Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first I would like to thank Mr Hawazi and the other hon. Members who spoke in support of the Bill, including, I notice, Mr Chiam See Tong, who expressed his in-principle support although he raised several questions. I also wish to thank the Members for making various suggestions, particularly about the type of training or the nature of training and the way to deliver training to the older workers. These are suggestions and issues which will certainly be taken into consideration when the Advisory Council is convened to study various proposals for the use of the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. I will respond to the various comments as they were made. First, Mr Hawazi suggested that the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund should work together with the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) and the Skills Development Fund (SDF), and not to compete with them but, rather, to complement what is already being done through the SRP and SDF. I agree with him. That is in fact the intention of setting up a Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund: to provide more resources which could be used to complement the budget allocations for programmes such as the Skills Redevelopment Programme, and also to provide additional support for the Skills Development Fund in providing training and skills upgrading opportunities for workers. Mr Hawazi also suggested that the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund should provide support for CCCs or community clubs and maybe even Community Development Council-initiated programmes for skills upgrading. I agree with him. This is one of the things that we will be looking into, how to work with community organisations that want to play a very active role in offering skills upgrading opportunities to the people. In fact, a project that I mentioned in my Second Reading speech - the National IT Literacy Programme - is something that was conceived along this line where the Government, through the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, would work together with community groups to offer basic IT skills and Internet skills training to people who lack such skills. So we are in fact going to work closely with various community organisations. I note that Mr Hawazi emphasised that the priority for the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund should still remain with the lower-skilled because this is the group that is most vulnerable, although he also mentioned that we should not overlook the needs of the better-skilled, who will also face the danger of retrenchments in an economic downturn. I agree with him. We will continue to focus our efforts and our resources on the lower-educated, lower-skilled Singaporeans, particularly the older workers. For this group, we already have a very wide range of training courses available under different programmes, such as the Skills Redevelopment Programme, the National Skills Recognition System, Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme, etc. For instance, under the SRP, we have more than 20 industry sectors covered where we are actually offering training for workers in these sectors. These include electronics, hotel, marine, telecommunications, taxi, healthcare, insurance, cleaning and even childcare. We will continue to expand the list so that more and more industry sectors are covered and the needs of workers in each of these sectors will be catered to. He also asked that employers should be encouraged to put workers who are at risk of being retrenched or have been retrenched on to programmes such as the SRP and for the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund to support these workers and their employers. This is, in fact, one of the ways in which we are encouraging employers to take advantage or to make full use of the SRP in helping workers who are vulnerable to retrenchment. We persuade employers, who are in the process of having to downsize, to send their workers for such training long before they actually have to be retrenched, which means that they will be given an opportunity to acquire a new skill or to upgrade their old skills so that it is easier for them, when it comes to the actual day of retrenchment, to go out there to look for a new job. The encouragement that we give to the employers is a very substantial cash subsidy, the absentee payroll, while their workers are sent away for training and we also bear up to almost all of the training costs, depending on the age of the workers. As for workers who are better educated, such as polytechnic and university graduates, they have already enjoyed a headstart in the skills race, compared to the older lower educated workers. They have also received substantial Government subsidy in their higher education, so they should therefore take a higher responsibility and a higher proportion of the cost of upgrading their skills. Of course, in this context, many employers are also continuing to provide their better educated workers with employer-based upgrading and training. We have also raised the skills development levy ceiling from $1,000 to $1,500 in July last year and we will continue to gradually adjust this ceiling up to $2,000. By raising the skills development levy ceiling, we are, in fact, enabling the Skills Development Fund to collect more money which can then be used to provide more training opportunities. As the ceiling has been raised from $1,000 to $1,500, and progressively to $2,000, we will be able to extend more training support and assistance to even polytechnic graduates who are presently not fully covered under the skills development levy. So there will be more opportunities made available for this group of workers. But as a principle, Government's support for the higher educated group would have to be focused on specific areas of critical industry and skills requirement, rather than just broad-based support, such as fee subsidy or allowance for them to sign up for all kinds of postgraduate courses. We have to be very selective because these are people who have already benefited from a high level of Government subsidy in their tertiary education and for an additional upgrading to a higher degree, we have to be very selective. Only when we are sure that this will make a significant difference to our economic competitiveness will we be able to provide some form of support. What we are doing is that we are currently working towards increasing the capacity or opportunities for continuing education and training for the diploma and degree holders. But it would have to be in very selective and economically critical disciplines and courses which can be made available at our universities and polytechnics and also the ITE. If you have read today's newspapers, there is also a possibility of having a fourth university. If that comes about, it would make it even easier for polytechnic diploma holders who want to upgrade themselves. They will have access to a fourth university, which will offer affordable courses for them to upgrade. They do not have to either go overseas to upgrade or try to find one of the limited places in NUS or NTU. Let me assure him that we will also consider how we can extend the assistance to the better educated in this process of lifelong learning. But at the end of the day, we must have our priority, and as the hon. Member himself stated, the priority should be with the lower educated and the less skilled workers because they are the most vulnerable group now. Mr Thomas Thomas has expressed concern whether, with the establishment of a Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, it would shift the responsibility of skills upgrading and training to the workers and relieve the employers of their traditional responsibility of training their workers. Let me assure him that this should not be the case. I agree that employer-based training is, in fact, the most important and effective form of skills upgrading because training provided by the employers will definitely be relevant to their jobs and the skills much needed in the marketplace. We will continue to emphasise the importance of employer-based training in the programmes which we will develop and evolve for the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. I would like to assure the hon. Member that it is not our intention to undermine this nexus between employers and employees in terms of training and skills upgrading, but our intention is to supplement and strengthen this relationship so that more and more employers will be willing to go out of their way, if necessary, to provide training and skills upgrading to their employees. In doing so, the programmes that we will craft for the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund will, as I mentioned in response to Mr Hawazi, complement the existing Skills Development Fund programme and the Manpower Development Assistance Scheme, and because of the additional resources that are now available, we will open up more opportunities for the workers. In the future, when the budget allocations for the Skills Redevelopment Programme and the Manpower Development Assistance Scheme run down, we can then use the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund's stream of income to continue to sustain this programme so that lifelong efforts will continue unabated. Mr Thomas also raised a specific point concerning clause 4(5) where it states that if there is a reduction in the capital sum in the Fund, then before we spend any of the future income, we should make good this loss. He also said that if we do so, we should not do it at the expense of the workers, because of two possible scenarios - a loss in capital sum can happen in case of a bad investment decision or in a general economic downturn. I agree with him that yes, this is a possibility. We cannot dismiss it. At some point in the future, from time to time, the Endowment Fund might actually suffer a capital loss. Should we make good the capital loss before we start to spend the future revenues that come later on? I think the spirit of this clause is that we should make this effort before we start to spend future revenues. Let me explain why. If we do not make up for the losses in the capital sum, over several cycles of losses over a period of time, we could seriously diminish the amount of capital sum available and future incomes would also diminish. Although we understand why in a downturn workers need more training and therefore we should actually spend more money and not spend less, if we were to do it, we will, in effect, be depriving future workers of opportunities for training. In any event, the workers are going to suffer. Once you have a diminution in the capital sum and you do not make up for it, the question is: should the current group of workers suffer or future workers suffer? Our view is that we should try as fast as possible to make up for the losses in capital and then we resume funding programmes so that future workers do not have to suffer the losses. I think this is a wiser and more prudent approach over the long-term because the intention of setting up an Endowment Fund is to make sure that there is a continuing stream of income, which hopefully, over the years, will grow and we can continue to support lifelong learning activities. If you allow the funds to run down by not making up for any capital losses, you are diminishing this return and, in the long run, that would not be good for the workers. He also mentioned about a skills-save account and whether we could consider this under the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. Let me point out that, as I have indicated in my Second Reading speech, the estimated income from the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund in the initial years may only be $20 million to start with, and even if we reach a target of $5 billion, we only have $200 million. The Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund is perhaps not the best means to go about setting up the individual learning accounts for the workers because if we were to distribute this amount of money to all the workers, we will probably end up with each one getting less than $200 a year which will not make an impact. And by distributing this resource, we may not be able to focus on much needed programmes to upgrade the skills of workers who are most vulnerable to retrenchment. So we should actually harness this resource to selectively help workers who are in greater risks. Mr Matthias Yao has given us a graphic account of how workers see lifelong learning and the kind of problems that they face. He mentioned three points, the first point is that there is an obstacle confronting workers who want to go for skills upgrading. There is this concern about loss of income. Many of our skills upgrading programmes are developed with this concern in mind. If you take the SRP, for instance, we provide up to 85% absentee payroll subsidy and up to 100% course fee subsidy, depending on the age of the workers. For older workers, we contribute more. This is to help employers to put their workers up for this kind of programmes and not having to bear all the costs. I understand that if a worker is unemployed, then of course it is even more difficult for him to go for such skills upgrading because he had already lost his job and he has no income. It is precisely because of this concern that we have set up programmes with self-help groups like SINDA, MENDAKI and CDAC to identify these self-help groups as surrogate employers. We have also identified other organisations or associations as SRP facilitators. These are people who can help the unemployed by sponsoring them for training under the SRP and we will then provide them with both the course fee subsidy and the training allowances. For instance, up to now, about 7,000 low-income workers who have lost their jobs, particularly during the downturn of 1998, had managed to acquire better skills, qualifications, and also had their skills upgraded under the SRP through the surrogate employers scheme. Under that scheme, we actually provide them with training, subsidise their course fee and also a training allowance up to a maximum of about $500. With that training allowance, we could help to defray some of the expenditure that the unemployed worker would need to incur. We cannot provide huge allowances which would make it so attractive just to become a trainee, but we can help workers who are out of job with some out-of-pocket expenses, so that during that period they would not be in too great a financial distress. But it still depends on the worker making the effort to come forward, sign up for the programme and to diligently attend the training course to qualify for his higher skill qualification. Mr Matthias Yao also talked about the special needs for the training of adults. This is, in fact, one of the areas that the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund will be looking at. We understand that training adults is quite different from training the school-going cohort. When we started the Bukit Merah Skill Development Centre, we were quite conscious of this. And one of the things was that if you look at the training manuals used by the Bukit Merah Skill Development Centre, all the prints are extra large, much bigger than you would find in any textbook. The reason is simple, because older workers have difficulty reading fine print. So we had to have special instruction manuals printed with huge print to make it easier for older workers to read. We are, in fact, quite conscious of this. With the establishment of the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, we now have resources to even better study the training methods that will be most suitable for older workers. His third point is that many workers, especially the older workers, fear making mistakes during the training courses. I think it is human nature to fear mistakes. But if we do not make the effort to learn, then we will never make any progress. And in the course of trying to learn something new, from time to time, we are bound to make some mistakes. My response would be that employers must understand this human nature, and in the way that they manage their older workers and in the way they motivate and encourage their older workers to go for training, they must always be patient; they must always be sympathetic and understanding, especially when an older worker, in the course of training, were to make mistakes. In fact, he learns through making mistakes. Because he has made the mistake, he learns not to do it again, and he will learn how to improve his performance at work. So employers should be more sympathetic and understand that older workers have this special need to upgrade. And in the training course, they may occasionally make some mistakes. Mr Seng Han Thong asked whether the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund would also support knowledge acquisition. I made it quite clear in my Second Reading speech that what we are looking for is both knowledge and skills. The word may not have appeared in the text, but I have made it quite clear that the spirit is to help Singaporeans to embark on this lifelong journey to acquire higher knowledge and better skills, so that we can be more competitive and more proficient in the new economy. With regard to social and personal needs, I think this is a separate area, whether young Singaporeans grow up into balanced, mature adults and know all their responsibilities and obligations as an adult. This is a separate area of education. This is something that they would have received good preparation during their schooling years. And, in some cases, through some other kind of social interaction, they should acquire such skills. The Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund's focus must be on employability. We must focus on skills and knowledge that are relevant to the needs of the labour market. As the economy transits into a knowledge-based economy, we must increasingly focus on the skills and knowledge that can help a worker hold and do a productive job in such an economy. And I think that should remain our focus. Mr Seng Han Thong also asked how the Fund would cooperate with grassroots organisations such as the CCs, RCs and community clubs which want to set up training facilities. This is an area which we should leave it to the advisory council to consider when they deliberate on the programme that should be supported. There will certainly be some support, because we understand that if you, for instance, want to introduce training under the national IT literacy programme, you, in fact, have to invest in computers and softwares. You have to set up some small computer training facilities. You may need two or three dozen computers. And who is going to finance this? We will look into how, under the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, we can jointly support such projects. We could work with the community organisations to establish such training centres. But, of course, somebody else mentioned that we should avoid duplication. We should make sure that resources are not just wastefully duplicated. Here, I just want to add one point, as I forgot to respond to Mr Hawazi about the advisory council. Our intention is to make the advisory council an all-embracing council in terms of composition. We will bring in the trade union representatives. We will have employers represented there. We will also have community organisations represented there. We will have industry groups represented there and, of course, also Government agencies that are participating in skills upgrading and also steering the economy. So, the advisory council will represent a very wide cross-section of interests and concerns in the labour market and the type of skills that are required by the labour market. In this way, we can have good feedback, good effective evaluation of the programmes that should be supported under the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund. I just want to add another point at this juncture. We also welcome proposals and initiatives from community organisations that want to come forward to join us in this effort to reach out to Singaporeans in helping them to upgrade themselves. I think that leaves only Mr Chiam who queried why is it that only the Minister is responsible for the administration of the Fund and not some independent organisation. This is an Endowment Fund set up by the Government specifically to provide resources for training and skills upgrading for Singaporeans. The Ministry of Manpower is responsible for manpower development. That is why the responsibility is placed with the Ministry of Manpower and the Minister is made responsible for the administration of the Fund. It does not mean that the Minister himself is going to individually sign every cheque or approve every single payment. The Minister will have, of course, under the normal operation, to delegate the duties that will set up the administration framework to monitor the returns and disbursements of all the money under the Fund. I think this is no different from the other endowment funds, whether it is Edusave or MediFund, or as Mr Lim Hng Kiang mentioned earlier, the Eldercare Endowment Fund. This is a fairly standard provision. So I do not see why he should object to it. This is actually Government's budget surplus. So the Government has to be responsible for it, as a trustee for the members of the public, the people of Singapore. He wants an independent body to administer and disburse the Fund. Why is that necessary? The Fund, of course, will be audited and proper accounts will be provided. The Ministry of Finance will be the first to want to know if, in fact, the Fund has not been properly administered, and somebody will be held responsible. In this case, if that happens, the Minister for Manpower will be held responsible. He expressed his concern that the Fund should only support activities on merit, because he talked about the Fund disbursing payments to individuals or persons. He even objected to the word "person". A person can be a worker. What do you call somebody who is unemployed? Is he a worker? How about a housewife who wants to go back into the workforce? Do you call her a worker too? Sir, I think he is becoming too narrow if he says that we should only use the word "worker" and not "person". The word "person" is a wider term. From my perspective, it appropriately covers everybody who needs training in order to help him to enhance his employability. I am looking at housewives, for instance, who have left the job market for 10 years and now want to return to work, but they need some training and new skills which they did not have. So should we include or exclude them? By his definition, if we were to say that the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund has got to be focused on workers, then this group will not be eligible. Is that good? I do not think so. I think we should extend support to women who want to re-enter the workforce. So the choice of the word by the legal draftsman is quite appropriate. I have already explained the advisory council. We intend to bring in people from the different sectors, so that we get a very good and comprehensive feedback, and also objective evaluation. The funds are mostly going to be disbursed by way of support for specific programmes. Let me assure all Members that good ideas will not be overlooked. If Members have any specific ideas about how they and their community organisations can play a part in promoting lifelong learning and provide their constituents with more skill upgrading opportunities, please put your ideas to us and we will have them examined by the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund advisory council. And if the idea is sound, we will definitely help you to put these ideas to work. Sir, I think Mr Chiam missed my Second Reading speech, because he asked about the amount of the capital money. The Bill does not say anything about the actual sum, but the Prime Minister, in his National Day Rally speech last year, said that the Fund will be started with an initial contribution of $500 million from the Government, and the objective is to build it up over the years - of course, the good years when we have budget surpluses - to a target amount of $5 billion. The expected revenue from $5 billion Endowment Fund should be about $200 million. And I think with $200 million, we can do quite a lot in terms of promoting and supporting lifelong learning. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have answered the questions that have been raised.