According to statistics, in year 2007, pneumonia was the third major cause of death after cancer and heart disease.  I would like to know how hospitals monitor whether the wards are affected by infectious viruses.  Are there routine measures that hospitals take to ensure that there is no outbreak of infectious viruses in the hospitals?

Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act 2004

     Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): In 2004, Mr Chairman, MOH introduced the Human Cloning & Other Prohibited Practices Bill.  This Bill was subsequently enacted.

     The Act strictly prohibits reproductive cloning.  However, the Act does not prohibit what scientists term "therapeutic cloning".  This was back in 2004.  It is now 2009.  Five years is a long time in the field of stem cell research which continues to grow at a meteoric pace.  We should take a fresh look at the advances in stem cell research from around the world, and decide for ourselves whether there are any more practices that should be prohibited.  If yes, the Act should be amended to include these prohibitions.

     One major consideration is the use of cybrids.  I will just give a quick layman's summary of what cybrids are.

     In "normal" therapeutic cloning, human eggs and human DNA are fused, the egg is then stimulated, and the resulting embryonic stem cells are removed.

     However, due to the shortage of human egg donations, scientists have resorted to using animal eggs.  Animal eggs are fused with human DNA to create embryonic stem cells.  So in essence, cybrids are a fusion of animal eggs with human DNA.  Cybrids are very advanced methods in stem cell research.

     The Government's bold vision of being at the forefront of bio-medical research is admirable.  The desire of scientists to find cures for diseases is just as admirable.  But we must also be prudent about the methods we choose to achieve these aims.

     The prohibition on reproductive cloning in the 2004 Act was a wise step by the Government.  The Government saw in 2004 that there are OB limits in scientific research beyond which Singapore should not accept.  We are now five years down the road.  There have been rapid advances in the bio-medical field in the past five years.  The time has come for a fresh look at these OB markers.  And I would urge that one such OB marker is cybrids.

     I am of the view that the Government should not permit the use of cybrids in the therapeutic cloning for the following reasons.

     Firstly, the danger of cross-species diseases.  The cybrid's human-animal genetic composition triggers the danger of retroviruses migrating from the domain of the animal kingdom to mankind.  Significantly, there can be no assurance that these viruses, residing within the cytoplasm or mitochondria of the animal egg, will not mesh with or integrate into the human nucleus within it.  Such occurrence will significantly reduce the utility and raise the harmfulness of any stem cell line derived from cybrids.

     Second, by fusing animal eggs with human DNA, a fundamental concern arises about the dissolution of the very nature of man.  Our existing legislation already cautions against cross-species development.

     Underlying these prohibitions, ie, against women surrogating an animal embryo and animals surrogating human embryos, is the legislation's apprehension towards cross-species tandem-development.  If the Act specifically prohibits the growth of humanity in an animal, how then can the growth of human life within an animal egg be allowed?

     I hold the view that the creation of cybrids is intrinsically incorrect since to create something part human-part animal at the stage of conception of life is to dissolve the very nature of Man.

     These fundamental objections against cross-species development arise regardless of whether cybrids are statutorily required to be destroyed within 14 days of development.

     Thirdly, there is the danger of tumours arising from embryonic stem cells.  The 2005 UK Pattison Report raised the danger of tumours arising from embryonic stem cells.  In contrast, the danger of tumours arising from adult stem cells is believed to be insignificant, based on the past 40 years of bone marrow transplants.

     I would urge therefore – my fourth point – that the Government consider the recent scientific breakthroughs and economic benefits of adult stem cell research, as opposed to embryonic stem cell research and the use of cybrids.

       A recent 2009 article – 31st January – by Mr Andy Ho in the Straits Times  gives evidence of why adult stem cell research is the more promising of the two, ie, between embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research.

      In conclusion, in light of the meteoric pace at which this industry is advancing, it is our duty to carefully discern what to permit or prohibit on our shores.  I believe for the best interests of Singapore that the creation of cybrids ought not to be allowed on our shores and an amendment to the 2004 Act should be made to list the creation or use of cybrids as prohibited practices.

     Would MOH consider these proposals?

     The Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Sir, I do not know whether I have time to complete the reply but in case I do not, perhaps I will ask Mr Christopher de Souza to seek a clarification during clarification time so that we can complete the reply.

     
     Yesterday, Mr Chiam spoke on dental care.  He is not here but I have better reply to his cut first.  He quoted a few examples, from his point of view, very expensive dental care treatment in Singapore.  The figures sounded very high and I told him so, when Parliament was adjourned.  For example, he mentioned "capping" which I presume he meant "crowning", costing $2,000 and he mentioned root canal treatment costing $3,500.  So I told him he must have been to a very expensive dentist.  Either that or he was mistaken.  But he said maybe he was mistaken or the patient had very severe complications and actually received many more treatments and not just, for example, root canal treatment.  Last night, I checked and say, in our National Dental Centre, root canal treatment typically ranges from $300 to $800 versus the $3,500 mentioned by Mr Chiam; crowning about $600 to $800 versus the $2,000 that he quoted.  In any case, Chiam’s proposal was that we should subsidise dental care.  And in fact we do.  You can get subsidised basic dental services at dental polyclinics.  Dr Chiam mentioned filling, and a filling at polyclinics typically ranges from a few dollars to $25, depending on the condition of the cavity.  For the elderly, it is further subsidised.  As for specialist care, we provide subsidised services in the National Dental Centre, where typically patients will get at least 50% subsidy.  So that is how we go about handling dental care for Singaporeans.

     Mdm Halimah and Mayor Zainudin asked about HOTA (Human Organ and Transplant Act).  Currently there are more than 100 Muslim patients on the waiting queue for kidneys.  And as noted by Members, we achieved a major milestone when the Muslim community joined HOTA last August.  I was very happy for the Muslim community because I have wanted to be able to do this for sometime.  We knew as a fact that it will save lives but there were various difficulties that prevented the Muslim community from joining.  But better late than never and it is truly life-saving – the numbers speak for themselves.  Just to give an example, say 2007, this is before HOTA extension, the number of Muslim patients receiving a transplant was only 19, less than 20.  Last year, and bear in mind last year was incomplete, with only five months of HOTA for Muslims, the number has already doubled to 38.  From 19 for a full year to 38 for less than half a year: quite an achievement.  I expect a record number this year.

     Similarly, if you look at it in terms of percentage of all patients receiving transplants, the Muslim recipients have increased their proportion from 11% in the past, before HOTA, to last year 19%, comparable to the percentage of Muslims in the total population.

  
     Whilst some Muslims have opted out of HOTA, and we respect their decision, the vast majority of Muslims, just like non-Muslim Singaporeans have stayed within HOTA and they support organ donation.  So far, over five months, four Muslim cadaveric donors have saved the lives of 15 organ recipients.

     Our hospitals are very sensitive to the need for relatives to take the bodies of their loved ones as soon as possible for religious rites.  Our organ donation teams work through the night to ensure that the donation process is completed within hours, certainly well within 24 hours.  Adequate washing facilities in hospitals and a second sitting for Coroner’s cases are now available to reduce any possible delays.  And we have prepared our hospital staff quite thoroughly for the HOTA extension to the Muslims.  There are always some Malay speakers around and staff are briefed by MUIS on the religious and cultural sensitivity of the Muslims.  So from my point of view, the last five months of implementation has been quite smooth.  While there were a little kinks here and there, I am sure over time we will improve further.

     I am particularly grateful to the support rendered by Muslim religious leaders.  Last night when I met Haji Mohd Alami Musa, MUIS President, I told him so.  They were wonderful.  We have a list of their handphone numbers because this thing can happen anytime.  We will call them if the family members require religious clarifications and they will come to the hospitals even in the middle of the night to help support the family through the grieving process and also to clarify any religious doubts.  Their work, excellent work, complements the work of our medical staff and social workers.  We will continue to monitor and make improvements where we can.  But as noted by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary just now, the number of Malay patients struck with kidney failure continues to rise so the key is still, as Dr Lily Neo always reminds us, prevention, prevention and prevention.  It is quite preventable.  Certainly the complications are quite preventable.  So HOTA cannot be the key, it cannot be the full answer.  Prevention is, and that means changing lifestyles for those who are on the wrong side of the healthcare divide.  They have to disrupt their lifestyle as Ms Jessica Tan reminded us yesterday.

     Mr Low Thia Khiang asked if there has been an unusual increase in the number of patients who died of pneumonia in Tan Tock Seng Hospital.  I checked.  We did not observe any unusual trend. Tan Tock Seng Hospital recorded about 600 pneumonia deaths every year.  Nationwide, as Mr Low noted, pneumonia is our third killer.  It is a major cause of death, just like in many other countries, probably all countries.  Our national data show that pneumonia death has hovered at around 2,300 every year; it fluctuates a little bit, plus or minus.  But by and large about 2,300 every year and it has been so for many years.  The reason it is a major killer is because pneumonia is an outcome with many different causes.  I mean there could be many other underlying causes and typically patients with stroke, with cancer, with COPD, or who are bedridden for a long time due to other illnesses, they somehow die of pneumonia as the terminal event.  Some pneumonia deaths are caused by viral infection and I think SARS outbreak was a dramatic example of that.

     SARS taught us many lessons and one of which is to remind us to be constantly vigilant.  So hospitals have to put in surveillance systems to monitor patients with atypical pneumonia, patients with unexplained fever for more than 72 hours and relevant travel history, and sudden unexplained death cases with acute respiratory symptoms.

12.45 pm

     All hospitals adopt strict infection control protocols; so staff are required to clean their hands regularly and correctly, infectious patients are isolated with regular environmental disinfection.  And the hospital infection-control teams carry out regular audits to make sure that the SOPs are being followed.

I visit hospitals quite regularly, impromptu, and find that hospital staff requires me to do various hand rubs.  I think the procedures are, by and large, in place.  But I acknowledge that, globally, hospital-acquired infection is one of the complications, even in the best hospitals, partly because we are talking about human behaviour here.  It is not only our staff.  It is the patients and also the patients' visitors, and the weakest link will be in the weakest link, and whoever is less than careful, infections just spread.  What is important is for us to constantly remind ourselves and try to bring down the rate to as low as we can.  To eliminate it to zero, I think no other hospital has done it and I doubt we can ever reach that stage.

     I have time for Mr de Souza's clarification.  I thank him for sharing his views on therapeutic cloning and cybrid research.  I heard his view that he is against cybrid research.  I agree with Mr de Souza that the science on stem cell research is evolving and, of course, our law must try to keep pace.  We do monitor developments globally and we are further advised by an excellent Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC), comprising some of the top names in the world.  They scan global developments and then they do very extensive public consultation before they firm up their views on what would be their recommendations and, typically, we will then review their recommendations and, where appropriate, change the law to do so.  One issue for which they have been conducting public consultation is precisely on this aspect of cybrid research, or research on human-animal combinations.  I remember they did a public consultation last year.  I took part in one of those discussions, and I assume Mr de Souza must have also shared his views with them.

        I await the BAC's recommendations and, in due course, if we need to change the laws, we will do so.  So I have not taken a position yet. Mr de Souza's view is one, but I think he knows too that there are many others who feel quite differently on this topic.

     Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his reassurances on Medifund.  I would also like to seek a point of clarification.  Does the Ministry have a target within which to cap medical inflation, for example, no more than 5% above general inflation?  To what extent do the various initiatives, undertaken by the Ministry of Health, keep medical inflation in check?

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I thank Mrs Teo for the clarification because this was a query which I forgot to reply yesterday.  Not that I forgot, but I was not sure of my data, so I did not respond immediately.  I heard she quoted a rather high health inflation rate of 7.4% which, relying on memory, I thought that was high.  I checked and yes, I was not wrong.  She talked about 2007 health inflation figure and asked me about the 2008 data.  She thought 2007 was 7.4%.  Actually, it was 4.1%, and not 7.4%.  7.4% could be for a particular month in a year, maybe, I do not know.  And she asked about the 2008 figure.  The 2008 figure was high, and it is not just in healthcare.  We all know the reasons for the high inflation rate last year when oil prices went up sky high.  Health inflation was high at 5.6% but it is, in fact, below CPI, which was 6.5%.  So we did better from that point of view.  If you take a longer period, 2005 to 2008, for example, health inflation averaged 2.8% per annum. and CPI was 2.5%.  So we were just 0.3% higher than CPI.  However, the point is taken, globally everyone tried very hard to control healthcare cost.  But still in every country, the health inflation exceeds the general CPI, and it is quite a challenge trying to control healthcare cost.  I think our data suggest that we have been doing a relatively good job.

     Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, two clarifications for the Minister.  The first is relating to my query about means testing for nursing home subsidies.  I think the Minister missed my point about the difference between taking gross pay and net pay.  My point was that the net pay is a more accurate reflection of affordability because it tells us how much disposable income the family has actually to pay for the nursing home charges.  That was my point with regard to the means testing.  I wonder if the Minister would agree with me that that is a more accurate test.  The second clarification is that yesterday, the Minister spoke about the nursing home in Johor in a rather positive term, I would say.  I would like to clarify whether he is actually suggesting that this should be an option for families in Singapore to consider because I think this would be quite a bad indication of affordability of our own healthcare services here and also a reflection of our national values.

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for seeking the clarifications.  No, I did not misunderstand her point about "gross versus net income".  What I said was that we must be consistent.  If you want to look at gross income, then you must be consistent in setting threshold criteria based on gross income.  But if you prefer to look at net income, then your threshold criteria for means testing should also be based on net income.  At the end of the day, we are talking about targeting subsidy and who do you want to subsidise.  In the case of the nursing home, the current rule is we will subsidise the bottom 50% of Singaporeans.  You can argue about whether it should be 50%, 60%, or whatever.  But that was the policy - we will subsidise 50%.  So that will include all the low income plus part of the middle income as well.  Having decided that it is the 50th percentile, if you decide to look at the gross income, then, of course, you set the threshold based on the gross income data.  Or if you want to look at the net income, you can do so too, in which case, then the threshold criteria will have to be lowered to suit the net income.  For practical reasons, we use gross income because it is harder to get the net income data comprehensively, as there are all sorts of complications.  On the other hand, we have more readily available CPF data on gross income.

     On the nursing home in Johor, I mentioned it in passing because I made a trip there.  Actually my main purpose was to look at the hospital because Members have asked me to consider the possibility of Medisave to be used for hospitals there.  I used the opportunity to look at the Iskandar Malaysia region; I have not been to that part of Johor for many years and wanted to see how the development is shaping up there.  It was a very pleasant trip.  I went by the Tuas Second Link, then from west to east to Pasir Gudang, ended up with a nice seafood and cheap lunch near Pasir Gudang and came back through the new CIQ Checkpoint to our Causeway.  At the Iskandar Malaysia region, I also took a look at the site where I heard they have investment from a medical school from England which is coming to set up.  I also went to take a look at the Legoland theme park where the land is being prepared.  Sorry, for digressing.

     But many Singaporeans, including many residents in my constituency, go to Johor very regularly, top up their car tanks, which many do, and also to have a nice seafood meal at much cheaper prices.  I think these are natural activities, and that is part and parcel of globalisation.  In fact, this is not even globalisation; this is regionalisation, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Consumers are free to choose.  I know many go over to the pharmacies there to get cheaper drugs.  It is not our fault.  The pharmaceutical companies have a way of setting prices: Third World, they set lower prices; First World, like Singapore, they set higher prices.  By allowing the flexibility of consumers walking over the Causeway, they benefit.  I do not think we should constrain them from doing so.  Our cost will always be higher because our wages are different.  Nurses are paid very differently here compared to Johor and ditto for doctors; likewise construction cost.

     I just want to point out to Singaporeans that there are options like these.  In fact, it is already happening.  This free flow of patients across borders, so much so that there is a term called "medical tourism".  Singaporeans go to Bangkok, I know, for lasik, and vice versa.  Americans come here.  Russians come here.  Singaporeans go to Penang and Malacca.  I think we should allow that.  In any case, how can we prevent it?  We cannot prevent it.  But in fact, by keeping the borders "open", it puts some competitive pressure on our local providers which eventually will be good for our own consumers.  Because if they price themselves too high, the patients will start going across the Causeway and they lose customers.

     Mr Christopher de Souza: I would like to thank the Minister for his reply and in reply to his request, I am asking for a preemptive clarification.  Three points, Sir.

     First, given the promise that adult stem cell research has shown, both in the US and around the world, and given the amount of resources that we are pumping into this new biomedical field, would MOH consider a push for adult stem cell research over and above embryonic stem cell research?  I ask this question because it leads to the second point.  If there is such a push, then it obviates or avoids the issue of cybrids because cybrids only come into play in the field of embryonic stem cell research.

    My last point of clarification is: if the 2004 Act was introduced so as to keep up with times and to immediately prohibit what we think as a Government, as a people, what ought to be OB markers? Surely, the 2004 Act must continue to be fluid and up-to-date with the times.  I must confess that five years is a very long time in the biomedical field.  Would more amendments to the Act be made more expeditiously in future?

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I am not too familiar with the technicalities of the research on stem cell.  I believe there is a lot of work on stem cell in general.  Are our scientists doing cybrid research –  I stand corrected – but I doubt they do.  I think part of the reason the Bioethics Advisory Committee wanted to study this subject is because the researchers want clarity.  Can they or can they not?  They are, by nature, very conservative people.  And I think, because of the uncertainty, they stay out.  So the Member's point that we should emphasise more on adult stem cell and not do cybrid research, does not even arise because, as far as I know, I do not think there is anybody doing cybrid research at the moment.  Meanwhile, I think we let BAC conduct their public consultation first. I attended one of the sessions and I was educated along the way, but not sufficiently to be able to do a meaningful dialogue with him today.  I walked away from the session with the impression that there are strong views and similarly cogent views on both sides of the camp.  So it is not as straightforward as, say, we should not clone a human being and grow it into an adult.  The law against human cloning was straightforward.  But for research on human-animal combinations, there are

other issues involved.  There are possible upsides, which the researchers are looking for, that will benefit mankind.  That is why they want it to be discussed much more, and not put a clear-cut prohibition, which may then miss out on possible upsides that will eventually benefit mankind.  That is as far as my understanding goes.

     The last point is about keeping pace.  Yes and no, because it is such an evolving field.  Understanding of this subject and the implications of it is not obvious or intuitive.  The global consensus, actually, is that the law should be slow.  Do not be too fast.  You may be drawing a line in a rush, and that line may be drawn in a wrong place.  Then, as we all know, when you want to move the line after it has been drawn, it is typically very difficult.

     Mdm Halimah Yacob: I thank the Minister for his reply.  I have four clarifications to seek from the Minister.  It is with regards to questions I have raised which were not answered. 

     I asked about the low subsidy that is currently given to implants, other than the stent implants.  The case I cited yesterday, where the procedure was carried out in a B2 ward.  $2,457 was the implant cost, the subsidy was only $500, and the patient had to pay $1,957.  For a low-income worker, that represents more than one month's salary.  So I asked whether the Ministry could review this policy to provide a higher level of subsidy for implants for those in the B2 and C wards, particularly now that we have means testing, and the objective of means testing is to provide better support for those who need it and make it more affordable for those in the B2 and C class wards.

     The second question I asked was the issue of affordability.  Now that the general guidelines on fees have been removed by Singapore Medical Association (SMA) because it is supposed to be anti-competitive – what, then, is the alternative if a patient has a complaint about overcharging?  What mechanisms are in place for the patient to seek redress?  Could doctors then turn around and say that there is no overcharging because market sets the rate and a patient knows how much is to be charged?  We know that there is a great asymmetry when it comes to information between patients and doctors.  I would like the Minister's comments on that.

     The third question I raised was on MediShield coverage for patients with mental illness.  It is a very serious problem for families taking care of mentally ill people, because it is a long-term illness.  It is a debilitating illness.  It will break their backs if there is no insurance coverage.  I would like to ask the Minister to respond to that point.

     My final point is to ask the Minister whether he will also include dementia in the Medisave coverage for outpatient treatment of mental illness because that is also a serious and increasing problem.  And dementia treatment does take up a lot of a person's finances.

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mdm Halimah, I am sorry that I missed out a couple of your cuts.

  
     First, the implants – the problem is that there is a wide range of implants.  It is just like drugs, medication.  We, typically, set our subsidy based on generics.  So we are looking for the generic equivalent of implants – which we call standard implants – versus more fanciful ones.  If you set your subsidy rate too high, who will want to go for the lower cost, even though the lower cost may be good enough?  It is a problem, and hence we have to, typically, set our subsidised rates, which from a patient's point of view, more on the low side.

     But for knee transplant, the example that Mdm Halimah mentioned, I have actually done quite a few things over the last few months.  We have adjusted MediShield implants reimbursement rates.  In fact, it is now quite substantial.  Say the example of knee replacement, most of the hospital bills will now be picked up by MediShield.  And yesterday, the Medisave liberalisation rules that we talked about for surgical patients will further benefit patients with that kind of operations.  But, certainly, we review implant rates periodically because of inflation, and if the original cap is really too low, we will raise it in due course.  It may not be immediate.  But, we look at those data quite often.  The bottomline is this – patients, rich or poor, can afford the essential treatment that they need.  But we, certainly, cannot set subsidised rates too high as to encourage the use of fanciful stuff, which may not be necessary.

     The second point is about SMA and the Competition Commission's arguments – quite intellectual arguments – on whether having fee guidelines is anti-competitive.  I leave it to them to sort it out.  Unfortunately, they have dragged in lawyers now, so I think that will take quite some time.  But, patients who feel that they have been overcharged – maybe Mr Chiam's patient with the $3,500 root canal treatment – can complain to Singapore Medical Council (SMC) or in the case of dental, the Singapore Dental Council (SDC).  SMC will review them, to see if there is gross overcharging.  In fact, we have cases like that which the Committee had looked at in the past.  My advice to patients is this: get a second opinion.  And the best second opinion is from the public hospitals.  If you are not sure if it is too expensive, just ask the restructured hospitals and you will know their rates.  Hence, with or without fee guidelines, in fact by getting a second opinion, you get a more precise advice on whether you are being overcharged or not.

     Related to this point is the earlier advice that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary gave: have a family physician.  The fee schedule covers tens of thousands of fee items, and the layman may not understand the details – what is it and how much does it cost.  And the one to give you that guidance, really, is a family physician whom you trust and have known for years.  Go to him and he will be the best one to advise you that, "you have this medical condition, you need a specialist, better go to that group of specialists.  This group, I think, they tend to be on the high side, don't go".  That is the best way to handle this issue of overcharging.

     MediShield on mental illness – we will be moving on Medisave for outpatient mental illness.  As for MediShield on mental illness, I have some sympathy.  Mdm Halimah has been advocating this for a few years.  I am sympathetic but, if you want to cover more conditions, then the insurance premium has to go up a few dollars.  I doubt this is a time to talk about raising MediShield premiums.  So the next time when we need to revise MediShield – presuming that is after the economy has fully recovered – we will put a file record for whoever is the Minister for Health, to take a look at mental illness.

     In the case of private insurers who are riding on the basic MediShield, many of them already provide this coverage.  But this is more for the middle-income group.  For the lower-income group, they will not be able to afford.  Meanwhile, the way we do this is through subsidising IMH and the psychiatric departments in general hospitals heavily.  We subsidise mental illness much more than the traditional 80%, 65% for class C, B2 wards.  In fact, often, the subsidy goes beyond 90%.  If you look at the usage of Medifund, a big chunk goes to mental illness, where the bills are completely written off.  This means a subsidy of 100%.  Sometimes, quite unfortunately, the patients are just dumped onto our laps.  We have to treat and house them.  So this is how we handle mental illness.  But, long term, I agree that risk pooling offers a way out, and at the next round of MediShield reform, we will bear this point in mind.

     Medisave for dementia – I thought Dr Fatimah gave a very good prescription yesterday: step-by-step.  So I am taking her prescription.  So we do the biggest group first which is depression and schizophrenia.

     Dr Lam Pin Min (Ang Mo Kio): I would like to seek Minister's clarification on the issue of mental health.  We know that regular intake of medication is important in the treatment and control of symptoms of many psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia and even depression.  And we know that it generally is beneficial for the patients with mental illnesses to receive social rehabilitation in the community.  I would like to ask how is the Ministry or IMH or the mental institutions going to monitor the recovery process of patients who are discharged from hospitals.  Is there a system whereby this institution can actually track these patients, should they default follow-up? 

     This is important because the omission of any medication and the necessary review by the professional can actually lead to other potential complications or even pose a threat to the safety of the patient and even the community at large.  We have heard cases where patients were discharged, defaulted follow-up, omitted medication, failed to follow up until something big happens in the news.

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I thank Dr Lam for his comments.  This is indeed a great challenge.  Not just here, but all over the world for the mentally ill.  How do you ensure compliance?  Chronic diseases always have this problem.  We all know the way to treat it is consistent lifelong low-tech treatment to avoid complications.  The mentally ill presents another different aspect as, sometimes, the patients just deny that they have mental illness.  At the MPS occasionally, we see these cases and some of them come to me and complain that the doctors insist they must eat this or eat that.  So I learn from them how they tricked the doctors to think that they were taking the medication when they did not.  The problem, I think, is well-defined, but the solution not so straightforward.

     Part of my motivation for supporting Medisave for outpatient mental illness is because I want to also, through this, build up a way of monitoring how GPs, psychiatrists handle their mentally ill patients. Just as the Medisave scheme for diabetes, I now have more than a year of data on how diabetic patients are being handled by their GPs: clinic by clinic.  What is the number of cases they have?  What is the blood-sugar level of the patients over time?  Does it improve statistically for the whole group, does it stay the same, or does it worsen?  One year is a little bit too short, but as we build up the data series over the years, we will get valuable information from the data.  My intention is to publish it.  Not to witch-hunt or to blame, but to let doctors learn from each other how they handle diabetes, for example, their performance level versus other GPs.  And I am hoping that, in the case of mentally ill, likewise – depressions and schizophrenics – if we find that there are clinics which are able to handle their mentally ill patients better than others, then they may be able to share their experience, how they are more effective than other GPs, for example, in getting their patients to comply.  So, along the way, I hope we all learn from it, and the industry improves and patient care improves as well.

     Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Sir, thank you for allowing me to make a point of clarification.

After IMH where the patient seeks treatment, this could be followed up by the daycare centre.  And then later on, more VWOs can be encouraged to come out to set up some silver ribbon centres, where the patients are cared for more on a voluntary basis.  On this basis, we have more community support on the ground.

1.15 pm

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I note Mdm Cynthia Phua's observation, and I think we discussed this yesterday too, that clearly we need to do more.  But it is not just more resources thrown in, but to also find a way how to integrate and coordinate better.  VWOs have a lot of passion to help but they may not have sufficient clinical knowledge.  Our professionals know what to do but may not be able to have the same social outreach as the VWOs.  So it is to get them to really work together.  And like all things, we have to pilot and experiment.  And this is certainly what we want to do.  But let me also make an appeal to the family members: you have a major role to play as well, because talking to some of these patients and the professionals who have to manage these cases, sometimes there is just no family support and the poor fellow is just left in the lurch.  The incident of the attack on our colleague, Mr Seng Han Thong, involves many issues.  One of my big concerns arising from that incident was that we have been trying very hard over the years to de-stigmatise the mentally ill, and I was very worried that the case will push our efforts back several years.  Then after that there was the incident involving Ms Denise Phua.  And I worry that the society will group all mentally ill together as one group.  No doubt there are such patients out there who need help but mental illness is a wide range of illnesses and many are reversible if we give them a chance, if we give them jobs, if we are able to accept them in the community.  If you institutionalise them, which is the traditional way of doing things in the last century, lock them up in the mental asylum, they do not improve, they just go downhill, just like in the movie "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest".  That does not solve the problem.

     Mr Zainudin Nordin: Sir, may I have clarification from the Minister on two points?

     Has means testing brought any behavioural change in the way Singaporeans spend on healthcare and do we have any study on the impact of means testing?

     Second point is, we have seen low-wage workers sometimes attending private clinics or co-op clinics because these are the clinics they could get benefits like the subsidies provided by their employer or NGOs.  I would like to know whether they would be penalised by considering them as A Class patients just because they attend private clinics outside as outpatients.  Could the Minister clarify, please?

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Whether means testing has caused a behavioural change, it may be a bit too early to conclude.  But as I shared with Members yesterday, less than 10% were means tested out, which suggests to me that most Singaporeans, by and large, chose the right class of ward.  So the middle-income, they go Class A, Class B1.  It is only a small percentage who actually can afford Class A, Class B1, even private hospitals, but they chose subsidised ward.  We do not begrudge them, we still subsidise them, except what we are asking is maybe we will subsidise them less than those who come from a lower income group than they.  So far, I consider the implementation quite smooth, suggesting that there is general support by Singaporeans for this policy.  Some patients, because of company benefits, end up in private GP clinics or private hospitals, but may then require subsidised care in the public hospitals, we treat and accept them and there is an avenue for downgrading.  But if they do not ask for it, we will just treat them as private patients.  If they express difficulties, then we would assess and downgrade them.  The example of that obstetric patient who was going to deliver the second baby in KK Hospital, which I mentioned yesterday, was one of those cases.  I think she paid for private sector healthcare all the time, but she wanted to reduce costs.  When she came in, we treated her as a subsidised patient, and she was able to save about $2,000, according to the newspapers.

     Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I have two clarifications for the Minister.

     Sir, I refer to the Minister's earlier reply on his nice trip to Johor, which I suppose must have inspired him to contemplate new healthcare policies.  I would like to ask the Minister is he now suggesting that Singaporeans who cannot afford medical treatment or step-down care here, should now consider such facilities in Johor.

     Second clarification: is the Minister outsourcing the Government's responsibility to provide affordable healthcare service to Malaysia now?

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan: A simple and robust answer is "no".  Everybody can afford healthcare in Singapore, whether acute or long-term care.  I think this is our pride, our healthcare system, as quoted by Mr Low himself just now, is the best in Asia and the sixth in the world.  And I think we have reasons to be proud of our healthcare system.  Our doctors, nurses, work very hard.  We have thought through carefully about how to bring about this very good outcome – that even if you are unemployed, or low-income group, you can afford a standard of healthcare which is comparable to the US.  You look at the 40-50 million American citizens there who just cannot afford to even buy medical insurance because their insurance rate for a family of four runs into five-digit US dollars per year.  Mr Baey, who is familiar with US, nodded his head.  This is just for premium, let alone talking about hospital bills.  You step into an emergency department in an American hospital, it is triple-digit US dollars.

     But in Singapore, we make sure that healthcare of good standard is available to all – rich or poor.  If you are rich, we will subsidise a little bit less.  But if you are poor and if you need to write off your whole bill, we do.  That is what the 3M system is all about.  Yesterday I spent some time discussing with Members to think about long-term care.  It is not a big problem today because we are still a relatively young society.  But we will not be.  I am already 57 and there are many in my generation.  And very soon this Silver tsunami will come but we have 10, 15 years to prepare for this.  So Minister Lim Boon Heng is absolutely correct.  We have 3Ms which render this very good system that we have today, for acute care; let us make sure that we have an equivalent for long-term care.

     So, no, I am not saying that if you are poor, I will put you in an ambulance, send you across the Causeway to Johor nursing home.  That is not what I said and please do not twist my words.  But what I am saying is for those in the middle-income group, you have choices, you are paying out of your own pocket, you decide.  Do you want to have a seafood meal in Singapore or you want to have a family reunion in JB?  It is up to you, this is your own choice.  Do you want to fill your car tank in Singapore or you want to drive across and have a haircut?  That is up to you.  You are spending your own money.  And I am just sharing with Singaporeans that there are alternatives of that kind.  But for low-income Singaporeans, we look after and heavily subsidise them.  There is no need for them to walk across, because they enjoy a heavy subsidy here.  They have to pay unsubsidised rate in JB.  It will be more expensive than what they can receive in Singapore.  So that is the way we do our systems and I hope to get the Member's support for it as well.

     Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Chairman, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister.  He earlier said that the Ministry of Health will invest more on the treatment of psychiatric cases and many of them do not have enough family support.  He also said that, for many years, MOH has followed the policy on encouraging psychiatric cases to stay in the community as much as possible.  May I ask the Minister, in view of a small densely populated state, is there a necessity to tweak such policy of discharging patients to stay in the community as much as possible.  Is it to the best interest of the patients if he or she does not have enough family support or community support?  Are such patients causing dysfunction to their own families and to the community they live in?

     And, lastly, the Minister earlier said that many people deny their psychiatric problems.  So may I ask him how many psychiatric cases are undiagnosed and untreated but are living in our present community?

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan: I am not a doctor, so my knowledge is that of a layman, and I would not be able to discuss seriously some of the queries that Dr Neo has raised.  How many are undiagnosed?  I would not know.  I do not know whether there are such surveys.  Probably there are.  Globally, my journal readings suggest to me that this is one of their big problems as well.  Even the definition of what is mentally ill, there is no consensus: you can be strict or loose.

     I remember reading an article in New Zealand when I was there for a meeting, where the front page headline screamed out to say "Half of New Zealanders are mentally ill", following a survey that they have done.  So I think this is a difficult problem.  But whether our professional policy is to discharge mentally ill patients "as much as possible", whether that is correctly worded, I do not know.  I have to check with our professionals.  I do not think that is the policy.  The policy is to make sure that the patients get the best care, and they have to decide whether that best care is rendered in the institution or in a community.  And to be fair to them, talking to them, the impression I get is they are not just dumping the patients out of IMH.  They are a bunch of very nice, passionate people.  I met some of them recently when I opened a community outpatient facility that they started in Queenstown Polyclinic: a nice bunch of people, very passionate about their patients and wanting to do the best for their patients.  So it is not a case of the psychiatric doctors just dumping the patients out of the hospital and leaving it to the community to sort itself out.  More correctly is the other way round: that we have seen many families who dumped their mental patients into IMH and on our laps, and we have to look after them for life.  But instead of accusing each other of dumping, I think let us focus on how to make sure that the patients get the best of care, and that requires cooperation from everybody all round.  I am quite sure IMH's psychiatrists will be looking at how best, when they discharge patients to the community, to maintain contact with the patients, perhaps, through the GPs.  I know they started a programme working with the GPs, so that there is shared treatment.  If a specialist is needed, he is always there for consultation, but the day-to-day treatment is done by the GPs.

I know this because one of my former classmates is a very good GP outside, and one day he told me about this programme.  He said that it is very good for his patients who have some mental illness, and now he is able to handle them with confidence.  And the patients prefer that too, again because of the stigma associated with IMH.  They rather go to a GP if they can, rather than go to IMH and to report to their friends or families that they went to IMH.

1.30 pm

     Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Sir, can I ask the Minister for a clarification with regard to long-term care?  We discussed about being disruptive.  What more proactive actions can be done so that chronic illness patients can get preventive and constant care, and that they do not fall off from treatment due to unaffordability?  One of the ways, as the Minister touched on earlier, is technology, how patients' information and tracking allow for more proactive actions to ensure that they do not fall off, and that they can manage the cost of treatment.

     The second clarification is that the Minister did not answer my question that I asked with regard to what more can be done in terms of affordability in these difficult times, specifically on long-term care and chronic illnesses.  Can more be done for the cost of treatment as well as cost of medication to help patients in these difficult times?

     Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, on affordability, all my speeches yesterday and today were directed at it.  That is what motivated me and that is what motivated my Ministry – how to make sure that healthcare remains affordable and of a high standard.  Frankly speaking, it is easy to keep healthcare cost affordable if the standard is not an issue.  Many third-world countries achieve that – absolutely free healthcare or very cheap healthcare.  But what kind of healthcare?

     Mr Low mentioned JB when I discussed my trip there.  Was it two weeks ago, a Singaporean had an accident in the northern part of JB?  He was "semi-treated" in a hospital there, but he was dissatisfied.  He called an ambulance and, I think, he was sent to Changi General Hospital or SGH.  He was quoted by the newspapers to have said that it was a blessing for Singaporeans to have such a high standard of healthcare, and yet affordable.

     So, to keep healthcare cost affordable is the easiest thing in the world.  But to also keep it of a high standard and yet affordable, very few countries have done so.  I like to believe that, while we are not perfect, we have done a fairly good job.  Just a while ago, I was sharing with the Finance Minister.  There is this monthly journal that the Japanese publish called Japan Echo, which has serious articles on contemporary issues in Japan.  The latest issue which we just received this morning, the front page headline is about how to create a sustainable healthcare system in Japan.  I was sharing with the Finance Minister that I felt very sorry for Japan because, for a long time, they had one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and they could be truly proud of that.  I flipped through a few articles in the journal, they all screamed out that their healthcare system is on the verge of collapsing.  On and off, we read of such stories.  Just last week, there was a pregnant woman who subsequently died, and this is in Tokyo, because the ambulance had to negotiate with every hospital, "Please take this patient, urgent, dying."  They said, "Sorry, full house."  Or at least they gave the excuse that it was full house.  After several hospitals, by the time one kind-hearted hospital took her in, it was too late, she died.  And this is in Tokyo, Japan.  It is not a third-world country or rural town.  It is first-world and second richest country in the world.

     I flipped through the journal and one article was written by my Japanese counterpart, and I saw his first paragraph.  He blamed all the problems of the healthcare system in Japan on pandering to political populist measures, which then just collapsed the whole system.  Let us not fall into that trap.  We are not in that hole.  My job is to make sure that we do not walk into that hole, and please do not lead Singaporeans into that hole.

     On long-term care, what else can we do?  We have done a lot.  If it is not enough, we will do more.  We will certainly do more prevention, more screening.  But let me just say a word of caution, which is that at the end of the day – what is the Cantonese expression – we cannot drag the cow to the water unless it is willing to, and it must cooperate.  All smokers know that smoking causes lung cancer.  They still smoke.  It is not as if they do not know.  What can I do?  So, it is motivation.  We organise health screening.  We subsidise screening so that it is affordable.  Money is not an obstacle.  Lack of motivation is the obstacle because, often, after a person has been screened, the follow-up is the big difficulty.  Follow up requires even greater motivation.  If he is not willing to change and disrupt his lifestyle, his health will just go downhill.  It is inevitable.

          The Chairman:  We still have three minutes.  Any more clarifications?  Yes, Dr Neo.

     Dr Lily Neo: Sir, I just want to clarify that I did not use the word "dumping" in my speech.  I agree with the Minister that the consideration is best care for the patients.  The words he used were "best care for the patients" which should be the consideration, and I agree with him totally.  My only point was best of care in the community for psychiatric patients without sufficient family or community support, or best of care in having regular follow-up with psychiatric nurses and psychiatric doctors, even if it means institutional care.

     Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Minister Khaw and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Hawazi for their very comprehensive and very patient responses to our questions.  I would also like to thank all my colleagues who have participated in this debate and made their contributions.  I am deeply reassured of the commitment by Minister Khaw that during these very difficult times, retrenched workers and those who suffered pay cuts as well as others needing subsidised care will not be deprived of affordable healthcare.

     On that note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

     Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

     The sum of $3,083,813,300 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

     The sum of $621,110,900 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

     Head Z – Financial Transfers

          The Chairman:  Head Z – Financial Transfers.  Mr Tharman.

Special Transfers

     The Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Sir, I beg to move,

     That the total sum to be allocated for Head Z of the Estimates be increased by $4,611,607,000.

     Sir, the increase is for the Special Transfers announced in the Budget Statement on 22nd January 2009.  Of the increase, $3.91 billion is the FY 2009 Budget provision for the Budget 2009 Resilience Package.  This includes $3.38 billion in Jobs Credit to be paid out in FY 2009; $388 million as provision for the Government's share of loans lost under the Special Risk Sharing Initiative for bank credit; $100 million is the Workfare Income Supplement special payment to low-income workers; $24 million as additional rebates for HDB Rental and Service and Conservancy Charges; $7 million top up to the Public Transport Fund for low-income Singaporeans; and $80 million as additional assistance to needy families.

     The remaining provision of $0.7 billion is for Transfers to the National Research Fund $400 million; Life-long Learning Endowment Fund $100 million; Eldercare Fund $100 million; and Medical Endowment Fund $100 million.

     That the total sum to be allocated for Head Z of the Estimates be increased by $4,611,607,000.

     That the increased sum of $14,181,655,000 for Head Z ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

     Head M – Ministry of Finance

          The Chairman:  Head M – Ministry of Finance.  Mr Inderjit Singh.

Reserves and Performance of GIC and Temasek

     Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I beg to move,

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

     Sir, I want to make two points with regard to our reserves.  The first concerns the role of our Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), Temasek and GIC, and the impact this has on our reserves, while the second has to do with the impact of the financial crisis on the returns of our SWFs and, consequently, on our reserves.

Erosion of Our Reserves and Availability of Funds to Fund Government through NIR

     As I mentioned in my Budget debate speech, I am glad the Government had the foresight to change the way we can use our reserves by switching from the NII to the NIR computation.  In effect, the Government is now able to draw more from the reserves, including using the increase in capital values of the reserves, which was not allowed in the past.  This year, we will therefore be taking two bites at the reserves compared to the past, once through the NIR, and then through the $4.9 billion that was announced in the Budget.  From the Budget Book, I notice that the amount available for the Government expenditure from the reserves has gone up from $3.7 billion in 2008, when we used NII, to $7.7 billion this year using the NIR formula.  And I suspect this is still not 50% of NIR, which is the amount allowable after we changed the Constitution last year.  However, it has recently emerged that both Temasek and GIC have suffered significant losses in the financial markets, which according to some reports I have seen, amounts to $50 billion collectively.  This is significant.  So the first question I have is – will the Government still be able to tap the reserve amount it needs in the coming years now that the base of the reserves has shrunk?  Are we going to quickly deplete our reserves as a result?

     On the NIR formula, I would like to ask the Minister how much money will be made available to the Government for the next few years.  We understand what is available this year.  What about the next few years?  We should know this since the formula is based on long-term expected returns and not long-term actual returns.  Also, can the Minister share with the House how the process has worked out in the first year with this new formula?

     Second question I have is whether both GIC and Temasek have enough liquidity to contribute to the NIR that the Government needs for this year and the coming years.  My worry is that the losses suffered by our two SWFs may be paper losses, and they might still be holding to these papers as liquidation will translate these to real losses.  If they do not liquidate, will they still be able to return to the Government what is due and what the Government needs?

     Sir, the NIR approach defines "returns", which the Government can tap as long term expected returns and is based on a 20-year horizon.  For the last 20 years, GIC had returns better than its peers around the world – a return of 5.8% before and 4.5% after inflation.  I am sure that the Minister would have used this number as a basis to compute how much he can draw as this 4.5% is the basis he would have used to compute the long-term expected returns.  The question I have is whether our current reserves and our SWFs managing them are capable of returning such levels in the next 20 years after the whole global landscape has been reshaped.  Have GIC and Temasek come back to the Minister to propose any changes to their long-term expected returns after what has happened?  If next year GIC comes back and forecasts a drastic drop of its long-term expected returns, how will it affect the Government's ability to operate with lower level of revenues from the NIR?  Will the Government have to redraw its long-term development plans again?  And these development plans are important for our future.  I hope that we do not have to do it.

1.45 pm

     Sir, when I raised the question of supervision of the Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) in Parliament last year, the Minister responded that MOF would not like to micromanage them.  However, today, we have seen a large proportion of our reserves being eroded because of the severe drop in values of the investments made globally by both of our SWFs.

    This warrants a review of how MOF mandates GIC and Temasek on their roles and a system of reporting and supervision by MOF.  Central to this argument is that Temasek and GIC draw from our reserves to make their investments.  Since it is effectively taxpayers' money that makes up our national reserves, increasingly the public is asking for greater Government involvement and oversight of the SWFs, especially in light of the spectacular losses we have seen in recent times.

     I have a few questions for the Minister in this regard.  Who decides on the level of risks both GIC and Temasek can take in managing their funds?  Is there a mandate from the Minister for Finance on what their expected rate of return should be and the risk profile that their funds should be allowed to operate with?

     Sir, I briefly studied the Annual Reports of both Temasek and GIC and cannot help but draw a conclusion that both, organisationally as well as operationally, GIC and Temasek are operating with different sets of culture.  Temasek seems to have adopted the Wall Street model and hired many people with such expertise, while GIC seems to have not changed much compared to the day they started operating and depends largely on tested people and processes.  I am not sure which model will work for us in the future and in the long term.  But from what we have seen recently, the way investment decisions have been made, whether in Shin Corp or ABC, childcare operator, or in Merrill Lynch or UBS, Temasek seems to follow the Wall Street model of investment while GIC is far more conservative.  Will the Minister be reviewing the approaches taken by both so that we can ensure that our reserves remain protected and are able to grow?

     Sir, there has been a lot of talk at our coffee shops and also at the grassroots level and among our residents about this $50 billion loss, if the number is correct, it is huge.  Compared to $300 billion reserves that has been reported in reports that I had seen, this $50 billion translates to about 17% erosion of our reserves and if you add the other assets that may have been eroded, that have not been computed, that is huge.  So the question in the public's mind, would we have undone what our past generations built up for us?  And will we be able to protect the interest of Singaporeans, moving forward?  An important question is, can we remain confident that we have reserves to help us in the future?

GIC and Temasek

     Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, in this financial crisis, Singaporeans are naturally concerned about the health of our reserves managed by GIC and Temasek.  According to reports, Temasek invested nearly US$6 billion in Merrill Lynch which is now worth about 20% of that.  It has large paper losses in StanChart and Barclays.  GIC's investment in Citibank of about US$7 billion may now worth also about less than 20%.  Last October, the Finance Minister discussed the Government's stance on transparency of GIC and Temasek as follows: "Public disclosures had to be shaped by the SWF's characteristics as long-term investors, with the ability to ride out cycles.  A short-term focus on financial disclosures would not shed light on the right areas."  However, the Government is the legal trustee of the funds and the ultimate true owner is the people.  They deserve to know how this turmoil has affected our national wealth.  Can the Government tell us how much paper losses had been incurred?  What is the Government's assessment of how this has affected the liquidity of the funds and their ability to take opportunities in a downturn?  And, lastly, does the fact that both funds invested so heavily in the financial sector, at the same time, undermine the diversification objectives of our sovereign wealth?

Returns and Risk Taking by GIC and Temasek

     Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, the source of growth of our reserves has primarily come from the surpluses of our past Governments and the investment performances of our fund managers, GIC and Temasek.

    Thanks to our fiscal prudence, we have been able to generate fiscal surpluses and add to the growing pool of reserves.  However, given our competitive tax regime and the increasing recurrent and developmental expenditure, this contribution from Budget surpluses to our reserves would be less likely going forward.

     We will now have to count more on our fund managers, primarily GIC and Temasek, to perform their task of not only generating the required returns but also to grow the reserves.

     The returns from our reserves have increasingly become an important balancing item for our annual Budget.  Without the investment returns from reserves, our fiscal spending would either have to be reduced or we have to raise more taxes.

     In the last 20 years, the favourable economic condition has presented tremendous opportunities to long-term investors.  Both GIC and Temasek have been able to very much capitalised on this bull run. And by most benchmarks, GIC and Temasek have delivered impressive returns for our reserves in the last 20 years.

     However, the investment environment post-crisis is likely to be a very different one.  The world economy is presently undergoing some major structural changes now.  One thing that is clear post-crisis is that the new world order is likely to be a less leveraged one, financially.  Gone are the days for easy credit. Here, I would like to ask the Minister how does the MOF see the long-term investment outlook and whether it is still realistic to expect similar investment opportunities and hence similar levels of returns we have seen in the next 20 years?

     This has a direct bearing on our Net Investment Returns (NIR) and Net Investment Income (NII) and I would like to ask the Minister what does it mean to balancing of our future budgets.

     Sir, while the Government should rightly not interfere or influence the investment decisions of GIC and Temasek, MOF should, however, review the risks we want our reserves to be subjected to vis-a-vis the pace we want to grow our reserves and use our returns.

     The last thing we want to do is to go for return debt, we have been enjoying so far by taking one more risk.  Going forward, should greater emphasis be placed on preserving the capital and its purchasing power, for example, instead of outperforming the indices benchmarks.

     Related to this strategic view, can the Minister share some thoughts as to what the size of reserves should be, relative to our GDP and our other macro and social indicators?  What would be the ideal size of our reserves that we should maintain minimally from a national security standpoint?  I ask this question knowing that I may not get any numerical answers from the Minister.  But I hope that the Minister can still share the Government's thinking and philosophy behind this approach.

Usage and Security of Our Reserves

     Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Mr Chairman, Sir, after a recent Constitutional amendment, the Government is able to draw upon our reserves in emergencies.  This major recession is a national emergency and fully warrants the $4.9 billion drawdown.

    I agree with Senior Minister Goh on the boundaries for its usage.  But within these parameters, we must use it when necessary.

     Sir, along the line of my former colleagues on the size of the reserves, while I understand the sensitivities of revealing the size of the reserves, I ask the Government to assist us to make an informed assessment on the risk of any further withdrawals, especially in light of the ongoing recession.  We do not need the full disclosure, but we do need some directions.

     Further directions would be the total percentage growth in our reserves over the past year to date, and the near term outlook for its growth.

     Sir, news reports say that through its state-owned funds, Singapore has invested a total of about US$24 billion in Citi, Merrill Lynch and UBS over the past 14 months and S$2.6 billion in Barclays.  What are the current values of these investments on an individual company basis from investment date to latest market closing date?

     While GIC's investments in UBS and Citi were done through means of convertible securities that provided a guaranteed rate of return – thus providing some downside insurance – have we considered what if these companies eventually go bankrupt?  Can we recoup our investments at cost?

     I refer to a recent statement from MOF which mentioned that it had invested mainly in fixed income instruments before, but had now increased its asset allocation for higher risk and higher return investments like equities and alternative instruments.

     Sir, why did the funds invest in riskier assets, even if they are within acceptable risk levels?  Why are we doing it now when we had not done so before?  And are our reserves ultimately safe with this higher Sovereign Wealth Fund exposure to riskier assets?  Riskier assets are like strong sunshine, maybe we need more sun block?

Helping Businesses Weather the Storm

     Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, I would like to raise some points on how we have proposed to help businesses weather the current storm.

     Sir, the Government has decided to cut the corporate income tax rate to 17% and I understand what this will do for our long-term competitiveness and it is a good preemptive move to prepare for the future.

     However, we have many international enterprises operating in Singapore, and many of our local companies have overseas operations.  Our Corporate Income Tax (CIT) rate move can inadvertently reinforce perception that Singapore is a tax haven and create difficulties for these companies.  President Obama has in fact recently announced that he will take drastic measures against countries that fall in his tax haven list.  This may put Singapore in a precarious position vis-a-vis the US.  What is the Ministry's position on this?

     Sir, I am happy that the Government is planning to shore up demand by spending more this year.  I hope that the Government will divert as many purchases as possible to local enterprises.  Changing the Government's procurement policies to help SMEs benefit more from Government spending will be critical for us to see the real impact to our economy.  If we do not change, then I am afraid only a few large companies and many foreign ones will stand to gain from the increased Government spending.  While we want to play within the rules of WTO, I am sure we can still tweak the procurement policies to find the right balance.  Perhaps, the Minister can give a breakdown of how the estimated $11 billion of Government spending will be spread among the various sectors of the economy.

    On the R&D and innovation initiatives rolled out in this Budget, I welcome them and I think that these will be useful for companies to restructure and strengthen themselves during this prolonged downturn.  The main issue for such companies is going to be the general requirement of all Government grants for companies to spend the money upfront and then claim back from the Government later.  Would the Minister consider upfront cash grants to encourage companies to do the necessary R&D or innovation work, rather than to put it off because they do not have the money upfront to do the work?

     There may be some Government business opportunities which are suitable for our SMEs but they may not yet have the capabilities to take these jobs.  Would the Minister consider implementing some focused initiatives where it plays a role in helping companies build up their capabilities and capacities to take on more projects that may be available from the Government?  How can the Government help companies identify these opportunities and build their capabilities to handle them?  I believe in the US, some of the government agencies are doing the same.  They play a developmental role to help their enterprises gain some of these capabilities. While the workers have played their part by accepting the National Wages Council (NWC) recommendations for wage cuts, should the Government too not play its part by reducing and not just freezing Government charges?

     Sir, I also welcome the move to get IRAS to review the annual values of properties based on the current market conditions.  My question is, when will this be completed and implemented for the property tax changes?  Can I also ask MOF to direct JTC, SLA and HDB to do the same reassessment on market rentals rather than to rely on old market data?  This will go a long way in helping companies.

     I brought this question up during the MTI COS but was not answered.  Maybe I will bring it up to the Minister here about how some of the banks are abusing the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative (SRI) by converting their existing commercial loans to SRI loans and I think this will defeat the purpose of us in trying to create new loans for companies.  Can we put in some control so that this is not over abused?

Translating Policy Changes into Action Effectively

     Mr Gautam Banerjee (Nominated Member): Over the past 10 years, the tax system in Singapore has undergone a comprehensive overhaul.  A key motivation has been to improve the tax system, as a means of implementing tax policy, by making it more responsive to changes in the global economy.  These changes are reflected in a shift from direct taxation to indirect taxation together with a simplification of the basis of personal and corporate taxation.

     To complement these changes, much has also been done to simplify the administration process such as enabling online filings and ease of payment.  As a result, Singapore is ranked as one of the top locations in the world for the ease of doing business in a World Bank survey.  We cannot afford to rest on our laurels.  To maintain this position, it is critical to continue on the path of implementing tax policy changes but just as importantly, we must ensure that the policy changes are implemented in a simple, fair and effective manner.

     Our economy is constantly evolving and our tax incentives must do likewise.  We must stay a step ahead to ensure Singapore remains a competitive location from which to do business.  This is particularly so as our corporate tax rates are reduced, we need to ensure we preserve the attractiveness of incentives for those areas we consider are critical to Singapore's future growth.   With the reduction in tax rates by 1%, we must at the same time take care not to erode the impact of the tax incentives.  Furthermore, it is important to ensure that other taxes, such as GST, do not deny potential investors from taking the full benefit of our incentives as was the case of the application of GST eroding the attractiveness of using the Singapore Resident Fund incentive.  I would suggest that we need a regular review and monitoring process to ensure that tax incentives remain relevant and that we consider the interaction of other taxes to ensure that a new tax incentive does not cannibalise a previous incentive.  The enhanced loss carryback relief potentially gives rise to this problem, as explained in my Budget speech.

     We are also perhaps not as effective as we could be in attracting R&D investment from abroad or in encouraging indigenous R&D activity.  If we wish to achieve our stated objective of winning more global knowledge-based businesses, then a re-think on tax incentives is a must.   Enhancements in this area should focus on a widening of the definition of R&D and the incentives offered.  It does not always happen in a laboratory and it is therefore difficult to encompass all R&D activities that could bring benefit to Singapore.  It is important that we continue to encourage more IP exploitation in Singapore, for example, taking incentives further down the value chain from the current regime, which is more focused on the creation or acquisition of IP in Singapore. 

We should consider more incentives for revenue generated from IP management and liberalising our foreign tax credit regime, which is not particularly user-friendly for those seeking to use Singapore as a base to generate royalties from overseas.

2.00 pm

     Finally, a prerequisite to effective tax policy is the need for an open and transparent tax administration.  The revenue has made great strides in their approach to consultation with industry and professional bodies.  However, it is hoped that the revenue could find some way to publish a ruling, so as to explain clearly their interpretation of a particular position based on facts.  Whilst confidentiality needs to be maintained, it is important that the positions maintained by the revenue are transparent and made available to a wider population.

Whole of Government Approach

     Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Sir, in the focus on excellence, MOF has outlined as one of its strategic outcomes to be a high performance Government. 

     Can the Minister share with the House the progress of the "whole of Government" approach, which MOF has set out with the objective to create a high-performing Government that utilises its resources efficiently and effectively?  What are the current processes in place to ensure the ease of access to Government service?  Is there a specific focus to drive more effective service delivery to citizens and organisations that interact with the various Government agencies?  If so, what are the key areas that have benefited from this approach?  What is also being done to enhance the processes and upgrade skills of staff for effective and quality of services provided by the Government for citizens and organisations that interact with the various entities and agencies?  How does the Ministry measure the impact of the "whole of Government" approach?  What has been the outcome?  What role has the partnership between private and public sectors played so far to support the "whole of Government" approach?

     With the current economic climate and the intense pressure that we face in keeping pace with the rapidly changing and competitive global market, the Government needs to go beyond efficiency and create value to remain relevant for the business and financial environment that we operate in today and for the future.  In such uncertain times, a framework for clear strategic outcomes and responses and the ability to act with flexibility to nurture awareness and resilience will stand us in a better position to weather the storm and come out of this stronger.

Maintaining Fiscal Prudence

     Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, I would like to make a few points to emphasise prudence in the current fiscal year.  As we embark upon an expansionary budget, we need to ask ourselves a few questions to maintain fiscal prudence and to ensure that the Government's well-intended measures are effective.

     The first question is, if an expansionary budget will lead to overspending without adding much value to the "real" economy.  While Governments around the world are announcing high spending stimulus packages to bail out their economies, we must be careful in not to rely on a "trickle-down economics" approach.  Do not get me wrong.  I am not saying that we should not spend, but we should spend it in a structured manner so that we create 'real' value in the economy.  Given the current economic climate, what measures are in place to ensure that the Government spends prudently?  The point I am trying to hit home here is that fiscal spending should strike a balance between the short-term needs for an expansionary budget and longer-term fiscal sustainability, while aiming to avoid any wastage in the short term.

     Second question, as the Government spends more on many new initiatives, how do we ensure that a more holistic view is adopted in resource allocation across agencies, and that our spending goes towards achieving its desired targets?  For example, does the Government plan to publish the Ministries' outcome indicators or the public sector's outcome indicators as a whole?  It is very easy to spend money when you have it and $11 billion is a huge amount to spend in one year.  Can I ask the Minister what processes he will use or has used to decide which projects get funded?  Is there a minimum return-on-investment threshold which he used to decide who the resources will be allocated to?  Which Ministry?  Was there special effort put in to encourage inter-Ministry projects?

     Third, we need to review the yardsticks used to measure the performance of Ministers and their Ministries, which should also lead to an assessment of their compensation.  The current use of GDP to reward Ministers and Ministries with higher monetary rewards is insufficient and is comparable to using a share price in measuring the performance of CEOs in the private sector, which is not a good approach.

     Fourth, as we head towards uncertain times, we need to ensure that we have enough ammunition in our arsenal to fight the long battle that we are about to go through.  Fiscal prudence is a virtue that we should exercise so that we are able to survive this downturn and have enough resources to restructure our economy to remain competitive in the long term.  I support the expansionary Budget this year, but can the Minister assure the House that we have enough resources to battle this for the long term and not deplete our resources too quickly?

Cut Costs

     Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, the public service is the custodian of public funds.  It has a responsibility to ensure a high degree of financial prudence and efficiency in the deployment of public resources to serve the public good. 

     In the current severe economic downturn, companies are aggressively reviewing their cost structure or scaling down on activities which do not directly contribute to the bottomline.  Hence, the 2008 Auditor-General's Report highlights some disturbing instances of extravagance and waste, and also poor use of state land and buildings by some Ministries and statutory boards.  To quote one example, the Singapore Tourism Board spent $1.5 million over seven years before deciding not to proceed with efforts to convert the Capitol Theatre into a performing arts venue.  The Auditor-General had estimated the rental revenue foregone to exceed $280,000 a year.  The Auditor-General had also observed instances of poor handling of reserves and cash grants in some Ministries and statutory boards. 

     If I could give another example based on my own observations, the annual reports of Ministries and statutory boards are now getting glossier and, certainly, looking more expensive.  Our public agencies seem to be competing with each other to package the best looking annual report for public consumption.  Annual reports should be concise, but highly informative to give the public a good sense of the work that the public agencies are doing in order to serve their interest.  I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister what measures are in place to ensure that our public agencies exercise fiscal prudence, avoid extravagant expenditure and achieve greater efficiency?  How does the Ministry ensure that there is effective and proper management of all lands and buildings?

Social Report Card

     Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Many colleagues have raised issues related to financial resilience and financial indicators.  I want to talk about the other half of the equation – social resilience and social indicators.

     Sir, I would like to ask the Ministers to consider, jointly, producing a comprehensive annual social report card for the people on behalf of the whole Government.  This is a quick way for Singaporeans to have a feel of how the Government is doing.  This report can either state and grade all the key programmes and policies that have been implemented by various Ministries and the Government, or it can simply summarise, identify and review key efforts, policies, programmes and initiatives, assess its broad impacts and then define what challenges lie ahead.  Also, for this social report card to gain more traction, I would like to propose that it can be opened to the public, to solicit feedback from those who have used the public services for their grading of the Government's performance.  In other words, citizens can churn out their report card to grade the Ministries and the Government's performance.

     Sir, this is not just a one-way communication from the Government to the people, but a form of public accountability tool, to draw public attention to the quality and impact of Government policies implemented by various Ministries.  The NTUC has such a social report card.  We found it to be useful to be accountable to our members, so I hope the Minister can give this some consideration.

CNG Green Vehicle Rebates

     Er Edwin Khew Teck Fook (Nominated Member): Sir, the Singapore Government introduced a special tax exemption for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles in 2001 to promote the use of green vehicles in Singapore, to improve our air quality, particularly, to reduce particulate matter (PM) 2.5.  PM2.5 is a fine pollutant (2.5 microns in size), that is linked to asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung diseases. 

     The average level of PM2.5 for Singapore was 19 μg/m³ in 2003, and 21 μg/m³ in 2005, exceeding the international accepted standard of 15 μg/m³ set by the USEPA (US Environmental Pollution Agency).  There have been no public figures released for PM2.5 after 2005.  I can only assume that this has been increasing, from the 2003 to 2005 trends.  50% of this invisible pollutant is contributed by diesel vehicles.  Petrol driven vehicles also contribute to PM2.5, but at lower levels.  However, CNG cars emit negligible amounts of particulate matter.  Because of the high cost of petrol and diesel in 2008, the LTA registered 2,196 private CNG cars and 757 CNG taxis.  Two stations were opened, more are scheduled for 2009.  However, in the last three months of 2008, because of the negative press coverage putting doubts whether the Government will extend the special tax incentives, the sales and conversion of CNG vehicles dropped, as there was no clarity from the Government. 

     Two other factors accelerated the process: (i) not enough CNG stations; and (ii) the smaller disparity between cost of petrol and CNG, because of the weakening of the oil prices.  To date, this has caused the closure of more than 50% (10 out of 20), of the workshops converting petrol and diesel vehicles into CNG vehicles, and a loss of approximately 100 skilled jobs.

     Sir, may I suggest, that if the main reason for promoting CNG vehicles is to protect the environment and our health, that the Minister consider: (i) extending the GVR from five to 10 years and to include these incentives to cover the conversion of petrol and diesel vehicles, bi-fuel vehicles and fleet owners of taxis, buses and trucks; (ii) to remove the tax levy on CNG up to 2015; and (iii) to provide special incentives for those who invest in more CNG stations, so as to encourage more of these stations to be built.

     If we want a cleaner environment, better health and a general industry that will provide skilled jobs for Singaporeans, I would like to encourage the Minister to continue supporting this great initiative and to see it through as I think it would be difficult to value the cost of a healthier environment and the global image that will bring us to a more sustainable Singapore.

          The Chairman:  Mr Hri Kumar is not here.  Miss Penny Low.

A Compassionate Economy

     Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I declare my interest.  Sir, which is a better way to build resilience in our people?  By giving handouts or giving handups?  The answer is obvious.  For too long, we have hard-coded businesses into for-profits and charity categories.  Thereby, force fitting people into jobs and welfare.  This is outdated.  The hybrid models of double bottomline social enterprises (SEs) can enable marginalised communities to help themselves and find sustainable solutions from within their communities.  SEs build compassion and resilience, and lower social burdens in the long term.  To do so, a serious push requires fundamental incentives and paradigm shifts.  For a start, why not incentivise investments in the social economy? 

     Currently, an investor in for-profit enterprises can obtain enterprise related grants, loans, investment schemes and tax breaks.  Investors or philanthropists in charities are eligible for up to 250% tax relief in charities with an Institute of Public Character (IPC) status.  So it baffles me as to why investors in social enterprises, which are enterprises that help build social capital, do not receive any tax breaks, loans or grants extensions, especially in these tumultuous times.  In fact, offering the same tax incentives to investors in social enterprise is not asking for any special favours, it is just asking for a level playing field that will let social enterprises prove that they can deliver financial and social returns.

     An example is UK's Community Investment Tax Relief scheme which is designed to stimulate private investments in marginalised communities by providing tax relief to individuals and companies that invest in not-for-profit and for-profit seeking enterprises in or serving those communities.  A different legal structure in the form of UK's CIC and US' LCCC, both of which I mentioned last year, should also be explored.  Can the Minister please give this suggestion some serious thought?

     The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua): Sir, let me first thank the hon. Members for their comments and suggestions, and given the constraint of time, I shall endeavour to elaborate on the policy intent and address as many specific comments as possible.  The issues that Members have raised reflect the challenges we face in this unprecedented economic crisis and centre around three broad areas of concern:

     (i) the impact of the crisis on our reserves and investment returns;

     (ii) how the Government would maintain fiscal efficiency and measure the effectiveness of its programmes; and

     (iii) suggestions on how we can enhance the competitiveness of our tax regime, and how we can leverage on it to achieve social and environmental policy objectives.

     I will address each of these three areas, as well as related issues that several Members have raised during the Budget debate last week.

     Firstly, the impact of the economic crisis on our reserves and investments.  Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked about the size and sufficiency of our reserves.  Likewise, Mr Inderjit Singh is concerned whether we are fast depleting our reserves and whether we would be able to tap the amounts needed under the new Net Investment Returns (or NIR) framework.

     During his Budget Debate Round-up Speech, the Minister for Finance has assured the House that we have built up substantial financial reserves, with assets far in excess of our liabilities.

     Sir, as we have explained many times in this House, we do not disclose the size of our reserves.  It is not in our national interest to do so.  Market players have had their own various estimates, and they do not doubt that the Government has substantial resources.

     Mr Liang Eng Hwa wanted to know if there is an ideal size of reserves we should build up.  The approach we have taken is one of ensuring that our reserves continue to grow in line with the size of our economy, by tapping on the returns from the investments judiciously, exercising fiscal prudence and augmenting our reserves in good times.  In this way, whatever the crisis – natural calamity, epidemic, war, or economic catastrophe – we would be better able to deal with the damage and recover more quickly to the situation before the crisis.

     Mdm Ho asked why GIC had now increased its asset allocation for higher risk and higher return investments when it had not done so before.  GIC’s asset allocation strategy has evolved gradually over the years as its asset base grew and GIC developed its capabilities.  GIC started out with a high allocation towards the lower-risk fixed income instruments, but has, over time, diversified portfolio risk across a wider range of asset classes.  This enables GIC to achieve higher sustainable long-term returns, while keeping to an acceptable risk level.

     I would like to assure Mdm Ho that consideration of market conditions figures prominently in the actual execution of GIC’s investment strategy.  In fact, in 2007, GIC’s concerns about the likelihood of market dislocations led it to decide to reduce its exposure to public equity markets in favour of cash. GIC closely monitors and analyses the global environment and capital market behaviour, and takes into consideration liquidity and capacity issues, as well as shocks and events that may impact the portfolio.

     Sir, Mr Inderjit Singh asked whether there is a mandate from the Government on the expected return and risk profile of GIC and Temasek.  Indeed so, the Government sets the overall returns objective and risk threshold for our reserves.  For GIC, the Government sets the risk tolerance limits and gives it a mandate to invest to enhance the global purchasing power of the funds under its management.  Temasek’s mission is to create and maximise shareholder long-term value.

     Mr Liang asked whether MOF would review the overall portfolio risk that GIC and Temasek would be taking going forward.  The Government reviews the risk limits from time to time.  The current portfolio risk limits are not aggressive, and are consistent with our overall objectives of our reserves to provide a key defence in times of crisis and a continuous stream of income for the current and future generations.

     But I would like for us to guard against knee-jerk reactions.  We set the long-term risk and return objectives, and leave it to the investment professionals to do their job in this complex environment.

     Dr Loo Choon Yong, however, made a valid point during the Budget Debate that a robust risk management framework is crucial to reducing or mitigating the possibility of unforeseen risk exposures.  I would like to assure Dr Loo that proper and sound risk management and governance systems, structures and processes are well in place in both GIC and Temasek.  Both GIC and Temasek have their own dedicated risk management teams that regularly monitor the risk exposure of investments.  The Government conducts regular reviews with GIC and Temasek on the performance of their overall portfolios.  The Boards of GIC and Temasek are ultimately responsible and accountable to the
Government for the investment oversight and management of risk.

     Mr Inderjit Singh asked how the current financial crisis has affected the performance of our two Sovereign Wealth Funds and our reserves.  Mdm Ho has also asked if the recent investments by GIC and Temasek in financial institutions are safe.

     On Mdm Ho’s question, let me reiterate my reply to a Parliamentary Question filed earlier that it is not the Government’s practice to discuss the performance of individual investment deals.  It is in the nature of investments that some will lose money while others will make money.  The key is to weigh the risk of each investment against its potential return, and to balance it against other holdings, so that the portfolio will do well on an overall basis.  This is how the Government assesses and holds the investment entities accountable for their performance.

     With regard to how the portfolio as a whole has performed, like what I had mentioned in a reply to another Parliamentary Question last week, while GIC’s investments have diminished in value just like any other institutional investors’, it has fallen by much less than the decline in global equity markets indices of 42% for 2008.

     As for Temasek, which has more than two-thirds of investments in Singapore and Asian countries, its net portfolio value at 30th November 2008 was S$127 billion, or a decline of about 31% from the value of S$185 billion as at 31st March 2008.  This is less than the corresponding declines in the MSCI (Singapore) of 44% and the MSCI (Asia ex Japan) of 45%, both in Singapore dollar terms over the same period.

     Sir, let me now make two key points regarding the performance of GIC and Temasek: first, what the current downturn implies for GIC and Temasek as long-term investors; and, second, the impact of swings in the value of reserves on funds available for the Budget.

     Temasek is a long-term equity investor and GIC is a long-term diversified investor.  This is not the first major decline in markets that they have seen, and will certainly not be their last.

     Sir, the last 20-year period to date has had its fair share of boom and bust.  For example, in 1998 at the depth of the Asian Financial Crisis, the year-on-year decline in the STI index was at one point 56%.  During the dot com bust of 2000/2001, the fall in MSCI (World) index was around 30% year-on-year. In all these situations, GIC and Temasek experienced significant reductions in asset values.  In spite of these market gyrations including the current downturn, for the 20-year period to late 2008, Temasek had achieved annualised returns of about 13%.  GIC, which has a diversified and more conservative portfolio, has also had creditable returns over the 20-year period.  GIC would release its 20-year performance ending March each year.  To recap, as at March 2008, the 20-year average return was 5.8% in nominal Singapore dollar terms.  The figure for March 2009 would have fallen as a result of the decline in 2008, but will not be sharply down.  Temasek and GIC are long-term investors, and should be evaluated as such.

     GIC and Temasek have the ability and resources to weather the ups and downs, over multiple economic and market cycles.  They do not have to sell in panic in a market downturn and are in fact in an advantageous position to invest in good quality assets at prices that are attractive from a long-term perspective during a downturn.  The Government is confident that they will continue to deliver good long-term returns within the risk limits set.

     Sir, now let me move on to the impact of changes in value of reserves on the Government budget. There is a common misconception that the diminution in value or capital losses on our reserves mean a similar depletion of funds for Government spending.

     When the markets boom, and capital values rise, this does not lead to a surge in funds available for Government spending.  Likewise, the drop in capital values owing to a market downturn does not mean a large decline in funds available for Government spending, as Mdm Ho, Mr Liang, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Inderjit Singh might have feared.

     The amount which the Government may spend under the Net Investment Returns (or NIR) framework incorporates the expected annual returns over a 20-year horizon for assets invested by GIC and MAS, not the actual year-on-year returns.  By design, this reduces the volatility introduced to the Government’s Budget from fluctuations in the NIR contribution although it does not eliminate it entirely.  As a result of the downturn, the value of the asset base would invariably be smaller.  However, it does not mean that NIR would fall by the same magnitude as the reduction in asset values.  This is because the asset values are smoothed over the years, precisely so as to avoid volatility in NIR – in other words, to avoid a boom-bust pattern in Government spending as a result of swings in capital asset values and in the asset markets.  This is similar to the methods employed by several other major endowments.

     Sir, it is too premature to indicate the quantum of the investment returns that can be taken into the Budget for the next few years, taking into account the value of the asset base.  As the Minister for Finance mentioned during the Budget Debate, the Government is confident that the prudent management of our reserves – as a long-term investor in the global markets – will continue to grow our reserves, and yield us a steady stream of Net Investment Returns Contribution over time.

     On the issue of liquidity, I would like to assure Mr Inderjit Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim that the Government has studied the issue of liquidity before embarking on the NIR framework.  Realised capital gains, dividends and interest payments from our investment entities are but one source of liquid funds for spending.  Besides our usual revenue streams, our diversified portfolio of investments includes substantial holdings in cash and highly-liquid fixed income instruments, which we can tap on for our liquidity needs.

     Mr Inderjit Singh has also asked how the long-term expected real rates of return have been worked out in the first year.  Sir, the process has been thorough and rigorous.  The Boards of MAS and GIC have certified to the Government the expected rates of return to be applied on their respective assets, based on established methodologies in the industry and taking into consideration the latest investment outlook.  The Government has studied this carefully and agreed with the Boards’ recommendations, and has proposed these rates to the President.  The President, after consulting the Council of Presidential Advisers (or the CPA), has concurred with the proposed rates.

     Mr Inderjit Singh asked how the economic crisis has affected the funds managed by the Statutory Boards.  Let me just clarify that the Government does not rely on returns from Statutory Boards for expenditure.  However, Statutory Boards are allowed to accumulate surpluses from operational savings to serve as working capital as well as funds for capital expenditure.  The bulk of these retained surpluses are placed as fixed deposits.  And consistent with their cashflow needs, Statutory Boards have on average less than 10% of their exposure to equity markets.

     Sir, let me now move on to the role of Temasek and GLCs.  During the Budget Debate, Mr Zaqy Mohamad has suggested that the Government should have influence over the decisions of Government-linked companies that impact our social compact.  Mr Inderjit Singh had also suggested that Temasek could be tasked to rescue local companies and re-focus on Singapore.

     Sir, we have to maintain a clear and consistent mandate for Temasek.  Temasek’s investments are made on a purely commercial basis.  For the Government to micro-manage or direct Temasek or its investee companies to invest so as to fulfil some non-commercial objective would detract from the focus on maximising shareholder returns.  This would also impose unfair obligations on the respective Boards of Directors, who have the fiduciary duty to act in the companies’ interest.

     Mr Inderjit Singh suggested during the Budget Debate that Temasek could be tasked to rescue local companies and re-focus on Singapore.  Members, including Mr Inderjit Singh himself, will remember that repeated calls have been made in the past that, as a matter of principle, Government should reduce its involvement in business and divest its stakes in local companies. We did not agree then.

It was our position then, and it remains so, that Temasek will continue to own shares or even increase its shareholding in local companies as long as it makes commercial sense, and to only divest those that are no longer relevant to its mission.

2.30 pm

    It is unwise for the Government to alter the philosophy regarding investments by Temasek and its investee companies simply in response to fluctuating market conditions or other temporary factors. As a long-term investor, Temasek would need the assurance in the constancy of policies which would impact its strategy as well as its credibility in the markets.

    Temasek and its investee companies should therefore continue to operate commercially, without interference from the Government. If Temasek is asked to undertake a national agenda, it would, in fact, validate some of the concerns over Sovereign Wealth Funds having political objectives, and may ultimately impede Temasek's ability to participate in investments internationally. However, this does not preclude Temasek nor its companies from making their own decisions to increase their exposure locally where there are attractive opportunities. In fact, from time to time, Temasek has made new investments in Singapore.

    Sir, let me now move on to the Whole-of-Government Performance. Even as the Government focuses on assuring funding from investment income, it is just as important for us to monitor the public sector's performance at the Whole-of-Government level for fiscal prudence over expenditure. At the same time, we need to take a proactive approach to enhancing our service delivery to citizens and businesses.

    The performance of the public sector as a whole is becoming increasingly important as issues become more intertwined and complex. What one Ministry or agency does could enhance or negate what another does. It is in this context that I would like to address some Members' views concerning the performance of the public sector.

    Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Seah Kian Peng have commented on the need to review the performance of Ministries. MOF has been working with Ministries to move towards reporting outcome-oriented indicators. This will enable MOF to see how well Ministries' key programmes are doing, and whether the identified objectives are aligned with national priorities.

    MOF has been engaging Ministries to identify key strategic outcomes that the Government desires and which Ministries would share. These strategic outcomes have been set out clearly in a Whole-of-Government Strategy Map.

    As a next step, we will work on how clusters of Ministries and agencies that contribute to or are influenced by the various strategic outcomes can better optimise their work on the Whole-of-Government basis.

    Sir, MOF intends to introduce a Singapore Public Sector Annual Report (or SPAR) in 2010, which would provide an overview of how well the public sector would be moving towards the identified strategic outcomes across the key sectors to be shared and achieved by the different Ministries.

    The strategic outcomes at the Whole-of-Government level to be tracked in this Annual Report would influence the key outcomes and objectives of all Ministries and departments. Hence, this Annual Report would encapsulate the basis for cascading the high-level outcomes and targets down to departmental, unit and individual levels.  Such a report would also be useful to the identification of trends and issues that need focus or resolution vis-a-vis the strategic outcomes over time.

     Sir, let me next move on to talk about how the Government will continue to ensure effective service delivery to the public and businesses, which is a key thrust. I thank Ms Jessica Tan for her comments on this.

    One of the key delivery programmes is the iGov2010 Master Plan, which is a public sector wide effort spearheaded by MOF that enables us to harness innovation and technology to bring about an Integrated Government (or iGov) that better meets the needs of the public. Almost all Government services are now available online, 24/7, and are easy to use, responsive and integrated. Members would be familiar with the following examples:

    (a)  Taxpayers would have appreciated the ease at filing their tax returns, including the recently introduced No-Filing Service, and close to half a million taxpayers will benefit from this.

    (b)  CPF members can readily obtain their account balances, transaction and contribution history at the click of a mouse, using personalisation features at myCPF portal.

    (c)  Businesses can access Government services online through one-stop portals. For instance, ACRA's (Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority) BizFile system enables the public to register a new business or incorporate a company in 15 minutes.

    (d)  And, more recently, the Government has introduced the Unique Entity Numbers to standardise identification numbers used by some 52 Government agencies.  Feedback has so far been positive.

    That is not all. The Government will continue to leverage on technology to further enhance access to Government e-services in an integrated manner. For instance, Web-on-the-go will put some 40 Government e-services onto a one-stop menu on mobile phones; making it easy and convenient for transactions on-the-move. These include enquiry of Employment Pass and Work Permit status for businesses, JOBSlite portal for unemployed workers and information on weather and traffic for the general public.

   The Government is mindful that a small segment of the society may be less Internet-savvy or may not have Internet access. Hence, we have also introduced CitizenConnect Centres to complement the online service channels. There are currently 28 such centres, conveniently located across the island, and serving more than 100,000 individuals each year.

    Sir, MOF has a framework to identify key areas for integration and provides funding incentive to agencies to share facilities and processes for areas like HR and Finance systems for Government agencies. So far, 11 statutory boards have come together to share a system that will allow them to reap economies of scale through standardisation as well as a sharing of best practices.  The Civil Service College also provides courses to equip public officers with the right skills and mindset to bring about inter-agency collaboration.

    To do our jobs better, Government agencies also regularly obtain feedback on their service delivery, as suggested by Mr Seah Kian Peng. These agency-level channels include emails, direct correspondence, service counters and hotlines.

    To measure the effectiveness of public service delivery, we conduct an annual customer satisfaction survey. In 2008, nine in 10 respondents were satisfied with the overall level of our e-services and would recommend others to transact with the Government through e-services. In terms of integration within Government, 16 multi-agency projects were implemented in FY2006-FY2007, with a total projected savings of $21 million. Several other new projects are in progress and will reap more savings when completed.

    There are also more organised feedback platforms, such as:

    Firstly, the Pro-Enterprise Panel which works closely with the business community to foster a conducive business environment.  Secondly, there is REACH (Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry@Home) which uses a broad array of both mainstream and new media channels to engage citizens from all walks of life.

     Sir, our efforts at public service delivery have not gone unnoticed. Singapore was ranked the world leader in customer service maturity in the 2007 Accenture study on Leadership in Customer Service.  Singapore was also ranked top in terms of ease of doing business in the World Bank 2009 report.

     Sir, internally within Government, we need to continue maintaining fiscal prudence over expenditure even as we assist businesses during this downturn.

    Our philosophy of fiscal prudence has enabled us to build up our reserves in years of feast so as to be able to respond speedily to any crisis, such as the one we are experiencing right now. We therefore agree very much with Mr Inderjit Singh that we need to be mindful not to overspend even as we have an expansionary budget. I would like to clarify that we have taken the opportunity offered by this downturn to bring forward worthy Government construction projects, and to advance our manpower hiring plans. The needs of these initiatives are clear and already planned for to build up our capacity and invest in new areas of need, and not to boost demand for its own sake, as that would be wasteful.

     The Government has in place a number of mechanisms to ensure it stays lean and efficient. 

     Firstly, there are budgetary mechanisms in place to ensure effective and efficient allocation of resources within Government. MOF scrutinises the project requirements of major capital projects to assess the worthiness of the projects and ensure that they adhere to appropriate cost norms. The cashflow for these projects are budgeted and planned for on a multi-year basis.  Ministries decide on the phasing of projects based on the availability of budget and on the benefits and need for the projects. MOF monitors the progress of the ongoing projects annually. Value-for-money reviews are also carried out periodically.

    Secondly, we will maintain the Manpower Management Framework to ensure that Government headcount does not grow faster than the growth in the resident labour force over the medium term. The advancing of hiring plans will not lead to long-term over-manning of public sector agencies as these are intended for projects that were held back due to insufficient manpower resources, as well as to, as I have said earlier, build up additional and new capabilities in areas such as healthcare and education.

    During the Budget Debate, Dr Loo Choon Yong has suggested that these new jobs be outsourced.  Under the bestsourcing framework, functions that are assessed to be strategic in nature will be performed within the Government agencies, while non-strategic functions would be market-tested, and outsourced to external service providers if doing so provides better value-for-money for Government.
 

    As a consumer of goods and services, we agree with Mdm Halimah Yacob's view that the Government should always use its resources efficiently.  Over the years, we have introduced initiatives to streamline Government processes and to minimise wastage across the public sector. Let me just recount a few. They include:

     The Economy Drive and the Cut-Waste Panel.  Since 2003, the Economy Drive has helped instil a mindset in public officers to use resources prudently while the Cut-Waste Panel has provided a channel for the public to give their feedback on Government spending. For example, as Mdm Halimah would be pleased to know, Government agencies were reminded in October 2008 to produce their annual reports in a cost-effective manner.

    Next, land and building resources.  All Ministries and agencies are responsible for the effective  management of land and buildings allocated to them. MOF and MinLaw have put in place various  measures to ensure this, such as the Office Space Management Framework.

    And finally, Demand Aggregation (DA).  This initiative pools together similar purchases across agencies for economies of scale, for example, in the supply of office furniture.

    Mr Baey Yam Keng's suggestion of "pseudo dollars" during the Budget Debate is a noteworthy one. We have, in fact, instituted such a practice of encouraging agencies to share and optimise the use of their resources, for example, co-locating community centres and libraries. To facilitate this, we also allow Government agencies to retain the revenue for such transactions through an inter-department charging mechanism, and this impacts their budgets in real terms.

     Sir, Mr Inderjit Singh asked whether Government could provide more business opportunities for local companies, especially the SMEs, through its procurement activities.

    The Singapore Government procurement regime is an open one, based on the principles of fairness, transparency and value-for-money. Consistent with Singapore's commitment to the WTO rules, we do not discriminate nor favour any supplier. Tenders are therefore awarded on the basis of greatest benefits to cost.

    To help local companies, the solution is not to tilt the playing field by diverting purchases to local enterprises as this may, in fact, stymie their growth over time.

    To enable SMEs to participate easily in Government tenders,  MOF removed the track record requirements for registration as a Government supplier in GeBIZ back in November 2004. Further, MOF has been providing the first GeBIZ account free-of-charge since 2005. To assist our local enterprises in this current downturn, Government is lowering business costs through the Jobs Credit and the enhanced access to bank lending with the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative.

    In addition, the Government has also undertaken measures along two fronts.

    First, by providing pipeline of public sector demand for goods and services and enabling companies to build capacity; and, second, by helping businesses with their cashflow.

2.45 pm

    As announced, some $18 billion worth of construction contracts will be awarded this year. Some $1.3 billion worth of smaller construction contracts, each worth up to $50 million will be advanced.

     Construction projects are, by nature, big ticket items.  Nonetheless, public sector procurement of IT and other goods and services have also exceeded $3.5 billion annually since FY2006.  And this trend will continue in FY2009, hence providing many business opportunities for the smaller companies.

     The Public Service Innovation Framework has been in place since 2008 to provide seed funding for R&D in areas or with applications that could offer innovative solutions to the public sector.  And we are also allocating $70 million to catalyse close collaboration with the private sector through the programme called "Call-For-Collaborations" on the development of new capabilities.

     As I said, in addition to the several measures mentioned in the Budget to enhance business cashflow, Government, as a consumer of goods and services, is also doing its part to improve the suppliers' cashflow by making prompt and more frequent payments to suppliers, and by lowering the amount of security deposits for all tenders.

     Mr Inderjit Singh also asked about the reassessment of property values and the review of rental rates for commercial and industrial properties, which will help to reduce business costs.

     Sir, the Annual Value (or AV) of a property is assessed based on the prevailing market rentals for comparable properties.  For 2009, IRAS will prioritise re-assessment of the properties that have seen the largest rental declines and where the market rentals have dropped below their AVs.  More details will be given in due course.

     As regards rental rates, as a policy, MOF requires all Government premises to be rented out at market rates.  This is to avoid distorting the property market.  Rentals are therefore set based on prevailing market rates assessed by qualified valuers engaged by the relevant Government agency at the grant of a new tenancy, renewal of a tenancy or at pre-determined points in a lease contract.  MOF does not intervene in the setting of these market rates.

     Sir, now let me move on to the role of our tax policies in enhancing our competitiveness.  I welcome the suggestions from Members on how we can further enhance the competitiveness of our tax regime.

     I will address the specific points made by Members.

     Mr Inderjit Singh considers our corporate tax rate cut of 1% point from Year of Assessment 2010 a good move but is concerned that some countries may perceive Singapore as a tax haven.

     Sir, Singapore is certainly not a tax haven.  Singapore is a "low-tax" –  rather than a "no-tax" – jurisdiction.  At 17%, Singapore's corporate tax rate is competitive, but by no means among the lowest in the world.  For the record, Bulgaria's tax rate is 10%; Ireland's, 12.5%; and Romania's, 16%.

     Tax havens are typically dependent on "mail-box" companies. Singapore is, on the other hand, a substantive, knowledge-based economy in both manufacturing and services.  Companies, both foreign and local, run real operations in Singapore that compete globally on the basis of value.  Any objective observer knows that this is not a mail-box economy.

     Singapore also enjoys a good reputation as a trusted business and financial hub, with a strong rule of law.  We do not stand for abuse of our laws to shelter criminals, including those engaged in offshore tax offences.

     Unlike tax havens, we have an extensive network of 60 Avoidance of Double-Taxation Agreements (or DTAs), and through this network, Singapore is able to provide assistance to foreign investigations of tax offences.

     We regularly review our regime to ensure that Singapore remains a trusted financial centre and a responsible low-tax jurisdiction.  One area currently being reviewed is the standard of the exchange of information for tax treaties.

     The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (or OECD) established a standard in 2005 for transparency and effective exchange of tax information.  This standard has just been endorsed in October 2008, by the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters.

     Sir, Singapore agrees with the principles behind the OECD standard, which will serve to help governments address offshore tax offences in a globalised world.  We will be engaging the OECD and the industry to study this OECD standard with a view to endorsing it.

     Next, let me move on to Mr Gautam Banerjee's suggestions.  We fully agree with Mr Banerjee on the need to continue to encourage more R&D activities in Singapore.

     The Government has actually committed significant resources to R&D and innovation over the years.  In Budget 2008, we introduced several new tax measures to incentivise companies to do more R&D in Singapore, including the 150% deduction for R&D expenditure and R&D tax allowance.  All these contribute to making Singapore one of the most competitive tax jurisdictions for R&D.

     We also revised the definition of R&D after careful study of major jurisdictions and several rounds of industry discussion and public consultation.  In fact we have a lower bar for activities that qualify as R&D for tax purposes; for example, the UK and Australia require an advancement in the body of scientific or technological knowledge while we only require novelty or technical risk.

     However, we should not set the threshold too low to include activities that businesses would ordinarily do to improve their products and processes.  For example, if someone were to change the colour of ties that Mr Banerjee prefers, that process cannot be considered R&D, even if Mr Banerjee were to buy more ties.  But if there is a novel way of producing coloured ties arising from systematic investigation and experimentation, that would be a different matter.

     Nonetheless, these tax measures are new and we will monitor them and evaluate their effectiveness.  We certainly welcome feedback and suggestions on how to improve the measures.

     Sir, we also agree with Mr Banerjee that we should promote IP management.  We currently provide incentives for IP management activities carried out as part of a company's manufacturing trade or HQ services under the Development and Expansion Incentive.  In fact, our low corporate tax rate also makes it attractive for companies to operate here and earn locally sourced income, including royalties.  We agree with his suggestion to negotiate lower withholding taxes on royalties in our tax treaties.

     Liberalising the foreign tax credit regime may well enhance our attraction as a base to generate royalties from overseas.  But we need to study this further to weigh the incremental benefits against a potential erosion of our tax base.  And given that our corporate tax rate is more competitive than most places, most foreign-sourced royalties would suffer little or no further taxation here upon remittance.

     He has also suggested that we publish advance rulings to make our tax administration more transparent.  Many of our rulings are for transactions that are unique to circumstances and there are also confidentiality concerns.  Hence, it would not be tenable for IRAS to publish the advance rulings.  But having said that, where ruling requests have a wider tax impact, IRAS will publish tax guides on them to further improve the transparency of our tax administration.

     Sir, finally, on the enhanced loss carry-back relief that he mentioned during the Budget Debate, this is a conscious policy decision because the Partial Tax Exemption is a final exemption to reduce the effective tax rate for smaller companies and is not a tax deduction.

     Let me now move on quickly to Mr Edwin Khew's cut.  Sir, we have a whole spectrum of measures relating to vehicles.  We have a mixture of upfront ownership restraint and usage restraint measures to ensure free-flowing traffic and to support environmental outcomes.

     Mr Edwin Khew has suggested that we should continue the CNG tax concessions till 2015.  CNG vehicles, as the House may remember, have been exempted from special tax and been granted green vehicle rebates since their introduction in 2002, taking into account their cleaner PM2.5 emissions than diesel cars.  And to develop the CNG refuelling infrastructure, Members will also remember that the Government has been co-funding the start-up costs of three refuelling stations.

     These measures are, however, designed to help kick start the introduction of the then newer-type of vehicle and are not meant to be permanent.  To date, we have more than 3,000 CNG vehicles on our roads and we are expecting another two refuelling stations by the end of the year.  So going forward, we will gradually reduce their tax concessions to ensure that the adoption of CNG vehicles is sustainable on its own.

     Fuel taxes serve, first and foremost, to price in vehicle usage.  There is hence no reason to exempt CNG cars from fuel tax permanently.  However, we have taken into account the difference between CNG cars and other cars with respect to the environment and therefore have introduced a rate that is at a steep discount to the equivalent rate.  This rate is 20 cents as opposed to what would have been 53 cents.

     Just to complete the point about giving CNG car owners sufficient notice, we have therefore extended the special tax exemption for a further two years before it is removed in 2012.

     Finally on Miss Penny Low's cut on social enterprises, the divide is really profitability status and social enterprises are distinct from charities and must therefore be fully self-sufficient and profitable. They should not enjoy the benefits of tax exemption as charities, or be allowed to solicit tax deductible donations like IPCs.  They should be subject to the same tax treatment as for-profit enterprises.

     As regards new legal structures which have been introduced elsewhere, these key features are already accommodated within our spectrum of business vehicles right now, ranging from a CLG to a limited liability partnership.

     So to conclude, Sir, we have been prudent in the management and utilisation of our resources.  As a result, we have accumulated significant savings, despite the lack of natural advantages of bestowed natural resources and other conditions.  We have managed these savings well, and grown this nest egg.  It behooves us to continue with this discipline.  We will also continue to improve in the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery, tapping on both the private and people sector to do better.  And finally, we have put in place a system to track how our public service is keeping pace with trends and meeting the desired strategic outcomes.

     Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, on the liquidity issue, I want to just ask: Given that both Temasek and GIC have got paper losses and we are expecting the returns on NIR based on expected return whereas their real return will be lower than that in the next few years as expected, will they have enough cash to return to the Government or will they be forced to liquidate assets to realise their losses?  I understand that the Government has the money and I am glad that we have the money.

     Sir, on the issue of role of Temasek to focus externally, I generally agree in the refocus of Charter of Temasek to invest externally.  But with the benefit of experience in the last few years, we have generally been unsuccessful in many of our overseas investments, maybe in this environment it may be a good time to reassess this and bring them back into Singapore.  But I can understand that we cannot direct Temasek to invest in companies, to rescue companies.  Can I then ask if the Minister will be willing to set up another fund to help rescue companies, if not through Temasek, maybe set up a special fund to rescue companies?

3.00 pm

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, as I was saying, when we were considering the whole NIR framework, we have actually considered the liquidity issues very carefully and taken stock of what we do have.  As I said, we do have substantial holdings in cash and highly liquid

fixed income instruments.  So to answer Mr Inderjit Singh's question, Temasek and GIC will not have to liquidate the investments, so as to provide the stream of income.  And this is the nub of the whole basis for going on to an expected return versus the actual returns.  As to whether there should be another fund to rescue companies, this is an assessment that the Government will have to make over time to see whether there is a need for, almost like, a third investment company.  But there are currently schemes under the EDB like SEEDS, which cater specifically to smaller companies and these are actually better equipped and are in a better position to assess the possibilities for investments in such companies.

     Miss Penny Low: Sir, I would like to clarify that social enterprises are called social enterprises because they are double bottomline.  In other words, their profitability is measured on social and financial bottomline.  So, in that light, they exist between a whole continuum from for-profits to not-for-profits.  Is the Senior Minister of State aware that, currently, the problem with social enterprises is that if they are registered as not-for-profit, under the CLG, they are not availed to the schemes that are operated under SPRING.  Therefore, in this time of demand and credit crunch, many of them would, in fact, face the same problem as SMEs, but without the help-lines that are currently offered to even SMEs.

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, our current taxation system is really predicated on the divide of profits, as I have said, and that would remain so.  But there is certainly scope if the Member were to evolve the social enterprise model, such that she can segregate the not-for-profit and the profitable parts of it, certainly, that is a conversation that can be taking place.  As to whether the Government is sympathetic to the current problems that social enterprises or, for that matter, charities and VWOs might be having in this downturn, it is something that we are all aware of except that the Government cannot differentiate its treatment in terms of assistance to normal businesses and that to businesses which happen to be social enterprises.  The treatment has to be consistent and the same.

     Mr Seah Kian Peng: Sir, I am heartened to hear from the Senior Minister of State about the high 95% annual customer satisfaction survey conducted for the civil service.  I would like to refer to the annual Mercer's Quality of Living survey.  Last year, we were ranked 32nd out of all cities in the world.  This is an improvement.  We were in 34th position in 2007.  So I would like to ask that the Minister set a target and adopt a Whole-of-Government approach in getting Singapore to be in the top 20 list of this Quality of Living survey – the most "livable" city – and that, obviously, I hope for it to be done as soon as possible.

     On a lighter note, I am also very happy to hear from the Senior Minister of State that she has agreed to adopt my suggestion that, after this Budget debate, we can all go for "SPAR" (Singapore Public Sector Annual Report).  I am not sure what the rest of Members are thinking of.  [Laughter. ]  I would like to ask when we can look forward to this inaugural Singapore Public Sector Annual Report.

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, I would like to assure Mr Seah that the public sector does not live by a survey alone.  It constantly tracks all the different surveys, whether it is local or international, and always attempts to find out where the gaps are, with the view to fixing these gaps and better addressing the needs.

     As to whether there should be a discrete or definite benchmark to achieve, it is a suggestion that I can bring back to the Ministry for consideration, but we generally would look at the whole spectrum of measures, rather than just one particular measure.  As I mentioned, the first "SPAR" will appear in 2010.

     Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, while I agree with the Senior Minister of State that there is a long-term smoothing effect on the NIR, I would like to ask whether this expected long-term rate of return – which is determined by the boards of GIC and MAS, together with the MOF – would be lowered, going forward, given the long-term investment outlook.  Indeed, that was the view publicly expressed by the leadership of GIC, where they said that the next 20 years are going to be more challenging than the last 20 years. 

     Also, I understand that the NII does not have a long-term smoothing effect.  So I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, together with this lower long-term expected rate of return and the likely lower NII, how does it impact the ability of the Government to balance its Budget?  Also, will it affect some of these long-term programmes that we have?

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: To answer the second question first, the new Budget has been drawn up with all those considerations that Mr Liang has raised, in terms of the impact of the markets on the NII, as well as taking into consideration the NIR that has been determined.  As to whether the rates going forward, will be lower, I will say that the rates have taken into account the projections of the outlook going forward, as well as the current market conditions.

     Er Edwin Khew Teck Fook: A point of clarification for the Senior Minister of State.  How does MOF correlate between a healthy environment and taxation?  We have, currently in Singapore, a situation of an unhealthy situation with regard to particulate matter.  If we do not allow enough time to encourage the use of cleaner fuel to improve the situation, we will still continue to have the situation.

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, the incentives, as we have been discussing, in a way reflect the attention that is paid to vehicles that are more environmentally friendly.  But I would like to make a point about fuel taxes because I think that is an important point.  It relates to usage, rather than the question of what technology and whether it is environmentally more friendly.  If I may just repeat, fuel taxes serve, first and foremost, to price in vehicle usage.  Therefore, there is no reason to exempt CNG cars from fuel tax permanently.  Hence, the move to go forward with a rate, which some may mistake as a regressive step of imposing something for a "cleaner" vehicle.  But that is really to harmonise the system back to the original intention of pricing in usage.

     Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, earlier the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the impact of the current turmoil was to reduce the overall portfolio value of Temasek by about 31%, if I heard her correctly.  Can she also tell us by how much the GIC overall portfolio has been reduced in the percentage terms, because I did not quite hear that?

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, I have given that reply to a previous parliamentary question, that GIC has actually registered a significantly lower reduction in value than the World Equity Index which I believe was 41% – let me just clarify that it is actually in the Hansard *.

*Vol. 85, 4th February 2009.

          The Chairman:  You want to clarify it some other time, Mrs Lim?

     Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Yes.

          The Chairman:  Okay.  Mr Singh?

     Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, on behalf of the GPC for Finance, Trade and Industry, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State, Ms Lim Hwee Hua, for her comprehensive answers to our very difficult questions, especially those related to the reserves, GIC and Temasek.  We thank you for all the answers. 

     I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Finance on devising an innovative Resilience Package.  The $20.5 billion Budget is indeed large, significant and wide-ranging.  I am sure that we will see the benefits soon and we want to thank the Government for the Budget this year.  I hope that we will really help the companies and the people as expected.  Sir, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

     Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

     The sum of $570,816,400 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

     The sum of $278,692,900 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

          The Chairman:  Order.  I propose that we take the break now.

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

     Mr Speaker: Order.  I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.12 pm until 3.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

     Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

     Head K – Ministry of Education

     The Chairman:  Head K – Ministry of Education.  Dr Lily Neo.

Policy Matter

     Dr Lily Neo: Sir, I beg to move,

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

     Sir, we are in the process of reviewing our primary education presently.  I want to declare that I sat in the PERI (Primary Education Review and Implementation) Committee.  The Committee had made many good recommendations that will better prepare our next generation.  I hope these recommendations will be adopted and implemented soonest.  The main crux is on preparing students to be adaptable, innovative and well-rounded in a holistic primary education.  This is necessary in our fast changing world.  This forward-looking planning with a long-term objective is essential for maintaining Singapore's future prosperity and we need to start from primary education.  I hope MOE will spare no effort in getting the support and collaboration of the stakeholders, the educators and the parents.

     A society organised for learning has the crucial ingredient to cope with a fast changing world of today and tomorrow.  There is the need to shift how we view learning, from being able to recall information to being able to find and use information.  Lifelong learning in a learning society is the way to go.  We have to be prepared to bring up the next generation of people that most likely will have to switch occupations and their specialties in their mid-careers or even earlier.  This calls for a review in their educational agility.  Our students should be equipped with the passion for learning from young in order to prepare them to be nimble, to cope and to change with circumstances as they progress in lives.  Learning must be made interesting especially at early education to achieve this.

     Primary schools should make the starting learning journey for inquisitive young children to be fun.  This will inspire a love for learning.  Rote learning should be replaced by learning by inquiry and questioning.  There is a need to have this shift in the field of learning from a traditional, didactic model of instruction to a learner-centred model that emphasises a more learner role.  This represents a shift away from the learning by listening model of instruction to one which student learn by doing.  Other good learning pedagogies are learning by interacting with others, hands-on approach, exposure to real subjects and learning through applications.  Our aim is to help our young to develop thinking skills and to learn life skills from an early age.

     It will be contradictory if our school reward systems remain focused on only academic excellence without acknowledging the achievement of other skills.  Presently, our examinations are more geared testing content mastery.  In view of the shift of intended development outcome, we need to modify our assessment of students.  Modular tests should be conducted regularly without giving pressure to students and parents.  These tests are mainly to ensure that the students have made progress and to give timely feedback to parents.  There are also other modes of assessment such as the Rubrics, which assesses the child's development in the areas of confidence, curiosity and cooperation.

     Quality teachers are required to give quality teaching.  MOE is stepping up recruitment of teachers targeting at 3,700 new entrants.  This is an opportune time to select the best-suited individuals who have the aptitude for teaching.  This is especially so for those who want to make teaching their careers.  Selection process on suitability to teaching careers should start at National Institute of Education.  Admission should not just be based on academic achievement but more importantly in looking out for compassion, commitment and passion for teaching.

     Teachers' training should be made relevant to effect new changes.  Their training must prepare them to execute the policy of the day, eg, learning new pedagogies and new assessment methods.  This is the key in determining whether we can achieve the change for the better.  Many recommendations by PERI will require the commitment of teachers and principals for effective implementation.  Therefore, our educators' agreement on the new targeted outcome is vital.  The speed on this alone will set the pace for the change.  Therefore, there is an urgency to prioritise this area.

     Primary education cannot be less prioritised than secondary or tertiary education.  Young minds are most impressionable.  Only competent teachers that are confident in their own subjects should be made to impart knowledge and instil the love of the subjects.  Presently, primary school teachers are expected to teach all subjects – language, mathematics and science irrespective of their qualified subjects of their training.

     The target to have all single-session schools by 2016 will require expansion of present schools or building of new schools.  This will require a postulation study on our demographic trend to ensure that the estimated investment of about $2.4 billion on infrastructure will be well-spent.  Locality of schools to match the local demographic pattern is one consideration.  There are already schools that have dwindling number of students over the years, whereas there are many others where demand exceeds availability.  There is a need for a good evaluation on the priority of schools to be expanded in order to maximise the outcome.  MOE will need to work closely and facilitate schools in going single session.

     Character development should also be our core in education.  We should nurture a generation with great morality and this should start in early education.  Incorporation of values in schools can be further enhanced.  We want a generation of people who are caring and responsible, who have integrity and are respectful of themselves and others.  This calls for a review in our civic education.  Is it getting the right response from students presently or is it being treated as a trivial subject.  I feel that there is a need to make this subject interesting and engaging.  All educators, and not just civic education teachers, should maximise "teachable" moments to inculcate values that can be most impacting.  This is the time when a student requires a correction in deeds or thoughts.  It will be worthwhile even if the class has to deviate from the subject of the day to learn and share values.

     During this financial downturn, inadvertently, some children may be affected by their parents' loss of employment.  May I ask MOE to ensure that these children are not affected in their education and be assisted accordingly, and what are the support schemes available?

Post-secondary Education

     Dr Ong Seh Hong (Marine Parade): Mr Chairman, Sir, I read with interest how the Nanyang Technology University (NTU) is organising courses to enhance their graduates' employment opportunities.  In addition to the basic skill set, NTU is also organising deportment course and the art of fengshui.  Sir, if our graduates can be given help to enhance their potential, I think our students who are less academically inclined should also be given more help to prepare for the future.  How then do we prepare our youth for the future, especially a future in the globalised knowledge-based economy?  I think our Education Ministry should provide more opportunities to our ITE and Polytechnic students and ensure that they will meet the demand of the future job market.  We should prepare our youth for the wide-ranging opportunities in a diversity of industries, such as creative industry, digital media, biotechnology, healthcare, pharmaceutical, just to name a few.

     As we compete with other countries, we must make sure that our next generation will have a competitive edge over their counterparts elsewhere.

Post-secondary Educational Opportunities

     Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Marine Parade): Sir, although the world is now facing an unprecedented downturn, besides addressing the current recession as a united society, we should be forward-looking and geared towards preparing ourselves for the upturn in the future, so that we can provide a variety of opportunities for Singaporeans to reap the benefits of the upcoming recovery of the economy.

          The Chairman:  Mr Chiam See Tong is not here.  Prof. Mehta. 

Re-examining Tertiary Education Goals

     Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta (Nominated Member): My focus is on re-examining the goals of tertiary education.  I would like to declare my interest as an academic staff of the National University of Singapore (NUS).

     As I examine Budget 2009, I calculated that the Government will be spending about $1.9 billion on tertiary institutions, consisting of the five major universities, including UniSIM and the recently announced fourth university, polytechnics and NIE.  The allocated budget is generous, calling for a closer look at the outcome as well as the goals of tertiary education.  It is relevant to share a student's remark at a class last week when the discussion was about the sources or the causes of social problems.  He attributed some social problems to the prevalence of a culture which came from top-down of economic value placed on individuals.  The question is, are Singaporeans valued only for their economic value?  On reflection, the decreasing productivity of Singaporeans is a concern to many in this House.  Are graduates then just trained primarily for providing the workforce of a nation?

     Coming back to tertiary institutions' goals, I scrutinised the missions of the three largest Singaporean universities.  While there exist eloquent statements about transforming the individual, reaching global standards and doing impactful research, the truth is that corporatisation has changed the operations of our universities.  They have become businesses.  Following the example of many private universities,  corporate goals have also overtaken the basic goals of education.  Where has the ideal goal of education gone?  Educators aim at unlocking the full potential of the student and to nurture his or her goals.  Have the priorities of tertiary educational institutions changed?  My request to the Minister is similar to the current revamp of primary school education, could our tertiary education system also be re-examined?

     In terms of accountability, since it is the taxpayers' money, the curriculum as well as the pedagogy, needs regular scrutiny.  In every university and polytechnic, there should be a range of social sciences, arts, humanities and science subjects for the students to choose from.  The arts and social sciences give another perspective of life which the hard sciences cannot.  Learning literature helps students to appreciate the eccentricities of human character, ethics, philosophy, arts, social sciences, including social work must balance engineering, design, business, particularly in the fourth university which has not been established yet.  Qualities such as altruism, compassion and uprightness of character need to be built into the teaching goals and blended into the teaching style so that we do not just churn out economic clogs to serve the business world but also produce leaders with strong moral and social conscience.  Recent events in the investment world have shown dramatically how important sound values, morals and ethics are in the economic and social markets today.

     Finally, I wish to emphasise that the fourth university is an opportunity to expand and blend the social sciences with the hard sciences.  If students are denied this interesting balance of subjects, it will reflect poorly upon the quality of students that we produce.  According to the Internet and newspapers, only business, design, architecture and engineering will be offered at the fourth university.  I hope that the Minister will consider this suggestion of including the humanities and the social sciences and update the House on the curriculum and the progress of the fourth university.

          The Chairman:  Mr Ong Seh Hong, you have two cuts.  Three minutes, total.

Recruitment of Teachers

     Dr Ong Seh Hong: Sir, in a period of economic downturn when many people are losing their jobs, it is heartening to see a recruitment drive of teachers and teaching professionals.  The collective recruitment target of 7,500 is applaudable.

     In an economic downturn, there might be people looking to such recruitment as temporary measure.  Education Ministry needs to guard against this.  However, there are many more mid-career people who genuinely and sincerely aspire to become teaching professionals and they can bring considerable benefits to the school.  Their exposure and experience outside of the teaching profession could add fresh perspectives to teaching.  I urge the Ministry to strive to reach out and recruit more of these mid-career teachers and allied teachers.

     While MOE needs to recruit teachers and teaching professionals of the right attitude and aptitude I do hope that MOE would not make the process too tedious and turn off potential good teachers as a result.

Integrated Programmes

     Sir, the Integrated Programmes (IP) and the International Baccalaureate (IB) were introduced as attempts to improve our secondary and pre-U education.  These educational changes excited many parents.  If their children are admitted to these programmes, it is indicative of their children's academic capabilities.  IP and IB supposedly provide a more holistic education to prepare our children for their tertiary education and future.

     Since the students entering the IP are chosen from amongst the best, the creme de la creme, parents watched with both elation and anxiety.

     Sir, Education Ministry had told this House of the near complete success of IP and IB.  The first batch of IP had a success rate of 98.2 percent and those who do not make it either re-take as a private candidate or apply to overseas university.  Several issues come to my mind, Sir.  Firstly, there is no guarantee that every cohort might continue to enjoy such high score.  Secondly, since IP and IB students are the top of their cohort, it is expected of them to do very well.  Indeed, a score of nearly 100 percent is within expectation.  Anything less than that could be deemed as poor results.

     The IP was introduced with the stated objectives of the following: to give the students "a broad-based education that develops their capacities for creative and critical thinking and optimises the use of the students' time to provide them with opportunities to develop their leadership, teamwork and communication skills".

     I support the IP and IB as a step in the right direction.  Students of the IP and IB programmes certainly illustrate their academic competency and they are talent that we should not let waste especially since human capital is so vital to us.  IP is into its fifth year now, I would like the Minister to give us an update on the evaluation of whether IP has achieved its stated objectives.

Secondary One Posting

     Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, MOE has a very efficient and systematic secondary posting process, where pupils are ranked by merit according to their PSLE results and each pupil given a total of 6 choices for secondary schools.  Each secondary school has its cut-off aggregate score and the previous years' scores are published by MOE.  I must credit the Ministry for the transparency in the posting system. By and large, the yearly exercise has served us well.

     School principals would of course like to admit the best students of each cohort.  I suppose the schools have their various KPIs and compete keenly among themselves to improve their school standing.  As a result, many schools tend to adhere strictly to their cut-off points, turning away students who may have lived only a few hundred metres away even if they missed the cut-off points by a few points.

     I can understand the aspirations of our school principals.  However, I feel neighbourhood secondary schools should take in a mix of students and due consideration should given to those who live near the school or have elder siblings studying in the school even as the PSLE aggregate score remains the main selection criteria.

     Students who live near the school save on transport costs and travelling time.  The neighbourhood familiarity also helps in the studying environment besides building stronger community ownership.  Having elder siblings in the same school also helps in the student’s development and provide convenience to the parents.
 
     MOE has schemes that exercise flexibility.  For example, pupils from a primary school which has an affiliation are given some priority to its affiliated secondary school if they have opted for that school as their first choice.  There is also the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme where MOE gives schools greater flexibility to admit students with a diverse range of achievements and talents.  This is a more balanced approach and helps lessen the over-emphasis on academic performance.

     So just like primary school affiliation and DSA, proximity to the school and siblings should also feature in the selection criteria.  Perhaps, MOE can devise some credit points system to incorporate this feature – pupils staying near to the schools – into the selection criteria.

Non-traditional Approach to Running Education

     Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, MOE has often enjoyed the reputation of being progressive and is considered a trail blazer in some areas.  I encourage the Ministry to continue in this direction and not play too safe as it embarks on its future plans in running the education portfolio.

     I have four suggestions for the Minister to consider in MOE's future plans: (1) the concept of Education Village; (2) the Use of IT; (3) Satellite Schools; and (4) Teacher Recruitment.

     Sir, in a township named Darlington in north England, a pioneering education model is receiving rave reviews.  Darlington Education Village caters for about 1,400 students aged from two to 19.  The Village is a federation of three schools - a well-regarded special school, a mainstream primary school and a mainstream secondary school.  Except for the classrooms where most academic subjects are taught, majority of the other physical facilities are co-used by students from all three schools.  All the buildings are linked by a common corridor and a kaleidoscope of primary school, special school and secondary school students interact and transact with each other.  Even if they do not study in the same classrooms, they share the same social programmes, non-academic lessons, toilets, corridor, cafe, library, labs and performance courtyards.  I saw hot-dog stands operated by special-needs students coached by their nurturing teachers.

     Sir, as I quietly followed two of the special-needs students around the Campus to deliver the food orders to the lecturers in all three buildings, my heart was deeply touched for two reasons.  One, I saw special-needs students successfully included in normal mainstream school life and yet still learnt according to their needed styles and pace.  Two, I asked myself when we can witness such a scene in Singapore, where mainstream school and special school students can all enjoy one school life, interacting daily and bonding with each other, accepting each other's differences, all under one roof.  Sir, I believe, if we only dare to try, an Education Village model can build inclusiveness and tolerance in Singaporeans from young, much more powerfully than the typical yearly school Community Involvement Programme (CIP) projects or joining grassroots Community Engagement Circles in their adult years.

     Suggestion two: Use of IT.  Sir, I urge the Minister to help level the playing field and spread best practices throughout the education system so that the average quality of all schools, goes up.  I offer four suggestions in this regard: (a) provide access to electronic education records, much like the electronic medical records, that will not just reflect one's progress but also allows a student or his family or his teachers to help manage the student's progress and take steps to close any learning gaps; (b) put core and good quality lectures online as a model for other teachers and as a resource teaching material for students; new teachers and their parents; (c) share assessment papers (or projects of good schools on the portal) instead of having parents buy them at lobbies of shopping centres; (d) embark on a dream of making available not just one PC for Every Student,  not just for those in privileged schools.  Start with the secondary school students first.  In addition, structure a package of PC support and coaching for needy students whose families do not have the means to supervise them or provide for PC peripherals such as ink, paper and broadband access at home.

4.00 pm

     Suggestion three: Satellite Schools.  Still on my call to level the playing field, let me share with the House Bill Gates Foundation's strategy to replicate the school models that worked the best.  Bill Gates wrote this recently, "A few of the schools that we (Bill Gates Foundation) funded, achieved something amazing.  They replaced

schools with low expectations and low results with ones that have high expectations and high results.  Bill Gates shared that "these schools are not selective in whom they admit, and they are overwhelmingly serving kids in poor areas, most of whose parents did not go to college".  Almost all of these schools, he said, are charter schools, much like the autonomous schools in Singapore, that have significantly longer school days than other schools.

    Bill Gates' strategy to replicate the school models that worked best is one that was already tested in Singapore, I would say, albeit a modest scale in the special education sector in the form of satellite schools.  I believe the idea can be borrowed and use in mainstream schools as well. Sir, if the demand for good branded schools continues unabated, the Ministry should consider the potential of starting satellite campuses for schools in borrowed or new school grounds - start an RGS satellite, for instance, in the North, South, East and West cluster. To do this, the Ministry will have to acquire critical skills in building systems and processes that allow for scalability and consulting skills to install, implement and follow through till the desired outcomes are achieved. With MOE's track record, I am confident this is doable. 

    And, Sir, as Minister considers my suggestion of replicating best school models and practices, I urge him to please do not leave out the special needs children especially those in special schools run by charities.   Do not treat these children as addendum items in our education plan.

   Suggestion four: teacher recruitment and best sourcing. Sir, teachers are the top critical success factors in any education venture.  The headline of an article in Wall Street Journal in April 2006 read, "It's the Teachers, Stupid".  The article summarises the findings of Brookings Institution, one of the oldest think-tanks in Washington.  It cites research that suggests that there is a huge difference in performance between students with the best teachers and those with the worst teachers.  It also says that it is possible to discern in a short time if a teacher has what it takes and recommended that "weeding out bad teachers and recruiting better teachers" would be smarter than just shrinking class sizes.

    I applaud the Ministry for its dedication to bring forth its hiring plan during this time.  I worry, however, about the motives and the aptitudes of some of the job applicants who may perceive teaching as a job that provides the iron rice bowl, complete with holidays and hopefully, a less stressful environment than the private sector.  In fact, members of the public were attracted to MOE's advertisement last December that featured a principal, teacher from MOE, decked in black leather jackets and boots.  I can assure the House and Singapore that it is way too warm in most schools to dress this way.

   Instead of glamorising the profession, it makes more sense to refer potential candidates to inspiring role models such as California's Erin Grunwell who performed a great turnaround job in the school. Grunwell wrote a book in 1999, entitled "The Freedom Writers' Diary".  The book is the basis of a 2007 move, "Freedom Writers", starring Hilary Swank.

    In conclusion, Sir, I would like to encourage the Ministry to continue its good work.  Continue to be bold and innovate.  Do not play too safe.  As a wise man once said, "To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."

PSLE

     Dr Ong Seh Hong: Sir, education is a great social leveller in Singapore.  With a good tertiary education, a child from a low-income family can move up to better middle-class living. For this reason, Singapore parents spare no effort in investing in their children's education.  It brings on a lifetime of worries and stress to parents.  It begins with enrolling the child in the best preschool, or getting admitted to a popular primary school, all the way to their tertiary education.

     Changes to our educational system usually generate stress and anxiety amongst parents. The proposed changes to our primary school education system are no difference.

    Sir, I support the PERI Committee recommendations which were made with the best interest of our students.  I support the intent to make learning fun and thereby, nurturing a passion in learning in our children from a very young age.

    However, Singapore parents are practical people.  In spite of the good intent of the proposed changes, if the end product of the primary education is examination-based and result-oriented, parents would continue to steer their children towards doing well in the PSLE.  I am afraid in the end, all our efforts to improve primary education may go to waste.  I therefore urge MOE to take this into consideration to review and reform the PSLE if necessary.

Relevance of PSLE

     The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports and Minister for Transport (Mr Teo Ser Luck): Sir, as a parent of two young children in primary school, I find the PERI's recommendations very refreshing - the focus on well-balanced education and building confidence in children and making the learning very fun.  These are the right steps to take for the future as the world changes and new skills are needed.  With this new learning environment, I support the plan to have regular assessment for students in Primary One and Primary Two, without any examinations.  This would help expand their learning horizons and not restrict them to a desk, "mugging" on books, and commence their journey to becoming an examination-taking machine. 

     Learning should be fun and you want the students to yearn to learn.  But how do we sustain their interest for six years of primary school education, and for that matter, throughout their entire student life?  To some students, parents and teachers, six years of primary education seems to prepare for one examination - PSLE. We have come far in developing our education in the last few years, with the focus on experimental proactive learning instead of just purely passive studying. These are milestone changes and I think the Ministry has done a great job.  Such changes over the years for primary education where they are exposed to technology, group work, project-based assessments and CCAs, certainly help them in their learning and in character development.  The open and vast learning excites the child and I applaud this learning method.  However, I ask: would PSLE help to enhance this learning environment or not?  That a student's examinations still concern not just the students, but the parents as well.  Sometimes, the examinations itself drives the behaviour of the schools, parents and children because schools become concerned about taking in students with better results and the parents end up taking the PSLE examinations instead of their children. And the students, of course, are left very stressed.

   Is it possible that we have a through-train not just for "A" levels, skipping "O" levels, but also through-train programme for primary school all the way to "A" levels?  Such a focus will allow time for a school-based assessment and feedback system.  It will also allow time for longer term projects which will open up greater possibilities. Teachers get more time with the students, with a focus on educating and teaching them over a longer period of time.  Assessment can then be done more accurately. And with a through-train process, we can better achieve economies of scale.

   At the community front, every constituency already has a primary or secondary school, JC or pre-university or an institution. A student could have through-train learning process all the way to pre-university within the same community, and is determined by the location of their residence rather than by their results. It fosters a bond within the community of friends, teachers and parents.  Then, we will have primary school and secondary school allocation by distance, not just by results. 

    PSLE has certainly become not just an examination to assess a child's ability.  It is now becoming really a placement exercise for secondary schools.  My question is, it has achieved its objective in the past, but with this new learning approach, I doubt whether the PSLE examination, at the age of 12, would enhance the learning of a child and even achieve its purpose of assessing a child's ability.  Does the Ministry foresee any possibility of not having PSLE in the future? 

         The Chairman:  Mr Chiam, you had a cut earlier. Would you like to bring it up now before the Minister replies?

Admit More Students to University

     Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, at the moment, about 40% of places in one cohort qualifies for university places. I wonder if the Minister could do anything to increase that number because nowadays, those who do not have university education suffer a disadvantage.

   One, difficulty in getting jobs. Two, even once he gets a job, his pay will always remain less than $3,000.  At my Town Council, I notice that most of them who earn more than $3,000 have got a university degree.  And without a university degree, a $3,000-mark seems to be a hurdle.  So I hope that the Minister can increase the number of university places to let more students into the universities so that they will not be disadvantaged.

     The Minister for Education (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Sir, first let me thank the Members who have spoken, for their comments and questions. My apologies to Ms Denise Phua – I did not bring my leather jacket and I do not think I possess one but let me think about it. 

     It is clear that the financial meltdown around us has dominated this year's Budget and Committee of Supply. And as you read the newspapers, no wonder, superlatives have flowed fast and furious about this. It has been described as the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and likely the century. It has caused the most rapid rise in unemployment amongst OECD countries since the early 1990s. A bank run has occurred in the United Kingdom, not seen since 1866 and the list goes on. Singapore, of course has not been spared. MTI’s projection of minus 2% to 5% makes it possibly the worst recession since its independence. The Straits Times Index (STI) has lost 50% of its value in 2008, the largest annual drop in its 42-year history. A good friend remarked that he opens the newspapers nowadays with fear each passing day, certain that more bad news would come. Indeed, we are in difficult times.

    No one can be certain how long this downturn will last and it will get worse before it starts to recover, but there are good reasons that Singaporeans should remain optimistic. Despite the turbulence, our society remains cohesive and confident. We have a stable, responsive and effective Government. It is this cohesive society led by a good Government that will see us through this crisis. In years of plenty, we have spent prudently and put aside reserves, that we can now draw on for dire consequences and circumstances like the present one. 

     Specifically for education, there are opportunities that we can seize in this downturn to continue building a world-class education system. Let me explain what I mean. To me, three essential elements characterise such an education system. One, it is an education system that is respected for its high standards and has peaks of excellence comparable with top institutions worldwide. This not only refers to universities, but schools, ITE and polytechnics. We should aim for them to be the best in their class.  So I agree with Assoc. Prof. Kalyani Mehta that we should not just look at the worth of an individual because of his academic output.  Indeed, that is not our education philosophy when we built our institutions. I do not spend less on an ITE student because I deem that he will be paid less when he graduates, than I do, say, on a JC student. In fact, in terms of resources, we spend about the same – $12,000 per year.  It has never been our prevailing philosophy to spend less when we think that you cannot give out more. We spend enough to bring out the full potential and to build the institution to bring it to the best in that class.

   Two, our education system provides universal access based on merit, with bridges for students to cross over to different institutions, as they progress. Poor or rich, Singaporeans should be able to rise through education. Those without financial means should find support to do so. But in the same vein, those who are well-to-do, should not be held back.

    Third, it must be responsive to the diverse palette of talents and learning needs. We should have a wide spread of programmes and institutions that provide individuals with different strengths and at various stages of their life, opportunities to develop themselves and become more productive. We must have institutions that build character and values, and I agree here again with Prof. Mehta. A world-class education system must have all three elements, but tension will always exist between them. For example, when we try to provide universal access, we run the risk of lowering standards – this is a problem that the United Kingdom now has to grapple with in its tertiary sector. Peaks of excellence which benefit select students require large resources which could have been better spent to provide opportunities for the masses. The Ivy League Universities with their large endowments exemplify this. We live with these tensions, never completely resolving them but always adjusting and finding opportunities to approach a golden mean.

    These three essential elements serve as guide posts in our quest. We will use this downturn to step up our efforts, so that when we emerge in the upturn, we will have a better education system that will benefit this and future generations of Singaporeans.

4.15 pm

    Dr Lily Neo has hit the nail on the head, when she says that forward-looking planning is essential, and that we must keep an eye on longer term fundamentals. Looking ahead, our education system must continue to evolve in Singapore, to respond to the needs of a changing economy. 

Senior Minister of State, Ms Grace Fu, Senior Minister of State, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, and Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Masagos, will provide details and respond to the specifics of Members' questions.  What I would like to do is to provide the larger backdrop of MOE's plans to steer and build further our education system over the next few years.

     Despite economic uncertainties, we must, and will, continually invest in building up our human capital. Indeed, we have been spending steadily over the last decade.  We spend around 3% to 4% of our GDP on public education, roughly $5 billion in 1998 to about $8.7 billion for FY 2009.  It has been money well spent because we have made progress.  Our education system is internationally respected for its rigorous standards.  We have a competent and motivated professional teaching workforce led by capable principals.  We produce quality students who are welcomed by top institutions in Singapore and world-wide.  But, more importantly, our education system has benefited all students across the spectrum of academic abilities. As a whole, they excel in international comparisons in Mathematics, Science and the languages. Almost 99% of each cohort receives at least 10 years of education and enter the workforce with employability and marketability.

     Singapore was ranked first by the World Competitiveness Yearbook in 2008 for having an education system that best meets the needs of a competitive economy.  McKinsey also named Singapore as one of the world's top-performing education systems in 2007.  These achievements should neither make us proud nor complacent, but careful to preserve and improve on what we have built.  So when Ms Denise Phua said, "Be bold".  She did not quite say, "take a chance".  I was excited by what she saw in the educational village.  But every time we make a change, it is a calculated one, we ask principals, we make sure that it can be implemented, we consult and make sure that everyone understands where we are going, because how we got here is very important.  And it is easy to lose that strength in the educational system from just simple changes, whether it is a change in emphasis on languages or Mathematics, as we have seen in other systems. 

     We scan the newspapers every week in MOE on news on foreign institutions to reproduce its spread to the top management in MOE.  It helps us to learn what others have done right, or where others have gotten into trouble.  I am excited about our ideas, as I have said, and I think we might want to visit some of the institutions to learn from them.  But we are always cautious when we do make changes.

     Despite this downturn, we will continue spending on education and, indeed, accelerate some major initiatives.  For this financial year, the educational budget has increased by 5.5% to $8.7 billion.  MOE projects that the spending on education will increase by 25% to $11 billion by 2013.  And this will include changes on our IT system, again a point raised by Ms Denise Phua.  We recently launched the ICT Masterplan III, and this will include the scaling up of resources to schools, not only the top schools, but all schools in the neighbourhood and, if we can, to extend it even to other schools.  Some of the points raised by Ms Denise Phua have already been instituted.  Children can access, eg, under the school corporate system, lesson plans.  I suppose their parents can look over their shoulders to see their test scores as well, if we put it there.  So, some of the ideas are indeed implemented, but we will do more and we will see how we can extend the reach, as well as the effectiveness of our IT programmes.

     We will use these resources to strategically build on the strong foundations that underpin our system.  First and foremost, we will continue to recruit a steady stream of passionate and competent teachers.  This was a point brought up by Dr Lily Neo and Ms Denise Phua.  No education system can rise above its teachers and we will invest heavily in their training and further expand their exposure, so that they can take on leadership roles as principals and specialists.  Only then can schools rise in standards and students develop to their full potential, as the quality of teachers and teaching improves.  I wish that we could just set up satellite schools and hope that they do just as well – an RGS or a Henry Park School here in the North, East, South or West – and just put a name to it, then, perhaps, people will believe it and recruit and put their students in and take it just as well.

     We found out that parents are more sophisticated than that – they go in, check out the teachers, find out where this teacher had taught, and also the facilities.  So, as much as we want to accelerate good schools, we are finally dependent on principals and teachers. And we will invest heavily in them to be able to produce more RGSes, more Henry Parks, more good schools.

     Second, MOE will continue to shape our education system to be more responsive to students with different aptitudes, styles and pace of learning.  We have already initiated some programmes to provide flexibility.  Since 2004, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa noted, the Direct School Admissions have enabled students with specific talents to enter schools of their choice, not solely based on their PSLE results.  Let me share with you some of the results of our Direct School Admissions system.  This year, over 2000 students from 155 primary schools – not a few select schools – which are 90% of the entire population of primary schools successfully gained a place in over 60 secondary schools that participated in DSA.  This was based on specific talents they have.  Without the DSA, many of these students would not have been admitted based on their PSLE results.

     Subject-based banding in primary schools has enabled students to learn at their appropriate level for each subject.  At the Secondary level, we have provided more bridges and students can move across to their appropriate stream or take subjects at different levels.  1,100 students moved to a higher stream last year, and 25% of Normal course students took at least one higher level subject.  In other words, if they are a Normal (Technical), they took one level higher, and all Normal (Academic) taking at a higher level. 

     We will continue to open up pathways and bridges for secondary students.  Let me give one exciting example where we have expanded the choice of subjects to cater to different learning styles and, in this case, Normal (Technical) students.  Three schools – Bedok Town, Shuqun and Siling Secondary – are implementing innovations in teaching the Normal (Technical) course.  They have introduced new electives.  What are they?  They are Computer and Networking (Siling Secondary), Electrical Technology and Applications (Bedok Town Secondary) and Mobile Robotics (Shuqun Secondary).  These new elective subjects are developed by ITE and MOE.  ITE lecturers are seconded to these schools to teach these subjects.  Students can then take these new elective subjects at the 'N' level for progression to ITE.  It is these little experiments, test beds that we find new innovations to help craft and make our education richer and more responsive to different talents.  If it succeeds, we will scale it up and that allows our students of different academic aptitudes to progress.

     Let me give you another example.  ITE has also piloted a new pathway to Higher Nitec courses, this time, for Secondary 4 Normal (Academic) students.  This was implemented last year.  This is, if you like, a "through-train" – what Mr Teo Ser Luck referred to, but not quite a PSLE, which I will talk about later – that is, instead of taking their 'O' levels, they take these courses which allow them to obtain an ITE qualification earlier.  So for those who are not quite inclined that way, they do not waste one year taking the 'O' levels and struggle with it.  Some of them fail.  But they take these courses at the Normal (Academic) Secondary 4 level to allow them to progress to ITE.  Three hundred and sixty students from the first intake successfully completed their first semester at ITE.  This was done in secondary school.  Those who do well can progress to the Polytechnics.

     Schools for students with talents in specific fields are also bearing fruit.  The first batch of NUS High School students who graduated last year have done well in international events and competitions.  The School of the Arts admitted its first batch of students last year.  The Sports School is also making a mark in its own niche.  These initial successes indicate that such schools do complement and strengthen our educational enterprise.  Where appropriate, we can add more of them.  The new School of Science and Technology which starts next year is one example.  It will cater to those with talents in applied learning and, hopefully, nurture more technopreneurs for Singapore.

     Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim asked about more opportunities in the post-secondary sector, and this was echoed by Dr Ong Seh Hong as well Mr Chiam See Tong.  The ITE will step up its programmes to provide skilled manpower for Singapore's needs.  Earlier this year, an external review panel – these were experts and leaders from Germany, Australia and the United States – visited the ITE.  They were impressed by the high levels of student engagement and employability of ITE graduates.  They also liked our idea of regional campuses under the "One ITE System, Three Colleges".  ITE will, therefore, push ahead with its plans to build two more comprehensive campuses for its Colleges.  Senior Minister of State Mr Lui will elaborate more on these developments later.

     With the increasing demand for a polytechnic education, MOE will increase the number of places available at the five polytechnics this year.  There will be an increase of 700 places compared to last year, for a total 25,700 places, which is about 42.5 % of the cohort.  It has been going up steadily.  It was about 4% less, I think, five years ago.  This reflects both the academic ability of students as well as the attractiveness of the polytechnic type of education.

     We have also provided more opportunities for polytechnic graduates to upgrade themselves.  Under the Polytechnic-Foreign Specialised Institution (Poly-FSI) framework, polytechnic graduates can take degree courses in niche areas with an industry-oriented focus.  This year, six degree programmes – in Early Childhood Education, Retail Management, Naval Architecture, Food Technology, Creative Producing and Optometry – admitted around 300 students.  We will have more than double the places available to 700 over the next few years.  The Poly-FSI scheme has shown that there are industry-oriented degree courses which are attractive to polytechnic graduates and are aligned with Singapore's economic needs and are valued by the industry.  There is a demand for these types of courses and MOE is now studying different ways to expand and accelerate such degree upgrading opportunities for polytechnic graduates.  We will announce details in the later half of this year.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair]

4.28 pm

     Our existing Universities are limited by numbers of teaching staff and physical space in taking in more students.  They also need to ensure that admitted students can take the rigour and pass these courses.  But, within these constraints, more places will be provided by our existing Universities this year.  So this year, there will be 15,210 university places, which is 900 places more than last year.  So, in reply to Mr Chiam See Tong – yes, we are providing more places where there is an ability for both on space and students who can have the aptitude and capability to pass their courses.  This means that we will cater to slightly over 25% of the student cohort being admitted into universities.  This was a target that we had set to be achieved in 2010, so we are one year ahead of all these targets. 

     To increase the proportion of each cohort entering into our public universities from the present 25% to 30% by 2015, the Prime Minister had already announced the set-up of the New University.  Let me provide some updates because some Members have asked for it.  The New University at the East Coast will offer a unique opportunity to create something different and valuable to our educational landscape.  They call it ab initio  or tabula rasa – a clean slate.  It is an academician's dream job, as a potter who moulds from a fresh cake of clay.  This is something which Assoc. Prof. Mehta would be familiar with.

     The New University will be established at a time with different circumstances and challenges, compared to National University of Singapore or Nanyang Technological University and even Singapore Management University which was established only nine years ago.  I am not referring to the current financial crisis, which will pass.

The financial crisis will not threaten our physical survival.  But there are critical issues that do and will continue to exist when the crisis is over – global warming, sustainability, energy, food security and pandemics, to name the more important ones.  These complex problems will need advances in science and technology to help solve, if not mitigate, their impact.  Universities and scientific institutions here can play a valuable role in these efforts.  Many of us will remember that in the last SARS crisis, mass screening of body temperatures helped restore confidence and sped up recovery.  Some of you may not know that it was our Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) who worked with industry partners to develop the Infrared Fever Screening System, which was then adopted worldwide as a frontline defence during the SARS outbreak.  Scientists from the Genome Institute of Singapore also discovered the genetic sequences of five different SARS virus strains, and their research was instrumental in the development of a diagnostic test kit.

     Our neighbourhood has also changed.  The next few decades will witness the rise of Asia, as China and India build up their capabilities and extend their influence.  The United States, despite the massive loss of wealth in this financial turmoil, will still be the dominant world power and scientific powerhouse for the foreseeable future.

     So it is in this context that we must position the new university.  We cannot know the future, but we can make linkages that will prepare us well for it.  This was the idea behind forming partnerships with leading institutes in US and China for the new university.  We have received good proposals from top US universities to be a partner, and we are evaluating.  For China, the idea of a tripartite partnership was brought up by Prime Minister Lee and Senior Minister Goh during their visits with senior Chinese leaders last year, who agreed that the proposal should be followed up.  In December last year, I visited two leading universities in China and met up with their Presidents and senior staff, and discussed a partnership proposal.  The possibility of a trans-Pacific Singapore-US-China partnership through a campus here in Singapore has gained interest, with the prospect of students and faculty from the three partners exchanging ideas and collaborating on long-term projects.  It is a significant challenge, we do not underestimate it, may be hard to make it work, but if done well, I think it will benefit the institutions, the students, the faculty in the countries.  This is worth doing and I am glad to report that the Presidents of both universities that I visited in China have formed Committees to evaluate this proposal and will be coming to Singapore in the next few months to further explore this link-up.

     This downturn also provides us an opportunity to accelerate major initiatives.  The primary school review is one clear example.  Staff in MOE together with principals and educational specialists had been studying ways to improve our curriculum to make it better suited for the "21st century" environment and challenges, a point raised by Dr Lily Neo.  We wanted to introduce new programs, provide more time and space to better develop character and soft skills and imbue the correct values into our students.

     This downturn provided an opportunity to accelerate these worthwhile goals.  I appointed Senior Minister of State, Ms Grace Fu, to lead a Committee and come up with a road map on the priorities, programmes and resources that are needed to adopt these curriculum changes and bring primary education to the next level.  This Committee is called PERI, and they released their preliminary report and recommendations in early January.  It is a good report and Senior Minister of State Ms Grace Fu’s Committee has done an excellent job in seeking the views from all stakeholders and formulating key strategies and practical recommendations that will help to improve the primary school education.  You know they have garnered enough feedback when there are two views to every point, and proponents and those who disagree, in equal numbers, and that is education.  I have been gratified by the numerous responses from the press, the members of the public, parents and other stakeholders, because we may disagree on the details, the implementation issues, but there is broad support that we need to enhance our primary school education.

     There have been many worthwhile suggestions from the public that should be considered by the Committee.  I also welcome views from Members of this House during this COS, or even after it, before they finalised the report in March.  But lest we be distracted by the numerous details, we should focus on the key strategic thrusts recommended by Senior Minister of State Ms Grace Fu’s Committee.  When I read the report, I asked what are they asking for and what needs to be done.  It is a sizeable bill.  Firstly, it is clear that to achieve what they have asked for will require significant resources and long-term commitment.  Around 80 existing primary schools will need to be expanded with better facilities.  We need to build 18 more new schools.  More teachers will be needed to improve the teacher-student ratio by a further 20% in 2015.  And to provide for a more rounded education with greater emphasis on love for learning, appreciation of aesthetics, sports and arts, we will also need to re-train and add to the teaching force to provide these capabilities.  And this was the point that Dr Lily Neo was talking about.  She was saying that you need to re-task, re-orientate and train the 14,000 primary school teachers we have in our system.  And it is clear that the enhanced curriculum for primary schools will require more space and time that single-session schools provide, and more facilities for outdoor and experiential learning.  Beyond this, MOE may need to build Centres of Excellence, to help schools in areas such as arts, music and sports development.

     To implement these recommendations, as I said, will need sizeable resources, not only in financial terms, but of sustained effort.  So I would characterise the time frame of the PERI report as a building phase of 10 years of infrastructure, enhanced curriculum and pedagogy.  Initial projections for both infrastructure and more trained teachers indicate that it will cost MOE around $4.5 billion more over the next 10 years.  But beyond this, we will also have to develop capabilities in our teachers to better engage and employ different modes of assessments.  Senior Minister of State Ms Grace Fu will address specific queries related to the report, but let me address one question which has been brought up by Dr Ong Seh Hong and Mr Teo Ser Luck about the place for Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE).

     In any educational system, assessments are necessary to provide feedback on the overall standards and performance of individual schools as well as students.  Among most educators now, there is little, if any, argument that testing is required. There was a phase in the evolution of educational thought leaders that if you motivated students to do well and learn on their own, they would.  Very few educators believe that.  Most people believe that what you test counts, and what you test, people will study.  Testing counts and more systems are trying to move back to that.  For Singapore, the PSLE has been critical in playing that role.  In countries that did away or avoided the assessment systems, have regretted it, because they have basically witnessed a decline in standards.  Take Denmark, for example.  Denmark has long avoided a culture of testing and evaluation in the spirit of being egalitarian.  Last year, a team from MOE visited Denmark and learnt that they are now in the midst of reforms to introduce national tests at selected grades, so that schools can provide feedback on students and school outcomes.  South Korea also did away with national assessments.  I visited them in November/December last year and the principals I spoke to there want the national assessments back, because they say without it, they cannot tell how they are doing.  They do not know how to gauge their students or their schools.

     Japan is another example of how we should make calibrated changes, and not be too quick to discard what works well.  And Japan is interesting, because it is almost like Singapore.  In response to public pressure to reduce stress levels for primary school children, Japan, since the late 1970s, has reduced the amount of materials taught as well as the number of teaching hours.  Makes sense – reduce stress, less content, less teaching hours.  Now they are seeking to reverse this move, because of a drop in their rankings in international benchmarking studies in Mathematics and Science.  Last year, Japan announced an increase in classroom hours for major subjects for the first time in 30 years, in a bid to curb falling standards.

     We should therefore keep the PSLE, but it cannot be the only measure or drive all of our educational efforts.  And I think this was the point that Mr Teo Ser Luck was referring to.  I do not think that he was against testing, he was saying that singular drive of just one metric, distorting all other educational outcomes, is detrimental.  And, indeed, it is.  Our students should be developed holistically and an over-emphasis on exam grades can be detrimental.  This is especially so for lower primary students, who can be discouraged to form good habits of learning or lose confidence because of unrealistic expectations.  It is against this backdrop that the PERI Committee recommended bite-size assessments for lower primary students.  They think that this will be more appropriate to form stronger fundamentals for the many school years ahead for these students.  But amidst all the correspondence that have been going to the press, I note the concern by parents that this might mean that students would be less prepared for the PSLE.  They say "Look, if you don't test them in Primary One and Primary Two, it will be worse in Primary Six".  Let me provide an assurance that if MOE accepts those recommendations which the PERI Committee will put out, MOE will monitor students’ performance to ensure that there is no fall in standards of performance for PSLE subjects.  And we will only roll it out at a pace at which we know how to assess progress using different types of assessments.

     It is clear that in order to realise the quality improvements that the Committee has proposed, processes and also mindsets of all stakeholders must be aligned.  If we want teachers to engage each student to spark their love for learning and develop them fully, we have to ensure that the way we assess student outcomes, assess schools, and how parents respond to new initiatives must work in support of our goals and the desired outcomes in education, and, again, a point raised by Dr Lily Neo.

     The plans that MOE have, to step up to build a world-class education system, will allow us to accelerate our hiring plans and recruit additional teachers from amongst fresh graduates and mid-career professionals.  As Dr Ong Seh Hong suggested, there are indeed good quality candidates who are unable to secure a job in the current economic downturn, a point also raised by Ms Denise Phua.  This year, we target to recruit 3,000 teachers.

     Let me make one point abundantly clear, and I agree with Dr Ong and Ms Phua.  We will continue to be rigorous in our selection of teachers and ensure that only those with the passion, aptitude and commitment to teach are selected.  If this means that we will not meet recruitment targets – so be it.  We would rather hire less to get the type of teachers we want, to maintain a quality teaching force.  They are targets, but they need not be fulfilled if we cannot find the right type of teachers.

     My Ministry will also increase the hiring of Allied Educators (AEDs) who partner teachers and provide specialised support in areas like counselling, teaching and learning and special educational needs.  We aim to recruit 500 Allied Educators (Teaching and Learning) this year, 200 more than earlier planned, and around 90 Allied Educators (Counselling and Learning and Behavioural Support).  These allied educators will provide much needed support to enrich learning experiences as well as cater to those with special needs, a point raised by Ms Phua, and "occasional needs" of mainstream students in their growing-up years.

     All our Allied Educators will receive full sponsored training to help prepare them for their specialised roles in schools.  For example, to equip our Allied Educators (Teaching and Learning), they will undergo a three-month specialist diploma training programme at NIE.  NIE also provides these courses for counselling and supporting children with special educational needs.  In total, the training will cost $13 million or, on average, $20,000 for each Allied Educator we train, fully sponsored.

     In addition, MOE will recruit mid-career professionals with strong language skills, who can come in as language facilitators, to complement our language teachers in our primary schools.  We speak what we hear, this is what educators tell us, we speak the way we hear.  And MOE wants to provide students with a longer exposure in a better language environment with these facilitators.  We know that there may be retired or semi-retired people who speak well.  We want to make use of them, bring them into our schools, spend time with our students, read, interact with them, to improve the language environment.

Mid-career professionals with leadership and managerial experience can also contribute as Vice-Principals (Administration), forming part of the school leadership team.

4.45 pm

     Within MOE-HQ, my Ministry is also looking at high calibre young graduates who are keen on policy-making and want to contribute to shape the future of the education system.  In all, we will be recruiting to fill close to 3,800 positions in 2009, about an increase of 600 positions.  The local post-secondary institutions too, will take this opportunity to recruit staff.

     Let me now talk about kindergarten teachers.  To meet the large demand for well-trained kindergarten teachers, a new Advanced Diploma for Kindergarten Education-Teaching (ADKET) has been developed by the Singapore Polytechnic.  This new diploma course offers a shorter training duration compared to the current courses.  The course can be completed on a part-time basis within 700 or 900 hours over 10 months, approximately half the time compared to the current courses, and the reason is that they are more focused on pedagogy and less on the child-care elements because the kindergarten teachers will need to focus more on educational aspects.  It will lead to a specialist diploma in early childhood care and education.   ADKET will provide much needed teachers to raise the quality of pre-school education.  Senior Parliamentary Secretary Masagos will provide an update on these efforts later.   In total, an estimated 7,500 teaching and teaching-support jobs will be available in the education sector, of which 3,700 will come from the post-secondary institutions and the kindergarten sector.

     Let me talk about financial assistance and a point raised by Dr Lily Neo and other members.  MOE is mindful that many families will be affected by the economic downturn.  We will maintain the approach that no child will be denied a quality education because he cannot afford it.  This is why general education is almost fully subsidised by the Government, and we have a number of Financial Assistance Schemes to help.  Last year, in 2008, the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (MOE-FAS) benefited a total of 44,900 students, about 45,000 students – about 10% of our entire cohort – compared to 42,200 in 2007.  We have also increased the contributions to Edusave Accounts for pupils from the current $180 to $200 per year for primary students, and $220 to $240 per year for secondary students.

     To help needy students, MOE will spend an additional $7.3 million for the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) this year.  I recognise that some breadwinners may face disruptive employment and temporary financial difficulties and yet not meet our eligibility criteria for existing schemes.  To provide flexibility to schools and principals, MOE will therefore provide each school with a one-off sum of $10,000 and a further $10,000 top-up for those with more than 10% of their students who are on the MOE-FAS.  So in other words, if you have more lower income students you get $20,000.  In total, $5.4 million will be provided for this discretionary scheme for the School Advisory or School Management Committees to manage.  I think they have more sensitivity there to give them this money, they can decide whether specific students need to be helped and by how much, and how the money can be used.  This will exist on top of our Financial Assistance Scheme.

     For post-secondary educational institutions, MOE will spend $11 million this year to introduce a new short-term study assistance scheme for all undergraduates, polytechnic and ITE students whose household incomes fall within the bottom two-thirds of the population.  So in other words, this addresses up to the 66th percentile of households.  This scheme will be for two years, for Academic Years 2009 and 2010.  The extra assistance will be worth up to about $2,060 per student per year, and the actual quantum given out will depend on the level of study and the help needed by the individual students.  And students will have to tap on existing financial assistance before being considered for this short-term study assistance schemes.  So this is a scheme that rides above all other schemes if you exhaust them.  This will help those students who need additional aid, to cover the portion of schooling expenses that is not already covered by their existing bursaries and loans, and their post-secondary education account.  To help new graduates, MOE will also suspend the loan repayments on the tuition fee loan and study loan, for a year.  They need not pay interest on their outstanding loan during the period of suspension.

     Taken together, MOE will provide $24 million more in financial assistance measures – this is 120% more compared to last year – and this will benefit at least 50,000 MOE-FAS recipients in our schools for the Financial Assistance Scheme and about 30,000 students in our post-secondary institutions.  We will do more, if necessary.

     Our goal to build a world class education system will also extend to the private education sector.  We have got good institutions – INSEAD, Chicago School of Business and Digipen Institute of Technology, etc.  To strengthen Singapore’s position as a global education hub, the private education industry must be of good quality and offer a diversity of options.

     During the Committee of Supply Debate in March last year, MOE announced that we would introduce a Private Education Bill which will provide for the setting up of a Council for Private Education with the powers to regulate the private education sector.  Senior Minister of State Lui will give an update on the broad features of the regulatory regime, and address the specific queries posed by members.

     If the Bill is passed by this House, the Council’s role will be multi-faceted.  It will play an important part in enhancing the quality of the private education sector and look after the interests of students.  It will play a facilitation role to promote self-regulation by the industry and to provide more information about the quality of the educational programmes and degrees offered.  It will also look into initiatives to help the industry, and if needed, the Council can take punitive actions against errant and irresponsible providers.

     To sum up, MOE strives to improve the quality of both public and private education, and support all Singaporeans seeking a quality education.  We will take steps to strengthen primary education, and invest the necessary resources to bring about improvements.  We will accelerate our hiring plans so that qualified individuals can contribute in our schools and post-secondary institutions.  In view of the economic downturn, MOE will spend a total of $24 million on financial assistance measures to help families tide over this period, and make sure that no child will be denied an education on account of financial difficulties.

     MOE and schools however, cannot accomplish our goals alone.  Nurturing the next generation is a mission that involves society as a whole.  But together, we can build a world class education system that will give young Singaporeans the best future possible.  I know there were some queries that I have not addressed specifically.  I will leave that to the other office holders for clarification time.

Primary School Education Review

     Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, the Preliminary Recommendations of the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) Committee were released very recently.  Several recommendations are contained in the paper aimed at improving the quality of primary school education in Singapore.  To that end, I declare my interest as a member of the PERI Committee.

     The Terms of Reference of the Committee were to consult stakeholders on the philosophy and desired outcomes of holistic education at the primary level; and study and recommend strategies to enhance primary education in Singapore.

     In studying strategies to enhance primary education, the PERI Committee was also tasked to look in detail at 3 areas. They were: the roll-out of Single-Session Primary Schools; the move towards a policy of recruiting teachers that are all graduates by 2015; and to rebalance the learning of content knowledge; and the development of skills and values to prepare our young for the future.

     Let me begin by saying that my experience on the PERI Committee was a very enriching and rewarding one.  The Committee conducted extensive dialogues and focus group discussions with a cross-section of the various stakeholders.  In total, more than 600 people contributed their views and suggestions.  These people consisted of Principals, primary school teachers, parents of children presently in primary school, parents of children who have already completed their primary education, couples who had yet to have children or whose children were not yet in primary school and private tutors, to name a few.

     The feedback that the Committee garnered was wide-ranging and as can be expected, many of those giving the feedback spoke with passion.  As the Minister has said there were two views for every issue.  I would like to correct that slightly – there were at least two views for every issue.  Ultimately, the Committee has made various recommendations that we believe to be the right step in enhancing our primary education in Singapore so as to better prepare our young for the future.  Some of the main recommendations are: The use of more effective and engaging teaching methods; the introduction of a new Programme for Active Learning (PAL) which will make Sports and Outdoor Education and Performing and Visual Arts part of the Primary One and Two curriculum; the introduction of "bite-sized" topical tests in Primary One and Two rather than semestral examinations to provide more regular and qualitative feedback to parents on the progress of their child; the recruitment of more graduate teachers or those who qualify for an undergraduate education by 2015; and the move towards all primary schools being single-session by 2016.

     Now that the Committee has made its preliminary recommendations, I feel it is important that in the implementation of those recommendations, the Ministry be mindful of the spirit in which they were made. As they say, the devil is in the details.  I would like to highlight some of the feedback that I received during the dialogues and the focus group discussions that I attended.  I would like to seek the Minister’s views on how his Ministry will take these views into account when implementing the recommendations of the PERI Committee.

     The suggestion that graduate teachers or those who qualify for an undergraduate education be stepped up and implemented by 2015 was a somewhat sensitive point during the feedback sessions.  To my surprise, the strongest views against the suggestion came not from those within the teaching profession, but from parents.  Many parents whom I spoke with were of the view that the emphasis ought not to be on a university degree.  They were of the view that it was more important for a teacher to have the aptitude and passion for teaching, rather than just the paper qualifications.  They said that they would prefer a diploma holder teacher teaching their child if he or she had the right attitude, passion for teaching and compassion for their child.  They preferred teachers who had the interests of their child at heart to those who might have the correct degree or qualifications but lack these qualities.

      I then painted a scenario for the parents and asked for their views.  I said that there were two applicants for a teaching post.  One had a university degree and the other did not.  But both were equal in their soft skills, ie, their passion and aptitude for teaching.  I asked which they would prefer to teach their child.  The response from the parents was that they would prefer the one who had more passion and an aptitude for teaching, regardless of their qualifications.  Some even went on to suggest that recruiting teachers when the economy was not doing so well was not really a good idea. They felt that such a strategy would only serve to attract people who did not really want to teach but who had no other choice but to do so, because they could not find a job in their preferred field.  They expressed the view that recruiting these people into teaching was a waste of resources, because while they would have the requisite qualifications on paper, time and money would be wasted training them to become teachers only to see them leave when the economy turns for the better.  And in the meantime they would have little conviction or passion to teach.

     May I therefore ask the Minister to answer the following questions, please: How does the Ministry intend to select graduates and those who will be graduates for the teaching profession?  How will the Ministry ensure or safeguard against graduates joining the profession as a last resort because their options are limited?  How does the Ministry assess the aptitude of an applicant to determine that he or she does in fact have what it takes to become a teacher?  Will the Ministry consider applicants who may not have university degrees or those who have not qualified for undergraduate degrees for teaching positions, particularly when these applicants may show a great aptitude for teaching?  Aside from university degrees, will the Ministry consider any other type of qualification, such as those with years of experience in a particular field and have excelled in that field, but who may not have a university degree?

     Another issue which drew quite a lot of feedback was the suggestion that the mid-year and end-of-year examinations in Primary One and Two be replaced with a system of on-going assessment which would provide feedback on a child’s skills and development in non-academic areas.

     The reactions were mixed to this issue.  Some heaved a sigh of relief and others thought that there was some cause for concern.  The concern centred around wanting to know whether their child was learning and progressing as he or she should be, and would be prepared for major examinations such as the PSLE in Primary Six.  They felt that without examinations in Primary One or Two, there would be no objective way of assessing how their child was performing and whether he or she had learnt everything that they needed to at those levels.  They were concerned that any other form of assessment which might depend a lot on the teacher would be subjective and might not be an accurate gauge of their child’s progress.

     Given these concerns, could I ask the Minister: If mid-year and end-of-year examinations are replaced by a continuous form of assessment, what kind of assessment method is envisaged?  Would the method of assessment be left to each individual school to devise or would it be a method devised by MOE and implemented by the schools?  How would the MOE ensure that the method of assessment is objective so as to allow parents to know how their child is progressing within the cohort?  How frequently will parents receive feedback on the progress of their child under this system?

5.00 pm

    The last area which I would like to highlight is the move towards single-session primary schools. The concern expressed by parents was that while some schools have already gone single-session or partially single-session, many primary schools have not. With the new policy of all Government schools going single session by 2016, this would mean fewer places in some schools, particularly the popular ones. Parents expressed concern that there would be an increase in the already very competitive system of getting one's child into the better schools. Would going single-session really mean fewer places in all primary schools?

    Parents were also concerned that single-session schools would mean that students would have to spend more time in school. Would the Minister please let us know whether the implementation of single-session primary schools would result in fewer places in primary schools in general? If so, what will be done to ensure that the more popular primary schools at least maintain the number of places in their schools? How will the Ministry address any added competition that might arise in registering for places at the popular schools?  Will single-session primary schools mean longer school hours and an expanded curriculum?

          The Chairman:  Mr Hri Kumar is not present.  Mr Alvin Yeo.

Primary Education

     Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah): Sir, the plans to move all primary schools to single-session and  to introduce a more holistic all-rounded education should be music to most parents' ears.  Just as important, the other right step is towards grooming our younger generation to be the future pillars of Singapore. I hope we can do even more.  I believe the single-session primary schools should have the students with them for longer hours, indeed for the full day.  That is from 8 or 9 am in the morning to the late afternoon.  In this way, there will be time for the regular classes which typically take up half a day, and if enough time left over, for sports, arts, music and the other activities which help to broaden a young person's horizons. There should also be a study halt period which allows students to do their homework and assignments and later on revision for the examinations all within the single-session.

    The benefits of a full-day session would be many. Right now, anything outside the main curriculum is very much secondary in priority.  Having to jockey for time outside the school day or school half a day, one even hears stories of physical education and music periods being sacrificed before the examinations period for revision classes.  Is it any wonder that our nation struggles to produce the sporting and artistic talent that our neighbours achieve without the level of infrastructural support found here?  Yet, it is this broad range of skills outside just the hard sciences that are increasingly in demand.

    We in Singapore also have a tuition culture, where teachers with the heavy syllabus to get through, concentrate on drilling our students with content rather than exploring concepts and broadening their range of thinking.  The teaching as such takes place in tuition centres and at home where it seems many students would not keep up with the syllabus without this extra or core-curricular activity. All of us who are parents of school-going children can empathise with this.  If we had the students in school for a full day, there would be enough time to actually teach them and let them do their assignments in a supervised setting where teachers are available to explain or help with some stumbling block and maybe, we can break the tuition crunch that whole generation of students have grown up with.

    There are other benefits that could accrue.  Having children in school the entire day would avoid the phenomenon of latch-key children. They would help to reduce the burden for paying for student care centres to look after children after school. Perhaps, most significantly, this could allow children to spend their evenings with their families rather than "mugging up" on more schoolwork. 

   Aligned to this is the need to give our children a more holistic education. It is not the case that an emphasis on languages, Mathematics and Science is bad.  These are the essential building blocks of education.  But a child also needs to engage in sporting activities, artistic pursuits and simply to find out more about the world around him.  And it would not work to simply introduce more courses on all these unless there is some lessening of the content in the main curriculum.  Otherwise, we are just adding to the burden of an already stressed primary education. 

     While curriculum developers need to review and evaluate just how much bits and bytes of knowledge a child really must have and how much they should be allowed to, just think or even to dream, I do not wish to undermine the healthy work ethic of Singaporeans.  But inventors, writers, scholars and even future Government leaders need time to dream and spread the wings of imagination.  They need time to develop the character and resilience that sports can build. They need time to obtain experiences outside the classroom that shape their lives.  Yes, we produce more 4As students per capita than any other country but what of Nobel Prizes, original inventions, artistic masterpieces, breakthrough discoveries?  

    Knowledge can always be acquired although one must have a certain foundation to build on. However, the challenges of the world today and tomorrow call for more than pure knowledge but rather, original and innovative thought. The move to holistic education is a step in the right direction but it cannot be achieved simply with more facilities and more courses. Rather, something has to be give in terms of the overall syllabus and I hope our educators would keep on striving to strike the right balance.

Primary Education Review

     Dr Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Sir, the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) Committee was set up to study ways to enhance primary education in Singapore.

    One of the areas covered was the move towards only graduate teacher recruitment by 2015. Many still feel that the academic qualifications of the primary school teacher may and should not be the only factor of consideration. This is secondary to personal qualities and ability to connect with young students. Can I  have the Ministry's stand on the matter? And if indeed,  we are moving in this direction, what will happen to the large numbers of non-graduate teachers currently in circulation in the system?

    Also, in reviewing the current curriculum for primary school, will there be consideration, moving towards a more "international school concept", ie, a more modular, project-based  approach, with emphasis on ECA, not just for point acquisition, more active and experiential learning as well as more non-academic subjects focus such as issues which are of interest to students of this age group?

Single-session Schools

     Dr Lily Neo: Sir, single-session schools are welcomed by many parents.  Many hope that this would mean that their children will not be sleep-deprived anymore from morning session primary schools.  It would be better too for the children's well-being. Medical research has shown that adults and children who get enough sleep tend to think faster, absorb more and make better decisions.

    We are in the process of shifting our focus to bring up an innovative, well-rounded and adaptable next generation. Single-session schools give us an opportune time to do this. The extension in school hours should be used on non-academic programmes to contribute to children's holistic education.  We need to emphasis that it should not be used for more academic subjects or using it for children's academic remedial and worse still, if it is used to get better achievements for the purposes of ranking. 

   Currently, homework is a chore instead of developing an interest. Children should be given the space for playtime for themselves and quality time to spend with their parents. Even computer games is not all bad albeit with supervision from parents.  Some empirical evidence exist that games can be effective tools for enhancing learning and understanding of complex subject matters. Games also help in the development of technical or motor skills.

   Children from dysfunctional homes are at a disadvantage compared to their peers because they usually have lack of home and parental support. Those schools that have children from dysfunctional homes should start after-school care to give these children the chance to catch up.  I hope that MOE can actively seek out these children and give them the assistance they need.  Many would need a hands-on approach by social workers. Many of these students would need a holistic assistance in terms of their family, education and health and psychological support.  They also need long-term follow-up to prevent early drop-out from schools.

     Dr Ong Seh Hong: Sir, I support moving all primary schools to single-session.  I agree that such a move has many benefits on the overall educational well-being of our children. There are several areas for improvement which I hope the Ministry would consider.

    First, many parents are facing frustration in trying to enrol their children in popular schools. But with the proposed change for a smaller class size, this would seriously restrict the intake of students per year. This would be further compounded by the plan to convert all schools into single-session.  In this regard, I urge that popular schools be given the resources to maintain their intake.

   Secondly, the PERI's report found that public feedback on the school's starting hour is mixed. As schools usually start at about 7 am, many children have to get up very early to catch the school bus.  Many of them miss breakfast and reach school hungry. This is not healthy. I would hope that after moving to single-session, all schools will start at a later hour. This would allow the parents and their children to have breakfast together and promote bonding.

    Schools, including special-aided schools, must be given enough resources to build more classrooms and other facilities and to hire extra teachers and staff to meet the demand of single-session schools. Having said that, how would MOE ensure that with all these extra resources, single-session schools would provide a better educational outcome?

Single-session Primary Schools

     The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Sir, two key proposals in the slew or recommendations from PERI, though welcome, are of special concern to many parents. Firstly, doing away with semester examinations at Primary One and Two, in favour of bite-sized tests spread through the year, and secondly, the moving of all primary schools towards single-session by 2016.

    Doing away with semester examinations especially at the lower primary levels can, in theory, make learning less stressful and more fun for our young and instil in them a real desire to learn during the crucial first two years of their education.

    However, parents have brought up two concerns and these have been aired in the media. Firstly, some parents worry if regular assessments through smaller tests for each subject will, contrary to the good intentions of the PERI, in fact create even more stress for their children.

   The worry is that teachers – no disrespect to them – who have been accustomed to an emphasis on academic achievement and school rankings, may make these tests as gruelling as semestral examinations. 

   My observations and conversations with my daughter who is currently in Secondary Three of an integrated programme, where continuous assessments are the norm, also lead me to conclude that taking mini tests as opposed to major year-end examinations, can be even more demanding and stressful than a conventional semestral examinations, though some amount of stress is helpful to drive performance. 

    Hence, many mini examinations could arguably make for more, and not less stress.  Much will depend on how these tests are designed and administered by the schools and the expectations and demands of the parents. 

    PERI's recommendations did not state when the semestral examinations will be replaced by bite-sized assessments.  I would like to suggest that ample time be given to retrain existing teachers so that they are adept at setting mini tests that assess the understanding of pupils in the subjects before semestral examinations are replaced, and also to moderate parents' expectations.

    There are also a good number of parents who are worried that their children may not be able to adjust to taking major examinations in the upper primary once they are used to the mini tests in lower primary. Here, I would like to opine that such a concern may well be unfounded.  My experience with one of my children who went to Montessori Kindergarten with absolutely no homework and tests is that they are highly adaptable.  But MOE can help to throw more light on this to assuage parents' concerns.

    Secondly, parents are worried that their chance of getting their child into a primary school of their choice will be diminished with the move towards single-session as some of my parliamentary colleagues have already raised. 

    Each year, after the allocation of Primary One places, inevitably, I will have parents coming to my MPS to ask me to appeal for a place for their child at a well sought-after Government-aided primary school in my constituency.

    Hence, in moving to single-session primary schools, I would like to urge the Ministry to assure all parents that the schools will still offer the same number, if not, more places for their children.

This is especially critical for popular and very often "national", instead of  neighbourhood schools, where the number of Primary One places for residents in the area is always lower than demand.  Parents will not welcome the move to single session primary schools, unless their chances of getting their child into a school of their choice remain the same or are enhanced. 

5.15 pm

Recruitment, Single-session Schools and Financial Assistance

     Mr Christopher de Souza: Recently, MOE announced that it was initiating a significant recruitment campaign for teachers and staff.  This is an excellent initiative. It gives students, in the graduating classes of 2008 and 2009, comfort that purposeful and meaningful jobs are being created by the Government.  It also means that the increased number of teachers will reduce the heavy workloads of existing teachers. However, I ask MOE to consider four further suggestions.

     First, in support of what the Minister for Education has just said, MOE should make efforts to employ those who really have a passion to impart knowledge to students, and who want to inculcate values to nurturing minds.  After all, teaching is a vocation, not just a career, and teachers must continue to be those extra special people that we can entrust our children's education to.  Therefore, MOE's assurance that the teachers it aims to recruit are men and women who have a true desire to nurture and develop young minds is of much comfort to Singaporeans and Singaporean parents.

     Second, I suggest decreasing the workload of teachers.  I am afraid we are not in such a happy position as Japan.  I think we are really overloaded.  The teachers in my age group often tell me about their daily toil – wake up early for school, teach, prepare lessons in between classes, coach and supervise a CCA after school, return home in the evening, cat-nap for an hour, wake up and finish the marking till midnight; wake up at 6 am to start school again the next day. Some teachers are required by parents to "parent" their child – many teachers have told me how parents call their mobile phones to ask where their child is.  We require a lot of our teachers.  In view of these expectations on our teachers, I feel we can do more to decrease the administrative workload of our teachers.  Would the MOE consider this suggestion?

     Third, I support the move to single-session schools, but seek MOE's assurance that the single-session schools would not mean the schools taking on an after-school-day-care-service run by none other than teachers.  I say this because teachers need time to prepare lessons, mark and discern ways to improve the students.  This in turn will benefit the students.  This time is best done after a single-session school day. How will the MOE ensure this?

     Fourth, I request that schools be given a lot more independence to assist needy students financially.  Sometimes at my Meet-the-People sessions, I meet families who are unable to pay for school uniforms and books.  I am sure many of my fellow Members here would attest to the fact that it would be more effective to write directly to the school principal highlighting the student's difficulties.  It would be ideal and efficient if the principal has the ability to give the help needed.  Would the MOE elaborate on whether a decentralised fund, managed by the school principal, is feasible, and if it is indeed feasible, how independent will the principal's discretion be in managing it, bearing in mind that timely assistance is almost always of the essence. 

     In conclusion, I would like to underscore my great appreciation for all the tireless efforts that the teachers do.  I remain indebted to my teachers and it is of little surprise that we have been rated as an excellent education service.  So my congratulations to all the education staff.

     The Senior Minister of State for Education (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Thank you, Members, for the much interest and many questions raised on primary education. 

     The Primary Education Review & Implementation Committee began its work last October by asking stakeholders what we want to see in our children and how to prepare them well for the future.  In general, there was strong agreement – both within the Committee and between educators, parents, employers, and members of the public.  We all want to nurture well-balanced and confident children.  We want their primary school years to be a positive experience, where they learn to make friends and develop an abiding love for learning.  We must continue to give them a good grounding in English, Mother Tongue, Mathematics and Science, so that they will have a firm foundation of knowledge to build on.  But just as importantly, we want to broaden that foundation to include soft-skills and values – the ability to communicate clearly and confidently, to cooperate with others and to retain a lively sense of curiosity about the world we live in – as these are skills and dispositions that they will need to thrive in a rapidly changing world, and to contribute meaningfully to the society of the future.

     Our next question was – what must we do in order to achieve this?  The Committee recognises that high academic standards have been achieved over the years and we need to preserve the strengths of our current system.  Yet, to remain relevant in a fast changing world, we must offer a broader education.  After much consultation and deliberation, the Committee released its preliminary recommendations two weeks ago.  Our overall approach is to raise the quality of teaching and learning for a well-rounded primary education.  Our recommendations are in two main areas: (i) measures to balance the acquisition of knowledge with the development of skills and values; and (ii) providing more resources for a quality primary education.

     Since the release of the preliminary recommendations, we have received further feedback from the public as well as from MPs, which I will address today.

     As Members have pointed out, more can be done to enhance the joy of learning.  I am glad to say that the movement to Teach Less Learn More has gathered momentum in our schools.  Many teachers already adopt engaging teaching methods.  Dr Fatimah Lateef mentioned using international school approaches.  Many schools have started using a diverse range of strategies to engage our pupils.  For instance, learning of Science at Keming Primary School involves hands-on experimentation and creative application of Science to solve problems.  Just to give you an example of what they do in school.  After reading a story about a colony of mice stranded on an island, Primary Three students work in groups to build a rescue device made of suitable materials.  The groups then take turns to explain to their classmates what their rescue device is, how it works and why they have chosen to use certain materials.  By making Science fun, teachers at Keming fuel the child's natural hunger for knowledge and develop a deep sense of curiosity and interest in a subject so essential to progress in a technologically-driven world.

     The purpose of doing this is not just to have fun, but to ensure that learning is effective.  The teaching of academic subjects can both impart content knowledge and develop important life skills that will stand our children in good stead long after the exams are over.  While there are already good examples in practice, more can be done to systematically raise the level across all schools, so that all our teachers are well equipped to use effective and engaging teaching methods.  We agree with Dr Lily Neo that teacher training will be key.  For example, under the STELLAR programme, which uses creative ways to help pupils master the English language, experienced English teachers mentor and coach other teachers individually.  MOE will place priority on teacher training, so that teachers have a strong grasp of their subjects as well as appropriate teaching methods and assessment techniques, both through pre-service training and in-service courses.  We are reviewing in-service training to ensure that it remains relevant and it will meet the needs of teachers for professional development more systematically.

     Dr Lily Neo and Mr Michael Palmer asked how the curriculum would change with single-session.  The number of curriculum hours for the academic subjects will remain the same, so that we do not compromise rigour in the teaching of academic subjects.  However, by moving to single-session, schools will have more time and space for learning outside the classroom.  Two additional hours per week will be added for the new Programme for Active Learning (PAL).

     PAL aims to give pupils broad exposure to a range of activities at an entry level, so that they can discover their talents and interests.  For Primary One and Primary Two pupils, this will provide opportunities for them to play a range of sports and to try a number of art forms, such as dance or drama.  At the end of Primary Two, all pupils would be exposed to about six different activities.  If they discover that they have a specific flair, say, for a particular sport, they can then take that sport as a CCA at the upper primary level.  MOE will also ensure that the PAL programme complements the current curriculum, including PE, Art and Music.

     We would like to assure everyone that MOE will resource the schools adequately, such that children will have access to quality PAL activities.  This includes funding to employ well-qualified instructors, as well as to buy related equipment.  Importantly, we hope that children from less fortunate backgrounds who may not otherwise have the opportunity to discover their talents will now have increased chances to do so in the course of their primary education.

     We have received mixed public feedback about the use of "bite-sized" topical tests for Primary One and two pupils.  Some parents have expressed concern that their children will not learn to handle examination stress.  Conversely, other parents are worried that the introduction of bite-sized, topical tests may end up creating more constant stress for their children – a point that Dr Amy Khor has made – and perhaps for the parents themselves.  The discussions have been useful, as they have given us valuable feedback, opened up a discussion on the purpose of assessment and presented an opportunity for us to explain our intentions.

     Let me clarify, first and foremost, that our intention is to encourage schools to move away from an overly strong emphasis on examinations at lower primary, and explore the use of other forms of assessment, which place more emphasis on learning, rather than on the grades alone.  At Primary One, we would want much less importance placed on semestral examinations to facilitate a smooth transition to primary school.  A number of schools have already dispensed with the mid-year semestral examination in primary one as they have other effective forms of assessment in place, while a few schools have replaced the semestral examinations altogether at Primary One.  They have been mindful to space out the assessments appropriately, so that parents and pupils are not overwhelmed.

     At Primary Two, we could slowly ease pupils into taking examinations.  We have to do this at a pace which is comfortable for schools as we equip schools to use different methods of assessment.  MOE will take the next few years to build the capacity of schools to use different assessment modes.  Different modes of assessment are also useful in providing richer information on the learning of pupils, as a key purpose of school-based assessment should be to provide timely and holistic feedback to our pupils and parents.  Thus, teachers will be trained to observe and provide meaningful feedback that goes beyond just marks, in both academic and non-academic areas, so that pupils find it useful for their development.  This will help our children build greater confidence and interest in learning, not just studying for examinations.

     Let me also clarify that it does not mean that pupils' mastery of foundational skills in subjects, such as English, Mother Tongue and Mathematics will be compromised.  "Bite-sized" forms of assessment still help to provide an objective means of checking on pupils' mastery and progress.  Schools have clear guidelines from MOE on the learning outcomes for each subject at the end of every level which teachers can use to design appropriate assessment tasks.  Let me now take you through some examples.  This is an example from Meridian Primary School, where pupils and parents receive detailed feedback on a written composition.  This assignment is conducted in the traditional pen-and-paper mode.  Usually, students would be given a single mark, eg, 75.  Now with the rubrics, pupils are given feedback on where they have done well and where they can seek improvement.  The feedback is richer and more useful to the learning process.

5.30 pm

     Greenridge Primary School provides parents with qualitative feedback through a Holistic Progress Report twice a year.

As you can see, ticks are made against smiley faces to indicate the pupil's level of development in each area.  The knowledge and skills assessed are not just in academic areas, but also in non-academic areas.  They range from art appreciation, and social skills, to character development and National Education.

     The teachers at Greenridge Primary meet frequently to build a common understanding of the areas of learning to assess, to develop the Rubrics, and to discuss the detailed feedback given to each child.  At the end of the day, they can see that their pupils improve as a result of receiving useful feedback.  The parents are also pleased that their children are being assessed in meaningful ways.

     The examples that I have mentioned are good practices and should be implemented systematically in our schools.  Importantly, our seven- and eight-year olds should enjoy learning and like going to school.  If we can use assessment to affirm their progress, we can ignite our children’s passion and confidence in their ability to learn.  This early positive experience can set children on the right path for their subsequent years of schooling and for lifelong learning.

     I would now like to move on to the resources that we will be giving to our schools.  First, investing in a quality teaching force. Dr Fatimah Lateef and Mr Michael Palmer asked about the selection and qualifications of our primary school educators.  Many members of the public agree that graduate qualifications better equip teachers with the necessary content knowledge and pedagogical training.  But they also emphasised, like Dr Lily Neo, Mr Christopher de Souza, Ms Denise Phua and Mr Michael Palmer, that the passion to teach and a love for children remain the most important qualities of a primary school teacher.  We agree.  So let me assure everyone that MOE values these qualities and selects candidates with these qualities.  Teaching applicants have to undergo a rigorous and competitive process before they become full-fledged teachers.  In fact, only about half of those who meet MOE’s current academic criteria for teacher training pass the selection interviews.

     Let me explain the process.  Besides having the prerequisite academic results, the applicants have to clear a selection interview chaired by a panel of experienced educators, who are well-placed to assess their aptitude, interest and suitability for teaching.

     After they pass the interview, some candidates are further assessed through a 3 to 12-month contract teaching stint, to affirm their aptitude for teaching before they join the National Institute of Education (NIE).

     Those who are found unsuitable during the contract teaching stint will not be recruited as teachers, no matter how academically brilliant they might be.

     The assessment process does not stop at admission into NIE.  At NIE, all trainee teachers have to pass a 10-week practicum under a mentor-teacher before they can graduate as trained teachers.  All beginning teachers are on probation for 1 year, and only those who are found competent are confirmed as teachers on the permanent establishment.

     Over the years, we have been consistently recruiting teachers from the top 30% of each population cohort.  Twenty years ago, only about 15% of each cohort gained entry into our local autonomous universities.  But by 2015, which is really the target date that we are aiming at, this proportion will rise to 30%.  Thus, to maintain the calibre of the teaching force, we will need to recruit new teachers who are graduates or who qualify for an undergraduate education by 2015.  NIE will be increasing the number of places available in their Post-Graduate Diploma in Education Programme as well as in the Bachelor degree programme.

     Looking ahead, we will train and deploy teachers so that they specialise in teaching certain subjects at the upper primary level.  This is not a new practice and many of our schools are already doing so. At the upper primary level, based on their own academic background and interests, teachers specialise in teaching one to two subjects and receive further training to deepen their expertise.  This combination of interest and expertise make them all the more effective.

     Another group that we would like to tap more are mid-career recruits, who have also contributed significantly to our schools.  To date, we have about 7,000 mid-career teachers, making up 23% of the teaching force.  These teachers who join us mid-career have injected a greater diversity of experience and perspectives into the school team, and this has helped to enrich our students’ learning.

     We would like to assure current non-graduates who are already in the teaching profession that they will continue to play an important role.  This is a point raised by Dr Fatimah Lateef.  As is currently the case, their appraisal will continue to be based on work performance.  More importantly, there are many avenues for them to enhance their professional knowledge and proficiency in the classroom.  And I would like to give Members one example.   Mdm Suriani Othman is one such outstanding teacher who started out as a non-graduate, and has made sterling contributions for the past 23 years.  Currently a Senior Teacher in West View Primary, she is also the Learning Support Coordinator for Mathematics, a teacher counsellor and a Research Activist who champions the development of new teaching methods in her school.  Suriani has been continually upgrading herself.  She completed the "Advanced Diploma in Guidance and Counselling" at NIE in 2001.  She is currently reading a part-time degree course in Bachelor of Arts (English with Psychology) from UniSIM.  A mother of five children, Suriani has to juggle work, studies and family.  She is indeed a role model to us all.

     However, I must stress that current non-graduate teachers should not feel compelled to upgrade their academic qualifications.  What is more important is how well they perform as educators.  The fact that we have more than a few non-graduate principals in our schools is testament to this.

     Our recruitment system remains open to non-graduates after 2015.  Those who are interested in joining the education sector, but do not have a degree may join us as Allied Educators.  We have three groups of officers under this scheme.  Moving ahead, the Ministry will grow this pool – Allied Educators (Counselling) who support the social and emotional needs of our pupils through individual counselling, Allied Educators (Learning and Behavioural Support) who support pupils with special needs, and Allied Educators (Teaching and Learning) who could support teaching in specific areas such as practical science, art, or IT intensive lessons.  Currently, we have 600 Allied Educators and the plan is to increase the number four-fold to 2,800 by 2016.  In light of the economic downturn, MOE will bring forward this recruitment target by one year, to 2015.

    Allied Educators who perform well have ample opportunities to progress within their scheme of service or if found suitable, they can be trained as full-fledged teachers, this is to answer Mr Palmer's question.

     MOE has been professionalising the way schools are run.  Mr Christopher de Souza is concerned about the administrative workload of teachers.  All schools today have a dedicated group of Executive and Administrative Staff, led by Administration Managers and Operation Managers, to assist the school management and teachers in key corporate duties such as finance, human resource, logistics and general administration matters.  Since 2007, schools also have a Co-Curricular Programme Executive who helps teachers in the administration of Co-Curricular Activities (CCA) and Community Involvement Programmes (CIP).

     Together, the teaching and non-teaching staff form a strong "School Team" that help provide a conducive learning environment for our children.

     We have received a lot of support for single-session primary schools from the public.  Moving to single-session is an important structural change that will increase the capacity of our system to do more.  It will provide a more favourable school environment that will enable our pupils to benefit from a more well-balanced and holistic education.  Single-session will also provide pupils with more time and space to interact meaningfully with their teachers.  It is a key enabler for our move towards a more holistic education.

     Based on our preliminary estimate, we will need to build about 18 new schools and upgrade about 80 existing schools.  We project, after considering demographic trends, that all government schools will be single-session by 2016.  Mr Michael Palmer and Dr Amy Khor asked whether this move would affect the number of places in primary schools.  Dr Ong Seh Hong, I believe, asked the same question as well.  In moving to single-session, the enrolment in some existing partial single-session and double-session schools may fall slightly, but we will continue to ensure that every Singaporean child has access to a primary school near his home, based on the same planning parameters that we use currently.

     Government-aided schools may need more time to transit to single-session as they would have to take into account the needs of their communities.  We would like to assure Members that MOE is mindful that nationally popular schools should maintain a sufficient number of places such that students who have no affiliation to the school can still have access for admission to Primary One.

     MOE will work closely with the Government-aided schools to facilitate their transition.  We are prepared to help the nationally popular schools expand facilities on their current site to minimise any reduction in student enrolment.  Individual solutions will have to be worked out in consultation with the schools, taking into account their specific circumstances.

     In response to Members' queries about longer school hours, MOE is mindful that single-session schools should not be pressured to become full-day schools.  As Mr Christopher de Souza has pointed out, the number of school hours should be primarily determined by educational goals.  They should not be lengthened just to meet parents’ demands for whole-day childcare services.  While the school day will probably be extended slightly, we will still want pupils to have enough time to pursue their own interests and to spend time with their families.  So far, we have observed that single-session primary schools have been able to provide a balanced education for their pupils without extending school hours too drastically.

     As Dr Lily Neo also pointed out, schools should continue to carefully monitor the amount of homework assigned to pupils and not increase take-home assignments unnecessarily.  I think a point echoed by many Members as well.  We are also mindful of the workload of teachers and we have been increasing the resources, both financial and manpower, to enable our schools to manage their workload better.

     As single-session schools embark on PAL and other recommendations of PERI, they will be given additional resources to support the teachers.

     In response to comments on later start time, there have been mixed views on this.  While some want school to start later, so that their children can get more sleep, or have breakfast as Dr Ong has suggested, others prefer the current start time as it fits well with their transport and work arrangements.  There was also recognition that if all schools were to start at 9 am, we would probably see a severe deterioration in traffic conditions during office peak hours all over the country!  Given that each school’s particular circumstances are different, schools will retain the flexibility to decide on their start time and school hours based on consultation with their stakeholders and a careful consideration of their local conditions.

     MOE has started discussions with LTA on the implications of all primary schools going single session and will work with them to facilitate the transition. The new educational focus will require additional physical facilities in our schools.  Besides building new schools, MOE will be reviewing primary school facilities to support a broad-based and balanced education.  Some facilities that we are considering include re-designed classrooms, spaces for performing arts, and more outdoor play and learning areas.  I would like to give Members a few examples from schools which have already experimented with such concepts.

5.45 pm

    Unity Primary has classrooms that have various learning spaces for focusing on different skills such as reading and ICT.  They have a different table configuration, not to be fanciful, but rather to meet the needs of the groups.  There is also space to display pupils' work, and the furniture can be flexibly rearranged to support group learning.

    Children are often enthusiastic when given the opportunity to learn beyond the classroom. At East Spring Primary, they have an eco-pond as well as a learning trail and Physics playground.  These facilities support their pupils' innate curiosity to learn through inquiry and exploration.

    Beacon Primary has an indoor sports hall that supports PAL activities in sports and games. It encourages pupils to lead an active lifestyle. And here, we see an outdoor amphitheatre at Fairfield Methodist Primary and a media hub at Beacon Primary, which support performing and visual arts activities.

    Sir, in enhancing the facilities of primary schools, we will also ensure that pupils from disadvantaged families get more support from the schools in after-school supervision. Dr Lily Neo and Mr Alvin Yeo have also raised these points. They will be pleased to note that for new schools and schools that are being upgraded, MOE will provide space for student care centres operated by community groups, so that these pupils can receive care on-site.

    Besides upgrading facilities in each school, MOE had earlier announced setting up two Outdoor Education Centres, providing learning through outdoor adventure activities for primary school pupils, to support the learning of soft skills. We will study what other centralised facilities can be built. These centralised facilities will impact a wider spectrum of pupils across abilities and socio-economic groups.

    In conclusion, Sir, it takes a village to raise a child. MOE and our schools want to nurture our young to be the best that they can be. But we cannot do it alone. It is essential for all of us - school leaders, teachers, students, parents and other stakeholders in the community - to work together to create the best possible learning environment for our children. In particular, the strong support of parents is crucial in realising a more all-rounded education for our young. 

     The recommendations seek to achieve a more balanced education for our children, and MOE will be prepared to invest in a meaningful way to ensure a high quality teaching force and conducive learning environment that can lift primary education to a higher level.

    Sir, may I also explain my position in Mandarin, please?

     (In Mandarin ):  [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.]  Since October 2008, the Primary Education Review Implementation Committee (PERI) has been seeking feedback from stakeholders on a range of topics, to understand their expectations of our children, how to prepare them well for the future. Generally, there was a unanimous view amongst the committee members, educators, parents, employers and general members of the public. We want to nurture confident children who are well-rounded and well-balanced in all aspects. We want our children to have a positive learning experience in their primary school years, where they learn to develop friendships and develop a passion for learning. We will continue to enhance their learning in English, Mother Tongue, Mathematics and Science so that they can build up a firm foundation of knowledge for their future learning. At the same time, we would also want to broaden that foundation to include soft skills and the inculcation of proper values. We want our children to be able to express themselves clearly and with confidence, communicate and cooperate with others effectively and to have a strong sense of curiosity about the world we live in.

     I understand that some parents are very concerned with replacing the year-end examinations with topical assessments for the lower primary students. I would like to take this opportunity today to give a better explanation on adopting this approach.

     The school-based assessments will provide students and parents with a more timely and holistic feedback. Different modes of assessment are useful in providing richer information to the parents on how well their children have progressed in their studies, both in the academic and non-academic aspects. This will be very important in the children’s learning process. Apart from this, the diversified assessments will also help our children to build greater confidence and interest in learning, and not just studying for the examinations.

     We encourage the schools not to place too much emphasis on examinations and explore other methods of assessments so that they would be able to assess the children's progress in all aspects, rather than relying on grades alone. At Primary One we would want much less importance placed on semestral assessment to facilitate a smooth transition to primary school. A number of schools have already dispensed with the mid-year semestral examination in Primary One as they have other effective forms of assessment in place, such as "bite-sized" topical assessments  to assess the students’ progress. A few other primary schools have replaced the semestral examination altogether at Primary One. We understand that some parents are concerned that these "bite-sized" topical assessments may give more pressure to the students. In fact, I would like to re-assure the parents that these schools have made the necessary arrangements to space out the topical assessments. This would allow the students to learn in a progressive manner and enable the teachers to periodically assess the students’ performance. When our children reach Primary Two, we could then gradually let them learn how to cope with examinations and the accompanying stress.

     I think it is very important to ensure our children who are at seven, eight-year-old to love going to school and enjoy learning. If we are able to make full use of assessments to track the students’ performance, we would be able to build up their confidence and also to lay a good foundation for their lifelong learning. The schools have placed a lot of emphasis on the teaching and learning of morality, intelligence, physique, esprit de corps, and aesthetic sense, so that the students can develop holistically and be better prepared for future. They will then be able to contribute to society by making the right decisions when faced with challenges in this rapidly changing world.

Private Schools

     Dr Lily Neo: Sir, Singapore has a hard-earned reputation as a provider of quality education.  It is a vital that we maintain this reputation.  Singapore is presently on target to achieve 150,000 foreign students by 2015.  This is opposed to the education sector's GDP contribution to about 5%. There are about 1,100 private schools catering to about 420,000 local students and 72,000 foreign students.  Ensuring reliability and sustainability of private education institutions are important.  On average, it would cost each foreign student about $80,000 to $100,000, spread out over four years, to obtain a degree from one of the many private education institutions here.

    Some private education organisations have abused the MOE's certified tag to oversell their credibility. According to MOE, registration with MOE is not tantamount to accreditation or endorsement of the quality of private schools or their teaching staff.  I have raised the issue on the quality of private schools since 2006 and was told that it was under study.  May I ask for the timeframe for implementation of the accreditation of private schools?

    The credibility of student agents is also a great concern. The number of student agents has increased from about 15 a few years ago to more than 100 agencies, including numerous freelance operators. There are estimates that the student agency industry is worth about $17 million to $100 million based on the present number of foreign students here. Student agents charge between $2,000 and $8,000 per foreign student.  Presently, anyone can be a student agent without even belonging to a registered company.  There is a need for an accreditation scheme for student agents in order to safeguard foreign students' interest, especially from broke agencies. There must be some standardisation of student agents to ensure reliability and credibility in schools, placing, visa scanning and accommodation. 

    In view of the increasing number of foreign students, it would be useful to consider some of their social needs and, at the same time, provide them with opportunities to integrate with locals.  In our efforts to being a gracious host, our attention to details in this regard may persuade some of them to settle down in Singapore after graduation. In the very least, this will go a long way in leaving them with good impression for them to serve as our goodwill ambassadors back home.

Private Education Sector

     Dr Ong Seh Hong: Sir, the provision of private education to foreign students contributed significantly to our economy. We are on our way to achieving our stated objective of receiving 150,000 foreign students. This belies Singapore's popularity as a hub to foreigners seeking better education prospects.  For this reason alone, we are obligated to ensure that the thousand-odd private schools are up to the mark here and not merely a degree mill.

     A local newspaper survey of all the private schools in Singapore last year showed alarming results. The random survey of 327 CASE-accredited private schools here uncovered over a dozen with shockingly low standards in their courses, teaching staff and facilities.

     Despite the sub-standard of these schools, they were registered with the MOE.  I am glad that MOE is requiring all private schools to apply for a new EduTrust seal of approval from this year.  This would certainly go a long way towards ensuring the quality of private schools in Singapore.  I would like to ask for an update on the status and work of the EduTrust.

Update on EduTrust

     Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade): Sir, last year, it was announced that the EduTrust framework would be introduced to regulate the private education sector. The area of private education requires intense monitoring because of potential for private schools to run the green mails and to produce bogus educational qualifications without proper lecturers.

     This will not only adversely affect the reputation of Singapore as a global educational hub but will also affect the many students who are conned into paying large sums of school fees to study at such schools. Just yesterday, it was reported that Singapore has a reputation for affordable quality education.  Last year, in 2008, there were 96,900 foreign students who came to Singapore to study.  May I ask the Ministry for an update as to the status of the EduTrust scheme?  How does the Ministry intends to ensure that the private education organisations operating in Singapore offer quality programmes? How does the Ministry intends to protect students from paying large sums of school fees and signing up with schools that do not have proper lecturers or premises to conduct their lessons? Would there be regular checks on schools' curriculum and the qualifications of the lecturers or tutors?

Quality of Private Education

     Mr Michael Palmer: Sir, education is important to Singaporeans.  Most parents will do everything within their power to ensure that their child receives the best education possible. Many parents think that attaining 'O' Level is not enough. Parents want their children to go on to receive a Diploma or a University degree. Great emphasis is placed on children receiving a tertiary education.

    However, not all of our students do well enough to get into one of our local universities or polytechnics for tertiary education. Many of these students feel that a practical hands-on course in the ITE is not what they are looking for. They would instead prefer to pursue an academic tertiary course. Those who are not fortunate enough to have the means to study abroad may opt to study in one of many private education centres in Singapore.

    There are also many overseas students enrolled in courses in our private education centres. While the majority come from our neighbouring countries in Asia, some come from as far as Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and the US. They come because, over the last few years, Singapore has been promoting itself as an education hub.

    Unlike local schools and institutions of higher learning, where MOE keeps a close check on content and quality, there is no benchmark of quality for private education centres. My recent search of the MOE website revealed the following:

    (a)  A complete list of all private education centres in Singapore. The difficulty was that this list included not only tertiary institutions, but also tuition centres.

    (b) All private schools in Singapore are required to be registered with MOE. However, the criteria for registration have very little to do with educational standards. I quote from the website:

      "MOE registers private schools, the courses they offer and the teachers conducting the registered courses. To be registered, private schools need to meet basic statutory requirements, such as building and fire safety requirements, and have an acceptable curriculum and qualified teachers. As all private schools are owned by private entities, the operators themselves are responsible for the management and administration of their private school and courses."

    (c) In fact, there was a specific exclusion clause as to quality. I quote,

     "Registration by MOE does not in any way represent an endorsement or accreditation of the quality of the courses offered. Prospective students of private schools are advised to find out more about the private school, the quality of the courses and the background of the local organisation that facilitates the delivery of the courses before making a decision to enrol in the course of study. Students should also exercise caution in reading and understanding the terms of contract between them and the private school, seeking clarification if need be before enrolling in the course of study."

 6.00 pm

     Sir, I believe that if we are to continue to permit private schools to be set up and registered with the MOE in Singapore, then some quality assurance must be implemented and standards must be enforced.  May I therefore ask the Minister, what is the status of the EduTrust scheme that was mentioned in last year’s COS?  Will MOE be setting up some form of council or board to oversee the quality and standards of private education?  If so, what powers will the board or council have?  Will these powers include the power to de-register the school if it breaches minimum standards?  Will regular reviews of curriculum and teaching standards of private schools be carried out by the council or board?

         The Chairman:  Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has withdrawn his cut.  Ms Indranee Rajah.

Fitness of Polytechnic Students

     Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Chairman, I understand that there is no compulsory sports CCA for polytechnic students.  I am concerned that as a result, male polytechnic students may not be sufficiently pre-conditioned for National Service.  I will be querying MINDEF on the physical fitness of our NSmen but in fairness to MINDEF, I should start at source, which is the educational institutions from which our NSmen are drawn.  The sudden deaths of two NSmen reported last year raised questions about the physical fitness of our young men.  As it transpired, those two particular deaths were due to specific causes and not to undetected pre-existing conditions.  Nevertheless, questions were raised as to whether our young people are getting less fit due to our urban lifestyle and fast food culture.

     We need an SAF that is physically fit and that process begins in school even before the young men commence NS.  Lest there be any concern that this cut is not gender equal, let me say that my concern applies equally to girls as well as to boys who may not have to do NS but still can do physical activity.  It is medically accepted that exercise is beneficial to health and those who exercise and are physically active generally have a lower risk of disease and health problems.  The exercise habit needs to be inculcated at an early age for both male and female Singaporeans and making sports or physical CCA compulsory in polytechnics will facilitate that process.  Sir, I wish to ask the Ministry if it will consider making sports CCA compulsory for polytechnics.

     The Senior Minister of State for Education (RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew): Sir, my Minister had earlier outlined what MOE would do to support Singaporeans in the post secondary education sectors in 2009.  Permit me to elaborate on some of these developments and address the queries that have been raised by Members.

     I will start with the Institute of Technical Education.   ITE aims to strengthen the provision of practical technical education and to train skilled manpower for the economy.  ITE will continue to consolidate its smaller campuses into the two remaining regional colleges to be built – College West and College Central.  By 2013, these two colleges will join College East to fully realise the "One ITE System, Three Colleges" Governance Model.

     As seen in the example of College East, each of these colleges will have the critical mass to innovate, optimise resources and provide a better overall educational experience for their students.  Each will offer courses in core, high demand areas such as IT and Engineering, as well as in specific niche areas.  This combination blends an agility to respond speedily to emerging growth areas in industry while maintaining ITE’s strengths in traditional technical areas.

     College West, ready from 2010, will focus on courses for automotive technology, culinary and hospitality and precision engineering.  College Central, ready around 2012, will have niche courses in aerospace technology, creative media and wafer fabrication.  These will complement College East’s niche areas in beauty and wellness, chemical and life sciences and healthcare.  MOE is committed to the same high standards we have achieved in College East for these two new colleges.

     Besides the 13 new courses that were introduced by ITE in 2008, another 11 new courses will be added this year with a total intake of about 1,200 places.  The new courses for 2009 are in promising and important areas, such as leisure and travel operations, aerospace machining technology and medical manufacturing technology.

     In 2007, 93% of ITE graduates were employed within six months of graduation or completion of National Service.  It is noteworthy that an ITE qualification is also a viable pathway to further studies as well.  One in five of all ITE graduates in 2007 progressed to full time Diploma courses at the polytechnics last year.  For Higher Nitec graduates, the proportion was one in three.  MOE is currently reviewing with both ITE and the polytechnics how these proportions can be increased in the years to come.

     As Minister mentioned, we recently subjected ITE to an external review panel for the first time.  The panel comprised local industry leaders and experts in vocational and technical education from Australia, Germany and the United States. They made useful recommendations, but what was reassuring was their affirmation that ITE is taking the right approach in engaging and educating its students, equipping them for employment and giving them every opportunity to succeed in life.  Perhaps the most satisfying accolade that these experts gave was the expressed desire to duplicate such an institution with its proven systems, excellent facilities and committed staff in their own home country.

     Let me now touch on the polytechnic sector.  This year, we offered 25,700 places and accepted 42.5% of the cohort into a polytechnic.  Over the years, the quality of each student intake has also improved.  In 2009, the proportion of JC-eligible students which selected the diploma route is 32%, similar to the year before.

     We strive to give students who meet the minimum entry requirements every possible chance to benefit from a polytechnic education.  While there are more than enough polytechnic places overall, not every applicant can be accommodated in his preferred course or polytechnic, although the matching rate is high.

     MOE has introduced various measures over the past few years to allow students to make more informed applications.  This includes disclosing cut off points (COPs) and the number of places available in specific courses at each polytechnic during the Joint Admissions Exercise.  After the automatic matching and posting process has taken place, manual posting is then conducted to help candidates who were poly-eligible, but failed to secure a polytechnic place.  Overall, more than 90% of the applicants in 2009 who met the minimum entry requirement of 26 points in their 'O' Level examinations for the best five subjects, including English, secured a place in a polytechnic.

     Each year, the polytechnics carefully consider the need for new courses that will be relevant to the needs of the changing economic landscape.  In 2009, 25 new courses, including aerospace engineering, clean energy, nanotechnology and material science will be offered by the five polytechnics.

     Beyond academic matters, the polytechnics also place increasing emphasis on the all-round development of their students.  There are numerous CCAs, student-initiated activities and interests groups that bring students of like-minded interests together.  I thank Ms Indranee Rajah for her query on the role of sports or other physical CCA’s in the polytechnic curriculum.

     All the polytechnics provide facilities, a variety of sports and fitness programmes and encouragement to help students adopt healthy lifestyles.  About 50%-60% of CCAs in the polytechnics today are sports or fitness related, and about half of all polytechnic students take part in one of these programmes.

     Ms Rajah rightly pointed out that our efforts to encourage students to keep fit will impact the general health of the nation.  NAPFA tests are compulsory for all final-year male and female polytechnic students to encourage them to stay fit at the polytechnics, and to make them aware of their own fitness levels.  We have considered but not yet decided to make health and fitness programmes compulsory.  While some, like Ngee Ann Polytechnic, have a compulsory sports and wellness module for their first year students, others offer these as 'electives'.  They work hard to facilitate participation.  Indeed Nanyang Polytechnic (NYP) does not schedule classes on Wednesday afternoons to allow students to take part in sports.  So they facilitate participation and they encourage students to view "being active" as a long-term, lifestyle choice.

     The polytechnics are mindful of the need to better prepare their male students for National Service (NS).  Since 2005, the polytechnics have steadily increased the proportion of students who meet the NS benchmark.  More is being done.  Nanyang Polytechnic is currently reviewing its academic system to include a 30-hour Active Lifestyle Programme while Singapore Polytechnic is planning a new elective to promote interest in sports and fitness.

     Let me now turn to the university sector.  Our autonomous universities are growing from strength to strength.  The three universities provide a high quality education for the undergraduate and graduate students, and have established a well-deserved international reputation.

     This year, there will be 15,210 university places, an increase of over 900 compared to the 14,200 places that were taken up by students last year.  As with the goal that was achieved last year, one in four students in the cohort will obtain a place in one of the autonomous universities.  Preparations for the New University at East Coast are making good progress and on track to accept its first batch of about 500 students at its interim campus in 2011.  When fully established, it will raise the cohort participation rate (CPR) to 30% with an annual intake of up to 2,500 and help to uplift our university sector further.

     At UniSIM, about 7,000 students now enjoy up to 40% subsidy on course fees for part-time degree programmes.  What is encouraging is that more than 1,800 started on such a programme in the July 2008 intake after the subsidy was introduced, and this was an increase of 50% compared to the July 2007 intake.

     Prof. Kalyani suggested that our universities provide a more balanced education by including arts, humanities and social sciences.  She also emphasised the importance of inculcating strong values.  I assure Prof. Kalyani that our universities aim to develop the whole person and not just book-smart graduates.

     For example, in 2003, NTU set up the School of Humanities and Social Sciences to complement its strengths in science and engineering.  Students can now complement their major with a minor course from a different school, or obtain a double degree, for example in engineering and economics.  NUS requires students to take general education modules to broaden general knowledge and to apply different modes of inquiry.  Our universities emphasise holistic education and character-development.  All have overseas exchange programmes that impart valuable lessons about independence, tolerance and being street-smart when navigating unfamiliar territory.  They offer a wide range of CCAs for students to develop leadership, teamwork and self-confidence.  Industry attachments and competitions inculcate work-ready attitudes, collaboration and communication skills.  Finally, students are encouraged to participate in community service projects.  For example, all SMU students perform at least 80 hours of community service.  In the processs, they acquire a deeper appreciation of altruism and social enterprise.

     As we make more university places available, introduce new and improve existing programmes, we need to ensure that students make informed decisions about the courses they choose.  Similar to the practice in the polytechnics, our universities will, for the first time, make information available on the indicative 'A' level grades and Polytechnic GPA of students admitted in the 2008 University Admissions Exercise (UAE) as well as the number of places that were taken up in 2008, and they will do so in time for the admission exercise this year.  This would serve as a guide on the number of places that could be available in 2009 in each course.  I believe this move, as we have seen in the Polytechnic Admission Exercise, will be beneficial to students and help to allay some of the anxieties in the application process.

      Let me move on now to touch on improving quality in private education, a point that has been raised by a number of Members during the sitting.

MOE appreciates that many Singaporeans invest in upgrading their skills and knowledge at private educational institutions (PEIs), often with the aim of pursuing a degree.  A sound private education sector, therefore, plays an important complementary role in helping Singaporeans upgrade themselves.  It is also important in Singapore's efforts to strengthen its reputation as a Global Education Hub.  I thank Dr Lily Neo, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Michael Palmer and Dr Ong Seh Hong for their comments and questions pertaining to the new regulatory regime for the private education sector.  MOE will move a Private Education (PE) Bill in the second half of 2009 to provide for the powers to better regulate the private education sector and improve its quality.  It will also establish the Council for Private Education (CPE).

     Let me speak on this first.  A Pro-tem Council has been formed to oversee the preparatory work for transition to the new regulatory regime.  It is chaired by Mr Lin Cheng Ton, CEO of Nanyang Polytechnic International, and comprises experienced persons from the fields of education, quality assurance, business as well as economic agencies overseeing the promotion of the private education sector.  The Pro-tem Council will be formally appointed as the CPE under the Private Education Act once the legislation takes effect.  Besides overseeing the new regulatory regime, the CPE's additional roles will be to promote a better understanding of the private education sector by consumers, and to help the industry develop.  These efforts will complement the enhanced regulatory measures and quality assurance framework and help raise standards in the sector.

     Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Michael Palmer and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked about implementation and transition to the new regulatory and EduTrust quality assurance frameworks.  Let me share MOE's thinking on these areas, and we certainly welcome more feedback and suggestions as we formulate and finalise the Bill.  The PEIs covered under the PE Bill fall under three broad categories: (i) PEIs offering degree, diploma or full-time certification programmes at the post-secondary level; (ii) PEIs offering full-time preparatory courses for the purpose of preparing students for entrance or placement tests for joining our mainstream schools, or for external examinations; and (iii) Foreign System Schools (FSS).  We estimate that there are currently about 1,000 such PEIs which would be covered under the new regime, and that about 30% of them would opt to undergo EduTrust certification.

     The proposed regulatory features under the new regime warrant some elaboration.  The PE Bill will impose clearly defined obligations on PEIs in areas like premises, courses, managers and advertisements.  Non-compliance would impact the validity periods and the renewability of their registrations.  Currently, PEIs hold most of the information regarding the quality of their offerings.  Under the enhanced registration framework, these PEIs must disclose relevant information regarding teachers, courses and school facilities, so that consumers can make informed decisions on the appropriateness of a PEI to meet their needs.  We will strengthen our audit regime to conduct the audit checks and enforcement inspections on PEIs' declarations and obligations.  PEIs which satisfy the stipulated requirements will be registered and the validity of registrations can range from one to six years, depending on the inspectorate's assessment of each PEI.

     Mr Michael Palmer asked how a PEI could be penalised for breaching the standards under the new regulatory regime.  Currently, the only penalty is de-registration.  But we feel that a full range of calibrated responses will enable the authority to better incentivise desirable business practices and behaviour and punish non-compliance.  So, under the PE Bill, we will retain de-registration for severe offences.  We will add new measures such as financial penalties, and the imposition of additional conditions of registration on errant PEIs.  Further, instead of the existing one-off registration, PEIs would be required to renew their registrations periodically.  This adds, I believe, to the motivation for PEIs to consistently meet required standards.

     Dr Lily Neo commented on misconduct by student agents.  This is also an area where we have concerns.  Past complaints against student agents largely involved the use of false or misleading information.  The PE Bill will stipulate corrective measures for any person, including student agents, who publishes misleading or false advertisements or promotional materials relating to PEIs and the courses offered.  Such misrepresentation will include the improper use of quality labels, symbols and trademarks of PEIs in advertisements.

     Finally, the authority will also establish mechanisms for the redress of grievances.  Aggrieved students, whether local or foreign, may seek to resolve their disputes with the PEIs through an officially-appointed dispute resolution scheme.  Despite these added measures to protect students' interests, I must highlight that risks can only be mitigated, not eliminated altogether.  Prospective students seeking assistance from student agents should conduct their own due diligence checks on the track records of such agents and the authenticity of their representations.

     Let me move on now to talk a little bit about the EduTrust certification scheme.  In addition to setting minimum standards for PEIs, the long-term development of a strong PE sector requires the identifiable presence of stronger players.  To complement the basic regulatory tier, a voluntary certification scheme called EduTrust, will provide a mechanism for establishing quality differentiation.  EduTrust will replace "CaseTrust for Education".  EduTrust will build on CaseTrust's coverage on the protection of fees paid by students and introduce additional requirements, such as academic, financial and administration processes and student welfare matters.  PEIs will need to have qualified academic supervisors and teachers, and well-defined structures for programme development, assessment, progression and performance review.  In the area of student welfare, PEIs will be required to have clear fee and refund policies, effective complaint resolution procedures and adequate student counselling and support services.

     As part of the preparations for the implementation of the new regime, a public consultation will be launched soon to seek feedback from the industry, stakeholders and the public, on the features and requirements of the new regulatory regime.  More details on the enhanced registration and EduTrust frameworks then will be made available and we aim to consolidate the feedback and the suggestions, and table the Bill to Parliament in the second half of 2009.

     Sir, permit me to conclude.  The post-secondary sector raises capabilities in our human resource by providing pre-employment training in areas relevant to the global and local economy.  MOE will provide more places and industry relevant courses at our post-secondary institutions to enhance opportunities for Singaporeans to attain higher qualifications.  If the PE Bill is passed by this House later this year, we can expect to see the quality in the private education sector improve over time.  The PE sector can then properly fulfil its complementary role to our public education providers and strengthen Singapore's position as a global education hub.  I am confident the educational needs of Singaporean students and our economy will be well supported with these proposed changes.

Inculcating Values to Our Students

     Dr Ong Seh Hong: Sir, in 1965, slightly more than 40 years ago, Singapore had a population of about 1.9 million, comprising mainly of migrants from southern China and southern India, in addition to Malays.  In our short history of about 40 years, our population size has grown by about two-fold to about four million.  Before the 1960s, the majority of the population, as I said, was Malay, Chinese, and Indian migrants, leaving their homeland to come here to earn a living.  The thought of heading back to their motherland never left their minds. 

     In our short history of more than 40 years, we, as a young nation, have shared much institutional history and bonded together as a nation.  After four decades of nation-building, we have achieved a national cohesion based on multi-culturalism, religious harmony, meritocracy and the rule of law.  We share many collective experiences, such as HDB living, national service, food, and so on.  In short, we have developed a common identity and have inculcated a common value system as one people, one nation.

     Today, however, while we welcome new citizens and residents, there is a corresponding change in the population mix.  Between 2002 and 2007, our population grew by about 15%, but the racial composition is much more complex than a mere 15%.  For instance, it is common now to find students from mainland China in many of our schools.  We also noted that it is quite common to find Vietnamese, Indians, Burmese and even some Eastern European students in our fold.  For those from China and India, they come from very different parts of China and India, as compared to our forefathers who came mainly from the southern parts of China and India.  While these students add colour and spice up our society, they have posed a direct challenge to our shared value system that has been forged over 40 years.  Our shared common value system may now be diluted with an influx of many new Singaporeans who bring along their own history, culture and belief system.  For example, the common Singaporean law abiding characteristics may be alien to some of them.  They may find it hard to appreciate why a minor offence like littering has to incur a fine.  They may also find our weather too hot and our spicy food even hotter, and thus harder to share common interest with us.  They may not understand that our system of reward and promotion is based on meritocracy, and not who you are and whom you know.  Coming from a different system, the newcomer may find it hard to appreciate what is kampong spirit. 

     Another example is that – the game of cricket generated intense passion among the south Indians.  Even the Pakistanis and Indian new citizens among us take a keen interest in the national rivalry whenever India and Pakistan compete.  I wonder how they will respond when and if, for instance, after the bombing in New Delhi, an armed conflict took place between these two neighbouring countries.  These children from diverse backgrounds attend our schools together with our children.  We need to inculcate in them the Singapore value system.  We need to teach them to respect for the rule of law, the value of meritocracy, the appreciation of multi-racial and multi-culturalism and the respect for religious differences.  This will forge a more cohesive and stronger society in future.

Teaching of Mother Tongue

     Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) (In Mandarin ):  [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*. ]  As far as I know, in 2006, the Ministry of Education started a new curriculum for the teaching of the Chinese Language in 25 selected primary schools.  In 2007, this new curriculum was adopted for all Primary One and Two students in Singapore. Now, it has been extended to Primary Four and Five classes.  Has the Ministry done any evaluation on this new curriculum and method of teaching, and what kind of educational outcome has been achieved?

       This new method of teaching in primary schools emphasises the ability to listen and speak, but the ability to read and write was treated as secondary.  In the 105-page textbook used for first semester in Primary One, the first 66 pages were devoted to the study of phonetisation of the Chinese Language – Hanyu Pinyin.  In the first few chapters, whenever a less familiar word is encountered, only the Hanyu Pinyin is given, but not the actual Chinese character.  With this method of teaching, the students may master the pronunciation, but may not necessarily recognise which character is the correct word for it.

     Some educators believe that the teaching of phonetisation rather than the characters may reduce the burden of learning.  First, master the ability to speak and listen, then learn to read and write later.  However, the Chinese Language is not composed of phonetic alphabets.  If the pronunciation is not studied together with the recognition of the Chinese character itself, the students may not be able to connect the sound to the word.

     Another reform in this new Chinese Language pedagogy is to allow the students to use an electronic dictionary while taking composition examinations.  Although this is one way to reduce the learning burden, this will also lead to the students using the wrong word in the future.  Even for those who have learned under the old system where the pronunciation and Chinese character were learnt simultaneously, they would still make mistakes.

      The use of Hanyu Pinyin as a basic pedagogy in the teaching of Chinese Language has raised concern of its problem, there was an article published on the Lianhe Zaobao, stating that during a reading exercise at the best of the Chinese Language class amongst the classes of the Primary Four, the whole class, except the daughter of the author, mispronounced the words lai fo shi (Raffles) as cai fo shi.

      In Korea, a similar situation has landed the people in a cultural crisis.  Many young Koreans do not recognise the Han characters. So serious was the problem that 20 former Prime Ministers collectively sent a letter to President Lee Myung-bak to express their concern.  Although the situation there is not entirely the same as ours, the fundamental problem is the same – their language teaching emphasised on phoneticism and the younger generation could not connect the pronunciation to the characters.

      The implementation of the Chinese Language pedagogy of artificially segregating Chinese character and its pronunciation in the learning process by using phoneticism as the main way of teaching may not enable the students to learn the language properly.  It will bring about many problems, the future generation of Chinese students here may not be able to recognise the Chinese words as a result.

Teaching of Key Core Values in Schools

     Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, two years ago, I asked whether MOE was satisfied that the students who had completed their 10 years of basic education had a basic knowledge of the core values, like humility, integrity, loyalty, patriotism, compassion, respect for others and filial piety.  I ask again this year because I feel that not enough emphasis is being given to teaching such basic core values in our schools today.  We may produce students who are extremely gifted and top scorers in Mathematics, Science and computer literacy.  But what about their sense of integrity, humility or loyalty to their country?  Do they have the right values to make them useful and contributing citizens of Singapore when they graduate?

     Sir, our society is a reflection of the values which were taught to us when we were students.  Ideally, these values should have been taught by the parents at home.  But are all our parents equipped to teach their children the right values? Who taught basic core values to the generation before?

     Last month, I read in the TODAY newspaper about customers of a bank making false claims.  They said they were uneducated or employed in low-income jobs, so that they could claim compensation losses suffered as a result of investment in Lehman Brothers' products.  It was reported that a number of them were abusive and made threats.  Whilst I sympathise with these customers for having lost monies in buying such risky investments, I wonder about their loss of integrity when they made false statements so that they can claim compensation.  Are these people in a right position to teach the right values to their children?

     Last week, Ms Irene Ng spoke about a gracious society.  The fact is that for a gracious society to develop, we need core values like compassion, consideration and respect for others.  And we need these values to be taught not just for a few years in primary school but throughout the school curriculum until the student graduates from university.  In school, we teach the students to think critically.  But do we teach the students to appreciate the wonderful school education that he has received?  What about teaching the students to appreciate how the country has provided a comfortable life for the majority of its citizens?  Do we emphasise loyalty to the country?  Do our brilliant scholars whom we send overseas for their scholarships end up migrating overseas thinking that it is better to remain overseas because of better options?  Do our scholars who are sent overseas end up being grateful for the opportunities and return to serve the public humbly, or do they think that they deserve the scholarship because of their higher intellect?  What do we teach our students who are granted scholarships?

     Sir, may I urge the Ministry to ensure that all our students are taught the proper core values, so that our society can develop into a more gracious society with the right values inculcated in them, which should bind our country together.

     On another note, may I ask the Ministry for its policy on allowing schools to carry on with compulsory classes or tests during mid-year school holidays.  Would it not defeat the purpose of having a school break and allowing students to have proper rest during school holidays?  Is there any way in which we can reduce the stress in our school system, such that students will remember their time in school with fondness rather than with regret?

Character Building and Community Engagement in the Curricula

     Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: Sir, with the recent international incidents we have seen with Lehman Brothers, Satyam and previously with Enron, it underpins the importance of values and character-building in our young.  These cases are clear evidence of misuse of talent and misplacement of trust.  Both regionally and internationally, there is a strong Singapore branding and reputation with confidence in our people and systems to deliver quality.  Most importantly, there is an implicit trust in the integrity of Singapore, our people and systems.  This is founded in our core values of honesty, meritocracy, multi-culturalism and racialism.

     Given today's competitive environment and the focus on excellence and achieving success, we must ensure that we continue to place equal emphasis on character-building, values and individual accountability.  Inculcating sound moral values, sense of community, and accountability in our students, is an important facet that we must never neglect in our pursuit for excellence.  This is not solely the responsibility of schools.  However, given the important role that schools play for our young, and the amount of time our students spend in school, schools will have an important and complementary role in this regard.  It does sometimes worry me how Singaporeans speak of achievements of schools and students.  A common view of how good a school is has to be in terms of the number of straight As and awards that the school has received for academic achievements.  Academic achievements, success and standards are important in the acquisition of knowledge and the quality of educating our young.  However, the real test in quality of success of the schools will be seen from the impact, positive or negative, that the students have in the community and when they enter the workforce.

     In last year's Committee of Supply debate, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Masagos, in reply to questions raised by MPs, shared on MOE's focus on character development in the education system, and the many platforms, both formal and informal, in the curricula.  I am also glad to hear that we are continuing that focus, hearing from the MPs as well as Senior Minister of State Ms Grace Fu on the PERI Committee's recommendations, that this emphasis is continuing in primary education.  Senior Minister of State Mr Lui Tuck Yew also shared on the various platforms for character development in the universities and the community engagement.

     Character building cannot be taught in one lesson or in one term, nor can the outcome be easily measured.  It is a continual journey.  We need to ensure that this stays a continued priority, and focus on moral education and community engagement across all levels of education – primary, secondary and tertiary – continues in Singapore.  This is key to building our resilience as a people and nation.  I will also ask that we find more creative ways to make it fun and enjoyable for the key messages to stay and stick in our young.

          The Chairman:  Mr Hri Kumar is not present.  Ms Grace Fu.

     Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Sir, I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Jessica Tan, Dr Ong Seh Hong and Dr Lily Neo earlier on who asked about the teaching of values throughout our education system.  While the family plays a primary role in imparting values to their children, MOE agrees that schools have a major role to play in reinforcing the right values and civic behaviour.

     I would like to assure Members that MOE places great emphasis on the teaching of core values throughout all levels of education.  Values are taught both formally to students, and imbued indirectly through the course of the daily school experiences.  As Dr Lily Neo earlier pointed out, teachers can make use of "teachable moments" during the school day to inculcate values in their students.

     Within the formal curriculum, Civics and Moral Education (CME) is a key subject at all levels of primary, secondary and pre-university.  CME aims to develop good individuals and responsible citizens, focusing on the six core values of respect, responsibility, resilience, integrity, care and harmony.

     At the younger ages, teachers engage students through stories and other activities, using historical, contemporary as well as daily-life examples, to facilitate active discussion and personal reflection.  At the secondary and pre-university level, many students also actively take part in community work.

     Apart from the formal curriculum, schools make use of non-academic platforms such as co-curricular activities and the Community Involvement Programme (CIP) to help students internalise core values.  For example, the CIP emphasises service to the community and reinforces care and compassion for others and responsibility to the society.

     Values like loyalty to our nation and patriotism are taught through Social Studies lessons as well as National Heritage Tours and Learning Journeys to reinforce and consolidate what students learn in the classroom.  And in reply to Ms Jessica Tan, we do try to make learning more fun and engaging by bringing them outside the classroom to see the exhibits for themselves.

     This year, MOE developed resource materials on the Government’s Budget and Resilience Package to help our secondary and JC students understand the need for Singapore to remain resilient in the face of economic challenges, and highlight the role that the students can play in contributing to the nation.  As Members can see, we are quite relevant and quick in our response.

     The Institutes of Higher Learning also engage their students in thinking about the future of Singapore, our opportunities and challenges, through core modules that cover ethics, law, politics, culture and history.  I firmly agree with Dr Ong Seh Hong that while schools and teachers play a key role in values education, the learning of values cannot be the sole responsibility of our schools.  Parents and the community play an important part and schools must continue to work in close partnership with them to inculcate the desired values in students.

     To reinforce the right behaviour in their children, parents also need to support schools' efforts to maintain discipline and teach the right values.  We urge parents not to undermine efforts by the school to discipline their children when disciplinary measures are within school guidelines.  MOE believes that all stakeholders – parents, schools and the community – must work together to inculcate strong values in our young people.

     Sir, I would like to reply to Mr Low Thia Khiang in Mandarin, please.

     (In Mandarin):  [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*. ]  On the subject of teaching of the Chinese Language, we have made good progress with the implementation of the recommendations by the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee. The approach is to customise learning to meet the varying needs of students, place greater emphasis on developing oracy skills, strengthen the training of the teachers, and work more closely with community groups.

     One key recommendation was to implement a modular curriculum, as students enter primary schools with varying exposure to the Chinese Language. Results from the pilot implementation have been very positive. Students with little exposure to Chinese and who were placed in the "Bridging Group" had more opportunities to speak during Chinese lessons. This helped to spark keener interest in learning Chinese. The interactive activities have also resulted in a higher level of engagement in the pilot schools. The new Chinese curriculum has been successfully implemented in all schools in 2007 for Primary One to Two and Primary Three to Four in 2008. This year the new curriculum has been implemented in all schools for Primary Five students.

     MOE has also been working closely with our Chinese Language teachers in primary schools, all of whom have undergone a structured training programme. We must continue to find new and innovative ways of teaching Chinese, and equip our Chinese Language teachers with effective and engaging pedagogies to do so. When the Singapore Centre for Chinese Language is established later this year, it will be another avenue to enhance the in-service training for our Chinese Language teachers.

     We are encouraged to see increasing interest among our primary and secondary students towards learning Chinese. Notably, the percentage of Primary Six students offering Higher Chinese has increased from 24% in 2004 to 30% in 2008, while the percentage of students offering 'O' Level Higher Chinese has increased from 19% in 2004 to 27% in 2008.

     Mr Low Thia Khiang asked about the use of Hanyu Pinyin and its impact on the reading and writing of Chinese characters. At Primary One, Hanyu Pinyin is taught for the first 12-14 weeks. During this stage, students learn Hanyu Pinyin as a pronunciation tool, in tendem with mastering the recognition of basic characters frequently used by pupils in oral communication.  This approach allows characters to be introduced to Primary One students gradually. After the first phase of Hanyu Pinyin learning, students learn to recognise more Chinese characters by reading short passages. In order to prevent  an over-reliance on Hanyu Pinyin, the annotations are progressively removed year by year. Students also practise character writing and sentence-making in Primary One and Primary Two, after which they move on to writing paragraphs and short essays at upper primary.

     It is important that students learn all four skills well – listening, talking, reading and writing.  By teaching Hanyu Pinyin from Primary One, we equip our students with a foundational tool, to help them learn proper pronunciation in Mandarin. Our pupils learn Chinese Language through a combination of reading Chinese characters, pronunciation through Hanyu Pinyin, and the writing of Chinese characters.  Learning Hanyu Pinyin paves the way for our students to learn all four skills well.  Hanyu Pinyin plays an increasingly important role as a tool for keying in Chinese in the world of computers, electronic dictionaries and the Internet.

      (In English):  Mr Liang Eng Hwa suggested that the secondary school posting system takes into account proximity and sibling ties, I would like to comment that unlike the Primary One admission framework, the secondary school posting system is based on merit and choice.  A key strength of our education system is meritocracy.  It is a sensible system and one that we should preserve.  However, I agree that secondary school admission need not be based purely on the PSLE.  MOE has widened the gates with Direct School Admission, so that students with talents beyond academic excellence can also apply to schools of their choice.

     Dr Ong Seh Hong asked about the Integrated Programme (IP) and whether we have plans to extend this to more schools.  Two cohorts of IP students have graduated since the programme started in 2004.  Students say that the IP has honed their creative and critical thinking skills, and allowed them to stretch their intellectual potential. Teachers too, observe that IP students interact more and are highly independent learners.  In terms of academic outcomes, the first cohort has done well, comparable to their non-IP peers in the same schools, in the 2007 'A' Levels.  Overall, we believe that the IP has met its objective of providing a more holistic education to students.

     MOE is carefully studying if more students could benefit from the IP.  We need to study this carefully, as skipping the 'O' Levels may not be suitable for everyone.  The 'O' Levels still provide a useful benchmark for our students.

     Ms Denise Phua mentioned the Education Village in Darlington as a good example of integration between pupils with special learning needs and their mainstream peers.  MOE is working with selected mainstream and SPED schools - special education schools - to pilot and evaluate satellite partnerships, which incorporate the same principle of purposeful and appropriate integration between mainstream and SPED schools.  Two SPED schools, namely Pathlight School and Canossian School, are involved in satellite partnerships with schools such as Chong Boon Secondary and MacPherson Primary, where students learn in the same classroom, or take part in joint CCAs or social activities.  Through these planned and purposeful interactions, greater mutual understanding between the two groups of students is fostered.  This year, Townsville Primary will also form a satellite partnership with Pathlight School. Findings from the pilot, expected to be available at the end of this year, will be used to guide refinements of the satellite model.  Currently, nine SPED schools are co-located with mainstream schools.  Where possible, we will continue to co-locate SPED schools with mainstream schools to optimise opportunities for more interaction.

     On her point about use of IT, we would like to share that MOE has an online repository, edu.Mall 2.0, that provides teachers with MOE and commercially produced digital resources, as well as for schools to share their good ICT classroom practices.  In addition, school clusters have their own resource repository, iSHARE, for school-created teaching and learning resources.  This is for teachers to upload and share their resources within and across school clusters.  Since December 2008, more than 80,000 resources have been uploaded in iSHARE.