Hansard, 2004-03-18

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: Name From (2004) To (2004) Mr Ong Kian Min 23 Mar 27 Mar Mr Yeo Guat Kwang 24 Mar 27 Mar Mr Heng Chee How 30 Mar 30 Mar Dr Ng Eng Hen 31 Mar 31 Mar Mr Gan Kim Yong 06 Apr 07 Apr

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

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

Head K - Ministry of Education (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [17th March, 2004],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Dr Wang Kai Yuen].

Question again proposed.

Sir, I will continue with my reply to Mdm Halimah in Malay.

(In Malay): Sir, yesterday, I explained to Mdm Halimah that the Ministry of Education has carried out a number of measures to ensure that students who are taught the standardised pronunciation be given the appropriate guidance. And I have also explained why it is important for the small Malay community to have a similar policy on standardisation and pronunciation of the Malay language for the society as well as schools. I would like to elaborate on my answer.

I have said that for the small Malay community in Singapore, it is better for us to have a standardised language policy that is similar for schools and the general public that could guide on the use of the Malay language headed by the Malay Language Council of Singapore. If MOE drops the use of standardised pronunciation in schools, there will be no uniformity between the spoken language used in schools and in public at formal occasions. This will not be in line with the objective of the Malay Language Council of Singapore which is supported by the Ministry of Education. The aim of the MLCS in implementing the standardised pronunciation is for Singapore to share its identity in its cultural and language context with the neighbouring

countries in the region that are using the Malay language.

The implementation of the standardised pronunciation is not to replace the existing Johore-Riau pronunciation. Historically, due to Singapore's proximity to Johore and Riau, the Malays in Singapore have been using the Johore-Riau pronunciation in their formal and informal communication. Although the bazaar-form of Malay Johore-Riau pronunciation is still being used widely in everyday interaction and in informal situation, the use of standardised pronunciation is encouraged in formal occasions, such as in education, teaching and learning in classrooms, in speeches, at seminars, forums, formal meetings, interviews, competitions such as debates, and so on.

One major difference between Singapore and its neighbouring countries in the use of standardised pronunciation is the existence of a number of dialects in these countries. In Indonesia, for instance, there are more than 250 dialects which at certain levels can result in linguistic interference which impedes a student from acquiring the standardised pronunciation needed. Standardised pronunciation in Indonesia is much influenced by dialects and the Javanese vocabulary. Due to this, we did not choose Indonesia as our guide, although Indonesia has been using its form of standardised pronunciation since 1928.

As for Brunei Darussalam, standardised pronunciation has been used within their society which applies the Brunei dialect and vocabulary. However, their students are able to speak in sebutan baku effectively in formal occasions, such as in the Titian Minda debate which involves Singapore and Brunei pre-university students.

In the case of Malaysia, sebutan baku was implemented since 1988. According

to the Education Department of Malaysia, sebutan baku is still being used in Malaysian schools. However, its usage has been confined to the teaching and learning of Malay language.

Like the other communities in Singapore, there are now more Malay families who speak English at home. The percentage has increased from 6.1% of households in 1990 to 7.9% in the year 2000. This trend is expected to grow in the future. The use of sebutan baku that has a consistent association between script and sound will facilitate the learning of the language for our students who are less exposed to the Malay language at home, including non-Malays who offer Malay language in schools.

So it is clear that sebutan baku is more systematic and logical than the Johore-Riau pronunciation. It is also easier for the students to learn the Malay language using sebutan baku. The Ministry will continue to teach in and encourage the use of sebutan baku in schools.

Education Standards

Sir, the Ministry plans to increase the intake of polytechnic and university students. Such expansion allows opportunities in tertiary education for more of our students. This is a good thing. However, such expansion can affect the quality of education and educational standards. This can occur in many areas, for example, content and instruction delivery, teachers' training and testing.

Experience in the UK and elsewhere saw inflation of grades and the lowering of the quality of graduates. May I therefore ask the Minister if he has such concerns and, if so, what does the Ministry plan to do in order to avoid or minimise these negative aspects of expansion in student intakes?

School Session

Sir, Singapore has an excellent education system that is looked upon with envy. However, we can still improve further on our education system. I understand that all the secondary schools are now single sessions. I am keen to know what is the progress of single session for primary schools. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update. And I would like to know also whether the Ministry intends to make all primary school classes single session.

Sir, single session for primary schools has many spinoffs. One of them is that we can actually change the starting hour to later than it is now. Because of the two sessions that are currently still going on in many schools, primary schools here start at a very unhealthy hour of 7.30 am. I understand that some schools even start their assemblies at 7.15 am. On a normal school day, tens of thousands of students wake up before 6.00 am to make it to school. I am sure they do not really enjoy this type of morning routine. For many a family, actually the whole family wakes up before 6.00 am and then they have to rush to prepare the kids for school. This routine repeats itself in the evening. Thereafter, the parents are expected to have the energy and the time to spend with their children and, maybe, even make more babies for Singapore! I think we can do something about it.

Therefore, I urge the Ministry to change the starting hour of our school sessions, maybe to 8.30 am. This is surely doable, with more schools becoming single session. I know of a Singaporean, Mr Rajindran Ramasamy, who is a professional working with Reuters in London. He will strongly vouch for schools which start their session late. He lives with his wife and three children. The later starting hour in the school in

London has allowed him to spend quality time with his children in the morning, have sufficient time to send them to school without having to rush and then get to work. Similarly, the kids have time to recover from a day full of activities and spend quality time with their families. This is a pro-family practice that we can adopt easily while not affecting the quality of education received by our children.

May I take my next cut, Sir?

Yes.

Class Size

Sir, the Minister mentioned to us in the last Budget that his Ministry was introducing smaller class size for Primary 1 and Primary 2 cohorts. I would like to ask the Minister for an update on this policy decision, and also how prepared we are for this. It is a dilemma when we ask for a smaller class size. But with a smaller teacher-to-student ratio, actually we require more teachers to do a good job. This should not compromise on the quality of the teachers while reducing the class size. So I would like the Minister to give us an update on the progress of the recruitment of teachers and whether he could assure us that standards will not be compromised. With all the benefits of smaller class sizes, will the Ministry also be considering extending this smaller teacher-to-student ratio to higher primary as well as secondary schools?

Sir, from the time I came into this Chamber, I have been advocating smaller class sizes, and the Ministry's response has been the limited resources, especially in terms of quality teachers. Then I was suggesting incremental steps, and was very heartened last year when the

announcement was made to introduce smaller class sizes, at least at the P1 and P2 levels. But the catch was that it is going to be left to individual schools to decide, based on their own resource constraints. In other words, they would have to adjust their scheduling, maybe have P1 and P2 in the afternoon session, and then P3 to P6 in the morning, and have no change therefore in the overall resource allocation but juggling it within what they already have.

I have a few questions that I would like the Minister to respond to. The first is: how many schools have actually adopted smaller class sizes for P1 and P2? Although this has been made available as a policy statement, I would like to know what is the experience on the ground. The reason I ask this in particular is because, for the more popular primary schools, there is the tension that, without additional resources, they cannot maintain their enrolment and still have smaller class sizes. There is a tradeoff between the two. So, if they adopt smaller class sizes, they may end up actually denying their old boys, old girls, alumni school community, additional places at P1 for registration purposes.

I would like to know what is the adoption rate and what the feedback has been, in terms of any problems and pedadogic-related issues, and whether the Ministry has specific plans to enhance the resources available so that the adoption of these smaller class sizes, at least at the initial stage at P1 and P2 levels, can be more widespread.

Teachers

Sir, these should be exciting times for teachers, as many changes have been made to the education system which should give teachers more flexibility in their teaching methodologies, assessment models and, even some say, in student

intake. A recent survey found that new graduate teachers from NIE maintain their poll position as top earners among 4,000 graduates from NTU, beating even the engineering, accountancy and business graduates. The Ministry's recent announcement to allow teachers to go on attachment with businesses, community organisations and even overseas schools shows MOE's commitment to help teachers gain valuable experience outside the classroom which they can share with their students.

While the intention of this scheme is commendable, one wonders how many teachers can really benefit from this scheme, as feedback is that teacher workload remains heavy. Teachers with children, for instance, may not be willing to give up spending whatever time they have during the holidays with their children to go on industrial attachment.

Sir, teaching used to be synonymous with a family-friendly career, as teachers used to work half a day and can spend the rest of the day with their family. However, over the years, in our quest for high quality education, which is a good thing by itself, teacher workload appears to have increased inordinately. I understand that a secondary school teacher, besides teaching from 7.30 am to 2.00 pm, carries a host of other duties, such as CCA, student contact time, counselling sessions, remedial classes, committee meetings, marking, setting tests and examinations, and other administrative work after school. Further, there are also the compulsory training hours that teachers have to clock. Hence, teachers nowadays work very long hours, shouldering both teaching as well as other loads.

11.15 am

Anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant number of teachers are single. With such a heavy workload, one

wonders how they can find time to socialise and find their soulmates. The many recent changes implemented in the education system will no doubt add to this workload. According to Mrs Carmee Lim, Executive Director of the Academy of Principals, teachers are so hard-pressed for time, they have no time to even read the newspapers. They are so caught up in their own little box, any opportunity to help them get out of this state is good. I would, therefore, like to urge the Ministry to undertake a thorough review of teacher workload to determine if the teachers can cope, and also if their workload can be reduced by devolving as much non-teaching duties as possible, such as CCA, counselling responsibilities, etc, from the teachers. This is to ensure that good teachers are retained and their quality of teaching does not suffer from stress due to work overload.

Sir, I join Dr Amy Khor to ask the Ministry to take a look at what the teachers are doing in school. Stress the teachers face - a topic that has been raised many times over, and I am sure the Ministry has taken serious actions on it. But it appears to be a problem that refuses to quietly lie down and die. It continues to cause anguish. Some teachers said that they and their colleagues continue to see their doctors for problems related to stress. I would, therefore, like to request the Minister for an update on the situation and what further steps will be taken to reduce the problem and help teachers cope with stress.

Sir, teaching has changed so much over the last 30 years since Singapore embarked on its education strategy. In the past, our focus was simply on literacy and employment. Teaching in schools was at the basic level, so that our people are able to read, write well and find a good job. It is a lot different now, especially with the slew of further changes announced

yesterday. While the focus still remains on literacy and employment continues to be important, there are also so many other things that have become equally critical, eg, the nurturing of creativity, the importance of National Education, the focus on multi-disciplinary learning, the drive for arts and sports, the dynamics of entrepreneurism, and the need for diversified programmes. Such are the demands of this global environment in which Singapore participates.

What do all these changes translate into where teachers are concerned? It means that we need to have a very different batch of teachers than those of earlier years. Our teachers are now expected to have a global perspective while retaining a local flavour. Our teachers not only teach the students but, increasingly, have to deal with parents as customers of the school. Our teachers must complete the syllabus on time and on budget as set by the Ministry, and also imbue in the ear experiential learning and creative delivery. Our teachers must build relationships with those that they teach and also build passion for the school in which they teach in. All these sound extremely exciting, but they add on to the stress and burden of our teachers, which could affect the attractiveness of this very noble profession. I understand that some have difficulties catching up with the changes that are taking place.

I would like to ask the Minister how are we developing our teachers for this exciting and yet exhausting future. In what ways has NIE improved its basic orientation training programme, the one-year beginner teacher course, to prepare our teachers? How has the programme included the new important aspects of a teacher's life over and above just teaching well in class? Has the school helped in the continuous development of our teachers after they have been posted to

the school? How are our teachers learning to do new things like customer relationships?

Sir, I also understand that a new scheme called Enhanced Performance Management System was introduced in 2003 to assess teachers. Can the Minister enlighten the House as to how teachers are assessed and evaluated for greater effectiveness in their skills in relating to students and parents? How will this scheme also award teachers for embracing a more socially-inclined lifestyle that will help to promote our procreation policy?

Quality Teaching Force

Sir, teachers play a critical role in our education system, so the MOE strives to ensure that our teachers not only have the textbook knowledge to teach students a particular subject but have actual life experience to make their teaching much more relevant to real life needs. The new MOE scheme would allow teachers to go outside the classroom and into the business sector, community organisations and even schools overseas to gain experience outside the classrooms, so that they can return with skills to share. However, the feedback that I have received is that while there is a policy in terms of implementation, there is not much progress, as principals, who will ultimately have to decide whether or not to release a teacher, are concerned with completing the syllabus in time and fear disruption to the classes.

Sir, we have 26,000 teachers and this scheme was announced last year. My question to the Minister is: how many percent of these 26,000 teachers have indeed gone on corporate attachments? How does the Ministry propose to address the concerns of principals who have genuine issues and concerns about how the scheme would affect teaching

schedules in the schools? Can the MOE make the scheme really meaningful in terms of providing additional support to schools if teachers have to be taken out from their lessons, so that there will be minimal disruption to the classes?

Professional Ethics of Teachers

Sir, in line with my parliamentary colleagues' desire to help the teaching profession, I would like to turn to the question of professional standards of our teachers.

Lately, there have been a few court cases of teachers who had sexual liaisons with their students. Apart from criminal sanctions against errant teachers, what is the Ministry doing to instill a professional and ethical code of conduct amongst its education officers and to impose professional sanctions, eg, suspension from practising their vocation for a period of time or even be barred from teaching altogether? We find that in many other established professions, there are such sanctions. I would be glad if the Ministry could explain what are its policies and procedures in this regard.

Co-curricular Activities

Sir, I am pleased that the Ministry is putting more emphasis on a well-rounded education which goes beyond academic performance. It has begun none too soon to put more weight on other non-academic areas, such as CCA in sports. Schools have been given awards for their sporting achievements. However, only selected students and not all who wish to join are able to participate in a sports CCA. This could be for a variety of reasons, including inadequate facilities, and perhaps the schools' desire to excel in their chosen sports, so that only the exceptional students with the highest

chance of excelling are allowed to participate.

Sir, I would like to urge the Ministry to encourage schools to work together with grassroots organisations and parents to allow more students to participate in at least one sport on a regular basis. For instance, little leagues for football, netball, basketball, etc, could be formed, and parents and grassroots organisations could be roped in to help get these sports going for every child who wishes to participate, regardless of his or her aptitude. Sports inculcate in our students teamwork, mental strength, physical toughness, endurance and leadership skills, and help to develop our children into well-balanced healthy individuals. It would also help to reduce many children's tendency to become couch potatoes, sitting in front of the TV or computer for hours.

Sir, during the cut on Sports For All, which you, for overrun of time, cut me short, I would now like to highlight a story of how Norway was successful in the World Cup. The article in the Straits Times in February 2004, headlined "World Cup: How Norway did it", the President of the Norwegian Football Association was reported to have said: "We have to get the basics right first to give the Norwegian children opportunities to play football. The NFF created clubs in every neighbourhood for children to join from the age of six." The emphasis is on the opportunity to play.

I will again quote the Straits Times' article on the interview with the Minister himself, his background and the importance of play and teamwork that had shaped him: "I think a lot of what I am was actually shaped in my school days. I spent my time playing sports almost every day of the year, sometimes two sports in a day, and often until it was too dark to see the ball. You learn to take

knocks, to go in for the tackle, to live with your scars. You rely on your team mates. You lead, you win and lose as a team. There was great camaraderie." His thoughts on 2nd September 2003 at the opening of the CCA conference were: "CCA has been changed from ECA in 1991 to give emphasis that co-curricular activities are an integral part of education, not an add-on or option. If CCA has been important in the past, it will be more important in the future. This is because some of the key traits that our young need to succeed in a more complex and frequently changing future will be cultivated most effectively by engaging them in CCA, in teams, as well as in individual pursuits."

From these quotes, clearly, CCA is important and it is an integral part of our education system. May I then ask the Minister: if CCA is important and should be emphasised in our schools, why do our principals keep telling the students and parents that there are insufficient resources for the children to take part in CCA? How many schools allow their students to participate in CCA without any selection process, and why is there a need for a selection process just for play or learn to play? Is the Ministry not putting in enough resources on the ground? And most of the students are directed to be librarians, with least of the resources needed? The guidelines and awards given to schools for CCA excellence are in contradiction to the policies of CCA for mass participation and allowing as many children the joy of learning as a team in CCA and sports. Will the Ministry review the guidelines and policies of the award of CCA excellence in schools?

Sir, it has come to my knowledge that some schools have removed certain extra-curricular activities (CCAs) because they feel that with the current talent in the

school, winning in competitions may not be possible. If indeed this is true, I am appalled at the message that we are sending the children, ie, "If you cannot excel in sports and be victorious, then let us forget about it." Is that the correct attitude to adopt? Is that a good example to set?

Under the prevailing social climate, let me assure you that we will not regret imbuing our children with the sporting ethos of fair play and equality under the laws of the game, rather than simply preparing them to survive and prosper in the law of the jungle conditions which currently prevails. In addition to that, some schools actually view sports through coloured lenses by associating some types of sports with certain character traits, for example, dropping football or soccer as a choice, with the reason that it may bring negative influence. This is very sad and should not be happening in our schools. I must declare my interest at this juncture as the Vice-Chairman of the Football Association of Singapore, as I know that several schools have scrapped soccer in their CCAs for one reason or another. Soccer is one of the few sports that has a very wide following and is a very good vehicle for bonding, promoting team spirit and for character development.

Sir, the school is one place where the children can acquire not only knowledge but also the opportunity to develop their potential to the fullest, and to mould their individual character and know their strengths and weaknesses. Apart from classroom lessons, interest groups, clubs, uniformed groups, the sports field and the other places like the gymnasium, the tennis, badminton or squash courts as well as the swimming pools are places where they also learn and develop their character. This is a very important part of education. We must have both because, at the end of the school years, we want to give our children a holistic education.

Nevertheless, there must be a balance in CCA and classroom work. Parents are also worried that some schools put so much emphasis on CCAs that their children hardly have time for their studies. In this respect, may I ask the Minister what are the guidelines for schools on CCAs? What is the balance recommended between studies and CCA hours? Do principals alone decide what sports are to be included or excluded from CCAs? How does MOE monitor the CCA curriculum at the schools? Can MOE assist in making some of the sports facilities more accessible to the community so that more opportunities are open to the young living near the schools?

11.30 am

Hobbies and Interests

Sir, I am pleased that the Ministry is finally going to improve the school ranking scheme to take into account character building and CCAs. However, the current scheme of activities open to school children does fall into the predictable list, to name a few, eg, football, rugby, hockey, softball, or the co-curricular activities such as drama, public speaking, uniformed units, librarianship, IT clubs. If we wish to nurture the varied interests of our children,

be it in the areas of stamp collecting, movie discussion groups, book clubs, saving the endangered species of animal groups, etc, we also need to create the environment around them. Children do care about the many things that happen around them and in the world, but we, as parents and teachers, sometimes give them a prescribed list of activities, be they ballet, piano or art classes, thus robbing them sometimes of their own interests. I feel that such interests can be further nurtured, harnessed, honed or dropped, if the child's interest wanes. We do not need to stay with an activity in a predictable

manner from one year to another. As such, when we give schools autonomy, it is my hope that teachers can expand the range of activities around the pupils, become facilitators in this process, and also negotiate for these activities to be recognised under the CCA scheme. Schools and the Ministry need to be more flexible on the descriptors currently used for CCAs.

Let me share some of the activities that students in the United World College here enjoy, eg, tenpin bowling, freebies, books on tape, rainforest club, card games club, stage lighting club, stage design club, jewellery and accessory creation club, cartoons club, jazz club, recreational hockey, etc. It is exciting. A look at nurturing an interest in a child means a lifetime interest into adulthood and retirement. A look at the magazine rack at any bookshop in UK or the States reveals an amazing maze of activities. There is almost a magazine for every hobby, some as obscure as train-spotting, that one has to flip through to know what the obsession is. The point I am making here is that we all need great passion and interest to take us through into our old age. It is my hope that, as school is a place of learning, a place for imagination, the scope for CCAs will be broadened and we will find the facilitators using Edusave money to conduct and facilitate such activities.

Character Building

Sir, as we endeavour to build a strong society, we must start by building a strong character in each individual. What better place to start than in the schools?

I am glad that the Ministry of Education has included character building as one of its core focuses and one of the factors in school ranking. However, recent incidents in schools are of concern to us.

They involved students committing suicide because of results, and the most recent case is one that involved a student that committed suicide when his affair with a schoolmate was discovered.

These events prompt us to ask whether we have been doing the right thing and, if so, why do some of our students yield so easily under pressure and stress. I would like to make a few suggestions.

Firstly, I think we should review the method adopted by our schools in teaching character building. We should evaluate whether they have been effective, whether there are better ways to deal with character building.

Secondly, teachers should be trained and equipped to deliver lessons on character building effectively. This is not an easy subject to teach as it has no textbooks.

Thirdly, we should introduce a monitoring system to determine whether we are making progress in strengthening the character of our children. This is not an examination subject, and the risk is that schools may pay less attention to it.

Sir, it is critical that we strengthen the character of our next generation. Singapore will most definitely face greater challenges in time to come. I do not worry about future challenges, as we have been through many. But I am more worried that our young people do not have the determination and the resolve to deal with these challenges when they come. I am worried that, instead of staying to fight, they may flee at the first sign of trouble.

Sir, our education system must not only impart to our children the necessary knowledge and skills but also strengthen their character and prepare them for the

challenges ahead, so that they will not buckle under pressure but, instead, they will rise to the occasion.

Streaming in Schools

Sir, several Members have spoken on the subject of streaming in primary and secondary schools. Let me first address the more general observations that Members have made before informing the House of specific refinements that MOE will be making in primary school streaming and in the Normal course in secondary schools.

Streaming has done us well, and it remains an educationally sound policy. It recognises that different students have different abilities, different types of intelligence and different ways of learning. It seeks to provide them with the curriculum and teaching methods that help them develop and sustain an interest in their studies. It helps every student to go as far as he can.

Some Members - Dr Lily Neo, Mdm Cynthia Phua and some others - have said that streaming results in stress and a loss of confidence. It is not an irrelevant concern. I do not doubt that there is some loss of confidence when a student is differentiated from his peers and advised to take a less challenging or more extended course of study. No one likes being told that. It is a human reaction. But the issue is less simple than that. Is the student more stressed by being channelled into an academically slower course or by staying on in a course that he is unable to cope with, taking exercises home that he is unable to complete, having questions asked in class that he is unable to answer and, finally, being unable to pass his examinations? I think we know the answer.

The fact of the matter is that confidence or self-esteem is much more a question of how well students do and how far they eventually go, than on whether they get to do the same thing as everyone else at the same time. Outcomes matter. And we are determined to help every student achieve the best outcomes he can - in school, when he leaves school and goes on to a post-secondary institution, or when he joins a workplace and has to count on his skills to earn a living. That is our best chance of giving every Singaporean a confident start in life.

MOE is fully aware that many other systems do not stream students or stream them later than we do. It comes at great cost, ie, high drop-out rates, sometimes disguised by compulsory education up to the junior secondary years. And the academically faster students being held back, unchallenged and bored with their studies. Dr Tan Boon Wan just mentioned the issue of standards having fallen in British universities as a result of a rapid expansion. It is not just because of the rapid expansion in the university intake. It is also because of many years of experimentation with egalitarian policies in schools, leading to a lowering of standards so that as many students as possible can pass and obtain the same qualification. So much so that universities are now requiring first-year students to take remedial classes, including students who have "A" grades in the UK 'A' levels.

The British recently released a report by Mike Tomlinson, former Chief Inspector of Schools, which proposes an overhaul of the British GCSE and 'A' level systems. As he put it, too many young people leave learning or fail to progress. And too many are left unchallenged and constrained by the curriculum they are offered. It is not a very different picture, as Members would know, from what we had in Singapore before streaming was introduced.

So, let us stick to a system that is focused on achieving strong outcomes for all. The most unambiguous result of streaming is that we have helped our weaker students go much further. We are doing our EM3 students well. About 90% of primary 6 EM3 students proceed to a secondary education. 70% of them complete a secondary education. More than 50% of each EM3 cohort proceeds on to a post-secondary education at the ITE. I know of no other system which has had as much success in ensuring that students at the weakest end of the academic spectrum stay on in education, go on to a post-secondary institution and acquire real skills which they take into the workforce.

As several Members have asked - Dr Wang, Dr Lily Neo, Mr Chiam See Tong, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Dr Ong Seh Ong - are we streaming too early in primary schools? I ask principals and teachers that from time to time. They are kind-hearted souls by nature, like most MPs. They do not like to conclude that the student is unable to cope with his studies and needs a different course. So I can tell the House that I believe teachers when they tell me that we would be doing most of our EM3 students a disservice if we keep them in the regular curriculum in Primary 5 and Primary 6. These are students who lag significantly behind the rest of the cohort, despite remedial teaching.

If each of us thinks back to our own primary school days, we would have known pupils who were with us who were very weak in class. In our time, there was no streaming. My own best friend in my early primary years repeated a year twice. He finally dropped out before reaching the PSLE. We did not have a slower course of study then, so those who could not understand their lessons and tests would repeat a year and, if they still could not cope, they dropped out. It was a bad solution to the

problem then, and will be a bad solution now.

I should add that the EM3 cohort is not a large group. 12% of students are recommended by the schools to enter EM3 after Primary 4. Because many of their parents choose to put them in EM2, the final number in EM3 is 7%.

The students are by and large happy in EM3. They feel they are able to follow their studies, and have something to show. But parents often do not like the fact that the school has recommended their child to be in EM3, and that is the bigger part of the problem to be overcome. However, parents do come round when they see how their child benefits. I asked for feedback from parents of EM3 students. A sampling may give Members a sense of what EM3 really does. One parent said he was disappointed when he was told that his daughter had to go to EM3. He said he "lost face". But he recognised that his daughter was weak, and said he could tell that she was happier, because the work was simpler and she was coping well. A second parent said all his relatives had been advising him to put his son in EM2 instead of accepting the school's recommendation. But now that the boy is struggling to pass his EM3 subjects, he feels that his son is much better off in the stream. A third parent said that although her daughter had managed to clear her Primary 5 examinations in EM2 and could remain in EM2, she had opted for her child to go to EM3, because the child was too stressed with having to cope with EM2 subjects. In EM3 this year, she is happier. She has done very well in her Continual Assessment 1 (CA1), and has gained confidence. These are not unique accounts, and they are telling accounts.

What our schools try to do is to encourage intermingling of students from

different streams, so that they build friendships outside classrooms. CCAs provide avenues for this. Students in the same CCA support each other in common endeavours, they learn to work with each other and appreciate each other's strengths in different areas. This is something our schools will continue to encourage. And they will seek out more opportunities for interaction between students in different streams, by looking into different ways of organising school activities or PE, as Mr Inderjit Singh suggested yesterday.

We will also ensure that the system is flexible enough, so that students can go as far as they can in their specific areas of strength. Where a student shows good progress overall and is able to transfer to a faster stream, we will let him do so. We do so each year, especially after Secondary 1. Where a student is capable of taking one or two subjects at a higher level, we will let him do so. This applies to EM3 students as well as our Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) students, which I will elaborate on briefly in a short while.

At the primary level, as part of the easing of rules governing Mother Tongue learning, MOE had announced earlier this year that we will allow EM3 students to offer MTL, instead of Basic Mother Tongue, which is the norm for EM3 students, if they obtain Band 2 or better in the subject in their Primary 4 examinations. We will consider whether there are educational merits to extending this to any other subject, for example, to let an EM3 student take Mathematics at the EM2 level, if he has strength in the subject. This is what was suggested by Mr Inderjit Singh and a couple of other MPs. It would complicate timetabling arrangements, but we will be quite open to letting any school pilot this, if it sees EM3 students with these abilities and is able to make practical arrangements.

11.45 am

Merging EM1 and EM2

Dr Khor and Mr Gan Kim Yong suggested mixing EM1 and EM2 classes, since EM1 students only offer one subject, HMTL, that is different. MOE has been reviewing this, following the recent easing of requirements for students to take HMTL. There is an overlap in abilities of students taking EM1 and EM2. 20% of our Primary 5 students are in EM1. But almost half of the 20% are students who were first recommended by schools to take EM2, but whose parents chose EM1.

With the enhanced flexibility for students to take Higher Mother Tongue, there will now be an increasing overlap in abilities between EM1 and EM2 students.

MOE has, therefore, decided to remove the distinction between EM1 and EM2 in primary schools. Schools will decide on how to band their pupils, in ways that add the most educational value. They will be given the flexibility to organise the students in this broader programme according to their own criteria. I expect many schools may retain the present system of organising students according to their overall Primary 4 results. Some schools may decide to band students according to their language strengths - English Language and Mother Tongue respectively - for special attention. The arrangements will vary depending on the type of students in a school and how widely their abilities vary. How the students should be banded should be best left to the schools.

We are able to combine EM1 and EM2 because they follow essentially the same course of study, leading to the PSLE, within the same span of time. There will be no change at the primary level to the Gifted Education Programme, which provides a different curriculum and teaching methods for exceptionally bright

students - an enriched curriculum. EM3 will also remain a distinct course, focusing on foundational knowledge, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier. Our weakest students benefit from being taught separately, using a different curriculum, different classroom management techniques and different teaching approach.

Flexibility in Primary 4 Examinations

We have also reviewed the current arrangements for the Primary 4 examinations, which currently serve as a streaming examination. With the merging of EM1 and EM2, we will give schools greater discretion in how they assess their pupils in P4.

Schools currently recommend a student's stream in Primary 5 based on a student's semestral assessments and an end-of-year examination at Primary 4. Schools select questions from a national item bank that is maintained by MOE, but they are responsible for marking and grading their own students. It is, in essence, already a school-based examination, but operating within a common MOE framework.

With the removal of the distinction between the EM1 and EM2 streams, we will give schools the flexibility to use their own assessments of students' performance in the course of semestral examinations, the end-of-year examinations or other assessments, to identify students who are capable of studying Higher Mother Tongue in Primary 5. They would do likewise in identifying students who should be recommended to take the EM3 course. The Primary 4 examinations would therefore be like any other end-of-year school examinations at any other level.

Schools can develop their own assessment items, or choose to select questions from the national item bank that MOE will maintain. They can also

schedule their examinations later in the year, instead of in October currently, along with the school-based examinations for other levels.

Schools will be given the flexibility to develop their own end-of-year Primary 4 examinations from this year. MOE will work with primary schools to ensure smooth implementation of these changes.

Normal Course

At the secondary level, we are also introducing greater flexibility across courses. As announced in 2002, from this year, Normal (Academic) students have been allowed to offer one or two 'O' level subjects at Secondary 4. Mdm Halimah asked about the progress of this initiative. For a start, Mother Tongue Language and Mathematics have been offered, as Normal (Academic) students are more likely to have done well in these subjects. Initial estimates from schools indicate that over 2,000 Normal (Academic) students have been assessed by the schools to have the ability and commitment to offer one or two 'O' levels, and are currently preparing to take the 'O' levels in Seccondary 4 this year. This is about 15% of the Secondary 4 Normal (Academic) cohort, not a small number.

Ms Braema had suggested yesterday a 3-year Normal (Academic) course. The Normal (Academic) course currently leads up to the 'N' level examinations at the end of four years. Students who are able to take the 'O' levels then spend an additional year, a total of five years. This '4+1' system has worked well. 25% of our Normal (Academic) students do not progress to Secondary 5. The 4-year course provides them a sound foundation for post-secondary education. Further, even amongst the 75% of Secondary 4N students who do progress to Secondary 5, a significant proportion needs the full

four years initially to cover the Normal curriculum. They will not be well served by a shorter Normal (Academic) course. Many of those who make it to Secondary 5, in fact, find the 'O' levels to be a major challenge, and do not do well enough in their 'O' levels to go on to pre-university or polytechnic. They are well-served by having gone through a 4-year Normal (Academic) course, which allows them to graduate with a useful 'N' level certificate that recognises what they achieved.

Dr Khor spoke about enhancing the Normal (Technical) course yesterday. MOE has been reviewing the Normal (Technical) course, which is now in its 11th year. It has worked well. The core subjects in the Normal (Technical) curriculum, comprising English, Basic Mother Tongue, Mathematics and CPA, provide a broad-based foundation that prepares students well for both technical and service-oriented courses at the post-secondary level. We are studying how to build on these fundamentals, and further customise the Normal (Technical) curriculum to meet the needs of students with a practical intelligence. This will require a reorientation of the syllabuses and teaching methods to focus more on practice-oriented learning. We are also studying how to introduce alternative assessment modes, such as individual and team coursework, instead of pen-and-paper tests alone.

This is a major curriculum review, and we will not rush to implement the changes to the Normal (Technical) syllabus. MOE will announce details of this review later.

We will, however, introduce some flexibility in the Normal (Technical) course to allow students to offer one or two Normal (Academic) subjects, if they have the ability to do so. This is similar to Normal (Academic) students being allowed to take one or two 'O' level subjects, similar to the Express classes,

within four years. Schools will extend this flexibility to the Normal (Technical) students in 2006. This will give the schools the time they need to prepare for the change, to make the necessary adjustments in the use of facilities and teachers and in scheduling. Schools that are ready to do so next year will however be able to proceed first.

Primary Education

Dr Ong Seh Hong and Mr Iswaran asked for an update on two major initiatives that we announced last year, in fact, at the Committee of Supply debate, at the primary school level - smaller class sizes at Primary 1 and Primary 2, and enabling Primary 3 to Primary 6 pupils to study in a single session environment. We have enough teachers to implement the smaller class sizes at P1 and P2, starting with the P1 cohort in 2005. All schools will be given additional teacher resources to support the smaller class initiative. In parallel, MOE is promoting more varied teaching methodologies to improve the learning experiences of Primary 1 and Primary 2 pupils and take the most advantage of smaller classes.

Twenty-four schools are currently involved in a project we call GAIN (Grade-Appropriate Instruction and Assessment), a project to help schools think through how they can strengthen pupils' learning in their foundation years. The schools are identifying localised issues, classroom issues, that need to be tackled and are coming up with strategies to better support early learning, particularly in the context of smaller classes that are going to come on stream.

Progress is also being made in implementing single session for Primary 3 to Primary 6, and we expect full roll-out within 10 years. Dr Ong Seh Hong had spoken of the possible benefits of single session and asked if we could implement it faster. With partial single session and

smaller P1 and P2 classes, schools will have a smaller capacity. Schools that currently operate close to full capacity will therefore have to adjust their Primary 1 intakes, to gradually bring their total enrolment down to single session levels. Where physical capacity and the demand for school places allow, schools will transit to partial single session as soon as possible. The Ministry estimates that more than 100 schools - in other words 60% of primary schools - can implement partial single session by year 2007. There are 12 Government-aided schools which are already operating full single session, from Primary 1 to Primary 6.

Members also raised broader questions of class size. Dr Ong had asked if we could extend small class sizes across the board. Ideally, we should have small classes across the board, every one of which taught by good teachers. But there is a real trade-off between quality and quantity of teachers when we try to implement smaller class sizes across the entire system. We can double the size of the teaching force so as to halve class sizes, but we can only do so by lowering the standards we require of our teachers. The choice is between, quite simply, having 40 students taught by a good teacher, and two classes of 20, one of which will be taught by a teacher who may not be fit to teach by today's standards.

Our approach is to recruit as many teachers as we can who meet our standards. We have not limited the numbers that we can recruit. Through EduPac, we have made a career in teaching more attractive and rewarding. We have been able to build up the size of our teaching force gradually over the last five years, from 23,500 in 1999 to 26,500 in 2003. However, it is unlikely that we can have a dramatic increase in the size of our teaching force without a significant lowering of quality. This will be particularly the case with the recovery

in the economy and the availability of more options for jobs for graduates from our universities in future.

Given these constraints, our position on deploying our teacher resources is to do so where the additional teachers can contribute most towards the learning of students. This is why we have focused our teacher resources to reduce class sizes at P1 and P2 in the first instance. That is where most research shows there is greatest benefit in having smaller classes. Another good example is the Learning Support Programme (LSP) where Primary 1 and 2 pupils with difficulties in basic literacy skills are taught in small group sizes of 8-12 pupils. It is a very teacher-intensive programme but we think it is necessary and it pays off. Using teacher resources in this targeted fashion is more effective than trying to reduce class sizes across the board.

Dr Tan Boon Wan and Dr Amy Khor expressed concern about the administrative workload and pressures faced by teachers. Our teachers work hard and have a strong sense of responsibility for their students. As with any profession in Singapore, there is a certain intensity on the job and, occasionally, a degree of stress involved. We are addressing this. At the macro level, we will continue to recruit more teachers so that each officer's teaching responsibilities will be manageable.

We will also continue to ensure that, more fundamentally, our teachers have the skills and experiences they need to do their job well and to do their job confidently. Mdm Ho asked what improvements we were making to develop our teachers. Our teachers enjoy opportunities for professional development throughout their careers. In fact, I dare say we have one of the strongest and

most comprehensive training and development opportunities for teachers anywhere in the world. The National Institute of Education has undergone a complete revamp in the last five years and has restructured its courses to ensure they remain relevant to the needs of MOE and the schools. NIE offers good quality teacher training that strikes the right balance of emphasis on values education, pedagogical approaches and content training. NIE lecturers manage their classes to allow for discussion and participation, so that trainee teachers can transfer these same practices that encourage creative and critical thinking to the classroom. NIE is constantly looking forward, identifying new challenges and seeing how it can prepare our teachers, current and future, for the new challenges.

NIE is undertaking a comprehensive review of its initial teacher training programmes. It intends to broaden the range of learning and development opportunities in these programmes. The curriculum will incorporate more experiential learning and more space for teachers to reflect on ideas, and experiment.

12.00 noon

After their period of formal training

at NIE, MOE provides various other development options for our Education Officers. Mdm Halimah asked about private sector attachments for our teachers. MOE started the Teacher Work Attachment programme during the November/December holidays last year. It is part of the broader range of options that we are providing under the Professional Development Leave Scheme. Instead of using the Professional Development Leave solely to pursue academic development, they can also use the Professional Development Leave Scheme for industrial attachments or for

working with the community. They may also work on projects which help to enrich the classroom experience.

The Teacher Work Attachment programme gives teachers the opportunity to step out of the school environment, broaden their experiences and gain fresh perspectives on education. And the teachers are keen on it. They are a forward-looking lot and keen on any exposure which helps them to develop. We started it small because we wanted to make sure that the first phase was a successful one, that their attachment was of a high quality and the teachers who came back would be able to share their experiences, and we would know how best to scale it up as we go along.

The pioneer group of 72 teachers in November and December last year were attached to 28 organisations for between one and four weeks. They included both the public and private sectors, for example, in banking and finance, e-learning, IT, law, media and communications, social enterprise, even the telecommunications industry, and tourism and hospitality industries. And the teachers who have gone on the Teacher Work Attachment programme have found the experience useful. Some have shared their lessons with their peers, not only in school but also at the cluster level. MOE is looking into how we can facilitate more of such attachments by building up linkages with the business chambers, with industries, and we have school alumni groups.

Much has also been done to help teachers at the school level. Schools have the flexibility and autonomy to buy support services to assist teachers in their administrative duties by tapping on their manpower grants and the school operating fund. Schools can also use the school operating fund to engage people with specialised skills, such as music instructors, to help with CCAs. Our

principals can decide on the resources and services that best meet the needs of their schools.

Principals themselves play a key role in supporting teachers in their work. Teachers are more likely to sustain their dedication and enthusiasm for the job if school leaders lend their hand, show appreciation and give them a voice in things that affect them directly. This is why the Ministry takes a development of school leaders very seriously. We run a six-month course for principals that is regarded as one of the best in the world. We take the principals through not just the education side of things but how to manage people and how to run an organisation for change. We attach them to companies in the private sector, we take them to visit schools overseas. They go back to their schools with a very different approach and attitude. We also provide opportunities for further professional development through the Academy of Principals and sabbaticals for principals.

Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang asked how MOE dealt with unethical teachers. The Ministry takes a very serious view on such issues. Teachers are entrusted with a special place in the lives of pupils who come under their care. They provide not just guidance in their students' studies but also serve as role models on how they should lead their lives. We will dismiss any teacher we find unsuitable for the profession.

Dr Wang, it is not your turn yet.

For clarification, Sir.

All right.

One of the key issues about streaming is labelling of the streams. In one clean decisive action, the

Minister has removed the most bothersome aspect of streaming but has left the labelling untouched. I would like to congratulate the Minister for the very bold action taken on streaming. May I ask, what is the effective date of this removal of streaming? Is it effective today? How about those students in P5 and P6 who have already been streamed into EM1 and EM2? Are we going to remove this labelling and streaming for them as well?

On the first issue of labelling, which is less important than the content structure of the courses and the way the classes are organised, it is something that we can look at. Like Mr Khaw Boon Wan, I did not do an MBBS. So this is not necessarily my strength. But we will consider whether there is a need to invent new names. But the name is really not an essential character of the stream. The EM3 stream, in particular, is a course of study that is very carefully customised to the abilities of our students. It was called the EM3 originally, because M3 referred to basic mother tongue and they started off taking English and Mathematics at the normal EM2 level. So EM was at the usual level and the mother tongue was at the third level. But we found soon after the scheme started that they were unable to cope in English and Mathematics as well and lowered the standard. So, effectively, EM3 has been a bit of a misnomer.

I am not sure how important it is for us to change the label. But we will be quite happy to get views on it and, if need be, find a new name. Essentially, the EM3 course is a course in foundational knowledge for students in primary schools, leading on to the Normal (Technical) course which reinforces this and provides for further knowledge and skills leading on to the ITE. So this

foundational programme is a very important one in our system.

On the second question, I may not have clarified it clearly enough. It is effective immediately - the merging of the EM1 and EM2 streams. But I do not expect schools to immediately rush to reorganise their classes. They are aware of the change. They have been briefed, and they have been consulted. Certainly, from next year, schools will be thinking hard about how best they want to band their pupils according to their abilities. If there are some schools that want to go ahead and make rearrangements this term, or next term, it is up to them. The students are already organised in classes. There might be some flexibility to reorganise them, but it is not something I am pushing for. I would rather let schools decide.

Sir, clarification from the Minister. I am glad to hear of the tough stand that the Ministry has taken in dismissing errant teachers. But my question is about professional ethics. To assure the public that we are actually having a group of professionals who are educators and not just employees of MOE, what are the measures that we have taken at the preventive level to inculcate and instill professional sense and professional conduct, quite apart from remedial action?

First, let me say that we do not have a big problem. The number of teachers who are involved in possibly unethical practices - I say, "possibly" because not all the cases have been concluded, but we know of some cases which we disapprove of in the strongest fashion - is small. It is a tiny percentage of the teaching force. There is an overwhelming ethos in the teaching profession, which is an ethos of uprightness and leadership in more than just studies for our students. It is an ethos which is still healthy and strong in

our schools. So I am not fundamentally worried by this. In any profession - accountants, lawyers, doctors - you will find a small number that have character faults and, sometimes, engage in completely unethical practices. In teaching, we take this more seriously than in most professions because teachers are in a position of leadership with the young people. So we take action quickly and firmly.

School Counsellors

Sir, in this fast changing world, parents and students alike are sometimes lost for directions. There are so many choices they have to make, in terms of the course to choose, the career to take up, and so on. It is very difficult because the choices they make now will impact on their future or their children's future. It is natural then that parents will turn to the schools for guidance and advice. After all, the schools should be the best place to seek such advice as they would have been producing batches after batches of students in various fields and they would have gotten feedback on whether or not their graduates would be able to seek the right career path.

Also, students who have growing up problems, be they coping with lessons, being confronted with bad influence such as pornography, or those with suicidal tendencies, can at least turn to counsellors for advice and guidance. My question to the Minister is: what efforts and resources are being committed to develop the manpower and the capabilities to help the schools play this role of counsellors to the parents and students? Are there experienced teachers who have been tapped to play this role as counsellors? And, also, are there trained counsellors out there whose services are made available to the schools?

Student Suicides

Sir, last August, the House discussed the issue of student suicides and I raise this question again today because what I see is very disturbing. Young people seem to have difficulty getting sufficient help to enable them to cope with the pressures of society or growing up with their studies.

Sir, in February this year, there was a case of a 15-year-old female student who was alleged to have stolen a handphone and shortly after she was questioned by the school, she fell from a block of flats. Over a week ago, another 15-year old boy jumped to his death after he was found by his teacher to have been dating another student. According to the press report, his form teacher phoned the parents requesting them to come to school for discussion on the matter. The boy had begged the teacher not to tell the parents, but this was refused and within a short while, the boy had jumped down from a block of flats.

Sir, the MOS has informed us that schools have systems to facilitate early identification and support for students who need help and to refer them for counselling. However, with these two cases that I have just mentioned, I feel that something must have gone amiss. I am not here to say what the causes were because I am sure these would be the subject of police investigations. But it does highlight the point that in difficult situations, there could be a system failure.

Sir, the majority of teachers are good first-line care givers for their students. But given the work stress that they themselves are faced with, some of them might not be in the best position to provide the type of help that is needed and a counselling session they conduct might just go awry.

Sir, the Health Sciences Authority in a study on unnatural death in children aged 12 years and below points out that this problem also exists with young children below the age of 12. Between 1997 and 2001, there were 23 cases of suicides of young people in this age group. And it says that this is a cause for concern as this is a phenomenon not seen 15 years ago.

Sir, home support, particularly from parents, is essential in providing that essential psychological and emotional ballast for students in coping with life and the accompanying skills. But in modern Singapore where parents have heavy work and career commitments, and where students spend the bulk of their time in their schools, close and warm interaction between teachers and students can be of great help.

Sir, it is not a problem that will just go away by saying that there are many causes and we do not know how to deal with it. We raised this issue last year. I think we need to handle this again. By now, the Ministry must come to certain conclusions about, at least, the more recent cases. I hope that the Ministry would now do a serious study and try to take a proactive approach in dealing with this issue.

Dr Maliki is not here. Mr Gan.

Delinquent Students

Sir, youth delinquency is a serious problem, although thankfully the number of incidents remains under control. The Ministry of Education plays a very important role in managing this problem, as most of the delinquent youths are students. I understand that the current practice is that schools will expel or suspend these

delinquent students if they are repeat offenders. It will take quite a while for these students to be accepted back to school and, in fact, a number of them have to go through a great deal of difficulties before they are re-admitted.

Sir, I do not believe that the school's intention is to get rid of the problem. There are probably good reasons for this practice. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to clarify the policy intent behind expelling or suspending delinquent students from schools. More specifically, I would like to ask the Ministry the following questions:

Firstly, are there any guidelines given to schools on suspending or expelling students? When a school decides to do so, do they have to consult the Ministry?

Secondly, is it not better to keep these students under the discipline of the school rather than to let them loose? There was a recent press report on a 14-year-old

school dropout engaging in the sex trade. I feel that it is far better for delinquent students to remain in school, so that the school can counsel and supervise them. They should only be suspended or expelled if their presence in school creates a nuisance or poses a risk to other students.

12.15 pm

Thirdly, what are the criteria for re-admission into the school system and should the students return to the same school or another school? I feel that they should be encouraged to return to school as soon as possible. I think their going back to the same school has the advantage in that the school will be able to better monitor them. However, it might also be better for the students to go to another school, so that they have a chance to turn over a new leaf. I hope the Minister can clarify these points.

Ms Irene Ng is not here. Mr Inderjit Singh.

Special Assistance Plan (SAP) Schools

Sir, my issue is on SAP schools. But before I talk about it, I wish we could give three cheers to the Minister for taking the bold move of changing the streaming system. Many of us have brought this issue up many times and we have been bruised by the aggressive rebuttals that we got from the Minister. But I think all those bruises have been all worth our while because, finally, we have made a very significant change in the education system that will serve us very well in the future and I would like to thank the Minister.

Get on with your speech, Mr Inderjit Singh.

Sir, I have a couple of issues to raise about the SAP schools, and both are directly related to the promotion of racial bonding, and one is also related to the limited choices non-Chinese students have, ie, those who do well in their PSLE examinations but have difficulty getting into good schools, because many of our good schools these days are the SAP schools.

I notice that SAP schools, as a default, will reject any application for entry into Secondary 1, when such applications are made by a non-Chinese student, despite that student having met all the aggregate requirements to enter the school. This seems a little unfair, since non-Chinese students have very little choices of highly sought after secondary schools to choose from, especially since we now have an extensive network of SAP schools. When we had a few SAP schools, I guess it was all right. But now there are so many SAP schools in Singapore and they have all the

resources and they have turned out to be among the best schools in Singapore.

Sir, I do not think the number of non-Chinese students who will apply for SAP schools will be large, because they may not choose to go into a school that focuses largely on the Chinese culture. Therefore, I do not see a few of non-Chinese students getting into such schools changing the character of the SAP schools. The positive result will be a wider choice of schools for the non-Chinese students to choose from. The added advantage is that the Chinese students studying in the SAP schools will have a greater opportunity to interact with non-Chinese students, something greatly lacking today. The learning of each other's culture and way of life and acceptance of greater diversity will go a long way for students in the SAP schools and for Singapore's future in promoting greater racial bonding.

Sir, in this respect, I had also talked about the possibility of twinning the SAP schools with our neighbourhood schools, not just for interaction once in a while, but very regular interaction, particularly in activities in the co-curricular areas. So, I would like to ask the Minister what has been done in this respect or is there anything else being done to expose the children studying in SAP schools to children of other races, so that we could again promote greater racial bonding? I am appalled to hear many cases of Chinese children who stereotyped the non-Chinese children of their age groups. Recently, I came across a case in National Service, where a boy doing National Service told me that the Chinese platoon members do not want to mix around with a particular racial group for reasons of their perception of who they are, and I think this has to be eliminated as early as possible as this can happen in schools. Because by the time they go for their National Service, it is too late and it

becomes a lot more difficult to change their minds at that age.

Social Cohesion

Sir, I would like to join my parliamentary colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh, in applauding the Minister. I think I was one of those who also had raised concerns about streaming. And it is indeed most enlightening and one of the best news that we have received that, at least in terms of between EM1 and EM2, there will now be no distinction, and that other changes would also be made. This is the kind of changes that we would like to see. After putting up representations for many years, I really applaud that.

Sir, I would also like to support Mr Inderjit Singh on the points that he had made. I would like to pick up on the point on social cohesion that he had mentioned and racial integration. To me, social cohesion is important for Singapore, a multi-cultural and multi-religious society, and a multi-pronged approach is really needed to instill this. So, whilst schools cannot and do not have the sole claim on promoting social cohesion, nevertheless, they play an important role in promoting racial integration, as our young spend a considerable period of their formative years in school, and their character and outlook towards society are moulded by their experiences in school.

For most of our schools, the opportunities for mixing between students of other races are there, but there have been concerns expressed over the lack of opportunities for such mixing when it comes to the SAP schools. So, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister on the kind of initiatives that are in place to promote mixing SAP and non-SAP schools. What kind of joint activities or programmes are put in place so that students in SAP schools are able to

benefit from a better understanding and appreciation of other cultures and practices and, therefore, mirror much more closely the experiences that they will face when they enter the workforce and our society. Because I fear that without those opportunities, they will be somewhat cocooned in an artificial environment that they are operating in when they are in school.

Sexuality Education

Sir, there have been a few reports in the newspapers of our students developing sexual relationships at an early age and, in some instances, having multiple partners. In recent years, there has been an average of about 2,000 teenage pregnancies a year. I am sure the majority of our students are less adventurous and more cautious, concentrating on their studies. Nevertheless, we need to face the reality that the world our young occupy today is vastly different from ours, with chatrooms, SMSs and phones with multimedia capabilities. The dynamics of their social interaction have changed dramatically. Coupled with this is the phenomenon of our dual income family where, at times, the primary care giving is relegated to other members, like foreign domestic workers or organisations like the student care services.

Yet, looking at the sexuality education of the Ministry, I must say that the content of the Growing Years series is a little removed from this reality. I would like to urge the Ministry to review the content of the Growing Years series and also to review perhaps the training programme that the teachers have undergone. I hear that the training programme is a good and comprehensive one but, at times, to keep up with the reality of the world that our young are in, this training needs to be further enhanced, and I hope the Ministry will look at that.

The second call that I would like to make in this particular aspect is whether the Ministry would consider introducing a compulsory course in the lower primary classes, with perhaps the help of a VWO like the Singapore Children's Society, so that our young will learn where they cannot be touched. There is a rise in the number of child abuse cases. I think that kind of awareness will go a long way in protecting our children.

Sir, I wish to support the views of Ms Braema Mathiaparanam and to just add on a few other points here.

These days, our young have easy and ready access to Internet chatrooms, illegal videos, CDs, and sometimes even pornographic websites. We are also seeing some emerging changing sexual mores and norms over, for example, homosexual matters, oral and premarital sex, to name a few. The Straits Times report of 16th March, "Teen Sex in the (Lion) City" that my colleague mentioned earlier is a case in point.

To deal with what appears to be an increasingly "sexualised world" for the young, I would like to ask the Minister whether it would actually be reviewing its human sexuality programme and its present approach in conducting it in schools, and also how it involves parents in the process. Also, what are the Ministry's plans to help students understand through its human sexuality curriculum and other related curriculum, the national procreation issues facing the long-term future of our country, as we have been hearing and debating in this House in this session.

Sir, the cow, and to some extent the bull, seem to be our favourite animals in this House during this year's Budget debate, judging by our frequent references to them. I shall add my contribution. Regarding the role of parents, it is well

and good to say that they should bear primary responsibility in educating their children about human sexuality. We can go on exhorting this line to parents until the cows come home. But the reality is that most parents are not and are unprepared to do so. As such, the role has to fall on the schools and the community. I hope the Ministry, on its part, will be able to rise up to the challenge to help our nation in this regard.

Sir, I will address the issues on CCAs as well as character building. Dr Amy Khor, Mdm Cynthia Phua as well as Mr Zainudin have all spoken very passionately on the importance of CCAs, in particular sports, in a broad-based education. I agree with all their sentiments. I agree that we should do more to provide our students with richer learning experiences in the non-academic domain, so that they develop a resilient and robust outlook in life and become well-rounded and confident individuals.

Rugged activities, eg, sports, adventure camps, expeditions, uniformed groups and so on, are naturally well-suited to develop qualities like perseverance, self-reliance, a sense of adventure, self-confidence and a "can-do", gung-ho spirit. All of them are important in the challenges that we are going to face in life. MOE is exploring ways to provide students, particularly those who are not involved in competitive sports, with more opportunities to participate in rugged activities. For example, we encourage schools to provide every secondary school student with two residential camp experiences. The Adventure Centres run by MOE and other organisations can provide at least one of these camp experiences. The other could be a "camp on campus" within the grounds of the school. Towards this end, MOE is developing two new campsites. Both will be operational by June 2005. MOE is

also open-minded if the schools want to work with grassroots organisations, such as constituency sports clubs, to organise more activities for the students.

MOE will allow Student-initiated Activities (SiA) to be pursued as official Co-curricular Activities (CCAs). Ms Braema spoke on the need to nurture interest among students. Student-initiated activities are one way of giving students greater scope to pursue their passions and interests, and will foster a greater sense of initiative and ownership in non-academic pursuits amongst them. So, let us see what ideas the students come up with. The existing CCA grading schemes - LEAPS and PEARLS - will also be adjusted to recognise student-initiated activities as well as to encourage broader student participation in rugged activities.

Mr Zainudin, Mdm Cynthia Phua and Dr Amy Khor also expressed concern that some schools do not cater adequately to the sporting and CCA interests of their students. Let me say that MOE encourages schools to provide a wide range of CCAs to cater to the diverse interests and needs of the pupils. Every pupil should have the opportunity to pursue the CCA of his interest and choice. But this will have to be done within the school's manpower and physical resource constraints. These are not excuses, as resource constraints are real things. Our schools will do their best to balance between developing students who have demonstrated ability in particular CCAs and providing CCAs at a recreational level. A school's tradition and its niche areas usually influence its choices of CCAs and sports activities that it could cater and offer in its CCA programme as core sports. To answer Mdm Phua's question on selection processes, most schools, because

of manpower and physical resource constraints, must invariably conduct some sort of selection process

for pupils to participate in different CCAs. We are not like the United World College. We do not have that kind of resources. And, by the way, you see what kind of fees their students pay.

12.30 pm

To complement CCA offerings, PE lessons are used to teach a variety of sports and games skills to all pupils. The House System in schools, which was re-introduced in 2000, is a useful platform to encourage broad participation of students in recreational sports, for example, through games carnivals as well as sports meets. To facilitate schools' efforts to further leverage on the House System, MOE will be launching two new courses, namely, the Students Sports Coach course and the Students Sports Official course. At the end of these courses, the students' sports coaches should be able to teach basic sports skills to beginners or students who are not in any sports CCA. They will become a valuable pool of leaders in the House System and who knows, some of them may become important leaders in our sports arena next time as they grow up.

To further provide opportunities for interested students to pursue activities of their choice, MOE has set up Sports Development Committees through the zone schools sports councils to promote sports development programmes for students who do not represent their schools in sports. We are exploring with external partners, such as the Singapore Sports Council, various National Sports Associations, National Arts Council and the Uniformed Group Councils to see what else can be done, at both primary as well as secondary levels. Indeed, schools are already tapping on the Singapore Sports Council's "Sports U" programme. This used to be called "Learn to Play" programme. This is aimed at allowing more pupils to take part in recreational sports. This programme started in 2002,

with 38 primary and secondary schools. This year, the number of participating schools has increased to 75. We look forward to further increases.

LEAPS, which was introduced at secondary level in January 2003, award points for five categories - Leadership, Enrichment, Achievement, Participation and Service. LEAPS recognises both participation as well as achievement and, therefore, there are a lot of opportunities for students to just participate and score some points.

On character development, active participation in CCAs certainly can play a large role in character building as it is often through trials and experiences that students build strength of character, gain confidence as well as learn to function as gracious members of the society. Mr Gan Kim Yong spoke on the need to strengthen the character building component of our education system, and asked how we can measure the effectiveness of the character building programmes. We agree with him and we will try our best. To complement our CCAs, we have implemented a Character Development Programme to formalise the enrichment activities of schools. Schools actively undertake National Education and Community Involvement Programmes. In the formal curriculum, Civics and Moral Education aims to develop our students to be people of integrity who act responsibly with the interests of others and the nation in mind. Character building is, in fact, central to our Desired Outcomes of Education. It is not something that the school can do alone. It is also not something that can be measured easily. It is again not something that we have a monopoly of ideas. In fact, we will welcome ideas from all quarters on how else we can do to improve on our character building efforts.

Sir, I will reply to issues concerning social cohesion,

students' well-being, discipline and sexuality education.

Mdm Halimah Yacob and Mr Inderjit Singh raised a common concern on how our SAP schools ensure that their students are well-integrated socially, and understand the aspirations and well-being of students from other races. I would like to reaffirm all Members that SAP schools, like all the other schools, are aware of their responsibility to educate students who are steeped in our national values in a multi-racial Singapore. All students in SAP schools have to go through the national curriculum, including learning about racial harmony through Civics and Moral Education classes and the National Education programme. In addition, all SAP schools are clustered together with other non-SAP schools. This facilitates activities across schools.

Outside the national curriculum, the SAP schools are well aware of the limitations faced and have been collaborating with other schools and external organisations, to create more opportunities for their students to mingle with other races and to understand their cultures and religions. For example, Nan Hua Secondary School has been organising the National Green Camp and National Bilingual Speech contest for primary schools since 2003, as part of their on-going efforts to facilitate greater interaction between students of these schools. Other SAP schools leverage on the Community Involvement Programme (CIP) to provide opportunities for their students to be engaged with other communities, to work among and for them. Holy Innocent's Primary School, for instance, has collaborated with Pertapis Children's Home this year to organise a carnival, work on the Brownies-initiated activities, Mid-Autumn Festival, and Innovation Club activities.

At the individual school level, SAP schools actively celebrate the different

ethnic festivals and leverage on these occasions to deepen their students' understanding of other races. Students are also given the opportunity to clarify common misconceptions of other races and cultures through talks and dialogues on ethnic cultures and issues. For example, the Chinese High School invites MUIS, the Islamic Religious Council in Singapore, to give talks to their students on Malay-Muslim culture. Non-Chinese teachers who have been deployed to SAP schools also provide the opportunities for multi-racial interaction to SAP students on a daily basis.

On racial stereotype raised by Mr Inderjit, I do not think we can possibly eradicate racial stereotype among individuals and the society in general forever. However, I would like to reiterate the point that in schools, our students are given the greatest opportunity to first mingle with each other, understand each other's cultural backgrounds so that they can form friendships. Teachers will always discourage racial stereotyping but we cannot really stop individuals from stereotyping other communities.

Sir, let me talk about student suicides. Mr Zainudin Nordin and Mr Tan Soo Khoon raised the issue of suicides among our young and asked how schools help detect and manage such cases. Mr Tan cited the recent case where a 15-year-old student from Loyang Secondary jumped from a block near his school. The principal and teacher of the school did a good job in managing the case. There are some gaps in the information as reported in the media. I think it is not for us to speculate the reasons behind the suicide. In general, I would say that it is most unfair and unhelpful to put the blame on teachers for every case of student suicides. Teachers are already trying to help our students by counselling them, and especially those who have problems. Therefore, it is very unfair and unhelpful if we put the blame on teachers for every

case of suicide that we experience here. I would like to reiterate that suicide is a symptom of a complex problem for which there is no one single cause. Studies have shown that factors such as relationship problems, failure to meet self and parental expectations, as well as dysfunctional family patterns are significant and recurring features among student suicides.

Dr Lily Neo asked yesterday on efforts by schools and teachers to identify students who are stressed. MOE adopts a comprehensive approach that focuses on suicide prevention and intervention support. Counselling support is provided in schools for students from Primary 1 through JC2 and Pre-U3. Every school has a counselling referral system to facilitate early identification and extension of help to students with problems, such as stress and other family-related problems.

Teachers are trained in basic counselling skills so that they may provide immediate basic counselling to students in need. And I am talking about every teacher is given the basic counselling skill. Suicide awareness briefing sessions have also been conducted for all teachers to alert them to observable signs of suicidal tendencies and refer these pupils for counselling support. Students with more difficult problems are referred to Teacher Counsellors, who are trained in more advanced counselling skills and crisis intervention. There are two Teacher Counsellors allocated to each school and they are off loaded, so they can spend more time on counselling students who are in need of assistance. If students face very serious problems, they are referred to MOE-appointed school counsellors, guidance specialists, or external professionals.

To further augment the counselling resources of schools and school clusters, the Ministry introduced the School Counsellors Scheme in 2001, where suitable education officers who have

retired or resigned, are trained and deployed to schools. These are people with years of teaching experience who know the students' behaviour quite well. By July this year, a total of 73 school counsellors would have been trained and deployed to 58 primary schools, 46 secondary schools, and three junior colleges.

Sir, let me talk about social work services. Depending on the profile of the schools' students, the extent and nature of problems may vary across schools. In recognition of this variation, MOE has given schools the autonomy to decide on the need for social work services and to engage these services from community service providers. Schools are also provided with information on the types of services offered by external agencies, like MCDS, voluntary welfare organisations and self-help groups, as well as referral procedures and follow-up actions to be taken. This approach of giving schools the flexibility to decide on engaging the type of social services required best meets the specific needs of students in each school.

Schools have also put in place preventive education programmes. For instance, there is a pastoral care system in all schools, and it includes the teaching of life-skills which covers topics on personal and inter-personal effectiveness, and problem-solving skills. This helps students learn how to manage stress, negative emotions such as anger, as well as how to appreciate and get along with others. In addition, pamphlets advising students on ways to cope with stressful events are disseminated, and posters with information on crisis hotline numbers are displayed at prominent locations in school. These provide avenues for students to seek help for their problems.

Should MOE review the current policy for schools to engage services from community service organisations? I would say, yes. Systemically, we will continue to monitor and review the provision of

counselling and other social services for students, to ensure that the needs of students are adequately met. However, it is also important to realise that while schools provide support for students, parents have a shared responsibility to help their children manage stress and other personal problems. For example, parents can help their children to set realistic expectations for themselves and develop strength of character which will enable them to cope with life's challenges. Even if parents are busy, the responsibility of parenting cannot be transferred to anybody else.

On school discipline, Mr Gan Kim Yong asked what our policy on expelling delinquent students is, and whether schools can be more helpful to students who have disciplinary problems instead of dismissing them. I wish to assure Members that schools adopt a positive and proactive approach to discipline. These proactive measures include pastoral care, as well as life-skills and career guidance programmes which are aimed at helping students build self-esteem, take responsibility for their own actions and develop purposefulness in life.

To counsel and assist students with disciplinary problems, schools also have in place a formal structure involving school personnel and external agencies such as self-help groups and family service centres. Schools focus on counselling them and work in partnership with their parents so that they can provide the necessary home support to complement the efforts of the school. Schools also work closely with social workers from community welfare organisations.

Expulsion from school occurs if a student commits a very serious offence, such as assault, and if allowing the student to remain would threaten the safety of other students or undermine school discipline. A student can also be expelled on the grounds of wilful absenteeism if he has persistently played

truant and resisted all efforts to get him back to school.

Having said this, I must emphasise that expulsion is always a last resort and only when all other measures, such as counselling, suspension and caning, have no effect on improving the students' conduct. Each case is unique and the principal is in the best position to judge when a student should be removed from school, to maintain good order for the safety and welfare of all other students in the school.

12.45 pm

Sir, let me move on to sexuality education. MOE's sexuality education programme aims to inculcate positive values in and equip students with essential knowledge to make responsible choices on sexuality matters and issues. It is premised on the importance of the family and respect for the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities and sexuality issues.

Ms Braema asked about the syllabi and resources used in schools for sexuality education. The programme addresses the subject of human sexuality from a holistic perspective involving the intellectual, emotional, social, physical and ethical aspects. These are summarised into four main themes - human development, inter-personal relationships, sexual health and behaviour, and society and culture. The programme is also developmental in nature to meet the needs of students at the various stages of maturity.

The topic on sexuality education covered in the formal curriculum is conducted through regular lessons. The co-curricular component of the "Growing Years" series is also conducted through regular lessons in some schools, and as a

special seminar for students in other schools. Teachers are specially selected and trained by counsellors, psychologists and medical and legal professionals to deliver the programme. Topics covered in the programme include pubertal changes, human reproduction, qualities of healthy relationships and successful marriages, Internet relay chats, online relationships as well as sexual offences and the law.

On Prof. Ngiam's suggestion to put in a procreation content in the programme, we can consider it in future.

Yes, students are taught how to build healthy relationships, resist negative peer pressure and obtain help when they have been sexually victimised and cope with break-ups in relationships.

Ms Braema and Prof. Ngiam also asked whether MOE is reviewing its human sexuality programme in view of the changing attitudes and an increase in diversity of views towards sexual norms. They also enquired how parents are involved in the process. MOE reviews the sexuality education curriculum regularly to ensure that teaching and learning are relevant and up to date. The "Growing Years" series, which was first implemented in the year 2000, is the result of such regular reviews. We will continue with the review from time to time and consider changes in the social norms.

We agree with Prof. Ngiam on the importance of parental involvement in sexuality education for our young during the conceptualisation and development phases of the "Growing Years" sexuality education series. Feedback was sought from a representative cross section of parents from the various races, religions and different social backgrounds. Parents were also invited to be trained with teachers on how to deliver the programme. Thus far, parents make up 6% of total personnel trained. So we do

involve parents in delivering the content of the programme.

Sir, ultimately, schools alone cannot address all causes of emerging social problems in society. What we can do through sexuality education is to inculcate the right values in our students, raise their awareness of the options and consequences and equip them with the skills to make informed choices. The family and community must also play their part to support the students.

Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question on allowing non-Chinese students to enter into SAP schools.

Mr Inderjit Singh will be pleased to know that some SAP schools have already admitted non-Chinese students, as long as they meet the criteria of admission, ie, based on merit and if they take up Higher Chinese, because that is the programme in SAP schools.

Sir, there was no answer on my question about lower primary and what we can do to educate the young about whether they should or should not be touched.

Teachers do talk to students about sexual abuse, especially in the light of recent cases of sexual abuse involving young children.

Sir, I would like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary that in the computer system for admission to Secondary 1, as long as a student is a non-Chinese, the computer rejects his application. So he does not even have a chance to put in his application. Sir, I do not understand how the SAP schools are actually accepting non-Chinese students.

Sir, I can repeat my point. There are SAP schools which have

already admitted non-Chinese students. We can look at the flaw, if any, in the computer system. We will give him the background information of where it went wrong, if it had really gone wrong.

Sir, perhaps the point was missed again. I am asking about a comprehensive across-the-board kind of education for lower primary children, because they are more vulnerable and cannot be left on a more ad hoc basis. We can use VWOs, or even the Police could come in and conduct such talks.

Sir, we will consider this proposal.

Dr Wang, please take your two cuts together.

University Governance

Sir, MOE, traditionally, has left the running of our universities to the respective university councils and Chief Executive Officers. This is the right approach and I have no argument about this. On the other hand, as the enrolment of the universities increases over the years, the proportion of the budget devoted to university education has crept up to reach 25% of the total education budget. In terms of resources, this is a disproportionately higher amount compared to the other 75%, if we just judge on the number of beneficiaries alone. Yet, on the other hand, the attention devoted by the Ministry on the assessment and the evaluation of universities does not seem to be equally high. From the GPC perspective, our Members have not visited the universities for many years now.

Sir, as we encourage greater autonomy for the universities, the balance of governance is indeed shifting more

towards the universities. In the process of granting greater autonomy, not everything has been smooth or will be smooth. However, the feedback and monitoring process seems to be a black box. Many of us, observing from the outside, wonder who is holding the reins, how are the universities assessed and what are the performance measures. In theory, the various councils are empowered to ensure proper governance of the universities. In practice, as in the corporate world, much depends on the Chairman, the CEO and the tradition of the councils. The recent episodes in the US corporate world highlighted the danger of an imperial CEO. The question is whether MOE has a proper oversight in place to ensure proper governance of our universities. Are there checks and balances in place to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful CEO? So far, everything seems to be, by and large, in good order as we have good men and women at the helm. What is there to assure that things will remain the same in the future? This is assuming greater importance as we contemplate changing the way the three state universities are funded. At the current funding level of 75% state funding, at least the university administrations feel obliged to caress the hand that hands out the money. What would happen if there are other equally important hands to take care of in the future? Would the Minister give an update on the governance of the three local universities and whether the governance of the universities could be improved, as they are given greater autonomy in the near future?

University Admission

Sir, the removal of SAT as an admission criterion is indeed welcome as its weightage has already dropped to a mere 5%. This shows the willingness of the Acting Minister to bite the bullet, and

his willingness to make drastic changes. What he announced yesterday and today is a very refreshing move. Still, the experimentation of SAT was costly, both in terms of expenses and the time and effort of everyone in the JC system during this period. We should learn from this that the university admission criteria should be handled with a view towards the long term.

Furthermore, the announcement that the mother tongue language is no longer compulsory also caused great changes in the mood of the MTL teachers as well as the students who are preparing for the university entrance examinations. As university education is the ultimate goal of everyone in the school system, whatever we set as the selection criteria has great impact on the cohort all the way back down to Primary 1.

Sir, there are basically two possible models of university admissions - a central university examination or a university-specific selection examination. Both are being used in the world and each has its merits. In Singapore, we have basically the central system. However, as each of the universities aims to differentiate themselves into different centres of excellence, there is a trend towards customising the admission criteria to its needs. Of course, even before this, specific faculties have their own tailored admission criteria. Furthermore, with the establishment of the Sports School and the Arts School, are we also going to see some adjustment in the admission criteria to accommodate the talents of students from these Schools?

Sir, the Minister has painted a more competitive landscape for university education in Singapore down the road. One or two private universities will be coming on stream very soon, and they have their own admission criteria. Further, as we shift our emphasis towards

greater thinking skills, university admission to the state-funded university will become more judgmental. What used to be a very simple network is becoming a more complicated maze. I think the students will find it quite a task to navigate. The question to the Minister is: how do we continue to ensure that the process is fair, equitable and transparent?

Sir, the introduction of a flexible and differentiated approach for admission to our local universities bodes well for both the universities and the students. This is especially timely for the local universities in the face of increasing competition, both internally with the setting up of private universities, and externally as Singaporeans become more mobile. Without more flexibility in admission criteria, they could lose many bright students to competitors.

I applaud the MOE for its swift decision and biting the bullet, as it were, to drop SAT 1 as a compulsory admission criterion, despite having incorporated this requirement only a year ago. The impending changes to SAT 1 and the implementation of the new 'A' level curriculum will result in a substantial overlap between the two.

NUS, NTU and SMU seem to be racing against each other to introduce the most progressive criteria to draw the brightest and the best, as they move away from joint admission exercises. This competition is healthy, and will only benefit students and spur performance to higher and higher peaks of excellence.

However, amidst all the excitement that this has brought, there are two concerns that I hope the Minister can address. Firstly, I wonder about the efficacy of the formula by which students are allocated to courses, in relation to the number of places offered for each course.

I am sure many Members would have heard of graduates in particular fields who have never ever started in their chosen field of learning. By itself, this is acceptable since a university education is, above all, a training of habits of mind that will enable a graduate to think independently.

Specific skills, with some exceptions like engineering, law and medicine, can sometimes be learnt on the job. But, as university education becomes increasingly expensive, the cost to society and public finances of practising something other than what one has learnt gets higher and higher.

I wonder if, in the rush to give the universities more autonomy to respond to changing market conditions and opportunities, the universities have the necessary expertise and support, say, from MOM and other Government agencies, and are also adequately cognisant of the marketplace to anticipate future trends and manpower requirements.

Sir, having been a university lecturer myself, I urge the professors at the university who double up as administrators to make the effort to be plugged to the private sector.

1.00 pm

Secondly, whilst the universities can now admit up to 10% of its intake based on its own independent criteria, as they are still publicly-funded institutions, overall admission should still be based on the principle of meritocracy. Hence, there ought to be in place some system of audit and check and balances to ensure that transparency and equity prevail, and standards are maintained. Perhaps, a committee should be formed which comprises private sector and MOE officials, as well as, say, GPC members to undertake this audit.

(In Mandarin): Sir, having heard the speech by Minister of State Chan Soo Sen yesterday, I can only sigh with emotion that history has played a cruel joke on the Chinese community in Singapore.

The Chinese community has all along loved and showed concern for its mother tongue. In 1950, Mr Tan Lark Sye just made one appeal and the people were in one heart and one mind which led to the establishment of the Nanyang University (Nantah). All these years, no matter how difficult the environment has been, they are still supporting Chinese education. And now, both the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the post-Nantah which claimed to be linked to the former Nantah by flesh and blood, announced that the grade of the mother tongue will not be counted in their admission criteria. Some people are not happy. But Mr Chan said that the Chinese community should not be emotional. They should step out of the umbrella of Government policies, as there is no need to make use of policy to force people to learn Chinese. He also urged the Chinese community to make great efforts to create more space for the use of the Chinese language.

By saying so, he means that the problem of the Chinese education arises because the Chinese community has not put in enough efforts to create enough space for the use of Chinese, and as a result of the Government's implementation of bilingual policy which forces the students to learn the mother tongue. Applying his logic, I would ask then, why did the Government decide to use English as a medium of instruction for all the subjects in the 70s, thereby forcing all the students to learn English in order to make the grade for further studies.

We should ask why is it that this community which had the power and the ability to establish a university before the PAP became the Government and, yet,

now after 45 years of rule by the PAP, we need a PAP man to remind them on how to deal with their language and culture problems.

Now that the constituency which supports the mother tongue education is losing its political influence, and the opposing camp's voice is getting louder and louder, the Government made some calculation to it and now decides to change its course mid-stream. The PAP's so-called bilingual policy, which it claims to be the foundation of our education, is none other than its political tool. Surely, the PAP is not prepared to pay a political cost to defend the Chinese education under the present circumstances and pay a political price.

With regard to the relaxation of the policy, the relevant authority said that admission of students to the university should be based on their strong subjects. Being poor in the mother tongue does not necessarily mean that the student cannot do well in the other subjects. The new admission criteria allow those who are poor in the mother tongue but nevertheless talented otherwise to be admitted to the university and faculty of their choice.

A reader wrote to the Lianhe Zaobao rebutting such an argument. Let me quote from his article, "If the objective of the university is to develop the strong points of the students, then more weightage should be given to the major subjects. As for the two language subjects, mother tongue and English, they should be treated as equal. You either take both the languages, or none at all. Not many students can master both English and the mother tongue, some do not have the chemistry with English, while others may not click with Chinese. If only one of the languages is not counted, then it is unfair."

This is indeed true. But I am afraid this reader has forgotten that English is a

sacred cow, one scared cow which is untouchable. Faced with such a deity, what fairness can you talk about? Notwithstanding the Government's verbal emphasis that the policy adjustment does not represent that the mother tongue is no longer important, what would be the interpretation and reaction of the students who have been immersed in this utilitarian society all these years? It is not difficult to guess.

To the students, the removal of compulsory inclusion of grades of the mother tongue in the admission criteria can only be interpreted that the mother tongue is no longer important. Pragmatic as they are, why should they want to spend so much time to improve the standard of their mother tongue? Even if they realise that Chinese is fast becoming an important language because of the emergence of China, to the students, their immediate concern is how to squeeze through this narrow gate to get admitted to the university. Who is ---

Mr Low, your time is almost up.

Sir, since we are moving ahead of time, can I have another two minutes?

One more minute.

(In Mandarin): Who is going to be so unrealistic as to spend valuable time in upgrading his mother tongue rather than using it to fortify his other subjects? Can we blame our children? What kind of a message are we sending to our children?

Some people may say that this is just a "minor manoeuvre", and we still require a pass in the mother tongue. But I would like to remind everybody that this exclusion of mother tongue result as one of the criteria for university admissions

may appear to be just one little step, but by taking this small little step, we are moving nearer to the stage in which mother tongue ceases to exist except in name. Compromising the standard of mother tongue to facilitate the learning of English for pragmatic reason and treating mother tongue as an economic tool, Singapore is second to none in this world.

Sir, my comments pertain to the whole approach towards the setting and modification of admission criteria for universities. It is quite clear that, in Singapore, a university degree is a coveted attainment and it is seen as a pinnacle of educational achievement and a foundation for a successful career and future by most Singaporean families. That combined with the fact that an overseas education option is very expensive, many young people and their parents are trying very hard to adjust themselves to the needs on the prerequisites to attain admission to the universities. That being the case, any changes to the admission criteria, especially changes that increase the requirements or impose an additional burden on the qualification on students, must be done with care.

And a case in point is this whole exercise with the SATs. When it was introduced a couple of years ago, we had quite an extensive debate in this House. At that point, it was raised repeatedly by many Members that, first, whether the SATs were appropriate and, second, that even the SAT system itself was under review at that point in time when we were choosing to adopt it for our own university admission system. That being the case, when we went into this adoption of the SATs, the question was: were we prepared to commit to it for the medium to long term? I am not suggesting that we get locked into some kind of a permanent arrangement, and we should be flexible. And I applaud the

Ministry, like other speakers, for having decided now to do away with the SATs, given the changed circumstances. But I would urge that, if future adjustments of this nature, if any, are being contemplated, we should do so with a great deal of care and ensure that if we are going to make such a change, it is done with a view to maintaining it for the medium to long term.

The second is on the sole issue of whether we should, in fact, decentralise the admission criteria, a point that Dr Wang has raised. My own view is that we ought to consider increasingly decentralising these criteria. The Ministry has already taken several steps in this respect, and I welcome that. But we could do more, for example, individual faculties, like the medical faculty should be more flexible in the way they admit students, and not go purely on academic criteria. The reason is because we get a lot of feedback from people in the profession saying that younger doctors seem to come in and treat it more as a career rather than as a vocation, as a calling, which means that, maybe, some X factors are lacking in the way we choose people to go into the medical profession, as an example. And similar arguments can be made across the line for different faculties. Also, there is an obligation on the Ministry because public funds are being used for universities to set a certain minimum standards. So, surely, the model could be one where the Ministry defines certain minimum academic standards and the principle of meritocracy, and then allow the universities, the tertiary institutions, to set their criteria at the university level and for individual faculties, in fact, to have greater flexibility in the way they choose students to be admitted to their courses. I would like to ask for greater elaboration from the Minister on the Ministry's

thinking on this whole policy towards university admission.

Sir, I support the decision by the Ministry of Education to give the universities more autonomy so that they can set their own directions where they see their decisions going in the future.

The universities will have more flexibility and freedom to manage their funding just as they do to recruit their academic staff and the enrolment of students. The changing criteria wil affect the make-up of the institute and the quality of graduates. I also agree that admission requirements must change with time and the different objectives of our education system. My concern is that the Ministry of Education should keep a close watch on the student enrolment to ensure that in their zeal to balance the financial books, universities do not take the wrong path and lower enrolment standards in exchange for funding. This would erode the value of our institutions of higher learning which we have taken years to build up its reputation.

So, in this respect, I have the following questions for the Minister: What will be the minimum standards that universities have to observe with regard to the admission of students? How will the Ministry monitor to ensure that there will be no abuses? I would also like to know will the changes to the admission criteria be implemented for other institutions, like the polytechnics.

Transparency of University Admission System

Sir, almost all universities around the world practise a policy of minimum non-graduate qualification acceptable for admission into their institutions, including Singapore. We have the university joint admission exercise which determines the

acceptance, rejection of student applications. However, with a new university admission system, universities are now allowed to set independent admission criteria. This means that undergraduates may or may not be admitted into universities or the course of their choice based on the current criteria which everybody knows its basis.

My question is whether the new system of allowing university to set independent admission criteria will affect public confidence in our education system in which promotion to a higher level of education is based on merit and academic results. The concern is, with the prospect of lower funding for universities and the need for universities to master resources in order to compete, whether this new system of allowing universities to set their own admission critieria will become a back-door for admitting children of the rich and the influential, as these people do have the resources to contribute to the development of a university community. As it is now, before universities are allowed to set independent admission criteria, it is not too uncommon to hear some borderline students often wondering why some of their peers who obtained similar grades managed to qualify for a particular course, whereas they failed to do so. Therefore, I am of the view that it is crucial that the admission exercise, whether it is based on a common set of criteria or specially tailored criteria set by individual university, has to be transparent; assessment process and judgement made are convincing and beyond doubt. It is also equally important that university authorities should make known to the students the specific reasons for rejection into university courses and the rationale behind the decision.

University Fees

DPM Lee has given fair warning in his Budget

speech that Government grants to universities will decrease. What students and parents dread to hear is that fees will increase. The argument is that, in these days of belt tightening, it is harder to support heavily subsidised university education compared to primary and secondary education. The latter two benefit society more than the former which, it is argued, accrues more to the individual.

Sir, I do not fully agree with this. The rationale for investing in education has always been that as human capital is our only resource, we should seek to maximise the potential of every individual. That is the thinking behind, say, the GEP programme and, indeed, the basis of the flexibility that has recently been introduced into our education system. Implicit in this rationale is that the eventual benefits will accrue not just to the individuals. Singapore, as a whole, would gain from the presence of a highly educated, skilled and thinking workforce.

That aside, I read in a recent issue of the Economist of the mini-political crisis the UK government faced, when it tried to raise university fees across the board to reverse previous decades of excessive public subsidies for college education. That story contrasts the rich and powerful American university system that attracts Nobel prize winners, with the dismal UK university system where academic mediocrity is widespread, college buildings crumble from neglect, and students disinterested in their studies.

Sir, I believe that letting the universities and university students bear a bigger share of the cost of their college education will inculcate greater public sector discipline and personal responsibility. But having said that, I urge the Government to stage any fee increases they plan to implement over a longer period of time to give ample warning so as not to squeeze the lower and even middle income families further.

DPM has promised that no one deserving to attend university will be denied a place. But the truth is, with the exception of Government or corporate scholarships that pave the way for the recipients, less endowed students will need to apply for bursaries and study loans. These are debts that they need to repay after graduation. This can be quite onerous and adds to the already heavy financial burden that young graduates carry in buying a flat, giving allowances to their parents and in-laws and paying for everyday expenses, not to mention starting a family.

Elsewhere, especially in the US, generous out-of-state fee waivers, teaching assistance programmes and student employment opportunities plus corporate endowments provide a more conducive environment for students to work part-time to pay for their fees. Here, in Singapore, the choice is largely either/or, because of a lack of employment opportunities and a much smaller corporate sector.

Perhaps, more generous tax deductions should be granted to encourage corporate as well as individual giving. Finally, I would also like to ask the Minister if the fee increases apply to polytechnics as well.

1.15 pm

Sir, at the recent Budget debate, I said that it was the aspiration of every parent for their children to get into university. The ultimate prize is winning a place in the local university for a basic degree. Now that the universities are planning to expand their intake from the current 21% to 25% of each cohort by 2010, it is something to be happy about. There is no need for the Government to worry and

plan ahead to reduce its subsidy per student to below that of 75%. I believe the Government can well afford to finance this increased intake.

Sir, we are talking about a small increase in each cohort up to a projected 4% maximum by 2010. Assuming a replacement cohort of 50,000 students, the 4% projected increase is only an increase of 2,000 students to about 12,500. How much damage will this increase of 2,000 in our local student intake do to our billion-dollar budget? Not much, I believe. It is only around an additional $25 million, which the Government can well afford to absorb into its budget. But for a student who is not working, who relies on income from the family, who has all the other additional expenses, such as hostel fees, books, transport fees, etc, to bear with, any small increase in the tuition burden is an additional burden too much for them to bear. It causes big damage to their already tight budget, planning and pockets.

Let us not get the students into the bad habit of taking more and bigger loans. When their time comes in the future, say, 2010, for an increased budget allocation to MOE to subsidise the additional number of students to get into the university, I believe no one in the House will then be willing to complain and scream about the greater subsidy that we are giving our children and future leaders to pursue a university education. This is because we have all benefited from the system in the past and know the benefits that it brings to us individually and to society as a whole when more people are educated through the university. I believe our society can well absorb this small increase in subsidy for university students in the future, to groom the next generation of leaders. So, I hope the Ministry will not look to burden our students further with a bigger burden.

Sir, I wish to declare my interest, as I work in NUS.

On the matter of university fees, I would like to echo the sentiments of my parliamentary colleagues. The implications of giving a lower level of subsidies to tertiary level students, as compared to primary and secondary school students, have to be considered. Will this lessen the sense of civic responsibility amongst university and polytechnic graduates in future if they are seen as less deserving of the quantum of subsidies, and will the universities be really able to make up for this shortfall through other means without affecting quality?

Presently, we have three local universities and, if they are asked to raise their fees, they cannot really raise that much. Firstly, amongst the three of them, they have to watch what the fees are for each other. Secondly, we have local campuses and local degrees of well-known reputable international universities and so we have to watch the comparison of fees, plus overseas universities' fees. If we peg our fees too high, we will lose the numbers. We really cannot peg them that high. So, how will the shortfall of fees be made up, if the quantum of Government subsidies is reduced?

Tertiary Education

Sir, I wish to touch on two points. One is on university fees, and the other on the university admission criteria.

Sir, I join my other parliamentary colleagues in voicing my concern over the increase in university fees. This issue is of special significance to me, because I strongly believe that education is the greatest leveller in our society. Through education, we give hope to everyone, regardless of their family background, so

that not only those who were born with a silver spoon has a place in our society and continue to benefit from our progress, but the children of every family can aspire to a better life if they have the will and the tenacity to strive and succeed.

Within a short period of almost 40 years, we are able to leapfrog from a poor undeveloped country to one that, despite our size, is recognised and respected as a practical model of development for many developing countries. I attribute this primarily to our heavy investment in education at all levels, including university education. I am concerned that many families will find it a terrible strain to send their children to university if the fees are increased. I would like to point out that the median wage for Singaporeans today is less than $2,000 per month and, therefore, university fees, averaging between $5,000 and $6,000 a year at the current level of subsidy, are already quite steep for many families. I would, therefore, like to urge the Minister to monitor this situation closely. I would hate to see a situation where certain courses are only accessible to the upper income as the fees are so high that that becomes a natural cut-off point for students, instead of their qualifications or capabilities.

On the second point of university admission criteria, I want to applaud both the MOE and the universities for the greater flexibility that they are now practising in university admission. The change in NTU's admission criteria is particularly bold and refreshing. It is consistent with the general review that is taking place with more focus being given to the values of passion, creativity and leadership. The changes to the NUS admission criteria, however, appear to be less significant. The criteria for giving 10% flexibility have not been spelt out, considering that a place in the university is something that is very much sought

after in Singapore. I think it is important that our universities are transparent and make known their criteria for admitting students, so that it is clear in everyone's mind that the principles of meritocracy will continue to be maintained. I am, however, disappointed, that neither the NTU nor NUS talked about admitting mature students, who may not have fantastic qualifications but are nevertheless competent and able because of the vast working and life experiences that they have. I hope to get a clarification from the Minister on this, as I see the university as an important part in the whole process of lifelong learning in Singapore, and I believe that mature students will add colour and very different perspectives to the classroom, which will be beneficial to all students.

Sir, DPM Lee, in his Budget Speech, mentioned that the Ministry of Education is going to review the subsidy structure for tertiary education. The intention is to reduce the level of Government subsidy and let students bear a greater share of the burden. The rationale was that university education benefits individuals more than the society and the nation. Therefore, he argued that we should focus our limited resources in supporting primary and secondary education that benefit more people.

Sir, I beg to differ. I would argue that we should not reduce the subsidy for tertiary education for a number of reasons.

Firstly, people are our only resource, our only asset, and we must spare no effort in developing their potential to the fullest. Education is the key to upgrading the quality of our people. Unlike in the past, tertiary education today is no longer a luxury, but a common aspiration of Singaporeans. It is, therefore, necessary

for us to ensure that tertiary education is affordable. By that, it means that people do not need to borrow money to have access to tertiary education.

Secondly, the fact that only 25% of each cohort proceeds to tertiary education should not be the reason for reducing the subsidy. In fact, I would argue that this is the top end of our talent and we should do all we can to help them realise their potential.

Thirdly, the argument that tertiary education eventually benefits individuals more than the society is also flawed. I would argue that, because these are the cream of the crop, many of them are potential leaders in business, politics and society in future. The multiplier effect can be enormous. The society and the economy will eventually benefit from their contribution.

Sir, I believe there is still room for reducing the running cost of tertiary education institutions. Before the Ministry decides to reduce Government subsidy, I would urge the Ministry to first launch a cut waste campaign in these institutions to further trim their operational costs. Eventually, we could even consider cutting back some of the less critical Government expenditures. But to reduce the subsidy for tertiary education should be the last resort.

Sir, I declare my interest as a Member of the Board of Trustees of SMU.

I agree with the stand taken by the Government regarding the need to spread the education dollar to benefit the most number of students, rather than focusing these resources on the tertiary education sector. Whilst agreeing with the budget allocation, it is also imperative as a nation that we find other means of funding the centres of academic excellence in Singapore that will excel in both teaching

and research. We need to draw top talents who are involved not only in knowledge dissemination but, more importantly, in knowledge creation, towards Singapore. Top universities compete for talents on a global basis. If we are aiming to create world-class institutions, then our universities will have to pay top dollars to recruit these talents. Should our universities be out there in the international talent market and bid for these top talents? Most definitely. We need to provide both competitive salaries and world-class research funding facilities to gravitate them towards Singapore. Both are very expensive propositions.

The question is: how do we fund these? The answer lies in our ability to balance the needs and contributions of the different stakeholders, so that we can move towards covering the costs of running top-grade universities where the research budget and staffing cost will surpass the existing capitation limits. The Singapore model of funding for universities follows the UK model, where the bulk of the costs of higher education is expected to be borne by the state. Is it conceivable that university fees can double or be more in the future? Most probably yes. Of course, in our society, no needy but qualified students should be denied a university place. There need to be bursaries, scholarships, grants, student loans that would be put in place to provide for these needy students. But my position is that parents and students must bear part of the cost of the expensive education.

Next, endowments are a big factor in US education funding, particularly for top-rate universities. Even in the state universities, state funding covers only between 15% and 25% of the cost of operating the universities, and the rest are covered by fees and endowments. In Singapore, the development of philanthropic market for higher education is still in its infancy. There is intense

competition for the philanthropic dollar. Local universities need to plan and implement programmes for fund raising. As a society, we need to provide more recognition for donations to university endowments. With the comparatively reduced role of the state in tertiary education funding in the future, we need to encourage our top corporate honchos to give to the development and promotion of tertiary education, to ensure Singapore's place in the league of academic excellence and nation building.

Dr Gan, wind up your speech, please.

Lastly, Sir, we need to develop more sources of funding research whereby our universities can compete for funds based on merit. Currently, only A*STAR offers research funding, but for the applied sciences. I wish to urge the Government to consider extending research funding to non-applied science, primarily to humanities, economics, business and social science research, as these provide us with the fields to commercialise our technologies and innovations.

I note that hon. Members are lapsing into longer speeches now as the afternoon progresses. I have already given more than enough time for Members to speak before I even stop you. So, please do not stretch my patience too thin. Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, your response, please.

Sir, we have a strong and diverse post-secondary sector comprising ITE, polytechnics and universities.

Our polytechnics and ITEs are already leading institutions in their class. ITE is restructuring into three regional campuses, with the first regional campus ready in 2005. The establishment of Republic Polytechnic last year will inject

greater competition and strengthen the diversity of the polytechnic sector.

The university sector is also being restructured, as recommended in the report of Dr Ng Eng Hen's Committee to review the university sector in May last year. We will expand the university sector, through the transformation of NUS into a multi-campus university system, the expansion of NTU into a comprehensive university, and the continued expansion of the Singapore Management University (SMU). In addition, we are opening up to allow a few good quality private universities to set up

campuses in Singapore.

1.30 pm

Our university cohort participation rate has risen from 5% in 1980 to 21% currently. We are targeting for cohort participation to go up to 25% in our publicly-funded universities by 2010. So, Singaporeans who go to the private universities that might possibly enter the field will be on top of this 25%. We will provide subsidised university places for one in every four Singaporeans.

I agree with Dr Tan Boon Wan, who spoke earlier this morning, that as we expand our post-secondary sector, and our university sector in particular, we must ensure that the quality of the education is not compromised. As we approach our targets in enrolment, our focus has to shift. The universities have to shift from a predominant focus on quantity to one of quality, as part of the broader reorientation we have been taking in recent years in the education system as a whole. The universities have to go beyond producing high averages, to producing diverse talents and high peaks of excellence, as with our schools and junior colleges. For universities especially, the playing field is no longer just

Singapore or the region. They have to attain standards of excellence that place them in the first league internationally.

We have certain advantages. Our universities are able to build on the high standards of Science and Mathematics education in our schools, which exceed those in most other countries. It gives our universities a starting advantage in science and engineering-related education and research especially. We have seen increased collaboration between world-class universities and our local universities in these fields, in the form of research and academic exchange programmes, as well as the establishment of joint programmes for students.

Towards Greater Autonomy and Accountability for Universities

To make the next leap in quality, our universities need to be dynamic and forward-looking institutions. They have to attract and retain first-rate faculty. They have to review their teaching and assessment methods so as to groom graduates with a willingness to think originally. And besides producing graduates of the right quality, the universities have to play a growing role in building Singapore's research capabilities, as Dr Gan See Khem has just spoken on. Our universities will be key players in generating the ferment and advances in research and innovation that will take Singapore up the value chain, and establish us as a leading hub in the knowledge-based world. Meeting these two objectives - of producing thinking and enterprising graduates and developing a vibrant and self-sustaining tradition of research - will be the major challenges for our universities in the decade ahead.

The university landscape itself will become more competitive, as we allow private universities in and as we restructure our publicly-funded universities. Globally, our universities also face

more competition, including more competition for the Singapore students. Competition will provide the spur for them to achieve the quality they need in the next phase of development.

However, competition will have a positive impact only if our universities have the institutional autonomy to respond to the new opportunities and challenges. They must have both the room and the appetite to differentiate themselves, play on their respective strengths, and respond to changes in the demands of the marketplace.

Over the next few years, we will re-examine the relationship between Government and the universities to see how we can provide the universities with greater institutional autonomy in future. It will be a broad-ranging review. The issues we have to consider include the scope of autonomy and the universities' sourcing and use of funds, how they charge fees, how they select students, how they compete for research funds on a competitive basis, and how they remain accountable as publicly-funded universities. These areas will build on changes already in place following a review four years ago of university governance and funding which led to NUS and NTU being given a greater degree of autonomy in various operational areas.

Greater autonomy must also mean greater accountability on the part of the universities, as Dr Wang and Dr Amy Khor have rightly pointed out. As Dr Khor also highlighted, the universities must deliver the best value-for-money from the substantial public funds given to them. Without clear processes for accountability, increased autonomy is unlikely to yield positive results.

This is why MOE initiated a Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (QAFU) to provide for continuous assessment of the quality of the

institutions and their leadership. As part of this framework, we appointed an external review panel last year, chaired by Dr Jennifer Lee. This panel will conduct an independent, external validation of each university's self-assessment once in three years. It will report its findings and recommendations to the Minister. Amongst other things, the panel will identify and highlight the strengths and areas for improvements of the universities. The first validation exercise will be conducted in NUS in the second half of this year.

MOE will monitor the universities' follow-up on the panel's recommendations. It is also in the interest of the universities themselves to take this external quality assurance process seriously, so as to improve quality and ensure they retain their credibility and public confidence as they move towards autonomy.

NUS and NTU have also adjusted their internal governance structures to strengthen their processes of accountability internally, as they give faculties more room and more operating flexibility. Both universities have made comprehensive changes to the structure of their respective Councils, to better allow the Councils to shoulder a greater role in providing strategic directions and guiding the development of their respective universities. For example, both NUS and NTU have put in place a dedicated Audit Committee and an Establishment Committee at the Council level, to ensure proper financial practices and rigorous academic appointment processes.

Greater autonomy will also mean greater responsibilities for the university councils and leadership themselves. We have taken great care in identifying and selecting university Council members. We have been very fortunate to have passionate and capable Council chairmen and members serving on our three

university Councils. These are individuals who carry heavy responsibilities in their own business lives, but have been willing to give valuable time and energy to the running of the universities.

I thank Dr Wang for his suggestion that GPC Members should visit our universities. I am sure the universities themselves will welcome this, as it allows the GPC to familiarise itself with the challenges they face as well as their achievements to-date. We will work with the universities to organise this.

University Admission

As I mentioned yesterday, the Government has accepted the recommendations of the University Admissions Committee (UAC), chaired by Prof. Chong Chi Tat, to allow greater flexibility for the universities and their faculties to decide on admission criteria for their students. The UAC's recommendations represent the first major step in the direction of autonomy in admissions. I thank Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Mr Zainudin Nordin, Dr Lily Neo, Mrs Fang Ai Lian and several others, including Mdm Halimah, who have supported the changes in admission requirements.

The flexibility given to the universities to admit 10% of their respective intakes on independent criteria, and the introduction of faculty scores in addition to the common university scores, are important changes for both the universities and the education system as a whole. They represent a shift from a "one-size-fits-all" measure of aptitude and suitability for university education, towards broader and more flexible measures on merit. I spoke yesterday of the rationale for the similar enhancements that we are making in the school system. The changes in admission practices also mark, as I just mentioned, an important

step in the longer term process of creating greater autonomy, greater room for universities to do what is best to develop excellence. For NUS and NTU to go forward in a more competitive university environment locally, regionally and globally, it is essential that they be able to select the best students.

Mr Iswaran is quite right that the decision-making on university admissions has to be decentralised. This is, in fact, what the UAC's recommendations have allowed for. He mentioned medicine. In fact, the medical faculty is a good example of a faculty that is making the most of the extra room that is now provided for faculty decision-making in the new admission process.

The way we are moving is the way in which the best universities internationally select their students. And it would mean moving away from a single definition of merit towards more variegated definitions of merit. It would lead to an initial uneasiness because not everyone is going to know on exactly what basis they are getting into the university, but it is a move that we have to take and which students will realise is in their best interest.

Let me give you an example of why a move away from a single definition of merit towards more variegated definitions is not a move away from merit, but a move towards merit. It is not a move that lessens the meritocratic nature of the system, but a move that reinforces the meritocratic nature of the system. I will give you the example of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Boston, which has a very strong reputation. Bob Brown, the Provost of MIT, was explaining their admission system to me. They get 12,000 applications each year - all very good students. Their first step is to shortlist from 12,000 down to 6,000. So they look at school examination results, because they do not have national

examinations in the States. They look at their school test scores, they look at their advance placement tests, they look at the SAT I tests, and sometimes SAT II. They look at all the observable grades, the sort of thing that we have been doing. That brings it down from 12,000 to 6,000. Then they have to take it from 6,000 down to 1,500. They do not look at the grades anymore. They look at the whole range of other achievements of a student, not just non-academic achievements, but even intellectual achievements, in other words not just climbing a mountain or canoeing. They read carefully the testimonials of the principals. They find out what the student has done that is more than regular. What research and special projects he has done. Whether he shows the intellectual spark that they want in the school.

It is a rigorous process, not precise but rigorous; not single-definition, but meritocratic. That is how one university does it and there are many others that follow an essentially similar process. I asked Bob Brown why they did not look at the differentiation in SAT scores, for instance, to bring the numbers down from 6,000 to 1,000. He gave me a simple answer. He said that the difference between a SAT score of 1,500 and 1,600 is only two wrong answers. That is why they do not use SAT score to bring it down from 6,000 to 1,500 students. Because two wrong answers is not the way in which we identify the best student. I agree that as we liberalise, it will be a more complex environment for students to navigate, but it is an environment for the better.

I wish to assure all Members who have spoken on this topic that meritocracy will remain a key principle for the selection of students in our publicly-funded universities.

The Chinese are moving the same way incidentally. The top Chinese

universities have, in fact, earlier than us, opened up to 5% of their students being taken in on independent criteria. The Chinese have a thoroughly meritocratic system, with national examinations at all levels, transparent and meritocratic. But they decided earlier than us that their top universities have to start taking students who are more than regular.

The universities will be accountable to the Ministry in ensuring that meritocracy is preserved in their respective admission processes. However, I would not preclude MOE initiating occasional independent audits of the universities' admission systems.

I had explained at some length yesterday the reasons why the Government accepted the recommendations of the University Admissions Committee to modify the Mother Tongue Language (MTL) requirements in the universities, essentially to do away with mandating that every student has to count his mother tongue score as part of his university admission score. I have also explained that students continue to have a choice of submitting their mother tongue score. If they have done well in mother tongue as an AO level subject, they can include it so as to boost their scores. If they have done well in Mother Tongue or Higher Mother Tongue as a full "A" level subject, they can also include it as one of their three "A" level subjects in their scores.

1.45 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang raised some broader issues, some of which I have touched on yesterday, and I do not want to go over the same ground again. I have explained how we need a balance of strategies for mother tongue learning, and this balance has to be different for the school system compared to the tertiary system.

I would not repeat those points. But it is entirely for the universities or faculties within the universities to decide if they think the mother tongue is important. The autonomy has been provided. Faculties' own scores are there. If there is any faculty that wants a particular department to assign importance to mother tongue, they will and, indeed, some faculties are going to do so, eg, Communication Studies at NTU; obviously, Chinese Studies. It has to be based on sound education precepts and on wanting to make sure you are taking in the best students for that course. That process is also in place within the 10% autonomy that we provide the university, as a whole, to select its own students. It is for them to decide whether to take into consideration a student who is outstanding in mother tongue. That is the direction we have to move in. We have fundamentally decided not to mandate that NUS and NTU include the mother tongue as part of a fixed criteria, but to provide them the choice to do so where it is relevant. And we have ensured that students who have done well in mother tongue will not lose out because they can continue to count it in their scores.

Mr Low also raised a broader issue of whether the Government is doing this for political reasons, as he put it, because we do not want to pay the political cost of defending Chinese education. I am sorry if I misheard some of the words, but that is the way I got it.

I had explained yesterday that we have to do what is best for Singapore, and ensure that what we do in education is based on sound educational precepts. We are not going to start deciding on educational policies - mother tongue or anything else - on the basis of weighing one political constituency and another. We only have to look at what is happening in Taiwan to know how

dangerous that road is, and how dangerous it is to even get into this debate.

In Taiwan, they have now decided that English cannot be taught in kindergarten. Of course, the parents want it. But it is a political decision - no English any more in the kindergarten. And you know the debate that is taking place on minan hua. Let us not get into having to defend and take positions based on expediency. Let us be honest about our problems, honest about the challenges the universities face, honest about what the majority of Singaporeans need if they move into the tertiary level and face choices within Singapore and globally of which university to go to.

Mr Low also asked why General Paper (GP) should remain a requirement for university admission. General Paper is not an English language paper as such - I should clarify that for a start. It seeks to develop students' logical reasoning and analytical skills. It requires students to read more widely and take an active interest in current affairs. These remain important attributes for university education. And it is for NUS and NTU, or the other universities, to decide if GP would remain relevant in future.

University Funding

Members have raised concerns and views over the question of university fees, particularly the potential increase in university fees over the long term. This issue was discussed during the debate on the Government Budget last week. Let me explain from the perspective of the Education budget why we have to address this issue, and not duck it.

In the US, UK and Australia, universities are having to raise tuition fees to meet rising costs and declining availability of state and federal government funding. Even after the

debate recently in the UK, some of their top universities are already saying that the increase in fees, that was finally allowed for in Parliament, is not going to be sufficient for them to continue status quo with regard to which students they take in. Oxford University has announced that it is going to take in more foreign students now, and less UK students, because it loses too much money educating each British student.

Hong Kong has just cut its university budget by 10%, again because they face a tightly constrained government budget situation. Fortunately, we are not in dire fiscal straits in Singapore. MOE does not expect to have its budget to be reduced by MOF over the medium or long term. And we do not expect to cut what we spend on the universities today in absolute terms.

But the status quo formula for MOE subsidies for university education will mean that university spending will continue to increase rapidly in coming years, as more Singaporeans are admitted into our universities, and as the quality of university education goes up. From 1998 to 2002, total expenditure on the universities grew by 41%, mainly because of larger student enrolments. By 2010, when our university cohort participation rate reaches 25%, the university enrolment would have increased by more than 15,000 students. This would require $350 million more in recurrent funding alone - not including the development cost - an increase of 42%, and not $25 million as suggested by Mr Steve Chia. We must not forget that for every one student that the university admits, the Government would have to subsidise him for three to four years, not just one year.

MOE receives a budget of 4% of GDP. Just as Mr Khaw Boon Wan says for Health, I will fight for every additional cent for Education. But I cannot assume

that the Government will have additional money to be dispensed. The basic issue that MOE faces therefore is how to allocate a budget of 4% of GDP at a time when we are opening up university places for more students. Do we accept a continued increase in the share of the education budget going to university education, and a corresponding cut in the share of spending elsewhere - in our schools, ITEs and polytechnics? It is neither feasible nor desirable to allow this to happen. Spending on these other sectors in basic, secondary and post-secondary education cannot be reduced in the coming years, as we strive for improvements in the quality of education across the entire spectrum of our student population.

Our current co-funding formula is for undergraduates to pay 25% of the operating cost of their university education while the Government pays the remaining 75%. Only 25% of recurrent cost is borne by the undergraduates. University students enjoy a much higher dollar subsidy from Government than other students. Last year, the average subsidy per year which a university undergraduate received was double that of a polytechnic or ITE student; 3½ times that of a secondary school student, and five times that of a primary school student. Add to this is the fact that a university student is subsidised for more years of education, from the time he enters Primary 1, compared to students in our polytechnics and ITEs. Take, for instance, the cost of providing students with post-secondary education from after the secondary stage. So, for a university student, it is JC plus university education. For an ITE student, it is two years of ITE education. For a polytechnic student, it is three years of polytechnic education. The Government, on present subsidy rates, subsidises a university student over six years of post-secondary education, five times more than an ITE student who receives two years of an ITE subsidy.

We should therefore review if undergraduates should pay a higher share of the cost of university education, as Dr Gan See Khem has argued. They are subsidised much more heavily than other students in the education system. They also stand to benefit the most by commanding a higher salary when they join the workforce, and that remains true, even accepting Mr Gan Kim Yong's point that they add value to the economy. But if we compare what a university student earns over his lifetime compared to what a polytechnic or ITE student earns, and if we compare what subsidies we are providing them, we have to come away with the feeling that there is some disjunct. We have to review this.

As we open our universities for more Singaporeans to go through university education, the total share of the education budget will go up, crowding out our spending on other students in the system. MOE will therefore review the cost sharing formula in the universities, and study carefully the proportion to be borne by the undergraduates.

We will also see how the universities can best distinguish between the costs of teaching and research programmes. We should decide on a fair share of the teaching costs that should be borne by students. In the US, for example, universities' activities in teaching and research attract different streams of funding. Teaching is funded primarily by tuition fees and government grants. Research costs, such as infrastructure including depreciation charges, direct and indirect costs, are recovered on a project basis from research sponsors.

Mr Gan Kim Yong suggested raising taxes to subsidise university education. This is a MOF matter. But I am not sure that doing so will be equitable, because not all taxpayers are graduates, and there

is no reason why all taxpayers should subsidise graduates.

Financial Assistance

MOE will ensure that no deserving student is denied a university education on grounds of financial difficulties. Admission will be needs-blind. If a student can get in on his merits, we will want to make sure he is not deterred from accepting the place for financial reasons. We are well aware of the median salary in Singapore. We are well aware of the needs of poor students, and we want to make sure that they get financial assistance in the form of bursaries and also other means.

We are also aware of the needs of the middle class, and we want to ensure that the middle class does not feel squeezed out of a university education. So, we will study all possible financial schemes to ensure that access to university education is open to all.

We have to consider seriously the matter of loans. Taking a loan to pay for an undergraduate education is a common phenomenon in countries like Australia and the US. In the US, almost half of their full-time undergraduates take up loans to pay for part or all of university education. We will not want loan schemes to be onerous on young graduates. They will not be a burden. They will not deter graduates who marry from wanting to procreate. We can also study the "graduate tax" idea, which was mentioned by Mr Iswaran during the Budget debate, and I believe by Dr Amy Khor. There are many variants of this internationally. There are some schemes in Australia and the UK, for instance, which are essentially loan schemes which are operating through the tax system. We will study all the possibilities carefully.

As Dr Khor has rightly pointed out, part-time work is another way students

can help pay for at least part of their education. All three universities have established schemes for students to work in the schools or offices on campus to earn money to meet their expenses in the university. For example, NTU has a scheme where students are recruited as student assistants, and paid to carry out routine duties, while SMU has a work-study grant scheme. But we can do more in this area. Part-time work is far more common amongst university students abroad, both within and outside the campuses, than in Singapore. In fact, I myself earned a handsome stipend washing dishes in a restaurant when I was doing my undergraduate education in the UK.

Endowments and Donations

Philanthropy is another source of income for the universities. In the US, donations from individuals and private organisations have helped many universities build up substantial endowments as a major funding source. Dr Khor pointed out that it would be more difficult to raise funds here, and Dr Gan See Khem also addressed this issue. There is a point there. The culture of philanthropy in Singapore is not as developed as in the US. But it is not negligible. Just last month, NTU received a benefaction of $5 million from Mr Ng Bok Eng. Our universities are seeking to develop this tradition. They will have to do more to engage private donors, as Dr Gan See Khem has pointed out, especially the alumni who have benefited from their university education and have become successful in life. The Government,

on its part, is committed to helping our local universities build up their endowment funds, by matching their donations which universities received.

2.00 pm

Dr Khor asked how do we ensure the universities correctly anticipate manpower

requirements. Our universities are guided each year by a national manpower-planning framework on the number of graduates required in various broad categories. This framework, which is coordinated by the Ministry of Manpower, draws inputs from various Ministries and industries. At the same time, the universities themselves have developed their own links with industry partners, for instance, through the faculty advisory committees.

Moving forward, the universities, and indeed students themselves, will need to be alert to developments and long-term trends in industries, so as to decide on the breadth and depth of skills that will be in demand. MOM, MOE and the economic agencies and the universities are working towards better sharing of employment trends, information and data so that students are better informed.

Sir, we are embarking on an exciting phase of development in our university sector. The changes will lead to higher quality in the universities to the advantage of our students. They will also position our universities in the years to come as leaders in the development of intellectual capital, and entrench them as centres of excellence in the region and beyond.

Mr Tharman, Prof. Ngiam was supposed to have spoken before I called you just now. So, would you reply to him afterwards?

Yes.

Prof. Ngiam, could you speak on distance learning?

Distance Learning

Sir, on the issue of distance degrees, I understand that the push by the Government to grow the education sector is to increase our GDP in the country.

Consequently, we are now seeing a proliferation of various degree programmes in Singapore with varying standards. Some are reputable, but I think some are not of sufficient standard. In this regard, what is the Ministry doing to weed out dubious programmes so as to protect the public interest?

Sir, I understand that the MTI agencies and SPRING, in particular, are in the process of developing an accreditation framework for private institutions and programmes, be it in tertiary or other types of educational programmes. A robust framework of quality assessment and recognition for private education run either by an industry body with Government support, or a Government agency, such as SPRING, can be helpful in developing Singapore as an education hub. However, it remains good advice for anyone wanting to sign up for a distance learning programme to do his own research on the university and the programme before embarking on the course.

Sir, I would just like to clarify that I did not recommend increasing taxes. What I proposed was for the university to review its operation with a view to cut waste and cut operating costs.

Clarification, Sir. First of all, the Minister has not answered my cut on transparency of the admission system. I would also like to seek two clarifications from the Minister. The Minister, in his reply, said that English is actually not mandated, because GP is not exactly English as it measures different attributes. Therefore, it is necessary to be taken as part of the admission criteria. I would like the Minister to clarify whether he would consider offering GP in Chinese as well, thereby allowing students to

either opt to take GP in Chinese or in English, and be counted as one of the admission criteria.

The Minister also mentioned, in his speech, that we have got to be honest about the need of our education system. I would like to seek clarification from him on what he thinks of the needs of the students in acquiring the necessary language skills, so as to fit into the current and future prospect of the environment under our so-called bilingual policy.

I am sorry if I did not answer the question on transparency adequately. Let me first say that it will be quite essential for NUS and NTU to ensure transparency in the criteria that they will employ, both for the universities as a whole as well as individual faculties. These criteria have to be made quite transparent. The processes which they will take to select students will also be processes that have to be subjected to internal accountability and occasional external audit. That is what we will do. They will not be transparent on the question of why student A got in and student B did not get in. The system cannot tell our students exactly why they did or did not get in. The best universities in the world tell their applicants, "You give me all the information about yourself and I will decide." And they have been able to maintain public confidence and credibility because they have made good decisions over time. So, transparency in criteria and processes will be there. But we have to get used to the fact that if we move away from a single definition merit system towards a broader definition merit system, students will sometimes have to ask themselves, "Well, I am not quite sure why I got in, or why I didn't get in." That is the norm in all good universities internationally.

On GP in Chinese, this is an educational issue. I would not view it as a political issue. The universities will have

to decide for themselves whether they think that is a valuable subject and whether, in fact, selecting students on that basis will be relevant to certain faculties or departments. And I can imagine that there will be some departments that might be interested in it. But we have to make sure that there is demand for such a subject. Are there students who are keen to take GP in Chinese, and will the universities, based on their assessment of the type of graduates they want to produce, say that this is a useful subject that they want to take into account? So, I will keep this as an issue, amongst many others, that we have to keep looking at from time to time. I mentioned yesterday, for instance, the possibility of a new elective in the JC curriculum on China studies. That will also be something we have to study carefully. We have to make sure that there is a demand for that subject and the universities will have to decide whether they recognise it. My sense is that they probably will, for all the reasons that the Members have talked about. Knowledge of contemporary China is going to be a very useful piece of the package.

Do students need language skills? Absolutely. I think I elaborated on this yesterday, not just in general, but specifically with regard to our mother tongue languages. I have elaborated on how critical it is for Singapore to ensure that the mother tongue languages do not get eroded and that students, especially through our school system, 10-12 years of education, have enough incentive to motivate themselves to take the mother tongue seriously.

Pre-school Education

Sir, I understand that there are only two specialists and four inspectors in the pre-

school unit of MOE. Compared to the strength in the other units, it seems to suggest that MOE does not place much emphasis on pre-school education.

Sir, we have about 80,000 pre-schoolers in all our pre-school institutions. The Ministry should monitor more closely all our pre-school programmes and provide more professional support for pre-school education, ie, the three years our children spend in nursery, kindergarten 1 and 2. Now, almost all their parents are placing their children in pre-school institutions when their children reach four years old. The pre-school education is as criticial as any other stage of the formal education. It will be quite a waste if our education system does not place greater emphasis at this stage to maximise the child's learning capability and potential, especially in terms of learning of English and mother tongue.

The focus of the pre-school curriculum should also be the teaching of English and the mother tongue. I observe that many pre-schools appear to duplicate the assessment method and what is being taught at Primary 1. This is unnecessary. Ideally, the child should not be forced to focus his learning on technical aspects of the language, such as grammar and spelling. The learning objectives should focus on basic listening, speaking and reading skills.

Sir, besides strengthening the programme for pre-school, the Government should also consider how they can help the pre-school institutions to be more cost-effective, so that we will be able to lower the high fees that nowadays our parents have to pay.

Sir, the yearly rush of parents to put their children through pre-school education underscores the importance that is attached to it. While this was once the privilege of a few who could afford it, today, it is made accessible to almost everyone. While the

debate on the best teaching methods of pre-school continues, I am sure we unanimously agree that education in the initial years are indeed vital. This then begs the question: what should be the role of the Ministry of Education? What are its immediate plans for pre-school education?

This seems to be one area where the private sector has taken the lead in developing and paving the way and we have to play the catch-up. The pre-school education industry in our country is vibrant and thriving. The demand is evident and the Government must be more involved. We must be more active and take concrete steps to educate our young.

Sir, I feel that the Ministry could do a lot more to ensure that the schools do carry out their responsibilities expected of them and deliver quality pre-school education. The students are very young and they go through this cycle of their life but only once. If they are not given the correct education and imbued with right values, they will grow up taking a very different road from the rest. I feel that the Ministry of Education should pay more attention to the running of these pre-schools and audit them regularly to ensure that the best practices are adopted by them.

Sir, may I ask the Ministry of Education what is MOE doing about monitoring the curriculum of these pre-schools? What are its plans to bring up the standards of the pre-schools so as to ensure that they keep pace with the advancement in education? What is MOE's vision for pre-schools? And lastly, because of their importance, will MOE play a more important and direct role in the pre-school education arena instead of leaving it to the private sector?

Sir, I would like to draw the Ministry's attention to helping children without pre-school education who enter the school system under the Compulsory Education Act. Currently, 9,586 Primary 1 pupils, or one in five of the Primary 1 cohort, receive Learning Support Programme attention. I suspect many of these children in the programme are probably without any pre-school education. I would like to ask the Ministry if they would consider extending this LSP scheme to children who have missed pre-school. These children can be identified in July of the previous year when they come in for Primary 1 registration. If such a scheme is applied, either directly by the Ministry of Education or with help from other self-help groups or VWOs, these children will at least have a five-month headstart before they enter Primary 1 in January the following year. I hope the Ministry would consider this suggestion.

I would also like to ask the Ministry for its update that it gave in an earlier answer to a parliamentary question that it was also focusing its energies in engaging more self-help groups to come on board with the LSP programme. In this regard, what is the update and can that also be extended to these children who are caught in between?

Dr Ong Seh Hong is not here. Dr Amy Khor.

Special Education

Sir, I am pleased that the MOE is increasingly doing more for children with special needs, such as the opening of a special school for autistic children to cut down the long waiting list of autistic children who need to go to school. The Ministry's recent effort to step up training of teachers to teach these autistic children is also commendable.

While the opening of the new special school for autistic children is welcome, there still remains a significant waiting list of children and the number of autistic children is also increasing due to greater awareness of the problem. Another concern is that whilst our mainstream primary and secondary schools have been undergoing upgrading and rebuilding programmes to the extent that some have been criticised to be too posh, most of the special schools are housed in buildings which are at least 20 years old, such as Chao Yang, Jervois and Katong Special Schools.

Sir, I personally visited the Jervois Special School. While the school is very clean and well maintained, it really pales, like its poor country cousin, compared to well-endowed mainstream primary schools I have visited.

Most of these buildings are really functionally obsolete, especially when they are to cater to children with disabilities, such as the hearing and visually-impaired since they were not built in the first place to cater to the needs of these children. This, together with the fact that special schools are run by VWOs and not directly under the purview of MOE, gives the impression that the needs of such special needs children rank very low on MOE's list of priorities. Furthermore, there are currently only 20 SPED schools run by VWOs, with none in the north and northeast.

2.15 pm

These special needs children are as much sons and daughters of Singapore as their more fortunate peers, and they never asked to be born with disabilities in the first place. They are part of the nation, and are capable of making a contribution to society in their own ways. Hence, their basic education needs should not be treated as social welfare.

I would, therefore, like to urge the Ministry to commit more resources to cater to the needs of this group of children, integrate as many of these children into mainstream school as possible, upgrade the facilities of the special schools, so that they adequately meet the needs of these children and ensure that there are sufficient numbers of such special schools as well as trained teachers.

Even as the Government is concerned about our declining birth rate and encouraging more to procreate, we must also assure all our parents of our adequate support for their children's educational and other basic needs, whether the child is born special or otherwise.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak.

Every year, about 4,000 students with special needs go through the special education system. However, it is alarming to note that fewer teachers are staying on to teach in the special education system. In 2002, the teacher-to-student ratio within special education schools was one to 10. This was a decline from the ratio of one to eight in 2000. If this trend continues, we will place heavier workloads on these teachers. Some of them earn less than their counterparts in the national schools. With fewer teachers to do more work, they will burn out, unless their ranks swell significantly and quickly. Would the Minister comment on his Ministry's efforts to curb this trend? MOE needs to take the lead in addressing the attrition of teachers from special schools. It must consider a review of its "many helping hands" approach.

As the lead agency responsible for the education of children in Singapore, should the MOE's ambit of responsibility not include students with special needs? While VWOs are able to help children with the aspect of the special education needs

of their life, they are not best placed to educate them. By not bringing these students under its care, MOE may create the wrong perception that these children are a social problem. Where education is concerned, these students have learning disabilities but do not suffer social problems that limit their ability to learn. I urge the Minister to respond with a view to bringing special education under the ambit of MOE officially, so that students with learning difficulties can become contributing members of the society.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam. Take your two cuts together, please.

Sir, I share the concerns of the speakers before me. The Special Education Schools (SPED) are in a state of need where teachers are concerned. Here are some of their problems.

I hear that there are about 100 vacancies in the 20 SPED schools currently. The teacher-to-pupil ratio, as already mentioned by hon. Member Dr Ong Seh Hong, is between 1:10 and 1:12.

The attrition rate is roughly around 10%.

It is difficult to recruit new teachers, and upgrading takes time as most of them are already so stretched and the courses are on a part-time basis.

The Ministry's support of giving 2.5 times more in financial support is stretched universally across all disabilities. Certain children are multiple disabled. Teachers need greater training to deal with such children. Yet, it is 2.5-times the cost factor across all SPED schools for whoever the teacher, whatever the child's capabilities. It is my hope that the

Ministry of Education - and I know this is not new, we have spoken about this a few times here in Parliament - would take under its wings the SPED schools, the teachers especially, ie, the pedagogical aspect, looking after the training, curriculum, career prospects, salaries, so that our children will have better attention. The current situation of VWOs employing untrained personnel to look after the pupils is, I think, totally unacceptable.

Compulsory Education

Sir, one of the most vulnerable groups among persons with disabilities are our children. They are more vulnerable and they rely on adults for the enforcement of their human rights mechanisms. The Convention for the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the most complete statement of children's rights, and it is the first to give these rights the force of international law. It is an international treaty which recognises the rights of disabled children. The most important article for the protection of disabled children is in Article 23(1) which states that:

"States, parties, recognise that the mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in the community."

We have passed the Compulsory Education Act and we have also left out children with special needs. This is not acceptable. It is my hope that the Ministry will review this policy, as it reviews all other policies, to make sure that our children with special needs come on board. In case that is still in the pipeline, I would then like to appeal strongly to the Ministry of Education to ensure that all special education schools are co-located with mainstream schools. This gives rise to a lot of economies of scale.

Firstly, sharing of resources, as the LSP pool of teachers can also double up in the special education schools and vice-versa.

Secondly, common curriculum, such as PE and art and craft classes, can be shared across the board, depending on the kind of flexibility needed.

Thirdly, it is cheaper to build schools together so that they can share common facilities, such as school fields, etc.

Lastly, and the most important, emotional bonding, recognition of each other, that our society grows knowing that we live with people with disabilities and giving them due recognition.

If hospitals - we are learning a lot from the Ministry of Health here - can be co-located with step-down facilities, I do not see a problem in mainstream schools being co-located with SPED schools, ie, that all schools are co-located.

Finally, I think it is about time that we gave our children with special needs the due recognition that they deserve.

Mr Chandra Mohan.

Sir, with your leave, I am withdrawing and not proceeding with this cut. Much obliged.

Dr Maliki is not here. Mdm Yu-Foo.

Pro-family Policies

(In Mandarin) : Sir, having heard the reply by the Acting Minister for Education, I am very glad that the Ministry is now going for a flexible multi-choice system. For this cut on pro-family policies, I am looking at it on a broad perspective, not just on procreation.

I hope that there will come one day when our students will find going to school a joy rather than a dreadful chore. Just now, it was said that the International Labour Organisation (ILO) had set the limit that a worker can work in a day, maybe eight hours a day. Perhaps, we should also look at whether we could set a limit on how many hours should we subject our students to the classroom. Our school children should have the "right to play"!

When we talk about pro-family or pro-children education, we have to take a holistic approach to include moral education, knowledge, physical education, social ethics, and aesthetics. I think the Sports School and the Arts School are good things to have.

Now, I would like to talk about family education and life education. Just now, the Minister for Education spoke about sexuality education. I think the sexuality education should be taught from the pathology, physiology and psychology aspects.

We should also teach our students on how to respect their parents and also to love others. We want to cultivate not only professional teachers, lawyers or doctors, but only good and useful citizens of Singapore. Our students should be taught how to behave themselves at home, in society, and even when they are overseas. Emphasis must be given to the inculcation of the right values and moral standards. When the children are young, we caution them against falling in love too early, lest it affects their studies. When they are more mature, we worry about their love affairs and whether they could get the right life partner. Then, we worry about their marriage, their children and so on. There is no end to it.

Now, let me speak about the working environment of our teachers. Most of our

school teachers are ladies. Have we looked into how we can create an environment for them to start their families? Yesterday, two Members lost their voices and could not speak out in Parliament. I think many teachers also lose their voices because they have to talk a lot in class. Do we have some latest technology to help them overcome this problem, so that teaching could be a joy?

Sir, a few Members have rightly pointed out the importance of the pre-school education sector. I appreciate in particular Mr Zainudin Nordin's and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang's reminders that as we undertake changes at various levels of the education system, we must not forget the pre-school education sector.

We recognise that the pre-school years are a valuable opportunity to facilitate the development of a child socially, morally, cognitively, emotionally and physically. MOE has developed a pre-school curriculum framework, launched in January 2003, that emphasises a holistic approach and an enhanced quality of interaction. This framework outlines principles that will guide educators in designing their pre-school programmes. It is broad enough to accommodate the range of philosophies found in different pre-school programmes, yet it provides concrete examples of how these principles can be put into practice.

The curriculum framework also describes the Desired Outcomes of Pre-School Education, which were first articulated in 2000. In a nutshell, this refers to the holistic development of every child. While literacy and numeracy skills are important and should not be overlooked, school-readiness must surely also include a love for learning and discovery, curiosity about how the world works, and the ability to communicate and interact well with others.

It is important that we give our pre-school educators space to tailor their programmes, whether it is the content or the balance between open-ended play and more structured learning. Preserving the range of programmes offered by various community and private organisations is therefore appropriate, as there is just no single model for developing children at an early age. The strength of our pre-school curriculum thus lies in the diversity and breadth that parents can choose from. For this reason, MOE will not take over the pre-school sector. The provision of pre-school education will remain firmly with the various private sector and community organisations. MOE will concentrate on high leverage areas, such as defining outcomes, designing a curriculum framework, improving teacher quality, and conducting research. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang's suggestion on how to do additional professional support is also an area that we can look into.

The curriculum framework that I described earlier was launched in January 2003. Since its launch, MOE has facilitated by offering training workshops to all interested pre-school teachers of registered kindergartens. MOE has been able to meet all requests for training so far, through a total of 62 workshops. These workshops cover various topics in the curriculum

framework, such as how to plan an integrated and holistic curriculum and suggested teaching strategies. Through briefings and sharing sessions, MOE has also worked to empower pre-school leaders to guide their teachers in designing and monitoring their own progress.

2.30 pm

To help kindergartens monitor their continuous self-improvement, MOE has developed a self-appraisal instrument

called Pursuing Excellence at Kindergartens (PEAK). This tool guides kindergartens in evaluating their curriculum plans, resource management and learning environment. Since its launch in October 2003, about half of our kindergartens, 241 of them, have found this tool to be useful.

Mr Zainudin asked about resources for pre-school education. A key leverage in raising the quality of pre-school education is teacher training. This is where MOE dedicates continuous efforts to help prepare the pre-school teachers with the skills and knowledge to effectively deliver the pre-school curriculum. Our provisions today, we believe, are adequate and well-placed. MOE has articulated also academic and professional qualifications that pre-school teachers must have. Kindergartens are making good progress in this area. By the end of this year, about 84 of pre-school teachers in MOE-registered kindergartens would have received their certificate or diploma in pre-school training. By 2008, we expect one in four teachers should have obtained their Diploma, in Pre-school Education (Teaching). MOE does provide grants to eligible non-profit kindergartens that meet the professional requirements set by MOE. In addition, all these training courses are supported by Skills Development Fund up to 80%. As of February 2004, the pre-school teacher accreditation committee, set up by MOE and MCDS has also accredited 86 pre-school teacher training courses for 24 agencies, and this includes NIE as well as Ngee Ann Polytechnic.

Finally, on research. To guide MOE in policy planning and to help determine where and how our resources are best invested in the pre-school sector, MOE has undertaken a pilot research project to understand the impact of the new curriculum on pupils learning and development. Findings from the first phase of the study indicated that the new curriculum, with its focus on interactivity,

experimentation and discovery, provided richer learning environment that particularly benefited pupils from low social education status and non English-speaking backgrounds. MOE expects to complete the second phase of this study by the end of 2006.

Ms Braema asked about pre-school class size, the need to identify children with no pre-primary education and how to help them in Primary 1. To address the question of pre-school class size, the kindergarten manual, that MOE distributed to all registered kindergartens, recommends one teacher and one teacher aid to 15 pupils at the nursery level, one teacher to 20/25 pupils at K1 and K2 level respectively. On identifying children with no pre-primary education and help them at Primary 1, it is to be expected that our children enter Primary 1 at differing levels of development. Such differences are the result of many factors, including differing attitudes and abilities, as well as varying home backgrounds. Rather than using pre-school education as a criterion, our schools screen all incoming Primary 1 children to identify those who are weak in language and literacy skills. These children are provided additional support in Primary 1 and 2 through the Learning Support Programme (LSP) for English. Often, these are students who start P1 with limited reading skills, equivalent to children of less than five years of age. According to the needs of the school, MOE provides schools with one or two additional dedicated posts for learning support coordinators. In other words, these are additional posts to run the programme. Students in LSP are pulled out of class for half an hour each day and learn in small groups of 8-10. They rejoin regular classes when they have made adequate progress. Each year, 12-14% of Primary 1 and 2 children enter the LSP. At the end of P1, about 60% have made enough progress to rejoin regular classes.

Dr Amy Khor has asked about the level of resources and facilities that MOE

provides to Special Schools, or SPED schools. This is where the "Many Helping Hands" approach, a key recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Disabled in 1988, remains sound and relevant. Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) have a strong sense of mission, and are able to respond quickly to new needs and demands. They also have their networks to seek community support. The passion and commitment shown by parents, volunteers and VWOs are also strengths that should be preserved. If the Ministry were to take over everything, all these will be lost. To address Dr Ong's suggestion on who should take the lead in special education, the tripartite partnership of Government, family and community remains complementary and effective in meeting the needs of our special needs children.

Together with the National Council of Social Services (NCSS), MOE assists VWOs in setting up SPED schools. Today, there are 20 SPED schools, which provide education for about 4,400 pupils with special needs, more than a two-fold increase from 11 in 1989. The newest SPED School, which is Pathlight School, opened in January 2004, and this caters to the wait list of children with severe autism.

MOE assists VWOs in acquiring suitable sites for development. To address Ms Braema's point on co-location of SPED schools with normal schools, it is the VWOs that ultimately decide on the location of their schools based on factors such as accessibility by public transport and the geographical distribution of their students. If they are really interested in co-relocating with some of our normal schools, we can look into their request if they were to put it forward.

MOE is also working towards housing all our SPED schools in permanent

purpose-built buildings. We have completed the redevelopment of five of our 20 SPED schools, and have plans to redevelop 13 more. MOE covers 90% of the construction cost of purpose-built SPED school buildings, as well as five-year refurbishment and repair works for existing buildings.

Through MOE and NCSS, SPED schools receive up to four times, not 2.5 times, the funding of a pupil in a mainstream primary school, with MOE funding the per capita cost of mainstream primary education plus 50% of the additional cost up to a cap of 2.5 times for primary education. The other 1.5 times comes from NCSS. This followed from a 1997 revision to the equal cost-sharing principle between MOE and NCSS. SPED pupils also receive a yearly Edusave contribution of $160, like their counterparts in primary school. Each SPED school receives an annual Edusave grant for enrichment programmes and purchase of equipment and resource materials. Granted that some Members might feel that this is not enough, but compared to 10 years ago, we have already given much more.

Finally, on teacher resources. Ms Braema has commented that there is a high teacher attrition rate at SPED schools, and asked what MOE is doing to increase retention. First of all, these staff come under the purview of NCSS, not MOE. MOE assists by providing opportunities for SPED school teachers to acquire skills, knowledge, and networking that will give them a sense of confidence as educators of children with special needs. NIE provides both Certificate and Diploma level training to teachers at SPED schools. SPED schools are also invited to participate in MOE's Annual Posting Exercise should they require MOE seconded teachers. There are currently 18 MOE seconded teachers teaching in SPED schools.

There was also a question on the possibility of integrating special schools with mainstream schools. On this issue, I think our starting point must be to see how we can work together to ensure that our children with special needs have access to the opportunities they need to participate fully in the economy and the society.

Pupils with learning or physical disabilities, and who are able to follow the mainstream curriculum, are provided places in mainstream schools. In certain designated schools, special facilities and additional resources are provided to these pupils to facilitate their learning. Advances in assistive technologies have made it possible, for example, for more of visual impaired students to access Braille notebooks, talking dictionaries and specialised software. Currently, there are 460 pupils with hearing impairment and 52 with visual impairment in our mainstream schools. If possible, we will see how we can increase that further.

Children with disabilities who do not attend mainstream schools are better served in our 20 SPED schools, with specially trained teachers supported by para-medical personnel. At all these SPED schools, these children can learn at their own pace through a curriculum and environment specially tailored to their needs.

Ms Braema also pointed out that children at SPED schools are not included under compulsory education. Compulsory education currently is defined as education in our national schools. In reaching this conclusion, the Compulsory Education Committee recognised that if compulsory education were to include education in SPED schools, the enforcement of compulsory education may be unduly harsh on some of the parents of such children. The Committee identified that the central issue here was whether children with special needs are

being adequately supported with education opportunities. Therefore, the Committee examined the existing measures to support special education, many of which I have just described earlier, and found these to be satisfactory and robust.

Today, students in mainstream schools also do have opportunities to interact with students from SPED schools through their Community Involvement Programmes. Through these experiences, mainstream students become more aware of the issues facing students in SPED schools.

Yesterday, Mr Zainudin Nordin asked about what MOE is doing to help all learners across the spectrum of ability, for example, in upgrading the facilities of SPED schools as well as ITEs. I have just described what MOE does, in regard to SPED schools. So I will just say a few words about ITEs. I think MPs have visited our ITEs and they have been impressed by the infrastructure investment that we have put in. MOE is spending about $800 million to develop the new ITE regional campuses. This is no less than what we have invested in our JCs, which cater to students of the same age group. ITE students also enjoy subsidies that are, in fact, slightly higher than that of a junior college student. ITE subsidy, at the moment, is about $8,574 per student; JC is $8,513 per student. So, we do place equal emphasis on investing in ITE students.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon asked a few questions about, for example, the right to play. I am not aware of any educational system in the world that prescribes right to play, but we do emphasise a lot on character development as well as moral education. As for sexuality education, this is a subject that has been discussed on many occasions. I want to invite Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon to put forward her proposals on what to include in sexuality

education. MOE will be very happy to listen.

She also talked about making our environment more pro-family and, hopefully, many of our staff who are single lady teachers would have the opportunities. We will certainly see what we can do about that, but bear in mind that we still have the important objective of ensuring our educational programmes are properly delivered. From the debate in the House in the last 1-2 days, Members can see the kind of expectation that we have of our teachers.

I propose to take the break now.

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

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.46 pm until 3.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head K (cont.) -

Sir, I would like to clarify. In fact, I am very happy that the Minister of State has explained about ITE. But my pertinent question relates to the vocational institutes that we still have and what are we doing for them.

Is the Member talking about the vocational institutes for disabled people? If he is talking about vocational institutes, they have all been consolidated under ITE, except those which are catering to the needs of the special people.

I do not know whether they are special institutes. I think we still have two vocational institutes - one in Geylang and the other is Baharudin Vocational Institute - which are still not taken care of by ITE.

Let me check on it.

Two clarifications, Sir. One is on LSP. I did not mean at Primary 1. I meant at pre-Primary 1, at the registration time which is July. The screening takes place at that time. Can we offer some form of LSP so that we have a five-month headstart with children who did not have any pre-school education, after doing the screening?

The other clarification is, yes, I know of the 2.5 from MOE and 1.5 from VWOs. But I do not get a clear indication as to why the pedagogical side of it cannot come under the Ministry of Education - teachers, training, curriculum, career prospects, salaries. I know it is parked under the NCSS for certain teachers. Could I have a clearer explanation, please?

Sir, to bring the students in before primary school starts will be to extend the compulsory education period backwards for some. The question is how to implement it. Is there any demand for this? As most of our students at that point of time will be with the various kindergartens, I wonder whether there is demand for this.

On her second question, the running of these establishments and the schools lies with the voluntary organisations. Some of the funding comes from the

Ministry of Education as well as the Ministry of Community Development and Sports. For career planning, recruitment, motivation and things like that, all these staff matters are really done by the respective voluntary organisations. As I have explained, the Ministry of Education prefers that this many-helping-hands approach continues. And if there are specific difficulties in recruitment and so on, they do raise them with us and we do whatever we can to help them.

Sir, what Ms Braema is saying is that these are the students who have dropped off the net. They may go for registration for Primary 1, but they have not attended any kindergarten classes at all.

Was that what Ms Braema meant? Mdm Cynthia Phua is helping her to clarify.

I think I have said it clearly enough. There is still no answer yet.

We, more or less, agree to disagree!

All right. I think we are not on a common platform.

Maybe, in due course, we will be in agreement a little bit.

Education Hub

Sir, I think we have harped long enough on pre-school education. Let me go on to education hub.

Sir, our education landscape had gone though significant changes during the last few years. We have introduced a number of new initiatives to improve our education system. In particular, the proposed introduction of privately-

operated schools is an exciting initiative. It will provide greater variety and choice for Singaporeans and, hopefully, it will also create new peaks of excellence. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could give the House an update on the status of private schools in Singapore.

Sir, the Singapore education system is already well known for our outstanding academic achievements. I know and I agree that MOE's primary mission must be to provide quality education for Singaporeans. But if we can capitalise on our reputation and our know-how, we may be able to develop Singapore into an education hub. We already have many foreign students studying here - in the universities, junior colleges, secondary schools as well as in primary schools. I believe we can do more. Over time, I think more and more young people from the emerging economies like China, India and even Vietnam will be keen to study overseas. Their presence here will add colour to our education system and will give our students an opportunity to interact with those from other countries and other cultures.

These foreign students could also be a source of foreign talent in time to come.

3.15 pm

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry has a coherent strategy to develop Singapore into an education hub. And, if so, could he elaborate on the strategy and, if not, would he consider such a strategy?

Primary One Registration

I would like to touch on the subject of priority of Primary 1 registration based on distance from school. Come July every year, Singapore parents with Primary 1 school-going children will start

registering their child for Primary 1 education at the school of their choice. As parents become more aware of the competition faced by their children, most start their search for the choice school a year in advance, or even two years, when a child is four.

Under the present regulations, should the number of applications for children who are Singapore citizens, or Singapore permanent residents in Category 1, exceed the number of vacancies in any phase, places will be balloted according to the following order of priority:-