Hansard, 2002-11-25

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: FromTo Name(2002)(2002) Mr Inderjit Singh5 Nov8 Nov 11 Nov16 Nov 24 Nov15 Dec Mr Wee Siew Kim9 Nov15 Nov Mr Nithiah Nandan9 Nov15 Nov Mrs Lim Hwee Hua10 Nov15 Nov 1 Dec4 Dec 16 Dec23 Dec Mr Yeo Guat Kwang10 Nov18 Nov Mdm Halimah Yacob10 Nov23 Nov Mr Gan Kim Yong11 Nov- 26 Nov30 Nov Mr Ong Kian Min11 Nov14 Nov 19 Nov20 Nov 22 Nov26 Nov Dr Tan Cheng Bok13 Nov19 Nov Assoc Prof Koo Tsai Kee16 Nov17 Nov 25 Nov6 Dec Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee17 Nov25 Nov Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed17 Nov24 Nov Prof S Jayakumar18 Nov22 Nov 2 Dec12 Dec Dr Ong Chit Chung18 Nov22 Nov 10 Dec13 Dec 16 Dec17 Dec Mr Hawazi Daipi18 Nov23 Nov 9 Dec13 Dec Mr Sin Boon Ann19 Nov3 Dec BG George Yeo19 Nov20 Nov 24 Nov29 Nov 9 Dec20 Dec Mr Lim Hng Kiang19 Nov23 Nov Mr Chiam See Tong20 Nov1 Dec Mr Wong Kan Seng22 Nov25 Nov Mr Ong Ah Heng22 Nov25 Nov Mr Arthur Fong22 Nov23 Nov 29 Nov30 Nov Mr Ng Ser Miang22 Nov10 Dec Mr K Shanmugam22 Nov28 Nov Dr Chong Weng Chiew24 Nov30 Nov Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair25 Nov26 Nov Mr Wee Siew Kim29 Nov02 Dec Mr Lim Swee Say18 Nov22 Nov 2 Dec17 Dec Dr Balaji Sadasivan2 Dec9 Dec Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam3 Dec13 Dec FromTo Name(2002)(2002) Dr Ng Eng Hen5 Dec13 Dec 16 Dec19 Dec Mr Chan Soo Sen5 Dec21 Dec Dr Lee Boon Yang6 Dec8 Dec Mr Mah Bow Tan6 Dec16 Dec Mr Lee Hsien Loong9 Dec24 Dec Mr Mohamad Maidin B P M13 Dec27 Dec Dr Vivian Balakrishnan15 Dec21 Dec Dr Yaacob Ibrahim17 Dec29 Dec Mr Seng Han Thong18 Dec26 Dec ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what kind of programmes does the Government plan to initiate in order to reap the benefits that will be derived from the recent successful Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) reached between Singapore and various countries; and (b) how can the recently retrenched employees from the banking sector be reskilled and trained to take up job opportunities arising from the successful FTAs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our FTAs enhance Singapore's attractiveness to investors and strengthen our hub position in Asia. This is because the market access benefits and other preferential treatment that our FTAs carry will enhance the exports of companies in Singapore. Singapore companies and foreign investors will find it more attractive to invest in Singapore, thus generating more employment opportunities for Singaporeans. Our efforts to ensure that businesses are able to benefit from the FTAs begin well before negotiations are concluded. In the course of the negotiations, we actively seek feedback and suggestions from the private sector, in order to find out where the problems are. Armed with this information, we are able to negotiate a better agreement for companies. For the FTAs that are still under negotiation, we strongly encourage companies and business organisations like the Singapore Business Federation to play an even more active role in this process. Once an FTA is concluded, our focus turns to helping businesses understand the agreement so as to take advantage of them. First, we seek to reach out to the general business community through the media, the Internet and seminars. Such large-scale programmes allow us to create a general awareness of FTAs. Second, we recognise that a focused approach will be more effective in helping individual companies understand how they can directly benefit from the Agreements. Therefore, our economic agencies have also been in touch with Singapore-based companies to see how they can specifically leverage on FTA provisions to gain a greater competitive edge. Companies may not always want to reveal details on how they organise their operations to Government agencies. Instead, they may wish to tap on their legal or accounting advisors or other consultants to advise them on how to take advantage of the FTAs. We would therefore welcome efforts by the legal and accounting professions, as well as management consultants, to develop capabilities to be able to advise their clients on international trade and FTA issues. Ultimately, the extent to which Singapore benefits from these FTAs will depend on our people and businesses. Singapore businesses must seize the opportunities afforded by our FTAs to grow and expand internationally. At the same time, Singapore workers must be prepared to retrain and prepare themselves for the new job opportunities that will be created as a result of the FTAs. The FTAs will not help us to hold on to jobs that are no longer competitive, whether in the manufacturing or services sectors. Workers can take advantage of MOM's retraining schemes, such as the WorkSkills Training Programme (WSTP), the Self Employment Training Programme (SET), the Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme (SMCP) and the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP). Retrenched banking sector employees who are subsequently re-employed in the financial sector, can also take advantage of MAS' Financial Sector Development Fund Financial Training Scheme to upgrade their technical expertise. We encourage workers and unions to look to the new opportunities provided by the FTAs, and take advantage of the resources provided by the Government to prepare themselves well for these opportunities.

Sir, can the Senior Minister of State kindly enlighten how we can actually explain this whole concept and programme of the FTAs to the man-in-the-street because, according to the Prime Minister's statement a few days back, about 20,000 jobs can be created arising from the FTAs and especially so in the manufacturing and service sectors? There are many people who are finding hope in this announcement and if more could be done to communicate and make it more simple to the man-in-the-street, it will help a lot.

I think that is a good point. We have been doing a fair bit to publicise the FTAs. First, of course, the full text of the FTAs as well as the business guides are all posted on the MTI's website. The economic agencies are organising seminars and business briefings. We have done seminars on our FTAs with New Zealand and Japan and we also did a fairly large-scale briefing of SMEs sometime in the middle of this year. This process will have to go on, not just to build general awareness but also to build specific awareness of opportunities involved in each FTA. Another approach will be to work with the unions so that they get a better awareness of the specific opportunities that the FTAs provide for workers in their sectors.

Sir, I am very glad to hear that the Senior Minister of State will be briefing the unions. As a suggestion, maybe we could try ---

Mr Nandan, you are supposed to ask questions.

All right. Will the Senior Minister of State consider having a dialogue session with the unions and also at the same time to work out specific programmes where the FTAs can positively benefit workers in general and where are the areas we need to identify to train them up?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a useful suggestion that MTI and Ministry of Manpower can look into together.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of his statement that Singapore may slide into another recession, (a) how long and how deep will this coming recession be, and (b) what additional measures are being taken to help small and big Singapore companies to tide over this difficult period.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MTI's growth forecast for this year has been revised downwards to 2-2.5%. For next year, we are forecasting 2.0 - 5.0%, although there is considerable uncertainty because of the state of the global economy and the possibility of war in Iraq. Our growth forecast for this year reflects expectations of continued positive growth in the fourth quarter on a year-on-year basis, in other words, compared to the fourth quarter of last year. This is because our key exports markets are still growing, albeit more slowly. However, should GDP contract on a quarter-on-quarter basis in the fourth quarter, as happened in the third quarter, we will technically be in recession. We do not expect this to happen, but we cannot rule out the possibility. In an environment as uncertain as today's, there can be little certainty in short term economic forecasts. If US consumption does not fall sharply in the fourth quarter, and the major economies do not stumble badly, we should be able to achieve positive quarter-on-quarter growth in the fourth quarter and avoid a technical recession. Singapore's economic performance next year will also depend very much on how various external events pan out. We could see a good recovery in the economy in the second half of 2003 if the US has by then worked through the after-effects of the investment bubble of the late 1990s, and if confidence in the region around us is sustained. As mentioned in this House last month, several of the measures the Government implemented in July and October last year to help companies during this difficult period are still in place. These include JTC and HDB rental rebates, the cut in foreign workers' levy and concessions on port dues. We have also made enhancements to the Local Enterprise Technical Assistance Scheme (LETAS) and the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme (LEFS). We have also introduced other schemes aimed at helping SMEs. SPRING Singapore launched a Loan Insurance Scheme (LIS) in September 2002 to complement the Local Enterprise Financial Scheme (LEFS), and help SMEs get better access to financing. Unlike LEFS, which stipulates a fixed interest rate, LIS gives participating financial institutions the flexibility to decide on interest rates according to the risk profile of the borrower. This increases the chance of success of an SME's loan application. Private credit risk insurers insure 50 per cent of the loan against default. The Government co-shares the cost of the insurance premium with the SME. The Micro Loan Programme was also set up in November last year, to provide easier access to loans for very small enterprises to meet their working capital needs. Since its launch in November last year, almost 1,000 firms have benefited from this scheme with a total of $32 million in loans. Finally, the Government has also implemented reductions in corporate income taxes, and postponed the restoration of the CPF contribution rates. These will help all businesses during this difficult period. The Government is monitoring the economy closely. It is looking at whether some of the earlier economic relief measures need to be extended, and whether additional ways to help businesses and workers tide over the difficult period are necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, given the economic uncertainty and the fact that we have been told that there might be even a double-dip recession next year, would not the Government consider, as part of its strategy, a postponement of the proposed increase in the GST hike scheduled for January next year? Given the fact that the unemployment situation is set to increase further in the coming weeks or months, that people are already tightening their belts and will tighten their belts even further and therefore consumption spending will drop and businesses will suffer, and this would lead to a contraction in the economy in the months ahead, would he not consider such a move?

Mr Speaker, Sir, a double-dip recession cannot be ruled out but it is not likely at this stage. There are some economists in the US who have painted a scenario of a double-dip in the US but the majority opinion remains that of positive growth in the US economy. Likewise for the region around us and the global economy. So we cannot rule it out but it is not a central scenario at this point, not something that we attach high likelihood to. We will have to watch the economy very carefully in the coming months and respond accordingly. Likewise, for unemployment. We are watching it very carefully but it is not a situation where we expect a sharp surge in unemployment figures at this point. The Prime Minister has mentioned publicly yesterday that the manner of implementation of the GST increase is being considered. This is being looked at together with various other economic relief measures, whether we should extend some of the earlier economic relief measures. This is being considered very carefully. There are obviously revenue implications. I should clarify that the existing plan, as it stood, was not a contractionary plan because the GST increase was accompanied by very substantial offset measures, including the Economic Restructuring Shares that would actually have meant a net boost in the amount of funds being put into the economy by the Government. It was actually, on balance, an expansionary package. But having said that, the Government is considering very carefully the mode of implementation of the GST increase, bearing in mind the economic difficulties of businesses and workers.

asked the Minister for National Development if his Ministry will consider extending the rental rebates and deferring the rental increases or the upward adjustments to 'market rental' of HDB and JTC commercial properties until the economic situation improves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, existing rental rebates provided by HDB to its commercial tenants will expire at the end of the year. The Government is currently reviewing these rebates taking into consideration the economic outlook. As for the upward adjustments to "market rental" of HDB commercial properties, HDB has already moderated their impact on its tenants by staggering the rental adjustments over four renewals at 3-yearly intervals since 1988 - a 12-year period. Tenants who are renewing their tenancies with rental increases from November 2001 onwards can further stagger their rental increase equally over a 3-year term.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister of State confirm when were these market rentals established? Was it before the recession or after the recession?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal to adjust rentals to the market is not a new one and, in fact, was negotiated back in 1988. The intention then was to ensure equity between shopkeepers who have heavily subsidised rentals versus the newer comers who were paying market rents. So this is not a new policy. Having said that, however, in view of the conditions, since November 2001, we have provided for a stagger within a stagger. And for those in their final term of adjustment, we stagger out the increases over three years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister of State has not answered my question. My question was: when were these market rental rates established? Is it still current?

The market rental rates are decided by valuers and they will ensure that, at any point in time, the level at which it is set takes into account the current market conditions. And for those facing renewals from now onwards, the current market conditions are certainly taken into account.

asked the Prime Minister (a) if he will clarify how the Code on Religious Harmony can be applied by Singaporeans; (b) from whom individuals can seek counsel when the Code is flouted; (c) what kind of remedial action can be taken when it is flouted; and (d) whether he will consider setting up a mediation council comprising different religious leaders to resolve conflicts arising from non-compliance with the Code on Religious Harmony.

The proposed Code on Religious Harmony is meant to be a set of guiding principles on how Singaporeans should practise their religion when they interact with one another in our multi-racial, multi-religious, society. As Singapore has already achieved many years of religious harmony, I think the Code, when it is completed, will look rather familiar. However, it is still useful to remind ourselves of all these basic principles which have helped, and will continue to help, achieve and maintain religious harmony in Singapore. Therefore, the Code is actually a reflection of moral values and social norms. It is not a piece of legislation. Hence, there will be no penalties if the Code is flouted. If someone acts in such a manner as to violate religious harmony, there are existing mechanisms to deal with them, and it will not be dealt with by the Code. For example, under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Minister for Home Affairs is empowered to issue restraining orders of up to a maximum of two years against persons inciting religious misunderstanding or causing inter-religious hostility. Any person who breaches the restraining order shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both. In the case of a second or subsequent offence, the person will be liable to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both. The Act also provides for the establishment of a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. The Chairman and every member of the Council are appointed by the President on the advice of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights for a period of three years. The Council considers and reports to the Minister for Home Affairs on matters affecting the religious harmony in Singapore which are referred to the Council by the Minister or by Parliament. The Prime Minister has proposed a draft Code on Religious Harmony for discussion. And since I have been appointed to head the Working Group on the Code, I have been consulting with the national groups representing the various faiths in order to develop the Code, and this process will take place in the next few months. I will listen to and, as far as possible, incorporate all relevant views. The Code will be referred to the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony for consideration before it is finalised. Through the elaborate consultation process, I hope the finalised Code would be one that all major religions in Singapore can agree with and feel ownership for, and one that can be understood and internalised by Singaporeans.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State in what manner would this Code be practised. Is there a consideration to integrate it as part of the pledge-taking session, or are we going to have a separate session?

Mr Speaker, Sir, through the consultation process, we hope to achieve a situation whereby the various religious groups consider the Code as their Code, and not the Government's Code. And if the various religious groups consider the final Code as their Code, we can discuss in what manner they could remind their believers of this Code. I have actually exposed the preliminary idea to them that, for example, if all the religious groups agree, we can say that for the first week of every month, at the end of their weekly prayer, the Code can be read out to the devotees or followers just to remind the people. But all these are very, very preliminary at the moment. I maintain that what we want to achieve is for the various religious groups to consider the Code as their Code, and that they take it upon themselves to remind their believers and devotees of their Code.

Based on what the Minister of State has just described, it will really take care of citizens with a religion. But in cases where they do not have a religion, they will not have a place of worship to practise such an oath-taking. So eventually when we have this objective of coming up with the Religious Harmony Code, how do we intend actually to cover the rest of Singaporeans who may not have a religion at this point?

I think it will depend on the content of the Code, whether it addresses everybody, or it addresses people who are practising a religion. If we are talking about addressing everybody, there is already a code which is in our National Pledge that all our students read every day where we pledge ourselves as one united people regardless of race, language or religion, and so on. But for those who are practising a religion, if the Code is to remind them that when they are practising a religion and when this goes into the common space, when they are interacting with people of different faiths, what is the understanding between our various religious groups on how we should handle that kind of situation. If the Code is to address that, then I would say it suffices to remind the people who are actively practising their religion.

From what the Minister of State has just described, would he not think that it may lead to a lot of confusion in the sense that we are going to have two sets of Codes, one in the school and another set just basically for the religious groups? I do not know how this would develop eventually. Would he care to share some thoughts on this?

I do not know how it will develop eventually either. We are in the consultation process and we would like the various religious groups to play their part in formulating the Code and to play their part to remind their followers on the Code and how to internalise the Code. Since the process is still on-going, I cannot presuppose what would the turnout be at the end. But if we are talking about Singaporeans in general, my own view is that there is already a code called the National Pledge. But for those who are practising their religion actively and bearing in mind that Singapore is a multi-religious type of society, we want to practise a faith in such a way that it does not create misunderstanding or, worse still, create offence with each other. What I was saying is that if the Code addresses this situation, then to be able to remind the people who are actively practising their religion would have been well-served by this Code. And in addition, as Singaporeans, they also remember the National Pledge. So they are reminded twice.

Could I ask the Minister of State about the question on mediation council? In the on-going process, is it possible that we do not have to use the Act and we can nip things in the bud?

This is a question that I will pose to the various religious groups that my colleagues and I are currently consulting. What we are doing is we are visiting group by group and we listen to their views on the Code itself as well as to listen to some feedback on the current state of religious harmony. After we have consulted all the groups, we will sit down and draft the Code before inviting everybody to sit and go through the Code together. Depending on what the Code looks like then, we would be able to raise this question of mediation council with them and to see whether they feel good enough to actually form their own mediation councils so that, for minor matters, there is no need to make use of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

asked the Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports, after September 11 and the recent development of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) activities, (a) are there plans to (i) review the model of self-help groups and (ii) enhance the concept of cohesiveness by amalgamating them under one umbrella body without disrupting their individuality at the same time; and (b) what more can be done and how can we ensure that there is more collaboration of resources among these self-help groups.

Sir, September 11 and the arrests of the Jemaah Islamiyah members reinforce the need for a concerted effort to build harmony and trust among Singaporeans. But they have nothing to do with the self-help groups' role in Singapore. The self-help groups were set up to help the underachievers in their community to level up. While national programmes and CDCs can cater to most Singaporeans, the self-help groups are more effective in reaching out to the last 5% that need help, given their cultural affinity, language and networks. Moreover, different communities have different priorities to address. A community self-help approach allows each community to focus on the issues and problems that are most pressing for that community. The existence of self-help groups should not be perceived as a weakness but as complementary to our multi-racial approach. If the multi-racial approach was not well accepted, we would not be able to form self-help groups without creating communal tension. The self-help groups recognise that their programmes should promote and not undermine multi-racialism. Where feasible, they pool their resources and organise joint programmes. For example, the students can now attend tuition classes run by any of the self-help groups island-wide. Self-help groups are governed by boards of management and overseen by MCDS. Amalgamating them under one umbrella body may not be necessary, and could in fact impede their ability to respond quickly to the needs of their community. The self-help groups should continue to network regularly and consciously seek out areas of collaboration among themselves and with other agencies. This will also enable them to pool resources and minimise duplication.

asked the Minister for National Development, since the last amendment of the Land Titles (Strata) Act in 1987, whether there is now a need to review and further explain the law to prevent the many problems of management and maintenance faced by condominium owners such as those of the Bukit Timah Plaza, People's Park Centre and Kentish Green, as well as problems faced by owners of mixed-use developments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA) provides a legal framework for the development and management of strata schemes in Singapore. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), together with the relevant public agencies, has already initiated a review of the Act. The cases featured recently in the media have highlighted some issues faced by strata developments. This has highlighted to the subsidiary proprietors, ie, the owners of the condominium units the need to take an active interest in the management of their building and a greater awareness of the LTSA. Some have provided feedback that the provisions in the LTSA could be improved upon to ensure better governance and minimise the possibility of abuse. BCA has been consulting relevant stakeholders for the review and will consider their feedback so that the changes to the LTSA will better meet the needs of subsidiary proprietors and management corporations.

Would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary give the likely date when the review could be completed?

The review is in the active phase now. We conducted the first dialogue with the stakeholders on 13th November 2002. We intend to collate some of their views and we will go to the public again for a second dialogue sometime before April 2003. We intend to wrap up the whole exercise and come to Parliament sometime end of next year.

In the review, could the Ministry of National Development, together with the Ministry of Law, consider giving wider jurisdictions, either to the Strata Titles Board or to the Commissioner of Buildings, with regard to resolving conflicts arising from the day-to-day operation and management of the developments?

Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed these are some of the ideas thrown up by the different stakeholders. We will take them into consideration and will come to this House for approval.

In view of the many issues that have been brought up recently and the many problems that the MCST strata title properties are facing, would the Minister consider a more active and shorter review period, resulting in an earlier completion of the review?

Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, that is the intention.

asked the Minister for Transport in view of Shanghai promoting Pudong International Airport as an aviation hub in the Asia Pacific region from 27th October 2002, (a) what will be the impact on Singapore Changi Airport (SCA) which has consecutively been voted as the best Airport in the world by Business Travellers (Asia Pacific) in the last 11 years; and (b) what measures can SCA take to address the challenges so that it will continue to be competitive and maintain its number one position.

Sir, China's civil aviation market is expected to grow by about 8% per annum with its air cargo traffic growing at an even faster 12% per annum for the next 20 years. China is likely to become the largest commercial aviation market outside the USA. Given this immense potential, it is likely that there will be several aviation hubs in China, including Pudong in Shanghai. We see this development in positive light. As the established hub for Southeast Asia and the Australasia region, Changi Airport will benefit from the growth of the North Asian hubs, because the airports serve complementary roles. For instance, air traffic between Changi and Pudong is expected to increase three-fold by end of this year compared to just a year ago, from 14 to 44 weekly services. As Shanghai and Pudong continue to develop rapidly, we expect the traffic between Changi and Pudong to grow in tandem. The development of the Chinese hubs will also bring about further downstream economic opportunities for Singapore, eg, in the maintenance, repairs and overhaul sector. Sir, let me now move on to how Changi Airport intends to stay ahead of its competitors. Globally, the aviation industry has yet to fully recover from the economic downturn exacerbated by the September 11 events. Regionally, competition has become more intense, with many airports offering new facilities and larger capacities. Against this backdrop of continued uncertainty in the global aviation industry and intensifying airport competition, my Ministry has embarked on a fundamental review of Changi Airport's competitive strategy. What we aim to do is to not just help our airline partners tide through this difficult period but, more importantly, position Singapore for the long haul. I am therefore happy to inform Members of the setting up of a 3-year, S$210 million Air Hub Development Fund (AHDF) as part of our competitive strategy. A number of initiatives will be launched under the AHDF. These will be targeted at our industry partners, and help us further anchor Changi's position as the premier regional air hub. For example, CAAS will, under the AHDF, step up collaboration with airlines and various Government agencies, like the Singapore Tourism Board, on traffic development programmes. Fundamentally, the most critical element for an airline is the demand for air travel. If we can stimulate greater demand for air travel to, through and from Singapore, the business of the airlines will improve, margins will increase, and they will not only stay, but increase their presence here. We will also enhance our existing cost reduction measures under the AHDF. The House may recall that as part of the Government's Off-Budget measures in October 2001, we had introduced a 10% landing fee discount and a 15% rental discount. With effect from 1st January 2003, we will increase the landing fee discount from the current 10% to 15%. This will generate savings for the airlines of about S$30 million annually for the next three years. In addition, the current 15% rental discount will also be extended for another three years. This will benefit not only our tenants at the passenger terminals but also our tenants at the Changi Airfreight Centre. Sir, CAAS will announce more details of the AHDF, and all these measures will help Changi remain competitive as a key aviation hub.

In view of the fact that cost is a big consideration in the airline business, does the Minister think that it is viable for Singapore to look into the possibility of setting up a no-frills airline?

Sir, as the CAAS has replied in the newspapers a few days ago, we would welcome the setting up of an additional airline in Singapore, whether it is a low-cost carrier or otherwise.

asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he will give an update on the status of the service level of the Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit; (b) what were the causes of the major service disruption on 21st October 2002; and (c) what measures are being undertaken to prevent recurrence of the same problem.

asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he will consider shutting down the Bukit Panjang LRT system for a period of time so as to conduct a thorough investigation and testing of the system; and (b) what are the key safety features of and the performance standards specified for the LRT system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos. 8 and 9 together, please.

Yes.

Until the service disruption on 21st October 2002, the Bukit Panjang LRT had overcome its initial difficulties and has begun to meet our service expectations. In the four months preceding the recent incident, it had met the service availability standard of 99.7%, ie, a delay of not more than 4 minutes over each 20-hour operating period. The 21st October service disruption occurred at around 6.40 am. Service was partially restored on 24th October. Full service resumed on 26th October. While the incident caused commuters a lot of inconvenience, at no time was safety of commuters compromised. What happened? Each LRT vehicle has eight guide-wheels to help position the vehicle centrally on its track. Guide-wheels are not the same as the running wheels on which the vehicle travels. On 21st October, one of the eight guide-wheels got dislodged and fell off. The spindle that held the guide-wheel grated against the rail, damaging about one kilometre of it before the vehicle came to a stop. SLRT had to replace the damaged portions of the rail. It was a major repair, and it took them several days to complete. Immediately after the incident, the Land Transport Authority directed SMRT, the parent company of the operator, to set up a Panel of Inquiry. The Panel's findings were released just last week. Let me highlight the key points. First, why did the guide-wheel drop off? A guide-wheel is normally held in place by a castle nut and a cotter pin. A cotter pin is about five centimetres long and is inserted through a castle nut to prevent the castle nut from loosening as a result of vibration. It is an important component of the guide-wheel assembly. Without the cotter pin to hold it in place, the castle nut may turn loose and, in extreme cases, can result in the guide-wheel falling off. After the incident, SMRT and SLRT staff searched the entire site. They could retrieve all the components of the guide-wheel assembly, but not the cotter pin. This has led the Panel to conclude that the most likely cause for the guide-wheel to be dislodged was a missing cotter pin in the guide-wheel assembly. So, the second question was: why was the cotter pin missing? The Panel considered the possibility of the pin breaking or dropping off through wear and tear. But it ruled out such a possibility as neither the pin nor its broken parts were recovered. The Panel concluded that the cotter pin was probably never inserted during the last overhaul maintenance in August 2002, two months before the incident. This is despite the fact that the maintenance procedure does require the maintenance staff to sign off after inserting the pin, and the maintenance record did contain their signatures. This finding would suggest to me that the quality of preventive maintenance is not up to the mark. First, the failure to insert the cotter pin, an important component of the guide-wheel assembly, should have been noted at the time of the overhaul in August. Second, daily checks for excessive free play of the guide-wheel assembly by an experienced team could have detected the loosening of the guide-wheel before it became completely dislodged. As a result of this incident, there are several actions being done. First, LTA is conducting an audit of the maintenance regime of the BPLRT. The objective is to identify the shortcomings so that they can be corrected. Second, SMRT and SLRT will follow through the various recommendations put up by the Panel of Inquiry. These were technical matters and were already announced by the Panel last week. I would not repeat them, except to highlight one key recommendation. The Panel has recommended that SMRT and SLRT should work closer together in cross-training their maintenance staff so that they can reinforce each other in the event of any major service disruption. This will speed up service recovery and minimise inconvenience to commuters. This is a good arrangement. In fact, I see value in integrating and centralising the maintenance functions of SMRT and SLRT, to achieve economy of scale and, more importantly, in raising professionalism of the maintenance team at the LRT level. But this is really an operational matter that the operator should think through and decide. Dr Teo proposed that the BPLRT be shut down for a period so that a thorough investigation and testing can be carried out. But this is not necessary. This incident is not due to a flaw in design. Neither does it point to a safety risk. It is caused by a lapse in maintenance. It is human error. The way forward is to tighten up on maintenance and to prevent such human errors. Dr Teo also asked about the key safety features and performance standards that we impose on the LRT. Let me assure Dr Teo that the BPLRT is safe. It has adequate safety features, and one example is the Automatic Train Protection System that regulates the distance between trains to prevent any collision. As for performance standards, they are set out in full in the Licence and Operating Agreement between LTA and SLRT. They relate to service quality, safety and operations of the system. Sir, I share the disappointment of Members and commuters affected by this latest disruption. But this recent incident is not quite similar to the earlier problems. The earlier teething problems of the LRT have been largely resolved. That is why it was able to achieve 99.7% service level for several months. This did not happen by chance. I know that SMRT has seconded significant engineering resources to SLRT and has engaged Bombardier, the train supplier, to provide technical training. As a result, the maintenance standard of the operator has improved significantly in recent months. But the 21st October incident shows that it still has some way to go. We will continue to press the operator to improve its standard of maintenance.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there are any specific reasons for the less than satisfactory performance and vigilance of the maintenance team.

As I have said, it has to do with the quality of maintenance. I have been very much involved in looking at this project over the last few months since our last Budget debate, and I have seen the quality improving. It is quite a different team now. They are serious about what they are doing. But like all things, it cannot be fixed overnight. Until the October 21st incident, indeed, the quality has improved. They have put in significant engineering resources, at great cost, from the parent company into the subsidiary. But the October 21st incident shows that they are not quite there yet. My own take-away is this. I have been involved in running hospitals for many years and was helping Minister Yeo Cheow Tong at that time in restructuring the various hospitals. Initially, when we started restructuring hospitals and splitting them up into individual hospitals, the immediate reaction was to go independent on everything - maintenance was split up, PR, HR, CFOs, and so on - all decentralised. And what was the result? The result was that for large hospitals, like the Singapore General Hospital or the National University Hospital which I was running at that time, they had enough critical mass. They were able to accumulate a very professional team. But it was the smaller hospitals that suffered because of their lack of scale of operation. They were not able to recruit a giant team as they needed to, as in the large hospitals. My own observation about this whole BPLRT incident is this. As they split up into SMRT running the larger system and, inevitably, you have a much smaller team running SLRT. With a smaller team, it is not just budget constraint, but also career development for the staff. It is harder to recruit top maintenance staff. In fact, I was at a conference this morning and met the SLRT management there. My suggestion to them was: why not consider seriously, as in my own experience in hospital management, centralising their maintenance so that they have one team that runs both the MRT and LRT? Of course, from the financial point of view, we have to split up and account their operation separately. But that does not prevent us from running certain supportive operations centrally. And that goes with maintenance, human resource management, training, etc. That would be my advice to them but, of course, it is a decision for the company to take.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether he could assure the residents that the operation of the Bukit Panjang LRT is safe, given the fact that such an important component like a cotter pin can go missing despite stringent maintenance procedures. How could we be sure that there are no other critical components that affect the safety that might also be missing?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my main reply, I have assured Members that LRT is safe. Even in the case of the guide-wheel where it dropped off, it was in the central trough and there was never a safety concern. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to go beyond this. The system is safe and that is an assurance that I can give Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State whether the frequent breakdowns of the LRT since day one were due to design fault, construction fault or maintenance or operation fault, and whether the SLRT or the Ministry will be taking any legal action against the designer, suppliers, contractors or the operator? Secondly, I understand the Ministry is doing an independent audit of the system. May I know what is the scope of work of this audit and whether the findings will be presented to this House? Thirdly, the Senior Minister of State mentioned just now that we need a giant team to maintain the system, so that would increase the cost of maintaining and running the LRT. Will the cost be passed to the commuters in the long run? Also, on the measurement of 99.7%, is it measured over a one-month, three-month or a three-year period? Maybe the Senior Minister of State can give us the exact formula and how we measure the performance standard of the LRT.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has asked four questions. I hope my memory can hold. Let me answer in reverse order. The last question was: how is the 99.7% measured? As I have said, 99.7% is measured on a daily basis. In other words, over a 20-hour operating period - it runs a 20-hour operation period - any disruptions, cumulative or a single incident, cannot exceed four minutes. So it is a very, very stringent service level. And the system has been able to deliver that until the October 21st incident. The third question was on the giant team and the cost of maintenance and whether it would be passed on. I think the cost of maintenance has to be part and parcel of running the BPLRT system, both the LRT as well as the SMRT. Fare revision is a separate issue and that is why we have the Public Transport Council (PTC) to review what is the cost and whether there are justifications to revise fares. That is a separate issue altogether. But as we have always maintained, safety and reliability are key priorities. When you provide a public transport system, if it is not safe, if it is not reliable, every other day it breaks down, exceeding the four-minute disruption standard, it is a terrible system. But whatever is the right level of cost, you just have got to float up to that level. Of course, there is no reason for us to pad up the maintenance crew so that the cost is higher than necessary. It is the job of the operator to make sure that they deliver that level of safety and reliability at minimal cost. And as I have outlined just now, my thinking is, to deliver that optimum level, there is a case for centralisation rather than splitting up. Splitting up will inevitably raise costs. BPLRT has a life of about three years now and I think it is useful to break it up into various stages. People always criticise the LRT about the 50 disruptions, much of it were teething problems in the earlier period. If you look at this year's performance record, it is quite different. We were not responsible for the earlier opening of the BPLRT. If you ask me, as an engineer, I would have preferred to test the system thoroughly before we opened it up because, like all complicated systems, there will be problems. There are bound to be teething problems. For example, the Esplanade has roofs that leak. When I opened hospitals, I remember that for the first six months, we have to fix several leaking roofs. This is normal for any sophisticated project. And for a public utility like transport, my preference would have been to: test, test and test again, until we are very sure, then we open it. And that is the approach we are taking to the Sengkang LRT and that will be the approach we are taking to the North-East line. On hindsight, perhaps BPLRT should not have been opened prematurely. If they had done that, I think all those 50 disruptions probably would have happened during the trial period rather than when the system was open for revenue service. Anyway, that is history now. What is more important is to focus on the way going forward. My point is this. Until the October incident, for four months, they have been able to deliver on the very high standard of 99.7%. Let us not demoralise the existing management team. They are working their guts out. I know because I have seen them working. They are serious people. I think they are not proud of what happened on October 21st. The lapses could have been avoided and I think resources will now be pumped in to make sure that those mistakes do not crop up again. What is the scope of audit by LRT? It will be as wide as necessary. The key question to answer is: are there faults in the maintenance regime? Are there shortcomings there which can be fixed? Preliminary, looking at things, for example, looking at this guide-wheel incident, the procedures are correctly worded. In fact, because cotter pin is such an important piece of component, the SOP in the maintenance requires two signatures - the one who inserts the pin signs it off; the one who supervises it signs it off. Both signatures were there. But what happened? We discovered that the one who supervised, the second signature, did it without actually looking at it. That is bad and that has to be fixed. I do not think that there is any design problem. This is not the first time Bombardier installed an LRT. There have been many Bombardier systems all around the world. I do not think we can say that that was a design problem. I did make a comment when I toured BPLRT that I would have preferred not to retrofit an LRT into an existing town because I have travelled on BPLRT. Two weeks ago, I took a trial run on the Sengkang LRT. The Sengkang LRT is planned and built together with the new town. When you do so, you get a simpler system. The tracks are by and large, level. Whereas if you take a ride on our BPLRT, not quite a Disneyland roller coaster, you get ups and downs, twists and turns. As an engineer, I know that such twists and turns, ups and downs exert a lot of stresses on the system. It causes much more wear and tear. It does not mean that it cannot be made to work, but it means that your maintenance must be top-class. If your maintenance is not top-class, then occasionally, there will be lapses and disruptions crop up. Having built the system and run it, let us now focus on the operation and make sure that maintenance is top-class. Today, it is not quite there yet but there is no reason why they cannot achieve top-class if they put their hearts and souls into it and we intend to make sure that they do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Senior Minister of State confirm that the most likely cause is due to a maintenance lapse. Could the Senior Minister of State at least confirm that inspections have been carried out on all guide-wheels on all trains to ensure that more cotter pins have not been inevitably left out?

Yes, indeed. That was almost the first task that was done.

Can the Minister of State give the assurance that after the extensive testing of the Sengkang and North-East MRT lines there would be no teething problems and service disruptions when the lines are operational?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a Chinese proverb, "mou shi zai ren, cheng shi zai tian". It is for human beings to design and plan but, like all things, you cannot guarantee success. I cannot. I will be dishonest to say that no incident will happen. This morning, I happened to have to officiate at a seamless transport conference and as a habit that I acquired when I was in Istana, I always make sure that I am there five minutes before a function. But, today, I was four minutes late. So, there was a nine-minute disruption. Why? Because, half way through my journey, I noticed that the temperature of my 7-year old car was rising beyond the normal level. I had no choice but to stop, and I discovered that the radiator almost ran out of water. So, I had to find some water to top it up, and that accounted for the nine-minute disruption. As Members can see, even in private transport, I cannot assure 100% that there will be no incident, but we will do our best. If everybody plays his part, there ought not to be such incidents.

Sir, if I understand from the Senior Minister of State, he was saying that the Bukit Panjang LRT was not tested properly before it was put into operation. Does that not warrant a total shutdown now, so that they could do a total investigation and testing before it is actually put into operation? If the system is not tested properly and it is put into operation, is that not gross negligence on the part of the operator?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not use such strong words. Like all things, you can test and test and test, and never start the system. And what is the limit for testing? At the end of the day, someone has to make a judgment on when to stop testing. You are satisfied and you proceed. A decision was made three years ago to open at that point in time. On hindsight, everybody is now wiser. The more important thing is that after the Bukit Panjang LRT incident, we decided, and to use Singlish, to be more kiasu here. So we tested a lot more, which is what we are doing with Sengkang.

Sir, based on the Senior Minister of State's explanation earlier, how can we take the assurance that the LRT is safe when they cannot actually predict that it will not break down? They cannot predict that it is actually safe. How can we take the assurance that it is safe?

It is just like flying or driving on the road. You know that they are safe, but you cannot eliminate or nullify accidents. There will still be accidents. Like in the case of the Bishan MRT, a boy decided to jump in front. There is nothing we can do to prevent such kind of incident. But like all things, we do our best. There are procedures and our job, as human beings, is to minimise errors, and processes are put in to minimise errors. And that is what we will do.

asked the Minister for Health (a) what were the main reasons for the large number of people opting out of the ElderShield Scheme; (b) will his Ministry consider improving the Scheme so as to encourage more people to participate in it; and (c) what can his Ministry do to help those who have opted out of the Scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, out of 1.2 million Singaporeans and permanent residents aged 40 to 69 years, more than 800,000 are covered under ElderShield. To have more than 800,000 persons now covered under a severe disability insurance plan is a reasonably good start. We had initially expected the majority of those who opted out to be from the very low and very high income groups. This is because those in the low income groups may worry about not being able to sustain the premium payments, while those in the high income groups may have other alternatives to take care of their care expenses in the event of severe disabilities. We had also expected the opt-out rate to increase steeply for the older age groups. This is because the premiums for them would be relatively higher even with the premium subsidies provided by the Government, and older persons tend to have less understanding of insurance. However, as it turned out, the opt out rates did not vary that significantly across income and age groups as expected [see Annex A and B (Cols. 1661-1664)]. In Annex A, Members can see that the opt-out rate of the low income group is 35%, slightly higher than the average opt-out rate of 33%. In Annex B, Members can see that the opt-out rate of the older age-group is 40%. We still managed to attract 60-65% of the older age group and the lower income group to enroll for ElderShield. Chart - Proportion opted out within each monthly income group (as at 30 Sep 02) (Cols. 1661-1662) Chart - Proportion opted out within each age band (Cols. 1663-1664) There could be a few reasons why one third opted out of ElderShield. First, Singaporeans may not understand fully the benefit of risk pooling and a pure insurance scheme, without death benefits or a savings investment feature. Many may perceive it as money down the drain if they eventually do not get to claim the benefits. However, this is precisely what insurance is all about - you buy protection but hope that you would not be unlucky enough to claim it. Some Singaporeans may also have opted out because they think ElderShield does not offer good value for money. They may have underestimated the risk of disability because our population is still generally young today. They may also not have taken into consideration the feature that once you have joined ElderShield, the premiums do not increase as one grows older, and coverage is for life. Furthermore, the ElderShield is run by the private sector. Some Singaporeans may have preferred that the scheme be administered by the Government. I would like to highlight that ElderShield is awarded to the two private insurers - NTUC Income and GE Life Insurance - through competitive tendering process. The Ministry has also put in place a framework on premium rebates and limits on premium adjustments based on actual claim experiences to safeguard the interests of Singaporeans. ElderShield is one of the many schemes that the Government has put in place to help Singaporeans pay for their healthcare costs. For the low-income group who have opted out, they would be helped through other means. VWO residential step-down care facilities are affordable as they are subsidised, with charges at between $300-$500 a month, after 50-75% subsidy from Government. Low-income Singaporeans who still cannot afford the subsidised charges will be eligible for Medifund assistance through the step down care providers. Going forward, the immediate task of the Ministry and the ElderShield insurers is to ensure the smooth operation of the scheme and that it serves the needs of the policyholders. The scheme has just rolled out. When we have gained sufficient experience on the scheme, we will work with the ElderShield insurers to offer enhanced benefits such as higher monthly payouts or payouts over longer periods. For those who have opted out, the deadline for opting-back into ElderShield has been extended to the end of this year. I would like to urge them to re-consider their decision.

Sir, the Minister for Health mentioned that ElderShield will provide an enhanced scheme. May I ask the Minister of State whether now is a good time to introduce an enhanced scheme in view of the large number of people opting out of ElderShield?

Sir, first of all, I would like to disagree that a large number have opted out of ElderShield. It is all a question of opinion. A few months ago, very few Singaporeans had any kind of insurance against disability. Today, 800,000 people are covered. This is a very large number being covered today. As for looking at enhanced benefits, the scheme has just started. We need to monitor it over a period of time to see how the scheme works, and then we will review it.

Sir, could the Minister of State tell us how many people have opted out of the scheme because of the difficulty to qualify for the pay out, and how many have opted out because the pay out is too low in terms of quantum and too short in terms of duration?

Sir, we have not surveyed the people who have opted out. There is still time for people to opt in, and this is something that we can look into when the scheme closes. However, this is an insurance scheme. In an insurance scheme, the premium is related to the pay out and benefits. This is a scheme that we have just started and, obviously, it covers what is the minimum requirement and the premiums are as low as they can be.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he would consider it important to find out what are the reasons that our citizens have opted out of the scheme - whether it is because of the pay out or whether is because of the difficulty in qualifying for the pay out.

I have spoken to Singaporeans who have opted out. Some of the reasons given are that they feel the pay out should be more. Others felt that the premium should be less. This is quite natural. Most people want to pay the least premium and expect the highest pay out. But for an insurance scheme to be viable, there has to be a balance between the two. That is why we tendered out the scheme and selected the two insurers who offered the best deal for the public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to me, about 400,000 people who opted out of ElderShield is a large number. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that many older and poorer Singaporeans opted out of ElderShield because they cannot afford to pay the premium. Will the Minister of State extend more help to this group of people who are most in need of ElderShield?

Sir, we realise that in the older population group, there may be people who cannot afford the premiums. But under our current system, should they become disabled, they still can get assistance when they enter into nursing homes with disabilities. And in the event that they cannot afford to pay their bills, there is still MediFund assistance through the nursing homes.

Sir, insurance is based on the pooling of risks. So we need a minimum number. What is that minimum number to make the scheme viable? That is my first question. My second question is: given that about 400,000 people opted out, will there be a risk of anti-selection? If that is the case and, in future, if the claims experience do stress on the system itself, will that lead to a revision of the premiums? Is there any guarantee of premium status quo?

Sir, I am not an expert on insurance. The insurance companies are quite satisfied with the numbers as being viable.

asked the Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports (a) whether Singapore had registered any reservation to Article 10 of the UN Charter on the Complete Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) when it ratified the convention in October 1995; and (b) if not, is Singapore in compliance with Article 10 of CEDAW which provides women with equal rights as men in the field of education, including the study of medicine.

Sir, Singapore did not tender any reservation to Article 10 of UN CEDAW, as equal access to education is one of the cardinal principles in the Singapore education system. Women made up 52.5% of the local university population in the 2001 intake. But equal access to education does not mean that every student has a free choice as to the type of course he or she may pursue. It depends on the number of places available for each course, which depends on national needs and the cost of providing different courses. The cost of training a medical student is five times higher than that for other disciplines in the university. It costs over $400,000 over five years to train a medical student, 80% of which is subsidised by the Government. This means a relatively higher investment by taxpayers in medical education compared to other disciplines. Hence, the Government has imposed a quota on the intake of female medical students wishing to study medicine in NUS as, comparatively, more female doctors tend to leave the workforce prematurely or switch to part-time work. We do not regard this policy a violation of our obligations under the CEDAW, within the overall context of our health care and education systems in Singapore, as: (i) There is no quota on the number of female doctors allowed to practise medicine in Singapore; (ii) There are no discriminatory practices against female doctors in our health care organisations. Women doctors have equal opportunities to take up training opportunities and assume responsibilities for which they have the necessary qualifications and experience; and (iii) We have to address a real and practical problem, ie, of ensuring Singaporeans have sufficient doctors to attend to their health care needs, bearing in mind the cost of medical education. Nevertheless, Sir, the Remaking Singapore Committee has recommended that the quota on the female intake at NUS Medical School be lifted, and will be submitting its report to the Government early next year. The Ministry of Health would study and respond to its recommendations.

Sir, could the Minister confirm that there is no discrimination, that there is complete equal opportunity, and there is no discrimination by virtue of gender in the field of education? That was what my question was.

Sir, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing. Every child is given equal opportunity to access to the schools that we have in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the disagreement on the interpretation of Article 10 of CEDAW, would the Minister then consider referring the interpretation of Article 10 to arbitration as required by Article 29.1 of CEDAW?

Sir, we believe that we are not violating the principle of Article 10, for the reasons which I have given earlier, that the basis of our education system is equal access to all gender in Singapore. But yet at the same time we recognise that even if you are free to choose a course, it all depends on other factors. It is inevitable that some students who would be left out of some courses in which he or she may prefer. The inevitable fact is that because of the size of our country we need to maximise our human resources so that we can best serve the needs of all Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I beg to differ with the Minister for Community Development and Sports, because actually the attrition rate for female doctors now is about the same as the male doctors, contrary to what he said earlier. May I also ask the Minister whether it is correct to say that the National University of Singapore is the only highly ranked university in the world that deprives the entry of medical students on the basis of gender? Does this not hamper the vision of NUS as being a world-class university and does this not run contrary to the meritocratic system in Singapore?

Sir, I do not think in any way does this policy affect NUS in its aim to become a world-class institution. At the end of the day, I think we have to address the larger issue of how we maximise our resources, given the limited pool that we have. Secondly, on her first question whether NUS is the only university that discriminates against women, I have no knowledge of that as far as other universities are concerned, Sir.

Sir, can I ask the Acting Minister why the decision as to whether we should reverse the policy of female intake into the medical course has to await the recommendations of the Remaking Singapore Committee? After all, when the decision to restrict the intake was taken years ago, I do not recall that it took a committee to make the decision. So surely Government is capable of making such a decision after so many pressing demands from Backbenchers over the years. Why do we now have to wait for a few months more for a committee to come to a decision?

Sir, we are not waiting for the Committee to submit the proposal. We understand that this has been raised by several Backbenchers. But the Remaking Singapore Committee has actually met people who are interested in this particular issue and gathered feedback and submitted the proposal to Government. They have built up a consensus and submitted to the Government for consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Sub-Committee had not only made its recommendations, it had also called a press conference and its recommendations were announced by Government. So what more have we got to wait for?

As I said earlier, the matter is under the Ministry of Health and I think they will study the proposal constructively and we will wait for their recommendations, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I recognise what the Minister said about equal access to opportunities, but would not the issue of having quota for the female students in medical school mean that there is access, but based on gender? If it is based on gender, then would it not be discriminatory in itself because the gender becomes a factor in getting access to the medical school?

Sir, I would not disagree with the Member's interpretation. As it stands now, there is a selection process to ensure that we maintain a balance between the number of male doctors and female doctors that we have in our institution.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether his Ministry will consider lowering the foreign worker levy and raising the quota of foreign workers in value-added or highly specialised industries where SMEs are facing difficulties in attracting skilled local workers to fill vacancies in their operations.

asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider allowing the employment of foreign workers from non-traditional sources for the textile industry or other industries with high export activities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 12 and 13 together as they are both related to the same subject?

Yes.

Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, our unemployment rate rose to 4.8% in September 2002, the last quarter. This was the highest level for the past 15 years. Sir, unemployment is projected to rise to as high as 5.5% by the end of this year. Our economic and employment outlook for the next six months is rather uncertain. It is therefore critical for the Government to strike a judicious balance between meeting businesses' needs for low-wage foreign workers and helping unemployed Singaporeans to find jobs. Sir, the foreign worker levy was already lowered on 1st January 1999. The reduction was $70 for the skilled foreign workers and $90 for the unskilled foreign workers in the manufacturing and services sectors. The reduced levies will remain in force until December 2002. The current lower-tier levy of $30 is already a very big concession to help employers keep costs down. The outcome of my Ministry's review on the foreign worker levy will be announced in early December before the current moratorium expires. Sir, our key challenge now is to re-deploy the unemployed and the retrenched workers to industries where there are opportunities for gainful employment. It is therefore unwise and not in the interest of Singapore to raise the dependency ceiling or to allow more non-traditional sources workers into our labour market at this juncture. We should focus on retraining and re-orientating displaced workers for current and imminent job vacancies. For employers, the present slack labour market offers good opportunities to recruit local workers so as to meet their manpower needs and to enable them to recruit additional work permit holders under the current dependency ceiling.

Sir, in view of the fact that we have a very high unemployment rate now of 4.8%, I would like to ask the Minister what mechanism is in place right now in the Ministry before approving any work permit applications, to ensure that the employers actually exhaust all possibilities in recruiting local employees who are Singaporean workers first? I feel that there could be a possibility that there could be abuse, in the sense that employers look to foreign workers as an easy alternative, instead of exhausting all avenues and possibilities, in terms of trying to redesign work, or in terms of trying to retrain workers before resorting to foreign workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we now have two contrary views or opinions on this situation. I just like to remind hon. Members that what I said was that we should strike a judicious balance. We should not shift from one end of the spectrum to the other end. The Member's proposal that we apply labour market test, in other words, we make sure that the employer has conducted proper recruitment exercise and has offered similar jobs to Singaporeans and these offers were turned down, before we approve the work permit application. This is one possibility. Some countries do implement labour market test. But in our context, if we introduce labour market test, we would increase the rigidity in our labour market and I think that is not good for us because, on the one hand, while we have rising unemployment, on the other hand, many of our industries are still actually quite dependent on some percentages of lower-wage foreign workers to maintain their competitiveness. Our companies have to survive in the global market and if we force them to employ higher-wage workers, then we might seriously cripple their ability to compete. So, while unemployment has gone up, we should not swing too far towards trying to protect displaced Singaporeans. What we should do, as I have said, is to help them, equip them with the skills so that they can take on the new jobs that are available, and also encourage employers to give them an opportunity. So as I said earlier on that in the light of our slack labour market, it is an opportunity for employers to recruit more Singaporeans. And, if they have more Singaporeans then they can recruit more work permit holders under our present dependency ceiling. I would like to elaborate that this is a serious invitation to employers because the Government has offered through the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme, a wage subsidy for up to six months or a limit of 50% of the first six months' salary, up to $2,000 a month, for employers to recruit Singaporean workers aged 40 and above. If you do so, we give you this wage subsidy, and on top of it you can recruit another foreign worker in the manufacturing sector under the dependency ceiling of 50%. So it is a win-win situation. You recruit a Singaporean and you get an additional foreign worker. Overall, it averages downwards your wage cost. So I would urge employers to take advantage of this scheme to reach out to the unemployed Singaporeans to give them a chance, to help them to make this adjustment, rather than to just look towards getting more foreign workers, getting more non-traditional source workers, or to ask Government to further lower the levy. At $30, the levy is almost practically nothing. It is already such a generous concession. How much lower can we go? Cancel the levy completely? I think that would be most unreasonable, and I think that could be very disruptive to our own resident labour market.

Mr Speaker, given that Government has been doing all these things to make sure that Singaporeans are trained and available to be employed, what is the problem faced by SMEs that they have all these difficulties attracting local workers? Has MOM done anything to study what are the problems that SMEs are facing because we have all these schemes in place? Is there any kind of help that has been given to the SMEs to understand all these schemes and for them to actually utilise what is already made available?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the problem that we are facing today is a problem that we have discussed before, that of a mismatch in expectation, both in terms of wages and in terms of working conditions, and also a mismatch in the skills that are required by the SMEs and the skills that the displaced workers have with them. That is why our overall strategy towards addressing rising unemployment is to offer workers, or those who are unemployed, more opportunities for skills upgrading, and at the same time, to raise their awareness that economic restructuring is going on. Old jobs that they have lost are unlikely to come back and new jobs would require new skill-set, which they must make an effort to acquire, and in order to fit into these new jobs they may have to start lower down the ladder from where they were before, because they have now moved to a new industry, doing a different kind of work. So there are quite a lot of adjustments that are needed, both on the part of the worker, the person looking for a job, and also on the part of the employers. We are also helping companies, particularly SMEs, to look into how they can restructure their business operations. One thing that the employers need to do is to look into how to improve the productivity of the jobs. If he has a job, if the job can be re-engineered into a more productive job, then he could obviously offer a higher salary to the worker and still remain competitive. If he continues to do business in the old way, in an unproductive manner, then his wages would be constrained by his low level of productivity and he will not be able to offer wages that can attract more Singaporeans to take up this job. One thing that employers have to do is to take a hard look at their business operation and, if possible, restructure their business so that they can offer more value-added and more productive jobs to job seekers. 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Written Answers to Question Nos. 17, 19 and 21 on the Order Paper are produced in the section, Oral Answers to Questions not Reached" (Cols. 1653-1656). Question Nos. 14-16, 18, 20 and 22 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 26th November 2002.]

"to amend the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276 of the 1997 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament after 1st January 2003, and to be printed.

"to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2001 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Medical Registration Act (Chapter 174 of the 1998 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Health (Dr Balaji Sadasivan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2002 seeks to give legislative effect to the income tax changes that I announced in this year's Budget Statement. I have also taken the opportunity to make other amendments to the Income Tax Act to allow for changes that were not covered in the Budget Statement. Tax changes announced in the 2002 Budget Statement I shall begin with the tax changes announced in the 2002 Budget Statement. (a) To help us maintain our tax competitiveness, the corporate tax rate will be reduced from 24.5% to 22% with effect from the Year of Assessment 2003. Clauses 30, 38, 47, 48 and 52 amend the Act to provide for these changes. (b) In a move to simplify the tax code and reduce tax compliance and administration costs, the current full imputation corporate taxation system will be replaced with a one-tier corporate tax system with effect from 1st January 2003. Under the new one-tier corporate tax system, tax will only be imposed at the corporate level and any dividends paid by the company will be tax-exempt in the hands of its shareholders. The flow-through of exempt dividends will be for unlimited tiers of shareholders with no minimum shareholdings requirement. As an anti-avoidance measure, preference dividends paid out of exempt income currently subject to tax under the imputation system will be deemed as interest and so will be taxable. In addition, dividend franking credits available during the 5-year transitional period for the change in the tax system and exempt dividends will be capped in proportion to the shareholder's shareholding in the dividend paying company. Clauses 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 45, 46, 52, 58, 60 and 61 amend the Act to provide for these changes. (c) To reduce the cost of doing business in Singapore, a loss-transfer system of group relief will be introduced with effect from the Year of Assessment 2003. Transfers of the current year's unutilised capital allowances, losses and donations will be allowed between group companies. Clauses 28, 31, 33 and 62 amend the Act to provide for this purpose. (d) To boost our fund management industry, the qualifying investment income of foreign investors from funds managed by all fund managers in Singapore will be exempt from tax. Clause 13 amends the Act to provide for this purpose. (e) To further enhance the attractiveness of managing a foreign trust in Singapore, the tax exemption granted on income from foreign trusts administered by an approved trustee company, will be extended to income derived through an eligible holding company. Clause 16 amends the Act to provide for the change. (f) To encourage further development of the equity capital market, income derived by Asian Currency Units of financial institutions and Approved Securities Companies from managing the initial public offering of securities of foreign companies listing on the Singapore Exchange will be taxed at a concessionary rate of 5%. In addition, corporate SGX members who are ranked amongst the top 20 in terms of annual trading volume generated for each approved new derivative product denominated in any foreign currency will enjoy a concessionary tax rate of 5% on total income derived from transactions in each product. This will apply to new products that commence trading on SGX during the period 1st January 2002 to 31st December 2006. Clauses 39 and 40 amend the Act to provide for these changes. (g) To further develop our bond market, the 10% concessionary tax rate on interest from qualifying debt securities will be extended to bodies of persons. Clause 36 amends the Act to provide for this change. (h) To enhance Singapore's competitiveness as an insurance centre, approved general insurance companies will be allowed to claim tax deduction on special reserves set aside for certain offshore risks with effect from the Year of Assessment 2003. Clause 25 amends the Act to provide for this purpose. (i) To encourage Singapore-based companies to tap research and development (or "R&D") capabilities globally to upgrade their operations in Singapore, I announced a single tax deduction for expenses incurred on R&D activities which are outsourced to any R&D organisation, whether local or overseas. In addition, the scope of further tax deduction for R&D expenses will be extended from specified services to all services. Clauses 22 and 23 amend the Act to provide for these changes. (j) In order to enhance our attractiveness to international shipping companies, the scope of the Approved International Shipping Enterprise Scheme will be expanded to include towage vessels and salvage ships as qualifying ships for the purpose of the scheme. Clauses 10 and 15 amend the Act to provide for this change. (k) To further support regionalisation, the unilateral tax credit scheme will be extended to cover all services income remitted from all non-treaty countries with effect from the Year of Assessment 2003. Clause 54 amends the Act to provide for this change. (l) I will now cover changes related to individuals. To promote the international arbitration industry in Singapore, payments to international arbitrators will be exempt from withholding tax with effect from 3rd May 2002. Clause 10 amends the Act to provide for this purpose. (m) To reward effort and achievement, promote entrepreneurship, and attract and retain talent, the top marginal income tax rate will be further reduced to 22%, with corresponding cuts in all income bands. In addition, the personal income tax structure will be simplified by consolidating the existing 10 bands to 7. This will take effect from the Year of Assessment 2003. Clauses 34 and 63 amend the Act to provide for these changes. (n) To attract talent to relocate to Singapore and use it as a base for regional activities, as well as create favourable conditions for Singaporeans who have been away for some time to re-establish themselves in Singapore, special tax treatment will be given to these taxpayers classified as `not ordinarily resident' or `NOR' taxpayers. An NOR taxpayer will be exempt from tax on income earned before he came to Singapore and on his employer's contribution to his overseas pension fund. In addition, an NOR taxpayer who spends at least 90 days a year outside Singapore on business will pay tax only on his Singapore employment income, based on the number of days he spends here. This is subject to a floor rate of 10% on his total employment income. The NOR scheme will take effect from the Year of Assessment 2003. Clause 20 amends the Act to provide for these changes. (o) To further enhance our share option incentive scheme, I announced the following changes to the tax treatment of stock option and other forms of employee share ownership plans: (i) Gains from stock options granted in respect of overseas employment will not be taxed. Correspondingly, gains from stock options granted in respect of Singapore employment will be taxed no matter where the stock options are exercised; (ii) Where there is a moratorium on the shares, the taxable gains arising from the shares acquired will be taxable only after the moratorium is lifted; (iii) The scope of existing stock options incentive schemes is also extended to include employee share ownership plans so long as there is a holding period requirement that achieves a similar effect as the standard vesting requirement; and (iv) Departing employees who are neither Singapore citizens nor Permanent Residents, or who are Permanent Residents leaving Singapore for good, will be deemed to have exercised their stock options at the time they cease employment, and pay taxes accordingly. Clauses 2, 18, 19, 26 and 57 amend the Act to provide for these changes. (p) To further recognise the contributions of NSmen, the current NSmen reliefs will be increased by 50% with effect from the Year of Assessment 2003. Clause 34 amends the Act to provide for these changes. (q) The Government recognises that withdrawing the procreation tax rebate from divorcees can add to their already difficult burden. Divorcees will therefore be allowed to continue to claim their procreation tax rebates with effect from the Year of Assessment 2003. Clause 37 amends the Act to provide for this change. (r) To encourage families to look after aged parents in their own homes, a handicapped parent relief of $3,000 on top of the normal parent relief will be introduced with effect from the Year of Assessment 2003. Clause 34 amends the Act to provide for this purpose. (s) The original objective of granting double child relief to subsidise the overseas education of expatriates' children is no longer relevant. The Government therefore decided to reduce the quantum of the relief from $4,000 to $3,000 for the Year of Assessment 2003, and to withdraw the relief altogether with effect from the Year of Assessment 2004. Clause 64 amends the Act to provide for this change. (t) To reduce compliance costs, a final income tax of 15% will be levied on the gross income of non-resident professionals. However, non-resident professionals can still opt within a specified period to be taxed at 22% on income net of expenses if it is more advantageous to them. Clauses 38, 51 and 52 amend the Act to provide for these changes. (u) To promote the spirit of philanthropy in individuals and corporations, the following measures were introduced: (i) Donations to Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) will be allowed double tax deduction; (ii) Tax deductions for donations to IPCs can be carried forward for up to five years of assessment; (iii) Some IPCs name their buildings or scholarships after their donors. These and other donations with similar naming opportunities will be allowed a single tax deduction; Clause 31 amends the Act to provide for these three changes. Tax changes not announced in the 2002 Budget Statement Sir, I shall now move on to tax changes that are not covered in the 2002 Budget Statement. 2001 Off-Budget Measures As part of the 2001 Off-Budget package, the following measures were introduced: (a) The Government would grant a 50% corporate tax rebate on the first $25,500 of tax payable and a further 5% rebate on any tax payable above $25,500 to companies on their corporate income tax payable for the Year of Assessment 2001. For the Year of Assessment 2002, a corporate tax rebate of 5% was granted. (b) The Government would grant an additional 5% personal income tax rebate to individuals on their income tax payable for the Year of Assessment 2001. For the Year of Assessment 2002, a 10% personal tax rebate was granted. The Government would remove the income tax on gains from short-term property transactions, contracted on or after 13th October 2001. Clauses 5, 6, 49, 59 and 65 amend the Act for these purposes. Global Trader Program With effect from 1st June 2001, the Approved Oil Trader scheme and Approved International Trader scheme were merged into a generic trading scheme called the Global Trader Program. Clauses 41, 42 and 44 amend the Act for this purpose. Comptroller of Income Tax's powers to access and seize records At present, the Comptroller of Income Tax's powers to access and seize records is limited only to physical documents. The Act is amended to enable the Comptroller to have access to and take possession of information and records kept in electronic or other formats. Clauses 55 and 56 amend the Act for this purpose. Property Trusts The Act is also amended to provide that property trusts that are in the business of making investments, like other companies that are in the business of making investments, will not be allowed to carry forward to future years the excess of expenses and capital allowances over income. Clause 4 amends the Act for this purpose. Supplementary Retirement Scheme Under the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS), non-Singaporeans are subject to withholding tax on withdrawals in excess of contributions made in the preceding years, but not in the current year. The Act is amended to close this loophole by extending applicability of the withholding tax to the current year also. The Act is amended to allow the Minister to remit, for a good cause, the 5% penalty for pre-retirement SRS withdrawals. The Act is also amended to make clear that an individual must be a non-Singaporean SRS account holder for a continuous period of at least 10 years to qualify for a waiver of penalty and 50% tax discount on his SRS withdrawals. Clauses 8 and 50 amend the Act for these purposes. Foreign income taxed at concessionary rate Clause 10 amends the Act to make clear that Singapore-based companies may offset their losses from local operations against certain foreign income remitted into Singapore at a concessionary tax rate under section 13(8) of the Income Tax Act. Capital allowance for purchase or development of websites Clause 27 amends the Act to provide for a 100% write-off of capital expenditure incurred on the purchase or development of websites. This will encourage businesses to leverage on information technology to expand their customer reach or offer new electronic services. Securities, lending or repurchase arrangements Finally, clauses 3, 7, 9 and 26 amend the Act to provide the tax treatment applicable to certain securities lending or repurchase arrangements. Sir, I beg to move.

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 Lee Hsien Loong]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 - Amendment made: In page 2, line 13, after "13,", to insert "27," - [Mr Lee Hsien Loong]. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 32 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 - Amendments made: (1) In page 48, to leave out line 31 to line 2 in page 49, and insert - "(4) Notwithstanding that a Singapore company beneficia- lly holds, directly or indirectly, at least 75% of the ordinary share capital in another Singapore company, it shall not be treated to have satisfied subsection (3) unless additionally it is beneficially entitled to at least 75% of -". [Mr Lee Hsien Loong]. (2) In page 50, line 14, to leave out "not exceed", and insert "be". - [Mr Lee Hsien Loong]. Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 34 to 65 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill will amend the Stamp Duties Act to give legislative effect to the following measures: a) To specify the conditions under which stamp duty relief may be granted for gifts of property made as a consequence of marriage; b) To charge stamp duty on an arrangement to dispose of shares by cancelling existing shares and re-issuing new shares; c) To limit stamp duty exemption only to co-operative societies, instead of granting exemption of stamp duty to all parties transacting with co-operative societies; d) To give finality to the assessment by the Commissioner of Stamp Duties if the taxpayer does not object within 30 days from the date of assessment; e) To treat an exchange of properties as two distinct transactions and to levy two sets of buyer and seller stamp duty; and f) To charge ad valorem duty on transfer of shares and/or properties to a shareholder where he becomes a shareholder only after winding up proceedings have commenced. Sir, I shall now explain the main amendments in the Bill. Transfers made in consideration of marriage It is common for parents to transfer property to their children, when they marry, to provide a matrimonial home for them. The current Act already provides stamp duty relief for property that is transferred to a newly-wedded couple by their family as a wedding gift. However, the conditions to qualify for this relief are not specified. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 16 of the Act by inserting a new section 16(3A) to specify that the relief is only granted for the transfer of property to a party to the marriage. The property must be transferred from their spouse or a parent, grandparent or sibling of a party to the marriage. In addition, the transfer must take place within one year of the date of solemnisation of the marriage, and the property must be used as the matrimonial home of the couple. These conditions are put in place to ensure that the transfer represents a genuine gift to the couple for their marriage. Stamp duty on disposal and re-issue of shares Currently, no stamp duty is levied on the cancellation and issue of shares. Thus, a company intending to sell existing shares to a buyer may avoid incurring stamp duty by cancelling existing shares followed with an allotment and issue of new shares to the same purchaser for a consideration. Clause 5 will close this loophole by amending section 33 of the Act to impose one set of stamp duty on a document that effects such an arrangement to cancel and re-issue shares. Limiting stamp duty exemption only to co-operative societies Currently, section 36(e) exempts instruments executed by or on behalf of co-operative societies from stamp duty, if the underlying transaction in the instrument relates solely to the business of the society. Both the co-operative society and the party it enters into a contract with are exempted from stamp duty. Under the current laws, parties entering into such commercial agreements with co-operatives would stand to benefit from stamp duty exemption. There is no good reason for parties transacting with the co-operatives to enjoy the exemption from stamp duty, as they have entered into the agreement based on purely commercial considerations. Thus, clause 6 amends section 36(e) of the Act to limit the exemption from stamp duty only to co-operative societies, and not to extend it to the parties transacting with co-operative societies. Objections to the Commissioner's assessment Currently, objections to the Commissioner's assessment under section 37 of the Act must be made within 30 days. Section 16(3) of the Act also empowers the Commissioner to impose an additional dutiable amount when he assesses that the consideration is far lower than the market value. However, there is no finality to the time period within which a taxpayer can object to the Commissioner's assessment under section 37. As such, it is possible for a taxpayer to dispute the assessment many years after the assessment. Clause 8 amends section 39A(1) such that any objection to the Commissioner's assessment of an additional dutiable amount must be made within 30 days. The 30-day time period is the same as that currently provided in the Income Tax Act for a taxpayer to raise any objections to the assessment of income tax. Levying two sets of Stamp Duty on exchanges of properties Presently, for an exchange of properties, only one set of stamp duty is payable, based on the property with the higher value. However, a transaction involving the exchange of properties between two parties should be treated as two transactions involving two parties each buying and selling a property at the same time. Hence, an exchange of properties should be levied with two sets of stamp duty. Clause 9 amends the First Schedule of the Act to effect this. Stamp duty on distribution of assets in specie upon liquidation Clause 9 also amends the First Schedule of the Act such that if a person becomes a shareholder only after winding-up proceedings have commenced, he would be charged ad valorem duty on the transfer of shares or properties instead of a fixed duty of $10. This amendment will prevent opportunistic attempts to acquire the liquidating company's assets with minimal stamp duty. Sir, I beg to move.

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 Lee Hsien Loong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.28 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Payment and Settlement Systems (Finality and Netting) Bill seeks to make provision for the protection of payment and settlement systems from disruptions that may lead to risks in the financial system. Proper protection of such systems is critical to the effective functioning of the financial system. The Bill strengthens the legal environment for operating stable and secure payment and settlement systems by empowering the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to designate payment and settlement systems. These designated systems will be exempted from the application of certain legal rules, including the rule in insolvency law for the unwinding of certain types of transactions. Sir, before I go into the Bill proper, let me first give some background on the importance of protecting payment and settlement systems from disruptions. Importance of protecting payment and settlement systems from disruptions Payment and settlement systems consist of sets of instruments, banking procedures and funds transfer systems that ensure the circulation of money. They are therefore an important part of the market and economic infrastructure. However, payment and settlement systems also provide a channel for shocks to be transmitted across financial markets. This is especially true in large value inter-bank payment and settlement systems that are systemic in nature, where one disruption could trigger or transmit further disruptions to the financial system. Take, for instance, MEPS, the Real-Time Gross Settlement system operated by the MAS for the settlement of funds between banks. In 2001, MEPS processed a total of $11.6 trillion of payments; this was more than 75 times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Singapore over the same year. Clearly, any disruption to the sound operation of MEPS would have a significant impact on Singapore's financial system. Therefore, payment and settlement systems with systemic implications like MEPS must have a robust architecture, well-planned contingency arrangements, proper operational procedures and clear rules for participants. It is equally important for these payment and settlement systems to have a sound legal basis. The rules, regulations and agreements relevant to such systems must be legally enforceable. In particular, transactions that have already been settled by the systems should be final and irrevocable, and must not be unwound or otherwise adjusted by any legal proceedings. Any netting arrangements in the payment and settlement systems should likewise be enforceable. While the payment and settlement systems should have contractual arrangements and rules in place to set out these provisions, existing laws can operate to override them. For instance, the law of insolvency allows a liquidator of an insolvent corporation to reverse, or "claw-back" payment transactions that have already been settled if these transactions are deemed to be unfair or to have been made at a significant undervalue. Such claw-back provisions are based on the general principle that favours the equal distribution of assets to the creditors of an insolvent corporation. This principle must, however, be balanced against the disruption that might be caused to payment and settlement systems and to the participants if it applies to a disposition made through these systems. There is therefore a strong case for the law to recognise the importance of the integrity and finality of transactions in payment and settlement systems in maintaining financial stability and for the law to protect these systems from the legal risks that I have just outlined. The legislatures in countries such as Australia, the United States of America, Canada and in many European countries have already taken steps to address these legal risks by enacting similar legislation. Enhancing Singapore's Legal Framework to Protect Designated System In Singapore, section 59A of the Banking Act has provided for the finality and irrevocability of transactions made through MEPS since 1998. However, section 59A is not wide enough to cover payment and settlement systems that are not operated by MAS. We are an important international financial centre. With the continuing advancement of technology, greater competition and increased scale and sophistication of financial players, there will be new payment and settlement systems in Singapore that require the same legal protection. The Continuous Linked Settlement (CLS) system is one such system. The Continuous Linked Settlement system is a global payment and settlement system that aims to reduce foreign exchange (FX) settlement risk. Launched in September this year, with the participation of over sixty international banks and seven major currencies, CLS has already reached a daily settlement value of US$300 billion and it is expected eventually to settle a large percentage of the US$1.2 trillion a day global foreign exchange market. The Singapore Dollar is expected to be included as a CLS currency in the second quarter of next year. The three local banks in Singapore have established the capability to join CLS as participants in December 2002. As one of the largest foreign exchange trading centres in the world, Singapore's participation in CLS will reinforce our position as a key node in the global financial system. The Payment and Settlement Systems (Finality and Netting) Bill will provide an omnibus solution to the legal risks that surround the operation of payment and settlement systems by according legal protection to systems that are designated by MAS. It will allow us to provide for the integrity and finality of transactions in systems such as MEPS and CLS, as well as any new payment and settlement systems that may be introduced in the future. Sir, I will now highlight the major provisions that are being introduced in this Bill. Major Provisions in the Bill Clause 3 gives MAS the power to designate payment and settlement systems to provide them with the protection offered under this Bill. Clause 4 gives MAS the power to revoke the designation in certain circumstances. In determining whether to designate a system, MAS will take into account a number of factors, in particular the systemic risks associated with that system. Part II of the Bill sets out the protection that is accorded to transactions effected through a designated system when a participant in that designated system is bankrupt, in judicial management or winding up. Firstly, clause 7 gives statutory backing to any rule of the designated system that provides for the finality of fund transfers into and out of the accounts of participants, as well as the finality of transactions settled in the system. Secondly, clause 8 provides that the regime established by the rules of a designated system is to take precedence over the insolvency law principle of equal and pro-rated distribution of assets. Clauses 9 and 10 then go on to make clear that the legal provisions providing for the "claw-back" of transactions that are unfair preferences or transactions at an undervalue, and other like provisions, are not applicable to transactions effected through a designated system. Clause 11 gives effect to the default arrangements that are provided in the rules of the designated system and provides that only the net sum, following completion of action taken under the default arrangements, shall be provable or payable. Clause 12 establishes the end-date for the protection accorded by Part II. Transactions effected after the date the participant goes into insolvency will not have the benefit of the protection under Part II. In Part III of the Bill, clause 13 makes netting available to a designated system where a participant becomes insolvent. In such a situation, the operator of the designated system may net all obligations owed to or by the participant incurred before or on the date the participant goes into insolvency, with the result that only the net sum shall be provable or payable. Clause 14 fortifies the position by providing that a court in Singapore is not to recognise or give effect to an order from a foreign court in so far as that order would be contrary to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 15 clarifies that the protection accorded by the Bill will not affect the rights of persons arising from the underlying transaction or under the general law. For instance, if a person had made a payment to another by mistake, and this mistaken payment was routed through a designated system by banks that were participants in the designated system, the person who received the payment would not be immune from a legal action that might be available to the payer for the recovery of the mistaken payment. The Bill is intended to prevent the unwinding of transactions made through a designated system. It is not intended to accord additional legal protection or benefit to the recipient at the end of the payment chain. As the protection given by the Bill will only apply to transactions entered into a designated system before or on the day a participant becomes insolvent, the system should not accept any transactions from a participant as soon as it has notification that the participant has become insolvent. To facilitate this, clause 16 of the Bill imposes an obligation on the participant that is insolvent to give notice of that fact to the operator of the designated system. Clause 17 protects MAS and its officers from liability in connection with any action taken in good faith in MAS' capacity as the designating authority. Clause 18 empowers MAS to make regulations for carrying out the purpose and provisions of the Bill. With the enactment of the Bill, MEPS will be a designated system and clause 19 accordingly provides for this. Clause 20 deals with the migration of the current section 59A of the Banking Act to the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act. It is more appropriate for the statutory provision relating to the operation by MAS of real-time gross settlement systems such as MEPS to be in the MAS Act. This will also make it possible to extend participation in such real-time gross settlement systems to institutions other than banks. Accordingly, section 59A of the Banking Act will be repealed and a new section 29A will be inserted into the MAS Act. Conclusion In conclusion, Sir, the Bill provides the broad legal foundations for the operation of stable payment and settlement systems, thereby reducing the risk of systemic disruptions to Singapore's financial system. This is essential for Singapore's competitiveness and development as a major financial centre in the world. Sir, I beg to move.

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 Lee Hsien Loong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Our Rapid Transit System (RTS) has expanded over the years. In 1987 when we started, we had less than 70 km of network. With the opening of the Woodlands extension in 1996, the Bukit Panjang LRT in 1999 and the Changi Airport extension this year, the network is now nearly 100 km long. When the Northeast Line (NEL) opens next year, the network will further expand to about 120 km. Meanwhile, changes have also taken place in the industry. The SMRT Corporation, the holding company of SMRT Ltd (SMRT) which operates the existing MRT network, was listed in 2000. SBS Transit Ltd, another publicly listed company, will be operating the NEL. Rationale Our current licensing and regulatory framework for rapid transit systems must keep pace with these changes so that it remains relevant in the light of actual experience. This is the reason for introducing this Bill. The Bill will empower the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the industry regulator, to impose conditions, restrictions and performance standards on rapid transit licensees, both existing and future, through a legislative framework. The imposition of these conditions, restrictions and performance standards on the licensee is not new. Currently, they are provided in the Licence and Operating Agreement negotiated between LTA and the licensee. What this Bill will allow us to do is to put these conditions, restrictions and performance standards on a legislative footing. In this way, we achieve greater transparency in our regulatory framework. Let me now highlight the two key provisions in the Bill. Clause 2 Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 15 of the Act to empower the LTA to impose: (a) conditions on its licensees on matters relating to corporate governance; (b) restrictions on the licensees' involvement in non-public transport businesses; and (c) standards on the licensees' performance in areas such as the provision of RTS services and their maintenance. LTA has a duty to retain regulatory oversight over key issues of corporate governance and other business activities of its licensees because the RTS infrastructure is paid for by public funds. Such LTA oversight ensures that the huge capital investments and the public interest are adequately safeguarded. Clause 3 Clause 3 of the Bill expands the statutory powers of the LTA in three areas. First, it empowers the LTA to issue codes of practice and directions, under sections 15B and 15C, in areas such as the operation and maintenance of RTS systems. This is necessary as changes in the industry and advances in technology may require new codes of practice. Second, it expands the definition of events of default to include, among others, non-compliance with Codes of Practice and LTA's Directions (under section 16). It also makes provision for financial penalties to be imposed in the event of any occurrence of default. The ability to impose financial penalties will provide LTA with the means to take deterrent action if the operators fail to perform to regulatory expectations. Third, it empowers the LTA (under section 15A) to add, delete or modify the conditions of the licences granted under section 13. However, any such change can only be effected in accordance with the due process as set out under this clause. The proposed amendment also allows licensees aggrieved by the new conditions to appeal to the Minister. In this connection, the grounds of appeal by licensees have also been expanded under section 17. Mr Speaker, Sir, since its beginning in 1987, our Rapid Transit System has grown to become an important part of our public transport system. It now serves one million commuters a day. When the North East Line opens, more commuters will get to benefit from this form of transport. Our regulatory regime has to keep pace with developments, both in the industry as well as the changes in RTS technology. In this way, we can better safeguard the interests of the commuters, while ensuring transparency and fairness to the industry players. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill on the rapid transit systems is timely and necessary. As our MRT lines have expanded and another new operator of the North East Line is coming on stream, it is also important to lay out and further improve the ground for competition and performance requirements of our operators. Performance related indicators and codes of practice must also comply in order for our MRT to operate efficiently. By nature, this area of public transport, whether it is for buses or trains, usually falls into some area of natural monopoly. It is necessary to run it both efficiently and yet meet public expectations of service. Sir, rule-based competition is important to evaluate the performance of the operators. The amendment Bill focuses on three main areas - on the corporate changes in shareholding, on restrictions to lines of business, and standards of performance. While I applaud that such conditions and restrictions spelt out clearly for operators are good, sometimes it is difficult to see how it is applied in practice. Have we not, for example, seen the original SBS gone into property development? On the other hand, if an operator maximises the employment of its assets by properly going into interesting businesses, should it be discouraged in an entrepreneurial and efficient economy? We must appreciate that the MRT commands a sizable amount of assets and should be a dynamic sector in creating value in the economy. Infrastructural companies operating on public charter should run their business efficiently with the aim also of serving the public. Their aim must be to make a reasonable return by industrial comparison and ensure that the services are efficient, satisfying public demand and reinvestment. While I agree that rules and regulations should be tightened to ensure efficiency to service public needs, the LTA should also determine what are the performance yardsticks for monitoring and making these yardsticks known publicly. They can be the number of delays in operations per year, the number of failures to observe safety regulations, revenue and load factors, etc, so that the public will be able to know how the public facility operator is doing. These red marks must be the basis to impose fines and penalties on these operators. Presently, this proposed amendment only provides for the penalty of $1 million on operators for failure to comply with the provisions or directions of the Authority. It makes no mention of failure to comply for performances. I believe operators who fail to deliver services up to standard should be given fines and penalties. This does not seem to be provided at all in this Bill. Although there is a provision in this Bill for the Authority to suspend or cancel the licence of the licensee, it is hard to envisage what alternatives the Authority has in cancelling the licence. After all, the trains have to run. Hence, I feel that putting in a scheme of fines and penalties for non-performance or failure is necessary. This will awake the management of the company. Public infrastructure operators fear penalties and fines more than public outcries. And by these fines, I do not mean a fine of $10,000 for the stoppage of trains for four days. The fine should be meaningful enough and of sizable amount so as to make it a deterrent for the companies. The reason for this is simple. For fines, such public infrastructural companies will have to measure the yardstick. And for public outcries, it is very hard sometimes to determine the impact. Sir, I hope the Minister will consider this point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Chay for his comments. I take it that he supports in principle this Bill. He made a number of points. I noted three important ones. First, he made a philosophical point. He said, yes, while he understood the need to place restrictions on non-public transport activities of licensees, we should not go overboard and stifle entrepreneurial activities on the part of licensees. That I agree. The clear dos and don'ts are easy to define, but there will be a lot of grey areas. So, it is one of those things where it is very difficult to codify. Therefore, occasionally, it has to be on a case-by-case basis. And the way to go about doing it is to make sure we have wise men and women sitting on the board of LTA, so that they can apply their wisdom, expertise and experience when a case crops up. The second point he made was about performance yardsticks - that licensees should be subject to measurement, whether they meet up with their expectations, and he made a point about making those indicators public. I agree. We already have sets of performance indicators governing SMRT or SLRT, and I will ask LTA to think about going forward to the next step of making them public and make the process transparent. The third point he made was about financial penalty - the point that, yes, we have the power to cancel a licence in the event of a major default in activities. To him, that is a very drastic step, which I agree. In fact, one of the objectives for moving this Bill is to build in this financial penalty framework so that we can have a more discriminatory way of governing the performance of the licensees.

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 Khaw Boon Wan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.55 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill puts in place an enhanced system to regulate trade in strategic goods. In broad terms, strategic goods comprise munitions and sensitive dual use items, as well as goods used for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction. Singapore supports the global efforts to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and has always maintained high standards in controlling trade in strategic goods. Since the 1970s, we have been state parties to the Biological Weapons Convention (1975) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1976). In recent years, we have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This Bill strengthens existing controls to keep pace with recent international developments. What is the imperative for the Strategic Goods (Control) Bill? Mr Speaker, Sir, let me elaborate. Rapid globalisation and technological advancements have spurred economic growth, and stimulated much greater cross border flow of goods and people. But these same forces driving global growth have also thrown up new security challenges. Technological advances have spawned a range of highly advanced products. Properly deployed for civilian use, these can improve productivity and promote new industries. But some of these products and technology can also be deployed for building deadly weapons. There is also the risk of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons falling into the wrong hands. History has provided us with cases on the use of sarin gas and anthrax, and they are a sobering confirmation of the physical and psychological damage that such chemical and biological weapons can cause. Their use makes clear that the threat and risk are real and not just hypothetical. Global trade is growing, and the conduits which carry these huge global flows of goods have been exploited by rogue traders to smuggle a variety of weapons, including those of mass destruction. The methods used by them to illicitly divert sensitive strategic goods to proscribed entities have also become more sophisticated. There is growing international concern in recent years that such sensitive goods and weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. No country alone can tackle this problem. Nor can any country isolate herself from the dangers of the proliferation of such weapons and components. More than ever before, countries need to work in close partnership to build a tight, effective and efficient system of controls. As a major trading and logistics centre, Singapore may be used as a potential conduit for such illicit activities. It is in our interest to enhance security of our ports' operations and to step up vigilance. It is also our responsibility, as a member of the international community, to play our part in building an effective global system. This Bill represents a comprehensive effort by Singapore to plug into international efforts to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Work on the proposed Bill began more than two and a half years ago, as we had assessed that proactive, preventive actions were necessary. This was well before the world was shaken by the September 11 attacks. The September 11 attacks brought to the fore the urgency of dealing with terrorists threats. In recent months, we arrested a total of 36 members of the Jemaah Islamiyah network. These members were plotting to attack strategic locations in Singapore. These recent developments lent greater impetus to our efforts to take proactive measures. Singapore will be the first country in Southeast Asia to enhance our controls on strategic goods. This is a strong deterrent measure to prevent rogue traders from using Singapore to conduct illicit activities. This is also a pre-emptive measure to tighten our domestic security. It will also contribute to enhanced regional security. A volatile and insecure neighbourhood undermines investor confidence. This will have an adverse impact on our regional stability and will dampen our prospects for growth. Apart from enhancing our security, our export control system can become a source of competitive advantage for our industries. With a robust and credible system in place, our trading partners will have greater confidence in granting us access to their high-end technology and equipment because they know that any shared technologies will remain in safe hands. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the salient features of the Bill. First, we will require all traders to apply for a permit before they are allowed to export, tranship or bring into transit strategic goods as listed in the Schedule to the Bill. The list comprises about 600 items by broad categories. It includes munitions, chemical and biological items, as well as nuclear-related materials and equipment. These have been carefully selected mainly for their direct military and nuclear applications, as well as their dual-use nature (ie, they are items which can be used for both military and civilian purposes). In drawing up the list of goods under control, we have also referred to practices of other reputable export control regimes in the US, EU, Japan and Hong Kong. Second, beyond the control of physical goods, we will also regulate the electronic transmissions of military, encryption and WMD end-use technology. This feature recognises the realities of the information-communications age where the most sensitive part of a product may lie in its software. The provision deters all irresponsible handling as well as illicit transfers that may potentially undermine our security and defence interests. Third, we will also regulate all brokering activities directly related to WMD and offensive categories of conventional arms, such as small arms and light weapons. The controls apply to all Singapore entities regardless of whether the goods were physically transferred through Singapore. We want to send a strong signal that we do not condone the conduct of any such clandestine activity within our territories. Fourth, to ensure the continued relevance of our enhanced controls to evolving technologies and weapons development programmes, we have incorporated a blanket control, or `catch-all' on all goods that are likely to be used for WMD purposes. This ensures that even where the item does not fall on the control list, it will still be subject to the controls under this Bill. Fifth, we have proposed stiff penalties for non-compliance. The penalties of a maximum $100,000 fine or 3 times the value of the goods, and/or 2 years' jail for first offenders, and a maximum $200,000 fine or 4 times the value of the goods, and/or 3 years' jail for subsequent offenders, are in line with the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act. On a case by case basis, we will be prepared to compound minor offences. Let me turn now to an important issue - addressing business concerns. Mr Speaker, Sir, in drafting the Bill, the Ministry is very conscious that we must minimise the potential impact on businesses. Hence, over the last two years, we have conducted extensive consultations with several hundred companies representing the key industries that may be potentially affected by the proposed controls. Our industry has expressed understanding and support for the need for such enhanced security. But they ask that we implement these measures in a cost-effective and sensible way, and not erode the efficiency of our transportation and logistics infrastructure. Otherwise, our competitiveness will suffer. Sir, let me assure the House that we have taken, therefore, all necessary steps to address their concerns. Let me elaborate. First, the permit application procedures will be simple, convenient and business-friendly. We have upgraded the TradeNet system to accept all permit applications. We will process all applications electronically. This will reduce processing time and allow for permits to be granted more expeditiously. Second, we will not impose any additional charges for these permit applications. Third, ground enforcement will be largely based on intelligence and risk profiling. This ensures that cargo flows will not be impeded by unnecessary checks. Our risk profiling system will be similar to those adopted by key ports, such as Rotterdam and Hong Kong. As our risk-profiling databases develop over time, the accuracy and speed with which high-risk cargoes are identified will increase. This will allow legitimate traders to enjoy even swifter clearances. Finally, our outreach programme is currently ongoing. We want to allay any concerns that may be generated by these proposed controls. We also want to engender a greater sense of familiarity and instil confidence so that the affected industries can adjust and ease into the changes as soon as possible. We have launched a website to provide detailed information. Prior to actual implementation, we will also conduct trial runs of the enhanced TradeNet system. Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot take peace for granted. The recent attacks in Bali are fresh reminders of how fragile peace and security can be. The proliferation of dangerous weapons threatens all countries. We need greater international cooperation to safeguard our local security. The proposed Bill strengthens Singapore as a strong link in the global chain of anti-terrorism and non-proliferation measures. It will also serve to safeguard the reputation and integrity of Singapore's status as a major international shipping hub. By securing our trading channels, our cargoes can clear our partners' ports faster. We would also generate greater confidence in our system, and secure greater access to high-tech equipment and technology from more advanced economies. The enhanced controls are in our national, economic and security interests. The proposed Bill is both timely and necessary. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. After hearing the explanations of the Minister of State for Trade and Industry, and reading the contents of the Bill, I wish to express my support for this Bill. May I take this opportunity to seek a few areas of clarification with respect to the general objectives and the implementation of these new measures on control of strategic goods. Firstly, I support the concept of having a central agency to be the single authority to be responsible for this Bill. However, I notice that the Strategic Goods for Control Items related essentially to military, chemical, biological and technology-related goods and materials. Therefore, in essence, this Bill, in my mind, relates to defence and security items. So I wish to ask whether it is appropriate for this control of strategic materials to be vested in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, which is more interested in trade issues, rather it should be vested in the defence or security agencies like the Ministry of Defence, or the Ministry of Home Affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second area of enquiry is with regard to whether the implementation of these new measures will hamper the free flow of legitimate trading and importation of non-offensive goods and materials, which are classified within the areas of being strategic goods. For example, our defence industry, most of which are Government-owned in fact, and they do engage in activities in manufacturing and trading, as well as importation of military and sensitive products. Therefore would their businesses be affected or hampered in the process? From the private sector's point of view, there are also many small and large private companies which are involved in the transhipment, trading and brokering of strategic goods, such as software and technology products. With these new measures being put in place, would they be hampered or handicapped in terms of operational efficiencies in their businesses? Will the additional documentation and procedure controls lead to delays and inefficiencies in their brokering business or even transhipment business, for the movement of such strategic goods? In the process, they may become less competitive against our neighbouring countries which do not have such kinds of controls. As the Minister has said, we are the first country in Southeast Asia to have this form of controls. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I conclude by emphasising that once again I do support this Bill, but I wish to ask the Minister of State whether he could give an assurance that the carrying of legitimate materials would not be unduly affected.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Leong for his helpful comments and for his support of the Bill. I think we need to put this Bill in perspective. It does not deal solely with security issues in isolation, but the security aspects of a particular category of international trade - strategic goods. In so far as it impinges on international trade of goods and services, the economic considerations in the implementation of this Bill are just as important. This is of course what the second part of Mr Leong's question relates to. So we need to see which is the best agency, the most appropriate ministry, in striking this balance between our economic and security interests. We studied what had been the practice in other jurisdictions that have export controls. In the United States and in Hong Kong, they are vested in economic agencies. We have decided, after careful consideration, that we will vest this in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, and that the national authority for the administration of export control scheme should be IE Singapore. As the national authority, IE Singapore would be the main point of contact for the proposed export controls scheme. But it would coordinate with the other relevant agencies, including the security agencies. It would coordinate with the Customs and Excise Department, with the Police and the DSTA Technical Advisory Office. The second part of Mr Leong's question is just as important. He asked what are the economic and business implications of having an export control regime scheme. This concern, which he raised, applies not just to defence software technology companies, but to all businesses in Singapore that deal with the movement or trade of goods and services. My Ministry is mindful that any export control regime would impose some costs to businesses. What we have decided to do is to take a practical approach. There is no point in afflicting upon ourselves an onerous system, if it is not effective. It neither benefits Singapore, nor the international community. Indeed the goal of enhancing our security would be severely undermined if shippers were put off by our strict controls and chose to divert their cargoes to ports with weaker control systems. Therefore, the key lies in establishing an effective system at a reasonable cost. To achieve this, we are building on the strengths of our current system. First, we will tap on our already highly efficient TradeNet system to process applications for controlled goods. This electronic submission process will ensure that traders continue to enjoy the expeditious processing of the permits as before. Second, we are enhancing our intelligence gathering capabilities. With its risk-profiling mechanism and provisions for intelligence sharing, the proposed export control regime will ensure that the efficient and smooth operation of the port will not be compromised. Third, the list of controlled items has been carefully scrutinised to ensure that the level of regulation is not more onerous than what is necessary to achieve our policy objective. The result is a control list that is not excessively long. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a final point here that beyond this limited cost, there are also benefits to Singapore. One is that it enhances the reputation of Singapore as a secure international trading hub. Two, it would actually help our defence technology and software companies by facilitating their access to technologies in developed economies. Without the Bill, these companies may find it difficult, as the supplier countries may be concerned that the shared technologies may inadvertently fall into the wrong hands. The Bill, therefore, contributes, rather than detracts, from the competitiveness of our defence and technology companies.

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 Raymond Lim Siang Keat].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.14 pm until 3.35 pm Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move: That this House, having noted the Report of the Junior College (JC)/Upper Secondary Education Review Committee 2002, contained in Paper Cmd 8 of 2002, (1) supports the new JC curriculum which will better develop thinking, communication and other process skills and engage students in greater breadth of learning; and (2) endorses greater diversity and opening of new pathways in JC/Upper Secondary education to cater to the different strengths and interests of students. Rationale for Review Mr Speaker, Sir, our education system is a strong one, well recognised for the high levels of achievement and the high rates of completion of our students. The foundations were laid in the Goh Keng Swee Report, which was debated and endorsed by this House in March 1979. We have a well-structured and efficient education system, which allows every student to go as far as he can in achieving his potential. Since 1979, we have various adaptations and improvements to the system so that, today, 80% of our students now proceed on to post-secondary education. Our students do well by most international comparisons. Sir, our current JC/upper secondary education system has served us well. However, we have to look ahead and prepare ourselves for new challenges, as we move from an industrial-age economy to a knowledge-based economy. We have to prepare our students for a more unpredictable and frequently changing environment. New developments in science and technology will change the way we live, communicate, work and play. Globalisation will continue to change and transform economies and the relations between nations. Knowledge and creativity will be the driving forces that determine whether people and countries thrive, or merely struggle to survive. We must be good, not only at efficiently making chips or pharmaceuticals, or trading in stocks and other financial instruments; but we must also be able to create new products whether they be gene chips, a new drug to treat a disease, a digital movie, or new financial instruments and services. Singaporeans must be willing to take calculated risks, to create their own opportunities, to search out new niches and markets, even in the world of existing technologies and products. To prepare our young for this new future, education needs to move away from an industrial model of production which worked well in the past when things were more organised, stable and bounded by convention. But this no longer reflects the world we live in. In the globalised world, there are fewer certainties and greater variability. To prepare our people, the Ministry of Education has been making changes in this direction in the last five years. We have: (a) Trimmed down our curriculum content to give more emphasis to process skills and learning to apply knowledge; (b) Introduced IT to encourage independent learning and to reach beyond the classroom to the wider world to expand the horizons of learning; (c) Encouraged multi-disciplinary learning, teamwork and new ideas through project work; (d) Introduced new assessment methods such as open book and source-based questions, and continuous assessment for `A' level practical; and (e) Given greater recognition to achievements beyond the academic by counting co-curricular activities for entry to university. However, such changes have been carried out within the current structure of our education system. Therefore, when the Ministry of Education embarked on this review, the aim was to make a departure from the current structure, to open up the system to more flexibility and diversity in curricula and structure, and to provide more avenues for our students with different strengths and interests to develop. The changes proposed for the JC/upper secondary education are major and substantive, and will make our system a less uniform one. Fundamental changes will be introduced in two areas - we will have a more broad-based and flexibly structured JC curriculum, and more diverse structures and mix of schools in the system. I will elaborate on each of these further. But before I proceed, let me just record my thanks to Senior Minister of State, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, and his Committee for having done a very good job in reviewing the system and making these proposals. A Broader and More Flexible JC Curriculum The new JC curriculum will do more to nurture the skills, outlook and habits required for success in the knowledge age. The current JC curriculum has its strengths. The `A' levels have served as the standard bearer of the rigour and high standards of our pre-university education for the last 30 years. The programme is challenging and provides students with a strong core of knowledge in their chosen fields. However, the JC curriculum in its current form - consisting of a narrow selection of specialised `A' level subjects - may not be adequate to prepare our JC students for a future that places a premium on flexibility and an ability to understand and draw on different knowledge disciplines. Our universities have already moved towards offering a broader undergraduate education with cross faculty modules. Their programmes had been based on the traditional British model. Such a model - characterised by specialised degree programmes - had served us well. Going forward, we should be cognisant of the demands of the new economy, which require a greater breadth of knowledge and skills. Hence, the move towards a broad-based education model adopted by many US universities. The changes to our JC programme are motivated by a similar recognition of the merits of a broader education. The new JC curriculum has three key features. First, JC education will be more broad-based. All students will do a contrasting subject outside their main area of specialisation. The objective of a more broad-based JC education is not to teach more facts about more things. The intention is to ensure our students acquire a strong grounding in the major families of disciplines and an understanding of different ways of knowing the world - scientific, mathematical, humanistic. Our students must have strong anchors in both the sciences, which seek the truths about the physical, social and biological worlds, as well as the humanities, which tell us about man's search for individual meaning and social purpose. This will ensure students have a fuller understanding of the world around them - the physical world, the biological world, the social world, the world of human experiences, our past, our society, and ourselves - so that they are better able to draw on this to create their own future. Second, the new JC curriculum will do more to nurture knowledge skills - conceptual thinking skills, communications skills and a firm grasp of different modes of knowledge inquiry. In a globalised, technologically driven, fast-changing knowledge society, our young need to be critical and original thinkers, as well as to present their ideas cogently, persuasively and forcefully to win the contest of ideas. Today's JC curriculum emphasises both process skills and content mastery, though more could be done. The various subject disciplines in JC education seek to deliver core skills, such as communication skills, information and knowledge application skills, and thinking skills and creativity. Project Work has also been introduced since 2000 to develop inter-disciplinary learning, collaborative skills, independent thinking, and communication skills. The new JC curriculum will build on these changes. Project Work will be brought within the formal `A' level framework and accorded the same standing as General Paper. The different modes of gathering, analysing and synthesising knowledge will be infused into existing subjects. We are introducing a new optional subject - Knowledge and Inquiry - to develop the conceptual abilities of our students to a higher level, and to have them critically analyse issues from different perspectives by drawing upon knowledge across disciplines. The broad-based nature of the revised curriculum will also help develop a more flexible way of thinking and a creative bent among our students. The new curriculum's stronger multi-disciplinary orientation will enhance our students' capacity to synthesize knowledge across different subject areas and appreciate the interconnections between disciplines. Finally, and importantly, the new JC curriculum will place added emphasis on developing the personal qualities that our JC students need to be good leaders and committed citizens. Our education system seeks to nurture a balanced and holistic human being and citizen. A comprehensive education must aim not merely at academic achievement, which is important, but also at developing qualities of mind and motivation, and the cultivation of sound values and enterprise. The non-academic curriculum plays a critical role - through participation in co-curricula activities, such as sports, uniformed groups or the arts, students learn to work with each other to achieve common goals and lead with confidence even in adversity. Tough training for competitions nurtures endurance and ruggedness in our students. They learn to be good team players, take risks, think on their feet and exhibit initiative, resolve and resilience in the face of setbacks. Therefore, under the new JC curriculum framework, students will need to meet minimum requirements in co-curricula activities and Character Development Programme participation to complete their JC education. A holistic certification will be introduced, with CCA achievements and academic grades reflected on the same `A' level certificate. A more diverse education landscape Beyond curriculum, the recommendations of the JC review will also bring changes to the upper secondary/JC education landscape. There will be greater diversity in the types of programmes, mix of schools, and pathways to university education. We will allow for new Specialised Independent Schools in areas like Mathematics and Science; integrated programmes for upper secondary and JC education; alternative qualifications, like the IB; and 2-3 privately-funded schools to be established. A more diverse education landscape is desirable for two reasons. First, a more diverse education system allows us to do more to cater to the different interests and needs of our students. Our current Upper Secondary/JC system with `O' and `A' levels is an excellent system for ensuring that students have a strong structural framework within which to acquire the fundamental knowledge and skills they need before proceeding to the next phase of education, whether it be JC, polytechnic or university. And our students have done well with this structured system, with high rates of completion and achievement. However, there will be students who do not need such a strongly structured system to acquire the fundamentals, and can benefit from a less structured, integrated programme for upper secondary and Junior College education. I have seen this working very well at top high schools in the United States. They run 4-year high schools from Grade 9 to 12, schools such as Bronx High or Stuyvesant High in New York City, or Thomas Jefferson High School in the Washington DC area. These schools have very good integrated programmes in the upper secondary, in the last four years. The review therefore proposes that we introduce different pathways. Some students will benefit more from a structured education with clear intermediate goals and benchmarks along the way. They can pace, measure and prove themselves as they progress. Others will thrive in a less structured learning environment provided by schools offering integrated programmes. The new broad-based JC curriculum will cater to the needs of most students, whether they are in the JCs on a 2-year programme, or the Integrated Programme. But to provide more diversity, JCs can also offer alternative curricula, like the IB, or, as is likely with the new Specialised Schools, develop their own curriculum or adapt one to suit their needs. Second, diversity in our system means that we will have different ways, and not just one homogeneous way, for preparing our young for an innovation-driven future characterised by rapid and continuous change. Diversity will sow the seeds for vibrancy and creativity. With diversity, there is greater opportunity for rejuvenation and strength. We need a pool of diverse talents with different educational experiences and outlook, who are able to offer different ideas for Singapore to be a truly vibrant country, adaptable and responsive to the varied challenges of the future. Challenges and concerns Mr Speaker, Sir, while I have outlined the reasons for this review, and why it will serve our people and country well, I am mindful that there are challenges and concerns. There are likely to be concerns that a more diversified system will lead to greater differentiation and elitism. Sir, we all do want a system that can offer programmes that are more appropriate to the different abilities and aptitudes of our students, and this does mean that we will need a more diversified system and differentiation in order to achieve this. By providing the greater opportunities that such diversification offers, our students, our society and Singapore will be the better off for it. But in so doing, we must continue to adhere to two important principles. First, that our education system is meritocratic and provides equal opportunity. Our Integrated Programme and Specialised schools will therefore continue to have transparent and merit-based criteria for entry. There will also be no reduction in opportunities for deserving students to join our top institutions. In that regard, I see more opportunities and choices for Singaporeans as they will have the opportunity of not just going to JC, but also for Integrated Programmes, Specialised schools in Mathematics and Science, Sports, or the Arts, and to enrol in schools that offer alternative qualifications. Second, and perhaps more importantly, those students who will benefit from the greater educational options being introduced must not forget that the opportunities they enjoy are ultimately justified only by the quality of their commitment and service to our nation and the general social good. If our JC students leave the system very bright, very creative and innovative, having benefited from the best that our system has to offer, but without a sense of commitment to country and obligation to his fellow citizens, then all this effort would have come to nothing. But this is not something that we can do only within the education system. This is a shared responsibility. Parents, teachers and the wider community all share in the task of imbuing in our youth responsibility to family, consideration for fellow citizens, loyalty to home and country, that lie at the very core of being an educated and cultured person, and a committed and loyal citizen. This, all of us must continue to do.

Order. RAdm Teo, can you please allow Mr Mah to move the motion for exempted business?

Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the implementation of these proposals will take a number of years. The JC curriculum will be introduced from 2006. The benefits will not be seen till some years later. Implementation will not be without its challenges. There will be curriculum to be written, teachers to be trained, new assessment methods to be devised. We will need the support of the public, parents, teachers, students and, not least of all, the hon. Members of this House, to see these reforms through in the coming years. The debate in this House will help Singaporeans to understand the issues involved, and the importance of making these reforms. As we debate these reforms, let us fix our eyes on the future, and build an education system that will help our country and our young to be ready to meet that future. Sir, I would now like to take the opportunity to hear from hon. Members their views on the proposed changes to the JC and Upper Secondary Education. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.58 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the report on the JC curriculum contains two major recommendations - firstly, to revise the JC curriculum, broadening the content as well as emphasising thinking skills and, secondly, to introduce the Integrated Programme in secondary schools. These proposals aim to introduce improvements as well as address some basic problems in our education system. For years, the Ministry has steadfastly asserted the virtues of our education system. Therefore, I consider this Motion significant for the Ministry to admit that there are shortcomings in the system and, secondly, for the Ministry to accept the recommendations of a Review Committee established not so many months ago with members from outside the Ministry. Admittedly, by accepting the recommendations of the Review Committee, the Ministry of Education has taken a giant step in resolving these systemic issues. In fact, these proposed changes are considered so fundamental that the Minister has recommended to the Prime Minister that the Whip be lifted so that PAP Members of Parliament could debate the motion thoroughly without restraint. Mr Speaker, Sir, every parent with a child in our school system has an opinion on how to improve our education system. However, to be able to come out with a comprehensive overhaul requires courage to admit that there are problems, an exceptional ability to grasp the gist of these problems, and the clarity of mind to come out with the solutions. I believe that the Review Committee, under the chairmanship of the Senior Minister of State, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, has managed to achieve. One regrettable aspect of the report is that it contained so many new initiatives that the reader may not see the forest for the trees. To me, Sir, two major thrusts - the JC curriculum and the Integrated Programme - could have been better clearly de-linked and their merits considered separately. Sir, as a way of setting the stage, let me list out the shortcomings of our existing secondary education system, and then look at whether the reform proposed in the report has addressed them. What are the generally perceived issues regarding our upper secondary education at the moment? In simple terms, they can be summarised as follows: Firstly, the overall workload is high, in fact, very high. The workload of a typical student is around 1,700 instruction hours for the "A" level programme comprising the General Paper, mother tongue language and four principal subjects. For individual subjects such as Science and Mathematics, our workload is heavier than equivalent programmes in the United Kingdom and the United States by at least 15%, sometimes more. Secondly, life as a student in Singapore is very stressful. Our students strive to take as many subjects as possible and to score as many As as they can achieve. They also choose more deterministic subjects such as Science and Mathematics and to shy away from humanities. One of the factors in driving our students is our emphasis on meritocracy and transparency. When it comes to scholarship applications and university admissions, we primarily look at the examination results of the applicants. And given that the examinations test primarily the mastery of these content-based subjects, it is possible for those with the mental ability to score better and better grades just by spending more and more hours memorising the facts and honing their examination skills by practising on the 10-year series. Thirdly, our education system overwhelmingly favours discipline and the ability to apply oneself. As a result, our students learn too much fact and not enough abilities. In particular, we are short in thinking skills as well as social skills. In effect, our students become very good in solving known problems using known solutions but become hesitant and unsure when confronted with new problems, a behaviour regularly observed by our university and polytechnic lecturers. Sir, these observations are not new. But what prompted MOE to set up the Review Committee? I surmise that there are two reasons. First, we have painted ourselves into a corner as far as the evolution of the education system in the secondary schools is concerned. Evolution in the natural world has taught us that it is important to continuously evolve to adjust to changing circumstances. In my opinion, Sir, our JC education had made a wrong turn many years back into a cul de sac. Why do I say so? Our teachers have become so good in tutoring their charges in scorings and our students have become so good in honing their examination skills that the only way to segregate the outstanding students from the mere excellent is to make the subjects harder and harder. And as we crank up the ratchet one turn at a time over the years, we lost sight of what we are trying to achieve in education. The ranking of schools and the students became the proxy measurements for success. Today, our typical "A" level students are required to spend about 330 hours in one subject versus the equivalent 280 hours in the United Kingdom's "A" level. It is even more when we compare to the United States' equivalent of 240 hours. Our students are so far ahead when they are admitted to the United States universities, even into the very best US universities. They are given exemption for many first-year subjects such as Mathematics and Sciences. Furthermore, in the last "A" level examinations, the number of students scoring 4As has once again broken the record. The end of better and better scholastic results is not in sight. I do not think we have somehow managed to manipulate our children's genes so that they are now brighter and smarter than the previous generations. What happens is that our children just have learnt a whole lot more in the process of preparing for the "A" level. If we do not transform our education system, the only way to provide some differentiation among top students is to crank up the ratchet one more time, so much so that perhaps one day in the future, our students will be given exemption from even more senior level classes, perhaps the sophomore year classes in the United States. This shall be obvious to all, lay persons and experts alike, that to continue this path is not what education is all about. The second reason that the Minister has already touched on is that the Singapore economy in the future requires a very different type of workforce than what our education system is geared to produce and our current severe recession has driven home this key point. Up to now, our economy has done well by adopting production techniques from the developed countries and we will refine them so that Singaporeans are more efficient and effective in performing those jobs. And the output of our education system is well-suited for this task. As a result, our economy has grown since independence spectacularly. However, as we try to upgrade ourselves into a knowledge-based economy, we discover that our engine sputters as we step on the accelerator's pedal. What happened? Some say that we did not develop enough intellectual property ourselves that the others are willing to pay for. Others say that we are not creative enough. In other words, our workforce basically does not know how to leverage the knowledge we have in our systems and processes into goods and services that the world is prepared to pay for. The other aspect of a rapidly changing economy is the rapid transformation of job skills. As we no longer could predict the job skills that will be required in the future, it is better to train our population to be flexible and adaptable instead of being channelled into specialised areas too early. To fix these two problems, the whole education system must be transformed, and some part of which very fundamentally. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the JC curriculum is the first step in a complete overhaul of our education system to be more like the United States' system compared to the United Kingdom's system. It puts emphasis on thinking skills and avoids early over-specialisation. Our local universities have already recognised the need and have taken the step to transform themselves from the British system to the American system. Thus, the changes in the JC curriculum will remove the disjoint that exists today between the JCs and the universities. This change is welcomed by everyone that the Feedback Unit has consulted with regard to the White Paper. Mr Speaker, Sir, what the new curriculum does not address is the workload and the stress of the JC curriculum. Yes, we know our students can take the stress. Yes, they can take the load. But why should we subject our children to this very trying, tempering process? The White Paper did not address the question whether it is necessary to impose such a heavy workload on our students. Not only that, Sir, on the contrary, the new curriculum, by requiring the need to take a cross-discipline subject, would probably increase the workload. It is true that through the new classification of H1, H2 and H3, the Ministry proposes to keep the total instruction hours the same. But by increasing the emphasis on project work, thinking skills and the need to take a new subject in a different discipline, I believe students will need to spend more time instead of the same amount of time. It is regrettable that the Review Committee did not delve into this area and take the opportunity to make the necessary adjustment to bring down the total workload. I would request the Minister to monitor the workload very carefully in the new implementation and to make necessary adjustments, if so required. Another impact on students that we have to watch out for will be their response to the new emphasis on thinking skills and project work. These are harder to do well in, especially for those who are not so strong in the command of the English Language, in writing and in expressing themselves. It is likely that these students will prefer the old approach and I believe that they will aim to go to the universities via the polytechnic route after their "O" level. Thus, it is likely that some years down the road after we implement the new JC curriculum that the pressure to allow more polytechnic graduates beyond the now top 10% into our universities will intensify. Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the respondents to the Feedback Unit feel that the JC curriculum would only impact the top 25% of the cohort and is therefore not of major interest to the majority of our students. I think this view is mistaken as the influence of this change would be felt all the way down the school system to the primary level. Parents would recognise that the attribute that would enable their children to do well in the new "A" level examinations has got to be inculcated for many years in the lower secondary as well as in the primary levels. Contrary to public perception, the JC curriculum would touch the life of every child in Singapore and this is all the more so because of the integrated programme or the "through-train" concept to be introduced concurrently. Sir, the "through-train" concept has been floated for many years now. A number of JCs and secondary schools have already signed up to the concept. It targets the top 10% of the cohort so that they could go straight to the "A" level without having to sit for the intermediate "O" level examinations. Since 25% of our cohort would move on to the JC, 10% would be the top two-fifths of this group. We could be quite confident that the drop-out from the Integrated Programme (IP) would be few and far between and naturally most of the GEP pupils will be enrolled into the IP programme. In my mind, Sir, IP is, in essence, an extension of the streaming exercise that started way back in the primary level. Is this good or bad? This is, in fact, a very fundamental question and indeed the more troubling proposal in this White Paper. Sir, it should be obvious that by skipping the "O" levels, the IP confers significant benefits to the students in the programme. Just by looking from the angle of time utilisation, these students would have close to six months for other development activities that the "O" level students would spend at Secondary 4 preparing for their examinations. Furthermore, the Ministry proposes to introduce the single admission to JC 1 concurrently to solve the problem of churning of students after their "O" level examinations. Thus, the new JC 1 intake will enroll as late as in March after their "O" levels in the following year. And during this period, Sir, I do not think the students in the IP programme will stay at home marking time. I am sure that they will be back in the schools, being nurtured. Thus, the IP students would have as much as up to eight months' interaction time more than a student who took the normal route or the Express stream. Sir, bearing in mind that the IP students are the top 10% of the cohort in terms of intelligence and abilities, I believe these students will end up having a very measurable advantage over the other students in the Express stream or in the Normal stream. They would probably be so good that they might be given the label "super-express stream". The IP programme illustrates once again the tensions between two different and opposing views in education. Do we strive for an egalitarian system catering to the majority and leaving the bright ones to fend for themselves or do we provide the best to the brightest, nurturing them to their fullest potential? If we take the first approach, we would not be maximising the potential of our very best, which could make a difference between growth and stagnation for Singapore in the future. If we take the second approach, in other words, the IP approach, will we generate a sense of disenchantment among our young who are not in the IP programme, that the system is stacked against them if nature does not endow them with the genes to do well in our system? How do we deal with the frustrations that come with the realisation that determination, discipline and other human qualities come second, while natural endowment becomes most important? How do we address the rootedness of Singaporeans when some of us are dealt with a lousy deck of cards, and the Government reinforces this in our education system? Frankly speaking, Sir, I am torn between these two poles. In my mind, I think IP is necessary and appropriate, and would bring great benefit to the students in the stream. In my heart, I feel that this will intensify the angst and stress in our education system and make for perhaps a less harmonious society. In view of the Singapore economy which will be very dependent on the creativity of our people, my mind is winning this tug of war but my heart wishes that it need not be so. Nonetheless, I would urge the Ministry to be cognisant of this when implementing the IP. This should give the assurance that the non-IP students will continue to get the attention and the resources allocated to them currently. I am glad to note that the Minister is cognisant of this and has already reassured us in his speech. Sir, both of these concepts look good on paper. Whether they will bring the benefits we envisage will depend on the implementation. There are many issues of implementation - and there are 31 speakers after me. The key one, in my mind, is the preparedness of the teachers by 2006. The question is: will these few years be sufficient to get the system ready? I believe that in implementing the IP, only a number of schools will be involved initially. I understand that this number is less than the number of schools currently offering the GEP. So, do we also admit non-GEP students into IP? What would happen to the GEP students in schools that are not implementing the IP? How do we deal with the aspirations of the GEP students in these schools if they could not be transferred to the IP? There are also other recommendations in the White Paper, such as the establishment of private schools and the ability of some schools to offer other academic programmes such as the IB. These are meant to bring out greater diversity in the education system to meet the specific needs of the student population. Sir, I believe it is reasonable to experiment with the concept of private secondary schools. In this respect, I am glad that MOE has insisted that these schools must meet the minimum criteria of 50% Singaporean students in the population and must comply with the National Education guidelines. I have no great issue with the private schools, except that we must address the concern of the public about the exclusiveness of such schools. Already, there are public comments about our students not interacting enough between those of different ethnic backgrounds. We need to ensure that such independent schools do not become institutes where only the sons and daughters of the rich and the famous intermingle and build networks for the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, the recommendations of the White Paper will bring about fundamental and significant changes in our education system. I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Tharman for steering his Review Committee to come out with these comprehensive and well-considered policy recommendations and to thank the Minister for accepting these recommendations. These changes will affect every Singaporean. For some, the change will be beneficial. For others, it will bring about greater anxiety and stress. To me, what is important is that the motivation of the MOE is a positive one, and I am glad to hear that the Ministry is prepared to do what is necessary to ensure that the new initiatives would succeed. Sir, we need to break through the present mindset and to bring the education system in Singapore to the next higher level of performance. I support the changes but urge caution and continuous monitoring to remedy any negative impact.

Mr Speaker, I am delighted that far-reaching changes are now being proposed to the system of JC/Upper Secondary School education. The present system has not had a major revamp for 30 years. Like so much of Singapore Inc., it is highly efficient and accomplishes a great deal with minimum fuss. But the accompanying litany of complaints is long and familiar. And my fellow Parliamentary colleagues before me have given details of some of these. Students and parents bemoan the undue stress the system has imposed from intense rote learning and the cookie cutter approach. Significantly, by agreeing to the reduction in the number of hours per 'A' level subject, the MOE seems to implicitly admit that the present system, by international comparison, over teachers in terms of content and subject hours, is generating an enormously stressful learning experience. University educators and employers find our students wanting, because they are adept at knowledge acquisition but not knowledge application or creation. They often bemoan the failure of the system to inculcate critical thinking and communication skills. It is well known that Singaporean students are reticent and poor communicators in comparison with foreign counterparts. These anecdotal observations have thus far not been negated by statistics that many Government departments are fond of using to demolish arguments. Indeed, they are reinforced by a recent study by the Ministry of Trade and Industry which shows clearly that, compared to the advanced economies, Singapore is pretty strong in acquiring knowledge, but is less so in creating, disseminating or applying information. The report further notes that it is in knowledge application where Singapore lags furthest behind and here, the weakest link is entrepreneurship. Sir, please let me state categorically at the outset that I do see the value of a rigorous education system that stretches students, and stress per se is indeed no reason to relax the rigour of the JC/Upper Secondary education system. The estimated 25% of each year's cohort that enter Upper Secondary/JC, one can safely assume, represent the best of the crop and nothing beats a good solid education to prepare them for either a university education or alternative learning pathways to a useful career. Without any question, the changes taking place all around us call for new responses. We urgently need to build up a pool of trained manpower with the skills and the aptitude to tackle the economic challenges of a highly competitive globalised, knowledge and innovation-driven economy. Amongst the tirade of recommendations made by the ERC sub-committees, the need to revamp our education system to foster entrepreneurship stands out very strongly as a common and central recommendation. In fact, one of the strongest advocates comes from the Sub-committee on Enhancing Human Capital, chaired by the Minister of State for Manpower and Education, Dr Ng Eng Hen, himself. Indeed, Minister of State Ng Eng Hen's recent ERC sub-committee report begins where the White Paper also begins - the pressing need to inject more flexibility and diversity into our education system. The goal is to enable the system to perform optimally its equipping task, and make our schools, to use the ERC report's memorable words, "creators of knowledge, engines of innovation and cradles of enterprise." In a nutshell, there are, I believe, three underlying core principles enunciated in the review: 1. greater breadth - with focus on thinking and higher order skills, not just academic or subject content; 2. greater flexibility - to accommodate preference for different types and depth of subjects; and 3. greater diversity - to allow different pathways of education to accommodate different types of students. Sir, I support these broad principles and aims enunciated. But in my assessment, they have still not been applied widely or rigorously enough to the vision for a new education landscape. In what follows, I will explain my reasons by highlighting five major concerns arising from the review. My first concern relates to execution. While the principles are sound, the execution can and should take on different hues. Thus, a key concern would be in the manner of implementation of the recommendations. For instance, how can existing teachers, who are themselves products of an era where education is largely knowledge acquisition, as well as new teachers, be equipped to help students develop conceptual thinking, knowledge process skills, independent thinking and communication skills? What are the changes that must be made to the recruitment of new teachers and their training? How should the syllabus, teaching and assessment methods be shaped to ensure they achieve the aims of the review? What needs to be done for existing and often older teachers to help them grasp the issues? The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry and Education, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who chairs the Review Committee, himself had acknowledged that the success of the revised curriculum hinges on how it is executed, particularly in the curriculum design and the training of teachers. As they say, the devil is in the details. The most enlightened and exquisite curriculum or programme is only as good as the way it is implemented. Here, I quote the editorial of the Straits Times of 16th November 2002: 'Where the education system is concerned, it is not just a matter of rearranging chairs, building new schools, but changing the insides of people, including the people tasked with making the changes. Who will teach the teachers?' Indeed, from the feedback I have received, I suspect that there is little disagreement among Singaporeans about the noble intentions of the changes, but the "How" will need to be carefully crafted and conveyed to all stakeholders. I would like to suggest that MOE involve educators and other relevant stakeholders in the design of the new curriculum and make the process more transparent to parents and students. Before actual implementation of the revised curriculum, MOE should widely expose these for comments by the stakeholders so that any kinks can be ironed out before implementation. MOE, in accepting this report by the Review Committee, should also follow up with a subsequent report regarding how the curriculum has been revised and trimmed, additional new teaching and assessment methods that need to be adopted to achieve the aims of the report. This could be presented to the public and Parliament for feedback. And at this juncture I would like to thank the Minister for noting that some of these would be done. My second concern relates to the need to take at least one contrasting subject and implications on workload. I fully subscribe to the logic of having a contrasting subject, so as to expose students to subjects outside their core content knowledge, and help them think in inter-disciplinary terms. Increasingly, complex problems we are facing call for multi-dimensional responses that a broad-based education can elicit. Again, the execution of this could leave much to be desired. Specifically, except for perhaps a handful of students, the majority do not possess the aptitude to be more or less competent in every subject. Most students have preferences and aptitude for one category of subjects - eg, science or arts. To accommodate a broader based enhanced curriculum, the Review Committee has proposed trimming curriculum content and time of each subject. However, even though the number of hours per subject is reduced, the need for a contrasting subject brings the total tally for a typical "A" level student to a minimum of 7 subjects, up from the existing minimum of 5. This may mean greater stress as students are taxed beyond the comfort zone of the subjects around the core areas that they prefer. The aim of broadening students' horizon beyond the academic would be defeated if they have to struggle unduly in their contrasting subject, leaving them with precious little time for anything else. In fact, whilst there would be a 10% reduction in overall curriculum time under the proposed system, for existing triple Science students doing 4 "A" levels, the overall curriculum time for Humanities students doing 3 "A" levels will remain unchanged at about 1,300 hours. This means that the weaker students in the cohort may be unduly stretched as they now have to take more subjects and on top of this, at least one subject outside their specialisation in the same overall curriculum time. Additionally, the typical "kiasu" Singaporean parents would want their children to do well in all subjects, as long as the subject contributes to the admission criteria of our local universities. Hence, additional pressure may also emanate from this source. Once again, the recommendations could falter at the execution stage. To alleviate this problem, it must be ensured that the reduced hours genuinely reflect correspondingly reduced content, that does not somehow creep back into the system by way of after-class teaching. My third major concern relates to the through-train education. Sir, I support the proposals to have through-train to accelerate the learning pace and offer the brighter students time to pursue their interests and enrich their own educational experience without having their attention diverted by two major examinations. As only the brightest crop of students - the top 10% - will be permitted to participate, the risk of these students being left without completing at least the "O" levels should they fail the through-train will be remote. In some ways, the through-train is thus another version of the GEP, and yet another form of streaming. I know of many parents who desire that their children be able to enter the GEP. Additionally, the perception is that the best resources are also devoted to grooming these students, perhaps more so on a per capita basis than the rest of the crop. The fact that this programme and its successor, the through-train, falls within the national school system raises the prospect that this is like officially sanctioned Darwinism at work. Sir, I fully accept that we are all made differently and abilities likewise vary. I also subscribe to the idea that bright students with exceptional aptitude are better off developing other skills and pursuing non-curriculum-related work for character and leadership honing than taking two major examinations. But I would like MOE to consider steps to ensure that the creme de la creme of Singapore's student population entering the through-train programme do not develop isolationist tendencies, but integrate into the mainstream and not look down at their lesser brethren. It is comforting to note that schools and JCs planning to run the integrated programme will set aside or offer additional places to ensure that students from non-affiliated schools are not shut out of the JC. These secondary schools would also continue to offer the standard "O" level track which would allow students to stay on the traditional route, if they are assessed to be unable to make the mark, say, at secondary 2. Since 1990, the percentage of P1 cohort who passed "A" levels has been above 20%. Hence, I would like to urge the Ministry to monitor the progress and performance of the through-train cohort with the view of eventually making it accessible to a higher percentage of students, from the targeted 10%, who can benefit from the system. My fourth concern relates to the setting up of private schools. The Review Committee recommends adding a few privately-run and funded secondary schools and JCs. Such schools are to add diversity and choice in education as well as to provide an added source of ideas and innovative practices in education. The Committee acknowledges that such a move would however introduce some degree of elitism into the national education system, since admission would depend in part on ability to pay. Nonetheless, the need for a more varied education landscape is becoming inevitable in the face of globalisation and an increasingly mobile and informed citizenry that demands choice. Privately-funded schools are likely to appeal to a minority of parents who are at odds with the national school system and believe that their children could fit better in a less rigid alternative system. Private schools can provide greater variety and choice of alternative school systems, which can meet the needs of such families, and perhaps help stem the outflow of Singaporeans arising from unhappiness with the education system. As one Douglas Koh quipped, in response to the Review Committee's proposals, "For years I have been thinking of emigrating because of the lack of alternative school systems. Now I may be spoilt for choice." More importantly, privately-funded schools can cater to the children of returning Singaporean expatriates who may prefer an alternative curriculum which they are more familiar with or prepared for. Sir, I therefore support this proposal and in fact would like to urge MOE to allow private schools to be open for all levels instead of confining this to Secondary and JC levels so that the diversity in choice can be complete. My final key concern relates to widening the benefits, downwards and upwards. Firstly, widening the benefits downwards. The recommendations in the White Paper would benefit the most able of each cohort. For instance, the JC review would benefit the top 25% of the cohort, whilst the proposed through-train system is aimed at the top 10%. But what about the other 75% of the cohort? What about those further upstream in the lower secondary and primary schools? Should not the new education roadmap of greater breadth, greater flexibility and greater diversity be also made available to them so that all will be using the same map to navigate effectively together? The benefits of diversity, flexibility and choice in education and the nurturing of a thinking culture should spread to the rest of the cohort so that the less able will at least receive some preparation to equip them for the challenges of the KBE. For surely the goal is not merely to have a thinking elite, but also a thinking nation. We need thinkers at all levels of society and not just at the top, and to level up the weak, without dumping down the strong. The White Paper has allowed for greater customisation or streaming with concomitant diversity and choice at the top end of the cohort with the through-train and specialised school proposals. Greater diversity, choice and customisation should also be accorded to the rest of the cohort and in this respect, I support the following ERC Human Capital Sub-committee's recommendations: Firstly, to allow secondary students to have wider access to subjects beyond their particular stream. For instance, students in "N" level could take a few subjects where they are strong in at "O" level. Secondly, to allow selected students a longer period to complete their examinations by taking fewer subjects in more sittings, so that they can pursue external interests such as sports and the arts, which they excel in. These would then reduce some of the rigidity in the system, which though efficient, may hamper late developers. In fact, the answer to the much-maligned streaming system could thus paradoxically lie in more streaming or greater customisation of learning, particularly for the exceptional, the wayward and the just different. There is obviously a great deal of administrative clumsiness, and some loss of efficiency may have to be initially tolerated but fundamentally - allowing even more diversity should - in this regard be seen as part of the maturation process in our education system. The MOE, by accepting the White Paper, is already allowing some "messiness" to creep into the currently highly efficient system. Secondly, widening the benefits upwards. There is also the need to start grounding critical thinking skills from the echelons of lower secondary and even primary school, so that they will not start on the wrong footing. Again, as noted by the Human Capital ERC Sub-committee, we need to inculcate new traits such as thinking and communication skills early in the education process. Referring to tertiary students, I remember coming across a T-shirt worn by an undergraduate that had the words "I is a university student." There is some reality behind this tongue-in-cheek humour. As an ex-University lecturer, I can testify to the poor command of English, a significant number of undergraduates suffer from, as a consequence of inadequate grounding during their primary and secondary school days. One cannot go far back enough, as psychologists will tell you, habits of the mind are formed at a very young age. This laying of foundation is especially crucial for the dysfunctional families where the home environment may not be conducive for learning and school is the only avenue for learning. MOE announced the "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation" initiative in 1997 and curriculum content was trimmed by up to 30% in 1999. However, by all accounts, and as noted earlier, students and parents continue to remain stressed by the workload, leaving students with very little time for critical thinking and analysis. The MOE should thus also review the curriculum content and workload of students in the primary and secondary schools to see if content can be further trimmed just like in the case of the JCs. The White Paper notes that the current academic curriculum load in JCs is heavy compared to foreign education systems like the "A" levels in the UK and the IB. This is despite the fact that the curriculum was trimmed in 1999. By the same token, we may still be overloading and over-teaching our primary and secondary students. This, I submit, could place incoming upper secondary/JC students on the wrong footing and diminish the gains they could make from the very revisions we are now debating in this House. As the saying goes, we are the product of what we eat and this is true, whether it is food for the stomach or fodder for the brain. Arguably, our education system is superior to those in many countries, and has largely met the needs of our economy and citizens. However, with the rapid pace of globalisation, there is growing evidence that the system, as it stands, would not be able to meet the needs of the future workplace and economy. As Prof Edison Liu, Head of the Singapore Genomic Programme notes, "Yes, the Singapore education system is good. Yes, it is considered among the best in the world in mathematics and the sciences. But the question is not what Singapore needs now, but what the country will need 10 years from now." To enable us to compete effectively in the global economic arena, we need creative and critically thinking workers, not compliant workers. International Survey Research recently reported that based on its employee surveys, Singapore's chief executives tend to be good stewards rather than leaders. This is corroborated by a recent conversation I had with a PR from China who runs trading companies in Singapore and China. He told me he spends more time in China than Singapore, not because his family is in China - his family is in fact in Australia - but because he knows that the Singaporean manager can be trusted to run his company according to his instructions. He says that if he were to leave his China office unattended for too long, he fears one of his employees may set up a rival firm, just across the road, to compete against him. He remarked that Singaporean managers are very competent and compliant. Ethics aside, Chinese managers are also very competent, but they are also always looking at ways to be their own boss. I suspect that our famously rigid education system has no small part to play in shaping the current mindset of Singaporeans. In order to reform our education landscape to produce creative workers, innovators and entrepreneurs, there needs to be a mindset change for all - students, parents, teachers and the MOE. It is heartening that the MOE has accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to reform the JC/Upper Secondary system to better prepare students for the unpredictable future. Changing the curriculum to allow for more broad-based education and nurturing thinking skills for JC and bright upper secondary school students as well as giving them more options are first steps in the right direction. But the system would also have to be changed upstream and for the rest of the cohort in order to allow all and sundry - the exceptional, the normal, the wayward and the just different - to have a chance to survive and prosper. Until this is done, the Sim Wong Hoos and, if I may add, the Olivia Lums would continue to remain elusive. I therefore urge MOE not to delay but look into the equally needed reforms for those upstream and the remaining cohort outside the ambit of the upper secondary/JC system. This is a call not only by the public but by many from the ERC Sub-committees. I am sure that, with determination, MOE would be able to marshall resources to look at these areas simultaneously, as it is looking into the implementation of the changes for the JC/upper secondary system. Indeed, it is very comforting to note a recent example of MOE's eagerness to act decisively. Proof of this is in the recent change in the choice of secondary school available to pupils after their PSLE results, instead of before. Additionally, MOE has also now agreed to a single JC intake. As one principal remarked, this single intake of JC has been fed to MOE for more than 10 years and had remained unchanged. With MOE's new added willingness to change, as seen in the acceptance of the Review Committee's Report, I have high hopes (and I hope I would not be proven wrong) that MOE would seriously consider and implement many of the other proposed and much needed changes in the education system. With this, Sir, I support the motion. 4.50 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, parents and some MPs in this House have been highly critical of our education policies. This is not at all surprising considering the importance Asians place on education. Unfortunately, some of us, indeed many of us, have a tendency to claim credit for our children's success and blame the system for their failure. But children do not fail until we think they have. Clearly in any society, there are slow learners, there are fast learners. Education, Sir, is not a race. Education is a journey, and not a destination. Yes, there are intermediate stops along the way - PSLE, 'O' levels, 'N' levels, and so on, and so forth. It does not really matter whether a child takes a slightly different, if longer, route to reach his own objective, his own destination. Education, Sir, is not about how fast we reach our own destiny, but how far we can do so. MOE, in the last decade or so, has become a convenient punching bag for society's distorted definition of success. Really, a lot of the noise we hear in this House and the media do not do justice to our system here. They are both unfair and without basis. Our system is not perfect. I think there are defects. But the system is not broken. The way we hear it in this House is that it is almost broken. But I say that the system is not broken and this is saying plenty about our system versus the systems elsewhere. Dr Wang mentioned the standards in the States and Britain. I will come back to that a bit later on. Many countries, including the States and Britain, are revamping their systems because scholastic standards have fallen to disastrously low levels. Here, we are fixing a problem that does not exist. It is a successful problem. Our students do well. There are lots of As in the 'A' levels and we say that there is something wrong in that system. Here, the MOE is revamping the JC and upper secondary school system for quite a different reason from that now going on in the States, in Britain and in Japan. Under the new system, many parents have the perception that the system is going to be easy on their children. There is hope that more students in Singapore under the new system will be better off. I think they will be. But there will also be a lot of heartaches. Because under the new system, there is a higher degree of differentiation, as Dr Amy Khor mentioned. It is in a way another level of streaming, if you put the students through a through-train system, if the students went into the specialised school of Mathematics and Science (something which I will talk about a bit later on). MPs and educators cannot be oblivious to the events around the world. And we seem to be very focused about the system in Singapore when we talk about the problem. We all know the problems. But if you look around elsewhere, the problems we have, the problems we face, are not serious. Only two years ago at the 2000 Presidential election campaign in the States, education was what Americans called a "hot button issue", in other words, something so hot, it would decide who would be the next President. Why? Because an employers' survey showed that two-thirds, that means, more than 60% of high school graduates (we call it 'A' levels, they call it high school) did not have the skills necessary to succeed in the workplace. Indeed, Americans have decried, debating the declining standards in schools for over two decades. So has Britain, so has Japan. And on balance, I think we have done well. The media, the press and academics should know better. How do we know we have done well? I think the best test is to benchmark our system versus systems elsewhere. And I think the best objective benchmarking is the International Mathematics and Science test which is culturally neutral. It does not depend on the person's language or his upbringing, and the system is totally objective. The sample sizes are large enough. The number of countries participating is representative enough. But therein lies the problem. Parents cite competition and, here, we have heard two speakers before me saying competition is a major fault of our education system. I think in particular, parents and many of us here are against ranking because they think that ranking engenders a culture of what we call "destructive competition". The real reason, if we touch our hearts, is not competition or ranking, but the fear and disappointment that our sons and daughters do not get into a ranked school. I think that is the heart of the problem. If all of us want to send our sons and daughters to schools that can only take in 10% of every cohort, then by definition 90% of the parents of that cohort will be disappointed. But is this necessary? The hysteria about not getting into a ranked school like RI, RGS, Chinese High, is totally irrational. All our secondary schools are not bad. It is just that, if you have a spread of a few hundred schools, there must be some better schools and some not so good schools. But the real test is if a student that does not get into a ranked school, does he measure up to international scholastic benchmarks? If he does, I think it is not a problem. If he does not, then there is a problem. Please remember, as Dr Wang correctly pointed out, that our students are held in high esteem when they go to British or American universities, many of them get exemption. Every student here does well in very good universities anywhere in the world. It will of course make parents happy, if MOE does not rank schools. But I think that would be a retrograde step. Competition and ranking, using examination results, are part of the education landscape everywhere. I think Singapore is a late starter. Here, critics equate ranking using examination results as destructive competition. But, elsewhere, they have changed euphemism. They call examinations accountability. You might ask: accountability to whom? To taxpayers who fund public schools, or to parents who want to know which private schools are good so that they can spend a lot of money to send their children to these schools. All around the developed world, there is an urgency to get scholastic achievements up. In Chicago, you read not long ago in the Straits Times, the authority is giving away cash grants of US$10,000 to schools which improve on their grades. Some schools in Texas are cutting down on play time and recess time to focus on core examinable skills. In Japan, educationists have found that years of education that give children room to grow, what Japanese call "the zest of life", in the last 12 years have left a serious gap. I have just distributed a paper which, according to the opinion of four Japanese scholars in Tokyo University, is called "The Truth About Declining Scholastic Achievement", a long paper, but just read the introduction and the conclusion and you will know the message. There is a simple Mathematics test inside here and you are expected to score 90 marks. The conclusion of these four Japanese scholars is that 12 years ago, they did a survey, they found that the students, like our students today, spent a lot of time studying. They got good grades, but the parents were not happy. So the Ministry of Education then changed the system towards the American system, more broad-based, more electives and the results had not been welcomed at least by these four scholars. Their argument is that basic Mathematics scores had fallen by up to 10 points. Where students used to get 70-80 marks for the test shown inside here, today they are getting 50-60 marks. Their argument is that standards had fallen. I go on to America which many of you have more knowledge. Now, after years of laissez-faire and falling academic standards, the state of Massachusetts has mandated that all public high school graduates must pass, what they now call, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System in order to get a High School Diploma. Before that, there was no examination. Every school graduate, they take the SAT, then they go to university. But now, in the state of Massachusetts, they want a standardised testing on core subjects. Nature abhors a vacuum. If Singapore Government does not rank schools, somebody or some organisation would, because the public is hungry for information. In Singapore, the Ministry of Education ranks schools. In the state of Massachusetts, they do not rank schools. But they publish the results obtained by the students in different schools. And what happens? The local media fixes up these results, does the analysis and publishes a ranking list. The Financial Times publishes an education supplement every year, ranking all the schools in Britain, sometime around August/September before the term starts. It is a special pull-out, by the way. In Singapore, although MOE ranks schools, it does not publish detailed results - RI gets how many As in History, how many As in Mathematics. In the state of Victoria, you might be surprised, and in many states in Australia, detailed subject results are published - Melbourne High get so many As in Mathematics, so many Bs in Science. Although they did not rank schools, one look at the results you will know which is the best school, which is the not-so-good school. So ranking is universal by different names, if you like. And we should keep ranking and competition in its proper perspective. The competition we face in Singapore is not internal, but really external. By that, I mean it is not competition between an RI boy and a Chinese High and an ACS boy, or between RJC and Hwa Chong and ACJC. Sure, we want them to have some friendly competition so that they have sparring partners and benchmark each other. But the real competition is between us and foreign systems. It is only when the entire local system is levelled up and superior to a foreign system that we collectively stand a chance of making ourselves relevant in the brave new world, in the new economy. To put it bluntly, collectively, are we better off than our neighbours? Collectively, are we better off than the world? If the answer is no to both these questions, we would not arrive in the new economy. We will arrive somewhere between here and Timbuktu. Parents also take issue with the unforgiving and elitist system which streams students according to their learning abilities. We have heard a lot in this House. Many think that the solution is to do away with streaming and follow the example of, say, the USA where everybody happily travels on the same education train from Grade 1, which is Primary 1, to Grade 12, or JC 2. But this is not utopia. In fact, the US is trying to fix a fundamental problem of failing schools in what they call this one-class, one "slow train" system, where everybody goes on one train - no First Class, no Business Class, no Economy - and travels on the same train from Grade 1 to Grade 12. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will give me a few minutes, I shall trace the short history of the US system, starting from 1986, so that we get a better appreciation of the work of the Ministry of Education and understand why, when we compare ourselves to America, the students there have a lot less homework and content. The question we want to ask is: do we want to travel that way? The US system has undergone fundamental changes. Up until the 1950s, the school system in the US was a bit like ours - maybe not so competitive, but a bit like ours - they had examinations, core subjects and few electives in high schools. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, hippie culture took over, America went to war, the public demanded, and the state provided, more choices. By the 1980s, parents and educators realised that it could be a mistake. Choices and lack of examinations had eroded standards seriously. How did they know? American students' score in their standardised tests on mathematics, reading and sciences became lower and lower. At the same time, college professors and administrators began to notice that high school graduates could not read, write or do basic arithmetic. In short, a large number of high school graduates were intellectually incompetent in what they call the 3Rs. In a survey in 1980, 99% of Americans told the census takers that they were literate. In fact, the educators knew they lied. Based on the 1989 survey, 12% of America's high school graduates were "functionally illiterate". What does that mean? It means that they could not understand printed instructions and could not - would you believe it - fill out a job application! There were many reasons for the sad state of affairs. Among them were the abolition of core courses, proliferation of electives and very few examinations. In fact, many schools had no examinations, and those that had examinations had simple examinations - what they call a "dumbing down" of the curriculum. If you go to any bookshop today, you will see that some of the bestsellers in computer and lifestyle books are in what they call the "dummy series". A lot of these dummy series books became very popular, because the system was levelled down to the lowest common denominator so that everybody could get very good grades, go home with the feel-good factor, and every parent could pat his/her child and say, "Son, you have done well. Congratulations!" But all of us know of children with average grades in Singapore who have suddenly blossomed in overseas schools. Obviously, this could not have happened in just a few months or years. Yet, such experiences are common. Why? Perhaps, we have levelled up a lot while they have dumbed down a lot. So, when you cross over, you are like a leopard cat which suddenly becomes a leopard! These experiences vindicate the success of the Ministry of Education and speak volumes about the high standards of our system here. In the US, the issue of falling standards became an issue. Ex-President George Bush and the Governors of all the 50 states moved for a root-and-branch change - unlike the review we are talking about today, which is tempering at the edges. The changes are substantial, but I do not think it is a root-and-branch change. In America in 1989, Ex-President George Bush and the 50 Governors decided to do a root-and-branch change of the whole system, and Congress gave effect to what is known as "Goals 2000" - not football but education. And Goals 2000 was given teeth when Congress approved Goals 2000 and gave additional federal grants for all states to reach six objectives. Perhaps we should look at these six objectives and measure them against what the Ministry of Education is trying to do today. Goal 1: That all children must start school, ready to learn. We must ask ourselves, do Singapore children start school ready to learn? The answer is yes; Goal 2: That 90% of all high school students will graduate; it does not matter what age, but they will graduate; Goal 3: That all students will achieve competence in core subjects at certain key points in their progress. In other words, when you have a high school diploma, you are supposed to reach the standards set by certain authorities, and not a diploma that means nothing; Goal 4: That American students will be the first in the world in mathematics and science achievement. That was a key goal, because they think that for America to lead the world, American students must be the first - not second, not third - in the world in mathematics and science achievements. Goal 5: That every American will be literate and have the skills to function as a citizen and worker. Here, we talk about thinker, innovator, creator. Their goals are very simple - every American will be literate and have the skills to function as a citizen and worker - in other words, be functionally literate. A simple goal; and Goal 6: This goal is something we have no problem with: That all schools will be free of drugs and violence. Let me now move from 1986 to the year 2000, when President George W Bush ran for elections and was so disillusioned with the system. His father, Ex-President George Bush had set Goals 2000. In 2000, George W Bush, Jr, ran as a candidate and said that he was not happy with the system. It had achieved some but had not achieved a lot. His key quotation was: "I would shine a spotlight of shame on failure". The Americans do not like to shame students. They always tell their students how good they are, that they have done well. But he says that that is not good enough. If the student is not good, better shame him. That is the only way to get standards up. The situation got quite bad, and the American politicians, both Gore and Clinton, engaged on the issue. They were particularly displeased perhaps that it was not Americans who were the first in mathematics and science, but that it was tiny little Singapore that was first in mathematics and second in science. I think we should congratulate our students, parents and educators for this singular achievement. Clearly, forgiving everybody, making the syllabus simple, putting everybody in the same coach class travelling in the same slow coach, and dumbing down the curriculum is a choice we should not venture into. It will make parents happy if we rename the schools and have, say, 20 Raffles Institutions, 20 Raffles Girls Schools, 20 Chinese Highs, etc. We can fool ourselves, but the world will not be deceived. The correct approach is that taken by the Ministry of Education. Differentiate the students not because we condemn them but because we want to help them. Different students have different needs. They come from different backgrounds, with different talents and interests. We should put them into different trains and drive at a speed that they are comfortable with, but when they reach a certain destination, they are expected to achieve the kind of results that that destination demands. However, overall, if we take the sum total speed of all the trains, that train must travel at a speed fast enough for us to enter the new economy. There is a break-through speed. If we are too slow, we will never arrive, because the world has moved on. Slow learners need help. They do not need help by adults stigmatising them. There is nothing wrong with a slow learner arriving at "O" or "A" level a little bit later. The fact that they have arrived is something that we should applaud and not condemn. If we put a slow learner on a fast train, he or she would fall off the train. If we drive a slow train for a fast learner, the passenger would fall asleep. A slow train which arrives late is better than one which arrives empty. But can we put everybody on board and drive a slow train? Then, we will have the American problem, which they are trying to fix, and we should not move ourselves into that system. Sir, for slow learners, I think the Ministry of Education has found a solution. If we support the Ministry of Education and the students who have some difficulty learning, I think they will be all right. If we keep talking about it, the stigma that the students in the "N" stream and the 3-year Pre-U classes feel today is largely imposed by society. Who comprise society? You and I, parents. Collectively, we are at fault. For slow learners, I think the Ministry of Education has the solution. It is more difficult to coach the most talented, and there are very few of these people in Singapore. I always hope that the Ministry of Education could do a little bit more for the most talented, not by teaching them more - because probably they know more than the teachers - but by giving them the right environment and creating the right mood. Those extraordinary men and women who are good in academic work, sports, dance, music and the arts, they need a different kind of education altogether. You might ask, "Why do we need to help them? They are already so good." The answer is: because they are our hope. They are our salvation. Hence, I am very pleased with the recommendation of the Committee to establish these so-called specialised schools. However, I would like to counsel, like the two hon. Members before me that, in a way, this is a higher form of streaming, a higher form of differentiation. Children who get into these specialised schools may be few, and children who cannot get in may feel disappointed. This should not be the case. But I think there is a need for such schools. The Minister for Education mentioned two of these schools - Bronx High School of Science and Stuyvesant High School. Maybe I can just mention a little bit about these specialised schools in New York City, which are really in a class of their very own. Among the ruins of the state high school education system in New York, there are jewels in the squalor. When we drill deeper into the American system, we have to recognise that the average student is an academic laggard, but there is a tiny slice of the community which is exceptionally brilliant. But because they have a big population base, that tiny slice is enough to pull America forward to be the most powerful nation today. This is not surprising, where you have a large pool of laggards and a small number of highly talented people because, if you had been to a desert, you would understand that it is only in a desert that there are oases. The New York City Specialised High School System is something in a class of its own. In fact, in New York City, there are three of these schools and one specialised high school in dance and music. New Yorkers call these "specialised schools", but actually it is an euphemism for very elite schools. These are the best schools. They are also public schools. Students who get in, get free tuition. It is in these schools - three mathematics and science schools, and one music and dance school - that the future captains of industry in New York City are being groomed for tomorrow. I think a specialised school, not just for mathematics and science but also maybe for sports and music, is an idea whose time has come for Singapore, precisely because our talent pool is very thin, even though the average standard of the student population is high. The Minister for Education mentioned that the specialised schools have the Integrated Programme that starts from Grade 9 all the way to Grade 12, ie, from Secondary 3 to JC 2. The schools are prohibited from taking in students on any other basis. So, sometime around October, the New York City Council will set what they call the Specialised Science High Schools Admission Test (SSHSAT) - SATS is too easy for these kids - and students who score the highest will be ranked and streamed to these four specialised high schools. Neither wealth, prestige nor power will open the door to these schools for the child. The child must get in on his or her own merit. We would think that these three high schools in New York City - at least the mathematics and science high schools - get their cream from all the states. This is not the case, not even from the whole of New York State. They only get the cream from New York City which, as we know, consists of five boroughs. So the population catchment of New York City is something like 9-10 million. In other words, each specialised high school only gets from a catchment of three million. In a way, it is like Bronx Science getting from three million, similar to RI getting from the whole of Singapore. But if we were to benchmark RI's academic achievements against Bronx Science's, then we are comparing a dwarf versus a giant. Bronx Science alone has produced five Nobel Prize winners. Stuyvesant High has produced two Nobel Prize winners and one Field Medallist. A Field Medal is the Nobel Prize for Mathematics. Brooklyn Tech, which is the other specialised high school, has produced two Nobel Prize winners. So, together, they have produced nine Nobel Prize and one Field Medal winners. Just imagine, 1.3 billion Chinese have produced only six Nobel Prize winners! So, these three schools are outstanding and they are not that old. The oldest is only about 100 years old. Bronx Science is about 70-80 years old. I think we need to give our brightest students the best environment. If we can create a Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech or a Stuyvesant High in our backyard, I think Singapore has great hopes for the future. Standards in these schools are extremely high and the standards and the hours spent in the schools are so high that Singapore parents will scream for mercy if any of their children went there. Brooklyn Tech, for example, sets the passing mark at 65 marks. That is only the passing mark. The average mark is 75 marks. That is what they call the recommended grade. Brookyln Tech's graduating class last year (2001) won scholarships to Ivy League, to all the good universities, totalling us $36 million worth of scholarships. In order to graduate from Brooklyn Tech, you need 44 credit points, versus 40 credit points across the New York State system. But most Brooklyn Tech students take 50 credit points. It is an outstanding school where the pressure is so great that no Singapore school, I believe, and I am an RI alumni and I am ashamed to say that RI does not measure up to Brooklyn Tech or Stuyvesant or Bronx Science. The focus that we are asking students to spend too much time on the curriculum is not wrong but we have it in focus, because in America, the very best spend a lot more time on the core subjects. When we measure against them, we are just out-classed. Sir, I strongly recommend the establishment of a Specialised High School of Mathematics and Science for the reasons that I have enumerated. But whether it is best supervised by NUS is something I am not sure. Bronx Science is not under the supervision of New York University (NYU) or Columbia University but it had a dedicated founding principal, Dr Morris Mester. I think the champion agency is important but it is not the over-riding importance. The most important factor is a champion himself or herself, the principal must be totally passionate and dedicated to the cause of specialised education. In the Specialised High School of Mathematics and Science, the curriculum should not just focus on Mathematics and Science alone. As in the three specialised high schools, they do a broad spectrum of other subjects and there are people who come out from those schools who are non-scientists, for example, William Safire from Bronx Science - he is a writer. Then you have got people like Lucy Liu of Charlie Angels fame. She is from Stuyvesant. These are people who did not pursue a course in Mathematics and Science and become Nobel laureates material. I would also agree with the recommendation to set up a Specialised School of Music and Dance. But here, we have to be realistic. We may not have enough critical mass to start here. If we can have the critical mass, there is no harm because it is an area that we should pursue. Many high schools in the developed countries have, what the media calls, the through-train system. That means you start from Secondary One and finish at JC 2. The Australians call it Year 7 to Year 12. But this approach is premised on the fact that when you are on this through-train, you want to enter university, in the sense that the JC 2 examination, the Year 12 examination, is a university entrance examination. But some students may not want to travel this train. Therefore, it is correct that there is no necessity for all schools to implement this system. Some students may not want to go to university. They may want to pursue sports, music. Some may want to change train after Secondary 4 to go to the polytechnic. Some may want to go overseas. It is useful to keep the "O" level. I suspect that in our system, some of the students on the through-train might quietly sit for the "O" levels also. There is a good reason for it because today, a small but growing number of "O" level students are sitting for their SAT and they are proceeding to good universities in America to finish off their degrees. We should give students more choices. Choice is always a good thing provided that it does not dumb down the curriculum, it does not trim the content of the core subjects. The review also recommended, in a quite substantial way, on broadening the syllabus to provide more choices. This is a good recommendation. If the "A" level has a chink in the armour, it is that it is too narrowly based. It is all right for good students who want to specialise in the universities and make up their minds at 18 years old. But if you are not very sure, and you are groping around, then the broader base system would be recommended. As in many systems in the past in many countries, when you move from a core system to a broad-based system, contents are inevitably diluted because there are certain fixed hours that students attend schools for. It is important that when we move from a core "A" level today, with four or five principal levels, to a broad-based system we should not trim down the content of the core subjects too much. Core subjects, I would say, on the academic side, are languages, English is a must. For mother tongue, not many of us will be able to grasp the two languages but those who can, should. Mathematics and Science are a must. With these three core subjects - language, Mathematics and Science - you can branch into most electives. Most electives are knowledge-based and if you are good in language, you can do English Literature. If you are good in logic and you can understand a lot of things and the foundation of these is Mathematics, Science and Language. The right mix between core and electives is a bit difficult to achieve. I have mentioned the Japanese experience. They moved from core to broad-based, the dumbing down of the Mathematics curriculum. I would like to urge MOE to be a little bit careful here. Whether the "A" level is superior to the International Baccalaureate, opinions are divided. I think there is no harm trying both systems and let students have a choice. Whatever system, I hope we will achieve excellence either in "A" level or in the IP system. On balance, I commend the Ministry of Education for moving ahead. I believe that this review is not premised on the basis that the present system has problems. In fact, we are moving from a very strong platform to a higher level. 5.22 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of RAdm Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education. Sir, I recently returned from a trip to China. There is now a very popular phrase in China, and that is, "yu shi ju jin" - progressing with time. Sir, the world is changing very fast, much faster now than before, and the education system must also change for us to keep up with the changing times. The initiatives and proposals contained in the report of the Junior College and Upper Secondary School Education Review Committee are bold and wide-ranging. If implemented, they will significantly change our approach to education. Historically, our education system has been based on a highly structured approach. Over the years, we have sought to gradually open up our system to allow for variety and some experimentation. Now, we are ready for a major quantum leap. The impact of these proposals before us will be far reaching and long lasting. Sir, while I agree with the overall concept and approach proposed by the White Paper, I would like to make several observations and I hope the Ministry could take them into account when implementing these new measures. The success of the proposed changes depends critically on the implementation process. Firstly, we need to prepare our teachers, students and parents for these major changes in the JC curriculum that have been proposed. The broadening of the curriculum will undoubtedly better prepare our students for the university education and to meet the challenges of the fast-changing world we now live in. However, as these changes are quite significant, there may be a need to prepare the students even during their upper secondary school days so that they are better prepared for the broader curriculum. In this regard, I am glad that the report has recognised the potential upstream impact on the secondary schools. I would like to urge the Ministry to also look into the upper secondary school curriculum and make adjustments where necessary to help students adapt to the new system in the JCs. For example, some modules of the Knowledge and Inquiry could be introduced to the students in the upper secondary schools so that they will be more familiar with the subject when they enter into the JC. In reality, some students, especially the slower ones, may find the broadened curriculum more difficult to handle. These difficulties may be more acute during the transition period when the new curriculum is first introduced as it would take some time for things to settle down and for the students and teachers to get used to the new system. To help them cope better, additional time and attention may need to be provided to coach them and to help them catch up. The schools could help identify these weaker students and consider providing some form of learning support. This is particularly useful during the first one or two years when the changes are introduced. It will also help assure our parents that their children will be able to benefit from the new approach rather than to suffer from it. Teachers, on the other hand, will need time to adjust to a more skilled based system. As new subjects such as the Knowledge and Inquiry will be introduced, teachers will need to understand the new requirements. Some may need to change their teaching methods and acquire new teaching skills. They may also need to develop new ways of assessing the students. It is therefore crucial that the Ministry prepares and trains the teachers so that the new curriculum can be implemented effectively. Teachers at the upper secondary levels also have a vital role to play as a bridge to help advise and counsel their students so that they in turn can make informed decisions on the subjects they intend to take up. Parents, in particular, may also need to be similarly briefed and counselled beforehand. It would therefore be helpful if the Ministry could consider providing a briefing for the secondary school teachers and principals in addition to those in the JCs. They will then be in a better position to offer advice to their students and parents. This way, I believe that it will help smoothen the implementation of the new curriculum. Secondly, I would like to suggest to the Ministry to consider including some elementary management components in the new curriculum. This could comprise people management skills, communication skills, decision-making process, basic business and management principles. This is in line with our move to promote and encourage entrepreneurship. In fact, no matter what our students end up doing in future, they will invariably benefit from some basic management know-how. Some project work in the new curriculum could also include development of business ideas and this will foster innovative thinking among our students. There could even be vacation attachment programmes to give students an opportunity to see first-hand how business corporations work and the issues involved in running a business. Schools who wish to offer management components may be able to draw on the resources from the management schools in the universities or from the private sector. This way, we can inject greater professionalism in our courses. Hopefully, over time, we can produce more entrepreneurs to spearhead our economic development. Thirdly, on the proposed integrated programmes, it is important for us to carefully explain the various models to the students and the parents so that they are in a position to make informed decisions with regard to the route they are taking, so that they can reap the maximum benefits. To provide diversity, it is good to allow JCs and secondary schools to come up with creative ideas on integrated programmes. So far, we have seen quite a number of schools submitting a wide variety of proposals. I am sure more variations will emerge as time goes on. Even the university is keen to operate a specialised school. To avoid confusion, it would be useful for the Ministry to explain in layman's terms how the system works and how parents and students should make their decisions and the implications of their decisions. Annex N of the report provides a very good overview of the proposed education landscape, but it is not easy for a layman to fully understand what it means. Once the models have been finalised, it would be opportune for us to explain in greater details. We could also simplify the models and pilot perhaps just one or two as a start. Once we have gained more experience, we can then experiment with greater variations. Fourthly, on the proposed setting up of privately funded schools, I think it is a welcome initiative. I would like to urge the Ministry to proactively encourage internationally renowned private schools to set up their branch here. These well-run private schools will not only provide variety and choice for our students. They could also bring in innovative teaching methods that could benefit our schools here as well. Given that the number of such privately funded schools is going to be limited to only two or three, I would like to urge the Ministry not to be too restrictive on the conditions imposed on them. The key criteria should be the quality of their system and the quality of their output.

5.32 pm My fifth point relates to the 3-year pre-university programmes which are currently provided in the two centralised institutes. Most of the proposals in the White Paper are focused on the objective of maximising the potential of our students, especially those who are in the upper end of the cohort. This invariably gives rise to the impression that the lower end of the cohort, especially those that are pursuing the 3-year pre-university programmes, are being neglected. There were few proposals, if any, to improve the system to also maximise their potential. I would like to urge the Ministry to also look into this aspect so that these students would not feel left out. Perhaps some of them may be suitable for the proposed specialised independent schools if they possess specific talents. A system could be put in place to allow them to switch to these specialised schools where appropriate. Lastly, communication is vital. Whatever changes we want to make to the education policy, it is vital that we take pains to explain them to the teachers, students and parents. This is crucial in garnering acceptance and support for the policy changes and for the new policy to be effective. For this reason, I would like to urge the Ministry to continue to engage the various stakeholders through public media, dialogue sessions and other avenues to explain to them and to solicit feedback from them as we refine the proposals. It may even be useful to produce an easy-to-understand booklet to explain the new system. Education is a vital part of our Government policy as it affects the entire population and it determines our future. It is also one of the most difficult part as its effects are usually not immediately obvious. Madam, there is no perfect system, although every parent thinks and believes that he alone knows the perfect solution. We must continuously review and improve our education system to keep up with the times, so as to give the best to our children. I sincerely hope that this report is not the end but a turning point. I hope that the review process will continue and our future generation can benefit from an ever improving system. Madam, I support the motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on today's motion, which has far-reaching and long-term implications. First, I would like to state that this is a courageous and responsive move on the part of the Ministry of Education. There has been so much talk in homes, schools and debates in the newspapers on our school system - the pressure on the school children, the perceived rigidity and, of course, its strengths. As some of the earlier speakers have said, after all is said and done, we do not have a train wreck! Feedback has been taken into account and many opinions sought. I applaud the efforts of the Committee to tap a wide spectrum of views. The fact that this motion is tabled today is a reflection of our system's true responsiveness and swift action on feedback, resulting in a timely and better solution for the future of the country. I am glad that we have the courage to make changes to our system when we feel there is a true need for it. In many aspects, this also reflects the true strength of our people, the willingness to make changes even ahead of time. To revamp the education system is not an easy matter. It will involve changes in processes, methodology, systems and, more importantly, mindsets. It will not happen overnight and it will be painstaking. The impact will be far-reaching. Many, those already in school as well as our future generations, will feel the impact. So, why are we doing all this? In order to ensure that our only key vital resource - our people - is nurtured and developed to be able to compete in the global arena. That our people are economically active and in the passage through life enrich the well being of both themselves and their fellow citizens. While changes are being proposed to our education system, this is not to say that our current system does not have its benefits. Many of us have gone through the current or even the older system, depending on our ages. We all have benefited from it. It has produced high levels of achievement by international comparisons. Our students have consistently done well overseas, courted and admired by foreign centres of learning. So, at this juncture, I would like to reiterate some of these benefits which I hope would not be lost in the revamped system. Our current system produces outstanding Science and Mathematics students. Other countries have evaluated our approach and adopted our syllabi and teaching methodology. Perhaps it is the rigour of the system, the disciplined approach that has generated this. The other important aspect that must be retained is the continuous effort to integrate our people; to build a society that is multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious. My early memories of school is the recital of the Pledge before the start of each school day. We must preserve this at all costs. Now, on to the proposed revised education framework and education system. I particularly like a quote that I read recently which, I believe, is appropriate in our discussion today. By theologian, T. Edwards, who lived in the 19th century, it says: 'The great end of education is to discipline rather than to furnish the mind; to train it to the use of its own powers, rather than fill it with the accumulation of others.' This, I believe, is the thrust of what our proposed system aims to do. We have succeeded in imparting knowledge to our students. They, in turn, are like sponges soaking in all the information that is fed to them. Too often, they accept the knowledge imparted without question. This may stem from our traditional respect for teachers and people in authority and therefore not questioning. As a result, we have often heard our students are too reliant on teachers to feed them with information that they lack questioning minds and initiative. The lack of these qualities is glaringly noticed when they enter the workforce. Anecdotal examples from friends and colleagues illustrate this point. Let me just share one. A foreign senior manager, whom I had the chance to speak with, is from a major disk drive manufacturer. He heads a team responsible for Asia and draws talent from around the world. Among his 10 senior managers - the people mapping strategies, formulating solutions and responding to challenges - he has a wide range of Asian nationalities but no Singaporeans. Why? "Singaporeans are not innovative enough" was his response. They need checklists and a guiding hand all the time. And they play it safe. However, his middle management is all populated with Singaporeans who he can trust because they are great executors of plans. This and other anecdotes may be symptomatic of the issue - rote learning. To survive well in an ever changing and more globalised economy, we must equip our younger generation to question and think on their feet. They will then be able to adapt to different environments and be able to face challenges. And if one remembers that the great bulk of the body of knowledge had been amassed in the last hundred years and fast accelerating, what we learn today may well be obsolete in our lifetime. Hence, we need to pay heed to how we impart knowledge in this very modern world; where the information highway makes available at the speed of light a whole cache of information through the Internet and other modern media. There is a wealth of information and knowledge out there waiting to be harvested and turned into useful, commercially viable know-how. The new emphasis on project work, research and inquiry-based search for knowledge at an early stage would develop and hone the questioning spirit and nurture inquisitive minds. In addition, self expression must be encouraged. Multi-way communication must be buoyant. The classroom must be turned into a forum. The flow of thoughts, questions and ideas should not be linear. A matrix flow must be encouraged between students and teachers; among students and among teachers. Teachers must relish the challenge and be trained to draw out the more reserved among their students. The Socratic method of teaching - drawing answers from questions posed, getting students involved and excited about the material being taught - is one form of doing this. Diversity is our strength. Hence, I also support the flexibility of the new system to allow for academic and non-academic specialisations. The approach of having sports and arts specialities in dedicated schools would open up new avenues for our young who are endowed with these talents. We have to persevere or we would not have a continuous stream of badminton, bowling, ping-pong, playwrights and violinist stars to stand proud for us. We redefine what is success for our young. I believe that the key to the success of the proposed new system rests on two points revolving around implementation. One, to ensure that there is an adequate pool of teachers who can switch from the traditional approach to teaching. No longer must there be just one way or a fixed way to approach a problem. Students' curiosity must be aroused, and they must be guided to figure out complex issues with their own thinking and insights. Encouragement must abound. Remove the fear of failure, of giving wrong answers. At all ages, students must be encouraged to experiment, to fail, understand why they failed, nudged to pick up and try again. Teachers must establish that rapport with the students, create an intellectually uninhibited environment in the classroom; unfreeze the students psychologically from the paralysis that stems from the fear of "messing up". My second point on implementation is priority and pace. I believe the approach is correct. We must not fail because we do not apply the adequate level and type of resources in the execution. Hence, while the changes proposed are bold, we may have to prioritise. The proposal of creating even greater diversity in courses and new pathways is, in my opinion, not an area of immediate urgency. We must allow time for the students to reorientate to these new educational skills and priorities. Introducing too many changes all at the same time may, in fact, cause saturation, heavy workload, and may result in disruption and confusion for both students and teachers. A phased approach will be a better way to introduce such evolutions. The proposal is comprehensive in many aspects. However, I hope the Committee would consider three more factors. Firstly, it is a system that is unforgiving; one that does not allow repeated failures. The flexibility and diversity of the new proposal involve some form of risk taking by the students too. They are making decisions at a tender age and we must be prepared that some make mistakes in judgement. Here is the only area where I think the proposal has not gone far enough. We must have a structure in which they are given a second chance; and even maybe a third. For if we subscribe to life-long learning, then we must allow students to unwind earlier choices and start anew. Like what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said, "as long as the train arrives, it does not matter if it is late." So along the way, maybe we may create the entrepreneurial environment that we all yearn for. My next point is that the new proposal should increase emphasis on National Education. This has been introduced in schools and it must continue to be emphasised. I have heard from a fellow MP that he detects that younger people in the upper secondary and post-secondary exhibit less of an identification to Singapore than those in their mid-twenties. Why is this so? Should not this sense of identity set in earlier rather than later? Hence, I hope that the Committee will look into more aspects of National Education. Beyond textbooks, bring National Education to life, eg, visits to military camps, exposure to our war heroes, our journey to water sufficiency, etc. We are a young nation; our people are always looking ahead and perhaps spending too little time remembering the past. We must do more to commemorate and celebrate the sacrifices of those that had made nationhood possible for us. The achievements, sacrifices and contributions of the many notable Singaporeans must be made known to the young. Hence, why not make National Education one of the KI or PW topics? Rather than suffer the fate that, if imposed upon, some youngsters feel they are being brain-washed; let them go on a journey of self-discovery. My third point concerns stress and pressure. This comes up often whenever the subject of education in Singapore is discussed. Could the Committee consider more emphasis on continual assessment and reduce the frequency of examinations? With less rote learning, there should be a correspondingly less need for examinations that we know today. Learning should be fun. The KI approach could be extended to even more subjects. Examination pressure may actually paradoxically be mitigated by incessant and continuous assessments. And, through life, we are continually assessed. Beyond my earlier suggestions on some adjustments to the proposals, I am totally supportive. Especially, in the new school environment, emphasis must be on students presenting and convincing other students. Communication skills must be brought to the forefront. From a tender age, they must learn to stand up, speak, be heard, convince and defend. I have just returned from a short trip to Israel and one thing I heard is that when you put two Israelis together you will get three opinions. Why not? As we hope to turn out generations of more inquiring Singaporeans, we may also have to handle the possibility of a more chaotic, challenging, vibrant and unpredictable environment. But this is exactly the strength of a pluralistic society, tapping the wisdom and experience of everyone. We just have to be prepared for this new environment, stay the course and not waver in our resolve, for it could get uncomfortable for the older people used to more compliance. It is a journey that we must see through. In conclusion, I reiterate that I am in favour of the proposal to revise the education system. In the process, we must bear in mind not to put additional pressure on our students. Hence the recommendation to trim curriculum content to create space for enhancements to other areas in JC education is applaudable. Parents have consistently been complaining that their children are stressed and do not have time for recreation and to pursue other interests. While aiming for a more flexible curriculum and to develop thinking generations of Singaporeans, the stress factor must not be increased. The new system should allow for students to learn at their pace, provide for those who may be late developers and for those with non-academic talents. And they should be given additional chances as they explore; to fail and try again. We want multi-faceted Singaporeans who will contribute to the economy and add vibrancy to our young nation. We want thinkers, creators, sportsmen and artists. Is it a tall order? Perhaps, but we are a nation known not to wallow in discussion, one that is quick on our feet. We act on solving our issues and that is what we are doing right now. Being examination savvy is no longer enough. Our young must be equipped with the best hi-tech fishing rods, nets and spear-guns to go fishing and not merely provided with fishes. They must have the ability to do lateral and vertical thinking, to think and question the fundamentals, to achieve understanding rather than just knowing. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

(In Mandarin): Mdm Deputy Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to join in the debate on this motion. There are 27 other colleagues who would like to speak on the motion and I will try my best to make my speech short and brief. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in this new economy era, in order to survive, our people must be able to make changes, be flexible and adjust ourselves to keep up with the times. As such, this proposal to reform our JC education is very apt and appropriate. This report of the Junior College/Upper Secondary Education Review Committee has been carefully deliberated upon and presented by a panel of experts. All these recommendations are based on very solid grounds. The purpose of the reform is to broaden the scope of studies of our students and to give them more space to develop their potentials and talents to the fullest. They are very creative and challenging. I have discussed with many parents and teachers on the recommendations of the Review Committee, and the feedback I have is mainly positive. Here, I would like to make three points concerning the proposed reform. First, on the "through-train" method. The Committee is recommending that some students, particularly the better students, be allowed to go straight from Secondary One to the "A" level without having to take the "O" level examination, and from there proceed straight to the university. This is a break-through and a watershed decision in the reform of our education system. In this aspect, I would like to ask what criteria will MOE take to decide who will be exempted from the "O" level examinations and take the through-train to the "A" level examinations. Will MOE simply designate a number of schools to be the "through-trains", and all the students on board will go straight to the "A" level examinations? In my opinion, this method will lead to some problems, because in this way, would not all the students who score well in the PSLE be concentrated in these "elite" schools, and all the other students who could not make the grade to these elite schools would be deemed to be second-class students, and their schools become second-class schools? The teachers in these schools will then feel that they are given the second-class students to teach. They will naturally be demoralised, and the standard of their teaching, and consequently the standard of the schools would be lowered. When MOE decides on the "through-train" system, would it be compulsory for all the students in this system to skip the "O'" level examinations? Do the students have a choice? As a matter of fact, students who are good in their studies are not afraid of examinations, because the examinations can only prove that they are strong in their studies. So, would the students be given an option to take the "O" level examinations if they decide to do so? I have spoken to some parents and they are worried that this through-train system may yield unpredictable results. The new system will take some time before the result can be clearly seen. They are afraid that in the event that some students could not cope with the new model of study in the reformed JC curricula, and could not do well in the "A" level examinations, they would have no "O" level results to back them up. With no good "A" level certificate in their bags, they would have nothing but a PSLE certificate. They cannot qualify for admission to the university. Even looking for a job would be a big problem. Can MOE consider granting some sort of "Certificate of Standard" for these students so that they would have at least a certificate to show that they have progressed over the years in this "through-train", and has been exempted from the "O" level examinations? This may help them to seek admission in the foreign universities or to show it to their prospective employers. Secondly, I would like to talk about the teaching resource. Under this new system, we need to be able to accurately assess the potential of the students, and to customise the teaching accordingly, so that the students would derive the optimal benefits from the system. I think the teachers will play a very important part. I would like to know whether we have enough teachers who are adequately equipped to take on this higher responsibility. Let me give you an illustration. Teaching is like cooking. If you have some high-quality abalone, but you do not have a good chef to cook it, you would not be able to serve out a delicious abalone dish. On the other hand, if you have the best abalone, and the best chef from the famous abalone restaurant from Hong Kong to cook it, then I am sure you will have a very delicious and well presented abalone dish which is fit for the king. MOE will only start this new system in 2006. We have a window of some three to four years before that. Can MOE make use of this period of time to identify some good teachers, send them overseas for special training, so that they will be able to cope with the demands of this new curriculum, and the students would benefit from their teaching? Recently, during my visit to the world-renowned Qinghua University in Beijing, I was invited to tour a subsidiary primary school of the university. While I was there, the teacher was teaching these young students about yi sheng (physician). I observe that many articles relating to the medical profession, such as stethoscope, clinical thermometer, syringes, etc, were exhibited in the classroom. The teacher made use of this apparatus to demonstrate how a physician went about examining his patient and diagnosing his ailments. The students were invited to ask questions, and many questions were asked by the young children. It was indeed a highly interactive session. The students were also invited to participate in role-plays whereby some took the part of the physicians and the others played the part of the patients. The whole lesson was conducted in a very relaxed and informal manner. No pressure, no stress. I could see that the students thoroughly enjoyed themselves, and I am sure they must have learnt a lot from this kind of exercise. This is what I call creative teaching! Last night, I had dinner with the Principal of a Junior College and he was telling me that the teaching method in Singapore was also very creative. Perhaps, we have left school for too long a period. In the last few decades, we can clearly see that the school premises and facilities, or the hardware aspect, have improved a lot. But, we really do not know about the software aspect - the teaching methods, contents and style. A few months ago, I had the opportunity to visit the ITE, and it was a real eye-opener for me. I would like to ask the Minister whether some arrangements can be made for our MPs and our grassroots leaders to visit the junior colleges and the schools, to see for ourselves whether this software aspect of our education system could match the vast improvement in the hardware aspect. We often hear in this House that schools in the other countries are better. For what you know, our schools may well be better than theirs. If our MPs can have the opportunity to visit the junior colleges, they will have a better understanding of these colleges. Thirdly, under the new system, how will MOE evaluate the performance of the junior colleges? If we want to attain good results, the teachers must have the support of the principals for them to apply their talents and creativity in their teaching. But, if MOE still insists on using examination results as the basis to evaluate and rank the junior colleges, then this new system will turn out to be just an ideal, and will not be practical at all. We should evaluate the teachers on their creativity, not just on the examination results. In a restaurant, if the owner restricts the chef to just a few dishes in the menu, no matter how creative the chef may be, he will not be able to dish out more delicious cuisines to attract more customers. I hope that MOE would also take into consideration the creativity of the teachers when they rank the junior colleges. We should use the 6/2/2 system, that means 60% based on the results attained by the students in the examinations and 20% based on the teaching method of the teachers. We should send out inspectors to schools to evaluate the creative level of the teachers. If the teachers are very creative, we should give them more points, more incentives. So this will make up 20% of the total evaluation. The remaining 20% will be based on the creativity of the students. We are always encouraging the students to be creative, to make full use of their talents. The performance of the students can be reflected by their linguistic capability, the way they express themselves and the way they communicate with others. Merits should also be awarded to their participation and contributions in the field of arts, sports and community service. I think we should encourage our students to give full play to their talents and their potential. It is my sincere hope that MOE would move away from the existing system whereby the ranking of schools and colleges is weighted heavily on examination results. More emphasis should be placed on the creativity or innovations of the teachers and the students. I think in this way, the principals, teachers, students and even the parents will put in concerted efforts and work hand-in-hand to raise the overall standard of the schools, to the benefit of the students. I hope that MOE would consider the three suggestions I have made. Finally, I would like to thank Mdm Deputy Speaker for giving me this opportunity to speak. I support the motion. 6.12 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, some 13 years ago, when I first entered this reputable Chamber, I commented that our education system produced many students who were "exam-smart", extremely capable of only scoring very many As. I questioned then whether this was what our nation wanted to achieve. Now, 13 years on, I am very glad to note that at last the problem is being addressed in a substantial way. I agree with many points made in the White Paper. While our system has been efficient in mass producing trained and skilled workers for our early years of industrialisation, it is no longer good enough to take us into the next 30 years in this information era. In this new age, we must be capable of not only producing goods and services, but also new knowledge and intellectual property. Unlike the traditional industrial goods producing economy, the new winners of the information age are companies which own significant IPR like CISCO, Microsoft and Pfizer. Are our top students creative enough and enterprising enough to fit into this new era to take Singapore into the brave new world? We must address this problem now. Otherwise, like many other countries, we may get caught in the sandwich class: trapped in between the newly industrialising, low cost countries like China and India, and the western countries who own and produce most of the world's IPR. What are the problems we have to address in our education system? Please let me comment on some points from the Report. Firstly, many of our schools and JCs adhere strictly to the syllabus published by the Education Ministry. This leads to a homogenous student population with little variation - hence the lack of diversity. But, parents are also to blame. If you are a bright student scoring many As, try telling your parents that you want to go into drama school to do acting instead of taking up the place offered to you by RJC! Secondly, there is an over-emphasis on knowledge per se. Classes become information download sessions. Often neglected are the skills associated with learning, thinking and research. This leads to poor ability to critique, rigidity, poor reasoning skills, low creativity and a spoon-feeding attitude, in which the students (and later our workers) invariably await instructions and information from the higher authorities. Thirdly, these problems are compounded by "short-termerism", ie, study only for the examinations! Try asking a student something about what he has studied two months after his final 'A' level paper. Or try asking him to read up on something which is interesting but is not in the syllabus. This problem arises from the fact that our examinations are very poorly structured. Questions can be "spotted". Answers are memorised wholesale, sometimes without real understanding of the subject matter. Indeed, even students from our top JCs memorise GP, essays or economic analysis, hoping that their "spotted" topics will "come out" in the final examinations! Is this what we want from our education system? In this regard, I must commend CHIJ Katong for being brave enough to make Literature compulsory for their 'O' level students. Literature is sometimes a much dreaded subject. It is difficult to score an A1. There are no good "standard" solutions - no model answers are ever good enough, no DS solution, as we say, in the Army. And everything can be argued from different points of view. Further, it is also very difficult to teach properly because a teacher has to be good enough and confident enough to accommodate many different points of views from the students. CHIJ Katong believes that the study of Literature teaches their students life-long skills that will serve them well during their lifetime and it is not for the benefit of scoring A1s during examinations. If the A1s do not materialise, so be it. So what are the skill sets which we should try to impart on to our students? There are four basic skill sets which our students should learn by the time they leave the JCs. They are (1) ability to think, reason, self-learn, research for facts, probe by asking intelligent questions and critique. Without this capability, whatever our students learn in their JCs will soon become outdated, if it has not faded from their volatile memory before that. They will certainly not be able to produce new knowledge nor lead in any R&D activity. Hence, I would suggest that As and distinctions should not be given for various subjects until a student has clearly demonstrated his thinking and reasoning capability. It is too easy to get an "A" if all it requires is the reproduction of lecture and tutorial notes given by the teachers as model answers. Even a dumb photocopying machine can do this. (2) Communications, ie, writing, presentation and recording. As pointed out by the Review Committee, this is a major area of weakness for many of our students. Inventions and discoveries can be useless if nobody understands your achievement. The best business plan will fail from day one if you cannot convince your investor or your potential customers of the superiority of your product. Apart from the formal classroom environment, more student activities like debates, seminars (where the presenters are students themselves), oratorical competition and student workshops should be organised. Another important skill which is somewhat lacking is the ability to keep proper (by proper, I mean detailed and precise) records of scientific work. This stems from the over-emphasis of getting the job, such as an experiment, done rather than paying attention to the proper procedures and recording of the conduct of the experiment. Teachers must be also made to realise that laboratory sessions are not only for teaching the basics of the subject matter. They are also to teach students how to conduct and record an investigative procedure in a proper manner. This is an important aspect as R&D activities, especially in the biotech field, will necessitate such skills. (3) Teamwork. This has already been addressed in the White Paper. However, I would like to add that students should not be participating in CCA because it is compulsory, or merely for the CCA points which can help in university admission. There is much that can be learnt from being a committee member of a society or representing your school in swimming. Participation should come from interest and enjoyment, not CCA points. (4) Decision making. This point may not have been addressed in detail in the Report. However, it is related, yet different, from the first point on thinking skills. Decision making goes beyond ability to think, reason and fact finding. It involves a certain measure of courage, confidence and leadership. Some will argue that this cannot be formally taught. However, like teamwork skills, we can create the correct environment for students to acquire this ability. Let me go through a few other interesting points. The Report suggests "A Broader and More Flexible JC Curriculum". I support increasing the breadth in our education system. However, this should be done through "moral suasion" and education rather than by strict rules. Imposing breadth upon the student's choices may lead to mechanistic rote learning in order to achieve a good result in a subject, taken not because the student loves it, but taken in order to fulfil a government requirement. Is this education? The very thought of imposing such a requirement runs directly counter to the main idea of flexibility. (In a way, diversity also suffers because you are eliminating the possibility of generating some students who would do well in pure Science or pure Arts.) I would therefore urge the Education Ministry to consider very carefully how we produce breadth in our JC student's education. Ideally, it should be done by convincing the majority of the students that this will serve them well. It will suffice that a large majority of the students, say, 80% accept this. If the Ministry still decides to impose it as a rule, we should still try to convince the students and their parents of the merits of such a rule. In addition to this, I would urge the Ministry to consider allowing an all-Science (and Mathematics) or an all-Arts option for exceptional cases. In such cases, students may be asked to show that they are highly committed to this very specialised track. This commitment could be shown through, say, doing some of the subjects at the H3 level or special project work. Giving students more flexible options is a good thing. However, many students are not well informed enough to appreciate these options. Their interest in the various subjects has not been fully developed and cultivated. Many make choices due to peer group pressure and by what they hear from the media and their friends. Schools should provide better advice and counsel to students making such choices. This should be done on a continuous basis through career talks, visits, career guidance, and other such activities. This process is a long-term one, and should not be done over a short period, just before such choices are made. It is such interest, developed and cultivated over the years, that becomes a passion. Such passion is a seed of possible greater things in the future. JCs should be asked to allow more subject combinations. Ideally, students should be given freedom to choose their own subject combinations. This will in turn produce diversity through the diverse subject combinations. Although there may be an administrative and resource problem, we should allow, whenever possible, students to study subjects that they love. I understand from feedback that it is not possible to do "strange" combinations like Literature and Biology. Should this not be allowed? I understand that giving absolute freedom of choice may also have its undesirable effects. In our achievement-oriented society, many will go for the combinations that will maximise their chances of getting the most As, rather than taking subjects that interest them. This brings me to the topic of examinations. I have touched on the weakness of our examinations earlier. I would like to discuss this in more detail here. While the main examination paper can continue to test for knowledge and standard applications, some questions that test the students' understanding, ability to think and reason, and the ability to draw conclusions in non-standard situations should be included. This is to encourage developing knowledge skills, in addition to merely absorbing information. I note that certain subjects also produce a disproportionate number of As. The Ministry of Education may want to check this out. Surely, it is possible to equalise this by adjusting the difficulty of level of the examination questions, and by some moderation. We ought to try to remove any incentive for choosing a certain subject due to the ease of getting an A in the examinations. Another cause of passive students that we have today is due to our teaching methods. I think there is too much spoon-feeding in our schools and JCs at present. While this may be a very efficient way to scoring high marks in the examinations, it is like a drug. It deadens the mind and the processes of thought, and the student will be nearly all lost once this is removed. Yes, we should continue to provide lecture notes, but students should be made to refer to some text and reference books. I know of JC students who relied only on lecture notes and never read a book for their Physics paper. Students should be made to look for facts and details by themselves. They should also be taught how to collate, process and present these facts. There should be more student interactions and discussions during tutorial classes in JCs. The teacher could merely chair the discussions instead of doing most of the talking. I strongly recommend more activities like peer group teaching, student seminars, debates, forums and workshops. Next, I would like to touch on the subject of university entrance requirements. I find that the local universities are rather rigid in their methods of selecting students for entry, and for most departments. Generally, points are assigned for various "A" level grades, and these are summed. If you meet the cut-off mark, you are in. Otherwise, you are out. I find this much too clinical. How many points would you give Remy Ong for his three Asian Games Gold medals? A few years back, I appealed on behalf of a national level badminton player for admission to NUS to study engineering. He missed the cut-off mark by one or two points. I appealed several times, right up to the highest level at the university, because I believe that it is good for NUS to accept such a student. But, alas, the appeal was rejected, citing the need to adhere strictly to the rules. Mdm Deputy Speaker, borderline applicants ought to be given a chance. An interview could be conducted for these cases. Consideration must be given for special circumstances and achievements outside the normal curriculum. After all, if more effort and time were spent on his "A" level subject instead of his badminton activities, much better "A" level results might have been obtained. On the other hand, some other applicant may be able to show during his interview that he is far better in a certain subject than his "A" level results indicate, and his lower mark could be due to an illness during his examination paper. Surely, such cases deserve a chance. I would also like to comment on the use of Project Work (PW) for university entrance requirements. I hope this will not add to the stress and workload of our already over-taxed JC students. Assessment of Project Work is also rather subjective in nature, and this could lead to accusations of unfairness. I suggest that the universities use a pass/fail requirement for PW rather than taking into account the actual PW grade for their entrance consideration. I support the White Paper's recommendation for Integrated Programmes, private schools and specialist schools. This is because they bring about greater diversity for the system and more flexibility and choice for the students. I also support keeping open the 3-year pre-university centres for students who would prefer to take more time to do their "A" levels. I hope that transfers between these different types of schools will be possible, so that students will have better flexibility to pursue their intended goals. Lastly, I would like to mention that more resources will be needed to truly achieve the goals of this reform. Teachers themselves need to be retrained. Their knowledge of the subject may need to be far wider and deeper than just the syllabus, because the better and more intelligent students may bring up such issues during discussion sessions. I have no doubt that the reform will be difficult for some. However, I think that it is beneficial and that it can be done. I agree with the White Paper's recommendation for more teachers and teaching resources in order to facilitate this improvement in our education system. I would also like to caution that all will be in vain if schools and JCs pay lip-service to these changes without truly understanding and accepting the basic philosophy underlying the reform. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the White Paper has provided the right concept and framework for reform. It remains to be seen whether and how we can implement it. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. 6.20 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have had the benefit of chairing a sub-committee for Remaking Singapore. We have engaged many people and, from their feedback, I know that Singaporeans take a keen interest in education issues but remain divided about the many features of our education system. Today's debate is on a motion of great import. It will determine, in no small part, whether our children will lead fulfilling lives. Once we set our compass and decide on the course, cohorts of Singaporeans will be headed along this course, and it will take us years to change our bearings or to steer them back. Therefore, I commend the Ministry of Education for subjecting its report to robust debate here, and the Party for going a step further, to lift the Whip. It is difficult to have a meaningful strategic conversation on education until we settle the score on the merits of the different approaches to education. There are, I think, two basic approaches to education. Let us call the first approach the `syllabus-centred' approach, and the second the `learner-centred' approach. The first and more traditional syllabus-centred approach in education defines the purpose of teaching as ensuring that students acquire a prescribed body of knowledge and a set of values as determined by society. This is so that they will grow up to meet the needs of the future society, namely, what is required of our citizens and what is required of our workforce. What follows from such an approach are didactic teachers, top-down teaching, well-behaved learners, a carefully designed curriculum and a very disciplined environment. The characteristics of such a syllabus-centred approach are sequential preparation for the next educational level, tests at the end of each stage, grouping learners of similar abilities (or streaming), and competition among students and among schools, so as to boost performance. The second approach is what we may term as the learner-centred approach. Here, the starting point is the learner, the student or the child, rather than a prescribed body of knowledge. The attributes of this approach are different. Here, a 12-year-old is seen as a 12-year-old, and is to be developed to his or her full potential. The 12-year-olds are not seen as future 13-year-olds and to be prepared as such. The curriculum takes on an open-ended and enquiry-based orientation, and they are taught experientially and through activities, and not taught facts just to be stored. The values to be inculcated are not made to conform to a certain mould that society has pre-determined. Every child is accepted. In fact, every child is celebrated for who he or she is. The role of teachers here is merely to facilitate and ensure that the lid to the brain remains open and not to attempt to fill it up. Cooperation, as an underlying social trait, is emphasised over competition. Mdm Deputy Speaker, let us consider each of these approaches and see if we can determine the right approach for our time and place. The strongest critic of the syllabus-centred approach can be traced back to Charles Dickens. In his novel Hard Times, he said that children subject to such an education system are like "little vessels arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they are full to the brim." This system requires precise recall of the lessons learnt, great reliance on memorisation - often without actively engaging the student in the learning process. The assumption that knowledge is static, something that already exists, runs counter to the bewildering pace at which knowledge is constantly being reshaped. However, there are also proponents of the syllabus-based system, and they have also argued, equally passionately, about the merits of such an approach. They assert that the results of a syllabus-based approach are more quantifiable, so that weaker students may be identified for remedial lessons and weaker schools put right. Students are introduced to competition early in life. They learn to face adversity squarely and to cope with failures and labels. They develop a practical view of the world and are not lulled into believing that our world begins with `Once upon a time .' and ends with `. live happily ever after'. Consider now the alternative learner-centred approach. For all its strengths and its appeal as an avant-garde and progressive approach, it is not without critics either. Some said it is like allowing growth without direction and, in the extreme, as we have heard from Assoc Prof Koo Tsai Kee, it is like allowing children to decide when, how and what they want to learn. The results of such an approach are also not easily measured, and students or schools who are down the wrong track cannot be identified early and cannot be put right. So, which is a better approach? Rather, the relevant questions are: Do we need to settle for one or the other approach? Do we need to make that binary either/or choice? I would contend that the optimal choice to prepare most students lies somewhere in between the syllabus-centred and the learner-centred approaches. We must preserve the rigour of our current system of education or risk structural failure in our schools, as again pointed out by Assoc Prof Koo Tsai Kee. We must not throw out the baby together with the bath water. It is possible to modify Singapore's predominantly syllabus-centred approach to incorporate some of the finer features of the learner-centred approach. Such a hybrid approach is one that would produce an education system with the teacher still in authority, with the rigour of a challenging curriculum, yet with time left for inquiry and active engagement of students in the learning process. And because of the shorter shelf-life of knowledge, the subject content, the choice of subjects and, in fact, the whole syllabus itself, need to be reviewed more frequently. The JC/Upper Secondary education review report does not discuss the various approaches to education explicitly, but implicit in its recommendations to broaden the JC curriculum is a well-calibrated shift away from the "syllabus-centred" approach more towards the "learner-centred" approach. The introduction of Knowledge and Inquiry as a new inter-disciplinary subject in Junior College will require students to question the bases of knowledge; to apply what they have learnt, both inside and outside the classrooms, and to defend their positions. It will provide a good counter-weight against the other content-heavy subjects. Therefore, rather than making Knowledge and Inquiry an alternative subject to GP, I would propose that Knowledge and Inquiry be offered in lieu of GP. In the International Baccalaureate programme, a similar "Theory of Knowledge" subject is compulsory for all students and is said to be the "glue" of the entire diploma programme. The new emphasis on Project Work will challenge the students' resourcefulness, their organisational ability and their presentation and communication skills and this is to be applauded. The report recommends that all JC students offer at least a H1 contrasting subject plus GP (also at H1) or Knowledge and Inquiry at H2. On that basis, the time spent on the contrasting subject is 16% to 21%. Whilst the direction is correct, it is worthwhile to further increase the time spent on contrasting subjects once we gain some experience with the reforms. After all, JC is not a tertiary education and there is sufficient time at university to specialise. At many liberal arts colleges in the United States, every student takes a broad-based curriculum leading to a Bachelor of Arts degree. The American system sees it fit to avoid specialisation even at undergraduate level. Here we are beginning to specialise at Junior College level although relaxing the specialisation with the introduction of the contrasting subjects. The United States system only begins to specialise at graduate school. I also welcome the Ministry's intent to update the existing subjects offered and to introduce new subjects to JC students. But I would like to suggest that we introduce topics like Management of Technology, Entrepreneurship, Cultural Studies and Communications Skills either as components within existing subjects or as new subjects altogether. These are essential life skills if our young are to thrive in an increasingly inter-connected world shaped by rapid technological change. In my 17 years of work in the private sector, no one has ever asked me to solve differential equations but I have often been expected to understand technology, to be entrepreneurial, to appreciate cultural differences and to communicate and defend my ideas. Taken together, Knowledge and Inquiry, Project Work, a contrasting subject and the updating of existing subjects - the new JC curriculum is refreshing - it retains the robustness of the "syllabus-centred" approach (challenging and rigorous) and adopts the finer features of the "learner-centred" approach (research, inquiry and a broad curriculum). Mdm Deputy Speaker, the other major recommendation of the report is the creation of alternative pathways in the upper secondary and JC sector. This new diversity will include an integrated programme, specialised schools, alternative qualifications and private schools. These new routes provide choices to meet the needs of different students. Yet, each of them is challenging, robust and internationally recognised. Ultimately, graduates of such diverse range of programmes will approach problems differently and will come up with alternative solutions to a problem. They will provide an array of perspectives that will make for a more vibrant, resilient and successful Singapore. The Integrated Programme will do away with the GCE "O" levels for students deemed to be university-bound. This leaves more time for project work, CCA and character development programmes. However, it would be better if the IP can be extended to more students and not be confined to the top 10% of a P1 cohort since about 22% of the P1 cohort who took the "A" level examinations in 2000 is eligible for a local university. If we consider admissions to foreign universities, that figure will be even higher. Allowing schools to offer the IB and other internationally recognised programmes will cater to returning students. This is in keeping with the trend of Singaporeans working overseas at some point during their careers. The IB will also cater to those students who prefer a more "learner-centred" approach and I welcome that. Allowing private schools is another change that I welcome but it would also be good for the Government to encourage or partly-fund scholarships that are tenable at such private schools. This would support those who may not otherwise have the financial means to enroll into such private schools. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like now to move on to discuss specialised schools. If we were to plot the distribution of our students along the single dimension of scholastic ability, we will always get some form of "bell-curve". There will be a small group of students who are weak academically; a small group who are very capable and a large group of average performers. But the attractiveness of specialised schools is that they will cater to students who may be deemed to be mediocre on this bell curve plotted along academic or scholastic ability. However, these same students may be uniquely capable if we measure them along other dimensions like sports, arts or music. This broadening of the definition of success by MOE is indeed a "watershed". Specialised schools could also afford students longer time to complete their programmes and also a modular testing system as opposed to age-based, high-stakes examinations. This will allow such students time to prepare and participate in international or national events. To ensure that these specialised secondary schools succeed, we need a system to identify talents at an early age. Our primary school pupils should have greater access to qualified counsellors who will profile their strengths and weaknesses, including giftedness in the arts, music and sports and also learning disabilities, if any. As such counselling resources may be hard to come by, schools can strike up partnerships with community groups, voluntary welfare organisations, school alumni and parent associations. In addition, the twinning of JC/higher secondary schools with their junior counterparts - the primary schools - during CCAs and Community Involvement Programme - would also provide much needed opportunities for student leadership and character development. Investing in counsellors to spot, either talents or learning disabilities of pupils and intervening early in their formative years will, I believe, yield handsome long-term returns to society as a whole. Mdm Deputy Speaker, for the educational reforms to succeed, we would need more than a broad curriculum, more than a diverse upper secondary/JC education sector. We would need a complete change in the skills and styles of lesson delivery, nothing short of some form of a cultural transformation. Allow me to illustrate my point with some of my own experiences. He summoned a student to the front of the class, blindfolded him and placed a heavy book onto the open palm of his outstretched arm. Then he abruptly removed the book and the hand shot right up. He declared, "For every action (the force of the book); there is an equal and opposite reaction (the force of the hand) - this is Newton's third law of motion and our topic for today's lesson", declared Harry Tan of St Andrew's. I once also attended a class at MIT where Franco Modigliani and Lester Thurow were both in the same classroom as instructors. Both are illustrious economists but each espousing views that are fundamentally opposed. The students must decide whom they want to believe. There were no model answers. Unless more of our teachers are inspired to excite our students, the curriculum reforms will not bring about the full desired outcomes. But our teachers have raised a valid point. They told us that they often have to rush stoically through the syllabus as their performances are not measured by the creativity of their delivery but whether or not they complete the tight syllabus. Therefore, something has to give. We cannot have the cake and eat it. I would like to suggest that we cut the size of the syllabus further so that teachers may find time to be creative and students will find permanence and meaning with the knowledge that they acquire. This reduction in syllabus is not aimed at reducing stress, as suggested by MPs like Dr Wang Kai Yuen. I believe that, by and large, our students are resilient and unless we constantly challenge them, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Prof. Koo Tsai Kee pointed out, they will be inadequate to face the highly competitive world awaiting them. I am reminded of a story. In fact, it is a true story. Jack Welch once received a report about his executives at General Electric. Someone highlighted to him that 95% of his executives are feeling heavily stressed and he retorted, "What is the problem with the other 5 percent?" Do we want to be the GE's of the world? If so, then we must maintain the rigour of our education system. After all, we are talking here about JC students who are our best and brightest. Challenge the faculties of our students we must, but not by sheer quantity of the workload at the expense of the quality of the learning experience. We should not deprive our students the joys to savour the intrigue of the unfamiliar, the excitement of discovery and the fulfilment of lasting knowledge. As an education goal, we must encourage our youths to develop an inquisitive mind so that they will continue to seek out whole new worlds of knowledge years after they complete their formal studies. As Dr Amy Khor pointed out, for the Triple Science student offering four "A" levels, the report suggests the reduction of curricular time by 10% and for humanities students, the curricular time remains unchanged. Students currently offer subjects that reflect their forte. The new contrasting subjects will take our students out of such forte. Hence, the time required to establish a basic foundation will be disproportionately more and we have to take cognisance of that. If we coordinate the curriculum to be covered at JC level with the universities, as the report suggests, we should have no problem cutting the curriculum down further. There are also concerns that the reforms are not going to happen early enough in a student's educational journey. I am confident that in time, MOE will look into introducing reforms into our primary and secondary schools as I am sure that such efforts will be most welcome and will yield similarly good results. In conclusion, let me pay a tribute to all teachers in Singapore. Many have laboured tirelessly to educate our sons and daughters. They will also be charged with the responsibility to carry out these educational reforms. I wish them well and I am confident that they will continue to do Singapore proud! Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the motion. 6.42 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to members of the JC/Upper Secondary Education Review Committee led by SMS Tharman for their work and in coming up with some recommendations on the challenges pertaining to JC and upper secondary education. I am pleased to see that a broader and more flexible JC curriculum to cater for greater diversity in our education system has been recommended. I am certain that if these measures are successfully implemented, it would lay the foundation for our children to compete more effectively in a globalised economy which requires breadth of knowledge and applications instead of rote learning and specialisation. I understand the proposed changes will also shift the emphasis of education from one of content mastery to learning skills and from knowing to thinking. In particular, a greater emphasis towards project work and the offering of elective subjects like Knowledge and Inquiry, besides the General Paper, would work in the long-term interest of our students. Whilst the objectives and end results of the proposed JC education seem laudable, I feel that the means towards these ends are just as important and should be adequately addressed. Whilst the report goes a long way in addressing the practical needs and qualifications our students ought to achieve and also the future needs of the economy, like many speakers before me, I am concerned that it does not address many of the root concerns of our education system as it stands today. I refer specifically to the "pressure cooker" environment that has arisen, from the focus of achieving success based mainly on academic excellence or qualifications or indeed what goes into the report card that our students receive today. Indeed, as MPs, whenever we meet residents, be they students, parents or teachers, their common complaint is that our education system is too stressful and pressurising. Our current emphasis of rewards for students and teachers based largely on academic performance is partly to be blamed. The proposed changes will result in a broader-based education through additional broader qualifications in H1 or H2 level subjects. However, if the underlying structure of our education system is not refocused, we might just end up with students with broader based qualifications and scoring a lot more 'As', this time in both the Mathematics/Science and Arts/Humanities subjects, but still the same by-product of our education system - rote learners, good in mastering contents, knowledgeable but lack thinking skills, little independent thoughts, with less enterprise and initiative or little interest in the world around them. Madam, I am concerned that this scenario could be a real possibility if we do not change our system of rewarding our principals and teachers. The Ministry's criteria of success in ranking JCs and secondary schools by academic results, and the performance evaluation of principals and teachers whose career advancement is based, to a large extent, on the deliverance of these results, are fundamental to the pressure cooker, high stress, rote learning environment we have today. Principals and teachers have incentives to prepare model answers to enable students to be examination smart and get top grades - at the expense of a real education per se, since it is in the interest of their own career development to do so. With the continuance of such incentive structures for our teachers and principals in our education system and the ranking of JCs based largely on competitive quantitative criteria, I am doubtful that the high ideals raised in this JC Report can be fully realised. At worst, we might merely create additional subjects or subject areas including project work, CCAs and the lot, where students will be pressured to compete for the sake of competition, and not enable them to be thinking individuals, capable of independent learning and enterprise. The end result is a JC education where students and teachers become more stressed out and we end up with the same products, this time with students scoring As, not just in Mathematics/Science or the Arts/Humanities subjects, but both, and end up none the better. Madam, I would therefore like to recommend that the Ministry review the need to rank JCs and relook at the reward system for our principals and teachers when we implement measures to improve our JC education system. There should also be less emphasis on examinations or using examination results as a sole criterion to measure the performances of our students, as well as principals and teachers. Unless we do this, our best intentions behind the proposed changes may not be realised. The new reward system should be based on how well our JCs train our students to achieve a broader based education and master learning and thinking skills, and not just on the number of As obtained in H1 and H2 level subjects in the 'A' level examinations. Madam, still on the subject of incentives and rewards for our teachers and principals, I would like to raise the issue of teaching resources. In the new environment envisaged, teachers would need to acquire expertise in teaching and assessing students in the areas of thinking skills and innovation. They would need to both set challenges and structure courses to bring out these skills in the students, as well as assess students in these new areas. This is indeed a fundamental change in much of our traditional education philosophy. Our existing teaching resources may not be suitably equipped to meet these new challenges. We therefore need to retrain our existing teaching staff to re-equip them to implement some of these ambitious plans. I would like to ask the Minister if he could elaborate on any special training plans to cater for these changes. The Report has indicated that additional teaching resources would be required to tide in for the period up to full implementation of the new JC education system. Would these new teaching staff resources replace existing ones? I would like to seek the assurance from the Minister that opportunity be given to the current teaching staff to fully enable them to adapt to the new regime. I agree that, in the interim, we may have to import foreign talents to help implement these changes. If so, I would hope that specific plans for local succession, after skills have been acquired and nurtured by our local teachers, be put in place so that we do not create a dependency effect on foreign talents in our JC education system in the long term. Finally, I would like to raise a suggestion that the mother tongue criterion could be broadened to include any second language. With Singaporeans expected to study and work overseas for long periods of time, as part of the economic changes anticipated, returning Singaporean families have found that the mother tongue criterion for local schools too restrictive for them. This is an additional source of stress for both students and parents returning from overseas. If we can broaden the criterion to other languages, making exception for this group of Singaporeans returning from overseas, we might even enhance Singapore's future as a globalised economy plugged into the world. It would also encourage Singaporeans overseas to return and contribute positively to our country. In conclusion, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Education. I agree that we should change our JC curriculum to achieve a broader based education and to develop thinking, communication and learning skills. However, I call on the Minister to review our teaching methods, to place less emphasis on examinations, to do away with ranking of JCs, and to reward our teachers in many other ways. Examination result is but only one of the ways. Whilst the desired ends for our education system are well intended, I fear that we may not achieve them if the means towards these ends are not properly addressed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I start by congratulating Senior Minister of State Tharman and his Committee on a very well written report and one that should, in general, receive widespread support; who would oppose after all injecting more breadth and flexibility into the JC curriculum and the proposed education landscape, painting such a picture of options and variety of pathways as to warm the hearts of parents and students alike. But the recommendations do raise some areas of concern and some questions that could do with some clarifications. As so many of my parliamentary colleagues also have their comments to contribute, I shall restrict my observations to just three areas. For a start, the first question that actually came to my mind when I read through the report was whether we have, in fact, got the process upside down - back to front, focussing all of our attention on JC and upper secondary education, the last four years of our young Singaporeans' education, thinking that we can spend the first most formative and impressionable years of our children's lives, grilling them and grinding away at their self esteem, and then in the final years of their schooling education, we expect to turn them around on a pin and blossom with this new curriculum, albeit it is a very attractive proposition, and to develop their thinking skills at this very late stage. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Koo Tsai Kee gave us a very thorough account of the Bronx Science High School and of the five Nobel Laureates which they created. But I would dare say that the Bronx Science High School did not create these five Nobel Laureates out of thin air. The question for me is, in fact, how these Nobel Laureates' minds were moulded when they were much younger. For me, that is an important question. While it is certainly important to look at the finishing stages of their education, who is, in fact, looking into what we are going to do with our pre-school and primary education, to prepare our children for the new world? Secondly, broadening the curriculum is certainly, I think, heading in the right direction. It will give more exposure to our students to more fields of knowledge and allow them to be more well-rounded individuals, allow them more opportunities to find areas in which they have special interests, skills and talents. The Committee has recommended that this broadening be achieved in balance with cutting down on content, and I am all for that. It has been inexplicable to me all this time in recent years that we have been preaching to the adults on the need for life-long learning, because of the rapid obsolescence of knowledge, that we have kept, at the same time, stuffing the heads of our school children with content. So the acknowledgement that we can and should in fact ease up here is good news indeed. However - and this is a big however - how will the Ministry of Education ensure that in developing the new curriculum, we will in fact lighten the content load? Because lightening and reducing of curriculum load is not a new story for us. In fact, we are supposed to have already lightened curriculum previously by as much as 30%. In fact, the Minister himself this afternoon has spoken with conviction that we have trimmed down on content, and yet it would seem that only the Minister and his senior officers have this conviction, because just about everybody else that you speak to in the system - parents, students and teachers alike - do not seem to have experienced any lightening of the curriculum load. My second question is: how will the Ministry ensure that this shift of the curriculum from depth to breadth does, in fact, happen and does not result in added load, that the implementation of the new curriculum will stay true to the intent? The third and final question that I want to raise relates to the most diverse JC/Upper Secondary education landscape. I applaud the recommendation. Alas, it will only be for the top 10% of our children. Contrary to Dr Wang Kai Yuen's anticipation that parents will respond by recognising that different skills will be needed now for success and prepare their children accordingly, I am most fearful that the result will be even more fearsome pressure on our children sitting for their PSLE each year, to make it to that top 10%, so that they can benefit from the new integrated programme in their secondary education. As usual, we are focusing so much of our attention, effort and resources on the few at the top. Why should this diversity of approaches be reserved only for the top 10%? We are grateful that the kind of resources and opportunities that were previously given only to the top 1% in the Gifted Education Programme will perhaps now be available to a wider 10%. But is the focus on this elite group, in fact, justified? The GEP has been in existence now for many years. Has there been an assessment, in fact, of its outcomes, other than perhaps the number of President's Scholars that they may have produced? What contributions have previous GEP cohorts made to Singapore society? What skills and spirit and values have they developed? Similarly, with the recommendation to establish specialised independent schools to cater to students with special talents in arts, sports, mathematics and science, these schools will again cater only for the very few. I served recently on the Economic Review Sub-committee on Enhancing Human Capital and co-chaired the Work Group on Arts, Culture, Sports and Recreation. Our Work Group recommended, not elite arts and sports schools, but making arts and sports education widely available to our children in schools so that more of our children will imbue the spirit and values that come with these disciplines. And also, so that we will lose less of those who have the skills and talents in these areas who would otherwise be left by the wayside in our traditional education system. When we look at our workforce today, the problem we have is not with the top 1% or the top 10%. They are more than able to fend for themselves in the old world, and in the new, and indeed to contribute to our national development. The enormous challenge that we face is with the massive 400,000 workers at the bottom of the spectrum, whose world is far removed from the corridors of power and wealth. I would like to ask who is looking into the educational needs of the future equivalent of this large group of Singaporeans, who will also have to deal with the new challenges and the new demands that will be made on them in our new and globalised economy. To conclude, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I do support the motion, but I would urge Government to further review the whole education system, particularly addressing the needs of our younger, pre-primary and primary school students, to ensure that the broadening of the JC curriculum is indeed matched with a decrease in content so that it is manageable and to avail the improvements to a much wider population of students. 7.03 pm

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am in full support of the motion mainly because I was a member of the Committee that did the review. In that light, I had actually tried to place my speech somewhere at the end of the debate by calling the Whip quite late, just before the deadline. To my horror, I was placed at No. 12 and to speak on the first day. Apparently my creativity is not good enough. I hope after the review, future MPs would be more creative and innovative in manipulating as to when they would speak in Parliament. Madam, I would like to touch on a few points and then later also touch on the points raised by my hon. Friends before me. Just some background to this review. I see three important factors that played in the minds of both the Ministry and the Review Committee. Firstly, the demands of the new economy - which is innovation driven. This new economy places a great premium on creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship. With these great new demands placed upon our economy, upon our future, what do we do with our education system? If we are just to look at the JCs and upper secondary education, what do we do about it? This topic has been dealt with and touched upon by my colleagues before me. I will deal with them in a short while. Secondly, we have this syndrome, which we in the Committee called the "Coca Cola" syndrome. We have at the lower secondary education level a very broad based curriculum, where students take eight to ten subjects, covering both the sciences and the humanities, one or two languages in addition to that. Then, at the university level, the first one or two years, it is also similarly broad based. Students in the science faculties are made to take one or two humanities subjects. Students doing humanities are also made to take one or two non-humanity subjects. But at the pre-university level, the specialisation is more pronounced. We have about 40% of our science students at pre-university who do not take any humanities subject. Yet, when they go to university, as most of them do, they have to take at least one humanities subject. So we have to correct this "Coca Cola Bottle" syndrome. Among the questions that we have to look at here, Madam, is how then do we broaden the curriculum without compromising depth. All of us agree that the rigour in our system, the standards that we have achieved in our educational system are good, we wish it to remain, but yet we also want to broaden the curriculum to enable our students to cover as many subjects as possible. But how do we achieve this without compromising depth? So the Committee came out with this system of having three tiers as opposed to the present two tiers in depth. Presently, we have the "AO" and the "A" levels, now we have H1, H2, H3, or rather this is the proposed differentiation as far as depth is concerned, so that we can achieve a greater amount of breadth without compromising depth. The third factor in the background is the high percentage of our top 10% of our student cohort qualifying for university. In other words, for them, the "O" level is more or less a formality. Yet, as we have heard earlier on, if we are to free these students from taking their "O" levels, which also means freeing them from taking or preparing for preliminary examinations, they would have an additional eight to ten months of free time - eight to ten months where they can benefit from other enhancements or enrichment projects and programmes. So the question then is: can we do away with the "O" level examinations for them, and if we are to do it, how do we manage the fall out? Mdm Deputy Speaker, when we consider the new demands, the demands of the new economy, and when we speak of innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship, and when we try to look at the education system where we ask ourselves, "So what do we do with the education system in order to meet these new demands", among the things that first strike my mind is how to improve the curriculum in terms of enhancing thought process skills over content mastery or accumulation of information. I think this has been discussed. We see there are efforts being made to enhance the value of project work, highlighting thought process skills over content mastery in pedagogy or teaching methodology. These ideas had been dealt with by the Committee. Another aspect in relation to innovation and creativity is to develop within the curriculum a means by which students are able to draw knowledge from different disciplines. In other words, it is not sufficient for them to merely learn. When it is already not sufficient for them to learn from one particular body knowledge, now it is also not sufficient for them to learn from different bodies of knowledge, but we would encourage students to be able to draw lessons from different bodies of knowledge at the same time. Mdm Deputy Speaker, one of the most known icons of our time are the producers of the Star Wars Trilogy, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. The Star Wars Trilogy is very captivating, partly because I think within one show you see different bodies of knowledge coming together. It has, well, this may be controversial, but to my mind, high literature value because it has a very identifiable theme or themes. It has simple plots that criss-cross one another. It has lots of wit and humour. That is the literature aspect. Then it deals with science and technology, whether futuristic or fictional sometimes. You have, for instance, the three-dimensional recording of Princess Leah talking to whoever that may be. In the first show it was Luke Skywalker, I think, receiving the message that he was supposed to see Obiwan Kanobi. Then we have this fantastic Death Star construction, which was Darth Vader's headquarters. We have fancy flying machines. We have flying saucers that can presumably travel at the speed of light. Well, that is the science aspect. Then we have the aspect of politics and governance. We have the clash between the Empire and small planets. We have the knighthood of the Jedi. This is another element of the Star Wars Trilogy. We have the marketing part. Besides advertisements, they have toys, they have games, they publish books and comics. In short, Mdm Deputy Speaker, that movie, or that trilogy of movies is a multi-faceted industry, and to my mind the producers were able to captivate the imagination of the world because they drew from various bodies of knowledge, put them together and came out with a solid product that nobody else could have done. If local producers are to be capable of similarly captivating the imagination of the world, then I believe they have to develop that capability to draw from different bodies of knowledge. This ability to draw from different bodies of knowledge must mean that they have a grasp of the different bodies of knowledge to begin with. So it must mean a broadening, at some point in time, the curriculum. I am afraid it has to mean a certain degree of workload. It will have to mean that students must be able to study, and must have to undertake the rigour and the difficulty of studying different types of subjects, including subjects that they may not be totally happy with because it is a bit different from what their aptitude is best at. Some Members spoke of the need to lighten the load. I think what is more crucial here, Mdm Deputy Speaker, is not so much to have a lightened workload but to have an enlightened workload. An enlightened workload means a workload that takes into account the need to prepare our students for the future as opposed to simply helping them go through the present. Another aspect of the review, Mdm Deputy Speaker, is communication skills. We have heard just now from my fellow Members that Singaporeans somehow are not able to communicate well. This was in fact one of the points raised by some of the Review Committee members and some of the feedback that we received. So here, I think the Committee tried to overcome this problem by enhancing or emphasising the need for project work, where they have to develop teamwork and then in the presentation of the project work they will have to develop communication skills. So in the presentation of project work the students will then have to develop skills in communication so as to impress or convince the examiners of the worth of their project. As it is, the General Paper is a subject that is feared by most students. When we introduce project work, there is a general reaction among students and teachers that this will increase workload or stress. I do not think any of us will want to increase the workload or stress for the fun of it. I do not think any of us are morbid enough to have that kind of sense of humour. But it is something which we need to do based on the comments that we get very often from the public and Members of this House that Singaporeans are not good at speaking, not good at communicating, or not articulate. So we have to do something about it. We have to improve our system and among the things that we can do is to enhance the quality of teaching GP as well as project work. And I believe that, in the long term, this will have the effect that all of us desire. We would be able to produce Singaporeans who would be able to market their products better, who would be able to articulate and communicate better and, hopefully, make life in Singapore as a whole much better too. Just two more points, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to be long because I wish to break my fast also. I agree with the points raised by my colleagues that teachers play a very important role in this. In fact, teachers have told us that looking at the recommendations and reviews, they are very concerned as to whether teachers and principals are ready for the review because they realise, just as everyone here also realises that the method of teaching has to be kept in line with the substantive recommendations. Indeed, the method of teaching, if not rightly aligned, might even undermine the recommendations. So, as stated by MOS Cedric Foo just now, the teachers would have some way to go in making the necessary changes, and I have full confidence that our teachers will do so. Again, we have already received feedback that the teaching profession is under stress. What more with the new recommendations! But, again, I reiterate that it is no fun adding stress to the lives of teachers, as it is no fun adding stress to the lives of students. But looking again at the future that we are facing, the new demands that are before us, what choice do we have? Something that we have to do for our children, for our country, what I can just say here is that I have full confidence the teachers too will align themselves with the new recommendations. Similarly, as regards parents, Mdm Deputy Speaker, they will find the changes quite painful and sometimes quite bewildering. I think parents would need great help to understand the changes. I do not think it is possible for parents to be able to grasp all the changes in one go and it may not be necessary for them to do so too. So here, there will be a need for stronger collaboration between parents and schools so that they will be given the right dosages of information at the right point in time. In this respect, I believe schools will take the necessary measures to have contact points with parents as their children progress in school. I will touch on some of the points raised by my colleagues before me as regards the Integrated Programme. One concern was whether or not this is a higher level of streaming. The first response to that is: is streaming by itself a problem? If it is not, a higher level of streaming is not a bigger problem. But even if it is something that we ought to be concerned about, the response to that would be to weigh the benefits of having the Integrated Programme as not having it. Here, we have the opportunity to free up about eight to 10 months of the time of our best students when they do not need to take their 'O' level examinations. If you can do it, why not? Sure, we are concerned with the others. But in this respect, there is nothing much that we can do about the others. In this particular aspect, must we deprive the best from something which they otherwise could get? In fact, we get feedback from everyone that our system is too rigid, too book-centred. So perhaps these eight to 10 months are perfect for them to go out and do something else, like fire fighting perhaps, as what some students do in the United States, and community work. There was this concern that the IP programme would also widen the gap between the very best and the not-so-good. Perhaps, we can use these eight to 10 months to inculcate among the top 10% students the values that, even though they can fly high, they must remember that when they nest, they must nest on solid ground. When they land, they must land on firm feet. They must be true Singaporeans, good citizens, good sons and good daughters, that they have to respect their parents and love their neighbours and help those who are in need. So we can use these eight to 10 months to do that, which otherwise they may not have the time if they have to prepare for preliminary examination and 'O' level examination. So as far as they are concerned, they are valid ones. But I think on balance it is better if we can do away with the 'O' level examinations, we do away with it. I shall not prolong everyone's agony any further. I stand in support of the motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we had a full day of debate. Please allow me to thank the 11 speakers who have raised a broad range of topics and many contrasting views. Lest we overburden Members with too much content and to allow them some time to have more creative activities this evening, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put, and agreed to. "That the Debate be now adjourned." - [RAdm Teo Chee Hean].

Resumption of Debate, what day?

Tomorrow, Madam.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes past Seven o'clock pm.

asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the number and percentage of children entering primary 1 each year who are identified for the Learning Support Programme (LSP) since the Programme was introduced; (b) how are these children assessed to determine if they need to attend the Programme; (c) what is the standard against which the primary 1 children's reading abilities are benchmarked to determine if they need to attend the Programme; (d) what is the duration of the Programme and; (e) how effective has the Programme been.

The Learning Support Programme (LSP) (English) is an early intervention language and literacy programme. The programme was started in 1992 and implemented in all primary schools in 1998. The need for this programme arises out of the complex home language background of our students, resulting in their entering Primary 1 with very different levels of literacy skills in English. The programme provides additional support to pupils in P1 and P2 who do not have the pre-requisite English Language and literacy skills to access the curriculum. Pupils in the LSP are identified through a screening test administered to all P1 pupils at the beginning of the school year. Each year, about 12% to 14% of P1 pupils, or some 7,000 pupils, are supported in the LSP. The effectiveness of the programme is measured through gains in children's reading levels and performance in school-based assessments. P1 LSP pupils start school reading at levels equivalent to children of less than 5 years of age, on average. After about 10 months of intervention in the LSP, the average reading age of LSP pupils is 7 years, reflecting a reading gain of 28 months. They are thus comparable with the P1 cohort in terms of their reading levels. Improvements in reading have helped the pupils do better in their English tests. For example, in 2001, less than half (45%) of P1 LSP pupils passed English at the mid-year Semestral Assessment (SA1). By SA2 in November, the pass rate was 64.9%. The duration of the Learning Support Programme is 2 years. At the end of P2, a small proportion of LSP pupils (about 15% of those originally identified at P1) continue to have difficulties in the English Language. Schools will determine the most appropriate mode of support for these pupils after the 2 years in the LSP programme. These pupils are put through customised remediation programmes conducted by the school, or the ENABLE (ENcouraging Achievement and Better LEarning), a specialised intervention programme in English and Mathematics for pupils who are underachieving.

asked the Minister for Transport whether he will consider making it compulsory for taxi companies to install security devices in their taxis to give protection to taxi drivers.

In Singapore, taxis are privately operated. There are 4 taxi companies. The safety of taxi drivers is a key concern of the taxi companies. They have been working closely with the Police on crime prevention on board taxis. Among other measures, the companies have installed security systems in taxis. One such system has distress alarms in the taxis. The alarms are linked to a vehicle location system that uses the satellite Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to track down the location of any taxi in distress. Once an alarm is triggered, the Police will be notified immediately. The taxi companies will continue to work with the Police and their drivers to prevent crimes in taxis. Hardware installations are only part of the answer. Very often, simple preventive measures like educating the taxi drivers on some dos and don'ts are more effective. The taxi companies and the Police have jointly published a handbook providing tips on prevention of crimes against taxi drivers. The taxi companies and their drivers have the greatest interest in this issue and are competent in responding to it. There is no need for the Government to intervene.

asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent accident at Tanjong Katong Road, if he will consider displaying speed limit signs, for example, 40 km/h, on roads near schools instead of the current practice of displaying the 'school zone' signs so as to remind vehicles to slow down.

I agree with Mdm Phua that there should be traffic signs to remind motorists to slow down when driving within a school zone. Indeed, as a rule, LTA will put up prominent "School Zone" and/or "Slow Down" traffic signs on all roads in the vicinity of schools. These signs warn motorists that they are entering a school zone and should slow down and be alert, especially during the school peak hours. The unfortunate accident referred to by Mdm Phua took place at around 1 pm, along Tanjong Katong Road, just outside the former Ngee Ann Primary School, next to Geylang Methodist Primary School. Along that stretch of the road, there are several "School Zone" and "Slow Down" signs. Tanjong Katong Road has a speed limit of 50 km/h. But where it enters the school zone, motorists are expected to slow down to below 50 km/h and be ready to make sudden stops, if necessary. That is the purpose of the school zone sign. School zone signs are preferred because they carry a fuller meaning than what a 40 or 50 km/h speed limit sign can convey. The unfortunate accident at Tanjong Katong Road and a recent one at Ang Mo Kio Ave 6/Ave 9 junction are sober reminders to all motorists to be mindful at all times, especially when they approach a school zone or a traffic junction. Road accidents can be prevented, but that requires all motorists and road-users to play their part.

asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of distress calls received in a year by operators manning its toll-free telephone line to assist domestic workers; (b) what training is given to these operators; (c) whether these operators can speak different languages; (d) what are the follow-up support services given to the domestic workers; and (e) how many domestic workers have been helped through this service in a year.

The Labour Relations Department of my Ministry set up a foreign domestic worker hotline in 1997. This is to enable domestic helpers to call in to seek help and advice on issues relating to their employment in Singapore. The availability of this service was conveyed to all foreign domestic workers in a letter detailing how they could contact the Ministry if they need help. The service has been well used by the domestic workers of different nationalities. On average some 600 calls by foreign domestic workers are answered a year. Officers who are deployed to man the help-line have several years of experience handling employment disputes. They can speak at least 3 languages - English, Tamil and Malay. When calls lead to follow-up conciliation meetings, my Ministry will engage interpreters if necessary to ensure that the foreign nationals are not misunderstood. Generally foreign domestic workers seek the advice on salary-related problems, general work environment and issues such as whether the foreign domestic workers are entitled to a gratuity after working in Singapore for several years. If the advice is over salary payment, the help line officers will record the complaint and arrange a conciliation meeting with the employer to seek a resolution of the dispute with her employer. In regard to complaints of physical abuses, the MOM officer will record the details and refer to the appropriate authority for investigation.

asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the criteria used by the National University of Singapore to admit top student applicants into the medical faculty; (b) what is the composition (by profession and gender) of members of the interviewing board; (c) what criteria are used to match top students with the various disciplines under the initiative to spread Singapore's top talents among various disciplines; and (d) what is the extent an individual student's preference for a discipline is taken into account in this matching process.

Students who wish to apply for the medical degree programme at NUS must meet its basic admission criteria for university studies. From AY2003 onwards, the university admission criteria for students will comprise both their SAT I scores and their GCE `A' level results. In addition, these students have to attend an interview to assess their aptitude and suitability to be a doctor. The interview team comprises a representative each from the Faculty of Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry and the Ministry of Health. The members of the interview teams are either medical doctors or dentists by profession. These members are appointed on the basis of their professional experience and expertise, and not by gender. As for the spreading of top talents among various disciplines, there is a cap on the number of top students admitted into Medicine. The basis for this policy is that Singapore also needs good minds to be trained in other disciplines. Top students who could not get a place in Medicine will be given a place in another faculty in their list of preference stated in their application. They will be admitted based on merit if they meet all the additional requirements of the faculty, if any, over and above the basic university admission criteria. Chart - Proportion opted out within each monthly income group (as at 30 Sep 02) (Cols. 1661-1662) Chart - Proportion opted out within each age band (Cols. 1663-1664)