Head K - Ministry of Education

The Chairman:   Head K - Ministry of Education.   Mr Gan Kim Yong.

Education Policy

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang):   Sir, I beg to move,

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

      Sir, our policy of offering greater variety and customisation according to the capability of the students is a correct approach.   We ought to produce a few peaks of excellence while maintaining a high general level of academic achievements.   However, I would like to stress that our education policy cannot be focused only on academic achievements.   We must provide a holistic and balanced education for our children.   In Chinese, there are five words that described the five key aspects of education, de zhi ti qun mei, meaning moral values and character building, intelligence and knowledge, physical development, social skills and artistic skills.

      Sir, we have done very well in the academic aspects.   But I feel that we should strengthen our moral education and character development programmes.   Moral values are important as they provide a sense of responsibility, accountability and respect for others.   This is the basis of any interpersonal relationship, without which we cannot build a strong community.   Character development, on the other hand, is important as it gives the person strength and determination to overcome obstacles and realise his dreams in life.   I would like to repeat my call to the Ministry to review the moral education and character development programmes in our schools, such as the co-curriculum activities, the community involvement programme and the National Education programme.   Perhaps, it is time that we revamped these programmes to make them more relevant and more effective.   We could use the tsunami incident to teach our children values and character.   Perhaps, the older children may even be able to be involved in part of the relief and rebuilding efforts.   This would help reinforce what they learn in the classrooms.   I think more can be done in this area.   And it would be useful to form a taskforce to review our present programme.

      Sir, in our strive for excellence, we must also be mindful not to neglect students that need additional help.   This is in line with our philosophy of building a caring and inclusive community.   There are three categories of students whom we need to pay more attention.   Firstly, slower students.   We need to help slower students make progress and achieve success.   We need to give them encouragement and build their confidence.   In this regard, I would like to urge the Ministry to consider doing away with the remaining EM3 streaming at the primary level.   We can give schools more flexibility to decide how to differentiate among its students and provide learning support for them, without explicit streaming.

      Secondly, disabled students.   We must improve our facilities to allow greater integration of students with disabilities.   I have run kindergartens which include autistic children, and it is tough.   They need more time and more attention.   These students will also need greater financial support as they would require additional therapy to help them cope with the normal education programme.   The Government has provided additional funding for them, or perhaps more could be done.

      Thirdly, delinquent students.   We must provide counselling and support for students who have disciplinary problems.   Our objectives must be to try to keep them in schools, rather than to keep them out, so long as they do not affect other students in the school.   Therefore, I would like to urge the Ministry to take a more lenient approach in re-admitting students who have dropped out of schools.   The Minister has explained that these students must demonstrate a sincere desire to return to school before they are re-admitted.   I feel that this somewhat punitive approach is counter productive and I would like to urge the Ministry to reconsider.   If at all, the penalty should be on the parents, not on the children.

       Sir, education is the key to our future. It is for this reason that many changes have taken place over the last few years to finetune our policy and programmes.   However, education is a partnership.   Parents play a crucial role in this partnership.   It is therefore important that we communicate to the parents, explain to them and convince them.   The confusion during the recent registration exercise is a case in point.   Although the Minister has apologised, to be fair, it is not entirely the fault of the Ministry.   Parents and students are also partly responsible.

      Therefore, I would like to suggest that there should be a communication department within the Ministry that focuses on communicating its policies to the schools and to the parents.   This way, we can strengthen the educational partnership and make our education policy more effective.

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, bold changes have been proposed for and made to our education system.   In part, due to complaint of excessive stress on our students, adjustments are being made to the syllabi and course content.   Yet, it may seem ironical that some people, probably who had also asked for the changes, are now concerned that these changes could undermine its quality.   Yet others are concerned that this could be seen as an attack on our work ethics, which could send the wrong signal to our young that their traditional emphasis on hard work and efforts is wrong, and that one only needs to be creative and entrepreneurial to be successful.   Yet, we all know that hard work and efforts are important factors of success.   These concerns are genuine and not misplaced.   There are thus calls from the public to the Ministry to ensure that the changes do not lead to a reduction in the quality of our education system and the erosion of the value of hard work and efforts.  

      There is also the perception that despite the announced changes, things are not really different, and children are working just as hard as before, if not harder. This, they say, is aggravated by the shift to the 5-day week.   Schools are perceived to cram the 5 1/2 days' workload into five days.   As a result, some parents of secondary school children told me that their children who used to leave school at 3.00 pm now do so at about 6.00 pm.   Another told me that his son leaves his school even later, after 7.00 pm.   Because of this development, the family now has even less time together.   Parents perceive different causes for the problem.   But they all have one plea to the Ministry and schools:   please look into ways to give time back to the children and the family.   Some parents are impatient with the pace of change.   They felt that the time between the announcement of the change and the implementation is too long.   A case in point is the change to the teaching of the Chinese language.   The proposed changes will not take effect until 2008.   They do not want their children to miss out on the changes.   Can the Ministry thus reduce the time lag between the announcement and the implementation of our policy change and hasten the changes already announced?

      Some employers have also expressed their concern over the perceived fall in young job applicants' mastery of the English language.   They asked:   how could this be happening when students are getting better grades in the subject?   They asked whether the examination grades are suffering from high inflation.   Yet another group of the public has expressed concern that our young lack the appreciation of our history and the life experiences of our older generations.   They wonder what is happening with National Education in schools.   They asked whether National Education is achieving its purpose.

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng: Sir, three major points.  

(1)   Certainty in syllabi.   While Singaporeans often complain that the school system is stressful, the question is often whether the stress is from the school or whether it is from outside the school, namely, the parents.   My children tell me that their schoolmates from China find it more relaxed and less stressful when they study in Singapore as compared to their schools in China.   The Ministry may take measures to reduce workload on children to reduce stress.   It has initiatives, such as "Teach Less, Learn More".   When there is an announcement on syllabi reduction, instead of being happy, parents get frantic.   When you tell parents that examinations will not be based on the standard textbooks, they panic.   Parents will tap into their intelligence network to find out the right tutor who had helped a friend's child get solid grades for the last year's PSLE.   It is the element of uncertainty that drives parents bananas in their endeavour to over-compensate for that void created in the reduction in school work.   What the Ministry and the schools must do is to communicate to the parents as to what is required and spell out clearly what is in the syllabi at the beginning of each year.   Nothing causes more stress and drives up the level of kiasu-ness than uncertainty.

(2)   Outcomes of education.   As the education system evolves and we churn out more diploma and degree graduates, the Ministry will need to assess the quality of graduates that come into the workforce.   Employers' feedback provide an excellent source of feedback.   Only then can we assess the outcomes of our education system.

      I would like to take the case of medical technologists who graduate from Singapore Polytechnic.   Compared to medical technologists from overseas, our graduates are armed with theoretical knowledge but have very little practical skills.   More often than not, we have to get our foreign-trained technologists to give further practical training to our local technologists.   The main reason is that when they are posted to the public hospitals for their practical attachment, the technologists there are too busy to teach them to allow them hands-on training.   Examinations do not tell everything.   Performance in the real world does.

      (3)   Learning Malay.   Sir, I remember that, as a primary school child, I had to attend Malay classes for the first four years.   Most of us thought that it was a waste of time as it was a non-examination subject.   However, in the course of work, the basic foundation I had in Malay became important.  Today, I converse in Malay with many of my foreign patients, and it has made a difference.  With Malaysia and Indonesia as our neighbours, it will certainly be useful to foster better relations with our neighbours by being able to communicate with them in Malay.   We need to allow an avenue for our school children to be exposed to basic conversational Malay.   However, learning has to be made interesting.   As one student put it, "No one will pay attention to non-examination subjects."   Therefore, the onus is on the Ministry to come up with better creative teaching tools.

The Chairman:   Mr David Lim has withdrawn his cut.   Mdm Ho Geok Choo.   Six minutes.

Education System

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast):   Sir, the education system has been going through a strict diet regime.   When it is deemed to be too full, it gets trimmed, as in the latest "Study Less and Learn More", and when it is deemed to be too lean, it gets loaded, as in the past when the curriculum was beefed up to ensure that our students stay all-rounded.  All these measures were so targeted to keep our education system in good shape.   But, just like any dieting programme, the best results are obtained from a combination of a regular exercise regime and an accurate diet prescription.

      I am glad to note that MOE is slowly evolving to that desirable state of outcomes.   For this, we need to engage all stakeholders.   To date, we have been engaging academic staff, parents and students in some of the policy matters.   I say some only because it is only in recent times that the MOE has made the conscious effort of holding dialogue sessions to hear out the views of students on matters pertaining to their education or to the society in which they live in.  I have three issues to raise.

      On the first issue, I would like to comment on the CCA/CIP for JCs and the schools in general.   Sir, I understand that the PEARLS framework system has been provoking the outcries of students for many years since its implementation in 2000.   I note in several of the tea sessions that I conducted with the ITE, polytechnic, JC and university students in 2003 and 2004, under the Feedback Unit, students did not hesitate to share the downside of a system that served to inculcate and perpetuate a paper chase mentality except that this time they literally chased points.   This is a sad state of affairs, as we know that CCA/CIP should throw up desired attributes, such as leadership, passion, commitment and time involvement, which are less quantifiable than the descriptors of "participation", "achievement" and "representation" under the PEARLS system.

      In fact, the emphasis on the points to be attained had driven students to the point that some students had learned to "outbeat" the system by taking advantage of the score descriptors.   The score descriptors "representation" and "achievement" under the PEARLS system are not an accurate reflection of the bigger purpose of what the CCA/CIP should be inculcating in a character.   For example, two students A and B could both be engaged in a school approved-initiated outside club activity.

      Student A displayed top ratings in all attributes of leadership, commitment, passion, time and effort devoted to the activity.   Unfortunately, under the PEARLS framework, he failed to fulfill the descriptor of "representation", as points given under "representation" are only for competitions.   Moreover, more points are given to MOE-organised competitions.   Being in an outside club activity, even if it was possible to organise competitions, the fact remains that the scoring will be at a lower rating because they are not MOE-organised.

      Student B may be less involved in the outside activity, so that some time could be spent in the school activity, such as the chess club.   He would have fulfilled the descriptors or "representation" and "achievement".   All that student B needed to do was to attend a few chess games, then sign up for a competition.   In this instance, student B would be allocated points for "representation" and "achievement" even if he did not win the competition, whereas student A who excelled in the outside activity would have gotten a zero for both "representation" and "achievement".

      Sir, many students have been affected negatively by the PEARLS framework, especially if their scores are at the border of an upper and lower grade, eg, between an A and B because of failure to fulfill the "representation" and "achievement" descriptors.

      Sir, on the recognition of CCA and CIP for scholarship awards, I would like to ask whether the PEARLS framework would be the only evaluation tool to be used.   I would request that, as a supplement to verify the true involvement of a student in an activity, perhaps a testimonial written by the mentor or coach of the activity and verified by the school could be used.

      Next, on CIP assessment, I understand that under this scheme, students had also learnt to "outbeat" the system by going round to chalk up hours but not actually getting involved in a meaningful way.   Sir, I would like to know what is MOE's proposed implementation process to ensure the continuous involvement and feedback of all stakeholders on matters that impact them.

      On my second issue, I would like to raise about teachers in school.   It has been reported that teachers have left the profession because they could not cope with the additional administrative demands imposed on them.   How does MOE intend to go about helping these teachers to cope?

      Thirdly, I would like to touch on students with disabilities.   I would like to relate the experience of one particular Primary 2 student.   In the eyes of his project teammates, he had become responsible for slowing down the work of his class because of his slowness.   This child undergoes the Learning Support programme in school.   His classmates have creatively changed the label of Learning Support to "Lousy and Stupid" and he is called lousy and stupid by them.   This has affected him much, such that he has developed eating disorders.

      Sir, I am not against integrating children with disabilities in the main school.   But I would like to know what are MOE and the schools doing about situations like this.

Streaming

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) (In Mandarin):   Sir, in the year 2000, MOE launched the subject-based pilot classrooms plan.   I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry is ready to fully implement the plan with a view to ultimately replace the current streaming system.   I think the true spirit of   "teaching according to students' ability" is to respect individual students' natural endowment and strength and teach them the corresponding contents and methods.   Give them the corresponding space and opportunities so as to lead students to realise their potential.

     By euphemism, the current streaming system is described as "teaching according to ability".   In reality, it favours the two subjects of English and Mathematics.   The Mathematics examinations seem to test the students' proficiency in English to comprehend the questions that are set rather than their mathematical skills. This type of elimination system based on the command of English fails to fully assess and discover the students' natural endowment and aptitude.

      If a student should lose the chance to go on studying their strong subjects such as Chinese or Science just because their English is poor, can it be said that we are streaming them according to their ability? Worse, the superficial elimination system has left in the minds of many students the intangible branding or inferior complex.

      School rankings have caused principals to avoid putting resources and attention on such students. This makes them feel rejected and hopeless, thereby becoming a social problem and towards juvenile delinquency.

      At the same time, the polarisation of streaming results in addictive education.   Many parents give their children too much private tuition.   The meaning of the quest for knowledge is distorted.   This streaming system results in serious social contradictions. There is this student from the SAP school who sparks a war of words with the neighbourhood school students over the issue of boy-girl relations. They use words full of class discrimination and set up the alarm bell of social segmentation.

       If we sit on the fence and do nothing, then this will become a heavy price to pay later. Year in and year out, I have repeatedly asked for a review of the streaming system because it brings ills which are far-reaching.   I sincerely hope that the Education Minister will boldly deal with the present streaming system to fully meet the demand and concept of teaching according to students' ability.   Having truly developed our talents, we must residually abolish this narrow and rigid streaming system and expand the concept of subject-based classrooms by implementing the subject-based teaching system that is based on students' ability. This is very important.

Recognising Excellence and Helping the Academically Challenged

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh):   Mr Chairman, Sir, I have said in the Chamber before that I am glad that we are beginning to recognise excellence in education in all its possible forms and not only in academic performance.   But I have a small concern which I would like to ask MOE.   Once we have recognised our brightest, whatever field it may be, should we not continue to develop them even further?   I would like to ask MOE what are the resources that are being allocated to further develop our young in whatever area apart from academic.

      There is also the need to develop the balanced individuals.   Holistic education is what we want, as what Mr Gan has mentioned earlier.   A child whose only strength is academic will exhibit inadequacies, some of them may be disruptive to family and society.

     Emotional development is extremely important, for instance, compassion for others, culture awareness and appreciation, especially in a multi-racial Singapore. This must be imbibed in our young during their early years. We do not want a lopsided emphasis on the academic aspect of education at the expense of other important areas like character building, soft skills, appreciation of the arts and others.

        Sir, I would like to ask MOE what are we doing to enlighten parents in this area.   I know that it may not be MOE's view to seek to educate parents, but as partners in education, parents must be made to understand that their children must be educated in all aspects, not only on academics.  This overwhelming emphasis on academic education is something we have created in our desperation to develop as a nation, something we must unlearn and discard.

     My third point, Sir, is in relation to the academically challenged.   Our teachers must be given proper resources and skills to identify the academically challenged children at their early age. Time may be of the essence in these cases. What more can be done to assist this group of children apart from the LSP programme that has been mentioned many times, I would like to know what MOE is doing and what kind of resources is being provided to assist our teachers and the system to assist the young who are academically challenged. Addressing this early will bear us fruits in the long term.

Mindset Change

Dr Lily Neo:   Sir, there is a need for MOE to promote a mindset change in our people with regard to stressful education in Singapore. Stress of education is still being faced by students and parents despite the announcement of MOE for significant cuts in curricula, change of teaching and examination systems, modified ranking and admission procedures.

     There should be more effort put in to better inform parents and teachers about the recent initiatives of MOE.   MOE should step up public education to enhance a positive approach and correct attitudes of parents and teachers alike.   Should there not be more emphasis on preparing our young children to be the successful individuals of tomorrow who are innovative, confident, inspired, informed and globally savvy citizens?    Parents must be convinced that there are the attributes that their children need for a leg-up in the job market and for success in their careers.

     Innovative skills and creativity in our children, the attributes which we want to cultivate, will not come from just getting good academic scores.   Young children may lose the joy of learning, questioning, exploring if they are overloaded with school work and other extra-curricular activities with no free time of their own.

     There is a need to promote a mindset change that every child will be given the opportunity to develop his or her best potential, albeit not limited to just the few popular professions. Success must be further defined without stereotyping of certain professions only.   MOE must ensure that teachers observe the guideline changes that were announced.   It would certainly defeat the purpose of cutting the syllabus of various subjects if the teachers still insist on teaching on them.

The Chairman:   Dr Neo, your time is up.   Dr Loo Choon Yong.

Student Development

Dr Loo Choon Yong (Nominated Member):   Sir, we have allocated $6.16 billion or 20.8% of total expenditure of Government to education. This is the second largest expenditure.   I believe it is a very worthwhile one.

     Education for our children rightly deserves our attention and resources.   They are our future.   More importantly, education provides social mobility that the meritocratic society must have.    It is a social leveller.   A boy from a poor family can make it to the top.   He can be educated at the finest university at public expense. This is something I am very proud of about Singapore.

     I support the Government's spending on education and the PM's Edusave top-up for every student.   I know I am speaking on the cut, but I actually hope we can spend even more money on educating our children because this is virtuous welfare.

     Sir, the Prime Minister has promised that our schools will teach less so that the students can learn more.   And I agree with Minister Tharman that we should nurture and inspire the next generation of Singaporeans.    And through their ideas, convictions and passions, we will make the future of our country.

     But how is the Minister going to make all these noble ideals a reality?   The teachers, principals as well as many MOE officials have grown up in our schools and universities that have emphasised content, grades, rote learning. Can the Minister share with us his plans and strategy and methodology for retraining the teachers and principals to the mindset that my colleague, Dr Lily Neo, talked about?

     I know it is a lot easier to teach content than to inspire and nurture students to new habits of mind.   Contents are more tangible and measurable. So teachers, principals and inspectors will find it easier to account for their work.   But we all know that the content rapidly becomes outdated in this fast changing world.   Even medical knowledge has a half life of seven years only.

     Sir, I urge all of us to be brave, the teachers especially, to be bold, as we embark on this new course.   This is a bold fundamental shift of direction for our education system.   Or in sailing language, it is a tack and not just trimming the sails.  For myself, if at the end of the 10 years' education, we have instilled in our youths the curiosity and passion for learning and impart to them the arts and skill of learning, we would have succeeded and all the money would have been worth it.

     Sir, recently, I re-read PM's Address at the National Day Rally last year - 23 insightful and inspiring paragraphs, the result of his conversations with 10 school principals and, of course, his own experience.   I recommend that the Minister make these 23 paragraphs compulsory reading for every teacher and principal if he has not done so.   It will inspire teachers and principals to be bold and creative and be agents of change and not obstacles to change.

     Sir, I am optimistic.   Last Sunday, I am sure we have all read about the "zi cha" man - a hawker who sells seafood guotiao or whips up a 10-course dinner, shark's fin, suckling pig, etc.   This is a hawker who has a dream to sail around the world. He is forking out $8,000 to sail from the Caribbean to Liverpool.   To prepare for this sail, he has to learn about navigational rules in the Atlantic, sail routes, currents, coastal, coordinates, hazards and so on.   He continues to nurture his passion - to learn and grow.   He is a hawker. This is the kind of people we hope our schools will produce.   We will then have a learning nation and we will excel.   Workers will no longer need REAP and other retraining programmes because if workers are constantly improving themselves, they will actually be ahead of the curve.

     Now, parents.   Most parents are interested in the education of their children. Would the Minister be considering new and novel ways to tap this large resource of adjunct teachers free of charge?   Parents want their children to do well and get ahead.   Unfortunately, many of them are responsible for killing their children's interest in learning when they force-feed them with assessment books, home tuition and, in recent times, enrichment classes.

     Sir, can the MOE not work out ways for parents to participate more constructively in the education of their children and have a stronger parent-teacher partnership in experiential learning?   For a start, may I suggest MOE prepare materials to guide parents so that they can bring their children on outings where they can bond as a family, as well as learn things together.

    Opportunities abound in Singapore - visit the Arts Museum for art appreciation, tree-top walk to learn more about nature, flora and fauna and protect the environment, visit Sungei Buloh to learn about mangrove swamps and the life forms there, visit the Wax Museum to learn about Singapore's history, and Chinatown and Little India to learn about our heritage.   The materials should contain information, learning opportunities, learning points, highlights and thoughtful questions, not the assessment book type of questions, one question only one answer.   This will equip the parents for the task so that they would not find it too daunting.   If we do this well, we will kill three birds with one stone.   The children's curiosity gets aroused or stimulated.   They will feel loved, parents will feel purposeful in educating their children and the joy of doing that is a great experience.   And maybe even the fourth bird, some parents may actually be rekindled to want to learn again.   We can also extend this to the area of community service.

The Chairman:   Your time is up, Dr Loo.   Mr Chiam See Tong.   Four minutes.

Foreign Students

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir):   Sir, I wish to address on two issues: one, the competition in local schools for foreign students; and two, the admission of foreign students to our recently opened Music Conservatory.

     Recent reports in local press indicate that the students in Victoria Junior College are not coping well with the challenge from foreign students.   One pupil complained, "When I see them getting better results than me, I feel inferior and pressured."   Others suffer emotions, ranging from jealousy and envy to awe and admiration.   A local parent commented that, "Foreign students would also take away jobs from our kids at the end of the day."  What disturbs me is that we have taught our pupils almost everything in school, except confidence - how to be confident in oneself.   I think confidence in oneself is an important element which could determine whether a person succeeds or fails in his life's journey, which is a long one.   It is often said that life is a marathon.   So the success or failure in junior college examinations is only a very small part in the life-long journey.     The important point is that it must not be able to destroy the confidence of a student.

      In response to the said newspaper report, SM Goh said that, "What the junior college students experience is nothing.   Wait till they go out into the globalised world.   They shall meet challenges which are many times stiffer than what they experienced from the foreign students in schools."

      Whatever it is, our students must be brought up to have confidence in themselves.   If they have that kind of positive attitude they shall have better chances of succeeding in life.   Maybe a good example is what Dr Loo has said, the zi cha man, he has got so much confidence he is willing to sail alone around the world.

      I hope the Minister could arrange for regular talks by successful Singaporeans in schools to inculcate confidence in the students.

      My second point is on the enrolment of foreign students in our newly opened music conservatory.   Singapore has only one conservatory and has proven to be very popular.   The enrolment to the conservatory is high and competition for places is keen.   I know Singapore observes meritocracy.   In the case of admissions to the conservatory, I am certain that only those who qualify could get admitted, yet, I read in the newspapers that parents are complaining that too many foreign students are enrolled in the conservatory and their own children, who are Singaporeans, have missed out.   Has the admission procedure not been made clear to those parents?   Could the Minister explain whether there is a policy to gain foreign talents in our conservatory at the expense of local students?

Character Development

Dr Lily Neo:   Sir, with the recent changes in the education system, I would like MOE to give more emphasis to character building of our students to develop values in them that will enrich their lives as individuals, and as members of society.   Desirable basic character traits, such as courtesy, honesty, responsibility, fairness, filial piety, consideration for others and obedience to legitimate rules, in other words, knowing the good, desiring the good and doing the good, should be fostered.   May I ask MOE what steps are being taken to ensure the character building of our students?

      It is important that such values be reinforced without being indoctrinated and made interesting through interactive modes instead of being a study subject.   Could MOE ensure that such character building education yield effects that students could relate to and apply to themselves?

      The character traits should permeate the students' environment.   How does MOE ensure that students see good examples in all aspects of school life such as through the behaviour of teachers, the administrative staff, the faculty and the policies of the institution?

Mr Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central) (In Mandarin):   Mr Chairman, Sir, in October 1997, MOE implemented the student Community Involvement Plan (CIP).   I support the scheme because, apart from inculcating knowledge to the students, the teachers also have the responsibility of teaching the students how to become good citizens.   Such community involvement would build up the students' sense of responsibility and their compassion for the old.

      During my visits to my constituency, I notice that younger people are now more willing to be involved in community activities.   Now that it has been seven years since we implemented this scheme, what has been the progress?   Are we encouraging more young people to become volunteers?   During the tsunami episode, we find that Singaporeans are more concerted in their efforts to help others.   I know that some schools have also mobilised their students and rallied their support for such a charity work.   I think we should have more such activities so that our people could work towards a caring society for all.

Religious Knowledge

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to speak on the importance of deepening the teaching of religious knowledge in our schools.

      Sir, our students in school are at an age where they are most receptive to learning.   Our educators have made excellent progress in imparting a wealth of academic knowledge to them in their formative years.   Recent changes in the education system envision that our students will become thinking adults.   I applaud this approach and look forward to seeing more thinkers than rote learners.

      Sir, while we are in the midst of effecting these changes in how our young are taught, I ask that their personal development too be considered.   Our multi-cultural, racial and religious heritage demands that we develop a more mature society through imparting knowledge about how we live in harmony.   Religious knowledge, imparted in a way that is not politicised, will be an effective tool because it teaches our youth to recognise and respect the beliefs of their fellow citizens.   I understand that currently, in higher primary schools, the students are taught a little bit about the festivities celebrated by other races, while the secondary school students learn some very basic information on religions.   I find that inadequate.

     I hope the Ministry will consider the introduction of teaching more about the different religions and starting them in early primary school years.   We should not just touch on religions superficially.   We should gradually build up the students' understanding of all the major religions in Singapore.   We must aim that, at the end of the lower secondary schools, our students understand the fundamental principles and values of each religion, such as the five pillars of Islam, the four noble truth of Buddhism, and so on.   We should let students know the significance of one another's religious practices.   In addition, we should also arrange for our students to visit places of worship of the different religions.   In so doing, we could nurture cultural and religious sensitivities of our students and build a more gracious and even more harmonious society.

Sports as Co-curricular Activities

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman:   Mr Chairman, every year, we hear repeated calls to make the system less stressful, less competitive, allowing our children to enjoy school, etc.   I used to hear them but was not able to fully appreciate the extent of these calls until my children started going to school.

      Stress level is high, not only in classrooms but also outside the classrooms, not to mention in our own homes, especially outside the classrooms during CCAs.   Sir, my concern is how these CCAs are conducted, the spirit behind it and the implications on the children.   Specifically, I would like to focus on CCAs for sports.

      When I was in school, I remember that the policy then was to have every student to be members of one uniformed group, one sports and another from another category.   This ensured that students had a well-rounded exposure to the different categories of CCAs, or ECAs then, which offered diverse and unique experiences.   Sir, this does not seem to be the case today.   In fact, in the spirit of decentralisation of MOE, my fear now is that every school has its own way of managing their CCAs.   Sir, while I appreciate the value of providing school autonomy, I urge the Ministry to keep a close tab on what is happening on the ground and its impact on the children.

     I understand that in some schools the focus on sports CCA is primarily competitive sports.   Thus, in the old times, we joined a particular sport as a CCA because we enjoyed the game.   Today, at least in some schools, students can only join the CCA for a particular sport, only if they are competitively good at.   They have to undergo a trial or an audition, and only those who are good at, and who will be able to represent their school competitively, will be selected.

      Sir, within such a system, obviously there will be a sizable number of children who will end up not being selected as the school will only take in the numbers that are necessary to focus their resources that will bring glory to the school.   The end result is that you have students, eager initially, to be part of the sports fraternity, being rejected from one sporting group to another.   Rejection is an understatement.   I know it personally because I have seen it in my daughter and several of her friends.   I know I am not the only parent who is saying that.

      Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to ensure that the Ministry has a consistent policy with regard to CCA for sports in school so that we do not have a situation where sports is seen only in the competitive sense but rather that one can actually enjoy the sport.   This is very much in line with our approach of encouraging sports for all. 

Response

The Minister for Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Sir, first let me thank the Members who have spoken so far for their constructive comments and the broad support that they have expressed for the directions that we are pursuing in education.  I should also thank them for the passion that never escapes in the debate on education in this House, a passion that is not surprising because, as Mr Gan Kim Yong has said, children are really our key asset in Singapore.  So, if we prepare them well, if we help them each to discover their own strengths and talents, and nurture in them the qualities they may need to do in life and to play a responsible role in the community, we will be preparing Singapore well for the future.

     Mr Gan, together with Dr Tan Boon Wan, Dr Lily Neo, Dr Ong Seh Hong, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Mr Zainudin Nordin and Dr Loo Choon Yong, all had a common theme underpinning their comments.  They all spoke about the need to develop our students holistically.  I agree with them that education is much more than about grades.  The knowledge that our students acquire in school, and tested on, is important.  It is often the building block for future knowledge and learning.  But more important is to nurture an enquiring spirit, a certain zest for learning that carries them through life.  And just as important, we want our children to be imbued with sound, moral and social values, especially the compassion and respect for others that make for a cohesive society and to develop the strength of character that allows them to ride over difficulties and live life to the fullest.  Values and character development have always been integral to the education our schools provide and are now more relevant than ever.  So I fully agree with Members who have spoken about the need to keep in focus these broader dimensions in education.

     There have been several changes in our education system in recent years.  There are not too many and they are not taking place too soon.  If we do not keep evolving, as Mr Gan Kim Yong put it, our children will grow up unprepared for the world - a fast changing world.  In the leading Chinese cities, major changes are taking place in curriculum every year, even in the learning of the Chinese language and in the way the schools and universities are being freed up to pursue new paths.

     We are looking outwards, taking ideas from around the world and implementing them quickly.   In the UK, Germany, Japan and the US, there is great dissatisfaction with the state of schools, and the desire to move ahead with the reforms, but their problems are complex.  The ideological currents often run deeper and their teachers are often organised to oppose reforms.  So our ability to move ahead with educational reforms in Singapore is a major advantage - our ability to revise the curriculum, to keep it relevant, to train our teachers, recruit new ones and to let some schools run ahead with the new models of education.  The recent changes in our schools are summarised in the blue booklet that Members might have picked up before the debate.  But the thrust of the changes and refinements we are making in education can be summarised in two words - opportunity and flexibility.

    Across the system, we are opening up more choices, doors and paths to help our young discover their talents and develop them as far as we can.  That is the essence of what we are doing, and we will keep communicating this to parents and students so that they understand the options being put before them and be opened to them.

     Our schools now provide far more diverse opportunities than they did five years ago.  It is most clearly evident amongst our secondary schools and junior colleges, but now our primary schools are also developing distinct strengths in diverse areas, from sports and arts, to outdoor adventure, and in the way we are bringing IT into teaching and learning.  This is a new phase of diversity that we have embarked on.  It is diversity that will be built on a common commitment to a high quality core curriculum that every primary school will deliver to prepare every child well for secondary education.  We have just awarded 16 primary schools additional resources, up to $100,000 a year, to develop their own special strengths under the Programme for School-based Excellence.  We will scale this up in the coming years as more good proposals come through for schools wanting to develop niche programmes.

     We are also recognising more diverse strengths amongst students, beside their performance in national examinations.  This is an important step.  Last year, we introduced the discretionary school admission system for our integrated programme schools which were given the flexibility to take in students on their own merit-based criteria.  This year, we will be extending the discretionary scheme to our independent schools, our autonomous schools, other schools with well-established niches and our junior colleges for between 5-20% of their total intake of students.  This will take place at the end of this year for admission 2006.

     Mother tongue language learning is also being reformed to help students develop an abiding interest in the language.  We have been making refinements to our system of ability-based education by introducing more flexibility within the streaming system.

2.45 pm

     Mr Gan Kim Yong and Mdm Ho Geok Choo also spoke about the need to cater to students with special needs in our schools.  We will continue to find ways to provide them with opportunities, encourage and spur them on, and to help them reach the full potential.  We have committed $220 million by 2008 to improve the special education schools and accelerate the redevelopment of nine existing special education schools.  And we are looking at new ways to include certain groups of special education children within mainstream schools.  My colleague, MOS Chan Soo Sen, will elaborate on this later.

     MOE shares Members' views on the importance of character building, as part of the holistic education that our children should get.  We want to give them a broad range of experiences as they grow up which provides them with the opportunities to develop character, learn critical life skills and imbibe values.  To provide this, we have to do less of some things in education.  The system is already full to the brim.  So we want to provide more space for character education, sports participation, independent learning or research.  We have to reduce some other things that we do in education.  Otherwise, we are overloading our schools and teachers, and run the risk of turning off our students.

     We, therefore, have to make careful choices on what to take out as much as what to put in.  And as we do so, we have to avoid eroding the core strengths that have got us here.  We have to achieve a new balance in education that provides broad-based holistic education for our students without compromising the learning in school that prepares our students well for post-secondary education wherever they go.

     Our basic approach, as we go forward, is to go for more quality and less quantity.  We will focus on the quality of learning, quality of CCA and community engagements and the quality of the whole school experience that the student goes through.  We will seek to cut back on quantity, careful and calculated cuts, so as to provide more “white space” in the curriculum, space which gives schools and teachers the room to introduce their own programmes, to inject more quality into teaching, to reflect more, to have more time for preparing lessons and to give students themselves the room to exercise initiative and to shape their own learning.

     We are reviewing this thoroughly in MOE and in our schools.  We are working towards a 10-20% cut in our secondary school syllabuses in 2007-2008, similar to what we will do in the new JC curriculum from next year.  We will do this judiciously.  I absolutely agree with Dr Tan Boon Wan that any cuts should not undermine the core knowledge and skills that our young should have or lead to an erosion of the ethic of hard work.  And I should clarify that our objective is not to reduce stress per se.  Our objective is to redistribute the load that students currently occupy themselves with from an excessive focus on academic and examinations towards a broader focus on the holistic aims in education.

     Our schools are moving ahead with their own initiatives.  Victoria Junior College decided this year to shorten teaching periods and end school an hour earlier each day, to signal students the importance of engaging in their own learning. They also created on-line discussion forums instead of the regular General Paper lessons to encourage students to express their views freely.  They now find that, on their own, students participate more actively in the on-line discussions.

     Schools are also reassessing the number of tests and examinations that they conduct.  Tests and examinations have an important role to play in giving both teachers and students a sense of how they are progressing, and in motivating our students to go over what they have been taught to make sure they have understood it.  But an excessive focus on examinations tends to narrow teaching and learning. It discourages students from venturing beyond what might be tested.

     Many schools have gone ahead to experiment with different approaches to assess how pupils are progressing, particularly in the primary school years.  Miss Eunice Olsen had asked during the Budget debate whether MOE would consider removing examinations for Primary 1 and 2.  These are decisions which the schools will have to make.  This year, two-thirds of our primary schools have decided to remove at least one of the two continuous assessment (CA) tests that they had conducted for Primary 1 students.  Many have done likewise at the upper levels.  More schools have retained their mid-year and year-end semestral examinations in order to get timely feedback on student performance.

     I agree fully with Mr Gan Kim Yong and Dr Lily Neo that we have to keep up communication with our stakeholders, especially our parents, as we proceed with changes in education.  We will keep doing this,  first and foremost, through our schools themselves. We will also continue to use the media and MOE information booklets like the one we have just distributed.  We want parents to know where we are heading, and how they can help their children, and guide their children in making choices in education.  Parents should not equate large amounts of homework and frequent tests with effective learning.  We should also not have unrealistic expectations of our children's abilities and push them so hard that they lose all joy in learning.

     There are encouraging signs.  A growing number of parents are looking at success in education more broadly than by examination performance alone, just as schools are recognising more diverse measures of success.

     Parents are helping their children find their own strengths and selecting schools that can best develop those strengths.  We will keep up our communication with parents so that they support the schools' efforts to give children a holistic education and provide room for them to pursue the things they have a talent in or enjoy doing.

     Dr Michael Lim asked specifically whether schools will keep parents informed of changes in the school syllabus before the start of the year.  Our syllabi are posted on the websites of MOE and the Singapore Examinations Assessment Board.  Syllabuses of the various examination subjects are also updated on the Internet for the public to access at the start of the year.  And schools also keep parents and pupils informed on the parts of the syllabus to be assessed.

     I will now turn to issues raised by Members concerning character development. Let me first address the specific point raised by Mr Gan Kim Yong on students who drop out, before I move on to the broader issues he and others raised on character building. Mr Gan wanted the Ministry to be more lenient in re-admitting students who had dropped out. Fortunately, our drop-out rates are low. And the majority of those who left school because they were expelled or for other reasons, and who want to return to school, are able to do so. But I am not keen to change our stance, that students should only be re-admitted if they show a genuine desire to learn and abide by school rules. It is not a “punitive approach” as Mr Gan puts it, but one that preserves a culture of discipline in our schools. If we were to let students move in and out of school at will, we would demoralise the majority who remain. We will also lose the happy situation we have where the vast majority of students are keen to remain in school.

     We should do all we can to keep this culture of discipline and avoid the drop-out and delinquency problems we see in many other countries. In the UK, the government has spent more than S$2.7 billion since 1997 on schemes to tackle truancy in schools with virtually no success. They now intend to spend an additional $1.7 billion in the coming two years to try to entice 50,000 students who skip classes every day back to school.  About 40% of schools in the UK reported pupils bringing weapons into the playground or classroom at least once a term - previously thought to be an American problem, it is now British.

     In the US, a recent Harvard University study found that 32% of American youths do not complete high school. In Japan, there has been a rising tide of serious crimes among students - some crimes including pre-meditated homicides. Violence in school grounds is reported to have increased five-fold over the last decade. There is a sense of crisis in the Japanese society as a growing number of students seem to behave in ways that are completely alien to their parents, let alone their grandparents.

     We are fortunate that our social fabric is still intact and strong. The number of serious disciplinary cases in schools has not risen in recent years. We should keep the culture of respect for school rules and respect for fellow students.  But we will do more - to help students at risk of dropping out or of falling into delinquency, and to help students who are keen to resume their studies and observe school rules after they have dropped out and they want to come back.

     By next year, we will have provided every secondary school with a full-time counsellor.  By 2008, all primary schools and Junior Colleges will also have a full-time counsellor. This is in addition to the two teacher-counsellors we have already trained in our schools, and the two more we will train in secondary schools. They will help schools identify and assist students who need help.

     Let me move on to the broader agenda of character development in our schools. It is an agenda we are giving more importance to. But while the Ministry provides various platforms and resources for character development, such as through the Civics and Moral Education Programme (CME), pastoral care programmes, co-curricula activities (CCA) and Community Involvement Programmes (CIP), we cannot be too prescriptive about the specific activities we expect to see in schools. There is no single fix, no formula in education to impart sound values or to develop strength of character. Schools have to see what works for their own students - students with different backgrounds and needs - draw on their own school traditions, and develop their own programmes and practices over time, and it will take time.  As the Chinese saying goes, it takes a hundred years to raise a man of character, but we hope to do it a bit faster.

     So we will encourage schools to explore their own ways to develop the character of their students - ways that have to work in their own context. We will recognise schools that work consistently and effectively at character development through the new Character Development Award that we will be introducing in year 2006. These schools can then share their best practices, particularly their processes, with other schools. 

     But schools will have to rely on the support of parents and the community, without which the job is always incomplete. It is the total experience of the child - how he is raised at home, the experiences and relationships he develops in school right through his years of schooling, his encounters in the community, what he sees in the media - as he grows up that shapes his character, quietly, invisibly, in unseen ways, in the classroom, in the playing field, on the performing stage and in the cinema theatre. Schools cannot do it alone.

     I agree with Dr Lily Neo that character education can be more authentic where we engage our students in interesting and meaningful activities. It cannot be a textbook subject. One way is to expose the students to real-life stories - stories of men and women who have shown strength of character in difficult times and who have made significant contributions to society.

     This is what Yangzheng Primary School did recently. It got 50 students to interview 20 prominent ex-students about their life experiences, and especially on how their personal values helped to make them what they are today. Some of the students were so inspired by the project that they hope to publish a book about these real-life stories. The stories brought to life for them useful lessons on hard work, thrift, honesty, uprightness and community spirit.  

     CCA and CIP programmes are integral to character education in all our schools.  Mr Ong Ah Heng asked about the effectiveness of the CIP.  It is now in its seventh year. On the whole, the CIP has been a very positive experience. The results of our annual CIP surveys and direct feedback from students in dialogue and feedback sessions indicate that CIP has made an impact in developing a spirit of volunteerism in our students during their school years.

     The tsunami relief effort that Mr Ong also asked about was a good expression of this, because you can really tell what is working when you see it happening, and not in what they tell you. Our schools raised a total of $3.5 million for aid agencies helping in the relief efforts.  They did not just stand with tins in street corners.  They organised bazaars, charity fairs, washed cars, painted faces, and all kinds of other things.  They were also active in mobilising other schools, besides their own school. Pioneer JC, for example, let other schools in its cluster to collect tents, clothings and blankets for Sri Lanka.  And tomorrow, 10th March, National Junior College will send some of its students to the Maldives, as part of its Overseas CIP to help rebuild some of the IT infrastructure that previous NJC students had in fact helped to build and which was destroyed in the tsunami.

     We are making changes that will give JC and CI students greater ownership over their CCA and CIP programmes.  I agree with what Mr Gan and Mdm Ho Geok Choo have said about the need to adopt a more qualitative approach.  Student's CCA performance in JC is currently scored under a points system called PEARLS, as some Members know, for the purpose of applying to NUS and NTU.  The CCA points are included in the applicant's University Admission Score with a weight of 5%, the remaining 95% being computed from their "A" grades.

     Since last year, we have also allowed NUS and NTU to select students on their own independent criteria, under a new, discretionary admission scheme.  It allows the universities to consider students on the basis of a broader range of intellectual and character attributes, besides their "A" level scores.  NUS and NTU are currently allowed to admit up to 10% of their students under this discretionary scheme.

      The universities are now ready to take a further step that will allow for a more holistic and meaningful assessment of students' qualities.  A student's CCA, which is currently given a single numerical score, will instead be assessed qualitatively under the universities' discretionary admission scheme.  This change will take place in year 2007 which is when the current cohort of first year JC students applies for university. NUS and NTU will look at the student's involvement and achievements in CCA and CIP for evidence of desired attributes, like leadership, creative flair, perseverance and the pursuit of excellence.  This would be similar to the qualitative assessment of CCA that SMU has had from the outset.  It is also similar to the way in which many reputable overseas universities consider applicants, ie, a holistic qualitative assessment, besides their academic scores.

     MOE agrees with the universities' decision.  With NUS and NTU's move to a more flexible and qualitative approach for considering CCA, there will no longer be a need for a fixed system or points for CCA in the JCs and the Centralised Institute. Starting from this year's JC1 students, we will no longer score the CCA achievements and involvements of junior college students.  The junior colleges will also move towards a more qualitative record of students' involvement in CCA and CIP, by reflecting their involvement and any special achievements and contributions in the School Graduation Certificate.  In line with these changes, the Public Service Commission (PSC) will continue to look at scholarship applicants' achievements and participation in CCA and CIP within the new qualitative framework that JCs will implement.

     We will also remove the present six-hour minimum requirement for CIP in the junior colleges from this year.  The CIP scheme, introduced in 1998, as I mentioned, is now a vibrant feature of junior college life.  MOE is therefore comfortable with giving the junior colleges full autonomy to integrate CIP into their schools' curriculum in the way that best meets the needs and interests of their students.  CIP will however remain an integral component of the junior college curriculum.  The shift from a minimum time requirement for CIP is expected to help students to focus on authentic and enriching involvements, as many already do.

     The changes in CCA and CIP are consistent with feedback from extensive feedback from students and the junior colleges over the last year.  They would encourage students to take greater ownership over these activities, follow their passions and build camaraderie, rather than engage for the sake of getting points for university admission.  The moves are also timely as they come before the new "A" levels curriculum that will be introduced in 2006 which aims to give students greater room and more 'white space' to pursue their passions and interests.

      However, for secondary and primary students, we will continue to keep the requirement for six hours of CIP.  For secondary students, we will also continue to have a grading system for their CCA which counts for entry to junior colleges and polytechnics.  They are still young and will benefit from some structure and guidance to ensure that they get a holistic education, and to help them get the most out of their school years through CCA and involvement in the community.

     Dr Maliki asked about sports in schools.  Our aim is to promote sporting excellence among students through training programmes and inter-school competitions, as well as sports and recreation for as many students as possible.  Schools plan their own sports programmes, depending on the available manpower and physical infrastructure and the school's tradition.  A school would typically offer some sports at a competitive level and others at the recreational level.

    While we aim to provide every student the opportunity to take a sport that he or she desires, the reality that we are faced with is that we do have resource constraints, both in terms of infrastructure and trained teachers and coaches. But I would like to reassure Dr Maliki that I am equally concerned about this, and that we are studying ways to overcome these constraints.

    We are making progress.  The number of students participating in sports, outdoor activities and other physical fitness activities increased by 9% last year.  This year, more than 80% of Secondary 1 students were also assigned the CCA they most wanted to do, in other words, their first choice CCA.  That is a significant improvement.  I will give you an example, Loyang Secondary School.  This year, Loyang Secondary was able to give all Secondary 1 students their first choice of CCA.  The school also has a sports programme that aims to involve all students who do not do a sport as a full CCA with some exposure to sporting activities.  Even its operational manager has got into action and started a weekly Floorball session. And from term 2, the school hopes to introduce two other sports, Pushball and American football, for mass participation. I am sure Members know the differences between each of these games - Floorball, Pushball, American football.

     Our schools are also pooling their resources to enable students to take part in a mass sports event.  For example, the North Zone Primary School Sports Council has set aside funds that schools can use to organise fun activities for pupils not representing their school in sports.

     At the zonal level, we are organising many activities and competitions for students who do not take a sport CCA, recreational sport for them.  In fact, last year, we had 12,000 primary school students and 700 secondary school students benefiting from these zonal activities organised by the Sports Development Committees.

     Another theme that is emerging in today's debate is the issue of how we should meet the learning needs of different ability groups in our schools.  Mr Gan Kim Yong suggested that we remove the EM3 stream in primary schools.  Mr Low Thia Khiang asked if we could not adopt a modular system, instead of streaming, in our schools.  Mr Low's suggestion accepts that we need differentiation of systems to cater to students with different strengths.

      Let me first say that streaming in schools is not an article of faith in MOE.  It is a practical approach in helping every student to develop himself to the best of his abilities.  It is an approach that we keep refining. And it has worked well.  By differentiating the curriculum for students of different abilities, it has allowed us to motivate all our students to sustain an interest in learning, work hard to achieve realistic learning targets and get recognised, get some form of merit, for their achievements.  It has helped us avoid the large drop-out rates that you see in many other countries or the fact that large numbers of students are graduating from high schools without basic competence in literacy and numeracy.  We have avoided the pretence of inclusiveness in undifferentiated school systems.  We have focused instead on getting real outcomes, and learning among all our students.  It is not done perfectly and we can do better.  But the vast majority of students in Singapore leave school with a real foundation of skills, ready for post-secondary education and to pick up further skills that they need in the workplace.

     It also happens to be the way the rest of the world is moving.  I give you the example of Korea because it is a driven society, Asian society, Confucianist majority, not very unlike us.  Korea has historically not differentiated its students much by ability.  They had minor variations but, by and large, they had an egalitarian approach.  And I quote what a recent editorial in a leading daily said in January this year, "It is already a proven fact that the standardisation policy of 30 years has failed at nurturing exceptionally bright minds.  It is now clear that the policy is also not effective in increasing scholastic abilities on the whole."

     What are the Koreans doing?  They are now setting aside 1% of pupils in elite classes, something like our gifted stream, and they are setting aside 5% of pupils who take more advanced classes so that they can graduate faster than the others.  And they are going to differentiate pupils in 50% of their schools by ability; they are moving towards streaming.  I cite them because they are, as I mentioned, a driven and competitive society.  It would be much easier for me to cite examples of societies which are not particularly competitive or efficient, but those will almost draw us into arguments.  I cite Korea because it is almost a controlled experiment.  They have found out after 30 years that it does not work, and they need to do better because they are like us who face the same competition from China.  And in China, the top schools, the elite schools, the elite streams are moving faster than us.  And the Chinese have absolutely no compunction about putting the best resources, better facilities, better gymnasiums, heated swimming pools, the best teachers from universities coming down for their brightest students.  Why?  Because they want their brightest to help China leapfrog the competition.

      So we are up against that.  Korea is up against that.  We are lucky we did not make the same mistakes they did in the last 30 years.  We have got a system that is imperfect but working fairly well, constant refinement, constant need to make it more flexible, but we are on the right track.

      Mr Gan has suggested doing away with EM3 and letting all students take the same PSLE examinations.  To put matters in perspective, let me provide a few facts.  Our EM3 pupils comprise just 7-8% of each age cohort.  Students who fail every subject are given the option of taking the EM3 curriculum when they get to Primary 5.  It is an option given to parents. And parents who accept this option do so because they know their child will benefit from a pruned down curriculum, that they can master at their own pace.  To illustrate, the EM3 Mathematics curriculum is pitched at about 60% of the content of the regular PSLE Mathematics curriculum. Further, EM3 students spend 30% more curriculum time on Mathematics as other students do on Mathematics. They get good teachers. In fact, some of the most committed teachers I meet on my school visits are often the EM3 teachers. So it is not true, as Mr Low says, that schools have neglected the EM3 group as there are fewer resources for them. It is just simply not true on the ground.  Altogether, it is an arrangement that helps the majority of them pass their EM3 Mathematics examinations. However, some 20% of EM3 Mathematics students still fail to get a grade in the EM3 final Mathematics examinations; in other words, they get, what we call, Ungraded, in their final assessment. Would EM3 students do better if they had stayed with the regular curriculum, and taken it at the same pace as other students?

     Our differentiated curriculum through streaming was, in fact, one of the strengths highlighted in a recent study by the American Institutes of Research funded by the US Department of Education, that is, their Ministry of Education, entitled “What the United States can Learn from Singapore’s World-Class Mathematics System”. In contrast to the Singapore system of ability-based learning, the authors noted that in the US, “we expect all students to meet the standards in state frameworks, but the standards do not help teachers address the needs of slower students. In fact, US standards do not acknowledge that students learn at different rates.”

     There is no reason to give up the EM3 stream. It keeps our weakest pupils keen on attending school, gives them a foundation of knowledge that they can master or pass, and prepares them for secondary school.   Some EM3 students when taught at a slower pace in Primary 5 and 6, in fact, catch up and do well enough to go to the Normal (Academic) stream.  Some make it to polytechnic and a handful even make it to JC.  That does not mean that it was a mistake to have streamed them.  It is often because they were given the opportunity to step back, start from basics again, get their foundations in place, gain confidence because they pass an examination instead of failing repeatedly, and then go on in secondary school years with more enthusiasm for learning.

3.15 pm

     What we are doing, however, is to introduce greater flexibility into the streaming system wherever practical.  Streaming need not be absolute, where a student takes every subject within his own stream. Some students will have strengths in specific subjects, which may allow them to study those subjects at a higher level or at a faster pace.  We are letting them do so, both at the primary and secondary level.  We have, in effect, been allowing for increased modularity and flexibility within the streaming system, and we are doing it in steps, and learning as we go along.

     In primary school, we now allow EM3 students who are strong in their mother tongue language to take the subject at a higher level.  Some are already doing so.  But Mr Low mentioned that there is a bias in the assessment system towards English and Mathematics instead of the mother tongue.  I have an interesting bit of feedback to relate to him which I get from schools quite often.  There are, in fact, some EM3 students who can take advantage of the scheme we have opened up for them to study the mother tongue at a higher level.  But their parents choose for them not to do it.  Why?  Because their parents want them to spend more time on English and Mathematics at the foundational level rather than mother tongue at the higher level.  That is a valid parental choice and we should respect it. 

     Schools are also taking a more flexible approach to how they deliver the EM3 curriculum.  We have given schools the flexibility to integrate EM3 pupils with their peers for specific subjects where there is educational merit in doing so.  This is similar to the way in which schools are banding pupils in the regular classes according to their strengths and weaknesses in a specific subject.  For example, many schools band their pupils by Mathematics ability and then, during the mother tongue period, they take them out and re-arrange them in mother tongue classes in a different order, banding by subject strength.

     This year, eight out of 10 primary schools no longer have "pure" EM3 classes, where EM3 students take all their subjects together.  In other words, EM3 students are now integrated with their peers in regular classes in subjects such as Social Studies, Art and Craft, Music, Health Education and Project Work, and Physical Education and Civics and Moral Education (CME), all of which are not examined at the PSLE.  They are then taught in separate classes typically in the four core academic subjects, where their gaps in ability, compared to the regular students, are usually greatest.  Depending on the profile of the EM3 students and the size of the class, sometimes the EM3 students also join the regular class for some other core academic subjects. But we leave it to the school, trusting their judgment as to what is educationally sound.

     What we will also do is to focus on early interventions that can help bridge some of the deficits in learning in the early primary years, as Mr Zainudin pointed out.  The Learning Support Programme (LSP), which caters to students who are weak in their language and literacy skills in the early primary years, is working well.  It has helped many of our weaker students catch up with their peers after one to two years in school.

     Mr Gan and Mr Zainudin have asked if we could do more for the academically weaker pupils, besides the Learning Support Programme.  At the end of Primary 2, schools determine the most appropriate form of support for those students who continue to face difficulties in learning and reading, usually through customised remediation programmes as they go on to Primary 3.  Where schools have the additional resources, the Learning Support Coordinators would actually cater to selected groups of Primary 3 students, typically those who were ex-Learning Support Programme students.

     Besides the Learning Support Programme, we have the Enhancing Achievement and Better Learning (ENABLE) Programme which provides support to Primary 2 and Primary 3 pupils with at least average academic or intellectual abilities but whose academic performance is not commensurate with their abilities.  Here, too, the scheme is progressing quite well.  What can we do further?  We are providing more teachers to our schools and, through a variety of schemes that schools have, for example, “buddy reading” programmes, various customised remedial programmes, parallel teaching that allows two teachers to split up a class in a particular subject or lesson in order to train the class at a different pace, take them through different topics suited to their abilities, all these things will become more than norm, as schools get more resources.  But it will take time and, over the next four to five years as we recruit more and we are able to put more teachers into schools, there will be greater scope for differentiation and a more refined system of ability-based learning.  So we are getting there.

     Our approach, therefore, is to recognise the diverse talents and needs of our students, and find practical ways to motivate them to go as far as they can.  We will keep refining our methods and keep the system flexible, and never assume that anything is an article of faith in education.  We will also provide schools with more teachers in the coming years and improve teacher-student ratios, so that they will have, as I have explained, more room to experiment with more flexible classroom arrangements.

     Mr Chiam asked about our students showing lack of confidence and fearing the competition from foreign students.  There will always be soundbites to that effect.  In every society, you will find that if you put a microphone in front of an average local, some nasty things will come out about the nearest foreigner, be it Indian, Chinese, Korean or Vietnamese.  The most liberal, open and confident societies have that trend latent, not far beneath the skin surface.  We are no different.  But I think the weight of opinion in Singapore, youths and students included, is one of broad acceptance, not just of the need for foreigners from an economic point of view to be part of our system, but also the benefits the students themselves get by having foreigners in the class, pushing them on in their Chinese, sometimes edging them out from the table tennis team but which spurs them on to train harder and get back in.  They like the fact that we have a more diverse international climate in our schools than we would if we were a parochial and closed society.  Our students know they benefit from the exposure to the world that comes from this easy way of bringing foreigners in.  And if we were to rely only on Singaporeans to compete with each other, we will never make it. 

     Dr Tan spoke about the five-day work week, and I will explain very briefly that it is not the policy of the Ministry to move all Saturday activities to the weekdays.  The five-day work week was implemented as part of the larger civil service move to be more pro-family.  Our teachers are parents.  They are members of families, so they deserve their Saturday off as well.  But we want to make sure we do not compromise on the quality of education we provide our students, including depth and quality of their CCA, CIP and the informal curriculum of the schools.  So, in implementing the five-day work week, we have to balance these two considerations.  We would not overburden the teachers, but do not compromise on the quality of education, particularly the quality of holistic education that we have been talking about.

     The school day has indeed lengthened in some schools and junior colleges.  Many students are getting home later, and getting home more tired, and that is not good for family life.  So, schools are learning from the initial experience, first few months, and are re-calibrating their approach.

     In general, I am encouraged by the progress of schools to rationalise their existing activities, and not merely shift all Saturday activities to weekdays.  It will take a bit of time to settle, but I think there is good sense and a pragmatic attitude that our schools have on this matter.  They are trying to find creative ways of using their teachers where they are most needed, not over-using them, relying more on external coaches, parent volunteers and, in the secondary schools and junior colleges, relying more on student leaders themselves to organise CCAs, so that we can still deliver a high-quality broad-based education without overburdening our teachers.

     Finally, Sir, Dr Lily Neo asked whether we are preparing the teachers adequately to implement the changes we are making, and that is absolutely important.  We have found that one of the most effective ways to implement changes in policies in education is to engender ownership amongst our teachers and our schools.  But the implementation of our policies will seldom be perfectly even across the board.  Some of our schools are ready earlier to take on the changes we are making.  We will let them press on, and not hold them back until every school is ready.  These leaders will set the pace for the rest to follow.  What is important is that we should be able to encourage innovative teachers and innovative schools to share their best practices with each other.  In that way, we level up the system over time.

     I must say that, in the midst of all the changes that are happening in the midst of the seeming stress that we often hear about on the part of both teachers and students, I am quite heartened by some of the tangible results that we are getting.  Our recruitment programme is going very well.  Last year, we recruited 2,000 teachers, right up to target, despite the recovery of the economy.  So far this year, we are well on target, in fact, slightly ahead.  We did a recent survey commissioned by MOE of members of the public, large sample, and they ranked the teaching profession as that which contributes the most to society, above doctors and lawyers.  This positive perception of the teaching profession is what helps us in our job, and it becomes a virtuous circle.  As we get more teachers into the system, push them out into schools, improve the teacher-student ratios, give them more time to deliver quality teaching, and the attraction of the profession also goes up.

     Members have raised a few other issues that I have not dealt with, including Dr Ong Seh Hong's point about religious knowledge and several points on Special Education which my colleagues, MOS Chan and SPS Hawazi will be dealing with later.

The Chairman:  Order.  I propose to 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 3.50 pm.

Chinese Language

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied) (In Mandarin): Sir, there is an ancient Chinese saying, "zi yi, xing nan", that is, to know is easy but to do is difficult.   For any plans or measures to be successful, the key is in knowing how to specifically and thoroughly implement them, once the direction and principles are determined.

     The Chinese Language Pedagogy Reform report is a landmark in the language education in Singapore. Having extensively discussed it in Parliament, we should put our hearts and souls into pushing forward the implementation details as recommended.

     I understand that MOE has studied and explored various teaching methods, including "recognising first, writing later".   I hope the Minister would enlighten us on the conclusions and suggestions of the Ministry's studies.

     Apart from the teaching method, one other very important area is examination. This is because the process and style of examinations tightly restrain the teaching directions of the teachers, their teaching content at the schools and the learning attitude of the students.

      For the pedagogy reform to be successful, the mode of examinations should also be thoroughly reformed and be closely linked to the expected outcome of the learning process.   The important point is that it has to be more diversified and more innovative. Only then, can we change the present phenomenon whereby students study just to pass their examinations.   Once the examination model is defined, the teachers would be able to adapt to the new direction, thereby changing their teaching modes and make the students' learning process more varied and diversified, and relevant to daily lives, so as to further enhance the students' interest in learning and change their learning attitude.

      However, we must recognise that teachers are the key and soul of the implementation of the reform.   I am somewhat worried that up till today, the MOE has not proposed any specific training plan for the teachers so as to prepare the teachers for the implementation of the pedagogy reform.   The MOE seems to be "great boast, small roast - much said, but little done." The action does not follow through.

      Recently, MOE suddenly announced a reduction in the syllabus and some modules of the Chinese curriculum.   This is actually a good measure.   However, there seems to be a lack of communication in the implementation, resulting in many teachers, students and parents being caught by surprise.   When interviewed on TV, one primary school student said, "All of a sudden, the school deleted the text which I have learnt.   How am I going to prepare for the PSLE?"   The student's remark illustrates two serious problems: first, the student's learning of the Chinese Language remains tailored at preparing for examinations; and second, it seems that the school, parents and teachers do not know what to do when they suddenly discovered that the teaching modules are reduced.

      By right, cutting out the text and teaching materials which are compulsorily fixed as curriculum is a good thing to do. In this way, the teachers could have more flexibility to lead the students in participating in more interesting learning activities, thereby laying a solid foundation for their language.   However, when MOE takes the interim measures, from the reaction of the primary school student, we can see that we need, first of all, to help the schools prepare the students and parents. I understand that in some schools, they are taking out the Primary 3 to Primary 5 textbooks and teaching them to fill the curriculum time vacated by the reduction in Primary 6 curriculum.

     Another preparatory work which cannot be delayed is that since we are going to commence the Chinese Language Pedagogy Reform in the primary schools in 2008, the pre-school sector, ie, kindergarten 1 and 2 classes must also have their curriculum revamped accordingly so as to prepare the students to dovetail into the new primary school reform. Otherwise, it would hamper the reform.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah) (In Mandarin): SM Lee has said that we must develop a pool of 150 to 200 Chinese elites each year to strengthen our competitiveness.  

     China is playing an increasingly important role in the world's economy and politics.   If we do not have bilingual Chinese elites, the role we play in East Asia and the world in trade and economy will soon be weakened.   However, the university admission criteria have been changed.   The mother tongue scores will no longer be counted. This has become an obstacle to our goal of developing a pool of Chinese elites. Students who did Higher Chinese in the secondary school will choose not to continue with Higher Chinese at "A" level, since their scores will not be counted for their university admission in the future.

     If the number of JC students taking Higher Chinese is reduced, enrolment in the Department of Chinese Studies will also drop. This is detrimental to our plan to nurture a pool of Chinese elites.   I would suggest that in order to encourage potential students to continue taking Higher Chinese, we should give them some incentives. May I suggest that the students who score "A" or "B" in Higher Chinese and intend to take Chinese in the university be classified as "linguistic talents".   The bonus points for mother tongue should be increased from two points to four points. This would attract more students to take Higher Chinese.

     The Minister has also announced that they would not limit the number of schools conducting "Chinese Elite Classes".   I would like to ask the Minister how many such schools are offering Higher Chinese and how many are conducting the "Chinese Elite Classes" at the moment.

Mother Tongue

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): [The speech is being vetted by the Simultaneous Interpreter (Mandarin/English) and will be forwarded to the Member as soon as it has been vetted.]

Bahasa Malaysia

Mr Chiam See Tong:   The Malay language or Bahasa Melayu has a chequered existence in Singapore.   In the 1950s, nearly all Singaporeans could speak bazaar Malay.   English in those days were not spoken by the common working people, except a minority of Singaporeans who were educated in the English medium schools.

      In 1954, the PAP was formed and it proclaimed inter alia in its first party manifesto as follows, "A lingua franca is necessary and moral, political and practical considerations make Malay, rather than English, the obvious choice.   The alleged inadequacy of the Malay language as a lingua franca is not disinterested propaganda.   The Malay language in Indonesia, freed from Dutch colonial restraints, is rapidly becoming a comprehensive means of expression and communications in science and technology, commerce, industry and the humanities.   By contrast, the Malay language in this colonial country remains static."

      In 1954, the PAP's aim was to make Malay the lingua franca of Singapore.   It nearly succeeded when Singapore joined Malaya to form Malaysia.   In 1963, Malay was a compulsory subject in all Government and Government-aided schools, and all civil servants were required to study Malay.   They all had to pass Standard One Malay; otherwise they could not be confirmed.

      During that period from 1963-1965, when Singapore was part of Malaysia, the promotion and study of the Malay language amongst Singaporeans was at its zenith.   But the fall of the popularity of the Malay language as its rise was just as fast.   After 1965, with the advent of the mother tongue policy in Singapore, where only Malay students were allowed to study Malay as a mother tongue or second language, all Singaporeans, who were non-Malays, did not study Malay and were quite ignorant of the subject.   It is sad to know that almost all younger Singaporeans have not had the opportunity to learn basic Malay. 

     Singapore is in the heart of the Malay world.   Indonesia and Malaysia are our close neighbours.   They have over 220 million people between them.   Their economies, although not as strong as ours, are improving.   I think it would benefit Singapore, if Singaporeans could communicate with people in these neighbouring countries in their language. 

      I am pleased and happy to read in the Straits Times of the 18th February 2005 that the Education Ministry is considering an option to let students learn Malay or Bahasa as the third language - read, speak and understand it, without having to master the writing.   I think Malay is a language important enough for Singapore to make it a compulsory subject at the elementary level.   I would like to know whether the Minister is willing to make ML3 a mandatory, but not examination, subject in our schools.

Response

The Minister of State for Education (Mr Chan Soo Sen): Mr Chairman, Sir, I shall speak first in Mandarin.

         (In English):   Since I cannot speak in Malay, perhaps I will respond to Mr Chiam's question about Bahasa Melayu in English.   I did study Malay during those early days. After I joined the civil service, I also went to a Malay class.

      We agree with Mr Chiam that Malay language is important.   It is an important regional language.   But it has got to be seen in context.   All the examples cited by Mr Chiam were during pre-independent days.   The setting at that time was very different.   Since then, English has become a working language and our bilingual policy requires all students to study English as well as their mother tongue.

      When we debated the White Paper on Chinese Education, the point that it is, in fact, very difficult for students to master two languages is already established.   In fact, the number of students who can master two languages effectively is very small.  If, in addition to English and mother tongue, all students are made to study Malay, I fear the pressure that hon. Members talked about on students, teachers and parents may become unbearable.   But having said that, allowing students who are already doing well in English and mother tongue to study Malay as an optional subject is already available since the mid-80s.   There is a Malay special programme where students, who are within the top 10% and do very well in mother tongue as well as English, can opt for this special programme at Secondary 1, leading to an examination and qualification at 'O' level.   The equivalent standard is Standard 2, which is slightly higher than Standard 1.   The guideline was subsequently relaxed so that students who have done well and interested in the Malay language can also take part in this programme.   There are already about 300 students who are doing this subject.

     This particular programme will continue, and we are confident that when people begin to understand that to have an additional language proficiency is like holding another passport, more would study Malay language, as in the Malay special programme.

     We also have schools who, on their own initiative, have initiated some conversational Malay programmes for their pupils.   We, in the Ministry of Education, support these initiatives on the part of the schools.

      As far as the civil service is concerned, the Civil Service College still offers basic conversational Malay course.   And for civil servants who need to study Malay, they can enrol in this course.   Of course, there are also public officers whose jobs require them to know the Malay language intimately.   For example, if they are SAF officers or Ministry of Foreign Affairs officers, the Ministries have got their own programmes to teach them the Malay language.   In other words, all the channels available for those who want to study Malay are already there.

      Finally, I need to respond to Mr Ang Mong Seng's point about the elite Chinese programme.

      (In Mandarin):   We do not know whether our parents prefer Chinese or English at the moment.   If they spend more time learning Chinese, then they will have less time for English.  The result will be that this standard of English may be lowered.   More importantly, it depends on the parents.   If the parents' response is good, the Hokkien Huay Kuan has already said that they intend to extend the project to other Hokkien Huay Kuan schools.   If other schools are also interested in this project, they may also be allowed to conduct such classes.   So we will just wait and see.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (In Mandarin):   Sir, a point of clarification.   The Minister said that we had four years to do things slowly.   But I have just worked it out and it is only three years and three months.   We would start in January 2008.   I do not know how the Minister did his calculation.

      The more important point is that on pre-school education, we have the responsibility to push and promote pre-school education.   I have been made a committee Chairman.   I will just stick my neck out and do it.   But, to a large extent, this pre-school education depends very much on the Ministry of Education, because there is no framework provided by the MOE.   To many operators, they do not have any standard to follow.   Unless the Ministry can spell out the clear standards, there will be no guiding principle or framework to control this kind of educational work.   On the other hand, the operators of the pre-school establishments will have to grope in the dark.

     The Minister also said that our examinations system were diversified.   Even up till today our students, primary or secondary, are still learning by rote.   Why is it so?

Mr Chan Soo Sen (In Mandarin):   It is three years and three months.   Mr Yeo has already said that we have all been working, including the development of teaching materials, developing the supplementary reading materials and training the teachers.   All these changes have to be introduced and completed during the next three years and three months, so that when we implement the whole system in 2008, there will be no problem.   So give us more time.   We understand the Member's anxiety.   We want to start implementing the recommendations of the White Paper.   The Ministry is also keen to do so.   There have been allegations that we have been talking about it for so many years, and we are still talking about it, and that we have not taken any action.   We do not like to hear such allegations.   So please be rest assured that we have the common objective.

    Next is the question on the framework of pre-education.   If we do not have one, and since the Member is the Chairman of the committee, then he must take the opportunity now to work out the framework.   In his committee, there are principals of kindergartens and inspectors of school.  The committee can fix the framework, and it will be helpful for others.

      Third, on examinations.   It is also within the scope of work that we have to do in the three-and-a-half years.   We understand that what you are taught, you must learn.   Whatever you learn, you must be examined.   What to examine and what to learn - this is the crux of the matter that we are discussing.   We have three years and three months.   We will be gradually doing all the things that we have decided upon.  We will discuss and consult the teachers and then make the necessary announcement.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (In Mandarin): Sir, the Minister has not answered my question.   How many primary and secondary schools are conducting the Higher Chinese classes?   Some people complained to me that when their children went to ordinary schools, they were not given the opportunity to take Higher Chinese.   I have already conveyed this concern to the Minister.

Mr Chan Soo Sen (In Mandarin):   Is he talking about higher education or what?   I think I will give the Member a list of the schools.   I do not have the list with me now, but I will let him have it later.

      Talking about the Chinese elite class in primary schools, there is only one in Tao Nan School.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (In Mandarin):   Sir, the Minister said just now that after reducing the number of prescribed texts, the teachers could make use of the extra time available for other activities.   In this way, will our Chinese standard be lowered or improved?   We have seen from this Report that various schools have taken measures to make Chinese a living language, but this is confined to just a few schools.   I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry of Education has categorically informed all schools that they must do all these things and take all these measures.

      The Minister said that the Ministry was considering the framework for examinations.   I have already made a suggestion to MOE that when we are examining the Chinese Language, there are three principles to be considered.   One is to examine our students on whether they could use the Chinese they learn to live, to converse with others and to mould their character.   These are the suggestions that I have made to the Minister, I hope he will accept my suggestions.

Mr Chan Soo Sen (In Mandarin):  We will consider these three suggestions. Another one is on the examinations framework.   How do we make use of the time and space vacated from the relaxation of the curriculum?   I would not tell the teachers how to make use of the extra time not available to them because in different schools, different students have different needs and different demands. Some schools may want to use more time to teach the prescribed texts, while some students may want to use the spare time to read newspapers and write reports.   Mr Yeo mentioned that some teachers use the time to revise the Secondary 2 and 3 lessons.   All these arrangements will depend on the needs of the students.

      Talking about relaxation, a person who has been tied up for a long period of time will probably be unable to walk properly when he is suddenly freed.   But, after a while, he will be able to adjust himself and find his proper steps. So, not being able to walk properly initially does not mean that you cannot get back to walking properly in the future.   After some warming up, you can recover and go back to your old way of walking.

      Members would have read the newspaper reports on how some of our teachers use creative ideas to encourage students to participate more actively in the learning process. This is creativity, and it is precisely our ultimate objective.   Give them more time and encourage them to be more creative, I think our objective is the same.   When you look at these few episodes, these are things that come to the ears of the newspapers. It is not exhaustive. There may be many more such examples of creative teaching. I believe that there are yet many schools with a lot of creative ideas, albeit not reported in the media. It does not mean that they are not doing it.

The Chairman:   I think we should move on.   Mr Zainudin Nordin.

Malay Language and Tamil Language Reviews

Mr Zainudin Nordin:   Sir, the announcement of the Malay Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review was made late last year.   I would like to ask if the Committee would be able to provide us with an update on the current status of the review.

      Sir, with the recent developments and the heightened interest in the learning of the Malay Language, and as more begin to realise the importance and benefits of learning the Malay Language, it would be a pity and unfortunate if the Malay students are still oblivious of these facts.   I would just like to qualify that, though this problem is still not a big one, there are obvious concerns because we have seen more and more Malay students losing mastery and interest in the learning of the mother tongue.   While waiting for the review to be completed in August 2005, are there any interim measures or specific efforts that MOE can implement and address these disturbing trends and concerns?

Mr Ong Ah Heng (In Mandarin):    Sir, as Mr Zainudin mentioned about the Malay language problem, I would like to ask about the progress of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Reform report which we endorsed last year. I am very glad to note that MOE has also set up review committees for the Tamil Language and Malay Language.   I would like to ask the Minister what is the progress of these review committees.

      For the Malay and Indian parents, what kind of expectations do they have?   As a multi-racial society, members of the Chinese community are also concerned with the problems and concerns of the Indian and Malay parents.

      Can the Minister please enlighten us?   Thank you.

Mr S Iswaran (West Coast): Sir, the announcement of the Tamil Language (TL) Review last year was welcomed by the community.   In general, it has also raised expectations.   It is done because, notwithstanding the numerous reviews that had been done in the past and MOE's ongoing efforts to improve the teaching and learning of the language, the fact remains that many parents and students feel that the teaching and learning of Tamil Language in schools is not in step with the realities of modern Singapore.   I have had the opportunity to first hand look at some of the materials and requirements at the primary level.  I find that, even in the early primary levels, there is not that much difference in the expectation between what we want from TL, and I suspect that it might be the case for other languages and English.   So the review takes particular importance and significance in this light.  

     There are three aspects that I wish to query the Ministry on.   The first is on how the expectation of the Tamil Language standard to be attained be established.   Would we be looking not just at the standards that are already in place today in schools, but also the reality on the ground and the environment that our students are in?   I think, most importantly, the time that is required for them to achieve a certain level of competence in the language.

      The second is on completing the loop in the review. In other words, look not just at curriculum review but also at the standards in the examinations of the landmark at national levels, and then what is happening in the schools in the intervening years where examinations are set, and then that percolates down to school assignments and assessments.   I think that is an important part of this review.

      Finally, on timing.   The points have been raised in the context of other reviews.   It is essential that this review be completed this year and there should be some immediate benefits to the schools and to the students in the schools from next year onwards.   It is scant comfort to know that three years from now, the curriculum will be modified to make it easier for students.

Developing Rootedness and Patriotism in our Studies

Mr Alexander Chan Meng Wah (Nominated Member):   Sir, in an IPS survey of 1999 involving a random sample of 1,451 Singaporean citizens between 15 and 64 of age, it was noticed that Singaporeans were generally very positive and very strongly patriotic to the country when abstract concepts, like pride, sense of belonging, and what Singapore means to them were mentioned.   On the other hand, questions regarding more economic and pragmatic issues, like job loss, defending the nation in periods of tension, returned less wholly positive answers.   There was also a strong positive correlation between age of respondents and national pride score.   Apparently, the younger the Singaporeans, the lesser their national pride. In my view, strong feelings for Singapore are built up over a long period of time, reinforced by positive experiences but also damaged by unfavourable experiences.   This just means that the process must start from young and in school.

       During school age, what happens?   Our children are managed and educated by our schools, first, in the primary school for six years, and then potentially by a different institution, a secondary school for four years, and then another set of institutions - the JCs, ITE or polytechnics and, subsequently, perhaps the universities.   Or, if you are a Singaporean male, you are then handed over to the SAF.   Thereafter, they are released to the workplace.   In each case, the responsible organisation, more or less, fully consumes the available time for its primary purposes, whether that be for education, in the case of schools, or for military training.   This leaves very little precious time for other purposes, such as building community relations, enhancing rootedness and love for Singapore and, furthermore, developing a more than superficial understanding about our own and neighbouring cultures.   In fact, our system insulates and segments, perhaps, inadvertently.

      Sir, I think we already lack the number and the variety of different organisations' activities and substantial linkages for our school children into the community. We do not have a surfeit of organisations that can be a kind of a common platform, a familiar vehicle to carry children from childhood into young adulthood, other than our shopping centres.   The idea here is that our children can be involved in such organisations on a regular basis that will become potential anchors to enhance rootedness.   I applaud the Minister for leading the rapid and widespread transformation of our education system to inject more positive experiences with its renewed emphasis on teaching, less learning more, the changes to mother tongue teaching, the call for more sports, a new admission system, beefing up the teaching cadre and opening up of school sports facilities to the public. However, I wish to ask the Minister for Education what MOE is doing to develop more team work, a stronger sense of community, nationhood, regional understanding and, also, how our schools can be better plugged into our community for both students and staff.

Sexuality Education

Mr Ong Ah Heng (In Mandarin):   Sir, I would to talk about sexuality education in schools and find out what is the progress in this aspect.   According to a newspaper report, there are some 50 young girls who got pregnant before marriage in Singapore each year.   Has the standard of morality among our younger people gone down?   Has this anything to do with our opening up?   I would like to ask the Minister what kind of sexuality education has been conducted in the schools.  Is there any review on the contents of these courses?   Is he happy with the progress in the teaching of sexuality education in schools?

      Three days ago, I saw a report in the CCTV that from Suzhou onwards, the schools in China have already included sexuality education in their primary school curriculum.   Now, it has been extended to Shanghai, Shenyang and Guangzhou.   I would like to ask the Minister whether MOE has conducted any survey on the family backgrounds of our students of each age group, and their views on pre-marital sex.   In China, it is reported that HIV cases are increasing at an alarming rate. The matter is getting more and more serious. The spread of HIV has created a tremendous impact on the future of mankind.   I am not suggesting that we copy from China.   I believe we can step up the introduction of sexuality education in our schools and include it in the formal school curriculum.

Students from Poor Family

Mr Zainudin Nordin:   Sir, recently we have seen a worrying trend of increasing number of parents from poor families who have approached us for assistance to pay for arrears in school fees and other educational fees.   Most of these requests are coming from students of low-income families who are attending schools without proper breakfast or even pocket money to sustain their day in school.   We all understand that high quality education cost money and students' subsidies are essential to improve their quality and opportunities.   However, in addition to the subsidies, how can MOE assist further these students and families?   We do not want these students to be disadvantaged because of their situation.   I think we should see this help as an investment in the future of the students.

Response

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Hawazi Daipi): Sir, in response to questions posed by Mr Ong Ah Heng, Mr Iswaran and Mr Zainudin, allow me to provide Members on the progress of the Malay Language and Tamil Language Reviews. As Members may be aware, MOE embarked on reviews of the Curriculum and the Pedagogy of the Malay Language and Tamil Language in January this year.   The Malay Language Review Committee is chaired by Assoc. Prof. Dr Hadijah Rahmat of the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, and the Tamil Language Review Committee is chaired by Dr N Varaprasad, Chief Executive Officer of the National Library Board.

    Both committees have consulted language users from a range of organisations, including pre-schools, schools, Institutes of Higher Learning, media industry, the National Library Board and private organisations.    They will also be seeking views from the public soon on how the teaching and learning of the Malay Language and the Tamil Language can be improved in our schools.

    Two surveys were commissioned by MOE for the Malay Language and the Tamil Language Reviews involving 3,200 Malay and 2,800 Indian students respectively.   The preliminary findings of both surveys suggest that similar to the Chinese language survey, there is a generational shift in the language use at home among students.

     The proportion of parents who speak to their child mainly in Malay is about two-fifth at Secondary 4 (or 39%) compared to about a quarter (or 24%) at Primary 2.   Similarly, for the Tamil Language, the proportion of parents of Tamil students who speak to their child mainly in Tamil is about slightly more than a quarter (or 28%) at Secondary 4 compared to a fifth (or 20%) at Primary 2.

     This shift was also observed for the Chinese community in the recent review of the Chinese Language. The proportion of parents who speak to their child mainly in Chinese is about three-fifth (or 59%) at Secondary 4 compared to slightly less than two-fifth (or 37%) at Primary 2.

     In a nutshell, there is a generational shift in the use of language.   Parents with older children speak more in their vernacular languages whereas younger parents speaking to younger children speak in other languages, mainly English.

     A large majority of students surveyed said that they liked learning their mother tongue. The proportion of students who liked learning Malay Language was the highest among the three mother tongue languages.   However, the interest in the learning of the subject decreases with age for students of the three communities.

4.45 pm

     The preliminary findings suggest that the language used at home may affect students’ level of interest and their ability to learn their mother tongue.   The survey findings will be useful inputs for the two review committees.    In answer to Mr Iswaran, this is another way for us to gauge how we can pitch the curriculum, design activities, change examination formats and so on, other than talking to and getting feedback from the respective communities.

    The committees will propose how we can design the curriculum to better match the needs of the students with different language backgrounds and abilities, and also how to teach and assess to enthuse these students.   The committee’s recommendations will be considered by MOE.   If the recommendations can be implemented immediately, we will do so.   Some recommendations may require time before we can implement them, such as curriculum development and teacher training.   Nevertheless, Members can be assured that we will see how best and how quickly we can implement these recommendations, in a coherent and effective manner, so that our students can benefit from them. 

     Both the Malay and Tamil Language reviews are progressing well and should be completed by August this year.

     Mr Zainudin Nordin also asked about how MOE is helping Malay students who are weak in their spoken Malay.  The importance of oral competencies is reflected in the Malay Language syllabus, instructional materials, teaching methods and assessment.   Our teachers engage students in interaction using an array of language activities which includes story telling, debate, singing and poetry recitation.  Schools also organise Malay Language activities, such as camps and cultural events, to encourage oral communication.  We look forward to more suggestions from the Malay Language Review Committee on how we can further enhance the oral competency of our students.

      Sir, on Mr Ong Ah Heng’s questions about the effectiveness of our sexuality education programme this is also a concern to us.   Allow me to update Members on its implementation in schools.

     Sexuality issues and norms have become more complicated today in a globalised world that is undergoing rapid changes.  It is a situation not peculiar only to Singapore, as other countries that are becoming more open and cosmopolitan also face this same challenge.   We will therefore need the family and the wider community to play their part to shape the sexuality attitudes and behaviours of our students.

     At MOE, we have taken a proactive approach by implementing an age-appropriate sexuality programme in our schools.   This programme adopts a holistic approach towards the issue of sexuality, including the physical, emotional, social, intellectual and ethical dimensions of sexuality.   Sex education, on the other hand, focuses solely on the physical dimension and is usually taught to married couples.   Mr Ong cited the example of schools in some cities in China which have introduced what he termed as sex education.   I am not sure whether it is really sex education or sexuality education.   However, if this is useful for us to take a look at their experiences and how they design the curriculum and programmes for their pupils, we will do so and see what we can learn from them.

     We aim to provide students with accurate knowledge about sexuality, inculcate sound values and equip students with relevant skills to build healthy relationships and make responsible decisions regarding their sexual behaviour.  The sexuality education programme is premised on the importance of the family, and respect of the values and beliefs of the different ethnic and religious communities on sexuality issues.  The programme has been well received in our schools.   Teachers felt that it was comprehensive and well thought through.   The students felt that the lessons provided a legitimate platform for them to discuss the issues that were commonly considered “taboo”, but they would like to know.

     Teenage pregnancies and abortion are complex issues.   Lack of family support, low self-esteem, sexual abuse and a lack of understanding of responsibilities in relationships are also factors associated with teenage pregnancy.

     A survey by MOE in 2004 to gauge the impact of the sexuality education programme was conducted on eight secondary schools and covered over 2,000 pupils.   Students' responses to pre- and post-programme questionnaires indicate a significant increase in their understanding of sexuality matters, including the negative consequences of teenage sexual activities.   There is also a generally positive shift in the students’ attitude towards sexuality matters.

    The sexuality education programme is still in its early stage of implementation, with the post-secondary package only implemented in JCs last year.   We will be evaluating the programme at the upper primary and the JC and Centralised Institute (CI) level this year.

     Sexuality education is not an easy subject to teach.   If we over-teach the subject, we may not get the right results.   It is also more than knowledge about sexual reproduction.   It is about attitudes and beliefs towards sexuality.

     Schools need to be sensitive to the students’ developmental needs and their level of understanding in order to engage them.   Above all, our teachers need to use effective teaching methods to bring the subject alive to impact the students.   We will continually review our programme to ensure that it meets the challenges in our society.

     Let me assure Members that MOE agrees totally with the importance of sexuality education for our students.  While schools and family provide the primary contexts for the inculcation of positive attitudes towards sexuality matters, the larger communities, other Government agencies, and the media, can also play an effective role in influencing these positive behaviours and attitudes.  Together, we can help our youths make more informed and responsible choices.

     Mr Zainudin Nordin asked what MOE is doing to assist parents who cannot afford pocket money and textbooks for their children in schools and whether these students will be disadvantaged because of their situation.   The MOE Financial Assistance Scheme provides for students from low-income households.   This scheme grants waiver of school fees and part of the miscellaneous fees, and provides free textbooks to students too.

     In 2004, this scheme had benefited a total of 14,646 students, compared to 11,471 in 2003 and 7,387 in 2002.   As a larger number of students have been assisted, it means that we have the resources to detect and help these students and that more are benefiting from the scheme.   For this year, as of February, schools have already processed and approved over 12,000 applications.   This number covers 9% of students living in HDB one to three-room flats, and 2% of those staying in four to five-room flats.   We estimate the total financial assistance to be given this year to be about $1.5 million.

     Students can use the funds in their Edusave accounts to pay for their second-tier miscellaneous fees.   This year, the Edusave Pupils Fund contribution rate by the Government for students at the primary level has been increased by $10 from $160 to $170, and for students at the secondary level by $40 from $160 to $200.   As announced by PM in his Budget Statement, there will also be a once-off top-up of $100 to the Edusave accounts of every primary and secondary pupil.

     The School Advisory or School Management Committees will also provide additional support to needy pupils which may take the form of pocket money, settlement of fee arrears, free meals, stationery and uniforms.   In 2004, the School Advisory Committees provided $3 million worth of financial assistance and bursaries.

    The Community Development Councils administer a number of social assistance schemes to help low-income families and families that need help to tide over a difficult period.   Such assistance is necessary so that our students do not have to stop schooling to support their families.   Dr Warren Lee spoke about this during the Budget debate and I want to reassure him that students who had left school prematurely can seek re-admission into our school system if they want to continue with their education.

     Corporate organisations, such as SembCorp Marine, also provide financial grant to assist low-income households with schooling children to purchase school textbooks, uniforms and stationery.   SembCorp Marine has done these for many years and has been working directly with the Ministry of Education in the past two years.  Taken together, these financial assistance schemes from MOE and the wider community ensure that no child is denied an education on account of financial difficulties.

    Dr Ong Seh Hong suggested that we teach Religious Knowledge to primary school pupils to promote racial harmony.  We agree with Dr Ong on the need to promote racial harmony in school.   This is currently done through Civics and Moral Education (CME), where students are exposed to the different religious and cultural customs, beliefs and practices in Singapore.   The purpose is to foster the value of respect for others in our students from the primary to pre-university level, rather than impart religious beliefs to them, which should not be the role of our schools.  As a secular state, we feel that this approach is more appropriate and coherent in promoting racial harmony.

     MOE has set up the Committee on Strengthening Racial Harmony in Schools, which I chair, with the aim of helping schools broaden and deepen inter-racial understanding and mixing in their schools.   The committee comprises representatives from MOE, schools, parent support groups, and community leaders who have been nominated by CDCs.   For example, the Racial Harmony Day on 21st July each year is one key event among the many activities and programmes carried out by schools to promote inter-racial understanding.

     Mr Alex Chan asked whether MOE encourages students’ participation in community organisations and also how MOE is developing a sense of rootedness, patriotism and, increasingly, a regional identity in our students.  We fully agree with him that it is imperative for us to develop in our students a strong sense of belonging to their community and to the country.

     In schools, we strive to impart these national instincts and values through our National Education programmes, Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs) and Community Involvement programmes (CIP).  National Education is also infused in subjects, such as Civics and Moral Education, as well as Social Studies. Teachers use varied teaching approaches, such as discussions, case studies and Learning Journeys.   Pre-university students also attend dialogue sessions with senior civil servants on topics such as economic competitiveness and governance.   So there is a wide range of activities and programmes for us to impart a sense of rootedness and belonging to the country in our students.

     Members will agree that teaching more does not mean learning more.   Values are often “caught” and not “taught”.   National Education has to be authentic and meaningful, experienced and felt by the students.   Therefore, opportunities have to be created for students to undergo experiences that will help them internalise these values.   Co-curricular activities play a key role.  And here I fully agree with Mr Alex Chan on the importance of giving our students opportunities to connect with organisations out there, including through sports organisations.   Through CCAs, our students form life-long friendships.   Sports is a particularly good CCA to bond students and their community.

     Mr Alex Chan may be pleased to note that MOE encourages schools to establish links with sports clubs.   Clubs, such as the Singapore Cricket Club, Singapore Recreation Club, Ceylon Sports Club and the Singapore Indian Association, organise youth development programmes to nurture and train young sports talents.  There are also student hockey players in schools, such as Tampines Junior College and Yuhua Secondary, who play for local clubs in the Singapore Hockey Federation League tournament.   So there are opportunities for them, and many of them have taken up the opportunities to play with the big boys, so to say, in the league and, hopefully, that will give them the connection to the larger community too.

     The Community Involvement Programme provides yet another platform for students to build connections with their wider community.   Some of our students conduct reading programmes in libraries, while others visit old folks' homes to interact with the elderly residents and help with the maintenance of these homes.   Our schools have also collaborated with various organisations to broaden and deepen students' involvement in community outreach projects.   Such organisations include Community Clubs, Community Development Councils, the National Youth Councils and the Singapore International Foundation.

5.00 pm

     Nevertheless, we understand that the transmission of national instincts and values to our students is a long process.   The family, the community and the society play no less a critical role in shaping these values in our young.   I do not think this is a role that we should only give to the schools.

      Perhaps, the real measure of success of our efforts lies in how our students instinctively respond to a national or regional crisis.   If the positive and caring spirit of our students and Singaporeans during SARS or the tsunami disaster is of any indication, I am confident that we are on the right track in preparing future citizens of Singapore.   Working together with parents and the community, our schools will continue to strive to ensure that our students are imbued with a sense of love, loyalty and belonging to the community and to Singapore.

Mr Iswaran: Mr Chairman, I appreciate the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that the Ministry would implement the recommendations of the review that can be implemented immediately.   But I seek a more specific assurance, not something so generic, because past experience has shown that three elements have to be synchronised - curriculum design, national examination standards, school-based teaching and standards of tests or any other assessments in schools. These must work in tandem. If not, what tends to happen is that, whatever we do in terms of curriculum design, the teachers will continue to teach based on examination expectations.

My question specifically is whether the Review Committee has been asked to anticipate this need and recommend implementation on that basis.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Yes, the two Committees will conclude their work in August.   We will have time to review their recommendations. Those which can be implemented immediately and quickly, we will try to do immediately. But there are issues like curriculum design and development and examinations which may need some time.   In principle, I can assure Mr Iswaran and Members that we will try to implement as quickly as we can in all respects of the review - curriculum, examinations, as well as pedagogy activities, ie, the teaching methods.   We will start with those which are easy to implement and easy to improve.   But some areas of efforts, like teacher training and curriculum design, may take a bit of time to finetune.   I am not very sure how quickly we can implement all the recommendations. But I can assure Members, including Mr Iswaran, that we will try to do that as quickly as we can.   But we have to do that comprehensively and cohesively so that our students can benefit and that we do not have to review the new curriculum and the examination format sooner than necessary in future.

Mr Zainudin Nordin: Sir, I am very happy to hear that the schools are giving more assistance to the poor families.   Why is it that parents do feel compelled to ask for help from the Members of Parliament if the assistance is already available in schools? Why not make it such that if the fees are not being paid for a few months, automatically some assistance is being rendered.   I would just like to ask for some comments from the Ministry.

     The other point is the question of timing of help.   I know parents are very concerned when it comes to the end and the beginning of the year the time for getting school uniforms, payment of fees and so on. Could it be done earlier so that when there is a need for help, the parents are not overwhelmed by such concerns?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, I suggest that Mr Zainudin ask the parents why they need to approach their MPs to seek help to pay for the schools fees which they have in arrears.

     Schools provide assistance to pupils who need assistance.   Schools will have to conduct an investigation. The school will first ask pupils to pay the fees. Where they have chalked up arrears, very often the school will advise parents to come for a discussion.   I do not know what happened to parents who did not approach the school and why they did not approach the school for assistance.

     But having said that, the 12,000 pupils who have approached their schools and whose applications have been considered could not have met their MPs to get financial assistance to pay for the school fees.   A great majority of them must have approached their schools directly.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): Sir, I declare my interest as the spokesperson for a programme that offers help to teenage pregnant mothers.   I would just like to ask the SPS, since we have agreed that sexuality education is more complex now than ever before, how are teachers basically being trained to tackle this issue.   I am just wondering whether a more discussive approach instead of really teaching it will actually help students have a better understanding of the issue and, on a personal capacity, for them to actually approach their teachers. So that helps them to understand this whole issue better.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, we approach this programme in a different way for different levels of students.   Let me start by saying that we are providing more teaching resources to schools so that we can counsel and teach pupils issues of sexuality.  

     We have trained teachers to teach sexuality education.   We are providing more trained teacher counsellors to schools.   For example, from this year, counselling provision in schools will be further enhanced. We will be sending trained teacher counsellors to all secondary schools this year. On top of that, we will also be sending full-time school counsellors to schools.   All secondary schools will have full-time school counsellors by next year. We will do so over a period of three years for primary schools and JCs.  On top of that, we also engage a team of professionals in helping students with sexuality problems. These comprise specialists in guidance, psychologists, medical and legal professions too.

     How do we teach students on issues of sexuality?   Generally, we teach students through subjects like CME so that they understand issues of sexuality.   The Member asked whether we use discussive approach. Yes, we do that, especially for students at a higher level, ie, at the JC level.   Students will understand through discussions, through viewing videos together and through analysing situations.

     As I have said, we are providing more trained teachers to schools, including JCs, in the next one to three years at different levels so that we can enhance further sexuality education in our schools.   I hope that answers the Member's questions.

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang (Nominated Member): Sir, I wish to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member, Mr Alex Chan regarding rootedness and belonging.   One thing, which may be an unintended consequence of our Education Ministry's reorganisation and shifting of schools, is that we have lost some sense of belonging and rootedness.  

     Just the other day, I found out Telok Kurau School is now in Ubi.   I mentioned in this House that River Valley School is quite far from River Valley and Raffles Institution has been in three places in recent history.   I think it is very important that if we want to have people establish roots here and, have a sense of belonging, it is important to respect place and name, and have these institutions endured so that the school kids, when they graduated, will know where they belong and will go back, and feel a sense of belonging.   Moreover, these schools will be rooted in their respective communities.   But we shuffle them here and there, and change their names.   Crescent Girls' School is ---

The Chairman:   So, what is your question?   

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang: He knows what I mean.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Prof. Png talks about geographical rootedness.   What is more important is the spirit of rootedness, not geographical rootedness of our pupils to the schools they belong to or they have their education in.

      We have seen in many schools the spirit of togetherness and the spirit of identity, which have been developed over the years through games and achieving common objectives together. Sir, it does not matter where the school is located.   If River Valley High is located in Pandan Loop or Teban Gardens, the spirit of River Valley High remains intact.   If RI is now located in Bishan, the spirit of RI remains the same as 50 years ago.   I do not come from RI, but I understand that spirit of the rootedness among former RI pupils.

     I do not think it is necessarily significant to develop rootedness among pupils on the basis of geographical location.

Mr Alexander Chan Meng Wah: I thank Mr Hawazi for the explanation of the many activities that the Ministry of Education is doing.   I fully appreciate that.   Just as much as the education process totally immerses the students in the content and experience, this other thing about CCA and CIP is, we have more of a "smell the flowers" approach at this time.   I hope that in years to come, it is going to go beyond that.   Then you do not have a situation, like the one, which was brought up by the hon. Member, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, where you have a disabled person being ostracised within his own community.   I hope that we can go truly down into rootedness, not about the physical thing but about the spirit.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, I agree that CCA and CIP have done a lot in inculcating that spirit of service, that sense of belonging to not only the school but also to the larger community.   I think they can certainly do more. As we have seen through our experiences handling SARS, the way the students and the community, in general, responded to the development in our neighbouring countries following the tsunami disaster, we have reasons to be proud in how that spirit of togetherness and sense of belonging to ourselves, being Singaporeans, have developed over the years.

     It is always tempting to cite anecdotal examples and we always remember unpleasant examples.   I think it is not fair to schools, in general, for us to just cite one example and then generalise it.   There are examples of students who help others through buddy reading programme.   There are those who help the physically handicapped. There are many good examples which have been highlighted by the press.   So I do not think it is fair to our education development, in general, to our students, teachers and our institutions to cite single example and generalise it.

     I appreciate Mr Chan's views on the importance of CCA and CIP, and we have done a lot.   They might have smelt the flowers, but we have already introduced that liking towards flowers. Why not?   In my personal view, if at the end of the day, only 1% of each student cohort continues to do community service seriously after they have grown up, I think we have achieved something. 4,000 to 5,000 Singaporeans of each cohort doing community service is not bad at all.   So the cumulative effect must be good for Singapore.

5.15 pm                                

The Chairman:   All right, I allow one last question.   Prof. Ong Soh Khim.

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member): Sir, I have three points with regard to Minister Tharman's earlier reply.   The first one is on the topic of streaming.

The Chairman:  Can you keep them to the end of the debate, when time permits?   We are covering topics currently under debate.  All right, we will move on.

Teachers

Mr Gan Kim Yong (In Mandarin):   In the past few years, our education system has undergone great changes in order that our students could be taught according to their talent and potential. This basic principle is correct.   However, I feel that for our education system to be thoroughly successful, it would still depend very much on our teachers.   Therefore, we should review our teaching service.

      First of all, the Ministry of Education should evaluate the workload of our teachers.   Now that they are required to teach less and make the students learn more, the traditional teaching methods can no longer be used. The teachers have to be innovative and deploy creative ways to teach, and have more time to interact with the students. They also need more time to prepare their teaching materials.   With the heavy workload they are having now, they may not have the space to carry out this innovation.

       Second, the curriculum has also been changed and reformed.   Teachers need to be trained to adapt to them.   I think we should have the teachers' consent because some of them grew up in the old system.   We should listen to their views and adjust our policies.

       Third, perhaps we should provide our teachers with more administrative assistants so that they could concentrate on teaching. This may incur more cost, but I think it is worth it, for the benefit of our next generation. Teachers are very important in this reform of the system.   No matter how good our policies are, we need to have dedicated teachers so that the reform could be successful.   We always say that teachers are the engineer of our soul.   I think we should improve their working condition.

The Chairman:   Mr Charles Chong is not here.

Schools of the Future

Mr Zainudin Nordin:   Mr Chairman, Sir, I would just like to describe a scene.   The scene is familiar.   A teacher stands at the front of her room, children sit in the centre, their seats arranged in rows or semi-circles.   There is a chalk-board or white-board, a wall map and a globe.   This could be a classroom in 2005, 1995, 1859 or even 1795.   Although the details may vary, school design has seen few changes in the past 200 years.

      Mr Chairman, Sir, with the aim to provide our children with a balanced and well-rounded education, develop them to their full potential and nurture them into good citizens, we continue to invest heavily in public education infrastructure and facilities.   However, are we designing our schools to be education factories?   Have we looked into aspects of architectural design, space planning, natural flow and ergonomics?   We should be concerned with not only the software but also the hardware.   The infrastructure and the facilities must align with MOE's vision.   To encourage creativity and balance, the hardware need not necessarily be hard and cold and we should factor in design aspects that create a soft and warm environment, which is more inviting, conducive and reflect the new thrust in our education system.

      In this respect, Sir, may I propose that MOE be involved and work closely with the designers and architects, who share the vision of MOE, to develop our future schools that are progressive and modern in nature.   Study has shown that students' achievement and behaviour relate to the physical building conditions and overcrowding has an effect on their performance.   Good facilities appear to be an important pre-condition for student learning.

Programme for Rebuilding and Improving Existing Schools (PRIME)

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang (Nominated Member):  Sir, my point is somewhat related to the point made by the hon. Member Mr Zainudin.

      PRIME is a programme, worth over $1 billion, to upgrade schools.   One of the key deliverables is larger classrooms to fit enhanced technology.   However, since PRIME was initiated some years ago, the Ministry has decided to recruit more teachers and reduce the student/teacher ratio and so, therefore, classes are going to be smaller, with fewer students.

     In this case, could the Ministry not realign PRIME so that there would be less need to enlarge classrooms and money could be saved or used for other purposes? 

Special Education Schools

Mr S Iswaran:   Mr Chairman, Sir, this is regarding special education.   Today, the way we have special education seems to be in two sort of quite disparate models.

      The first is the kind of integration model where students with special needs go to mainstream schools where they have the ability to keep up or cope with the curriculum there and, normally, they have to take some kind of test or be assessed before they could be admitted.   This is an ideal model, particularly from the special needs students' perspective, but very few could actually benefit because of the high demands of our mainstream system.

     The other model at the other end of the spectrum is the customised special education schools, which cater to the specific needs of students with special educational requirements.   It has the advantage of being able to cater to a far wider ability range among such students.  But the disadvantage remains that it is decoupled from the mainstream and from students who are really part and parcel of the society that students with special needs and mainstream students are integrated within.

      I think it is generally acknowledged that interaction between the two groups is desirable and of mutual benefit to both sides, both in terms of character development, to some extent pedagogic development and, in general, part of our own social and civil consciousness of being part of the society. 

      So the question really is:   can we pursue some other model or some other means of promoting this kind of integration?   One of the thoughts that has been thrown around in the past is the idea of co-locating special schools and mainstream schools, so that they are physically on adjacent premises.   What that allows is for integration for certain aspects of the curriculum, be it, for example, in art or physical education or some of the ECA and social activities, and yet allowing for separation for the pursuit of academic matters and so on.   The advantage of such a system is that the interaction amongst the students would occur quite naturally and would not have to be orchestrated in the sense that there is actually a special excursion or event when the two groups of student come together to go wherever it is.   So the question I have really is whether the Ministry is pursuing this model and, if so, what is the state of development of that idea. 

      I raised this under the Ministry of Education because it is not clear to me whether this is an initiative, if undertaken, would fall under the Ministry of Education or under MCYS, or whether it requires a joint response. 

Compulsory Education for Children with Disabilities

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen:   Sir, when the Compulsory Education Act (CEA) was introduced in 2000, children with disabilities were exempted.   I believe we should relook this decision.

      Previously the CE committee had said it did not intend to use the Act as a means to improve access to and support for children with special needs.   But, now, the Government has said that it wants to progressively integrate the disabled into society.   This would mean acting to ensure the disabled are not kept out from the mainstream.   Hence, unless there is a medical diagnosis that a child cannot be educated, CE should apply to them as it applies to the mainstream.   This is not a call for all disabled children to attend national schools.   I know Special Education Schools (SPED) offer specially-tailored programmes with specially-trained teachers, special facilities and more time and attention for our special children.   But why not include SPED schools in the Act?   It was said that exemption from CE gives flexibility to families of children who need special care.   Should it not be the Act that should be flexible for the children's benefit?   Because the point we all accept as the reason we have CE is that education is vital for our children and we must protect every child's right to an education.   Let us keep to this spirit and extend it to the disabled.

      MOE need not run SPED schools to make education compulsory for the disabled children.   It already works closely with VWOs to support these schools.   Since 2000, it has reviewed its funding programmes for these schools and provided more help in teacher training and curriculum upgrading.   We have more SPED schools now than in 2000.   The older ones are getting new homes and facilities with help from MOE, which is allocating $55 million yearly, starting this year, to 2008, to improve education for the disabled children.   Because the groundwork is done, it means the conditions are right and ripe to do away with an exemption.   Even if children are put on the waiting list, it would not excuse parents from shirking their duties.   The committee has said it may be too harsh to enforce CE on families with special children.   I agree these families need help to overcome their difficulties, financial or otherwise.   Struggling or dysfunctional families with able children need help too, and they do get help.   Are they excluded from CE?   It should be no different for the disabled children unless our many helping hands approach is inadequate.   I urge the Ministry to, at least, consider making education compulsory for the disabled children who qualify for mainstream schools as the exemption covers children with physical disabilities whose IQs can be higher than mainstream children.

     If education is compulsory in national schools and one qualifies for these schools, should not special education be compulsory?   There are early intervention programmes that could determine if children with disabilities could cope with mainstream education.   At least, let us start somewhere.

Response

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Mr Chairman, Sir, I certainly agree with Mr Gan Kim Yong's point that teacher is the cornerstone and the guarantee that our educational programmes would be implemented well in school.   They play key roles in all our educational programmes.   In my earlier response to Chinese education, for example, you see how I had emphasised on the importance of teachers.   Yes, it is important to ensure that good people continue to join the Education Service and it is also important to ensure that the working conditions of the teachers who are in the service are well taken care of, so that they could be given more time and energy to reflect on what they do, innovate, try new methods, and so on and so forth.

      I am very pleased to report that over the last few years, we have been able to grow the ranks of our Education Service.   We have been able to increase the number of teaching staff from 23,000 teachers in 2000 to 27,000 in 2004.   It is a 17% increase and, we have achieved this without compromising on quality.   In fact, if anything, the quality has gone up.   In 2000, only 48% of the teachers recruited were graduates.   In year, it was 74%.   We continue to be rigorous in our selection and training of teachers and, in fact, we have introduced a lot of other programmes to ensure that they keep up with the changes in times so that they could continue to take care of the students, as well as to advise them.   

      Non-graduate teachers could take up degree programmes, for example, either full-time or part-time.   We also have the Professional Development Leave Scheme (PDL) to allow graduate teachers to pursue post-graduate qualifications which they apply for.   There is also the Teacher Work Attachment Programme (TWA) to allow teachers to spend some time with industry and the private sector to know what is it like outside.

      In 2004, for example, 132 teachers were granted study leave to pursue their undergraduate studies.   102 were granted PDL to pursue their post-graduate studies.   We have awarded post-graduate scholarships to 39 teachers and the TWA, which was introduced in 2003, also received very good response.   So far, we have about 640 teachers who have taken up local and overseas attachments with schools as well as public and private organisations.   Some interesting examples include attachments with the National University of Laos and the CitiGroup Overseas offices, as well as local institutions such as SingHealth Group and the Singapore Business Federation.   So, we do have a good programme to expose our teachers.

      Of course, Mr Gan Kim Yong mentioned about teachers' workload and, I think, Mdm Ho Geok Choo earlier on also mentioned the same point.   To reduce the teachers' workload we would be doing a few things.   First, we would be providing more resources to our schools so that they have the autonomy to decide how best to use them to supplement their manpower needs.   For example, they could engage additional temporary or permanent manpower to help the teachers in their work.   In 2005, we have set aside an additional $12 million to increase the manpower grant for the schools.   So the grant to primary schools would, therefore, be increased from the current $60,000 to $100,000 a year.   For the secondary schools, junior colleges and CIs, it would be increased from $100,000 to about $130,000-$140,000.  This is a significant increase in allocation, and the schools will be able to engage two or three more relief teachers above their teacher quota or buy services, like teaching assistants and so on, to handle specific administrative tasks.

5.30 pm

      The second thing that we are going to do is to recruit more teachers.   The Prime Minister, during last year’s National Day Rally, said that over the next five years, the Ministry of Education will be providing about 3,000 more teachers to the schools.   This is a 15% net increase from the current teaching force which, as I mentioned earlier, has been expanded by 17% since year 2000.   By 2010, there will be a net increase of 1,000 primary school teachers, 1,400 secondary school teachers and 550 JC/CI teachers.   This translates to an increase of roughly 10 teachers in every school. 

      In addition, the Ministry of Education also plans to deploy at least one school counsellor to every secondary school by 2006 and at least one school counsellor to every primary school and JC by 2008.   We will also train more teachers as teacher counsellors in schools.

      We hope that with this additional manpower in schools, there will be better spreading of the load.   But the purpose actually goes beyond that.   With greater capacity in schools, the teachers will have more time to plan and experiment with teaching approaches that will deliver the best education outcomes for their students as well as to respond to their needs.

      We have also looked at other sources to recruit teachers.   For example, we have introduced a new adjunct teacher scheme since October 2004 to attract former trained teachers, eg, those who have retired or who have left service, to rejoin the teaching profession.   We feel that this scheme will not only support our teachers but also provide an avenue for the Ministry of Education to retain the expertise and institutional knowledge of experienced teachers.

      Special education was also mentioned.   In order to provide more specialised support for students with learning disabilities, the Ministry of Education will also recruit, over the next five years, about 230 Special Needs Officers.   These officers will focus on helping students with problems like dyslexia and autistic spectrum disorder in designated mainstream schools.   This should help in further integration of the children.

      We have therefore increased the administrative capabilities of the schools by introducing positions like Administration Managers and Operations Managers.   They handle administrative and support functions at the school level.   Currently, each school has about nine to 22 administrative posts, depending on their enrolment size.

      To complement the overall administrative support to schools, I am happy to announce that we will be introducing a new post called Vice Principal (Administration) or VP (Admin) position in schools.   The VP (Admin) will be positioned to help the principal manage resources strategically to drive excellence in administration as well as innovation at the school level.

      As we provide more resources and autonomy to schools, and as schools design various niche programmes for their pupils - maybe take part in designing classrooms in case there is upgrading and so on - we need to build up the planning capacity and capability of our schools.   This will be one of the key challenges for the new VP (Admin).   In addition, the VP (Admin) will also oversee all non-curriculum areas ranging from, eg, human resource management to estate management, quite a big job - literally, pau sua, pau hai. 

      The VP (Admin) positions will be created based on justifiable demand.   It is not that every school will automatically get a VP (Admin), because different schools have different needs.   Schools with large student enrolment, good programmes and a large network of stakeholders will conceivably need a VP (Admin) more in order to ensure that resources are well-utilised.

      The first few VP (Admin) will be selected based on these general guidelines.   VP (Admin) will be selected from our current pool of Executive and Administrative Staff as well as mid-career entrants.   They will be appointed probably in June this year.   The appointment will be part of the overall grooming process for talented individuals in MOE.   To note, the VP (Admin) need not be an Education Officer, because his or her job is basically resource management.

      Mr Zainudin Nordin said that the classroom has not changed since 1895.   I will invite him to visit some of our schools, because whatever he saw in the classroom when he was in primary school seems to be dominating in his mind.   In fact, the school designs have changed quite a lot, and we have incorporated building specifications to ensure that new demands and requirements are built in.   In fact, it is because of the need to incorporate these new demands that we initiated this programme called PRIME - Programme for Rebuilding and Improving Existing Schools.   This is a $4.5 billion programme that was launched in 1999 to upgrade our schools.  For example, Pasir Ris Primary had innovatively created resource corners in classrooms by constructing “L-shape” classrooms during PRIME.   With this layout, it is possible to split a class into small groups to engage in different activities - you may even be able to run a small opera in the classroom.   It is not like everybody sits in the middle, in rows or in circles, listening to the teacher.

     I am also pleased to announce that the Ministry of Education will be providing greater administrative flexibility for primary and secondary schools.   This is part of our continuing efforts to give more resources to the schools.   We are going to do this by freeing up 10-15% of the physical capacity in schools through adjustments to the planned enrolment.   Each school will have the autonomy to decide how best to make use of the physical space that has been created and freed up for their educational programmes.

      In general, the planned enrolment will be reduced at the Primary 1 level in all Government primary schools from 2006, if possible.   Government-aided schools will be given an option to adjust their enrolment, as this will affect their respective communities, just in case they feel obliged to take in more students from their respective communities that they are serving.

      Prof. Ivan Png asked why is there a need to build bigger classrooms if the class size has been reduced.   I just want to say that the class size was reduced only for Primary 1 and Primary 2.  The Primary 1 class this year was reduced from 40 to 30.   The class size from Primary 3 onwards has not been reduced and therefore it is justifiable to build bigger classrooms as part of the PRIME requirement.   At the same time, most of our schools are operating at partial single session.   So the current classroom size needs to be adjusted to cater for the different needs of the students.

     Mr Gan Kim Yong, Mr Iswaran, Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Ms Olsen spoke about special education, and some of the speeches were really passionate.   First, I want, to outline the framework for special education.   In general, we have the Special Education (SPED) schools.   These schools are currently run by the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), because we believe that VWOs have got much greater passion in serving their respective case clients.   What the Government does is to work hand in hand with them and give them support.

      SPED schools also cater to children with more severe disabilities.   Those with mild disabilities and are able to cope and possible to be integrated, we will allow them to attend national schools.   This approach acknowledges that different children have different disabilities, and it is better that we do something that is sensible for each of them.  So some will go to SPED schools and some will go to our schools.

      Ms Olsen asked why not make it compulsory.   There are some children who are really medically unfit to attend school.   This number, however, is pretty small.   We currently have 10 from the 2003 Primary 1 cohort and 12 from the 2004 Primary 1 cohort who have difficulty attending school because of their condition. If you look at the history of compulsory education, we actually introduced compulsory education pretty carefully.   We legislated compulsory education when we had more or less achieved universal enrolment.   In the case of special education, we intend to do the same too.   As we improve on the number of children with special needs attending the school, as we achieve near 100% enrolment, then perhaps we will consider her proposal.   But at the moment, it is more important for us to work towards enrolling as many of them as possible instead of considering legislative changes.

      The Ministry of Education currently provides support to 20 special education schools that cater to about 4,500 children with different disabilities.   Together with the National Council of Social Services, recurrent funding of up to four times the level of funding per primary student in mainstream schools is provided to SPED schools.   Some may argue - why do we not give more?   But compared with the time when I first joined the Ministry of Education, it was then only one time.   Now, it is four times.   So we have made progress.

     The Ministry of Education has also increased its support for development costs of SPED school buildings from 90% to 95% of the project cost approved after September 2004.

      To further enhance the support for SPED schools, the Prime Minister announced last year that we will be committing a total of $55 million a year till year 2008 for special needs in SPED and mainstream schools.   The enhanced funding will really speed up the upgrading and redevelopment of SPED schools, so that more of them will be able to enjoy better facilities.  

      Other than physical infrastructure, the additional funding will also go towards improving the quality of professional resources in SPED schools, eg, recruitment of better qualified teachers, providing better professional development for the staff as well as improving the curriculum design.

      We agree with Mr Iswaran on the benefits of co-locating special and mainstream schools so that the children can each study in their own school but they have the opportunity to meet with each other. It provides good opportunity for students to see and learn from each other and help to instill in them the care and concern for others that we want to promote in a wider society.   Therefore, it meets our educational objectives.

5.45 pm

      Currently, there are three SPED schools that are located adjacent to mainstream schools.   These are, for example, the Spastic Children's Association which is next to Meridian JC, Canossian School for the Hearing Impaired - it is sharing the same compound as Canossa Convent - and Pathlight School, the holding school is next to Chong Boon Secondary School and the new building is next to Townsville Primary.   So co-location is already taking place.   We hope to see more of such relationships between mainstream schools and other special schools.   As far as possible, we will also facilitate such co-location for the new purpose-built schools.

      For children with mild disabilities that can enter into mainstream schools, we will try to cater for them.   There are currently about 2,500 children with mild disabilities that are studying in mainstream schools.   These include children with mild physical disabilities, visual and hearing impairment, autism and dyslexia.   The Ministry of Education dedicates resources to provide support and to facilitate their integration in the schools. For example, for children with sensory impairment, resource teachers are provided at six designated secondary schools to help their learning in schools.

     There are 59 mainstream schools that have been retrofitted to facilitate access for children with physical disabilities. Children with sensory and physical disabilities are also provided with assistive devices to aid their learning.   Children with dyslexia or autism in mainstream schools also receive additional support from the Ministry of Education and the voluntary welfare organisations. As I mentioned earlier, we are recruiting additional staff to help them.

     Last, but not least, with effect from year 2006, the Ministry of Education will strengthen the support for children with learning disabilities by deploying Special Needs Officers to 20 designated primary schools and 30 secondary schools.   Going forward, the Ministry of Education will continue to make improvements on how we support children with special needs.    

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister a question regarding teachers' workload.  We welcome the initiatives that the Ministry has introduced.   I am sure the teachers would be very happy.   But I think it is still important for us to understand the nature of the workload of the teachers.   So I would like to urge the Ministry to consider doing a review on the workload and maybe develop some kind of an indicator or index so that we can compare over time whether the workload has increased or decreased and also compare with other countries, so that we have a handle on the workload.   Because teachers are not like managers, where they are on flexi hours and can adjust their own time.   They are not like workers who have fixed hours, so long as you work 44 hours a week, you are all right.   But teachers must have wider scope, and it is important for us to have a feel of their workload, whether it is adequate or appropriate.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, we will certainly look into this proposal.   But I want to mention one thing.   Teaching is a calling.   It is a vocation.   There are teachers who just want to go all the way, whatever review that we have done.   And they always will have a heavy workload.   Sir, the ironical thing is that good teachers always have heavy workload.   It is just like good MPs always have a heavy workload.   There was one question to Mr Hawazi on why some parents prefer to go and see the MP, rather than the school.   Maybe, it is because the MP is very popular.   So we will have to see the workload in context.   I agree with Mr Gan that there is a lot of intangible in a teacher's work and therefore no amount of survey can really give us a good feel of what it actually is.   But providing additional administrative support by recruiting more teachers while we can, will be the things that we will continue to do.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen: A point of clarification, Sir.   Perhaps, I was very worried about the timer, so I did not really make my point clear.   But I was just wondering if the Ministry will consider extending compulsory education to children with perhaps physical disabilities through early intervention which will qualify them for mainstream schools, especially since now more resources are given to a number of mainstream schools to cater for children with disabilities, such as facilities and better trimming.   I would not say medically unfit, but because of their physical disabilities, they can go to the mainstream schools, and whether compulsory education can be extended to this group of children.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: If you are talking about early intervention, then presumably you are talking about children of pre-school age.  Those children are not included in compulsory education because compulsory education only starts at Primary 1.   If you are talking about children who are already in national schools, then why legislate?   They are already in there.  

       To me, the most important issue is not whether the legislation includes them but whether our effort is able to make sure that all of them have the opportunity for appropriate education.   There will be some, because of special circumstances, whose parents may decide not to enrol them, let them stay at home, educate them at home, and so on.   We probably have to respect that.   Because if it is legislated, if you do not send your kid to school, you have committed an offence.   But if, on the other hand, the voluntary welfare organisations are able to get to these children who are at home and offer them help, and maybe the Community Development Councils also join in and assist, then there is also something for them. So let us look at the effect of all these combined efforts, rather than looking at the legislation alone.

Mr Iswaran: Sir, the Ministry agrees that it is a good idea to have special schools and mainstream schools co-located, and I was pleased to hear about the three examples.   Can I ask whether these three co-location examples occurred by certain liberty or was it because of planning and intent on the part of the Ministry and the parties involved?   It is a very important point to address because it seems to me it is more likely to be the case as it happens perchance and because it is Canossian School, maybe the school initiated the idea. If the Ministry sees about it, then in the planning exercise for new schools and also as part of the PRIME programme, there should be a specific targeting and including it in site planning, and so on.   Because we all know that there are site norms, you have to negotiate with URA for schools, and if you are going to co-locate schools, you need to make additional provisions.  I would appreciate some clarifications on that.  

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, I do not know why Mr Iswaran is so sceptical about our intention.   I did say in the reply that we consider co-location to be a good move.   So if it is possible to co-locate, we will do so.   The co-location of all the three schools took place because of well-intended direction.   If you look at Canossian School, it has got its own programme of catering for the hearing impaired, using technology, carrying hearing aid, and so on, and it has been well-integrated.   When I visited the Pathlight School, the neighbouring school, for example, Chong Boon, found that having them together is actually very good.   You will find that the students really go out of their way to help the students from Pathlight School.   So definitely, if we can, we will plan for more.

The Chairman: Dr Michael Lim is not here.   Mr Gan Kim Yong.

Tertiary Education

Mr Gan Kim Yong:   Sir, I have three concerns with regard to the corporatisation of the universities - NUS and NTU.   Firstly, to take advantage of the flexibility arising from the corporatisation, the universities must identify areas where it has the potential to develop peaks of excellence and put in place a clear strategy to develop these areas.   So I would like to ask the Minister whether he will share with us which particular areas have these universities identified as potential growth areas.   Secondly, very often, the success of a good strategy depends on the people behind it.   It is therefore crucial for the universities to have the right people who have the vision, the ability and the determination to lead the universities and take them to greater heights.   Could the Minister tell us whether he thinks the present leadership at the two universities is appropriate and whether there is a need to strengthen it?   Thirdly, the corporatisation will also give the universities flexibility in setting their fees.   This may translate into higher costs for the undergraduates, maybe in certain faculties at least. Will the Minister assure the House that corporatisation by itself should not lead to higher fees?

On a related subject, the Minister announced last year that the Government will gradually reduce its subsidy for university students over time.   I would like to urge the Government to recover this move as it is in Singapore's interest to help our children maximise their potential and to pursue their tertiary education here.   Given that universities can now go out to raise funds, could the Government consider reducing the subsidy only after the universities are able to raise sufficient funds to fill the gap?

Corporatisation of Universities

Mr Inderjit Singh:   First of all, let me declare my interest.   I am a Council Member of the Nanyang Technological University.

      Sir, I support this move to make the universities more autonomous by way of corporatisation.   And I think that this move will be in the long-term interest of Singapore.   To be successful, I have a similar concern, like Mr Gan Kim Yong, and that is the management structure.   For this to work successfully, we probably would need to think of two parallel structures in the university.   One, the management structure, run almost like a corporate, a CEO management type of skills.   And the second, an academic type of structure.   These two need to be run in parallel.   I ask the Minister whether these have been taken into consideration and, if so, whether we are going to make some changes in the management structure in the universities before we make this move.

      Second, I am not so sure whether the problem of corporatisation and the related problems within the universities will arise because the universities are not able to handle this move, but more because of MOE's inability to let go and whether the problem will remain with MOE who wants to still exercise control and still expect the universities to move fast enough.   This is another issue that needs to be thoroughly studied before we decide to go and corporatise the universities.

      The final issue I worry about is how we are going to handle the corporatisation of the three universities. All three of our universities, NUS, NTU and SMU, have different backgrounds.   First of all, NUS is long established.   It has a very long history and a very strong base of alumni who are able to support the university by way of funding or to become council members who can help manage the university.   Therefore, its risks for corporatisation, I believe, are low.   Second, SMU.   It is a new university.   It started on the basis of being quite autonomous and the management structure and how it has developed itself has been almost the model that we want for the rest of the universities.   So, again, I think for SMU, the risks are similarly low.

      But, on the other hand, NTU has a short history.   If you look at the modern NTU, not counting Nanyang University, there are only 20 batches of alumni, or graduates, and I happened to be from the first batch.   The earlier batches were only very small numbers - 600 in my batch - and it started to grow.   So we have a relatively less established alumni base.   Secondly, it is only now that NTU is trying to transform itself from a technological university to a comprehensive university.   So I see this as a second major risk for NTU as it tries to make this move.   I, therefore, ask the Minister to take this into consideration, particularly when it comes to the allocation of resources, whether it is funding or the type of people to support the changes.   And, among all the three universities, NTU faces the greatest risk with this change.   I think NTU welcome this and I, as a Council Member, also welcome this move.   I ask the Minister not to treat the three universities, NTU faces the greatest risk with this change.   While I think NTU welcomes this - and I, as a Council member, also welcome this move - I ask the Minister not to treat the three universities equally in this case but to give preference to NTU by way of support structures and funding.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Sir, the move to corporatise our local universities, NUS and NTU, is a highly commendable decision.   That this decision reportedly took three years to make across the tenure of two Ministers reflects the fact that the issues are highly complex.   From a conceptual viewpoint, nobody can argue against the benefits of university autonomy.   But, as in so many Government policies, there can be a darker side to this decision, and I urge the Ministry to give due consideration to some practical problems that may arise from the corporatisation.  

     Firstly, while competition is good, the focus should be beyond, rather than within, our shores.   All three universities, NUS, NTU as well as SMU, offer popular courses like business administration, with each of them trying hard to differentiate from the others to attract the best student brains.   This competition makes for a more varied landscape, and certainly interesting newspaper and bus-stop advertisements.   But our small size makes me wonder if such competition is more confusing and destructive than helpful, and also wasteful of already scarce funds.   Might it not be better for these universities to each develop into more specialised schools that offer breadth and depth in both research and teaching?   So, it is a managed autonomy that we are talking about, rather than a free-for-all.

      Another obvious concern is further future fee hikes.   The recent fee hikes by all three universities might well be viewed as a herald of things to come.   This is the unavoidable conclusion of a sceptical public.   This fear is accentuated by the Government stating very clearly that it intends to reduce the 75% subsidy to university students.   I urge the Ministry to ensure, as in the case of overseas colleges, that there will be enough scholarships, grants, loans and part-time jobs available on campus to help students pay their fees, so that no deserving student will be deprived of a university education due to financial circumstances.   The universities, like their US counterparts, could evaluate how much fees a student can contribute, based on his family circumstances, before looking at a combination of university-funded scholarships, grants, loans and part-time work to help him pay his fees.   They should not impose a one-size-fits-all means test, as this could mean that those from the sandwich class could be left out in the cold, in terms of financial assistance.   The drop in funding will need to be compensated, as in other privately-run universities elsewhere, by the greater involvement of their alumni in fund-raising.

      Finally, the road to autonomy is going to be strewn with sensitive staff issues.   As the university reviews its hiring and tenure policy to attract and keep the best talents, inevitably there will be casualties.   I hope that the transition will be handled with sensitivity, especially the older staff whose efforts and contributions had made the universities what they are now.

The Chairman:   Prof. Low Seow Chay is not here.   Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Funding of Tertiary Institutions

Mr Low Thia Khiang:   Sir, the preliminary report of the steering committee to review university autonomy, governance and funding released by MOE recently stated that the Government will shift its funding model for university by 2006.   Instead of funding operating expenditure based on the number of students enrolled, funding will be based on the number of graduates produced.   According to the report, the general rationale is to enhance the competitiveness of our three public-funded universities.   The change will also encourage universities to meet national manpower targets and the Government will be able to predetermine the number of graduates when it provides its funding.

      Under the new system, it would be up to the universities to decide the numbers and profile of the students it should enrol, so as to produce the required number of graduates three or four years down the road.   Universities which do not meet output targets will have to refund MOE the money based on a certain formula.   Such a funding model will also force universities to look at alternative sources of funding, such as soliciting donations and enrolling full-fee paying foreign students.

      Sir, I do agree that whenever public funds are used, we should have some measure of accountability and some ways of measuring whether the funds meet our national objectives.   However, the question is whether it is in the national interest to fund operating expenditures of universities based on graduate numbers.   If graduate numbers determine the level of funding received, a university will face pressures to graduate a high percentage of the intake.   This could manifest itself in the lowering of academic standards.   For example, in order for a university management to do financial planning, it will probably set graduate targets for individual faculties to achieve, to ensure that it can obtain a certain amount of funding from MOE.   Academic staff will then face pressures to pass students and face intense scrutiny for failing students.   Their bargaining power with the students will be weakened.   After all, how many students can a professor fail.   Once a student knows that this is a numbers game, they need not try too hard.

      According to the same report, Sir, MOE intends to increase the university cohort participation rate from 21% from each Primary 1 cohort to 25% by 2010.   Assuming that the average intelligence of each cohort is constant over the years, what this means is that the cut-off point for entry into university will be lower, since more students in each cohort are to be admitted into university.   If the universities are to enrol weaker students and yet are to be funded based on the number who graduate, the threat to maintaining standards becomes clear.

      Another concern is that stricter rules will probably be implemented on a maximum expenditure on our students.   There may even be rules to remove a student after the first year when he fails so that he does not remain in the system for too long.   This will inevitably put much pressure on university students.   We should bear in mind that someone who manages to get a degree with a longer duration can still contribute much to society, even though the system sees him as not cost-efficient.   Will the new funding model force such students out of tertiary education prematurely?   I understand that in some European countries, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, funding of tertiary institutions is based on a mix of input and output targets.   While they accept that tertiary institutions must be performance-driven, they also recognise that there are dangers in over-reliance on output targets.   Hence, these countries fund their education institutions based on a mix of input and output targets, based on both the number of first-year students enrolled and the number of graduates produced.   Why is the Ministry not considering a mix of input and output targets?

     Sir, using graduate numbers as a primary measure to fund universities is a drastic change which leads us to conclude that all that matters to this Government is students getting that piece of paper.   Is that the only one value of education?

The Chairman:   Mr Chiam See Tong is not here.   Prof. Ong Soh Khim.

University Fees

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member) (In Mandarin):   Sir, I must, first of all, declare my interest as I am presently an associate professor at NUS.   The announcement made by the three universities that they are planning to raise their tuition fees from 5% to 15% may appear to be a simple “inflation” problem.   However, the students and parents have quite varied opinions on this issue.   I would like to raise a few points.

     (1)   Both the universities and MOE believe that by raising tuition fees, they will have more funds to hire high-calibre professors and improve the basic infrastructure of the universities.   This would also imply that both teaching and curriculum qualities will be raised.   This sounds rather commercial and conveys the meaning of “you pay for what you buy”.   Does higher tuition fee equate to better universities?   Are we treating public universities like profit-oriented institutions?   Are we commercialising the education process and making university education a privilege of the rich?   Universities have the responsibility to train talents and professionals for the country.

      (2)   One of the reasons for the tuition fee hike is to provide more funds in hiring overseas “gurus”, ie, renowned scientists and research professors to enhance the quality of teaching.   However, are these famous researchers and scientists equally keen on teaching?   Outstanding researchers and scientists do not necessarily equate to quality teachers and they may not be able to raise the quality of undergraduate teaching.   We need to be cautious as universities should not spend big bucks in hiring renowned overseas professors for conducting blue-sky research alone.

      (3)   Universities mentioned that they would be providing more scholarships, loans, bursaries and financial assistance schemes, as well as increasing “study while you work” opportunities to ensure that no qualified students will be denied entrance due to financial constraints.   Loans are akin to two pockets:   take away money from one pocket and deposit some money into the left pocket. Unfortunately, money taken away is real, and the deposit is a loan.   Every student will be debt-ridden upon graduation. In fact, many older siblings in the families will be committed to pay back their study loans.   Hence, the combined income does not represent the true affordability.   As a result, many students could be denied of their financial assistance.   Statistics also show that many students apply to use their parents’ CPF to pay for the tuition fees.   Due to the lowering of the salary ceiling of CPF, the parents’ accounts are heavily laden with a variety of payment items, such as the increased MediShield premium, housing loan and tuition fee loan.   It is also doubtful that by providing students with part-time working opportunities it would help the students financially.   On the contrary, it may weigh them down in their studies.

     (4)   Presently, overseas students only pay 10% more tuition fees compared to local students.   This is much lower than the full fees paid by the overseas students in the UK, Australia and other universities overseas.   Although overseas students have to fulfill a service agreement to work in Singapore for three years after their graduation, this has become a "non-issue" due to Singapore’s rapid economic growth and attractive salary since most of the foreign students are more than happy to stay back and work here.   Moreover, many overseas students can well afford to pay full fees.   I would like to urge the MOE to consider raising the fees paid by the overseas students.   This can be done over a period of time so that the subsidy provided by MOE can be reduced.   The savings can be used to help the local students and reduce the amount of fees they need to pay.

     (5)   Presently, MOE also subsidises the tuition fees of graduate students.   Both research and coursework graduate students are subsidised by the MOE.   Among the graduate students, especially the coursework Masters' students, most of them have full-time jobs, in other words, they have fixed monthly income compared to full-time undergraduates.   These graduate students can surely afford to pay higher tuition fees.   I would like to urge the MOE to consider raising the fees paid by the coursework Masters' students, again in stages, for reducing the subsidy provided by MOE.   The savings can be utilised in subsidising the fees paid by the local undergraduate students.

     (6)   Parents and students have some doubts concerning the fee hike by the universities, eg, what is the specific use of the increased fee.   After the fee hike, is there any guarantee that the quality of teaching will go up?   If the universities wish to convince the public, there must be an increased amount of transparency.   The financial figures of the universities have to be made transparent and more open, so that the students and parents can know the specific use of their fees and understand the financial status of the universities, the ways funds are being deployed, and how the MOE subsidy is being utilised, in order to brush aside any doubts they may have.   It will also be useful for the university to meet with the students and ask for their opinion for any major policy changes.
 

    (7)   MOE announced in January this year that both NUS and NTU will be corporatised and become non-profit companies.   After corporatisation, both universities should have the freedom in deciding their own fee structure.   SMU announced in January that their undergraduate tuition fees will be increased by 15% this August.   Why is SMU immediately increasing their tuition fees by 15%?   The main reason could be that SMU is already a corporatised university.   What the people are most concerned now is, after the corporatisation of NUS and NTU, will they raise their fees by 15%?   MOE mentioned that after the corporatisation of these two universities, they would have the liberty to increase their fees yearly, but capped at 10% over the previous year’s fees.   However, even with this capping at below 10%, after four to five years, according to geometric progression, the final fee increase is still very significant.   I hope that MOE will scale down the percentage of the fee hike allowed, and stipulate this clearly in the Policy and Performance Agreement to be signed with the universities, for avoiding the freedom of fee hike and increase the burden of the undergraduates.
 

   (8)   The Government could consider establishing an “Education Bank”, akin to an industrial bank, dedicated to take care of the financial matters related to education, particularly the educational loans.   This could prevent the commercial banks from taking the resources from education, and allow the education funds to be contained within the education system.   The Government could also help to diversify the sources of funding for the universities through encouraging donations from the business sectors, and establishing tax deduction incentives for such donations made.

       Mr Chairman, Sir, there are only three universities in Singapore.   Unlike in the US, Australia and other countries where there are many public and private universities, our students are left with very few choices.   It is very costly to attend universities overseas.   The amount of tuition fees we pay is relative to the income of the citizens.   We should not allow the fees charged by the universities to reach a stage that few students and parents can afford.

6.00 pm

Response

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam:   Sir, as Singapore progresses towards being a leading city in the knowledge-based economy in Asia and in the world, our universities will have to play a larger role in two regards.  First, they will have to provide a high-quality education for Singaporeans and foreign students who attend the universities, but principally for Singaporean students.  Second, they will have to excel in research so as to be able to create knowledge and wealth for Singapore.

    In order to achieve this, we need to re-orient the universities and establish a new relationship between the universities and Government, between the universities and their alumni, and within the universities, between faculty and the students of the university itself.  A whole new set of external and internal corporate governance relationships need to be re-established. 

     In April last year, we initiated the University Autonomy, Governance and Funding (UAGF) review.  The preliminary recommendations were released in January this year and discussed extensively by the Ministry of Education's International Academic Advisory Panel - which Dr Ng Eng Hen happens to chair.  It strongly endorsed the move to transform our universities into autonomous universities to enable them to achieve teaching and research excellence, raise their international standing and enhance their students' educational experience. 

    I am glad that Mr Inderjit Singh, who is a member of the NTU Council, feels that the move towards autonomy is the right one for the universities and he is excited by it, even if a little apprehensive.

     Indeed, the proposal to change the legal status of NUS and NTU into not-for-profit corporations is to engender a mindset change among the university community at large, to encourage them to take greater ownership of the university, and to shape its future direction, culture and character.  This is an excellent opportunity for greater civic participation in the ownership and running of our key national institutions - our universities.  Corporatisation will signal that the university belongs to its stakeholders - the university management, faculty, staff, students and the alumni - and not to the Government alone.

     I fully agree with Mr Gan Kim Yong that a critical success factor for autonomous universities is people, principally the university Council members, key management, faculty and staff.  As with the autonomous universities in other countries, the university Councils will have to assume greater responsibility to provide oversight of the strategic direction for the universities, and ensure the proper use and accountability for their resources. Council members should be appointed based on competency and ability to contribute to the mission of the university.  Universities will also have to enhance their governance structures and processes involving the Council, university management and faculty, given that decision-making will shift from the Ministry of Education to the autonomous universities. Council members in successful autonomous universities abroad invest a considerable amount of time to help the universities achieve excellence.  We are fortunate that our university Councils have capable and passionate people, and my interaction with the university Councils tells me that they warmly welcome the move towards greater autonomy and they also recognise their expanded roles and additional responsibilities. The Councils in particular will have to play a more significant role in charting the direction, optimising resources and ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of their institutions to support their pursuit of excellence.

    Mr Gan asked if the present leadership of our universities is appropriate and whether there is a need to strengthen them.  I am confident that the teams that we have in place - key management and the Council members - are strong teams, in the case of both NUS and NTU. SMU is a private university.  It has been autonomous from the outset. But I should add that it is important not to look at the universities through the prism of corporate models. If you look at the top American private and autonomous state universities, their organisational structure is a bit of an enigma. They defy the established tenets of management science. They have loosely coupled structures, very collegial, sometimes not even clear who is in charge.  This looseness and collegiality extend all the way from the top right down to the basic unit of the university, ie, the department, within a faculty. The department is not the property or the domain of a senior professor, as it would be in Japan, Germany, Russia, or most European countries.  It is, in fact, an alliance of broadly equal members, an alliance of more or less equal colleagues, taking ownership over how the departments operate and the goals that they should achieve. This very flexibility of the top American universities is what gives them that entrepreneurial spirit and what has distinguished them from European and most Asian universities.

    The lack of rigidity that comes from traditional academic hierarchies and, more importantly, the looseness and the lack of hierarchy lead to constant striving, constant bubbling up of ideas to the surface, attracting young minds. They do not need to wait 30 years to be recognised because in five years, if they are up and have the signs, they can be recognised immediately.  It is a different structure, different incentives, but, most important, a different culture, a culture of excellence based on merit. This is what NUS and NTU will have to strive towards and evolve towards, changing not just the external relationships with Government, but the internal culture of the university.

    Mr Gan also asked about the strategic plans of the universities, how will they become world-class and how will they take advantage of their autonomous status.  Such plans take time to formulate.  And if I were running the universities, I would not want to rush it.  It requires a thorough review, involving extensive consultations with different segments of university community. I understand that both NUS and NTU have started a fresh round of strategic review and detailed plans will unfold in due course.  But even now, we can see how the universities are starting to differentiate themselves in their pursuit for excellence.  NUS, in seeking to develop a community of students with cross-culture exposure, is investing in developing extensive linkages with top overseas universities and establishing more overseas colleges.  It is also offering its undergraduates more cross-faculty and specialised modules.  It is developing, in some pioneering ways, at the post-graduate level, inter-disciplinary courses and research combining medicine, engineering and the natural sciences.  NTU, too, is looking at providing students with global immersion opportunities in China and India, raising an entrepreneurial flag and wanting to provide students with a unique residential educational experience.

    NUS and NTU are key academic institutions in Singapore. They perform a critical supporting role to our economy, both in producing top quality graduates as well as in contributing to Singapore's vibrant research landscape. They are large, complex institutions offering a broad range of disciplines, and, in the case of NTU, becoming broader as it becomes a comprehensive university. They would need time to change. Change cannot be rushed. So the devolution of autonomy and corporatisation will be a gradual process to ensure that the quality of our universities will continue to be enhanced and the needs of the public and the economy will continue to be met.  But our experience with SMU, albeit a much smaller younger university, gives us confidence that the proposed model of governance will work.

    Let me address some of the concerns about education outcomes. Dr Amy Khor asked about measures to ensure that.  Ultimately, the students are given good teaching.  Prof. Ong Soh Khim likewise has said that it would not be wise for the universities to spend big bucks to attract highly renowned overseas professors who only do research.  I agree that we need good faculty who would not only do top-notch research but are also keen to teach, interact with and excite students, so that our universities can maintain a high quality of teaching and produce graduates of good calibre. This is, in fact, what we see in reputable overseas universities where senior professors are committed to both teaching and research, with different balance in the case of different professors.  But if you look at a university like MIT, for instance, in fact, MIT is not renowned to be number one in research.  If you look at the number of publications and scientific journals and various other measures, it is not the number one.  But it is highly reputed for its teaching. So they have got top-rate minds doing top-rate research and top-rate teaching.  They are known for that.  Just compare MIT with a European university, state-owned, low fees, traditional structures - the difference is there, not just in research but in teaching.  And students who pay high fees to get into MIT demand the highest quality.

    We should also recognise a very important point that when we attract top faculty, we are not just attracting top faculty, we are starting a virtuous cycle. Top faculty begets top junior faculty, and top junior faculty begets top students.  And that becomes a virtuous cycle.  It attracts more people who want to work with bright young students, attracts post-doctorates, who in turn provide the base for new top faculty to come in. They feed on themselves, reputation goes up, our students benefit. I am glad that performance in teaching is an essential component of the way both NUS and NTU assess their faculty, which is part of their annual appraisal process.  I should also add that the universities' spending on research does not come at the expense of teaching. They receive the bulk of their research funding from A*STAR, the National Medical Research Council, the industry and other external sources, and this is over and above MOE's grants to the universities.

    Mr Low Thia Khiang asked a very interesting question - whether funding based on the graduate output formula will compel the universities to pass students at the expense of quality.  It is an analytically valid question, but I would not be unduly worried if I were Mr Low.  MOE's funding to the universities has catered for attrition that the universities have experienced in past years, so universities will not feel compelled to lower their passing standards for funding reasons.  More importantly, I am sure that the universities are fully aware that they have to maintain student quality so as to safeguard their institutional reputations. Their alumni, faculty and their stakeholders would hold them to it.  He raised the example of Sweden and some other European countries.  It is rather different there.  In those countries, the universities are obliged by governments to take in massive numbers of students as long as they pass their High School examinations.  It does not matter whether the student is weak or barely able to cope with the university education, he has a right to a place.  So what happens to those universities?  The first year cohort is enormous and, at the end of the first year, you have what they fondly call the "chain saw massacre" where examinations are set, students fail, and out they go.

    If you fund the universities only by output model, you are not doing the universities justice for this massive cost they have to incur on teaching large lecture halls full of unshaven students.  So you have got to have some components or a formula that factors in input as well. It is a peculiar institutional feature and not one that is directly relevant to us.

   He also raised an interesting point about cohort participation going up from 21% to 25%. Are we sure we are not going to be letting standards down?  I think it is a right question to ask.  The answer to that is that standards have been going up in our schools, in our JCs, and in our polytechnics.  In fact, standards of cohorts exiting our secondary schools, JCs and polytechnics now, are far higher than they were even eight or 10 years ago.  Our students are better-trained, they are sharper on the job, and they are better able to cope with a university education.  It is a recognition of that upward drift in quality, that NUS and NTU have decided to take in more students.

    Let me now address the issue of funding.  Let me just say that in the past, the Government had paid 75% of the operating cost of undergraduate education and borne in full the infrastructure cost of our universities.  Last year, the Minister for Finance, in his Budget speech, signalled that, "Going forward, we need to establish a more equitable and sustainable cost-sharing formula between the state and university students."

     The Government has now decided that over the medium term, it will move towards funding 75% of the total cost of undergraduate education, ie, including both operating and depreciation costs.

     Let me provide a perspective from the point of view of the education budget as to why this is very sensible.  Currently, the budget for the university sector is about a quarter of MOE's budget. At 1% of GDP, MOE's funding for the university sector is slightly higher than some OECD countries like the US, UK and Australia.  It may surprise some, but it is, in fact, a higher ratio. With strong funding support from the Government, our universities' finances have remained healthy, unlike many overseas universities, such as those in the UK, half of which are estimated to be in the red largely because state funding is spread too thinly across the cohort participation rate of 40% in the universities.  Even Cambridge has been suffering a deficit in recent years.

    Mr Inderjit Singh expressed some concern that NTU faces the greatest risk in the move to make universities more autonomous as it has just gotten used to operating as a fully-fledged university.  He asked if MOE considered this disadvantage when we allocate budgets and resources to NTU.  Again, I would not be worried.  I like to reassure Mr Inderjit Singh that universities will continue to receive substantial Government funding and I am optimistic that NTU will be able to build on its very strong present foundations to chart its own path into the future. The funding formula will not disadvantage NTU.

6.30 pm

     Costs in the university, however, will go up for a number of reasons.  First, enrolment is going up.  And, so naturally, as we move from 21% to 25% cohort participation, the total cost of university education in the Education budget will go up.

     Second, it is a global phenomenon that the cost of higher education increases faster than general inflation.  In the US, for example, the average cost of higher education increased by 12% between 2001 and 2004, whereas the Consumer Price Index only increased by 6%.

     Third, the universities need a continuous injection of funds to maintain a high quality of teaching and research that Singapore and our students deserve.  Manpower costs account for the bulk of universities’ costs, and our universities need to be able to pay competitive salaries in order to retain and recruit top faculty from around the world.

     MOE will not be able to increase the amount of funding to the university sector indefinitely, without impacting on other education sectors: our polytechnics, ITE, and schools.  In that context, I should point out that university students already enjoy a much higher dollar subsidy from Government compared to other students.  If one were to take the last fiscal year for computation, the subsidy per year which a university undergraduate received was twice that of a polytechnic or ITE student, three times that of a secondary school student and five times that of a primary school student.  Moreover, a university student is subsidised for more years of education, compared to students in polytechnics and ITE.  After two years in junior college and four years in university, a university student would have enjoyed five times more subsidies than an ITE student would have in his two years of post-secondary education.

     Take that, plus the fact that the benefits of a university education accrue mainly to the graduate.  The graduates from the universities will earn over their lifetime more than polytechnic and ITE graduates, on average, and you will realise that it is more reasonable, quite apart from being a more sustainable arrangement, for university students to contribute towards the development cost of universities as well, since they enjoy the use of the universities' facilities during their period of study. 

     I should also add that 75% funding by the Government is very high, compared to the level of state funding for top universities in the US, UK and Australia.  We intend to maintain it at 75%, even after our universities become more autonomous.

     The universities, at the same time, are encouraged to diversify their sources of revenue, even as we remain committed to being the major source of funding for the universities.  The generous donations received, in the recent past, for the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Yong Siew Toh Conservatory of Music, the donation from Ng Bok Eng’s family to NTU, Lee Foundation’s donation to SMU, all show that financial support from university stakeholders could go a long way towards the successful launch of some of our universities’ major initiatives.  Corporatisation and autonomy offer tremendous opportunities for our universities to generate even stronger ownership and support from their alumni and stakeholders, including private benefactors and corporations.

     The Government will remain generous in co-funding donations that the universities receive for endowments.  In fact, it is almost unheard of internationally.  When our International Advisory Panel heard about it, they could not believe that we fund one-for-one.  In fact, the universities receive more than one-for-one matching for large donations.  I should add that our donors to the universities, whether individuals or corporations, also enjoy double tax deductions.  I think this answers one of Prof Ong Soh Khim's points.  In the latest Budget, PM Lee had announced that double tax deduction will be granted for all donations to Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs), whether or not they involve naming opportunities.  This, again, would advantage the universities.

     Another source of funds is derived through the greater financial autonomy that is given to the universities.  Through the one-line block budget the universities will receive for recurrent and development expenditure put together, the universities will have greater flexibility to deploy their resources and make trade-off decisions, for instance, between expenditure on faculty and infrastructure.  This will help generate cost consciousness and instil cost discipline.  It is then up to each university to decide internally how the funds should be disbursed to the various faculties and programmes to best achieve their objectives.

     Next, the matter of fees, and the recent fee increases.  I agree with Prof Ong Soh Khim that we should explore the issue of the fees that should be charged to foreign students.  There might be different types of fees for different types of students - whether they come in as scholars or on a free basis.  These are things that could be worked out.  But it is a valid issue to be explored.  I would add that in setting fees for foreign students, we should take into consideration the larger strategic objectives for the universities and Singapore.  Foreign students add to the vibrancy of the learning environment in the universities, just like we discussed this afternoon, they add to the vibrancy of our schools.  They provide a certain diversity, a different perspective, and they add ultimately to the international standing of our universities when put together with Singapore students. 

     SMU's increase of 15% is not simply because it is a corporatised university.  SMU is repositioning itself.  It is adopting a different business model, a seminar-style pedagogy with very low student-to-teacher ratios, and is moving into large new facilities later this year.  So the fee increase, in the case of SMU, is due to a fundamentally different type of university that it wants to run, rather than the mere fact of it being corporatised.

     Moving forward, NUS and NTU will be given greater autonomy to set their own tuition fees, and to differentiate fees for different courses.  But I would add a few things.  First, the Government will remain the major source of funding to the universities.  Second, we have put in place systems to encourage and incentivise our universities to diversify and generate additional sources of revenues.  Third, under the enhanced accountability framework, MOE will monitor the universities’ costs closely and ensure that their costs are well managed.  Fourth, there will also be a 10% cap on annual tuition fee increases for NUS and NTU.  The 10% cap does not mean 10% per annum.  It means anything from "0" to "10".  I have no reason to expect that the universities will raise fees by 10% per year.

     Finally, our universities are well aware that they need to justify the need for any future fee increases, which would have to be commensurate with improvements in the quality of the education they provide.  They also understand the importance of communication with students on any fee increase.

     I would encourage our universities to adopt the practice at many good US universities to make known to students, at the outset, the schedule of tuition fees they might expect during their course of study.  This will help students and their families do their financial planning for the costs of their university education.

     Let me speak very briefly about the tuition fee loan scheme.  It currently allows students to borrow up to 80% of their tuition fees and start repaying their loans only upon graduation.  The loan is funded by the Government, not by the banks.  It is all Government money but is administered by the banks.  I think it is not so dissimilar in concept to the “Education Bank” that Prof Ong Soh Khim described.  MOE will increase the loan quantum of the tuition fee loan from 80% to 90% so that students can defer the payment of any increase in tuition fees until after they graduate.  MOE is also working with the universities to study how we could further enhance the existing schemes, such as expanding students’ work-study schemes at the universities, and setting up of student financing offices to better customise financing packages to individual needs.  For the specific example of a family that might not qualify under current needs assessing rule, these are things that could be looked at by the student financing offices.  They could be customised.

     I also agree with Prof Ong that universities should raise the fees for coursework Masters' students since most of them have full-time jobs and fixed monthly income.  This is sensible and was, in fact, proposed as part of the University Autonomy, Governance and Funding (UAGF) review.  The change should, however, be phased in so that universities have sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments to tuition fees and manpower deployment.

     Let me conclude that our universities have made significant progress.  They have reached the stage of development where they are poised to join the league of the best universities in the world.  With greater autonomy, our universities will be able to better respond to the needs of their students and stakeholders, better differentiate themselves in the increasingly competitive higher education landscape and achieve the peaks of excellence, by global standards, that the universities and Singapore need.  Our universities will be able to build upon the strong support from the Government to continue to maintain and attract good faculty and offer students quality education, with greater flexibility and choice.    I am confident that giving autonomy to our universities will strategically position our universities to underpin Singapore’s transition to a knowledge-based economy.

The Chairman:    We have something like 4 minutes for clarifications.   Preference will be given to those who have made cuts.   Mr Gan Kim Yong.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: I would like to ask the Minister, with regard to his idea that for the university to grow and be nimble and responsive, it is better to have a much more flexible structure within the university.   But I am afraid that the current university structure is fairly rigid, with individual departments, department heads and faculty deans.   Does the Minister see a problem in the transition to a more flexible, ownership-based structure in the universities?

      The second issue is with regard to the Minister's comment that university education benefits more the individual.   I would like to ask the Minister whether he will agree that tertiary education does produce good government, business and community leaders, which benefit not only individuals, but the community as a whole.   Perhaps we just have to agree or disagree on this point since it is a more philosophical matter.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I would say that it will take time for any university to change its culture, precisely because it does not just simply hire a CEO who cuts, hires and changes people.  Universities have to evolve.  Faculties deal with each other with a certain respect and collegiality.  There is a plus in some circumstances and minus in other circumstances.  We have to let the culture evolve.  But we are still young institutions.  I do not think they are anything near as rigid as most other Asian universities or European universities.  They have a much larger pool of diverse faculty.  Singaporeans are trained in different universities, and foreigners come in from various countries.  The rigidities are less institutionalised and less deeply-rooted.  So I am optimistic. 

     On his second point, I would not make too much of a point about whether individuals internalise most of the benefits, university graduates internalise most of the benefits or what are the externalities.  The point I would rather make is a simpler one - that university graduates have a much higher lifetime income, on average, than polytechnic and ITE graduates.  And looking at the spectrum of students that we produced from our system, and how we should finance them, we should take that into account.  University students are already receiving a far higher subsidy per year, and over the entire duration of their studies, compared to other students.  So I think it is not just efficient, but equitable, for us to have some rebalancing, particularly at a time when university enrolments and costs go up.

The Chairman:  We have time for perhaps one last question.  Mr Inderjit Singh.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Two questions. One is on the ---

The Chairman:  One question, please.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Has the Minister given consideration to the structure of the council and the timetable for the implementation of corporatisation?

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: The Government will be announcing its position on the whole set of recommendations of the UAGF review by April.  At that point, I think the universities will set out the timetable on how they are going to move from the current status, as institutions of some autonomy, towards a final destination of autonomous institutions accountable to the public and to the Government by way of policy and performance agreements.  It will require steps and it will not jump immediately from A to B.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I would just say that the attrition rate of the university will be taken into account in funding.  Could he clarify that?

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: The attrition rate in recent years for the universities will be factored into the formula that MOE applies to the universities when it looks at the output funding formula.  You assume that the university, if it sticks to its current high standards, would fail students, or some students would drop out because they could not meet standards.  So I think his question was analytically the right one, but I would not worry about it because we have factored in some attrition to ensure that the universities hold on to the same standards as before.

The Chairman:  Prof. Ong Soh Khim, you have got half a minute.

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: A short question instead of a long question.  The Minister earlier has said that MOE will cap the fees increase at 10%.  Sir, the university can very intelligently increase it at 9% every year and the resulting fees will still be very high.  So how can the Ministry prevent this?

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: We will have to be satisfied with their meeting the performance targets.  We have to be also satisfied that the cost increases are justifiable.  A university cannot simply jack up cost and tell MOE, "Can you please fund me 75% and tell students to fund the extra?"  because we look at the cost of the university as a whole.  Universities that want to launch major new costly initiatives will have to raise money from outside for such a purpose.  We will keep track of this because we are not doing this for ideological reasons.  We are doing it for very practical reasons.  We must have our eye on the ball.  We will be monitoring the situation, particularly in the early years, because autonomy will require several steps and I think financially autonomy is not something we want to leap towards ----

The Chairman:   I think we past the moment of interruption, Minister.   Mr Gan Kim Yong, can you withdraw your amendment?

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the Minister and his colleagues for their very interesting response.   With their response, commitment and vision, I am very confident that our future is in good hands.   On this note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman:   Is the Member given leave to withdraw his amendment?

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: No.

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang: No.

The Chairman:   I think leave of the majority is given.   I heard more "yes" than "no".   The amendment is withdrawn.

An hon. Member: Hear wrongly.

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang: Division, please.

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: No.

The sum of $5,089,240,820 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

      The sum of $1,075,968,100 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman:    Order.

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

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2005/2006, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker:   So be it.

ADJOURNMENT

      Resolved,

      "That Parliament do now adjourn." - Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam