Hansard, Wednesday, 11 July 2018

1 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the wage growth is moving in tandem with productivity gains; (b) whether the sectoral wage growth is commensurate with sectoral productivity gains; (c) which sectors are productivity laggards; and (d) whether the targeted help provided has led to productivity and wage gains.

Over the long term, real wage growth should track productivity growth in order to be sustainable. This is because if real wage growth outstrips productivity growth for an extended period, businesses will be at risk of losing their competitiveness and potentially be forced to scale back or close their operations.

Over the past two decades, real wages have grown broadly in tandem with productivity at the overall economy level. Specifically, from 2001 to 2017, real wages for resident workers grew by 1.5% per annum on the back of productivity growth of 2.1% per annum.

In recent years, however, real wage growth has outstripped productivity growth. From 2011 to 2017, real wages for resident workers rose by 1.9% per annum, while productivity grew by only 1.1% per annum over the same period. However, there were differences across sectors.

In particular, domestically-oriented sectors like Construction and Other Services Industries saw real wages rise faster than productivity between 2011 and 2017. This was, in part, due to labour market tightness, which had led to upward pressures on wages and also weak or negative productivity growth in these sectors. Meanwhile, even though the sluggish global economic environment had weighed on the productivity performance of outward-oriented sectors over this period, real wage growth in these sectors was generally still supported by positive productivity growth. Indeed, in sectors, such as Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade and Finance & Insurance, real wages rose in tandem with productivity on the back of their relatively strong productivity performance. However, in other sectors, such as Transportation & Storage and Accommodation, real wage growth exceeded productivity growth.

Against this backdrop, it is crucial that we press on with our productivity drive in order to maintain our competitiveness globally, while enabling continued improvement of Singaporeans' wages and living standards. In this regard, we are taking a targeted, sector-specific approach to raising productivity through the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). For example, under the Hotel ITM, the Singapore Tourism Board and Singapore Hotel Association have launched the Hotel Innovation Challenge to crowd-source innovative technologies that can improve hotels’ productivity and enhance the guest experience, such as facial recognition check-in.

The Government has also provided assistance to firms through schemes designed to help them enhance their capability and productivity. These schemes have seen some early signs of success. For example, firms that tapped on the Capability Development Grant (CDG) managed by Enterprise Singapore for capability improvement projects between 2005 and 2012 experienced a 9.3% increase in revenue, on average, over time. Productivity improvement projects had the largest impact, raising firms' revenue by 12.4%, compared to 7.8% for technology innovation projects and an average of 6.7% for the remaining project areas. Similarly, firms that tapped on the SMEs Go Digital programme, formerly known as iSPRINT, for IT solutions to automate their business functions between 2010 and 2013 experienced a 3.1% increase in their revenue on average over time.

Maintaining a close partnership with industry and unions is also important in order for businesses and their workers to benefit from productivity improvements. For example, NTUC has partnered various companies on measures that raise their productivity and competitiveness. The resultant productivity gains are then shared with the workers in these companies, such as through allowances or payments. As a specific example, the Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP) administered by e2i co-funds companies to embark on productivity improvement projects. The companies are, in turn, required to share the productivity gains with their workers through a rise in wages.

The Government is committed to continue to work with businesses and the unions to help businesses improve their productivity and ensure that the productivity gains are shared with workers through higher wages.

Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I am glad to know that the real wage growth is 1.9% and productivity growth is 1.1%. There is a distinct gap there.

I would just like to ask a couple of supplementary questions. First, in terms of MTI, can the Senior Minister of State share a bit more about the productivity or wage growth outlook over the next few years? Yesterday, I had asked about the concerns if interest rates were to go up over the next year or so and what it would mean for wage growth outlook from MTI's perspective.

The second question is about concerns on the ground about wage stagnation. As the Senior Minister of State mentioned, the outlook for wage growth is that it would not be broad-based growth. How do you allay some of the wage stagnation concerns for specific sectors? As what the Senior Minister of State had mentioned, some sectors are affected more than others.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. I think the key is that wage growth will not be uniform across all sectors. Fundamental to driving sustainable wage growth would be to improve productivity. It is one of the important tenets of the ITMs. We want to help our companies to better increase productivity by leveraging on technology such that the companies can make better profit margins while controlling their costs from various pressures. An example of how we can help some of these wage gains translate to benefits from the workers' wages would be in programmes like the IGPs.

But importantly, you also need to put in place a lot of framework to help our workers re-skill and upskill so that they can be productive.

Several initiatives have already been in play. First, there is a skills framework. Individual workers can leverage on this skills framework to continue to upskill themselves, working with the employers.

The other scheme which the Government has put forth is the WorkPro Job Redesign grant. The grant provides up to 3,000 incentives to help companies create physically easier, safer and smarter jobs, especially for the older workers aged above 50. Because this is the group where there is probably genuine concern about wage stagnation and also job prospects. By using such schemes and grants, we can encourage companies to help level up the workers. And, in turn, companies can benefit from having more experienced workers, especially higher productivity ones.

Finally, there is also the scheme called the Progressive Wage Model, especially in certain sectors which are traditionally low-wage. This model is a productivity-based wage progressive pathway that helps to increase the wages of workers through upgrading skills and improving productivity. So far, this has been implemented in three sectors: the cleaning, security and landscape sectors.

We do see that there is a need to do more for other sectors. Minister of State for Manpower Sam Tan mentioned during his COS speech this year that MOM is ready to support tripartite partners to develop and adopt the Progressive Wage Model voluntarily for other sectors. NTUC has announced recently that the Labour Movement has begun conducting surveys with F&B workers as part of early efforts to see if this can be included in the Progressive Wage Model as well.

So, there are multiple approaches but, fundamentally, they all hinge on raising the productivity of our workers.

Mr Speaker, I just want to follow up quickly for my question about MTI's real wage growth outlook by sector. Which sectors does the Senior Minister of State think will be affected most in the next three to five years?

We do see that certain sectors would have a lot more chances for manpower growth in terms of number of jobs created. The wages in these growth sectors will probably be a lot more competitive as well. One of the sectors that we believe to be a very good attractive sector that can take in a lot of people with good jobs and good pay would be in the area of wholesale trade, which is very diverse. It includes sectors that deal with commodity trading, but also trading in many other areas. For example, in the logistics sector, which is also a key sector in this group.

The other growth sector would be in the manufacturing space. For example, precision engineering and the semi-conductor industry are still continuing to do well. So, these are the areas in which I think workers would continue to see specific gains.

2 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for National Development with the conclusion of public consultation on short-term home rentals (a) what are the main feedback and concerns provided by the public during the consultation exercise; (b) when will new regulations be presented to Parliament for debate; (c) how many illegal rentals have there been so far; and (d) how does the Ministry intend to Police the current short-term rental websites before the laws are put in place.

3 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development in light of concerns from some condominium owners on the further relaxation on short-term leases (a) whether the Ministry will consider getting 100% approval from current property owners in each condominium before short-term leases like Airbnb can be allowed; (b) whether the potential impact of short-term leases on the hospitality industry has been considered; and (c) how is the Ministry dealing with illegal leasing of property currently listed on websites like Airbnb.

4 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many Airbnb cases have been reported in HDB units and private residential units respectively in the past three years; and (b) what is the typical timeframe for investigation to complete after a case has been reported.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 2, 3 and 4 together, please.

Yes, please.

Sir, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) conducted a public consultation exercise on short-term accommodation (STA) from 16 April to 31 May 2018.

Many respondents supported the need for regulations on STA, given that STA can cause negative externalities to other residents. Key concerns raised include safety, security and privacy, as well as abuse of common property. Many also supported regulating STA platform operators, for example, through a licensing framework.

One of the proposals was to require the Management Corporation of a strata-titled residential development to obtain the support of at least 80% of the share value in the development before STA can be permitted in any residential unit. The intent is to give homeowners a say in whether or not to allow STA in their development.

There was mixed response to this proposal. Some respondents felt that an 80% threshold would be unfair to the minority who do not support STA, but have to accept the presence of STA guests in their developments. On the other hand, there were some who felt that an 80% threshold was too high and that it would be difficult to obtain sufficient votes in support of STA among homeowners. URA is carefully studying all the feedback that we have received and we will do so before deciding on how to take this issue forward, including how to structure the final regulatory approach and whether there is a need for any legislative amendments.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the impact of legalising STA on the hospitality industry. Indeed, this is something we had considered very carefully. The proposed regulatory framework for STA includes controls which are similar to those imposed on the hospitality industry. For example, under our proposed safeguards, STA hosts must collect and record the personal details of their guests and comply with fire safety regulations like the provision of fire extinguishers in their units. We have also proposed licensing platform operators, so that they can also help to ensure that STA activities do not cause problems for other residents. The intent is to provide a more level playing field between the STA sector and the hospitality industry.

As I have mentioned, these are proposals that we had put out; we have done one round of consultation, received feedback, there are mixed views. So, URA is studying the matter very carefully to see what is the best way forward. Even as we do so, even as we consider the deliberations very carefully, I would emphasise that the minimum stay duration of three consecutive months for private residential properties still applies. URA will take enforcement action against those who breach this rule.

Mr Alex Yam and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the number of such cases. From 2015 to 2017, URA received 1,808 reports of unauthorised STA in private residential units. In the same period, HDB received 390 reports of STA in HDB flats.

The time taken by URA and HDB to investigate a report of unauthorised STA depends on the circumstances of each case. Conducting ground inspections and interviews to obtain evidence of an offence can take up to several months in some instances. However, if the party making the report is able to provide details and documentary evidence of the suspected offence, investigations can be completed more expeditiously.

Speaker, Sir, I have four supplementary questions. The impact on the hospitality sector that I am looking at is, with the liberalisation of short-term leases, does the Minister think that it is unfair to those who had invested in the hospitality sector? They would have invested in the setting up, for example, of hotels and so on.

The second question is, why is it 80%? Condominium owners, a lot of them who buy and want to stay in these units themselves, they will be adversely affected. I would think that for existing condominiums, it should be 100%.

The third question, a lot of the residents think that if we allow short-term leases, it would drive up the rental costs and, hence, it would have a chain-effect and drive up the cost of living. So, what is MND's take on this?

And, last, if we allow short-term leases, it would make investment in a property look more attractive and the returns more attractive and, hence, it would drive up property prices. On one hand, you have just implemented a round of cooling measures that is very unpopular; and on the other hand, you wish to liberalise short-term lease.

Mr Speaker, I will take the questions in turn. On the first point on the hospitality sector, our approach to this has to be one that is based on fair competition. It is not possible to say, "Let's block any new entrants into the hospitality sector", simply on the basis that the existing incumbents have put in investments. This is an open market; new entrants can come in but the regulations must be fair and the industry must be regulated on a level playing field. That is the intent of what we have proposed.

On the thresholds, as I have said, there were mixed views from the consultations, so, we are going to review what is the right way forward and what is the best way to ensure that all property owners do have a say in deciding on the appropriate use of their development.

On the impact on rental and the property market, the Member's views are well-taken. We have seen this and we have studied this phenomenon in other property markets as well where, indeed, short-term accommodations have put upward pressure on rentals and on property prices. We are mindful that this may have an impact and that is why, as I have said earlier, we are not rushing to make changes. We are studying the matter very carefully. If and when we choose to do so, we will make sure that there are, indeed, appropriate safeguards.

Mr Speaker, just two clarifications to seek from the Minister. The hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and I had raised the question on short-term lease websites that are currently operating. Are there any plans to police them, or to regulate them before the new regulations come into place? The second, as the Minister has mentioned earlier, the number of cases under URA and HDB, they come close to about 2,200 cases. Of these reports, how many have actually proceeded to prosecution?

Mr Speaker, on the websites and the ads that you see on the websites by STA operators, these, in and of themselves, do not necessarily contravene the rules because it is a posting of a place that is available for rental. They do not indicate timeframe. The postings themselves may not necessarily contravene the rules and, even if we were to block the websites, I am sure there will be different ways in which these advertisements can be put up. So, I think the key is not so much the postings or the websites, but the actual STA activities that are undertaken. And if URA knows of any such activities, they will take follow-up and enforcement action.

I mentioned a number of cases. For all of them, enforcement notices will be issued. A good majority of them will then stop and immediately comply with the enforcement notice. But should there be cases that continue or there are egregious cases, then, indeed, URA will work with AGC on prosecution. There has already been one and we will see if there are others, if they were to come in the subsequent months.

I thank the Minister for the answer. In fact, I think out of the 1,000-over cases, a significant number will be from my constituency. I just did a quick check on one of the websites: I tried to put in a five-day request and it turns out that there are 196 listings just within a small area in Novena and Orchard.

I think a common complaint from my residents is that URA is taking too long to investigate the complaints and to take enforcement actions to stop the illegal short-term home rentals. Residents cannot quite understand why it is taking so long because they have pictures of people coming in buses and in Grab cars every two, three days. In fact, during my house visits, they can even tell me which are the units. When I go and knock on the doors, yes, indeed, sometimes, different residents come to talk to me. So, to them, I think the evidence is quite clear and perhaps the investigations and enforcement action can be more expeditious. I hope the Minister can clarify on this.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his feedback. I will ask URA to make sure that they have sufficient resources to carry out the enforcement and make sure that this is done expeditiously.

5 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Education how many young people leave the education system after their PSLE and the "N" and "O" level attainment each year in the past three years and whether the Ministry is tracking their employment and continuing education and training prospects.

Over the years, MOE has implemented many measures to reduce dropouts post-PSLE. These include different education streams to cater to students with different paces of learning at that age, early interventions at lower Primary to help students keep up, and specialised schools, namely Northlight School and Assumption Pathway School, to cater to students who did not qualify for Secondary school courses after PSLE. With all these measures, the proportion of Primary 1 (P1) cohorts who did not progress to Secondary education is practically 0%.

At the Secondary school level, less than 1% of the P1 cohorts did not complete Secondary education, compared to 2% 10 years ago. So, it has been halved. The percentage of P1 cohorts that progresses to post-Secondary education has increased from 90% 10 years ago, to 97% now. So, the school dropout numbers that the Member is asking about is a very small proportion of every cohort. And this is a result of our relentless efforts, together with our education partners, over the years.

For those who still drop out of school, our teachers actively reach out to them. But the reasons for dropping out are often complex and we have to tap on the expertise and networks of agencies, such as MSF, MHA, self-help groups, family service centres and Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs). For example, VWOs will engage the out-of-school youths and their families, and encourage them to participate in group activities to support their return to school and transit to the next stage of education.

As for students who entered the workforce and face employment difficulties, they can tap on support from their alma mater, Workforce Singapore, the CDCs, NTUC's e2i or the self-help groups. We are also expanding the range of opportunities for upgrading and lifelong learning.

MOE does not track students who drop out of schools statistically and longitudinally as a group because different agencies and organisations do come in to provide support at different stages of a person’s life. Further, there is always a dynamic churn within the population: students who drop out after "O" or "N" levels often move on to upgrade and hold good and stable jobs, while well-educated Singaporeans can encounter difficult patches due to industry downturns.

I thank the Minister. I just have one supplementary question. Because there is now a nationwide SkillsFuture framework in place that provides for comprehensive and continuous education, dropouts might feel that they have no stakeholding in this framework, mainly because they have been kind of labelled as "failures" and are not seen as learners anymore. They might be considered as discouraged learners, so to speak. Is there any scope or any specific programmes within SkillsFuture that can reach out to these groups?

First, we should really take a firm stand that we should never regard them as failures. Dropping out of school is sometimes owing to family circumstances or personal circumstances beyond their control. Today, our formal education system, whether it is Institute of Technical Education, polytechnic, university, if you drop out for some reason, it will welcome you back.

The Member may notice that, last week, I announced that we will now also take into account their working experience when we assess re-admission. And that, I think, is a very clear signal: “You never drop out. It’s lifelong learning and you are always welcome to come back. And the more you work and treat your work seriously, you actually improve your credentials."

That is the formal education system. But beyond that, for the lifelong learning system, we have training providers from the private sector, industry partners, as well as our Institute of Higher Learnings, all rolling out new shorter courses that people can enrol for. For these courses, one of the principles in their design is open accessibility. You should not have to demonstrate that you have achieved certain academic grades in order to enrol for a lifelong learning programme. So long as you have the heart, the determination to do it, it should welcome you and it is also subsidised.

We very much want to make sure that all Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, continue on the lifelong learning journey.

6 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development what are the anticipated changes in timeline and planning for the Jurong Lake District should there be major delays, route alterations or cancellation of the High-Speed Rail project.

Mr Speaker, as to Mr Leon Perera's question on the Jurong Lake District, we have discussed this earlier this week. As mentioned, we have not received official notification from the Malaysian government on their position regarding the High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project. In the event there are changes in the status of the HSR, we will study the implications carefully. While there may be a need for some adjustments, we do not expect major changes to the overall plans for the Jurong Lake District.

And as I mentioned during the Sitting on 9 July 2018, the plans for the Jurong Lake District were formulated in 2008, well before the HSR project came about. The plans include new commercial and residential developments, upgrading of Jurong Lake Gardens and the building of a transport hub connecting the various MRT lines. These plans are still relevant today and we will proceed with the implementation of the plans when ready.

7 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Competition and Consumer Commission (CCCS) will consider mandating that companies planning a merger or acquisition that will substantially change the distribution of market share in any industry seek prior approval from the CCCS before the deal is publicly announced to avoid market confusion and disruption to jobs that may arise if a deal needs to be unwound after an announcement is made.

Singapore adopts a voluntary merger notification system, which is similar to that adopted in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

Under this regime, there is no mandatory requirement for merger parties to notify their merger situations to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS). Instead, merger parties conduct a self-assessment and, if they are of the view that their merger may give rise to potential competition concerns, they may apply to CCCS for a formal decision on whether their merger would infringe the Competition Act. Where merger parties have doubts on novel or complex issues relating to their merger, they may also approach CCCS for advice on a confidential basis.

On the other hand, under a mandatory notification regime, all merging parties that cross pre-determined notification thresholds have to notify the competition authority, regardless of whether there are competition issues or not. This imposes compliance costs on businesses and may impede commonplace market activities. It also requires a larger commitment on the competition authority’s resources to ensure that all mergers that cross the notification thresholds are duly notified and to review these mergers.

A voluntary notification regime thus strikes a balance between regulating competition and being pro-business. CCCS is allowed to more efficiently utilise its resources to proactively scan for un-notified mergers that may give rise to competition concerns and look into such problematic mergers, instead of regulating and reviewing merger notifications under a mandatory notification regime.

If merger parties proceed to complete an anti-competitive merger without notifying CCCS and CCCS has reasonable grounds to suspect that a merger has infringed the Competition Act, CCCS is empowered to conduct a full investigation and to issue the necessary directions to remedy any anti-competitive effects, including the winding up of the merger and the imposition of financial penalties. CCCS may also impose interim measures to protect public interest, where urgent action is required to prevent market confusion and job disruption, while it completes its investigations.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary acknowledge that there are risks in the voluntary notification system vis-a-vis a mandatory one, in the sense that, if a merger or an acquisition is found to be illegal after the fact, there could be costs borne by employees, customers and even the wider society for that merger or acquisition to be unwound or to be mitigated after the fact. For example, employees could be let go, brands could be dissolved or removed, products could be withdrawn. It may be very difficult, if not impossible, to make restitution for all those events after the fact.

I think there was a recent case where some of these factors came into play. It is not my intention to talk about the specific case I know of that is on-going, but I am really just querying the general principle. How do we manage those downside costs and risks? Particularly, in light of the fact that while there are some jurisdictions that have voluntary notification. The US and the EU, I believe, have mandatory notification beyond certain thresholds. The US has the Hart-Scott-Rodino pre-merger notification requirement above the threshold of about $76 million, which is reviewed regularly and inflation-adjusted —

Can we go to the question, please?

Yes. And so, in the EU, there is a similar one. The second question that I have is in regard to compliance cost. I do recognise what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said on compliance cost, that we do not want to "over egg the pudding" and increase compliance cost unnecessarily. But would that not really go to the question of thresholds? You can set a dollar threshold and the market share change threshold high enough so that the vast majority of M&A would not be affected. So, the question of compliance cost, could it not be addressed through a mandatory notification regime which has sufficiently high thresholds?

I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions which actually speak to a single question that underpins what he raised. He is basically asking will a mandatory notification system be able to address situations where the prospective merging parties, for whatever reasons, do not make known the merger in advance.

We have mentioned that Singapore's voluntary notification regime is similar to that in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. And, indeed, there are other jurisdictions that have a mandatory merger notification regime, such as the EU, Vietnam, the Philippines and the United States; which include the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which the Member has raised.

But even in these jurisdictions where there is mandatory notification, the same situation can arise where companies that are determined to implement an anti-competitive merger still choose to go ahead without notifying the competition authorities. So, in summary, it is important, generally speaking, that any competition commission has the ability to address unnotified mergers that are found or determined to be anti-competitive. And our regime, which follows elements from other jurisdictions, addresses that.

8 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development what are the eligibility conditions for divorcees with shared care and control of their children to purchase a subsidised HDB flat.

Divorcees with children under their legal custody, care and control may form a family nucleus, by listing their children as essential occupiers in their flat application. Those awarded shared care and control of their children share the right to list the children in their flat application. This is rare, as care and control is usually awarded to one parent.

As any individual can only be listed in one HDB flat application, we require parents with shared care and control to seek their ex-spouse's agreement before listing the child in a flat application. This ensures fairness to both parties, as HDB is not in a position to determine which parent should exercise the right to list the child. Nonetheless, those who cannot reach an agreement with their ex-spouse may approach HDB to discuss their options.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I have two clarifications. I understand that the shared care and control is actually a Court ruling so that the children following a divorce will be able to live with both parties. But then, our housing policies now penalise them for having this shared care and control, instead of sole care and control. I am wondering if MND can work with the Courts so that we can align our policies so that the judgment that is obtained can actually be enforced and be feasible.

The second clarification is, HDB had initially said that they have removed the time bar as they realised that it caused friction between both parties because they cannot decide on who will get the subsidised housing. They also said they had removed the time bar in the best interest of the children involved in the divorce. But now that we are back to the ex-spousal consent on who can list the children as occupiers, are we not back to square one again? And would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that this would again lead to friction between both parties, because they now have to again decide on who will get the subsidised housing?

I thank the Member for his questions. Time bar aside, divorced couples with shared care and control of their child, as I have mentioned, are still required to obtain their ex-spouse's written agreement before they apply for a flat. This is because both parents have equal rights to buy a flat with their child and HDB is not in a position to determine which parent should exercise the right. This is also to be consistent and fair to all HDB flat owners and households, where each person can only be listed in one HDB flat. But for those who face challenges in reaching an agreement, HDB will exercise flexibility, if they face financial difficulties or lack family support. We will ensure that parents with shared care and control have options to provide housing for themselves and their children.

So, we recognise that each of the family's circumstances are different and it is best to take an approach where flexibility can be exercised to meet the specific circumstances and needs.

Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her clarification. I would just like to take this opportunity to echo Mr Louis Ng's concerns on this matter. I am a practising divorce lawyer and this is a matter I see fairly commonly. Even if the order is not a shared order, even if it is share and control to one parent, there is always this disagreement and issues with regard to the housing arrangements because only one party can list and use the children's name.

I would just want to highlight and stress the difficulties that parties have. This becomes an issue of contention because they have difficulties arranging for their housing later, especially in shared care and control arrangements. Parties have difficulties resolving it in a divorce. So, it does not help in the resolution of the divorce, if we do not figure out how we can lay out plans that can help parties moving forward.

There is already this housing guidance arrangement that is given to parties at divorce. They have to fill it up and sign it. From my experience and from anecdotal evidence given by clients who have gone through the process, depending on the officer, the advice given may not necessarily be as thorough and helpful. So, I believe that in circumstances where there is a divorce, it would be helpful if parties are given a very clear outcome, a very clear option that is available to them, especially at that stage before they actually go through the whole divorce process so that they can see how much loan they can take out, how much monies they have, what are their options. They have all these in broad terms but it does not really help because they just give rough figures or, sometimes, to the extent that they would not even have an indication of the housing loan eligibility because they do not have the divorce order yet. I think there is hesitance in fixing a certain amount before they actually know the full picture. To be fair to the parties, you really need to guide them along.

So, one, I would suggest that you review the process in respect of housing guidance to help divorced parties; and, two, I would just echo Mr Louis Ng's point that we may need to review this position about making it an exception because the policy itself does not gel with the principle of a shared care and control arrangement. Because the parties are actually ordered to be able to allow the children to live with them. So, the idea is that, half the time, they are living with the father and half the time they are living with the mother. If they do not have proper housing —

Can the Member keep the question more concise, please?

If they do not have proper housing, they will face some difficulties.

I thank the Member for her very comprehensive sharing and I note that she has worked with parties before, so, she thoroughly understands the situation. We understand the concern that mutual agreement might be difficult and, as I have mentioned, we will exercise flexibility for those who face financial hardship or lack family support. We will take a needs-based approach and take each family's circumstance into account. We will ensure that parents with shared care and control have options to provide housing for themselves and their children.

On housing counselling for divorcing parties, I will take her feedback back to make sure that the officers who interact with the divorcing parties are understanding, take all their sharing into consideration and, hopefully, that can help to make the process less taxing for all parties. I would just like to add that in situations where the settlement of the matrimonial flat and issues of custody and care and control have already been addressed by an interim judgment, for instance, HDB is prepared to consider requests to submit flat applications depending on the facts of the particular case. So, any parties undergoing a divorce may seek advice from HDB on their housing options.

Mr Speaker, without belabouring the point, I add my support to the hon Member Mr Louis Ng's suggestions. Does the Ministry work together with the Family Courts in terms of coming to a mutual set of guidelines? Because, in recent months, there have been more cases of shared care and control that I have seen and we also have cases that we have come across with limited tenure shared care and control. For example, a resident of mine was given shared care and control of the children with her spouse for only 10 months and she was told by the Courts that she needs to resolve her housing situation within these 10 months. This was quite distinct from all the other judgments, in terms of divorce cases that I have seen in the last decade or so.

So, does the Ministry work closely with the Family Courts advising and coming up with these guidelines, so that we do not have situations where the couple and the children end up suffering?

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I would first like to add that, in terms of numbers, as of 2016, shared care and control constitute 4% of all divorce care and control Orders. So, the numbers speak for themselves.

As to his point about whether or not we work closely with Family Courts, I think we have to make decisions independently, somewhat. We cannot be influencing the Court's decisions.

But I take his point that we should closely monitor the number of cases where parties are awarded shared care and control and ensure that, when they come to HDB, there are housing options for them on a needs basis.

One last clarification or suggestion. Can I suggest that, at least, we waive this ex-spousal consent for children to be listed as occupiers, if the other party has moved on? Following the divorce, they now own a private property or they own a subsidised housing, which means that they have re-married. Can the ex-spousal consent then be waived for the other party?

I know of cases where both refused to sign and both ended up renting homes, because that is the whole reason why they divorced in the first place, they could not agree on things. So, can we at least waive ex-spousal consent for these cases?

I thank the Member for his feedback. As I have said, we will look at each case on a case-by-case basis. In the specific case that he has mentioned, if the party does not own the property after the divorce comes to HDB and satisfies the needs-based approach that we mentioned, then we will work with him to ensure that he has housing options.

9 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education (a) how many ITE students are currently eligible for financial assistance; (b) how many of these eligible students have applied for assistance; and (c) how does ITE publicise the assistance schemes so that eligible students do not miss it.

Mr Speaker, we want to provide quality and affordable education to all Singaporeans regardless of their financial circumstances. For higher education, there are significant subsidies at all levels. Specifically, Institute of Technical Education (ITE) course fees are funded at over 90% subsidy. In addition, the Government provides a range of financial assistance schemes (FASs) for students who need further assistance.

The Ministry of Education (MOE)'s financial assistance schemes are designed to support up to two-thirds of our students. In Academic Year 2016, over 70% of students at ITE received some form of financial aid or scholarships, such as the Community Development Council/Citizens' Consultative Committees Bursary and MOE Bursary. There are also merit-based scholarships that similarly defray students' fees and school-related expenses, as well as other financial assistance schemes offered by foundations, self-help groups and other community or private organisations.

ITE has been increasing its outreach efforts to encourage and assist needy students to apply for the various FASs. These efforts include (a) sharing information on FAS widely via ITE's website, Facebook, student handbook, student portals and through booths and briefings during orientation; (b) proactively reaching out to students who were previously on FAS in Secondary school, and those who had indicated potential of requiring assistance, and prompting them to apply for FASs. In addition, its Class Advisors will also keep an active look-out for students who may need help in the course of the school year.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answers. I have two supplementary questions for him. The first question is: in terms of the numbers that he has shared, 90% of the subsidies given out to students in ITE, what percentiles are we targeting here in terms of income levels?

The second question is: what more can we do potentially for the ITE students who need help? The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Ministry briefs those Secondary schools earlier for those going into ITE. And what more can we do to help? Going forward, how are we going to communicate more to the students? In Toa Payoh East-Novena, for example, some students and their parents would come to see me repeatedly, not aware of some of the assistance schemes that are available to them in school, including the ECG and also other financial assistance.

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I mentioned in my speech earlier that over 70% of the students receive some form of financial help and this is different from the 90% subsidy that we give to ITE students. So, 70% is very close to our intended coverage of Government bursaries for Singapore Citizens where we would like to cover up to the 66th percentile of households by income. So, we want to not only help the low-income but also the middle income.

We will continue to enhance our efforts in reaching out to the students and we will continue to look at the processes and how we can streamline. One good example of how we are going to streamline is that we have the MOE ComCare Shared Assessment where the students in ITE whose families are already on ComCare assistance, when they are being assessed for ComCare assistance, we will also look at the eligibility of the students for Government bursaries at ITE, so that they do not have to fill up the form twice or take up the approach again. In this way, we will be able to streamline the process, make it easier for them. This is expected to take place or to start in the second half of this year.

10 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Health whether there is a crunch in the specialised transportation of seniors to care centres and, if so, how is this affecting the placement of seniors in these centres.

Mr Speaker, all eldercare centres funded by the Ministry of Health are required to provide transport services for their clients, where necessary, as part of the funding condition. This ensures that clients can access the care services they need. The Government provides transport subsidies for subsidised clients who require mobility assistance.

Centres can tap on a range of transport options to serve their clients. New centres can apply for a one-time grant to defray the costs of purchasing a wheelchair-friendly van. Alternatively, centres may engage the appointed transport operators under the AIC centralised transport service to send seniors to and from the centres. AIC also works with taxi operators and private hire car operators to expand the range of transport services available to centres. For example, AIC has engaged ComfortDelgro to provide scheduled transport services for centre clients.

From time-to-time, some centres may encounter short-term challenges in accessing transport services. For example, some centres may take more time to purchase and modify a van or to enter into arrangements with their preferred transport operators. When any centre faces transport difficulties, we encourage them to inform us and AIC will work with them to find alternative transport arrangements so that there is minimal impact on client placement.

Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State. Two questions. The first one is regarding the AIC's centralised transport service. In your view, is there any supply crunch right now in providing the specialised vans and going into the future where there is an extension of the eldercare centres?

The second question is with regard to the collaboration between AIC and the taxi operators and the private hire companies. Is the scope of the collaboration beyond just in terms of teaching the drivers how to handle wheelchair-bound commuters? Is it more than just that in terms of expanding the fleet, for example, into specialised vans and a more direct kind of collaboration between homes and the companies?

I would like to thank Assoc Prof Daniel Goh for the supplementary questions. Based on our landscape scan, there are multiple transport options for centres which I have already elaborated on during my Parliament Question reply and that are assessed to be able to provide adequate transport capacity to meet our current demand. We have continually grown the capacity of specialised vans to meet the demand over the years. Even if the demand increases, centres can activate committed capacity under the AIC centralised transport service or other specialised transport operators or use private hire cars, such as GrabAssist and taxis, as an interim approach.

My short answer is, we are able to meet the demand based on the current supply. In fact, we have some spare capacity, taking into account that our centralised transport service can ramp up the number of specialised vans to be made available.

As to the Member's supplementary question on the collaboration between GrabAssist or with taxis, other than training the taxi drivers on how to handle such clients, if need be, should there be capacity for specialised vans that can be provided by these operators, I think we can also extend that collaboration to them as well.

11 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the primary sources of infection for tuberculosis in Singapore; (b) what more can the Ministry do to reduce both active and latent tuberculosis cases; and (c) what plans does the Ministry have to fight against multi-drug resistant tuberculosis.

Mr Speaker, tuberculosis (TB) is an air-borne infectious disease. One can be infected with TB through close and prolonged exposure to a person with active TB, such as household members, co-workers and classmates. When infected, most will develop latent TB. Persons with latent TB do not have symptoms and are not infectious. The elderly and persons who have weakened immune systems, such as those with severe medical conditions, are more likely to develop active TB. About one in 10 healthy persons with latent TB will progress to active TB at some point during their lifetime.

To control the spread of TB, the Tuberculosis Control Unit (TBCU) adopts four strategies to detect, treat and prevent transmission that are in line with the World Health Organization’s recommendations. These are:

Early detection and prompt treatment;

Ensuring compliance to treatment through directly observed treatment;

Close monitoring of treatment progress; and

Tracing and screening of close contacts of infectious cases to identify infected contacts early and offer those with latent TB preventive treatment.

In addition, to prevent the importation of TB into Singapore, foreigners applying for work permit in Singapore are screened for active TB.

To further strengthen TB management among the medical community, the Ministry of Health (MOH) launched the TB clinical practice guidelines in 2016. These equip the medical community with better knowledge on TB diagnostic tools, treatment regimens and public health measures for TB control. To deepen our understanding of TB transmission and develop better control strategies, TBCU is progressively implementing whole genome sequencing for TB cases. This helps to identify related TB clusters more precisely and improve our ability to prevent TB transmission.

Specifically on multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB), TBCU will be implementing rapid DNA tests for drug resistance testing of all TB cases, reducing the testing duration from eight weeks to just a few hours. By ensuring that TB patients adhere to treatment through Directly Observed Therapy, it has been shown to reduce treatment failures and development of drug-resistant TB.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, earlier this year, MOH released an update that two in three new cases reported last year in 2017 were aged 50 and above and up to 30% of older residents in Singapore have latent TB. From the Senior Minister of State's earlier reply, about 10% of those with latent TB can possibly develop the active form. My first question is: with an ageing population, will the number of patients with active TB continue to increase further, with the growing numbers? If so, are there plans to have more targeted public education, public awareness, for this group of older Singaporeans to maybe make them more aware about what signs to look out for, what precautions to take? That is my first question.

My second question is: last year, there was a case reported – a staff member at a preschool in Clementi was diagnosed with active TB and then subsequent screening found that 39 children and four other staff members were diagnosed with latent TB. Are there any plans to screen staff, specifically, working at preschool centres to ensure better protection for our preschool children?

I thank Mr Melvin Yong for the two supplementary questions. Mr Melvin Yong is right to say that the prevalence of latent TB amongst the elderly Singaporeans is quite high, in the region of about 30%. The reason for that is because TB was endemic in Singapore and was very common until the 1970s. As a result, it is not unexpected to see the prevalence of latent TB to be higher within the older age group.

However, he is also right to say that not all patients with latent TB will develop active TB eventually. Five percent of those who acquired latent TB may get active TB within the first two years and another 5% may develop active TB within their lifetime. Based on these statistics, it is probably not necessary and not cost-effective to do screening or treatment of all patients with latent TB.

With regard to public education, yes, we have put up information on TB on our MOH websites and through press releases. In addition to that, the Health Promotion Board also runs a special social hygiene campaign to promote good hygiene practices and also to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases. During our annual World TB Day, TBCU also holds exhibitions at Tan Tock Seng Hospital to educate the public on TB. We will step up efforts on public education and we will also encourage the elderly to visit some of these exhibitions so that they are aware of the symptoms and what to look out for in case they do develop active TB.

With regard to the Member's second question on the screening of employees in preschools, under the Childcare Centres Regulations, all new staff members are required to undergo a medical check-up which includes a chest X-ray and be certified free from active TB by a registered medical practitioner before they can start work in a preschool centre. Centres are also advised to conduct daily health checks on their staff members and to monitor for persistent cough amongst staff members.

But I must caution that, sometimes, it can be difficult to diagnose TB because many of us do suffer from a bout of cough in one way or another throughout our lifetime and, unless the cough becomes persistent, then these employees should be encouraged to approach the medical practitioner to screen for active TB. Once the staff are diagnosed to have active TB, of course, they will not be permitted to return to work until they have been cleared to be fit for work by the medical practitioner.

12 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures have been put in place to reduce the number of roadkill in the Mandai area; (b) whether such measures apply to all areas where there are construction activities near national parks and nature reserves; and (c) when will the hoardings along Mandai Road be completed.

The current construction work in Mandai is being carried out by Mandai Park Development (MPD), which is a private developer. As with all developments near nature reserves, MPD was required to assess the potential impact of their works on the flora and fauna in the area prior to beginning construction. MPD is also responsible for implementing measures to mitigate the impact of their development works on wildlife in the area.

MPD has since undertaken a number of measures to reduce roadkill in the area. As the Member has mentioned, hoardings have been installed around the development areas on Mandai Lake Road. MPD, the relevant Government agencies and the nature community are currently discussing the need for additional hoardings. Where it is ascertained that additional hoardings will protect wildlife, the relevant Government agencies will work with MPD to determine the location of these hoardings. Other measures that MPD has put in place include a rope bridge to help arboreal animals cross the road safely, and vehicle speed reduction measures, such as warning signs, speed bumps and a lowered speed limit.

The measures implemented by MPD are specific to the Mandai development. Other projects may require different measures.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Can I check whether an eco-link was part of the proposed mitigation measures for this Mandai development and, if so, why was it not done? Secondly, what oversight does MND have over this construction that is going on in the Mandai area in terms of checking whether these proposed mitigation measures are done? And third, are there any penalties imposed on the developer if the proposed mitigation measures are not carried out?

I thank the Member for his questions. Following planning approval, MPD implements an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) to ensure that mitigation measures are being carried out during the Mandai Rejuvenation Project's development and operations. The EMMP is monitored and reviewed by an Environmental Advisory Panel which includes subject matter experts from the scientific community, academia, nature groups and the private sector. If there are unanticipated environmental impacts that require additional mitigation, MPD should modify their EMMP, in consultation with the relevant technical agencies.

The Member had asked about the eco-link. It has already started construction. I will have to check whether or not it was part of the EIA. Based on my understanding, it was.

May I check on the penalties if the developer does not implement some of the proposed mitigation measures?

Based on my understanding, there are no penalties. But as I have mentioned, because there is an EMMP, there is regular consultation between the parties. MPD would modify their environmental plan in consultation with the relevant technical agencies when there are unanticipated environmental impacts.

13 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport if he will provide an update on whether evening ERP is still required to manage traffic congestion along the CTE.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) policy helps to manage traffic congestion and maintain optimal traffic speeds. Currently, evening ERP is only imposed along the northbound Central Expressway (CTE), where traffic speeds range between 48 kilometre per hour and 56 kilometre per hour. This is near the lower bound of the optimal expressway speeds. Evening ERP is, therefore, still required there to prevent further congestion. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will continue to monitor the situation and review the ERP charges where necessary.

Sir, I have one supplementary question. I find that this is very unfair to those residents who are living in the north. They have to pay ERP in the morning and ERP in the evening. Many residents can understand the need for having ERP in the morning. But many feel that the evening one is not acceptable and they feel that speed is not critical when they are going home. So, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether MOT can review the purpose of the ERP and see how effective it is in mitigating the traffic jam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Er Dr Lee had asked the same question in January 2016. However, over the last two and a half years, the journey speeds on the north-bound CTE in the evening have not changed much. It has not become much worse, nor has it improved significantly. While I agree with Er Dr Lee that, to some people, going home in the evening is not so critical and maybe we should not need the ERP, but I think, with the aspiration for better work-life balance, family time is important to many people nowadays. So, for the tens of thousands of motorists who are enjoying lighter traffic and higher speeds when they travel along CTE in the evening, they have been able to reach home quicker, in time for dinner and to spend quality time with their families. So, I am not sure whether they will share the same views. Speed will affect the time required for the journeys.

LTA's main mandate is to ensure that motorists are able to enjoy smooth and safe journeys on the roads and expressways. Without the ERP, all motorists on the north-bound CTE are more likely to experience jams in the evening. This is expected, as our northern areas are more densely populated, which includes Nee Soon South, where the Member's constituency is. But with ERP, it alleviates this traffic congestion.

We have data to show that, with ERP or when ERP rates are adjusted accordingly, it does shape motorists' behaviour and it alleviates the situation and, at the same time, provides options for commuters. So, those who are willing to pay the ERP charges can enjoy a shorter journey home while others can choose other routes. For example, going up north, they can choose Thomson Road which is not a priced road, or they can take public transport.

In addition, my Ministry has been working very hard to improve these other options. For example, we are constructing the North-South Corridor and the MRT resignalling works will help to increase train frequencies. So, even though we live in a very densely populated city, it is our commitment to provide Singaporeans with a quality living environment.

Thank you, Sir. Precisely because of work-life balance, a lot of my residents say "Why not we just get rid of the evening ERP?" because many of them stay longer in the office and go home only after ERP. So, I would like to urge the Minister to seriously reconsider because the fact that the speed along the CTE did not change much over these few years says that it is no longer effective.

I think I can hear some murmurs among Members here who have direct experience of travelling along the CTE in the evening. But, if I could just use the example for the north-bound traffic along the CTE after the PIE, in the third quarter of 2016 and the first quarter of 2017, we did raise the ERP charges because we observed that traffic has come down below the optimum range of 45 km/h, way below 45 km/h. When the ERP rates were adjusted, it did help to lessen the traffic and the speeds went up. So, with that, motorists have been able to reach home faster and we see a direct impact on the motorists' behaviour with the pricing policy.

But we note Er Dr Lee's concern for her constituents and I think, in general, Singaporeans' family time, and we will continue to look at ways to manage our traffic conditions better.

14 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many self-driving vehicles are currently being test-driven on our public roads; and (b) what safety measures are in place to ensure the safety of pedestrians.

Mr Speaker, 14 autonomous vehicles (AVs) are currently authorised to conduct trials on roads in one-north, NUS and Singapore Science Parks 1 and 2.

To ensure the safety of all road users, trials must fulfil stringent requirements. The vehicle must pass a safety assessment to demonstrate that it can adequately handle basic manoeuvres and come to a safe stop upon the detection of an obstacle. Initial AV trials will only be conducted on lightly used roads, such as those in the one-north district. Further trials in more complex environments will be allowed when AVs are able to demonstrate a higher level of competence. All AVs being tested must be accompanied by a safety driver trained to immediately take over full control of the AV when required. All AVs must have a vehicle fault alert system that will alert the safety driver of any faults, and allow the control of the vehicle to be immediately transferred to the safety driver. LTA will only waive the requirement for a safety driver after AV developers have convincingly proven the competence, reliability and safety of their technology.

LTA also requires the AVs to be fitted with a "black-box" data recorder, which stores video footage and collects key data, and to have the required insurance coverage against third-party liability and property damage before the AVs are allowed to be tested on our public roads.

We are mindful that AV technology is evolving rapidly. We will review these measures regularly and enhance them if necessary.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. In my work with the National Transport Workers' Union, they are very concerned with the deployment of AVs. I visit quite a number of companies which are experimenting with AVs in Singapore. Yes, they all tell me their primary priority is safety of their vehicles.

Earlier this year, a self-driving Uber car killed a woman on a street in Arizona, USA. News reports stated that the car was in autonomous mode and there was a legal operator inside the car at the time of the accident. This threw in doubt the safety measures that most companies have already put into the development of the car.

Given that we have plans to roll out self-driving vehicles, buses, on our public roads in the near future, how can we determine whether a particular self-driving vehicle model is safe before we put it onto the road? Would LTA consider delaying deploying such self-driving vehicles until we are fully assured of the safety of all our road users?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. As far as the first question on how we can be sure that a vehicle is safe, in my answer to the Parliamentary Question (PQ), I have listed the many steps and considerations that we are taking: a given technology, a given process and a specific entity, organisation or company, from a limited road trial to an extended road trial and a complex environment road trial. And some of these steps we have not come across yet. We have a phased approach, a tiered approach, and that is how we will be gradually increasing our confidence in the safety of any given technology or platform.

We must also consider what it is that we are comparing them against. Absolute safety is very hard to determine in any situation or any technology. And the reality is that human-piloted vehicles are not absolutely safe and we do see a significant number of accidents. One of the key concerns about how we develop AVs is to make sure that our roads, over time, become safer. So, it is not just about making sure it becomes as safe as today, but safer than today, and that is the destination we wish to go to.

For the second part of the question, yes, if there is a technology that we are not convinced will provide that level of safety as well as the opportunity to learn from any near misses and incidents so that it can improve its safety over time, we will, of course, hold back and study further and improve as we go along. That is our primary concern as well.

15 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are being taken to keep the cost of food sold at coffee shops affordable; (b) whether the Ministry will consider removing minimum rent in coffee shop tender exercises; and (c) whether e-bidding in coffee shop tender exercises drives up the rent and subsequently the cost of food sold at coffee shops and, if so, whether there are measures taken to mitigate this.

To provide residents with access to affordable food options, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) ensures that there is a good supply of coffee shops in HDB estates to maintain healthy price competition. There are presently close to 750 HDB-built coffee shops, of which 70 were completed in the last five years. A further 31 are in the pipeline and will be completed in the next five years.

To find suitable operators for new coffee shops, HDB has used an online tendering system since 2004. This system makes bidding more transparent as it allows prospective bidders to see all bids in real time and adjust their bids accordingly ahead of the close of tender. We are continuously reviewing the tendering mechanism to see how it can be made more effective in ensuring affordable food for residents.

For example, instead of simply awarding to the highest price bids, HDB has been piloting the use of the Price-Quality Method (PQM) to tender out several coffee shops. Under the PQM, quality score accounts for 50% of the evaluation and operators with affordable food options will score higher. That is why HDB recently awarded a coffee shop in Choa Chu Kang to a food operator with affordable food options and with initiatives to improve productivity, even though their rental bid was 40% lower than the highest bid.

We have seen good outcomes from this tendering approach. So, I am happy to share that HDB will be replacing the existing e-bidding system with the PQM tender for all coffee shops later this year.

Thank you, Sir. The reason I ask this is that, there are a few coffee shops in Nee Soon South, the new one, not even, I think barely around for one year and it closed down, cannot survive. And now, a tender is called again. I met up with the coffee shop operator. They told me that because of e-bidding, some of them are not experienced, just because they want to come into business, they put up a higher price and then when they come in, they cannot survive, they close down. It affected the residents because they serve the surrounding residents, residents have nowhere to go. And then HDB calls another tender. It takes quite a few months before it awards.

So, I am happy to hear about the PQM and I hope that, in future, we will have to be very mindful. You do the sums. A small coffee shop, $30,000, $40,000; how much would they have to charge per stall? I think we can easily calculate whether they can survive or not.

16 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Education whether ITE graduates under the age of 25 can be allowed to use their SkillsFuture credits to improve their skills or undertake courses to enhance their employability.

The starting age for SkillsFuture Credit is 25 years old, as it is the age where many Singaporeans would have completed their full-time education and are in, or are preparing to jointhe workforce. Singaporeans under 25 years old can use their Post-Secondary Education Accounts (PSEAs) to defray out-of-pocket fees for approved programmes.

More importantly, beyond the SkillsFuture Credit, Singaporeans have access to a wide range of measures to support their skills development. There are subsidies of up to 97% of course fees for various training programmes, such as the part-time Higher Nitec module which could cost as low as $40, after all the subsidies.

Institute of Technical Education (ITE) graduates who wish to enhance their employability or seek employment assistance can receive help from the ITE Career Services Centre or any of the Workforce Singapore career centres.

Just one quick question: the age of 25, I suppose, was introduced because it sort of meets with the graduation for most university graduates and tertiary education graduates. But for ITE graduates, when they graduate at 21, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there are Higher Nitec grants and subsidies that are provided. Will the Ministry of Education consider giving some leeway for ITE students after they graduate, especially for those that have graduated and are trying to look for jobs, trying to utilise the SkillsFuture Credit immediately so that they can upskill themselves, going forward?

I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his supplementary questions. I think I will highlight four key points to give him assurance that our ITE graduates will have the support to gain access to courses even after they graduate from ITE.

The first one is, they have a range of options they can choose from to gain access to courses to support skills development and also employability. I will give a quick example and, that is, the recently launched ITE Work-Learn Technical Diploma. This is, essentially, an apprenticeship-based programme that will allow our ITE graduates to pursue a diploma even as they work. It is designed to enhance our ITE graduates' employability because we have structured it such that it has a very strong, on-the-job component; 70% of the curriculum is based on the on-the-job component. It really allows our ITE graduates not just to learn and gain industry-relevant skills, but also to gain a deep understanding of the company and also the sector.

I want to assure the Member that even after our ITE graduates leave ITE, maybe after taking Nitec and working for a couple of years and they are still young, they want to come back and take Nitec again or Higher Nitec, they will receive the support, heavily subsidised. If their family is facing financial difficulties, we can work with them to look at how they can pay the course over a longer period of time through instalments. So, that is the second key point.

For ITE graduates who are under the age of 25, I will briefly talk about the PSEAs. The average balances in the PSEAs are fairly substantial. I want to give the assurance to Mr Saktiandi Supaat that they can use the funds available in the PSEAs and the PSEAs can be utilised for approved courses that are provided by a wide range of Institute of Higher Learnings (IHLs), even public agencies and also private training providers.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I just want to find out a bit more. Are the PSEA's slew of curriculum courses similar to the SkillsFuture courses or are they a smaller subset of the SkillsFuture range of courses?

The SkillsFuture Credit directory currently has about more than 18,000 modular courses, and they are quite short term. The approved courses under PSEA can range from courses in our IHLs, that means our ITE, polytechnics, even autonomous universities as well as public agencies and also private training providers. They are just as substantial as well.

17 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry tracks the average and median salaries of early childhood educators according to their educational attainment; and (b) if so, what are the current average and median salaries of early childhood educators according to their educational attainment and how do these compare to five years ago.

Speaker, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) monitors the salary trends of early childhood educators in a few ways. First, ECDA commissions surveys from time to time on salary and other job-related issues in the preschool sector. The last survey was conducted two years ago, 2016, and it covered the 79 operators employing close to two-thirds of the educators in the sector. Second, the polytechnics collect data on the starting salaries of polytechnic graduates, including those from the early childhood Diploma courses, through their annual Graduate Employment Surveys.

Based on ECDA's survey which they conducted in 2016, basic salaries for educarers with a professional certificate range from about $1,800 to $2,100 per month, salaries for teachers with a professional teaching Diploma range from $2,200 to $3,000, and salaries for principals with a professional leadership Diploma range from $3,100 to $6,000. These salaries have increased by about 15% since the previous survey in 2013, outpacing that of the general market for similar job sizes which grew by about 8% over the same period. Also, based on the 2017 Polytechnic Graduate Employment Survey, the starting salaries of full-time early childhood Diploma fresh graduates have increased by about 20% to $2,300 since 2013.

Going forward, ECDA expects salary growth for early childhood educators to continue to outpace that of the general market. Apart from the continued expansion of the sector, which will require 20,000 early childhood educators by 2020, from about 17,000 today, ECDA is working closely with anchor as well as partner operators to ensure salary and career progression for their teachers, commensurate with their contributions and professional skills.

18 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether he can provide an update on the number of HDB blocks that are not given lift upgrading due specifically to the funding cap; and (b) whether HDB will consider polling the residents in these affected blocks to explore the possibility of co-sharing the amount beyond the funding cap to have lift access at their floors.

Mr Speaker, the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was launched in 2001 to provide direct lift access to flats and enhance convenience for residents, especially our elderly and less mobile. At the start of the programme, there were more than 5,300 Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks without 100% lift access. LUP was initially found to be unfeasible for more than 1,000 of these blocks due to cost or technical constraints.

Over the years, HDB has adopted innovative technical solutions to provide such blocks with lift access. Through these efforts, the vast majority of the 5,300 blocks have since been able to benefit from LUP and there remain only about 150 blocks where HDB has not found any solutions to overcome existing constraints. About 70% of these 150 blocks are not eligible for lift upgrading due to cost considerations. In total, less than 1% of sold flats do not have direct lift access.

For some of the blocks where LUP is not feasible, the cost of providing 100% lift access would be prohibitive. In addition, asking residents to co-share part of the amount beyond the cost cap may cause undue financial hardship to residents. LUP is done on a polling basis and, if the poll is successful, those who do not vote in favour of LUP still have to pay their share of the cost.

Singaporeans who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or disability may approach HDB for housing and financial assistance. HDB will assess each request on a case-by-case basis to see how best to render help.

For these remaining blocks, HDB continues to look at available technical and innovative solutions to see how we can provide for these blocks and, as and when they become available, we will make that option possible.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick clarification. Those blocks that cannot get LUP because of the funding cap, why in the first place did the Ministry not put them under the main LUP contract because they will enjoy huge economies of scale when it comes to bidding? Some contractors are like that. If I build one lift, it is more expensive, I do not mind throwing in a few other freebies. If the whole thing were to be parked under the original LUP, I think those blocks which have funding cap issues will probably be resolved. I do not know whether the Ministry could consider throwing another tender for all these lifts.

I thank the Member for his question. Some of the 150 blocks are not eligible for LUP because of very severe site constraints. Part of it is technical, part of it is just the way in which the block is designed in relation to the land surrounding it. But for those blocks that are not eligible because of cost considerations, they are well in excess of $100,000 per unit.

So, even if you drive this as a part of the overall LUP, which they were, because, LUP, when you call the contract, it is for all unavailable blocks that qualify. The nature of these remaining number of blocks, the cost would be way in excess of $100,000. So, that is a very different order altogether.

Order. End of Question Time.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move* "That this House recognises that a love for [Line 1] learning is the foundation of our future, and calls on the Government to partner [Line 2] with the people to ensure accessible, inclusive and lifelong education for all [Line 3] learners [Line 4]."

[(proc text) * The Motion also stood in the names of Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Mr Ganesh Rajaram, Mr Kok Heng Leun and Mr Azmoon Ahmad. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, as I look at the third-generation (3G) leaders seated across from me, I realise that across the many years, they share one thing in common. And, no, it is not which football team they support for the World Cup finals!

It is the fact that Dr Ng Eng Hen, Deputy Prime Ministers Mr Teo Chee Hean as well as Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, have all "cut their teeth" in the Ministry of Education (MOE), they have led, enabled and elevated this Ministry.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, the Motion I propose and that is seconded and supported by my eight Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) colleagues and four other elected Members of Parliament, is, indeed, inspired by two fourth-generation (4G) former education Ministers: first, Mr Ng Chee Meng who encouraged the NMPs to consider how a love for learning should be instilled within the education system, especially in the formative preschool years; and second, Mr Heng Swee Keat whom many educators, even today, look up to for his path-breaking choices and ideas.

Long before any call for greater equality in the education system, Minister Heng asked that "Every student should be an engaged learner", regardless of background or ability. He said that to support this, we will need: "Every teacher to be a caring educator"; "every parent, a supportive partner". And, of course, his trademark quotation, "Every School, a Good School"!

Today, our Motion paints a portrait of students, educators, schools and parents. It questions the assumptions about individual stakeholders and system designers collectively, both bear responsibility to improve the future of education in Singapore.

Improvements that ensure accessible, inclusive and lifelong education for all learners. We speak to this House, Mr Speaker, as academics, educators, professionals, business persons and parents keenly interested in the future of Singapore's education system.

We, ourselves, are Singaporeans who have benefited from a world-class education system and our education system is that. But we also know that the most important lessons that you learn is to cherish the ability to give back to society whenever you can; to always be independent-minded, ever ready to question the status quo for the sake of progress and ready to refine the methods that have worked in the past but may not be so productive today or may even be outmoded.

Here is a snapshot, Mr Speaker, of what we will cover in this Motion.

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin will highlight the importance of recognising the talents of every student. She will suggest ways to refine how assessments are conducted in primary and secondary schools, even taking a leaf, perhaps, from what preschools are currently doing.

Mr Louis Ng will further ask that performance-based rankings of teachers should be reviewed. He will also ask that preschool and lower primary students should be encouraged to play and explore and that we should not be overly focused on academic content at this formative early stage of education.

Mr Kok Heng Leun will suggest how humanities education should be promoted and ask a controversial question: is it time to do away with the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE)?

Ms Chia Yong Yong and Ms Rahayu Mahzam will ask that special education schools and mainstream primary and secondary schools be encouraged to work together to ensure that students with special needs are integrated in settings that are appropriate and that meet their needs.

Mr Azmoon Ahmad will propose ways to ensure social mobility and national integration are best preserved as we go forward. He will also suggest that we should look into multiple strategies, not the one-size-fits-all formula.

Prof Randolph Tan will ask that we build on the strengths of the current system and anticipate the challenges of technological disruption with effective and future-ready policies that are already being deployed in other comparable jurisdictions.

Ms K Thanaletchimi similarly will ask if our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have matched the new opportunities that have arisen and whether old barometers of success come with risks and may not always be applicable anymore.

And Mr Ganesh Rajaram will share why sports education and Direct School Admission (DSA) should be better insulated from tuition and mismanaged expectations from coaches and parents alike.

I have three points, Mr Speaker, in my own speech.

The first is about tuition and false advertising. I have put together a photo collage which Mr Speaker has kindly reminded that it may be too much to actually be shown up. But this collage is something that I collected from just a visit to Coronation Plaza which is often frequented by parents and students alike from all the primary and secondary schools in that area in Bukit Timah, a stone's throw away from the top primary and secondary schools.

But these ads, much like slimming pill advertisements, promise incredible results and are equally insidious. They suggest, in one example, that an A-star average in Chinese can be secured in just 24 hours, if you choose that particular agency. They suggest that you will be guaranteed a PSLE score of 279, much higher than I had ever got, if you would just move to this particular tuition agency. They suggest that they have 91% proven track record of As and A-stars.

I ask myself, "Should this be the way that tuition for primary schools, 10-year-olds is advertised, saying that you will get results, but for a price?"

Forget the process; forget the love for learning a subject through dedicated guidance, peer support and patience. These advertisements and the tuition agencies that produce and disseminate them should with respect, Mr Speaker, be regulated. Not only because they may be false and misleading, but because they promote gaming the education system. They extol quick solutions and well-to-do parents will fork out the cash for these quick solutions. Studies show that excessive tuition can harm rather than help a child and, yes, parents and children should be cautioned and counselled, but the preoccupation with grades must change, Mr Speaker, and I invite the Ministry to indicate what else it plans to do, going forward, on its part.

As Minister Ong Ye Kung revealed at the Committee of Supply Debates: students from Singapore have consistently come up tops in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) rankings for decades. We did very well this year as well.

Yet, does this necessarily mean that Singaporean students are ready for the brave new world of tomorrow? Or does it only suggest that we are exam-smart as a nation? After all, companies from countries that do very well PISA-wise barely feature in other rankings for business, for companies, of the Top 25 most successful companies, as an example, in Forbes. They are not there.

So, I ask, what can or should we do differently? Are there plans for a total systems review, much like the Goh Report of the past? Such a review could aim to change the attitudes of parents, teachers and students towards examinations and grades. It will take time. But the best way to do so is for all our schools and IHLs to give due weightage to aptitude testing – not just grades, but what is the aptitude of each student – and that is very much at the core of today's Motion.

Mr Speaker, our schools must move away from having a top-down culture of one-­size-fits-all curriculum, age-based cohorts and streaming based on standardised exams. And they must "never become self-perpetuating, closed circles", as the Prime Minister noted in this House in May.

Second, let me say a bit more about neighbourhood primary schools and Raffles Institution (RI). Let us never forget the contributions of neighbourhood primary school teachers. My colleagues and I have separately spoken to a few and the stories of one has rung true with me. Mr Kumaran Veera is the Head of Department at Concord Primary School in Chua Chu Kang. He teaches Primary 5 and Primary 6 students. Concord Primary School has consistently improved over the years because of him and his colleagues and its Applied Learning and Learning for Life programmes (APL and LLP). They have made the news.

But what made me sit up when speaking to Mr Kumaran and his colleagues were the stories that they had beyond just the rankings, beyond just the ALP and LLP. Kumaran's stories are not of children who are bored in class because of too much tuition. They are stories of bright girls and boys who sit at the back of the class and, sometimes, do not even come to school because parents do not encourage them to turn up at school. Stories of him and others visiting the houses of such students and using tough love, Mr Speaker, to encourage these students to attend school and tough love on the parents as well to send their children to school. It helps that Mr Kumaran is more than six feet tall and is built like a discipline master should be.

But I congratulate every neighbourhood primary school like Concord that continues to make a difference.

Like Kumaran, I am proud to come from a neighbourhood primary school myself. I graduated from Princess Elizabeth Primary School. Contrary to its name, Princess Elizabeth Primary School has nothing to do with the United Kingdom! It is named after a road which is based in Bukit Batok right now. It used to be Hillview, but now it is Bukit Batok. After the PSLE, I was fortunate to get a place in RI. And let me say a few words about RI. Those four years were the most blissful years of a kid's education.

RI has held itself up as the best school, but not because it has always put itself up to be that, but because none of us came from a feeder primary school, Mr Speaker. No one dared to think, when they entered RI in Secondary 1, that they were the best in the class, a subject or a sport because we had no idea who might be better than you; we were all just equals coming there. Your path was never paved for you; you worked hard to earn your own reputation. My schoolmates could not have been from more diverse backgrounds or sensibilities.

I was thus concerned when the Prime Minister raised in May that diversity had become an issue in RI. That saddened me. And I am happy to report that after speaking to Vice Principals and teachers at RI, they have tried to take some swift action to combat this perception. RI has established a scholarship and mentorship programme for Primary 5 and Primary 6 students from across the country. I spoke to Mrs Theresa Lai, a Vice Principal, who hopes that, through this mentorship and scholarship programmes, RI can play a part in the social mobility of these students with both financial support and also through "old school", "older brother/older sister" mentorship, where you have Secondary 1 and Secondary 2 students actually going to meet their counterparts, or their juniors in primary school to encourage them. Although the mentors provide academic support, the larger idea is to work with these nine- and 10-year-olds in primary school to deal with the socio-emotional stresses and what leadership skills actually involve.

RI has also engaged the principals and teachers from primary schools to see how they can better support these students. This year, for example, the school had almost 60 primary schools represented at its yearly dialogue sessions.

Through these engagement efforts, RI, as a school, tries to dispel the notion that it is an exclusive educational institution; it is not only for the bright children from wealthy backgrounds. It is a tough journey, partly because that is the assumption that many of us have, even those of us who have gone to the school.

But frankly, today, I would say that we do not attribute the success of RI to its famous British founder and his credos, but rather, we would look to its famous Singaporean teachers, principals and vice­ principals. Few are more charismatic than Mr Eugene Wijeysingha.

And I say his name because he was one of the first few people to inspire generations of Rafflesians to say that you have to give back. It is not enough to just do well in school for yourself; not enough to haul books at the library; not enough to ensure that your friends do well. The idea was always contribute back to society.

Let me be clear. I have friends who have graduated from other secondary schools as well. I have a range of friends whom I have met through National Service or work, including graduates of Maris Stella High School, Chinese High, Victoria School, St Andrews and even those of the Anglo­-Chinese School variety.

Might I ask the Ministry to invite other top secondary schools that I have just mentioned, to also account what they are doing to ensure that social mobility is never frustrated and that elite groups of Singaporeans and foreigners in these schools who emerge do not only look out for their own.

The third and final point I want to touch on, Mr Speaker, is how when we look at the future of education, it really is a call to stare into a crystal ball but to think what are the benefits and advantages that Singaporean students would need to possess, partly because of our geography, partly because of the languages that we are encouraged to speak and that we do speak as a mother tongue and what more we can do.

As an example, 10 years ago, in 2008, Australia came up with the Melbourne Declaration for primary and secondary school education. And, in that Declaration, they said this: "India, China and other Asian nations are growing and their influence on the world is increasing. Australians need to become 'Asia literate', engaging and building strong relationships with Asia." I think they tried to do precisely that. Today, they suggest that they, too, maybe one day soon, should be a member of the 10-party ASEAN block so it becomes part of Southeast Asia and not just Asia.

When that is the reality, for Australia, which started this idea 10 years ago, what precisely are we doing within our education system, at the primary and secondary school levels, to ensure that our students are Asia-literate? They are Singapore-literate. They speak English; they speak very good English; they can understand smatterings of the three languages beyond English that are our national languages. But are we doing more to ensure they understand what really makes Asia tick? Because that has to start at the secondary school level.

With our advantages as a leading Southeast Asian nation, with clear interests in cross-border trade and investment, I urge that we ensure that secondary schools, junior colleges (JCs), IHLs and the universities contribute to the school of ensuring that our students and our future are Asia-literate.

When we talk about the One-Belt-One-Road initiative, when we talk about the CPTPP, this should be, in some way, at the secondary school or JC level, be reduced, distilled and imparted to students. It is very good that we teach Cold War, current affairs. It is very good that we teach about early Southeast Asian history in Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore. But we really have to think about what we can teach these students now that prepares them for trade and investment going forward.

Today's Motion, Mr Speaker, is dedicated to Singapore's children whom we want to be future-ready and to the teachers who have made us who we are today. Sir, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to firstly declare that I am a parent of a child with Down's Syndrome. My son Ayden is, therefore, by common definition, a child with special needs. The first few months of Ayden's life was probably the most challenging period in my life. Down's Syndrome children typically have certain associated medical conditions. So, at the beginning, I was at Kandang Kerbau Hospital almost every other week for a slew of medical appointments. Other parents, whose children have special needs, would probably share similar experiences.

In addition to the worry about the children's health, there is also always that nagging fear about their future, how society would see them, whether they will be able to take care of themselves when they grow up, what will become of them when we, the parents, pass away. It is not uncommon to hear this – and I believe the hon Member Ms Denise Phua would have shared this – that these parents often say that they would rather live to see their child die so that they could ensure that the child's needs are met to the end. It is heartbreaking to hear.

This worry is not unjustified. A quick sensing of the current environment suggests that society, whilst now more open and accepting of people with special needs, is still not completely comfortable with them. The National Council of Social Service (NCSS) conducted an attitude study with 1,400 citizens and permanent residents in 2015 and found that the public viewed persons with disabilities less favourably than those without a disability. They also had less favourable attitudes towards those with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorder. The Lien Foundation's Inclusive Attitudes Study conducted in 2016 echoed this finding. Half of the parents they polled indicated that they were uncomfortable about their child having to sit next to one with special needs in class.

I also hear stories from parents of children with special needs about how people treat their children. One father shared that on one occasion, a few young children were running towards his daughter. They probably just wanted to play, but their caregiver was heard shouting "不要去那边！她是神经病的人!”. Do not go there. She is a crazy person.

Several months back, I heard on the radio, a caller commenting on a discussion on inclusivity. The man said that his wife is a teacher and that there is a child with special needs in her class. His wife must have shared her challenges with him. He said that he was of the view that "these children" should not be put in the same class as normal children. They are disruptive and cause a lot of problems to the teachers and the class. He felt that parents of children with special needs are in denial and they want to believe that their children are normal, so they insist that their children be in mainstream schools when they actually should be taught elsewhere.

Honestly, I understood where this gentleman was coming from. The challenges faced by teachers in such settings are real. We need to deal with these challenges. I will touch on this a little later in my speech. But the caller's solution to the problem offended and hurt me as a parent. His tone and the curt manner in which he declared his views reflected how he felt about children who are different. They should be taught separately, kept apart from normal children. I appreciate it may not be completely fair to postulate from his brief remarks what he thought of people with special needs in general. To me, though, it felt like a rejection, that children like Ayden will always be seen as a burden, that they should be put in appropriate places. I cried my eyes out that afternoon.

So, what does all this have to do with the Motion today? Why am I telling you these stories? There are many different aspects of the Motion that we can debate about today but I would like to speak about inclusive education from the perspective of persons with special needs. The reality is, whilst Singapore has made great strides in encouraging and promoting inclusiveness within our community, we have some way to go in truly walking the talk. Our society is still not yet able to truly view persons with disabilities as an equally valued member of the community. And I believe that we can review and build our education system so as to change perceptions, normalise disabilities; so that people can appreciate that persons with special needs are simply differently abled and are of no lesser value than any other member of society.

Singapore has done a lot towards building an inclusive society. The Government started the journey in 2007 when the First Enabling Masterplan (EM1) was drafted and adopted. EM1 outlined a vision where persons with disabilities are fully integrated, empowered to reach their potential and are contributing members of society. A decade later, the Third Enabling Masterplan had been drafted and is currently being implemented.

However, there are still gaps and areas which we can give more attention to, so as to truly embrace people with different abilities and give them the opportunity and motivation to excel. I would like to say at this juncture that this is not about seeking special treatment. A pragmatist may also say that it would be unreasonable to expect the Government to put in large resources and funding to address needs of only a small percentage of people in the community. But I trust one can agree that enhancing inclusiveness within our education system will bring great benefit to Singapore as a whole.

Firstly, fully embracing people with special needs within our community creates opportunities for people to be more caring and compassionate. I recall a conversation I had with you, Mr Speaker, when you were then the Minister for Social and Family Development. You feel strongly that people with special needs have a role to play in helping build kindness and empathy in the community. They are conduits through which we can elevate the level of compassion amongst Singaporeans. I fully agree.

Research shows that a genuinely inclusive education system allows children to build and develop friendships that they might not have encountered otherwise, as inclusive settings encourage higher levels of interaction than segregated settings. What results is better outcomes for social and communication development and an early inculcation of values of inclusion. Such early exposure benefit both children with and without special needs, where they will be better able to demonstrate greater compassion, empathy and have better understanding on how to interact with their peers and accept diversity. These children could develop better interpersonal skills and exhibit greater adaptability.

These results could already be seen at Kindle Garden, a preschool by Asian Women's Welfare Association, Singapore's first inclusive preschool. At Kindle Garden, children with different needs and different backgrounds study together. Learning is personalised and children are taught to embrace diversity and respect for each other. I accept that the model is not necessarily easy to replicate, but, for now, let us focus on the results that could be achieved if we truly set out to be inclusive.

Secondly, there is great future economic value in equipping our special needs children with the necessary skills so that they could be independent. Research shows that when children with special needs are being supported to communicate with their peers, they enhance their independent communication, mastery of augmentative and alternative communication strategies and have increased speech and language development. If we intervene early, in schools, we give them the necessary skills and prepare them for the future, there is a greater chance that they would graduate school and join the workforce. If they can work well, be independent and contribute meaningfully towards the economy, less resources need to be spent on support structures or schemes when they are adults.

In light of the above, I make the following recommendations to enhance the education landscape.

For one, we should have an integrated education system and school setting. A common misunderstanding of an inclusive education is one where there is simply a presence of students with disabilities in a classroom or school setting but where micro or macro exclusion still occurs. If there is segregation and the children are not treated equally within the same setting, that is not truly inclusive education.

In 2012, MOE announced that 20 Special Education (SPED) Schools will be paired with mainstream schools so that students from both schools have the opportunities to mingle, for example, during recess and at school events. I understand that there are also lessons in Character and Citizenship Education in mainstream schools that help raise awareness of disabilities and how each person can play a part in developing an inclusive society. Schools have also forged partnerships with Voluntary Welfare Organisations to provide opportunities for students to interact meaningfully and deepen mutual understanding. These are all great efforts but we need to build on them.

So, we should have an education system where children with and without special needs learn and play within the same setting but in different pathways. I believe that this is more accurately described as an integrated education system. That way, students can receive different support and assistance based on their needs but yet have the opportunity to interact meaningfully.

Currently, there are special needs students in mainstream schools. However, such arrangements, in some situations, have been challenging for the teachers as well as the students – those with and without special needs. We hear many instances where the teachers and the allied educators cannot manage the students and the class situation. Teachers get stressed, the students in class are affected, parents chime in and express their unhappiness about the arrangements and everyone is discouraged by the efforts to be inclusive. So, to do this properly, we need to build the proper support structure and have sufficient resources.

One key resource is the group of teachers who are trained to teach students with special needs. It appears that there is currently a shortage of such teachers. While there is a growing pool of allied educators specialising in learning and behavioural support and a large number of teachers trained to meet special needs in mainstream schools, teachers have been reported to be shorthanded in managing students requiring additional learning support. In addition, we have also seen reports in the papers about the Lien Foundation survey which alluded to a high burn-out rate of professionals working with special needs children. Fifty-one percent of the 423 professionals surveyed felt that burning out quickly was one of the key challenges they faced. Forty-four percent said salaries and benefits were unattractive while 34% pointed to manpower shortage as a challenge.

We, therefore, secondly, need to improve the profession and career pathway of special education teachers. Currently, these teachers are hired by various social service organisations who are guided by the salary scale recommended by NCSS. The general perception is that these teachers receive less recognition and their pay packages are less attractive than their counterparts in mainstream education.

I propose that these teachers come under the purview of MOE, like their peers in mainstream schools, so that they would have access to the same salary scales, as well as career opportunities, which would, in turn, raise the stature and attractiveness of the role and encourage more to pursue a career in this profession. Having more educators trained in supporting special needs would better support the learning needs of our children and ensure that they can achieve their fullest potential. These teachers can be tapped on to support students in mainstream or SPED schools.

In the same vein of building resources, I would make a third recommendation that we also build synergy between the education and health sectors, so as to ensure that access to the necessary assessments is enhanced. Early identification of learning difficulties can help ensure that students who have such needs receive the necessary support as soon as possible. However, parents often cite long waiting lists for MOE psychologists when seeking to have their children assessed. Taking a leaf from the General Practitioners (GP)-Partnership Programme in the mental health sector, I propose an MOE Psychologist Partnership Programme where several recognised private psychologists can provide assessments for learning difficulties. To address high costs, the identified practitioners could provide subsidies to families with the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cards, with part of the costs subsidised by the Government.

Lastly, I propose a review of the administration of school curriculum for both mainstream and SPED schools. Our children are all unique, with different talents and abilities. Often, in the school system, we are pushing them into categories or groups, which allows for a more expedient delivery of information and knowledge. However, this means that we may not be fully developing their strengths and addressing their weaknesses. For example, at the moment, children with special needs in mainstream schools are still expected to complete the same curriculum as their peers. Support is given when their natural abilities fall short of what is required. But if we are really serious in allowing each child to flourish, there may be value in adjusting a curriculum according to each individual’s needs, pace of learning, as well as providing the facilities and resources required to cater to the wide spectrum of disabilities.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I thank the Members who have proposed the Motion. I am supportive of the Motion. However, I am of the view that it would be useful to give some resolution to the matter at hand. Therefore, Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I propose an amendment to the Motion.

Can I have a copy of the amendment.

Yes. [A copy of amendment handed to Mr Speaker.]

The amendment is in order. Are copies made available to Members of the House?

Yes, I have given copies to the Clerks for distribution. [Copies of amendment distributed to hon Members.]

Okay. Please move your amendment.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that in line 4 after the word "learners", to add the following words:

", by building an education system that:

gives each student the best possible support, and the opportunity and motivation to excel;

recognises ability and talent in every student, and offers development paths suited to their unique strengths and interests;

enables Singaporeans to improve our lives, paying special attention to students from vulnerable families; and

becomes a platform to bring our young together, to build an inclusive and united Singapore."

Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude. Paolo Coelho said that a child can teach an adult three things: to be happy for no reason, to always be curious and to fight tirelessly for something. My son teaches that to me every day. I am glad we are debating this Motion and I hope our children remain our most important source of inspiration. Developing a good education system that is inclusive and suited to the times should be a constant work-in-progress. I believe our robust discussion today will contribute towards the continued development of a quality education for all children in Singapore. Mr Speaker, with that, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Thank you for sharing. It has been proposed as an amendment, in line 4 after the word "learners", to add the following words:

"by building an education system that:

gives each student the best possible support, and the opportunity and motivation to excel;

recognises ability and talent in every student, and offers development paths suited to their unique strengths and interests;

enables Singaporeans to improve our lives, paying special attention to students from vulnerable families; and

becomes a platform to bring our young together, to build an inclusive and united Singapore."

It may be convenient that the debate on the Original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement on this?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin.

Mr Speaker, before I begin, please let me state my professional interests upfront. For the last 16 years, I have been part of the teaching and learning ecosystem in Singapore. I am a co-founder of a purpose-driven tuition centre. I am a publisher of current affairs magazines sold directly to schools. I am also a coach and trainer of working professionals, helping them develop the social and emotional skills they need to become better architects for cultural change. Some of my clients have included principals, vice principals, teachers and administrators.

My interest in education began when I was 25. I had started an experimental tuition group with my friends because we were curious about two questions. The first was: "Why are so many young Singaporeans graduating out of our local education system uncertain about who they are and indifferent to bigger problems in Singapore and the world?" And the second question was: "What can we do about it?"

We experimented with General Paper tuition as a strategic medium to help 18-year-olds consider their individual and collective responsibilities and we found that if you help kids get curious about who they are and what they care about, they get naturally more curious about how their individual choices connect with broader systemic issues.

We started off with 20 kids from neighbourhood JCs. But by the end of that same year, the group ballooned into 100 kids and we realised we should officially register as a private tuition centre. So, we applied to the Registry of Business (RCB) calling ourselves School of Thought and, soon after, an RCB officer called me back to tell us our name could not be approved. I asked him what was wrong with the name School of Thought. And for as long as I teach, I do not think I will forget what he said. His response, without any irony, was this: "What do schools have to do with thinking? School of Math, yes. School of English, I understand. But thought? How do schools teach thinking?"

He did not sound uneducated or unwilling, just genuinely perplexed. And I remember having a very surreal, one hour-long conversation with this Government officer about why schools had a lot to do with thinking, that the name was a pun and, still, he would not be moved. Finally, I asked, "What if we just call ourselves School of Thought Learning Centre?" And he said, "Oh yes!”, with great relief. "That's fine. Because then it's just a name, not an intention."

I do not take that very odd exchange as representative of the whole-of-Government. That was just one bureaucrat's worldview. Also, 16 years have passed and times and attitudes have evolved since then and I am more optimistic that I would not get that response today. Still, I do not wish to brush off his remark as an aberration. Because his remark to me is a signpost that there could be many more individuals out there who were taught an incomplete or mistaken lesson about the purpose of education and that gap in their learning does have consequences on us all at a systemic level.

In the last few years, I have been getting more enquiries for training from healthcare organisations. When we asked them why there was a surge of interest in social and emotional development from their sector, they shared with us their challenges in teaching some of their staff to see their patients as not just diseases to treat, but people to care for. One medical team shared with us that their conviction to put more emphasis on empathy in their curriculum came after a disillusioned medical student revealed to them that she was quitting the profession after she witnessed two surgeons she was supposed to be learning from execute a surgical procedure with flawless expertise, while simultaneously making the most vile and derogatory comments about the unconscious patient. And though the two surgeons had saved a patient in body, they had killed a young doctor in spirit.

Those kinds of stories make me reflect: when did that bureaucrat learn that schools had nothing to do with thinking? When did those surgeons learn that their medical education had nothing to do with feeling? Did they learn it from their parents, their teachers or society? And barring how great their results were in the exam hall, are we satisfied with these results of their education in real life?

The kids we teach today grow up. The first 18-year-olds I taught are 34 now. And some of them probably work for you. Our kids become our bureaucrats deciding what to approve or not approve. They become our doctors and bean-counters deciding who is worth saving and who is not worth saving. They become our customers and entrepreneurs deciding what money can buy and what money should never ever buy. They become our voters and politicians deciding who rules and who should be ruled.

The future of our country is already being written in our classrooms. I do not know if that thought assures you or scares you. I choose to let that thought convict me to figure out how can the people continue to partner the work of our public schools so that we can all win, for our country can go only as far as our classrooms are willing and able to go. So, we need to work together on this.

I thank my fellow parliamentarian Rahayu Mahzam for the amendments she has introduced. I will focus on three of her amendments and make my recommendations along those lines.

Her first amendment asks that we build an education system that gives each student the best possible support. When I talk to educators, three big things recur on their wish list of what “best possible support” could look like: (a) more time to focus on teaching and learning; (b) reduction in class sizes; and (c) abolishing the high-stakes exams.

All teachers who take their work seriously will tell you that school calendars are over-stuffed and it is a constant struggle to claw back time to just focus on teaching. Teachers do appreciate the need to expand their work scope beyond teaching to broaden their skill sets. However, there is a breaking point when they start to question how much time in their job is spent on mastering their craft versus managing projects, marking, doing administrative work, running co-curricular activities (CCAs) and organising events.

Many educators actually express some guilt that they spend more time teaching and managing other people's children versus spending time on their own kids at home. In fact, some educators express double guilt for sending their own kids to private tuition because they have no time or energy left for their own kids after a full day of teaching.

We must stop piling on more new initiatives and programmes onto schools because the constant cry I hear from teachers is "enough". We need to do a lot less so we can do a lot more of what is significant. Part of the reason why teachers feel so strapped for time is the number of learners we expect them to give individual attention to.

Right now, our primary and secondary schools still average at 33 to 34 students per class. Primary 1 and 2 average at 29 pupils, which is still way above the average Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) primary and secondary class sizes 21 and 24.

I know MOE has argued that teacher quality matters more than class size, but the sheer volume of work to be done with such large numbers of students will constrain even the most talented teacher. Adjunct Prof S Gopinathan at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and former dean of National Institute of Education (NIE)'s School of Education said in an interview with The Straits Times that even the best-trained teacher will find it difficult coping with a class of 40 students in an era where we want children to be more inquisitive, explain their insights, have more applied learning. And those are more complex processes, compared to the direct transmissive teaching of the past.

So, no matter how good you are as a teacher, you only have a fixed number of hours in a workday. Even really good teachers are telling us that the only way they can cope with giving individualised attention to everyone in a large class is to sacrifice time from their after-work hours to prepare, mark, answer questions and meet up with kids. This is a price that many good teachers are willing to pay because of their personal convictions, but it does come at personal cost to their own mental, physical and emotional well-being.

With declining birth rates and schools closing, we can take the opportunity to adjust our class sizes to a more sustainable number to address some of our teachers' longstanding concerns. I see that we currently have smaller-size classes at the JCs, tertiary and university levels, but not at the primary and secondary school levels. I suggest that we explore our assumption that the tertiary level students need more individualised attention than younger students. If education is about helping learners gain in confidence and ability to manage and own their own learning process, then should not the smallest classes and the greatest availability of teacher support be with the youngest children?

An 18-year-old should be sufficiently independent as a learner and more capable of taking care of his own learning than a seven-year-old learner who is just beginning to "learn to learn" needs a lot more individual scaffolding and personalised attention. So, it does make more sense that a primary school teacher should be given a smaller class, compared to a JC teacher.

If our education system was designed as a process of cognitive apprenticeship, then, technically, by the time you are 18, you should be able to begin teaching and learning by yourself while in teams. However, if our education system was not about cognitive apprenticeship and more about subject downloading, then what I have said is irrelevant.

Some of us might say that the average 18-year-old in our current system might still be exhibiting signs of great dependency on his teacher for instructions and still asking people to spot questions and compile model essays on his behalf. In fact, you might say some of our working adults still display similar learning habits and overdependency on authority to spoon-feed solutions. If so, then this is feedback that we are still not doing enough cognitive apprenticeship.

So, to me, the class size issue is a bit linked to the intentions of our education system. Is it for helping learners get progressively confident and independent in their thinking? If so, primary school class sizes need to get much much smaller to help teachers work with their learners' high dependency.

Is it for helping learners just swallow large amounts of information? If so, I can understand why huge class sizes are still tolerable because it is a bit like raising battery hens. You can cram a lot of them in one room because you feed them all the same thing anyway. But, of course, my hope and personal bias are that we go for smaller classes, because I think we should be raising more free-ranging, free-thinking independent learners because I am not sure battery cage learners will be ready to out-think and out-run the rest of the world.

Having smaller class sizes across the system is a very huge investment but if it would allow teachers more time and space to train learners in thinking, then it is a luxury worth investing in.

The concerns about costs are real. So, why not take up Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leon Perera's suggestion in 2017, that MOE consider conducting a small trial to find out if reduced sizes could improve students' results? I support that request and agree with Prof Gopinathan's opinion that "more work can be done to look at the pros and cons of reducing class sizes before dismissing the idea. Without a local knowledge base, we can't say it doesn't make a difference based on international research". Which brings me to the high-stakes exam issue.

A bewildered parent explained it to me this way: "There are 10 weeks in a school term. The teacher typically takes Week 1 to do administration and settle the kids in. And then Weeks 6 to 10 are all about exam prep and taking the exam. Which means if the teacher wants to do anything interesting, he only has four weeks in a term. So, 40% of the school term is taken up by exam preparation. Where does the teacher have the time to go find out about what is happening in the world or in different industries?"

When that same parent told his child's teacher that he would rather the school not focus so much on exam preparation, the teacher told him, "It’s not that I do not want to do all the interesting stuff. I want to, but if my students do not do well at the exams, it affects my appraisal and it affects my bonus. I do not have a choice."

MOE has been plagued for years by public outcry about excessive levels of stress in the system. And while many stakeholders want the education system to change, many are still looking at other stakeholders to change first. So, it feels like everyone is a bit stuck in a psychological impasse.

I have been of two minds with the issue of abolishing PSLE. It is hardly a silver bullet solution and abolishing it will definitely generate many new problems and fail to resolve some old ones. It will force many other policies to change together with it. However, I also see that the ground does not seem sufficiently convinced so far by the little tweaks being made to PSLE grades. We know this because they are not changing their behaviour in any significant way. Mothers are still quitting their jobs to prepare their kids for PSLE. The billion-dollar tuition industry is still not pivoting their business models to help kids grow in character rather than in grades any time soon. They are quite confident that they know their customers are not going to shift. The "arms race" kiasu culture seems to be eating all our strategies for breakfast.

So, I do wonder whether abolishing PSLE could be a psychological Gordian knot that needs to be cut. I can understand the Government's resistance to abolishing PSLE because to take on the barrage of trouble involved, the win must be significant and something the majority of the electorate must show that it is willing to support. Because abolishing PSLE will set off a chain reaction of very uncomfortable changes. Without PSLE, there might be much less reason to stream in primary school or upon entering secondary school. Primary school teachers will be challenged to up their game and compelled to design and deliver a curriculum that is no longer about preparing kids for a standardised exam. And MOE would have to devise a whole new way to assess the quality of teaching in primary schools without data from PSLE results.

Abolishing the PSLE also opens up the question of how then should we level the playing field for secondary schools? Do we want to ensure all secondary schools are funded, resourced and governed the same way by MOE? If so, then we have to remove all other kinds of admissions, such as the DSA and even end the special status of some schools. This would be a very difficult change for some elite schools to swallow, because nobody wants to give up their elite identity.

If we do abolish PSLE someday, these teething issues would take probably a painful decade to iron out, but once a steady state is reached, there would be much less difficulties. So, the question for us today, the Government and the people, is more about whether that steady state of greater inclusivity for all learners represents a future we think is worth suffering for.

Sir, I do not think it is an easy path at all. I do not have an answer about whether we should or should not abolish the PSLE because I recognise it takes a lot of political risk to make that change. So, this is all easy for me to say because I am not a politician and I am just speaking as a parent. This particular parent's naive hope is that we will someday dismantle the PSLE because I would rather give more time and space for our teachers to develop our children's thinking without fear of messing up a high-stakes exam. Moreover, I think a 16-year-old is far more cognitively prepared to deal with the psychological impact of a high-stakes exam than a 12-year-old. And this also gives us more breathing room for primary-schoolers from lower-income families to catch up.

The second amendment Ms Rahayu Mahzam raised is about recognising the ability and talent of every student and offering developmental paths which are unique to them.

When I talked to parents, two things were brought up. The first is on whether we can reimagine our report cards. I know we have already shifted our report cards from just listing grades and sharing more on their personal development; but I still think they do not present a rich enough picture of the unique journey of progression that every student takes. So, right now, the burden of assessment is placed on teachers alone. But what if students and parents helped to co-create the report book?

Many preschools today actually do not use report cards and they show parents a well-curated achievement file instead. The file contains very rich visual artefacts like photos of key moments or outstanding pieces of work that help everyone appreciate how far their child has come. There is also a section in the achievement file where teachers ask parents on the spot to not only put in the parents' assessment of the achievements they have seen in their own child at home, they are even asked, very subtly, to assess what they have done for their own child.

In my recent meeting at my daughter's preschool, I had to fill in how often we were reading to her, talking to her, showing her new places in Singapore. That message sent by the achievement file was compassionate but very clear: I, the parent, was part of the process of my child's growth. This co-created achievement file, while much more costly in investment of time, can change the relationship between parents and teacher from an adversarial, consumeristic one to a collaborative and empathetic one.

The second thing that parents raised was how principals were rotated in five- to six-year cycles, preventing neighbourhood schools from deepening their commitment to a unique set of strengths and interests. They felt that, sometimes, new principals would try too hard to establish their own flavour and uproot directions set in place by the previous principal. This constant upheaval in direction not only prevented a strong identity and culture from forming but it broke trust with teachers and disheartened parents who believed in the previous vision.

Culture and identity are not built overnight. It takes 10 to 20 years. If more principals were allowed to commit two cycles to building culture, schools would have a stronger foundation to design those alternative development paths that are wholly unique to the school and suited to particular students' interests.

The third amendment asks us to enable Singaporeans to improve our lives and pay special attention to the kids from vulnerable families. In this, I want to raise our attention to an especially vulnerable niche group of kids: those who grow up under the care of single migrant mothers.

This is a group that was highlighted to me by ReadAble, which is a wonderful ground-up movement of young professionals who partner lower-income families to close the literacy gap. For the last four years, they have been running literacy classes in Jalan Kukoh, not just for the kids but for their mothers as well.

These kids are three to 14 years old. They do not speak English as a first language at home. Many still cannot name all the letters of the alphabet. This means, without any early intervention, many of the kids would have begun Primary 1 with no or little reading skills. This puts them way behind the starting line.

Research very clearly shows that early intervention in the lives of children from low socio-economic status (SES) households would reduce the learning gap significantly in the following years of their lives. All the kids who started attending these ReadAble classes regularly before the age of six actually started reading at Primary 1 or above grade level. In fact, some of the kids who attend their preschool class currently read better than children who joined them at primary school-age. So, there is a trickle-down effect as well. As the kids grow in confidence, they started to influence their siblings to read.

I hope the Government can partner community groups to intervene as early as possible in the literacy gap. For instance, can the National Library place a personalised mini-library in every low-income household with a child that requests to have one? Every parent in this room also knows there is a huge difference when children grow up in a literacy-rich environment. That is why we buy books for our kids though we also have access to public libraries. So, we allow these kids to initiate the request for their own mini-library and own their own customised cargo of books. They might be far more likely to see books as part of their life. If the Media Development Authority can consider working with these successful ground-up literacy movements to co-create a solution using media or technology that could help sustain their impact, that would be great because kids need plenty of repetition and audio-visual recordings of these books for them to play back at their own time might prove really helpful.

Second, can the Government provide better support in housing, education and employment for migrant mothers who are struggling to improve the lives of their Singaporean children? A stable home environment and literacy-related support for these parents will help the child's educational progress and more deliberate and pre-emptive outreach from the Government to help these migrant mothers care for their Singaporean child in the short run could stave off far more expensive problems in the long run. Community groups like ReadAble, working directly with such migrant mothers, hope for much greater public dialogue on how they can partner the state to help more migrant mothers and their Singaporean children progress in the education aspect.

Sir, I would like to conclude by affirming that despite the issues I brought up, I have seen greatness in our system and that there are lots of innovations and innovators already waiting to be tapped if we so choose to see them, learn from them and partner in supporting them.

There is, in fact, a school in Singapore that manifests so many of the things I talked about in this speech. Character Education there already makes up 50% of its first two years of curriculum and is a major part of the way they assess student development. The kids there are focused on discovering their values and what work they would like to do and not just mug before an exam. The content, pedagogy, assessments are learner-centric. They are 70% experiential learning. By the end of their programme, they would have all gone for an eight-week industry attachment. And, yes, they have achievement records, not report cards, and their kids are so proud to show them to their parents. And, yes, there are protected times there for educators to just reflect and learn. And, yes, this is a school that gives support to its neighbourhood community and receives a lot of support back from its community.

And, no, this is not a school for the elite; this is just the opposite. It is a school designed to support kids who failed PSLE two or three times, as well as those who dropped out of the system. This school is Northlight and it was an idea floated in 1997 and dismissed as before its time and made real only in 2005 when Mr Lim Chuan Poh, a Permanent Secretary at MOE, had the curiosity to find an answer to one student's frustration about why he had to repeat PSLE so many times. That Permanent Secretary's leap of faith allowed more leaders and purpose-driven principals and teachers to come and put their own skin in the game and it was all of them combined together – their collective courage to live out their highest ideals of education that made Northlight happen.

Northlight is a school that makes me damn proud to be Singaporean. Honestly, I would gladly send my own child there. Northlight's model contains so many wisdoms and insights that mainstream schools can learn from and it is a beautiful symbol of what is possible if we care enough to make things happen not just for ourselves but for others who we do not want to leave behind.

Sir, I rise to support the Motion. I want to make a call for an Education Masterplan for the Future – a masterplan to be jointly developed by Government and other key stakeholder groups; a masterplan to span over the life stages of a learner, from cradle to the third age; and a masterplan to be reviewed every three years.

I have five key reasons for making this call: one, we need to urgently respond to the rapid rise in global changes and disruptions; two, we need to broaden the definition of education; three, we cannot afford to ignore the elephants in the current education system; four, no one knows it all; and five, no one can do it all.

Reason one: response to the rapid rise in global changes and disruptions. Sir, the kind of changes and disruptions we are seeing today are never like before. The world's largest movie supplier owns no cinemas – that is Netflix. One of the world's largest accommodation providers owns no physical real estate – that is Airbnb. Even the beggars in some countries, such as China, are tapping on technology to collect monies – cashless.

As former Google Senior Vice President Rosenberg puts it, "… the world is changing so fast across every industry and endeavour, that it is a given that the role for which you are hiring is going to change."

No one knows for certain what the jobs of the future will be, but we know that progressive employers are looking for candidates who have high-learning agility, candidates who learn on their own, candidates who are comfortable in moving out of comfort zones.

The MOE team had been working hard to update Singapore's education system. Over the years, we have heard of separate reviews in early childhood, special schools, primary schools, secondary schools, Institutes of Technical Education, polytechnics, universities and in the adult learning space as well.

With the world changing so exponentially, we will need a more consolidated and holistic education masterplan for the future. We need an education masterplan that is not as disjointed and that can articulate the overall vision, values, principles, learning approaches and roles of different partners; a plan to develop self-motivated learners from young to old holistically, with a strong passion for learning, comfortable with discomfort and even disruptions; who are not slaves and consumers of technology but masters and even creators of technology.

Reason two: our need to broaden the definition of education. Let me now turn to the need for Singapore to broaden the definition of education.

Many of our education initiatives were made with the purpose of ensuring that as many Singaporeans as possible can be economically deployed. Nothing wrong with that; after all, a vibrant economy and full employment pay the bills and fund the public services, including helping our poor. But the future of Singapore is more than just the future state of its economy and its workforce.

A good education must surely lead to a good life, a better life for the people; a better life that is more than holding down a good job and attaining financial wellness. It should not have to take a World Health Organization (WHO) study to inform us that a better life must also include physical wellness, socio-emotional wellness, passion for learning and the important component of service to others.

To what extent has our existing education system led us to a better life? Have the schooled amongst us learnt and adopted healthy lifestyles after we leave school? Have we learnt to build strong personal relationships? Have we, young and older, developed a love for learning and taken responsibility for our own learning? Have we regularly given time and efforts for people and causes beyond ourselves?

What kind of education, for what kind of society? Intellects like John Abbott from the 21st Century Learning Initiative, lamented on what he felt was the sad state of the British education system. In his writing, "Battling for the Soul of Education", John Abott asked the pertinent question of "What kind of education for what kind of world?". He issued a clarion call for an education to prepare the young "for the kind of adult life which society values and which society wishes to perpetuate."

He said, "Develop the young to be "thinkers able to take responsibility for their own actions, and willing to accept responsibility for working for the common good. Re-imagine society first; and then the education system."

Hence, an education masterplan for the future must convey and communicate the definition of a good education that reflects the kind of society we want.

Next, Sir, I want to talk about the elephants in the room: the obvious difficulties in our system that people often do not wish to talk about.

The elevation of one's place in life as an outcome of one's better endowed and ambitious parents; as a result of one's academic abilities; as a result of other abilities that are not due to class privilege – they are all outcomes of Singapore's success story. "Parentocracy", meritocracy and the resulting inequalities are all developments that have come under criticism in recent times.

The Straits Times' Chua Mui Hoong pointed out in her book, "Singapore Disrupted" that "Singapore's academic-based system of meritocracy needs to evolve." Already, she said, "Many critics have pointed to the limits of Singapore's competitive examination-based academic meritocracy, which has bred a generation of hyper-competitive students who try to top examinations… to secure a place in that cherished school or to win that prestigious scholarship", she said.

Indeed, we continue to be a "tuition nation".

The findings of a recent Mediacorp Channel 8 Education Survey of 1,200 respondents are cause for concern. It was reported that more children are enrolling in more tuition as they rise through the school levels, spending even longer hours in tuition at the secondary level. Tuition is no longer only about providing support to those who are performing badly. Seventy-two percent of parents surveyed who send their children for tuition do so when their children are already performing well in school. It is a way to, as they say, "hack the examinations".

Sir, examinations, tests and academic rigour are by themselves not evil. But there is an underlying layer of fear in our system of high-stakes examinations that is killing us softly: the fear of failing; the fear of not doing well enough; the fear of not being able to get into the next school of our choice; the fear of what it looks on our resume; and even the fear of what else we should chase if we are not chasing these marks.

Sir, we cannot go on helplessly accepting this as our lot. Joy and this brand of unhealthy fear should not co-exist. Fear strips away the joy of learning; fear distracts us from the real "why" of learning. We are the victims of our own success. It is up to us, the people of Singapore, to craft a new narrative.

We cannot continue to tweak the edges of the current education system. More of us have to stand up to seek and articulate a more compelling, a more hopeful vision versus this relatively uninspiring and utilitarian state of learning.

We need to not just think out of the box; we may need to get rid of the box to confront some of these elephants in the room.

Reason four: no one knows it all. Sir, the fourth reason why I asked for a joint development of a masterplan on the Education for the Future is this. No one, nobody, not even MOE, has the monopoly of wisdom and perspective to get it right. Things are complicated. We have to unpack them so that we can move ahead with clarity and courage. No one knows it all.

Like me, I am sure many of you have lost count of how many new topics MOE has been asked to add to its curriculum.

Today, you will hear from us, parliamentarians a host of what should be added: digital skills, life skills, financial literacy, art and music, sports, Asian literacy and, of course, not forgetting new economy literacy topics like coding, computational thinking, data analytics and so forth. Minister Chan Chun Sing himself joined the chorus last week when he implored the Public Service to acquire four sets of new skills: digital skills, design thinking skills, systems skills and ability to collaborate across society.

The World Economic Forum listed 10 skills to survive what is now called the Fourth Industrial Revolution and named complex problem solving, critical thinking, creativity and cognitive flexibility, amongst them. Those were only the "Whats" to cover.

What about the "Hows" to deliver? Experts visualise a picture of more personalised learning driven by a more individual self-paced curriculum; lesser physical campuses, project and problem-based learnings; teachers as guides, curators of content and learning designers; and social and emotional skills.

We are not done. Who should education be targeted at? Everyone – from babies to youths to working adults to seniors; and not forgetting those of us who learn differently and those of us who are at risk of being left behind; the disadvantaged and persons with special needs.

The world of lifelong education is complicated and no one knows it all. And this is the reason why we need an overall education masterplan for the future to collect the dots, to join the dots, so that it makes sense for everyone; so that we know where we are heading; and what each of us has to do.

Reason five: no one can do it all. Finally, Sir, if the purpose of education is to lead to a better holistic life for all Singaporeans, then education is everybody's business and the Government must involve and partner the rest of society in conceiving and delivering a good education for all.

Families with younger children must take our place and decide that enough is enough. We will not live in fear; we will not succumb to the excesses of a tuition nation. Families must not simply outsource the raising of our children, building of character and life skills in their children to domestic helpers, schools and vendors.

Educators in schools must do their part to be relevant and updated. They must themselves be self-driven learners and become better designers of learning experiences; curators of content; and coaches to instil life skills, such as problem-solving, teamwork and social resilience, in partnership with caregivers and students themselves.

The community must provide opportunities and training to ensure purposeful and fruitful internships and service learning assignments.

Adult learners need to rise to the challenge of being personally responsible for our own learning, not just dependent on the SkillsFuture Credit or the courses that have been created for us.

Employers and industry captains must be active in honing skills mastery and hire for skills and stop using paper qualifications and academic scores as proxies for hiring criteria.

The Government must be the systems integrator to harness the energies of all key stakeholders; to apply design and systems thinking skills to facilitate the crafting of an integrated and dynamic education masterplan.

There are and there will be no single brilliant strategist; and no magic silver bullet to craft an education for the future. No one knows it all. We must all come together and craft and support an education masterplan that is uniquely Singapore.

In conclusion, Sir, Singapore has always prided itself in being one of the top-ranked education systems in this world. But I fear this is one of the key factors why we often resort to just tweaking the system, instead of making bolder moves – for fear of changing a system that earned us so much prestige. But let us learn something from the World Cup series that is going on now. Many of us have watched – I do not watch football much but my husband updates me a lot on this and he watches with his friends, in disbelief and dismay how prestigious favourite teams, such as Germany, Brazil, Argentina and Spain, have all been eliminated. We are reminded that past success is no guarantee of current or future success.

Hence, I call again for the joint development of an Education Master Plan for the Future to consolidate all that we have done across the life stages of learners; to retain the best and boldly slaughter the sacred cows which serve us no longer.

Singapore should chart our own path of significance, not just success, in education; march to the beats of our own hearts and drum; and take the path less travelled if that is the one we need. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare I have worked as an arts educator, teaching in school, teaching in NIE, teaching teachers and communities over the last 20 years besides being an arts and cultural practitioner.

I am speaking about the Motion today on imagining Education for Our Future, I think we should examine present trends, which will help us forecast possible future scenarios, should the situation remain the same.

So, what do we see today that can impact on our future?

Technological advances have given cause for worry, in terms of economic disruptions and adverse effects on human interactions and interpersonal relations. Ideological and sectorial conflicts are on the rise, leading to confrontations, polarisation and violence. Rampant capitalism and consumerism, left unchecked, are also widening the inequality gap in our society.

The above troubling signs might seem pessimistic, but, as my favourite writer 木心（Mu Xin) says: "悲观是一种远见". Pessimism is a form of foresight. In identifying possible negative outcomes, we can then work harder collectively to come up with new ways of addressing these crises before they become reality. I say "collectively" because I believe it is essential for us to break away from the sense of alienation many of us feel when faced with these challenges. To do that, we must better understand the complexities of these disruptions, so that we can present better suggestions to tackle them.

To better understand the future that young people wish to see, recently, I asked a group of youths about their hopes, dreams and concerns. Amongst the responses included: a call for transparency, that truths should not be distorted just so that some can achieve their personal goals; a plea for kindness to others, especially those who are different from us; and an exhortation for everyone to collaborate and work together, rather than pursue self-serving gains; and one particularly poignant call by this young lady who said, she hopes, we, as human beings, do not lose our faith in humanity.

All these hopes, shared by youths, are heartening because they point to a few key points: open-heartedness, teamwork, deep listening and engagement, all of which are essential for true, constructive discourse.

Yet, in recent times, when there is disagreement, people resort to one of two modes: either to "agree to disagree" and just leave it at that; or to "disagree" vehemently, engage in keyboard warrior tactics on the Internet, or wage a litany of complaints on other channels. There is no discourse. There is no empathy or desire to listen. It is you versus me, us versus them, my truth versus yours.

I am reminded of the recent incident of a group of people organised under a Facebook group accusing The Esplanade of "promoting bestiality" when the latter displayed an artwork of Singapore artist Vincent Leow at the Community Walk on the third level of The Esplanade. The artwork was subsequently removed. But what is disconcerting is that that was a simplistic misreading of an artistic work.

Is this the sort of discourse we want for our future, a reactionary one that seeks to ban works, complain, call out, label and shame without dialogue? Why does one group so quickly jump to impose its moral value on others? Why should the louder voice always be the one abided to, before all sides tell their story and come to a point of agreement with negotiation and mediation? Is it that the complainant's version of truth is the singular one everyone else must accept?

The world does not comprise only one simplistic moral or ethical view. Just like how we look at one object by not only observing the parts that are lit, but also those defined by shadows, so it is that the world comprises different shades, contexts and perspectives.

I bring this up because discourse is something fundamental and integral in education, specifically in the study of the humanities. Through Literature, History, Geography and the Arts, we develop a keen sensibility for nuances, differences and complexities. Take, for instance, the Dream of the Red Chamber, which, when studied from a humanistic approach, is not just a literature text to be examined. Rather, it is a very nuanced study of humankind, of society, of politics, of culture and art. We discover that being human, through that book, means having to deal with the different aspects of living: social, political, emotional, psychological, spiritual, physical, carnal and meta-physical. Yes, the Dream of Red Chamber does talk about carnal desires. We learn that power of empathy, by seeking to understand and deeply appreciate how each of these characters are like and, of course, including their shadows.

Why is this important? Because we do not want a future society without empathy. Education plays such a crucial role here, because our young ones should be given the opportunity to explore in schoo,l under the guidance of teachers, so that they learn at a tender age about the complexities of humanity. Without this, we will likely have a generation of people lacking in empathy, believing only in one's value and unable to comprehend or accept vulnerability in human existence.

In fact, even in the study of science, technology, mathematics, the focus is not merely on the discovery of theorems, theories and inventing things. Rather, great scientists and inventors view nature with awe and are constantly searching for humanity's relationship with nature, to understand rather than to alter it. This is because they are acutely aware that the search for truth is a quest in humility. We search because we are ignorant. And in acknowledging our imperfection and ignorance, we open our hearts and minds to learn and improve.

As Lessing, the philosopher, put it succinctly: it is not the truth that a man possesses, or believes that he possesses, but the earnest effort which he puts forward to reach for truth which constitutes the worth of a man.

So, where would be the best place for such complex studies of the humanities happen? Naturally, it is in our educational institutions, which provide a safe space where our young people can grapple with these conundrums in life, ponder deeply about differences, and come to a better understanding of and empathy for others.

This is also how educators help develop critical thinking in the young. In Singapore, we have been emphasising the importance of critical thinking. But critical thinking is not just about differentiating what is good or bad, or what works or not.

In teaching critical thinking, a lot of emphasis has been placed on the methodology of problem-solving. That is to say, one learns to analyse the problem, then suggest solutions, before evaluating its results. There is also an emphasis on dialogic learning. Allow me to quote Paulo Freire, the pedagogue who advocated Problem Posing approach, dialogic learning and critical pedagogy. To him, dialogue "cannot exist without the profound love for the world", and Problems-posing Education "affirms men and women as being in the process of becoming".

So, a good critical thinker is someone who has a curiosity in how human beings think, act and feel. This desire to understand another person’s perspective, objectives, fears and hope is the first step towards critical thinking and then towards empathy.

The study of humanities will go a long way in developing our critical thinking skills. As such, I appeal to MOE to deepen its efforts in ensuring that the humanities are studied deeply and widely. It should and must be an integral part of our pedagogical approach towards knowledge acquisition and the overall formation of our youths.

I spoke earlier about curiosity being a building block of critical thinking. I believe that people – young and old alike – are inherently curious folks. We want to know how things work, why policies are made, when something will affect us and how extensive that will be.

Yet, as the saying goes, many may buy into the notion that "curiosity kills the cat". Asking too many questions is sometimes seen as diverting energies in something that is irrelevant; it sidetracks from the task orientation. In a world that seeks efficiency, maximised profit and maximum satisfaction, it is easy to take the beaten and proven path, but, by doing so, we have sacrificed our natural instinct for curiosity as well.

I remember how my Mathematics professor in NUS, Prof Lee Peng Yee, proved theorems during lectures. He certainly knew all the right steps to do so, but, interestingly, he would deliberately permit himself to take detours, try alternatives, until he met with an obstacle. Was he wasting his students' time as he meandered and hit roadblocks? Not in the least. In fact, his trajectory was illuminating, because as he traced his steps back, he talked about why this path did not work and how we could perhaps try another path instead.

His deep curiosity was infectious and I remember it fondly until now. Curiosity is about getting lost, but allowing oneself to do so without fear. Any inventor or artist will tell you the same thing: that the fun part of creation is when you are trying to find your way around, when you are experimenting and discovering the world in the process. There should be no fear in that, but, rather, we should become accustomed to the promise that it brings with it.

Once again, the question is: where is the best and safest space to allow young people to be lost and explore? The answer, again, is our educational institutions. They are well-equipped to guide young people, young explorers and creators in life, as they find their own individual paths. Through these detours, they can discover curvatures and gradients instead of a straightforward movement from Point A to B. They can explore shapes and shades and become more three-dimensional in their outlook.

Unfortunately, our education system is so preoccupied with quick results that there is little time permitted for such holistic growth and exploration. I do not know how many teachers can do as Prof Lee did in my Mathematics classes. I do not know how many young people get to benefit from that curiosity, so that they learn what does not work as much as what can.

In today's competitive, results-oriented world, we tussle to be Number One all the time. This narrative has also permeated our education system and has become part of our cultural DNA. We may laugh about how Singaporeans are kiasu and kiasi, but, in accepting these traits with humour, we are also legitimising these self-serving attitudes and behaviour; we have normalised this race for instant gratification, for accolades, when we are winners and not second best.

So, to ensure results, we instil discipline and rigour. We tell our young people, yes, it is good for you to try new things, but make sure you get those grades or you will fall behind in life. We remind them that life is a competition, fulfilment is to be the best.

But is competition the best way that we can be? I seriously doubt so. Like it or not, competition creates silos and alienation. We are a small nation of 5.6 million. Should we create a race to the last for 5.6 million individuals, so that some privileged ones amongst us, or some able-bodied amongst us, can be the best? How about harnessing our collective capabilities instead through collaboration, so that we, as a nation, can move mountains at no one's expense? Can our education system reflect an ideal of how we want our society to be, like what fellow Member, Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng, has just said?

In my opinion, the schools are places where we can learn such life skills, that there is much merit in collaboration. A proliferation of competition can lead to a cancerous situation. In removing competitive elements from our education system, schools can become more inclusive and equitable and young people can discover the full potential of their innate curiosity.

Humanities and the cultivation of curiosity is not only reserved for the academically inclined. Unlike the situation during my time in school, you no longer need to be more proficient in language and writing to be studying literature or the arts. Rather, curiosity is a leveller – it is present whether you are academically inclined or otherwise and it should continue to be nurtured, regardless of how smart, or privileged you are.

But I can imagine what a rebuttal to this might be: do we have time to be curious? How do we make time for quality learning through discovery and having deep discussions on the humanities?

A parent of a young boy once told me that her kid had initially enjoyed preschool, which was full of play and discovery. But the moment he went to kindergarten, the pressure of academic pursuit reared its ugly head. By the time he was in Primary 3, when the PSLE loomed ominously ahead in the coming years, the honeymoon period was over. She noticed that her son had lost his sense of curiosity.

Is PSLE really necessary? I am aware that this question has been mooted before, but I believe it is important for us to ponder more deeply about it even now. If young students have to prepare for a major examination after an initial six years of study, does it impede their ability to learn deeply, discover and investigate?

I think we need to fundamentally agree on what is important in the education of our young people. Is it deep learning and interaction? If so, can we rethink the current system to make time for these aspects, rather than rush them through national examinations that determine their paths at so tender an age?

I have heard sharings of young people talking about how PSLE is such a scary thing. Children who studied so hard yet could not get the results he wanted and became angry and smashed a chair. This is not normal. This is not right. I am a product of such kind of education. The competition, the exam, the pressure that comes with shame and fear. And I still have nightmares of not completing my examination. Maybe some of you would have too.

It was only in theatre that I found the meaning of collaboration. When we are working in productions, when we use the best of our abilities to make the most meaningful work. Theatre-making provides a different model of learning: working with each other's strengths, respecting each other's differences, incorporating different opinions for the sake of trying to present a complex world of existence. I always think that theatre-making is an alternative schooling model. One builds on collaboration, not competition.

We should seriously consider slaughtering this sacred cow of the PSLE. The Scandinavian system has provided certain possibilities for us to look at. Of course, I am not saying that we simply emulate their system. Naturally, for any change, there is a need for plenty of political will and the Government and people must commit to such a change. But as a start, I think it is important to begin discussing this process of change, so that we can chart a roadmap forward, as well as addressing parents' anxiety over the issue.

With that, I really support fellow Member, Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng, for her suggestion on the masterplan. This masterplan should include looking at classroom sizes, assessment models and the capacity of teachers. I would not talk about classroom sizes because my colleague, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, has talked about it. But I want to talk about assessment again, which I think is an important aspect of learning. Yet today our assessment methods are still focused on the quantity that students have learnt, rather than the quality of their learning and retention. Many of us are aware of diagnostic assessment, where assessment is used to diagnose students' needs, so that the learning process can be improved to help them acquire knowledge better. In short, diagnostic assessment is less about KPIs, more about taking the interest of each individual child at heart. It means education to harness his or her skills, to address his or her needs and to encourage and groom each child's unique strengths.

If we adopt this fundamental shift in thinking about assessment, it will change how lessons are being taught and, subsequently, how individual learning journeys can be scaffolded. It changes the relationship between teachers and parents, between teachers and students, and amongst students themselves. It becomes an approach that is not about competition and not about fighting to be the best, but more about discovery, collaboration and being the best together, rather than alone.

I will talk about the educators who are instrumental in shaping our young people. I have worked with teachers for many years and we have heard about how much they have done and a lot of event-organising they have done. In fact, there is a joke that goes around that if they want a second career, they can consider being event-organisers.

I know from personal encounter that most teachers are incredibly passionate about teaching and draw their greatest pleasure from daily interactions with students. However, with increasing demands on how lessons should be taught – for instance, new pedagogical approaches, such as inquiry-based learning, or "Teach Less, Learn More" model – teachers who are products of our previous education system have found it challenging to move into these methods. It is not for the lack of trying or an unwillingness to try, but that they need more time to adapt and experiment.

Unfortunately, while these new approaches, taken on to alleviate pressure and produce more well-rounded students, are beneficial, the runway for teachers to adopt them and produce the same results is simply too short. Hence, I think we need to give more space for teachers to learn and experiment, and a way to do this is to relief them of their administrative duties.

Afinal word for the parents. I am a parent, too. I know intimately the pressures of parenting and I am familiar with the worries any parent has about the well-being and performance of our kids in schools. But let us be honest. Parents are equally responsible in the education of our children. In our bid to make a living, to ensure that we best provide for our children materially, have we become so caught up with work that there is a trade-off in our time spent with them? Have we also passed on that role of education fully to teachers, rather than undertake part of it ourselves? In doing so, have we become the source of stress for teachers, constantly checking on them, harrassing them, being critics of them and as if we know better and can tell teachers how to teach the children better?

So, here is my plea to parents like myself. Parents, take a step back. A teacher has to take care of more than one class of students. Your child's teacher has more wards than just your kid.

Mr Kok, you have half a minute left.

Okay. Teachers have a job to fulfil to the best of their capabilities and that is true. But they are human, too. So, do not treat teachers like you are a customer, that they are salespersons at your beck and call. Rather, see them as equals, because that is what they are trying to do: to work with you and not for you, all for the benefit of your child.

Finally, I will say that there is hope and all is not lost. There is room for change and collaboration and that is why I am so deeply thankful for this Motion so that we can take in all these thoughts and ideas and hope that the Government will seriously consider making a huge revamp of our education system.

We hope that parents will also take heed. Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, every school is a good school. This is a phrase we are very familiar with by now. Perhaps soon, we will also have to say, "every early childhood development centre (ECDC) is a good early childhood development centre".

Parents are now not just worried about which primary school their child goes to but also which ECDC their child goes to. The rat race has now begun way before our primary schools. We now have kindergarten assessment books, tuition for preschool children and even homework for our nursery kids. I have to be honest to say that this worries me. My wife and I found ourselves in this rat race as we searched for an ECDC to send our daughter Ella to.

The reality is that there is a wide variety of ECDCs. We tried a few, visiting them, letting Ella try it out for a day to see if she liked it and I joined her during these trials. I sat there in some of the ECDCs and I saw first-hand how much things have changed.

As Mdm Siti Zubaidah said in a news article, "In the past, it was all play and just learning the ABCs in kindergarten. But now, by K1, you need to learn how to count and read, to be on a par with everyone else”. And Mdm Siti is not alone. A survey found that four in 10 families in Singapore now send their preschool children to tuition. The most common reason for tuition, cited by more than half of the parents with children under seven, was to keep up with others.

Sir, there is much debate about how stressed our students are and how they suffer from high levels of anxiety. According to a survey, 66% of students across all OECD countries said they were worried about poor grades at school, but among Singapore students, it was 86%. In a post by ex-MOE policy officer, Yann Wong, in June this year, he also mentioned about how performance anxiety, shame and a need for validation through grades are problems that plague our students and our education system.

Sir, I sincerely hope that this stress, this anxiety, do not start when our children are three years old, in nursery. The early childhood years should really be about play. As O Fred Donaldson had said, “Children learn as they play. Most importantly, in play, children learn how to learn.”

The early years are the most formative in a child’s development, character and future. Scientific research tells us that children have objective developmental stages. Below the age of seven, especially, they need large amounts of time for free play. This develops personal and social awareness, gross and fine motor skills, and a foundation for learning. It is more important to directly encounter the things in the world that words and numbers describe, than to recite those words and numbers in an academic way. Earlier is not better when it comes to academic learning as well. A New Zealand study looked at children who read at five versus those who read at seven. They had no difference in reading outcomes at age 15.

In the German system, young children focus on social and personal awareness, only learning to read and write at age seven. This nation is also a major engineering and economic powerhouse of the world.

An education for our future needs to look at solutions that are both holistic and inclusive for our children, parents and educators. One way to do this is to shift early education away from a linear academic emphasis, to a more rounded emphasis focusing on holistic growth. There are many factors involved here but as around two-thirds of the early childhood education industry will be controlled by the Government by 2023 and with the establishment of the National Institute of Early Childhood Development, the Government can play an important role here.

First, we can strengthen and lead the move to de-emphasise academic content for early childhood education. The present emphasis on academics means that children play less and they are also outdoors less. Studies again in this area show that a lack of play will increase the odds of depression, anxiety and other disorders.

We also need to help shift the current tuition mindset for preschool children. As Dr Nirmala Karuppiah, an early childhood and special education lecturer at the National Institute of Education, stated in a news article, "As tuition is about sitting at a table doing pencil and paper activities as well as rote learning and acquiring academic skills, it could actually cause more harm than good for some children. For example, it goes against the way young children grow, develop and learn, which is through play and interacting with real objects, people and events in their environment."

Following on this point is, second, we need to promote more play and exploration in preschools and also lower primary schools. In the early years, children learn mainly through active exploration of the environment. In the words of Albert Einstein, "Play is the highest form of research." In fact, our current "Nurturing Early Learners" curriculum already recognises that children are naturally curious and does outline a framework that encourages learning through play. However, I am not sure whether this is followed by all ECDCs. From what I have seen and what other parents have shared online and with me, play is not a strong focus in some of the ECDCs. We also need to look into how we can provide our early childhood educators with enough time and flexibility to allow for creative exploration and play.

Third, we need to put care even more at the forefront to cater to the individual needs of each child. The need for young children to form responsive relationships cannot be overstated. Our policies and early learning framework should support the ability of educators and caregivers to be sensitive and responsive to a young children’s needs.

To support caregivers and educators, it is vital that student-to-teacher ratio remains small so that each child receives the attention he or she needs. To prevent disruptive relationships between caregivers and children in their care, it is also important to reduce the rate of turnover in these positions. Attractive salaries, incentives and supervision should be put in place for educators of young children. When children feel cared for in a stable and supportive relationship, stress naturally goes away and learning takes care of itself. In fact, shifting our priority to care over academic outcomes is key in helping children thrive and reach their full potential.

Fourth, the future of our education requires us to cater to the emotional health of students more comprehensively. I am heartened to see that schools remain vigilant in preventing further suicides in children. However, that is not adequate. We want children to thrive, not simply survive. A survey by Chapter Zero, a social enterprise working with parents, caregivers and educators in Singapore, showed that the top two qualities parents hoped to see for their child were "healthy relationships with others" and "strong emotional health". Approximately half the parents interviewed were concerned that the educational system did not support students to develop these qualities. Seventy percent of the parents raised the need for more emphasis on social-emotional learning in preschools and primary schools, particularly on mindfulness, empathy and conflict management.

While there are existing frameworks on Southampton Emotional Literacy Scales (SELS), some surveys show that more can be done, and should be done, to meet the emotional needs of students. Studies have shown that there is correlation between the level of pro-social behaviour that a student showed in kindergarten and their education and job prospects, criminal activity, likelihood of substance abuse and mental health in adulthood. Other studies likewise indicate that feeling socially connected as a child is more strongly associated with happiness in adulthood than academic achievement is.

Lastly, I propose a need to review the performance-based ranking for teachers. MOE's Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS) was instituted in 2005 and reviewed in 2014. It provides a competency-based performance management system which serves to appraise teachers' efforts for the year. The EPMS Teaching Competency Model, among other indicators, assesses a teacher's ability to "cultivate knowledge".

In an interview on incentives in education, American psychologist Barry Schwartz said, "If you start giving teachers bonuses if their students exceed some scores on these standardised tests, teachers will find a way to teach to the test. Test scores will go up, but education will not."

Teachers join teaching to make a difference to the lives of our youths. Yet, the reality of the pressure from competition created by our own performance-based ranking and reward system can skew teachers’ choices. We want teachers who teach for the love of teaching, not teachers who teach for tests.

Perhaps, there should also be a de-emphasis of ranking and rewarding of teachers based on ranking. Ranking teachers pits them against each other and may incentivise some teachers to do what is visible or measurable, like teach to teach, to the test. Educators are pitted against each other, which could also reduce the incentive for some to share resources and ideas, or to work together.

Sir, an education for our future cannot just be about academic pursuits, about grades and about students who suffer from high levels of anxiety. And this, definitely, cannot be the case for our preschool children. In the words of Fred Rogers, "Play is often talked about as if it were a serious relief from serious learning. But, for children, play is serious learning. Play is really the work of childhood." Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, I will deliver my speech first in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Hon Mr Speaker, I agree and acknowledge that we have a world-class education system, which, at times, is the envy of other countries. Our nation has developed for over five decades, during which time our education system has played an important role in our success.

The Malay community, in general, has achieved success in many fields. We can see many young Malays now who are highly educated and attained their own successes. The focus on getting the right education is something that, undeniably, leads to all these successes. However, there are those within our community who are not as fortunate.

As we strive and progress towards building an inclusive society, where no one should be left behind, I think that there is more that we can do for our students. We must be bold in our actions, beyond merely giving lip service about levelling the playing field for everyone.

We must make hard decisions and take bold actions, no matter how difficult it might be, in order to create a level playing field. We must strive to mitigate the different obstacles faced by our children in order to help them succeed and achieve their dreams and aspirations.

We must go beyond merely using buzzwords like "future-ready" or "broad-based education". These words may sound good, but are they well-understood or seen as reality by the man-in-the-street?

Just as we work towards building a society with a big heart, our education system has to develop its strategies with a heart. This kind of education strategy needs to be holistic in nature, which focuses on the development of each individual, in order to explore the potential and grow the capabilities of each child, so as to help them achieve their dreams and aspirations. It will be meaningless if the education system merely provides pathways to a similar destination, without achieving one’s dreams and aspirations. Therefore, I would like to suggest, for consideration, multiple education systems and strategies, so that we can fulfil this aim. Let us take this step together and embolden ourselves to achieve this objective, so as to ensure a successful life for our future generations.

The strategies that we create must take into account the abilities and shortcomings of each individual and transform it into opportunities to grow and thrive. However, we should also tread cautiously. In our eagerness to do so, we must ensure that it does not limit their opportunities.

Admittedly, this is a difficult task. It requires all stakeholders – the Government, schools, teachers, students and parents – to join hands and work together. But I am certain that this is a goal that is shared by everyone. With this common goal, we hope that we can take our first step towards achieving national integration, where everyone moves forward together as one nation, with no one left behind, and each individual, whether children or adults, can thrive on their own abilities without being limited by the system.

Let us take this bold step together for the sake of our future generations.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I shall now deliver my speech in English.

Education is an often-discussed topic that I foresee will continue to be hotly debated in the years to come. This is certainly to be expected as education has such a tremendous impact on our future generations and the state of our economy.

Education also plays a major role in the social mobility of our citizens. We have repeatedly told our students, "Go, go and get a good education, and you will have a better future". And that is true, for the most part. But what if one's starting point affects one's ability to have a good education? What if one's circumstances present him or her with challenges and difficulties which hinder him or her in getting a good education?

As an illustration, a child from a low-income family, in most cases, starts out at a disadvantage. Despite the assistance that they receive or that is made available to them, there is a high chance that their performance in school may still be affected by other factors, such as their living conditions, the strength of the family unit and others. Another example, a student studying in a cramped 2-room flat that is shared with another family might find it a struggle, compared to another who has the luxury of studying in a room of his or her own; or a student who has to stay up late to care for his younger sibling because his mother is working, is likely to find it harder to concentrate in school, compared to his classmate who does not have to.

These are the very real circumstances that our students are going through and something needs to be done to help them. As Singapore progresses and develops further, we must ensure that every individual is sufficiently equipped to face the uncertain future. Let us make our education system a platform for all, to enable them to rise up in meeting with the new challenges.

As we work towards an inclusive society where no one is left behind, I think there is still much that can be done for our students and it has to go beyond lip service about levelling the playing field. Hard decisions must be made to look at how we can truly make the playing field level for everyone and how we can help mitigate the effects of the different circumstances faced by each child in order to help them succeed in school. It has to go beyond catchphrases like "future-ready" or "broad-based education". That may sound good. But is this well-understood by the average person? Can the common man truly see the reality?

Just as we work towards building a society and a nation with a heart, our education system has to develop its strategies with a heart. It is about developing strategies that consider the child holistically and as an individual who is unique. We should consider to develop strategies that make pathways available to them that are truly meaningful in helping them to achieve their aspiration and dream and the true meaning of success. It is meaningless when the pathways are simply routes to the same destination as everyone else, but not achieving one's dream and aspiration.

I regard our current education system as a "one-size-fits-all" approach, with minor tweaks here and there to cater for the incidentals which are away from the mainstream. We should be bold enough to take the step forward to consider multiple education systems and strategies with different approaches to serve the varying individual needs, a holistic system where every dream and aspiration is met. And I am convinced we have the ability and maturity to do this.

Strategies have to take into account the child's abilities and shortcomings and turn these into opportunities to grow and thrive. However, we must be careful that, in our pursuit, we do not limit opportunities for them.

Admittedly, this is a difficult task and it is one that requires all stakeholders to work together – the Government, schools, teachers, educators, students and parents. But I am certain that this is a goal that is shared by everyone and it is within this shared goal that we can hope to take our first step forward in achieving national integration, where everyone moves forward together as one, with no one left behind and everyone thrives, based on their abilities without being limited by the system. Let us take this bold step together for the sake of our future generation.

As we talk about the importance of developing skills rather than chasing for degrees, how have we seen the decision of parents and students change? Based on my observation, many parents still remain unconvinced that the days of the paper chase are over and that they are still pushing their children to strive towards degrees and paper qualifications. We need to look at why this is so. Could there be a lack of understanding of what it means to be future-ready? If so, then, clearly, outreach and education efforts need to be stepped up.

Mr Speaker, our education system emphasises the concept of the joy of learning. Yet, if we ask parents, many may not see this as being true. Anecdotally, I have heard parents of lower primary students lamenting about how tough school work is for their children these days. For example, Primary 2 students are now expected to draw problem-sum models when, in the past, these are reserved only for the older primary school students. How can the abstract concept of modelling be effectively and comprehensively explained to an eight-year-old child who is only two years into the primary school system? Is our education system, in its pursuit to be competitive, inadvertently taking away the joy of learning? How are our students supposed to spend time to explore and discover their love for Mathematics, if they are inundated with planning out models for problem sums today? Shall we not guide our students to discover what they do not know and assist them to explore alternatives, rather than providing concepts and solutions? I believe the ability to discover, explore and rediscover will have a more far-reaching effect in the long run. Our goal to become a resilient nation should embark on a "discover and explore" education system, continually.

Ideally, education should be about allowing our children to explore the different subjects at their own pace and discover what interests them. Admittedly, it would not be easy to achieve. The need for standardised tests is one big obstacle preventing this. But challenges and obstacles have never stopped us as a nation, so why let them stop us now? A child who learns because he wants to will learn and retain much more than one who feels forced to do so simply because it will count towards his final grade.

My concern is that the chase for grades will make our children lose sight of what is important – that it is truly a joy to learn new things. My concern is that the preoccupation with doing well and being the best will derail them from the essence of learning, which is to discover new things that interest them, that will fuel their curiosity and desire to explore and learn even more.

It is my hope that the Government and policymakers will approach education strategies with a heart, especially in considering the different circumstances our children are in and how we can help them overcome any challenges or barriers. It is also my hope that these strategies will also help our children to explore and rediscover the joy of learning.

Only when we do these can we truly prepare our children for the future and, at the same time, take our first step towards achieving national integration, where everyone moves forward together as one, with no one left behind.

Mr Speaker, in summarising, education will remain as important as it has been since time immemorial, if not even more. It is through education that we progress and morph from one stage to the next. Be it in culture, economics, engineering or others, education will continue to be the bridge for now and into the future, enabling us to be socially mobile.

However, like the generations before us, our future will always be challenged with uncertainties as the external environment is dynamically changing. I am certain that our ability to explore and discover will enable us to circumvent these uncertainties and lead us to the right survival strategies.

Let us be bold, bold enough to explore new ideas to ensure that our education system brings out the best in each and every one of us. Let us embolden ourselves to consider multiple education systems and strategies with different approaches, away from the "one-size-fits-all", to serve the varying individual needs, where our dreams and aspirations can become a reality.

With the right education strategies, I am confident that we will progress as a nation with a heart. Not only shall we progress as a nation, but also as an integrated society where we truly see our fellow Singaporeans as family. With that, Mr Speaker, without reservation and, wholeheartedly, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a small country with no natural resources, Singapore has done well to leverage on our one major resource that has allowed us to achieve all that we have in the past 50-plus years: our people. Leveraging on our human capital has allowed us to thrive and punch far above our weight on the global stage and is a testament to our efforts to develop, attract and retain human capital.

A key ingredient to sustaining Singapore's talent competitiveness and enhancing our human capital is a robust ecosystem that supports our human capital development and education is a critical aspect of that system. Indeed, it is this belief in the importance of education that led me to begin my career as an educator in 2001 and it is this belief that motivates me to continue in my career as an educator today. I would like to declare my interest as CEO of a private education institution.

Over the years, Singapore has made changes to its education system to ensure that it continues to be relevant. With education being the key to developing people to their full potential, we need to continue to be innovative and visionary in our approach and ensure that we have an education system that not only develops our people to their full potential, but also one that helps them meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my maiden speech a few years back, I spoke about the importance of creating "I"-shape graduates who not only have deep subject-matter knowledge, but also a breadth of other knowledge and life skills that allow them to operate across different fields. By an "I"-graduate, I mean the horizontal top of the "I" will refer to a spread of different technical skills and knowledge, one of which will then go deep to form the vertical part of the "I" and then, the bottom horizontal bar of the "I" will refer to a variety of life skills and other skills that will actually anchor the individual in the journey through life.

The call for creating "I"-shape graduates has far more relevance today than before, especially in this age of disruption. Across the globe, we have seen disruptions happening not only in businesses, but also in how we work, play and organise our lives. As the operating landscape of our lives becomes more complex, it is now more important than ever to ensure that our youths and young adults possess a diverse set of skills that allow them to traverse and navigate this increasingly pluralistic world.

Ellen Galinsky, the co-founder of Family and Work Life Institute in the USA, advocated that we need to possess seven life skills that allow us to grow and learn throughout our lives. The skills are: focus and control, perspective taking, communications, making connections, critical thinking, willingness to take on challenges and self-directed and engaged learning.

Among these seven skills, I strongly urge the Government to cultivate making connections and self-directed and engaged learning in our students and youths. This self-directed and engaged learning would, indeed, be an indication of the "love for learning" concept that is mentioned in the Motion today.

In an increasingly complex world where simple linear relationships are giving way to multi-directional ones, our youths need to see both the wood and the trees. This would require them to be perceptive and have the intuitive ability to make connections between seemingly unconnected events and make sense of them.

Building these skills would require our students to be exposed to concepts, such as design thinking and having the ability to oscillate between possessing a macro-worldview and the ability to see how different pieces fit into that view. I would strongly suggest that MOE consider how our youths can be exposed to such concepts from a young age so that they could adopt a more holistic approach in dealing with the complex challenges of the future.

I would also like to take some time to talk about the issue of tuition and education, Mr Speaker. This has been mentioned by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan in his opening speech; by my colleague Mr Louis Ng and a few other colleagues.

I think there is a tendency to regard tuition as the scourge of our education system. But we should also step back and take a look at it from the perspective of times when students do need additional help if they are weak in their subjects, if they are struggling, for them to be able to have the opportunity to take tuition in order that they may actually improve. And while I take the point also that parents who perhaps have the means to afford tuition of a different level would be able to pay for that tuition, we also do have self-help groups and community organisations that are able to provide tuition to needy students, to needy families for students who need help at affordable rates. I think the issue here is perhaps one that I feel strongly about and, that is, for parents to understand how tuition fits into the education of their children.

I know a lady who lives in my constituency and we see her quite often at grassroots events. I used to see her with her child. And increasingly, on the weekends, her child would be with her less and less. And I actually asked her one day, "Where is your child?" she said, "Oh, he is having tuition". I said, "Okay". The next week, I saw her again and I asked, "Where is your child?" She said, "He is having tuition." And one day, I asked her, I said, "Madam, you don't mind if I ask you, why is it your child seems to be going for a lot of tuition on the weekends? Shouldn't he be here with you having some fun?" She said, "What to do? He is so lazy. If I don't send him for tuition, he is never going to do his work."

And I think this comment by this lady had me reflecting because, essentially, what she was hoping to do was that by sending her child for tuition, that will eventually "cure" him, as it were, of the concern that he was lazy and not wanting to do his work. I think that is reflective of how parents then would view tuition in the context of their children's education.

By all means, if your child needs tuition, I think we should be supportive of families who are needy, help them get the tuition. And if people can afford tuition, then get tuition for your children if they need to improve and if they are struggling with their subjects. But I would hope parents would also encourage their children to take ownership of their learning, to be these self-directed learners that we are talking about, rather than regard tuition as a way of ensuring that children do their work.

The danger of this, Mr Speaker and Members of the House, is that we will end up with a society, one day, whereby when the tuition finally stops, then what do you do? What do you do when there is no one left to tell you how to do your work? When there is no one left to tell you what assignments you should do? When there is no one left to tell you which 10-year series you should practise? That is the challenge. Because you cannot have tuition throughout your entire life. Or maybe you can and that is why people have life coaches, psychologists and psychiatrists.

Moving on then to my next topic, which is: an exam-based academic achievement versus a skills-based academic achievement. I think one way of ensuring that we focus more on life skills is to explore how we can shift from an exam-based academic system to a more coursework-based or skills-based academic one.

I spent 16 years in the polytechnic as an educator and I have seen how students who have less than stellar academic PSLE or even "O" or "N" level scores often end up doing very well in the polytechnic system. They are able to achieve good grade point average scores in the polytechnic, which reflects their ability to do well academically. They are transformed from being regarded as academically poor or average, into good academic achievers. The main difference, of course, is that they are now in a system that measures academic achievement in terms of coursework and skills capability, as opposed to the ability to study for an exam.

There are some subjects at the "N" and "O" levels that allow students to do well based on their practical and skills-based capabilities, but the fact remains that our education system is still very much an exam-based academic one, especially when it comes to the mother-of-all exams, the PSLE. Ultimately, a good PSLE T-score demonstrates a child’s ability to cram for exams and deliver in a controlled exam-based environment and one wonders if that is an accurate reflection of his or her potential.

So, while I am not advocating the scrapping of the PSLE and I acknowledge the proposed changes being made to this exam by MOE, I would like to suggest that MOE consider how it can make the PSLE more about a demonstration of other skill sets and capabilities, other than the ability to “cram-and-deliver.” Perhaps, the element of coursework or continuous assessment could be introduced as part of one’s PSLE grade, such that the eventual PSLE score is a more holistic reflection of a young adult’s capabilities and abilities.

The Government has, over the years, increasingly recognised that there are multiple pathways to success. Having a degree, for example, is only one of the many peaks of excellence and we have, indeed, seen many examples of successful people who do not have degrees. The fundamental objective of education is thus not to pursue paper qualifications, but the assurance that the receivers of education learn employable and relevant skills that enable them to succeed in the industry or career of their choice.

In an earlier speech debating the President’s Address in May, I briefly commented on how the Government has recognised the importance of providing learners with various options that cater to different learning needs and aspirations in the post-primary school education sector. The same choices are also given to parents in the pre-primary education sector with different early childhood education options providing different pedagogies and curricula to suit different needs.

While multiple options are provided for pre- and post-primary school students, the primary education sector still follows a one-size-fits-all model where schools administer a centrally planned curriculum with limited room for variations. As evidenced by how our post-primary and tertiary education sectors have produced a varied pool of talent who are skilled in a variety of different fields, could we not also allow our primary schools to be more diverse in offering their own curriculum that caters to different learning needs and aspirations?

I am supportive of Ms Rahayu Mahzam’s amendments that development paths need to be suited to unique strengths and interests and I believe strongly that having different systems and different pathways will ultimately be beneficial as it produces different products. Diversity ultimately results in a whole that is always more than the sum of its parts and I would like to encourage MOE to perhaps run some pilot programmes in the primary school sector to see how alternate systems and pedagogies could also be successful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we live in an ever increasingly complex world where challenges are often multifaceted and closely intertwined and we need to design an education system that adequately prepares our people for this world. A system of this nature must necessarily recognise the potential of each and every learner and create diverse pathways for everyone to meet their potential and aspirations.

In this increasingly complex world, it is not so much about what you know, as what you can do. I thus strongly urge the Government to consider how we can continue to ensure that our people, both the young and not-so-young, are given adequate opportunities and pathways that allow them to learn and develop along different pathways, while at the same time, master a set of life skills and domain knowledge that enables them to maximise their unique potential.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments to speak about our educators and admitting the challenging jobs they face.

Being an educator is not easy. I always make the comment that we will never presume to tell a lawyer how to do his job. You would not go onto a plane to tell a pilot how to fly a plane. Indeed, you would not tell a brain surgeon how to perform surgery. But everybody seems to want to tell teachers and educators how they should teach the children in school, so, it is tough. We have to deal with these expectations. We have to deal with the amount of work outside of the classroom. We have to deal also with the fact that we are shaping and growing young people and young children.

So, I would like to take this moment just to say "Thank you" to all our educators; whether you are a preschool educator or a professor in a university. Thank you for taking our children from building blocks to the “ABCs”. Thank you for preparing them for the mother-of-all exams. Thank you for guiding them in their coursework and their projects. Thank you for all the academic, the non-academic work and the administrative work that you do outside the classroom. But most of all, thank you for continuing to develop the one resource, the one resource that will always be critical to Singapore’s success and, that is, our people. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for allowing me to speak on the Motion. When my colleague and fellow Nominated Member of Parliament, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, mooted the idea of a Motion that recognises and endorses the love of learning as the foundation for our future and that education should be inclusive, accessible and a lifelong experience for everyone in Singapore, it was a no-brainer for me to endorse and support this meaningful Motion.

Sir, as I have recounted several times in this House, education has played a key role as an enabler and is the main reason why many other Singaporeans and I have been able to progress and succeed in life. I would also like to preface my speech by stating that the education system in Singapore is a world-class system that has done well for our country and continues to be a key path of success for those who have less.

However, like any system, now and again, there may be a need to take a step back, every once in a while, to see if there might be tweaks and adjustments that would ensure that a strong system becomes even stronger over time, to keep up with evolving needs and demands. In Singapore, growing affluence and rising aspirations are a few among many factors that point to a need for an even more calibrated approach to education. Some may argue that Singapore is doing fine. It is precisely because we are doing so well that we should take this opportunity to wholeheartedly support things that are working well for Singapore and perhaps consider slight tweaks to areas that are not functioning at their full potential.

In my speech today, I will be focusing on two main areas: sports education in Singapore and the bigger role that parents can play in nurturing the talents of their children. Much of it will be through anecdotes from my experience as the father of a child who has gone through sports education in a local primary school, as well as from the many conversations that I have had with parents with children in the current primary and secondary school local system.

Like many in this House, my wife and I enrolled our son in the local primary school system. It is a system that is robust, well thought through and which works. While many parents focused predominantly on a school’s academic success, accessibility through alumni membership or perhaps proximity to home, my wife and I, when looking for a primary school for our son, also looked at the breadth of sports offered by the school.

You see, Sir, as I have shared before in this House, sports is not just about fitness, wellness and competition. More importantly, Members in this House who have played sports would agree with me here, sports is about learning traits, such as teamwork, fair play and values such as respect, resilience and graciousness. Through sports, children learn sportsmanship and other life skills. They develop a sense of fellowship with one’s competitiveness that is not selfish or self-centred.

Sports would also enable our children to build relationships with people across all sectors, with many lasting a lifetime. On the football pitch, when you are playing as a team, it matters not whether you live in a 1-room rental flat or a good class bungalow, or whether you are the top student or worst student in class. What matters most is that you are working together, having each other’s back, in the bid to score against the opposing team. It is perhaps one of the best social leveller platforms around.

So, when it was time to sign up my son for a sport, it was a new experience for me. Back in the day when I wanted to play a sport, I just turned up when the teachers asked me to and that was it, we played. Today, it is a pretty complicated exercise to play in the sport of your choice.

Most schools now have an online registration system for CCAs that opens for a specific window, during which parents must go online to register their child for the CCA of their choice. And it is not a given that you will get to play the sport or CCA that you have selected for your child as there are limited places. So, it is on a first-come-first-served basis. This is also incredibly tough for parents who do not have immediate access to the Internet during that specific window. I am speaking from experience here.

I have always been puzzled by the thinking behind this. If you are a child in a primary school and love a sport and want to play it, you should be encouraged to pursue your passion instead of being told that there are “not enough” places in that CCA and sent off to a sport or CCA that you have absolutely no interest in. As I understand it, part of the reason for this is that schools now farm out some of their CCAs to external vendors who cannot cope with the large numbers of students keen on popular sports, or are not paid to do so.

Often, we hear about schools that decide against offering sports options that they do not excel in. I know of one particular school that stopped offering a sport after repeatedly finishing second and third in national tournaments. Parents and children are also told that that there are too few children interested in that particular sport so it does not make sense to offer that CCA. The end result is that even if it is a fairly popular sport like football or tennis, some schools tend to not offer the sport as a CCA. Parents are then told: "Don’t worry. You can engage your own coach and enlist your child in a programme to participate in the sport he or she enjoys and, we, as a school, will recognise it as an official CCA".

What this means is that the more affluent parents will engage private coaches for their children, and the children from less affluent families make do with playing an alternative sport which they may not like or have any interest in. It also means that parents have a very big say in the running of the CCA and, sometimes, this can lead to conflicts of interests with regard to team selections and performance.

Perhaps, a solution would be for schools in a particular zone or area to come together and decide collectively to offer sports that they may not be able to offer on their own. Schools pooling their resources could also alleviate cost concerns as, when CCAs are farmed out to vendors, it usually means that parents have to top up the fees. The shared fees would reduce the burden for less affluent families.

Sir, another suggestion I would like to make is for all schools to have a common basic sports curriculum to introduce popular sports to all children. If a child does not know what sport he or she wants to participate in, the introduction to a comprehensive sports programme, perhaps during physical education (PE), will allow the child to familiarise himself or herself with different types of sports and identify ones that he or she enjoys and would want to pursue. This would also give children a broader understanding of sports in general, be it rugby, football, swimming, table tennis, badminton, hockey or whatever the sport may be. I understand that some schools do introduce one or two sports during PE, but this is not comprehensive, nor is it standard across all schools.

The Government could also take the lead in creating public spaces where kids can play sports without the hassle of booking fields and courts, many of which require some form of online registration and payment, which children might not have access to. We have done an amazing job with our park connectors. Surely, we can do just as amazing a job by creating open, public spaces in neighbourhoods where any child can play a sport of his or her choice, without fear of reproach, meaning, not being chased away or reprimanded as I was decades ago when honing my football skills in HDB void decks.

Sir, I call for greater scrutiny on external vendors appointed to run CCA programmes for schools. For those running sports CCAs, many are former national and club sportsmen who may have robust credentials as sportsmen but have little or no qualification or experience in coaching or, more importantly, educating children.

I have seen this first-hand, where fundamentals like proper warm-up and warm-down techniques, drills and explanations about sportsmanship and respect are not part of the sports CCA's curriculum.

What you often find instead is a strong emphasis on winning, which in itself is not a bad thing; but sports education in schools should be more than just about winning. There are vendors who blatantly tell parents, "Your child need more coaching. I am happy to coach him outside of the CCA hours, and these are my rates". And lo and behold, the kids who go for these private extra coaching end up on the first team representing the school. Again, this encourages elitism, where the affluent parents will be able to get their kids on the school team because they can afford the additional coaching.

There are also vendors who are harassed by parents on the sidelines: parents who yell instructions and abuses during tournaments and pressure the coaches to place their children. Again, this is not what playing sport is about. Worse still, children who have parents who work lose out because their mothers or fathers are not at the training or competition grounds to lobby on behalf of their children. This is behaviour that is fundamentally wrong.

Sir, I urge the Ministry to take a closer look at how schools organise their PE curriculum and CCA, and how external vendors are appointed. For sports CCAs, what are the credentials of these vendors and how are they assessed? It cannot just be about winning tournaments. Perhaps, Sport Singapore, the Singapore Sports Institute and the Singapore Sports School can lend their expertise to help schools craft the PE and sports CCA curriculum so that every child can enjoy and reap the benefits of sport.

Teachers managing sports CCAs as well as vendors could also be better trained to nurture children who play sport, which could include advice on nutrition and physical and mental wellness. Sir, what I am sharing is probably not new to many in this House, or to any parent with school-going children. But I raise this now, in light of this Motion, to strongly urge the House that if we are serious about encouraging our children to pursue their passions, that education continues to be the pathway for success for those who have less, then perhaps it is time that we pay more attention to sports education. Sports in our schools should be a meeting place for friendship, fellowship and the pure enjoyment of sport, regardless of your family and financial background. It is one of the few places in a child's schooling life where he or she is not judged by their academic prowess and we should do all we can to return to this spirit.

Sir, I would like to turn our attention to my second point, about the DSA programme. When conceived and introduced in 2004, the programme was to enable Primary 6 and Secondary 4 students who are exceptionally talented not just in academics but also CCAs, and sports included, to be guaranteed places in secondary schools or JCs, through tests and trials. While the scheme has worked and Minister Ng Chee Meng has announced that a review is being undertaken to address how different schools select students, here are some observations about the scheme that merit further scrutiny.

One unintended consequence of the scheme is the emergence of "DSA coaches". These are sports coaches who have, over the years, studied the DSA entrance requirements of schools and created programmes that aim to guarantee your child a place in the school of choice if you enrol your child in their classes over a period of time. Some of them are so good at it that they will refund the fees if your child does not make it to the school of your choice through the DSA programme.

Sir, all parents want the best for their children. So, parents who can afford the fees would enrol their kids in these programmes. But what do these coaches actually teach? A friend, whose child attended one of these classes, talked about how the coach instructed the child not to pass the ball to his team mates during the trials or when the coaches from the DSA schools were observing him. This is to ensure that the child would outshine his team mates and secure that precious DSA place in the school.

Another child, who had no interest in any sport, was enrolled by his parents into a shooting class that guaranteed success in the DSA trials and a place in a top school. Yes, the boy got into the school through DSA, but is now miserable as he does not enjoy the sport and only enrolled and played it to get into the top school. We need to ask ourselves if this is what the DSA scheme is intended to be and if this "gaming" of the system is acceptable. Is this what sports is about? Do we want to encourage such behaviour and, worse, reward it, by giving these children places in our top schools?

What we need is for the system to also recognise and reward children who exemplify good sportsmanship and character as these are qualities that will stay with them beyond their school sporting careers. Just look at Japan at this year's Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup in Russia. They were a hair's breadth away from beating Belgium and qualifying for the Quarter Finals but the world now remembers them more for their behaviour off the field, for their fair play and how they left their dressing room spotless and penned a note of thanks in Russian to their hosts.

Perhaps, the Ministry can work on tweaking the DSA trials to include criteria, such as sportsmanship, fair play and traits and values exhibited like Sean See from St Andrew's Secondary School. Sean, the school's hockey captain, captured our hearts earlier this year when he asked the umpire not to allow a goal that his team had scored when their opponent was not ready, as he felt it would not have been fair to the other team. This resulted in his team eventually losing the match. To me, values, such as integrity and fair play, are as important, if not more, than one's ability as an athlete. By including these other criteria in the DSA selection process, the Ministry would send a strong signal to the teachers, coaches, parents and children about the kind of young Singapore it hopes to nurture. And it will also create a more level playing field as these values cannot be paid for.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the other main role in education belongs to us, the parents. Fundamentally, it is up to parents who should know and understand our children best, to make the best decision with them and not for them. Let me share a personal experience which I think has helped me become a better father. I think most people in this House know that I love sport. I played it at all levels and am a true football nut. So, when my son came along, all I dreamed of was to see him have the same passion for sport as I did, and for football, in particular.

When he was about four or five years old, I enrolled him in a football academy, as I had wanted him to have a very good foundation. But after a few weeks of watching him from the sidelines, I noticed that while he seemed happy enough, instead of going after the ball and passing it, all he seemed to do was chase after the other children, much like he was playing a game of "catching". So, on the way home from training one day, I decided to have a heart-to-heart with him. "Do you actually enjoy football?" I asked. "Yes, daddy, very much", he said, smiling. Then, I pressed, "But why do you just chase the kids around?" The smile on his face turned to a frown and, almost bursting into tears, he said, "Actually, daddy, I don't like football at all." So, I said, "Why didn't you say anything, you don't have to play the sport if you don't like it?" And his response broke my heart, "Because you love football, daddy." That is when I realised that, as a father, I just assumed that my child would love what I loved and would want to be just like me. But I had never bothered to ask him what he liked.

So, for the next few years, we encouraged him to play whatever sport or activity he wanted. He tried everything from aikido, to swimming to table tennis to golf. And, finally, after a few years later, on his own, he began to develop a love for football – thank God! And he is today an accomplished footballer, having played competitive football for school and club. It is a sport he genuinely loves, for all the right reasons. As parents, it is natural to want our children to be just like us and have the same interests as us. As a parent, it is also easy to fall into the trap of seeing other parents and their children succeeding and excelling in different sports and thinking to ourselves our boy or girl could also do that. I know of parents who have pushed their children so hard that their children end up resenting not just the sport but their parents as well.

I am reminded of an interview I read in the Financial Times about a month ago. It was an interview with Andira Zafirakou, who was recently crowned the best teacher in the world, the 2018 winner of the Global Teacher Prize. She says and I quote, "Every child is different. Some children will really benefit from the military lining up and find it comforting. But, then, some children won't be able to adapt to those environments and that will cause mental health issues."

The point here is that, as parents, we need to understand our children better, to listen more and to listen effectively. And as far as sport education is concerned, we would have succeeded when sport elicits the same unbridled joy in every child that we see when the school bell rings to announce it is time for recess. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Tamil please.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Mr Speaker, sports in schools are not just for ordinary physical exercise. Neither is it for the purpose of competition. Sports are more than that. Children enjoy the benefits of playing in the field through their interaction with one another and learn values, such as comradeship, hard work, discipline and honesty. When children engage themselves in sports, they develop among them the sense of competition, become unenvious, forbearing, develop together good virtues and the sense of accepting defeat. At present, sports in schools have become very competitive.

Today, affluent parents send their children for multiple coaching classes so that they can get into top schools under the Direct Schools Admission programme. This favours the affluent parents and discriminates against the less well-off parents who may not be able to afford such classes to prepare their children. Therefore, there needs to be a level playing field.

Parents and educators should look into this and create an interest among children for sports and let them enjoy it. When the recess bell is rung, the children run and play with one another. Likewise, such a situation should exist when they engage themselves in sports activities in schools.

(In English): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I stand and support the Motion.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.58 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Before we resume, can I just perhaps pose two questions to Members: who is the most important teacher in our child's life? And where is the most important school? I think systems, structures, processes are important, but I think it is useful to think about what the answers to those questions might be.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support this Motion. Education is the key enabler to unleashing potential and poverty; it is the key to gaining more knowledge; and it is the key to staying relevant and future-ready.

The Motion on Education is a broad topic. I just wish to speak on something that is close to my heart: adult learning and lifelong learning. Continuous skills upgrading and learning are paramount for us to keep abreast of the changes that are happening in the fast-changing world.

The SkillsFuture credit was introduced to encourage Singaporeans to learn new skills, new knowledge. Some use it for higher learning programmes and, some others, for new skills. As of 1 February 2018, 285,000 Singaporeans have used their SkillsFuture credits. However, more awareness needs to be created about the use of this credit. Additionally, there must be three "Flex" for lifelong learning to be successful. Flex-time, flex-place, and flex-learning would further encourage Singaporeans to embrace lifelong learning more readily. Age is just a number. What is important is the tenacity to be open-minded, be adaptable to un-learn and re-learn new knowledge and skill sets.

There should be co-ownership between employers and employees and interns to train and learn, so that employers can retain skilled people in the workforce. Employees must be open to training and upgrading their skills and knowledge. Employers should give these employees opportunities to go for training so as to upskill themselves. More online learning courses can be made available to allow for flexibility in learning.

The winning formula for continuous and lifelong learning is mindset change by all three parties. Employers must be receptive to training young people through effective collaboration with Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and increase the rate of place-and-train for students, interns and employees. Employees, too, must be receptive to the notion of learning while working and with attaining a skill qualification or equivalent skills. The Government, too, must change its mindset towards the definition of training and learning.

In today's time and age, learning is multifaceted and the mode of learning is multi-pronged. It need not be purely classroom training of defined hours, but rather, a composite type of training which includes classroom, on-the-job training, application-based learning, e-learning and, in some cases, virtual reality, too, can be used.

SkillsFuture Singapore, too, must transform to meet the needs of today's industry and training relevance. The ideal is to have WSQ programmes for skill-based training. However, if the regulatory and policy process becomes an impediment to making a relevant customised programme nationally recognised, then we have a challenge of persuading both young and mature workers to go for training recognised only within the company. Skill sets must be transferable, even though this can be customised. We need to be agile and yet develop programmes to fit the need of industries of not only today, but for the future.

The question of how fast do the IHLs develop programmes that are relevant for the future, as identified by EDB, which brings in new investments, remains to be seen. For instance, in the green energy industry sector, have we trained an adequate number of cohorts to fit this industry under the place-and-train programme, if we find that this will be the future-ready skill that is required now? If data analytics and AI are expected of future industries, the future workforce, how ready are we in developing our own skilled workforce? Can the IHLs turn this around to suit the needs of the future fast enough?

Singapore's education system is among the most highly regarded in the world, but it is also a very stressful one for the students and young people. We were the top-performing country in Science, Mathematics and Reading in a 2015 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It also suggested they scored higher on test anxiety. The adult literacy rate of Singapore increased from 92.5% in 2000 to 96.8% in 2015 with an annual growth rate of 0.75%. This rate is for a population of 15 years of age and above, who can, with understanding, read and write simple statements in their everyday life. Such achievements are commendable, but it has to translate into a better life for Singaporeans.

It is, indeed, heartening to note the Education Minister Ong Ye Kung's comment in a recent The Straits Times interview, "Singapore's compass for the education system points towards two things: preparing the young for the future and ensuring that education continues to be an uplifting and integrating force in society". In other words, education is a social leveller. In his interview with The Straits Times, he also, with pragmatism, said, "A prime minister without a degree can happen not too far off in the future as there is nothing inherent in a Minister's job that requires a degree".

His comments provide a new hope and the beginning of a new dawn to those who have missed out on their formal education route. He further stressed that Singaporeans should not narrow their opportunities by chasing only after paper qualifications and pursuing academic excellence, such as going to university. There are many pathways to achieving success and success is defined as what one sees as success. He further said, "Education has been, and will continue to be, an uplifting and integrating force in society."

I applaud Minister Ong, being a proponent of an aptitude-based selection process, for his bold move to introduce aptitude-based admissions and lifelong opportunities in an increasingly diverse higher education landscape during his time as Education Minister (Higher Education and Skills). It is important not to place over-emphasis on academic achievements, but on skills and talents. We must embrace diversity of skills and talents, each of which combines to form a successful Singapore, since human resource is our only available critical asset and brain power is our gift.

Mindset change is important. Employers should not recruit based on paper qualifications alone, but to look at other skill sets relevant to the job. Many employers are still taking examination grades as proxy to a potential employee doing well at work. This is a fallacy. More should be done to change this.

Education should not be exclusive to a few, but an inclusive social leveller. We must transform the way we teach and the way we learn and discover new things. For continuous learning and lifelong learning to be successful, there must be conversations with adult learners and working people, as many are attending part-time classes to attain paper qualifications. For skills to be truly recognised across Singapore, we must ensure Public Service, Government agencies and Statutory Boards revamp its recruitment methods to provide greater emphasis on aptitude, attitude and skills, with less focus on paper qualification. In fact, some private sectors are more inclined to recruit an applicant based on skill sets and this is, indeed, commendable.