Hansard, 2011-03-07

Under the provision of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Member has been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) for the period stated: Name From (2011) To (2011) Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 22 Mar 26 Mar

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day].

Head M – Ministry of Finance

Question again proposed.

Whole-of-Government

Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

Over the last week, as we debated Budget 2011 and in the various

Committee of Supply discussions, the focus has been on productivity and building capability. As Minister Tharman has said, we are stepping up investments to transform Singapore into a high-capability economy and a global city that stands out for its liveability. So can Minister share how effective public agencies have been in achieving productivity gains?

In December 2010, in the Singapore Public Sector outcome review, the Government outlined six broad strategies to take Singapore forward and how public agencies can work together to achieve these goals. The report recognised the need for the whole-of-Government approach to tackle issues rather than having each agency deal with a specific area. While agencies are effective and efficient in each of the areas of responsibility and competency, there is an increasing need to work across agencies to address the complexity of situations and scenarios that face us at the national and at the citizen level.

Can the Minister share the progress that the Government has made to drive the whole-of-Government approach to achieve the strategic outcomes for effective citizen services and national issues? What measures have been put in place to ensure accountability across agencies?

In the Budget debate, I had raised a question on our fiscal position given the several large projects in the pipeline: projects announced by the Government from our transport infrastructure, upgrading projects to rejuvenating our heartlands, our lifestyle projects and investments to further improve our health and educational systems to serve the need of Singaporeans.

Our expenditures have increased to 14.5% of GDP in the last five years. As

Minister had shared in the Budget Statement, our expenditures are expected to increase further to 16.5% of GDP over the next five years. These projects are large and complex requiring sizeable financial commitments over the next five years. Can Minister share the measures put in place to ensure strong management of these projects to achieve intended outcomes and meeting fiscal accountabilities? How will fiscal disciplines be maintained while allowing for flexibility in the approach? Many of these projects are multi-year and, as we all know, the requirements will change and will need to be incorporated while managed effectively to ensure that the intended outcomes are achieved.

Many of these projects will also require the whole-of-Government approach as they will involve multi-agencies to achieve the outcome. For example, the Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) projects will involve HDB, LTA, NParks, PUB, NEA, the Sports Council and even the Heritage Board, to name a few. What is in place to facilitate this collaboration and ensure effective and productive use of resources? How would we track our progress towards achieving the outcomes outlined in the Singapore Public Sector outcome review? What will the indicators of success be, as we are looking over a multi-year period?

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Fiscal prudence

Sir, it is widely known that our Civil Service is held in high regard by both the public as well as its counterparts in the region and other parts of the world. However, one feedback from the citizenry we hear from time to time has been on occasions, public funds have not been well accounted for in some of the Ministries with procedures that can be further improved. There were also occasions when Ministries have overspent their

budget for projects, such as the recent Youth Olympic Games, and evidence of wastage has been detected during audit exercises. When such incidents are reported in the press, it affects public confidence in our processes.

As such, I would like to ask the Minister, what are the initiatives for instilling discipline within public agencies? What measures are taken when there are instances of over expenditure from the amount budgeted for?

Another related issue is with regards to the management of mega projects. In recent years, I can see that public development projects are getting larger and more complex. These include the development of the new MRT lines which may need to go deeper underground and are more complex. I would like to ask the Minister if there is a framework in place to ensure proper and prudent management of these mega projects. Perhaps the Minister can also share with the House examples of such measures.

Collaboration through e-Government

Chairman, I would like to declare my interest as the company I work for bids and engages in e-Government projects. I represent the GPC in fielding this cut.

The Government has always been seen as a leader in e-government initiatives. With more Singaporeans being connected and having greater interest to have a say in their well-being, there is an opportunity to use the Internet and social media to better engage and collaborate with citizens.

Can the Ministry elaborate on new services that it plans to deliver for citizens? What can Singaporeans look forward to better engage, share ideas and better collaborate with the Government? I elaborated in my Budget speech that this

is the best opportunity for the Government to truly connect with the young but we must also work hard at the messaging, packaging and communications aspects to truly connect and garner buy-in; not just spend on Web2.0 technologies and infrastructure.

I hope that the Ministry is planning on ensuring that we also have sufficiently trained personnel who understand our policies and can engage effectively with members of the public. How does the Ministry improve measures and training for officers to minimise mistakes online, such as the recent case where an HPB officer mistakenly published his personal message on a Government platform?

How has the Ministry performed in improving productivity across the Government through better automation and integration in recent years? Can the Government share some statistics on achieved cost-savings and efficiency through large projects and economies of scale projects, such as SOEasy? In this, I also hope that the Government sets an example for the industry to practise best-sourcing for innovation, rather than solely on cheapest price.

Income tax of sole proprietors and limited liability partnerships

Chairman, Sir, shaping our nation into a regional and global business and investment hub has always been high on the Government's agenda. Rightly so, because this would translate to greater opportunities to develop more industries on home ground which in turn promotes a flourishing business economy. In recent years, the Government has also been encouraging more people to take the journey to entrepreneurship by equipping them with the know-how and making loans more accessible to them. In running a business, the annual income tax payable

is one item that must not be overlooked as it can add up to quite a significant figure. For Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) companies, profits are distributed among partners and tax based on each partner's personal income tax rates. The current income tax rate for top bracket income is 20%. A private limited company, on the other hand, is taxed at corporate tax rate which is currently capped at 17%. In addition, they enjoy various other tax exemptions where applicable.

This means that they invariably pay lower taxes than successful sole proprietors and limited liability partners. This may impose an undue burden on sole proprietors and limited liability companies which are receiving less Government support and yet are exposed to the same risks and turbulence of a market economy as any private limited company. Also, sole proprietorship and LLPs are less expensive to set up compared to a private limited company. It is precisely for this reason that some budding entrepreneurs are attracted to set up their companies under LLP.

Hence, I urge the Minister to make the income tax system fairer and more equitable for sole proprietors and LLP companies. An example of how this could be done, perhaps, is to subject sole proprietors and LLP partners to be taxed not higher than the corporate tax rates. I hope Minister can give a favourable review on the tax system.

Business-friendly processes

Mr Chairman, Singapore remains one of the world's most competitive economies according to several reputable rankings. The World Bank has, for the last five years, ranked Singapore as the best place to do business. In early 2010, Singapore

was also ranked as the most competitive economy in the world by Switzerland's IMD Business School in its 2010 World Competitiveness Yearbook, ahead of Hong Kong and the US, highlighting Singapore's resilience through the financial crisis despite the challenges on the volatile economic conditions we faced.

The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2010/2011 has also recognised Singapore as the third most competitive economy in the world, after Switzerland and Sweden, and Asia's most competitive economy with our strong institutional environment, market efficiencies and quality infrastructure.

Singapore was ranked highly for our goods and labour market efficiency and our financial market sophistication. It has, however, highlighted that to further strengthen Singapore's competitiveness, there could be stronger adoption of the latest technologies and policies to enhance the sophistication of our companies.

Switzerland's economy, which is ranked first, is characterised by an excellent capacity for innovation and very sophisticated business culture. It has high spending on R&D and its scientific research institutions are among the world's best. The strong collaboration between academia and business sectors ensures that much of the research is translated into marketable products and processes reinforced by strong intellectual property protection.

So, can Minister share the various pro-business measures that are in place to continue to foster a favourable business environment to support businesses operating in Singapore? While we continue to drive business-friendly processes and simplification for businesses to operate in Singapore, what more can be done to enable a competitive and conducive business environment to support greater

innovation and sophistication of our companies and make Singapore the most competitive economy, both in Asia and globally?

Export-Import (EXIM) Bank

Mr Speaker, Sir, and Members of Parliament, good afternoon. First, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry, President of the Singapore Shipping Association and Managing Director of Pacific International Lines.

The notion of an EXIM Bank for cross-border financing was brought up by the Economic Strategies Committee and then again in Budget 2010. Since then, the business community, especially the SMEs, had been looking forward to good news on the setting up of such a specialised institution. The setting up of an EXIM Bank would be highly useful in serving the needs of SMEs intending to spread their wings into emerging markets.

After listening to the 2011 Budget Statement, SMEs cannot help but feel disappointed. I speak on behalf of SME owners who expressed dismay upon learning that the Government has decided against setting up a dedicated trade finance institution. This was only disclosed after a whole year had gone by. Instead, we were told that the Government would work with existing specialists and providers to provide such a service to SMEs.

Again, there is no real certainty on the details as the Government will only provide an update in the latter half of 2011.

12.15 pm

I note that the Government plans to work with commercial players to set up this specialised institution for cross-border financing. This is likely to work at cross

purposes. Existing specialist providers are driven by commercial considerations and are reluctant to provide financing for overseas projects bearing a higher element of risk. Currently, SMEs with the resolve and intention to embark on viable projects in emerging markets find themselves in a dilemma. They are strapped by the inability to secure financing from risk-averse commercial banks. Having no track record is viewed as a major constraint by the banks. Thus, the prospect of an independent EXIM Bank to support their overseas ventures seems to provide a glimmer of hope.

Again, let me cite the case of WEC Engineers & Constructors Pte Ltd, which I brought up in the Budget debate last year. WEC’s core business is in the aviation and jet fuel system. The company had applied for IE Singapore’s Internationalisation Finance Scheme, where IE Singapore’s portion of risk sharing is 70% while the participating financial institution's (PFI) portion is 30%. However, because WEC is an SME, the PFI demanded that the company should undertake additional co-sharing of default risks. Overseas ventures require a healthy cash flow, and this additional co-sharing ties up their liquidity funds.

WEC also heeded the Government’s call to develop overseas markets, and are currently bidding for two projects in Indo-China. Overseas projects are far larger in scope than those in Singapore’s small domestic market, and thus, require additional financial assistance. This is extremely difficult to secure through commercially-driven financial institutions.

Venturing overseas is not for the faint-hearted. Businessmen and entrepreneurs need to have big dreams. At the same time, substantial financial resources need to be invested before these dreams can be a reality. The ideal scenario would be to combine private enterprise with Government support. In this case, Government support

in the form of an EXIM bank was considered essential and important.

I raised this same concern during the Budget debate last year, and continued to ask for an update on the setting up of an EXIM bank in a subsequent Parliament session in May last year.

We are experiencing increasing volatility in various regions today. As Minister had mentioned at the beginning of his Budget speech, the external condition has become more complex. Last year, the concerns were on the sovereign debt crisis in Europe. This year, the Middle East and North Africa are being affected by revolts and toppled regimes. This would definitely affect the cost of borrowing in private financial institutions.

If SMEs were to rely on traditional banking channels, they are unlikely to make any headway in the current market. A full-fledged, dedicated EXIM bank to support cross-border financing would have addressed this need. This vehicle would then take a long-term view of overseas investments instead of shying away from financial support to fuel business expansion. We are concerned that further delays on setting up such a financial vehicle would become a precious opportunity cost for SMEs.

I would also like to discuss how an EXIM Bank could help to develop the maritime sector, which has been identified as one of Singapore’s strategic business sectors. Based on industry feedback, shipping banks in Singapore are not as competitive as EXIM banks. They rarely lend to companies beyond a five-year tenure and often require vessels as mortgages and collateral.

Export-Import institutions in China and South Korea are more willing to lend on commercial terms and provide liquidity to

shipowners. Even though there are certain strings attached to the loans, such as building the vessels at their yards, they can provide up to 70% financing. In fact, it was just reported on the 4th of March that the EXIM Bank of Korea, the state-run lender known as Kexim, will be boosting its 2011 fund-raising target by about 10%, to finance more shipbuilding orders.

Banks in Singapore might be uncomfortable with taking up such exposures, especically for financing of rigs and FPSOs. Banks tend to shy away from financing due to the huge amount of money involved and the risk deemed involved with the oil businesses.

If such an EXIM bank were to be set up in Singapore, it could be tied to activities like building rigs and FPSOs at yards in Singapore, which is a booming sector here. By doing so, we can not only develop Singapore as a ship financing centre, but truly become a one-stop International Maritime Centre.

On the topic of financing for SMEs, I would also like to touch upon the Co-Investment Programme for SMEs. Under Phase One of this programme launched in December last year, the Government will provide up to $250 million in capital to grow local firms into globally competitive players. This would be matched by private equity fund managers. It is envisaged that about $200 million will go to promising SMEs with annual revenues of less than $100 million.

The Co-Investment Programme will be administered by private equity fund managers. In order to ensure that promising SMEs benefit from this programme, I hope the Government would provide special consideration or added incentives to encourage these fund managers to assist new and innovative SMEs. These new and innovative SMEs are likely to venture into fast-growing new

industries or traditional industries with new growth potential.

Ultimately, SMEs should find faster and easier access to capital, so that they could survive, thrive and contribute even more to our economy.

Developing capability in accountancy sector

Sir, the accountancy sector plays a significant role in providing access to talent and professional accountancy services required by our economy. In April 2010, the Committee to Develop the Accountancy Sector (CDAS) proposed 10 recommendations to broaden the talent pool and deepen expertise in the accounting sector to transform Singapore into a leading global accountancy hub for Asia Pacific by 2020. I find that the report provides credible and good recommendations, as well as directions in helping us to build capabilities in the accounting sector. I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the progress made in implementing the recommendations made by CDAS. What are the challenges that we are likely to face in our quest to be a global accountancy hub and how are we going to address these challenges?

Singapore as a global accountancy hub

Chairman, Singapore serves as a global and regional hub for several international companies. In the borderless global economy, accounting practices are being outsourced. Singapore is blessed with an excellent financial regulatory framework and skilled accounting practitioners and is an excellent choice for the setting up of a global accountancy hub. I will be grateful if the Ministry could provide an update on its initiatives to transform Singapore into a leading global accountancy hub. What is the outcome of efforts to attract

accounting professionals? What is the supply and demand situation for accounting professionals in the current job market? How is the sector managing the salary pricing of these accounting professionals?

Chairman, I am also keen to know the proportion of business derived by Singapore-based accounting firms from overseas last year. Of the overseas business, what proportion was derived from China and India, compared to other countries in the region?

Mr Teo Ser Luck. You have four cuts, take them together please.

Singapore Accountancy Council and Institute of CPA in Singapore

Accountancy graduates

CPA designation

Accountancy sector development fund

Sir, I declare my interest as the advisor to the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Singapore (ICPAS). The Asia Pacific accountancy market is the fastest growing market for international accountancy networks. This market is targeted to hit US$38 billion in the next few years, and this presents a compelling value proposition and opportunities for Singapore's accountancy sector.

I support the recommendations of Committee to Develop the Accountancy Sector (CDAS). The need for strong infrastructure and concerted action by key stakeholders and institutions to support the growth and development of the sector is of utmost importance. The services sector has been identified as one of the key economic drivers. I am glad to know that the accountancy sector is on its radar screen and the $10 million fund would be

injected to develop the capabilities of the sector. I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on the specific plans for this $10 million fund.

ICPAS has a membership of 23,000 and has an integral role to play in the development of the accountancy sector. These members include both practising and non-practising ones, and they carry with them a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) designation. This designation is a form of recognition for their qualification, experience and professionalism. I fully support the CDAS's recommendation to have a new professional qualification examination to qualify CPAs. This will ensure we keep to the high standards of the profession and level up to the international accountancy bodies of the world. I would like to ask the Minister: with the new professional accountancy programme, will there be any change to the CPA designation? What will happen to the current ICPAS members and how will it affect the current cohort of accountancy students in the three universities?

The institute must play a committed and concerted role to support and partner the Government in its efforts to develop the accountancy sector. It must also widen and deepen its mission of leading, developing and supporting accountancy professionals, and contribute in developing Singapore as an accountancy hub for Asia. CDAS has recommended that the ICPAS be transformed into a professional body with global membership, outlook and standing. It outlines two key strategic areas for ICPAS to undertake and achieve these goals.

I understand that ICPAS is in the process of reviewing its constitution to ensure that the constitution will be aligned and relevant to its mission as a national accountancy body. This will include changing leadership structure and

renewal, which will include a maximum tenure for the presidency, lower the average age of the membership and office bearers, and strengthen governance structure and systems. I am aware that ICPAS is expected to complete the review of the relevant recommendations of its constitutions within six months. This will also ensure that ICPAS will realise its mission and vision and strongly support the Government's effort to transform Singapore into a leading and global accountancy hub for Asia Pacific.

It is of importance that a transformed ICPAS will see the widening and deepening of its talent pool as well. This will catalyse and multiply ideas and spur innovation to cater to higher expectations, a more sophisticated economy, keener international competition, and more complex issues. If ICPAS is to transform itself and align objectives in implementing CDA's recommendations today, it must work with the Singapore Accountancy Council (SAC), to be set up, very closely. However, the SAC's scope of work and responsibilities are still unclear. I would like to ask the Minister what is the SAC's role in comparison to ICPAS? Will both entities be complementary?

Mr Chairman, Sir, first, let me thank hon. Members for their comments and suggestions. Given the time constraints, I shall highlight the key intent of the relevant policies and address specific comments whenever possible.

The questions that Members have raised centered on three areas which I shall address in turn. First, leading a high-performance and accountable Government. Secondly, fostering a favourable environment for business. Thirdly, building capabilities in the accountancy sector.

Sir, my Ministry will continue with our efforts to build a high-performance Government that is accountable to

Singaporeans. We adopt a three-pronged approach. First, we will promote whole-of-Government strategic outcomes, by addressing important challenges and opportunities that cut across agencies or Ministry boundaries.

Second, we will inculcate a mindset of fiscal prudence amongst all our agencies to various measures to promote value-for-money practices.

Third, we will build a collaborative Government in the delivering of e-services, so as to tap the potential technology to improve government service delivery with the Government working hand-in-hand with the private and people sectors.

Ms Jessica Tan asked about the progress the Government has made in driving strategic outcomes through the whole-of-Government approach. As policy issues become increasingly complex and cut across traditional Ministry boundaries, the need to augment the current approach to inter-agency collaboration has become even more pressing. Our public agencies have increasingly to work together as one networked Government to address strategic challenges. For the Ministry of Finance, this means that we have to access outcomes holistically from the whole-of-Government's perspective, and not compartmentalised by individual Ministries in order to allocate funds to achieve the best outcomes for Singapore. The Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review (SPOR) which was published by the Ministry in December last year captures this intent. It takes stock of the collective efforts by the different Government Ministries acting together beyond the individual Ministry remit to address strategic challenges facing our nation and assess the progress that has been made thus far. This collective effort to monitor current and emerging policy issues guides our strategies and resource allocation for the future.

12.30 pm

Notwithstanding the inherent difficulty of coordinating efforts across agencies, the report shows that Singapore has done well overall. How do we assess this? We look at the outcomes. Our economy remains internationally competitive, more people are satisfied with the local living and working environment and Singaporeans are proud of our nation.

Let me now illustrate with three examples of what is meant by promoting whole-of-Government outcomes. The first example relates to public satisfaction with Singapore's living environment over the years. In 2003, 70% of the public was satisfied with Singapore's living, working and leisure environment. In 2009, this rose to more than 83%. This achievement was a result of collective efforts made by a number of our agencies to enhance the quality of life in Singapore in very much the same way that Ms Jessica Tan has described. Some of these initiatives include the renewal of our public and private housing estates, the development of surrounding recreational areas such as the Southern Ridges and the Changi Waterfront, the beautifying and landscaping of the waterways and reservoirs under the Active, Beautiful and Clean Waters programme, and the promotion of arts and culture such as the building of the National Art Gallery. Singapore is now well regarded internationally as a more vibrant city to live, work and play.

Next is an example of Ministries working to jointly address issues relating to youth offenders through the Central Youth Guidance Office (CYGO). The Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) are partners of the CYGO which was set up in June 2010 to maintain an overview of the entire spectrum of youth offending issues. The

CYGO was also established to provide a platform where cross-cutting issues can be discussed, analysed and resolved in a more holistic fashion. Members can hear more about this under the MCYS' Committee of Supply (COS).

The third example has been well discussed but it is one which remains a challenge – that of sustaining our population in the face of our low fertility rate which has remained well below the 2.1 replacement rate in recent years. The National Population and Talent Division (NPTD), which was set up in the Prime Minister's office in January 2011, is to formulate and coordinate policies related to population and talent. Overseen by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, the Division's responsibilities encompass policy areas previously under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Manpower, Ministry Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, to ensure that these inter-related policies come under one centre of responsibility to enable policy responses to be addressed, again, more holistically. Sir, MOF will continue to push for better public sector performance through more coordinated efforts across agency boundaries so as to reach our collective goal of building a better Singapore.

Let me now turn to Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal's question on the efforts made by MOF to instil fiscal discipline in public agencies. Fiscal discipline and prudence are hallmarks of the Singapore Government. We have put in place a two-pronged approach to ensure that public servants utilise resources prudently. Allow me to explain how. First, is the block allocation of budgets within which agencies have autonomy. MOF uses the block budget framework to instil discipline in Ministries' approach to budgeting while also

providing Ministries with flexibility in their allocation of their funds. Each Ministry's budget is allocated after a rigorous evaluation of the funding requirements by MOF. The budget is then allowed to grow annually at the rate pegged to GDP growth. Periodic reviews are carried out to ensure that the block budgets remain appropriate over time. Ministries take responsibility for optimising the budgets within the allocated amounts. The block budget system ensures that the Government remains lean and keeps a tight rein on expenditure within the overall GDP growth.

As a complement to funding allocations under the block budgeting framework, MOF uses their manpower management framework to allocate manpower resources prudently. Under this framework, public sector agencies have been allowed limited headcount growth to meet our growing challenges but at the rate no more than Singapore's resident labour force growth rate. This establishes discipline in the use of manpower resources and encourages productivity improvements across Government. At the same time, we also ensure that the framework is dynamic enough for the Government to respond to the changing environment effectively. For example, we have provided additional headcounts to MCYS for FY2009 to 2011 for new programmes, such as the Wellness Programme, as well as temporary increases to support the overseeing of the recently concluded Youth Olympic Games. In this way, we ensure that Government remains lean while remaining responsive to changes.

The second prong in our approach to ensuring fiscal discipline is to build a value-for-money mindset. The value-for-money (VFM) review office, under the Accountant General's department, takes the lead in this. The value-for-money office complements the block budget framework by conducting regular reviews

of Government projects and processes to ensure accountability in spending, value for money and fiscal discipline within the public sector. For example, the VFM office found, in one of those reviews, that there was scope for better utilisation of common facilities, such as carparks and training facilities, by some agencies. MOF has since been working with the relevant agencies to promote higher utilisation of such common facilities.

To cite another example, the VFM office noted that a significant number of statutory boards was producing hard-copy annual reports. Some had added costly design features, such as hard covers, art papers and embossing. Following the review, MOF issued a circular to remind agencies to produce their annual reports in a cost-effective manner. A basic template was also provided for reference. As a result, agencies have taken creative steps to cut costs for publishing annual reports. For instance, IE Singapore now publishes its annual report entirely online, saving 30% of its production cost.

Sir, Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal asked how we can prevent over expenditure on large-scale projects, as was the case for our hosting of the Youth Olympic Games (YOG), while Ms Jessica Tan has emphasised and asked how we are ensuring the strong management of large public projects. The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, had previously elaborated in this House on the cost escalation of the budget for the YOG, hence, I will not repeat his detailed explanation except to reiterate that this was the first of its kind. In fact, both the International Olympic Committee and ourselves started from scratch. It was a challenge to arrive at accurate estimates. In this case, the Government would have proceeded with the YOG even if the full cost had been known upfront as the benefits exceeded the costs. Nonetheless, we agree it is important for us to derive

as accurate an estimate of the costs of major projects as possible. MOF will continue to improve our projections and processes.

I wish to inform Members that in June 2010, MOF introduced a new measure to further strengthen the financial management of large public sector development projects. Under the MOF gateway process, projects above $500 million are subject to stage approvals for concept, design and implementation. A new panel, the Development Projects Advisory Panel comprising members with extensive expertise and experience in project management and development, will examine the specifications and design of the projects at the early stage of project conceptualisation. This process optimises the project's design and provides the most up-to-date cost estimates at the point of project approval. These measures will help reduce the likelihood of downstream cost over-runs.

In addition, MOF has set up a new centre for public project management in January 2011 to provide advisory services on project design and management to public sector agencies. This centre will also help to enhance the coordination of the pipeline of public sector development projects. Through our many measures to ensure fiscal discipline and value for money in our public spending, we will continue to make sure that public expenditure is allocated and made wisely.

Sir, I will now go on to address MP Zaqy Mohamad's question on how we are building a collaborative Government that uses the Internet to share ideas, engage and work hand in hand with Singaporeans.

Over the past three decades, Singapore's e-Government programmes have successfully leveraged advancements in technology to deliver convenient e-services for citizens and businesses.

These efforts have not gone unnoticed. We are encouraged that today, Singapore is recognised as an e-Government leader internationally. Having said that, rapid technological advances have led to significant changes in our operating environment over the last few years. Singaporeans are becoming more Net-savvy and are increasingly making use of the Internet to interact with one another and to share our resources.

NCMP Ms Sylvia Lim, during the Budget debate, had asked about web accessibility for people with disabilities. Sir, we adopt an inclusive approach to our e-Government efforts. Our web standards have incorporated key aspects of the worldwide web consortium's web content accessibility guidelines, which is an internationally adopted standard developed for persons with disabilities. Some examples are the inclusion of captions for pre-recorded audio content and allowing users to resize text by up to 200% without assistive technology, and all Government corporate websites will need to comply with these requirements by June 2012, and all other Government websites and e-services by December 2013.

The Government is constantly tapping on new media to reach out to and connect with both citizens and businesses. This year, MOF worked with REACH to develop a Budget 2011 microsite to garner public feedback. Members of the public could follow and respond to real-time discussions posted on the website. Since it was started in December last year, we recorded more than 67,000 page views. Our MOF Facebook page also saw a three-fold spike in activity on Budget Day.

Sir, looking ahead, citizens and businesses can expect to enjoy more

convenient services and new platforms to collaborate with Government as part of the new e-Government masterplan which will be launched in June this year. Let me just preview two new initiatives. The first is the "One Inbox", an electronic mailbox where subscribers can receive electronic correspondences from participating Government agencies in place of hard copies. This not only helps to reduce the time taken to receive the letters but also it is especially useful for those who need to access the mail when travelling overseas. Singaporeans can look forward to having the "One Inbox" in 2012.

In the second half of this year, we will also launch a first-stop portal called "data.gov.sg". This initiative will facilitate the sharing of Government data with the public and to promote the co-creation of applications and services with individuals and companies by tapping on Government data. We are already seeing some of these co-creations happening today. For example, Quantum Inventions has developed a customised dynamic navigation system which pools together real-time traffic information from LTA and road users on current road conditions. Users can search, save and share routes and locations with friends over Facebook.

Overall, within the Government, we have been leveraging technology to improve productivity and reap cost savings. To date, we have launched 31 integrated Government projects resulting in an estimated cost savings of some $140 million. On the issue of training and development, public officers involved in new media communications and engagement are sent for relevant training courses organised by both the Civil Service College and other private sector providers. These courses help officers better understand the new media landscape and leverage new media in the organisations.

12.45 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad has also raised a question on the SOEasy project. Sir, we are in the process of rolling out SOEasy to Government agencies progressively, and MOF and IDA are working with Government agencies to verify the ICT expenditure pre- and post- the SOEasy project. Besides cost savings, there are also intangible benefits, such as new collaborative tools like instant messaging for public officers across multiple agencies, smooth and swift delivery of new ICT services for all agencies as well as more regular and non-intrusive security updates for the entire public service.

In terms of IT procurement, the key consideration for best sourcing is value-for-money and not cost alone. This is true for any other Government procurement. Public agencies must state the evaluation criteria upfront in the invitation to tender and quote which will include other considerations besides price, such as quality and innovation. Agencies will evaluate based on these criteria, and award the contract to the proposal that offers the best value-for-money.

Sir, I would like to add that there are ample opportunities for the SMEs to compete. When IDA announced that 350 IT projects worth $1 billion were lined up for FY2010, the majority of these projects were smaller scale initiatives worth less than $500,000 in value. These projects would provide opportunities for SMEs to participate in the tender process. SMEs can also come together as a consortium to bid for larger projects.

Sir, I shall now turn to the issues raised by Members on how we can ensure that Singapore remains a good place to do business. Although we have done well in building a pro-business environment and have been ranked favourably by the World Bank's Doing Business report, our challenge is to maintain this well-earned track record into the future.

One of our key planks is building a competitive tax system. Er Lee Bee Wah has asked if we should review the income tax of sole proprietors and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) to be in line with companies. Sir, today, sole proprietorships or partnerships are not taxable entities. Instead, we levy personal income tax on the sole proprietor or the individual partners. This means the sole proprietor is subject to the progressive schedule of personal income tax rates, ranging from 0% to 20% and enjoys personal income tax relief.

For example, a sole proprietor or individual partner with $20,000 of taxable income, after deducting personal income tax relief, would not have to pay personal income tax, whereas a company with the same taxable income will have to pay corporate taxes of $1,275. Our tax treatment of sole proprietorships or partnerships is consistent with the practice in many other tax jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, Malaysia and United Kingdom. What the Member has suggested is effectively to align the top personal tax rate of 20% with the corporate tax rate of 17%. Sir, there is no pressing competitive need and, therefore, little policy reason to do so. Indeed, most countries do not align their personal and corporate income tax rates. More importantly, the decision to adjust the top personal income tax rate should be evaluated based on its merit rather than its relativity to the corporate income tax rates. Ultimately, the decision to organise a business as a sole proprietorship, partnership or company is a commercial one that needs to take into account various tax and non-tax factors. So, businesses will need to decide for themselves what legal form best suits their needs.

Nevertheless, I would like to assure the Member and other Members that MOF takes a long-term view of the tax system. We look ahead to identify future trends,

challenges and threats, and shape our tax system accordingly. Towards this end, we have developed a whole-of-Government tax masterplan which lays out strategic themes to better guide public agencies in formulating tax proposals. These long-term changes to our tax structure reinforce our need for a diversified, competitive and progressive fiscal system that will strengthen Singapore as both a business hub and an inclusive society. The changes could not have taken place over just one budget cycle, or even two or three. They require long-term planning and gradual implementation.

Sir, let me now turn to Ms Jessica Tan's question on the measures put in place by the Ministry to support businesses given Government's focus on productivity. Government plays multiple roles in helping businesses become more productive. One such role is that of a policy-maker, putting in place right incentives, such as the Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme, to encourage businesses to take the transition to productivity-driven role. Equally important is our role as facilitator where we aim to ensure that Government's interface with businesses remains efficient and user-friendly, thereby helping our businesses become more productive themselves. We would do more to facilitate business processes.

Let me just quickly run through two initiatives. The first is Singapore Customs' Trade Facilitation and Integrated Risk-based System (TradeFIRST). This system integrates trade facilitation, risk management and compliance elements into a single holistic platform. Instead of going through multiple assessments by different officers for different schemes, each company will have an appointed account manager responsible for conducting a single holistic assessment for that company.

The second example relates to the introduction of a simplified income tax Return Form C for small corporations with annual turnover of not more than $500,000. This is because smaller companies tend to have more straightforward business transactions and tax deductions and, therefore, the majority of the items in the current form do not apply to them. IRAS targets to implement this from Year of Assessment 2012. About 60% of the company base will benefit from this.

Sir, let me now take a few minutes to explain how we are strengthening the market for cross-border finance and improving access to growth finance to develop globally competitive local enterprises. These are the areas that NMP Teo Siong Seng has touched upon. The Government shares Mr Teo's sentiments on the need to boost availability of cross-border financing and access to patient growth capital to further support the growth of a vibrant SME sector. In addressing the gaps in this area, Government has adopted a market-based approach to ensure that the solutions, firstly, complement existing private sector players and, secondly, are sustainable and subject to commercial discipline. We are also inclined to take a more measured and considered approach because we want our intervention to be efficient and customised to meet the unique needs of our corporates.

Indeed, SMEs face hurdles for two main types of cross-border financing needs. First, there is inadequate access to trade and internationlisation finance, especially for emerging markets. Secondly, there is limited capacity in the market for long-tenure budget finance. Let me just touch briefly how we are addressing these structural constraints.

Sir, we currently have several trade and internationalisation financing schemes with IE Singapore partnering private

financial institutions to provide Government support. These schemes have catalysed export-related loans worth about $4.7 billion over the past five years and have benefited more than 2,200 SMEs. However, we recognise the current schemes are constrained by the relatively under-developed export credit insurance market and the reduced risk appetite of the financial institutions post the financial crisis.

Risk-sharing is less effective in facilitating financing where existing market players lack capabilities to underwrite the risk. Also, our SMEs who typically have to internationalise at a relatively early stage as compared to their counterparts often do not have sufficiently diversified portfolios to obtain insurance or individual transactions. We have conducted a detailed feasibility study on the possibility of setting up a full-fledged institution to address the trade and internationalisation finance gaps in Singapore. However, we found that there are insufficient economies to do so. Such an institution will crowd out commercial financing institutions from a significant part of the market base that they are already serving. We are therefore inclined towards improving on the current scheme-based approach.

One possibility is an outsourced approach to target the delivery of the trade financing schemes to better meet the needs of SMEs. Under this model, we will engage private providers to administer a trade and internationalisation finance programme for the Government in return for a fee. These providers were the expertise in risk assessment and underwriting and can customise finance terms to match the risk profiles of transactions. The approach will be company-centric and it will be an improvement from the current approach of a fixed set of schemes and conditions for all firms. Companies will benefit from support that is better tailored to their

financing needs and more responsive to market conditions. Under the outsourced approach, the Government will continue to provide support in the form of risk-sharing and premium subsidies which are also currently being provided under the internationalisation finance schemes and loan insurance schemes.

But I would like to assure Mr Teo that there is scope for new products that may be relevant to SMEs but not available currently, such as single-name credit insurance and guarantees for overseas investments. We will provide an update of the study of the outsourced approach by the second half of this year. In the interim, companies can continue to tap on the existing trade financing schemes.

Let me now move on to project financing which was also brought up by Mr Teo. As he has observed, locally-based banks shy away from cross-border financing, including ship financing due to their capital-intensive nature and the perceived high risk of the shipping industry. The Government recognises that shipping is a capital-intensive industry requiring financing support. And therefore, as part of Budget 2011, the maritime sector incentive wordings, companies will be exempted from paying withholding tax on the interest payments on loans that they take for the construction and purchase of ships. This will help reduce the cost of financing the ship construction and purchase of ships.

There is currently limited capacity for a large-ticket, long-tenure project finance especially in emerging markets. As mentioned by the Minister for Finance in the Budget speech, let me reiterate that Temasek Holdings is in discussion with potential partners on establishing a project finance institution that is financially and commercially viable and sustainable. This initiative will benefit many sectors that require project financing, including the maritime sector.

Mr Teo has also touched on investment capital for SMEs. Raising capital by smaller companies is inherently challenging. Hence, in December last year, the Government launched the Core Investment Programme (CIP) with the aim to nurture globally competitive companies by catalysing the supply of patient growth capital to such companies. Mr Liang Eng Hwa has also raised a similar question during the Budget debate. Under Phase one of CIP, we expect about $200 million or about 40% of the total capital to be catalysed to be channelled to SMEs with annual revenues below $100 million.

However, I should add that it is not the intent of the Government to pick winners through the CIP by providing special consideration or added incentives for SMEs in certain industries. The selection of the investee companies will be left to the private fund managers to decide. But I foresee that innovative and growth-oriented enterprises across all sectors will naturally be investment targets under this programme.

Mr Liang also suggested for part of it to be set aside to nurture and support young entrepreneurs, in particular, those with innovative and creative ideas. I would like to clarify that the CIP is primarily targeted to provide longer term equity capital for growth-staged companies that already have revenue streams and are poised for the next stage of growth. There are currently sufficient Government schemes that support entrepreneurship and early stage start-ups, such as SPRING's SEEDS scheme, where the Government co-invests with the private sector in high-growth start-ups.

Sir, let me now address the cuts raised by MPs Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal, Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Mr Teo Ser Luck relating to the Government's

efforts to develop capabilities in the accountancy sector. The Committee to Develop the Accountancy Sector (CDAS) was convened to review the accountancy sector and submitted its final report in April 2010. One of the key recommendations was the establishment of the Singapore Accountancy Council (SAC). This will be a high-level council tasked to develop and implement a holistic strategy to transform Singapore into a global accountancy hub. The SAC will coordinate and synergise the efforts of all stakeholders in the accountancy sector, including professional accountancy bodies such as the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Singapore (ICPAS), the universities, polytechnics and private institutions, accounting services firms, businesses and accounting professionals. The SAC is expected to be established in early 2012 once the requisite legislation is in place.

Prior to this, we have established the protem SAC in September 2010 to set up the governing framework and implementation roadmap for the CDAS recommendations. Four sub-committees have been formed. These are namely, firstly, the Singapore Accountancy Qualification Programme; secondly, the Accountancy Services Research Centre and accountancy sector development fund; thirdly, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Institute and, fourthly, other sectors of excellence.

Our target is to implement the first phase of initiatives by early 2012. These would include the launch of the new qualification programme and other training programmes such as internal audit. We also hope to establish a network of CFOs, and have in place the rudiments of an Accountancy Services Research Centre by then.

1.00 pm

Mr Teo has talked at length about the role of ICPAS. I have earlier explained the role of the SAC as one of overseeing and

coordinating efforts across the whole accountancy sector. ICPAS, as the largest professional accountancy body in Singapore, is the key stakeholder and it is expected to continue with its work of developing and enhancing the interests of its membership, for example, by conducting professional development courses. It is heartening to know that ICPAS is prepared to restructure itself in order to play an even greater role. There is clearly complementarity in ICPAS' and SAC's mandates.

As to the impact of the post-graduate accountancy qualification on our accountancy graduates, currently there is no available information that comprehensively captures the contribution of business derived from overseas by our accounting firms. But we will be discussing with the larger accountancy firms to see how we can track the contributions.

Sir, may I just take a few more minutes to finish my reply?

Yes, all right, we have time.

The keen competition for accounting talent across industries in Singapore and internationally is a key challenge for us, given the limited number of local accountancy graduates each year. A deep talent pool is critical to the development of Singapore into a leading global accountancy hub in Asia. Therefore, we need to develop the Singapore-branded, post-university professional accountancy programme.

The new qualification programme (QP) will be an additional option for accountancy graduates. And the QP will be comparable to other internationally recognised programmes. More importantly, the QP will also provide a pathway for graduates from non-accountancy back

grounds to enter the profession. This will help us to enlarge the talent pool and attract persons of diverse professional backgrounds from Asia and around the world.

Finally, the point about uses for the Accountancy Sector Development Fund. This will be established under the purview of the SAC to support the implementation of the recommendations and also to improve the capabilities of the accountancy services sector. On our part, the Government is prepared to provide seed funding to build up the fund so that it can start off on a strong footing. And some of these will revolve around building value-adding capabilities for specialisation pathways as well.

Sir, I have elaborated in my speech on how MOF will take a comprehensive approach towards its key focus of ensuring a high performance and accountable Government, fostering a favourable environment for business, and to develop capabilities in the accountancy sector.

We have about 10 minutes for clarification.

Sir, I would like to ask a question on GST. I think the Minister for Finance has given a comprehensive reply in his Budget reply. Many Singaporeans are concerned that there is a potential increase in GST. It is just elections talk but I think it has shown to be one of the more effective means to redistribute wealth. What are the Ministry's considerations before increasing GST? Is it a likelihood that is less likely, now that we have new revenue streams, such as the revision to NIR, as well as the revenue stream from the IRs?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I believe the Minister for Finance has actually addressed that quite adequately

in the Budget Statement. I will encourage the Member to read the Hansard. As I recall, he did say that our projections for revenue have been made for the next five years and we do not target a particular source of revenue. We look at it holistically.

Despite the limited time, I must thank Minister Lim for sharing with us and responding to the questions that we have raised, sharing with us in a comprehensive manner about high performance Government, and looking at accountability. I was glad to hear about collaboration and an inclusive Government. We look forward to the Data.gov.sg co-creation initiative with first-stop portal as well as the One-Inbox because I think the One-Inbox definitely will be addressing not just the collaborative Government but really looking at how to make citizen interaction more effective.

We also appreciate the measures that were shared with us with regard to continuing to make Singapore a competitive place to do business as well as developing capabilities in accountancy.

So, with that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $598,335,700 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $144,626,400 for Head M ordered to stand for part of the Development Estimates.

Head K – Ministry of Education

Educational policy and social mobility

Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

One weekend last year, two boy scouts from Raffles Institution came to my home to offer their services during the annual Job Week. While chatting, I found out that one of them had a doctor father and homemaker mother. The family lived in a house in Cairnhill. They were quite well to do. The other boy lived in a HDB flat in Jurong West. Both his parents work but he was not sure as what. They were not poor but clearly of more modest means. Without even asking, we know that both of the boys made it to RI on the basis of their outstanding PSLE performance. In many other countries, we would not have been able to make such an assumption because entry to so-called “top” schools is not always by merit. Instead, it would depend on the size of your father’s wallet or scope of his influence.

Like most Singaporeans, I am very proud that our education system is like that. The message to students is that all you need to do is to work hard, because the system will let you go as far as you are capable of, regardless of your family background and circumstances. Does this message continue to hold true today? To a large extent, the answer is “yes”. Whether you live in a bungalow or rental flat, it is the same PSLE examinations that you have to clear, same “O” levels that you have to take to determine which Junior College or polytechnic you can be enrolled in, the same “A” levels that will decide how much choice you have for university and course selection.

All teachers are NIE-trained and paid competitively. All schools enjoy substantial funding and good facilities. Furthermore, there are financial schemes to help students from poorer homes. Self-help groups run many programmes to give them a further leg up.

Our education system is as equitable as it gets. In that sense, it provides all Singaporeans equal opportunities to excel. However, no one would be so naïve to think that students from higher-income families do not enjoy some advantages, such as access to enrichment and tuition, information and exposure. For primary school enrolment, the parents’ income levels have a greater influence. It is not uncommon to hear of successful Singaporeans moving, buying or renting a home to be near a primary school of choice.

The key question is whether these advantages are so significant that Singaporeans from poorer backgrounds cannot do better than those from richer backgrounds. In particular, does the parent’s ability to get his child into a primary school give him or her an unfair advantage at the all-important PSLE examinations and thereafter?

In Britain, parents who are able to pay send their children to private schools like Eton and Westminster. Prime Minister David Cameron noted that Oxford and Cambridge Universities take in more students each year from just these two schools than from among the 80,000 pupils who are eligible for free school meals.

What about Singapore? Do enough pupils who start at the bottom move up and out? I think this is a very important question for the MOE to address. Certainly, what would reassure Singaporeans is not one or two individuals who overcome the odds, but empirical evidence that good numbers of students from low-income households are making it to top secondary schools, making it to tertiary institutions and winning scholarships.

Singaporeans are also concerned about declining mobility. A recent article by Assistant Professor Irene Ng of the

National Univeristy of Singapore has suggested that our education system may be perpetuating social immobility. In other words, somehow because of design, we have made it more difficult today for students from poorer backgrounds to do better than those from richer backgrounds. I would like to know if this is true. Can the MOE share any trend data and analyses that would shed light on this issue?

One specific concern I have is the use of PSLE scores for secondary school posting. While it is fair and meritocratic, there are a number of undesirable consequences. First, it is a very high-stakes examination for 12-year-olds when, in fact, it should serve mainly as a milestone check on a child’s progress in his education journey. Should we allow, for example, some shifting around after Secondary Two to give some allowance for late bloomers?

Second, there is certain value in putting students of comparable abilities together to facilitate teaching. But we have to be careful not to give young Singaporeans, especially the very bright ones, the idea that everyone else is like them in terms of intellectual abilities. For many people, lifelong friendships are formed in secondary schools. For this reason, I wonder if we should tolerate some “untidiness” in secondary school posting, perhaps a combination of PSLE scores and some other criteria to have more mixing of people of different abilities.

Third, the policy of Direct Schools Admissions (DSA) was introduced so that students with other gifts can gain admission to popular schools even if their PSLE results might not have allowed them to. However, I have the impression that many DSA places are taken up by Gifted Education Programme students or those who have taken the trouble to prepare for the many admission tests. It sounds to me

like it is a pre-PSLE and it makes me wonder how could poorer students have the resources to keep up. Is it time for us to refine the DSA?

Another concern is that of cost. How does MOE ensure that quality education, especially at the tertiary level, remains accessible and affordable to all Singaporeans regardless of financial background?

Finally, what more can be done beyond financial assistance to boost the chances of students from low-income families?

One practical issue, for example, is how CCA schedules and remedial classes are organised. I discovered to my horror that having three children in primary school at the same time means three different sets of after-school timetables to deal with. Some of my homemaker friends say they are no different from taxi-drivers, ferrying kids around, including the fact that they also do not get CPF! Not many people can afford to have a stay-at-home spouse to handle non-standard transport arrangements.

There are other programmes which are very good but which could also impose burdens on lower-income families, for example, when schools arrange overseas trips to places like Europe. I feel that as a system, we should become more sensitised to the needs of lower-income families, and to be as inclusive as possible when giving opportunities.

Education is the single most important means of providing social mobility in Singapore. It is core to our national value of meritocracy. So I hope to hear the MOE’s views and commitment to strengthen all aspects of our system to promote and not erode social mobility.

1.15 pm

Social mobility through education

Sir, a 2007 Newsweek article entitled "The Death of Social Mobility" highlighted the role of social mobility through education in helping the four tiger economies grow rapidly, but concluded that social mobility now has been affected by the rich-poor divide.

An OECD report last year concluded that social mobility is greatest in countries with low levels of income inequality and stressed the correlation between family background and future earnings.

At home, no lesser a person than the Minister Mentor had said that children whose parents are graduates perform better in school. Some primary schools are so popular that the applications far exceed the number of places available because parents believe that these schools would give their children a headstart in our education system. As priority is given to those whose siblings or parents are studying or have studied in the school, this means that the better educated, higher income parents – usually alumni of the popular schools – could more easily get places for their children. To increase their chances, such parents could buy houses around popular schools because of the 1-km rule, thus pushing up prices and making them even more inaccessible to the low income. Many MPs have come across frantic parents who want us to appeal for a place in popular schools because they think that it makes a difference to their children. I know even of a professional who has decided to volunteer his services once his newborn turns two years old.

What happens then to children from low-income families with no connections and less resources? Will social mobility through education be a thing of the past?

Will we see a greater stratification of our society? If this were to happen, will we have a permanent underclass with serious ramifications on our One People, One Singapore ideal?

Sir, these are important questions because social mobility through education has been the greatest leveller in our society. I would like to ask the Minister, how does our education system ensure social mobility? Does the Ministry track social mobility? What are the indicators and how do we compare with other countries? How do we ensure that education continues to remain affordable and accessible to children from low-income families?

Education as a social mobility tool

MOE delivers a world-class education to our Singaporean children. However, the reality is that children from less-privileged backgrounds are sometimes at a disadvantage as their parents are sometimes unable to provide the basics for them, such as a relatively quiet study place, reference books, Internet access and personal guidance.

How does MOE ensure that the students from low-income families are given the education they need in our schools to ensure they too reach their full potential? How does MOE ensure that opportunities are given to these children to secure places in our ITEs, polytechnics and universities? How will MOE ensure that our schools are tools to help upward social mobility?

Opportunities for all

Sir, it is crucial to provide dedicated and highly-qualified teachers from Primary 1 to 6, the formative years in a child's development.

Special attention should be given to neighbourhood schools, especially those with a higher proportion of poorer families. The teachers have to meet the diverse learning needs of the students and address the learning gaps of those who lack adequate home support. Some low-income parents are too distracted by their problems to guide their children. They pay little heed if their kids do not turn up at school. Evidence suggests that a child's family background plays a big role in determining his learning level in primary school. We have to be mindful of the effects of the widening income gap and make sure that our disadvantaged children have an equal opportunity to reach their full potential. The question of whether teachers are well-equipped to tackle this challenge is a critical one, if we are to ensure social mobility. What additional skills and resources do they need? What sort of values should they hold?

First, we should recognise that schools with a higher proportion of disadvantaged students tend to face challenges when it comes to statistical measures of academic performance and image. Second, it is draining work for the teachers to achieve results. They need to actively engage the parents to reinforce the importance of education and to go beyond the walls of the classrooms.

Sir, after some years, some may prefer a posting to brand-name schools where the same expenditure of effort would yield outstanding results. There is also the prestige factor. That is not to say that neighbourhood schools do not have great teachers. Indeed, I know of some with excellent ones. But they need more support and recognition. An example is Griffiths Primary School in Tampines Changkat. It has about 750 students. About 24% live in 1- to 3-room HDB flats, compared with 9.8% in comparable

schools. About 40% are Malays, 30% Chinese and 15% Indians. About 70% come from non-English speaking homes.

Its principal, Mrs Yap Weng Ha, is passionate about leveling-up her children. It has a recent success story. The school’s top PLSE student last year, Sheikh Izzat bin Bahajjaj, is now studying at Raffles Institution and is a class monitor there. In the PSLE, he scored 2 A-stars – in Maths and Science – and 2 As in English and Malay. He did not have any tuition. But he has great family support. His mother, a home-maker, supervises his school work at home and his father is an engineer. Izzat also credited his hard-working teachers for his results. He said he would always remember Mrs Yap’s words at the school assembly. As he put it: “Mrs Yap said, 'if you put in enough effort and believe in yourself, you can do it and you can succeed'.” His example highlights how, with dedicated teachers and home support, neighbourhood schools can produce outstanding students.

For sustainable results, I would urge MOE to provide additional teaching posts to neighbourhood schools and more funding for a home liaison scheme to develop links with parents. We should reward teachers who go the extra mile to help poorer children to level up in neighbourhood schools and link teacher evaluation to such efforts.

Preschool education should also receive more resources. We need to raise the level of teachers and their quality and the supply of these qualified teachers of non-profit preschool centres in the neighbourhood which charge affordable fees. There is now a severe shortage of qualified preschool teachers, despite the increase in salaries. I would like to ask the Minister for an update of the situation.

Education system and tuition culture

Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore prides itself in having one of the best education systems in the world. MOE's website states that: "We have a strong education system. Singapore students aim high and they achieve very good results". This is recognised around the world. Beneath this system, students and parents are struggling hard to keep up.

A 2008 Sunday Times Special, entitled "Tuition Nation", reported that 97 out of 100 students surveyed, took tuition. A parent was quoted as saying that tuition was necessary or he would be left behind his classmates because they all had tutors too. Another Sunday Times survey in 2010 described a parent paying $850 a month to ensure that her child could make it into the Gifted Education Programme.

Sir, the question is, are our students achieving very good results because of the strong education system or because of the excessive tuition culture? A good, strong education system should give parents the full confidence that the process will produce the desired outcomes for their children. The current situation in Singapore where tuition is needed to sustain the high level of achievement is puzzling. Can the Minister offer some explanation to the phenomenon here?

Most tuition centres are focused on results-oriented pursuits, helping the students to achieve better results in examinations. Is the Ministry tracking the tuition trend here to see how the tuition culture could have affected MOE's objective of providing a broad-based and holistic education to the students? It is a long overdue task to allay the parents' worries that if their children do not have tutors, they will be left behind their peers. Does the Ministry have holistic approach

to convince parents that as long as students do their part to put in serious effort in school, the education system is sufficient to bring out the best in the students?

Ms Joscelin Yeo. Please take your two cuts together.

Tuition

The Singapore Government has one of the highest standards of education in the world. A search in the Singapore Education Government website states, and I quote: "Singapore's public schools have a distinctive record of high standards in teaching and learning, illustrated by international comparative studies, such as the Third National Mathematics and Science Study, that showed the majority of students from Singapore schools out-performing the international average in mathematics and science. Our students have also excelled in competitions, such as World Debating Championships in English and International Olympiads in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology, ousting counterparts from other countries to clinch top prizes and distinctions".

Sir, the students in our public schools are already achieving these standards, then why do the majority of students have to engage tuition teachers? A Sunday Times Poll in June 2008, found that out of 100 primary, secondary and JC students, 97 were having extra tuition classes. Sir, I am not against tuition, in fact, I had to have tuition myself because I missed a lot of classes when I went away for swimming competitions. However, tuition should be a supplementary class for those who are unable to keep up with what is learnt in the classroom. It should not be a way to add on to what cannot be covered in time in the classroom.

I have a friend whose mother is a divorcee. Ever since the divorce, her mum went into depression and stopped working. She ended up having to pay the bills in the house and financially support her mum and her two sisters, one of whom was in primary school. On top of working extra hours to pay the bills, she had to give her younger sister tuition because she could not afford to get a tuition teacher. Her sister needed to be tutored because the topics that were coming out in her examination papers were not covered in the classroom. The teacher told the students to ask their tuition teachers to help them with the rest of the information. The teacher assumed that all the students had tuition teachers and deflected responsibility of teaching what was necessary in the classroom.

Sir, the Ministry recently answered the PQ asked by my fellow NMP, Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan, about whether the Ministry had guidelines for operating hours of primary and secondary schools. The guidelines set by MOE for Primary 1 and 2 students are 48 periods of 30 minutes each per week and, for Primary 3 to 6 students, 49 periods of 30 minutes each per week. This works out to five hours a day, including recess time. For secondary schools, the curriculum time guideline stipulates 40 periods of 40 minutes each per week. This works out to six hours a day, including recess time.

Sir, the Government has given the recommendations on what is the optimum time for students to be studying. If the curriculum cannot be completed within the guidelines given, then does it not beg the question, are we trying to cram too much information into them at this young age? Are we overloading them?

Sir, I agree with Mrs Josephine Teo that education provides social mobility in Singapore. However, if the majority of students are requiring tuition classes to complete the curriculum, is not the

The Government has emphasised time and again about the importance of lifelong learning. If the students keep going at this rate, I wonder if they can maintain an interest in this value of learning. I would like to ask the Minister if the Government is going to step in to ensure that the schools are not thwarting every good guideline that has been put in place for good reason, and secondly, what measures does his Ministry take to monitor that the schools are not overloading their students?

Co-curricular activities (CCA)

My next cut, Sir, is about CCAs in schools. Sir, building Singapore up as a sporting nation has to start with the young in schools. MOE has accurately identified this. In the TODAY paper on the 3rd of March 2011, there was an article written about how MOE recognises that it is in school where a child improves, I quote, "improves on motor skills and goes on to pick up a sport". As part of the sports development framework, MOE has increased their pool of qualified teachers to properly conduct PE lessons to develop talent and promote a vibrant sports culture. On top of that, they have also increased the number of PE hours a week,

in primary and secondary schools. However, some schools have taken this competitiveness too far. These days, students are not allowed to participate in the sports they enjoy. Instead, schools are so competitive nowadays that they only allow students who have potential or who are already successful in that sport, to participate in the school team. If they cannot make it, then they just have to choose something else and perhaps, something that also they are not interested in.

By doing this, schools are not cultivating a love for sports, exercise and healthy living. They are cultivating a win-only mindset. They are not developing interest and skill, but rather on a one-track mind to garner school honours for school prestige and glory. Some schools put so much pressure on students that they have to get private coaching outside, just to keep up or risk being kicked off the team, and not earning any CCA points at the end of the day.

content too excessive? Parents will naturally opt to have tuition classes for their kids if they see that their child is not able to keep up with their school work, is failing in class or behind their peers, you cannot blame them for that. Instead, what I would ask is, why do the majority of students have to take tuition classes? Is the content age-appropriate content? Is the quantity of content too excessive to be taught in the 25 to 30 hours they spend studying in school? Are educators focused on not letting their schools' overall percentage drop or are they focused on developing well-rounded students?

1.30 pm

I refer to an incident that happened with an ACS Independent student Tan Mun Yee in November 2008. He was an athlete who wanted to switch from Track and Field to Drama for his CCA but was denied the switch. His teacher who knew he wanted to switch called his mother and advised her not to allow him to do so. Not only did he dislike his CCA, he felt he was being singled out and punished on the field because he wanted to switch out to a different CCA. He and his parents argued about this, with him eventually committing suicide because he felt he had no way out of the situation. Something like this should never have happened.

CCA is a place to develop a love for sports, arts and music. Yes, it is a place to spot talent and to develop talent. Yes, it is a place as a balance to the academic

part of your life to produce holistic, well-rounded youths. But let us not throw all the wisdom out of the door and be so single-minded about garnering wins, school honours and school glory.

As it is, school is a stressful time for most students. CCA should be an opportunity for young people to explore their gifts and talents within the safety of a school system. Students should have the freedom to choose what they desire to do instead of being locked into a CCA they do not like for four years. Even if they opted for something and they realised they do not like it, schools can implement a one-switch policy, meaning you can only switch CCA one time if you find that the CCA you chose was not what you thought it would be within the first two years of their time in that CCA. This teaches them how to persevere through hard times and yet gives them a freedom to choose something else if they really do not enjoy what they had initially picked. The focus of CCA should be on developing people and not school titles. This is where you will find your base of young athletes, artistic talent and musicians who want to go further than just school-level activities.

To build Singapore in the sporting arena, the Arts and music scene it wants to be requires not only the measures put in place by MOE but the right software. By "software", I mean the school, the heads of departments and the teachers. That they always have in mind that the nurturing of the youths comes before glory and honour for the school. Parents play a huge part in imparting the right values too, even when it comes to CCAs. With the right focus and objective of what a CCA should be, good decisions can be made to groom our future talents in these areas.

Can the Minister clarify the objective of CCAs in schools and, secondly, what is the Ministry doing to monitor that schools

are using the CCA system and platform to enrich students' lives and not to burden them?

Holistic education

Last Friday, I presented 200 bursaries to students in my constituency. As usual for such events, many did not say thank you when receiving their cheques. I do not think the students mean to be rude. Perhaps their home environment plays a part.

But it leads me to question how our schools are teaching gratitude in a culture of entitlement and consumerism. It is not a matter of teaching our kids to be polite. It is about shaping inner core attitudes towards learning and life as part of a holistic education.

Research on the impact of gratitude on education and personal development shows the many positive effects, such as enthusiasm, determination and optimism. Those who practise gratitude are more likely to help others and to make greater progress towards personal goals.

One way to inculcate this trait in our children is to teach them to write a thank-you note for things other than gifts – for kind words spoken, for help given, or just for a fun day.

We should also teach them to view failure or unpleasant experiences as something to learn from. Looking back on my years when I first came to Singapore to study for my "A" levels, I am truly grateful for those trying times – constantly short of money, struggling with my studies and my daily life.

The experience helped me to develop resilience and empathy. Team sports is also a valuable way for teaching essential life skills, and I would urge schools to make greater use of it. Not for sporting glory for the school but for character building for the students.

Through sports, children learn the values of team work, perseverance and sportsmanship. That sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. That is life. The important thing is to never give up, and to keep on trying.

I sometimes get complaints from parents about their kids falling down in playgrounds and hurting themselves. Remove the playground, one parent even said. My own view is that falling down is not something to be afraid of. It is not knowing how to get up, how to recover and carry on. I would like to ask the Minister for an update of the Ministry's efforts to provide a more holistic education.

Youth-at-risk

Sir, many parents today may be caught up with their work demands and may not spend enough time with their teenage children. Parents tell me that there is minimal communication at home as teenagers now socialise in their own online world while parents chat less with the children.

While there is still care and love for their children, there is lesser imparting of values by the parents to their children. These are the anecdotal feedback I received when I meet parents and teachers from the schools at our neighbourhood.

Rightly or wrongly, parents expect and depend on the teachers to teach the right values and to guide the child on the right path. We know that teachers are also stretched with the school's other academic and non-academic KPIs. I would like to ask the Minister if there are plans to strengthen moral and values education in schools. Will there be more resources set aside to prepare students for their life

journey and to be socially responsible citizens? How can schools better work with parents and the community, including the Police, on early intervention for potential at-risk students?

The situation is not getting any better now with more dual-income families. Many of the teenage students grow up as latch-key kids. Without close parental guidance, whether a kid stays on mainstream or becomes wayward depends very much on the company he or she mixes with. I believe the school and teachers can play a more pivotal role here to develop a stronger relationship with the students.

The community can also play a part and organise more activities to engage the youths so that their hyper energy can be channelled to healthier activities. For example just yesterday, I was with about 100 youths from our neighbourhood schools at my constituency. We had what we called the Super Sunday event for the youths where they formed teams to do a Vertical Relay at one of the HDB flats. It was a 30-storey block of flats. In the process, the students appreciated that the staircase at our HDB flats could be used for other healthier activities rather than just congregating there to do some of those anti-social activities. Sir, I hope that MOE can do more in this area and work with the schools and the community, as well as with the Police.

Youth Sports and CCA

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to focus on a specific section of CCAs – sports. We should strongly encourage students to take up sports because it will assist immensely in developing tenacity and strength of character among youths. They learnt the meaning of perseverance and endurance, and develop a spirit of competitiveness and also humility and to lose with grace. These life skills will stay

with them long after any equation, formula or hypothesis.

In this Parliament, I have been appealing for MOE to encourage and put in resources for our children to have sports as CCA. I thought MOE has indeed made some changes and it is getting more students into sports on a larger scale. However recently, I was alarmed again when my daughter, who is now in Pre-University, was told that there was no recreation CCA for Tennis, and that only about 12 players were needed through selection for competitive team. Sports should be an integral part of school life. I would like to call for sports CCA to be made compulsory for all children from primary to tertiary levels.

I hope the Minister can share with the House, the number of school children who has sports CCA in primary school. What is being done to encourage participation in sports among students in schools? We often hear from schools that there are not enough teachers or sport facilities to cater to all who want to take up sports. Do we have enough resources to have every child take up sports as CCA? I firmly believe that a child who has taken up a sport CCA in his primary school, will continue with sports in the secondary school and then into adult life.

In addition, with youth crime on the rise, can the Minister look into the schedule of the school hours for the secondary school? Many parents are working when the children are in secondary school. As a result, teenage students are left at home in the afternoon without proper guidance. As all the secondary schools now operate single sessions, can the Minister look into the possibility of extending the school hours, incorporating CCAs, tuition or extra classes for the weaker students in the afternoon and let the children leave for home at about 5.00 pm on a daily basis?

Sir, the through-train system has received good feedback from students and parents. Without having to spend time preparing for the "O" levels, students have more time to do more project work and multi-media work which are beneficial in terms of learning.

From 2012, seven more schools will offer the Integrated Programme, bringing the total to 18. This means that about 10% of each PSLE cohort will be eligible for the Integrated Programme. Is it MOE’s intention to roll this out to more schools? While the Integrated Programme may be beneficial for some students, it may still be advisable to keep some schools strictly "O" and "N" level-centric because it assures the students in these schools a golden "O" or "N" levels certificate.

Integrated programme schools

Investing for the future

Mr Chairman, education is all about investing for the future. Last year, MOE laid out plans to strengthen our students’ 21st century competencies. Can MOE provide an update on efforts to develop our students holistically, in particular, the emphasis on non-academic aspects of the curricula?

I have two suggestions for the MOE to consider for the future: In the recently published "Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going", journalists asked Minister Mentor about his "carbon footprint". I noted his simple, down-to-earth lifestyle. The jacket he wore, for instance, was nearly two decades old. Increasingly, our world will have to deal with the profligate ways in which we consume resources and the consequences of such behaviours. One "competency" we may need to cultivate is "Awareness of Sustainable Living". Cultivating this awareness early could help our students develop an affinity and edge in the many "green" jobs to be,

created in the future, and to themselves live more sustainably.

Second, last November and December’s series of youth violence incidents had led to media editorials attributing teen violence to the prevalence of computer games, particularly those with many violent actions. There were also reports on youth gaming addiction, which analysts opined, affected youths’ mental development and interpersonal relations. Gaming addiction is just one example of the many socially-risky types of behaviour youths could develop. We cannot prevent them from trying out everything but perhaps we need to grow a "Risk Management" competency so that young Singaporeans can learn to spot risks in their lives and have the skills to manage them. Sir, I do not think that schools can teach everything nor can they replace the role of parents in character development, but I do think that we can equip our students with competencies to deal better with future uncertainties. Therefore, these suggestions need to be studied further. I hope the MOE will do so in due course.

Let me now turn to teachers. MOE had announced plans to expand the teaching force. Given the stiff competition for talents in our tight labour market, how does MOE intend to do so while maintaining the quality of the teaching service?

Finally, one important advantage for Singapore to retain for the future is our bilingual and bicultural edge. A thorough review of the teaching of mother tongue was recently concluded. One of the Mother Tongue Language Review Committee’s recommendations identified the community as a key partner to promote learning and usage of Mother Tongue Language as a living language. Can MOE provide more details on how the $45 million would be made available for

schools and the MTL Learning Promotion Committee to do so?

Mr Chiam See Tong is not here. Ms Denise Phua.

Future education workforce and institutions

Sir, building inclusive education institutions – every Singaporean, whatever his or her potential or family background, deserves a quality education. While we cannot guarantee equal outcomes in life for everyone, we can and should ensure that everyone has equal access to learning to have their potential maximised.

Students from needy backgrounds – Sir, all things being equal, the child with a more affluent family background will surely have more resources and get a better shot at maximising his potential in life. My concern is with children from chronically poor and/or dysfunctional families. My ground experience has convinced me that it is beneficial to keep these children away from their unconducive family environment for most of the day so that they can spend their day more gainfully. I therefore ask MOE to sponsor school-based before and after-school programmes for identified students from disadvantaged backgrounds. With these additional resources, schools can choose to either outsource the service or run it themselves.

1.45 pm

Students with special needs – like all mainstream school students, students with special needs should not be treated with low expectations. They, too, deserve the world-class mainstream education the MOE team should be credited for. In the past, special school students in Singapore are remembered as appendices after a main education policy is determined. Thanks to the political leadership, special education is very much now on MOE's

radar and much has improved over the last seven years.

I seek the Education Minister's consideration of five recommendations to plug some gaps I have observed. First, make satellite classes for the disabled a common feature in our mainstream education landscape. Sir, last Friday's Straits Times carried a plea for a third mainstream school partner by Pathlight School, a special school that I run. With MOE's help in the past, Pathlight sends its secondary school students, intact with teachers and psychologists, to study in classes in its gracious mainstream neighbours, Chong Boon Secondary School and Bishan Park Secondary School. This way, they interact daily with their mainstream peers and are nudged out of their segregated setting to be more prepared for the world outside. It has not been easy for the diligent and gracious MOE HQ officers to identify and coax suitable mainstream schools to accommodate students from special schools in their premises on a daily basis – doing an external community involvement project (CIP) on a special school is a much easier option.

Sir, unlike academic value-add or CCA achievements, inclusiveness is not regarded as an important factor when rating the success of mainstream school leaders. I urge MOE to accord more official recognition to schools who take tangible steps to support the disadvantaged, especially the poor and those with special-needs.

Next, I also urge MOE to be bolder and make the satellite school model a common feature in education. The School for the Deaf, for instance, has less than 20 students. There is talk for a plan for a new special school to combine the deaf students with the few visually-impaired students from the School for the Blind for efficiency purposes. Instead of doing this, MOE should seriously consider co-locating

these students in willing mainstream schools. To lessen any burden on the mainstream host, send in competent VWO expertise to support them. Let the hearing-impaired and the visually impaired students of these two small special schools integrate, physically and socially, in a mainstream school setting.

Next, I would also urge MOE to continue to provide more structured support for services for special-needs students in post-secondary tertiary institutions like the ITE, polytechnics and universities. Sim Zi Ling, a top Raffles Institution alumnus who works with me, returned after obtaining her degree at UC Berkeley. Zi Ling shared how impressed she was by the college-based Disabled Students' Programme (DSP) at Berkeley. When students are determined to have disabilities impairing educational access, DSP specialists plan a programme of services with them, ranging from buddy note-takers, sign language interpreters, Braille textbooks and the like. To be fair, I have heard of very good and kind teachers in ITE West who are very accommodating to special-needs students. However, in the micro level, support is neither consistent, systemic nor hard-coded for sustainability. MOE has done very well in support for special-needs students at primary and secondary schools. Why deprive the students when they move on to the tertiary level?

Next, doing more for lower-functioning students in special schools. Sir, I recall with mixed feelings when I attended the 2010 graduation ceremony of students at the Delta Senior School. Some 40 graduates, whose education was funded by MOE till age 21, received WSQ certification and found jobs. However, I notice at the sideline another batch of younger graduates who had to leave school younger at age 18 because they are slower, and do not qualify for WSQ certification. They have to exit school even if they are not ready into a bleak

future. Sir, I ask MOE to allow and fund even these lower-functioning students to continue schooling till age 21 so that the school has more time to prepare them for adulthood.

Sir, in my work with special-needs students of all abilities, I find a group of them, usually about 5%, with high needs, for example, behavioural challenges, and they require higher than normal teacher-student ratio. Some of them are cause for disruptions in classes and even lead to resignations of teachers and face a longer waitlist. Sir, I ask for more support for this small group of students so that they can continue to stay on in school and teacher turnover can be reduced.

Sir, finally, at the macro level, the Ministry has ably crafted the 21st Century Competencies Framework for students in the mainstream schools. But what are the 21st century skills and attributes required of teachers and leaders who will guide these students? What kind of changes does MOE need to make in future education workforce, taking into account the strong reliance on tuition to supplement its work; students who speak digital as their first language and the need to build more resilience in our young who are afflicted by an upward trend of mental health problems such as depression and eating disorders?

I thank the MOE for the great work done and I look forward to their help to plug these gaps that I have observed.

Sir, let me thank the many MPs who have spoken passionately about education during the Budget debate and this COS. I have enjoyed all their accounts, whether it was Ms Irene Ng's students in Changkat or the various ceremonies that Members attended. These tell me that as leaders of society, our Members of Parliament are

very concerned and watch education very carefully. We recognise this trust placed upon MOE.

There were many issues raised but there was one particular issue which I thought deserved a complete response, rather than just a tangential response. This is social mobility. Today, it was raised by Mrs Josephine Teo, Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Irene Ng, and others during the Budget debate.

Social mobility stands at the heart of our education processes, and indeed, our whole-of-Government policies. My colleagues will deal with specific issues later but I would like to deal with this squarely. I think it is important enough.

From 1960 to 2010, Singapore's per capita nominal GDP rose 100-fold, from US$400 to more than US$40,000 today. Nice number to remember. This remarkable achievement has been variously depicted. Monikers abound, and Members would be familiar with them: "sleepy fishing village to world-class hub", "colonial backwater to economic powerhouse", "Third World to First", etc.

But for me, "The Singapore Story" probably best captures this economic transformation. It was a massive rising tide that lifted all boats, with a reach that extended deep into the heartlands. Stagnant pools turned into thriving waterways as the tidal rise was sustained over 40-odd years.

As a result, social mobility occurred en masse – and this is important – both of Singapore compared to other countries and within the society. Both elements are important – of the entire country and the people within it. There were remarkable improvements in almost all conventional measures of living standards, indeed, we were physically transformed – not only

the city landscape but its people too, literally! What do I mean?

I witnessed this profound change, this phenomenon, on our people physically as a young doctor. Due to better nutrition, children grew taller and heavier. When we started out as medical students, we referred to height-weight charts and as we went to the wards, we realised they were no longer applicable because our children were already way off the charts. Height-weight charts based on older cohorts became obsolete and had to be revised and adjusted periodically.

With widespread public sanitation and vaccination programmes, disease patterns changed. I started as a medical student seeing some infectious diseases which were typical of poorly developed countries but as I aged and progressed in my training, they changed to diabetes and heart diseases associated with affluent societies. Infant mortality rates, which represent a very useful indicator of general healthcare standards, dived to one of the lowest in the world. In short, more babies lived, grew taller and bigger; adults acquired affluent diseases born of richer lifestyles even as they lived longer – a profound change.

With rising home ownership, wealth across the belt of heartlanders increased. Families moved from kampongs and slums to HDB flats. Many MPs would be familiar – if we asked the 1- to 3-roomers when they bought the flats, they would say, "in the 1960s, 1970s", and at least in Queenstown and Toa Payoh: "$6,200 for a flat". Some of them cost a thousand dollars more if it was a corner unit. That was in the 1960s. By 1990, almost 90% of households owned their homes, which was a dramatic increase from 30% in 1970. Not only more owned homes but the homes were bigger. The percentage of households who lived in 1- to 3-room flats fell too – from 80% in 1970, it dropped to 25% in 2010.

The rise in educational attainments was equally impressive. Steady jobs, better incomes, bigger homes provided a more conducive social environment for academic achievement all round. We will take just one metric – in 1980, only a quarter of those aged 25 to 39 years had completed secondary school or above. That is the chart* [indicating a chart shown to Members ]. Members would see that three quarters had primary school education. In other words, a quarter had secondary school education or higher. This jumped four-fold to 96% in 2010: those who had secondary school education or above. What this means is that most Singaporeans born in the 1970s and 1980s would have attained educational qualifications of at least one if not two or more levels above those of their parents. It cannot be that they got smarter. Genetic changes take longer. It is just that they had more opportunities.

Many of us aged 50 or older today, born before 1960, do not need these statistics to convince us about the Singapore Story. There are many MPs here, and I have heard the stories they have shared across the years. We experienced this rising tide first-hand. My parents had six children. My first home as a young boy was a rental flat in Zion Road. We shared it as tenants with other families. It never occurred to me that I was poor then, or that it was not the norm to share abodes. This rental flat overlooked the Alexandra Canal, which was a far cry from what it is today after MEWR’s ABC Waters programme. But we had our own Version 1 of the ABC programme – Active but Be Careful because you could fall into the longkang.

The canal flooded often, to the delight of kids living there. Every time it rained and got flooded, that was play time! I can still hear my mother’s clarion warning to be careful lest we got swept away by the currents. She spoke in vernacular – "Ler um zai si!"

Upgrading meant moving to a 3-room flat in Queenstown. This time we did not have to share and we could own it. But there were still hard times with bills unpaid and my mother had to do odd jobs, sewing and cooking at home to earn extra income. I am thankful that my parents believed in a good education for me and my siblings. That changed our lives.

I am also grateful that I could become a doctor after studying at the National University of Singapore. I know it was heavily subsidised as my family could never have afforded the full costs. Later, a Government scholarship allowed me to train in the United States as a cancer surgeon.

Many Members including Mrs Josephine Teo and Mdm Halimah Yacob have spoken about this unique meritocratic Singapore system. This massive rising tide that lifted a boy from a 3-room flat in Queenstown to top cancer centres in the US. Today, I am able to provide my children with a quality of life far better than I could ever have imagined growing up.

I consider myself blessed but my story is not unusual in Singapore. Many of my old friends who grew up with me in the same HDB neighbourhood, who took the bus to school with me, and when I meet them now, I see how much they have risen in life. I meet them and many Singaporeans who share similar success stories. And I know many MPs here know of them.

I believe deeply that the same Singapore Story can and must be written for every new generation. I know I am not alone in this belief. Many MPs too spoke impassionedly about re-writing the Singapore Story for every generation. Indeed, Singapore must always be a land

of opportunity and hope for all Singaporeans.

Have we kept faith with our founding fathers and ensured that opportunities continue to exist for all today?

*Cols. 4041-4042.

How do we continue the Singapore Story for this generation and the next? This was the key question that MPs were asking. What does social mobility mean today with a very different societal profile from that in the 1960s and 1970s? These are important questions that need to be addressed for all Singaporeans about our future.

2.00 pm

Let me assure this House that enabling social mobility will continue to be a hallmark of our education system. MOE believes that education can and should uplift individuals and families. I agree with MPs too that in doing so, we cannot aim for equality of outcomes. That is not what we are asking for. Not equality of outcomes because students are inherently different. Neither can we stop parents who can afford it, from spending large sums on pre-school or private tuition for their children, as Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Joscelin Yeo pointed out. What we must ensure is that opportunities abound for all students and that no student is denied a high quality education because he or she cannot afford it.

How do we achieve this? How do we ensure that no student is denied a high quality education because he or she cannot afford it? As always, through good schools that students can have access to, wherever they live. It does not matter if we have one or two brand name schools or many such schools. Sure, parents compete. It happens all over the world. What we must ensure is that we have good schools everywhere that students can have access to wherever they live. To achieve this, we must therefore resource all schools well, not just some. We must

ensure that good teachers are spread out across the system, not only to the few top schools. We must ensure that all students have enrichment programmes or CCAs – which is what Ms Joscelin Yeo and Mdm Cynthia Phua were asking for – that can develop them to their full potential. This, indeed, is exactly what MOE has been doing, especially in the past two decades or so. Let me give you some specifics.

Firstly, we have increased our investments into education significantly over the years. I have distributed a chart* [the handout was distributed to Members]. Over the last decade, it has risen steadily, even during economic downturns. That is the first important point. Our budget this year is $10.9 billion, almost double from a decade ago and 10% more than last year.

More importantly, the increase in spending has benefited all students and not only a select few. We deliver a consistently high standard of education across all our schools, ITE, polytechnics and universities.

Over the last 10 years, annual recurrent funding per student in primary schools saw the largest increase, more than double — up 110% to almost $7,000 in 2010. In the same period, funding for secondary schools and JCs grew almost 75%; ITE, 50%; polytechnics, 55%; universities, 35%. The bulk of the increase has been on general education in the primary, secondary and JC sectors.

This scale of increases in funding per student in primary and secondary schools has allowed us to increase significantly the number and quality of teachers, and to start more programmes to meet specific needs of children. Ms Denise Phua talked about special education, or whether it was for slower learners. It allowed us to customise, to differentiate and to meet different needs.

Over the last decade, MOE invested some $25 billion to deliver a first-class, highly educated and well-trained teaching service. We spent five times more on teachers than we did on buildings. Twenty-five billion dollars for teachers and about $5 billion for upgrading the facilities of 125 primary schools and 75 secondary schools. This is as it should be because good teachers make the bigger difference.

Sir, let me give Members some numbers so they can have a feel of what the increased spending translated to. Compared to 10 years ago, each school today, not just some, has on average 30% to 50% more staff – that means 20 more new teachers on average and, in addition, new allied educators and support staff. As a result, the pupil-teacher ratio has improved from 26:1 to 19:1 – nearly a 30% improvement in our primary schools. For secondary schools and JCs, the increase is less – about 16%. The quality of our teachers is spread across the system. We deploy our teachers based on the level and subject they teach, and the needs of the school students – something which Ms Irene Ng brought up. Every school has its fair share of experienced and qualified teachers.

Almost all primary schools have at least one in three teachers with more than 10 years of experience, and at least half of the teachers in each primary school are graduates. At the secondary level, every school has more than eight in 10 teachers who are graduates. We have teachers who are scholars or award holders in all our secondary schools and JCs. Take any school, there will be a teacher there who is a scholar or an award-holder.

We have also expanded the range of programmes, in particular, those catering to slower learners. That has seen the largest ramp-up in the last decade. These include: the Learning Support Programmes for both English and Mathematics at

primary schools; the Elective Modules for Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) students; and the establishment of NorthLight School and the Assumption Pathway School to help students who fail PSLE and have difficulties handling the mainstream curriculum.

These investments have indeed translated to better educational outcomes. Today we have almost 100% participation rate of Singaporeans in our primary schools. Close to 99% of each cohort complete 10 years of primary and secondary education. This is one of the highest completion rates in the world – close to 99%. This builds a strong foundation for progression to our ITE, polytechnics and/or universities. Fifty percent more students are now progressing to our universities compared to a decade ago, 40% more to our polytechnics and 30% more to ITEs.

Our education system creates opportunities for all our students. Regardless of which school they are in or what background they come from, our students are able to learn at their own pace, and develop in areas they are passionate about and can excel in, and achieve their maximum potential. Customisation and differentiation of educational pathways are key reasons for our robust and responsive education system.

The key question the MPs are asking is has it worked to ensure social mobility? Has it help lower-income students? Gratifyingly, our data affirm that the Singapore Story continues for this generation. Students of all socio-economic backgrounds have been able to achieve good outcomes. Let me provide specific information.

There has been a lot of talk about the PSLE so let me start there. If I take the

top 5% of PSLE students and I ask, "From what schools do they come?" If someone says "50% comes from the top 10 schools" or "the top 80% comes from 20 schools", it may not be so surprising; but the top 5% of PSLE students come from 95% of primary schools and across all socio-economic backgrounds.

Let me flip this around. Every primary school – just name any primary school in Singapore in your neighbourhood – would have at least 10 students who had scored in the top one-third of the PSLE cohort. So, when Ms Irene Ng mentioned her story, I was not surprised. Members will be able to find the top students within the top one-third in any primary school. Not one or two. At least 10.

Coupled with merit-based entry into secondary schools, it means that every student has a good chance of success regardless of which primary school they attend.

Let us look specifically at students who start from lower socio-economic backgrounds, the students who are in the bottom third by socio-economic status and we track them and we ask, "how did they do at PSLE?" Half of the students from the bottom one-third by socio-economic background score within the top two-thirds in the PSLE. One in six from this group scores within the top one-third. We can look at the trend curve as these figures are tracked over 10 years [indicating to a chart* distributed to Members]. These figures have remained stable over the past decade even though the bottom one-third may be different.

If we look at those who lived in 1- to 3-room HDB flats at Primary 1, we find that one in five of these students score in the top-third in the PSLE and the same proportion, one in five, score within the top 30% of every "O"- and "A"-Level cohort. So, if we track children who stay in 1- to 3-room flats, about half eventually

progress to our universities and polytechnics. More importantly, these outcomes have remained unchanged since the 1980s – we have tracked it since the 1980s – even though the proportion that lived in 1- to 3-room flats has been coming down. This is as if we had a football league that has "A" Division, "B" Division and the "C" Division as the weakest. And the "C" Division has become smaller because "A" and "B" Divisions are more organised. Yet, players from "C" Division are still able to move up to "A" and "B" Divisions, even though the numbers in the "C" Division is coming down.

In the 1980s, almost 60% of our Primary 1 students lived in 1- to 3-room flats. This had fallen to 30% by 1995 and yet half of those children progressed to our polytechnics and universities. Those who lived in 1- to 3-room flats only made up 15% of the 2005 Primary 1 cohort who took their PSLE in 2010 and yet about half of those did well – as the numbers showed.

International experts have also analysed our progress and given us a sound basis for comparisons with other countries. Most Members know we recently published our results in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). They conducted assessments for 65 countries and they have a very interesting construct called the Economic, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS) index. Basically, they took detailed information and constructed a socio-economic background of students across 65 countries in the world. Quite a massive task and very rigorous, so it provided a very good basis for comparison.

First off, they showed that in most countries, there was a general positive relationship – the higher the ESCS, the higher the PISA scores. So, what we are

observing in Singapore is no different everywhere else. Members are quite right. Family background makes a difference and has impact all across the world in terms of academic scores attained.

But there was something else that we were interested in. They found that in some education systems, among them Singapore, China, Korea and Finland, a larger proportion of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds performed better than predicted. OECD called them "resilient students", students who excelled despite having come from less favourable circumstances. We were ranked fifth out of 65 countries for the proportion of resilient students. Almost one in two of our students were resilient, compared to one in three in the OECD. The PISA average was one in four. Singapore was one in two.

These figures are not mere numbers but translate to hope for many students in real life here. Many Members know about NorthLight School. The first cohort graduated in 2009. Fourteen percent did not stay on to complete their education. This is a remarkable achievement because before NorthLight, which took over Geylang Serai Vocational Training Centre – 60% dropped out. For the 86% who did graduate from NorthLight, a third (32%) of them had already exceeded both their parents in terms of educational qualifications. Seventy-one percent passed all their modules and obtained an ITE skills certificate, and about a third (31%) went on to ITE. For this group of students who have failed their PSLE repeatedly, it is a remarkable achievement for their teachers and principal.

2.15 pm

What of the future? Can we ensure the Singapore Story for the next generation? Here, I want to caution what social mobility should not be about. It cannot be about neglecting those with

abilities just because they come from middle-income homes or are rich.

*Cols. 4043-4044. *Cols. 4045-4046.

It cannot mean holding back those who are able, so others can catch up. This would be detrimental to the whole society. I was quite happy, when PISA included Shanghai and they beat everybody. They set a new standard. More Chinese cities will be included and Members will be startled by how well the Chinese cities' students are performing. If we look only within ourselves and think that we have arrived, it will be detrimental to the whole society. We can and must provide opportunities to all and develop all students to their full potential.

Second, ensuring social mobility, as MPs have said, cannot mean equal outcomes because students are inherently different. Third, while MOE seeks to provide opportunities to all, no education system can replace the vital role that family and caregivers provide for an enriching learning environment. Here, we must dispel the notion that only rich parents can provide the right environment for their children to succeed.

Recently, Members must have read of the twins who were the top students in the "A" Levels from Hwa Chong Institution. Their parents – one is a security guard, the other is a cleaner – take home modest salaries. But they were stout-hearted and determined in wanting to provide the right, not necessarily the most expensive environment, for their kids. I want to quote their mother Mdm Soh, who is a gem in my eyes. She said in Mandarin: "We have always been quite poor, so I save on the things like buying new clothes. But when it comes to things like nutritious foods or things for their studies, we try to make sure they have it."

They succeeded – both twins are top students in Hwa Chong Institution. How

many richer Singaporeans dare to say that they would have provided a better environment for these twins? Resources are important and we know that, but they are poor substitutes for love, devotion and sacrifice. All of us meet these stout-hearted, steady citizens in our house-to-house visits. When I go from house to house, I know what is a good environment instantly by looking into the house. A 3- or 4-room flat, I see the bookshelves are full, tables are cleared, some assessment books are there, sometimes there is a keyboard. I know that the mother and father are providing an excellent environment for these children.

Finally, social mobility cannot mean a diminution of individual effort. Opportunities can and will be provided. But at the end of the day, it is the individual who determines his or her own success. He or she decides if opportunities are to be squandered or seized. We need to complete the messaging because otherwise you make people believe that you did not succeed because you were born in the wrong house, that you were not given enough tuition, you went to the wrong school – how many of you really believe that? Honestly.

You are the one who can determine your own success. Yes, life might be hard for you. But if you try, you can succeed and others have. But, this Government will give you all the opportunities and adequate resources for you to reach your full potential.

What is our strategy for the way forward? More importantly, how are we going to measure social mobility, especially now that Singapore is at such a high base? In the 1980s, it was easy to measure social mobility because 60% households live in 1- to 3-room flats.

Let me give you a figure that will scare you in terms of what we are looking

for. Forty-four percent of those aged 25 to 39 today have university education. Close to 50%. I doubt if their children, your children, my children are likely to climb very much higher than 50% or even 60% (with university education).

There are also fewer Singaporeans who now live in 1- to 3-room HDB flats. That is why we are seeing less of them in top secondary schools, polytechnics and universities. It is just a general movement of society.

To enable and measure social mobility for the next lap, you must not confine ourselves only to narrow academic domains or even specific groups. First and foremost, we must believe and focus on moving the whole of Singapore up. I started by saying that moving Singapore up is just as important as moving Singaporeans up within. Yes, we are at a higher plane. But if we become complacent or descend into hubris thinking that we have arrived, others will bypass us. Our education for this 21st century must expand to encompass the full limits of our people. We must always aspire to develop the richness of diverse talents within all Singaporeans. We must nurture creativity, innovativeness and entrepreneurship. The sphere of arts, sports, drama, dance, science and literature must thrive. Our strategy must again be to lift the tide for all Singaporeans. The poor will need extra help and resources but we must not become myopic in neglecting the whole of Singapore because that would indeed be short-sighted.

To achieve this uplift for all Singaporeans, this renaissance, we must again focus on teachers as key agents of enabling mobility. Some MPs have asked what MOE is going to do for the future. I will say that there is no magic bullet. MOE will just have to do more of what we have been doing right, starting with teachers. We will continue to build or upgrade more

schools and expand our programmes to develop diverse talents. We will increase our subsidies to the lower- and middle-income students so that good education remains affordable for all.

Let me start with teachers. We have about 31,000 teachers today. The pool has increased from 24,000 a decade ago. Eighty percent of them are graduates, up from 56% in year 2000. The teachers with post-graduate degrees have jumped from 4% to 10%. They are impressive increases over a short time but MOE will still need more. We want to expand our teaching force to 33,000 by 2015 so that students and schools benefit from more customised learning. We are moving towards an all-graduate recruitment. We want to continue a high quality bar for recruitment, even though we want more. Yes, it would be a hard act but we will keep the standards there. We also want to promote a teacher-led culture of professional development.

Mrs Josephine Teo and Ms Denise Phua asked how MOE is going to expand the teaching force while maintaining quality. That is an excellent question. Today, we have about 18,000 applicants for teachers but recruit only about 14%. We will continue to ensure stringent selection standards because we want teaching to be a career of choice. We envision teachers staying for many decades. I agree with MPs that an experienced teacher can help a lot of students. We want them to help many generations of children, if we can, for a few decades. But to get these passionate teachers, we must offer attractive prospects. Our professionals have evolved a TEACH framework for teachers – "T" is for Teacher professionalism, "E" for Engagement, "A" for Aspirations, "C" for Career and "H" for Harmony between work and life.

But core to this is teacher professionalism. There will be an ethos –

and this will be a ground-up initiative – as what MPs have said, about teachers articulating their values and beliefs, something that Mr Liang Eng Hwa talked about – so that they can guide and inspire future generations of teachers. We have set up the Academy of Singapore Teachers to provide them the platform to share their expertise across Singapore. We are doing this not only just to benefit the teachers but because it benefits the students. Deep professional expertise can have profound leavening effects for the entire system.

All of us know that "Singapore Maths" today is a brand name used by many countries that I travel to. They said, "Singapore Maths is very good". Many teachers were responsible for this. Dr Kho Teck Hong is one of them. He was the project director of the primary mathematics project team which was set up in the early 1980s. The Committee was tasked to teach Maths better. It was his team that introduced the Model Method. I know that many older MPs do not understand what the Model Method is, cannot do the sums using a Model Method, but our children are very adept [Laughter ]. It helped many cohorts of primary school children solve simple word problems, and understand algebraic ideas.

That seeding and leavening effect of deep profession expertise continues today. Let us take the example of Dr Elizabeth Pang. Dr Pang obtained a PhD in Educational Linguistics from Stanford. When she returned, she led a team of fellow curriculum specialists in developing STELLAR. Many Members are familiar with STELLAR programme – STELLAR stands for Strategies for English Language, Learning and Reading. It started as a pilot programme in 2006 and all primary schools have now adopted STELLAR. It has changed the way of students learn English. If Members go to

the English classes now, it is very different from the way Members and I were taught. They no longer do just textbooks, they do drama, music lessons, read to one another, use big books, move from stations to stations, interact, use audio-visual aids. It has raised the standards of English in our neighbourhood schools.

Today, we have about 500 teachers who are pursuing their post-graduate studies, mostly through part-time studying. Another 200 non-graduate teachers obtained undergraduate degrees each year. I recognise that there are opportunity costs when they upgrade, so the new TEACH package will give teachers, pursuing part-time Master's degrees, the option to take up part-time teaching. In other words, teachers can do part-time teaching and part-time upgrading, and we will also introduce a cash award upon completion of their part-time Masters degree to recognise their efforts. In addition, MOE will offer more scholarships as well as new post-graduate awards for full-time post-graduate studies. Non-graduate teachers will also have a wider range of upgrading avenues. There will be full-time advanced diploma courses that will be developed by NIE and a new award for in-service teachers who pursue full-time undergraduate studies.

We want to also provide more flexibility and additional resources to schools to allow teachers to go on for further studies and fulfil other social roles as parents or caregivers. Many of the MPs have spoken about that. Seventy percent of our teachers are female, with more than half of them married with young children or of child-bearing age. MOE wants to provide more flexible work arrangements to allow them to raise the family and do post-graduate studies so that it becomes a career of choice. When teachers can opt for part-time or no-pay leave instead of leaving the service, MOE

can keep more teachers. It is a long-term career option for them.

Second prong: affordable education for all. Sir, we will increase the subsidies for students from lower and middle-income household substantially. Let me emphasise that these are not one-off measures – they are recurrent subsidies. This is in keeping with our pledge that no Singaporean should be denied an education because he or she cannot afford it.

Let me start with primary and secondary schools. They are already heavily subsidised but MOE will provide extra funding to help needy students. As already announced, on top of MOE's financial assistance schemes (FAS), there will be a one-off top-up between $10,000 and $15,000 to the school advisory committee and the school management committee's funds. They can target students who do not meet the FAS criteria for financial assistance. Earlier, I have announced a one-off top-up of $130 to Edusave accounts to primary and secondary students, and the one-off injection of $100 million to the Edusave grants for schools to purchase additional IT equipment.

We have two more funds that help some of the students that MPs have brought up. These are called the Opportunity Fund and Trips for International Experience Fund. Members must have met some of the students in neighbourhood schools, especially, who may not be able to afford it when the school wants to bring their students elsewhere. We do want some co-payment to exercise some discipline and make sure that it is worth it. Such needy students can receive further help through the Opportunity Fund and the Trips for International Experience Fund. As long as the school can justify that the overseas trip adds to the development of students, the funds can be used to help these

students embark on overseas learning programmes.

We will also substantially enhance existing bursaries to help more students from both lower and middle-income families cope with the cost of post-secondary education. The Minister for Finance has already announced the increase in bursaries for university and polytechnic students. Today, I am happy to announce that MOE will further expand the bursary support for ITE students [chart *]. With these increases, students from the lowest 15% percentile will receive $1,000 a year. The extra amount received will help these students with other costs related to the ITE education.

*4047-4048.

On top of this change, we will now extend bursaries to include households up to the 66th percentile. Students from two-thirds of all households will now receive bursaries.

2.30 pm

Let me summarise all that the Minister for Finance and myself now have announced in terms of the impact on the household. Bursary support will now be extended to all students in our post-secondary education institutions who are in the bottom two-thirds of households by per capita household income. Bursary quanta have also been increased. If you are a student from the bottom one-third of households, this means that those in ITE will have their education costs entirely covered while those enrolled in polytechnic and undergraduate courses will have their education cost covered by as much as 97% and 85% respectively. Polytechnic students from the lowest one-third, 97% of costs; universities, 85% of costs. All in all, the enhanced bursary scheme will benefit students from both local and middle-income households. It will cost MOE up to an extra $134 million per year.

The extension in the capabilities of our teachers will allow us to expand the

offerings within our educational landscape, to offer a more holistic education and create new pathways to cater to varying aspirations and abilities. Many MPs asked for this. We will continue to upgrade and build better schools across the island, with the latest facilities and equipment, sports halls, arts studios and music rooms.

To help move all primary schools to single session, 11 new schools will be built. I have already announced this. They are expected to commence in 2013/2014. Thirty-seven schools will be upgraded by 2014 under Phases 1 and 2. I am pleased to announce today that we will embark on Phase 3 which will start in November 2012. In this phase, 40 more schools will be upgraded. The new schools are in areas where the populations are growing, particularly in Punggol and Sembawang [indicating a map* shown to Members ]. For Phase 2 and Phase 3, it is across the island where we are upgrading our schools. Our total investments will be $1.1 billion over the next seven years. We will be giving Members information about the schools that are built or upgraded in Members' specific constituencies.

The upgraded schools will be equipped with newer and better facilities that enable primary schools to deliver the programmes recommended by the Primary Education Review and Implementation Committee. More emphasis will be placed on art and music education to complement science and mathematics in drawing out the creativity in our children through visual and aural means. We will place more emphasis to develop civic literacy and global awareness through character and citizenship education. I think Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Irene Ng asked about this. MOE will indeed place stronger emphasis on character development and the teaching of life skills going forward. Particularly for Ms Irene Ng's

ward, we will teach them to say "thank you" when they receive the bursaries. We will teach them to be polite. I think it is a very important trait. But sometimes, they are nervous because Members are taller than them. So, they forget to say "thank you".

We will also place more emphasis on school-wide sports participation. I think Ms Joscelin Yeo and Mdm Cynthia Phua made impassioned pleas about this. I agree completely with them that sports are not just about a win-all mentality. Going forward, we will step up opportunities for participation for more students by organising more intra-school and recreational inter-school sports competitions. I cannot promise Mdm Cynthia Phua who said to do it for every child because there are scheduling problems. But the aim is that it should be done at some level as that is the aim of the school philosophy.

We are also doing more for the post-secondary education institutions. We have revamped ITE. ITE College East has been operational since 2005; ITE West since last year and ITE College Central will be ready in 2013. We are expanding the polytechnics as well as university places. Polytechnic intake will increase by another 20%. The Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) will increase its intake to 1,000 students and Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) will open in 2012 which will make sure we reach our cohort participation rate of 30% by 2015.

As part of the Government's overall effort in upgrading our workers, MOE will step up the role of our post-secondary education institutions in delivering continued education. We will tap on our polytechnics and ITE. We will grow the current CET training capacity by 60%. This is for adults. We will raise more spaces, funding and subsidies for advanced diplomas and specialist

diplomas from 70% to 85% which will bring fees down significantly. MOE will also increase fee subsidies for part-time undergraduate programmes at UNiSIM and public universities to 55% of published fees. Senior Minister of State Iswaran will provide further details.

There have been calls to do more for preschools. We will do more. MOE has invested $150 million in the preschool sector over the last five years and we have seen good results. We plan to invest another $290 million over the next five years, about double of what we have invested in the last five years, so that this can continue to uplift the quality of the preschool sector. Minister of State Masagos will provide these details.

Ms Denise Phua asked that we do more for special needs students. As announced, MOE in partnership with NCSS, will introduce a special education financial assistance scheme. The financial assistance scheme was only for mainstream schools but now we are extending it to the special education (SPED) schools. We will work out the details later but it will be a form which subsidises school fees, uniforms, textbooks and examination fees. Obviously, it may not be completely comparable because some of the expenses in SPED schools are different but we will work out an equitable model. Basically, we are extending the coverage to SPED schools.

We will also provide more customised support for students with higher needs in the SPED schools. I am pleased to announce that MOE will work with NCSS to increase the resources – called a High Needs Grant – from April this year. We recognise that some schools are dealing with children with, say, multiple disabilities and they really need a lot of effort. We recognise that not all SPED schools are the same. Up to $2.3 million per year will be set aside for schools to hire additional teacher aides to support

this group of students. Senior Minister of State Grace Fu will give you the details.

Mrs Josephine Teo asked about mother tongue language (MTL) and how we are going to spend the $45 million in the community. Around $29 million will be disbursed through our schools to support the programmes. I think that is a better way to do it. We go through the schools so that they can engage the community groups. If it is the other way round, there will not be ownership of the programmes. They can do, for example, the MTL Fortnights. On top of this, a combined total of $16.6 million will directly support each of the promotion committees. This represents a 20% increase in funding available for each of these committees. Again, Senior Minister of State Grace Fu will provide details.

Mr Chairman, the array of efforts aims to improve the entire educational landscape. We are doing more for students in lower-income households but our strategy to uplift Singapore through education must be focused on providing opportunities to all Singaporeans of diverse needs, talents and abilities. We are realistic that the extent of social mobility experienced in the past cannot be repeated in the future. It is just not possible. We started from such a low base and now Singapore has the highest per capita GDP in Asia today. I have always been used to the figure in the news that we were second in Asia. Well, I have good news for all Members. We surpassed Japan last year to take top spot.

It will be sad if increasing affluence results in smaller dreams for Singapore and Singaporeans. We must not lose the vibrancy and resolve of our founding generations. We must and can aim higher for everyone. In doing so, we must provide more resources to the poor to ensure that that no one is denied access to education because of financial

difficulties. Each child should have the opportunity to be the best that he or she can be.

Will we succeed? I am optimistic because the Singapore Story continues to surface today across our island. I will give one example – Mr Hong Siang Huat. Siang Huat is doing relief teaching in Raffles Institution (RI) after completing his National Service (NS). He comes from a single-parent family and his mother used to be a factory worker. He did very well in his PSLE. At first, he was not sure whether his mother could afford the fees at RI. But RI offered him a scholarship. During the six years in RI and then Raffles Junior College (RJC), he did well academically and he was vice-captain of the RI hockey team. I am using him as an example because later this year, Siang Huat will leave for Warwick University on an MOE teaching scholarship to study psychology. If all goes well, he will be in our classrooms teaching the next generations of Singaporeans as a living example of social mobility and a firm believer in helping students live out their dreams.

In this new decade, we will continue to ensure that Singapore Education remains at the forefront of excellence so that our children are prepared for the challenges in the next decade. More importantly, we will continue to ensure that education is the best way to level up all Singaporeans. The Singapore Story lives on.

*Cols. 4047-4048. *Cols. 4049-4050.

Update on Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI)

Sir, primary school education provides the foundation for our children and it is important to help them maximise their potential. A key recommendation made by PERI is to convert all our schools to single sessions.

I would like to ask the Minister what is the progress in implementing single-session schools? What is the status of the infrastructure upgrading in schools to enable this? What kinds of facilities will these upgraded schools offer? How will the Ministry deal with the increase in the manpower demand arising from single sessions? Do we have enough teachers, associates and other support staff to handle single-session schools?

Sir, I would also like to know how will the Ministry communicates with parents on the objective of single-session schools? Some parents may look upon single-session schools as an extension of the child care centre. How can parents be educated to support their children in the single-session schools so that, together, they form a reinforcement in helping their children do better and maximise their potential?

Finally, Sir, what can the children themselves look forward to in single-session schools? I really do hope that single-session schools will not be another reason to provide even more hours of cramming for the children but will instead focus on a more holistic education.

Mother Tongue Languages Review Committee recommendations

(In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Chairman, the Ministry of Education has conducted two rounds of Mother Tongue Reviews in six years. The last report was published in January this year. The key of this Mother Tongue Review was to enable students to apply what they have learnt in classroom in daily lives. Proficiency descriptors are used as benchmarks for Mother Tongue education. The descriptors emphasise the use of communication as a tool to improve the ability to interact between students and others.

The Director-General of Education, Ms Ho Peng, admitted that two rounds of review in six years was not a small challenge for teachers. People are most concerned with the following: Do current mother tongue teachers have enough training in their teaching of interactive communication and oral dialogues? Are there enough teaching materials? How does MOE achieve the target of making Chinese a live language in a holistic manner?

My feeling is that some Chinese curriculum tries to pass on traditional values and cultural heritage while making it within the grasp of the students' ability. The text is usually dry and boring. Teachers have no choice but to teach them. How can they arouse the interest of these students?

Although Chinese is a known as a Mother Tongue, judging from the Government's policy and attitude, it is just another practical language in the daily lives as it is believed that as long as a language is useful and necessary, students will be motivated to study it just like young people studying Japanese to read manga and then Korean to watch Korean shows these days.

Our Chinese standard is sinking continuously. It has gone so low that we do not know how much further it will go down. The old principle of "no ceiling yet maintaining the bottomline" is no longer viable because there is no more bottomline to maintain.

*Cols. 4057-4058.

Chinese language

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*. ] When President Hu Jintao visited the United States recently, a group of American children spoke to him in Chinese. This is to show respect to Mr Hu and to demonstrate that they are studying Chinese culture and language.

Their enthusiasm in studying Chinese is worth our attention.

The rise of China has provided them business opportunities. Therefore, they are studying Chinese very hard, hoping to get into contact with the Chinese directly and do business with them. In Singapore, we have made good progress in our bilingual education in the past decades. However, if we do not keep up with our good work, the Americans will catch up and speak better Chinese than we do. We will then lose our bilingual advantage. I urge all Chinese students to study their Mother Tongue – Chinese – very diligently. To learn Chinese, you must read more, see more, write more and use more. Only when you do all these four aspects of learning can you truly master the language and be able to use it.

See more and read more: We should read more Chinese newspapers and writings. Students who study Higher Chinese should read Zaobao's editorial every day. The daily editorial comments on important events and is written with good skills. We should read it several times and read it out loud as well. Only by doing this can you learn both the shape and pronunciation of the characters.

Write more. Writing more essays will improve thinking ability. Chen Zhixiang from Lihua Secondary School, the top student in the recent "A" level examinations, said that he beat others because he got A1 for his Higher Chinese. He is especially thankful for his teacher for forcing him to write Chinese essays, enabling him to achieve such great result. Lihua is also my alma mater. I am very proud that Chen Zhixiang became the top student in Singapore in the "A" level examinations.

Use more. Parents should speak Chinese more with their children at home. I also hope Members of Parliament would speak more Chinese in Parliament. When

we discuss issues relating to people's livelihood, Ministers should try to respond in Chinese. This will encourage more Singaporeans to speak Chinese and make them realise the practical value of Chinese.

*Cols. 4059-4060.

2.45 pm

Chinese education

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Chairman, a few years ago, I was in Beijing and attended a Mandarin speech competition. All those who spoke in Mandarin in the competition were foreigners and the winner was a girl from Russia. If I closed my eyes and listened to her, I would have thought that she was from Beijing. She spoke Mandarin so well that she put me to shame.

Recently, when I was in China for a business trip, I kept hearing foreigners speaking Mandarin, and more of them are getting better and better at Mandarin. Although their pronunciation may be a little odd, their intonation is not bad. The Chinese understand them and have a great deal of respect for them. Not long ago, I went to the National University of Singapore to attend a Chinese Song Writing Competition for students. The standard of the competition was very high. However, at the prize presentation ceremony, I found out that all the prize winners were either Malaysians or mainland Chinese, and very few are Singaporeans.

Just like Mr Ang Mong Seng, I am very worried that we will lose our bilingual competitive edge. We must have a group of truly bicultural elites, and this elite group's bicultural standard must be comparable to the best in China. I am aware that with the rise of China, there

will be greater interest in learning Chinese among Singaporeans. I have no doubt that under the tremendous efforts of the Ministry of Education, the average standard of Chinese here will improve gradually. I am not talking about the average standard, but the highest standard. Do we have high peaks, so that we can have a group of elites who are genuinely bicultural, able to communicate with the best in China at the same level? Hence, I propose that the Ministry of Education consider implementing a Special Chinese Elite programme. If necessary, establish a Special Chinese Language Centre and peg the standard to the highest level. When our Singaporean students graduate from the centre, their standard will be comparable to that of Peking University and Qinghua University students. I am specifically referring to students who are Singapore citizens. Malaysian-born or China-born students can also be included, so long as they are Singapore citizens. Their presence can be an inspiration to other Singapore students. Hence, everyone will improve in the face of competition, reaching the highest peak.

Special education

Sir, there are 20 SPED of special education schools operated by VWOs and co-funded by MOE and the National Council of Social Services.

Currently, parents choose and apply to the schools resulting in some parents making multiple applications. As the SPED schools meet different needs, parents might not have enough knowledge of the schools to apply to the most appropriate one for their child. When there is a lack of fit with the admission criteria, the child is referred to another school. This is both time consuming for the parents and not beneficial to the child as timely and appropriate placing for the child is critical to his learning. To help parents make

better informed choices and to streamline the application process, a centralised agency could be set up to channel applications to a suitable school. Parents will only need to make one application and can focus more time on the child.

Next, while education in the mainstream schools are not means-tested, school fees in SPED schools are subjected to means-testing since 2006. Is it fair to special needs children to subject them to means-testing while those in the mainstream schools pay a fixed school fee? With an average of only 550 children per year placed in the SPED schools over the past three years, can the Government make our society more inclusive by extending similar subsidies to all SPED children?

Finally, I understand that some SPED schools are also facing a resource crunch in terms of insufficient therapists. How are resource levels being monitored to ensure that early intervention programmes are not undermined?

*Cols. 4061-4062.

Primary 1 registration

Mr Chairman, in the past, the Government had used primary school registration as one of the tools to control population growth. Under the old population policy, "Stop at Two", between 1966 and 1983, priority for Primary 1 registration was given to children of parents who were sterilised after the first or second child.

From 1984 to 1986, children of university-educated women who had three or more children received priority. Between 1987 and 1999, under a new policy, "Have Three Or More Children If You Can Afford It", priority in primary school registration was extended to the third child.

Mr Chairman, I note MOE's response to a parliamentary question in 2008 to delink Primary 1 registration from population

policies since 1992. However, there are good reasons to review this after almost 20 years given that parents naturally and should be interested in their children's education after giving birth to them. As the Minister mentioned, education brings about social mobility.

Competition for places in certain primary schools is fierce. We all know of parents who move within one or two kilometres of desired schools or serve as school or grassroots volunteers to get priority. May I suggest then, to encourage procreation, that we consider giving more chances, not priority but chances, more chances to a child with more siblings? Of course, the child must be a Singapore citizen.

Currently, should the number of applications exceed the number of vacancies in any phase, places will be balloted according to the proximity of the child's home to the school. I would like to suggest that, in addition to this criterion, for each phase, except for phase 1 where a child with a sibling in the school will automatically get priority, a child be given chances based on the number of siblings he or she has. The more siblings, the more chances. May I emphasise not higher priority but more chances. Furthermore, in support of intact and healthy families, the child and his or her siblings must have the same parents.

As Primary 1 registration takes place when a child is six years old, this will also encourage parents to have more children in quick succession in order to avail the child of more chances to enter a school of choice. With this in mind, perhaps such a change should also be effected giving six years' advance notice.

Order. I propose to take the break now.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.53 pm until 3.15 pm.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head K (cont.) –

School curriculum

Sir, the Singapore education system is one of the best regarded in the world. In the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study which the Minister referred to earlier, Singapore was ranked well in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Sir, let me say that I am very proud of the many achievements of our education system.

However, despite this excellent education system, I receive frequent feedback from parents that our students in primary schools are simply working too hard. Parents question whether it is necessary for the primary school curriculum to cover so many topics; whether it was wise for children at that young and tender age to be drilled in so many subjects day in and day out. As a parent of two primary school children, I can testify that some of the topics that my children are learning in school surprised me. Recently, there was a hue and cry about some primary schools conducting near "compulsory" supplementary lessons for lower primary school after school hours. Parents asked whether we are stripping away the joy of learning from young primary school children.

Whilst MOE may impose guidelines for formal school hours, what about the homework given out by the schools which take up the child's leisure hours? By giving young school children homework everyday, are we really preparing them for life? Where is the joy of learning by playing? Do children have time to develop other interests outside the school curriculum? Is there time for parents to bring their children out to the park for a walk, for a game of soccer, for young children to learn to clean the dishes at home? Or is it the intent of the school to keep the students busy with homework or preparing for tests the next day such that they have no other time to relax or learn life skills elsewhere.

May I ask the Minister whether MOE reviews the curriculum of each subject in primary school on a regular basis; whether it is necessary to cover such a wide range of topics bearing in mind the "Teach Less Learn More" policy? Could the Minister explain the reasons why schools feel the need to teach school subjects outside school hours instead of concentrating on character development of the child like learning to say "thank you" after receiving an award? Could the schools teach more life skills to equip the young children on how to cope with life?

I would like to join Mr Lim Biow Chuan in asking should after-class hours be kept free of classes. This was a hotly debated and emotive issue recently. The vast majority of parents accept that the extra lessons organised after school and during school holidays to prepare Primary 5 and Primary 6 pupils for the PSLE would be beneficial. However, parents just cannot agree on whether schools should give compulsory lessons after school for Primary 3 and Primary 4 students. Many parents consider as "compulsory" any extra lessons that cover an integral part of the syllabus even though these may be

labelled as "optional". Letting their child miss learning any part of the syllabus cannot be an option. On the one hand, there are parents who are grateful for the additional after-hours teaching and, on the other hand, there are those who strongly feel that their children should make better use of their time. I strongly urge schools to conduct extra lessons for only supplemental or remedial purposes for levels not preparing for major national examinations. This will be boon to students who require the extra attention as well as those whose parents do not have the time or means to send them for private tuition.

Now, on the topic of school holiday homework. Some, such as writing essays and reading specific materials, can be done within a few hours at home, while others like group projects require an enormous amount of time, research, travel and coordination. Most students and parents would recognise that the March and September breaks are short breathers which give students a break from travelling to school for more formal lessons, allowing them some space to do as they wish. However, the long semestral holidays in June or December should be regarded as much deserved breaks after a demanding half year that culminates in gruelling examinations. For this reason, students and parents – parents who also need a break from checking on their child's schoolwork – are understandably resistant to holiday homework for the semestral vacations except, perhaps, for when a national examination looms ahead. Hence, I hope that schools can be more sympathetic and judicious in handing out holiday homework for the mid-year and year-end school holidays.

By organising extra after-hours classes and giving holiday homework, I am sure that schools have the sincerest intentions to produce good results, give students the best future they deserve and assure

concerned parents. However, bearing in mind the goal of our school system to provide a holistic education, we must give our students leeway to enjoy their own space and have some say in how they would like to use that space.

If you confine students for long hours in school engaging in similar types of activities like curriculum Mathematics or Science, we will create products who are academically sound, each one able to answer almost every conceivable examination question. If we set them standard tasks and assignments that give them no other space to be unique, they will indeed produce the reports and make the requisite presentations. The skills developed are valuable but the room to explore and do something different becomes more crowded. We certainly do not want students to be as alike as the uniforms they wear. If we allow students some time on their hands, they can use that time for activities of their own choice, whether in school at CCAs or out of school.

We need people of different talents, different ideas, different inspirations and different expertise to make up our society and our children need the space to become these people.

Specification of school operating hours

Sir, to facilitate a healthy work-family life balance for staff and students, will the MOE consider specifying school operating hours? Based on anecdotal evidence and informal observations, schools tend to stretch for almost 12 hours each day. Typically, a secondary school student reports to school at 7.10 am-7.15am, and usually for about two to four days a week, depending on the CCAs he or she is involved in, the child will only leave school at about 6.30 pm or maybe even

later, especially they if are in performing arts or when preparing for competitions.

I think CCAs are the main culprit as schools are caught up with the numerous competitions that, if done well, can add value to the credentials of the school. I am certainly not against encouraging students to strive for the best in both academia and CCAs. But I do think that as responsible society, we should set some parameters for healthy competition. I think it is reasonable to expect the MOE to mandate schools to stop CCAs by 6.00 pm. This will ensure that even on CCA days, students and staff can go home in time for dinner with the family. They will have time to complete preparation and homework, reflect on lessons learnt that day and recharge for the next day, and perhaps with a healthy work-life balance, the Minister would be able to reduce the singlehood rate among his staff as well.

Sir, let me address specific issues raised by Members and elaborate on two key areas. First, our efforts to create a student-centric learning environment and, second, providing more support for students with special needs.

First, student-centric education. Mrs Josephine Teo and Mdm Halimah Yacob asked for an update on the Primary Education Review and Implementation Committee's (PERI) recommendations. We are upgrading 40 more primary schools in Phase 3. This will facilitate primary schools to transit to single session and allow strengthening of non-academic aspects of education like PE, Art and Music. These upgraded schools will have newer and better facilities to support more innovative and engaging lessons. Allow me to cite a few examples.

The first slide [indicating a slide shown to hon. Members] shows a PE lesson at

Hougang Primary School. To support a more holistic education, indoor sports halls such as this will allow PE lessons and CCAs to be conducted throughout the day, rain or shine. All schools that need it will be equipped with synthetic turf which is cheaper to maintain and can be used immediately after it rains.

For the Performing and Visual Arts, schools will have band rooms, dance studios and performing arts studios. Here we show Members a slide [indicating a slide shown to hon. Members] of a Performing Arts Studio at Lianhua Primary School. This is integrated into the library to maximise the use of space. We see pupils performing a skit as part of the Programme for Active Learning (PAL), which helps Primary 1 and Primary 2 students develop character and life skills as well as discover their talents.

At last year's Committee of Supply, I mentioned that MOE was prototyping PAL in 12 schools. I am pleased to update that PAL has been extended to another 24 schools this year. We will re-design classrooms to encourage greater interaction and group learning, and develop 21st century skills such as effective communication and teamwork. We will also provide more out-of-classroom learning facilities, such as eco-ponds and science gardens. This slide [indicating a slide shown to hon. Members] shows East Spring Primary students learning about pulleys as part of their Science lesson. How I wished I had something like that to teach me about pulleys during my days, I am sure I would have done better in my Physics then.

The next slide [indicating a slide shown to hon. Members] shows Tampines Primary's eco-garden where a teacher is conducting a lesson outdoors. Again, you see the engaged faces of the children. It is very encouraging to see them taking their lessons with such enthusiasm. This allows students to learn from the first-

hand experience rather than just through pictures or books.

For schools undergoing upgrading, we will provide additional space so that VWOs can provide student care services after school hours as Ms Denise Phua suggested. However, we will leave it to the school to decide depending on their pupils' needs. There are currently Student Care Centres in 36 of our primary schools. MCYS also has financial assistance schemes for lower-income households to cater to this group of students.

At present, almost half of our primary schools have already become single session. As we push ahead with upgrading, almost all Government primary schools should be able to transit to single session by 2016.

As we upgrade schools, we have been experimenting with new and innovative models to improve land efficiency and facilitate community sharing. Today, I am glad to share an upcoming project to co-locate Pek Kio Community Centre with the Indoor Sports Hall of Farrer Park Primary. This will allow the school and CC to share facilities and collaborate on programmes. Details will be announced by People's Association (PA) later.

3.30 pm

But we are not investing in infrastructure alone. Arising from PERI's recommendations, we will make learning even more engaging. For instance, MOE has developed additional Mathematics resources for Primary 1 to Primary 6 to support a more customised approach to teaching Mathematics concepts. The aim is to give pupils a strong foundation in Mathematics. The resources include manipulatives, game sets, picture cards and posters. Here you can see [indicating a slide shown to hon. Members] that the students are handling different shapes to

have a better grasp of such concepts in the teaching of Mathematics.

We will be equipping all classrooms with these new resources over the next three years. Similar provisions are planned for all other subjects.

MOE has also been working with primary schools to place more attention on character development in each pupil. Let me give you an example of what happens in New Town Primary School. Each class has both a form teacher and co-form teacher who follow the class for two years. Ms Mohan, the form teacher meets her Primary 1 class each morning and spends her time interacting or reading together. Each week, during the Form Teacher Guidance Period, she bonds with the class through games, interactive activities and role play. Ms Mohan meets her pupils one-to-one and she meets each pupil at least twice a year. Such interactions are used to discuss the reflections that pupils have captured in their Learning Journals. These allow Ms Mohan to build trust and rapport with the pupils, better track their development and provide more detailed feedback to their parents. Such good practices to strengthen individual pupil development are also being introduced to other schools. I am pleased to note that since 2009, more than half of the primary schools have already implemented these practices. MOE will continue to support schools to implement PERI's recommendations by providing the necessary expertise and resource support, for instance, by recruiting more PE, Art and Music teachers.

I will next touch on the teaching and learning of mother tongue languages, which Mr Ang Mong Seng, Mr Chan Soo Sen, Mr Low Thia Khiang had spoken about. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] MOE's educational goal remains to support and

enable every student to learn MTL to the fullest of his or her potential. To achieve this, the recent MTL Review articulated the objective of nurturing active learners and proficient users of MTL. The Review Committee also recommended that the goals for MTL learning be centred on three "Cs"–Communication, Culture and Connection. It further recognised that language is best learnt when students are taught to use the language in an active and interactive manner in real-life settings. In order to help students achieve proficiency in usage, teaching methods and national examinations will be better aligned. Contrary to what Mr Low has suggested, nurturing active learners and proficient users do not mean that transmission of culture and values will no longer be important in the teaching of MTL. Mr Low may not have seen a video clip that was shown at the recent MTL Review press conference which featured a reunion dinner. It is an example of what students will watch in the classroom to trigger further discussion. Not only will such activities strengthen their oracy, it also reinforces understanding of their culture and values. Therefore, as pointed out by the Review Committee, students who use MTL as a living language are more likely to better appreciate their cultures and traditions.

The MTL Review Committee recognised that students have different starting points because of different home language environments. As such, a more customised student–centric approach in the teaching of MTL will be taken. Teachers will be equipped with a range of appropriate pedagogies to cater to different learner profiles. For example, these include motivational strategies to build a positive affirmative learning environment and adopt a more systematic approach to build oracy foundation through contextual learning. Teachers will also be equipped with a variety of classroom strategies,

such as the use of group work to encourage interaction, and the use of songs, rhymes and videos as well as role-play to strengthen oral interaction and make learning more engaging.

Another way of customising MTL instruction would be through information and communication technology (ICT). To support teachers to better use ICT in teaching, learning and assessment, and multimedia resources such as videos, flash animations and interactive games will be provided. In addition, a web–based interactive portal will be provided to all schools to facilitate students' learning.

To effectively implement these changes, teachers will play an instrumental role. Over the years, our MTL teachers have made significant contributions in improving teaching approaches. Their efforts are commendable. As teachers are key to whatever we do in education, we will need to first enhance our teacher training, so that teachers can in turn cater to varying student abilities and starting points. In 2008, the Singapore Centre for Chinese Language (SCCL) surveyed 2,200 Chinese Language teachers to identify their training needs and develop courses according to the level that they are teaching, eg, lower primary and secondary; language skills needed, eg, composition or comprehension; and teaching pedagogies, eg, use of ICT or storybook. Going forward, to guide training, a teacher-competency framework will be developed. MOE will work with the National Institute of Education (NIE) and SCCL to provide training and support to Chinese Language teachers. MOE will also deploy an additional 500 MTL teachers by 2015.

Mr Chan Soo Sen asked how we can produce "high peaks" in Chinese Language. In fact, the development of even higher levels of language proficiency for students with the ability and interest is

also an important part of the more customised approach to MTL.

We have provided for Special Assistance Plan Schools – in fact, we are adding Nan Chiau High next year. We also have the Bicultural Studies Programme and the Chinese Language Elective Programme. On top of this, we will be introducing a new Chinese Linguistics and Translation subject at the "A" Levels. This subject will provide students with a fundamental understanding of the constructs of the Chinese Language, so as to groom future bilingual professionals with mastery in both English and Chinese languages.

In fact, the enhancements made in past reviews have resulted in a larger proportion of "O" Level students offering Higher Chinese Language (HCL). The percentage of the "O" Level cohort offering HCL has increased from 19% in 2004 to 28% in 2010. This shows that our students increasingly see the importance of the Chinese Language and are developing a deeper interest in it.

(In English): Sir, I fully agree with Mr Ang Mong Seng that we need a conducive environment for students to learn and use the language outside of school. The Minister has announced additional funding to the Language Promotion Committees, which will support meaningful programmes. For instance, the Committee to promote Chinese Language Learning (CPCLL) has launched a Cultural Performance Exposures Scheme, 文化随意门, to engage youths from different home language backgrounds. Take up has been positive, increasing from 20 schools when it started in 2009, to more than 70 schools this year, benefiting 10,000 students. The Malay Language Learning and Promotion Committee (MLLPC) organises an annual Malay Language Quiz – Kuiz Cepat Tepat, in collaboration with MediaCorp, attracting participants from 110 schools and capturing some 100,000 viewers. The Tamil Language Learning

and Promotion Committee (TLLPC) co-organises with the Tamil Language Council a range of activities for the Tamil Language Festival, which include a debate series, forums and drama festival.

Parents, too, play an important part, by giving their children early exposure and creating opportunities to use their mother tongue. It is heartening that the MTL Survey 2010 revealed that the majority of parents, regardless of language spoken at home, acknowledged the importance of learning MTL. Sir, I am glad to take note that public feedback on the recommendations of the MTL review committee has been largely positive. Many parents and committee groups agree with the rationale for the changes and affirmed our bilingual policy.

I will now address specific issues raised by Members in general. Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Ong Kian Min and Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan touched on school curriculum and hours. Some Members also spoke about private tuition earlier. Let me take these issues together.

MOE believes in a balanced and holistic education for our children. We are rebalancing the system to focus more on 21st century skills and values as well as non-cognitive aspects of development. We also review the curriculum regularly. As part of the "Teach Less, Learn More" initiative, curriculum content in recent years has been reduced by as much as 30%. Guidelines have been provided to school leaders to ensure careful consideration goes into setting schools' start and end times as well as holiday homework. The curriculum is also designed to allow schools to complete the syllabus within school hours and prepare students adequately for examinations. To help the weaker students learn better, teachers may conduct remedial lessons out of their good intention. Such lessons are not compulsory. Parents will be informed in advance and have the choice

to opt their children out. When holiday homework is given, teachers typically do so judiciously and purposefully. Beyond what schools provide, some parents choose to provide their children more support through tuition. This is a choice for parents to make. They will need to assess whether this will overburden the child and whether the child will benefit more by spending the time in other ways, like Members have said, take a stroll, outdoor activities, reading or exercising. While some students find it helpful, it could lead to undue stress if students have too much tuition, and under-performance for others. There are also many students who succeeded without tuition by paying attention in class, consulting teachers and working consistently throughout the year.

I would like to quote you an example. Ms Sharanya Pillai from Riverside Secondary is a case in point. She scored nine A1s during last year's "O" Levels and was one of the top students without the help of tuition. She comes from humble background. According to the Straits Times report, her father is a security guard and her mother is a part-time retail assistant. With the monthly household income of $1,300, it is no surprise that tuition was something she did not even consider. But she managed her time well and minimised travelling time by attending a secondary school 10 minutes away from her home. She had more time to study and rest. She even did the Chinese Special Programme, which she got an A1. She aspires to be a doctor someday, and we wish her well. This is just one example of a student who excelled through the support of her school teachers, family, her own hard work and determination.

Schools also conduct Co-Curriculum Activities (CCAs) to offer students from holistic and broad-based development. For secondary schools and junior colleges,

some CCAs might start later in the day when it is cooler or in the evenings for valid reasons, for example, camps and concerts. Our approach is to give our schools autonomy to vary the hours of instruction time, based on what is best in the educational interest of their pupils. Specifying that all activities should end by 6.00 pm, as Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan has suggested, could curtail meaningful activities. Nevertheless, MOE will continue to promote the importance of healthy, work, family-life balance for teachers and pupils.

3.45 pm

With regard to primary schools in particular, MOE's guidelines for single-session schools are that Primary 1 and 2 pupils could have a slightly extended-curriculum day ending at 1.30 pm.

*Cols. 4063-4066.

This is taking into account the increased emphasis on non-academic aspects of the curriculum. Primary 3 to 6 pupils could have two longer days in a week to include enrichment or CCA activities though these are entirely optional. Since primary schools have gone single session, we note that school hours have remained within these specified guidelines.

Turning now to special education, Ms Sylvia Lim suggested a central agency to provide information to parents. Currently, MOE's website provides information on special education (SPED) schools and the programmes that they offer as well as educational pathways for special needs students. In addition, the Centre of Enabled Living (CEL) was set up in 2009 to be such a first-stop information and referral centre for eldercare and disability services.

Ms Lim also asked about means-testing for SPED school fees. Allow me to clarify that Government's funding to SPED schools is not based on any means-tested formula. Rather, MOE provides SPED schools an annual per capita grant of two-

and-a-half times that of primary education in the mainstream schools. On average, MOE invest $17,000 annually in each SPED school student, much more than the $7,000 per student in the primary mainstream schools. This significantly subsidises the cost of education for special needs students. Parents pay school fees charged by the individual SPED schools, which are run by voluntary welfare organisations. The schools have various financial assistance schemes to help those in need. With the extension of the financial assistance scheme to SPED schools, those in need will get even more support. That was what my Minister has announced earlier.

For low-income family with a child with multiple disabilities attending the AWWA School, for instance, this can be about an additional $1,000 or so in assistance a year on top of the $17,000 MOE is already investing. This also means that SPED schools can re-position their own assistance schemes to support more students. Currently, most SPED schools have sufficient places to meet the demands for admission. Students who are unable to enrol in SPED schools of their choice are currently enrolled in other SPED or mainstream schools depending on their needs.

MOE has also enhanced the capability of mainstream schools to cater to students with mild special needs. We agree with Ms Denise Phua that our educational institutions need to be inclusive and we thank her for her suggestions. Ms Phua would be glad to note that we are doing more to support those who are hearing or physically-impaired or are visually-handicapped in our mainstream schools. MOE collaborates with VWOs to support the learning needs of these students. We are similarly extending support at the post-secondary education institutes (PSEI). Such support is provided through a three-step process.

The first step involves the identification of students and their special needs. For instance, the universities identify any special needs students during the admission process that could include medical examinations. Second, these students are then put in touch with counsellors who customise appropriate arrangements such as facilitating physical access. Academic faculty may also modify teaching and examination methods appropriately, such as through providing extra notes, scripts with larger fonts or additional time for examinations. Third, teachers and faculty are trained to provide learning support and pastoral care to these students.

Sir, I have outlined the efforts MOE will be making to enhance the learning experience of our students. Our focus will be to equip our students for the 21st century through a holistic education, providing them with the necessary skills, values and knowledge to succeed. MOE is committed to ensure opportunities for all Singaporeans to realise their full potential regardless of their background.

Tertiary and continuing education

Sir, I wish to declare my interest as a member of the Boards of the Nanyang Polytechnic and the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD).

MOE has announced many new additions to the higher education landscape. What changes can students look forward to in the university, polytechnic and ITE sectors in the next five to 10 years?

Can MOE provide an update on the SUTD and SIT and how they are benefiting Singaporeans?

There has also been an increasing number of collaborations between local universities and foreign institutions. The

NUS has collaborations with Duke University Medical School, with Boston University for a law degree and is about to have an agreement with Yale for a liberal arts college. NTU has a tie-up with Imperial College London for a medical school also.

Proponents tout the benefits of tapping the partner institutions' branding, expertise of the faculty and experience of its administrators. Detractors, such as Pankaj Jain, former director of the University of Leeds, are less enthusiastic. He says institutes in the United States and the United Kingdom are bankrupt right now. State assistance is dwindling and domestic demand is stagnant. In such a scenario, they all want foreign students but do not have money to set up campuses overseas. Top-notch institutes are also unlikely to adopt this practice as it will dilute their brand value and may also result in fewer number of students reaching their parent campuses. Instead, they prefer to export their expertise through collaborations.

Moreover, results for some universities collaboration have been mixed. Take the Cambridge-MIT Institute, a partnership between the University of Cambridge and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which was supposed to be a six-year programme between 2000 and 2006. It involved cash injection of £65.1 million from the UK government and £16 million raised from private sources.

In 2003, the Guardian noted that "the collaboration between MIT and Cambridge has been something of a disappointment so far". It also observed that it was hard and I quote, "to deflect the ongoing suspicions that CMI remains a better deal for MIT than Cambridge, not least because £13 million of public money has already departed Stateside to fund US research".

Sir, how much does it cost to have tie-ups with foreign institutions like MIT and Yale? Has MOE done a thorough study to ascertain the value of such tie-ups? What steps are taken to ensure that the monies are well spent from Singapore's perspective?

Finally, as our economy transforms, skills become obsolete more quickly. What is the MOE's role in the overall push for Continuing Education and Training? What are the plans in support of PMETs in particular?

Liberal arts college

Mr Chairman, Singapore has decided to have a liberal arts college – a bold and strategic investment in education of the future. A liberal arts college is one with a primary emphasis on the liberal arts and sciences with an exposure to a wide range of academic subjects, including traditional humanities. Liberal arts education will impart broad general knowledge and help develop the general intellectual capacities in contrast to the professional, vocational and technical education curriculum.

The three main characteristics of a liberal arts education will include a smaller size than standard universities, a live-in residential facility and, of course, typically a two-year exploration of the liberal arts and general knowledge before embarking on a major subject. Will we be incorporating these elements into our liberal arts college? And although liberal arts college originated in Europe, it is very much associated with the United States today. What will our concept and modus operandi be for this college? Will we be following the US system closely as it is a collaboration with Yale?

Support students in high quality private education institutions

Sir, I declare my interest as a member of the

SIM governing council. To ensure that our global competitiveness and social mobility is in place, education takes centre stage in our lives, from kindergarten to lifelong learning. Its importance is also reflected by the budget allocated to MOE. This investment should support as many Singaporeans as possible as every talent counts.

In the past, students who could not get into their autonomous universities would have to go overseas, which mostly only the rich could afford. Some never come back, thereafter resulting in talent leak.

Today, the higher education landscape has evolved. Several of the US Ivy League universities, the US Russell Group and the Australia Group of Eight, have partnered established local private education institutions (PEIs), such as the Singapore Institute of Management (SIM) and the LaSalle College of the Arts. Yesterday, a Sunday Times' article highlighted high-flying students from SIM Global Education (GE), who achieved excellence in academic, arts and sports. In another example, SIM GE's tie-up with the University of Manchester ranked 30 in the QS World University Rankings and the most recent batch of 64 graduands have achieved three first-class, 21 second upper-class, 36 second-lower and four third-class honours. Graduates from the programme have proven themselves in their careers. One of them, Ms Dulcie Cheong graduated from the programme and was recently promoted from executive secretary to assistant manager at the National University Heart Centre. She improved her income and social mobility through the PEIs.

Singaporeans may enrol in PEIs for many reasons. It could be that the family is poor and needs the student to help with family expenses or at least earn enough to

fund themselves through the university. Or it could be that the student's subjects of preference are not offered or not offered to him or her at public universities. Or quite simply, the person was a late-boomer. Private university degrees are expensive and the demand is great. At a rough estimate, there are more than 30,000 students enrolled in recent PEIs in Singapore who receive no Government subsidies. Students in PEIs form an integral part of our scarce human capital. For many, PEIs are also a route to social mobility. Can we invest in them as well? Conversely, what is the academic and social cost for not investing in them? Most certainly, not all PEIs are made the same and I agree that there should be clear distinction between the good, the bad and the ugly.

MOE, through the Council for Private Education (CPE) has set up a quality framework for PEIs. Can MOE go further to do a comprehensive review of the sector, set up clear eligibility criteria for PEIs students who are Singaporeans? And, further, these guidelines can help students to be more discerning in their choice of studies and, at the same time, send a positive signal to PEIs to move towards high quality university education.

Teaching scholars

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools. It is normal that the elite schools, especially the junior colleges (JCs) can hand-pick scholars who are often their alumni resulting in neighbourhood JCs having fewer of these scholars. Scholars should be given opportunity to experience neighbourhood schools before becoming policy-makers in the MOE HQ

so that they can have an understanding the challenges the neighbourhood schools face.

Mr Chiam, the topic you have just spoken on had already been answered. You just touched on "Teaching Scholars", am I right? Your cut that is scheduled now is the one entitled "Private Education Institutions". The cut on "Teaching Scholars" had already been addressed by the Minister earlier. So, you should be speaking on the cut "Private Education Institutions".

4.00 pm

Can you allow me one minute to take my speech?

I will give you one minute. Please speak on the cut entitled "Private Education Institutions".

Private education institutions

Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance their full or partial loans from banks and financial institutions. These students were greatly affected as their graduation were either delayed or stopped, making them unable to chip in to ease the financial burden of their families. MOE must continue to ensure the students take courses that are accredited with MOE by making stringent measures to scrutinise misleading advertisements and protect unwary students.

Early childhood education

For some years now, several MPs and I have asked for

early childhood education to be made more affordable. Therefore, I am happy to note that the income ceiling for the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) has been raised to $3,500 a month. I wish to thank MOE for making this shift.

There are three more areas I think need further attention. First, how is MOE strengthening and improving the quality of early childhood educators? Specifically, can a NIE-type of set-up be considered to assure parents of the quality and consistency of their training? Second, given the plethora of pre-school centres in the market, how do parents know if they meet certain standards? How can we take the guess-work out of parents’ considerations? Third, one way to uplift the quality of the pre-school sector is through innovation. What is the record of innovation so far and what is MOE doing to further promote it?

Pre-school education

Sir, one of MOE's key strategies is to increase the professional qualification of pre-school teachers, including higher entry requirements and increasing the number of diploma-trained teachers in each pre-school centre. With higher qualifications and training must come higher remuneration. Sir, while remuneration packages can be as competitive as they can get, I would like to ask the Minister, what is MOE's current assessment of the state of human resource capabilities, both quantity and quality, in the pre-school sector. To what extent, are the milestone set by MOE to increase the qualifications and quantity of pre-school teachers met? What is MOE's long-term manpower plans for the pre-school sector? Are our institutions producing the requisite number of personnel to fill in the needs of the sector?

The unintended effect of inadequate supply of personnel and a highly competitive industry is the mobility of these personnel between centres. This often leads to significant disruptions in operations in some centres, including the serious impact on the young children. This is even worse where centres have higher concentration of low-income children, who are already disadvantaged to begin with. I seek the Minister's assurance that the supply of trained teachers will be sufficient to avoid the earlier scenario. Sir, unlike the teaching profession where MOE takes an active role through elaborate recruitment campaigns, can the Minister enlighten us as to who is responsible for such efforts at promoting early childhood education as a profession worthy of serious consideration?

Mr Christopher de Souza, take both cuts together, please.

High quality pre-school education

Sir, our primary schools are of a high quality. However, MOE should try to help ensure that pre-school education is also of a high quality across the range of pre-schools, so that all children entering primary school have the firm foundations to gain the most out of their Primary 1 education and beyond.

The Singapore Pre-School Accreditation Framework (SPARK) was launched in November last year. Pre-schools can participate in SPARK by using the Quality Rating Scale (QRS) for self-assessment to improve the quality of their own programmes or seek external assessment by MOE-accredited assessors. MOE's target is to have 85% of all kindergartens and childcare centres participate in the external assessment by 2013. This is a good development. What else can MOE do to help level the playing field for children entering Primary 1?

Helping at-risk youths to stay in school

Sir, some families struggle to keep children out of trouble and motivated in school. We need the combined resources and effort of teachers, principals, neighbours, volunteers and grassroots leaders to encourage at-risk youths to recognise the value of education and help them stay in school, and eventually receive a qualification, whether from ITE, polytechnic or university. May I ask the Minister if we have a case management policy to coordinate efforts between schools and the grassroots leaders to maximise the chance of an at-risk youth staying in school?

School bullying

Mr Chairman, Sir, may I ask the Minister how prevalent is school bullying in our schools? According to a Singapore Children's Society survey recently, 25% of young respondents said that they were bullied in school. This matched its survey on secondary school students who reported that they were bullied in school when they were asked in 2006. The larger picture, provided by the bulk of respondents, suggests that, whether they reported being affected or not, there was definitely a relationship between being bullied and lessened well-being.

Other longitudinal studies following the subjects into adulthood found that former victims of school bullying had significantly higher levels of depression and lower self-esteem than those who are not. Studies have also shown that school bullies were more at long-term risk of violent conducts and anti-social behaviour when they became adults.

The possible negative effects of bullying are low psychological well-being, poor social adjustment, psychological

distress and physical ill-health symptoms. Our schools should pay more emphasis on student welfare and well-being to help reverse the negative and pressured atmosphere that leads both to student misbehaviour and bullying.

The UK has adopted a tough no-tolerance policy on bullying in schools and since 1999, UK schools are mandated to implement anti-bullying policies. Inspections are conducted regularly to evaluate and suggest improvements to anti-bullying measures. The topic of bullying has also been integrated into the national curriculum. All teachers are also trained to handle bullying cases during regular in-service training.

We know that there are different forms of school bullying in our schools and they can be physical, verbal, relational and cyber. May I ask the Minister whether MOE takes a serious approach on anti-bullying and is making it clear from the very start that bullying is unacceptable and warrants heavy punishment? What are the policies in place and how successful have they been? Are our teachers adequately trained to deal with bullying? Can there be more information on bullying made available to students, parents and schools? Is MOE also cooperating with the NGOs in enhancing outcome? Could MOE implement an active early intervention programme on anti-bullying for all our schools, involving the teachers, parents and students to successfully tackle this issue?

Helping weaker students

Sir, everytime I read the newspapers about students who have aced their GCE "O" levels or have scored 8 or 9 As for their GCE "A" levels, I wonder what about those who do not do so well for their examinations. How do students who barely scrapped through

their examinations feel, when faced with such widespread national celebration of the fantastic results by their fellow schoolmates or classmates? Sir, I am a firm believer that every child, every student has the potential to be successful in their own way and to do well in life. Whilst we celebrate and rejoice with the top scholars, we must not forget or leave behind the group of students who may not be academically inclined, or who may be slow developers, or who, due to family circumstances, are unable to perform to their best. Hence, I am very glad that schools like NorthLight School and Assumption Pathway School exist to help weaker students complete their secondary education.