Aline K. Wong
Singapore
“The ENABLE (Encouraging Achievement and Better Learning) programme gives additional support to those who are not achieving their potential. Our curriculum has given more emphasis to critical and creative thinking skills.”
“Can I just take one more second on the waiting list because Mr Ahmad Magad mentioned that the waiting list is long? There are 18 SPED schools now which cater to about 4,000 children. Of the 18 SPED schools, eight have waiting lists.”
“Sir, I am sure the Member in his meet-the-people sessions has also encountered cases where some families pleaded for priority to be admitted on grounds of, say, the child's sickness, or that the mother is working and is unable to bring the child to school, or that the grandparent cannot manage to take care of so many grandchildren.”
“I think he did not hear what I say. For both of these families, someone who lives within one kilometre or next door and someone who lives right on the border of this one kilometre, or of any delineation you choose to draw, my point is that for both of them, this is their nearest school.”
“Principals, as part of their duties, are always alert to what is happening in the school. They have also been given guidelines, in the Principals' Handbook, on discipline and the code of conduct which is expected of the teachers and staff members. But having said that, all these things are not foolproof.”
“It will continue to stagger the rental increase to market levels for assignment of tenancies, subletting cases and for tenants who are renewing their tenancies for the third time. Shop lessees can also apply to convert to shorter leases to reduce the cost of servicing their mortgage loans.”
The complete record
Every one of 777 lines we hold for Aline K. Wong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 16.
“Sir, I am sure the Member in his meet-the-people sessions has also encountered cases where some families pleaded for priority to be admitted on grounds of, say, the child's sickness, or that the mother is working and is unable to bring the child to school, or that the grandparent cannot manage to take care of so many grandchildren. So these families are also in need of a priority of allocation. I think whatever system we adopt, we have to draw a line somewhere. And when we draw a line, there are always people on the border. Balloting so far has been accepted by the parents as a very established procedure. So until we can find a better system, we will stick to this one.”
“I think he did not hear what I say. For both of these families, someone who lives within one kilometre or next door and someone who lives right on the border of this one kilometre, or of any delineation you choose to draw, my point is that for both of them, this is their nearest school. So is it fairer for the allocation of school to be decided by a balloting which is transparent, which everybody watches, which everybody knows about the probability of success, than to draw a ranking system according to distance? The Chairman: Mr Heng, can you withdraw your amendment?”
“The ENABLE (Encouraging Achievement and Better Learning) programme gives additional support to those who are not achieving their potential. Our curriculum has given more emphasis to critical and creative thinking skills. At the same time, we have reinforced the importance of co-curricular activities to enhance core skills and values among our students. Our schools therefore offer a holistic and broad-based development of a child. Tuition cannot and should not substitute for the education that a child receives at school. There will always be parents who wish to supplement this with tuition. This is a choice for parents to make and, I hope, to make judiciously. Sir, thank you very much for so much time for me to talk about tuition. I never expected this.”
“I think that in itself should not pose much of a problem, although ideally the parents should still take interest and continue to guide their children in their home study. However, there are also parents who hire tutors in order that their kids can improve their grades from, say, 90% to 95%, to 98%, or to obtain advance coaching ahead of the class, whether it is by a couple of advance lessons or sometimes even by coaching ahead of the next academic year. Besides overloading the child, this practice can actually cause the child to lose interest in school and attentiveness in class. The long-term effects on the child can be quite harmful. I think giving too much tuition to children when they are already tired from school is going to add to the stress level for the kids, and even for the parents who often have to cart their children back and forth from one tuition session to another. Tuition takes time away from the child's rest and recreational needs and eats into the time that the child has for reflection and for doing creative things by himself. It may reduce the child's sense of self-discipline because it is best that he takes personal responsibility for completing his own homework. Worse still, it can kill the child's interest in school. Too much tuition would turn the child off. As parents, we should be mindful of the impact of our expectations on children's learning and stress levels, and be careful not to overburden them. Our schools currently provide adequate time and attention to students to learn their academic subjects fully. Teachers regularly give remedial classes to those who need help with their school work. At the primary level, the learning support programme gives additional support to those identified to be weak in English and Mathematics.”
“The intensity and range of activities and duties vary from school to school, and from teacher to teacher. The principal has an overview of this in his school and will work as much as possible to balance the load on the teachers. Teachers can be involved in professional development and student activities, in the areas of remedial enrichment and CCA during the school holidays. Our principals are aware that they have to organise school activities during the holidays such that teachers have a significant period where they can take time off for a short break, and spend time with their family. Our principals are already doing so. On the issue of tuition, which Mr Thomas briefly touched on, it is one of those phenomena or intractable problems that societies such as Japan and other East Asian societies, including China, Hong Kong and Taiwan face, where parents place a high premium on their children's academic success. Demand for tuition in Singapore is actually driven by a number of factors. Among them, the aspiration of parents for their children is a main factor. Where the child's mastery of certain subjects is weak, I agree with my Minister that tuition and remedial classes indeed can help the child. Remedial lessons can help. In the past, educated parents would often coach their own kids after school or supervise their children in doing homework. Nowadays, with many working couples, many parents find it difficult to have the time to do so for their children. There are also some parents who feel they have lost touch with the school curriculum or are outdated in what they knew from their old school days. These parents would also hire tutors to help their kids with their homework.”
“For example, with such a system, we may have to admit a child who stays 100 metres away from a school but reject one who stays 101 metres away, for both of whom the school in question is the nearest. Is such a rejection more acceptable to parents than for them to fail in securing a ballot? I do not think so. What about for children who stay at equal distance away from the school, say, in the same HDB block? How do we differentiate who from that block should get admitted? For such cases, we still have to resort to balloting. The current system attempts to strike a balance between various important considerations for P1 registration, from recognising the importance of placing siblings in the same school, to distance from home, to relationship with the school. MOE is prepared to consider another model of P1 registration if there is a better model. However, till that better model is found, MOE has no plans to change the current established P1 registration guidelines. Nevertheless, I thank the Member for speaking about this subject and putting forth his suggestions. As for school holidays, an issue raised by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, our principals are mindful of the fact that teachers need regular breaks in order to recharge themselves for the new term or academic year. They do ensure that all their teachers get some time off during the school vacation. Such time-off can take place any time during the year's school holidays, depending on the school's schedule and the teachers' duties. All our teachers should have more than two weeks' continuous break, usually during the December school vacation. The scheduling of teachers' involvement in activities and programmes during school vacation is generally worked out by the school, and sometimes by the individual teachers.”
“Sir, on priority of allocation of Primary 1 places, MOE provides sufficient primary school places to accommodate all children. No child is deprived of a school place and the majority of parents are able to enrol their children in schools near their homes. While there are sufficient vacancies for all, my Ministry cannot accommodate all requests for any particular schools as vacancies in each school are limited. The existing guidelines have become an accepted means for parents to enrol their children into the limited vacancies in popular schools. Normally, parents are able to secure places in primary schools without balloting. But for those schools where the number of registrants exceeds the available places, there has to be an allocation system that takes into account a number of different, often contending factors. Under the current P1 Registration System, children who stay nearer to the school do get priority over those who stay farther away. Should the demand for the school exceed the number of vacancies in any phase of registration, balloting will be conducted. Priority will be given first to those children living within one kilometre of the school, then to those children living within two kilometres of the school, and finally to all the other children more than two kilometres away from the school. What Mr Heng is suggesting is a further or finer division of priority, so that some children get places at the expense of others who might get places under the present system. There is no perfect system, Sir, that can satisfy everyone. Mr Heng's model of replacing balloting with registration by proximity also has its drawbacks.”
“Can I just take one more second on the waiting list because Mr Ahmad Magad mentioned that the waiting list is long? There are 18 SPED schools now which cater to about 4,000 children. Of the 18 SPED schools, eight have waiting lists. Six of these eight SPED schools have an average waiting list of five children and they would be admitting these children by June this year. For the remaining two schools, which have significantly longer waiting lists, we are working with them to increase the number of sessions so that they can admit these children early. And for children with autism, these schools are also doing some parent education to help the parents cope with the needs of their children at home before they are admitted.”
“We increased that to $24 million in FY2000 and we are proposing a $27 million expenditure in the next financial year. MOE has committed itself to provide up to a cap of 2.5 times the cost of providing primary school education for special needs children.”
“1(a) of the Convention requires States to provide free and compulsory primary education to all children, Singapore had entered a reservation to this Article in our accession to the Convention. Singapore is therefore not obliged to comply with this Article of the Convention. Nevertheless, I emphasise that we have been taking care of the needs of the special education children. Mr Ahmad Magad also asked that MOE should conduct a study of the needs of the children and, based on this study, review the provisions for them. MOE is in fact constantly reviewing the needs of these children. However, their needs are very diverse and complex. A general study would not help in targeting assistance to where the needs are. Instead, MOE has adopted a more targetted approach for children with specific types of disabilities. For example, we collaborate with the Dyslexia Association of Singapore and the Autism Resource Centre to study the needs of these groups of children and to cater to them. We are also collaborating with a new society called SPARK to examine how we can help children with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder to see how we can cater to these groups of children also. Let me emphasise that our awareness of these conditions - autism, dyselxia, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder - has only grown substantially in recent years. Expertise and resources to deal with these learning disabilities are still lacking, not just in Singapore, but the world over. As for funding for special education children, let me inform the Member that, indeed, MOE has increased the funding over the years. For FY1999, we devoted $18 million to special education. This is a capitation grant for recurrent expenditure.”
“In some cases, the disability of these children may be so severe or rare that homes or medical institutions would offer them better support and care. For the greatest majority of children with special needs, they are already enrolled in Special Schools where they receive intensive attention from specially trained teachers, with the support of specialised equipment and the services of therapists. It is better for them to attend these schools where they receive an education catered to their individual needs. I understand the good intention and concern of those who call for CE to include children with special needs. Under the "many helping hands" approach, MOE will continue to work with the voluntary welfare organisations, the community and parents to provide for the needs of children with disabilities. Where necessary, more can be and will be done. Caring for these children does not mean that we must extend CE to them, or bring them under the framework of CE. In fact, in doing so, it may not be in the best interest to them. If you would recall, we have defined "CE" as education within our national schools which teach the mainstream curriculum. Even with CE, the parents bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the child attends school. Hence, the law provides for penalties for recalcitrant parents who fail to do so. In extreme cases, the parents may even be sentenced to jail. For parents who are already burdened with taking care of the child with disabilities, I am sure the Member would not like to have them come under the law in such a manner. The exemption of children with special needs from compulsory education is not a violation of our commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although Article 28.”
“Sir, in making its recommendations, the Committee on Compulsory Education had solicited feedback and views from the different groups and communities who would be affected by CE, and this included the Muslim community. Specific recommendations, such as the PSLE benchmark that the madrasahs need to meet, were based on proposals put up by MUIS, in consultation with the madrasahs. As Members may recall, this benchmark has been pegged at the average PSLE aggregate score of EM1 and EM2 Malay pupils in the six lowest-performing national schools. We believe that the madrasahs are working towards meeting and surpassing this PSLE benchmark. After all, they have almost up to eight years from now till the first cohort of the P1 entrants progresses to the PSLE level. Or, up to six years after CE is introduced in 2003. I believe they are already beginning to prepare for this requirement. As far as the exemption of special needs children from the framework of CE is concerned, Mr Ahmad Magad raised a couple of questions. Sir, exempting these children from CE is a decision we have taken after very careful consideration. Currently, we have a multi-tier system to cater to the special needs children, as Mr Ahmad Magad is aware. For children with mild disabilities, they will continue to be admitted into our national schools. In fact, we have them in both the primary schools and secondary schools. We provide them with additional support services as well as assisted devices to help them cope with integration and to study the mainstream curriculum. For children with moderate to severe disabilities, it would be prudent to let their parents decide on the type of education and care that would best meet these children's needs.”
“Mr Low, in particular, asked what is the kind of framework that we put in place in order to implement the Compulsory Education Act. As Members are aware, compulsory education will be introduced from the year 2003 for the age cohort entering Primary 1. We are in the process of putting in place the necessary mechanisms to support this introduction. For instance, work is currently underway to establish the CE Board and gazette the subsidiary legislation by mid-2002. Under the CE Board, counselling and mediation procedures would be put in place to ensure that the legal enforcement of CE would be taken only as a last resort. 3.45 pm Mr Low asked under what circumstances would parents be brought to court. In deliberating on the introduction of the CE Bill, we provided for legal sanctions against those parents who are recalcitrant and do not bring their kids to school, but legal sanctions would be resorted to only as a last resort. There would be a process of counselling, and assistance would be given to families particularly those encountering financial problems, relationship problems, and so forth, so that they can send their children to school. In this context, the role of the CE Board would be to review cases of non-compliance referred to it by the counselling officers and, where necessary, refer the cases to the Director-General of Education, who can then raise a complaint to the Subordinate Courts for legal action as a last resort. So between now and the implementation of CE in the year 2003, we are putting in place these various mechanisms and we will be gazetting the subsidiary legislation by the middle of next year. Both Mr Ahmad Magad and Mr Low also asked about the response or what actions have the Malay community made in order to adjust to the CE arrangements.”
“These findings will guide MOE in our policy planning and help us determine what would be the optimal investment in the pre-school sector. As Mr Iswaran asked, while we are waiting for the results of this pilot research programme, we have been disseminating the Desired Outcomes of PSE, designing the new curriculum, piloting the curriculum and training teachers for the pilot programme. We are also accrediting the training programmes which have been submitted by various training agencies. Dr Wang Kai Yuen spoke on the need to provide pre-school centres, especially those that serve the majority of our population who are by no means rich, with more support to employ better qualified teachers. Besides improving the quality of the teachers, kindergartens would also need to upgrade their curriculum and facilities in order to raise the quality of education. We are aware that managing this upgrading process can be a very challenging task, especially for kindergartens that are not-for-profit. MOE is therefore looking into how we can provide the not-for-profit kindergartens with resources to help them manage this upgrading process smoothly and bring quality pre-school education to more children. Sir, at the end of the day, our effectiveness in improving pre-school education hinges on how successful we are in moving away from the current predominantly academic focus towards a more balanced and all-round development of the child. To achieve this shift, the support of both parents and pre-school educators is critical. Now, let me move on to the questions on compulsory education. Both Mr Ahmad Magad and Mr Low Thia Khiang have asked about the progress made so far in the implementation of compulsory education.”
“This framework provides a common training path for professionals in both kindergartens and childcare centres and allows for the upgrading of existing training programmes. This will help to enhance the standards of teacher-training and increase the attractiveness of the entire pre-school sector. Under this framework, all pre-school supervisors will be required to be trained to diploma level in four to five years' time. During this transition period, MOE and the Ministry of Community Development and Sports will facilitate as many existing supervisors as possible to attain the required diploma qualifications. As for accreditation, since the announcement of our accreditation framework, we have started to process the applications of PSE training providers. They have submitted their curriculum, etc, for us to accredit their training programmes. This year, we have started a pilot research programme, in collaboration with the National Institute of Education, to study the long-term cognitive and non-cognitive benefits of pre-school education. Establishing the long-term value of PSE will allow us to make judicious investments in the pre-school sector. About 2,000 K1 children from 46 selected pre-school centres are now involved in this study. We have designed a new PSE curriculum with the Desired Outcomes in mind, and this new curriculum will be child-centred, developmentally appropriate and tailored to help children acquire the critical foundations of learning. Teachers who are participating in this programme have been trained to use these new materials. The first set of preliminary findings from this research programme is expected to be ready by the end of this year or in about a year's time.”
“Sir, I would like to address some of the questions. First, on pre-school education (PSE). Last year, I shared with Members of this House MOE's philosophy and approach to reviewing the pre-school education in Singapore. Our intention is to improve the quality of pre-school education by focusing on certain areas where MOE can have high leverage while retaining its provision in the hands of the private and people sectors. MOE would improve the pre-school curriculum, raise teachers' qualifications, set higher teacher training standards and more stringent regulations. We had also announced that we would do a pilot research project in order to guide our policy decisions. So it is timely that Mr Iswaran has asked for an update on this review. Sir, since the announcement that I made last year, several key pieces of the review have been put in place. For example, we have delineated the Desired Outcomes of pre-school education which focus on values, attitudes and skills rather than specific academic competencies. We have already disseminated this set of Desired Outcomes widely to the service providers, and have also devised a set of curriculum guidelines based on the Desired Outcomes. These Desired Outcomes serve as a timely reminder to educators and parents of the importance of taking a longer term view to learning. Over-emphasising academic achievements and preparation for P1 may yield immediate academic gains in a child, but they may be at the expense of his motivation and love for learning in the long term. In December last year, my Ministry and the Ministry of Community Development and Sports jointly introduced a new framework for PSE teacher-training and accreditation.”
“It will continue to stagger the rental increase to market levels for assignment of tenancies, subletting cases and for tenants who are renewing their tenancies for the third time. Shop lessees can also apply to convert to shorter leases to reduce the cost of servicing their mortgage loans. For the longer term, the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) and Retail Promotion Centre (RPC) work closely together to help HDB shops upgrade and increase their productivity through various programmes. This includes the promotion of franchising and economic groupings to help overcome size constraints. The Retail Operation Assistance Programme (ROAP) will help shops to spruce up and keep track of stocks. To-date, about 1,200 HDB retailers have signed up for this programme.”
“Our schools therefore offer a holistic and broad-based development of the individual. There are parents who still wish to supplement this with tuition. This is a choice for parents to make. Parents will have to judge whether their children are overburdened and ensure that their workload is manageable. RETAIL TRADERS IN HDB ESTATES 14. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether his Ministry has any data on how the retail traders are faring in the Housing and Development Board estates and if anything can be done to help these traders if they are faring poorly. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, retailers in HDB estates have seen modest improvement in sales after the Asian crisis. This is in line with the recovery of the overall retail trade. Sales of HDB retailers fell by 12% in 1998, but picked up by 1.2% in 1999 and 3.3% in the first 10 months of 2000, lagging behind overall growth in retail sales in Singapore. The performance varied among retail segments and shops. While shops selling telecommunications equipment enjoyed brisk sales, provision shops, supermarkets as well as watch and jewellery retailers generally did not fare well. Some of the problems faced by HDB retailers include keen competition, limited selection of merchandise, lack of economies of scale, and the inability to utilise modern technology and methods of business management. Many consumers prefer to shop at larger one-stop malls than patronise smaller HDB retailers. As a result, a number of small retailers have experienced a squeeze in margins. As a short-term measure to help its shop tenants cope with the increase in business costs, HDB will extend its rental rebates for another year to 31st December 2001, at half of the levels last year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, demand for tuition in Singapore is driven by a number of factors, the most significant being the aspirations parents have for their children. Parents often want to give their children more than what schools provide. However, as parents, we should be mindful of the impact that our expectations have on our children's learning experiences and stress levels. Mr Ong suggested that we should consider raising the teacher-to-student ratio and the amount of teaching time in our schools so that students can receive more coaching from their teachers. It is not more time in school that our students need. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 1999 found that the total time Singapore students spend in school yearly is close to the international average. Our schools currently provide adequate time and attention to pupils to learn their academic subjects fully. Teachers give remedial classes to those who need help with their school work. At the primary level, the Learning Support Programme (LSP) and the Encouraging Achievement and Better Learning (ENABLE) Programme give additional support to pupils who are identified to be weak in language and numeracy skills, or are underachieving. On past occasions, we have received calls from some Members of this House that schools should in fact do less, and avoid overloading the students. We have cut back curriculum, wherever possible, to provide students and teachers with time for a more well-rounded education. Curriculum content was reduced by 10-30% in 1999, and more emphasis given to the development of critical and creative thinking skills. At the same time, we reinforced the importance of co-curricular activities to develop core skills and values among our pupils.”
“Principals, as part of their duties, are always alert to what is happening in the school. They have also been given guidelines, in the Principals' Handbook, on discipline and the code of conduct which is expected of the teachers and staff members. But having said that, all these things are not foolproof. With all the screening, with all the precautionary measures, sometimes things can still happen. TEACHER-TO-STUDENT RATIO IN SCHOOLS The following Question stood in the name of Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan - 13. To ask the Minister for Education, in view of the prevalence of and growing demand for private tuition in Singapore, whether his Ministry will consider (i) improving the teacher-to-student ratio in our schools, and (ii) extending the current amount of teaching time in our schools so that students can receive more attention and coaching from their teachers.”
“Yes, in fact, students are encouraged to speak up if instances like these occur. With the introduction of the sexuality education package in our schools, beginning with the upper primary school level, we will encourage students to be open and talk to someone they trust if such instances occur. In most of the cases in the past, they have been reported by the parents either to the school or directly to the Police.”
“I would like to assure both of them that the Ministry has been paying close attention to the review of the entire spectrum of education, not just in primary schools, but also secondary schools, pre-University and tertiary education. In fact, we have introduced new curriculum, new subjects, new approaches and assessment methods, beginning with the primary school level. We emphasise the holistic education of children, not just the intellectual aspect but also the social, moral, physical, aesthetic aspects of education. We emphasise thinking skills, creativity, life skills, management of self and so on in our new approach in education. We will give education to these children our best, not only in terms of infrastructure. The PRIME programme, for example, will renew many of the existing primary schools along with secondary schools within the next five years. They would have spanking new facilities up to the latest standards. Teacher training will be improved. Curriculum has been improved and is being continuously reviewed. In conclusion, let me say that Compulsory Education can only be effective if it has the fullest commitment from parents and the community. The recommendations of the Compulsory Education Committee, in my view, signify a very significant step forward for education in Singapore. We affirm the commitment of the Government to give every child a good headstart in life and give him the foundation on which he can acquire further knowledge and skills to be productive workers and to be good citizens in their adult life.”
“But, at the same time, they do not advocate harsh measures. We are not advocating harsh measures. In fact, we are instituting a mechanism of many rounds of community help - counselling, mediation and so forth. But in cases of persistent flouting of the law, in cases where parents wilfully flout the law and are not cooperative with the assistance given by schools and counselling agencies, the law must be brought to fall on them. Otherwise, our legal system will be brought into disrepute. Our intention is not to use this liberally. In fact, our intention is that the full force of the law will be brought only as a last resort. Mr Zulkifli Baharudin said that the Compulsory Education Board has a very difficult task. It should treat its work with the greatest sensitivity and flexibility. The Compulsory Education Board will certainly do so. In fact, the Compulsory Education Board will comprise members from the voluntary welfare organisations, community development councils, Community and Parents in Support of Schools (COMPASS), self-help groups, grassroots organisations and concerned individuals. Members can be assured that we have a broad representation of people who have the compassion and the sensitivity to deal with these issues. Lastly, I would just like to echo both Mdm Claire Chiang and Dr Vasoo's concern that our primary school education should not just emphasise the academic kind of outcomes, but that we should address the multiple intelligences of children. We should help to develop the child in a holistic manner and we should pay attention closely to the quality of education provided in primary school, now that primary school education is compulsory.”
“For those with more severe learning disabilities, we feel that it would be better off for them if they are taught and educated in special schools where they are given specially trained teachers, special facilities, and they are given time to pursue their education according to their own pace. So, the present situation of providing for special education children, in the view of the Committee members, is adequate and we are assured that the Ministry of Education will continue to help the voluntary welfare organisations, through the National Council of Social Service, to address the needs of the special children. In fact, because we define "Compulsory Education" as education within national schools that provide the curriculum and the total environment that will meet the two objectives of Compulsory Education, special education schools are outside the ambit of the Compulsory Education framework. Their request for funding, for more resources and better curriculum can still be addressed by the Ministry outside this framework of enforcement of Compulsory Education. If we enforce Compulsory Education on families with special children, I think it may become a bit too harsh for them. These families need all our help. We should help them overcome the difficulties, financial or otherwise, the problem of coping and so on. They need help. They should not be brought under the purview of the Compulsory Education Bill which prescribes penalties. Do not forget that the Compulsory Education Bill prescribes penalties for parents who fail to comply. Why do we need penalties? As I said, most of the people whom we talked to are for Compulsory Education. They have a good heart. They want every child to have the same headstart. They want every child to have an education.”
“5 times, bringing the total recurrent funding for special education schools up to 4 times the recurrent cost of educating a primary school pupil in national schools. The Ministry of Education also funds 90% of the development cost of each new purpose-built school. And NIE provides teacher training and the Ministry seconds teachers and principals to these special education schools upon request. On the question of integration, let me point out that there are different models in providing special education and how integration is promoted should differ according to the needs of the different groups of children with different needs. This is so with many countries in the world. There is no one single model. We learn from them. We will adapt their practices to our local context. The important point is that whatever the setting of providing special education, it should be one that provides an appropriate learning environment that can best cater to the specific needs of the special children. Recently, there was a spate of letters in the Forum page about my Ministry's provision for special education children. On 3rd October, my Ministry made a detailed reply on what we have been providing to the special children. Let me reiterate, very briefly, that for those with mild disabilities and those who are able to cope with mainstream education, MOE has already incorporated facilities and resources in our national schools for the integration of these children. There are in our mainstream schools the physically handicapped, the mildly hearing impaired, and visually handicapped and others who are studying in our mainstream schools. They follow our national curriculum. They are given extra resources. They are given remedial help and so on.”
“I think it will be incumbent on the home schoolers to provide evidence that they could provide a curriculum which will meet MOE's standards and requirements. The children are required to meet PSLE standards, pegged at the same benchmark as those required for children who are exempted from attending national schools but who go to San Yu Adventist School. They are also required to pass the national education quiz. I think we have to watch the situation of the home schoolers a bit closely. MOE will look into various methods of monitoring their progress and will assess whether the criteria for exemption, as recommended by the Committee, are adequate as we go along. As regards special education, Mdm Claire Chiang, Dr Vasoo, Mr Loh Meng See as well as some other Members have asked why we have exempted children in special education schools from the requirements of Compulsory Education in national schools. They reflect the sentiments of some members of the special education community in Singapore who expressed, as I said, some disappointment with the recommendations of the Compulsory Education Committee. But let me say again that our Committee had examined very carefully the existing measures to support special education, and found that the Government together with the National Council of Social Service and the voluntary welfare organisations have given extra resources to the educational needs of children with disabilities. Far from ignoring or discriminating against such children, the Ministry of Education actually provides funding up to 2.5 times the recurrent cost of educating a primary school pupil in national schools. The National Council of Social Service provides funding of another 1.”
“They put in a lot of energy. As one Member put it, the wife, in one case, quit her full-time job and stayed at home to take care of the schooling needs of her children. But my worry is that in spite of the good intentions, in spite of the efforts they put in, are they really able to give the children the best? And the best they give, can it match what we can provide in our national schools? In fact, when I met with them during a couple of the dialogue sessions, I was a little bit disturbed with the vehemence in which they pleaded their cases. In fact, they even went on to say that our schools do not provide a good education. They said, once the children go into the national schools, they imbibe the wrong values and fall into the wrong company. Therefore, they are very worried and withdraw their children from school. I think this is not the right perspective on our schools. Our national schools provide a good rounded education. The home schoolers have a certain belief that they could do the job of the school. We said that if they have such keen interest in their children's education and if they could provide the Ministry of Education with enough evidence that their education meets the twin objectives of Compulsory Education, then we could consider exemption for their children, but only if we are satisfied that the twin objectives of Compulsory Education are met. It is also why our Committee was a little stricter in prescribing the criteria which the home schoolers must meet before we would continue to grant them exemption. And MOE would look into the methods of monitoring the home schoolers. Mr Zulkifli pointed out that there is a loophole.”
“The institutions which, by the agreed time-frame, cannot still meet the agreed minimum standards, I am sure you will agree with me, would not be providing satisfactory instruction in the core secular subjects to the students. It would be unreasonable for the Government to continue to allow these madrasahs in question which fail to meet the minimum standards to continue teaching indefinitely the core secular subjects and admit students full-time into their fold. In such cases, the affected institution will not be allowed to admit pupils who are required to attend national schools for full-time education. For madrasahs, however, they would still be able to continue offering religious education to students who want it on a part-time and after-school hour basis. The students themselves can enrol in national schools or they can enrol in the other madrasahs which meet the PSLE benchmark. So, their interest would not be compromised. They would still be able to attend school in the national school system, just like now. We have cases where some parents want to transfer their children from madrasahs to national schools. The receiving school will give them a test and see which level they could be placed in. So, it will be like now, but the students can also transfer to other madrasahs which meet the PSLE benchmark. As regards home schoolers, I think Dr Wang has put it very well regarding the deliberations of the Committee and the kind of dilemma we faced. But I would also like to correct a slight misimpression, which I think either he or another speaker conveyed, that the home schoolers are actually doing a very good job in schooling the children at home. I do not doubt their keen interest, their good intentions, in wanting to home school their children at home.”
“Since Minister Tarmugi has already replied to the points on madrasahs, I would not dwell on them. However, I do not think Mr Zulkifli Baharudin's suggestion that the madrasahs should be represented on the Compulsory Education Board is a workable one, because Compulsory Education, in the context of our intention, is Compulsory Education within national schools. Madrasahs are schools outside the national school system. They are concerned with the religious education of Muslim children and the Muslim community has to decide on what role the madrasahs play and what would be the future directions for its further development. Mr Chiam said that we should give the madrasahs or the designated institutions, including San Yu Adventist School, a reasonable period of time for them to adjust and to meet the benchmarks. He suggested five years. In fact, in our Report, we recommended that the madrasahs have up to eight years to look into how they could improve the teaching, teaching resources, total environment and so on, in order to meet the PSLE benchmark. We are quite mindful of the fact that they had no experience in meeting the benchmark and we are prepared to give them up to eight years because Compulsory Education would be introduced two years later, in 2003; and six years afterwards, they would have the first batch of primary six children graduating who would be benchmarked against the PSLE average aggregate scores. Mr Hawazi expressed concern that he had heard among the Malay-Muslim community that if some of the madrasahs could not reach the benchmark by that time-frame, what would happen to the pupils.”
“It is not an adequate amount of education to equip you and go right into the workforce. But it is the foundation or base from which the children can go on to further education and training in secondary school. In fact, more than 94% of our primary school children go on and receive 10 years of education in total. In coming up with the recommendation for Compulsory Education up to primary six, the Committee was mindful that any proposal should take into consideration the views and aspirations of our different communities. I think the criticism of both Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam that the composition of the Committee was biased or political in its orientation from the beginning was unfair. Yes, there were Members of Parliament on the Committee. There were PAP Members, but they represented the views of different ethnic communities in our society. There was also a Nominated Member of Parliament on the Committee, Dr Jennifer Lee. The others were educationists. They were professionals. There was a representative from the Ministry of Community Development and Sports as well. In our process of deliberation, we consulted a very wide section of society. We had feedback sessions, closed-door focus group discussions with representatives from all walks of life. So I think it is unfair to say that, because of a certain political bias, therefore we came up with this expeditious political solution. Our Committee found that generally, there was widespread support for Compulsory Education. But the various groups that gave us feedback wanted sufficient flexibility in its implementation to accommodate their interest and concerns. I believe our recommendations have indeed accommodated the concerns and interests of the various communities.”
“The better solution for students who have lost interest in studying is not to force them to attend school, but to give them more opportunities to receive pre-employment or vocational training. As for other students who drop out because of family and financial reasons, please be assured that the school and the community have been doing their best to render assistance. In fact, before one single student is marked down as a premature school drop-out, the school would have gone through several layers of tracking, persuasion, help and assistance rendered by the teachers, school counsellers and social workers already. So we do not give up on them as easily as you would have thought. The second reason why the Committee recommended Compulsory Education up to primary six level was because we wanted to accommodate the wish of the Muslim community to train their religious leaders and teachers in madrasahs. The Muslim community was concerned about the introduction of Compulsory Education even for a duration of four years. Members will remember that the Prime Minister suggested four years of Compulsory Education up to Primary Four at the beginning. And even then, the madrasahs were concerned whether, with Compulsory Education in national schools, they would be able to have enough students who would want to study in madrasahs afterwards to become religious teachers. Six years is therefore a practical and workable compromise. To reiterate, the stand of the Committee on the duration of Compulsory Education is that the recommended six years should not be seen as the ideal length of education. We do not pretend that it is the best length of education that each child must have. In fact, we know its shortcomings. It is not the ideal.”
“On the one hand, advocates of Compulsory Education feel that every means must be brought to bear to ensure children stay in school up to the secondary level. On the other hand, they do not want extreme measures. Sir, we have to make up our mind, we have to balance the pros and cons, the practicality of enforcement, the amount of resources required and see, whether in the end, we would still be able to ensure 100% enrolment and 100% attendance. The experience of other countries proves that this is not assured. In fact, 100% is not possible. Mdm Claire Chiang quoted the example of Hong Kong where, over so many years of Compulsory Education, only one case had been brought to court, and only a few cases had been fined. But this does not mean that there is 100% compliance. This means that the machinery of enforcement may not be 100% working. I think this is the question. So we considered and recognised the impracticality of implementing Compulsory Education at the secondary level. In fact, in the interest of the students who have lost interest in their studies, a more desirable outcome for them is to receive some vocational skills training to prepare them for employment. This course of action is presently available in the various training schemes that the ITE has designed for them. Specifically, there are courses that lead up to the NTC-3 level of certification for those without 'N' level qualifications. There are also NTC-2 courses, as well as Certification in Office Skills for those students who left school with 'N' level qualifications only. In other words, there are existing schemes and educational programmes for students who drop out of secondary school.”
“In coming up with our recommendation that Compulsory Education should cover up to primary six education in our national schools, our main reasons are two-fold. Firstly, the problem of school drop-outs at the secondary school level. At the secondary school level, the problems of school drop-outs are quite complex. In fact, these would not be solved with the introduction of Compulsory Education. Sir, when adolescents reach secondary school, some of them drop out for various reasons, often by choice, such as the loss of interest in their studies. No doubt we can compel them to remain in school under Compulsory Education, but there is no guarantee that they will be motivated to study and complete secondary education. In fact, even Mr Chiam, who advocated eight years of Compulsory Education, that is, to cover up to secondary two, said, "It is useless. It is a waste of resources to compel them to study beyond that because if they had lost interest, there is no point to keep them in the system." Apart from the question of loss of interest, there is the question of how to make sure that they attend school regularly - the question of enforcement. The experience of other countries shows that at the secondary school level, more and more resources and more severe penalties will have to be put in place. The government in the United Kingdom, for example, is devoting more than 500 million pounds in the next few years to crack the problem of truancy. They are also considering whether to issue warrants of arrest to the parents whose children do not turn up in school. In some states in America, they are considering whether to issue warrants to the students, the adolescents themselves, for not attending school regularly.”
“My Committee was very clear that the principle of parental responsibility must be upheld so that Singapore society will continue to be rooted in strong families. Again, this was one of the long standing concerns of the Ministry of Education. But because the future of all Singaporean children is important, we need to provide the State with the power to compel parents to send their children to school when all other methods of persuasion fail. Such children, though small in number, would otherwise miss out on the benefits of education in the national schools. This number is small. Mdm Claire Chiang has probably looked at the wrong source of information. What is provided in the Annex of my Committee's Report is the accurate number. The number was obtained when some children failed to register during the time of P1 registration. So we came up with 1,500 children, two-thirds of whom did not register either by choice or by circumstances, and the remaining one-third could not be traced in spite of all efforts by the Ministry of Education. A lot of questions on the recommendations of the Committee deal with the reasons why we recommended Compulsory Education only up to primary six. This point was brought up by Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Mr Tay Beng Chuan, Mr Chiam See Tong, Mdm Claire Chiang, Dr Vasoo and others. I think we have to look at the total picture and the amount of careful deliberation the Committee had put in before we came up with this recommendation. We spent a lot of time in deliberating on this. We looked at the experience of other countries and we realised that in the context of Singapore, the duration of Compulsory Education, as well as the form in which it should take, are two issues which are closely inter-related and they must be considered together.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to address some of the points that have been brought up by Members so far in this debate on the Compulsory Education Bill. As Minister Teo has said earlier, the Singapore education system has always played two roles, firstly, in preparing our young for work, and, secondly, moulding them as citizens. These objectives were foremost in the minds of the Committee on Compulsory Education, which I chaired. Indeed, when the Prime Minister asked the Ministry of Education to consider the introduction of Compulsory Education in October last year, he reiterated the need for our children to attend school and be given the same headstart in life to develop his or her full potential. Our Committee recommended Compulsory Education to be introduced in Singapore, and I must thank all the Members of this House who spoke this afternoon; all of them were in support of introducing Compulsory Education. I think it is an important step for Singapore. It is an important step in ensuring that our children are prepared for the future, particularly for the requirements of the knowledge-based economy in an age of globalisation. However, my Committee also shared MOE's long standing position that Compulsory Education does not, in itself, ensure full enrolment in schools or solve the root problems of non-attendance. Nor was it the intention of the Committee to use Compulsory Education as a means to improve access to and support for children with special needs. These are already taken care of by existing measures, and improvements will continue to be made by the Ministry of Education. Let me deal with this and other issues in turn. First, the issue of parental responsibility.”
“Sir, maybe Mr Low would like to ask Mr Chiam to repeat his question.”
“The PCF was the only organisation that met the criteria and was willing to come forward to put in resources and efforts to help raise the standard of pre-school education in Singapore. Ten years later, ie, now, PCF centres, particularly those which benefitted from the capital grant scheme, have benefitted a great deal. And enrolment at these centres is often up to the brim. The scheme has worked to help upgrade the quality and accessibility of PSE, especially to lower income families in Singapore. Mr Low also asked whether this grant has been given to PSE centres across all wards, and not just PAP wards. As I said, the only organisation which met the criteria to apply for this grant and willing to come forward has been the PCF. But I must also inform him that not all PCF centres are using this grant. There are some which have not utilised the grant, as I think they are providing a different kind of programmes. He asked whether there are guidelines to admit students based on political affiliation. I have already informed him that this is not in the guidelines at all. No distinction is made between children who have or who do not have political affiliations.”
“It is never meant to admit people with political affiliations. In the event that a kindergarten fails to operate within the minimum stipulated period of five years, they will have to refund to the Government the capital grant on a pro-rated basis on the balance of the five-year period. Any kindergarten which fulfills the above criteria is free to apply for the capital grant. To answer Mr Low, this capital grant scheme is not confined to the PCF. Any charitable organisation which meets these criteria is free to apply for the capital grant. 3.30 pm As regards how much money has been spent so far under this scheme, to-date, a total of $19.4 million has been released to the PCF, and 116 centres have benefitted from this capital grant. Mr Low also asked whether this scheme has been effective in helping to raise the quality of pre-school education. I think so. If Members remember, before this scheme was instituted, the quality of the programmes being offered in the non-public sector, including the PCF centres, left much to be desired. Ten years back - and we are talking about 1991 - the cohort participation rate in pre-school programmes was not high, not as high as today, especially among the lower income families. Even among the children who attended pre-school programmes, a significant proportion were attending programmes for only two hours a day or for only one year. PCF already was the major provider of pre-school education at that time, and they were willing to come forward to put in resources and efforts. The capital grant scheme allows MOE to fund only up to 90% of the capital or renovation cost. The centre itself has to come out with the balance of 10%.”
“I believe Mr Low Thia Khiang is talking about the disbursement to the PCF under the capital grant scheme which was implemented from 1991 to help kindergartens in the private and community sectors upgrade their facilities. If the Member will remember, in the early 1990s, as part of the MOE's review of its role in pre-school education (PSE), it was decided that provision of PSE should remain in the hands of the private and people sectors. So this capital grant scheme was implemented. In fact, Mr Low himself asked a question of Mr Lee Yock Suan, the then Minister for Education, in a Parliamentary debate sometime in 1992. He was aware of the implementation of this project in 1992. The disbursements under the scheme are given under a set of criteria. Applicants must be registered with MOE. Applicants must offer a good two-year kindergarten programme. Applicants must have a good track record and must be non-profit bodies. They must submit the detailed development proposal which has been approved by the relevant authorities. To safeguard public funds, kindergartens in receipt of capital grants should abide by the following conditions, failing which, they should refund Government the entire capital grant. The applicants must apply the money for the purpose for which it is given and they should complete the project within a stipulated period of time, keep proper accounts and support claims for grants with audited statements of accounts and so on. The applicants must also operate the kindergartens for a period of at least five years. They should adopt the education programme and curriculum materials which meet the Ministry's standard and they should admit all members of the public, regardless of race, language or religion.”
“I am sorry I do not have the figures or the breakdown of the country of origin of the foreign students. But I would say the majority of them are from countries like China, India and the ASEAN countries. As for his question about the cohort participation rate in our institutions of higher learning, if we include those who go overseas, I think the figure would be anything between 25% and 27%. But please note that we do not have the exact figures on those who go overseas to study because they are not obliged to tell us. PILOT ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (PESI) 8. Mr Ong Kian Min asked the Minister for the Environment (a) whether Singapore's low ranking in the pilot environmental sustainability index (PESI) devised by a group of environmentalists picked by the World Economic Forum is a fair and accurate representation of Singapore's environment; (b) what is his Ministry's response to the findings under the PESI; and (c) what programmes and measures, if any, will his Ministry implement to improve our scores under the various indicators used in the PESI. 9. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for the Environment (a) what is his response to Singapore being ranked "lower than expected" in a "pilot environmental sustainability index" (PESI); and (b) what measures will be taken to improve on the range of environmental indicators in the index.”
“Mr Speaker, the intake of foreign students into our schools and junior colleges does not reduce the absolute numbers of the intake of local students. All eligible local students are assured of a school place in our educational institutions. For primary, secondary and pre-U institutions, local students are given priority in placement over the foreign students. All Singaporean students who qualify for admission to our institutes of higher learning (IHLs) will also not be deprived of a place at our IHLs. The increase in the intake of foreign students constitutes part of the IHLs' expansion plans, and is not at the expense of our local students. Between 1990 and 1999, the number of university places given to local students for undergraduate study increased from 6,600 to 8,600. Similarly, the number of polytechnic places given to local students rose from 9,100 in 1990 to 15,900 in 1999. By 1999, there are sufficient places for 21% of the age cohort to enter university and 39% to enter the polytechnics. Between 1990 and 1999, we were able to create another 1,500 university places and 1,200 polytechnic places for foreign students over this 10-year period. These foreign students were admitted on top of the local student intake. The IHLs have been careful to ensure that the quality of the foreign students admitted is on average higher than that of the local students, so that their presence adds to the vibrancy of the academic environment and increase the quality of education at the IHLs.”
“From the Ministry of Education's point of view, libraries, of course, are good things for children. We have not found out, in the sense of making in-depth studies, the language learning difficulties faced by children at the pre-school age. Hitherto, this sector has been under the private sector and the community sector. But this is also one of the issues the Committee will be looking at, through a pilot research study, and if Members are interested to know about this study, they could file some questions during the Committee of Supply. INCREASED INTAKE OF FOREIGN STUDENTS 7. Mr Goh Chong Chia asked the Minister for Education whether the increased intake of foreign students will in any way reduce the absolute numbers of the intake of local students.”
“Sir, I think the question of neighbourhood libraries has been raised by Mr Chiam over and over again in the House. These are an extension of the National Library, and they are not exclusively for pre-school children. They are the combined effort of the National Library together with the Community Development Councils. So it is not really within the purview of the Ministry of Education. To answer Mr Chiam's question whether there is any problem of teaching English to children coming from non-English speaking homes, given the linguistic background of the population, where some children come from English-speaking homes, and others from non English-speaking homes, there will always be a problem either way. As I said, one of the terms of reference of the Steering Committee is to look into the curriculum development. So we will see how our bilingual teaching can be improved in pre-school centres.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are aware of the teacher-student ratio in pre-school centres being not at the optimal. One of the tasks of the Steering Committee is to look at how to improve pre-school education, where possible, by reducing class size. But I must emphasise that class size is not the only factor that goes into what defines good quality pre-school education. We will take a holistic picture of the problem. Yes, MCD has announced higher qualifications for its childcare centre supervisors to be effective within five years. So part of the Steering Committee's work is also to look into how we could raise the qualification requirement for kindergarten teachers and supervisors. As to her question whether there should be one single agency to be in charge of childcare as well as pre-school education, for the moment I cannot think of an agency that should have such a narrow portfolio. It is best for us to work closely in coordination with MCD to see how the two sectors can be interlinked in a much more satisfactory or seamless manner. But I must also say that the requirements for childcare, even the training requirement, the philosophical and develop- mental aspects of children aged from 18 months to 3 years, are somewhat different from the requirements of children aged 3 years to 6 years. At the moment, these are under two different Ministries. We are looking into how we can coordinate and synchronise matters better.”
“There is nothing wrong with expressing their affection for their principal or teacher. But MOE's point is that it is inappropriate for the students to be drawn in by the board of directors which is having problems.”
“We are not here to discuss different mothering styles. I think how you advise the children to carry on in life, to deal with matters rationally, to look at various sides of the matter and to teach your child to know the facts before he jumps, to me, that is responsible motherhood.”
“Mr Speaker, as a parent myself, if my son had been involved in this kind of incident in this manner and he told me afterwards, my advice would be: "You be very careful the next time. You do not know what is going on behind all the complications of the dispute and so on. Don't be used by anybody. There is nothing wrong with you expressing your feelings, but there are also other ways of expressing." But if my son had consulted me beforehand and asked, "Should I go and be involved?" I would say, "You be careful and do not get involved. You can also write a nice letter to your principal and say how much you appreciate him and you really wish he did not make the decision to resign." I want to point out to the House that the Chinese High School has been having problems over the last two or three years. It is not unknown. There are problems with the management in terms of the style, methods and so on. This has affected the standing of the school in the eyes of the public. Does Mdm Claire Chiang really want students also to get involved and complicate matters?”
“The school counsellor. SCHOOL DROP-OUTS 12. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Education if he will build a typology of the drop-outs between 1995 and July 1999 on (a) how many were expelled and for what reasons; (b) how many voluntarily withdrew and what were the causes; (c) how many eventually got readmitted to schools; and (d) how many overaged children are currently on waiting list for readmission to schools. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, for the period January 1995 to August 1999, an average of 24 students per year were expelled from primary or secondary schools. As you can see from the numbers, schools rarely expel pupils, and only as a last resort, when these pupils are recalcitrant and have committed serious offences. Before this stage is reached, however, schools would have counselled such pupils and their parents, and put in the utmost effort to correct pupils' behaviour. I have already addressed the issue of how many voluntarily withdraw from school, and the proportion who are eventually re-admitted, in my response to a question on the previous occasion. The Ministry of Education allows students who have dropped out from school to return, so long as they are not more than two years above the correct age for the particular level. This rule is put in place because children who are much older than their classmates often have great difficulty fitting in socially. But as I explained at the last sitting, we also do make some exceptions and these exceptions are made on a case-by-case basis. Mr Speaker, Sir, our schools do not keep a waiting list for overaged students who want to be re-admitted. In any case, there is no real shortage of school places and those who can gain admission or re-admission will be admitted.”
“Yes. I mentioned that they have been receiving counselling.”
“Minister Teo had earlier addressed the question on the trend in dropout rates, and the measures taken by our principals and teachers when students show signs of dropping out from school. In the case of Patricia Chay, the school has been working very hard, together with the Tanjong Pagar Community Development Council (CDC), to persuade her parents to send her back to school. They have made numerous visits to her home to counsel her parents. I am pleased to inform Dr Lee that Patricia has been attending school regularly for the past two and a half weeks. Patricia is well-behaved and relates well with her peers and teachers. She is coping well in her studies and has shown improvement in the programmes she is attending. The school and the Ministry will continue to provide her with financial, academic and emotional support.”