d) of the Pensions Act. They are mainly worried about their post retirement medical benefits. In the past few months, the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE) had several discussions with officials from the Ministry of National Development and PPD over the details of the conversion exercise and hoped to resolve this issue of perceived inequity. Section 6(d) of the Pensions Act allows any non-pensionable officer in service before 7th December 1984 to return his excess CPF contributions at the point of his retirement from the civil service and claim pension benefits from the Government. However, in December 1984, the Government acted to contain its liabilities by restricting it to serving officers only. Thus, officers affected in this exercise have no choice but to cross over and, in so doing, lose the option. The option has become more attractive with the rising medical costs. Pensionable officers crossing over to a statutory board get to retain their pension benefits in full. This is the perceived inequity. We are glad that the new statutory board intends to make it attractive to the employees concerned to join the board. We welcome PPD's initiative to offer an attractive package to solve this problem for those who convert. I understand that this offer is now pending approval from PSD or MOF, and I urge the two departments to be supportive as it will be a win-win solution for all. With this offer, the affected employees can decide what they want to do with the money. One way is for them to buy medical insurance to cover for their old age. As the Government is likely to conduct more such conversion exercises in future, each conversion exercise will affect an increasing number of older workers who, in turn, would feel a greater need for medical benefits. And each time a conversion exercise takes place, unhappiness associated with the loss of option would arise. This has been so for the exercises involving TAS, NParks, Singapore Power, SBA and LTA. The gesture on the part of the PPD to offer an attractive package is appreciated. It can serve as a good reference for future conversion exercises. It also shows that the Ministry concerned needs to be careful to ensure equitable treatment between different groups covered by the same exercise. In this case, it is a comparison between pensionable and non-pensionable officers. As the profile of our workforce is changing, aging, in particular, will increase the desire for medical benefits over time. Hence, rules that impinge on such privileges will increasingly become a cause for anxiety among the workers. Thus, I would like to urge the Public Service Department to be more pragmatic and creative in interpreting rules and regulations with its sophisticated software, expensive hardware and the much needed "heartware" under the Singapore 21 vision. Policies and rules cannot always be mechanically applied, following precedent.

I would like to support the Bill. In doing so, I acknowledge the importance of the work performed by the PPD in its past incarnation, and look forward to this new statutory body. The supply and safety of food in Singapore is, of course, very important. If Singaporeans enjoy their food, as we all know they do, the fact that they can enjoy with safety and health is a testimony to the PPD's hard work. This is particularly because of the surrounding circumstances. When we take food from other places, whether it is the Nipah virus or whether it is the Mad Cow diseases, there are increasing strains on the global system of supplying safe and healthy food. The new agency, therefore, is very welcomed in being able to be more autonomous and, hopefully, more efficient and effective in its functions. However, when I look through the functions in clause 11 and the powers of the Authority in clause 12 of the Bill, my first thought is that we should take this occasion to make this new agency no longer under the MND but, with due respect, under his colleague, the Minister for the Environment. Because when I look at this Bill, I understand that the powers of the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority will increasingly be about public health and safety. This ties in very much with the Ministry of the Environment's own concern of hawkers and other suppliers of food to the consumer. The present arrangement of having it under MND has been, according to my research, more a historical accident of where the Ministers were in the former Cabinet than a matter of administrative logic. I think that the public health expertise and focus of the Ministry of the Environment will actually make a better context for this new entity. I also believe the Ministry of the Environment will be better plugged into the international community and steps in the direction of international standards of environment and health. This brings me to my next point. And this is that the international community is moving quite rapidly in certain areas. One of them is the question of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or GM foods. This has been brought up several times in the debate in the Committee of Supply, and I would not actually repeat the arguments already made. A number of PAP Backbenchers have called for labelling. I think the Government's response can be summed up as being, "we should not panic the public and we will however follow international standards." And I applaud this approach. Certainly, Singapore, as a country that does not produce our own food, should not create a stampede mentality that suspects that perhaps everything is tainted. That is not our intention. And certainly, it is good to reassure ourselves that we will follow, as we have before, the highest possible international standards. There is uncertainty at present, and therefore there is no need to actually move. And there is also the possibility of protectionism. Countries that develop GMOs, like the USA, have tended to be quite reluctant to see labelling or other measures. Countries that do not produce these GMOs take reverse position. The dispute between the US and the European Union over the Bee-hormone case is typical of this; that your science follows your political and economic interests. Nevertheless, I think Singapore must note that there are emerging international standards that we can follow. The Biosafety Protocol of the Convention of Biological Diversity has been passed in Cartagena after various discussions in Montreal and elsewhere. And this sets up an international framework with very important principles for us. One of the principles was of advance informed agreement. That is to say, not that you ban the import but simply that you are told what it is that you may be importing. The second principle is something called the precautionary principle. I do not want to go into all the details of this concept after so many days of debate in this House, but basically this puts the onus on safety. It asks us to act prudently rather than to wait for the last bit of scientific evidence to be in place. This is important because, as I have said, it would be in the interest of certain countries to pooh-pooh questions of safety and security. It is a bit like, again, the mad cow disease. In that case, the British scientists were the last to see any problem. Similarly, in the Nipah virus, the problem was probably detected for some time or observable for some time before authorities in that country finally acted. So it is important to note that international standards are coming to place which suggest a certain level of prudence. This, I should tell the Minister, is congruent with our existing trade rules. We want to observe international trade regime. It is therefore important to note that the WTO agreement on sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards does allow a country to take provisional measures, if there are possible dangers to public health. So I respect the Government's position that we should wait for scientists to set heart on this point, but I would urge prudence, as has befitted the PPD's past, and I hope the AVA's future. Due precaution and prudence in importing and exporting food is really primary to Singapore's health and safety record, and the fact that other parts of our industries are developing life sciences should not obscure this first and primary concern. The second point I wish to make is that I have noticed in the press and from the statement of Mr Lew Syn Pau, Member of Parliament for Tanglin-Kreta Ayer, before this, that PPD might be taking initiatives to increase agro-technology. This is with the aim of intensifying farming. This may possibly involve the high level use of chemicals. The aim is to supply them to our own local market. If we want to compete in this local market, I would imagine that this would be at fairly low prices, that is, Singapore would try to use technology rather than land space, but to enable it to sell fairly low price goods that would compete with others in the region. So we can produce some of its own products. I think it is right to secure our food sources. But I am not sure it is right to take this approach of high technology and, possibly, high chemicals. After all, we are a very small and densely populated country. Our water sources are very important. For this reason, we should always be very careful in protecting our environment. We should also try, on the other hand, to produce higher value-added goods, rather than to try and match Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand for low price market value. Accordingly, my suggestion is that the AVA should consider encouraging and promoting organic food production rather than agro-technology. Organic food production involves no chemicals and therefore no danger to the environment. It is also, by and large, higher value-added. Organic vegetables fetch relatively high prices. I think, in this sense, it fits more into our strategy of protecting the environment while seeking economic gain. Reliable certification is also very hard to ensure, and here Singapore's reputation of being a hard-task master of certificates you can rely on, will come into play. This would allow a balance against this promotion of GM foods. When there is uncertainty, as it is now, the urge should be to diversify our approaches. It is observable that America while it is, on the one hand, promoting genetically modified food, it is also setting standards for organic food certification. The third suggestion I have to make is that in deciding what to do with some agricultural land, we should revisit the idea of encouraging some level of citizen farming. Systems of allotment in other cities and countries are quite common. And I think it may be important to help city dwellers relax and connect to the land, and this has a value, in addition to dollars for Singapore. My last point, Sir, is on animal control and welfare, which is part of the PPD's mission. It is often said that a mark of a civilised life is not only how we treat our fellow citizens but how we treat our pets. There have been recent reports of animal abandonment and abuse in Singapore. This has been brought to court and cases have led to a very strong signal that animal abuse in Singapore would not be tolerated. Control of stray population of animals is, of course, an important goal that PPD has been pursuing. However, the question is how we try to achieve that goal and how we balance this with allowing ownership and responsibility. In this regard, I understand that the PPD's existing policies are quite unfavourable to household cats. For example, compared to dogs, cats cannot be licensed. And if cats are tagged with proper information about who they belong to, who to contact, they can still be rounded up and taken off and eventually gassed, without reference back to the owner who is the person identified on the tag. I think that this might show a little too much efficiency in trying to keep the streets free of stray animals. While I agree with the goal, our efforts should be conducted quite humanely. There should be reference back to the owners when cats are taken off the street. After all, while animals and pets may seem a small thing to us, for many people they are a source of very domestic pleasure of having these animals in their households. This particularly, Sir, is when the cats have been sterilised and tagged and I think they pose very little risk of creating a large and disproportionate stray population. When we make a Government department to a statutory body, we often wish to give it more greater flexibility. In many cases, profit making or cost recovery is also emphasised, with the promotion of commercial aspects. There is nothing wrong with this. But in the case of the AVA, they will have to deal with safety and public health, what we eat, how we connect to the land, and how we relate to animals and pets. These are aspects of humanity that I hope would be observed and strengthened in the new entity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to, first of all, thank all the Members who have spoken. They have all supported the Bill. They have also raised several questions which I would like to take this opportunity to answer. First of all, Mr Lew asked about the transferred employees, whether there will be any restructuring or redundancies. The idea is for us to transfer all the employees to the new statutory board because all of the officers involved are needed to allow the new statutory board to exercise its functions and responsibilities. So there is no plan to do any restructuring or have any redundancies at this point in time, because, as I said, all the officers are needed. However, I think it is correct for me to say that as the statutory board evolves, looks at its various functions and responsibilities, vis-a-vis other Government departments, I think there will be opportunities for the various Government departments to come together and to see how they can actually improve their coordination and their workflow. So if that opportunity does arise in the future, the new statutory board should take advantage of that and improve its organisational structure in order to provide a better level of service to the public. At this point in time, I would also like to address Mr Simon Tay's point about where the new statutory board should reside, whether it should be in the National Development Ministry or whether it should be under the Environment Ministry. I think my colleague here has just given me a signal that he does not think that it is a good idea. The fact of the matter really is that food safety and control of public safety are inter-related issues. I do not think any one agency can do justice to the very broad range of issues that need to be looked at and resolved. So, for example, when you are talking about food safety, we have the PPD which is involved in the control of safety of foods and assurance of safety of primary foods. We have the Ministry of the Environment which looks at the safety of food at the retail end. We also have Ministry of Health which also looks at the food safety and communicable diseases and so on. All these agencies have their own areas of expertise and responsibility and together, whenever there is any danger, whenever there is any sign that we are going to be affected by some major outbreak of disease, as what happened last year when the Nipah virus outbreak took place, then all these agencies come together. We form an Inter-Ministry Task Force and we fight the problem together. I think this has worked well in the past. I do not see why it would not work in the future with the AVA. And I would suggest that we look at this particular modus operandi and improve upon it, rather than to try and establish a neat solution whereby everything comes together under one agency, and then we try and decide where to put that agency. At this particular point in time, we would not make any changes to the different responsibilities of the various agencies involved. But down the road, I think it is proper for us, as we work together, to decide how we can either apportion or re-apportion responsibilities or indeed even amalgamate some of them. But I do not see the time where all these particular responsibilities will come under one. I think the range of expertise required is simply too great. Mr Lew also asked whether the powers of enforcement have been increased or remained the same. Yes, the answer is that they have remained the same. He asked whether the Director of Primary Production Department is the same person as the Director-General of Agri-food and Veterinary Authority. The answer is yes, he is the same person. Mr Seng Han Thong asked about the transfer of officers to the new statutory board. As I have said, the Bill provides for the transfer of these officers from the department, a Government department, to a statutory board on terms no less favourable than what they are getting today. I realise that some of the officers today who are non-pensionable will lose the option to convert if they were to transfer over to the AVA. My officers have been looking into how we can provide a package which would allow the transfer to take place without adversely affecting the officers concerned. I understand the concerns of the officers. I understand the concerns of the union who represents them, as articulated by the Member just now. Let me just say that at this point in time, we are actively exploring various options to try and tide over the officers when they transfer from the Department to a statutory board. Of course, we will certainly look into his suggestion of ex-gratia payment. I turn now to Mr Simon Tay's point about GMO and the biodiversity protocol. As far as GMOs are concerned, I think he is right in saying that we should not panic the public. The media has given a lot of attention to GMOs in recent months. Some of the reporting has been quite sensational; some of the headlines, for example, Frankenstein food, and so on, and given rise to a lot of anxiety. But the fact of the matter is that there are genetically modified foods currently on our shelves in the supermarkets. But these have been determined to be safe for us to eat. There is no reason for us to suddenly confer upon such foods monster status. We have been eating it all this time. PPD monitors the food very closely, in line with the trends in the world. We take the necessary precautions. Food, which is not approved in other countries, will not be allowed into Singapore. Foods which have been identified as not safe, we will take immediate action to remove them from the shelves. This is a very new field. There is a lot of discussion going on now. What we have done in Singapore is to try and follow the discussions that are going on in the international arena. We have formed in Singapore what is known as the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) which includes, PPD, ENV, National Science and Technology Board, universities and so on. We are trying to establish a procedure and a protocol whereby we can also label foods, track them, monitor them and assess whether they are safe or not, etc. This is an on-going process. We will continue to monitor how other countries tackle the issue. We will abide by what is international practice in this area. As for the biosafety protocol, the Cartegena Protocol that the Member mentioned just now, I should inform him that the lead agency for the bio-diversity protocol is NParks, not PPD, because it goes beyond GMOs. It also talks about the bio-diversity in various countries. Having said that, we are also following the discussions in the Cartegena process very closely. He is correct in saying that there is a lot of politics involved in the discussions. Countries which are producers of one particular type of food obviously have a certain point of view. Countries which are net consumers have a different point of view. Ultimately, at the end of the day, invariably, the discussions go beyond just the science of it but go into the political arena. We are not producers of the food but consumers, and we will have to take an appropriate position commensurate with our own interests. So far as agri-technology is concerned, the point that Mr Simon Tay made that we should try and restrict high technology farming because it may involve the use of high chemicals, let me assure him that high technology farming does not necessarily equal high chemical farming. In fact, the PPD is extremely strict about the level of contaminants and the use of pesticides in our food. First of all, we do a very stringent test on all the primary foods like vegetables and so on that are prone to high pesticides and high contaminants and having tested them, we are not averse to destroying those which contain a very level of pesticides. We go in further to the extent of banning imports from those particular farms. All those actions demonstrate that we take the issue of pesticides and contaminants in our food very seriously. It would be ironic for us to do so and be so specific and so tough on food being imported, and yet allow high-tech farming in Singapore which makes use of these high pesticides. It does not make sense and we certainly do not intend to take such an approach. I would like to reassure him on that. The fact is yes, where we can, we will encourage organic farming and some farms are already pursuing this option. The other point is on citizen farming. I am not sure exactly what he means by citizen farming. If he means that we set aside plots of land for people to go and farm, that is, hobby farm, there are farms in Singapore located in the agri-technology parks which allow the city dwellers to go there to see what a vegetable looks like when it is growing in the ground and not in the supermarket. There are also farms that allow children to visit them, to look at the animals and so on. If that is what he means, then that has been provided for. But if he is talking about setting aside land around HDB estates for people to go there and farm, that is pretty difficult for us in land scarce Singapore. The last point is about cats and dogs. I must confess that I am not familiar with the issue of whether we treat cats more favourably than dogs. If he would like to file a question, I can give him a more intelligent answer. At this stage, I must confess I do not know about that. I think I have answered all the questions.

Sir, on the question regarding the Director of Primary Production, I think I should make myself a bit clearer because under clause 46 of the Bill, it says that any reference made to this person is actually a reference to the Director-General, Agri-food and Veterinary Services. Under the new statutory board, there is actually the position of the Chief Executive. But today, if the Director of Primary Production is the Chief Executive of a department, my question is: is he, under this new title, also the Chief Executive of the new statutory board?

I may not have made myself clear. The Director-General, Agri-food and Veterinary Services, who has been appointed under the Animals and Birds Act, is the person who exercises the responsibilities of the previous Director-General of the Primary Production Department. Yes, he is the same person. But we have provided for a post of Chief Executive Officer. So the Chief Executive Officer may be the same person as the Director-General of the Agri-food and Veterinary Services as stated in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Sir, I am sure all of us have been waiting for this moment. After a long 10 days of exhaustive debate, we have all heard enough. It now just leaves me to thank you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all Members, for your patience and thank them also for their contributions. Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.

Before we do that, maybe I could just say a few words. Hon. Members, we have come to the end of a long sitting. If we were to take into account the sitting days of late February, we would have, in the past month, actually sat in this Chamber for half that time. During this time, my Deputy and I have heard something like 630 speeches. I made a quick count a while ago, and that did not include the answers during Question time. Even with the extended sitting hours, Members know too well that we just do not have enough time to make all the points that we want to make, but there will be other occasions. Of course, for some Members, there will simply never be enough time. Be that as it may, we have to move on. So for those of you who have had the "guillotine" inflicted upon you unceremoniously, may I just remind you, as I have said so in the past, that your suffering was actually for the good of all of us. Once again, I thank you for the cooperation that you have extended to me and to my Deputy.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. " - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.