Amy Khor Lean Suan
Singapore
“Sir, NEA does conduct inspections of these premises from time to time. For this particular premises, they actually did six inspections since 2021.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts enforcement actions against drivers who are found to have provided illegal car-pooling services. An individual who provides an illegal car-pooling service may face a fine of up to $3,000, up to six months' imprisonment, or both.”
“We will also provide the first 500 private heavy vehicle chargers co-funding of up to 50% of the charger installation cost, capped at $30,000 per charger. These measures will narrow the lifecycle cost gap between an electric and internal combustion engine heavy vehicle and spur adoption of electric heavy vehicles.”
“With regard to the extension of the lower speed limit to school zones for full day, we will work with the relevant agencies on the enhanced enforcements.”
“They will provide a certain amount of protection to the pedestrians because, as I have said, the bollards will absorb the impact of the collision from the vehicles. So, there is a protection. But ultimately, of course, road safety really depends on a multitude of factors, including road user behaviour.”
“The bollards installed at pedestrian crossings by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) are not of the K4, K8 or K12 standards stated by the Member. Bollards of these standards are typically security bollards. They are installed to protect critical infrastructure or at high security areas, such as Changi Airport, to be unyielding.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,285 lines we hold for Amy Khor Lean Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 44 of 46.
“There is really never a good time to raise taxes, but the people of Singapore will need to take a calm and rational look at the grim economic realities affecting the long-term future of our country that is at the core of the Government's tax policy. But the immediate pain, though alleviated through the phased-in approach, still cannot be lightly dismissed. I would urge the Government to consider additional off-Budget relief measures to help Singaporeans and businesses tide over their cash flow difficulties if the economy worsens. Modifying the when and how of the GST implementation would clearly help to restore the people's faith in the Government and, barring any other Government policy announcements, will be a good note on which to end the year. It will certainly add cheer to the Hari Raya festive season tomorrow. Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been a great deal of debate by the people of Singapore and politicians about the proposed increase in the Goods and Services Tax from 3% to 5% as proposed in clause 3 of the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill which seeks to amend section 16 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has kindly proposed an amendment which I am sure is most welcomed by this House and the people residing in Singapore. The original proposal of an increase to 5% is substantially more than 66% increase and the general sentiment coming from our citizenry is that of unhappiness. Now, it is an increase of 33%. Unfortunately, the economic climate in the recent past, present and in the immediate future is bleak and therefore the difficulty in being able to support such a proposal. In a recent local radio survey, around 80% of the listeners were against the increase in GST at this time.”
“On the "how", as the Government has chosen the phased-in scheme, I urge the Government to give careful thought to mitigating the pain, especially on two groups: 1) smaller businesses which do not benefit from the lower direct tax regime and will find themselves squeezed by consumers because of weak demand to absorb all or part of the increase; and 2) lower income groups struggling to eke out an existence. The Government must continue to find ways to help small businesses to lower their costs, as many which are yet to be profitable would not benefit from the corporate tax cuts, while those who are struggling and making marginal profits will also not benefit significantly from the new tax regime. Rental rebates, lower property taxes, grants for upgrading the businesses, or even attractive financing packages, could be further extended to such businesses which are struggling in the current economic conditions but which are otherwise fundamentally sound. The lower income group is struggling due to the poor economic conditions as well as the structural change in the employment landscape which renders many who are unskilled redundant in the labour market. They will continue to need help as long as the economic outlook remains bleak. As noted earlier, many are in fact using their NSS and ERS as lifelines to tide them over the financial difficulties. We need to continue to help this group remain employable through retraining as well as through job creation. At the end of the day, Sir, the groundswell against the GST hike stems most acutely from the fact that we are in the midst of a recession, and the livelihood of ordinary citizens are at risk.”
“However, I would like to highlight that some businessmen, particularly those who are not registered for GST, feel that due to the poor economic conditions and strong competition, they may be forced to absorb the 1% increase in GST, thus further squeezing their already razor-thin margins, as their clients would say, "Since it is only 1%, you should absorb it." In fact, a few businessmen actually told me that their preference was for the Government to increase the rate to 5% straightaway, and then provide additional help to those in need. They feel that there is not much difference between a 1% and 2% hike, and we might as well take the pain straight and face up to the realities of the harsh economic conditions and aggressive competition ahead. But the option of increasing the GST to the full 5%, but with more help to low income families, could have a higher political cost, since there would be groups who will not benefit significantly or directly from any offset package. Additionally, the current experience has shown that even though theoretically many individuals should not be worse off due to the two-percentage point GST increase as the relief package should cushion the blow, many are still upset as they perceive this to be yet another hike. Many also tend to divorce the GST hike and relief package, and feel that the two are separate matters. I am pleased to note that the Government has taken heed of these sentiments.”
“But I am proud to note that when the GST was first introduced in 1993, this Government promised to hold the GST rate at 3% for five years and it has kept its promise. On the other hand, breaking a similar promise now, ie, deferring the planned hike, would be easier to do because of the political backlash of being a promise-keeper. Nonetheless, Sir, I am delighted, and so are many other Singaporeans, that after habitually saying "The answer is no" and "The answer is still no" on many occasions, this Government is now finally saying "Let us consider because of the changed circumstances" and, indeed, it has modified the planned hike. I do not think that this means the Government is bowing to populist pressure. Rather, it shows that the Government is not afraid to bend, if it is satisfied that there are good reasons to do so and, indeed, there are good reasons. Sir, I believe that the votes - and, as Mdm Ho noted earlier, the bets - were split as to which of the two options was preferred. Nonetheless, I feel - and I think the Government feels that too - that there could be a tilt towards the phased-in scheme, which I am pleased the Minister for Finance has announced the Government has opted for. Phasing in shows that the Government is firm in its policy, yet flexible in responding to the economic and political environment. Most would welcome some reprieve, real or imagined, from the full increase in rate. As one retailer noted, "every bit helps".”
“Although the Government has said that the offset package will more than cover the increase in GST and that it will be expansionary, many Singaporeans remain unconvinced, as the Minister for Finance has noted earlier. One Singaporean, in an unpublished letter to the press, noted that whilst more than a million CPF account holders have withdrawn their New Singapore Shares, stallholders have at the same time reported a drastic drop in businesses by up to 80%. Hence, he is sceptical that the offset package will be expansionary. In fact, I have had quite a number of residents who have asked me to appeal to the Town Council and Singapore Power, amongst others, to ask for deferment of payment until they have encashed their NSS or ERS. Thus, many lower income residents are in fact using the NSS and ERS as a lifeline to tide over their financial difficulties, and pay for essential household bills, school fees and textbooks. The expansionary impact of the GST offset package is thus likely to be less than expected. I note the oft-cited view that there is never a good time to raise taxes. Indeed, they say that death and taxes are the only two certainties in life. One argument for a 2003 hike is that foreign investors will lose confidence in the Government's ability to keep its word, since the hike was already announced in the 2002 Budget Statement as part of a package of measures to restructure our tax regime. Therefore, any delay could be construed by the international community as succumbing to people pressure against the long-term interest of the country. And because the Government is not populist, we will have to do what we say we will do. Sir, this Government is not one that reneges on its word.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first, like other hon. Members of this House, thank the Minister for Finance for having listened to the people and modifying the planned GST hike. Mr Speaker, Sir, like education and many other issues before this House, the GST hike, which is what the Bill is concerned with, is, in my view, not "if" but "when" and "how". On the "if", the Minister for Finance has already given this House and the people of Singapore several reasons for the need to raise GST, such as the need to attract and retain talent, as well as the fact that we are increasingly facing an ageing population and that the tax base will diminish concurrently as the burden on public finances to fund health care rises. These factors, coupled with the anticipated slower economic growth in the medium term, produce compelling reasons why Singapore needs to broaden its tax base and increase indirect taxes like GST whilst reducing direct taxes. Sir, I would also like to note that with the increase in GST from 3% to 5%, our rate remains one of the lowest among nations that have implemented GST. For instance, the standard GST or VAT rate is 17 1/2% in the UK, 12 1/2% in New Zealand, 10% in Korea, 5-10% in Taiwan, 5% in Japan, and 7% in Thailand. The hike to 5% is, thus, not misaligned from this perspective. In fact, it is clear that almost all agree that the GST rate would have to go up. No question about this. The question is when. On the "when", coming after a series of price hikes in transport fares, utilities, parking charges and even garbage collection fees, the ground feel is naturally one of consternation, sharply heightened by the poor economic conditions and the spectre of even more unemployment in the streets.”
“But the system would also have to be changed upstream and for the rest of the cohort in order to allow all and sundry - the exceptional, the normal, the wayward and the just different - to have a chance to survive and prosper. Until this is done, the Sim Wong Hoos and, if I may add, the Olivia Lums would continue to remain elusive. I therefore urge MOE not to delay but look into the equally needed reforms for those upstream and the remaining cohort outside the ambit of the upper secondary/JC system. This is a call not only by the public but by many from the ERC Sub-committees. I am sure that, with determination, MOE would be able to marshall resources to look at these areas simultaneously, as it is looking into the implementation of the changes for the JC/upper secondary system. Indeed, it is very comforting to note a recent example of MOE's eagerness to act decisively. Proof of this is in the recent change in the choice of secondary school available to pupils after their PSLE results, instead of before. Additionally, MOE has also now agreed to a single JC intake. As one principal remarked, this single intake of JC has been fed to MOE for more than 10 years and had remained unchanged. With MOE's new added willingness to change, as seen in the acceptance of the Review Committee's Report, I have high hopes (and I hope I would not be proven wrong) that MOE would seriously consider and implement many of the other proposed and much needed changes in the education system. With this, Sir, I support the motion. 4.50 pm”
“International Survey Research recently reported that based on its employee surveys, Singapore's chief executives tend to be good stewards rather than leaders. This is corroborated by a recent conversation I had with a PR from China who runs trading companies in Singapore and China. He told me he spends more time in China than Singapore, not because his family is in China - his family is in fact in Australia - but because he knows that the Singaporean manager can be trusted to run his company according to his instructions. He says that if he were to leave his China office unattended for too long, he fears one of his employees may set up a rival firm, just across the road, to compete against him. He remarked that Singaporean managers are very competent and compliant. Ethics aside, Chinese managers are also very competent, but they are also always looking at ways to be their own boss. I suspect that our famously rigid education system has no small part to play in shaping the current mindset of Singaporeans. In order to reform our education landscape to produce creative workers, innovators and entrepreneurs, there needs to be a mindset change for all - students, parents, teachers and the MOE. It is heartening that the MOE has accepted the Review Committee's recommendation to reform the JC/Upper Secondary system to better prepare students for the unpredictable future. Changing the curriculum to allow for more broad-based education and nurturing thinking skills for JC and bright upper secondary school students as well as giving them more options are first steps in the right direction.”
“However, by all accounts, and as noted earlier, students and parents continue to remain stressed by the workload, leaving students with very little time for critical thinking and analysis. The MOE should thus also review the curriculum content and workload of students in the primary and secondary schools to see if content can be further trimmed just like in the case of the JCs. The White Paper notes that the current academic curriculum load in JCs is heavy compared to foreign education systems like the "A" levels in the UK and the IB. This is despite the fact that the curriculum was trimmed in 1999. By the same token, we may still be overloading and over-teaching our primary and secondary students. This, I submit, could place incoming upper secondary/JC students on the wrong footing and diminish the gains they could make from the very revisions we are now debating in this House. As the saying goes, we are the product of what we eat and this is true, whether it is food for the stomach or fodder for the brain. Arguably, our education system is superior to those in many countries, and has largely met the needs of our economy and citizens. However, with the rapid pace of globalisation, there is growing evidence that the system, as it stands, would not be able to meet the needs of the future workplace and economy. As Prof Edison Liu, Head of the Singapore Genomic Programme notes, "Yes, the Singapore education system is good. Yes, it is considered among the best in the world in mathematics and the sciences. But the question is not what Singapore needs now, but what the country will need 10 years from now." To enable us to compete effectively in the global economic arena, we need creative and critically thinking workers, not compliant workers.”
“There is obviously a great deal of administrative clumsiness, and some loss of efficiency may have to be initially tolerated but fundamentally - allowing even more diversity should - in this regard be seen as part of the maturation process in our education system. The MOE, by accepting the White Paper, is already allowing some "messiness" to creep into the currently highly efficient system. Secondly, widening the benefits upwards. There is also the need to start grounding critical thinking skills from the echelons of lower secondary and even primary school, so that they will not start on the wrong footing. Again, as noted by the Human Capital ERC Sub-committee, we need to inculcate new traits such as thinking and communication skills early in the education process. Referring to tertiary students, I remember coming across a T-shirt worn by an undergraduate that had the words "I is a university student." There is some reality behind this tongue-in-cheek humour. As an ex-University lecturer, I can testify to the poor command of English, a significant number of undergraduates suffer from, as a consequence of inadequate grounding during their primary and secondary school days. One cannot go far back enough, as psychologists will tell you, habits of the mind are formed at a very young age. This laying of foundation is especially crucial for the dysfunctional families where the home environment may not be conducive for learning and school is the only avenue for learning. MOE announced the "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation" initiative in 1997 and curriculum content was trimmed by up to 30% in 1999.”
“The benefits of diversity, flexibility and choice in education and the nurturing of a thinking culture should spread to the rest of the cohort so that the less able will at least receive some preparation to equip them for the challenges of the KBE. For surely the goal is not merely to have a thinking elite, but also a thinking nation. We need thinkers at all levels of society and not just at the top, and to level up the weak, without dumping down the strong. The White Paper has allowed for greater customisation or streaming with concomitant diversity and choice at the top end of the cohort with the through-train and specialised school proposals. Greater diversity, choice and customisation should also be accorded to the rest of the cohort and in this respect, I support the following ERC Human Capital Sub-committee's recommendations: Firstly, to allow secondary students to have wider access to subjects beyond their particular stream. For instance, students in "N" level could take a few subjects where they are strong in at "O" level. Secondly, to allow selected students a longer period to complete their examinations by taking fewer subjects in more sittings, so that they can pursue external interests such as sports and the arts, which they excel in. These would then reduce some of the rigidity in the system, which though efficient, may hamper late developers. In fact, the answer to the much-maligned streaming system could thus paradoxically lie in more streaming or greater customisation of learning, particularly for the exceptional, the wayward and the just different.”
“Privately-funded schools are likely to appeal to a minority of parents who are at odds with the national school system and believe that their children could fit better in a less rigid alternative system. Private schools can provide greater variety and choice of alternative school systems, which can meet the needs of such families, and perhaps help stem the outflow of Singaporeans arising from unhappiness with the education system. As one Douglas Koh quipped, in response to the Review Committee's proposals, "For years I have been thinking of emigrating because of the lack of alternative school systems. Now I may be spoilt for choice." More importantly, privately-funded schools can cater to the children of returning Singaporean expatriates who may prefer an alternative curriculum which they are more familiar with or prepared for. Sir, I therefore support this proposal and in fact would like to urge MOE to allow private schools to be open for all levels instead of confining this to Secondary and JC levels so that the diversity in choice can be complete. My final key concern relates to widening the benefits, downwards and upwards. Firstly, widening the benefits downwards. The recommendations in the White Paper would benefit the most able of each cohort. For instance, the JC review would benefit the top 25% of the cohort, whilst the proposed through-train system is aimed at the top 10%. But what about the other 75% of the cohort? What about those further upstream in the lower secondary and primary schools? Should not the new education roadmap of greater breadth, greater flexibility and greater diversity be also made available to them so that all will be using the same map to navigate effectively together?”
“But I would like MOE to consider steps to ensure that the creme de la creme of Singapore's student population entering the through-train programme do not develop isolationist tendencies, but integrate into the mainstream and not look down at their lesser brethren. It is comforting to note that schools and JCs planning to run the integrated programme will set aside or offer additional places to ensure that students from non-affiliated schools are not shut out of the JC. These secondary schools would also continue to offer the standard "O" level track which would allow students to stay on the traditional route, if they are assessed to be unable to make the mark, say, at secondary 2. Since 1990, the percentage of P1 cohort who passed "A" levels has been above 20%. Hence, I would like to urge the Ministry to monitor the progress and performance of the through-train cohort with the view of eventually making it accessible to a higher percentage of students, from the targeted 10%, who can benefit from the system. My fourth concern relates to the setting up of private schools. The Review Committee recommends adding a few privately-run and funded secondary schools and JCs. Such schools are to add diversity and choice in education as well as to provide an added source of ideas and innovative practices in education. The Committee acknowledges that such a move would however introduce some degree of elitism into the national education system, since admission would depend in part on ability to pay. Nonetheless, the need for a more varied education landscape is becoming inevitable in the face of globalisation and an increasingly mobile and informed citizenry that demands choice.”
“Once again, the recommendations could falter at the execution stage. To alleviate this problem, it must be ensured that the reduced hours genuinely reflect correspondingly reduced content, that does not somehow creep back into the system by way of after-class teaching. My third major concern relates to the through-train education. Sir, I support the proposals to have through-train to accelerate the learning pace and offer the brighter students time to pursue their interests and enrich their own educational experience without having their attention diverted by two major examinations. As only the brightest crop of students - the top 10% - will be permitted to participate, the risk of these students being left without completing at least the "O" levels should they fail the through-train will be remote. In some ways, the through-train is thus another version of the GEP, and yet another form of streaming. I know of many parents who desire that their children be able to enter the GEP. Additionally, the perception is that the best resources are also devoted to grooming these students, perhaps more so on a per capita basis than the rest of the crop. The fact that this programme and its successor, the through-train, falls within the national school system raises the prospect that this is like officially sanctioned Darwinism at work. Sir, I fully accept that we are all made differently and abilities likewise vary. I also subscribe to the idea that bright students with exceptional aptitude are better off developing other skills and pursuing non-curriculum-related work for character and leadership honing than taking two major examinations.”
“Again, the execution of this could leave much to be desired. Specifically, except for perhaps a handful of students, the majority do not possess the aptitude to be more or less competent in every subject. Most students have preferences and aptitude for one category of subjects - eg, science or arts. To accommodate a broader based enhanced curriculum, the Review Committee has proposed trimming curriculum content and time of each subject. However, even though the number of hours per subject is reduced, the need for a contrasting subject brings the total tally for a typical "A" level student to a minimum of 7 subjects, up from the existing minimum of 5. This may mean greater stress as students are taxed beyond the comfort zone of the subjects around the core areas that they prefer. The aim of broadening students' horizon beyond the academic would be defeated if they have to struggle unduly in their contrasting subject, leaving them with precious little time for anything else. In fact, whilst there would be a 10% reduction in overall curriculum time under the proposed system, for existing triple Science students doing 4 "A" levels, the overall curriculum time for Humanities students doing 3 "A" levels will remain unchanged at about 1,300 hours. This means that the weaker students in the cohort may be unduly stretched as they now have to take more subjects and on top of this, at least one subject outside their specialisation in the same overall curriculum time. Additionally, the typical "kiasu" Singaporean parents would want their children to do well in all subjects, as long as the subject contributes to the admission criteria of our local universities. Hence, additional pressure may also emanate from this source.”
“Here, I quote the editorial of the Straits Times of 16th November 2002: 'Where the education system is concerned, it is not just a matter of rearranging chairs, building new schools, but changing the insides of people, including the people tasked with making the changes. Who will teach the teachers?' Indeed, from the feedback I have received, I suspect that there is little disagreement among Singaporeans about the noble intentions of the changes, but the "How" will need to be carefully crafted and conveyed to all stakeholders. I would like to suggest that MOE involve educators and other relevant stakeholders in the design of the new curriculum and make the process more transparent to parents and students. Before actual implementation of the revised curriculum, MOE should widely expose these for comments by the stakeholders so that any kinks can be ironed out before implementation. MOE, in accepting this report by the Review Committee, should also follow up with a subsequent report regarding how the curriculum has been revised and trimmed, additional new teaching and assessment methods that need to be adopted to achieve the aims of the report. This could be presented to the public and Parliament for feedback. And at this juncture I would like to thank the Minister for noting that some of these would be done. My second concern relates to the need to take at least one contrasting subject and implications on workload. I fully subscribe to the logic of having a contrasting subject, so as to expose students to subjects outside their core content knowledge, and help them think in inter-disciplinary terms. Increasingly, complex problems we are facing call for multi-dimensional responses that a broad-based education can elicit.”
“greater flexibility - to accommodate preference for different types and depth of subjects; and 3. greater diversity - to allow different pathways of education to accommodate different types of students. Sir, I support these broad principles and aims enunciated. But in my assessment, they have still not been applied widely or rigorously enough to the vision for a new education landscape. In what follows, I will explain my reasons by highlighting five major concerns arising from the review. My first concern relates to execution. While the principles are sound, the execution can and should take on different hues. Thus, a key concern would be in the manner of implementation of the recommendations. For instance, how can existing teachers, who are themselves products of an era where education is largely knowledge acquisition, as well as new teachers, be equipped to help students develop conceptual thinking, knowledge process skills, independent thinking and communication skills? What are the changes that must be made to the recruitment of new teachers and their training? How should the syllabus, teaching and assessment methods be shaped to ensure they achieve the aims of the review? What needs to be done for existing and often older teachers to help them grasp the issues? The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry and Education, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who chairs the Review Committee, himself had acknowledged that the success of the revised curriculum hinges on how it is executed, particularly in the curriculum design and the training of teachers. As they say, the devil is in the details. The most enlightened and exquisite curriculum or programme is only as good as the way it is implemented.”
“Sir, please let me state categorically at the outset that I do see the value of a rigorous education system that stretches students, and stress per se is indeed no reason to relax the rigour of the JC/Upper Secondary education system. The estimated 25% of each year's cohort that enter Upper Secondary/JC, one can safely assume, represent the best of the crop and nothing beats a good solid education to prepare them for either a university education or alternative learning pathways to a useful career. Without any question, the changes taking place all around us call for new responses. We urgently need to build up a pool of trained manpower with the skills and the aptitude to tackle the economic challenges of a highly competitive globalised, knowledge and innovation-driven economy. Amongst the tirade of recommendations made by the ERC sub-committees, the need to revamp our education system to foster entrepreneurship stands out very strongly as a common and central recommendation. In fact, one of the strongest advocates comes from the Sub-committee on Enhancing Human Capital, chaired by the Minister of State for Manpower and Education, Dr Ng Eng Hen, himself. Indeed, Minister of State Ng Eng Hen's recent ERC sub-committee report begins where the White Paper also begins - the pressing need to inject more flexibility and diversity into our education system. The goal is to enable the system to perform optimally its equipping task, and make our schools, to use the ERC report's memorable words, "creators of knowledge, engines of innovation and cradles of enterprise." In a nutshell, there are, I believe, three underlying core principles enunciated in the review: 1. greater breadth - with focus on thinking and higher order skills, not just academic or subject content; 2.”
“Mr Speaker, I am delighted that far-reaching changes are now being proposed to the system of JC/Upper Secondary School education. The present system has not had a major revamp for 30 years. Like so much of Singapore Inc., it is highly efficient and accomplishes a great deal with minimum fuss. But the accompanying litany of complaints is long and familiar. And my fellow Parliamentary colleagues before me have given details of some of these. Students and parents bemoan the undue stress the system has imposed from intense rote learning and the cookie cutter approach. Significantly, by agreeing to the reduction in the number of hours per 'A' level subject, the MOE seems to implicitly admit that the present system, by international comparison, over teachers in terms of content and subject hours, is generating an enormously stressful learning experience. University educators and employers find our students wanting, because they are adept at knowledge acquisition but not knowledge application or creation. They often bemoan the failure of the system to inculcate critical thinking and communication skills. It is well known that Singaporean students are reticent and poor communicators in comparison with foreign counterparts. These anecdotal observations have thus far not been negated by statistics that many Government departments are fond of using to demolish arguments. Indeed, they are reinforced by a recent study by the Ministry of Trade and Industry which shows clearly that, compared to the advanced economies, Singapore is pretty strong in acquiring knowledge, but is less so in creating, disseminating or applying information. The report further notes that it is in knowledge application where Singapore lags furthest behind and here, the weakest link is entrepreneurship.”
“In the review, could the Ministry of National Development, together with the Ministry of Law, consider giving wider jurisdictions, either to the Strata Titles Board or to the Commissioner of Buildings, with regard to resolving conflicts arising from the day-to-day operation and management of the developments? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed these are some of the ideas thrown up by the different stakeholders. We will take them into consideration and will come to this House for approval.”
“As affordability is reported to be a major deterrent to smoking, I would like to propose that tobacco taxes be further raised, so as to negate the impact of any price cuts by tobacco companies. Any additional revenue generated from a further increase in tobacco tax could be channelled to cancer research or any other programme related to the fight against smoking. This would then clearly dispel any notion that the Government is increasing taxes on tobacco for revenue. In fact, I would like to mention that my grassroots volunteer who is a smoker said that having higher taxes and hitting him harder in the pocket could spur him to try harder to stop smoking. Madam, whilst the national smoking rate has declined since the Act was implemented in 1993, smoking amongst the young remains a major concern. Hence, we must not spare any effort in the fight to deter the young from taking up this habit - from making it less affordable and less convenient to smoke, to persistent education and vigilant enforcement. Madam, with this, I support the Bill.”
“This is because any measure that can further discourage the young from lighting up is clearly worth a try and would add weight to the host of measures that have been instituted, including an aggressive anti-smoking education campaign. I am also pleased to note that clause 8 of the Bill provides that underaged offenders as well as their parents or guardians can be asked to attend counselling sessions. I feel that this, in combination with a higher fine which is now proposed, is more meaningful than just a fine. This is because, since most youths are not in the labour force, the fines would either be picked up by their parents or they may be indifferent if they come from wealthy families and have been given generous allowance. However, I would like to ask the Minister what format such counselling sessions would take and for how long the sessions would be, as one would suspect that a one-off counselling session of a few hours may not be effective for reformative purposes. Additionally, I would like to suggest that some form of community order be instituted. The young offender could be required to attend a number of sessions after school, say, on a Saturday, where he could be counselled and taught the hazards of smoking, constructive use of leisure time, health alternatives to de-stress and so on. Such sessions could help to reform the offenders and, at the same time, act as a deterrent, since it would deprive them of some of their leisure time outside of school. Madam, it has been reported that the strategy for increasing tobacco taxes has failed for the first time this year, as a turf war between tobacco companies had brought prices down.”
“In some of my block visits, residents have informed me that they have seen students in school uniform smoking at staircases and common corridors on the top floors of HDB blocks where there is very little pedestrian traffic. We have, of course, fed this back to the police and the schools concerned. Regular policing of such areas as well as stalls that may be selling cigarettes to underaged smokers would help alleviate the problem. Madam, I note that the Bill seeks to further hinder the young from smoking by banning the sale of cigarette packs with less than 20 cigarettes, as well as by increasing the fine payable by those aged below 18 years who are caught buying, possessing and/or smoking cigarettes to $300 for any offence, up from $50 to a maximum of $100 in the existing Act. Feedback from some members of the public regarding the sale of larger packs to make smoking more expensive to pick up and sustain, particularly amongst the young, is that this may not be effective, as the young could simply share it with their friends or be enticed to smoke even more, whilst others may simply be indifferent to the higher price of a larger pack. Nonetheless, the Health Promotion Board had noted that New Zealand had experienced some success in deterring young smokers when it adopted a similar measure. It is further noted that according to a World Health Organisation study on smoking behaviour, first-time buyers usually try smaller packs initially. Although the effectiveness of this measure to thwart the young from smoking may be minimal, I would still support this move.”
“It is worthwhile to note that even he, who is a smoker, is now worried for his young sons whom he fears will take up the habit. In July 2002, in response to a question posed by my fellow Parliamentarian, Mdm Halimah Yacob, the Minister of State for Health, Dr Balaji Sadasivan, had reported that a total of 131 retailers had been caught selling or providing tobacco products to those aged 18 years or under since 1993. This works out to an average of some 14-15 cases per year over a nine-year period, which, as Mdm Halimah had noted, and I concur, is very small. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister how many youths aged below 18 years have been caught for smoking, buying and/or possessing cigarettes since the Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) Act came into force in 1993. If the numbers have been increasing over the years, what punishments were meted out to the offenders? Additionally, what proportion of these offenders are repeat offenders? Madam, I would further like to ask the Minister what mechanisms have been put in place to allow for effective enforcement of the law to prevent the sale of cigarettes to those aged below 18 years as well as the purchase, possession and/or use of cigarettes by this group. I would like to urge for greater vigilance in the enforcement of the law, as this would surely serve as one of the more effective deterrents to our young against lighting up. The neighbourhood police could work with the RCs and the schools in order to be more effective in locating retailers who contravene the Act as well as in flushing out underaged smokers.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak both as a Member of Parliament and a concerned mother of young children in view of the troubling statistics among the youths on smoking. While it is commendable that Singapore has one of the lowest smoking rates in the world, with the national smoking rate dropping from 15% in 1998 to 14% in 2001, smoking among the young between the age groups of 18 and 24 years has held steady at 16% between 1998 and 2001, despite an aggressive campaign against smoking. This is in contrast to the declines in rates for those aged between 25 and 44 years (from 15% to 14%) and those aged between 45 and 64 years (from 15% to 12%). The results of a school-based youth tobacco survey carried out in 2000 are even more disturbing. The survey found that one in four students had tried smoking before, and one in 10 had smoked at least one day in the past month, even though they are prohibited by law from buying as well as smoking cigarettes as they are under 18 years old. Although many of the 26% respondents who had tried smoking may have done so out of curiosity, seasoned anti-smoking campaigners will confirm that, in many instances, this is how the habit is initiated. In 1993, the then Minister for Health, Mr Yeo Cheow Tong, had noted that about half of the smokers had taken up the habit before the age of 18 years old. In fact, a grassroots volunteer of my constituency, who is a smoker, told me that most of his smoking friends had picked up the habit when they were young. He himself had picked up the habit when he was still in school. He further noted that he had observed an increase in the number of young smokers and he himself was worried for his two young sons.”
“Sir, in the end, I believe it is the combination of the people - our families and loved ones, friends and emotional bonds of kinship; the place - the sights, sounds and smells of the familiar, and the things that loosely define Singaporean-ness, such as chicken rice and the ubiquitous HDB flats; and, finally, the privilege - our birth rights as citizens and, thus, "first wife" status, as per Jack Neo, that determine our rootedness to the country. In recent times, the last factor - privilege - which translates into the opportunity to forge a partnership with the Government in charting Singapore's path, seems to take on more significance among the young. This is evidenced by the young clamouring at feedback sessions to be heard and to know what role they can play in policy making. A combination of the ability and means to be more footloose as well as Singapore's uncertain economic future may have led to this. Singapore's existence is in many ways a historical accident. We are a nation constrained by limited land and people. Our survival as a nation is thus not a given, and we would always have to create our niche in a global village in order to survive. Hence, Sir, I believe the Government and the people need to pull and work together in order to make the quitters stayers, and the stayers the shapers of our collective destiny. In this light, Sir, I support the motion.”
“Hence our National Education programme should continue and should be further built upon. The achievements and successes of Singapore and Singaporeans, such as local literature, locally-produced films, successful businessmen and businesses, could be compiled for National Education lessons. We should also continue to encourage family-based activities to build stronger family units, community activities to foster ties among friends and neighbours, as well as organise more national events that seek to bind all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language and religion. This is especially so in the light of the JI arrests, which have put our Malay/Muslim compatriots under an uncomfortable spotlight. In this regard, a national coordinating body could be formed to organise events at the national level for all Singaporeans. One such idea that arose out of my recent IRCC focus group discussion was organising a huge religious "Expo" at the national level. Talks could be given at the "Expo" by various religious leaders to enlighten members of the public about the basic tenets of all major religions practised in Singapore, to promote better understanding. At the heart of the whole issue, Sir, is the fundamental question of what it is that connects us to Singapore. It is true that physical location per se does not make a stayer or a quitter. It is more where the heart is that defines the stayer or quitter. But the physical and the tangibles are the symbols that define the boundaries of our heart.”
“We grow up relying on the Government to think ahead for us, and the Government grew up doing just that, appearing to be more used to giving directives than listening to feedback and, thus, the "Father knows best" perception. It took us 37 years to grow into this mould. Hence, time is needed for both parties to change and adapt to their new roles. As noted by Mr Tan Tarn How of the Straits Times, the Government must accept that whilst it may know more, it does not mean that it knows better - if I may add, at least not all the time. The people must also understand that if they want more flexibility, greater freedom, more say and more choices, then they cannot run to the Government for help at the slightest hint of trouble. Will this change of style and tone create more risks for both the Government and the governed? Most certainly it will, but taking risks and getting hurt in the process is the essence of the new economy. Sir, I would venture to say that in this new Internet era, governments do not have a choice but to accept greater messiness in the social and political spheres. The second area for engaging the people relates to National Education and bonding. Besides policy changes that could strengthen our 3G Singaporeans' sense of belonging, many of which have already been identified by the ERC and the Remaking Singapore Committee, National Education, where our young are given lessons about Singapore, would help to give them a sense of identity. As the Minister for Education succinctly puts it: "We want them to know the Singapore Story - how Singapore succeeded against the odds". Sir, I believe that our schools are the incubators for our future stayers - the citizens who are proud of Singapore.”
“To close the perception gap and ensure that the feedback mechanism is not viewed as a black hole, the Government could, as far as possible, allow for more pre-policy rather than post-policy feedback. It is noted that the Government is already heading in this direction, as there have been more feedback sought, eg, on the ERC's recommendations, Remaking Singapore, and the review of the JC and secondary school education. The Government should also make a conscious effort to identify changes which have been made due largely to feedback received. As Dr Ow Chin Hock recently noted: "Whenever possible, acknowledge the contributions of the feedback providers." This would give people a sense of ownership, that they have made a constructive contribution to policy making. Perhaps, the inclusion of my female, single MPs in Parliament today, as well as the change in policy to allow male civil servants to take child medical sick leave, could be attributed in part to some feedback received in the past. However, ultimately, to break the perception deadlock and reduce the dissonance between the Government and its citizens, there will have to be a mindset change by both parties. Otherwise, the perception gap would be a vicious cycle. The people say that the Government does not listen, whilst the Government says that it does. We do not like the Government to tell us what to do. Yet, each time we have a crisis, we run to it for solutions. We know that our Government will do its best and, thus, are quite happy to leave it to do the thinking for us. However, if what it does is not to our satisfaction, we have a scapegoat.”
“" Sir, I would like to urge the Ministry of Education to seriously consider these proposals, if it is not already studying them, and to be bold in adopting many of these proposals. I believe that in this way many would-be quitters could be converted, and the fidelity of stayers strengthened. Secondly, engaging more Singaporeans. With regard to this point, I would first like to revisit what seems to be the perennial favourite topic - feedback. Sir, I had, during the Budget debate in April, noted that a friend of mine had asked, "Where is the feedback to my feedback?" Some months have passed, but it appears that this is still a common refrain amongst many Singaporeans. At a recent feedback session for young Singaporeans, it was reported that the youths had asked, "How much of what they said and felt would be channelled to the Government? To what extent did policy makers take their views into consideration when making decisions? And how could they feel a sense of belonging here if their views did not count?" There seems to be a yawning gap between the Government's and the public's perception of the feedback mechanism. This is despite the fact that the Prime Minister had, in his National Day Rally speech, pulled out the example of Chek Jawa, amongst others, to show that the Government does listen to and act on feedback. The Prime Minister had also noted that the Government cannot run a country based on feedback alone nor should it bend to every whim and fancy. But, on the flip side, there is a real danger that this perception gap could widen as Singaporeans become more educated and informed, and increasingly demand greater public consultation and voice in policy formulation.”
“A few have been known to eventually quit the country as they felt that they were treated as second-class citizens. There have also been calls for an arts school, in addition to a sports school, to accommodate the young with different talents and abilities besides academic ability. Pleas have also been made for the education policy of children with special needs to be more aligned to those of mainstream schools, such as having these schools come under the ambit of the Ministry of Education, special education teachers to be on the same salary scale as those in the mainstream schools, and allowing more special needs children to be integrated into mainstream schools. These proposals have been largely suggested to give Singaporeans more options, inject more flexibility and compassion into the education system, and nurture creativity and an entrepreneurial spirit among our young. Most recently, the ERC's education workgroup's recommendation to lift the restriction on Singaporean students attending international schools here would also help minimise the leakage of local students to overseas schools as well as migration due to children's education. As noted by the committee, lifting the restriction on local students would give a second chance to local students who do not do well in the public schools, as they may be able to do better under the international schools' curriculum. This idea appears to have found strong support by parents. As one letter writer to Today puts it, "International schools are a good alternative for the minority of parents who think the national school system is inappropriate for their children. As a progressive society, we should allow and respect such diversity of opinion and personal values.”
“Firstly, injecting more flexibility into the education system. By most standards, we have undeniably one of the best education systems in the world. Ironically, education also appears to be one of the main stress points that trigger quitting. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many Singaporeans have migrated to other countries due to their children's education. A successful pediatrician friend of mine migrated to Australia a few years ago mainly because his four children were all unable to cope with Chinese lessons. Another friend, who was a teacher, migrated to New Zealand, as she wanted her eldest son, who was mildly autistic, to be enrolled in a mainstream school rather than a school for children with special needs. Yet another friend, who was already a senior civil servant in Singapore, decided to settle for good in New Zealand after the expiry of her one-year no-pay leave to accompany her husband who was there on a one-year job attachment. She said that her two primary school going children had enjoyed studying in New Zealand so much they did not want to come back to school in Singapore. In fact, she claims that her son's myopia had improved tremendously during the one-year stay in New Zealand! There have been proposals for a through-train secondary school/JC programme as well as more subject choices at the secondary and JC levels. There have also been calls, particularly by the polytechnic students, for local universities to admit more diploma holders. A fourth university, or at least an off-campus extension university to, among others, allow these polytechnic graduates who meet the grades to enter university, has also been called for and is being studied by the Ministry of Education. Otherwise, many polytechnic graduates leave for overseas universities each year.”
“Dissonance between the Government and its citizens, arising from disenchantment on a host of issues that touches them. Sir, I believe that few people actually quit Singapore for ideological reasons, bar political dissidents, conscientious objectors, and those who are up to mischief, but they form a small minority. From what I observe, people quit because of frustration and/or a sense of betrayal on specific issues that touch them and often touch them deeply, such as education, or a Singaporean society being too regulated and rigid. There is therefore a great need to reduce this dissonance and create goodwill among citizens in general, not just quitters or would-be quitters. Sir, in all fairness, the Government has, by the very act of initiating the Remaking Singapore Committee, acknowledged that there is a need to review all policies and programmes and leave no stone unturned in view of the generational change taking place. It has started in the right direction and what is needed now is for the Government to take heed of all that has been said and written with an open mind and a certain resolve and boldness to implement the necessary changes. The recommendations of the ERC and the Remaking Singapore Committee must be taken seriously and acted upon, where feasible, to ensure that the young stay emotionally connected with the Government and with Singapore. Sir, I would now like to highlight two major areas where change has been called for or proposed and appears to be imperative if quitters are to be converted and stayers are to be further cultivated. Neither are new, and I suspect there could be robust defence from the Ministers concerned, but as there have been much angst and ill-feelings about them, I feel, Sir, that they deserve yet another airing.”
“At the end of two years, I had thought seriously of continuing my stay in the US, at least for some time, in view of the opportunities available as well as the different lifestyle offered. One might say that I was then contemplating to quit on Singapore. In the end, family ties, my husband's desire to return and the fact that, in the US, one could, as Jack Neo puts it, only be the second wife, brought me back to Singapore. Many globally mobile Singaporeans (GMS), as DPM Lee calls them, will still feel a sense of belonging to their country of origin, but their inner unction is to a larger calling. This is inevitable. We need to come to terms with the aspirations of such people in a global village. For them, we should give our blessing, because so long as they carry a bit of Singapore in their heart, they will remain our ambassadors and bring Singapore to the world, even as we consciously bring the world to Singapore in our quest for global talent to our shores. As noted by SM Lee, in this age of mass travel and migration, Singapore, like other countries, would inevitably lose some of its own talent. However, we must retain a hard core of dedicated Singaporeans sufficient to form the cornerstone of our society. Then we can afford some attrition. Ultimately, enough must stay at any point in time to look after the place, to create prosperity. Sir, I think therein lies the heart of PM Goh's remarks addressed particularly to a younger generation of globally mobile Singaporeans, challenging them to make Singaporeans tick as their forefathers before them have done, rather than as an issue of labelling which the hon. Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang, seems to have simplistically assumed. The second cause of rootlessness is of greater importance and concern.”
“One could say that not all is lost for our 3G Singaporeans. Nonetheless, efforts must be made by the Government to find out why increasingly more Singaporeans appear to be disenfranchised with Singapore, and do not feel a sense of belonging. For those who can and do quit, or wish to quit, what are the roots of their rootlessness? Sir, I submit that there are two causes for this sense of rootlessness - one to be embraced and the other to be engaged. Firstly, globalisation. Globalisation is an inexorable force that can at one time enrich and impoverish nations. One byproduct is the creation of a class of mobile world citizens, who are equally at home in Oslo as they might in Osaka. They are the able and the talented ones who are sought after by nations and peoples for the value creating power they wield - in industry, in entertainment, in technology and in the arts. Think of child prodigy musicians, like Siow Lee Chin, entertainer Kit Chan, or top business brains, like McKinsey's Asia Chief Hsieh Tsun Yan. Interestingly, many of these are now returning home, if not physically, then at least in connectedness, and making a contribution from New York, London, Taiwan or elsewhere. As the world, including Singapore, embraces globalisation and geographical and economic boundaries blur, more global citizens would emerge and the distinction between stayers and quitters would get even fuzzier. Besides, as many have already alluded to, one could feel and behave like a stayer or quitter at different points in time, depending on the circumstances. Take myself, for instance. I had studied and worked in the US for two years.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it would seem that Singaporeans from all walks of life have been up in arms at various points over the last nine months about many issues. These range from bread and butter ones, such as the transport fare hikes to the pay of a CEO and, most recently, to increase in public hospital charges. As Straits Times' journalist Ong Soh Chin puts it "while stayers and quitters were making their arguments heard, the real revolution was not the issue at hand, but the fact that such debate was being aired publicly" and, I would add, so robustly. Hence, contrary to what the hon. Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang, has noted earlier, the people are able and do air their views. Indeed, does this not in itself indicate that there are many emotionally connected, committed and actively engaged Singaporeans amongst us? Much displeasure has been expressed, particularly by the educated young and professionals - the so-called cosmopolitans - regarding the PM's "stayers" and "quitters" label even though the PM took pains to explain that, by quitters, he meant those who throw in the towel and take flight just as the going gets tough and not simply all those who leave the country. Sir, I would venture to say that the "stayers" and "quitters" issue is an age-old problem and exists not just in Singapore but everywhere. For instance, in Britain, a recent study showed that half of those polled wanted to move to another country. In Singapore, a survey in September 2002 by the Singapore Institute of International Affairs of 150 junior college students found that 67% plan to stay abroad or work overseas, whilst 69% said they saw a future here. The main reasons for coming back are family ties, friendship and a sense of belonging.”
“Clarification, Sir. When I said "private parties" it was reported to have been held at discos.”
“Sir, it was recently reported in the newspaper that there were some private parties held by predominantly junior college students where under-aged drinking might exist. I am not sure whether it is appropriate to ask the Minister if the Police has taken any action on such incidents.”
“To ask the Minister for Health in view of a recent American report which cast serious doubts about the safety of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), can his Ministry confirm whether (i) HRT is safe; (ii) there are studies done in Singapore to determine the impact of HRT on women and, if so, what are the findings; (iii) it has checked with the World Health Organisation on the safety of HRT; and (iv) there are HRT alternatives for women and are these made available at Government clinics and restructured hospitals.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry is aware that in countries where annotation is practised, such as in the US, the level of special accommodation is generally higher. For instance, a dyslexic child is not only given 50% extra time, say, in the SAT test, but is also given a reader to read the questions, and a writer to write the answers as directed by the student. I would also like to ask whether the Minister could actually reconsider the accommodation provided to such students, to see whether the same level of accommodation can be given since annotation is here to stay. So, it is not just a negative impact that the disabled student would receive. In addition, he would be able to level up. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, my Ministry is prepared to make special accommodations. And the kind of special accommodations which we are prepared to make include extra time allowance, modified question papers, exemptions from certain components of a subject, eg, aural/oral test, the use of readers and the use of practical assistants as well, particularly where a student has physical disabilities which make it difficult for the student to write or to manipulate a piece of equipment. We have Braille question papers; we have enlarged print and so forth. Basically, the objective is to try and make the examinations more accessible to students with these kinds of conditions. But, at the same time, we need to balance this with having a more open and transparent system, so that students who offer reasons which they consider serious enough to merit special consideration would also have this annotated in the certificate. HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Halimah Yacob - 3.”
“The differentiation between mild, moderate and serious is very judgmental. Basically, what the Ministry has decided is that if the student feels that the condition is serious enough to merit special arrangements, and if that is the case, then we ought to annotate it, because the condition is serious enough. Dr Khor asked what other countries practise annotation. Annotation is practised in the UK as well. The UK Examinations Board does so. Dr Khor is right that the College Board which runs the SAT 1 in the US has recently been ordered by the courts in the US to stop annotation. Dr Khor is also correct that there have been concerns raised about whether this will cause abuse of the system. If I may quote from an article in the New York Times of 15th July by Tamar Lewin entitled "Abuse is feared as the SAT test changes disability policy". It says: "High school guidance counsellors have said that the elimination of flagging could set off a wave of new applications for accommodations, including some from students without disabilities." It goes on to say: "Some college admission officers too say they worry about how the change will play out and whether it will lead to so many requests for extended time that ultimately everyone will be allowed four or five hours on a 3-hour exam." So, there are real concerns about abuse, and it is very difficult to make a judgment on these situations. Because some of the conditions are quite new ones which are not completely well understood even by the professionals.”
“Yes, this is the question. I would like to ask the Ministry if they can consider recognising tests from, say, accredited panels so that the Ministry can be assured that these are students who have real disabilities and are asking for special accommodation. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, Dr Khor is indeed correct. As I have said earlier, there is an increasing number of conditions which have now been recognised for which students are asking for special accommodation. So, the increase in the requests for special accommodation do come from this wider range of conditions. Not all these conditions are completely well established. Even among the medical professionals and the psychologists, there may be some disagreement as to the impact of these conditions on the examinations which the student is taking, and they may well disagree also on the extent and whether or not accommodations are justified. So the Ministry is, in a sense, in a rather difficult position. And even the doctors, whom the parents who bring their children/students to, are also in a difficult situation, because the parents, obviously, would want doctors to certify their children/students and would bring such certifications to the Ministry. For some of these conditions, there is no clear-cut decision one way or the other. And the kinds of accommodations the Ministry can make have to be of a rather coarse nature. We cannot say that with this condition, we will give you two minutes extra time per hour. This other condition, three minutes, four minutes or five minutes. It is very difficult to make such fine adjustments. Basically, where there is a request for extra time, generally, we give a student about 15 minutes extra per hour. So this is a coarse assessment, and we are unable to make such fine assessments.”
“No, I am asking a question. This links to the question that I am asking now. If indeed one of the primary objectives of the Ministry is to prevent this abuse, can the Ministry consider instead to implement more stringent conditions under which a student can have special accommodation? For example, recognising tests ---”
“I would like to ask the Minister to comment that perhaps the Ministry could look at it from the point of view that the number has increased because of information access. My other question is: why did the Ministry actually implement the annotation policy at a time when the College Board of the US has just agreed to stop flagging the scores of disabled students who take the SAT under special conditions, such as extra time? From what I read about the practice of flagging in the US, one of the reasons for flagging is to prevent abuse by students who, in reality, have no real disabilities.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to comment on the number of students who have been asking for special accommodation which has increased over the years. Would it not be fair to say that previously, most parents would not be so informed as to the types of disabilities that our children could suffer from but with society maturing and becoming more sophisticated and informed, some of these disabilities which were previously not detectable or the parents would not know about it --- Mr Speaker: Dr Khor, could you make your questions concise, please?”
“In the early years, we have had very clear-cut requests - generally, physical disabilities for which there is very little doubt one way or the other. But in recent years, we have received a larger number of requests, mainly of a psychological nature for which the severity and the precise nature of the requests require much more judgement, and even the medical and psychological professionals do not always agree on them. So what we want to do is to balance this desire to accommodate more of such requests which are valid together with the need to be more open and balanced with regard to having agreed to these requests. We believe that this is a fair and open system by which students who have conditions which are serious enough will be able to get access to special arrangements and allow them to proceed on to higher education.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry had considered the negative impact and consequences of annotation on these children in subsequent years, such as labelling and stigmatising, which could bring about a further reduction of opportunities for these children for mainstreaming and integrating into the society and hence, increase the obstacles for independent living, when all that such disadvantaged students are asking for is accommodation to help them level up. Secondly, did the Ministry discuss the issues with the relevant organisations such as the Society for the Deaf and DAS before implementing the annotation policy? Finally, besides the US, which are the other countries that practise annotation or flagging? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, the Ministry considered the matter very seriously and we decided to adopt a balanced and open approach. We recognise that there are students who have medical or psychological problems who will be able to sit for and do well in their PSLE, GCE 'O', 'A' and 'N' level examinations. because we want to give these students an opportunity to take these examinations that we provide this accommodation. Sir, there is no question about not providing accommodation. The Ministry is prepared to provide accommodation where there is proper medical and psychological assessment and the Ministry considers that these reasons are strong and serious enough to merit special arrangements. That will continue. On the other hand, we have to balance this against fairness to other candidates who may not have asked for special arrangements to take their examinations under normal circumstances. The range of requests has increased over the years.”
“All candidates who have been granted special arrangements in an examination will have an annotation in their certificates. This annotation will indicate that these candidates have taken their examinations under conditions which are different from those who take the examinations under the normal prescribed conditions. The annotation will only state that the students sat for the examinations under special arrangements. No details of the special arrangements will appear on the certificate. The Ministry of Education will also not reveal details of the student's reasons for requesting the special arrangements unless the student authorises the Ministry to do so. This policy of annotation will ensure that even as we allow candidates who need special arrangements access to our examinations, we do so in a way that maintains transparency in our examination system and that the examination system is as fair as possible to those students who take the examinations under the normal prescribed conditions. And that it is also fair to those small number of candidates each year who do have medical or psychological conditions which are serious enough to merit special arrangements. Last year, there were 216 students from the PSLE and 434 students from the GCE `N', `O' and `A' level examinations who applied for special arrangements. Of these, all the students from PSLE and 382 (88%) students from the GCE `N', O' and `A' levels who applied for special arrangements were given such special arrangements. These numbers represent about 0.43% of the total candidature for the 2001 PSLE and about 0.63% of the total candidature for the 2001 GCE `N', `O' and `A' level examinations.”
“Sir, before I ask Question No. 2, I would like to declare that I have a son who is dyslexic and is taking his PSLE examination this year. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, in every examination, there is a set of pre-determined conditions, for example, the duration of the examination, to ensure that all candidates are assessed on a common yardstick. Special arrangements, however, are made for certain candidates to allow them to take their examinations and demonstrate their mastery of the subject being examined without being disadvantaged by the special difficulties that they have. By doing so, our intention is to open up opportunities for students with special needs to sit for and obtain qualifications at the various national examinations. And indeed, the number of such students who have been able to get such special arrangements has been rising. This will pave the way for them to proceed on to further education. The special arrangements that are made include giving the candidate additional time to write the examination, exempting him from aural/oral test and providing other forms of assistance that may be needed. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of requests for special arrangements. For example, there was an increase of 39% in the requests received between 2000 and 2001, from 469 to 650. These requests come from candidates with a wide range of medical or psychological conditions of varying degrees of severity from mild to very serious. The determination as to whether a condition merits special arrangements, and the extent of special arrangements a disability merits, are not clear-cut, black and white decisions. The Ministry has therefore decided that an even-handed, transparent and fair approach be adopted.”
“Sir, once the students return from their overseas stint, I would like to ask the Minister if there are any programmes in place to allow them to continue to nurture their entrepreneurial spirit or mindset. Is there any programme in place to ensure that in future when they graduate, this overseas stint would also be helpful in helping them to become entrepreneurs? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: As I have explained earlier in my answer, the universities do have a variety of programmes to help students set up companies if they are interested in doing so. They have incubators, technology relations offices and so on. Apart from that, the various economic agencies also have a variety of programmes available for not just graduating students but other Singaporeans who are interested in starting up their own companies or venturing into their own enterprises to go ahead to do so. NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS (Annotation of certificates for students given special arrangements) 2. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the rationale for his Ministry's recent requirement that students who need special arrangements or considerations for national examinations (PSLE, "O" and "A" levels) will have their certificates annotated with special symbols; (b) on a nationwide basis, how many of these students who sat for the national examinations last year had asked and were given such special arrangements or considerations for their examinations; and (c) what proportion of the total cohort do these numbers represent.”