Hansard, 2010-11-24

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 (2010) To (2010) Mr Teo Siong Seng 24 Nov 24 Nov Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 06 Dec 10 Dec 15 Dec 31 Dec Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 09 Dec 17 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Minister for Health (a) how many Singaporeans above the age of 40 years have been screened under the National Integrated Screening Programme (ISP) since its inception; (b) whether the health screening behaviour is sustained and has resulted in regular annual screenings with follow-up treatment; and (c) whether the Ministry has plans to incorporate early screening for colorectal cancer into the ISP package as it is the leading cancer in Singapore.

The National Integrated Screening Programme (ISP) started in June 2008, two years ago. It targets Singaporeans aged 40 years and above. More than 35,000 Singaporeans have benefited from this programme so far.

As the recommended screening frequency for diabetes, high blood cholesterol and cervical cancer is once in every three years, it is too early to say if it has led to sustained screening behaviour. We plan to roll out a national colorectal screening next year.

It was such a brief response I am not even prepared, Sir. One supplementary question. Could the Minister share with us if he has noticed a trend from those groups that have not attended the screening programme? And if so, what measures has MOH taken to encourage these Singaporeans to step forward for health screening?

Purely empirical and based on what we observe, I would say that, generally, majority of Singaporeans do go for screening. Where is the evidence? In the latest National Health Survey, one of the questions posed to the targeted group – the elderly and those aged 40 years and above – was "Have you got yourself screened in the last three years for diabetes, blood cholesterol?" Majority said "yes". Relying on memory, I would say more than 60% or 70%.

For basic health screening, I would say the outreach is not bad. However, at 70%, it still means that 30% out there have not been screened, at least in the last three years. They may have been screened before that. Hence, the efforts to reach out and educate the public must continue. There are other programmes organised jointly with, for example, Minister Lim Boon Heng's Committee on Ageing. It has started the "Wellness Programme" at the constituency level that targets Singaporeans above 50 years of age. Through the programme, we reach out to the elderly to get them screened. More importantly, we get those who are in the high risk groups to follow up when their risk factors have been picked up. In the pilot programme, we have injected resources to call up those with abnormal results and we nag at them to see the doctors. And many do. The following step, which is even more uphill, is to get them to change their lifestyle, "eat less, move more". That is trickier. We must continue to press on.

One supplementary question. I would like to ask the Minister whether ISP screening is free. If it is and even if it is not, will the Minister consider allowing Medisave to be used for screening? Not only for the three illnesses mentioned but other major illnesses as well.

The tests in the ISP for the lower-income group are free. We have contracted more than 700 General Practitioners (GPs) to carry out the screening services. They are quite spread out across Singapore. The consumers only need to pay the consultation fees to the GP. It is not completely free. I think it is important that we do not make it completely free so that the consumer has to make some cash payment. But we pay for the tests on behalf of the lower-income group.

Will Medisave be used for health screening? I raised this topic in response to some proposals by MPs, like Mdm Halimah, some time ago. We have been studying this. I see it as a two-stage approach: the first stage is to decide on the basic screening package for each age group that we should promote. There is a wide range of screening tests out there – some are very expensive and offer marginal benefits. If we blindly promote screening, we may end up with a lot of over servicing and abuses with little benefit or, sometimes, even with slight harm to the patients. We have to be careful how we do this. What we have done in the last few months is to task the Academy of Medicine to set up a Committee of Experts to help us sieve through all the available tests in the marketplace and then draw up a list of recommended screening packages, by age group and by gender. That process is about to be completed. When the Committee has completed its report, we will publicise it. We will then take a look at funding. If they are inexpensive tests – and Members know my philosophy – we should not touch Medisave for these tests. Anything less than $100, that costs $20 or $30: I would say let the consumers pay out of their pocket. But if some of the recommended screening tests were to be rather expensive – for example, I expect colonoscopy may be included as one of those evidence-based and time-tested tests that should be done for those above 50 years old. There could be some problems with funding. We would then see whether current Medisave rules need to be tweaked to allow for this. Give me a few more weeks or months to settle this.

2. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Minister for Health (a) whether he will comment on Singapore being ranked 18th in the Economist Intelligence Unit's report on Quality of Death that was released in 2010; (b) whether the Ministry has a national plan for palliative care given the growing significance of palliative care; and (c) whether the Ministry plans to set up a code of ethics that governs hospice care.

The Quality of Death Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit tried to measure the level of end-of-life care services across 40 countries. It ranked Singapore as Number 18 among these countries, and Number 2 in Asia. I find it a fair assessment. We were deemed to have done particularly well in areas of end-of-life care policies, in recognition, training and accreditation of end-of-life care practitioners, and in the availability of volunteers in end-of-life care.

The area where we could have done better was in the availability of end-of-life care facilities. We will, of course, continue to develop this sector. I began to pay some attention to this in the last five years. And I, myself, am satisfied with the progress that we have made but there is still much more that we have to do. In fact, I spoke about our plan in Parliament last month and I will not repeat it.

The Quality of Death Index researchers felt that we should articulate our plan into a formal national strategy for palliative care and publish it. We are in the process of doing so and will formulate one in consultation with the palliative care community. We will consider including a code of ethics in the national strategy. Although no formal code exists at the moment, our informal assessment is that existing providers do provide palliative care of high ethical standards.

3. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if he will commission a study on the efficacy of (i) early intervention for special-needs children; and (ii) general pre-school education for children before primary school age.

I am pleased to inform Ms Denise Phua that the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) is commissioning the National Institute of Education (NIE) to embark on an impact study for early intervention programmes for children with special needs. Presently, the Government provides funding to eight Voluntary Welfare Organisations to run 12 Early Intervention Programme for Infants & Children (EIPIC) centres.

The initial phase of the study aims to develop standardised disability coding and assessment tools for evaluating children’s outcomes in five developmental domains. These domains include: (i) fine and gross motor skills; (ii) cognition and perception; (iii) communication and language: (iv) social; and (v) self-help skills.

Once we have established these tools, they will help us to assess how well the children are progressing in EIPIC programmes in each of these five dimensions. This, in turn, will allow us to assess the efficacy of the programmes and the sub-components within each of these programmes in EIPIC centres.

MCYS will involve key stakeholders namely, MOE, MOH and the hospitals under MOH’s Child Development Programme (KKH and NUH) in order to tap their expertise in providing guidance and inputs for the study. There will be several phases and it will take several years for this study to be completed. I hope to commence the first phase some time next year.

The second part of the Member's question is really related to general pre-school education which is outside my ambit and should be addressed by MOE. Anyway, there will be a whole motion on pre-school education later today.

Thank you, Minister for the good news. I want to officially commend MCYS and NCSS for having put a lot of resources into the early intervention programmes for the children in the last few years and I thank the Minister for that. I am also pleased to note that MCYS has commissioned the National Institute of Education to conduct the efficacy study on early intervention programmes for special-needs children. May I ask Minister to consider perhaps conducting some due diligence on the composition of the team members? Perhaps MCYS can get feedback or nominations from the sector so that we are able to incorporate different disabilities and to get inputs from disability experts on the ground. The composition of the team would also be respected by the different players.

May I also ask the Minister what is likely to be the course of action that he will take, depending on whether the results are beneficial or not? If yes, would MCYS commit to give even greater commitment to the current programmes? If no, would MCYS then recommend that these services be terminated?

The answer to the Member's first supplementary question, clearly, is "yes". We do need a multi-disciplinary team and we will certainly be open to participation from those on the ground who have experience and expertise. The key objective is to come up with a more evidence-based approach to the way we manage these children. As a former doctor who had to look after many children and parents who had disabled children, it breaks my heart to see parents desperately trying all kinds of therapies, some of which are completely unproven, some in fact maybe unhelpful. A lot of these therapies are expensive and have tremendous impact on the parents' stress level and on their finances. I want to have a system where we can truly assess and then based on those assessments, advise parents what works, what does not work, what is useful, what is speculative, so that all of us – parents, service providers, the volunteer sector providing those services, the donors donating the money and the Government co-investing in the services – know which areas to invest in.

This leads me to the Member's second supplementary question. Based on the results of this study, we will have to make necessary adjustments. There may be some programmes which we will expand and in which it will be justified for us to invest more. There may be other programmes which we need to cut back on or to redirect. But let us not pre-judge the issue. As I have said, I want a more evidence-based approach to this very sensitive area.

I would like to ask the Minister if the said efficacy study will build also on the foundation that is already laid by the current studies that are completed by the MOH team comprising people from MCYS and different service providers, on the clinical practice guidelines for some of these disabilities. Would the said study be based on the completed studies I just mentioned, so that we do not have to re-invent the wheel?

The answer is "yes". The Member is referring to the baseline study that was performed by KK Hospital's Child Development Unit, some VWOs and MCYS. I have gone through the results of their study. As a baseline, it exposed a lot of what we do not know. These are known-unknowns, and I am trying to track down all these known-unknowns. We will certainly not re-invent the wheel, but we will build upon the past studies.

4. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether the Ministry has completed the review of the Child Protection Services that was announced in June this year; (b) what are the gaps that have been identified; and (c) when will the changes be implemented.

My Ministry had initiated the review of the Child Protection System in May this year. We did this in order to assess the adequacy and robustness of our Child Protection System. The work is being undertaken by an inter-agency Workgroup comprising MCYS officers, representatives from various Government agencies, as well as external members who are familiar with the Child Protection System. We have also engaged two overseas consultants to carry out an independent review of the service, paying specific attention to the effectiveness of our internal processes, our training systems and our resourcing of officers, as well as inter-agency partnerships. In order to understand the inter-agency challenges better, we conducted several focus group discussions with key stakeholders: namely, the hospitals, schools, Police, voluntary children’s homes and Family Services Centres.

The findings of the consultants and the focus group discussions are still being deliberated by the inter-Ministry workgroup. So I am not in the position to give definitive outcomes. But I can share that there have been some preliminary findings, which we re-affirm first the need for closer collaboration and co-ordination between the Child Protection Services on one hand, and the other partnering Government and community agencies on the other hand. We also need to provide more training for all stakeholders. Training specifically in the detection, prompt reporting and handling of reports of child abuse. We are also evaluating the need to develop more specialised services to support children who may have been victims of abuse. We expect the review to be completed by March next year, and I will have more things to say about it, at that point in time.

Sir, I have a couple of supplementary questions. The major concern is the lack of co-ordination among the agencies, such as MCYS and the Police, in handling cases of abuse victims. For example, there was a recent case of the girl who was molested by her father. Upon his release, he went back home and repeatedly raped her. MCYS was not informed by the Police and it was not clear whether the Police has it as part of the SOP that they need to inform MCYS for such cases.

I have a few supplementary questions. First, could the Minister give some ideas as to how the Ministry proposes to have better co-ordination with the other agencies, especially the Police, on cases involving victims of abuse. Secondly, would the Minister consider making counselling mandatory for the abusers as well as the mother of the victim? Sometimes, the mother may be in state of denial, especially if the perpetrator is her own husband. Thirdly, could the Minister consider putting in place an alert system, whereby at least six months before an abuser is due to be released, the prison authorities will inform the relevant agencies, such as MCYS, family service centre if one is involved, the school – the child should get the support from the school – and other relevant agencies, perhaps the hospital, to supervise the child's well-being?

Mdm Halimah Yacob is absolutely right that there is a great need for close collaboration and communication amongst all the stakeholders. As I said earlier, the initial points of contact can be the school, hospital, family service centres, sometimes members of public or neighbours, or other family members. So the initial warning signs can come through different channels. We already have a system. For instance, in hospitals, the moment the child is admitted and detected as having a non-accidental injury, doctors and nurses have an SOP. I can tell Members this from personal experience. We know that a report needs to be lodged, the report goes to the Child Protection Service, and the Child Protection Service could then embark on a separate investigation into the social circumstances of that particular family. The point is that it is not as if we are starting without any basis for collaboration and co-ordination. There is. But having said that, as the Member has pointed out the one terrible example, there will always be occasions when we could have done more or better. That is specifically what we are looking at.

Some of the Member's suggestions are suggestions which we certainly intend to pursue. For instance, tagging certain cases that would remain of concern, even after their release from prison. When we tag that case, in the sense we have to tag that family. That family has to remain under surveillance or monitoring by our social agencies. The Member's other suggestion about having an alert system before the person is released from prison or hospital or any other treatment facility: the family and the community services supporting that family need to be kept informed.

The Member's other suggestion about the need for counselling is also something which we are pursuing. It is not just counselling for the perpetrator, but for the victim and to strengthen the self-resilience of the family to be able to cope with the initial trauma, as well as to put in the safety mechanisms to prevent future recurrence of such threats. This will always be work-in-progress. Even as we uplift the standards of co-ordination and communication, we will do our best to minimise things like this from occurring and cases slipping through the cracks. I cannot tell and give the Member a guarantee that child abuse will never occur or that we can prevent every single case before it happens, very often in the privacy of the home. But we will do our best.

5. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry is satisfied with the desired outcomes since the implementation of the Sustained Achievement Award (SAA) for schools; (b) how many schools have reduced its list of sports offerings under Co-Curricula Activity (CCA) for students in the last two years and what are the reasons; (c) how does the Ministry prevent schools from over-focusing on competitive sports in order to win the SAA at the expense of other sports; and (d) how does the Ministry ensure that schools offer at least a minimum number of sports for CCAs to benefit non-competitive students.

Mr Speaker, Sir, introduced in 1998, the Sustained Achievement Award (SAA) to recognise schools for their sustained excellence in the aesthetics, sports and uniformed groups, has led to the pursuit of sporting excellence and the good student participation. About one-third of our secondary and pre-university students participate in sports CCA.

Schools provide a range of CCA options to students to cater to the varied interests and needs of students. Although there may be local changes at school-level, the average number of CCA sports in schools has remained constant over the last few years. On the average, secondary schools provide 12 sports CCAs.

Besides CCA, schools also conduct "Learn to Play Sports" courses under the Sports Education Programme (SEP) for all other students and organise sports carnivals as part of their recreation and enrichment programme for students. The zone sports development committees also organise inter-school games competitions for students who are not in school teams.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions. First, the Minister of State has mentioned that one-third of students participated in a CCA, that means there will be two-thirds who did not participate in a sports CCA. I would like to know the reason. Is it because of the shortage of sports CCA in schools? The second question is: will the Ministry consider increasing the funding to schools so that they can provide more sports as CCA to those non-competitive students?

Students who do not participate in sports CCA may be in other CCAs. If you consider dance, for example, it may not be classified as sports, but it is very rigorous and is a good exercise, and many dancers stay very slim. In other CCAs, students are also participating in some form of physical exercise and competition. In addition, for students who do not participate in sports competition, there are many other opportunities for them to participate in Physical Education (PE) and the Sports Education Programme (SEP), which is co-funded by Singapore Sports Council (SSC) and MOE. Students have good exposure to various sports and activities and they all can participate in some form of competition. On whether or not MOE will increase the funding for sports CCA, MOE has already created various levels of participation. For example, we have already started the Youth Sports Academy (YSA) for various sports this year as a follow up to the Junior Sports Academy (JSA), so that students with sports talent can be nurtured by the best coaches.

Sir, what I meant is: for those students who do not play competitively but they would like to have recreational sports.

Funding is always available. It is up to the schools and zones to tap on various funds available to them to participate in recreational and non-competitive sports.

6. Mrs Josephine Teo asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the obesity rate among students in (i) primary schools (ii) secondary schools and (iii) post-secondary institutions; and (b) whether the obesity rate had increased over the past decade.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 2009, the obesity rate, defined as the proportion of students whose weight is more than 20% above the average for their height, was 10% for primary schools, 10% for secondary schools, and ranged from 6% in JCs to 23% at the ITE. We, however, do not have data on obesity for the polytechnics.

Obesity rates among school students have remained relatively stable in the past decade. The obesity rate among ITE students rose from 18% in 2005 to 23% in 2009. Based on Weight-for-Height norms, the national obesity rate of our students in primary schools, secondary schools and JCs for the past decade has been stable around 9.7%. The data is available for the Members.

Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State.

I am glad to note that the rate of obesity has not increased, but it has remained stubbornly around the 10% range. My first question is: what steps will the MOE take to reduce the rate of obesity among the students? My second supplementary question is to ask how effective are the programmes, such as the Healthy Eating in Schools programmes and the Holistic Health Framework (HHF) in combating obesity among school children. The third question is whether there are sufficient health and nutrition experts in the schools to help bring down the rate of obesity.

Managing the obesity rate in our population of students is definitely one of the focus of schools. In fact, I chair the Healthy Youth Committee with representatives from HDB, MOH, IMH, MCYS, MOE, SSC and various practitioners of the sports and health industry. The reason we are incorporating a lot of people is basically as the Member has mentioned just now – the Holistic Health Framework (HHF) does not just address the issue of obesity. We have to expand the scope of concern of our students around social health and mental health as a more encompassing approach to impact the students' physical well-being. That is why IMH is on board.

To answer the question on whether we should reduce the rate, it is something that we continue to do. But, it is not always an easy thing when students come from primary school, a little more obese than they should be. And after we have done a lot of work on them, parents at home overindulge in them and they have less physical activities during the school holidays. We find that after the school holidays, many students actually gained weight. So we ask Members who have children, to help schools and teachers in reducing the obesity rate.

On the second question of whether Healthy Eating and HHF have taken root: I have visited many schools and they have moved away from over focusing on obesity or underweight, for that matter, and looking at the broad spectrum of health issues that students should be educated in. This includes mental health. The children should know that they should really get help if they feel depressed and that it is normal to get help when they feel depressed. While this HHF is still new, I am happy to note that all schools that I have visited have already incorporated HHF – Holistic Health Framework – into their Health Education framework in place of the old TAF programmes that they had previously.

On the third question of whether there are enough health and nutritionists to help schools: we use the services of Health Promotion Board (HPB) as well as NGOs like the National Nutritionist Dietetics Society to help schools address specific issues around health. Sometimes, it could be around nutrition, sometimes it could be around healthy eating, including for those who are underweight, to make sure that they also have a varied diet and not just look at trying to maintain a slim look.

I would still like to ask the question: is the MOE satisfied that this is the rate of obesity that we can live with or does MOE have a specific target to want to work towards and to put in the resources to try and bring down the rate of obesity? The reason I asked is because while all the rates have been quite stable, they are still quite high and I think we should not be satisfied with this current rate of obesity in our school children, given that obesity can lead to a lifetime of issues.

The new CHERISH framework has shifted from only looking at obesity rate towards looking at progress because reducing obesity is not an overnight thing. We can give them pills, we can inject them and maybe they will lose weight. But I think that is not what we want them to do. What we want to do is to have a healthy disposition towards life and, for some students, it may take a lifetime. Maybe it would take them as long as they are in school and maybe they would only start slimming down after they have left school. So for that matter, what we want to ensure is that students internalise why they have to be healthy so that even if they are obese, they do undertake rigorous exercises so that they can fall within the healthy weight and height norms. To target a particular obesity rate, it must be based on some science or evidence that this is the obesity rate that we should look for. For now, while we do not have a particular target rate, we are happy that the obesity rate has been stable and is not increasing.

I would like to ask the Minister of State this: although the obesity rate is below 10% and does not seem to be too alarming, are there any comparisons with other countries or countries around our region? The second supplementary question is: we know that the availability of junk food contributes to obesity in schools. Does MOE have any guidelines as to what kind of food can be sold at the school canteens and how do we monitor that?

Mr Speaker, for the first question on whether there are any comparisons with other countries: I do not have the figures but we do compare. I can say that at our biennial Education for Health Conference which is attended, not only by our school practitioners, but also by practitioners around the world, I get only accolades from them for the way that we have managed health issues in our schools and for maintaining a stable obesity rate among our students. But if the Member wants to have more specific figures, perhaps he can file a parliamentary question for it.

Secondly, whether there are guidelines for our schools to provide healthy food, healthy nutrition. Apart from educating them during curriculum hours, we work with HPB to educate the canteen operators to provide healthy nutritional food that would form a balanced diet. Those that have attained a particular standard set by HPB get the title "A Model Tuckshop".

I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he would consider introducing these obesity prevention programmes at the pre-primary level because, in my view, by the primary school level, habits are already formed, whether exercise or lack of exercise or food habits. So roll out the programmes at the pre-primary level in collaboration, of course, with the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. I think there would then be a lot more targeted focus and that is more preventive in nature.

We must be mindful not to move everything we cannot achieve in primary schools to pre-schools. [Laughter]. We are also mindful of the need for preventive care and that we can also provide guidance for practitioners in our pre-schools as well as to their parents. The Member is right: parents tend to overindulge in their children's food habits and therefore it is good and timely that we work with the pre-schools to provide the information as early as possible, given also that most of our students attend pre-schools.

2.06 pm

Order. End of Question Time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to move this motion*. I beg to move,

That this House, with a view to better preparing our children for school and life, urges the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of pre-school education in Singapore by rationalising issues of continuity to formal schooling, variance in standards and fees, and equal opportunities.

I started formal schooling in 1966 in the now defunct Cantonment Primary – a typical neighbourhood school where most of us were from lower-income families. I did not go to kindergarten, but was fortunate to have parents who emphasised education – even though they were hardly educated themselves. More importantly, being the youngest family of six children, I had the benefit of being taught how to read and to count at home when I was five. Yet, when I went to Primary 1, the teacher worked on the assumption that we could not read or count and so we started with basic lessons on the alphabet ABC and basic numbers. A handful of us were ahead of the class, but we enjoyed the relaxed pace and saw it as revision and, of course, more time to play! Quite a few of those from fairly poor family background, who did not attend kindergarten and did not have the benefit of home tutoring before primary school, I observed, caught up fairly fast and became star performers in a year or two. This is only possible because the majority of us were from similar socio-economic backgrounds and the pace of teaching was measured, catering to those who could not read or count.

By the time we were in Primary 3, it was more or less a level playing field. The differentiating factors were hard work, parental guidance and, to a lesser extent, intelligence.

We had equal opportunities to do well, regardless of whether we were from rich, middle-income or poor families – essentially because, from what I could see, teaching was benchmarked on the median performer in class. And at that time, there was not much difference between the median and mean because the socio-economic disparity was not significant. And the clear emphasis on merit – where the best performer, regardless of his background, would be rewarded – gave parents from the lower-income segment of society enough incentive to push and motivate their children to do their best and have a crack at success in life. And for us, the pupils – because we saw fairly immediate results of hard work, we were motivated to continue working hard. As such, top schools like Raffles Institution (RI) and Raffles Girls' Secondary School (RGS) – which had the pick of the top 2% of each cohort – had a significant proportion of students coming from families in the lower-income segment of society. Many of these students, such as Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh Chok Tong, Prof. S. Jayakumar, went on to lead the country. In fact, many of us of the right vintage would be familiar with the line, "RI ruled the country, and ACS owned it", because unlike in RI and RGS, students from ACS tended to come from families that were financially and socially well-heeled!

This was the strength of our education system. Indeed, this was the strength of Singapore society then – where an enlightened and forward looking Government acted on the cardinal twin principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity to give enough hope to parents, rich or poor, that their children would have a fair crack at success and, with that, a good life. And education was the ultimate social leveller.

Seeing how serious the Government was in ensuring that this remains sacrosanct – there was a strong buy-in from the ground. This belief, coupled with a deep trust in our political leaders – their integrity and sincerity – proved to be a powerful incentive for parents to be that much more driven to push their children to excel. The rewards of hard work were eminently evident.

Over the years, we have continued to benefit from our political leadership's unstinting emphasis on education. The result – generations of Singaporeans went to school, got qualifications and skills that meant jobs and, over time, better paying jobs and, with that, the opportunity for a better life. We would be remiss if we take this for granted and are not grateful.

A better educated workforce provided the ballast for continued economic growth. This, in turn, meant a more sophisticated populace, which, having tasted the good life started to demand even more. The result – growing aspirations.

At the macro level, growing regional and global competition meant that to continue to grow as an economy, we needed more people with even better qualifications and skills.

The challenge of managing and maintaining success became acute, especially from the 1980s. This meant having to balance three goals:

providing a level playing field for all, based on equal opportunities and meritocracy;

fulfilling the aspirations of an increasingly affluent and demanding population; and

producing more better qualified and skilled individuals as prime-movers of economic growth.

Clearly, economic growth was, and continues to be, a key determinant of our survivability as a country. To a large extent, therefore, economic considerations underpin educational policies. This, in turn, meant that the goals of producing better qualified and skilled individuals, and fulfilling the aspirations of an increasingly affluent society assumed primacy. I believe that this was an underpinning consideration for our educational policies, such as streaming. There was growing pressure to address the needs of more educated and demanding parents who did not want to see their children's performance in school retarded by them having to keep pace with the slower performing students in class.

The socio-economic demographics of Singapore society has also changed significantly over the past 45 years. An outcome of economic prosperity is that the "haves" today outnumber the "have-nots" in our society. This means that the gap between the mean and median student has widened. For the reasons that I have highlighted earlier, if economic growth is an overriding imperative, then the mean student becomes the benchmark. Consequently, helping to propel those above the mean to attain peak performance in school naturally becomes the focus as this is the segment that has the strongest bearing on economic growth.

I am not suggesting that there is a deliberate policy to ignore the needs of students who do not perform as well in school. Credit has to be given to the Government for continuing to seek ways to lift the overall performance of these students. Regardless, there appears to be a widening gap between the better and weaker performers in school that, in turn, translates to an exacerbation of the widening socio-economic gap in society.

If there is no intervention, by way of policy shifts, the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" will continue to widen at a faster pace. In fact, the education system, instead of being a social-leveller, I fear, could become an active contributor to the widening socio-economic gap, unwittingly albeit.

Several Members of this House have in the recent past raised concerns on this subject. There have been questions about inequality, access to quality pre-school education, whether we should nationalise pre-schooling and what the goals of pre-school education should be. There is clearly interest expressed in this House to see an improvement in the quality of pre-school education, making it more affordable and accessible to all our children regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds.

It is evident that, for a maximum shift towards a desirable outcome, we need to focus more on early intervention in education. To this end, the introduction of legislation in the year 2000 to make primary school education compulsory and the recent PERI Report on Primary Education by a Committee chaired by Senior Minister of State, Ms Grace Fu, are significant milestones.

*The motion also stood in the name of Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen.

Both have sent powerful and much needed signals to parents and educationalists alike on the importance of early intervention to strengthen the foundation for a child’s ability to reach his potential. I applaud the Government for doing this.

It has been 10 years since primary school education was made compulsory. In many ways, during this time pre-school education has come to have the same impact as primary education in determining the trajectory of the individual over the years, not only in terms of school performance but also the potential to succeed in life. It is in the same spirit as the legislation in the year 2000 and the PERI Report that I am now urging the Government, through this motion, to conduct a comprehensive review of pre-school education.

The aim is for us to examine the state of pre-school education in a deeper, more focused manner – to study its impact on the individual and society as a whole in the context of today’s realities. My sense is that, overall, our pre-school and primary school education systems are on the right track. What is needed is some significant fine-tuning to reduce the incidence of unintended, undesired outcomes. On the other hand, the review could very well conclude that we do not need to make any significant changes to the system, but at least we will know that we have arrived at this conclusion after giving this important matter sufficient holistic consideration. It is also my hope that such a review will be conducted in an inclusive, consultative and transparent manner – very much like how Senior Minister of State Grace Fu’s Committee conducted its study. This is important because there are many stakeholders in pre-school education who have perspectives that are based on expertise and experience. More importantly, I hope that a lively, honest debate in this House and public participation in the process will help foster deeper awareness of the considerations and importance of pre-school education, especially among our parents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now briefly highlight three key observations on the state of pre-school education in Singapore.

First, it is evident that a child who goes to Primary 1 today without attending kindergarten classes is highly disadvantaged, unless he comes from a socio-economic background where home tutoring is an option. This is because at Primary 1, a child is assumed to be able to read or at least is expected to know his ABC and has basic numeracy skills. The fact is that more than 90% of the cohort would fit the bill somewhat, having gone through kindergarten. The educationalists I spoke to were all in agreement that a child who goes to Primary 1 today without attending kindergarten education is seriously disadvantaged. There are crash courses in school for such students in Primary 1 – to level up their reading and numeracy skills – but it would appear that their effectiveness is limited. After all, we are trying to pump-prime a child in a few months when other children would have taken two whole years to achieve the same!

Secondly, the vast majority of those who go to Primary 1 without going to kindergarten are from families in the lower-income segment of the society where their parents have limited education. This means that the children who come from homes where the exposure to English is limited and whose parents may not be in a position to teach or guide them in language or numeracy skills. Many of the parents may not even have the luxury of spending quality time with their children, let alone teach them because they work shifts or, in some cases, double shifts. Social workers I spoke to are of the view that children are in a particularly worse off situation if they come from dysfunctional families – and we know that there is a higher incidence of this in lower-income households. In such cases, not only do the children go to Primary 1 without language or numeracy skills, they carry the baggage of low confidence and low self-esteem. We know that these have a retarding effect on educational performance. Educationalists I spoke to are of the view that such children would benefit especially from exposure to pre-school education which will help socialise them early to being in a controlled, group environment. In most circumstances, it will also help to compensate for their home environment and boost their self-esteem and confidence.

Thirdly, in some cases even when the children have undergone kindergarten education, they are not able to read or count when they enter Primary 1. Thankfully, it would appear that such cases are minimal. I have been serving as a SINDA volunteer for the Reading Programme – where once a week, I read to a primary school child for an hour at his home. A Primary 4 boy I used to read to was not able to read even one sentence in English when I first met him. I was told by some educationalists and social workers that many of these children come to Primary 1 without being able to read and struggle to catch up after that because of the general pace of the class and especially when there are more than 40 students per class. It is a challenge for the teacher to pay enough attention to kids who are trailing far behind. It is not for want of interest – it is just a practical problem. This throws up the question of what is taught in our kindergartens and the quality of pre-school education.

I was hoping to present some findings of local studies on the state of pre-school education. Unfortunately, I have not been able to come across any. In comparison, there are numerous studies on the subject conducted outside of Singapore – all of which appear to stress the growing importance of pre-school education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me now to spend a few minutes to highlight some global trends and key findings in the area of pre-school education.

Numerous studies have drawn attention to direct links between early childhood experience, brain development and social outcomes. It has been shown that early intervention can improve the life outcomes of the individual, minimise inequality and mobility gaps, and boost the national human capital necessary to face today’s challenges.

As a result, there has been growing recognition, especially amongst developed countries, of the importance of pre-school education. The Obama administration, for example, has pledged a US$10 billion investment in early childhood education, one of the largest initiatives to boost childhood education in the USA since the 1960s. US Education Secretary Arne Duncan explains the reason for this emphasis, and I quote him:

"Early learning has come into its own and is recognised as the first and most critical stage in human development. It is time to transform early learning from a system of uneven quality and access into a system that truly and consistently prepares children for success."

For the same reason, major philanthropic foundations have also committed significant investments in pre-school education in the USA. The Buffet Early Childhood Education Fund has pledged more than US$18 million a year on advocacy projects for high-quality early childhood education, especially for disadvantaged children. The W K Kellogg Foundation pledged US$16.5 million in 2009 for similar projects. Recently, the member states of the European Union have pledged to provide free or subsidised full pre-school education for at least 90% of children under the age of six. This is in line with the trend amongst OECD countries to raise pre-school education standards and move towards a more universalised system. Many OECD countries, where social inequalities have widened in tandem with strong economic development, have national development plans that emphasise access to quality early childhood education, focusing on children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Similarly, the European Parliament has formally affirmed the power of pre-school education in preventing delinquency, school dropouts as well as improving the upward mobility of children from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds. It is actively seeking ways to consolidate education policies with a focus on access to quality pre-school education to better manage what appears to be an increasing incidence of these problems.

Apart from teaching basic literacy and numeracy, it has been established that early education is fundamental in building character and practical life-skills. Research from The Centre on the Developing Child at Harvard University points to the cognitive skills, emotional well-being, social competence as well as physical and mental health developed in a child’s pre-school education. The study concludes that these are vital in building the necessary foundation for the individual’s success in school and adult life. Significantly, this Harvard research highlights that all aspects of human capital are built on capacities developed during one’s childhood.

Let me now move on to the effect of pre-school education or its absence on socio-economic equity.

Several studies in the UK, USA and Australia have shown that while in school, children already display striking disparities in development, which are predictive of their later academic and occupational achievements. In a seminal report published in the year 2002, researchers from the University of Michigan, Valerie Lee and David Burkham, conducted a scientific study of the cognitive abilities of pre-school children. The study found that the average cognitive scores of children from the highest socio-economic group are about 60% above the scores of children in the lowest group. Children from middle-income families were found to know about three times as much vocabulary as their counterparts from low-income families with less educated parents. Another seminal study, which focused on evaluating childcare subsidies, was conducted in 2007 by ABT Associates, a top government and business research firm in America. It showed that four-year-old children below the poverty line can be up to 18 months behind what is considered normal at this age group, and this gap persists throughout that child’s life. Timely intervention at pre-school level is seen as the most effective way to reverse this trend. Likewise, the Millennium Cohort Study conducted in the UK documented how significant socio-economic inequalities that a child faces from the age of three can persist throughout the individual’s life. The report of the 1998 Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children in Washington D.C., alongside other studies, pointed to how early childhood education can break poverty cycles and give all children a stronger start in life in a more equitable manner.

Other studies have emphasised the importance of quality pre-school education that is accessible to the rich and poor alike, that will effectively reduce achievement variations between children of well-educated, affluent parents and children who are from less-educated families. Emeritus Professor of Psychology and expert in Child Development at Yale University, Edward Ziegler, argues that it is not only children from low-income families who benefit from early childhood education, but also children from middle-income families who are able to close the gap between themselves and children from wealthy backgrounds. Therefore, it is not just pre-school education but quality pre-school education, made affordable to a wide cross-section of society, that is important.

Let me now move on to studies that have shown a strong correlation between investment in accessible quality early childhood education and strong, sustainable economic growth. This is especially relevant for countries such as Singapore where human capital is the primary resource.

A report in 2007 by Harvard University’s National Scientific Council summed up the connection between early childhood experiences and national development in the following words: "… all aspects of adult human capital, from workforce skills to cooperative and lawful behaviour, build on capacities that are developed during childhood, beginning at birth." Perhaps, the most authoritative thesis on this subject was presented by Nobel Laureate Economist James Heckman. Through his research, Prof. Heckman devised a simple equation that related investing in young children’s education early to future productivity growth: Invest + Nurture + Sustain = Gain. It is explained as follows:

Invest in educational and development resources for disadvantaged families to provide equal access to successful early human development; plus

Nurture early development of cognitive and social skills in children from birth to age five; plus

Sustain early development with effective education through to adulthood; equals

Gaining a more capable, productive and valuable workforce that pays dividends for generations to come.

Prof. Heckman argues that the cognitive, linguistic, social and emotional competencies of the individual are shaped by the experiences of the developing child. Investing more in quality pre-school education and making it accessible reduces the occurrence of poverty, low-income related crime and delinquency. This means fewer resources would have to be committed to address the social burden imposed on the State’s increasingly limited resources.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me now to suggest three key areas that I feel the proposed review could look at or focus on.

First, the need to improve the quality and consistency of kindergarten education across the board. Currently, there are a total of 498 kindergartens operating in Singapore, with the PAP Foundation managing 247 of them. This has resulted in a wide range of offerings by the various vendors in terms of curriculum and teaching methodology. I am not going to suggest that we should aim for a complete standardisation – this goes against efforts by MOE to open up the system, and for good reasons. I am all in favour of letting a thousand flowers bloom in this space. After all, the charm of pre-school education is that there are diversely interesting ways to stimulate our children cognitively and to build character. We should certainly not take away the rich entrepreneurial spirit we see in many who run these kindergartens – that ensures the children have fun and are engaged as they learn. Also, choice is important.

However, we need to accept the reality that kindergartens today, unlike in the 1960s and 1970s, play a more significant critical role in preparing our children for primary school education. Children who will go to an overseas primary school operating in Singapore with a curriculum that is less rigorous than a primary school governed by MOE need not have the same concerns. As I have highlighted earlier in my speech, there appears to be too wide a variance in the quality of kindergarten education offered by the different operators – resulting in some children being highly proficient in literacy and numeracy skills, while others not being able to read or count even at a basic level when they go to Primary 1 and end up struggling to catch up for years even though they went to kindergarten. And regrettably, it would appear that the quality of kindergarten education has a correlation with the fees charged, which in turn means that those who can afford to pay more appear to be better assured of outcomes.

The Straits Times ran a feature on 17th October this year, titled "Tuition for Tots". It highlighted a growing number of parents who send their children for extra tuition classes on top of their pre-school programme. The main reason cited by these parents was that they felt pre-school programme did not do enough to prepare their children for primary school. We can choose to dismiss this as an act by a typical kiasu Singaporean parent. But they have the right to have these concerns, especially given the rigorous curriculum in primary school – where even educated parents are finding it a challenge to coach their children. If we can help give the assurance to parents that regardless of which kindergarten they send their children to, they can expect a minimum standard that is sufficient for the children to cope in primary school. I am certain that this will help alleviate much of the anxiety and stress felt by parents.

Currently, the responsibility for pre-school education is shared between the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS). While MOE oversees kindergarten education and MCYS takes charge of play-schools and nurseries, there is no clear lead agency in pre-school education as a whole. Since pre-school education is now a critical preparatory phase for primary school education, it makes greater sense for MOE to be the lead agency to ensure greater continuity and congruity in the early education of a child. This would make for easier coordination of policies as well as the setting and monitoring of standards. A key concern that some educationalists and parents I spoke to is that MOE would end up over-regulating what ought to still remain an essentially fun and exciting few years of pre-school education. I am confident that MOE is able to draw the line between setting broad policies and curriculum guidelines, without micro-managing. This is what the Ministry has been doing, and quite effectively with the schools, especially in the past few years. MOE has already started taking steps to raise the standards of pre-school sector by setting guidelines to improve teacher-child ratio, the quality of teachers as well as the quality of the curriculum. This year, the minimum qualification for pre-school teachers was raised. Also, there is now a voluntary quality assurance standard and accreditation framework, called the Quality Rating Scale that pre-schools are encouraged to use to maintain the standards of their facilities. This pre-school accreditation framework was officially launched yesterday. However, in my view, such measures do not go far enough in achieving the desired outcome of ensuring that our children are adequately prepared for Primary 1. Because this is a voluntary framework, it still gives pre-school centres latitude in deciding whether they want to impose these standards or not. And I fear that financial bottom-line considerations are likely to be a disincentive. Also, currently, there is insufficient regulation to ensure a more consolidated approach to teacher training and pedagogic programming. Experts in pre-school education whom I spoke to assert that some enforcement in these areas is essential to ensure much needed consistency in the quality of pre-school education offered by the many operators on the ground.

It would be useful for the MOE to consider stipulating a core curriculum for all kindergartens. If this constitutes no more than 50% of the overall curriculum, operators would still have enough flexibility in curriculum, methodology and style in keeping with their brand proposition.

Introducing a mandatory core curriculum with easy to measure KPIs would not only help to improve the overall continuity between kindergarten and primary school education, it will also reduce the disparity in the level of preparedness of Primary 1 children regardless of whether they attend a $1,000 a month or $100 a month kindergarten.

My second suggestion is to consider a review of the fee structure and publicity of the range of subsidies that are available today. This is to ensure that the steep variance in fees does not result in excessive disparity in the quality of kindergarten education offered by the various operators. While generally we should let market forces decide on fees, when it comes to services which we consider essential, such as utilities and transport, the Government, I feel, does provide and enforce guidelines. Even for schools that come under the purview of the MOE, there are clear guidelines on fees. Since it is evident that kindergarten education too is an essential service, and it comes under the MOE’s oversight, why can there not be guidelines on fees that can be charged, regardless of whether it is a privately-run kindergarten or that is eligible for Government subsidies? So as not to be unduly imposing on operators for whom bottom-line considerations are important and, rightly so, they can be given a broad enough range where the maximum fees chargeable per month are stipulated. Currently, the range is very large – between $100 a month and more than $1,000 a month!

A narrower range of fees pegged to a lower maximum fee chargeable would give a lot more options for the largest segment in our society – the middle class, where aspirations are probably the highest. Currently, many middle-class parents desire to send their children to some kindergartens because of the curriculum or pedagogy, but they cannot afford to because of the extremely steep fees. By stipulating the maximum fees, we are not only providing more options for parents but it will also help make it a more level playing field, which over time will have a positive effect on reducing the disparity in the quality of outcomes in the various kindergartens. Pricing is an important instrument in democratising opportunities.

Similarly, the modalities for kindergarten subsidies should be more transparent with greater effort by the Government in ensuring that parents are aware of them early enough so that they are in a position to make important decisions in an informed manner. Almost all the parents with pre-school aged children I spoke to – especially from the middle and lower-income segment – were either not aware of Government subsidies or did not know how to access them. This creates unnecessary anxiety for parents, especially when, today, as assured by the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, in this House, no child would be denied a kindergarten education because his parents cannot afford it. The current Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) helps to pay up to 98% of kindergarten fees, up to a cap of $98. On top of that are start-up grants for registration fees, uniforms and other miscellaneous costs. These are very useful for parents to know, but many of them are absolutely not aware of them. There should be a greater effort in proactively publicising the subsidies and other assistance schemes available for kindergarten education.

This takes me to my third suggestion – carefully studying the need to make kindergarten education universal or, to put it more directly, compulsory.

In 2008, 870 children did not attend pre-school. In the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, then Senior Parliamentary Secretary Masagos Zulkifli estimated that around 350 children in this year’s Primary 1 cohort had not attended kindergarten. When asked why kindergarten education is not made universal, this House was told that the Government saw greater value in persuasion instead of legislation, and that it was effective as the vast majority of parents were responsive.

While I am sure this light-touch approach is fairly successful, and I am sure MOE puts in the effort to reach out to parents, the fact remains that 350 seven-year-olds have not benefited from it this year. These children have started primary school at a disadvantage. Each one of them has the right to aspirations like the others – to do well in school and in life. Why should they be denied that right for reasons that they are not responsible for? Why should a child be placed in this unfair position if, eg, his parents simply did not see kindergarten education as important enough? Why should children be made to pay a price – and possibly a heavy price that could set them back for life – for their parents’ irresponsibility? Yes, 350 is not a large number – but we are not dealing with mere digits here, are we? The State has the responsibility and the duty to protect the rights and interests of each of these children – they are vulnerable, especially if they come from families that are disadvantaged or unenlightened.

In 2000, the Committee on Compulsory Primary Education recommended compulsory education at the primary and secondary levels despite the fact that only 3% of the cohort was not enrolled in national primary schools at the time of the review. Every Singaporean matters and every Singaporean child must attend school in order to get the same head start in life, to develop his or her potential. This was what former Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong said when he stressed why we need to make primary school compulsory. Ten years on, today, the starting point for getting that "same head start in life", as highlighted by Senior Minister Goh, has shifted from Primary 1 to kindergarten today. This is a reality we fail to recognise to our peril.

One of the reasons cited by MOE in explaining why it did not find it necessary to make kindergarten education compulsory was that it could force "school-readiness" at too early an age, hence, over-emphasising the academic and classroom environments too early in life. I am happy, especially as a parent, that the Government is concerned about this and that we should avoid subjecting pre-schoolers to undue stress. However, the reality is that there is already a significant amount of stress built into the system, which starts from Primary 1, and it rises on a fairly steep curve year on year. What this means is that if we do not want children to go through stress during pre-school, we are merely deferring the stress, which is likely to hit the child harder when he starts primary school education without kindergarten exposure.

Related to this is a concern that other parents I spoke to expressed – if we make kindergarten compulsory, it is going to take away the joy of pre-school education for our children. I share this concern and, for the record, am against any step that will unduly increase the stress on our children. But let us take a step back and ask ourselves if this is a likely outcome just because we make pre-school education compulsory. Highly unlikely, I would say, for the simple reason that it is not going to make a material difference to the level of stress for children because more than 95% in each cohort is already attending pre-school or kindergarten! If at all there is any added stress, it would be felt by the 350 children a year who are currently not attending kindergarten.

But even for the parents of these children, if effort is made to assure them that if they cannot afford to pay the fees, help is available that can offset almost 100% of the fees, I am sure they will be quite happy to send their children to kindergarten. Similarly, if effort is made to show parents that kindergarten education helps their children acquire important social skills that make them more confident, most parents would be enthusiastic. The truth is that most parents do care for their children and want the best for them.

Legislation is necessary to ensure that parents can no longer act in an irresponsible manner. Today, with the light-touch approach, if a parent refuses to send his child to kindergarten despite efforts by MOE officers to persuade him, there is effectively nothing that can be done to "rescue" the vulnerable child. But, with legislation, the irresponsible parent is required to send his child to kindergarten or face consequences. In many ways, the spirit of making pre-school education compulsory is similar to the amendments that were proposed in the Maintenance of Parents Act, which is targeted at the relatively very small proportion of children who refuse to provide financial support for their parents who need that support. It is inconsequential to the vast majority of parents and their children.

In signing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, we have recognised the rights of the child as a vulnerable member of society. As such, under Article 18, governments are required to "... render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities ….". Where the parent is unable to fulfil his responsibility and role to the child, the State must step in.

In fact, MOE itself has on various occasions affirmed the vital importance of pre-school education. Mr Masagos stated that "MOE acknowledges that pre-school is especially important for children from lower-income families as it gives them a good head start. They tend to lack home support. But pre-school will develop important areas in them – areas like communication, motor and social skills."

Sir, in conclusion, let me, first, reiterate two key points I have highlighted in my speech as fundamental to ensuring that our education system remains faithful to its goal of serving as a social leveller. First, we need to ensure that quality is constant and consistent and does not vary significantly based on how much more you are willing to or able to pay. In other words, regardless of where you send your child, you should be assured of a minimal standard of education that prepares him for the next level. Second, there should be universal access to this quality education. No child should be denied the right to education because his parents cannot afford it, or because they are not interested.

Meritocracy and equal opportunity – which are at the core of our collective consciousness as a society – have served us well. The rapid progress we have made over the years can be attributed to a large extent to our Government’s unstinting commitment to these two principles. Today, with growing income and class disparity – as an unintended but natural consequence of economic growth and affluence – it is even more important that equal opportunity is given as much importance as meritocracy, as they do not necessary complement each other like they used to, up until the early 1980s.

Michael Young, the well-known British historian who coined the term "meritocracy" in 1958, has written quite extensively on the pitfalls of societies focusing primarily and narrowly on meritocracy. He said that, "ability of a conventional kind, which used to be distributed between the classes more or less at random, has become much more highly concentrated by the engine of education ... with an amazing battery of certificates and degrees at its disposal, education has put its seal of approval on a minority, and its seal of disapproval on the many who fail to shine from the time they are relegated to the bottom streams at the age of seven or before".

Over the years, we have painstakingly nurtured a social compact that is the envy of many. This compact is predicated on the intrinsic faith the people have that each one of us matters, regardless of race, language, religion or which socio-economic class we belong to. This faith in a system that is fair and equitable while rewarding hard work and talent has resulted in the high level of trust that we have come to enjoy in our society. Not only has it contributed to economic growth, but also to social harmony. We cannot put a price on it, neither should we take it for granted.

Given how important it is for parents that their children have a decent crack at success and the good life, education as the means to that end is critical. It can be a lightning rod for dissonance and tension if parents feel that the system is unfair and biased in favour of the more privileged. Increasingly, the burgeoning middle class is likely to feel less privileged and frustrated if they feel their children do not have the same opportunities as the well-off or that they will not be commencing the race at the same start line.

By tweaking the pre-school education system at the right points, I am confident that we will be able to better align meritocracy and equal opportunity. We will never be able to perfect the alignment, but the effort will be a testimony that economic success has not forced us to suspend the very values we have been taught to believe in, as a people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.49 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak. I rise in support of this motion.

Sir, I am not a parent but I have friends who are, and I am watching their children grow up – happily, they are growing up as balanced and healthy kids. As I have conducted or organised art workshops for school children, how children learn has also been of interest to me. I have been told by parents that the pedagogical approaches and programmes of the almost 500 pre-schools in Singapore are so diverse that selecting the most appropriate programme for their children is a daunting task. Operators of pre-schools run the gamut of non-profit organisations, religious bodies, to NTUC’s Little Skool House, the PCF Kindergartens and, finally, the most expensive private and international schools. As already mentioned by my fellow Member, Mr Sadavisan, fees at these schools could range from $100 – actually, just slightly below $100 – to $1,000 or more a month. This is a wide gap which is certainly not the case in our primary education system.

Currently, how are parents assured that their children are being properly cared for and taught in a safe environment at the tender ages between four and six? Firstly, pre-schools have to be registered with the Ministry of Education. The minimum requirements for a school to operate include ensuring that its teachers have attained a certain minimum level of education and a Diploma in Pre-school Education Teaching. Under the new guidelines, by 2013, all new teachers will have at least five "O" level credits and a Diploma in Pre-school Education Teaching, and existing teachers will need to have an "O" level credit in English or a pass in English Language proficiency test, as well as a Diploma in Pre-school Education Teaching.

Further assurance for parents comes in the form of a new voluntary quality assurance framework, where pre-schools evaluate their performance and programmes through self-appraisal as well as external assessors. This framework was introduced by the Committee on Improving Quality of Pre-School Education, chaired by then Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, in 2008.

Concrete measures recommended by this Committee included the Ministry providing curriculum resources such as a curriculum planning guide to pre-schools, grants for teacher training and an innovation grant for pre-schools to seek new ways to improve the quality of their teaching. All these measures were positive and a step in the right direction. The emphasis of the Ministry’s initiatives so far has been largely in the area of stepping up the quality of teaching, particularly in introducing educational and training levels for teachers, rather than any intervention in the programmes being offered by the schools. The Ministry has refrained from over-regulation on how pre-schools manage their business – and rightly so as each established pedagogical method used by a school has its own integrity and parents should have the freedom to choose an approach that they are most comfortable with.

Since there was already a Committee on Improving Quality of Pre-School Education in 2008, why then should we call for another review of the pre-school education landscape? Well, the question today is not simply that of assuring quality teaching in pre-schools – that we know will continue to be under the watchful eye of the Ministry. Rather it boils down to the main theme that Mr Sadasivan has already put forward in great detail – that the range of pre-school programmes and fees, combined with better educated parents’ anxieties today, the naturally competitive urge of Singaporeans, and the income gap that arises due to our rapid economic growth, could unintentionally lead some children to fall behind. It is not because the opportunities do not exist, but because the children are unable to access them due to various reasons – such as the low education and income level of their parents, which may be a factor in the parents' lack of awareness about the benefits of putting their children in pre-school as well as the financial assistance that is available to help them to do so.

A report from the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child in the USA, published by the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, notes that stress experienced by children from families struggling to make ends meet, ie, very low-income households, may affect the children's development including the "development of brain architecture", whereas programmes of early intervention and pre-school education can be effective: "Creative, focused programmes of early childhood education have been shown to have lifelong benefits for children that persist 20, 30, even 40 years later." In brief, pre-schools and early childhood education play a part in developing a country's social and human capital.

Let me explain this from a different perspective. As Mr Sadasivan has noted, a child who enters primary school without a kindergarten education is likely to be behind his peers in terms of literacy and numeracy skills. There are programmes in school to help the children catch up, but they have to make up for two years of learning within a few months. As many of these children come from lower-income households where there is often little parental support for their learning development, they may learn at a much slower rate. Mr Sadasivan has already spoken in detail on some of these children's difficulties. With the examinations being scrapped at lower primary, the child is automatically promoted to upper primary, perhaps, without a solid foundation in core language and numeracy skills, and this may not be due to the fault of his educators or the school. It is just simply that they do not have the parental or household support. And as much of the syllabus now requires a good grasp of the language as well, children who do not have the appropriate foundational language skills, in particular, will find it hard to keep up as they move up through the system.

With economic prosperity, parents who are well-educated are more demanding and anxious that their child has the best head start for school. According to the Ministry of Education, half of all Primary 1 children today have at least one parent with post-secondary education. The children of well-educated parents, who are placed in good kindergarten programmes and learn quickly because of their environment, then set the pace in primary school. One could argue that this has always been the case. But in today’s school environment, it has become essential for parents to have a greater involvement in their child’s learning. They are reading the child’s textbooks, tutoring the child and sending the child to enrichment classes.

A parent I know recently wrote in a group e-mail conversation that primary school textbooks are "pretty basic" and it is essential for the child to read outside the textbooks in order to do well, which really reveals how competitive even primary school education is. Thus, a child, who has not picked up sufficient core literacy or numeracy skills at kindergarten and who lacks parental support, may be at a disadvantage. Furthermore, children now start music, art and dance classes at pre-school age, or even earlier. And as many schools now require students to have some minimum level of dance or music education before admitting them to music and dance co-curricular activities (CCAs), children who do not have enthusiastic or, perhaps, kiasu parents may end up being excluded from enjoying these CCAs.

In fact, for many parents today, just attending nursery and pre-school is not enough. Children, as young as three and four years old, are being sent for enrichment classes or tuition to improve their Second Language skills, reading skills, and so on. The rat race starts before the child even understands the concept of examinations. Sending your child for enrichment programmes has become a norm, as can be seen in a number of online parenting forums. I will quote a few of the forum postings. First one: "My boy is three this year. He is currently attending PCF pre-nursery and now I cannot decide – should I continue with PCF nursery and send him for enrichment, or send him to a better school?" Therefore, the thinking is that PCF nursery or kindergarten is not enough, the parent wants to send the child for enrichment on top of the daily classes. Another parent says, "I have heard that the curriculum at a certain pre-school is more play-based rather than academic-based. Are the children adequately prepared for local school, Primary 1, by the time they graduate from K2?" A third quote: "My own conclusion: no need for a branded pre-school. Just attend enrichment classes."

In such an environment, a child who does not attend kindergarten will soon lag behind his peers, even at the age of six. And furthermore, these concerns of parents beg the questions: firstly, is pre-school education, as it stands, not sufficiently catering to our children’s intellectual, physical and emotional developmental needs? I personally do not think this is the case. But some parents seem to be anxious about this matter. Secondly, what are the benchmarks for a child’s development when he or she finishes pre-school and what are the minimum literacy, numeracy and social skills we expect a child to have when he or she commences Primary 1?

The range of pre-school programmes confuses the picture and parents may feel inadequate in assessing if their child’s learning is "sufficient" for Primary 1. Mr Sadasivan has noted that in the past, teachers in Primary 1 started teaching the basics of Mathematics and language; today, it is assumed that children enter formal schooling being able to do sums, fractions, and speak and write in two languages. In contrast, I think I only learnt fractions in Primary 2, and that was back in the 1970s.

Now, even when children are given the academic grounding at pre-school level, given the range of pre-school programmes, it is inevitable that the whole cohort will enter primary school with very different experiences of learning and different levels of literacy, numeracy and personal development.

Interestingly, academic skills are not particularly prominent in the core skills for children of kindergarten age that are listed in the publication "A Framework for a Kindergarten Curriculum in Singapore" published by the Ministry of Education a few years ago. This Framework suggests that a kindergarten curriculum should foster in children:

Sound social and moral values;

Good habits of working and playing with others;

Positive self-concept and confidence;

A strong sense of curiosity about things and objects around them;

An ability to communicate effectively in English and a Mother Tongue Language;

Physical control and manipulative skills;

Positive attitudes towards a healthy lifestyle; and

Positive family values and strong community ties.

These are outcomes that I wholeheartedly agree with. Although these skills and learning outcomes are actually listed on the Ministry website, parents are still anxious about whether their children are adequately prepared, partly because many focus on academic skills rather than the social, emotional and behavioural aspects. Perhaps, some guidelines or benchmarks on academic skills for children at the point of entry of primary school would be useful. Hence, it might be timely for the Government to evaluate and consider how to rationalise the many different routes that children take towards Primary 1, ensure some continuity of the learning stream for the child from pre-school to Primary 1, and provide clear guidance to parents of what to expect from pre-school education.

Here, I would also like to suggest one way to gain a constantly updated overview on issues of pre-school education, which could also serve as a "helpline" or channel of vital information for parents, is to have a network of sharing and consolidation of information among pre-school operators and educators which can be facilitated by the Ministry or handled by the Association for Early Childhood Educators and Association of Private Childcare Organisations.

These measures might mean that the Ministry of Education would be the lead agency or take a more active hand in early childhood education in Singapore. Thus far, the oversight for early childhood education has been shared between the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. This might be due to some schools offering nursery or even pre-nursery programmes as well as pre-school. Perhaps, it is time to consider taking a more active hand, as our society now understands that a proper education of children commences at pre-school age (or even earlier), rather than at Primary 1. The starting line for a child's formal education experience has moved back to an earlier age. That is the reality that we have today.

In calling for a review of the pre-school education landscape, I am not suggesting that the current system is inadequate. Rather, given the diversity of the pre-school landscape, parents’ anxieties, and the growing social recognition that the early childhood years are crucial for the child’s future, a review of the pre-school landscape would be useful in identifying best practices and where we are doing well, as well as identify gaps that we can address and areas for improvement. We will also be able to publicise learning points and best practices that will help parents in making decisions about the children's education. Periodic reviews of the pre-school landscape – which will undoubtedly keep changing quickly as our society progresses – will be useful as guides for parents as well as for pre-school education providers. And, certainly, as the cost of living increases, reviews that include the fee structure will also be very useful. Further, it would be useful to monitor the progress of the new training requirements of pre-school teachers that were introduced in the 2008 Committee on Improving Quality of Pre-school Education.

The guiding principle of our education policy has always been to ensure that no child is left behind. That is why we introduced compulsory primary education, and why it is kept affordable. That is why we have financial assistance schemes for childcare and early childhood education. As our society becomes more affluent, it is our duty to ensure that those who are not doing as well do not inadvertently get left behind. Education has always been a great social leveller and Singapore’s emphasis on providing quality education has been a key factor in our transformation from a developing nation to a first-world nation. Today, we have an education system that is respected around the world. The system is ever changing since the needs and demands of our people change with socio-economic realities and, based on the demands now being placed on early childhood education, we should seriously consider including the pre-school system in our consideration of policies for the broader education landscape. That way, we ensure continuity of aims, outcomes and holistic policy-making from early education through to primary, secondary and post-secondary education.

With that, I second the motion.

3.05 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this motion.

Sir, I have spoken in this House on early childhood education (ECE) in every Budget debate since 2007. I use the term ECE instead of pre-school education, because the educators themselves tell me it is their preference. ECE professionals, and that include those in childcare as well as in kindergartens, believe that their work is not just about preparing the children for academic life starting from primary school, which is what pre-school education would generally be taken to mean. ECE is more holistic than that.

My fellow Members who have consistently raised issues about ECE in recent years include Dr Amy Khor, Dr Lily Neo and Mr Michael Palmer. Our common concerns have been in three areas: first, the need to ensure quality; second, the need to invest in teacher training and development; and, third, the need to keep ECE accessible and affordable.

The Ministry of Education has been moderately responsive when Members raised concerns or put forward suggestions. My observation is that a welcome boost was given when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed the nation in the National Day Rally in 2008.

If I may just refresh the memories of Members, in August 2008, the Prime Minister tackled the issue of Singapore's low fertility rate when making his annual address to Singaporeans. He identified four areas where the Government would take action to arrest the problem and one of these had to do with early childcare arrangements. Prime Minister Lee said that the women he had met in feedback sessions told him early childhood arrangements were a major concern for parents. He said, and I quote:

"I think we should do more to build up the childcare sector. We should do three things. Make it more accessible, that means more centres. Make it more affordable, that means bigger subsidies per child. Make it higher quality, raise the standard".

On kindergartens, the Prime Minister said, and I quote again:

"We have already got Government spending money on the kindergartens. I think we should push this up substantially, that we can raise the standard. We can have better syllabuses, better run institutions, higher quality environment so that the kids grow up much more confident and particularly for those whose backgrounds are not so ideal at home, they will be able to make it in kindergarten and start from a more equal starting point when they go to school."

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that in addition to the Committee to improve pre-school education, chaired by Mr Masagos, the comprehensive review which Nominated Member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan is calling for has taken place somewhere within the Ministry of Education, sometime in 2008. I do not know this for a fact, but why do I say so? Well, let me just recount a few of the follow-ups reported during the Committee of Supply in 2009 and 2010.

In 2009, responding to Members' proposed cuts, Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen announced a new Advanced Diploma in Kindergarten Education teaching which would offer up to 100 training places that year for mid-career professionals and fresh graduates or Diploma holders to become kindergarten teachers. Responding specifically to my request, then Senior Parliamentary Secretary Masagos said MOE had developed a Professional Development Framework to help kindergartens identify training needs and prioritise areas for professional development of their staff. MOE also committed then to start pilot-testing the voluntary Quality Assurance and Accreditation Framework for kindergartens.

Earlier this year, MOE revealed that grants to eligible kindergarten operators more than doubled from $17 million in 2008 to $36 million in 2009 and was expected to reach $62 million by 2013, thus fulfilling the promise by the Prime Minister to increase funding support for ECE. Also, 90% of kindergartens had undergone training for the Quality Assurance Framework and, in fact, 80% of the kindergartens conducted self-appraisals. In addition, MOE would support a new experimental kindergarten to be established at Temasek Polytechnic.

Sir, it seems to me now that what is needed is not necessarily another review. What we need more of is sustained effort and, better still, renewed vigour as the initiatives gather momentum.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, my call to MOE is to step up its efforts, build on the momentum, do more, sooner rather than later. Specifically, there are three areas I think deserve priority attention.

First is to ensure quality. Sir, I had previously raised my concerns that parents use price as a proxy for quality when selecting a suitable kindergarten or childcare centre for their children as there was simply no other means for them to make an informed decision. Therefore, the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Framework will help parents to make better assessments.

However, Sir, quality does not equate to uniformity. Parents have told me that they appreciate the wide range of choices available, so please do not take it away. The purpose of the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Framework is not to create identical curricula, approaches or methods but to reassure parents that baseline requirements are met. With that as a caveat, I would like MOE to update us on the implementation of the Framework and to share with us some of the observations from the centres which were involved in the pilot phase.

Let me now turn to the second priority, which is to continue investing in early childhood educators. Over the past few years, MOE has introduced new guidelines to raise the minimum academic, language and professional requirements for both new and incumbent pre-school teachers. I believe that this is a step in the right direction and will, in the long term, raise the calibre of early childhood educators. However, it is also important that these teachers stay in the system and are provided with opportunities for continual professional development and training. In the current expanding economy, there is certainly greater demand for talents across the board. The challenge would be to make the ECE sector attractive enough to retain the talents that have been recruited.

In this regard, I would like MOE to update us on the effectiveness of the measures that have already been put in place to uplift the quality of early childhood educators as well as what MOE has done to ensure that high quality teachers continue to stay in the profession and are given opportunities to continually develop professionally.

Sir, the third priority is to keep ECE accessible and affordable. Research has shown that quality ECE is especially beneficial to children from the lower-income families. However, compared to the fees paid at the primary and secondary school levels, fees for ECE are still high. For those who cannot afford quality ECE and yet are in the greatest need for it, Government's assistance is critical but not all are able to access.

The Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS), for example, can only help those whose net household incomes are below $1,500 per month. Sir, I would like to ask MOE whether we should consider introducing a different tier of financial assistance for those who earn more than that but not that much more.

I hope MOE can update us on the steps taken to make early childhood education more affordable, particularly to the children from the lower-income families and also the lower middle-income families.

Sir, I have touched on issues relating to the quality and affordability of ECE. I believe that these are important issues but they should not lead us to conclude that early childhood education should be made compulsory, and I would like to say something about that. Today, more than 97% of our children in a given cohort already attend some form of early childhood education – in the kindergarten or in a childcare centre. This is evidently the result of the close partnership between MOE, MCYS and especially the community agencies to reach out to families to encourage them to enrol their children in kindergarten or childcare. I would like to commend their efforts in this endeavour and note that every child is important and so the Government should not rest on its laurels but re-double its efforts to reach out to parents for each successive cohort. In other words, 97% is good, but let us work towards 100%.

From my interaction with teachers, there are a variety of reasons why some children do not attend kindergarten or childcare. Some could be residing overseas and there are a variety of factors – not everyone resides overseas because they have got a good job – some have very complex situations and have reasons that they are not able to be in Singapore. Some parents prefer their children to be home-schooled. I think this is a group less worrying. But there is a group that could come from dysfunctional families and they have very complicated problems to deal with. So, while I understand and appreciate the good intentions behind calls for compulsory early childhood education, I think the question we really need to consider is whether legislating compulsory early childhood education is really going to help those families resolve their multi-faceted problems that they face. And I have said this before that I did not think so. Making a law is quite easy but how do we enforce it? If we throw the parents in jail, have we made things better or worse for their very young children – the very people we are seeking to help? I think we will be better off taking a differentiated approach. To address the needs of the vast majority, we should raise quality and improve affordability of ECE. To address the problems of the very small minority who risk being marginalised in early childhood education, we should adopt community-based approaches to help the families get back on their feet.

Sir, in conclusion, no one doubts the importance and value of early childhood education. The Prime Minister had given his backing and MOE had made firm commitments. We have started serious work and I think we should remain steadfast in our efforts.

3.18 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the NMPs have urged the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of pre-school education in Singapore.

The Government has, in fact, conducted a recent review. In 2008, we presented to this House the recommendations of the joint MOE-MCYS Steering Committee for improving the quality of pre-school education which I chaired. The Steering Committee shared the concerns expressed by NMP Viswa that our education system, including the pre-school sector, continues to provide opportunities for all to reach their full potential and level up. In particular, the Committee focused on two areas to achieve this goal of education as a social leveller: first, we aimed for universal access to pre-school and specifically looked at removing barriers which prevented children from low-income families from doing so and, second, we wanted to raise the overall quality of pre-school education through improving teacher quality and standards.

As the NMPs have pointed out, there is good information from educational experts that the right type of pre-school education can better produce educational outcomes with social and economic benefits in the longer term, especially for children from disadvantaged families. However, the Committee was also careful to note the views of experts who warned against pre-school becoming extensions of formal school systems, where early childhood years become overly structured and focused on preparing children for primary school. Educational approaches must be appropriate for the child's stage of development. Pre-schools should generally adopt a play-based approach and allow the child to develop in that environment. Experts further warn that an over-emphasis during the pre-school years on academic instruction, uniformity or comparisons of individual performances to narrow the gap, would not benefit a child's overall development, motivation and interest in learning subsequently. For these reasons, the Committee did not support the approach that NMP Viswa has recommended.

NMP Viswa, in his speech, has pointedly urged all of us to "accept the reality that kindergartens today, unlike in the 1960s and 1970s, play a more significantly critical role in preparing our children for primary school" and for pre-schools to "ensure that our children are adequately prepared for Primary 1". Even though his intentions are certainly well meaning and may garner support from some parents, developmental and education experts specifically warn against ratcheting up pre-school learning outcomes to be too focused on preparing children to become "ready" for primary school. Such an approach ignores the spectrum of potential and pace of development which exist normally in pre-school children. We should accept the fact that young children have different potentials and develop at different speeds. Attempts to accelerate in pre-school discrete outcomes, like numeracy and literacy, to reduce learning gaps between children through academic focus and structure are therefore not recommended.

A recent comprehensive review of primary education by a group of researchers from Cambridge University in 2010, led by Prof. Robin Alexander – and I hold the Report in my hand – warned against this specific danger of prematurely formalising pre-school. In fact, to counteract this trend, they recommended that the formal schooling age in England be raised from age five to six years old, in line with other Scandinavian countries which start formal schooling later. The main reason was to give children sufficient time to establish positive attitudes and build their confidence, and develop their social and language skills through active play-based learning as compared to the structured, subject-based curriculum of formal schooling. Allow me to quote from this Report which counteracts some of the NMP's proposals, from page 491, paragraph 24 of the report:

"There is evidence that the well intentioned requirement to narrow the gap in outcomes for the most vulnerable children is leading to pressure to skew an otherwise holistic and balanced curriculum in order to meet goals that are not all appropriate for all children."

From page 169:

"Nor is there evidence indicating that children from deprived backgrounds – who are presumed to be main beneficiaries – gain from an early start to formal school."

Let me quote further, from page 172:

"The Report therefore recommended extending the early years phase (ie, pre-school) to age six and seven so as to allow more time for 'curiosity and confidence, social and oral skills (that) would be more likely to flourish in play-based developmentally appropriate education and care'. Such a move would also signal an acceptance of the oft-repeated warnings that too-formal-too-soon may be dangerously counterproductive."

For these sound educational reasons, very few countries mandate pre-school education. Unlike primary school education, there is little evidence or consensus to support any specific pre-school programme or that it should be compulsory or be made part of the public education system to better prepare students to be ready for primary school. We certainly cannot say that simply by attending pre-school children will do better later. As experts counsel, the more important element is the supportive environment for growth either at home or in the pre-school.

In Finland and Sweden – countries renowned for high performing primary and secondary students – participation in pre-school education is voluntary and formal schooling starts later at seven years old. Closer to home, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan also do not mandate compulsory pre-school education. Mr Viswa's assertion that OECD nations are moving towards a more universalised system is inaccurate. Currently, most of the OECD countries do not mandate compulsory pre-school education. Instead, similar to the approach Singapore is taking, they try to ensure that all children have access to quality pre-schools. Singapore's targeted approach to ensure accessibility and affordability, and focus on quality, is indeed in line with what these countries are doing.

Guided by these insights and best practices, the Committee did not support the approach for pre-school to be either part of or structured primarily to make students ready for the formal public education sector. Instead, the Committee formulated plans and provided more funds to improve the pre-school sector by focusing on four key thrusts:

Improving quality through regulatory requirements and setting acceptable standards for all providers;

Targeted assistance and funding for lower-income families to ensure affordability and access to pre-schools;

Focusing pre-school on holistic development and not inappropriate formal education at too early an age; and

Providing more funds and grants to improve teacher quality and overall quality of centres.

Arising from the Committee's work, we have implemented a number of new initiatives since 2008. Allow me to share with the House the results of these initiatives where MOE and MCYS have been working closely together with kindergarten and childcare providers as well as community groups.

Mr Speaker, let me assure the Members of this House that MOE does take the lead to ensure that pre-school education is of good quality. MOE has not focused its work solely to address the anxiety of parents, on which the hon. Member Ms Wong has premised her support for the motion. I found at least four times she used the word "anxiety" in various forms in her speech, and if we add the word "daunting", that will be five. Instead, the pre-school going children's interest is the centre of our focus.

MOE has, therefore, been working on the three key leverage areas identified by the Committee to raise the baseline quality of education across the pre-school sector. First, to require higher qualifications for teachers and principals in the pre-school sector. Second, to provide resources and sharing of best practices to enhance the quality of programmes within the pre-school sector. Third, to develop a quality assurance and accreditation scheme to raise the overall quality of pre-schools as well as to facilitate the decisions of parents when they enrol their children into pre-school. I am happy to update the House that positive outcomes have already been achieved in each of these three areas.

Firstly, for teacher quality, we have raised the minimum academic qualifications of pre-school teachers in both kindergartens and childcare centres since January 2009. All new pre-school teachers must now have a minimum of five "O" level credits, including a credit in English Language, and a Diploma in Early Childhood Care and Education-Teaching (DECCE-T). As a result, the pre-school sector now recruits teachers from the middle one-third of the academic cohort as opposed to the bottom one-third of the academic cohort in the past. MOE has set a target for pre-school centres to have three-quarters of their teachers meet the abovementioned qualifications by 2013.

The hon. Member Ms Wong asked about the progress of this policy. I am pleased to announce that as at end October 2010, 72.1% of our kindergartens and 68.2% of childcare centres have already met this target. But, mind you, this started from a base of less than 20% when we started out in 2006.

We are raising minimum qualifications steadily by allowing a reasonable time for those already in the sector to upgrade. MOE and MCYS provide scholarships, bursaries and training awards for incumbent teachers, principals and pre-service teachers from not-for-profit childcare centres and kindergartens.

Since 2008, MOE and MCYS have disbursed a total of $3.8 million for 302 scholarship, teaching award and bursary holders. I hope this addressed the question that the hon. Member Mrs Teo asked just now.

Further, to develop professional capacity within the pre-school sector, there are also annual professional sharing platforms, such as the Child Care Seminar, Kindergarten Conference and the Kindergarten Learning Forum. In fact, I was at the opening ceremony for the 2010 Kindergarten Learning Forum yesterday morning.

Let me now touch on raising the standards of pre-schools. MOE provides clear guidelines as well as teaching resources to support educational programmes in all kindergartens and childcare centres based on best practices in early childhood education.

In 2000, we delineated the Desired Outcomes of Pre-School Education, in consultation with pre-school practitioners and professionals to define the skills and dispositions that children should know at the end of their pre-school education.

Mr Viswa had asked for MOE to consider stipulating a core curriculum for all kindergartens. In fact, MOE developed the Kindergarten Curriculum Framework in 2003 outlining the key learning principles and supporting teaching and learning resources for children aged four to six. A more detailed Kindergarten Curriculum Guide was disseminated to all pre-schools in 2008. Most pre-schools in Singapore take reference from the Curriculum Framework and Guide to provide opportunities for children to acquire a set of key knowledge, skills and dispositions in the early years.

To ensure that all kindergartens are adequately resourced to provide quality pre-school education, teaching and learning resources grants are offered by MOE to not-for-profit kindergartens. In 2009, MOE distributed a total of $2.2 million to the 352 kindergartens who applied for the grants.

Together with teacher and programme quality, MOE seeks to improve the way centres are managed. MOE had earlier announced the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Framework in 2008. Since then, we have made progress in developing, testing and validating the Quality Rating Scale (QRS). Yesterday morning, the Singapore Pre-School Accreditation Framework (SPARK) was launched officially at the Kindergarten Learning Forum. This is what the Framework Booklet looks like [indicating ].

All pre-schools can participate in SPARK by using the QRS for self-assessment to improve the quality of their own programmes. When they are ready, they can also seek external assessment by MOE-accredited assessors. A good SPARK rating or accreditation status is endorsement of the quality of a pre-school programme. Information on pre-schools that participated in SPARK and have attained accreditation will be listed in the MOE website from June 2011, so that parents can make more informed choices in their selection of pre-school programmes for their children.

Using SPARK, each pre-school would be measured in seven key areas:

leadership;

planning and administration;

staff management;

resources;

curriculum;

pedagogy; and

health, hygiene and safety.

The approach of allowing the providers to sign themselves up for quality improvements and according them recognition is working. Providers know that it is in their own interest to do so as parents will look for these quality marks before deciding enrolment to their pre-schools. Before the official launch of SPARK, MOE had already distributed the quality assurance instrument to kindergartens in November 2009 and childcare centres in 2010 for them to practise self-assessment. So far, 81% of our kindergartens have already begun using the instrument to guide them to improve their quality. Likewise, childcare centres have also begun using this instrument to raise the quality of educational programmes.

MOE's target is to have 85% of all kindergartens and childcare centres participate in the external assessment by 2013. The widespread adoption of SPARK over the next few years will further strengthen baseline standard as I am sure that, over time, parents will only want to send their child to pre-schools that have obtained accreditation.

As the sector develops, the accreditation framework can evolve to motivate operators to further improve quality standards. We have observed that the kindergartens that have adopted the instrument are more aware of the gaps in their processes and practices and are, therefore, able to put in place more targeted and effective efforts at raising their centres' quality.

The principal of the PCF kindergarten at Nee Soon East Block 408 shared that after being trained in the use of the quality assurance instrument, she and her staff are now more aware of the need to plan ahead and set targets for their centre. This year, the kindergarten was awarded the MOE-AECES Kindergarten Best Learning Centre Award for having successfully enhanced their curriculum and designed their learning centres to provide holistic development opportunities for their children which are integrated and focused on play-based activities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Committee does not support NMP Viswa’s proposal to limit the choice or options available to parents by imposing more regulations on curriculum and fees for pre-schools. This is unnecessarily prescriptive and stifling for operators. Parents can decide for themselves if the pre-school is worth the money they spend.

We want a good quality pre-school sector but this does not mean that we should force all providers to be uniform. Unlike formal school education, experts agree that there is room for diverse approaches in the pre-school sector.

Indeed, this focus on quality and minimum standards, not uniformity, has encouraged a variety of pre-school programmes with different approaches and models, such as the Project Approach, Reggio Emilia Approach, HighScope Model and Montessori Method. They all provide a curriculum that is appropriate for the stage of development of the child, encompassing child-centredness, holistic development and active learning through purposeful play. Parents with different preferences may choose the pre-school option that best meets the needs of their child.

Here, I would like to add that quality pre-school education can be affordable. MOE, in collaboration with the Association for Early Childhood Educators (Singapore) (AECES), gives Outstanding Kindergarten Awards each year to recognise quality teachers and kindergartens that have implemented impactful and innovative projects. Over 2009 and 2010, 30 kindergartens have won Distinction or Merit Awards for innovations and high-quality programmes in their pre-schools. They did not come from those who charged the highest fees. The majority – 21 out of 30 – charge fees at around the average or below. This is testimony that quality pre-school education can be affordable.

The Government will continue to provide generous funding to the pre-school sector to encourage innovation through the Pre-School Innovation Grant which, since 2008, has funded 171 innovative projects.

MOE has also established professional sharing forums to ensure that best practices and successful innovative ideas can be widely spread and adopted by others. The sharing of innovative projects and innovative practices at the relevant professional platforms helps to build up a culture of innovation and encourage other pre-schools to embark on innovative projects of their own.

As the hon. Member Mrs Josephine Teo noted, expenditure by MOE alone in grants tied to the quality of teachers hired has doubled from $17 million in 2008 to $36 million last year, and is expected to reach up to $62 million by 2013. Mrs Teo has also asked whether we could do more for those who have just missed the qualification for KiFAS or CFAC. We will certainly look at that. Both MOE and MCYS spend this in a targeted manner so that while quality is being raised, pre-school remains affordable for all, especially those from the lower-income families. Indeed, no child should be denied the right to education because his parents cannot afford it. My colleague from MCYS will elaborate on this later.

Despite our best efforts to keep pre-school affordable, there are still those who do not attend pre-school. MOE and MCYS have been working closely with community groups to reach out to these families by painstakingly knocking on doors to find them and to encourage their parents to place them into kindergartens or childcare centres.

Some of these children are based overseas or home-schooled but, more often than not, these students come from two broad categories of families: those who cannot afford pre-school education without assistance and those who are not aware or do not value it.

For children who cannot afford pre-school, our outreach team has worked closely with pre-school providers and community support groups to emplace these children and make available financial assistance support, including MCYS’ schemes and support from community groups. This approach has yielded good results.

For parents who are not aware of the value of pre-school education, MOE has launched an awareness campaign to help parents, especially in lower-income families, to understand the importance of pre-school education. However, as Mr Viswa also acknowledges, these families have problems that are often more complex and require a holistic approach. That is why MOE and MCYS have heavily involved grassroots organisations and voluntary welfare organisations to offer a more comprehensive solution.

This approach to achieve universal participation in pre-school has worked. Today, almost all Singaporean children attend pre-school. Our participation rate is among the highest in the world. The percentage of six-year-olds or children of K2-going age in the 2010 cohort who are not attending pre-school has fallen to 1.2%, down from 2.1% in 2009 and 5% from 2006. Of the 1.2% who do not attend pre-school, some of them are residing overseas and are enrolled in a school outside Singapore. Others are attending lessons in enrichment centres, or are enrolled in special education schools, or home-schooled.

Furthermore, the pilot partnership with the Singapore Children Society had successfully reduced the number of uncontactable children and families to 113 this year, a significant improvement from the 350 quoted by Mr Viswa, which is for the cohort in 2009. We intend to continue to enhance our efforts so as to further improve on this number for 2011. But as much as we want to ensure that pre-school education is accessible to all children, we need the support of parents and families as they, too, play a large and important role in the education of their children.

Our measures seek to ensure good affordable pre-school education for all, especially the lower socio-economic groups. This is a more targeted approach and requires more effort to work with relevant stakeholders to remove the barriers for those in need. In fact, it is much harder but more productive than simply legislating it to be compulsory. In the process, the society gets involved, it becomes more emphatic, becomes part of the solution; and it contributes to making our society a caring society. Through these efforts, we have ensured that almost all our children, regardless of family background, have access to quality programmes at affordable fees.

Mr Viswa asserts that there are "crash courses in schools at Primary 1 to level up their reading and numeracy skills to "pump-prime'' a child in a few months when other children have taken two whole years (of kindergarten) to achieve the same!" This is not the approach of our Learning Support Programme (LSP) and Learning Support for Mathematics (LSM) programmes. It is an unfair characterisation of the efforts that dedicated teachers put in to help children. Under the LSP and LSM, our professionals accept that children learn best at their own pace to reach their inherent full potential. We do not pump-prime them but provide additional support in literacy or numeracy. Some may take longer than others and teachers will customise their teaching according to the needs of each child.

Furthermore, our experiences from these learning intervention programmes suggest that prior pre-school experience is not the key factor influencing a child’s ability to learn within the formal schooling system. Factors such as a good home environment and continued support for learning are equally important. Mr Viswa acknowledged this – his parents played a key role in his success in school despite he not having attended pre-school. This is true when Mr Viswa was young and will be true even when his grandchildren become parents.

As a supportive home environment does make a difference to pupils’ academic performance in school, children who have families that would engage them in literacy-related activities and those whose parents or care-givers supervise them at home and encourage them to read, progress faster in reading than others who do not have such support.

I would like to assure Ms Audrey Wong that, besides literacy and numeracy skills, we also aim to develop our children holistically, and to give children who are gifted in non-academic areas the opportunity to shine. Let me share one example with Members. Cheston Tan started playing the violin in Primary 3 at Fuchun Primary after watching a group of violinists perform in the school. He topped the ABRSM Grade 1 examination in 2006 and took the Grade 8 examination in 2008. All in four years at Fuchun! We hear that Cheston is now at the School of The Arts (SOTA) where he is part of the school’s string ensemble.

Cheston was on the MOE's Financial Assistance Scheme. No head start in music, no Yamaha lessons. He is where he is because he had the opportunity to pursue and demonstrate his talent in school. Cheston is only one of many talents in our school system that was discovered and nurtured in many broad areas; in arts, in sports and even leadership.

MOE shares Mr Viswa’s desire to ensure that Singapore continues to provide equal opportunities for all. We are gratified that our top students in PSLE every year come from a big spread of schools and not merely from a few primary schools. The top 5% of students in the PSLE come from more than 95% of our primary schools and across all socio-economic groups. Also, one in five of the top one-third of PSLE students come from the lower-third of households by home background, ie, lower socio-economic groups and parents with lower educational qualifications. Such trends are also observed in the Higher Education sector – one in eight undergraduates in our public universities come from households who live in 1- to 3-room flats. These statistics show that our education system provides opportunities for every child to advance based on merit, regardless of family background.

In summary, MOE agrees that pre-school education is important. We have invested considerable efforts and provided more funding to improve the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education. We have been making good progress and plan to do more.

The Pre-school Review Committee does not support the approach for pre-school to be part of the formal education sector or made compulsory. It would also be unwise to prescribe for operators uniform curriculum and modes of delivery or introduce inappropriate academic standards, even if it is for 50% of the curriculum. Instead, we must ensure that all our pre-schools meet good minimum standards and that all children can afford to attend these pre-schools. Government should provide adequate funding to ensure universal access and to progressively improve professional standards and teacher quality. We can work with providers to upgrade the overall quality of their pre-schools and recognise those who have attained high standards. And we should certainly avoid, by regulation, pushing pre-schools to accelerate formal learning to get their students more ready for Primary 1 as this will be at the expense of the other developmental aspects of the child.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the efforts that MOE and MCYS have been putting into improving the quality, accessibility and affordability of the pre-school sector, I would like to conclude by proposing an amendment to the motion on Pre-School Education.

Can I have a copy of the amendment, please? [Copy of amendment handed to Mr Speaker.]

The amendment seems to be in order.

May I request the Clerk of Parliament to distribute to hon. Members a copy of the proposed amendment to the motion? [Copies of amendment distributed to hon. Members. ]

Can you move your amendment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

"That the words after "life" in line 2 to the end be left out, and there to insert the words:

supports the Government’s efforts to enhance the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education for all Singaporeans and urges the Government to continue to review, monitor and improve pre-school education in Singapore so as to ensure equal opportunities for all."

The full amended motion is as follows:

"Pre-School Education: That this House, with a view to better preparing our children for school and life, supports the Government’s efforts to enhance the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education for all Singaporeans and urges the Government to continue to review, monitor and improve pre-school education in Singapore so as to ensure equal opportunities for all".

It has been proposed as an amendment that the words after "life" in line 2 to the end be left out, and there to insert the words as proposed by the Member. It may be convenient that the debate on the original motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have Members' agreement on this?

indicated assent.

We will continue the debate after the break. Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at

3.55 pm until 4.15 pm

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amended motion.

The tenets of the amended motion are two-fold: first, in support of the Government’s effort to enhance the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education; and, second, that the Government continues to review, monitor and improve pre-school education to ensure equal opportunities for all.

This is in contrast to the prescriptive approach taken by both hon. NMPs, Mr Viswa Sadasivan and Ms Audrey Wong where they advocate a standardisation of curriculum and fees as well as compulsory pre-school education as a way of ensuring equal opportunities.

Sir, the intent of the Government is to give every Singaporean child the same head start in life and be taught the foundational knowledge and skills that will enable the child to further his or her education and training later on. The Committee on Compulsory Education in 2000 headed by the then Senior Minister of State for Education, Dr Aline Wong, recommended that compulsory education should be between Primary 1 and Primary 6. The duration of compulsory education defines the minimum period of education for all Singaporean children rather than the ideal duration from an educational perspective. This is in recognition of the wishes and aspirations of the different communities which make up the Singapore society.

Sir, as mentioned by hon. Member Mr Masagos, MOE and MCYS have made the extra effort to track down the families whose children have not registered for pre-school. In fact, when necessary, advisers of grassroots organisations and grassroots leaders follow up with visits to these families at their last known addresses, and most of these visits are conducted in the evenings to maximise chances of meeting the parents.

Of the 40,000-odd pre-schoolers, I understand that about 100-odd are neither registered nor traceable. Sir, this is actually a very small number to warrant instituting compulsory education for pre-school. Hon. MP Mrs Josephine Teo had elaborated the different categories in this small number, so I will not belabour on this point.

Sir, the Ministry, as recently as January 2010, emphasised the rationale for not promoting a single pre-school programme. As it is, it is a common sight, especially over the weekends, to see overly concerned parents shuttling their young children to several enrichment classes. The poor child is clueless as to what is required of him as the child is trying to fulfil the aspirations of the parents. There is no joy in learning for the child. I am glad to note that Mr Viswa is not proposing for a one-shoe-size-that-fits-all approach. I would like to reiterate that promoting a single programme is not viable. As I always tell my children, education is a marathon and not a 100-metre sprint. We would only be placing undue pressure on the child and serve to crimp his developmental learning process if we are too hung up about the academic performance and even the knowledge of the child at a young age. An over-emphasis on academic excellence at a young age, in fact, may lead to a lack of motivation in the long run. I never attended pre-school and neither did Mr Viswa, and both of us have not turned out for the worse. I think what is important is that there are excellent primary and secondary school programmes to allow late bloomers or those who had missed out on pre-school education to catch up later on in life.

Sir, our pre-schools emphasise social skills whereby our young learn to work and relate to others and slowly realise that there is a whole new world out there and that it does not just end with papa and mama. Indeed, a one-mould pre-school sector, that Mr Viswa suggests, would tend towards conformity which is not ideal. An analogy is the Chinese steamed cake ang ku kueh which is red, as the name suggests, but even ang ku kueh today have a variety of colours and fillings – the pandan green-coloured skin with peanut is selling for 60 cents whereas the red colour with peanut is selling for 40 cents. And all these are to make sure that we are able to cater to the varying appetites of our consumers.

Sir, the broad parameters prescribed by the Ministry and the wide choice of pre-school operators available allow parents to make uniformed choices when it comes to selecting pre-schools for their children based upon their needs and budgets. By standardising pre-school curriculum, the losers in the long run will be the child himself and, by a larger extension, the country due to misguided policy.

Sir, quality pre-school education hinges on quality teachers, facilities and programmes that constitute sound foundation as well as key guiding principles of affordability, accessibility and choice. Although the impact of pre-school education is not established, education experts recommend that pre-school education focuses on teaching children social skills such as learning to work and relate with others, expressing their thoughts and ideas, and building confidence in order to give these kids a head start.

The Government ensures that pre-school remains accessible and affordable to all. In particular, children from lower-income households receive targeted support through financial assistance programmes such as KiFAS and Headstart Fund as well as community-based support from grassroots organisations, self-help groups and PCF kindergartens. We have also increased pre-school participation by partnering community agencies to reach out to children from lower-income families.

Sir, I applaud MOE for launching SPARK yesterday. SPARK, as mentioned earlier, is a new quality rating system to allow parents to make informed choices about the kindergartens and childcare centres.

Our pre-school sector, as it stands, is vibrant and diverse. This should be the case given that there is no strong educational evidence to promote a single school programme. And, most importantly, we should offer choices and not restrict the options available to parents or even to impose a maximum fee that they should pay. We should trust that parents are discerning and will make their pre-school choices based on their needs.

Sir, two major pre-school education providers in Singapore reaching out to the low-income households are PCF and First Campus. They have been transforming themselves in recent years and they have excellent pre-school programmes and facilities that outshine many private school education centres. In my ward Boon Lay, made up mainly of rental flats and 3-room flats, with the support of MOE, PCF together with NIE, set up the first of a series of experiential kindergartens. Children from the lower-income households are not deprived of the latest state-of-the-art pre-school education. I invite both Mr Viswa and Ms Audrey Wong to visit KidzHaven@PCF Boon Lay as seeing is believing. Ms Wong will realise that programmes at PCF are contrary to the feedback that she has.

At KidzHaven, there is a diversity of programmes offered, which include speech and drama, gymnastics, music and dance, art and science, carpentry and even domestic science. The whole emphasis is to enable each child to discover his aptitude and introduce him to a variety of other possibilities. I would like to assure Mr Viswa and Ms Audrey Wong that no child has been turned away because he could not afford the fees for these enrichment programmes. There is an array of financial assistance available. For those children who need to catch up with their learning, we have special coaching classes to help them. Financial assistance is made known through our Befriender Programme where we match needy households to volunteers whose focus is on the pre-school education of the needy children.

There are eight pre-school education centres in Boon Lay and beyond the base-line quality curriculum, each centre offers a variety of programmes, or specialised programmes, to cater to the needs of the children and parents. The providers include PCF and First Campus. For closer integration with the community, both First Campus and PCF centres work closely with the community leaders so that hardship cases can be addressed by grassroots organisations and self-help groups.

Sir, education is an ever evolving process and the Government’s inter-agency efforts have always fine-tuned the process, be it for pre-school education or tertiary education. The learning processes are in place and safety nets are lowered to ensure that no one falls through the cracks. Therefore, I believe that pre-school education process in Singapore is adequate and it does fulfil the various needs of the larger population. However, I urge MOE to continue to ensure the accessibility and affordability of its quality pre-school education for all in Singapore.

On this note, I support the amended motion.

4.25 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this opportunity to share my thoughts on an important issue – the education of our children. I would also like to thank my fellow NMP, Mr Viswa Sadasivan, for tabling the motion, thus facilitating this important debate.

Central to Mr Sadasivan’s argument is the significance of pre-school education in levelling inequality in our society. His concern is with the small group of children who are not receiving pre-school education, and who may be disadvantaged when they start formal education in Primary 1. To resolve this inequality, he proposes that a comprehensive review of pre-school education to ensure that there is some form of standardisation of delivery. Inherent in his arguments is the move to make pre-school education compulsory to ensure equal opportunities for all children.

Mr Sadasivan has raised a very important issue which centres on the intergenerational transfer of disadvantages. Like Mr Sadasivan, I am also concerned about the gap between children from different social class backgrounds and I strongly support the principle of equal opportunities. However, unlike Mr Sadasivan, I do not believe that making pre-school education compulsory or standardising pre-school curriculum will necessarily be effective in levelling the starting point for children in the pursuit of education.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to elaborate on three reasons why I disagree with Mr Sadasivan. The first is framed on the responsibility of the State in the provision of education for the young. In this discourse, we have to decide when formal education starts, for that is when the State’s responsibility commences. In our education system, that would be at Primary 1, when the child is entering his/her seventh year. By making formal education compulsory, it also means that the State has to specify clearly what the expectations of formal education entails and there must be a certain level of policing conformity to content delivery. Currently, the pre-school landscape is vibrant and operators provide a healthy variety of options for children to grow through play. The aim of pre-school is slanted towards growing soft skills and encouraging interaction through play. There should be little emphasis on formal content learning and testing for we are working with very young children who are between four and six years old.

Mr Speaker, inherent in the original motion is the concern that children with the benefit of pre-school socialisation will receive a head start compared to those who do not attend pre-school. Also, the vast variety of pre-school experiences may place children at different starting points when they commence formal education at Primary 1; thus, Mr Sadasivan's concern with perpetuating inequality. But I would argue that this is not necessarily the case.

A recent study published in Early Childhood Research Quarterly in 2007 on learning patterns suggests that most of the pre-school-related gap in academic skills at school entry is quickly eliminated for children placed in small classrooms and classrooms providing high levels of reading instruction. Thus, my second reason for disagreeing with making pre-school mandatory is because uneven reading and writing skills and capabilities among young children in Primary 1 can be levelled as long as primary school education is done right.

The work of Katherine Magnuson, the study I cited, and her colleagues in the United States points to the importance of small class sizes and good teachers. Therefore, the key to ensuring a level playing field for primary school education lies not in a mandatory earlier start at pre-school level, but rather in the solid foundation that a good primary school education offers.

Finally, the third reason I disagree with the arguments presented in Mr Sadasivan's original motion has to do with my appreciation of social inequality. Inherent in the original motion is the posit that we can eradicate inequality among young children by making pre-school education uniform and compulsory. Unfortunately, I think the head start privileged by those who come from families with more resources is a lot more complex than that.

Even if we made pre-school education compulsory or standardised the curriculum, we will not be able to take away the benefits of cultural capital that children from privileged families enjoy. If we made pre-school compulsory, those with more resources will simply send their children to enrichment classes after compulsory pre-school, and many would start their children’s formal education even earlier.

If we perpetuate the belief that an early start helps sustain academic excellence, then the question of how early is early enough will continue to haunt parents who are determined to push their children to the very front of the starting line. In the end, if we are not careful, our children will bear the cost of losing their childhood.

We cannot eradicate inequality. A child whose parents embrace the merits of investment in education will always be better off than kids who come from homes deprived of such a conducive environment. The only way to level this sort of inequality is to move these disadvantaged children into a different family altogether.

But I do agree with Mr Sadasivan that we must address the disparity in family background and work hard towards institutionalising policies that help children from disadvantaged backgrounds to stay on course. I believe the key to this is to invest in primary school education.

To this regard, the Ministry of Education has made an important move to transform Primary 1 and 2 classes into smaller groups for effective mentoring and learning. We will now need to attract capable and effective teachers to nurture these young minds, and provide primary school teachers with adequate training and other resources so that they can attend to the needs of children who are behind their peers in reading and writing skills. We must also continue to evolve a more compassionate education system that allows late bloomers and those who falter along the way to rejoin the mainstream.

Once again, the key is to attract enough talented and capable people to invest their careers in the teaching profession. I believe when we are able to provide each and every class with a group of excellent teachers, then every child, regardless of the stream he or she is in, will have an equal chance of succeeding.

Mr Sadasivan has highlighted that in every cohort, there is a small group of children who do not have the privilege of pre-school socialisation. They are likely to fall into two broad categories: those who come from families who cannot afford it, and those who come from families who do not value it.

In the case of the former, the MCYS has help schemes in place to ensure that no child is deprived of pre-school education because their family lack the financial resources. To get this group back on track, the answer is to ensure that information on help schemes is broadcast widely and the various agencies who work with low-income families are on hand to identify these families and provide the requisite assistance.

In the case of the latter, where parents do not value pre-school education and choose not to enrol their children in pre-schools, making pre-school compulsory really does not address the issue at all. Here, the barrier is not limited financial resources, but rather a divergence in values regarding childhood and education. Making pre-school education compulsory will not address this disparity and it will not change the mindsets of these parents. The differential perspectives and commitment parents have on education will continue beyond the pre-school years.

I agree that we should continue to invest in quality pre-school education. I also agree that no child who wants to attend pre-school should be deprived the opportunity, but I do not agree that we should make pre-school education compulsory.

Sir, I support the amended motion.

4.35 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Minister of State for Education’s proposed amendment to the motion.

I would like to focus on the role of childcare centres in the provision of pre-school education. MCYS works very closely with MOE to ensure delivery of high quality educational opportunities across both kindergartens and childcare centres. A joint committee chaired by senior officials meets regularly to resolve common issues and formulate joint initiatives.

What are MCYS policy objectives for childcare? During his National Day Rally speech in 2008, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that we should do three things to build up the childcare sector – make it more accessible, more affordable and of higher quality. This is a major focus area for MCYS and we have been investing significant resources in this area.

How are we progressing in terms of accessibility? In August 2008, MCYS committed to facilitate the development of 200 new childcare centres over five years in order to increase the accessibility of childcare services for families. In the past two years, 129 new centres have been established. Together with 726 existing centres, we now have 855 centres as at end October 2010. The number of childcare places has correspondingly increased by 12,400 to a total of 75,700 places today.

To further improve accessibility, we have increased the number of centres in HDB estates and located new centres near transport nodes where possible. Today, 78% of HDB households have a childcare centre within 300 metres.

Another point I like to elaborate is this: is childcare affordable for families in Singapore, especially the lower-income? In 2008, we enhanced the full-day universal childcare subsidy for working mothers from $150 to $300 per month per child and the infant care subsidy from $400 to $600 per month per child. We also enhanced the Children Development Account (CDA) under the Baby Bonus Scheme, which can be used to pay for child-related expenditure including fees for children attending pre-schools.

The Government ensures that no child will be deprived of pre-school education because of financial constraints. Children from low-income families enjoy additional financial assistance under ComCare schemes – the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Child Care (CFAC) and Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS). Families with income of $1,800 or less can receive a total of $500 to $640 per child per month for children above 18 months. The range of support is $800 to $940 per child per month for infants below 18 months. The median monthly payment for a household with income $1,500 or less is only $13. Some families can pay as low as $1 for childcare per child per month.

The number of children benefiting from these schemes has increased over the last three years. In FY 2009, about 3,200 children received CFAC and another 7,200 children received KiFAS, an increase of 24% for CFAC and 15% for KiFAS from FY 2007.

To promote awareness, information on both schemes is available at various touch points such as Community Development Councils, Family Service Centres and polyclinics. I would like to repeat my call – try to help us encourage those who want more information to call the ComCare line, 1800-2220000. What is the Government doing for the childcare sector in the area of quality? Childcare centres enjoy the same support for quality enhancements that apply to kindergartens. Childcare centres use the same MOE Kindergarten Curriculum Framework. All childcare centres are also eligible for funding under the joint MOE-MCYS Innovation Grant.

In addition, MCYS has introduced a recurrent grant for eligible not-for-profit childcare centre operators to set the benchmark for quality and affordability in childcare services. This is similar to MOE’s recurrent grant for eligible kindergartens. The grant enables competitive salaries to be paid to attract higher quality teachers, to upgrade the skills and qualifications of existing teachers and to reduce class sizes.

Since August 2008, MCYS has disbursed a total of $25.34 million to eligible childcare operators in recurrent grant funding and all childcare centres in Singapore should get their licence from MCYS before they operate.

Teacher quality and manpower planning are also very important. MCYS applies the same regulatory requirements to childcare teachers that MOE applies to kindergarten teachers. We are now undertaking more focused efforts to attract and retain our early childhood professionals in the sector, eg, by recognising the efforts of outstanding early childhood professionals through the annual Child Care Awards. We have a vibrant local training landscape with diploma, degree and postgraduate courses offered by institutes such as SEED Institute, SIM University, Ngee Ann Polytechnic and Temasek Polytechnic, and the National Institute of Education (NIE). We provide training grants and scholarships for these courses. Our training agencies collaborate with reputed overseas universities, such as Wheelock College, to ensure the quality of their course programmes.

We also work closely with WDA and the various training providers to promote early childhood education as a career. Last year, we introduced the Professional Conversion Programme, together with WDA, to facilitate mid-career professionals join the industry. Going forward, we will look into developing specialist courses for teachers in areas such as physical education, art, music and dance, that will contribute to their professional development as well as the holistic development of our children.

What about the community and the operators? Apart from formal courses, we also aim to raise quality by strengthening professional interactions among members of the early childhood community. Last month, MCYS officially launched the Child Development Network (CDN). The CDN is a platform to build and connect our community of stakeholders in order to champion quality early childhood development in Singapore. The CDN will aim to:

bring in recognised international experts from overseas universities to share research and good practices through workshops and public lectures;

provide professional guidance through the training of mentor-leaders for childcare centres to groom and develop their staff; and

promote a local culture of research and practical application of research findings through the Early Childhood Research Fund (ECRF).

Let me touch on the other group of children because childcare also takes very young infants. Mr Speaker, the discussion so far has focused on the efforts in place for children aged four to six. But what about the zero to three age group? My Minister, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, announced during the recent Child Care Seminar 2010 that MCYS would place more emphasis on the very early years, defined as "infant care" from two to 18 months and "toddler care" from 18 months to three years old. This is an area that has been relatively neglected in many countries. However, recent findings from neuroscience and research on child development indicate that the impact of the early childhood environment on healthy physical, cognitive and socio-emotional development in children is very important at this age. A number of countries, such as Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, UK and the US, are now taking action on these findings. We need to take similar steps for our children in Singapore.

MCYS is presently developing an Early Years Development Framework as a national framework to guide centres in applying care and holistic development practices for children aged zero to three. We have set up an inter-disciplinary advisory committee that includes the Government, academia and industry professionals to drive this initiative.

Research also tells us that supporting child development in the very early years requires an emphasis on the quality of caregiver interactions with children, rather than institutional settings alone. A recent study by John Friedman at Harvard cites research evidence that parental and other factors in the home learning environment can be even more important than pre-school education itself. I think on this statement alone, we can have another debate because our children have maids, neighbours, nannies, grandmothers, and so on. So, parents play a crucial role in the development of their children and the family remains the first line of support. Hence, efforts to improve the quality of centres must be supported by good child development practices in the home learning environment as well.

Rebuilding the early childhood "village" because MCYS always believe in many helping hands. To achieve this, MCYS is exploring new ways to reach out to all members of the caregiver community, including at-home caregivers. The African proverb tells us that, "It takes a village to raise a child." So the Government cannot do this alone. My Minister also mentioned this at the last seminar – we must work hand in hand with other members of the community to re-build a modern Singapore "village" that supports the development of our children. This means, firstly, engaging all caregivers in a child’s life to actively learn how to give our children the best possible start in life; pre-school teachers as well as the local community, neighbours, home, family, nannies, grandparents and domestic helpers. Secondly, working together with the local community to tap on resources for early child development – both "hardware" such as facilities, playgrounds, and so on, as well as "software" – community members who have relevant professional skills; and, lastly, promoting better exposure for our children to a variety of stimulating interactions with a diversity of caregivers in their community – inter-racial, inter-cultural and inter-religious.

Some of our better childcare centres have already begun to develop such services. For example, one of the Little Wings childcare centres run by PCF and NTUC at Clementi Block 305, has worked closely together with their Residents’ Committee (RC) on a joint project to grow a mini-garden with a variety of plants and fruits within the childcare centre. Through this initiative, the children are exposed to opportunities to experience and interact first-hand with the natural environment. This centre has also linked up with their RC to tap on community facilities, such as the children’s playground and amphitheatre. And they are able to benefit from the expertise of resource persons in the community, such as Dr Jennifer King, Clinical Director of the Child Development Unit at the National University Hospital (NUH) as well as Mdm Ho Chin Geok and Mrs Hwang-Lee Poh See, retired Principals from Nanyang Primary School and St. Nicholas Girl’s School respectively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me sum up with four points:

The Government supports parents by giving them many choices from a diversity of good childcare options.

We set high quality benchmarks and standards for the sector – but we should not primaritise the childcare centres (bu yao xiao xue hua ).

We enforce baseline requirements by licensing childcare centres and ensuring minimum teacher qualifications.

We facilitate equal opportunities for access to childcare through targeted subsidies and financial assistance and the development of new centres, especially in our heartlands.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] I support the amendment by my colleague, Minister of State Mr Masagos. Prime Minister Lee has laid out a policy objective for Singapore to have enough childcare centres where parents can easily send their children to. We have a five-year plan which targets to develop 200 new childcare centres. In the past two years, we had already established 129 new childcare centres. Together with the 726 previously existing centres, we now have a total of 855 childcare centres.

My next point is about convenience. We target to have a childcare centre every 300 metres. Today, 78% of HDB households have a childcare centre within 300 metres from their homes.

Affordability is another key area. We have enhanced our subsidies. Now, older children can each get up to $300 per month and infants can get up to $600 per month. Low-income families with income of $1,800 or less may apply for ComCare support. With this, older children can each receive a total of $500 to $640 per month whereas infants can receive $800 to more than $900. The median monthly payment for a household with income of $1,500 or less is only $13. Some families can pay as low as $1. Hence, the problem is not the amount of subsidies. The Government has provided ample subsidies. The problem lies with the parents' sense of responsibility.

Recently, I read a book called "What Money Cannot Buy". What is it that money cannot buy? It is the parents' sense of responsibility and attitude. This book tells us that governments quite often use budgetary and welfare channels to change the attitude of a poor family. However, the role of the social workers and the community is more important as it can influence the parents. The book says that no matter how poor the parents are, as long as they have the right attitude towards work and life, their children can still be successful in life. In Singapore, we provide various bursaries and scholarships, and many children from poor families have become successful. Today, I would like to appeal to everybody to spread this message to those irresponsible parents.

Let me now sum up with the following four points:

we provide parents with choices and convenience in terms of selection of kindergartens. Now, we have a total of 855 childcare centres with one centre within 300 metres in most estates;

MCYS sets quality benchmarks to ensure that teachers are trained and a proper teacher-child ratio is maintained;

we have been licensing childcare centres for a long time. Before a childcare centre starts to operate, a licence must first be obtained from MCYS; and

through Government subsidies, we support not-for-profit childcare centres such as those run by NTUC and PCF. These subsidies will help teachers to upgrade their qualifications and also reduce the number of students in their classes. We want every child to be able to go to a pre-school.

*Cols. 1961-1962.

4.56 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate.

The first time I spoke on pre-school education was during my maiden speech in this House. The last time I spoke on the topic was the following year when I raised a parliamentary question on improving the quality of pre-school education and reviewing the guidelines for pre-school. There have been positive developments that have taken place in both the kindergarten and childcare sectors since then. I am also heartened by the preliminary results of these developments.

Before elaborating on the three focus areas for pre-school education which are quality, accessibility and affordability, allow me to address a couple of arguments raised by the Nominated Members, Mr Viswa Sadasivan and Ms Audrey Wong.

Mr Sadasivan has argued that legislating compulsory pre-school education is necessary to ensure that parents no longer act in an irresponsible manner by depriving their children of a pre-school education. But is legislating compulsory pre-school education the silver bullet? Legislation alone will not help when dysfunctional families are mired in complex social problems. With or without legislation, they still need to be engaged to persuade them to send their children to pre-school; with or without legislation, they still need ongoing support in many other areas to ensure that their children can break out of the cycle of social problems. Unfortunately, there is no quick legislative fix.

A family who cannot afford to send a child to pre-school, or who does not see the need to send a child to pre-school, then punishing them for not doing so is not going to address the fundamental issue – getting their child into pre-school.

I am, therefore, glad that MOE and MCYS work closely with community support groups in their outreach efforts to provide such families with more holistic support. Compulsory pre-school education does not provide the targeted attention and community support needed in these cases. Outreach does. It is by working through the community support groups and grassroots organisations that we can achieve full attendance at pre-school without resorting to the heavy arm of the law.

Ms Audrey Wong has argued that the stakes for pre-school education have been raised as parents are now more ambitious for their children. She adds that it is no longer sufficient for children to enter primary school with basic numeracy and literacy skills, and that children are increasingly expected to already possess non-academic qualifications in areas such as music and dance.

I am not sure how pervasive this mentality among parents is but would be very concerned if this is indeed the case. However, I will agree that a lot of the pressure that Singaporean children face today in school comes from their parents. That being the case, if we were to follow Mr Viswa Sadasivan’s proposal and bring the formal school system down to a younger age, by making pre-school education compulsory and formalising a curriculum, the pressure that parents are already piling on their children will just only start at an even younger age. Just listening to the quotes that Ms Audrey Wong read out, demonstrates that some parents are not going to stop sending their children to enrichment classes just because pre-school becomes compulsory and the common curriculum is enforced; it only means that this process of enrichment for a perceived headstart will just start earlier in a child's life. The better approach is to educate parents so that they neither neglect to give their children the benefit of a pre-school education nor unnecessarily pressurise or hothouse their children.

The roles of a pre-school education and a formal education should be distinguished and be developmentally appropriate. Pre-school education should focus on providing opportunities for holistic development in areas such as social and communication skills as well as motivating the child and creating within him a positive attitude for life-long learning. These skills and disposition should be picked up through purposeful play so that children enjoy the whole process of learning.

I would caution against perpetuating a perception that pre-school education is a high-stakes competition which compares which child is better prepared for Primary 1. This would be the net result if we take up the suggestion put forward by Mr Sadasivan and Ms Wong. Instead, I would encourage the Government to continue to improve the baseline quality, affordability and accessibility of pre-school education as well as to ensure that pre-school education is both developmentally appropriate and focused on the holistic development of the child. I am certain these directions, set by the Steering Committee for Improving the Quality of Pre-School Education, resonate with this House.

I agree with Mrs Josephine Teo that the key to realising the benefits of pre-school education is the quality of delivery. I would like to add that the key to the quality of delivery in education is the quality of teachers. I am glad that over the past three years, MOE and MCYS have raised the minimum qualifications for pre-school teachers. This will make pre-school teaching a more attractive career option and attract a higher calibre of teachers. I am glad that these efforts are already bearing fruit, but I believe that we need to do more. Building upon this, the funding and grants the Government provides must motivate pre-school operators to continue to improve on the quality of their teachers, be it through recruiting better teachers, or helping their existing teachers to upgrade their skills and qualifications.

There must also be clear incentives for centre operators to improve and innovate in a diverse pre-school landscape such as ours. Apart from having the freedom to choose according to their needs, parents must also have the means to make informed choices and to provide operators with the right signals so as to encourage them to improve. The quality assurance framework will be instrumental in this effort. I am sure parents will be looking out for pre-schools that have a good rating or accreditation status. As more and more parents do that, pre-schools themselves will want to and indeed will have to improve so that they can get better ratings and, in turn, attract more pupils.

We must also ensure that children from lower-income families are able to access and afford a quality pre-school education. On this front, I am heartened to hear about the Government’s outreach efforts and to note the many financial schemes that have been made available to these families. I echo Mrs Josephine Teo's call to enhance the schemes already available. I am also very happy to hear that geographical accessibility has been enhanced and continues to be enhanced.

Given that recent initiatives are starting to show positive results, I urge the Government to continue its efforts to enhance the quality, accessibility, affordability and diversity of pre-school education for all Singaporeans.

While these efforts are important, the role of parents and the quality of home-based care must not and cannot be forgotten. Parents and other caregivers play a quintessential role in a child’s development and upbringing. Children spend as much time, if not more time, with their parents and domestic caregivers. To this end, I commend MCYS’ efforts in connecting and engaging with all members of the caregiver community so that knowledge and expertise on quality child development is disseminated to produce quality improvements in a total sphere of caregiver interactions with children.

I would urge parents and caregivers to work with and partner pre-schools in the development of their children. Without the support of parents or caregivers, pre-schools will not be in a good position to maximise the learning potential and development of the child.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with that, I support the amended motion.

5.05 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amended motion and would like to put forth a point of clarification to the Minister of State.

The Minister of State has quoted the globally-respected Finnish system of education, and suggested that there is merit to, eg, play-based learning and even starting formal schooling later. I wish to ask the Minister of State if MOE has conducted or will conduct a comparison of the Singaporean system versus the Finnish or other systems to deduce best practices that MOE has learnt from either the Finnish or other systems to enhance education outcome of children even in pre-school, primary school or above.

I understand that the demands and features of the schools in Finland are quite different. The skills expected at Primary 1, for example, are different in Finland versus Singapore, and the classes are more inclusive. There is differentiated instruction, there is little ranking within and across schools, and so forth. And the assessment method also differs because there is no high stake national examinations like the PSLE.

Sir, I would like to request the Minister of State or MOE to look into that and maybe publish and share with the House the findings later on, if it is not already done.

Sir, I thank the Member for raising the questions. Certainly, we always do comparisons. We have to take into context though that the operating environment of Singapore and the children are totally different from that of Finland. The kinds of ethnic groups that we have in Singapore as well as in Finland are also different. The level of commitment of the parents towards the school or the children's schooling is also very different. However, we take note of the Member's request and if there is a publication on the comparison study, we will share with the House.

Sir, I thank the Minister of State for being so open. I would also like to suggest that MOE study the Charter School, for example, in the US where, I believe, under President Obama, there are schools in a district which have more disadvantaged children and they actually receive not just basic education but also wrap-around services like healthcare, food and so forth. So, I really would appreciate it if MOE could study that and let the House know so that we can support its initiatives better.

MOE will do as many studies as it sees fit and relevant to the context of our needs. And when we have developed this, we will share it with the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would just like to make two points of clarification.

Firstly, I am not calling for uniformity of curriculum or uniformity across the kindergarten levels because that would be disastrous. I think having diversity is important. Rather, I am calling for ways that we can spread the benefits and advantages of early childhood education to more people, especially the lower-income households.

Secondly, I also do not intend to imply that pre-schools that charge lower fees offer a lower quality education. There are many different kindergartens, including those that charge lower fees, that are doing really good work.

Finally, I want to thank the Minister of State for clarifying and updating us on all the outcomes of the recent initiatives on pre-school education.

5.09 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank you and the House for giving me the opportunity to table this motion which I am aware has meant an additional day of sitting.

I would like to assure Members that I had given the matter due consideration before tabling it as a substantive motion. My key reasons are that, first, I am convinced that this is an important enough subject that affects a large proportion of our population and therefore would and should be of concern to legislators. I am glad that there has been no lack of interesting ideas, no lack of confidence-inspiring comments from both sides that is very worthy of this House. And I would like to thank all the Members and the Ministers of State for updating us on the details of some of the schemes that are currently being done.

Second, it is not just about education or early intervention per se, but what we are talking about today clearly has far reaching implications on fundamentals that form the basis of us as a society. We are talking about meritocracy, equal opportunities, aspirations, rights and responsibilities.

Third, it is an important enough subject therefore where the debate in this Chamber would spur debate, discussion, introspection among Singaporeans out there to not only think deeper about education and what it means to them and their children but also about the kind of society we want that we would be proud to be a part of and that we would like to bring up our children in.

I would like to thank my fellow NMP Ms Audrey Wong for stepping forward to second the motion and for presenting her thoughts on the subject in what I saw as a cogent, lucid and honest manner. My sincere appreciation also to the other Members who rose to share their perspectives on the subject even though we may not agree on various points. Their contributions have resulted in a richer and more meaningful debate which I believe gives us a more balanced perspective.

Allow me now to briefly respond to the key points raised by the various Members. Mrs Josephine Teo highlighted the Prime Minister's 2008 National Day Rally Speech where he talked a lot about the importance of being committed to further investment in the quality of pre-school education. She also highlighted that even though it may not be a formal review as such but there would be some form of review of pre-school education in Singapore, and that the focus should now be more on implementation instead of going on with another review as such. And these actions should be a lot more immediate and I completely agree with her. For example, how MOE can ensure a baseline standard requirement while allowing character and style of kindergartens to continue.

I am delighted that the Member supports in principle the need for MOE to continue to find ways to improve quality, affordability and access. And while I appreciate the sentiment behind her point that we should not unduly adopt a legalistic approach in pre-school education by making it compulsory, I am not quite sure how it would hurt in this instance. After all, the vast majority of more than 98% of pre-school going children already attend kindergarten. Therefore, legislating does not necessarily mean that we have got to be draconian like jailing the irresponsible parent. Often, such legislation serves as a deterrent more than anything else. It serves and strengthens the leverage when we are persuading the parents who are unwilling to send their children to kindergarten. This is my own perspective on that matter.

Next, Mdm Ho Geok Choo. I am happy that we are generally in agreement although the Member has intimated otherwise. And while I may not necessarily use the analogy of ang ku kueh to celebrate the various wondrous styles and approaches by kindergartens, I agree with her that we should not go for a one-size-fits-all approach. So, I do not quite understand why the hon. Member suggested that I did. On various occasions, I have emphasised that I am not at all advocating standardisation and that, in fact, I am against it. All I asked for was for MOE introducing a core curriculum of sorts for kindergartens to follow and Minister of State Masagos already acknowledged that this is already being done.

Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan, whilst supporting the principle of equal opportunities and therefore implicitly agreeing that education should remain a social leveller, expressed a few reservations. Assoc. Prof. Straughan highlighted a 2007 study by Magnuson that showed that pre-school related gap in academic skills is quickly eliminated in primary schools through small classrooms and high levels of reading instruction. So, where are these small classes in our primary schools today? Is 30 or 40 per class considered a small class? Even if MOE is working towards this, and I am sure it is, and other improvements in primary education as recommended in the PERI Report, when will they materialise? In the meantime, what happens to the 400 or 350 children each year – and now it has come down to 100 over children – who go to Primary 1 without being able to read or count? That is my concern. It is precisely for this reason that change takes time especially in something as complex as education that we need to move in tandem.

As we improve our primary school education, which is being done, we should also start fine-tuning the pipeline to primary school which is kindergarten. The idea is to make the transition from kindergarten to primary school as seamless and as less stressful and as equitable as possible, and that is really my point.

Like Assoc. Prof. Straughan and many other parents, I, too, want our children to enjoy their pre-school years and focus on play. But as a child plays, he can also learn to read and write and which, I believe, is what kindergarten education is about. It is not about rote, it is not about forcing this information down, but through the approach of play imbibing in them literacy skills.

Next, Mr Michael Palmer – I agree that dysfunctional families have a wide range of issues to deal with, not just education for their children. I did not, for one moment, suggest that making kindergarten education compulsory would serve as a silver bullet to solve all these problems that families face – it is not intended to. Instead, I saw it as one part of the total solution, at least the education part of the children would be taken care of. And together with MCYS and other agencies and self-help groups, there could be a lot more interaction with the families to solve the other aspects of their problems. That is what I meant.

Let me now quickly move on to the contributions made by the two Ministers of State. I thank the Minister of State, Mrs Yu-Fu Yee Shoon, for taking time to highlight the various schemes. It is very heartwarming to hear all these schemes, some of which were highlighted in earlier sessions in this House but it is wonderful to hear them being reiterated. As a parent, it is delightful. She mentioned 200 new childcare centres in five years – that is the target – and we have been making very good progress so far. And the highly impressive upping of subsidies and ensuring quality. I am deeply appreciative of all the efforts made by the Government, MOE, MCYS and acknowledge this in my speech by highlighting that subsidies are almost 100% in many instances, and that non-affordability is no more a valid reason for parents not sending their children to kindergarten. I did highlight this. So I did acknowledge that MCYS and other Government agencies have been doing a lot on this front. My suggestion was for MOE and MCYS to better and more proactively publicise the many schemes and subsides already available. So, instead of just waiting for them to call, why do we not reach out a lot more? Because the truth is many of the parents I have spoken to were not aware of many of these schemes. I think it is a pity if we already have these schemes available that the people who these schemes are intended for are not aware of. That was my suggestion.

Let me now go on to respond to the statements made by Minister of State, Mr Masagos. The Minister of State highlighted that a review was indeed conducted in the year 2008, and that it addressed two key concerns – universal access and raising overall quality – and this is very heartening. I agree with the cautionary voices highlighted that we should not be over standardising and structuring pre-school education. And just to clarify, that was not what I intended. That was not what I was advocating. I was not advocating standardisation, I was highlighting the need for us to have some form of core curriculum that will imbibe literacy and basic numeracy skills in the children without taking away the fun and play element in pre-school education. I did not suggest that we should stress subject-based curriculum in pre-schooling. I do not want play-based pre-school education to change. I think it will be a disaster if that happens. All I am asking for is that children who go to Primary 1 have the basic literacy and numeracy skills. They are already being taught in pre-schools while adopting play-based approach. That is all I am asking for. So, the point I am making is not to transform the way in which we teach children or the way in which kindergartens or pre-schools conduct themselves. No. I think what is being done, the approach is correct. All I am saying is that when children go to Primary 1, there appears to be a strong expectation of some measure of reading and numeracy skills. So, in keeping with the current approach adopted by the kindergartens and pre-schools, we just need to ensure that the children are ready for this when they go to Primary 1. That is all I am trying to highlight.

I am also delighted to hear that the MOE has done and is continuing to address some of the issues that I did raise – the review, for example. That efforts are being taken to raise the quality and standards, especially through the accreditation standards like SPARK. Core curriculum is already being introduced and updated two years ago, I am informed. Significant jumps in grants and subsidies to improve quality and access, and that MOE is working with MCYS and grassroots stakeholders to reach out to the many less well-off families, and a more holistic approach in education to focus on the child's talent as a whole to enhance it and not just on academic performance. All this is very heartening. It appears that many of the concerns I have raised have been or are being addressed. This is what I am seeking. I am not seeking to doggedly to push a line of argument. Let me assure the House that my interest and the interests, as it appear, of the rest of the Members as well as the Government are not disaligned. And so I do not have a problem at all with the amendment to my original motion. It focuses on the core interests of continuing to be committed to improving quality, affordability and access. The only concern that still remains unaddressed for me is what happens to the children who do not attend kindergarten because their parents are not aware of or simply not inclined to send them? I appreciate the assurance given by Minster of State Masagos that the number of such children has come down from 350 to 100-odd this year. But for me, 100 is still too many.

Whether kindergarten education is made compulsory or not, what is critical is that we need to ask ourselves how are we able to help ensure that no child be denied the opportunity to attend kindergarten because they cannot afford it or that their parents do not take the initiative. If we are talking about just over 100-odd children out of a cohort of 40,000, bringing it down to zero from 100-odd over the next few years with an all-hands-on-deck approach, I do not think it is impossible. I think we need to continue to strive to achieve that goal, even though it may be difficult, but every child here in this group does matter.

I hope that we will not waver from this commitment that the Government has demonstrated in ensuring accessibility and affordability. In what is definitely becoming an increasingly important stage in the development of a human being.

Let me conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by summing up three key points. First, enough studies have shown that the exposure a child gets – academic or otherwise – especially between the ages of three and seven, is crucial and has a strong bearing on his performance in school and in life. The impact of this is stronger by the year given the pace that which things are developing, not just in Singapore but globally. So, early intervention in education, academically, socially and all aspects is key. Countries, especially countries like Singapore, where the human resource is a critical resource, if we do not pay enough attention and continue to pay enough attention in this area, I am afraid we will pay a price.

Second, there is no silver bullet solution. There is no easy simple solution. Given the number of moving parts that are interconnected in this issue, every action will have some kind of reaction or trade-off, but inaction is not an option. We have to constantly seek ways to improve the areas where there are problems. There are many factors in the equation that are beyond our control, eg, the pace of schooling, aspirations, and so on. And we cannot turn the clock back. We have to focus on the variables where we have some measure of control over, not just in execution but in outcome. I feel that some of the areas I suggested like improving the quality of kindergarten education, reducing the price variance and making sure that our children, who for whatever reason are not able to go to kindergarten or pre-school, are given the opportunity. These are things that I feel are still within our means as a society, not just the Government, and we should continue to strive for it. Quality and access are important factors.

Third, the final point is about us as a society consciously going back to basics. We need to do this especially because everything seems to be in a state of flux around is. We need to step back, pause and ask some fundamental, possibly inconvenient, questions. Yes, education or schooling is to prepare ourselves with the skills and qualifications to get jobs – better jobs – and this, in turn, helps to keep the economy ticking. But is this all there is to education? In our society, education has always served us well as a social leveller and this, in turn, continues to have a significant impact on self-worth of individuals, how communities are perceived and how unified we are as a people.

Through my original motion, I was not asking for the Government to make kindergarten education compulsory per se or introduce a core curriculum at kindergarten. These were just suggestions. The aim is to address the issues and concerns in an effective, holistic way, create awareness of the importance of pre-school education, deepen commitment, to continue our focus on this area, to continue to improve pre-school education and ensure that it is more a level playing field. With access and quality, I feel I have achieved much of what I intended.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, once again, my appreciation to you and the House for allowing this debate. I thank you.

I shall deal with the amendment first.

Question, "That the words after "life" in line 2 to the end be left out, and there to insert the words "supports the Government's efforts to enhance the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education for all Singaporeans and urges the Government to continue to review, monitor and improve pre-school education in Singapore so as to ensure equal opportunities for all", put and agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", put and agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted", put and agreed to.

Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, with a view to better preparing our children for school and life, supports the Government's efforts to enhance the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education for all Singaporeans and urges the Government to continue to review, monitor and improve pre-school education in Singapore so as to ensure equal opportunities for all.

5.29 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix 1 to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl 2 of 2010 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament.

Sir, at the sitting of Parliament on 16th September this year, a resolution was approved by the House empowering the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report on necessary amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament. Members were invited to submit their proposals for the Committee's consideration. No proposal was received from the Members by the deadline of 27th September 2010.

As part of the Committee's consultative process, a discussion was held with representatives of the House drawn from the ranks of the Government Parliamentary Committees, Opposition and Nominated Members' bench. This was to seek their views on the key changes proposed to be made to the Standing Orders.

Under the chairmanship of the Speaker, the Committee deliberated the views and feedback given. It has recommended that the proposed amendments set out in Appendix 1 be made to the present Standing Orders of Parliament.

Sir, the Committee has made 29 recommendations. Some of the amendments are new procedures, some are formalisations of existing practices by the House, some are liberalising the current procedures to achieve greater flexibility, and the rest are housekeeping amendments.

There are three key areas of procedure or business which the Report covers. They pertain to:

speech times;

Supply business; and

extension of sitting times by the Speaker.

The Committee also made recommendations in other areas such as Exempted Business Motions, Ministerial Clarifications, Select Committees, Petitions, and House decorum. I will now take Members through these amendments.

Speech times

Sir, one of the principal recommendations of the Committee concerns the speech times in this House. This is found in paragraph 10 of the Proposed Amendments. The Committee has proposed a reduction in speech times of both the frontbench and backbench, from the current one hour and half an hour respectively, to that of 40 minutes and 20 minutes. In Committee of the whole Parliament, speech time is proposed to be reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes for any one speech. Speech time for movers of original motions in Parliament and Committee is also proposed to be reduced, from currently one hour each to 40 minutes for moving the motion and another 40 minutes for the reply.

The Committee feels that 20 minutes for a backbench Member and 40 minutes for an officeholder to express his or her views to any question in Parliament are adequate. The amendment not only allows for more efficient use of time, it will also instil greater discipline on Members in addressing the House. From experience, not many Members take up more than 20 minutes in delivering their speeches. The average time per speech of backbench Members on Bills and Motions for the past two years was less than 10 minutes; in fact, 7.4 minutes to be exact, whilst the average speech time on the Debate on Budget Statement from 2008 to 2010 was 15.1 minutes. For the frontbench and movers of motions, the average speech times were 12.4 minutes (for Bills and Motions) and 19.4 minutes (for Debate on Budget Statement).

Sir, if a Member wishes to have more time to raise issues of substantial importance, he can move a motion for which he will have 40 minutes to state his position and another 40 minutes to reply. Also, the reduction in speech time in the Committee of the whole House to 10 minutes per speech does not affect the current procedure where a Member can speak more than once in Committee. The revised time limit of 10 minutes is also not applicable during the Committee of Supply which allocates time on a block basis. Later, I will touch on this point again under the Supply business amendments.

Sir, the proposed time limits for speeches in Parliament and Committee compare well with those practised in other Commonwealth Parliaments such as Australia and Canada, which are detailed in the Report. In New Zealand, for example, the time limit for most businesses in Parliament is 10 minutes whilst in the UK, the Speaker sets a time limit of seven to 15 minutes depending on the number of speakers.

Supply business Multiple items of Supply business on one day

Sir, the next recommendation is to formalise a long-standing practice of the House to take more than one item of Supply business on an allotted day. For example, the Supplementary Estimates and Estimates of Expenditure are usually taken on one day of the Committee of Supply. The Supply and Supplementary Supply Bills have also been conventionally taken on the same day at the conclusion of the Committee of Supply (COS). This recommendation is stated in paragraph 16 of the Proposed Amendments. The proposed change to the Standing Orders will accord more flexibility to the House to deal with Budget debates in a timely manner.

I wish also to assure Members that ample notice of the allotted days for discussion on the Main and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure, Second Readings of the Supply Bill and Supplementary Supply Bill will be given to Members, as in the existing procedure. The scheduling of more than one Supply business on an allotted day is also practised in other Commonwealth Parliaments, such as Malaysia and Australia.

10-minute limit on a COS speech

The Committee proposes to lift the current 10-minute time limit for a speech made by a backbencher in the Committee of Supply. This is set out in paragraph 20 of the Proposed Amendments. Members are then free to allocate their speech times in COS in whatever manner they choose, subject only to their individual block-time cap and the guillotine times.

Question Time on allotted days

The Committee proposes to allow the Speaker to specify a shorter Question Time on days that are allotted to any business. Generally, these will be days allotted to Supply business, Debate on the Budget Statement and Debate on the President’s Address. The House has, by practice, given its approval for Question Time to be shorter on days when the Budget Statement and Supply business are considered, in view of the priority for the completion of these businesses. This amendment to the Standing Orders is recommended in paragraph 7 of the Proposed Amendments.

Extension of sitting times by the Speaker

Another recommendation of the Committee is that of empowering the Speaker or the Chair in Committee to extend the sitting time by up to 30 minutes at the end of the day. This recommendation is found in paragraph 1 of the Proposed Amendments. The short time extension, which is also exercisable by the Chairman in the Committee of Supply, is to facilitate the completion of speeches or matters that are about to end at the adjournment time, instead of being cut-off at that moment. Should the business require more than 30 minutes beyond adjournment time or the moment of interruption, an Exempted Business motion can be moved to obtain the House’s approval for a longer sitting.

Other procedural areas

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on recommendations pertaining to other procedural areas.

Exempted Business motion

Paragraph 3 of the Proposed Amendments sets out the proposal to widen the time window for which an Exempted Business motion can be moved to enable the House to sit beyond the moment of interruption. With the proposed amendment, such a motion can be moved any time after Question Time, instead of the current period of 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm. In this way, Members will benefit from the earlier notification of an extended sitting.

Ministerial clarifications

The Committee recommends to liberalise the procedures for Ministerial clarifications. Currently, Ministerial clarifications are taken at the appointed time for Ministerial Statements or Personal Explanations and not thereafter. In paragraph 8 of the Proposed Amendments, it is proposed that, with the leave of the Speaker, brief Ministerial statements and clarifications on concluded proceedings can be made at any time between subsequent items of business. This will facilitate corrections or clarifications to be made to the House at the earliest opportunity at any part of the sitting as long as they are not taken in the midst of an ongoing debate.

Select Committees

The Committee proposes to formalise the current practices and procedures followed by Select Committees. Paragraphs 22 to 26 of the Proposed Amendments deal with the powers of the Select Committee to exclude non-Committee Members and strangers from its meetings, and to exclude from its Report minutes of evidence taken in private; the non-disclosure of minutes of evidence which are not included in the Committee’s report to persons other than Committee Members; and the election of a temporary Committee Chairman in the absence of the Chairman where the Chairman is not the Speaker. Other Commonwealth Parliaments such as Australia and India also have these provisions in place.

Sir, there are other minor amendments included in the Report of the Committee. The slight changes to Petitions procedures are set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Proposed Amendments; and the restatement of Standing Order 52(d) in paragraph 11 to reflect the desired decorum and behaviour to be observed by Members at all times. The amendment in Standing Order 52 seeks to emphasise the necessity for Members to give their full attention to the proceedings in Parliament at all times and the avoidance of behaviour that distracts others from these proceedings. This is to ensure that proceedings of the House are always conducted with order and decorum.

Finally, there are housekeeping amendments stated in paragraphs 27 to 29 of the Proposed Amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these amendments to the Standing Orders, as recommended by the Committee, have been made as a result of much deliberation and consideration. Their purpose is to put in place the necessary rules that will enable the House to keep pace with changing circumstances, improve use of time and meet the procedural needs of Members in discharging their duties in this House. Sir, I urge Members to support these recommendations and adopt the Report of the Standing Orders Committee.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.43 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Standing Orders have undergone several changes over the years and these changes have helped refine the parliamentary procedures.

Sir, I believe backbenchers, like myself, are thankful for the refinements over the years as they strengthen the process and improve the participation of Members of Parliament (MPs) and engagement of Ministers.

I applaud the proposal pertaining to conduct of MPs in the Chamber. Sir, it is important that we demonstrate in this august Chamber exemplary behaviour, our respect and consideration for our fellow Members when they are speaking and for Parliamentary proceedings.

On the proposal to reduce the speaking time, Sir, I agree that the quality of a speech is not determined by the length of the speech. I agree that the time limit for speaking in this august Chamber is generous as compared to other Commonwealth countries, like in the UK, where the limit is 15 minutes. But I would like to request that more leeway in time be given to serious issues which require in-depth discussion and clarifications. Sir, the 20-minute time limit for MPs and 40 minutes for Ministers should not be cast in stone and a grace period should be exercised at one go as and when necessary by the House. Such flexibility would not only enhance the quality of the proceedings but also allow for a more robust and enlightened exchange of views.

As elected backbenchers, we must fulfil expectations of voters, exception to the rule, with an element of flexibility, will assure voters that, when necessary, extra time will be given to important issues.

Over the years, the number of Members in this august Chamber has increased and, with recent changes to the Constitution, it is set to increase even further. As mentioned earlier, barring discussion on important topics, the reduction in speaking time is sensible and it would allow more Members to participate actively before legislation is passed and speak up for their voters. The capping of speaking time would put more discipline on speakers and help them to stay focussed and prepare their speeches well. This amendment will enhance the proceedings and avoid protracted parliamentary sittings.

Sir, on Standing Order No. 48, the amendment to allow Members to speak in any or any combination of the four official languages in their speech is not only timely but would help for a smoother delivery of speeches by backbenchers as some points could only be put across best in the vernacular language.

Sir, I welcome the changes. Although I support the amendments, I would like to request that future Standing Orders Committee should have a larger representation of backbenchers as the feedback received from them would be more representative in making future amendments to the Standing Orders.

Sir, in support of this amendment, I am glad that I have delivered my speech within the 10 minutes. In any case, though the current time limit is 30 minutes, I have seldom gone beyond 15 minutes. So, I believe the 20-minute limit will not have any negative impact on Members.

On this note, Sir, I support the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank Mdm Ho for her support for the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders.

Sir, Mdm Ho made a few points. First, she observed that the revised time limits are still generous as compared to the other Commonwealth countries. I think this point is worth emphasising. Over the last three years, backbencher-Members of this House made a total of about 119 speeches on Budget Statements. Of the 119 speeches, only 17 took more than 20 minutes. In other words, 85% of the speeches made by the backbenchers in this House in the debate of the Budget Statements were actually within the revised time limit of 20 minutes.

Secondly, over the last two years, again, backbencher-Members of this House made a total of about 200 speeches on Bills and Motions. And of the 200 speeches, only two of them went beyond 20 minutes, and for these particular two, the time taken was 21 minutes. In other words, almost 100% of the speeches made by backbencher-Members in this House for the last two years on Bills and Motions were within the proposed new time limit of 20 minutes. So, on that count, I agree with Mdm Ho that the revised time limit, by any standard, is still quite generous as compared to many other countries.

Thirdly, Mdm Ho asked for leeway to be given for discussions on serious issues. Sir, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, if any Member of this House feels strongly about any particular issue and would like to conduct a more in-depth discussion, he is encouraged to move a motion, very much like what NMP Viswa has done today. Whether we all share the same view on these motions is not the key issue. The key issue is that in this House, Members are here to perform a duty. At any point in time, if they feel strongly about any issue, please move a motion and with that, they will have up to 40 minutes to present their views and 40 minutes to give their replies.

Of course, in extreme situations, there is provision for an exemption of Standing Orders. But in my 14 years in this House, I have not yet come across a situation where the Leader of the House actually proposed an exemption regarding the speech time limit. Therefore, my advice to the Members of this House is, do not count on that. I think it is better that every one of us do our very best to tighten our speeches, and sharpen our focus, so that we say whatever we want to say in that 20 minutes and then, as I said, if they have something more than that to talk about, present it in the form of a motion.

Sir, Mdm Ho's last point is regarding the composition of future Select Committee on Standing Order. She would like to see a larger representation of backbenchers. Sir, as provided for under our Standing Orders, the Select Committee on Standing Orders have 10 Members. Of the 10 Members, of course, the Speaker is the Chair and the two Deputy Speakers are Members of this Committee. So that leaves us with seven Members to be appointed to this Committee. Of the seven Members, some Members of this House are more involved with the procedural affairs of the House, eg, the Leader of the House and the Whip. As a result, five places are taken up by the Speaker, the two Deputy Speakers, the Leader of the House and the Whip. So, that leaves us with five other positions. In this particular review, out of that five positions, two went to the frontbench and three went to the backbench.

Sir, we take the point by Mdm Ho that we do want to take in the views of as many backbenchers as we can. I want to assure the House that the views of the backbenchers are important to us, and that is the reason why we invited the Members to come forward with their proposals, if there is any. Even though there was no proposal from Members of the House, we actually went out to invite some of the Members for a dialogue, for an exchange of views. Indeed, their views were taken into consideration and, to some extent, were reflected in the changes that we are presenting today.

Sir, with that, I believe I have answered the key points brought up by Mdm Ho, and I look forward to the support of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl 2 of 2010 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament.

Resolved,

"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed" – [Mr Lim Swee Say].

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes to Six o'clock pm

to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if he will provide an update on the state of juvenile delinquency in Singapore and the effectiveness of the prevention and reformative training programmes; and (b) whether more support should be given to youth centres in HDB neighbourhoods to reach out to youths-at-risk.

As a society, we strive to build a safe and secure environment for our young to grow up in. We invest heavily in the healthcare and education of our youth and children. While the majority of our youths mature to be contributing citizens of society, a small number of them go down the path of delinquency and crime.

Over the years, the number of arrests of juveniles aged seven to 15 has dropped from 2,637 in 2004 to 1,783 in 2009. Shop theft is the most common offence committed. Arrests for rioting are also of concern, accounting for one in 10 juveniles arrested.

The decrease in juvenile arrests indicates that our efforts have helped our young stay away from crime. Crime prevention roadshows and prison visits for students educate our youths on the consequences of breaking the law. Parents are also alerted of their children’s at-risk activities through the "Youth Hanging Out Late" letters by the Police. Under the Enhanced STEP-UP Programme, local community agencies provide client-centric intervention to guide students at risk of dropping out of school to be re-engaged either with schools or alternative meaningful activities.

For the youth offenders, we have a range of community- and institutional-based rehabilitative programmes to help them learn from their mistakes and get a second chance in life. The Guidance Programme and Probation Programmes provide youths who committed petty offences with offence specific intervention, community service and experiential activities to teach them positive life skills and reduce the risks of re-offending. Offenders placed in the institutional Juvenile Homes spend about two to three years in a purpose-built facility and attend therapeutic, educational and character development programmes to address the offending behaviour and prepare them for reintegration into society. The StreetWise Programme specifically targets youths who found their way into gangs, and provides them with a series of counselling, life skills, recreational and social programmes as well as academic and career guidance in order to steer them away from all forms of association with their gang and help them make a fresh start in life.

Our rehabilitative efforts are showing gradual positive outcomes. The recidivism rate for the juvenile offenders who have gone through the Guidance Programme, probation or Juvenile Homes has dropped from 23.9% among cases closed in 2003 to 19.8% among cases closed in 2006. Recidivism here refers to having re-offended within three years after completion of a rehabilitation programme.

For the StreetWise Programme, up till December 2009, 1,017 youths have been referred to the programme. Among youths who have completed the programme, only one in 10 had offended within one year following completion. In November 2010, a revised model for the programme has been introduced, which will have greater emphasis on individual and family counselling as well as gang intervention topics.

Despite the low recidivism, the Government recognises that we need to go upstream, to keep our youths away from crime from the start and break the cycle of offending and re-offending early. To strengthen the upstream efforts, the Central Youth Guidance Office (CYGO) was formed in July this year which will comprise officers from the three key ministries – MOE, MCYS and MHA. CYGO has been studying solutions that will enhance outreach to youths-at-risk and coordinate intervention services at the local level to help these youths effectively, and will be piloting some of these ideas soon.

Each and every one of our youths is precious and carries our hope for a better future for Singapore. CYGO and MCYS will continue to work with relevant agencies and explore better solutions that will help our young live a crime-free life so as to develop their full potential to be contributing members of society.